developing watershed management organizations in pilot ......final report: developing watershed...

The World Bank ASEM II Trust Fund No. TF 053040 TH

Participatory Watershed Management for the Ping River Basin Project

Developing Watershed Management Organizations

in Pilot Sub-Basins of the Ping River Basin

Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

December 2005

Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Participatory Watershed Management for the Ping River Basin Project Supported by The World Bank ASEM II Trust Fund No. TF 053040 TH

Developing Watershed Management Organizations in Pilot Sub-Basins of the Ping River Basin Final Report to ONEP under the Participatory Watershed Management Consultancy submitted by

David E. Thomas, Ph.D. Senior Policy Analyst

World Agroforestry Centre Chiang Mai, Thailand

December 2005

Final Report: Developing Watershed Management Organizations in Pilot Sub-Basins i

contents

I. The Ping River Basin

A. Contextual overview 1 1. National concern and response to environmental change 1 2. The Ping River Basin in the Chao Phraya River System 2 3. Gradients of diversity in the Ping River Basin 3 4. Economic change in Ping River Basin provinces 5 5. Changing patterns of natural resource use 10 6. Perceived watershed problems and government policy responses 14 7. Changing approaches to resource governance 20

B. Movement toward sub-basin management in the Ping River Basin 22 1. Governmental Ping River Basin organization initiatives 22 2. Sub-basin delineation 25 3. The sub-basin level in natural and administrative hierarchies 27 4. Potential role of the sub-basin level in the overall Ping RBO context 29 5. Other current planning processes in sub-basins 31 6. Key gaps and operational issues 33

Summary of Suggestions and Recommendations in Part I 39

II. Selecting Pilot Sub-Basins

A. Purpose of selecting priority sub-basins 41

B. Proposed Sub-Basin Selection Criteria: pragmatic technical approach 41 1. Grouping Sub-Basins into Lower, Middle and Upper Zones of the Ping Basin 42 2. Current stakeholder and institutional context for sub-basin organizations 50 3. Logic of criteria reflecting current issues 80 4. Severity of natural resource issues 84 5. Severity of socio-economic issues 93 6. Local capacity and administrative complexity 117 7. Putting it all together 126 8. Data and information used in analysis and application of selection criteria 133

C. Project Sub-Basin Selection Processes: water forum approach 137 1. Recommendations for water forum process 137 2. Implementation and outcome of the water forum process 139

Summary of Suggestions and Recommendations in Part II 141

III. Management Organizations for Ping River Sub-Basins

A. International Experience with River Basin Management Organizations 143

1. Movement toward integrated river basin management 143 2. Recent international literature on river basin organizations 151 3. Major overall lessons for river basin organizations 157

B. Structural Considerations for River Sub-Basin Organizations (RSBOs) 161 1. Mandate, responsibilities & authority 161 2. Representation: core membership, constituencies, selection processes 165 3. Leadership 168 4. Institutional positioning and linkages 169 5. Legal status 171 6. Operational components and specialists 173

Page ii Participatory Watershed Management for the Ping River Basin Project

C. Proposed Array of Organizational Alternatives for RSBOs 174 1. Government-oriented models 175 2. Multi-level partnership models 178 3. Non-government alternative model 181

D. Proposed Process for Developing RSBOs in Pilot Sub-Basins 184 1. Getting started 184 2. Establishing long-term organization and processes 187 3. Launching implementation in a river basin management framework 189 4. Strengthening long-term management planning & learning processes 194 5. Maintaining long-term organizational relevance, vitality & performance 198 6. Factors affecting the time horizon of RSBO development 198

Summary of Suggestions and Recommendations in Part III 200

IV. Project Implementation in Pilot Sub-basins

A. The time factor 203

B. Implementation activities 205 1. Preliminary surveys 205 2. Establishing sub-basin working groups 210 3. Initial vision, goals and strategy 211 4. Project local staff and capacity building 212 5. Project ‘toolkit’ materials 216 6. Developing initial action plans 219 7. Selecting long-term RSBO organizational structures 220

C. Results 1: Initial Sub-basin Action Plans 221 1. Plan components 221 2. Comparison with results of previous sub-basin planning 229 3. Comparison with stated vision, goals & strategy 234

D. Results 2: Initial Lessons from Pilot Project Experience 235 1. Not starting with a clean slate 235 2. The multiple dimensions of diversity in pilot sub-basins 236 3. Need for appropriately-timed multi-dimensional collaborative processes 238 4. Mandates, management plans, consensus building and realistic time horizons 239 5. Capacity building, assistance and support 240 6. Financing mechanisms 242

Summary of Suggestions and Recommendations in Part IV 243

V. Recommended Agenda for Further RSBO Development

1. Accepting reality and diversity: a basin-wide step-wise improvement approach 249 2. Dealing with complexity: mandates, roles, plans and funding 250 3. Building a solid foundation: collaborative monitoring and learning systems 252 4. Accessing tools and experience: a river basin knowledge and support center 253 5. Refining the policy environment: coordinated long-term commitment, support, & incentives 254 6. Developing means to assure equity and accountability: 255

Summary of Suggestions and Recommendations in Part V 257

References 259

Appendices 267 a. Terms of Reference b. Comments on project processes and ‘toolkit’ training materials (from project memo)

Final Report: Developing Watershed Management Organizations in Pilot Sub-Basins iii

Figures

Figure Title Page

1-1 Thailand’s economic growth and forest cover change, 1951-2003 2 1-2 Ping River Basin in the Chao Phraya 3 1-3 Ping River Basin Provinces 4 1-4 Real gross provincial product in Ping River Basin provinces, 1981-2001,2004 6 1-5 Annual real gross product per capita, 1981-2004 7 1-6 Current economic and labor characteristics of Ping Basin provinces 8 1-7 Land use in Ping provinces, 1986-2001 11 1-8 Detailed current agricultural land use in the Upper Ping 13 1-9 State forest lands in the Ping Basin 14 1-10 Ping Basin watershed classes 15 1-11 Ping Basin land use, 2000 17 1-12 Ping Basin overall tree cover 18 1-13 Ping Basin committee structures, 2001 22 1-14 Evolving participation in river basin committee development in Thailand 23 1-15 Upper Ping working group membership 24 1-16 Ping sub-basins for this project 26 1-17 Nested hierarchies of natural and administrative units 27 1-18 Relative area scales of hierarchy units 28 1-19 Boundaries of administrative levels 28 1-20 Keynote address by Dr. Siripong Hungspreug 30 1-21 Sub-basin as an interface venue 31 2-1 Differences among altitude zones 43 2-2 Altitude zone map of the Ping River Basin 45 2-3 Calculation of the lowland zone area bias score for Ping Sub-Basins 46 2-4 Lower, middle & upper sub-basin groupings 47 2-5 Sub-basin shares of major Ping River Basin characteristics 48 2-6 Spatial distribution of forest land use restriction zones in the Ping Basin 53 2-7 Village reported land holdings in Ping sub-basins, 2003 54 2-8 Village reported agricultural farmland use in Ping sub-basins, 2003 56 2-9 Village reported livestock husbandry in Ping sub-basins, 2003 58 2-10 Village reported agriculture problems in Ping sub-basins, 2003 60 2-11 Village reported agricultural water use constraints in Ping sub-basins 61 2-12 Village reported work within local tambon, 2003 63 2-13 Village transportation, telecomms & economic integration indicators, 2003 65 2-14 Village reported wage employment outside their tambon, 2003 67 2-15 Ping Basin tambon boundaries 68 2-16 Village reported access to services within their tambon, 2003 69 2-17 Reported village-level facilities and services in Ping sub-basins, 2003 70 2-18 Reported aspects of village community management, 2003 71 2-19 Village reported educational levels and education access, 2003 73 2-20 Village reported group membership and credit sources, 2003 75 2-21 Villages reporting local knowledge specialists, 2003 76 2-22 Village reported training provided by outside groups, 2003 78 2-23 Components of the institutional context in Ping sub-basins 79 2-24 Proposed sub-basin criteria and sub-criteria 83 2-25 Natural resource indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 85 2-26 Forest & land degradation indicator scores for Ping sub-basins 86 2-27 Soil erosion data from an alternative source 88 2-28 Natural hazard indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 89 2-29 DLD landslide risk map 90 2-30 Detailed slope map of Upper Ping provinces 90 2-31 Water use and competition indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 92 2-32 Socio-economic indicator scoring for Ping sub-Basins 95

Page iv Participatory Watershed Management for the Ping River Basin Project

Figure Title Page

2-33 Low income indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 96 2-34 Low development indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 97 2-35 Spatial distribution of village development index values in sub-basins 97 2-36 Categories restricting land use access 98 2-37 Indicators of land use access constraints and agricultural production areas 99 2-38 Land use restriction indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 101 2-39 Agricultural conflict indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 102 2-40 Upland villages, ethnicity, agriculture and forest lands 104 2-41 Upland population (<500 masl) of sub-basins by ethnic group, 1998 105 2-42 Upland ethnicity indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 107 2-43 Upland minority data from pilot provincial decision support system 108 2-44 Population density indicator scoring 109 2-45 Village reported data related to environmental health issues, 2003 111 2-46 Village reported health care services, local knowledge & training, 2003 112 2-47 Health problem indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 113 2-48 Village reported data related to disabilities and social problems, 2003 115 2-49 Village reported data related to drug use, 2003 116 2-50 Organizational and administrative indicator scoring 118 2-51 Area-based indicator scoring for local government capacity 120 2-52 Indicator scores for strength of local communities 121 2-53 Spatial distribution of community strength indicators, 2003 122 2-54 Indicator scores for project-related local knowledge and training 123 2-55 Administrative simplicity indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 125 2-56 Bar charts of un-weighted indicator scores for Ping sub-basins 127 2-57 Overall summary of weighted indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 128 2-58 Natural resource issues weighted indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 129 2-59 Socio-economic issues weighted indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 130 2-60 Local organization weighted indicator scoring for Ping sub-basins 131 2-61 Example calculated sub-basin rankings 132 2-62 Map of 2003 village reporting status 136 2-63 Flow of the planned participatory sub-basin selection process 138 2-64 Number of participants in Water Forum events for pilot sub-basin selection 139 3-1 Dublin Statement Principles 144 3-2 The GWP “ToolBox” 149 3-3 From the GWP ToolBox: River Basin Organizations 150 3-4 River Basin sites with in-depth case studies 156 3-5 Comparison chart of 5 indicative alternative models for sub-basin organization 183 3-6 Phases of Ping RSBO development 184 3-7 Preliminary sub-basin committees (1st draft for comment) 185 3-8 Possible starting points & trajectories in pilot sub-basins 188 3-9 Management plan components 190 4-1 Project work plan timing revisions 204 4-2 Mae Kuang major sub-watersheds and settlements 206 4-3 Mae Kuang more local sub-watersheds and water resources 207 4-4 Ping Part 1 major sub-watersheds and settlements 208 4-5 Ping Part 1 more local sub-watersheds and water resources 209 4-6 Final sub-basin working group composition 210 4-7 Initial classification of projects proposed in Ping Part 1 sub-basin 222 4-8 Sub-basin group funds and credit sources, 2003 228 4-9 Projects under DWP-led plans for Lower Ping sub-basins 230 4-10 Total budgets of DNP-led plans for upper and middle pilot sub-basins 233

Final Report: Developing Watershed Management Organizations in Pilot Sub-Basins v

Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank aka Also known as ALRO Agricultural Land Reform Office ASB Alternatives to Slash-and-burn Consortium of the CGIAR ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations AWGWRM ASEAN Working Group on Water Resources Management BAAC Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives CCPE Coordinating Committee for Protection of Ping River Basin & EnvironmentCDD Community Development Department CGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research CMU Chiang Mai University DLD Department of Land Development DMC Developing member countries (ADB term) DNP Department of National Parks, Wildlife & Plant Conservation DoLA Department of Local Administration DWR Department of Water Resources EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EU European Union GIS Geographic information system GDP Gross domestic product GPP Gross provincial product GRP Gross regional product GWF Green World Foundation GWP Global Water Partnership GWP-SEATAC Global Water Partnership Southeast Asia Technical Advisory Council GWP-TAC Global Water Partnership Technical Advisory Council ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IMPECT Inter-Mountain Peoples Education and Culture in Thailand Association IRBM Integrated river basin management IWMI International Water Management Institute IWRM Integrated water resources management JWA Japan Water Agency KUFF Kasetsart University Faculty of Forestry masl Meters above sea level MCC Multiple Cropping Center, Chiang Mai University MoAC Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperatives MoI Ministry of Interior MoNRE Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment MoPH Ministry of Public Health NARBO Network of Asian River Basin Organizations NASA U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration NESDB Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board NGO Non-governmental organization NIMBY The ‘not in my back yard’ phenomenon NSO National Statistics Office of Thailand OAE Office of Agricultural Economics OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Page vi Participatory Watershed Management for the Ping River Basin Project

ONEP Office of Natural Resource & Environmental Policy & Planning OTOP One Tambon One Product program of the Thai government PDF Portable Document Format (readable with Adobe Acrobat) PLP Participatory land use planning approach PRA Participatory rapid appraisal PYB Village headman (phuyaibaan) RBC River basin committee RBO River basin organization RFD Royal Forest Department RID Royal Irrigation Department RSBO River sub-basin organization SPK Land use certificate issued by Agricultural Land Reform Office STK Land use certificate issued by Royal Forest Department TA Technical assistance TAO Tambon Administration Organization TEI Thailand Environment Institute TOR Terms of reference TRF Thailand Research Fund TVA Tennessee Valley Authority UN United Nations USAID United States Agency for International Development USGS United States Geological Survey WB The World Bank WME Watershed management expert WWC World Water Council WRI World Resources Institute

Final Report: Developing Watershed Management Organizations in Pilot Sub-Basins Page 1

I. The Ping River Basin

In order to help clarify the overall context of activities under this project, the first part of this report begins with an overview of the Ping River basin in the context of national and provincial patterns of economic growth and environmental change. The overview includes a brief introduction to some of the key natural resource management problems that are perceived as resulting from these changes, and major policy responses that have sought to address these problems. This is followed by a brief review of efforts that have sought to move toward development of basin and sub-basin level plans and organization in the Ping River Basin, including introduction of concepts related to natural and administrative hierarchies, and discussion of some key gaps and operational issues.

This sets the stage for subsequent parts of the report. The second part seeks to pursue in greater detail concepts, processes and data associated with surveying the diversity of Ping River sub-basins. These are then used to develop technical criteria and indicators for use in helping to select pilot sub-basins for the project. This approach is then compared with the actual pilot sub-basin se-lection process that occurred during implementation of the project. In its third part, the report seeks to build on theory and both international and local experience in developing an array of organiza-tional alternatives, and a process for developing sub-basin level management organizations in the Ping Basin. The fourth part of the report seeks to review progress in project implementation up to the time this report was written, and to identify some key lessons from experience under the pro-ject. The fifth and final part of the report seeks to draw on learning under this project to contribute to development of the agenda for further RSBO development in the Ping, and possibly other river basins of Thailand.

A. Contextual overview

This section provides a brief overview of patterns of economic and environmental change at several higher levels of the hierarchies within which Ping River sub-basins are nested. Particular initial focus is on spatial gradients of change, and on patterns of change over time during recent decades. The final two sub-sections turn the focus to national perceptions of watershed problems that have arisen in association with these patterns of change, and some of the major national government pol-icy responses that have followed, as well as to important changes in approaches to resource gov-ernance associated with broader change in Thai society.

1. National concern and response to environmental change

Thailand has demonstrated impressive economic growth for more than 40 years, and its resilience is being demonstrated through its recovery from the Asian economic crisis. The development strategy that has brought this growth and structural change to the Thai economy has long relied on intensification of agriculture, rapid industrialization, and expansion of mining, fisheries, and tour-ism. These processes have also involved the drawing down of natural assets such as forest, water, mineral ores, fisheries, and land resources. In order to help clarify these patterns in a visual mode, national economic growth in major sectors is depicted graphically in Figure 1-1, along with declin-ing forest cover. Public awareness of the growing negative impacts of economic development on environmental conditions and quality of life has increased rapidly during recent years. Greater integration into global information systems has helped strengthen environmental awareness and efforts to seek creative means to improve environmental sustainability, including emergence of advocacy oriented civil society institutions. At the same time, efforts to reform governance structures and processes in Thailand also seek to integrate environmental and natural resource management concerns. As a re-sult, deforestation, water scarcity and pollution, declining fish stocks, haphazard urbanization and air pollution have emerged as important issues of concern in the national public policy arena.


Figure 1-1. Thailand’s economic growth and forest cover change, 1951 – 2003

Whole Kingdom

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1951

1953

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Tota

l Rea

l GD

P - b

illio

ns o

f 198

8 B

aht

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent S

hare

of T

otal

Lan

d A

rea

cleared forest Agriculture-Forestry Manufacturing Trade Services Transport-communic govt-military other

Sources: economic data from NESDB; forest cover data from DNP (1961-2000) and various earlier historical estimates

forest

non-forest

Moreover, there is also growing awareness that much of the impact of problems associated with environmental change falls on the poor, whose livelihoods are disrupted and health is threatened. And as livelihood options of the poor become foreclosed, many are forced to turn to alternatives that are seen as causing further natural resource and environmental degradation. Recent establishment of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) was in rec-ognition that rapid economic growth cannot be sustained if natural assets are not well maintained. Its mission to conserve, protect and rehabilitate natural resources and the environment are consis-tent with government objectives that include sustainable development and equitable growth. And, since the 1997 national constitution specifically entrusts the environment and natural resources of the nation to its people, and mandates their participation and involvement in environmental man-agement and conservation, the government is now seeking to delegate more responsibility to local communities, and encourage their participation in improving environmental quality. Among the range of environmental issues of growing concern, seasonal water availability and wa-ter quality are currently particularly high priorities for both the government and the general public. Serious floods and landslides have generated many headlines during recent years, while growing demand for dry season water and concern about water pollution from upstream agriculture and in-dustry are a common feature of increasing public anxiety and conflict in many local areas. Given the perceived importance of interrelationships among forest, water and land management to these issues, the government is seeking to develop a river basin management framework for encouraging, facilitating and supporting participatory multi-sectoral collaboration that can help to improve man-agement of natural resources and the environment, and to reduce rural poverty. Of the 25 officially delineated river basins of the country, the Ping Basin was selected as one of 3 initial basins for in-tensive development of this approach. It was selected both because of its strategic importance in relation to resources, livelihoods and rural poverty, and because of strong concern about impacts of deforestation, soil erosion, sedimentation, water use and pollution.

2. The Ping River Basin in the Chao Phraya River System The Ping River Basin is the largest of the eight river basins that together form the Chao Phraya river ‘system’. The Chao Phraya system covers about 30 percent of Thailand’s land area, and is home to about 40 percent of its total population. It also is said to employ more than three-fourths of its work force, and generate about two-thirds of Thailand’s GDP. Lower (southern) portions of the Chao Phraya system include the fertile Central Plains, often known as the major ‘rice bowl’ of


Thailand’s agricultural production, most of the historically important centers of power and dynas-ties in the Siamese Kingdoms, as well as the huge primate urban-industrial mega-city of Bangkok – the current capital of political and governmental power, and the central hub of the nation’s growing and diversifying commercial, industrial and service sectors.

Figure 1-2. Ping River Basin in the Chao Phraya

Bangkok

Chiang Mai

With a catchment area of about 35,000 km2, the Ping River Basin covers about 22 percent of the larger Chao Phraya river system within which it is nested (Figure 1-2), and contributes about 24 percent of the system’s average annual runoff. During early days of opening to trade with western countries after the mid-nineteenth century, teak wood from northern Thailand’s forests became one of Siam’s primary export products, and logs were floated down the Ping River to be taxed and traded in downstream centers. Along with the Wang, Yom and Nan river basins, the Ping is one of the four ‘upper’ tributary river basins that merge together and become known as the Chao Phraya River at Nakhon Sawan. Together, these four tributary basins contribute more than 70 percent of the total average annual runoff that feeds the entire Chao Phraya river system and its highly complex system of downstream barrages and irrigation canals that have been an integral part of Siamese civilization and the Thai nation state. Thus, from the centers of political and economic power in the lower Chao Phraya, the four ‘upper’ river basins are viewed as areas to be protected from any activities that would threaten water-consuming downstream processes. In 1964, the largest dam in the Chao Phraya system was completed, after which the Ping River Ba-sin was conceptually and functionally split into lower and upper portions. The Bhumibol Dam has a live storage capacity of about 9.7 billion m3, compared to an average annual inflow of 6.6 billion m3 from a drainage basin of 26,400 km2, and it is equipped with a hydroelectric generation capacity of 713 MW managed by the Electrical Generation Authority of Thailand (EGAT). Protection and maintenance of the capacity of this strategically important irrigation, water control and electrical generation facility has become another major feature of efforts to manage water and watersheds, especially in ‘upper’ portions of the Ping River Basin.

3. Gradients of diversity in the Ping River Basin Overall, the Ping River Basin is part of a gradient of change that begins in Bangkok and passes through the lowlands of the Central Plains, before entering the Ping River Basin at Nakhon Sawan. It then proceeds through the lower North into major valleys of the upper North, before ending in mountainous upper sub-basins with very small areas where lowland traditions can be established. This gradient is physical in terms of terrain and its upstream direction, it is demographic in terms of population density, it is economic in terms of integration, and it is cultural and linguistic in terms of traditions, language, livelihoods and lifestyles. The ‘center-periphery’ character of this gradient is underscored by the concentration of rural poverty in uppermost sub-basins.


Figure 1-3. Ping River Basin Provinces The ‘lower’ portions of the Ping River Basin below the Bhumibol Dam are located near the western margin of the ‘lower north’ region in Nakhon Sawan, Kamphaengphet and Tak provinces (Figure 1-3). While the Ping Basin covers substantial portions of Tak and Kamphaengphet, it includes only a quite small portion of Nakhon Sawan province. Areas within the Ping Basin are quite strategically important, however, and it is worth noting that provincial capital cities are all located within or near the boundary of Ping Basin lands (and waters). Especially in the lowland areas of Nakhon Sawan and Kamphaengphet provinces that are contiguous with the lowlands of the Central Plains, irrigated commercial agriculture and industrial activities have been growing in major valleys along the Ping River. Penetration of these processes into smaller tributary valleys to the west, however, has often been fairly limited.

Ping River Basin Chiang Mai

Province

Lamphun Province

Kamphaengphet Province

Tak Province

Nakhon Sawan Province

While some of these processes have also extended into lowland areas of Tak Province, this province also includes more substantial ‘upland’ areas of hills and mountains, as well as more remote valleys beyond the western boundaries of the Ping River Basin. With the Bhumibol Reservoir located within its boundaries, this province is located at the transition between the ‘lower’ and ‘upper’ parts of the Ping River Basin. Within the ‘upper’ portion of the Ping River Basin further to the north, lowlands of the inter-montane Chiang Mai – Lamphun Valley are home for a major center of people and economic activ-ity that has evolved from the Lanna empire, for which it was the center of power before its ‘merger’ with Siam as part of Thailand’s nation-building process that began during the late 19th Century. As with the Siamese further downstream, dominant Tai cultures in the Chiang Mai – Lamphun Valley have strong roots and traditions based in lowland irrigated paddy agriculture, wa-ter management, and river bank life. Major lowland valley areas have been integrated into Thai-land’s economic and social development infrastructure and programs, as symbolized by the emer-gence of Chiang Mai City as the second largest city in Thailand (albeit still more than an order of magnitude smaller than Bangkok). Boundaries of Chiang Mai and Lamphun provinces provide a close, but not quite perfect fit with natural boundaries of ‘upper’ portions of the Ping River Basin. Still within the ‘upper’ Ping, but beyond its large river valleys lie a set of ‘uppermost’ tributary val-leys, where lowland paddy-centered civilizations have been limited to relatively small valley floors, nestled within large areas of steeply sloping lands that rise into mountain ridges that include the highest peaks in Thailand. As elsewhere across the montane mainland Southeast Asia (MMSEA) ecoregion [Thomas 2003], which includes mountainous areas of northern Myanmar, Thailand,


Laos, Vietnam, and southwest China, midland and highland zones in these ‘uppermost’ tributary areas are inhabited by a quite diverse range of ethnic groups employing various livelihood strate-gies and types of agroecosystem management practices. Some groups in midland zones of the Ping River Basin, such as the Lawa and at least some of the Karen, are believed to pre-date ethnic Thai groups in the area. Various others (especially highland groups) are seen as moving into Ping Basin areas during the last century, largely from China via Myanmar. Current day middle zone groups have traditions that employ combinations of paddy, rotational forest fallow agriculture, and pre-served forest patches in their local landscapes. Various highland groups began with ‘pioneer’-type shifting cultivation that included production of opium as a cash crop to provide food security in areas too high for then-existing rice technologies. Until recent years, mountain ethnic minority communities in Thailand were not considered part of mainstream society, they had no citizenship, and government administration treated them as a ‘wel-fare’ issue or as a target for opium crop substitution, shifting agriculture eradication, or in some cases resettlement programs. Any land use claims they may have are precluded by declaration of forest reserves that blanketed those areas, and are now being replaced by more stringent protected watershed and expanded national park and wildlife sanctuary status. These areas are home for most of the rural poor in the Ping River Basin, and their land use practices are now seen as threats to the sustainability of water resources and biodiversity. While this ‘center-periphery’ gradient has existed in the Ping River Basin for a substantial period of time, there is nothing static about conditions along this gradient. Major processes of change have already swept through the Ping River Basin into even its furthest reaches, and these processes are continuing to evolve rapidly. Perhaps the two strongest forces driving change at this point in time are grounded in economic and governance processes, and their growing links with change at international and global levels.

4. Economic change in Ping River Basin provinces Economic change has various faces as it passes through the gradient of conditions found along the Ping River Basin. It has already brought commercialization, capitalization and industrialization of agriculture in valley lowlands, which in tandem with opium crop substitution and road programs has begun reaching even formerly remote mountain areas. Timber stocks in the natural forests that remain primarily in upland areas, have already been largely logged out and sold. At the same time, a major tourism industry has emerged in some areas, and rapid growth associated with commerce, industry and service sectors is driving urbanization at strategic river valley locations. Government programs are emphasizing development of local entrepreneurship (such as OTOP) and local micro-finance mechanisms. This entire system, however, is now faced with questions about how eco-nomic activities can best adapt and restructure themselves in response to international free trade agreements, growing capacity of neighboring countries with lower costs of production, and percep-tions of a deteriorating natural resource base. In order to help clarify the patterns of economic change along the Ping River Basin gradient, Figure 1-4 contains graphical displays of economic change in the five Ping Basin provinces since 1981. Bar graphs on the left display economic change during a 20-year period by major sectors used in national accounts during this period. Values are expressed in constant 1988 baht in order to remove inflation effects. The relative scales of provincial economies are emphasized by using 5 billion baht grid lines on the value axis in all graphs. Pie charts on the right indicate estimated composition of provincial economies during 2004, using the new system of national accounts that helps provide more insight into components of provincial economies. These charts indicate quite clearly that economic patterns of change are by no means uniform. It is also important to note the degree to which overall economic growth rates are much lower than those seen at the national level, as displayed in Figure 1-1. At the same time, while effects of the Asian economic crisis are observable in provincial economic data, the relative degree of impact seen at this level is considerably less dramatic than at the national level.


Figure 1-4. Real Gross Provincial Product (GPP) in Ping River Basin Provinces

Chiang Mai Real GPP, 1981- 2001

05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,00055,000

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001p

Mill

ions

of c

onst

ant 1

988

Bt

Forestry-fisheries Agriculture Mining Manufacturing Wholesale & retail trade Services

We can also see variation in the overall economic development strategies of provinces along this gradient. In Nakhon Sawan, economic growth since 1981 has come largely from gradual expan-sion of industry and trade, whereas growth in Kamphaengphet has placed more emphasis on min-ing and quarries than on industry, at least until the recent surge in industrial investment that appears to have occurred since 2001 (as reflected in the pie chart on the right). Emphasis on mining has also been a major component in the economy of Tak province, although it has clearly passed through periods of boom and bust, and is now at a relatively low level; this is also the only prov-ince where forestry formed a visually evident portion of the economy, but its contribution has dropped since logging concessions were revoked in national forest lands. In the major inter-

Other

Chiang Mai2004

Education, Health, other

service12%Financial

services5%

Real Estate, Renting & Business

8%

Hotels & Restaurants

9%

Commercial trade & repair

18%

Transport & Communic

13%

Utilities4%

Construction7%

Manufacture 11%

Mining & Quarry

1%

Agriculture12%

Lamphun Real GPP, 1981- 2001

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001p

Mill

ions

of c

onst

ant 1

988

Bt

Forestry-fisheries Agriculture Mining Manufacturing Wholesale & retail trade Services Other

Lamphun2004

Agriculture7%

Mining & Quarry

1%

Manufacture74%

Construction2%

Utilities2%


2%Commercial

trade & repair6%


0%Real Estate, Renting & Business

2% Financial services

1%Education,

Health, other service

3%

Tak Real GPP, 1981- 2001

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001p

Mill

ions

of c

onst

ant 1

988

Bt


Tak2004

Agriculture22%

Mining & Quarry

12%

Manufacture13%

Construction6%

Utilities3%


9%


15%


1%


7%

Financial services

3%


service9%

Kampaengphet Real GPP, 1981- 2001

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001p

Mill

ions

of c

onst

ant 1

988

Bt


Kampaengphet2004

Agriculture15%

Mining & Quarry

9%

Manufacture54%

Construction2%

Utilities1%


3%Commercial

trade & repair8%


0%Real Estate, Renting & Business

3%Financial services

1%Education,

Health, other service

4%

Nakhon Sawan Real GPP, 1981- 2001

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001p

Mill

ions

of c

onst

ant 1

988

Bt


Nakhon Sawan2004

Agriculture24%

Mining & Quarry

1%

Manufacture22%

Construction3%

Utilities3%Transport &

Communic9%


19%


1%


6%

Financial services

4%


service8%

Data source: NESDB – based on old national income structure (bar charts) & new structure (pie charts)


montane valley of the Upper Ping, the province of Lamphun has placed very strong emphasis on industrial development since 1990, which has now grown to about three-quarters of the provincial economy. In the large and diverse Chiang Mai province, there has also been substantial growth in industry and trade, but growth in the service sector of the provincial economy (much of it associ-ated with various aspects of tourism) has clearly been much greater than in other provinces of the Ping Basin. While agriculture plays a significant role in the economy of all five provinces, its rela-tive share of the economy is greatest in lower Ping provinces, and its rate of growth in real value terms has been more modest and less consistent than other sectors of the economy. Given the very substantial differences in the size of economies and populations among these prov-inces, Figure 1-5 describes the overall impact of these different strategies in terms of real gross product per capita, including comparison with averages at national and northern regional levels. One of the first patterns to notice in this graph is the widening gap between national and northern regional levels over time. The economy of Nakhon Sawan has quite closely mirrored the northern regional level, although it appears to be making modestly more rapid growth during the last few

years. Per capita levels of the Kamphaengphet economy have been modestly higher than the north-ern regional average during much of the last 25 years, and as made an impressive surge beginning in 2002 due to the very recent boom in industrial expansion. Indeed, perhaps the most impressive story in terms of per capita GPP is Lamphun province, which before 1990 had per capita levels sig-nificantly lower than the northern regional average. Since then, however, their clear strategy on industrial expansion has led to a dramatic surge in per capita GPP levels that allowed them to match national overall economic growth rates during the boom period of the 1990’s, and pushed them well beyond national averages since the Asian economic crisis in 1997. Chiang Mai, with the largest provincial economy, has experienced consistently higher GPP per capita levels than the northern region as a whole, but even its impressive growth during the 1990’s boom period was not fast enough to prevent a gradually growing gap with national averages. Moreover, since the Asian economic crisis, per capita GPP in Chiang Mai has dropped back to levels much closer to the northern regional average, and appears to still be losing ground in relative terms.

Figure 1-5. Annual Real Gross Product per Capita, 1981 – 2004

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Con

stan

t 198

8 B

aht p

er p

erso

n pe

r yea

r

Thailand Northern Chiangmai Lamphun Tak Kamphaengphet Nakhon Sawan

While patterns of change in per capita levels of the overall economy help clarify the overall eco-nomic environment in Ping Basin provinces, it is still difficult to see the distribution of impacts of economic growth and structural change among major components of provincial populations. Thus Figure 1-6 displays a range of additional data on economic and labor characteristics of Ping Basin provinces, most of which is based on preliminary data for 2004.


The relative overall labor intensity of agricultural production is evident. While the amount of wealth that agriculture contributes to provincial economies ranges from 10 to 25 percent, it share of the labor force is from 34 to 63 percent, resulting in much lower levels of economic output per worker than in non-agricultural sectors. Within the agricultural sector, distribution is generally somewhat more equitable than in non-agricultural sectors (except in the case of Tak province), as reflected in their Gini coefficients. That being said, the combination of low population growth rates, growing employment in non-agriculture sectors, and the constant to very modestly growing overall value of agricultural production, suggests that at least some components of the agricultural labor force are also increasing their per capita economic output. And, the fact that Gini coefficients within the agriculture sector are not as radically different from non-agriculture as one might suspect indicates differentiation within agriculture. Even at the provincial level, it is noteworthy that the

Figure 1-6. Current economic and labor characteristics of Ping Basin provinces

Nakhon Sawan

Kamphaeng-phet Tak Lamphun Chiang Mai

OVERALLLand Area total sq km 9,598 8,607 16,407 4,506 20,107Population total thou per 1,008 790 486 381 1,586

density per/sq km 105 92 30 84 79Gross Prov Product (GPP) mill Bt 56,800 56,414 22,824 49,305 97,994

per person thou Bt 56 71 47 130 62Labor total thou per 673 394 244 289 939

GPP/worker thou Bt 84 143 94 171 104Unemployed % total labor 1.3% 1.9% 2.3% 1.3% 5.2%Poor (2002) % pop 7.7% 0.7% 30.1% 6.5% 7.8%Poverty Line (2002) thou Bt 9,936 9,600 9,948 10,176 10,236

USD/day 0.68 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.70Inequality (2002) Gini coeffic 0.51 0.41 0.54 0.44 0.45

AGRICULTUREArea (2001) sq km 6,386 3,990 1,667 832 2,215

share % total 67% 46% 10% 18% 11%GPP share % total 24% 17% 24% 10% 14%Labor share % total 54% 63% 42% 35% 34%

GPP/worker thou Bt 37 38 54 50 45area/worker rai 11.0 10.1 10.1 5.2 4.4

Unemployed % agric labor 0.1% 1.3% 1.1% 0.8% 1.9%Inequality (2002) Gini coeffic 0.40 0.32 0.56 0.34 0.33

NON-AGRICULTUREGPP share % total 76% 83% 76% 90% 86%Labor share % total 46% 37% 58% 65% 66%

GPP/per thou Bt 141 320 123 235 135Unemployed % non-agr labor 2.8% 2.8% 3.2% 1.6% 6.9%Inequality (2002) Gini coeffic 0.50 0.43 0.48 0.43 0.43

Mining quarryingGPP share % total 1.0% 16% 5% 0.8% 0.7%Labor share % total 0.26% 0.07% 0.57% 0.21% 0.02%

Industry & handicraftsGPP share % total 21% 38% 14% 66% 10%Labor share % total 10% 8% 17% 30% 20%

ConstructionGPP share % total 3% 2% 6% 2% 7%Labor share % total 6% 5% 6% 6% 7%

Public utilitiesGPP share % total 1.5% 1.1% 2.7% 1.8% 2.0%Labor share % total 0.17% 0.09% 0.06% 0.14% 0.38%

Commerce & bankingGPP share % total 21% 11% 16% 8% 20%Labor share % total 14% 11% 12% 17% 15%

TransportationGPP share % total 5% 1.8% 4.3% 1.4% 8%Labor share % total 1.7% 1.5% 3.6% 0.9% 1.5%

Services, otherGPP share % total 22% 12% 26% 10% 38%Labor share % total 14% 12% 18% 12% 23%

< data 2004 except as noted >

sources: (1) economic & poverty data from NESDB datasets; (2) labor data from NSO datasets; (3) agricultural holding area from OAE datasets


average value of agricultural production per worker is relatively high in Upper Ping Basin prov-inces, while the average area of farmland per worker is about one-half that of their counterparts in Lower Ping Basin provinces. Tak province again represents the transition, with high value and high land area per worker, together with relatively high distributional inequality. While non-agricultural sectors are clearly of growing importance in terms of both the economy and the labor force, the relative balance between contributions to the economy and to employment vary:

• Mining, public utilities and transportation appear to have a low labor intensity per unit of economic output. Thus, while they have generated significant levels of wealth in some provinces, their benefits are confined to a relatively small component of the population.

• The labor intensity of industrial output appears to be quite low in lower Ping provinces and Lamphun, but relatively high in Tak and Chiang Mai provinces. This is probably associ-ated with the relative importance of crafts and cottage industries in the latter two cases, where the relative share of industry in the provincial economy is also lowest. Overall, in those provinces where we have seen dramatic growth in industrial contributions to the pro-vincial economy, its impact on the economy is considerably greater than its impact on the overall provincial labor force.

• Construction, commerce and service sectors appear to have a relatively more balanced overall impact on both economic output and employment.

Overall, if we can assume that the relatively high GPP per worker in non-agriculture sectors (and especially in larger-scale industry) translates into similarly relatively high wage rates, there appears to be a strong incentive for further movement into the industrial sector. The same is true for the service and transportation sectors in some provinces. Incentives for trade and commerce, and espe-cially construction appear to be more modest, while the scale of employment opportunities are likely to be limiting in remaining sectors. More detail on the distribution of employment among sectors in more localized areas will be provided in the second part of this report under discussions of the stakeholder and institutional context of Ping sub-basins. Within the agriculture sector, we can also anticipate continuing strong incentives for movement into crops offering higher value per worker. A number of constraints, however, are likely to limit the rate and extent to which this occurs. In terms of current agricultural production, the following distributional aspects are particularly noteworthy:

• Paddy Rice. Lower Ping Basin provinces have extensive irrigated areas that produce mul-tiple crops of paddy rice. Irrigated areas also occur in the more limited lowlands of Tak, and expand again in the large inter-montane valley in Upper Ping Basin provinces, where traditional irrigation facilities have been reworked with ‘modern’ structures. In mountain-ous areas of Tak and Upper Ping provinces, much smaller pockets of paddy land are found in small valleys and areas where terrain allows, and especially main season paddy crops are often assisted by weir and canal structures long managed by traditional water management organizations (muang fai).

• Short-season Field Crops. The most extensively planted short field crop in the Ping River Basin is maize, most of which is sold for use in producing animal feed. There are also sub-stantial areas planted to various legumes, especially soybean, mungbean and groundnut. Various upland areas planted to legumes have been displaced by maize during recent years.

• Long-season Field Crops. Lower Ping Basin Provinces have extensive areas planted to long-season industrial crops, especially sugarcane and cassava. While sugarcane extends a bit into Tak Province, these crops become very rare in inter-montane valley and mountain areas of the Upper Ping Basin. While a bit of cotton appears in Tak, the main long-season field crop in mountain areas is upland rice, which occurs in areas where terrain does not al-low establishment of paddy fields. Especially in inter-montane valley areas, tobacco has also been an important crop,


• Vegetables. Lower Ping Basin provinces have relatively little commercial production of vegetables, although there is some production of long bean, greens, chillis and eggplant in Kamphaengphet. Garlic production begins to appear in Tak, and expands in scale along with shallots and onions as one travels north into inter-montane valley areas, where pro-duction of greens, chillis, cucurbits, tomatoes, eggplant, sweet corn, tubers, and a variety of other minor crops add up to a substantial level of production. In hill and mountain areas, a range of more cool season vegetable crops also appears. Upper Ping Basin vegetables are produced for both domestic and export markets, although various important crops are now facing increasingly stiff competition from imports from China.

• Ornamentals. Although there are a few orchid farms and minor plantings of a few crops like jasmine in Kamphaengphet and Tak provinces, in Upper Ping provinces, production of roses, orchids, gladiolas, and various other flowers and ornamental plans becomes an im-portant activity for some areas and households.

• Fruits. Although a variety of fruits are grown in home gardens throughout the Ping Basin, commercial production at significant scales are first seen in terms of citrus production in Kamphaengphet. But it is not until Upper Ping Basin provinces that fruit tree production becomes a major enterprise. The largest is the major longan industry in the inter-montane Chiang Mai-Lamphun Valley, but there are also extensive plantings of mango, litchi, and a range of other crops often planted in mixed orchards. A substantial citrus industry has also begun in the far northwest corner of the Ping Basin, and it has been expanding during re-cent years. Strawberry production has also become important at higher elevations, and a range of sub-tropical and temperate fruits have expanded in some mountain areas with as-sistance from opium crop substitution and highland development programs.

• Other Trees. While few other industrial tree crops appear to be important in Nakhon Sa-wan, eucalyptus plantings appear in Kamphaengphet and extend northward into Tak, along with some minor areas of coconut. In Upper Basin provinces, mountain areas of Chiang Mai also include some plantings of coffee and tea, including both Chinese types of tea and ‘miang’ tea gardens that are traditionally planted into natural forests.

• Others. Of course there are is also a substantial range of herbals, medicinals, mushrooms, dyes, and various other types of products that are obtained either from natural forest sources or are being produced at various stages and levels of domestication. These can be seen more as ‘niche’ products, and mainstream government information systems are not willing or able to try to keep track of their production levels. There does, however, appear to be increasing levels of production as one moves north into the complex environments found in mountain areas of mid to upper Ping Basin provinces.

Livestock and wildlife are also important in the Ping Basin, as in other areas of Thailand. Some data that helps indicate distribution of livestock production for sale in Ping sub-basins will be pre-sented in the second part of this report.

5. Changing patterns of natural resource use The growth of these types of agricultural activities has left their ‘footprint’ on the land use patterns of Ping Basin provinces. In order to see how these patterns have changed during the last 20 years, Figure 1-7 shows the relative proportion of land in each province allocated to various major types of land use during 1986-2001. Two types of patterns are immediately evident in these data. The first relates to substantial differ-ences that correspond to the gradient of change that occurs from the lower to upper portions of the Ping Basin, while the second relates to change over time. Gradient Changes. In terms of difference along the lower-to-upper gradient in the Ping Basin, the most obvious is a dramatic increase in the proportion of land under forest cover. In Nakhon Sawan, about 90 percent of the total land area has been cleared. But to the north in Kamphaengphet prov-


Figure 1-7. Land use in Ping Provinces, 1986 – 2001 ince forest cover increases to about 30 percent of the land area. In the transition province of Tak, forest cover rises to between 70 to 80 percent, and it is fairly similar in Chiang Mai province. Smaller Lamphun province retains only about 50 to 60 percent forest cover, but that relates to the relatively large proportion of its land that lies within the inter-montane Chiang Mai-Lamphun Valley.

Tak

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Shar

e of t

otal

prov

ince

land

area

Residential Paddy Field crops Veg/ornmt Perennials Grass/idle/other Non-Agric Forest

Chiang Mai

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Shar

e of t

otal

prov

ince

land

area


Lamphun

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Shar

e of t

otal

prov

ince

land

area


The curious difference between forest cover data in 1999 and in 2000 is linked with a change in the type of remote sensing platform used to detect forest cover to a newer and higher resolution type of equipment. Of course, this also raises questions about the accuracy of pre-2000 forest cover data and the actual extent of land identified as cleared of forest but not within recognized farm land holdings. Analysts in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment are currently working to clarify this issue.

Kampaengphet

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Shar

e of t

otal

prov

ince

land

area


Nakhon Sawan

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Shar

e of t

otal

prov

ince

land

area


Source data: Office of Agricultural Economics

Another corresponding aspect of change along this gradient is the relative proportion of land in agricultural holdings of various types. Between 60 to 70 percent of land in Nakhon Sawan is accounted for as recognized types of private farm land holdings, and two-thirds of this area are in paddy fields, much of which is irrigated from water originating in upstream areas of the Ping and other river basins in the northern region that have all merged together by the time they reach Nakhon Sawan, where they collectively form the Chao Phraya River. As we move north to Kamphaengphet, the proportion of area in farm land holdings drops to about 40 to 50 percent of the total area, and only about half of the farm land is in paddy fields. This corresponds to the increasing relative importance of major upland crops, and especially sugarcane, cassava and maize. In the largely mountainous transition province of Tak, recognized farm holdings drop to less than 10 percent of total land area, with most of it in up-


land fields. In the Upper Ping Basin provinces of Chiang Mai and Lamphun, recognized farm hold-ings increase to between 10 to 20 percent of total land area, much of which is in paddy, and most of which is located in the major inter-montane valley. Temporal Changes. Other than the curious ‘hiccup’ in forest cover data (already discussed above), the most obvious aspect of change during the last 20 years has been that the proportion of area in farm holdings has not increased in any of the 5 Ping Basin provinces. Indeed, it appears to have actually decreased in all provinces except Tak, where it was already at a very low level. And, this decrease in farm land holdings includes the proportion of area in paddy fields in all four provinces. Possible explanations for this pattern include (a) the previous expansion of paddy and upland fields into increasingly marginal areas that subsequently proved incapable of sustaining satisfactory lev-els of productivity; (b) stabilization of population growth and migration of members of the labor force from agriculture into other sectors of the economy; (c) expansion of urban and industrial ar-eas into farm lands surrounding the locations where urban industrial areas developed, which were almost universally in lowland areas with productive farm lands; and (d) shifts into more intensive multiple cropping systems in productive farm lands surrounding growing urban industrial centers. The second obvious pattern of change over time has involved shifts among components of farm land holdings, which are particularly evident in Upper Ping Basin provinces. The most obvious component of this change has been a shift from paddy land into perennial crops, which has oc-curred mainly in the major inter-montane valley of the Upper Ping Basin. This shift is primarily associated with expansion of fruit tree plantations, which includes longan, mango and mixed or-chard and perennial systems. Primary explanations for this process center on (a) the higher returns to land and labor offered by expanding access to domestic and international markets for these prod-ucts; (b) the relatively lower labor intensity of orchard production, which became important as la-bor migrated from agriculture into other sectors of the economy; and (c) simply the ‘bandwagon’ effect created by the previous factors in combination with promotion programs by public and pri-vate sectors, as well as by the lack of sufficiently attractive alternatives. While there has not been dramatic expansion of the total area in recognized farm land holdings dur-ing the last 20 years, these shifts among components of land use within farm land holdings has also been associated with changing demands for water resources. In earlier times, main season rice crops were the primary focus of lowland water demand, and a second crop of rice or other post-rice crops was a ‘luxury’ possible in areas that were particularly well located in terms of water re-sources. As production has shifted more into year-round intensive multiple cropping systems and perennial orchards, however, a dependable year-round supply of irrigation water moves from being a luxury into becoming a necessity. And especially as perennial fruit tree orchards have expanded into upland rainfed areas around the periphery of irrigated lowland areas, growers have learned that availability of irrigation water at critical times in the fruit production cycle are an extremely impor-tant element of the abundance, marketability and profitability of the crops produced. Thus, overall demands in the lowlands and surrounding upland areas for a reliable year-round supply of irrigation water have been growing. At the same time, year-round water demands are increasing for growing major urban and industrial centers located in the lowlands, as well as demands for water to irrigate golf courses, supply resorts and tourist facilities, and various other types of uses that emerge along with structural shifts in the economy. Moreover, often extremely high land values in expanding riverside urban centers has also brought strong incentives for encroachment into flood plains, drainage channels, canals and river banks, as well as pressure to build roads, bridges and various other structures that can impede water flows. These factors contribute to increased incidence and impacts of flooding during peak flow seasons. In order to help clarify the spatial patterns of many of these elements of change, which are becom-ing particularly complex in the Upper Ping Basin, Figure 1-8 presents a detailed map of agricultural and urban land use in the Chiang Mai and Lamphun portions of the Upper Ping River Basin. It has been prepared by Dr. Methi Ekasingh and his colleagues at the Chiang Mai University Multiple Cropping Centre, using the pilot provincial information systems they have recently developed for


these provinces (along with Chiang Rai) under support from the Thailand Research Fund (TRF). Patterns in this figure indicate quite clearly why the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) refers to mosaic agroforestry landscape patterns of land use in the region.

Figure 1-8. Detailed current agricultural land use in the Upper Ping

Source: Methi Ekasingh, CMU Multiple Cropping Centre, using their Decision Support System for Agri-cultural Resource Planning (Ekasingh et.al. 2005)


6. Perceived watershed problems and government policy responses

Figure 1-9. State forest lands in the Ping Basin

Watershed issues in Northern Thailand in general, and the Ping River Basin in particular, have been a focus of concern at national policy levels for many years. Indeed, the first major World Bank report on Thailand [World Bank 1959], which was associated with establishment of the na-tion’s first national development plan, placed considerable emphasis on recommending protection of forest cover in mountainous areas, in order to maintain reliable supplies of water for production areas in the Central Plains. In following years, a legal basis was provided for declaration of na-tional forest reserves, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. Then, during the 1960’s and 1970’s, forest reserve status was declared over areas that blanketed most all Ping Basin areas except flat lowlands in major valleys. Subsequently, various reserved forest areas began to be declared protected national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. Figure 1-9 displays a fairly current depiction of the extent of these protected forest areas, along with remaining reserved forest lands. There are, however, additional protected areas that are in the process of being established that are not yet depicted in this map. Obviously, many of these reserved forest areas included lands where people were living, as evidenced by references in the historical lore of local principalities, and in the self-described exploits of several Siamese Kingdoms that had relationships in the region during various times. One of the major implications of this official land status was that these communities and their lands were not eligible to apply for official land tenure documents that were being issued under national land titling programs. Initially, life in these communities was little changed, since forest laws were rarely enforced, and official land tenure appeared to add little value to traditional ways of managing local land resources. As conditions began to change, however, implications became more clear. On one hand, migrants from elsewhere in the region or from out-side the country have moved into local areas and laid claim to local lands. In cases when local communities could not muster sufficient force to maintain their claims, they were unable to get support from official authorities because their lands were not legally recognized. These problems were often exacerbated as infrastructure established under opium crop substitution and national security programs opened access to remote communities. On the other hand, the Thai government began to see long-established communities as ‘en-croachers’ in national forest reserves and protected areas. Since they could demonstrate no legal right to reside there, and most were never granted Thai citizenship, they were lumped together with more recent migrants into the area under the general banner of chao khao (which has been poorly, but popularly translated into the term ‘hilltribes’, but more appropriately translated as ‘highland-


ers’). As such, they have become targets for a range of programs launched by outsiders, from well-intentioned efforts to improve medical care, education and livelihood opportunities, to often mis-guided attempts to bring ‘civilization’ to their world. Various conditions have improved during re-cent years, and most mountain communities in the Ping River Basin (except for the most recent wave of migrants fleeing strife and hardship in Myanmar) now have citizenship and are being inte-grated into local administration and governance systems. The lack of any legal recognition of land holdings and local boundaries, however, remains a major obstacle for local land use management.

Figure 1-10. Ping Basin watershed classes Moreover, effects of internal population

growth and economic change have brought increasing resource scarcity, incentives for commercial activity, and a range of new stakeholder interest groups that profoundly changed the operating environment of mountain communities. While lowland society has long misunderstood and condemned all forms of shifting cultivation in mountain agroecosystems (no matter how well managed), it is the expansion of commercial agriculture that is the most commonly cited source of the serious degradation of forest and soil that is perceived to be occurring in mountain watersheds today. Indeed, economic in-centives for expansion of upland field crops began driving expansion of lowland agriculture into reserved forest areas in Lower Ping provinces during the 1970’s, as well as the subsequent penetration of agro-industrial crops (especially maize) into mountainous areas. This was further facilitated by anti-shifting cultivation pro-grams that forced conversion of rotational forest fallow systems in many areas into fixed field agriculture that required use of purchased chemicals to replace agronomic and ecological functions of forest fallow. Meanwhile, the success of opium crop substitution programs and expansion of road access in highland areas brought market forces into mountain areas that are driving expansion of a range of commercial

crops, some of which employ technologies that include sprinkler irrigation and intensive use of ag-ricultural chemicals. Expansion of tourism has also brought incentives to develop resorts, golf courses, vacation homes, and various associated facilities. And, since there are no legal boundaries to land holdings in any reserved or protected forest lands, there are few tools available to manage rising levels of competition for land resources and the resulting changes in land use patterns. Moreover, some of the newer stakeholders are backed by wealthy and powerful investors, who are sometimes able to use their connections and wealth to ‘purchase’ land documents not available to local long-term residents. National authorities responsible for management and maintenance of reserved and protected forest lands observed these changes with growing concern. Their first major response came during the mid-1980’s when a new national program was launched to classify all lands in the country accord-ing to their watershed characteristics. The resulting classification of watershed zones is meant to serve as a basis for efforts to restrict land use practices in critically important areas. Figure 1-10 depicts the outcome of this process for the Ping Basin.


Backed by a resolution of the Ministerial Cabinet rather than specific legislation, watershed zones were an integral part of thinking that underlied the first national forest policy, approved and estab-lished in 1985. As a result, programs of the Watershed Conservation Division (then located within the Royal Forest Department) and their distributed watershed management units began receiving stronger support. While their programs began rapid growth a decade earlier, much of their effort was related to a combination of planting pine plantations (often in forest fallow fields where they were subsequently destroyed), or implementing projects related to national security and/or opium crop substitution. As part of the new approach, there was an expansion of watershed-oriented high-land development projects that included the UN-supported Sam Mun Highland Development Pro-ject in the Mae Taeng upper tributary valley of the Upper Ping, as well as the Queen Sirikit Forest Development Project that succeeded an earlier USAID supported project in the Mae Chaem upper tributary. Under Thai leadership provided by staff from the Watershed Conservation Division and its local watershed management units, both of these projects became pioneers in working with communities in upper watershed areas, employing a range of approaches developed in association with academics and other non-agency groups working on emerging community forestry and social forestry programs. Despite impressive progress made under these and other projects, which included collaboration in the development and testing of now internationally recognized and emulated participatory land use planning (PLP)1 techniques, national authorities remained unwilling and/or unable to establish any means for official recognition of land use zoning boundaries delineated in collaboration with local communities in these project areas. Rather, with backing from environmental interests and lobby groups, protected areas have continued to expand, and now all Class 1 watersheds located outside national parks and wildlife sanctuaries have been placed in the status of “being prepared” for pro-tected area status. This precludes access by local communities to land use recognition (less than full title) that might be provided under any of the Ministry’s community forestry programs. It is not so much the current magnitude of cultivated areas in the mountains that concerns environ-mental interests, as it is the strategic locations of various cultivated areas, along with fears of fur-ther expansion driven by economic forces believed to be beyond the capacity of local communities to manage. Somewhat ironically, it is the absence of enforceable land use boundaries that facili-tates expansion of the types of land use that environmentalists so abhor. In order to help clarify the nature of these concerns, Figure 1-11 displays overall land use patterns in the Ping River Basin dur-ing 2000, as interpreted from satellite imagery by forest department technical analysts. While simi-lar types of forest have been merged into the same color codes to simplify the presentation, differ-ences between evergreen and mixed or fully deciduous forest have been retained. Similarly, all types of agriculture are merged into one color, which eliminates issues associated with forestry analysts assigning fixed or shifting cultivation status to particular areas. Hill evergreen forests are perceived by forest hydrologists and environmentalists as being particu-larly important for hydrological processes at the watershed level. There is still substantial debate about whether evergreen forests cause increased rainfall [Tangtham 1998], or whether they exist because of higher rainfall associated with altitudinal gradients. While most existing hard evidence points to the latter [Bruijnzeel 2004], foresters and environmentalists in Thailand remain uncon-vinced. In any event, their location is associated with headwater areas of streams important for downstream agriculture and other forms of water use, and forest cover is viewed as very important for maintaining the most even seasonal distribution of rainfall possible [Tangtham 1998]. Al-though factors affecting infiltration of water may be more important for buffering seasonal stream flow than forest cover per se [van Noordwijk 2003], foresters and environmentalists do not believe that any alternative forms of land use can maintain infiltration rates similar to those found in pro-ductive natural forest. As close examination of Figure 1-11 indicates, many hill evergreen forest areas in the Ping Basin include orange areas that indicate the presence of strategically important highland agriculture. Moreover, a considerable number of these areas are where intensive horticul- 1 Dr. Uraivan Tan-kim-yong coined this term to characterize techniques developed and tested by a collabora-tive team for which she was the major source of conceptual and intellectual innovation and guidance.


tural crops are now being grown in contiguous fixed fields, often employing sprinkler irrigation and substantial use of agricultural chemicals. For foresters and environmentalists, then, these are the most important “hot spots” of forest degradation in Ping Basin watersheds, and the most im-portant targets for efforts to limit land use.

Figure 1-11. Ping Basin land use, 2000

Source: Forest department data provided by ONEP


A second source of concern relates to the total proportion of land under forest cover, regardless of the type of forest involved. For more than 50 years, the Thai forestry establishment (with the back-ing of certain international forestry and environmental interests) has maintained that a minimum of 40 to 50 percent overall forest cover is necessary for the nation to remain environmentally sustain-able. And, since most of the lowland areas of the country have long been converted to non-forest forms of land cover (as in the two Lower Ping Basin provinces), large areas of forest cover must be maintained in mountain areas in order to achieve this overall percentage. While there may well be a need for a more rational approach to determining which areas that society wants to maintain un-der forest cover, the overall percentage approach has been enshrined in national policy, ingrained in the mindsets of environmentalists, and accepted by many segments of Thai society. In addition to forest clearing conducted by lowland communities expanding their upland crop pro-duction (as has been particularly dramatic in the Lower Ping Basin), the culprit responsible for much, if not most deforestation is widely believed to be mountain communities practicing any form of shifting cultivation, regardless of the type of forest within which they are located. Indeed, the use of fire in these systems provides an easily recognizable indicator of their existence, with so much smoke filling the air during burning season that even air traffic can be disrupted. Moreover, areas burned each year are classified and calculated as deforestation, while fields returned to forest regeneration in rotational forest fallow systems are ignored. These factors have helped inflate pub-lic perceptions of deforestation beyond the reality that can be observed by remote sensing.

Figure 1-12. Ping Basin overall tree cover

In addition to conversion of forest to other types of land use, foresters and environmentalists are now emphasizing degradation that is occurring within areas classified as forests. While this type of forest degradation is somewhat more subtle and difficult to detect from remote sensing, some relevant tools are under development. For example, Figure 1-12 shows moderately coarse resolution data (500m cell size) from NASA’s Modis satellite platform, also from the year 2000. This data focuses exclusively on the density of tree cover, without regard for classifications of forest or agricultural types of tree cover. While we can see that evergreen forest areas are indicated as dense cover, a substantial number of additional areas also have similar densities. Moreover, at least a modest to medium level of tree cover is present in many agricultural areas, as can be clearly seen in comparison with the fruit orchard areas around Chiang Mai City identified in Figure 1-8). At the same time, various forest areas (especially in dry deciduous forest zones) have relatively modest levels of forest cover. Clearly this type of density, which is a function of tree leaf area, is only one indicator of forest quality. It indicates, however, directions of technological development that hold considerable promise for more robust measures of forest quality in the future. Environmental concerns about watershed management, however, are not limited to forest cover and quality issues, and they are not the exclusive domain of environmental activists and foresters. Indeed, public envi-ronmental awareness and concern about

source: NASA Modis data from USGS website


land use in upper watershed areas has been fed by a range of trends, events and perceived risks that can strongly affect people in their everyday lives. In terms of water flow regimes, major issues include:

• Flash floods and landslides. News media have reported a series of incidents involving rela-tively localized flash floods and landslides that have resulted in serious agricultural and property damage, and sometimes substantial loss of lives. Sites within the Ping River Basin have been included, and they are usually located in upper tributary valleys at the foot of steeply sloping small mountain stream valleys.

• Main channel floods. Damage caused by major floods along the main channel of the Ping River and its major tributaries have also been featured in mass media, and there is a general impression that they are increasing in frequency and magnitude. The most recent example is the series of floods that hit Chiang Mai City during 2005, which have been described as the most serious floods in 40 years. And given the level of riverside and floodplain devel-opment during that period, the level of their damage is unprecedented.

• Dry season agricultural water shortages. Rising demand for reliable year-round water sup-plies for irrigated agriculture at downstream locations has increased sensitivity to, and competition for water during the dry season. Thus, many have been taking an increasingly critical look at uses of both land and water at upstream locations.

• Inadequate village and urban water supplies. Similarly, efforts to improve supplies of water for drinking and domestic use in villages and urban areas alike have added an additional element of competition for water resources, which reaches a peak during dry seasons and during El Nino years.

• Diminishing ground water supplies. A growing number of communities have invested in shallow and deep wells to help provide access to water for agricultural, domestic and even industrial uses. In some areas, such as parts of the Chiang Mai Valley, many are now re-porting receding groundwater tables that are causing increasing alarm.

Another dimension of public concern relates to water quality, and begins making the link between natural resources and public health more directly. Areas of particular concern include:

• Waste water pollution. A growing volume of wastewater is being generated at village, ur-ban and industrial levels. This includes sewage and domestic wastewater, which has dis-ease implications for downstream populations, as well as threats of toxic chemicals and other substances present in wastes from business operations of various types. While waste treatment programs have expanded during recent years, there are major concerns that the pace of these programs has been inadequate to meet the challenges faced.

• Poisoning by agricultural chemicals. Increasing levels of use of agricultural chemicals is perceived as posing two types of public health threats. The first is through applicator poi-soning, while the second is through pollution of waterways with toxic substances. Both appear to be perceived as serious and growing issues among many sectors of the general population.

• Effects of industrial pollution. Waste by-products of industrial processes of various types and scales are a related concern. Much of the concern focuses on disposal of potentially toxic or disease-laden substances into waterways, but air and noise pollution can also be important in some cases.

This latter point introduces two additional important issues that are also growing concerns of com-munities and general populations within the Ping River Basin:

• Solid waste disposal. Trash and garbage are currently the main issues here. Rising levels of solid waste are associated with processes of economic integration and lifestyle change, and many communities find it difficult to cope with the problem. The ‘NIMBY’ (not in my back yard) phenomenon is evident when landfill sites are sought, and burning is subject to increasingly strict restrictions. Waste reduction programs are still in their infancy.


• Air pollution. Emissions from vehicles and industry are primarily an urban-related prob-lem. While emissions from power generation plants are relatively localized, emissions from burning are more generalized. Burning associated with land clearing and agriculture can be seasonally very widespread (in both lowland and mountain areas) and quite heavy. Government restrictions are beginning to emerge, but enforcement will not be easy.

While these problems are widely associated with a variety of natural resource management and public health issues, agency personnel and their programs often underestimate the importance of the livelihood issues with which they are associated. Many, if not most of the practices associated with these problems are a reflection of the lack of viable alternative livelihood opportunities avail-able to the people employing them. Moreover, the poorest components of the population are the ones who most frequently encounter constraints on their access to such alternatives. And at the same time, they are also often among those most vulnerable to the negative impacts that they cause. It has also become quite clear that approaches of the past have been inadequate to effectively deal with most of these issues. Indeed, it is increasingly widely recognized that there are also serious gaps in resource governance structures and processes located at levels that are intermediate be-tween national and local community levels. More functional arrangements at these levels are nec-essary in order to analyze and understand problems that emerge at broader landscape levels, to identify and negotiate viable, practical and equitable means for addressing those problems, and to mobilize the range of human and financial resources required to implement such solutions.

7. Changing approaches to resource governance Changes in local governance processes accelerated rapidly after passage of the 1997 national con-stitution and related reforms. Most all communities in the Ping River Basin now have citizenship and elected local governments at the sub-district (tambon) level, even in more remote mountain areas. Tessabans and Tambon Administrative Organizations (TAO) are building their capacity in many areas, including levying and managing local taxes. Mandates are in place for communities and tambons to increase their role and participation in natural resource governance, but many tam-bon and tessaban governments lack relevant information and skills, and most of their constituents (especially in poorer areas) feel the need to place higher priority for use of scarce funds on provid-ing basic infrastructure and services that are necessary to improve aspects of their livelihoods that are perceived to be of more immediate day-to-day concern. At the same time, however, many gov-ernment ministries and their agencies and programs are being reorganized to provide more empha-sis at local levels, and especially for support of initiatives by local communities. And, there has been a surge in efforts by local communities to organize themselves in various forms and formats, including local networks that are now beginning to develop alliances at broader levels. All of these changes are overlaid by growing education, information flow, and public awareness that are increasingly linked with trends at international and global levels. One important dimension of these linkages that is of particular relevance to this project relates to environmental awareness and action. Many environmental problems are now perceived and identified in the Ping River Ba-sin, and local initiatives are being developed and launched to help address them.

• Major problems perceived in lowland areas near main river channels include lack of proper planning, administration and management of fluvial systems, environmentally insensitive river engineering projects, inappropriate development of flood plain areas, pollution of rivers from sewage and agricultural and industrial drainage, encroachment into river corridors and water bodies that narrows rivers and canals and reduces public access, and loss of river landscape quality, aesthetic beauty and cultural legacies [CMU 2004]. Excessive groundwater extraction is a problem in and around urban areas, as well as in some areas of intensive agriculture.

• In mountain areas, perceived environmental problems focus on deforestation of watershed headlands, which is believed to result in loss of biodiversity, accelerated soil erosion, and a range of impacts on hydrological systems, with claims extending beyond dry season stream flow to include flooding, landslides, and even assertions about impacts on total annual water yield, rainfall patterns and climate change [Walker 2002]. Highland agriculture [Tangtham


1998] and roads [Ziegler 2004] are seen as the worst offenders, along with stream pollution by agricultural chemicals, and dry season water use by sprinkler irrigation. Forest fallow agricul-ture and its use of fire are seen as the source of major negative problems in the midlands, and together with expansion of field crop production into sloping lands above lowland paddies, they are seen to be generating serious negative impacts on watershed services and biodiversity.

Although environmental concerns began to be integrated into agendas of civil society organizations as they emerged in the national political arena 20 years ago, a significant division in their directions and positions has taken place during the last decade or so. Activities initially focused largely on opposition to dam construction, logging concessions and large forest plantations, and there still ap-pears to be substantial agreement about issues and actions that need to be taken regarding environ-mental problems in lowland, urban and industrial areas, and along main river channels. All tend to place much of the blame for these problems on unbridled commercialization, growth of consumer-ism, and very weak planning and regulatory mechanisms that are easily overridden by the wealthy and powerful. Their division is most apparent, however, in rural, and especially mountain areas:

• On the one hand, ‘deep green’ environmental groups are pushing hard for severe restrictions on midland and highland land use and segregation of local communities from forest lands, includ-ing strong support for efforts by conservation agencies to expand national parks and wildlife sanctuaries to cover all class 1 watersheds and remaining natural forest areas in the Kingdom.

• On the other side, ‘populist’ environmental groups are pushing for community management and control of forest lands, based on local traditions, knowledge and practices. They have lob-bied hard for passage of community forestry legislation ‘stuck’ in Parliament, and support re-sistance by communities threatened with displacement by protected area expansion.

Both sides have been very active in the Ping River Basin, and have built alliances that include dif-ferent factions in academia, government and other sectors of society. Tension between them has sometimes erupted into open conflict, such as in the Chom Thong district of Chiang Mai province a few years ago. Both sides also appear to be learning from this experience, however, and few want to see a repeat of such unproductive and divisive events.

And perhaps most importantly, as local communities are exposed to the arguments and advocacy from both sides, many are listening to both points of view and seeking to identify a ‘middle way’ to improve their overall quality of life and safeguard the legacy of future generations. Many have begun to invest considerable effort to develop ‘peoples organizations’ based largely on informal networks among local communities, and some are developing broader alliances among networks. More astute government agencies and urban-based NGOs have seen the important potential of these networks, and have begun to seek ways to support and facilitate their further development.

Moreover, Thailand’s Royal Family have shown exceptional leadership in these issues, and are constantly urging Thai society to develop a common vision of the future that combines improved livelihoods with sustainable natural resource management. This is a very important source of in-spiration for efforts seeking unity across government, business, civil society, and local community sectors of society. It is in this context that river basin management programs and this project have emerged. Anecdotal evidence already clearly indicates that communities and groups in various parts of the Ping River Basin are building organizational capacity and experience with multi-community networks, often across ethnic and other social boundaries, to manage local sub-watersheds (called lumnamyoi in this report). And in some areas, these local networks are building alliances and federations among themselves to extend their organizational and management capacities to sub-basin levels. These are efforts that can provide the localized building blocks upon which sub-basin and river basin level management organizations such as those envisioned by this project can and should be built to effectively address the wide range of intertwined livelihood and environmental issues that organi-zations promoted under this project must address.

According to Dr. Apichart Anukularmphai [2004a], river basin management in Thailand was first initiated in 1994 when the government allocated budgets to study and prepare a strategic plan for water management in the Chao Phraya river system. The study formulated a comprehensive water management strategy for river basins [Sethaputra 2001], and a committee was appointed in 1998 to establish a river basin committee (RBC) for the Chao Phraya. Two workshops were organized with participants from line agencies, provincial officials, and other stakeholders to explain the ideas and seek feedback. Agreement was reached to establish pilot river basin committees in the Upper Ping, Lower Ping and Pasak ‘sub-basins’, and they were offi-cially established in April, 1999.

Page 22 Participatory Watershed Management for the Ping River Basin Project

B. Movement toward sub-basin management in the Ping River Basin

This project did not begin with a blank slate. Thus, this section seeks to provide a brief review of some of the key milestones in processes that have led to this project. It also discusses some of the basic concepts related to natural and administrative hierarchies, and seeks to identify some of the key gaps and operational issues that are emerging.

1. Governmental Ping River Basin organization initiatives

Upper and Lower Ping ‘sub-basin’ committees

As part of an agricultural re-structuring program loan from the Asian Development Bank to Thailand’s Ministry of Ag-riculture and Cooperatives, consultants were engaged to conduct studies related to the water sector in the Upper Ping and Lower Ping ‘sub-basins’. Through consultative meetings under these studies, it was agreed to establish three work-ing groups responsible for pre-paring basin plans, collecting and maintaining basin data and information, and conducting public relations and awareness raising campaigns. It was also agreed that the Upper Ping needed to be further sub-divided into 15 smaller sub-basin watershed working groups, whereas the Lower Ping should be sub-divided into 18 district working groups. The three working groups held 3 subsequent workshops-consultative meetings in 2000 in order to prepare basin plans for the three pilot areas for submission to line agencies to be included in their budget requests. Line agencies were reluctant to include projects of the working groups, however, as each agency already had its own plan. Thus, in order to have a basin plan with truly effective participation by stakeholders, RBCs appear to need authority to prepare and approve basin plans. This is seen as one reason leading to development of the Water Sector budgetary request process. The consultative workshops also made it apparent that stakeholders must play a higher role than government officials. Thus, RBC’s were changed in 2001 to add more stakeholders, NGOs and academicians. But since projects are implemented by agencies, representatives of agencies remain necessary. Resulting RBC structures are displayed in figure 1-13, while the overall evolution of participation in Ping RBC’s is charted in figure 1-14.

Figure 1-13. Ping Basin Committee Structures 2001

Department of Water Resources

Office of River Basin Subcommittee for Upper and Lower Ping River Basin

• District chief • District agriculturalist • District official • Representatives of water users • Representatives of provincial irrigation project engineers • Representatives of sub-district administrative organizations

Sub-district working group • Chairman of Sub-district Administrative Organizations • Sub-district official and agriculturalist • Representatives of farmers in each sub-district

Villages / farmer groups

National Water Resources Committee

Operation plans

Public relations & public participation

Information technology

Working groups on three aspects

Source: after Panya 2003

Sub-basin and district working groups

Representatives of government agencies

River Basin Subcommittee for Upper and Lower Ping River Basin

Representatives of other stakeholders, Academics or NGOs

Stages 2002


Figure 1-14. Evolving participation in River Basin Committee development in Thailand

1998 1999 2000 2001

Election of represen-tatives and capacity

building

Establishment of Chaophya basin sub-committee

Establishment of Up-per Ping, Lower Ping,

Pasak RBCs

Establishment of three working groups

in RBC

Restructuring of RBCs and working groups at various

levels Meeting method Presentation from

central offices Presentation com-bined with plenary discussions

Facilitator style and open discussion

Jointly agreed on agenda with initiative from government

Open agenda de-pending on the is-sues and emerging needs Stakeholders more active in addressing their own issues

Stakeholders consti-tute majority

Government and public close line

Operational mode Top down Top down with more debates and group discussions

Presentation of is-sues and invite com-ments and opinions from the stakeholders

Consultative process with government agency initiative

Composition of members

Government officials majority

Government officials dominant

More stakeholders get involved and more working groups

More balanced rep-resentation with stakeholders being majority Transitional formation in blending two sys-tems

The Evolving Participatory Process

Government type at top level while more local emphasis at lower level

Typical government organization

Typical government organization

Organizational structure

Source: after Anukularmphai 2004a


As Dr. Apichart notes, stakeholder participation increased after establishment of working groups for basin planning, information systems, and public relations and awareness. Stakeholders started realizing their roles, and their desire to have their share in planning and decision-making processes. Stakeholder motivation became clear as key players started to emerge and play leading roles in consultative meetings. They began questioning roles of government agencies and their contribution to RBCs, and soon began demanding changes in the organizational set-up and composition of members (see also Tan-kim-yong 2001). Changes were discussed and agreed upon during a series of workshops, and new appointment orders were issued in 2001 (see figure 1-15 for Upper Ping). The se-lection procedure for stake-holder representation was also challenged, resulting in broad-ening the stakeholder base by representation down to village level, with selection processes either by election or popular consent. This issue has re-ceived serious attention, and some RBC groups are still conducting this process in or-der to ensure transparency and achieve effective and active representation. [Anukularm-phai 2004a]. In many local areas, however, agency inter-action is still limited to forms of ‘consultative participation’ [Heyd 2004].

Figure 1-15. Upper Ping working group membership Directive for appointment & composition of working groups at various levels:

1. To appoint working groups at sub-district, district and sub-basin with the following composition

1.1 Sub-district working group (1) one farmer representative from each village (2) sub-district chief (3) chairman of tambon administrative organization (TAO) (4) sub-district community development worker (5) sub-district agricultural extension worker (6) District officer responsible for the sub-district (7) Respected local person i.e. teacher or monk

1.2 District working group (1) One farmer representative from each sub-district working group (2) District community development worker (3) District agricultural extension worker (4) Representative of local administration (5) District officer responsible for planning (6) Respected person i.e. teacher, retired official, or monk (7) Representatives from commercial and industrial sectors

1.3 Sub-basin working group (1) District officers responsible for planning (2) Three farmer representatives from each district

2. The district selects three representatives from the district working group to work with the three RBC working groups i.e. one for each working group (plan-ning, information, public relation and awareness raising)

3. Farmer representatives in the three RBC working groups select from among themselves 15 members to work in the river basin committee (RBC).

Source: Anukularmphai 2004a

DWR Planning Process

With establishment of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) in 2003, river basin programs found a new home in the Department of Water Resources (DWR). During the tran-sitional stage, a team of consultants was commissioned to prepare a basin water resource manage-ment framework. The consultants were directed to not prepare the basin plan themselves, but rather to assist basin working groups and stakeholders to identify their own needs and their own ideas of how to solve their problems. The consultants were asked to hold grassroots level workshops as well as to build local capacity in planning processes. The large detailed sets of water resource-focused assessments, plans and projects resulting from these efforts are reported in a six volume final report submitted to the Department of Water Resources [Panya 2003]. DNP-DWR Planning Process

With strong endorsement by the Prime Minister, the new MoNRE ministerial leadership embraced efforts to make the Ping River Basin a model for effective river basin organization, and began launching a new round of initiatives. In an effort to broaden the mandate for river basin manage-ment, accelerate implementation, and draw in more of the field resources of the new ministry, a new Cabinet Resolution was obtained in 2003 to establish the Ping River Basin Restoration Project [Samabuddhi 2003]. Among the key ministry changes made in association with this new wave of effort was assignment of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP)


(which includes the watershed management division) to take the lead from the ministry side for activities in the Upper Ping Basin – activities in the Lower Ping Basin remained under leadership of the Department of Water Resources. There was also a decision to have sub-basins be the main units for more localized operations, with 14 sub-basins specified for the Upper Ping and 6 sub-basins for the Lower Ping, resulting in some boundary shifts from those employed by DWR. In addition, the Department of Environmental Quality Promotion and the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) began commissioning studies and conducting ac-tivities to provide additional support for these efforts [e.g. Nitivattananon 2004], although coordi-nation among them appears to have been problematic. The DWR quickly launched a series of planning activities in Lower Ping sub-basins that built on results of their previous studies and plans. This enabled them to also move quickly to begin im-plementing specific projects, which initially focused largely on ‘check dams’, many of which ap-pear to provide small water resources for pump irrigation of nearby agricultural fields. Plans also included more substantial water resource structures, but these required more time to complete asso-ciated design approval and construction procedures. Meanwhile, the DNP launched a new round of ‘participatory action planning’ processes in upper Ping sub-basins through committees and working groups under their leadership, resulting in an-other set of plans and projects that is still being refined. It appears that the DNP has made very considerable efforts to facilitate articulation of plans that are based on local ideas and perceived needs. The scope of plans and projects was also expanded to include forest and watershed conser-vation, as well as environmental issues such as trash and use of agricultural chemicals. As DNP officials have stated informally, however, they believed the scope should not be extended further for fear of their moving beyond their agency mandate and their perceptions of the mandated role for river basin organizations. The DNP has also made very impressive progress in building a spatial information system based in their Huay Kaew Office in Chiang Mai, with particular emphasis on natural resources and land use in forest lands in Upper Ping sub-basins. It even includes attempts to map locally perceived village boundaries and land use zones in reserved forest and protected watershed lands where no bounda-ries are officially recognized, in a manner somewhat similar to work conducted earlier by ICRAF, DNP staff, and other partners collaborating with villagers in the Mae Chaem sub-basin [Thomas 2004a]. ONEP-World Bank Planning Process

The current project of which this report is a part, is seeking to establish and test ‘pilot’ sub-basin management organizations that will conduct action planning processes to develop short, medium and long term plans to address natural resource, environment, health and poverty issues in the pilot sub-basins. Considering the above context, it should not be too difficult to understand why many government agencies, local governments, local communities, civil society organizations and other stakeholders are viewing this project as yet another wave of planning for river basin activities.

2. Sub-basin delineation Associated with the difficulties commonly encountered in coordination among government agen-cies – even when located within the same Ministry – is the multiplicity of sub-basin delineations within the Ping River Basin that are presented as “official”. Current classifications shown to this author range from 20 to 25 in number, with considerable variation in boundaries. Although sub-basin classification boundaries are associated with natural physical boundaries of watersheds, smaller watersheds are combined with others, presumably in order to be able to achieve more im-pacts and economies of scale for administration and management. At the same time, larger natural watersheds are sometimes split, either according to provincial administrative boundaries or other less apparent reasons.


The project recognized this issue from the outset, and this author collaborated in efforts to propose a reasonable compromise that would fit with ONEP’s stated need to have a total of 20 sub-basins in the Ping River Basin, pursuant to a Cabinet resolution. Recommendations submitted to ONEP were mostly approved, with the major exception being the splitting of the Mae Chaem physical wa-tershed into two sub-basins. Results are basically now the same as the delineation used recently by Chiang Mai University [CMU 2004]. Experience later found the lack of local participation in this process led to problems that could have been avoided (see Part IV of this report). In any event, there now is now a defined set of 20 sub-basins recognized by ONEP as the opera-tional units for this project. The sub-basins are mapped and listed in Figure 1-16, along with data from ONEP on the area of each sub-basin. Boundaries and official area data have been provided by

ONEP in a GIS shape file format.

Figure 1-16. Ping Sub-Basins for this Project Area (sq km) Upper Ping Basin 25,370

1 Ping part 1 (Upper Ping) 1,974

While sub-basin delineation is an important initial clarification for operations under this project, there is still a need for ONEP to collaborate with other agencies of the Ministry of Natural Re-sources and Environment, as well as other relevant government agencies, to reach agreement on a common sub-basin delineation scheme for the Ping River Basin (and in the future other river ba-sins). This is necessary in order to: (a) achieve common understandings that are essential for build-ing participatory management organizations within the sub-basins, and (b) for coordinating com-munication with and support from the range of government agencies (as well as other public and private organizations and institutions) that will be associated with integrated basin management in both the immediate and longer-term future.

2 Mae Ngad 1,285 3 Mae Taeng 1,957 4 Ping part 2 (includes Mae Aow) 1,616 5 Mae Rim 508 6 Mae Kuang (includes MaeTha) 2,734 7 Mae Khan 1,833 8 Mae Lee 2,081 9 Mae Klang 616

10 Ping part 3 (CM+LP+Tak portions) 3,452 11 Mae Chaem upper 2,061 12 Mae Chaem lower 1,834 13 Mae Had 520 14 Mae Teun (CM+Tak portions) 2,896

Lower Ping Basin 9,289 15 Ping part 4 2,983 16 Huay Mae Thor 644 17 Klong Wang Chao 649 18 Klong Mae Raka 902 19 Klong Suan Mark 1,132 20 Lower Ping 2,980

Overall Ping River Basin 34,659 Source: ONEP, 2005


3. The sub-basin level in natural and administrative hierarchies

Any effort to foster social organization that aims to help manage natural resources at the sub-basin level must consider the context of the sub-basin level in both the biophysical and governance hier-archies within which it is located. The nested nature of the water-shed and public administration hierarchies of Thailand is illus-trated in Figure 1-17. Given the somewhat parallel nature of these hierarchies in a depiction such as this, some advocates of integrated watershed and river basin man-agement are often quick to sug-gest that both hierarchies should be merged by adjusting admini-stration unit boundaries to fit with naturally determined watershed boundaries. While this type of administrative boundary reform would greatly simplify social or-ganization for integrated water-shed governance, it is unlikely that it would be reasonable or even desirable to advocate such an approach at this time.

Figure 1-17. Nested hierarchies of natural & admin units

Watershed units Administration units

Major River Systems

River Basins

River Sub-Basins

Local sub-watersheds

National Level

Regional Level

Provinces

Districts

Tambons

While nested units in the watershed hierarchy are determined by physical terrain characteristics associated with water drainage patterns, nested units in the administration hierarchy of Thailand are determined by social factors that have been quite dynamic over time. Whereas national boundaries have remained relatively fixed since the colonial era, provincial, district and tambon units have fis-sioned and been adjusted many times as a function of growing populations and a range of other po-litical considerations. The administrative hierarchy is of critical importance to water and natural resource governance, however, since it provides the channels through which social and political decisions are made concerning issues such as property rights, development and resource allocation. Indeed, constitutional and legal responsibilities for natural resource management from central to local levels are assigned to units within this hierarchy. Central arguments of global water and natural resource management trends, however, are based in notions that these natural resources can be most effectively managed through efforts that are both integrated and focused on natural units in the watershed hierarchy. Yet, given the very different nature of the forces driving determination of unit boundaries in these two hierarchies, it is not rea-sonable to expect that they would be able to merge any time within the foreseeable future. More-over, despite Thailand’s apparent commitment to integrated water and river basin management, its leadership has clearly indicated that it does not want to burden society, its decision-making proc-esses and its taxpayers with a parallel system of watershed-defined bureaucratic institutions that would end up duplicating functions and most likely competing with units of the administrative hi-erarchy for power and resources. Thus, the current challenge is how best to develop social organization that can improve manage-ment of natural resources and environmental services in nested watershed units, in a manner that can effectively interact with, and better inform and monitor, existing governance processes that function through the administration hierarchy. The primary aim of this project is to initiate development of organizations that would seek to ac-complish this task at the sub-basin level in pilot areas of the Ping River Basin. Thus, we need to


consider in more depth characteristics of units in both of these hierarchies in this more specific con-text. Figure 1-18 begins this process by providing a graphical depiction of the relative spatial scale of units in both hierarchies. The large range in the spatial scale of these units, as measured in square kilometers, requires use of a logarithmic scale on the vertical axis. Units with a single fixed size are indicated by tapering of the box into a point on the left side, whereas rectangular boxes indicate the approximate range of spatial scale among different units at the same hierarchical level.

Figure 1-19. Boundaries a. national/regional boundaries

b. province boundaries

c. district boundaries

d. tambon boundaries

Chao Phraya River System

Ping Basin

NE

CE

NO

E

SO

Ping Sub-Basins

The actual spatial distribution of all of these units except local sub-watersheds can be seen in the four small maps displayed in Figure 1-19. Together, these diagrams allow us to see more clearly some of the important interaction and coordination requirements for social organization at each level of the two hierarchies.

Figure 1-18. Relative area scales of hierarchy units

National LevelNorth Regional LevelChao Phraya River System

Ping River Basin

Ping Sub-Basins

Local sub-watersheds

Ping Provinces

Ping Districts

Ping Tambons

1,000,000

100,000

10,000

1,000

100

10

1

Area

(sq

uare

kilom

eters)

Watershed units Administration units

Ping Sub-Basins

Ping Sub-Basins

From a watershed hierarchy point of view, Ping River sub-basins are most closely associated with the district level. While boundary differences are clear, there are relatively few districts within each sub-basin. As several entire sub-basins are contained within single provinces, overall coordination among provinces would appear to be most appropriate at the river basin level. At the entire Chao Phraya river system level, coordination among provinces and regions would appear to be necessary, but since the administrative system provides very few functions at the regional level, one might also expect more national level effort. Indeed, the relatively large number of tambons within a given sub-basin would appear to present an important challenge, and a possible constraint for some functions at the sub-basin level. This could be an especially important challenge because of the important and growing role seen for Tambon Administration Organizations (TAO) in governance, public administration, and management of natural resources and environmental services. This issue leads directly to reasons why the local sub-watershed level has been included in this analysis.


The local sub-watershed level is an intentionally ambiguous term meant to reflect a somewhat flexible scale of natural physical boundaries. The rough range of scale that is implied, however, is indicated in figure 1-18. For the most part, these are relatively small sub-watersheds that range in size from a few to as large as a 2 or 3 hundred square kilometers, and many if not most include land that is claimed by people in one to a few tens of villages. This, then, is the level where the greatest amount of day-to-day human interaction occurs, and where many complementary and interacting forms of social capital are the strongest. It is also the level that is closest to the many individual decisions are made that most directly affect land use patterns, water use, pollution and many of the other issues that this project seeks to address. Moreover, it is also the level where many different types of stakeholders come into most direct and frequent contact, and are thus most likely to under-stand the reasons and specific interests and livelihood needs of each other. Similar types of argu-ments have been forwarded by successful efforts to place major emphasis on building the capacity and authority of local governance at the tambon (TAO) and tessaban level in the administration hierarchy. Thus, it should not be surprising that this is the level where the greatest amount of ‘grassroots-oriented’ effort has been targeted – by government agencies, NGOs and ‘people’s organizations’ alike – during recent years. As a result, many of these areas (especially in upper Ping sub-basins) have made far more progress in raising public awareness and initiating local initiatives and network organization related to natural resource and environment issues than most people residing in urban or more distant locations realize. Recognition is also slow within various government agencies with local field units, because information flow from local field staff to central leadership levels is often subject to many levels of filters and re-interpretations. Accordingly, there is good reason to believe that interactions between TAO and local sub-watershed networks can realistically form a basic building block for organization at the broader sub-basin level in many areas.

4. Potential role of the sub-basin level in the overall Ping RBO context Efforts to facilitate development of sub-basin level organization need to assess the potential role of such organization in terms of its comparative strengths and weaknesses within the context of the watershed and administration hierarchies discussed in the previous section. Indeed, it is a much more than trivial issue to clarify perceptions of its fundamental position relative to ongoing efforts that are both top-down and bottom-up in their nature. While more detailed discussion of these on-going efforts are provided in following sections, this section seeks to set the context of those dis-cussions through initial consideration of this fundamental overarching issue.

Specifically, as in broader regions of Asia [Barker 2004], two important trends and associated lines of activity are apparent:

• Initiatives to develop official river basin organizations have begun through top-down processes launched at the national level. Bolstered by conservationists, environmental organizations and activists at the national level, national government has made numerous efforts to strengthen na-tional forest land and water policies, and to link the rationales for both [Kaosa-ard 2000]. One result has been formation of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, including pro-vision of a home base for the National Water Resources Committee, creation of a Department of Water Resources, and a new base for efforts to further develop river basin organizations. With strong endorsement from the Prime Minister, multiple efforts have been launched by MoNRE agencies to form pilot river basin and sub-basin committees and plans. As one indicator, Figure 1-20 contains a recent address by a key MoNRE deputy permanent secretary.

• Local ‘grassroots’ initiatives have involved a combination of: (a) efforts by government agencies to induce local efforts to comply with national policies; (b) efforts by environmental NGOs and activists to build popular perceptions of an environmental ‘crisis’ resulting from behavior at local and upstream community levels; (c) efforts by more populist NGOs and activists to strengthen and adapt more ‘environmentally friendly’ components of local behavior based in their cultural heritage and local knowledge; and (d) widespread public acceptance in most sectors of society that environmental issues must become a more prominent consideration if development is to be-come more ‘sustainable’. All of these types of efforts frequently feature emphasis on multi-


community networks at scales ranging from local sub-watersheds to larger tributary river valleys. In upper watersheds, they also commonly feature local zoning and land use regulations, even in areas where land use is technically illegal under national policies.

Figure 1-20. Keynote Address by Dr. Siripong Hungspreug, Deputy Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment on World Water Day 2005 and Launch of the UN International Decade for Action Water for Life 2005-2015 ------------------------------------

It is my great honor to have the chance to give keynote address to the audiences today on the World Water Day 2005 and the Launch of the United Nations International Decade for Action Water for Life 2005-2015.

Every human being recognizes the significance of water, particularly freshwater that is limited in its amount. At the same time we are facing a growing demand for freshwater and an ever increasing in water-related disasters year by year. Extreme weather events encountering the world today are becoming more and more severe. The storms, floods and droughts bring mounting human suffering and escalating economic loss.

Combining all these factors, it leads us to an urgent necessity for all human being, ranging from policy makers to civil socie-ties to collaboratively identify and implement all measures that leads to disaster alleviation, access to safe and clean water, suffi-cient supply of water, fair allocation, and water conservation.

Considering such huge challenges, wise water management is a real need. Water governance which places an importance to managing water with transparency, accountability and participatory approach is necessary factors contributed to a success. It encompasses water provision and allocation, water resources conservation, water-related disasters alleviation, and water quality protection. All of these should be considered by taking into account other related resources and promotion of participation from multi-stakeholders.

Considerable efforts at global level have been made in facilitating individual country to implement the essence of the agenda and principles reached at the two important Conferences in 1992, the Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro and Dublin Conference on Water and Environment. After Agenda 21 was established, the Commission on Sustainable Development was formed and its multi-year programme of work for the period 2004 – 2017 is now emphasized on freshwater.

The United Nations has proclaimed the Millennium Development Goal and several follow-up activities have been under-taken related to water for domestic consumption. MDG are targets every nation will or are trying to reach for. Therefore, there is a need to consider how to implement for the aimed success.

In eradicating the problem of population lacking access to safe drinking water, a great necessity is to develop a systematic water resources management i.e. the above-mentioned aspects should be harmoniously and integratedly managed. Thus, there is the need for Integrated Water Resources Management or IWRM. However, IWRM process cannot be accomplished over-night. The process needs both time and willingness from every related sector.

Geographical differences of each country resulted in different measures applied for solving the same problem. For in-stance, in monsoon nations they possess much precipitation but rainfall tends to concentrate in a certain period of time and is intense in some areas. This is the major cause of flood and drought where a specific solution may be required for different areas.

In Asia-Pacific region, many countries are developing countries. Water resources management plays a crucial role in pov-erty alleviation. A holistic approach in water resources management implementation will result in equitable water allocation and maintenance of water quantity and quality. These are necessary prerequisites for maintaining livelihood and reducing poverty.

IWRM as a holistic approach, is a process that should be considered very similar at any country in terms of concept. How-ever, its implementation is varied according to political and social contexts. The United Nations is the core advocate who pushes and plants an enabling environment for IWRM implementation.

Thailand has a policy on increasing well-being for the general public and in this case public oriented approach is applied. Although Thailand can fulfill the goal of population accessing to safe drinking water supply, there are still steps to take such as improvement of water quality and water resources conservation.

Following IWRM process, Thailand places high importance to river basin management. Implementation areas link the scope from upstream where watersheds are originated to middle stream and downstream where rivers run into seas. These include conservation and maintenance of watershed areas, equitable water allocation, improvement of water quality, among others. The ultimate objective is the management of Water for Life.

In Thailand, IWRM concept and river basin management has been tested in many occasions and lastly two pilot river ba-sins have been conducted an integrated approach in management in one major river basin each in the North and Northeast. The process concerns integrated implementation of various related agencies. Participation and local wisdom is also effectively incor-porated.

At the same time, encouraging urban communities to use water economically is no less important. Awareness raising campaigns and dissemination of knowledge on how to use water economically have been successfully undertaken by concerned agencies in spite of increasing demand from urban growth.

IWRM is a process that needs much efforts from every unit of the societies to mobilize and guide toward sustainable devel-opment. Its implication and definite goal are reflected in many examples cited in various meetings. A launching of the Interna-tional Decade for Action is another attempt that will provide us with excellent opportunity to reach out to different stakeholders including the pubic-at-large, civil society, the media, national governments and policy-makers.

At this opportunity of World Water Day 2005 and the launch of the United Nations International Decade for Action Water for Life 2005-2015, I would like to call for full attentions and efforts from every sector in Thailand and in the world community to closely collaborate and strongly cooperate for the betterness of water resources management and the happiness of the global population.

Thank you.


Figure 1-21. Sub-basin as an interface venue

Agency – induced local networks

NGO-supported local networks

Locally initiated networks

Local land use zoning & regulations

Village & tambon activities

BOTTOM - UP

TOP - DOWN

National Environmental Organizations

National Forest Land & Water Policy

National Water Resources Committee

Chao Phraya Basin organization

Ping River Basin Committees

River Sub-Basin Organizations

Indeed, many environmental and especially water-related issues and principles have become nearly sacrosanct in the public policy arena, and in many sectors and levels of society. Any opposition to various specific elements of many of these environmental policies has largely been neutralized by fear of being labeled as ‘anti-environment’ in the political arena. How these various principles and policies are interpreted and applied, however, varies considerably among these different actors. Given this context, as depicted in figure 1-21, the first fundamental question is whether sub-basin or-ganizations will be viewed as

• downward extensions of top-down processes

• upward extensions of bottom-up processes

• fora where bottom-up processes can interface with top-down processes

All three perspectives are possible, and different stakeholders will no doubt advocate each of these points of view. In terms of comparative strengths and weaknesses, however, it appears that the sub-basin level may be most suited to provide the interfacing functions suggested in the third option. This follows both from characteristics that provide potential strengths at the sub-basin level, and from weaknesses of other levels to provide this function. Aspects of these characteristics and potentials are explored in subsequent parts of this report.

5. Other current planning processes within sub-basins

Efforts under this project to launch ‘pilot’ sub-basin management organizations must also recognize various other very closely related activities that already underway. This is especially important because of the degree to which various stakeholders in these activities – from national to local lev-els – have already developed perceptions about Ping River Basin organization, and have already conducted a range of problem analysis and action planning activities. Non-Governmental Planning Initiatives

Perceptions of redundant planning systems are based on even more than multiple iterations of gov-ernment initiatives. In one different non-government line of activity, the Coordinating Committee for the Protection of the Ping River Basin and Environment (CCPE) was established in 1993, with a volunteer membership that included academics, teachers, students, monks and other interested peo-ple [Jompakdee 2004]. It now seeks to cooperate closely with the Upper Ping ‘sub-basin’ commit-tee in conducting major lines of activity that include: (1) awareness raising; (2) development of knowledge and skills and a river monitoring program; (3) cooperation and networking. A set of 8 work plans have been developed, focusing on administration, land use regulation, environmental


rehabilitation, revitalization of culture and indigenous knowledge, promotion of public participa-tion, research and study, and monitoring and evaluation. Building on the experience of CCPE, a large study team was assembled by Chiang Mai University under a project to develop a master plan and implementation plan for conservation and develop-ment of environmental and water quality in the Ping River and its tributaries. An elaborate study process, which included considerable stakeholder consultation around the Ping River basin, re-sulted in a 590 page report submitted to the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy [CMU 2004]. One of the distinguishing features of this line of activity was its emphasis on history and cultural aspects of life and changing conditions along rivers and major streams in the Ping River Basin, as well as articulation of impacts of riparian activities and construction on water flow, water quality, and broader considerations of quality of life. As a prominent leader in these activi-ties, Dr. Wasan Jompakdee of the CMU Faculty of Engineering is seen as a strong advocate of seeking negotiated balance in river basin planning [ADB 2004]. Dr. Wasan is now leading a new ONEP-funded CMU study to develop monitoring standards and processes for the Ping River Basin. The emergence of numerous types of local network groups and broader alliances among them have already been mentioned, and will be discussed further in other parts of this report. Such initiatives are particularly widespread and active in Upper Ping sub-basins, where they have been assessing problems and developing plans, activities and projects to address many local issues. These net-works are increasingly seen by DNP and others as an important local mechanism in identifying problems, plans and projects under government and non-government river basin initiatives. And in Lower Ping sub-basins, agency-induced networks centered on natural resource and environment volunteers are also seen as a prominent feature in DWP-led activities there. In addition to these lines of activity aimed directly at establishing organization and plans for man-aging the Ping River Basin, there has been a substantial range of additional activities that focus on various pieces and elements directly relevant to river basin organization and management in the Ping Basin. A substantial range of NGO-supported networks are also active in efforts to address a range of related issues, ranging from citizenship and land rights for upland communities, to the wa-ter monitoring and environmental education networks among schools supported by the Green World Foundation. Even cultural and ethnic networks are beginning to make increasing contribu-tions to addressing key river basin issues, including networks among Karen communities in the midlands, and among Hmong communities in highland areas. Development Planning Processes In this context, we also need to mention the regular development planning processes that are ongo-ing activities in all Ping River sub-basins. In addition to overarching national economic and social development plans and the plans and projects of the various government ministries, individual provinces, TAO and tessaban all have their own development plans that reflect their own assess-ment processes, priorities and resource allocation decisions.

Indeed, under the governance reforms of recent years various efforts have been made to encourage TAO and tessaban to incorporate more environment and natural resource issues into their regular plans and to push for their inclusion in provincial plans. But limited budgets, especially in poorer jurisdictions, together with the pressures for infrastructure development from their constituents, have led locally elected governments to place their resource allocation priorities in other areas. This is especially true where many of the beneficiaries of natural resource or environment activities would be located beyond their jurisdiction. Moreover, there has often been uncertainty about how to formulate meaningful natural resource and environment plans, and how to convince constituents that such activities would provide high priority benefits that would improve their lives and liveli-hoods, and thus gain or maintain their political support. And finally, even in areas where local ini-tiatives are helping to understand the importance and nature of natural resource and environmental issues, some of the most important forces driving processes of change appear to be beyond the con-trol of local governments to address. Examples of this would include lack of land use security, use of chemicals in agriculture, influential and powerful outside investors, etc.


These types of issues and problems are among the central considerations that have helped drive the movement toward establishment of river basin and sub-basin organizations. But the challenge re-mains as how to coordinate, or even better to integrate basin and sub-basin plans with regular de-velopment planning processes.

6. Key gaps and operational issues Having briefly reviewed the recent history and current status of basin and sub-basin initiatives, this section seeks to review major issues and gaps in these efforts. These have been identified through discussions with participants from various agency and stakeholder groups who are directly involved in various of these activities, including pilot sub-basins, as well as with assessments vis-à-vis major views from international literature discussed in Part III of this report. While some of these issues are general, others vary according to conditions in different sub-basins.

(a) Confusion and uncertainty

One of the most general weaknesses is an overall state of confusion and uncertainty felt by most stakeholders – including government agencies – about the directions of the Ping River basin pro-gram and the status of the various committees, working groups, networks and initiatives that have been formed and are under development. This is resulting in a general feeling of tension that is usually somewhere on a continuum that runs from apprehension to frustration, that appears at all levels from the Ping River Basin to local communities. This author has been asked by a quite wide range of stakeholders at different levels, “Why is there a need for this project?” This is usually fol-lowed by, “Why doesn’t the government just provide some of the funds they have promised for several years, and let us get started with activities we have already planned?” Especially in the Upper Ping, there is now considerable confusion about the apparent continuing expansion of the mandate of river basin and sub-basin organizations and planning. The first round of committees and planning seemed to be focused quite directly on water resources. Then the sec-ond round of planning seemed to shift much of the focus to forest conservation, land use, agricul-tural chemicals and trash. Now this new project wants to add public health and poverty cum liveli-hood issues. Most local communities appear to have few problems about seeing how these issues are important, linked, and affect their lives, but they feel a need to get some clarity and definition so that they can do what is required and get on with their activities and their lives without spending so much time planning and re-planning. For government agencies, concern is even stronger be-cause of the lingering questions about who is or will be the “owner” or “patron” (jao khong ruang) of this program (and its budgets), and how are they supposed to act vis-à-vis other agencies. And at a more specific level, there is also quite considerable confusion about the roles and status of the various existing levels of committees and working groups, as well as the plans they have al-ready developed. A number of people have stepped forward to assume leadership roles, and some are beginning to wonder if they have been wasting their time, or if people at higher levels are for some reason not pleased with their performance. Perhaps even worse, some are wondering if the continuing lack of action in receiving support for the plans and projects they have worked to help articulate and develop will damage their credibility and social standing within their communities. High-level ministerial meeting rooms in Bangkok, meeting halls in Chiang Mai or Nakhon Sawan, and meetings of TAO, local communities or networks are three very different types of venues, and clarity in one type of venue by no means implies there will automatically be clarity at other levels. Unless there can be more effective, consistent and persistent efforts to bring clarity to these issues, the credibility of the Ping River Basin program is likely to suffer seriously, and prospects for effec-tive participatory organizations and programs are likely to diminish.


(b) Common identity and direction

There are at least three basic types of issues affecting RSBO identity and direction:

Lack of common vision. One factor that exacerbates problems associated with confusion and un-certainty, and makes efforts to seek clarity more difficult, is an overall lack of a common vision at two levels. At the first level is a vision of what is the desired direction and future of society, liveli-hoods and landscapes at a sub-basin, river basin or broader level.2 Some groups appear to have an internal vision that clearly includes forested mountains free of agriculture and settlement, but often less clarity in terms of the roles of urbanization, commerce and industry. Others want to see a hy-per-modern commerce, service and high-tech industry based economy centered in glitzy ‘world class’ urban centers, but are not too clear about rural areas beyond their provision of visual ambi-ance for posh resorts and golf courses. Still others seem to advocate simply ‘turning back the clock’ to mimic conditions in some earlier time perceived as a ‘golden era’ when all was well. Some simply feel the future should be what the phuyai want to make it. Probably the majority, however, have either not thought much about such things, or feel quite uncertain about directions in which development and change could or should be headed, and about how much they will benefit or suffer from change. Differences among these types of visions have often been reflected during efforts to identify natural resource, environmental, health and livelihood problems at early meetings in pilot sub-basins of this project. Such differences are normal in a diverse and open society, and it would be alarming if everyone had a single uniform vision for the future. Problems arise, however, when decisions need to be made that affect allocation of resources toward investments that affect the ability of various groups to try to achieve their desired vision, and especially when one group seeks monopoly power that it can use to impose its vision on others without their consent. What is needed in an open society, then, is functioning institutions that can facilitate articulation, advocacy and debate about major resource allocation and regulation decisions, so that such decisions can be reached in the most transparent, equitable and accountable manner possible. At the second, and more specific, level is a vision of what should be the overall role of river basin and sub-basin organizations to help achieve desired future visions. Movement toward development of river basin organizations has to a large extent been driven by the perceived need for various im-portant resource allocation decisions to be assessed in the context of their potential impacts on, and contributions to, environmental quality, public health, socio-economic equity, and overall sustain-ability at broader scales than those commonly perceived at local government or various interest group levels. Thus, it would appear that one rather important function of sub-basin organizations would be to provide a venue for discussion and even debate among stakeholders with different vi-sions of the future, with the aim of creating at least mutual understanding of commonalities and differences, and an atmosphere where reasoned compromise solutions can be formulated. Substan-tial progress in this direction is being made at local to sub-basin levels in various Ping sub-basins, but progress varies among sub-basins according to the range of interests and stakeholders, as well as local leadership and proclivities to engage in such activity. Factions and sense of community (us versus them). One important difficulty in establishing the type of dialogue needed for sub-basin level dialogue and negotiation relates to the role of faction groups (pak puak). These types of groupings still appear to be quite strongly linked to identity, and often result in binary ‘us’ and ‘them’ perceptions of different interests and perspectives. In addition to common rural-urban, upstream-downstream, and other much more local differences based in social and cultural rivalries, there are often overtones of ethnicity (especially toward mountain mi-norities or chao khao), xenophobia (especially toward refugees and foreign investors), or class dis-tinctions (especially fear or jealousy toward capitalist investors and patronizing attitudes toward the poor). Again, social factions are quite normal in an open society, but mechanisms are needed for increased communication among groups that can at least help manage or reduce potential for con-flict and facilitate some degree of mutual understanding.

2 This is associated with different opinions about the best type of knowledge to guide decisions [Lebel 2004].


Often closely associated with the binary us-them views of pak puak factions, is a tendency for groups to view most issues as a zero-sum game, wherein any gains by one group can only be made at the expense of the opposing group. Thus, all points of competition are seen as a contest where the only thing that matters is ‘winning’, especially where money, property, power or prestige are involved. Accordingly, one major challenge for sub-basin organizations will be the need to develop enough of a common ‘us’ identity (puak rao) at the sub-basin level that the various stakeholder groups can engage in give-and-take negotiations and seek to make resource allocation decisions that are in the best overall interest of all groups. Again, substantial progress is being made in some sub-basins, but much remains to be done. Project meetings at the Upper Ping and Lower Ping lev-els, however, exhibited a nearly complete absence of this type of puak rao approach.3

Government bureaucracy sub-culture. Efforts to establish river basin and sub-basin organizations began as a central government initiative, and government agencies are, and will continue to be im-portant stakeholders in sub-basin organizations. As government and other stakeholders assess the various potential roles for government agencies and officials, however, they also need to consider some of the sub-cultural characteristics of government organizations, and how they affect the abil-ity of sub-basin organizations to achieve their overall goals. How will government agencies be able to engage in dialogue, coordination and negotiation con-cerning a broad set of development issues in Ping sub-basins? Government ‘line’ agencies follow their own separate lines of authority, and each time a new ministry is created, huge barriers are cre-ated almost immediately. For example, creation of MoNRE reflected a hope for increased effi-ciency and effectiveness by separating production into the agriculture ministry (with rumors of a potential merger with commerce), while MoNRE would focus on conservation of natural resources (primarily forests and water) and environmental degradation (mainly pollution). As is clearly being demonstrated by problems identified under this project, however, many important issues relate to interactions among production, natural resources and environmental quality, as well as relation-ships with issues that primarily fall under the jurisdictional domains of agencies in other ministries, local administration units, the private sector, or civil society. Lack of clear policies and lack of co-ordination among organizations are cited as two major obstacles to effective water management in Thailand [Sethaputra 2001]. We have seen in some of the sub-basins, and especially the Lower Ping, that identity as determined by agency affiliations is an important issue: To whom does the organization belong? Who will is-sue the organizational order? Will all agencies have equal representation? Will senior leaders in other agencies allow their junior staff to participate? Will junior staff fear doing things beyond their job descriptions or what their seniors want? Moreover, in the sub-culture of government agencies, career goals and incentives generally flow from above (higher levels in the hierarchy), and thus upward accountability tends to dominate. To the extent that downward accountability occurs, it is usually due primarily to other social consid-erations by the particular individual officials involved. There are numerous examples in Ping sub-basins where agency staff exhibit very sincere relationships with local leaders and local communi-ties, and have clearly sought to be as transparent and responsive to their needs and views as is pos-sible. But these relationships tend to be much more personal than structural, and experience shows that agency staff rotation policies threaten the sustainability of this approach [Kaosa-ard 2000]. How much, then, should emphasis be placed on having one or more government agencies be the ‘patron’ of sub-basin organizations? If sub-basin organizations are to have a relatively broad prob-lem-solving mandate, how can coordination or integration actually be accomplished? Is it really possible through the type of top-down sector-oriented processes inherent in government organiza-tion? On the other hand, will the bottom-up TAO or tessaban-type model be able to work effec-tively now or in the foreseeable future? Should agencies see themselves as patrons or leaders of these efforts, or should they see their role (together with academic and non-governmental groups) as service providers and stakeholder representatives of the legitimate interests of larger society 3 See Part II.C.2. regarding these meetings.


within their agency mandate? These are questions of considerable significance for development of sub-basin organizations.

(c) Analysis and negotiation skills

Systematic problem identification & analysis. Problem identification by government officials natu-rally tends to be viewed through the lens of the mandate of their agency, whereas much local prob-lem identification has been broader but unsystematic and often occurs too late to consider preventa-tive measures. Empirical data-based analysis has generally been extremely rare, and unquestioned popularized general theories backed by emotional arguments are still featured prominently at most public discussions. Indeed, some people seem to be cultivating their identities as oratorical cham-pions of various issues, and rarely do they miss an opportunity to make a performance. Seldom, however, do they seem to offer innovative practical solutions to address issues they identify. Moreover, issues often tend to be viewed as simply good or bad, rather than as involving situations where there are trade-offs that must be made between the benefits and costs accruing to different groups. Assessments of such trade-offs, however, would also often require information, data, and analytical tools that are frequently not available to or accessible by local leaders and communities. That being said, more quiet progress toward more dispassionate and reasoned analysis is being made in various sub-basins. Local leadership, sometimes assisted by staff from government agen-cies or academic or civil society institutions, often features prominently in these cases. We have seen examples at early project meetings, especially at Chiang Dao and Mae Kuang. These proc-esses are resulting in some quite insightful problem identification results. When it comes to identi-fication of clear actionable (and fundable) projects to address these problems, a somewhat more modest degree of progress is evident. This appears to be largely because some of the (quite appro-priately) identified problems – such as forest policies and lack of secure land tenure, lack of water use rights, powerful outside investors, etc. – cannot at this point be effectively addressed by locally formulated and implemented projects. It is also sometimes constrained by the focus of ideas and assistance that can be provided by agency staff or other contacts they currently have, as well as by their current perceptions of what are acceptable projects for funding under this program. Negotiation mindset. The type of progress we have seen in some sub-basins also demonstrates lo-cal progress toward development of a “negotiation mindset” that will be required to effectively de-velop and implement solutions to many, if not most problems. There are usually costs and benefits associated with all potential solutions to a problem, and their distribution is frequently not even or balanced across the range of stakeholders involved. Thus, in order to achieve sufficient participa-tion, this distribution of costs and benefits needs to be negotiated among concerned stakeholders. A negotiation mindset shifts emphasis from a focus on ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ to seeking an outcome wherein concerned stakeholders (at all levels) incur various costs and benefits that are mutually perceived as equitably distributed, as they jointly seek a ‘best possible’ outcome.

(d) Coalitions and Subsidiarity

As we have seen in early project sub-basin meetings, stakeholders feel some problems can be ad-dressed by simply constructing small check dams, developing local community forestry regula-tions, or a range of other activities that can be organized into projects that are relatively easily fundable, and which local groups can implement under their own initiative, or with assistance from nearby agency officials. Other problems, however, are much more complex and require involve-ment by a wider range of actors, skills, tools, and/or resources from different sectors and levels of society. In these cases, problems faced by sub-basin organizations will be somewhat similar to those faced by many TAO and tessabans. Where actions need participation from local groups or individuals that are in different groups or sectors of society, coalitions need to be built within sub-basins in or-der to mobilize the necessary actors and resources. There are also likely to be occasions when coa-litions need to be built among multiple sub-basins when and where it will help stakeholders achieve common goals. The network of TAO in the Ping part 1 sub-basin, and the association of TAO in Chiang Mai province are early examples of peer-to-peer coalitions. Some of the emerging networks


of smaller local networks (various types: muang fai, sub-watershed, forest conservation, village doctors, etc.) also represent beginnings of cross-sector coalitions in various sub-basins where they are occurring. The principle of subsidiarity seeks to locate decision-making at the most local level where it is pos-sible and effective.4 Following this principle, in sub-basins where more local networks – and espe-cially local sub-watershed management networks – are already active and functioning, it would make sense for them to become the basic building block units for decisions about activities they are capable of managing. Thus, issues that would come to the sub-basin level would be able to focus on those actions that require sub-basin level assessment, decisions and action. Similarly, sub-basins will need to pass some issues that they are unable to resolve at the sub-basin level up to higher levels, such as the Ping RBO or province level, for consideration. In some cases, such as land use security in upland areas classified as reserved forest land, for example, sub-basins may need to build coalition consensus among multiple sub-basins in order to effectively pass issues up to high enough levels that the issue might finally be resolved.

(e) Transparency, accountability and learning

Although there is great variation from area to area, complaints about transparency and accountabil-ity in local government matters are common. They are also common in relation to decisions by government agencies regarding regulations and activities in local areas. At the same time, there is often an aversion to monitoring and especially ‘evaluation’ activities (in both central agencies and local government), usually do to fear either of disclosure of sub-standard or dubious practices, or to suspicion that evaluators will raise unfair accusations, either because of their lack of understanding of conditions, or in order to advance their own particular interests. Thus, it has proven to be quite difficult to develop systematic monitoring systems that provide sufficient information for these types of organizations to systematically and effectively learn from their experience in order to make incremental improvements to their processes and programs. Especially given the nature of many of the issues they will be seeking to address, as well as the changing economic, social and political environment in which they will be operating, it will be an important challenge for sub-basin organi-zations to seek to overcome these barriers. Systematic monitoring and learning. There are three rather distinct, but complementary types of monitoring that will need to be conducted by sub-basin organizations. The first type is monitoring of project inputs and outputs. It seems to be widely perceived that resource allocation decisions made by sub-basin level organizations will, at least for the most part, need to be implemented through local government or central agency channels. It has repeatedly been expressed in working groups at project workshops, however, that once decisions are made to allocate resources to a spe-cific activity, funds passing through local government or central agencies need to be clearly ear-marked by the budgetary process for use only in support of the designated activities. In addition, there needs to be transparent monitoring to assure that this actually happens. This concern obvi-ously reflects previous experience, and indicates the level of skepticism that is present among at least some of the stakeholders. The second type of monitoring needs to be directed toward indicators of progress toward achieving the types of goals that sub-basin organizations and their plans, programs and projects seek to ac-complish. This is where the real learning process becomes central, as people see whether the vari-ous projects and activities are actually accomplishing what their proponents claim. Currently, gen-eral impressions and feelings of change, mixed with fears about perceived negative impacts, are used far more extensively than data from empirical studies using transparent methodologies. This needs to change. The third type of monitoring is needed to set the context and understand the nature and significance of program impacts. Sub-basin organizations will need to develop and evolve systems for monitor-ing the status of a range of conditions that corresponds to their overall mandate. Given a mandate that corresponds to the domain indicated by this current ONEP-World Bank project, their mandate

4 Further discussions of subsidiarity can be found in sections III.A. and III.B.4. of this report.


would include natural resources, environment, public health, poverty and livelihoods. This range of issues could be expanded if considerations such as the cultural and quality of life issues ad-vanced by Chiang Mai University studies [CMU 2004] are also included. Ideally, local people and institutions within the sub-basins should be operating monitoring systems and processes to the greatest extent possible, with outside “expert” components helping provide standards and cross-checks among sub-basins on data compatibility and quality, and perhaps assembling data from mul-tiple sub-basins for periodic broader analyses. At the core of this sub-basin monitoring and learning system should be a modest team of capable and relatively independent but trustworthy people. They would lead efforts to assess changing con-ditions and the impacts being made by projects, programs and other types of activities and events; to raise issues and suggestions about how programs and projects could be improved in order to im-prove their contributions; and to help identify potential new issues and/or problems that should be raised for consideration by the sub-basin organization. Their findings would feed back into prob-lem analysis and planning processes, as part of the continuous overall learning cycle of sub-basin management. Systematic information. One of the critical components of a monitoring, feedback and learning approach to sub-basin management will be an effective information management system that can provide reasonably robust and accurate information and data for the range of areas covered by the monitoring and learning system. While the range and quality of information available to local gov-ernment and civil society groups is gradually improving, sources are fragmented and access still tends to be very narrow, compartmentalized and incomplete. There are at least three lines of ongoing activity, especially in the Upper Ping, that could make ma-jor contributions to establishment of effective sub-basin information systems. • The Upper Ping spatial information system being developed by Mr. Wittaya and colleagues at

the DNP’s Huay Kaew office in Chiang Mai, under support from ONEP, which is especially strong on natural resource and forest land use data;

• The pilot provincial spatial information systems for Chiang Mai, Lamphun and Chiang Rai provinces being developed by Dr. Methi and colleagues at the CMU Multiple Cropping Centre, under support by the Thailand Research Fund, which is especially strong on land, production, and some economic and social data.

• ONEP-supported work on environmental standards and monitoring conducted by Dr. Wasan and colleagues at CMU [2005], as well as results of their earlier study [CMU 2004].

If these three lines of activity could be effectively interfaced into a system that could be operated, maintained, and updated on a long-term basis, this could provide the core of an information system for at least the Upper Ping, and project discussions indicate DWR wants to extend this approach to the Lower Ping. Dr. Methi’s system includes a Thai language interface and various decision sup-port modules. It is intended for use at provincial level, but is designed for use at district, tambon, basin, sub-basin, or local sub-watershed levels when sufficient interest and capacity are present. Ideally, two additional lines of activity could then further enhance this system: • Establishment of linkages with other types of relevant databases. While Dr. Methi’s system

already includes links with rural development databases such as Kho Cho Cho 2 Kho and agri-cultural statistics, further links could be made with databases on public health or other relevant subjects, and the system is designed to facilitate such expansion.

• Development of local monitoring activities within sub-basins and linkages of their findings with the information system. Examples could include community-based land use zoning and watershed service monitoring such as that piloted by ICRAF, Care, and DNP in Mae Chaem [Thomas 2004], which also incorporates use of the water quality bio-indicators championed by the Green World Foundation and already used by a network of schools in the Ping Basin. It should also include additional factors viewed as important by sub-basin stakeholders (at multi-ple levels), which could be added to the system.


This type of information system could also be further enhanced by linkage of the spatial database with specialized analytical techniques, including simulation or programming models, to help strengthen understanding about basic processes, trade-offs, or implications of different future de-velopment scenarios that are high priority concerns among sub-basin stakeholders. Some examples are introduced in an ICRAF report to the Rockefeller Foundation [Thomas 2004a], and more detail is presented in their ASB report to the World Bank [van Noordwijk 2003]. Summary of Suggestions and Recommendations in Part I:

1. This part of the report proposes a framework for understanding the context of efforts to build sub-basin management organizations for the Ping River Basin that includes:

• Diversity of physical, economic & social characteristics of the Ping River Basin should be viewed in the context of a gradient of conditions that begins with large areas of paddy & rolling uplands in lower parts of the basin adjacent to the Central Plains, then runs through the hills of lower & transition provinces into the inter-montane Chiang Mai Valley, and finally extends into largely mountainous upper tributary watersheds.

• Overall economic growth & development strategies, general patterns of land use change & their impacts on natural resources, and broader impacts of national land use & resource conservation policies should be assessed along this gradient using spatial & provincial time series data, along with other forms of available information.

• National natural resource governance issues & debates should be assessed for how they apply to each major portion of the river basin along this gradient.

• Current progress & status of watershed & sub-basin management, including the nature and status of any related emerging organizations, should be reviewed & assessed at major levels of watershed units & administration units, from local sub-watersheds & tambons to river system & national levels.

• Hierarchies of administrative units & natural watershed units should be compared as part of an initial assessment of levels where interaction needs to occur between admini-stration & watershed units, and potential strengths & weaknesses at each level.

• In the current Ping Basin context, initial assessment of comparative strengths & weak-nesses indicates the sub-basin level should place emphasis on its potential for provid-ing a venue for interaction between top-down & bottom-up processes of organization for watershed & natural resource management.

• Both non-governmental planning initiatives & regular local development planning processes need to be reviewed in terms of how they can & should interact with basin & sub-basin management at various levels.

2. Efforts to build sub-basin management organizations should strive to address current key gaps & operational issues that include:

• Effective & consistent efforts need to be made to reduce confusion & uncertainty about river basin & sub-basin programs, which is largely due to repeated rounds of planning under changing mandates & shifting responsibilities of agencies & organizations, with-out a clear commitment to actual implementation.

• Venues & processes should foster stakeholder discussion & debate aimed at building mutual understanding of commonalities and differences in interests & visions of the fu-ture, development of a common identity among stakeholders at the sub-basin level, and an atmosphere where reasoned compromise solutions can be formulated.


• Government agencies need to examine their own strengths & weaknesses, and join with other stakeholders in identifying means for overcoming problems associated with poor coordination & cooperation among agencies, & lack of downward accountability.

• Problem identification & analysis needs to become more empirical & data based, and recognize the need for negotiating trade-offs among the benefits & costs accruing to different stakeholder groups. There needs to be less focus on winning/losing, and more focus on equitably achieved ‘best possible’ outcomes.

• Principles of subsidiarity & specialization need to be used in identifying & building appropriate coalitions that can help achieve broader & more difficult goals.

• In order to provide a solid basis for transparency, accountability & learning, sub-basin management organizations should place substantial emphasis on building their capacity to conduct three types of monitoring: (1) project inputs & outputs: (2) progress toward achieving program & plan objectives; (3) status of the range of conditions correspond-ing to their overall mandate. Partnerships & coalitions will be needed to effectively achieve all these types of monitoring.

3. A systematic & effective information management system needs to be developed at the Ping River Basin level. It needs to build on previous & on-going work, and provide link-ages with emerging sub-basin organizations that can support their functions & further de-velopment.


II. Selecting Pilot Sub-basins

This part of the report seeks to pursue in greater detail concepts, processes and data associated with surveying the diversity of Ping River sub-basins, and proposing a technical approach for selecting pilot sub-basins for the project. This approach is then compared with the actual pilot sub-basin se-lection process that occurred during implementation of the project.

A. Purpose of selecting priority sub-basins This project aims to select three Ping River sub-basins where intensive pilot projects will develop, establish and test “model” participatory sub-basin management systems. Results from these pilot sub-basins are then to be applied to other sub-basins in the Ping River Basin. In order to maximize the potential relevance of results in the pilot basins for application elsewhere in the larger basin, the three pilot sub-basins need to represent a reasonable range of conditions pre-sent in the Ping River Basin. Thus, from a technical point of view, sub-basin selection needs to focus to a large degree on sampling issues, and particularly on sampling those conditions that are likely to affect the nature of sub-basin management organization structure, composition and par-ticipatory processes, as well as the range of potential and actual natural resource management prob-lems that need to be addressed. At the same time, there may be substantial variation among sub-basins in the complexity and diffi-culty of building effective participatory management organization. While the sample needs to avoid selecting only the easiest cases, which would limit their relevance for other sub-basins, it also needs to avoid a focus on only the most difficult cases, which would make it unlikely that signifi-cant results could be achieved within the limited time frame of the pilot projects. Moreover, it needs to be clear to local leaders in all sub-basins of the Ping River Basin that selec-tion of the three pilot sub-watersheds does NOT mean that those not selected will receive no sup-port for efforts to build participatory management organizations within their sub-basins. They need to clearly understand the government’s continuing commitment to efforts throughout the basin, and that anything they can do to help achieve significant positive results in the pilot sub-basins will help accelerate the rate at which broader, more inclusive efforts can be planned and implemented.

B. Proposed Sub-Basin Selection Criteria: Pragmatic technical approach

Although it is an intellectually interesting exercise to imagine innovative conceptual approaches for criteria that could help inform selection of pilot sub-basins (aka “micro-watersheds) under this pro-ject, reality calls for a far more pragmatic approach. Indeed, the approach must be able to build on existing data from readily available secondary sources, it must be relatively easy to implement within a very short time horizon, and it must be simple enough to be readily communicated to a wide range of stakeholders in the Ping Basin. At the same time, however, it should be reasonably rigorous, quantitative, logically sound, and able to address major issues that underlie motivation for initiating, conducting and providing funding support for this project. This section seeks to articu-late an approach that aims to meet as many of these divergent needs as possible. Relationships with Sub-Basin Rankings in Recent Studies of the Ping River Basin

The author has been provided reports on two previous efforts to rank sub-basins of the Ping River Basin: (1) Chiang Mai University Ping Basin Master Plan Study for ONEP [CMU 2004]; and (2) Panya Consultants Proposal to ONEP [Panya 2004] and an earlier report to DWP [Panya 2003]. These were based on recent and fairly extensive efforts to collect, compile and assess various types


of information and data in a systematic manner. For the purposes of pilot sub-basin selection under this project, key aspects of their approaches and the one used in this report include:

• Ranking Approaches. The CMU sub-basin study appears to be directed toward identifying priorities for investment according to the relative “importance” of sub-basins for conservation and development of the Ping Basin. Criteria were divided into three categories: physical and ecological, historical and cultural, and economic and social. The Panya study took an approach that sought to rank sub-basins according to the intensity of problems that need to be addressed in each sub-basin regarding natural resource management, with particular emphasis on water; needs for additional criteria are acknowledged in their proposal to ONEP. Given their some-what different approaches to ranking, values for some indicators need to be inverted to make them conceptually compatible with the other source. This report draws on various of their data, and in some cases directly on indicators developed under both studies.

• Scoring Approaches. The CMU sub-basin scoring system appears to be based on a mix of thresholds for quantitative data and (for indicators using multiple or less quantitative types of data or information) expert opinion said to be based on review of a quite wide range of data and information sources. The precise nature of many of these expert interpretations, however, re-mains somewhat obscure. The Panya scoring system relied more heavily on interpretation of quantitative data according to thresholds based on expert opinion. Since many of the new indi-cators proposed in this report seek to combine multiple data components in various ways, most rely primarily on a combination of quantitative data and relative weights. Relative weights are transparent and can be adjusted according to expert opinion or stakeholder consensus.

• Scaling Systems. Both reports produced sub-basin rankings based on indicators that employed a three-level scoring system, which appears to be a quite reasonable and useful approach. The CMU study used a scale of 1, 2, 3, while Panya used a scale of 0, 0.5, 1. Thus, results from one can be easily converted to be compatible with the other. Indicators in this report also use a 3 point maximum value scheme, which facilitates inclusion of some useful indicator values al-ready estimated as part of those efforts.

• Indicator Weights. The Panya approach used a simple average of scores across its indicators, implying equal weights for each, but giving de facto weights resulting from the relative number of indicators representing each subject area. Preliminary indicators in their proposal to ONEP reflect an emphasis on water resources, but they note that additional types of indicators need to be added. The CMU approach used weighting factors to equalize relative influence of its three major subject groupings on overall scores for sub-basin ranking. Various indicators proposed in this report use weights in calculating values for an individual indicator to affect relative in-fluence of data components on overall indicator scores. Provision is also made for a transpar-ent method of assigning relative weights among indicators.

1. Grouping Sub-Basins into Lower, Middle & Upper Zones of the Ping Basin

This section develops a simple criterion and practical quantitative indicator for a more meaningful and systematic approach to classifying sub-basins according to lower, middle and upper sub-basin groups within the overall context of the Ping River Basin. A range of available data is then used to assess the characteristics of these groupings, and their relative scale and role in the context of the overall Ping River Basin. This provides a basis for a brief survey discussion of major types of stakeholders associated with forces driving change in land and water use in the Ping Basin, and how distribution of their relative role may vary across sub-basins and groupings. All of this pro-vides input into articulation of a minimal simple set of key criteria that may be applied for pilot sub-basin selection under the limitations and constraints faced by the project. Following sections articulate specific indicators for each of the three remaining major sets of these criteria.

(a) Relative Sub-Basin Position in the Ping River Basin

Project documentation suggests that the three sub-basins should be selected so that “lower, middle and upper” sections of the Ping River Basin are represented by one sub-basin each. This was ini-tially interpreted by Panya Consultants (and others) to mean southern, middle, and northern por-


tions of the Ping River Basin. After considerable discussion among consultants and colleagues in ONEP, it has been agreed that other interpretations would be considered. An alternative approach for interpreting the “lower, middle and upper” sub-basin issue is to con-sider the physical characteristics of the sub-basins. Our experience has been that many conditions and issues differ between what we have often called “upper tributary watersheds” and their more “lowland-dominated mainstream” counterparts. One of the major characteristics that helps distin-guish between these types of watersheds is the relative proportions of the area that is located within different altitude zones. Important differences among conditions and traditional agroecosystems found in mountain areas throughout mainland Southeast Asia correlate closely with altitudinal gradients. Accordingly, three major altitudinal zones have commonly been recognized around the region, corresponding to what can be characterized in the English language as: lowland, midland and highland zones. Indeed, this distinction is so basic that distinct terms in the Lao language [Lao loum, Lao theung, Lao soung] have been used for many generations to refer to the people whose history and culture is most closely associated with each zone. A very generalized illustration of how these three altitudinal zones manifest themselves in northern Thailand is provided in Figure 2-1 [Thomas 2002]. The main fea-tures of this diagram are that natural forest and ecological con-ditions vary along an altitudinal gradient, as do the traditional (in-dicated here as before 1960) land use systems and associated ethnic groups. As suggested in the right side of the diagram, current land use and settlement patterns often deviate from traditional ones due to a variety of government policy, economic and social forces that have brought change to this re-gion during recent decades.

Figure 2-1. Differences among altitude zones

This author proposed that distinctions between “middle” and “upper” portions of the Ping River Basin are more appropriate when made on the basis of the relative distribution of land among these three altitudinal zones. There appears to be general agreement among consultants and ONEP staff that the “lower” portion of the Ping River Basin should refer to sub-basins located below the Bhumibol Reservoir, since the existence of this structure fundamentally affects the nature of conditions, issues and potential man-agement approaches associated with at least the main channel of the Ping River. Indeed, this dis-tinction between upper and lower portions of the Ping River Basin was made by the Office of the National Water Resources Committee after construction of this reservoir in 1964. Even for the sub-basins located in the “lower” portion of the Ping River Basin, however, it may still be instructive to assess the relative distribution of land and people among these altitude zones. In order to incorporate altitude zone considerations into overall Ping River Basin assessments and the project’s pilot sub-basin selection process, operational definition of zone boundaries needs to be agreed upon by project stakeholders. As a first step in this process, the following are proposed:

• Lowland-Midland Boundary. The altitude of 600 masl is proposed for this boundary because it appears to have been advocated and used by numerous natural resource management re-lated agencies as the boundary above which land use (and land tenure) should be restricted by government policies. In addition, the survey of ethnic minority villages conducted in as-


sociation with the National Security Council [DPW 1998] uses this as the lower boundary of their survey, in line with various “highland” policies of the government.

• Midland-Highland Boundary. The altitude of 1,000 masl is proposed for this boundary be-cause it is considered as the rough lower boundary of what was the opium production zone in earlier years, and because areas near or above that altitude appear to generally be associ-ated with hill evergreen or cloud forest types that are the highest priority concern of interests concerned with protection of watershed headlands and biodiversity.

This classification is easily converted into a spatial data format derived from sub-basin boundaries and a digital elevation (terrain) model. An example of this type of spatial classification of the Ping River basin and its sub-basins is provided in Figure 2-2. This map was constructed using sub-basin boundary data from ONEP, and a medium resolution digital elevation model constructed by World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) staff using data from ICRAF and the Thailand Environment Institute (TEI) derived from 1:250,000 topographic maps with a 100 meter contour interval. This level of resolution should be sufficient for sub-basin classification purposes at this stage of the project. This map also includes further sub-divisions of both the lowland and highland zones. The lowland zone is divided into areas above and below 300 masl, with the low portion approximating areas in major valley floors where paddy production is usually extensive. The highland zone is divided into areas above and below 1,600 masl, with the upper portion approximating mountain peak zones where cloud forest is often a prominent feature, and agricultural cultivation is relatively rare. Criterion 1. Groupings of middle and upper sub-basins within the Ping River Basin should be made according to bias in their relative distribution of land area and human populations among lowland, midland and highland zones. Indicator 1.1: Altitude Zone Area Bias Score. In order to derive a quantitative indicator that reflects variation among sub-basins in the distribution of land areas within these zones, Figure 2-3 illustrates how a “Lowland Zone Bias Score” can be calculated from land areas in each zone de-rived from the map. Under this method, a score of 3.0 would indicate all land is in the lowland zone, while 1.0 would indicate all land is in the highland zone. Reversing the values of the relative weights would produce a “Highland Zone Bias Score” that would reverse the order of the scores indicated in the table. Based on these calculations, Ping sub-basins are listed in the order of their Lowland Area Bias Scores. Within the Upper Ping Basin, we can see that four sub-basins (Ping part 2, Mae Kuang, Mae Lee, Mae Had) have a strong area bias toward the lowlands, with scores of 2.5 or greater and more than 50 percent of their land area in the lowland zone. Thus, these form the core of the pro-posed “middle sub-basin” category. Six other sub-basins (lower & upper Mae Chaem, Mae Taeng, Mae Tuen, Mae Klang, Mae Khan) have lowland bias scores less than 2.0, and all have more than 20 percent of their area in highland zones combined with less than 30 percent in lowland zones. They form the core of the proposed “upper sub-basin” category. The remaining four sub-basins (Ping parts 1 & 3, Mae Rim, Mae Ngad) fall in between these two groups, and all have a similarly more balanced distribution among the three altitude zones. Of the three, Mae Rim differs in its much higher population density, and a more proportionate share of urban settlements and industry (see the following section for data). The Ping part 3 sub-basin dif-fers in that it includes a long section of the main channel of the Ping River. Thus, it is proposed that a lowland bias score of 2.30 be used as the cut-off point between the “middle sub-basin” and the “upper sub-basin” categories.

Figure 2-2. Altitude Zone Map of the Ping River Basin


unit: square kilometers unit: Percent unit: Score 1.1.

Midland Lowland Midland Highland Lowland Midland HighlandShare of 300 - 600 - 1,000 - 600 -

Ping Basin 600m 1,000m 1,600m 1,000m Bias

Score percent sq. km. >50% >20% 3.00 2.00 1.00

11 Mae Chaem upper 5.9 2,061 - 34 827 1,150 51 2 40 58 0.05 0.80 0.58 1.434 3 Mae Taeng 5.6 1,958 - 129 902 893 34 7 46 47 0.20 0.92 0.47 1.592 9 Mae Klang 1.8 616 33 145 177 227 34 29 29 42 0.87 0.57 0.42 1.866

12 Mae Chaem lower 5.3 1,834 21 320 938 531 23 19 51 30 0.56 1.02 0.30 1.884 14 Mae Teun (CM+Tak) 8.4 2,896 74 608 1,343 852 19 24 46 30 0.71 0.93 0.30 1.934 7 Mae Khan 5.3 1,833 10 417 894 496 16 23 49 28 0.70 0.98 0.28 1.954 1 Ping part 1 5.7 1,974 - 795 857 308 13 40 43 16 1.21 0.87 0.16 2.240 2 Mae Ngad 3.7 1,285 - 560 516 208 1 44 40 16 1.31 0.80 0.16 2.273

"upper sub-basins" 42 14,458 138 3,009 6,453 4,666 192 22 45 34 0.65 0.89 0.34 1.882 5 Mae Rim 1.5 508 7 225 206 71 0 45 41 14 1.36 0.81 0.14 2.315

10 Ping part 3 (CM+Tak) 10.0 3,452 511 1,033 1,511 395 1 45 44 11 1.34 0.88 0.11 2.332 8 Mae Lee 6.0 2,081 34 1,221 789 37 - 60 38 2 1.81 0.76 0.02 2.585 6 Mae Kuang (w/M.Tha) 7.9 2,734 307 1,583 670 167 8 69 24 6 2.07 0.49 0.06 2.627

13 Mae Had 1.5 520 55 331 126 8 - 74 24 2 2.22 0.48 0.02 2.725 4 Ping part 2 (w/M.Aow) 4.7 1,616 454 918 165 79 1 85 10 5 2.55 0.20 0.05 2.799

"middle sub-basins" 31 10,911 1,367 5,310 3,467 757 10 61 32 7 1.84 0.64 0.07 2.542 Upper Ping Basin 73 25,370 1,506 8,319 9,920 5,423 202 38.7 39.1 22.2 1.16 0.78 0.22 2.166

17 Klong Wang Chao 1.9 649 217 178 204 47 2 61 31 8 1.83 0.63 0.08 2.532 16 Huay Mae Thor 1.9 644 173 191 264 17 - 56 41 3 1.69 0.82 0.03 2.539 19 Klong Suan Mark 3.3 1,132 582 180 227 132 11 67 20 13 2.02 0.40 0.13 2.546 15 Ping part 4 8.6 2,983 1,856 614 447 67 0 83 15 2 2.48 0.30 0.02 2.805 20 Lower Ping 8.6 2,980 2,664 156 141 18 - 95 5 1 2.84 0.09 0.01 2.940 18 Klong Mae Raka 2.6 902 852 42 8 - - 99 1 - 2.97 0.02 - 2.992

Lower Ping Basin 27 9,289 6,343 1,361 1,290 282 14 82.9 13.9 3.2 2.49 0.28 0.03 2.798

Ping Basin 100 34,659 7,849 9,680 11,210 5,704 216 51 32 17 1.52 0.65 0.17 2.335

Percentage DistributionArea Distribution

multiplied by % of area> 1,600 m <600m >1,000m

Lowland HighlandRelative Weight

Area Bias Score Lowland

Zone TotalSub-Basin <300 m

Figure 2-3. Calculation of the Lowland Zone Area Bias Score for Ping Sub-Basins



Figure 2-4a. Lower Sub-Basins

Figure 2-4b. Middle Sub-Basins

Figure 2-4c. Upper Sub-Basins

These considerations result in this grouping of sub-basins:

• Lower Sub-Basins: Ping part 4, Lower Ping, Klong Wang Chao, Huay Mae Thor, Klong Suan Mark, Klong Mae Raka

• Middle Sub-Basins: Ping parts 2 & 3, Mae Kuang, Mae Lee, Mae Had, Mae Rim

• Upper Sub-Basins: Mae Taeng, Mae Chaem (both), Mae Tuen, Mae Klang, Mae Khan, Ping part 1, Mae Ngad

These groupings of sub-basins, as illustrated in Figure 2-4, appear to correspond rather well with our general perceptions of major differences in the relative distributions of natural resource characteristics of “upper tributary” versus “major lowland valley-oriented” sub-basins. This appears to support our perception that the Altitude Zone Area Bias Score is a useful tool for distinguishing between “upper” and “middle” sub-basins in the Upper Ping River Basin, as well as for identifying where middle and upper zone natural resources are more or less important in sub-basins of the Lower Ping Basin.

(b) Relative Scale & Role of Sub-Basin Groups

Having established a rationale, criterion and quantitative indicator for grouping sub-basins into lower, middle and upper categories, we can now turn to their relative importance in the biophysical and human settlement regimes of the overall Ping River Basin. In order to assess distribution of some of the Ping River Basin’s major overall characteristics among the various sub-basins and groupings, Figure 2-5 has been constructed from a combination of data available from ONEP, Panya, and the study by CMU [2004]. Some data for Mae Chaem was not in formats that could differentiate between “upper” and “lower” areas where ONEP seeks to divide the physical sub-basin. Otherwise, the table is reasonably complete. To help assesses the degree to which the proposed criterion and quantitative indicator for establishing sub-basin groupings appear to be effective in differentiating among groups with significantly different characteristics, we can see the following patterns in the data in Figure 2-5:

• Lower Sub-Basins include a quite balanced 27 percent of the area, 28 percent of the people, and 26 percent of the total income of the Ping River Basin. They have a disproportionately large share, however, of the urban people (39%), industry (53%), and agriculture – both total (50%) and irrigated (48%) – due largely to their high concentrations in two larger sub-basins (Ping part 4, Lower Ping) through which the Ping River’s main channel flows. Perhaps not surprisingly, they also account for dispro-portionately low shares of the Ping River Basin’s total forest cover (19%) and protected conservation (19%) and watershed (14%) forest zones, about half of which is located in three smaller tributary sub-basins. Their shares of runoff and soil erosion are roughly proportionate to their share of overall basin area.

Figure 2-5. Sub-Basin Shares of Major Ping River Basin Characteristics Terrain

Lowland TOTAL URBAN POP TOTAL UPLAND URBAN NO. OF OVERALL TOTAL IRRIG SCRUB DEGRAD TOTALBias AREA AREA Density PEOPLE MINORITY PEOPLE INDUST INCOME AGRIC AGRIC FOREST FOREST FOREST

unit: score per km2 602 Ping part 1 2.24 6 3 40 3 7 1 0 2 4 1 1 21 5603 Mae Ngad 2.27 4 3 52 3 2 1 0 3 2 4 1 2 4604 Mae Taeng 1.59 6 3 37 3 6 1 1 2 4 7 0 2 7608 Mae Khan 1.95 5 5 59 4 8 4 2 4 3 5 9 2 6610 Mae Klang 1.87 2 1 72 2 5 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 2612 Mae Chaem upper 1.43 6 1 ** ** ** 0 0 ** 1 ** 0 1 8613 Mae Chaem lower 1.88 5 1 25 4 21 0 0 4 2 2 1 2 7615 Mae Teun 1.93 8 1 18 2 12 0 0 2 3 2 0 7 12

Upper Sub-Basins 1.88 42 15 36 21 62 9 6 18 20 22 16 39 52605 Ping part 2 2.80 5 26 404 25 4 40 29 32 8 7 8 8 2606 Mae Rim 2.32 1 2 153 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 0 2 2607 Mae Kuang 2.63 8 20 108 12 2 7 9 12 10 13 13 9 6609 Mae Lee 2.59 6 6 71 6 12 1 1 6 5 6 17 6 6611 Ping part 3 2.33 10 5 23 3 10 1 0 1 4 0 20 3 12614 Mae Had 2.73 2 1 84 2 1 1 0 2 1 3 1 1 2

Middle Sub-Basins 2.54 31 60 117 51 31 52 41 56 29 30 58 29 29616 Ping part 4 2.81 9 8 57 7 1 6 8 6 8 6 20 19 7617 Huay Mae Thor 2.54 2 0 25 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 2618 Klong Wang Chao 2.53 2 0 31 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 2619 Klong Mae Raka 2.99 3 1 31 1 0 2 1 1 4 2 4 5 2620 Klong Suan Mark 2.55 3 1 60 3 0 0 2 2 4 2 0 1 3621 Lower Ping 2.94 9 14 121 15 4 30 40 15 32 38 2 0 2

Lower Sub-Basins 2.80 27 25 72 28 8 39 53 26 50 48 26 32 19

Ping Basin 2.33 100 100 70 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100data source: ICRAF ONEP CMU calc Panya MOI Panya Panya Panya Panya Panya CMU CMU CMU

% total Percent of total Ping Basin % total % total

Sub-Basin

Land Cropped Area Forest Cover AreaPeople, Settlement, Income Soil Loss River

FOREST PROTECT WS 1AB TOTAL ANNUAL DRY SEAS STREAMLANDS FOREST ZONE EROSION RUNOFF RUNOFF LEVEL

% total score6 11 7 7 6 6 34 9 5 4 4 4 27 11 11 6 7 8 26 2 6 7 5 6 22 4 2 3 3 3 27 0 11 ** ** ** 26 11 8 13 13 16 2

10 10 14 15 11 9 249 58 64 55 49 52

2 2 2 2 4 4 32 1 2 4 3 4 26 3 5 5 9 6 25 1 3 4 3 2 2

11 14 8 4 5 5 32 1 1 3 4 5 2

28 23 22 22 26 257 6 5 6 6 6 32 2 2 2 1 1 22 3 2 2 2 2 22 0 0 1 2 2 24 5 3 4 4 4 25 3 2 7 10 8 3

23 19 14 23 25 23

100 100 100 100 100 100KUFF KUFF ONEP Panya Panya Panya CMU

% total % total

WaterState Forest Zone Area

** These data for Mae Chaem cannot be split into upper and lower sub-basins – overall data listed under lower Mae Chaem

Disproportionately large share Disproportionately small share



• Middle Sub-Basins account for 31 percent of the area, but 51 percent of the people and 56 percent of the total income of the Ping River Basin. They also have more than half (51%) of the people living in urban areas, and 41 percent of the listed industries in the Ping Basin. These high shares are largely due to concentrations of these features in the Ping part 2 and Mae Kuang sub-basins. The grouping has a roughly area proportionate overall share of agriculture (29% of total, 30% of irrigated), upland ethnic minorities (31%), total forest cover (29%) and total forest lands (28%), but a somewhat lower share of protected conservation (23%) and wa-tershed (22%) forest zones, runoff (26% annual, 25% dry season), and estimated soil erosion (22%).

• Upper Sub-Basins cover 42% of the area, but include only 21% of the people and 18 percent of the total income of the Ping River Basin. They account for only 9% of urban people and 6% of industry, but they have a share of agriculture (20% of total, 22% of irrigated) proportionate to their share of total population. Their disproportionately large shares are in upland ethnic mi-nority populations (62%), total forest cover (52%), protected conservation (58%) and water-shed (64%) forest zones, total state forest lands (49%), runoff (49% of annual, 52% of dry sea-son), and estimated soil erosion (55%). Their spatially proportionate share of degraded forest (39%) is due to a concentration in the Ping part 1 sub-basin, whereas estimated soil erosion is disproportionately high in Mae Tuen and Mae Khan sub-basins.

These characterizations further confirm significant differences among lower, middle and upper sub-basins of the Ping River Basin, even though groups are based only on consideration of land area distributions among altitude zones. In selecting sub-basins to “represent” these conditions, how-ever, it is also very important to note the significant variation among sub-basins that remains within each of these categories. While smaller sub-basins (in terms of area or people) may appear attrac-tive for a short-term pilot project such as this one, it is the smaller sub-basins that appear to vary the most from overall characteristics of each of the groupings. And for many factors, this type of varia-tion appears to be greatest in the lower and middle sub-basin groupings.


2. Current stakeholder and institutional context for sub-basin organizations

The project seeks to focus on pilot efforts to develop participatory approaches, methods and tools for building sub-basin management organizations. Results from these pilot efforts are intended to provide the basis for informing efforts in the remaining sub-basins of the Ping River Basin. Since requirements for engaging major stakeholders in participatory processes are likely to vary across different types of interests, groups and organizations, there should be a substantial priority placed on inclusion of as many of the major stakeholder groups in the Ping River Basin as possible (and practical) in the pilot projects. Given the substantial differences in characteristics of sub-basins in the lower, middle and upper groupings, however, we do not necessarily need to believe that all stakeholders with a presence in the basin need to have an equal emphasis in each of the pilot sub-basins. On the other hand, it would not be prudent to focus on only one or two major elements in a particular sub-basin if impor-tant minority interests are also present. Thus, the emphasis needs to be on including an appropriate “mix” of stakeholders in pilot participatory management processes. Patterns that emerge from the data in Figure 2-5 can provide a good starting point for identifying some important characteristics of the “footprint” left by major stakeholder groups associated with forces driving land use change in each sub-basin. There are also very important elements associated with human organization that underlie these patterns, which are particularly important for charac-terizing the full range of key stakeholders that should or could play key roles in pilot sub-basin management organizations. Thus, this section provides a quite simplified discussion seeking to summarize the rationale through which various stakeholders are linked with trends of change associated with natural resource man-agement in the Ping Basin and major driving forces underlying these trends [Thomas 2004b]. This information sets the stage for identification of further criteria and indicators in the following sec-tions. Most of the tables in this section are derived from the author’s analysis of 2003 data ex-tracted from a national village-level database (กชช.2ค), which were provided by ONEP staff. These are reported by village leaders every two years on an administrative village basis. Especially in mountain areas, multiple local communities and settlements are grouped into single administrative villages, so that data represent an overall pattern that can mask diversity among individual settle-ments, which can vary by ethnicity and other factors. Nevertheless, this is perhaps the most exten-sive database available at the village level, and its overall coverage includes the entire country.

(a) Central government agencies

One of the major lines of argument used to justify river basin management organizations is the need to bring more coherence to government programs that are implemented by sector-oriented minis-tries and their line implementation units. However, despite at least thirty years of conscious efforts to adjust policies, organizational structures, regulations, programs and budgets to facilitate cross-ministerial coordination, relatively little progress is apparent at the central government level. In-deed, even cross-departmental coordination within individual ministries is a very daunting task, and a frequent source of problems for the ‘beneficiaries’ of complex or ‘integrated’ government pro-grams. Twenty-five years ago, for example, this author worked in a unit of the Permanent Secre-tary’s office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives responsible for coordinating complex and integrated projects in the northeast region of Thailand. Although sound in theory, this effort ultimately failed because of rivalries and lack of cooperation among departments in the ministry, and the lack of authority in the permanent secretary’s office to enforce compliance. There appears to have been very little change in these types of relationships since that time. Higher level government leaders and technocrats have long recognized the importance and diffi-culty of achieving cross-agency coordination, as well as needs for decision-making that could more effectively address the diverse range of needs of communities in different parts of the country. De-centralization has been seen for quite some time as an important potential approach for accomplish-ing these objectives. Thus, major efforts were made by a series of government leaders and their administrations get ministries to place their ‘field’ implementation units under the authority of pro-


vincial governors, who would seek to oversee development of integrated provincial plans and coor-dinated implementation programs within their provinces. While various ministries did comply with these efforts, at least to some degree, there has also been substantial resistance. Indeed, various de-partments successfully argued the need for ‘regional’ offices (each with their own peculiar spatial definitions for regions) to provide technical support for operations under provincial authorities, or to manage natural resource units that include areas in multiple provinces (such as national forests, parks or water resources). Many of these units then found it necessary to establish numerous smaller units or stations to accomplish their tasks (such as watershed management). Thus, of the ministries and departments with mandates relevant to issues that this project seeks to address, there are three basic types of overall structures: • central agencies with no field units beyond the regional or provincial level (such as ONEP); • central agencies with field units that have been decentralized by placing them under the direct

authority of provincial governors (such as district agricultural extension or forestry offices); • central agencies with field offices that remain under the direct control of central offices Examples of units under direct central control that are very relevant to natural resource manage-ment in the Ping River Basin include forestry units in charge of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and headwater conservation units, as well as units responsible for forest protection, forest fire con-trol and community forestry. Irrigation and land development units, as well as military and border patrol police, also operate in this mode and have their own jurisdictional boundaries. Other types of government organizations, such as schools and academic institutions, for example, can also play roles that can be important at particular points in space and time, but these tend to occur on more of an ad hoc than a programmatic basis. The resulting mosaic of government units in many areas of the Ping River Basin is often quite complex, and responsibility for ‘coordination’ among these units falls largely on the local admini-stration hierarchy.

(b) Local administration

The local administration hierarchy centers on career official staff who have long managed govern-ment administration at provincial and district levels under the authority of the Ministry of Interior’s Department of Local Administration. Their authority and functions were extended further down to the tambon and village levels through establishment of the official positions of kamnan and village headmen.5 While the local administration apparatus is ubiquitous throughout all sub-basins, the presence or absence of units representing ‘line’ ministries can vary somewhat, as can their relative capacities and resources. Decentralization programs brought staff from various other central agen-cies into administrations at provincial and district levels. Agriculture, forestry, public health, educa-tion, community development, police and others have a history of representation at district levels, but reorganization during recent years is reducing their presence. Some, including forestry, have been abolished. A wider range of agencies is represented at the provincial level. While staff at provincial and district levels are career staff who rotate at regular intervals among positions around the country, kamnan and village headmen are local residents who are nominated for appointment through local election processes. Although this local administration hierarchy of provincial governors, district officers, kamnan and village headmen is usually responsible for ‘co-ordinating’ government agency activities in their respective domains, such coordination usually has few means for assuring compliance or accountability.

(c) Forestry agencies and policies

An important example of units under direct central control that are very relevant to natural resource management in the Ping River Basin include forestry units in charge of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and headwater conservation units, as well as units responsible for forest protection and forest fire control. These units, which are all under the jurisdiction of the Department of National 5 See Figure 1-19 for spatial depiction of provincial, district and tambon jurisdictional units


Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) all play especially prominent roles in upper sub-basins, but may also be strategically important in other sub-basins. Community forestry units under the jurisdiction of the Royal Forest Department (RFD) can also be very important in areas that are inside boundaries of the national reserved forest lands, but outside protected areas under the juris-diction of agencies under the DNP. While data on state forest zone areas in Figure 2-5 help indicate their likely distribution among sub-basins, spatial datasets with specific unit locations and jurisdic-tional domains would be even more useful. As discussed in the first part of this report, about 80 percent of the total land area of the Ping River Basin has been designated as state forest land, with various categories of forest land status legally restricting land use for other purposes. About 46 percent of the basin is designated as reserved for-est land. Yet there are many villages and their associated agroecosystems that occupy portions of land in reserved forest zones, many of which (but not all) have been doing so since long before re-served forest status was established. Logging concessions in reserved forest land were a quite sub-stantial source of local conflict between forestry interests and local communities in the past, but since logging concessions were revoked in 1989, logging conflicts have moved into the realm of entirely illegal activity. Similarly, there are various national parks and wildlife sanctuaries that cover about 34 percent of the Ping River Basin, for which there are very strong laws against other forms of land use. A relatively small but significant number of people are dependent on portions of these areas for their livelihoods. Within the last 20 years, all land in the Ping River Basin has also been classified by its watershed characteristics, resulting in increasingly strong restrictions on land use according to watershed clas-sification zones. These restrictions culminate in class 1 status wherein only undisturbed natural for-est is viewed as an “acceptable” land use; about 37 percent of the Ping River Basin has been as-signed class 1 status. As indicated in Figure 2-5, class 1 watershed lands are present in all sub-basins, but upper sub-basins account for nearly two-thirds of the total area. Moreover, all lands zoned as class 1 watershed that are not already within the boundaries of a national park or wildlife sanctuary have been quietly placed by forestry officials into the category of lands being “prepared” for protected conservation area status (i.e. national park or wildlife sanctuary). Local communities in these areas, which cover nearly 20 percent of the Basin’s total area, have virtually no input into, or usually even knowledge of, these processes prior to the formal announcement that their area has been declared a national park or wildlife sanctuary. Tensions and conflict in these areas are high. Different government agencies are responsible for each of these types of forest land zones, and each considers themselves to be the guardian and manager, if not the “owner”, of land within that zone – any other land use conducted without specific written permission from higher level authori-ties in Bangkok is technically illegal, and those who engage in such practices are subject to expul-sion and legal punishment at any time. While in reality, forestry officials often accept and work with many of the local communities in their area, this has long been dependent on the views of the individual officials involved, and thus subject to change as officials are reassigned or policies change in Bangkok. In areas where illegal logging still occurs, there are often influential people who finance, support, direct and benefit from it behind the scenes, whereas local villagers are often hired to do the work and take the blame if authorities catch them in the act. In order to help assess how these factors affect stakeholder interests in different sub-basins, Figure 2-6 displays the spatial distribution of state forest land claims and watershed classification zones with sub-basin boundaries. Village reported data on their land holdings, including their legal and local status are presented in Figure 2-7. The relative proportion of agriculture in these village claimed areas is also given, and these data appear to be quite conservative in estimating the extent of non-agriculture land claims in upper sub-basins. As expected, the proportion of village claims located in state forest lands is far higher in upper sub-basins, where many are in protected or class 1 watershed areas. There is also a problem in a significant number (21 percent) of lower sub-basin villages, where it mostly involves reserved forest areas and many have SPK or STK certificates. Proportions of non-agricultural land are also higher in middle and upper sub-basins, while house-holds renting additional agricultural land is highest in lower sub-basins.


Source: based on DNP spatial data obtained from Dr. Monthon of the Kasetsart University Faculty of Forestry

Figure 2-6. Spatial Distribution of Forest Land Use Restriction Zones in the Ping Basin

Figure 2-7. Village reported land holdings in Ping sub-basins, 2003

ClaimsVillages House- Persons holdings state owner SPK or own own + rentreported holds reported agr+fallow >90% 75-90% 50-74% <50% total w/trees forest deed STK only rent only

unit: number number number sq km % vill % vill % vill % vill % area % area % area % area % area % hh % hh % hh602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 505 30 30 13 26 8 7 44 18 9 74 15 11 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 591 27 49 16 8 6 4 56 34 1.9 68 12 19 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 228 23 35 23 19 3 2 37 19 4 78 6 15 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 1,130 37 29 26 8 20 19 37 13 2.3 79 14 8 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 478 22 29 34 15 6 5 17 11 0.5 80 13 7 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 1,373 16 10 29 45 16 13 96 0 5 95 3 2 613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 588 13 38 36 12 10 7 76 3 4 91 6 2 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 180 32 56 5 6 1 1 74 8 0.7 90 4 6

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 5,074 28 35 22 15 12 10 60 11 4 80 11 9 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 651 35 27 17 21 3 2 16 68 4 71 16 13 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 347 13 30 30 27 7 6 24 23 1.2 64 18 18 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 1,482 23 36 20 21 6 4 21 56 7 75 14 10 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 1,275 22 48 20 10 5 2 17 30 9 85 10 5 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 1,134 33 35 17 14 4 1 14 37 6 82 12 6 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 199 29 39 10 23 2 2 5 14 27 87 8 5

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 5,089 28 35 19 19 5 3 17 43 7 78 13 9 616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 1,944 15 33 31 20 5 4 27 29 9 76 16 8 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 324 58 33 8 - 0 - 1 41 1.6 84 11 6 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 298 41 18 29 12 18 17 36 0 13 70 25 5 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 746 16 40 27 18 4.2 3 24 30 10 75 17 8 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 406 46 28 16 10 0.3 0 32 13 12 66 26 8 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 2,673 57 28 4 11 1 1 15 48 24 57 33 10

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 6,390 42 30 14 14 3 3 21 35 15 64 26 9

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 16,553 31 34 18 17 8 7 32 30 9 75 16 9

Sub-Basin

Source: author’s analysis using (1) Ping Basin Village-level Basic Data (กชช.2ค) for 2003 (2546) extracted from the national database; (2) a linked GIS file of village point locations; (3) a GIS file of sub-basin boundaries for the Ping Basin. All data provided by ONEP, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

Woodlots Local land statusLand legal statusplanted tree zone

2003 Reporting percentage share of village landAgriculture share of land



(d) Agriculture:

While agriculture uses an estimated 30 percent of the land area of the Ping River Basin and is, of course, present in all sub-basins, there is very substantial variation in its forms and relative extent. Major agricultural crops in the Ping River Basin and important lower-to-upper basin gradients in their distribution were presented in the first part of this report. Since this section looks at agricultu-ralists from a stakeholder point of view, emphasis here is on distribution of types of agriculture among Ping sub-basins, and the relative extent to which they are practiced by villages and house-holds. Village reported farm land use data are summarized in Figure 2-8.

Paddy lands

A clearly major characteristic of lower sub-basins is the widespread distribution (95 percent of vil-lages) of substantial paddy holdings (22 rai average field size), substantial portions of which have access to irrigation systems. In middle and upper sub-basins, paddy holdings are also reported in 80 to 90 percent of the villages, but average field size is only 5-6 rai. It is worth noting, however, that paddy lands are owned by only half of the households in lower and upper sub-basins, and by only one-third of households in middle sub-basins. This suggests considerable stratification among households with and without paddy lands in many communities in all sub-basins. Intensification and commercialization of paddy-based agriculture, including increasing use of vari-ous types of agricultural chemicals, has been occurring for several decades in major valley areas. In lower sub-basins, well irrigated paddies are often planted to multiple crops of rice, whereas there is more of a trend toward non-rice crops planted after rice in the smaller holdings of middle sub-basins. In the more remote pockets of paddy land located in mountainous areas of middle and up-per Ping sub-basins, single main season cropping of rice is the norm and fields often remain fallow for the rest of the year.

Commercial field crops.

For short-season field crops, maize and legumes are the most widely planted crops in the Ping Ba-sin, and are reported by about 60 percent of villages in both upper and middle sub-basin groups, but only about 40 percent of villages in middle sub-basins. The percentage of households engaging in this production, however, is only about half of the number engaged in paddy, except in upper sub-basins where the ratio increases to 75 percent. Moreover, average field size in lower sub-basins is reported at four times the size of plantings in middle and upper sub-basins. Production of long-season field crops is also widely reported in lower and upper sub-basins, but there is a great divergence in the types of activities involved. In lower sub-basins, more than half of the villages report plantings that are primarily sugarcane and cassava, with an average field size of about 30 rai. While long-season field crops are also reported in nearly half of upper sub-basin villages, upland rice is the main crop and average field size is only 7 rai. These fields are owned by about 20 percent of the households in both lower and upper sub-basins. Long-season field crops are much less common in middle sub-basins, where only 12 percent of the villages report fields of only 5 rai that are owned by only 4 percent of households – most of these are the relatively small proportion of households still cultivating upland rice. Within sub-basins where it occurs, intensive commercial field crop production, which includes use of improved seed and agricultural chemicals, has been expanding largely in sloping lands above lowland paddy areas. And in many cases this is being conducted in association with contract farm-ing arrangements between local growers and medium to large-scale agro-industrial firms.

Horticultural crops

Horticultural crop production is often strategically important because of the demands it places on irrigation water supplies. Locations vary, but are most common in paddy lands and nearby areas in all sub-basins, or in highland areas of middle and upper sub-basins where off-season or more tem-perate crops can be produced. There are three major types of horticultural enterprise observed:


Villages House- Personsreported holds reported

unit: number number number % vill % hh rai/hh % vill % hh rai/hh % vill % hh rai/hh % vill % hh rai/hh % vill % hh rai/hh % vill % hh rai/hh % vill % hh rai/hh602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 70 30 5 68 39 7 33 11 3 48 15 4 68 28 6 7 0.6 0.4 19 6 8 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 93 51 6 88 41 5 26 5 6 42 16 4 83 30 6 6 0.5 0.4 11 2 9 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 85 46 5 81 42 6 46 16 6 40 10 5 69 19 7 6 0.2 1.4 29 18 8 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 96 49 5 55 17 3 35 13 4 51 18 4 81 34 4 6 1.4 0.6 5 1 6 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 98 52 4 54 21 4 37 20 4 27 7 2 85 45 5 20 3.6 0.9 12 3 5 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 92 55 6 69 48 9 94 75 10 47 19 6 35 9 5 - - - 12 2 3 613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 92 60 5 78 47 8 61 32 7 49 21 10 29 13 8 3 0.3 0.2 4 1 3 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 81 42 7 25 14 5 65 39 9 44 25 4 10 1 4 1 0 0.1 6 1 9

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 89 47 5 64 31 6 45 20 7 45 17 5 61 26 5 6 0.9 0.6 11 3 7 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 67 18 6 43 9 5 5 1 3 44 8 3 79 27 4 13 1.4 0.6 3 1 4 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 86 34 8 75 36 5 13 3 10 29 6 3 63 18 8 7 0.3 0.6 23 7 9 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 89 39 8 26 6 3 11 2 4 31 6 3 65 20 4 9 0.6 0.5 6 2 9 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 75 43 6 73 43 8 24 9 5 33 8 4 80 51 9 2 0.7 0.5 9 9 3 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 82 38 5 37 12 5 14 7 3 49 15 4 92 61 6 4 0.6 0.5 4 1 5 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 90 37 7 94 62 7 45 19 10 29 17 3 90 58 5 3 4.6 0.3 16 8 5

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 80 33 6 42 15 6 12 4 5 38 8 3 76 34 6 8 0.9 0.5 6 2 6 616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 92 37 12 74 27 22 40 11 19 13 2 3 61 13 8 4 0.1 0.6 24 3 5 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 92 16 25 75 26 48 25 13 12 25 10 1 75 8 8 - - - 33 6 7 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 76 18 15 100 78 51 59 18 8 12 3 1 82 14 16 - - - 24 1 11 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 100 86 23 89 41 47 42 6 21 4 0.1 3 22 1 12 - - - 11 1 17 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 92 55 15 86 46 21 64 10 25 12 0.2 2 70 6 23 - - - 42 1 14 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 97 54 27 45 16 16 64 25 35 16 2 3 47 5 14 17 5.2 0.5 28 2 18

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 95 51 22 60 24 25 56 19 31 14 2 3 52 7 12 11 2.9 0.5 27 2 13

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 86 40 11 52 21 12 32 11 17 34 8 4 66 26 6 8 1.4 0.5 13 3 7

vill vill

Long field cropShort field crop

hh ave field area

Other TreesFruit orchards Nursery-ornamental

vill

Vegetables2003 Reporting population

Sub-Basinhh ave field

area

Paddy

hh ave field area villave field

areahh


hhave field area

hh ave field area villhh ave field

area villvill

Figure 2-8. Village reported agricultural farmland use in Ping sub-basins, 2003


• For vegetable crops, a gradient of increasing production (and crop diversity) from lower to up-per sub-basins is quite clear, but production in most lower sub-basins (except for Huay Mae Thor) is much less than the others. Except for Mae Chaem, where some highland villages have large households, average household vegetable field size is generally less than 5 rai.

• Fruit tree orchards are substantially more widespread among households in upper (26 percent), and especially middle (34 percent) sub-basins where the longan industry is centered. Average field size, however, is largest (12 rai) in lower sub-basins.

• Only a small minority of villages and households produce ornamentals in small plantings. While overall proportions of villages (11 percent) and households (3 percent) are highest in lower sub-basins, production appears to be concentrated in some sub-basins in all groupings.

Livestock husbandry

Livestock are another important part of agricultural production. While many households raise a few livestock for their own use, production of livestock for sale has increased along with commer-cialization of other aspects of agricultural production. Owners of livestock being raised for sale have their own set of natural resource needs and potential impacts. Thus, Figure 2-9 displays data on major types of livestock ownership in Ping sub-basins.

• Meat Cattle. While the distribution of villages where meat cattle are produced shows an over-all increase along a lower-to-upper basin gradient, this is largely because of the influence of data from the lower Ping sub-basin, where production is highly concentrated in a few house-holds with relatively large average herd size – it is considerably more distributed in other lower sub-basins. The most widespread ownership is in upper sub-basins, where much of the grazing is in forest areas. Indeed, relatively more distributed ownership of smaller herds is generally more common in middle and upper sub-basins, except for Mae Taeng, Mae Rim and Mae Had. But the highest level of participation is in the lower sub-basin of Klong Mae Raka, which is the only sub-basin where more than 5 percent of households report meat cattle ownership.

• Dairy Cattle. Distribution of dairy cattle ownership is far more concentrated, in terms of both location (middle sub-basins or those with relative good access to the Chiang Mai Valley), vil-lages (0.2 percent overall), and households (less that 1 percent even in high producing areas).

• Buffalo. Ownership of buffaloes for sale follows a distributional pattern somewhat similar to that of meat cattle, but with lower levels of participation and heard size across the board. The only exceptions are the Ping part 1, Ping part 4 and Klong Mae Raka sub-basins, where buffalo herd size is greater than that of meat cattle, but even in these sub-basins buffalo ownership is far more concentrated than for meat cattle.

• Pigs. Production of pigs for sale is quite distributed, with 40 percent of all villages reporting its presence. Ownership is concentrated, however, in less than 10 percent of households, and aver-age herd size varies quite widely among sub-basins in all three groups. Environmental impacts (externalities) of pig production can be substantial.

• Poultry. Participation in production of poultry for sale at both village and household levels var-ies widely among sub-basins in all three groups. Flock size is even more variable, with large average flock size presumably reflecting the presence of some substantial commercial chicken farms, which are usually linked with a medium-to-large scale agro-industrial firm.

• Fish Culture. Not surprisingly, there is a gradient of decreasing participation at both village and household levels from lower to upper sub-basins. While this is again an enterprise that in-volves a quite small proportion of villages, and a very small percent of households, its viability is closely linked with the supply and quality of available water resources.

Thus, except for dairy cattle and fish culture, there is a general overall tendency toward more distributed livestock ownership and smaller herd size in upper sub-basins, and toward largest herd sizes in lower sub-basins.

Villages House- Persons raisereported holds reported to sell public area

unit: number number number % vill %vill rai/vill % vill % hh hd/hh % vill % hh hd/hh % vill % hh hd/hh % vill % hh hd/hh % vill % hh hd/hh % vill % hh rai/hh602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 61 8 57 43 0.9 5 7 0.1 20 7 0.3 9 34 6 14 20 3 186 8 0.2 0.3 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 74 7 503 53 1.5 5 2 0.0 7 15 1 4 59 8 8 24 4 1,018 12 0.5 0.3 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 71 6 373 54 1.1 24 - - - 29 6 14 46 21 9 23 15 22 6 0.2 0.4 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 76 4 336 59 2.4 5 9 0.4 12 22 3 5 55 11 6 31 17 83 2 0.1 0.1 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 76 20 69 59 1.8 6 - - - 22 1 5 44 3 10 27 1 228 2 0.2 0.0 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 92 22 687 82 3.8 9 - - - 71 11 8 39 15 6 4 2 37 2 0.0 0.5 613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 63 20 412 63 2.5 7 - - - 30 3 5 36 14 3 5 1 15 3 0.1 0.1 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 74 5 158 64 4.0 7 - - - 27 5 5 44 20 4 5 1 16 - - -

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 73 9 360 58 2.2 7 4 0.1 13 25 2.8 7 47 11 7 19 7 153 4 0.2 0.2 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 68 2 44 40 0.6 4 8 0.2 11 5 0.1 6 33 2 16 42 7 183 9 0.5 0.2 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 70 4 66 52 1.2 10 11 0.4 6 21 1.5 9 48 4 3 29 11 98 11 0.5 0.4 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 74 8 248 56 1.6 7 16 0.8 9 20 0.7 5 38 2 84 34 7 114 12 0.7 0.4 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 50 1 19 30 0.8 6 5 0.1 34 8 0.3 5 34 5 7 9 2 232 1 0.1 0.1 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 67 9 198 47 1.4 8 2 0.1 6 8 0.8 6 44 5 14 30 6 101 9 0.7 0.1 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 71 10 2,133 45 1.3 13 - - - 6 0.1 5 58 11 2 29 6 28 10 0.3 0.1

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 68 6 272 47 1.2 7 9 0.4 10 12 0.5 6 38 3 28 32 6 134 9 0.5 0.3 616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 82 30 1,271 72 3.9 13 1 0.0 4 11 0.2 28 52 4 26 34 6 221 18 2.0 0.1 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 83 25 333 83 4.2 17 - - - 33 2.0 6 67 9 6 25 7 13 8 0.1 0.5 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 76 12 110 53 0.8 7 - - - 18 0.2 4 76 8 6 6 1 50 12 1.0 0.0 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 93 29 2,122 80 6.8 12 - - - 47 1.2 35 69 4 22 36 12 35 4 0.2 0.3 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 56 8 208 42 0.5 13 - - - 10 0.9 5 40 2 9 14 2 515 32 3.3 0.1 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 44 3 246 23 0.2 22 1 0.0 9 8 0.2 17 26 1 12 21 3 339 16 1.8 0.6

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 60 13 1,172 43 1.7 14 1 0.0 5 12 0.4 19 39 3 17 24 4 233 17 1.8 0.3

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 67 8 643 49 1.5 9 6 0.2 10 15 1.0 8 40 5 16 27 6 157 10 0.8 0.3

vill hh ave areahh headSub-Basin headvill hh head vill hh head hhpasture head villvill hh


Livestock Meat Cattle Dairy Cattle Buffalo Pigs Poultry2003 Reporting population Fish culturevill

Figure 2-9. Village reported livestock husbandry in Ping sub-basins, 2003

ge 58 Participatory Watershed Management for the Ping River Basin Project

Pa


Mountain Agricultural Systems

There are some particular issues and associated stakeholder groups that are specifically related to three types of agricultural systems in midland and highland zones that also deserve mention here:

Forest fallow. Especially in upper sub-basins with extensive lands in the midland zone, many ethnic minority villages have long conducted rotational forest fallow shifting cultivation of up-land rice (and a mix of associated minor subsistence crops) to supplement their small areas of paddy, expansion of which is limited by terrain characteristics. As traditional forest fallow rota-tion cycles were usually 10 or more years in length, and fallow fields are mixed into a landscape that also includes patches of permanent forest managed for additional subsistence products, the overall amount of land required for these systems seems very extensive to lowlanders. The large difference in the nature of these practices compared to lowland systems, as well as the ethnic dif-ferences that are usually characteristic of those who employ them, have been associated with widespread lack of understanding, and a virtually total lack of acceptance of the “legitimacy” of these practices by government and much of lowland society. As a result, state forest land zones were designated over most of these areas without consideration of the existence of these sys-tems. Thus, most are now categorized as “illegal encroachers” on state forest lands, regardless of their history in the area. Moreover, forestry and conservation interests interpret patches of permanent and regenerating forest, along with the use of fire to clear patches as they are pre-pared for crop cultivation, as indicators of degraded or deteriorated forest. The still ongoing ex-pansion of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries aims to place most all of these areas under protected conservation forest status, and thereby force an end to such practices. Not surprisingly, tension, conflict, and resistance are increasing. Many villagers are being forced to reduce their forest fallow cycle length, and in some areas they have yielded to government pressure to con-vert to fixed field cultivation. This conversion has been associated with introduction of agricul-tural chemicals to replace the ecological functions formerly provided by forest fallow, and has thus also been accompanied by the commercialization of agriculture in these areas [Thomas 2004b]. Linkages with agro-industrial firms are growing, including contract farming practices.

“Miang” forest gardens. A somewhat parallel set of circumstances involves areas of sub-basins in the Ping River Basin where “miang” tea production has been a traditional practice. Ecological requirements for these production systems result in their clustering near the midland-to-highland transition zone. Practices involve interplanting of the camellia tree species into natural hill ever-green forest [Preechapanya 2001]. This results in the failure of many people not familiar with the systems to even realize they exist, and in very poor records and documentation about them. This “invisibility” has also resulted in their inclusion in reserved and protected forest land zones, which also places them in the category of illegal forest encroachers. Despite decreasing demand for “miang” associated with generational change, many of these systems still appear viable as new product forms and markets are found, and in some areas additional economic trees are mixed into their complex structures that often continue to mimic natural forest [Thomas 2004b].

Highland horticulture. Although highland horticulture has already been incorporated into previ-ous discussions of diversity in agriculture, there are some special concerns of this stakeholder group that need to be mentioned here. Highland horticulture is most extensive in upper sub-basins, but is also present to some degree in middle and lower sub-basins that have minor por-tions of their area within the highland zone. These zones include areas where opium production was once a major activity, making them a central target for successive waves of opium crop sub-stitution projects during the last 40 years. These projects and associated development programs have brought roads and a range of government services to many of these formerly very remote areas, and have successfully facilitated conversion of agricultural practices from pioneer shifting cultivation systems that included opium, into settled areas where intensive commercial produc-tion of horticultural products has expanded dramatically. Production has largely focused on tem-perate and sub-tropical zone crops that have an ecological comparative advantage in highland zones, and which have little or no direct competition in lowland zones. Both annual and tree crop production have been adopted (and adapted), with emphasis varying in different areas. And, as areas have become more integrated into mainstream economic systems, off-season production of crops produced in the lowlands is also becoming more common. Many of the ethnic minority


communities involved – most notably the Hmong – have proved to be very capable producers and entrepreneurs, and the profitability of their agricultural systems is often equal to or greater than those found in lowland zones of upper sub-basins [Thomas 2002]. Ethnic Thai producers are now also very active in various areas, with operations varying from small to quite large (by northern Thai standards) scale.

ommunities involved – most notably the Hmong – have proved to be very capable producers and entrepreneurs, and the profitability of their agricultural systems is often equal to or greater than those found in lowland zones of upper sub-basins [Thomas 2002]. Ethnic Thai producers are now also very active in various areas, with operations varying from small to quite large (by northern Thai standards) scale.

Probably not surprisingly, these highland systems have undergone very substantial and quite rapid expansion. This has made them a focus of much concern among forestry officials and low-land stakeholders who believe they are destroying hill evergreen forest in critical watershed headwater zones, and thus threatening the longer term sustainability of agricultural and natural resource systems upon which all those in the Ping River Basin depend. These concerns are ac-centuated by the use of substantial levels of agricultural chemicals and often sprinkler irrigation systems in intensive highland commercial systems, raising further downstream worry about chemical pollution of water resources and reduced dry season stream flow. Thus, even though those engaged in these types of highland agricultural practices often account for only a quite small percent of the area and people of a given sub-basin, their profile in natural resource man-agement-related concerns is usually disproportionately large. During the initial field visits of the project team of ONEP staff and consultants, concerns over this type of agriculture were a very prominent feature of views expressed throughout the Ping River Basin.

Probably not surprisingly, these highland systems have undergone very substantial and quite rapid expansion. This has made them a focus of much concern among forestry officials and low-land stakeholders who believe they are destroying hill evergreen forest in critical watershed headwater zones, and thus threatening the longer term sustainability of agricultural and natural resource systems upon which all those in the Ping River Basin depend. These concerns are ac-centuated by the use of substantial levels of agricultural chemicals and often sprinkler irrigation systems in intensive highland commercial systems, raising further downstream worry about chemical pollution of water resources and reduced dry season stream flow. Thus, even though those engaged in these types of highland agricultural practices often account for only a quite small percent of the area and people of a given sub-basin, their profile in natural resource man-agement-related concerns is usually disproportionately large. During the initial field visits of the project team of ONEP staff and consultants, concerns over this type of agriculture were a very prominent feature of views expressed throughout the Ping River Basin.

Agricultural Production Constraints Agricultural Production Constraints

Given the importance of agricultural production and the large number of stakeholders for whom it is a central livelihood concern, we also need to look at the key production constraints perceived by these stakeholders. Thus, Figure 2-10 displays data on agricultural constraints and locally per-ceived soil problems, while Figure 2-11 focuses more specifically on agricultural water use con-straints and the distribution of dry season irrigated agriculture.

Given the importance of agricultural production and the large number of stakeholders for whom it is a central livelihood concern, we also need to look at the key production constraints perceived by these stakeholders. Thus, Figure 2-10 displays data on agricultural constraints and locally per-ceived soil problems, while Figure 2-11 focuses more specifically on agricultural water use con-straints and the distribution of dry season irrigated agriculture. Crop profitability and water shortages are clearly perceived as major constraints for agriculture at many locations across all sub-basins. Lack of knowledge is also seen as an important constraint, and it is no doubt safe to assume that the most valuable knowledge would relate to more profitable crop alternatives, and better ways to access and manage water, especially during the dry season.

Crop profitability and water shortages are clearly perceived as major constraints for agriculture at many locations across all sub-basins. Lack of knowledge is also seen as an important constraint, and it is no doubt safe to assume that the most valuable knowledge would relate to more profitable crop alternatives, and better ways to access and manage water, especially during the dry season.

Figure 2-10. Village reported agriculture problems in Ping sub-basins, 2003

chem

Villages House- Persons flood water crop info & insuffic shallow sand & eroded acid saline low fertilizerreported holds reported areas short profits knowl labor soil gravel soil soil soil fertility use

unit: number number number % vill % vill % vill % vill % vill % vill % vill % vill % vill % vill % vill % vill602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 13 41 50 47 28 20 19 23 22 18 23 68 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 4 62 26 14 12 14 20 22 17 7 24 65 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 8 46 35 37 15 13 21 13 8 8 19 43 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 8 55 41 24 11 12 38 22 11 5 11 67 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 12 51 49 39 5 22 32 24 17 15 32 43 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 2 73 45 27 20 10 37 41 14 4 31 84 613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 11 67 41 33 11 20 18 54 7 5 47 78 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 6 42 45 30 13 25 30 39 14 13 21 87

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 8 54 41 29 14 16 28 29 14 9 23 66 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 13 29 37 24 20 9 11 11 9 7 13 75 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 13 52 55 43 38 20 27 23 16 16 20 59 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 14 42 42 30 24 14 24 16 12 10 17 67 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 11 56 62 52 18 23 36 33 19 11 28 77 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 24 45 52 33 18 19 32 21 18 14 20 66 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 19 68 68 65 19 19 52 32 19 23 23 82

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 15 42 46 33 22 15 24 18 13 11 18 70 616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 20 52 48 28 30 29 38 25 15 15 23 72 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 0 58 42 17 8 17 17 33 - - 17 71 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 12 76 24 41 18 18 29 59 6 6 18 95 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 38 78 49 44 29 36 51 36 24 29 47 74 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 14 34 36 18 8 32 24 26 12 12 20 82 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 24 45 40 30 23 21 24 27 17 15 34 90

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 23 49 42 30 24 25 29 28 16 15 30 84

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 15 47 43 31 20 18 26 23 14 11 22 72.5

Sub-Basin

Main agriculture constraints


2003 Reporting population Reported soil problems

flood water vill hh area short exist in # per still can exist in # per still canareas shortage vill hh area surface ground runoff field cp vill hh area vill hh area village 100 hh be used village 100 hh be used

unit: % vill %vill % vill % hh rai/hh %vill %vill %vill %hh % vill % hh rai/hh % vill % hh rai/hh % vill number %wells % vill number %wells602 Ping part 1 13 42 19 14 6 17 - 13 92 51 25 3 3 0.7 2 90 56 95 67 3 88 603 Mae Ngad 4 62 32 21 8 19 - 21 98 53 28 4 - - - 94 64 90 83 6 74 604 Mae Taeng 8 46 27 17 6 15 - 31 98 35 14 4 - - - 92 30 90 56 1 78 608 Mae Khan 8 55 15 7 4 19 1.2 21 96 47 20 4 4 0.7 2 90 37 91 75 13 96 610 Mae Klang 12 51 22 13 7 29 - 34 99 46 14 4 - - - 76 5 93 54 6 98 612 Mae Chaem upper 2 73 22 15 9 20 - 47 100 27 8 10 - - - 63 5 87 12 0 53 613 Mae Chaem lower 11 67 7 5 7 20 - 54 85 29 10 5 - - - 72 12 95 43 2 84 615 Mae Teun 6 42 5 4 6 17 1.3 66 91 18 6 6 1 0.2 3 69 7 94 22 1 90

Upper Sub-Basins 8 55 18 12 7 19 0.5 33 95 40 18 4 2 0.3 2 83 34 92 57 6 92 605 Ping part 2 13 29 13 6 4 12 1.9 7 80 37 9 4 9 1.7 2 93 41 83 91 34 96 606 Mae Rim 13 52 43 18 6 13 1.8 25 95 48 21 5 4 0.6 3 98 41 87 73 8 93 607 Mae Kuang 14 43 17 7 6 5 0.4 26 79 20 5 3 4 0.7 3 95 38 87 90 21 97 609 Mae Lee 11 56 28 15 8 6 1.9 36 91 14 3 5 4 1.3 2 83 15 84 87 13 92 611 Ping part 3 24 45 30 19 8 7 1.7 18 82 18 6 6 10 1.2 4 79 13 66 91 25 95 614 Mae Had 19 68 58 43 8 - 10 23 96 10 3 3 19 9 12 77 12 85 84 7 65

Middle Sub-Basins 15 42 22 11 7 8 1.5 20 83 25 7 4 7 1.3 4 90 31 84 89 24 95 616 Ping part 4 20 52 25 13 19 4 8 29 92 12 2 11 15 3.2 9 81 14 92 79 16 95 617 Huay Mae Thor - 58 - - - 17 - 50 100 17 2 2 - - - 83 14 89 67 2 86 618 Klong Wang Chao 12 76 29 28 32 - 6 59 98 6 5 13 6 0.4 3 94 23 87 65 2 76 619 Klong Mae Raka 38 78 58 43 17 7 - 33 92 18 1 4 2 0.1 1 98 17 94 93 7 90 620 Klong Suan Mark 14 34 38 25 21 14 2 14 99 38 15 12 18 5 14 92 44 92 88 13 94 621 Lower Ping 24 45 24 15 28 6 2 36 82 14 3 8 4 0.7 10 81 22 92 90 15 86

Lower Sub-Basins 23 49 27 17 24 6 3.5 33 91 15 3 10 8 1.7 10 83 21 92 86 14 90

Ping Basin 15 47 22 13 13 10 1.7 27 89 26 8 5 6 1.2 6 87 29 87 81 18 94


Dry season irrigated agricultureDry season shortage shallow wellsAgriculture

constraint Shortage all year

Sub-Basin

Deep wells

Surface water irrigation Ground water irrigationusing main water source

Figure 2-11. Village reported agricultural water use constraints in Ping sub-basins



Insufficient labor is the next most important overall constraint on agriculture, and it follows a gen-eral gradient of decreasing general importance along a lower to upper sub-basin transect, although there is very considerable variation among individual sub-basins in each grouping. A similar over-all gradient with substantial variability is seen regarding problems related to areas subject to flood-ing, but this problem is concentrated in a much smaller proportion of villages. This is no doubt a function of their relative position in the watershed landscape. In terms of soil-related constraints to agriculture, upper sub-basins report most concern with coarse textured and eroded soils, followed by low soil fertility and shallow soils. In Middle sub-basins, problems with coarse-textured soils are most common, with shallow, eroded and low fertility soils basically in a tie for second place. In lower sub-basins, low fertility, coarse textured and eroded soils are most important, followed by shallow soils. Salinity is seen as a less widespread problem, but it is reported in some sub-basins with an overall frequency that follows a gradient of decreasing importance from lower to upper sub-basin groupings. Acidity appears to be a problem that is local-ized in a fairly small minority of villages in most sub-basins. Use of chemical fertilizers is wide-spread in all sub-basins, and is especially extensive in lower sub-basins. In terms of dry season agriculture, between 80 to 100 percent of villages in all sub-basins report that field crops are the most widely planted type of crop. There are, however, some clear differ-ences in patterns of water use among the three groupings of sub-basins. In lower sub-basins the ratio of villages relying mainly on surface water to those relying on groundwater is less than 2:1, and use of both shallow and deep wells is widespread. In middle sub-basins, the ratio of villages relying mainly on surface or groundwater jumps to about 3.6:1, but at the same time both shallow and deep wells are much more common. In upper sub-basins, however, the ratio of villages relying mainly on surface or groundwater shoots up to 20:1, and while shallow wells remain common, only only a very small minority uses deep wells. Thus, it is not surprising that villages in upper sub-basins reporting dry season shortages in water for agriculture almost all depend mainly on surface water resources, whereas the frequency of villages depending mainly on groundwater who are ex-periencing dry season shortages is highest in lower sub-basins, and lowest in upper sub-basins. Villages reporting year-round shortages in agricultural water average about 20 percent, and involve between 10 to 20 percent of all households, in all three sub-basin groupings. Field size in water short areas, however, is more than three times larger in lower sub-basins than in middle or upper sub-basins, which corresponds to overall differences in agricultural holding field size.

(e) Private Business

With the rapid growth and restructuring that has occurred in the Thai economy, the role of the pri-vate business sector has expanded accordingly. Most all villages are now at least partially inte-grated into the market economy, through commercialization of agricultural production, local com-merce and/or cottage industry, wage employment in industrial, trade and/or service sectors, wage employment by government organizations or projects, or other types of activity. Economic integra-tion was especially rapid during the “boom years” of the Thai economy, when particularly rapid transformations of livelihoods and landscapes occurred in the Ping River Basin. There is now in-creasing recognition that most farmers are small business operators, and expanding operations of more successful farmers are becoming sources of employment and components of the agro-industrial system. Contract farming schemes are being operated by medium to very large scale agro-industrial companies, and merchants and agricultural processing industries provide important sources of information, technology and incentives for commercial production. Tourism and recreation businesses of small to quite large scale are also important in a growing number of locations, as well as expanding cottage industry based on textiles, specialty foods, and handicrafts. In a few areas there are agricultural processing industries, or even industrial estates providing employment in electronics assembly and other non-agriculture sectors. Even local groups and communities are now organizing and operating private enterprise, including those facilitated by programs such as OTOP. In addition to the land they occupy, many of these operations are now competing for labor and water resources, and are clearly associated with natural resource and envi-ronment issues, including many linked with public health.


Yet despite its important and growing role in shaping livelihoods and landscapes in the Ping Basin, private business (at least beyond the farm enterprise level) usually remains relatively detached from efforts, organizations and institutions seeking to improve management of natural resources and the environment. Indeed, business is often portrayed by some as having sinister motives, and even as the ‘enemy’ causing most natural resource and environmental problems in sub-basins. In order to help assess the distribution of impacts on local household livelihoods, and thus the rela-tive importance of associated stakeholder groups in Ping sub-basins, Figure 2-12 displays the types of work within villages and local sub-districts (tambons) reported by village leaders.

Figure 2-12. Village reported work within local tambon, 2003

Villages House- Persons hh agric cottage wage business factory tourismreported holds reported enterprise industry labor worker worker work

unit: number number number %hh %hh %hh %hh %hh %hh602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 76 22 42 4 2 7 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 86 2 23 0.3 0.1 1 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 82 2 36 2 1 5 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 82 9 37 6 2 6 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 78 6 46 4 2 9 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 91 7 13 0.05 - 2 613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 86 6 15 1 0.01 4 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 80 2 21 - - -

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 82 8 32 3 1 5 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 51 4 48 14 4 3 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 68 4 49 8 4 7 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 58 8 46 12 6 2 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 79 5 36 1 1 1 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 82 14 45 4 2 1 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 89 1 46 4 0.2 2

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 64 7 45 10 4 2 616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 62 5 37 4 2 1 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 60 0.1 33 - 0.3 1 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 90 3 23 0.1 - 2 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 89 3 24 1 1 0.03 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 71 1 31 - 1 1 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 74 2 29 4 3 0.2

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 71 3 31 3 2 0.3

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 69 6 39 7 3 2

Source: author’s analysis using (1) Ping Basin Village-level Basic Data (กชช2ค) for 2003 (2546) extracted from the national database; (2) a linked GIS file of village point locations; (3) a GIS file of sub-basin boundaries for the Ping Basin. All data provided by ONEP, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment.

Types of local work by household members2003 Reporting population

Sub-Basin

Household agricultural enterprise and wage labor are clearly the two most important sources of employment in all sub-basins. As would be expected, in the more densely populated and urbanized middle sub-basins, agricultural work is reported by a significantly lower percentage of households.

Local industry

While much of the industry in the Ping River Basin is associated with urban centers, there are also a few industrial estates, as well as industries located in or near smaller district towns. Some indus-tries such as agricultural processors, wood products, and handicrafts have direct linkages with for-estry and agriculture sectors. Others provide employment that affects wage labor rates and em-ployment alternatives to land-based enterprise. There is also growing concern about impacts of industrial activity on consumption and pollution of water resources, as well as air pollution and waste disposal. Where present, they should be considered an important stakeholder. Work in local


factories is more common in middle sub-basins, and especially in sub-basins where many of the factories are located. The frequency of cottage industry work appears to vary greatly in some sub-basins, but is generally higher in upper and middle sub-basins. Another relevant dimension of industrial activity that is frequently obscured by industry data such as that presented in Figures 2-5 and 2-12, is the outreach operations and/or broker functions that allow agro-industrial firms to engage in operations such as contract farming, even in relatively re-mote portions of the Ping River Basin.

Tourism

Tourism is an important and still growing and developing part of the economy in many sub-basins of the Ping River Basin, and data in Figure 2-5 does not yet capture information about how tourism activities are distributed among sub-basins. Data in Figure 2-12, however, indicate that local work in tourism is more common in upper sub-basins, and quite rare in lower sub-basins. Among middle sub-basins, tourism is relatively more important in Mae Rim, but given the relatively large popula-tions of Ping part 2 and Mae Kuang, their percentages imply fairly substantial absolute numbers of households. While tourism tends to be discussed as though it is a single set of activities, the tourism market has been moving toward increasing differentiation among a substantial range of types. Each type tends to have its own demands from and impacts on natural resources and the environment. Trade-offs among types are also increasingly common, wherein expansion of one type of tourism can under-mine potential for the viability or expansion of other types. Both trade-offs and complementarities can appear among esthetics important for tourism and local residents. Yet, maintenance of esthetic components of rural landscapes and urban environments has a low priority, and there is no legal basis for damages incurred by activities or investments dependent on them. In any event, key stakeholders related to the operation and development of the various types of tourism services pre-sent in or envisioned in a sub-basin should definitely be included in pilot watershed management activities.

Local shops and services

Presence of local village shops offering goods and services for sale can be a useful indicator of the degree of economic integration that is occurring in local areas. Other useful indicators include connectivity with district market towns via roads and modes of transportation, as well as wider con-nectivity through telecommunications and internet access. Thus, Figure 2-13 presents data on these types of indicators reported by village leaders in Ping sub-basins. The extent of integration of rural villages into the market economy is indicated by the reporting of an overall level of more than 50 shops per 1,000 households, and their wide distribution throughout all sub-basins. Most of these operations are, of course, very small and specialize in food or general basic necessities of day-to-day life, and are not the only source of income for the households who own them. Shops selling agricultural production inputs, selling and repairing agricultural tools, or selling electrical or electronic equipment are a very small sub-set of this number, but are still quite widely distributed. Shops selling petrol or selling and repairing vehicles have a more substantial presence in all sub-basins. In terms of transportation connectivity with district market towns, upper sub-basins are generally handicapped by greater distances, much greater travel times, and less all-season access than their counterparts in most middle and lower sub-basins. Motorcycle ownership is reported as very ex-tensive (90 to 100 percent) in terms of villages, but there is wide variation (30 to 85 percent) in the percentage of households in sub-basins who own motorcycles. A similar pattern is found with pickup trucks, with almost all villages reporting their presence, but actual ownership limited to 8 to 36 percent of households. Electricity is available in more than 80 percent of the villages in all but four of the sub-basins, and those are all in the upper sub-basin group. And of the six sub-basins reporting that electricity reaches less that 90 percent of all households, five are upper sub-basins. In terms of telecommuni-cations connectivity, household fixed line telephones vary widely (0.3 to 52 percent of households).

Figure 2-13. Village transportation, telecommunications & economic integration indicators, 2003

Villages House- Persons Inter gas+ charc Petrol prod tool-eqt vehic elec otherreported holds reported distance time all yr dry seas village family village family villages hh's line cell -net electr wood point input repair sell/rep electron types

unit: number number number km minutes %vill %hh %vill %hh %vill %hh %vill %vill602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 17 31 48 68 98 72 99 18 98 94 16 24 0.5 46 54 9 2 1 6 1 47603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 11 23 54 66 98 77 97 15 94 95 16 11 1.0 52 48 7 1 0.2 4 2 36604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 21 49 29 63 100 74 98 14 94 88 29 20 1.4 35 65 9 3 1.0 5 2 56608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 16 32 31 46 99 81 99 26 96 95 30 35 2.0 53 47 6 3 0.7 7 2 42610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 13 36 44 54 100 80 100 28 78 85 31 33 2.8 34 66 3 5 0.3 7 2 45612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 67 146 6 25 100 47 96 14 59 54 0.3 1.1 0.0 2 98 9 2 0.2 3 0 38613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 24 60 21 32 99 58 96 15 67 72 6 11 0.4 12 88 7 3 0.3 4 1 31615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 44 109 16 17 91 31 83 8 57 52 1 1 0.3 8 92 6 0 0.0 2 0 30

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 24 53 32 47 98 70 96 19 84 85 19 21 1.2 35 65 7 2 0.5 5 1 41605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 8 17 43 56 100 80 100 36 99 99 52 45 4.3 93 7 4 2 0.6 8 3 43606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 19 36 50 82 100 66 100 24 95 91 24 21 1.7 50 50 5 1 1.0 5 1 45607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 11 21 40 52 99 85 99 34 99 98 43 44 3.3 86 14 4 2 0.9 8 2 39609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 15 24 36 50 100 75 99 24 98 95 14 21 1.0 35 65 7 3 0.3 6 1 34611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 14 24 39 52 100 77 99 28 96 96 21 31 1.6 57 43 6 3 0.9 5 1 32614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 14 23 39 58 100 80 100 16 100 96 10 13 0.4 6 94 8 4 1.1 6 1 44

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 12 21 41 54 100 80 99 31 98 97 37 38 2.9 74 26 5 2 0.7 7 2 39616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 11 23 53 68 97 75 95 21 97 92 21 34 1.6 82 18 9 1 1.3 7 1 45617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 21 41 58 67 100 77 100 25 83 82 4 26 0.0 83 17 7 1 0.0 6 1 46618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 24 62 35 59 100 66 100 20 88 79 1 28 0.1 65 35 15 3 3.3 9 0 57619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 24 39 67 87 96 78 100 10 100 91 5 10 1.0 13 87 13 0 3.8 7 0 40620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 17 28 34 64 96 68 96 15 100 94 6 19 0.4 88 12 12 3 1.9 5 2 34621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 15 26 38 61 97 74 99 16 99 93 13 38 0.7 95 5 14 3 1.9 5 1 46

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 15 27 44 65 97 74 98 17 98 92 14 33 0.9 85 15 12 3 1.8 6 1.2 45

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 16 30 39 55 99 77 98 25 98 94 27 33 2.0 67 33 7 2 1 6 2 41

Local commercial shops

% of households

MotorcyclesTransport ElectricityPickups Telecommunic hh energy

regular service

2003 Reporting population

average travel

District town

installedownership


ownership TelephoneSub-Basin

% of villages shop locations per 1,000 households



Cellular telephones are progressing toward filling the gap in various areas, however, and especially lower sub-basins. Internet usage appears highest in areas in or adjacent to the Chiang Mai Valley, but usage reported in 2003 averaged only 2 percent for the Ping Basin overall.

Private investors

Associated with the growth of the market economy has been the emergence of a range of types of private investors (nai toon) whose activities are also having impacts on livelihoods and landscapes in the Ping Basin. This category includes a diverse range of people and entities who have managed to accumulate capital through means that vary widely in their respectability and legality, and who have a similarly wide range of goals in making local investments within Ping sub-basins. While some are native or long-term residents within sub-basins, others operate from bases in other sub-basins, from bases in Bangkok or other areas of the country, or in association with investors from outside the country. Many are also capable of exerting considerable influence on government offi-cials and administrative systems. While many of their activities are linked to investment in private business enterprise within Ping sub-basins, others are also heavily involved in activities such as acquisition of strategic and large parcels of land for speculation purposes, or even investments in illegal activities such as logging, hunting or drugs. In any event, they are clearly an important force to be reckoned with in many sub-basins.

(f) Urban Centers:

As data in Figure 2-5 confirm, urban centers with increasingly very intensive use of land and water resources for residential, commercial, service and industrial purposes have already become a major stakeholder in several lower and middle sub-basins of the Ping River Basin. While modest scale district towns are quite dispersed, many of the larger urban centers are located along the main channel of the Ping River itself, and have emerged from evolution of cultures that have focused much attention on river banks and adjacent lowland areas. Given the weaknesses of land use planning, zoning or associated types of efforts to manage patterns of land use change during periods of rapid economic growth and social change, there are numerous problems associated with impacts of competing and conflicting forms of land use on the quality of urban life, as well as with development of systems to provide services related to provision of urban water supply, sanitation, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. As a result, ur-ban centers are considered important sources of water pollution, waste, and sometimes air pollution that are public health concerns. Those located along main channel riverbanks have additional issues that have been discussed to a substantial extent by the CMU study team [CMU 2004]. Those lo-cated along smaller irrigation canals can be even worse, since they appear to be exempt from laws restricting construction along banks of natural streams; many are candidates to become similar to the ‘black khlongs’ in the vicinity of Bangkok. At wider sub-basin levels, urban centers tend to have quite large spheres of influence in sub-basins where they are prominent, through the reach of their business, financial, trade, industry, tourism, and other sectoral bases, as well as through their roles as markets for agricultural and forest prod-ucts, suppliers of agricultural inputs and consumer goods, bases for land speculators, sources of wage labor, centers of education, and other functions that penetrate into surrounding rural areas. Thus, key stakeholders in urban areas need to include leaders of both municipalities and the various sectoral groupings that are present. In order to help explore the degree to which these spheres of influence have widespread impacts on village livelihoods, Figure 2-14 presents village reported data on employment outside of local tam-bons. Patterns emerging from this data differ significantly among sub-basin groupings.

• The strength of relationships between lower sub-basins and the Central Plains region of Thai-land is underscored by the degree to which the Bangkok metropolis is the main location for dis-tant labor for both men and women. While men tend to be employed as skilled workers more than factory workers, the opposite is true for women, and women also find more work in the service sector.

Figure 2-14. Village reported wage employment outside their tambon, 2003

Villages House- Persons farm fact skill serv other within within within within Bangkok other farm fact skill serv other within within within within Bangkok otherreported holds reported work work work work work dist prov reg cntry metrop. country work work work work work dist prov reg cntry metrop. country

unit: number number number602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 19 8 33 9 6 11 44 9 6 3 1 19 19 6 21 10 10 42 7 4 10 1 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 9 6 33 1 6 8 26 3 2 14 2 7 13 16 12 7 7 26 4 3 11 4 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 13 6 27 13 15 6 56 2 10 2 - 8 6 6 38 17 4 46 4 13 8 - 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 8 7 29 11 13 8 48 8 1 4 - 7 15 13 16 16 12 45 6 1 2 - 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 20 22 20 7 12 32 34 12 2 - - 17 37 2 10 15 27 34 17 2 - - 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 16 6 4 12 2 4 25 8 - 2 - 22 2 - 14 2 6 27 6 - - - 613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 4 3 16 12 21 9 38 7 1 - - 3 5 - 25 22 9 38 4 3 - 1 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 27 4 9 3 4 4 29 5 5 4 - 26 4 5 9 3 4 31 1 5 5 -

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 13 7 24 8 10 9 39 7 3 4 0 12 12 8 18 12 10 37 5 4 5 1 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 7 12 31 4 10 8 36 9 5 5 1 9 23 8 13 11 14 33 6 4 7 1 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 11 18 21 11 9 9 48 4 4 5 - 9 23 9 11 18 9 48 4 2 7 - 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 7 24 28 2 9 11 44 7 5 3 0 5 35 7 7 16 13 43 6 5 4 0 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 13 22 9 4 4 9 26 6 4 4 3 14 29 1 2 5 8 31 5 3 4 - 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 19 30 15 3 11 10 51 7 2 7 1 17 39 3 7 12 12 50 10 3 3 1 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 19 29 23 3 13 6 16 16 - 45 3 23 32 10 13 10 6 19 13 3 45 -

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 10 21 24 3 9 9 41 8 4 6 1 10 31 6 8 12 12 40 7 4 6 0 616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 12 22 47 3 5 13 9 3 11 46 8 17 31 26 3 12 19 14 2 10 44 1 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 8 25 50 8 8 8 8 - 8 75 - 8 42 42 8 - 8 8 - 8 75 - 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 6 6 76 - - - - 6 6 76 - - 29 53 6 - - - 6 6 76 - 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 2 31 53 - 2 - 4 - 2 80 2 4 42 40 - 2 - 4 2 9 71 2 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 10 6 72 2 - 10 10 2 10 50 8 10 20 56 4 - 12 12 4 10 48 4 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 12 21 50 3 2 8 9 4 4 62 1 12 36 28 4 8 8 10 2 4 62 2

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 11 20 52 3 3 9 9 3 6 59 3 12 34 31 4 8 11 10 2 7 58 1

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 11 18 31 4 8 9 32 6 4 19 1 11 27 13 9 11 11 32 5 4 19 1

Men employed outside local area (tambon) Women employed outside local area (tambon)Main type of work Main location of work2003 Reporting population

Sub-Basin

Main location of workMain type of work


% of total villages reporting location% of total villages reporting type % of total villages reporting location % of total villages reporting type



• In middle sub-basins distant work is found mainly within provincial towns. Work for males is split quite evenly between skilled workers and factory workers. It is more common for women to find work in factories, and to a lesser extent in the service sector.

• Distant work for people in upper sub-basins is also found mainly within provincial towns, but the types of work differ from middle sub-basins. Men are most likely to find employment as skilled workers, or to a lesser extent in the service sector or in factories. Women most fre-quently work in the service sector or in factories.

In all three sub-basin groups, just over 10 percent of villages report farm labor as the main type of distant work, although there is substantial variation among individual sub-basins within each group, and patterns are similar for both men and women.

(g) Local government

Figure 2-15. Ping Basin tambon boundaries

During the series of governmental reform and restructuring efforts that began in the 1990’s, a new form of more fully constituted local government has emerged at the sub-district (tambon) level (Figure 2-15). Known as the Tambon Administrative Organization (TAO), this is a fully elected body that has been delegated very significant and growing authority and responsibility. The TAO is a juristic entity (nittibukon) that is authorized to levy some forms of local taxation, and to issue approvals required before a wide range of activities can take place within their jurisdictions. More developed TAO and urban areas are eligible to be transformed into municipalities (tessaban). Both the spirit and the letter of the 1997 national constitution substantially strengthened roles of TAO and tessaban, and they are now the focus of many government programs. Capacities of local governments to conduct the full range of activities that fall within their growing mandates vary substantially, and tend to be particularly weak in upper sub-basins where many of their constituents are ethnic minority communities who have only recently gained access to full participation in local governance processes, and where extensive legal restrictions on land use undermine their ability to raise revenues from property tax. Associations of TAO at least at provincial level are seeking to assist members facing some of these types of difficult situations, as are a number of other governmental, academic and non-governmental organizations.

source: author using spatial data from ONEP

Emphasis on development of elected local government at the sub-district (tambon) and municipality (tessaban) level, reflects the emergence of a newer line of effort to seek coordination and integration of government programs in Thailand. Given the extremely slow pro-gress made by efforts to coordinate decentralized central government operations and programs, these are in essence efforts to turn the system upside down. Thus, coordination and integration and the many types of decisions that must be associated with such processes, are being vested in elected local governments that are accountable to local communities. At least in theory, the development planning process at this level determines priority needs that are then responded to through budget


allocations to both local governments and central agencies, as well as through local government budgets derived from local taxes. Central agencies can then proceed to provide their services through their line agency units, with perhaps less need for efforts to coordinate among themselves. In order to help assess types and distribution of services currently available at tambon level, Figure 2-16 displays service access data reported by villages. Strong linkages between these services and central ‘line’ ministries with which they are associated, are indicated by the relative uniformity of patterns among sub-basins. Given their relatively high costs, hospitals show the most variability. Since local governments now have substantial responsibility for directing development assistance in their jurisdictions, Figure 2-16 also includes data on general perceptions of village leaders about whether their village receives overall levels of development assistance that are relatively similar to other villages in the tambon, or feel they are receiving relatively more or less assistance than most. This data shows that the vast majority of villages in all sub-basins feel that they are receiving levels of assistance that are relatively similar to other villages. Of the seven sub-basins where more than 10 percent of villages receive less assistance than others, five of these are upper sub-basins. Many responsibilities of local governments are directed toward managing programs and projects directed toward development at the village level. Thus, another approach to assessing progress of these efforts is to look at the availability of facilities and services at the village level. Figure 2-17 displays data reported by villages in each sub-basin that reflects the presence of various of the fa-cilities and services that government agencies and development programs have sought to promote. Overall, there is an impressively even distribution of these facilities and services across sub-basins, which is likely related to perceptions in most villages that development assistance is relatively evenly distributed among villages. Minor exceptions include relatively high frequency of rice banks in some upper sub-basins, and somewhat higher frequency of some public facilities in middle sub-basins. But, while presence or absence of village facilities and services is one type of indicator of performance of local government, we also need to look at processes employed by local leaders and the degree to which local participation is actually occurring. Thus, Figure 2-18 presents village reported data that relates to some of these issues.

Figure 2-16. Village reported access to services within their tambon, 2003

OtherVillages House- Persons agr ext hospital police grade grade post more than same as less thanreported holds reported center station 1-9 10-12 office others others others

unit: number number number602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 48 24 21 44 83 39 37 6 92 2 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 79 15 3 24 72 33 42 4 82 14 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 75 29 21 40 77 31 42 8 81 12 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 91 38 15 33 91 47 44 5 88 6 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 90 20 7 59 80 17 24 10 63 27 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 73 29 - 31 92 88 27 6 78 16 613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 91 37 18 24 96 42 62 - 96 4 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 68 31 29 31 86 44 43 7 81 12

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 78 29 15 34 85 43 42 5 85 10 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 72 21 18 26 88 26 7 4 95 1 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 70 18 - 23 84 43 21 11 89 - 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 70 27 20 28 72 23 22 4 94 2 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 86 50 20 31 88 59 48 11 81 9 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 73 30 23 36 83 45 29 4 91 5 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 42 26 16 35 77 19 42 - 100 -

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 72 28 19 29 81 33 23 5 92 3 616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 86 28 9 39 81 52 30 3 96 2 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 75 - - 42 25 17 8 - 100 - 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 100 76 - 88 100 88 94 - 82 18 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 58 31 7 33 71 44 56 2 96 2 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 86 16 4 8 92 52 36 16 78 6 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 74 34 17 28 78 43 50 3 79 18

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 78 31 13 31 79 47 4 4 4 85 11

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 75 29 16 31 81 39 33 5 88 7

Development equityPerceived share of assistanc

Percent of villages

Source: author’s analysis using (1) Ping Basin Village-level Basic Data (กชช2ค) for 2003 (2546) extracted from the national database; (2) a linked GIS file of village point locations; (3) a GIS file of sub-basin boundaries for the Ping Basin. All data provided by ONEP, Ministry of Natural

Sub-Basin


co-op

Health-safety Schools

Percent of villages

ProductionServices available within tambon

e


Figure 2-17. Reported village-level facilities and services in Ping sub-basins, 2003

agric agric rice buf/cattle livestock co-op occup public meeting religious reading village public commity recreation sports child play nursery grade grade adultstorage drying Bank bank care store training infor hall facility room library phone health rest area facility care ground school 1-9 10-12 educ

unit:602 Ping part 1 9 4 27 11 34 20 9 83 39 96 63 37 79 80 24 78 47 38 43 61 22 21 603 Mae Ngad 9 4 42 18 49 9 9 85 38 85 64 34 67 95 20 67 32 41 36 64 14 10 604 Mae Taeng 4 2 40 4 23 15 15 88 52 94 58 25 63 90 33 71 42 37 42 60 8 19 608 Mae Khan 5 6 26 12 66 24 11 91 66 88 50 48 91 92 26 84 39 53 45 65 15 11 610 Mae Klang 12 5 41 10 27 34 5 80 61 83 49 22 71 80 20 56 54 37 44 56 24 15 612 Mae Chaem upper 6 4 75 6 27 8 4 71 45 94 22 24 53 63 8 61 63 25 57 59 24 6 613 Mae Chaem lower 1 - 64 8 24 9 4 78 39 84 62 41 64 87 18 58 37 46 66 67 13 17 615 Mae Teun 6 - 27 6 12 8 5 47 36 71 36 23 51 68 9 57 29 29 42 58 16 17

Upper Sub-Basins 6 4 39 11 39 16 8 80 48 87 52 35 72 84 21 70 41 41 46 62 16 14605 Ping part 2 3 2 8 5 39 16 9 96 57 76 64 36 85 91 29 78 35 41 33 72 17 9 606 Mae Rim 7 5 30 13 59 21 11 80 71 91 66 38 80 89 11 79 43 36 50 61 20 14 607 Mae Kuang 7 4 11 11 48 17 7 93 51 81 73 34 81 91 23 73 32 39 40 59 13 10 609 Mae Lee 5 5 5 4 28 11 10 87 57 81 74 48 87 86 12 73 45 58 50 58 17 21 611 Ping part 3 6 5 17 9 34 12 7 92 61 84 73 41 90 91 17 77 44 53 57 61 16 14 614 Mae Had 16 6 23 10 55 10 16 87 87 68 74 35 81 77 19 87 39 45 65 55 13 10

Middle Sub-Basins 6 4 11 8 41 15 8 92 57 80 70 38 84 90 22 76 37 44 43 63 15 12616 Ping part 4 1 3 6 6 45 17 14 87 43 77 59 40 78 91 19 73 22 48 54 47 19 10 617 Huay Mae Thor 17 25 17 - 67 17 - 92 58 75 25 75 92 100 42 100 33 83 83 17 8 - 618 Klong Wang Chao - - - 6 24 6 18 94 65 88 47 59 76 88 24 88 18 41 41 47 12 6 619 Klong Mae Raka 18 9 42 18 60 27 7 82 56 84 78 51 82 84 16 67 29 44 64 60 16 22 620 Klong Suan Mark 2 2 12 - 24 4 2 82 42 74 60 32 72 80 16 80 20 52 50 70 30 30 621 Lower Ping 3 10 12 4 21 11 10 86 44 68 51 35 71 86 14 73 18 45 50 56 18 15

Lower Sub-Basins 4 7 12 5 31 13 10 86 45 73 55 39 74 87 16 74 20 47 53 54 19 15

Ping Basin 5 5 18 8 38 15 9 88 52 80 62 37 79 88 20 74 34 44 46 61 17 13

Sub-BasinPercent of villages Percent of villages


Percent of villages Percent of villages

Production support Information & communication

Village - level Facilities & Services

Health maintenance Education

share center people adultsVillages House- Persons opinions none 1-6 >6 exists benefited AIDS homelessreported holds reported % total % total % total none intermittant regular affected poor

unit: number number number hh's villages hh's602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 83 10 77 13 24 28 17 68 16 38 9 19 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 87 4 87 9 42 16 11 28 61 48 23 13 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 77 4 92 4 37 21 17 77 6 23 9 6 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 95 4 87 9 25 15 12 48 40 40 29 7 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 78 7 78 15 20 8 2 63 34 47 18 16 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 80 12 76 12 20 3 27 65 8 33 1 15 613 Mae Chaem lower 75 7,040 32,143 93 11 84 5 28 11 20 52 28 8 2 8 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 79 23 69 8 30 7 23 64 13 28 2 26

Upper Sub-Basins 656 75,800 303,086 87 9 82 9 29 16 16 55 30 35 15 13 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 86 7 82 11 19 10 7 57 36 32 15 6 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 84 11 80 9 36 17 5 66 29 52 17 14 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 90 6 84 11 23 11 10 49 42 27 15 5 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 93 8 80 13 23 6 9 56 35 20 6 4 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 89 10 76 14 25 11 10 58 32 42 12 11 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 89 13 65 23 16 9 13 68 19 68 5 7

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 89 8 81 12 23 10 9 55 37 32 13 7 616 Ping part 4 180 24,073 91,036 84 6 84 10 13 5 18 58 24 13 1 13 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 88 - 33 67 - 4 - 100 - 22 3 6 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 88 - 76 24 12 5 6 82 12 43 - 4 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 87 24 67 9 11 5 22 42 36 21 1 5 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 83 2 84 14 12 4 12 60 28 12 - 7 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 79 10 75 14 14 8 15 65 20 28 2 21

Lower Sub-Basins 692 91,687 355,864 82 9 77 14 13 7 16 62 22 22 1 16

Ping Basin 2,692 369,586 1,363,445 86 8 80 12 22 10 12 57 31 30 10 10


Percent of villages

village meetings per year childrenWelfare Center

Sub-Basin


orphans

Community strengthening Poor & disadvantaged

Percent of villages per 10,000 persons

activities

issue scaleLevel of helpProblem & planning forums

Learning Center

Figure 2-18. Reported aspects of village community management, 2003



With regard to local participation in governance processes, more than 75 percent of villages in 16 of 20 sub-basins report holding of 1 to 6 village meetings per year to serve as a forum for identify-ing and discussing problems, planning activities to address them, and discussing their progress. Villages holding more frequent meetings are somewhat more common in lower sub-basins, and least common in upper sub-basins, although there is substantial variability among individual sub-basins. A similar variability is present among the smaller minority of villages that hold no village meetings. Villages also report very high levels of households willing and able to share their opin-ions regarding problems and plans, although a bit of skepticism may be in order because it may be seen to be in the best interest of the village leaders who report these data to claim such high levels of participation. In terms of self-help capacity building, there is an increase along the lower-to-upper sub-basin gra-dient in the proportion of villages that have established learning centers, as well as in the percent-age of households believed to be beneficiaries of these centers. One indicator of community func-tional capacity is their efforts to assist the poor and disadvantaged. In this regard, most villages re-port welfare systems that are functioning at least intermittently, but the scale of some of the major issues they seek to address, such as orphans and AIDS-affected children, is considerably higher in middle, and especially upper sub-basins. We have already seen that educational services appear to be a quite high priority, and local schools and school teachers are another important element of the social and institutional landscapes in rural areas. Teachers can and have been important resources and stakeholders in efforts to improve live-lihoods, public health and management of natural resources and the environment. Thus, Figure 2-19 presents village reported data on the distribution of educational services among sub-basins, as well as some data on the educational attainment level of the adult population. Well over half of all villages in 17 of 20 sub-basins report access to schools teaching grades 1 to 9 (the level of mandatory education in 2003), and the proportion rises to more than 70 percent with schools located within their tambon. Access to the remaining years of secondary education within the local tambon is also quite widespread. This implies a quite widespread cadre of teachers. The degree to which teachers are motivated and able to contribute to and participate in activities related to the issues of central concern to sub-basin management organizations and this project, however, is likely to vary widely. Moreover, there is currently a high-profile protest by many teachers from around the country who do not want to proceed any further along the path toward decentralization of school system management to local governments. Words have often been harsh and many local leaders have been offended by apparently condescending attitudes toward them. It is not yet clear how much damage this may cause to local relationships, however, which are often more dependent on personal characteristics than on shouting in the political arena. In terms of educational attainment in the general adult population, village reported data should be quite surprising to many by their indication that educational attainment in upper and lower sub-basins is not very different. If this is accurate, it reflects a major and impressive change during the last two to three decades. Before this time, even simple communication between lowland Thai and mountain minority groups could be very problematic for linguistic reasons, and very few mountain communities had access to the mainstream educational system. While it has been clear that strong emphasis on education in these areas have brought much change among the new adult generation, this data is striking. It should be noted, however, that this is one of the weakest areas of the na-tional database from which this data was extracted, and the simple inconsistency of data from 360 villages required their elimination from these calculations. There were also a number of villages who did not submit their questionnaires in 2003. On an overall percentage basis, these gaps in the data are very small. But if there was a consistent bias related to the characteristics of the villages who either failed to report or had their data records excluded, there could be some distortion to this data. Nevertheless, there is no clear alternative source of data that is accessible at this level of spa-tial resolution.

village villageVillages House- Persons nursery adult Villages House- Persons required secondary vocational collegereported holds reported school village tambon village tambon educ reported holds reported educ equiv diploma degree

unit: number number number number number number602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 43 61 83 22 39 21 85 11,984 44,400 43 4 1 1 5 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 36 64 72 14 33 10 74 7,785 27,169 67 5 2 2 9 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 42 60 77 8 31 19 48 5,725 25,224 27 4 1 1 5 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 45 65 91 15 47 11 146 18,243 68,152 61 7 3 2 8 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 44 56 80 24 17 15 39 5,818 23,189 58 5 4 3 7 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 57 59 92 24 88 6 51 4,323 25,122 39 5 1 1 5 613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 66 67 96 13 42 17 72 6,777 30,713 65 7 3 1 9 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 42 58 86 16 44 17 75 6,355 28,775 28 3 1 0.3 2

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 46 62 85 16 43 14 590 67,010 272,744 51 5 2 2 7 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 33 72 88 17 26 9 312 48,799 169,649 67 8 5 4 12 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 50 61 84 20 43 14 45 5,509 19,962 58 7 3 2 6 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 40 59 72 13 23 10 421 61,317 213,215 54 9 5 3 10 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 50 58 88 17 59 21 142 21,878 77,020 53 7 3 2 7 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 57 61 83 16 45 14 205 31,088 111,006 51 7 3 2 8 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 65 55 77 13 19 10 29 4,331 14,308 23 3 1 1 18

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 43 63 81 15 33 12 1,154 172,922 605,160 56 8 4 3 10 616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 54 47 81 19 52 10 146 19,875 74,656 57 10 4 2 7 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 83 17 25 8 17 - 12 1,664 6,703 11 3 2 3 6 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 41 47 100 12 88 6 16 1,682 7,161 74 9 1 1 7 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 64 60 71 16 44 22 37 5,374 20,427 65 5 1 1 8 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 50 70 92 30 52 30 50 7,758 30,305 29 9 1 1 5 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 50 56 78 18 43 15 319 40,667 160,022 50 5 2 1 6

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 53 54 79 19 47 15 580 77,020 299,274 50 7 2 2 6

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 46 61 81 17 39 13 2,324 316,952 1,177,178 54 7 3 2 8

Percent of villages


Local education services

Percent of 15-60 year age group


Work force educational levels

still student

level of education completed

Sub-Basin

2003 Reporting population Grades 1-9 Grades 10-12

Figure 2-19. Village reported educational levels and education access, 2003



(h) Civil society and academia

Another dimension of social change in Thailand has been the emergence and growth of civil soci-ety groups and institutions that are non-governmental in nature. Since this represents another po-tentially important group of stakeholders in Ping sub-basins, this section takes a brief look at some of the major types of groups that may be most relevant for sub-basin management efforts.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

There has been a substantial surge in development of various forms of non-governmental groups and organizations, especially just prior to and since passage of the 1997 national constitution. In addition to the range of more longstanding groups, such as professional associations and charities, a range of “NGO’s” and “people’s organizations” has also emerged. During the earlier years of their recent emergence and evolution, NGO’s based in Bangkok or other major urban areas (such as Chiang Mai), or who were subsidiaries of international organizations, tended to play the most prominent non-governmental role in rural development, environmental, and natural resource man-agement initiatives. A substantial range of variability among these organizations has emerged in relationship to environmental issues, and especially regarding management of the mountain areas that are particularly prominent features of upper sub-basins. Many have become advocates at na-tional policy levels, contributing to different sides of often very strong public debates. Many also have various types of linkages at international levels. During more recent years, however, there has been very distinct movement toward emergence of much more initiative by “people’s organizations” and networks, with “NGO” roles beginning to shift more to provision of various forms of organizational, technical, analytical, management, and in some cases policy advocacy types of support for local organizations and networks. A number of domestic, and a few international NGO’s are operating in sub-basins of the Ping River Basin, and although their views on various issues can differ substantially, most appear to be focusing their ef-forts on support for networks of communities, schools, women’s groups, producer groups, village volunteers, or other types of institutions or local organizations.

Local people’s organizations

Another effect of constitutional and local government reforms has been to allow space for emer-gence of a range of new types of non-governmental social organizations that are both formal and informal in nature. While initial growth of civil society institutions focused on groups within communities and very local areas, recent trends place much effort on building alliances among lo-cal groups through establishment of networks at various scales. Growth of these civil society insti-tutions is encouraged and facilitated by similar types of organizations emerging at national and re-gional levels, as well as by various government agencies that are increasingly constrained from ex-panding their local field staff to implement local projects and programs. In relation to natural re-source management, three generic types of civil society organizations are particularly relevant:

• Agency-induced groups. These include local organizations that may have begun under agency control but evolved into a more independent form, such as agricultural cooperatives, as well as recent efforts by agencies to encourage and induce formation of local groups, such as has been the case with many agriculture and forest conservation groups. Agency links with ‘village volun-teers’, such as those working on public health, soil problems, and environmental issues for ex-ample, are a related approach. Various types of support for these groups have been provided by agencies, which most frequently includes training and any necessary equipment, often some type of uniform apparel, and sometimes compensation or a revolving fund. This has been an increas-ingly common tactic employed by various government agencies, resulting in varying degrees of success and impact.

• Local initiative groups. These include groups based in longstanding local traditions, such as the muang fai water user groups, more recent local initiatives such as growers associations, as well as the new generation of networks being formed at multiple levels. Since most are derived from local efforts to support group activity that is in the best interest of the membership of the group, many began with a relatively narrow focus on a particular type of function, activity or product. Networks providing linkages among such groups appear to be a still relatively informal, but


practical means of federating to increase the scale of coverage, mobilization capacity, economic and/or political bargaining power, and other types of attributes that are needed or useful from time to time. Various outside NGO, government and/or business actors often provide encour-agement and support, which often includes training and sometimes revolving funds. The most recent wave of networks emerging in some areas can even be called ‘networks of networks’ as they seek to bring higher-level coordination and integration at various scales, which often corre-spond with watersheds. Where they exist and have developed enough capacity, they are likely to be important building blocks and prototypes for sub-basin management organizations envisioned under this project and Ping River Basin rehabilitation and management efforts more generally.

• Cultural, religious and ethnic groups. These groups can be organizationally quite similar to lo-cal initiative groups in many ways, but their membership is more specifically confined to par-ticular groups who share specific ethnicity, or cultural or religious beliefs and traditions. Ideally, such groups can, and in many cases increasingly do, play a very important and useful supporting role in natural resource management activities. Caution needs to be exercised, however, espe-cially in cases where competition, tension or conflict related to natural resource issues are among groups that coincide with ethnic or religious differences, that involvement of such groups does not increase divisiveness or conflict. In any event, the pilot project needs to at least avoid alien-ating such groups, as their opposition can often be quite powerful.

Although there are no data that can be used to directly assess the distribution of the full range of these various types of groups in Ping sub-basins, Figure 2-20 presents some relevant village re-ported data on group membership. According to these reports, about 75 to 95 percent of all house-holds in all sub-basins are members of some type of local group. And, it is reported that in 13 of the sub-basins more than half of these group members receive some sort of funds for livelihood development or education through the group – and in the remaining sub-basins 25 to 50 percent receive such funds. Substantial portions of these group members (about 35-55 percent, except for Mae Teun) are also members of local agricultural groups, and a somewhat smaller portion are members of agricultural cooperatives. Thus, many if not most of the types of groups reported in this data appear most likely to be similar to agency-induced groups.

Figure 2-20. Village reported group membership and credit sources, 2003

all group also producer govtVillages House- Persons members receive agric agric savings revolvingreported holds reported % total funds** group coop group fund

unit: number number number hh's602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 84 44 35 31 12 7 17 4 1 61 1.6 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 92 78 62 59 38 34 40 4 2 74 0.9 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 74 47 43 43 23 23 32 0.2 2 55 0.7 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 95 73 57 42 19 28 34 1 1 65 0.9 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 77 60 54 74 10 13 32 7 1 62 - 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 83 90 47 43 6 11 11 - 3 76 0.0 613 Mae Chaem lower 75 7,040 32,143 93 87 45 27 5 8 11 0.6 4 83 0.2 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 75 27 8 14 8 2 10 2 2 73 0.2

Upper Sub-Basins 656 75,800 303,086 87 65 48 42 17 19 26 2 2 68 0.7 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 88 50 47 27 14 14 22 3 1 53 0.6 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 87 60 39 30 28 7 16 3 3 59 1.0 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 91 44 47 36 24 18 26 2 1 53 1.2 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 89 48 34 41 27 17 47 3 0.2 52 0.6 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 92 59 59 52 19 14 44 2 1 61 2.0 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 86 81 51 44 15 22 25 3 1 58 -

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 90 50 47 37 20 16 30 3 1 55 1.1 616 Ping part 4 180 24,073 91,036 81 55 38 26 22 4 24 2 4 57 1.1 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 83 33 39 22 20 0 16 2 - 54 - 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 86 87 52 30 36 4 46 13 39 79 - 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 81 62 40 41 43 4 31 5 0.2 44 0.2 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 82 33 30 25 33 9 43 2 7 72 - 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 81 68 45 31 31 11 38 5 7 66 0.9

Lower Sub-Basins 692 91,687 355,864 81 61 41 29 29 8 34 4 6 62 0.8

Ping Basin 2,692 369,586 1,363,445 87 56 46 36 22 15 30 3 2 59 0.9 **received funds for livelihood development or education


% group member hh's

Sources of producer creditalso members of

Group membership

other2003 Reporting population

Sub-BasinPercent of total households

co-op BAAC commerc bank

private lender


Given the strong linkage of many of these groups with financial flows, Figure 2-18 also includes data on sources of credit intended for production activities of various sorts. It is interesting to note the general trend toward lower participation along a lower-to-upper sub-basin gradient for producer savings groups, the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), and commercial banks alike. And this gradient would be even more clear if the Mae Ngad sub-basin is excluded from upper sub-basin averages. The only obvious compensating reverse gradient is in credit re-ceived through cooperatives. But the biggest current story in production credit is government re-volving funds, which are providing credit for mote than 50 percent of all households in all sub-basins except Klong Mae Raka (where it drops to 44 percent). Given the prominent role of rising household debt in public debate about rural poverty, it is difficult to know how much of this credit is actually being used for improving production, versus how much is being used to pay off previ-ously incurred debts from other sources. One wonders, for example, what data on credit from pri-vate lenders would look like if there were no government revolving funds, as well as what will be the rate of repayment or default on government revolving funds. In any event, while members of various types of urban elites condemn these government policies for being ‘populist’ (which they apparently see as something bad), this data suggests they are clearly reaching many people. In order to help explore potential for local groups that are not as likely to be induced by agencies or sources of household credit, Figure 2-21 presents data on the distribution of villages reporting the presence of local knowledge specialists in various types of topics. One of the first patterns evident in this data is the relatively lower proportion of villages in lower sub-basins that report the presence of any type of local specialist, which carries over into all the specific topic categories. The next most obvious pattern is the clear increase in villages reporting local specialists in natural resources and environment along the lower-to-upper sub-basin gradient. In comparing specialists in upper and middle sub-basins, there appears to be a concentration of artisans and foodstuffs specialists in middle sub-basins. Specialists in cottage industry, village finance, traditional medicine, and relig-ion, tradition and rituals are quite equally widespread among both middle and upper sub-basins.

Figure 2-21. Villages reporting local knowledge specialists, 2003


unit: number number number602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 77 58 57 49 24 60 41 30 42 49 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 91 63 37 46 18 64 28 15 40 60 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 85 52 40 63 15 73 40 37 63 58 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 96 74 40 48 29 67 36 32 64 66 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 80 51 51 59 15 63 37 24 44 49 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 80 57 63 53 4 55 20 12 45 57 613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 64 37 38 39 9 39 11 13 29 29 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 49 34 22 12 6 31 12 3 26 32

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 81 57 42 45 18 58 29 22 46 52 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 87 60 25 44 36 62 44 32 57 61 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 91 73 45 57 29 71 38 45 68 64 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 86 63 31 54 27 69 36 24 45 52 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 74 49 28 48 16 58 31 21 33 41 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 71 48 23 33 15 52 27 18 34 42 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 71 52 48 39 26 45 42 23 39 39

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 82 58 28 47 26 62 36 25 46 52 616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 74 50 13 35 24 49 22 7 29 38 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 100 100 25 67 17 83 25 25 33 75 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 88 59 - 29 24 59 18 6 24 47 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 58 36 33 20 16 49 13 7 24 40 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 42 30 6 20 8 24 10 - 16 18 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 55 41 8 29 11 36 17 7 20 23

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 61 44 11 30 15 40 18 7 23 29

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 76 54 27 42 21 56 30 20 40 46

Percent of villages


village finance

Village local knowledge specialists

agric cottage industry

Sub-Basin

2003 Reporting population traditional medic

natural resource environ

at least 1 village

specialistartisans lang

culture

religion tradition

rituals

foodstuffs


While the presence of these types of specialists does not necessarily imply the current presence of corresponding local groups, it may be an indicator of some of the human resources that are avail-able in sub-basins who might help develop, or at least make valuable contributions to, locally-initiated groups. Accordingly, they may also be able to make important contributions to develop-ment of sub-basin organizations. Given the training support that outside agencies and organizations have been providing for local groups, insights may also be gained from assessment of training activities that are occurring in local communities. Thus, Figure 2-22 presents summary data on the levels of training in different topics (trainees per 1,000 households) received from outside government and private groups in Ping sub-basins during the year prior to village reporting in 2003. One clear trend in this data is the strong emphasis that has been put on conservation training in up-per sub-basins, much of which has been associated with government-induced conservation groups. Training in agriculture has also been substantial, and probably involved various local agriculture groups, and it exceeded levels of conservation training in middle sub-basins. Health training em-phasizing nutrition and mother and child care has been conducted at a lower level, but is quite con-sistently distributed across sub-basins. It is also likely that this involved government-induced groups or “volunteers”. While training in non-agricultural livelihoods has also been fairly well dis-tributed, its relatively low levels are striking, and not at all well matched with the types of local employment data reviewed in this report. Indeed, all non-agricultural occupational training com-bined was at a lower level than either one of the two major types of health training. The data is not very clear about what types of topics were included in the ‘interest group’ training, which was pre-sumably organized in response to interest in various special topics. But perhaps the most striking pattern in this data is the emphasis of training programs on addressing problems of narcotic drug use, which was a major government campaign during this period. It is most unfortunate that there is no comparable data available on the presence, types or character-istics of informal local network groups and organizations. While their existence is widely known, information on their distribution and activities is at this point only anecdotal, so that no systematic assessment is possible. They will be, however, very important stakeholders in any effort to support development of sub-basin organizations. Collectively, all three types of civil society institutions appear eligible to be considered prachak-hom, which is a new and still quite vaguely defined set of groups or organizations that are gaining legitimacy as part of the governance system in Thailand. This is a particularly important point in terms of their role and sustainability, because of provisions in laws and regulations for relationships between TAO and prachakhom organizations. Indeed, TAO recognition of a local prachakhom or-ganization can allow it to participate in local government proceedings relevant to the purpose of the organization, and it can even receive TAO support and funding for conducting approved activities. Since many local sub-basin management-related networks demonstrate potential for becoming im-portant building block components of sub-basin management organizations, such links with TAO could prove to be an important means for integration and support at local levels.

Higher level academic institutions

Although most colleges and major universities have long been part of the national government sys-tem, many have functioned with a relative degree of independence that sets them apart from regular central and provincial line agencies. Moreover, recent years have brought a growing number of private universities and colleges, as well as institutional reforms under which government universi-ties are moving toward a more parastatal type of status, along with official recognition of commu-nity service functions that are part of their official mandate. Various individuals and groups of fac-ulty, staff and students, sometimes organized under institutes, centers or projects, are engaging with local institutions, groups and communities to facilitate and support activities quite relevant to this project. Support for such efforts is being provided by institutions like the Thailand Research Fund, as well as by a range of other public and private sources. Linkages with civil society organizations are also common. While these efforts have a relatively uneven distribution across Ping sub-basins and appear to occur on a relatively ad hoc basis, they are having significant impacts in some areas, and they may well be able to make significant contributions to sub-basin level organizations.

Figure 2-22. Village reported training provided by outside groups, 2003


unit: number number number602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 13 3 4 1 1 36 75 105 6 1 7 4 - 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 40 4 4 9 0.3 22 18 75 10 2 23 23 3 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 19 1 4 3 3 21 24 46 14 - 12 7 1 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 37 3 6 4 1 34 31 95 12 1 18 13 0.2 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 17 2 1 1 - 21 30 82 7 - 7 4 0.4 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 18 2 4 1 1 33 57 91 6 - 12 11 - 613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 24 4 15 3 - 11 33 69 13 - 5 16 1 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 20 3 - 3 2 34 44 111 21 2 19 23 -

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 26 3 5 3 1 28 39 87 11 1 14 13 1 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 23 3 4 4 2 22 16 73 8 1 15 12 4 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 26 4 3 2 2 44 35 70 9 1 11 9 6 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 29 6 7 6 1 52 27 111 13 1 17 16 1 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 16 3 2 6 0.4 12 18 52 7 0 9 11 0.1 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 30 3 3 5 1 25 19 72 10 1 12 11 2 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 38 1 3 9 2 45 38 83 5 2 21 7 0.5

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 26 4 4 5 1 33 22 84 10 1 14 13 2 616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 21 2 3 2 0.3 18 27 131 9 0.4 11 20 0.1 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 15 - 3 - - 6 16 34 4 - 11 24 - 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 28 5 2 8 - 67 22 226 7 - 21 21 1 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 19 1 3 3 - 9 13 54 3 1 15 9 1 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 23 0.3 1 2 - 3 4 53 6 - 14 12 - 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 38 2 3 3 1 22 22 133 11 2 17 15 -

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 31 2 3 2 0 19 21 121 9 2 15 16 0

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 27 3 4 4 1 28 25 94 10 1 14 14 1

Training Organized by Outside Government & Private Groups

Trainees per 1,000 persons

drugs interest group other nutritionskills other character conser-

vationagric

Occupational Educational Health2003 Reporting populationmother &

child other


Sub-Basinindustry service &

trade



(i) Overall Context

Engagement with natural resource management issues in local sub-basin domains must continually be aware of how they may be interacting with local equity and power relations issues [Molle 2002, Neef 2004]. Components of the overall institutional stakeholder context currently found in Ping sub-basins are depicted diagrammatically in Figure 2-23. Various basic components of this diagram were conceived by a team of CMU graduate students studying resource governance institutions and issues in the Mae Chaem sub-basin [Thomas et.al. 2004b]. Although highly simplified, this dia-gram gives us somewhat of an overview of the institutional stakeholder complexities that sub-basin organizations must face – in addition to institutional factors introduced by the river basin organiza-tion system itself.

Figure 2-23. Components of the institutional context in Ping sub-basins

The role of members in the local administration hierarchy as brokers and coordinators among the complex set of government agencies, local governments and civil society institutions is quite note-worthy, but there are few tools to assure compliance or accountability, and their resources and power appear to be declining. TAOs (and tessabans) are seen as a key focus for improved local management in the future, but most do not yet have much capacity regarding natural resource and environment issues, their constituents have not yet pushed for action in these areas, and they have few laws or regulations and little enforcement authority to back them up. Moreover, they have no jurisdiction over stakeholders beyond the sub-district domain. Local civil society groups and sub-watershed management networks have considerable potential for serving as building block organi-zations and for playing key roles in sub-basin management organizations, and there is potential for stronger links between TAO and these groups and organizations through mechanisms available to provide for interaction with, and even funding for local prachakom organizations. Private sector institutions, groups and individuals are important actors because of the direct impacts of their activities that compete for resources and affect the environment, as well as the more indi-rect impacts of their influence on livelihoods opportunities in local communities and economic in-tegration and commercialization in the sub-basin. Subsequent references in this report to major stakeholders and the land use change processes with which they are associated will rely on these discussions.


3. Logic of criteria reflecting current issues

The Ping River Basin project seeks to focus on pilot efforts to develop participatory approaches, methods and tools, and apply them in developing ‘model’ management organizations in three se-lected pilot sub-basins, as a prelude to their wider application in other sub-basins. In order to pro-vide the most robust test of this approach as possible, these pilot efforts need to provide a reason-able representation of the conditions, stakeholders and issues discussed in previous sections. It is both tempting and relatively easy to draft a very long list of selection criteria to consider the substantial range of often fairly complex conditions, actors and issues relevant to our task. It is far more challenging, however, (and no doubt more controversial) to articulate a quite brief list of practical selection criteria. Moreover, these criteria must be subject to assessment by indicators for which secondary data is immediately available for the entire area, and in a form that can be quickly aggregated at the sub-basin level. Considering the nature of much readily available secondary data this has been a very severe limitation on this current exercise. It is also important to note that the objective of developing criteria and indicators for sub-basin se-lection is to seek to help inform the decision-making process. Since final decisions on sub-basin selection are intended to be derived from a participatory process among people in the Ping River Basin, it will ultimately be their choice to determine the degree to which these criteria and quantita-tive indicators play a role in that process. Given these mandates and limitations, the following modest set of four major selection criteria are proposed, along with necessary sub-criteria required to allow development of indicators that can be implemented with readily available data. The overall structure and logic of the criteria are pre-sented in this section, and summarized in Figure 2-24, whereas development of specific indicators is presented in following sections.

(a) Sub-basin groupings.

The first criterion to be applied in the site selection process provides the basis for logical and sys-tematic assignment of sub-basins into lower, middle and upper sub-basin groups.

Criterion 1. Groupings of middle and upper sub-basins within the Ping River Basin should be made according bias in their relative distribution of land area among lowland, midland and highland zones.

The rationale for and role of this criterion has already been discussed in previous sections, along with a quantitative indicator for which data and calculations have been provided, and discussion of its implications for classifying sub-basins into three groups for further sample selection. It is listed here for completeness in clarifying the overall logic of the proposed pilot site selection criteria.

(b) Severity of natural resource Issues

The overall set of 3 pilot sub-basins needs to include representation of at least three types of key issues directly related to the status and physical condition of natural resources, as summarized in previous sections.

Criterion 2. Selected sub-basins should include conditions making it likely that issues will arise related to forest and land degradation, natural hazards, and water use.

In order to apply this criterion, three more specific sub-criteria are proposed to assess conditions associated with each of the key issues included in this criterion:

Forest and land resource degradation in the Ping River Basin is a major issue in the public policy arena. Moreover, it features prominently in all previous studies, and in the logic and arguments underlying the very existence of this project. Impacts are linked with biodiversity loss and impaired watershed services. Thus,


Sub-Criterion 2.1. Priority should be assigned to sub-basins where conversion of forest to ag-riculture and other uses is substantial, and where deterioration of remaining forest and soil erosion rates are relatively high.

Natural hazards. Impacts of natural disasters are major concerns both among the general public and in the public policy arena. Floods and landslides make headlines in the media, and have pro-vided major trigger events for revoking logging concessions in national forests (the “logging ban”), launching many emergency assistance programs, and driving new programs for prevention and early warning systems. The recent tsunami disaster is likely to help further intensify such concerns. Thus, Sub-Criterion 2.2. Priority should be assigned to sub-basins where conditions indicate there are high risks of flooding and/or landslides.

Water use. Competition for water is recognized as an important and growing concern, and it is likely that it will feature prominently among stakeholder negotiations and management tasks faced by all new sub-basin management organizations. Motivation for actions to more effectively manage water use is most likely where irrigated agriculture faces constraints on access to dry season stream flow and groundwater. Thus, Sub-Criterion 2.3. Priority should be assigned to sub-basins where high proportions of irri-gated agriculture are associated with low dry season stream flow and high rates of groundwa-ter use. Highest priority should apply in selecting the middle sub-basin.

(c) Severity of socio-economic issues

While socio-economic issues are (and should be) of major concern under this project, this is the area where constraints on the content and form of available data have been most difficult. Some-what paradoxically, it is also the area where proliferation of criteria is most tempting and common, due largely to the complexity of many of the considerations involved. Given the focus articulated by this project on poverty and public health, as well as the focus on resource access and competi-tion that includes mountain ethnic minority and urban communities:

Criterion 3. Selected sub-basins should include areas where poverty and health problems are relatively high, where land use is restricted and conflict is likely, and areas where upland mi-norities and/or urban populations should play significant roles.

In order to apply this criterion, four more specific sub-criteria are proposed to assess conditions associated with each of the key issues included in this criterion: Poverty. Reduction of rural poverty is a major theme of this project, as well as most major govern-ment development programs. Moreover, poverty is often associated with activities leading to envi-ronmental deterioration. While average income is one measure of poverty, it is also associated with other issues. Thus, Sub-Criterion 3.1. Priority should be given to areas with relatively low incomes and overall conditions are indicative of economic and social difficulties. Land use access and competition. Interests associated with commercial agriculture, forest conser-vation, and various types of tourism are all seeking substantial expansion of their activities in the Ping River Basin. Especially in midland and highland zones, traditional subsistence-oriented agroecosystems are caught between these powerful expansionist forces, leading to transformations in livelihoods, landscapes and lifestyles. These forces and processes are very often associated with tension and conflict that will be a major challenge for many sub-basin management organizations. Thus, Sub-Criterion 3.2. Priority should be given to areas where legal restrictions constrain local land-based livelihoods, and where agriculture is occurring in conflict with those restrictions. This priority should be highest for the upper sub-basin, but some presence would also be de-sirable in other sub-basins.


Ethnicity, settlement density & urbanization. There is a substantial division within northern Thai society between lowland society dominated by ethnic Thai communities in relatively densely set-tled valley floors and urbanizing areas, and mountain society where more sparsely settled commu-nities have been historically dominated by various ethnic minority groups usually referenced by a single common term (chao khao). Minority communities are a major component of the rural poor, and various of their livelihood and land use activities are often, and increasingly, cited as an impor-tant issue and cause of environmental deterioration. High settlement densities are associated with population centers where commercial, service and industrial sectors are driving agricultural intensi-fication, urbanization, economic growth and restructuring, and other powerful forces associated with ‘modernization’ and changing patterns of natural resource use and abuse. More than 60 per-cent of mountain ethnic minority populations are located in upper sub-basins, whereas high settle-ment densities are primarily associated with middle and lower sub-basins. Thus, Sub-Criterion 3.3. The upper sub-basin should give priority to areas with strong upland eth-nic minority presence, and other sub-basins should give priority to densely settled areas. Health. Public health is a major element of concern related to environmental management issues generally, and it features prominently in the logic underlying development of this project. In the context of the Ping River Basin, the currently most commonly perceived aspects of public health that might be improved through basin management relate to illness associated with water-borne diseases or air pollution (including smoke), or with toxic effects from waste products and chemicals increasingly used in agriculture and industry. Thus, Sub-Criterion 3.4. Priority should be given to sub-basins with relatively high levels of health problems associated with clean water supply, waste management, and use of toxic chemicals.

(d) Local organizational capacity and administrative complexity

While it is clearly important to have representation of conditions under which a reasonable range of natural resource and socio-economic issues are likely to be key elements of pilot sub-basin man-agement activities, it is also important to consider elements affecting the likelihood of significant progress being made under the project. We also need to consider how pilot sub-basins can best serve as role models for other sub-basins with similar overall characteristics. Thus,

Criterion 4. Selected sub-basins should have reasonable levels of local organizational capaci-ties and relevant skills, but avoid areas where excessive administrative complexity may pre-vent adequate testing of model approaches within the project timeframe.

In order to apply this criterion, three more specific sub-criteria are proposed to assess conditions associated with each of the key issues included in this criterion: Local organizational capacity. Four components of local organizational capacity are likely to have a substantial effect on the outcome of this project. Of key importance will be the degree to which local governance processes have achieved high levels of participation in community activities, where communities have good experience with local civil society group organizations and net-works, and where communities are actively engaged in efforts to learn from their experience and outside sources. If other conditions are relevant, progress in these areas could provide a powerful demonstration effect for areas where these factors are not yet as active. And, since longer term vi-ability and sustainability of these efforts depend on linkage with local governments, it will also be helpful if local governments in pilot sites have a reasonable mix of capacities. Thus, Sub-Criterion 4.1. Priority should be given to sub-basins where local communities have high levels of participation in community activities, where they are experienced with local group organizations, and where they are actively involved in community learning processes. A rea-sonable mix of capacities of supporting local (sub-district) government should be included. Local knowledge and relevant training. Local participation and relevant skills are likely to be very important in a pilot project such as this one. Relevant skills are likely to include a range of issues for which local knowledge and experience with local conditions will be highly relevant. At the same time, since collaboration among stakeholders representing both local interests and the inter-


ests of downstream and wider society are central to the project, it will also very relevant to have a reasonable number of people in the sub-basin who are familiar with the concepts, approaches and tools employed by relevant outside organizations and agencies. Thus, Sub-Criterion 4.2. Priority should be given to sub-basins with relatively widespread presence of relevant local knowledge specialists, as well as a strong cadre of local people who have re-ceived relevant training from outside organizations and agencies. Administrative simplicity. Given the project’s very short time frame, it seems to be wise to try to avoid sub-basins where mis-matches between administrative and watershed boundaries result in a complex set of administrative units that would require major coordination efforts before the project could progress. Thus, Sub-Criterion 4.3. Priority should be given to sub-basins with relatively lower requirements for coordination across administrative units.

Figure 2-24. Proposed sub-basin criteria and sub-criteria.

1 Groupings of Middle and Upper Sub-Basins within the Ping River Basin should be made according to the relative bias in distribution of land area among lowland, midland and highland zones.

2 Selected sub-basins should include conditions where issues will likely arise related to forest and land degradation, natural hazards, and water use.

2.1 Priority should be assigned to sub-basins where conversion of forest to agriculture and other uses is substantial, and where deterioration of remaining forest and soil erosion rates are relatively high.

2.2 Priority should be assigned to sub-basins where conditions indicate there are high risks of flooding and/or landslides.

2.3 Priority should be assigned to sub-basins where high proportions of irrigated agriculture are asso-ciated with low dry season stream flow and high rates of groundwater use. Highest priority should apply in selecting the middle sub-basin.

3 Selected sub-basins should include areas where poverty and health problems are relatively high, where land use is restricted and conflict is likely, and areas where upland minorities or urban populations should play significant roles.

3.1 Priority should be given to areas with relatively low incomes and overall conditions are indicative of economic and social difficulties.

3.2 Priority should be given to areas where legal restrictions constrain local land-based livelihoods, and where agriculture is occurring in conflict with those restrictions. This priority should be highest for the upper sub-basin, but some presence would also be desirable in other sub-basins.

3.3 The upper sub-basin should give priority to areas with strong upland ethnic minority presence, and other sub-basins should give priority to inclusion of densely settled areas.

3.4 Priority should be given to sub-basins with relatively high levels of health problems associated with clean water supply, waste management, and use of toxic chemicals.

4 Selected sub-basins should have reasonable levels of local organizational capacities and relevant skills, but avoid areas where excessive administrative complexity may prevent adequate testing of model approaches within the project timeframe.

4.1 Priority should be given to sub-basins where local communities have high levels of participation in community activities, where they are experienced with local group organizations, and where they are actively involved in community learning processes. A reasonable mix of capacities of support-ing local (sub-district) government should be included

4.2 Priority should be given to sub-basins with relatively widespread presence of relevant local knowl-edge specialists, as well as a strong cadre of local people who have received relevant training from outside organizations and agencies.

4.3 Priority should be given to sub-basins with relatively lower requirements for coordination across administrative units.


4. Severity of natural resource issues

Biophysical dimensions of perceived natural resource degradation in the Ping River Basin are a central focus of concern regarding the sustainable provision of important environmental services, and especially biodiversity and watershed functions. In addition to their implications for mainte-nance of biodiversity and general ecosystem ‘health’, conservationists are linking deforestation and deterioration of forest quality with decreased infiltration of rainfall into natural soil water and groundwater storage reservoirs, and thus disruption of seasonal stream flows and increased down-stream flooding and dry season water scarcity. They also believe changes in soil properties associ-ated with deforestation and agriculture in sloping lands are resulting in increased soil erosion and landslides, with especially serious consequences in local sub-watersheds, but also in contributing to siltation of large reservoirs and water infrastructure at more distant downstream locations. In-creased use of water for intensive agriculture and other human activities at various positions in wa-tershed landscapes are seen as further exacerbating water scarcity problems by contributing to low dry season stream flows and groundwater depletion. Sub-basin management organizations will need to develop effective means for addressing these issues and concerns.

Thus, the overall guiding criterion under which sub-criteria and indicators related to natural re-source issues are developed is:

Criterion 2. Selected sub-basins should include conditions making it likely that issues will arise related to forest and land degradation, natural hazards, and water use. This criterion disaggregates overall logic underlying concern about biophysical changes in natural resources into three interrelated elements reflecting major issue areas advanced by components of the population of the Ping River Basin who believe they are suffering from, or are likely to suffer from negative impacts resulting from these changes. In order to implement this criterion, sub-criteria have been developed for each of the three major issue areas included in the overall crite-rion. They are articulated in the following sections, along with specific indicators that can be used to assess each sub-criterion. An overall picture of the sub-criteria and indicators is provided in Fig-ure 2-25, along with indicator scores for Ping sub-basins where data is available from secondary sources. Overall scores are relative within sub-basin groupings, and relative weights are all 1.0.

(a) Forest and Land Resource Degradation

Forest and land resource degradation in the Ping River Basin is a major issue in the public policy arena, and it features prominently in all previous studies as well as in the logic and arguments un-derlying this project. Deforestation and forest deterioration are claimed by many to be major pri-mary causes of negative impacts on biodiversity reserves, as well as hydrological regimes, natural disasters, and damage to downstream water resource infrastructure [Tomich 2004]. Thus, the spe-cific sub-criterion related to forest and land resource degradation is: Sub-Criterion 2.1. Priority should be assigned to sub-basins where conversion of forest to ag-riculture and other uses is substantial, and where deterioration of remaining forest and soil erosion rates are relatively high. In order to assess Ping sub-basins according to this sub-criterion, three indicators have been devel-oped, all of which employ a 3-point scale to indicate relative differences among Ping sub-basins. Preliminary calculation of sub-basin scores for each of these indicators can be made from data ob-tained from Panya and the CMU study. Calculations of indicator values using data from these sources are provided in Figure 2-26. Indicator 2.1.1: Forest Conversion Score. This indicator provides a single value description of the relative degree to which land in a sub-basin has been converted from forest to ‘non-forest’ types of land use. Thus, a value of three indicates the sub-basin has the highest proportion of its land converted to ‘non-forest’ land cover, and smaller numbers indicate relatively larger propor-tions of land remain under some type of forest, scrub or grass vegetative cover. Data are derived from interpretation of remote sensing data, and the calculations in Figure 2-26 employ interpreta-tions reported by CMU [2004].


Figure 2-25. Natural Resource Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins

2.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.1.3. 2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.3.3. Forest Forest Soil Flooding Landslide Agric Groundwater Low Dry

Conversion Deterior Erosion Risk Risk Irrigation Use Season Flow Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score

source: CMU CMU Panya Panya <<N/A>> Panya Panya PanyaUpper Sub-Basins 0.4 0.5 1.8 - 1.8 0.1 1.4

weight: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0602 Ping part 1 2.5 8 0.6 2.4 1.6 1.4 - 0.7 0.0 1.4603 Mae Ngad 2.7 8 0.6 0.3 1.6 1.2 - 2.3 0.1 2.2604 Mae Taeng 3.0

2.8 3.01.5

3.0 3.01.2 6 .6 3.0

0.9 3.0 3.01.0 2.5

3.01.1

3.0 3.00.9

9 0.7 0.2 1.4 2.8 - 2.7 0.0 0.8608 Mae Khan 8 0.5 0.4 1.8 1.4 - 0.5 0.7610 Mae Klang 1.9 7 0.5 0.5 2.3 1.6 - 0.0 1.0612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * - * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 0.0 6 0.3 0.1 1.6 1.6 - 0.9 0.0 0.9615 Mae Teun 2.2 8 0.2 0.4 2.3 1.3 - 1.1 0.0 2.4

Middle Sub-Basins 1.0 0.9 1.0 - 1.9 1.3 1.8weight: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

605 Ping part 2 13 2.0 0.7 1.5 - 1.5 2.2 1.9606 Mae Rim 8 0. 0 1.1 - 1.7 0.1 0.8607 Mae Kuang 2.9 13 1.3 1.1 0.8 - 2.5609 Mae Lee 2.1 10 0.8 1.1 0.9 2.2 - 1.7611 Ping part 3 0.0 5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 - 1.1 0.2 1.2614 Mae Had 0.8 7 0.8 0.6 2.8 0.9 - 1.6 0.1 0.0

Lower Sub-Basins 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.7 - 1.6 0.4 1.9weight: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

616 Ping part 4 1.0 8 1.1 2.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.2 0.0 1.7617 Huay Mae Thor 0.0 6 0.2 0.9 1.7 1.0 - 0.3 0.1 2.1618 Klong Wang Chao 0.6 7 0.7 0.8 1.7 - 0.2 0.0 0.9619 Klong Mae Raka 0.8 8 1.3 1.7 0.7 - 0.7 0.0 2.2620 Klong Suan Mark 0.4 7 1.1 0.3 1.7 1.4 - 0.7 0.1 1.8621 Lower Ping 12 0.3 1.1 2.2 - 2.0 0.6 2.3

Ping Basin 0.7 1.4 1.5 - 1.7 0.6 1.6* combined with lower Mae Chaem data

2.3. Water UseNatural

Resource

2. Overall 2.1. Degradation 2.2. Hazards

Issues Score weighted

total Sub-Basin

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3Soil Rate

A B C D E Forest Forest Soil Forest Forest SoilTotal Good Deteriorated Scrub & Soil Conversion Deterioration Erosion Conversion Deterioration ErosionArea Forest Forest Grass Erosion (a-b-c-d)/a (c+d)/b e/a Score* Score* Score**

km2 km 2 km 2 km 2 tons/year ton km -2 yr -1

602 Ping part 1 1,978 1,263 392 6 5,698,469 0.16 0.31 2,881 0.56 2.39 1.58 603 Mae Ngad 1,281 1,032 28 6 3,799,979 0.17 0.03 2,968 0.59 0.25 1.63 604 Mae Taeng 1,954 1,548 45 4,873,823 0.19 0.03 2,494 0.65 0.22 1.37 608 Mae Khan 1,808 1,479 36 43 5,912,140 0.14 0.05 3,269 0.49 0.41 1.79 610 Mae Klang 615 489 19 15 2,527,393 0.15 0.07 4,112 0.53 0.52 2.25 612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 3,896 3,531 61 4 11,672,216 0.08 0.02 2,996 0.27 0.14 1.64 615 Mae Teun 3,147 2,787 136 1 13,222,372 0.07 0.05 4,202 0.25 0.37 2.30

Upper Sub-Basins 14,678 12,130 716 74 47,706,392 0.12 0.07 3,250 0.42 0.50 1.78 605 Ping part 2 1,505 451 141 37 1,956,664 0.58 0.39 1,300 2.05 3.00 0.71 606 Mae Rim 556 420 33 3,041,530 0.18 0.08 5,475 0.65 0.60 3.00 607 Mae Kuang 2,688 1,464 156 58 4,277,070 0.38 0.15 1,591 1.32 1.11 0.87 609 Mae Lee 2,082 1,407 118 77 3,299,319 0.23 0.14 1,585 0.81 1.05 0.87 611 Ping part 3 3,317 2,683 53 90 3,425,324 0.15 0.05 1,033 0.52 0.40 0.57 614 Mae Had 531 388 22 6 2,713,823 0.22 0.07 5,113 0.76 0.56 2.80

Middle Sub-Basins 10,678 6,813 524 268 18,713,730 0.29 0.12 1,753 1.01 0.88 0.96 616 Ping part 4 3,026 1,666 354 90 5,318,599 0.30 0.27 1,757 1.06 2.03 0.96 617 Huay Mae Thor 645 542 61 1,998,545 0.06 0.11 3,099 0.23 0.85 1.70 618 Klong Wang Chao 648 471 47 1,952,736 0.20 0.10 3,016 0.70 0.77 1.65 619 Klong Mae Raka 989 518 93 19 1,216,566 0.36 0.22 1,230 1.27 1.65 0.67 620 Klong Suan Mark 1,086 730 25 - 3,287,910 0.31 0.03 3,027 1.07 0.26 1.66 621 Lower Ping 3,135 442 8 8 6,497,799 0.85 0.04 2,073 3.00 0.28 1.14

Lower Sub-Basins 9,529 4,369 589 118 20,272,155 0.47 0.16 2,127 1.64 1.23 1.17

Ping Basin 34,885 23,312 1,829 459 86,692,277 0.27 0.10 2,485 0.94 0.75 1.36 * combined with lower Mae Chaem data * calculated as ( ratio / (max ratio value)) * 3

** calculated as ( rate / (max rate)) * 3

Nat Res Degradation ScoresLand & Cover Areas Ratios

Sub-Basin


Figure 2-26. Forest & Land Degradation Indicator Scores for Ping Sub-Basins


That this is an indicator of ‘deterioration’ is a reflection of the widely-held perception that natural forest is the ‘best’ land use in the Ping Basin, and that anything less than large proportions remain-ing under natural forest will threaten the future environmental sustainability of the basin. As data in Figure 2-26 indicate, however, the most extensive amounts of forest conversion have occurred in middle and lower sub-basins where lowland irrigated agriculture and high density settlements are also common features. Conversion of lowland forest to agricultural and urban uses, however, is seen as the ‘highest and best use’ of land converted from forest, whereas it is perceived that the primary function of sloping land and highland areas should be to provide the reliable water supplies and other environmental services upon which lowland systems depend. Thus, foresters, environ-mentalists and natural resource management agencies advocate minimum percentage thresholds of natural forest cover required for natural resource sustainability at national, regional, and more re-cently river basin levels. And, with lowland areas already converted to other use and mountains seen as headwater areas, midland and highland zones are seen as the logical site for remaining natu-ral forest to achieve minimum threshold targets. The basis for and accuracy of such targets may be a topic worthy of more careful assessment and consideration by basin management organizations as they mature in the future [Tomich 2004, Walker 2002, FAO-Cifor 2005]. Indicator 2.1.2: Forest Deterioration Score. This indicator provides a single value descrip-tion of the relative degree to which remaining forest areas are considered to be in deteriorated con-dition, scrub or grassland. Thus, a value of 3.0 indicates the sub-basin has the highest proportion of its “forest” cover classified as deteriorated, scrub or grassland, whereas a value of zero indicates it has the highest proportion of its “forest” cover under relatively healthy forest status. These data are again derived from interpretation of remote sensing data, and calculations in Figure 2-26 employ data from CMU [2004]. There is very wide scope for improvement of this indicator, but limitations relate to availability of accurately and appropriately interpreted remote sensing data. In any event, deteriorated forest is seen as an indicator of conditions where negative impacts on the ability of natural forest ecosystems to provide environmental services are likely to be occurring, as well as ‘hot spots’ where further conversion of forest land to other uses may be very likely. Indicator 2.1.3: Soil Erosion Score. This indicator provides a single value description of the relative rate of estimated soil erosion in a Ping sub-basin. Thus, a value of 3.0 indicates the highest rate of estimated soil erosion among sub-basins. While the basis for these gross estimates has sub-stantial limitations, and differences follow from terrain and soil characteristics as well as land use patterns, this is probably the best readily available indicator for an issue that appears to carry sub-stantial weight in public policy debate. Data on soil erosion estimates used in Figure 2-26 origi-nates at the Department of Land Development, and was obtained from Panya. In order to help point out some of the technical and methodological issues associated with this type of data, which many people in the policy arena tend to simply accept without question, Figure 2-27 provides an alternative calculation of soil erosion. This calculation is based on estimates of soil erosion made by Dr. Methi Ekasingh and colleagues at the CMU Multiple Cropping Center, using the modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), which were then aggregated using the summa-rized zone function in ArcGIS [Sangchyoswat & Ekasingh 2005]. Unfortunately, since this work was done in association with the pilot provincial decision support systems for agricultural resource planning and management they have developed for three provinces in the upper North, data are not available for Tak, Kamphaengphet or Nakhon Sawan. A quick comparison of the score outcomes for upper and middle sub-basins in Figures 2-26 and 2-27 illustrates quite clearly why caution should be used in developing policy conclusions based on wide-scale aggregation of soil erosion data that is commonly circulated in Thailand. Since the DLD data from Panya is the only available dataset that provides coverage of all sub-basins in the Ping River Basin, it has been used in selection criteria calculations. Given the uncertainties involved, however, heavy weight will not be assigned to this variable in making overall calculations.


Year 2000

(0 - 2 ton/rai)

(2 - 5 ton/rai)

(5 - 15 ton/rai)

(15-20 ton/rai)

(> 20 ton/rai)

weight: 1 3.5 10 17.5 40602 Ping part 1 1,973 1,741 203 24 3 4 1.46 3.00 603 Mae Ngad 1,285 1,166 107 11 1 1 1.31 1.67 604 Mae Taeng 1,958 1,828 115 14 1 1 1.24 1.03 608 Mae Khan 1,833 1,773 52 6 1 1 1.13 0.01 610 Mae Klang 616 579 32 4 1 1 1.26 1.22 612 Mae Chaem upper 2,062 1,970 82 8 1 1 1.17 0.34 613 Mae Chaem lower 1,835 1,709 93 21 4 9 1.45 2.92 615 Mae Teun -

Upper Sub-Basins 11,563 10,763 684 88 10 18 1.29 1.46 605 Ping part 2 1,617 1,541 57 16 1 1 1.22 0.79 606 Mae Rim 508 494 11 3 0 0 1.13 - 607 Mae Kuang 2,734 2,630 77 21 2 4 1.21 0.71 609 Mae Lee 2,081 1,951 81 39 3 6 1.40 2.50 611 Ping part 3 3,451 3,351 67 23 3 7 1.20 0.68 614 Mae Had 521 506 7 5 1 2 1.27 1.30

Middle Sub-Basins 10,910 10,472 300 107 10 20 1.25 1.05 616 Ping part 4617 Huay Mae Thor618 Klong Wang Chao619 Klong Mae Raka620 Klong Suan Mark621 Lower Ping

Lower Sub-Basins

Ping Basin

Sub-Basin Total (ha) very low

CATEGORIESAlternative

Relative Soil Erosion Score

Soil erosion

point score

Area (square kilometers)

low moderate high very high

Distribution of Soil Erosion

Source: Data from Sangchyoswat & Ekasingh 2005

Figure 2-27. Soil erosion data from an alternative source

(b) Natural Hazards

Impacts of natural disasters are major concerns both among the general public and in the public policy arena. Floods and landslides make headlines in the media, and have provided major trigger events for revoking logging concessions in national forests (the “logging ban”), launching many emergency assistance programs, and driving new programs for prevention and early warning sys-tems. The recent tsunami disaster is likely to help further intensify such concerns. Thus, the spe-cific sub-criterion focusing on natural hazards is: Sub-Criterion 2.2. Priority should be assigned to sub-basins where conditions indicate there are high risks of flooding and/or landslides. There are two types of floods that can have very important negative impacts on people and their assets in the Ping River Basin.

• Main channel floods. This type of flood occurs when levels of major streams and rivers rise beyond their usual channels to inundate adjacent flood plains and/or other low-lying areas. They are usually associated with fairly sustained and reasonably high rainfall patterns that oc-cur during a similar period of time over a large portion of tributaries feeding catchments that approach the scale of sub-basins or river basins. Individual upper tributaries may be less di-rectly affected, but the cumulative additions of flow from numerous upper tributaries increases the amount of inundation along more distant downstream main river channels. Thus, these types of floods are a more important concern in Middle Ping sub-basins; impact of such flood-ing is minimized in some Lower Ping sub-basins due to the river flow “buffering capacity” of the Bhumibol reservoir.

• Flash floods. This type of flood tends to be associated with more localized extreme rainfall events, combined with particular physical characteristics of local catchments and their spatial


terrain and drainage patterns. Especially when extreme rainfall events are preceded by rain that has already saturated soils in local catchments, flash floods can also be associated with land-slides. Since such extreme events are usually rather localized, flash floods (and landslides) have their strongest impacts at scales that are smaller than most sub-basins. Except perhaps in the smallest sub-basins, this would correspond more closely with smaller sub-watersheds (ten-tatively termed lumnamyoi in this report) of tributaries that feed into the main streams and riv-ers of sub-basins.

Both types of floods can be disastrous for those who are in their path, and accounts in popular me-dia often associate both types with headwater deforestation or other types of land use that are clas-sified as “inappropriate”. Although accurate historical data appears to be quite spotty and scarce, there are popular perceptions that floods and landslides are increasing in frequency. Unfortunately, this author has been unable to identify readily available data that could be used to develop an indicator of relative risk of flash flood conditions. Data have been identified, however, that could provide a basis for calculating two indicators of natural hazard risks in Ping sub-basins. Data availability, however, has limited implementation in this report to only the first of these two indicators. Calculations are displayed in Figure 2-28:

Figure 2-28. Natural Hazard Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins 2.2.1 unit: square kilometers 2.2.2

A B C Flood Low Medium High Landslide Qave Qmax Qmin (b-c)/a Risk Risk a. ave b. high c. low ratio Score Scor

sq km 0.00 1.50 3.00602 Ping part 1 209 451 69 1.8 1.36 1,974 - - - - 603 Mae Ngad 277 563 126 1.6 1.17 1,285 - - - - 604 Mae Taeng 194 782 51 3.8 2.81 1,958 - - - - 608 Mae Khan 201 441 63 1.9 1.40 1,833 - - - - 610 Mae Klang 179 451 72 2.1 1.57 616 - - - - 612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * - - - - - 613 Mae Chaem lower 443 1,093 121 2.2 1.63 3,896 - - - - 615 Mae Teun 249 520 101 1.7 1.25 2,896 - - - -

Upper Sub-Basins 14,458 - - - - - - - 605 Ping part 2 174 398 56 2.0 1.46 1,616 - - - - 606 Mae Rim 71 135 33 1.4 1.07 508 - - - - 607 Mae Kuang 185 281 85 1.1 0.79 2,734 - - - - 609 Mae Lee 170 530 23 3.0 2.22 2,081 - - - - 611 Ping part 3 178 184 43 0.8 0.59 3,452 - - - - 614 Mae Had 197 308 72 1.2 0.89 520 - - - -

Middle Sub-Basins 10,911 - - - - - - - 616 Ping part 4 561 994 253 1.3 0.98 2,983 - - - - 617 Huay Mae Tho

e

r 138 244 62 1.3 0.98 644 - - - - 618 Klong Wang Chao 224 916 14 4.0 3.00 649 - - - - 619 Klong Mae Raka 147 305 79 1.5 1.14 902 - - - - 620 Klong Suan Mark 303 611 40 1.9 1.40 1,132 - - - - 621 Lower Ping 879 2,715 127 2.9 2.19 2,980 - - - -

Lower Sub-Basins 314 787 85 2.2 1.66 9,289 - - - - - - -

Ping Basin 237 557 73 2.0 1.52 34,659 - - - - - - - * combined with lower Mae Chaem data

Sub-Basin Low or very low

Landslide Risk Level

Total

Channel Flood Risk Score Landslide Risk ScoreArea Distribution

multiplied by % of areahigh Relative Weightmedium

Data not available in

suitable format


suitable format


suitable format

Indicator 2.2.1: Flooding Risk Score. This indicator provides a single value description of the relative risk of flooding from relatively larger main channels within Ping sub-basins. Its basic for-mulation and data used for it calculation are directly from Panya Consultants, who used it in their proposal to ONEP and in their earlier study for the Department of Water Resources. Its calculation is based on maximum, minimum and mean flows, as shown in Figure 2-28. Rather than using thresholds based on expert opinion, ratios are converted directly to a score relative to a maximum value of 3 for the sub-basin with the highest ratio. This appears to be the best readily available in-dicator for main channel flooding risk at this time. Further work is certainly warranted on develop-ing indicators of relative risk of both flash floods and main channel floods. Indicator 2.2.2: Landslide Risk Score. This indicator would provide a single value description of the relative extent and intensity of landslide risks within a sub-basin. Its calculation could be based on landslide risk maps prepared by the Department of Land Development, as illustrated in Figure 2-29 for their ‘region 6’ area in northern Thailand; similar maps are presumably available for ‘lower’ portions of the Ping Basin that are not included in this map. Considerations in develop-


ing this specific map appear to be based largely on terrain, geology and soil charac-teristics. Alternatively, landslide risk maps are being developed by other agencies of the Thai government, and any of them could be used if they could be made available in a suitable GIS format. Maps based on high resolution data such as in the slope map in Figure 2-30 would be far more useful at the sub-basin level than generalized maps com-monly displayed in government agency of-fices and meetings. Maps need to be in a GIS spatial data format so that they can be com-bined with sub-basin boundaries to obtain proportions of land area in each sub-basin contained in each landslide risk class. Pro-portions are then weighted according to their degree of risk on a scale of zero to three. Thus, at the extremes, a value of 3.0 indi-cates all areas in a sub-basin are subject to high landslide risk, whereas a value of zero indicates all areas have a low or very low risk level. Since it has not yet been possible to obtain spatial data versions of DLD landslide risk maps, only the tabular format for calculating landslide risk scores is presented in Figure 2-28.

Figure 2-29. DLD Landslide Risk Map

Figure 2-30. Detailed slope map of Upper Ping provinces

Source: Dr. Methi Ekasingh, CMU Multiple Cropping Center


(c) Water use and competition

Competition for water is recognized as an important and growing concern, and the threat of major drought conditions last year was an example of the type of conditions where calls for improved wa-ter management can become very strong. The government responded by formulating programs in the context of river basin management. It is likely that water use and competition issues will feature prominently among stakeholder negotiations and management tasks faced by all new sub-basin management organizations. Motivation for actions to more effectively manage water use is most likely where irrigated agriculture faces constraints on access to dry season stream flow and groundwater. Thus, the specific sub-criterion focusing on water use and competition is:

Sub-Criterion 2.3. Priority should be assigned to sub-basins where high proportions of irri-gated agriculture are associated with low dry season stream flow and high rates of groundwa-ter use. Highest priority should apply in selecting the middle sub-basin. In order to assess Ping sub-basins according to this sub-criterion, three indicators have been adapted, all of which employ a 3-point scale to indicate relative differences among Ping sub-basins. Preliminary calculation of sub-basin scores for each of these indicators can be made from data ob-tained from Panya Consulting, which presumably originated in the Royal Irrigation Department and the Department of Water Resources. The main current weakness is the inability to separate data for Mae Chaem into the two sub-basins required by ONEP. And, the author suspects that it is quite unlikely that orchards or other areas under sprinkler irrigation are included in the area of irrigated agriculture. It is also unlikely that irrigation from small weirs and tanks outside official irrigation project service areas are included, especially when they are located in midland and highland areas. Similarly, it is not clear how comprehensive are the data on groundwater extraction, or what is the estimated margin of error regarding potential groundwater supply. Indicator 2.3.1: Agriculture Irrigation Score. This indicator provides a single value descrip-tion of the relative extent to which agriculture in a sub-basin is irrigated. It is based on the ratio of the area of irrigated agriculture to total agriculture area, relative to a value of 3 for the sub-basin with the highest ratio. Thus, a value of 3.0 indicates the sub-basin has the highest proportion of its agriculture under irrigation, and is therefore most likely to be utilizing a high proportion of its wa-ter resources for irrigation. The indicator is calculated in Figure 2-31 using data from Panya. Indicator 2.3.2: Groundwater Use Score. This indicator provides a single value description the extractions of groundwater in a sub-basin relative to estimates of its potential supply. It is based on the ratio between estimates of groundwater use and supply, relative to a value of 3 for the sub-basin with the highest ratio. Thus, a value of 3.0 indicates the sub-basin with highest extraction of groundwater relative to estimates of groundwater supply, and is therefore most likely to be over-exploiting its groundwater resources. Indicator scores for Ping sub-basins are calculated in Figure 2-31 using data from Panya. Indicator 2.3.3: Low Dry Season Streamflow Score. This indicator provides a single value description of the degree to which dry season stream flow is a small proportion of total annual stream flow from a sub-basin. Its calculation is based on the proportion of annual stream flow oc-curring during the wet season. Its value represents position of the sub-basin on a 3-point scale ranging between sub-basins with the highest and lowest ratios of wet season to total annual flow. Thus, a value of 3 indicates the sub-basin has the highest ratio of wet season to total annual flow, and therefore the lowest proportion of its annual flow occurring during the dry season; a value of 0 indicates the sub-basin has the greatest proportion of its total annual flow occurring during the dry season flow. Sub-basin indicator score values are calculated in Figure 2-31 using data from Panya. All of these indicators are quite standard and were adapted from forms also used by Panya in its study. The main change here from calculations in the Panya study is only to eliminate the expert threshold component of their approach to interpreting the data, in favor of an approach that reflects actual relative values. Calculation tables are presented in Figure 2-31 for all three indicators.

2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3

A B C Irrigated D E F Ground- G H I Low DryAgriculture Irrigated Irrig/Agric Agric Used/Pot water use Annual Wet Season Wet/Annual Seas Flow

Area Area Ratio Score** Potential Used Ratio Score** Flow Flow Ratio Score***km 2 km 2 b/a mill m 3 mill m 3 e/d mill m 3 mill m 3 h/g

602 Ping part 1 273 56 0.21 0.70 5 0 0.07 0.04 501 371 0.74 1.35 603 Mae Ngad 207 140 0.68 2.31 5 1 0.22 0.13 365 287 0.79 2.17 604 Mae Taeng 351 275 0.78 2.66 6 0 0.05 0.03 642 455 0.71 0.78 608 Mae Khan 234 206 0.88 3.00 15 13 0.85 0.51 431 303 0.70 0.67 610 Mae Klang 116 53 0.45 1.55 7 0 0.04 0.03 259 186 0.72 0.99 612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 304 84 0.28 0.94 20 1 0.03 0.02 1,214 867 0.71 0.87 615 Mae Teun 203 64 0.32 1.07 4 0 0.01 0.00 1,034 830 0.80 2.44

Upper Sub-Basins 1,687 879 0.52 1.77 63 16 0.25 0.15 4,445 3,298 0.74 1.37 605 Ping part 2 612 272 0.44 1.51 18 66 3.59 2.15 354 272 0.77 1.85 606 Mae Rim 94 48 0.51 1.72 4 1 0.19 0.11 265 188 0.71 0.76 607 Mae Kuang 706 517 0.73 2.49 9 43 5.00 3.00 790 659 0.83 3.00 609 Mae Lee 458 232 0.51 1.73 13 21 1.64 0.98 228 184 0.81 2.52 611 Ping part 3 40 13 0.32 1.07 8 2 0.28 0.17 410 300 0.73 1.18 614 Mae Had 242 110 0.46 1.55 9 1 0.10 0.06 323 215 0.67 -

Middle Sub-Basins 2,152 1,192 0.55 1.88 61 134 2.19 1.31 2,370 1,817 0.77 1.81 616 Ping part 4 643 236 0.37 1.25 18 1 0.06 0.04 521 395 0.76 1.67 617 Huay Mae Thor 38 4 0.10 0.34 1 0 0.12 0.07 126 98 0.78 2.06 618 Klong Wang Chao 122 6 0.05 0.17 2 0 0.05 0.03 169 122 0.72 0.95 619 Klong Mae Raka 301 60 0.20 0.68 11 0 0.03 0.02 161 127 0.79 2.22 620 Klong Suan Mark 312 65 0.21 0.71 5 1 0.11 0.06 368 281 0.76 1.76 621 Lower Ping 2,534 1,522 0.60 2.04 55 57 1.05 0.63 883 702 0.79 2.31

Lower Sub-Basins 3,949 1,893 0.48 1.63 91 60 0.66 0.39 2,229 1,725 0.77 1.95

Ping Basin 7,788 3,963 0.51 1.73 215 209 0.97 0.58 9,044 6,841 0.76 1.63 * combined with lower Mae Chaem data ** calculated as (<ratio> / <max ratio>) * 3 *** calculated as ((<ratio> - <min. ratio>) / (<max. ratio> - <min. ratio>)) * 3

Low Dry Season Stream Flow Score

Groundwater

Irrigated Agriculture Score

Sub-Basin

Groundwater Use Score

Figure 2-31 Water Use and Competition Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins



5. Severity of socio-economic issues

Many of the social and economic dimensions of natural resource management, use and deteriora-tion in the Ping River Basin that will need to be high priorities for sub-basin management organiza-tions cluster around issues associated with the equitable social distribution of benefits and costs of natural resource use and management. Rural poverty is widely believed to be both a cause and an effect of resource degradation, and reduction of rural poverty is a very clearly stated major objec-tive of both government policies in general, and this project in particular. Rural poverty is also linked with inequitable access to a range of types of resources and social and financial services, and secure access to use of the land upon which their livelihoods depend has come to the forefront of work with the rural poor around the world.

At the same time, however, there is also growing global recognition that the natural resource base is limited, and that sustainable provision of the environmental services upon which societies depend requires careful management and maintenance of many types of ecosystem functions that are being disrupted or threatened as humans seek to further increase the total amount of immediate benefits they can derive from natural resources. Moreover, different elements of society are developing different visions for the future, and competition is growing among the claims they are making on various components of the natural resource base. This competition is reflected in political and legal arenas and the human institutional arrangements they devise, establish and enforce to facilitate, regulate or restrict how resources may or may not be used.

Clearly, if sub-basin management organizations are to become, as this project envisions, an impor-tant means for improving both the equity and sustainability of natural resource use and conserva-tion within their domain, they must be able to include the major elements of society among whom costs and benefits of improved management must be distributed [Tomich et.al. 2004]. As indicated in the general discussion of Ping River Basin stakeholders in section II.B.2., above, this means that ethnic minorities, who have often been marginalized, ignored, or demonized in the past, must be brought into these mechanisms, especially in upper sub-basins and other areas where their activities are believed to have substantial implications for natural resource management. It also means that densely settled cities and urbanizing areas need to have sufficient voice, especially in middle and lower sub-basins where their presence is most prominent.

Also from a social point of view, it is a major objective of improved river basin management is to improve the health and well-being of the people and communities living within their domain. Links between public health and environmental issues is currently an area of growing interest and study, but conclusive empirical analyses will require much more systematic data from monitoring key variables of both public health and environmental quality than are currently available.

Indeed, while socio-economic issues such as these are (and should be) of major concern under this project, this is the area where constraints on the content and form of available data are most severe. It is also the area where proliferation of criteria is most tempting and common, due largely to the complexity of many of the considerations involved. Efforts by organizations such as the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) to develop quality of life and related indica-tors are an area worthy of further exploration for applications such as this, but the author has not yet seen such data in a format that would allow for aggregation at a sub-basin level in time for ini-tial sub-basin assessments under this project. Some further directions are discussed in section II.B.5(e) on additional socio-economic data.

Therefore, for the purpose of this initial sub-basin selection process, a quite simple and focused criterion is proposed. Since considerable further exploration of socio-economic factors is to be conducted within selected pilot sub-basins, those findings need to be incorporated into the learning processes under the project. This can help assure that the most meaningful and appropriate criteria and indicators possible can be developed for application in adapting and implementing project ap-proaches in other sub-basins and basins.

Thus, given the focus articulated by this project on poverty and public health, as well as the focus of resource access and competition that includes mountain ethnic minority and urban communities, we propose:


Criterion 3. Selected sub-basins should include areas where poverty and health problems are relatively high, where land use is restricted and conflict is likely, and areas where upland mi-norities or urban populations should play significant roles.

In order to apply this criterion, four more specific sub-criteria are proposed to assess conditions associated with each key issue areas included in this criterion. Sub-criteria and indicators are sum-marized in Figure 2-32. Overall scores are relative within sub-basin groupings and relative weights are all set to 1.0.

(a) Poverty

Reduction of rural poverty is a major theme of this project, as well as most major government de-velopment programs. And, poverty is frequently associated with activities leading to environ-mental deterioration. While average income is one measure of poverty, it would be much more insightful to have more disaggregated data according to smaller local units and/or sources of in-come. Data on income distribution would add obvious depth to this assessment. The degree to which the value of subsistence production is captured by income data also needs to be clarified.

Moreover, poverty is also associated with various other issues. Rice deficits have commonly been used as an indicator of poverty in this region. Material indicators of capitalization and wealth have also been used in some studies, and a variety of newer generation indicators are being developed. Information on debt and loan defaults might provide insight into aspects of poverty that are increas-ingly entering public debate in Thailand. Most all of these indicators, however, require data that are not captured by current monitoring systems, or that are not available in disaggregated enough form to be useful for sub-basin-level calculations.

In its proposal to ONEP, Panya [2004] proposed that the percentage of agriculture that is irrigated be used as a socio-economic indicator. Their own data, however, appears to indicate that this vari-able has a strong correlation with average income levels, and thus adds little additional information related to poverty. Moreover, we have already chosen to use this data as one of the indicators asso-ciated with water use.

Thus, given these considerations and the strong limitations on immediately available data, we pro-pose that: Sub-Criterion 3.1. Priority should be given to areas with relatively low incomes, and overall conditions indicative of economic and social difficulties. In order to assess Ping sub-basins according to this sub-criterion using readily available data, two indicators are developed and implemented using data from Panya [2004] and Ekasingh [2005]. Indicator 3.1.1: Low Income Score. This indicator provides a single value estimate of the rela-tive level of sub-basin average income, calibrated to a 3-point scale corresponding to the range be-tween highest and lowest average income levels. Thus, a value of 3.0 indicates the sub-basin has the lowest average income, whereas a value of zero is assigned to the sub-basin with the highest average income level. Calculation of sub-basin scores for this indicator are shown in Figure 2-33. Calculation of these scores was first implemented using data from Panya Consultants for all sub-basins, as indicated on the left side of Figure 2-33. The original source and method for deriving these data were obscure, and it was noted that these data estimate average per capita income in the ‘wealthiest’ sub-basin at just over US$ 1.00 per day. As these appeared to by very low estimates, efforts were made to obtain some alternative sources for comparison. The only data that were identified as reasonably credible and in a format that could be aggregated to a sub-basin level were again in the databases associated with Dr.Methi Ekasingh’s pilot provin-cial decision support system. These are village-based data that can be stratified by income levels at sub-basin level. As seen in calculations on the right side of Figure 2-33, however, the coverage of this system limits data availability to middle and upper sub-basins, with the exception of Mae Teun.

Figure 2-32. Socio-Economic Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins

3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 Low Village Low Land Use Agricultural Upland Population Water Waste Pesticide

Income Development Restriction Conflict Ethnicity Density Supply Management Poisoning Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score

source: MCC / Panya MCC - CDD KUFF/onep Panya/onep ONEP, Panya Panya กชช.2ค / onep กชช.2ค / onep กชช.2ค / onepUpper Sub-Basins 1.6 1.433 2.8 2.3 0.8 0.3 1.4 1.6 0.6

weight: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0602 Ping part 1 3.0

0.83.02.3

3.0 3.0

3.0 3.02.8 3.0

3.01.2

3.0 3.01.4 0.1

3.01.6

3.02.0 3.0

15 0.8 2.4 2.6 2.2 0.8 0.3 2.8 2.2 0.9603 Mae Ngad 9 1.2 0.6 2.8 1.4 0.3 0.4 2.1 0.3 0.5604 Mae Taeng 1.8 12 1.4 2.2 2.8 0.7 0.3 1.3 2.2 0.1608 Mae Khan 0.0 6 1.0 0.4 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.6 0.4610 Mae Klang 2.3 13 2.2 2.8 2.6 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.4612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 2.7 14 1.8 2.9 1.5 0.2 1.9 2.5 0.6615 Mae Teun 1.6 11 0.0 2.9 1.3 0.1 0.8 1.6 0.9

Middle Sub-Basins 0.6 0.4 1.8 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.8 1.7 0.4weight: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0

605 Ping part 2 0.8 6 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 1.6 0.6606 Mae Rim 2.0 8 0.6 1.2 2.3 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.3607 Mae Kuang 0.0 4 0.5 0.1 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.6 1.6 0.1609 Mae Lee 1.5 7 1.3 1.2 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.2 0.1611 Ping part 3 10 1.1 1.8 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.8 1.6 0.7614 Mae Had 7 0.0 2.2 2.0 1.6 0.6 0.4 1.8 2.0

Lower Sub-Basins 1.5 1.6 1.0 0.1 0.5 1.7 0.9 2.0weight: 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

616 Ping part 4 0.6 6 2.1 1.7 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.1617 Huay Mae Thor 0.0 5 0.8 2.2 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0618 Klong Wang Chao 10 2.4 2.6 2.2 0.9 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.2619 Klong Mae Raka 8 2.7 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.2 2.4 0.8 0.0620 Klong Suan Mark 2.5 9 1.5 2.5 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.8621 Lower Ping 0.6 6 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.9 1.1

Ping Basin* combined with lower Mae Chaem data

Social & Economic

3.2. Competition


total Sub-Basin

3.3. Minorities & Urban3. Overall 3.1. Poverty 3.4. Health



Figure 2-33. Low Income Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins 3.1.1(a) 3.1.1(b)

Total RelativeA B b/a Low Total low income Low Total

total total per capita Income villages Point Incomepopulation income income Score** Score Scorethous pers thous baht baht/pers weight: 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

602 Ping part 1 80 739,397 9,269 3.0 76 7 15 12 42 0.83 0.76 603 Mae Ngad 67 861,976 12,868 1.4 93 10 21 30 32 1.10 1.21 604 Mae Taeng 73 785,892 10,812 2.3 62 13 11 13 25 1.19 1.37 608 Mae Khan 106 1,364,536 12,868 1.4 139 13 32 29 65 0.95 0.96 610 Mae Klang 44 557,903 12,538 1.6 36 12 10 5 9 1.69 2.20 612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 96 1,240,193 12,864 1.4 113 52 39 12 10 2.18 3.00 615 Mae Teun 58 639,742 11,099 2.2 estimated based on similarity with Mae Chaem: 2.80

Upper Sub-Basins 524 6,189,639 11,812 1.9 519 107 128 101 183 1.31 1.55 605 Ping part 2 664 10,679,503 16,093 - 399 29 51 56 263 0.61 0.40 606 Mae Rim 85 1,090,705 12,868 1.4 41 2 7 9 23 0.71 0.56 607 Mae Kuang 291 4,031,909 13,856 1.0 429 43 52 61 273 0.69 0.52 609 Mae Lee 148 2,085,664 14,107 0.9 145 22 34 31 58 1.14 1.27 611 Ping part 3 21 252,920 12,129 1.7 99 7 28 27 37 1.05 1.13 614 Mae Had 45 541,019 12,099 1.8 27 - 2 6 19 0.37 -

Middle Sub-Basins 1,253 18,681,719 14,912 0.5 1,140 103 174 190 673 0.74 0.62 616 Ping part 4 172 1,960,130 11,403 2.1 617 Huay Mae Tho

*

r 16 227,620 14,313 0.8 618 Klong Wang Chao 20 210,334 10,560 2.4 619 Klong Mae Raka 31 303,745 9,884 2.7 620 Klong Suan Mark 65 829,308 12,667 1.5 621 Lower Ping 378 5,104,147 13,498 1.1

Lower Sub-Basins 682 8,635,285 12,661 1.5


No. of Villages

Low Income Score

Sub-Basin

Total Income distributionBaht/Person

<15000 15000-25000

25000-35000 >35,000

Source: Panya Consultants Source: Methi Ekasingh, using pilot provincial decision support system data

Thus, the best possible compromise is to use Dr. Methi’s data for calculation of relative scores for middle and upper sub-basins, and to continue using Panya data to calculate relative scores for lower sub-basins, as indicated in Figure 2-33. Since the use of these indicators will be to rank sub-basins within each of the three groups, this approach should still not prejudice selection of a given sum-basin among their peers in the same group. This composite system did, however, require an esti-mate to be made for the Mae Teun sub-basin, which was done by considering its relative similarity to Mae Chaem in the context of other socio-economic data reviewed in previous sections of this report. While obviously far from the ideal, this approach appears reasonable under the circum-stances and the purposes for which it is intended. Indicator 3.1.2: Village Low Development Score. This indicator provides a single value es-timate of the relative level of overall development of villages located within a sub-basin. The con-ceptual framework for this indicator comes from the Community Development Department’s ‘overall development need’ index, which is a composite of 30 indices developed from variables contained in the 2003 national village-level basic database6. As this is the same data that were used for direct analyses by the author that presented in many tables in this report, a quick survey of those tables can give a flavor for the types of variables that were available for inclusion in CDD indices. While the precise composition of this CDD index is not known by this author, it is the product of a quite elaborate process that has been conducted under and approved by relevant technocrats and government agencies, and thus reflects the government’s views and policies on development. Initial efforts to develop sub-basin poverty indicators employed an overall economic and social weakness index based on assessments of data on labor, income, productivity and other considera-tions by a group of experts assembled for the CMU study of the Ping Basin for ONEP [CMU 2004]. According to the CMU report, the expert group considered data from a “wide range of sources” to assign a score that reflected the overall economic and social strength found in each sub-basin. However, as neither ONEP or this author were comfortable with either the ambiguous basis for these judgments, or the extremely limited range of variation that it displayed, this index has been rejected in favor of the CDD development index. 6 กชช.2ค


Figure 2-34. Low Development Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins 3.1.2

Year = 2003Low Medium High Relative

LowDevelopment

3.00 1.50 0.00 Score602 Ping part 1 76 3 39 34 0.12 0.77 - 0.89 2.43 603 Mae Ngad 93 2 21 70 0.06 0.34 - 0.40 0.62 604 Mae Taeng 62 2 30 30 0.10 0.73 - 0.82 2.18 608 Mae Khan 139 - 31 108 - 0.33 - 0.33 0.36 610 Mae Klang 36 2 21 13 0.17 0.88 - 1.04 3.00 612 Mae Chaem upper - 613 Mae Chaem lower 113 3 49 61 0.08 0.65 - 0.73 1.84 615 Mae Teun - - - -

Upper Sub-Basins 519 12 191 316 0.07 0.55 - 0.62 1.43 605 Ping part 2 399 - 63 336 - 0.24 - 0.24 - 606 Mae Rim 41 - 15 26 - 0.55 - 0.55 1.16 607 Mae Kuang 429 2 69 358 0.01 0.24 - 0.26 0.07 609 Mae Lee 145 2 49 94 0.04 0.51 - 0.55 1.16 611 Ping part 3 99 2 44 53 0.06 0.67 - 0.73 1.83 614 Mae Had 27 - 15 12 - 0.83 - 0.83 2.22

Middle Sub-Basins 1,140 6 255 879 0.02 0.34 - 0.35 0.43 616 Ping part 4617 Huay Mae Thor618 Klong Wang Chao619 Klong Mae Raka620 Klong Suan Mark621 Lower Ping

Lower Sub-Basins

Ping Basin 1,659 18 446 1,195 * combined with lower Mae Chaem data

No. of Villages

Level of DevelopmentIndex Distribution

Sub-Basin Total (villages)

Low(1) Medium(2) High(3)

Level of Development Score

Point Score Relative Weight

multiplied by %

Source: Methi Ekasingh, using CDD data in pilot provincial decision support system

The main problem with implementing this indicator is that the only place that could be identified where it is available in a spatially-linked format is again in Dr. Methi Ekasingh’s pilot provincial decision support system. Thus, it is also only available for middle and upper sub-basins, with the exception of Mae Teun. The spatial distribution of available values is shown in Figure 2-35.

Figure 2-35 . Spatial distribution of village development values in sub-basins

Source: Methi Ekasingh [2005], based on 2003 data from Community Development Department

Thus, distribution of CDD development index values for villages within a sub-basin is used to calculate a relative low development score for middle and upper sub-basins, as indicated in Figure 2-34. For lower sub-basins where data are not available, this indicator will receive a weight of zero in the overall calculations where it is employed.

Sub-Criterion 3.2. Priority should be given to areas where legal restrictions constrain local land-based livelihoods, and where agriculture is occurring in conflict with those restrictions. This priority should be highest for the upper sub-basin, but some presence would also be de-sirable in other sub-basins.


(b) Land use access and competition

This report has already touched at several points on different and often competing views of natural resource management that are emerging among different components of society. Important land use issues and conflicts are associated with legal and policy restrictions placed on land use in na-tional parks, wildlife sanctuaries, class 1AB watersheds, and reserved forest lands that in aggregate account for 80 percent of the total land area of the Ping River Basin. How these land categories relate to each other are illustrated in Figure 2-36. The relative pro-portions of a sub-basin’s land area located within each of these cate-gories indicate the potential for issues associated with these re-strictions on land use access and security. A rough indication of the relative extent, importance and distribution of these land use re-striction zones can be seen in the GIS maps in Figure 2-37.7 These maps are constructed using boundary data recently obtained from the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conser-vation provided by ONEP and the Kasetsart University Faculty of Forestry. Most data appear to be quite current, except that the set of most recently declared na-tional parks, the final boundaries of which are still being negotiated locally, has not been included. As an example of new national parks in this category, the Mae Tho national park in Mae Chaem has been included using preliminary boundary data obtained from local officials and digitized by ICRAF. Many of these new parks are being overlaid on areas that include substantial numbers of local communities, so that local negotiations are often quite difficult and conflict is strong.

Contrasting views on what is ‘appropriate’ land use between national policy and local community levels is a major and still growing source of conflict in the Ping River Basin. One of the most im-portant sources of conflict associated with land use restrictions imposed by government policies is the presence of agriculture in areas where policies proclaim it to be “inappropriate”. This is seen as an especially important issue in areas that the national land use policy decision making process has declared to be protected forest (national parks and wildlife sanctuaries). It is also an issue in class 1AB watersheds outside of protected areas but now under ‘preparation for protected area’ status, and perhaps to a bit lesser extent in Reserved Forest areas in other watershed classes. Indeed, an even more strongly restrictive category of “special” protected areas from which all people would be relocated without exception is now being proposed by the Minister of Natural Resources and Envi-ronment. These issues are strongest in upper sub-basins where, as we have already seen, these na-tional policies seek to transform and very strongly constrain local land-based livelihoods of the ma-jority of people. But they are also locally important in various middle and lower sub-basins where they affect significant and often relatively marginalized components of the population. Thus, the specific sub-criterion related to land use access and competition is:

7 For separate depictions of forest lands and watershed classes see Figure 2-6.

Figure 2-36. Categories Restricting Land Use Access

Forest Land Status

Non-Forest Lands Forest Reserve Parks WLS Other

1A

1B

Only a few areas with tenure pre-dating watershed resolution - no further expansion

Watershed Protected Zone

Cabinet resolution: forest, no tenure

strong forest protection laws override watershed

resolution

2

3

4

Wat

ersh

ed C

lass

ifica

tion

5

Land Tenure Zone

Agriculture with private land tenure is legally possible

Reserved Forest

Zone

Land tenure or official recognition of land use limited to:

• RFD community forest registration

• household agriculture plots under Land Reform

Forest Protected Zone

Strict laws against

other land use

<------------------ Non – Tenured Zones ------------->

Sources: (1) DNP data on forest lands (obtained from KUFF) and land cover (obtained from ONEP); (2) ONEP data on village locations & sub-basin boundaries

Figure 2-37. Indicators of Land Use Access Constraints and Agricultural Production Areas



In order to assess Ping sub-basins according to this sub-criterion, two indicators are developed. Both indicators require spatial data on the forest land use restriction zones described above. Indicator 3.2:1. Land Use Restriction Score. This indicator provides a single value estimate of the degree to which forest land use restrictions constrain land use in a given sub-basin. Propor-tions of the land area of a sub-basin classified in each type of restriction category are weighted ac-cording to the relative strength of restrictions applying to that category: National parks and wildlife sanctuaries (protected areas) are protected by strong laws and have a weight of 3. Class 1 water-sheds outside national parks and wildlife sanctuaries are governed by cabinet resolutions and their temporary ‘under preparation for protected area’ status, so they have a value of 2. Areas of re-served forest not in either protected areas or class 1 watershed zones have a value of 1 because it is possible to request community forest recognition in these areas, some are already being considered for land reform, and land use restrictions are commonly perceived as less strenuous. Lands outside any of these forest zones are generally available for other types of land use, so they are assigned a weight of zero. Thus, at the extremes, an indicator value of 3.0 indicates all sub-basin land is under protected area status, whereas a value of zero indicates there are no forest land restrictions present. Calculations of values for this indicator use data that originated in the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP), which have been further processed by the author. Boundaries of forest reserves, national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and watershed classification were obtained in GIS shape file format from ONEP and Panya. They were then combined into a single shape file, together with the sub-basin boundaries used for this project, and areas were recalculated for all component polygons. The resulting data table then allows rather straightforward calculation of the Land Use Restriction Indicator Score, as indicated in Figure 2-38. A color coded map of this data is provided in the left side of Figure 2-37. This land use restriction indicator is an important measure of the overall restrictions that national policy is placing on local land-based livelihoods. The remaining important question related to land use access and competition, however, relates to the degree to which land-based livelihoods of local communities are currently or potentially in conflict with these increasingly strict restrictions. The map of spatial distribution of policy restrictions is paired in Figure 2-37 with a the map showing the distribution of village and urban settlements, as well as agricultural areas detected in the DNP’s 2000 assessment of land use. Data in the formats used to generate these maps allow us to develop at least a preliminary indicator of the degree to which agricultural dimensions of current local livelihood systems are in conflict, or will be in conflict with national conservation and land use restriction policies. Indicator 3.2.2: Agriculture Conflict Score. This indicator provides a single value estimate of the degree to which agricultural land use in a sub-basin is currently in conflict with forest land use restrictions meant to constrain land use according to the restriction categories discussed above. Proportions of agricultural land area are weighted according to the strength of the type of restriction category where the conflict occurs. Thus, at the extremes, an indicator value of 3.0 indicates all agricultural land is located within protected areas, whereas a value of zero indicates all agriculture is outside restricted forest lands. In order to provide data in the format required by these calculations, GIS shape file data processed for the land use restriction indicator were further combined with data on agricultural areas, as de-termined through interpretation of remote sensing data for the year 2000 by the Department of Na-tional Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, which was obtained from ONEP. As indicated in the legend of the map in Figure 2-37, this included areas they identified as ‘agricultural areas’, as well as areas they believed to be ‘active’ (i.e. currently cropped) fields in shifting cultivation systems. Resulting polygons were again recalculated, thereby generating a data table from which aggrega-tions could be made in a format compatible with data columns required for calculations in Figure 2-39, resulting in a weighted composite indicator of areas where agriculture is in conflict with the land use policy mandates for these zones.


Figure 2-38. Land Use Restriction Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins unit: square kilometers unit: Percent unit: Score 3.2.1

Tenure Reserved Watrshd Protected Tenure Reserved Watershed Protected Tenure Reserved Watershed Protected Relative Other 1AB not Nat Park Other 1AB not Nat Park Land Use

Reserve park/wls WL Sanct Reserved park/wls WL Sanct Score Restriction 0.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 Score

602 Ping part 1 1,974 189 399 111 1,275 10 20 6 65 - 0.20 0.11 1.29 1.61 2.65 603 Mae Ngad 1,285 156 93 4 1,032 12 7 0 80 - 0.07 0.01 1.61 1.68 2.78 604 Mae Taeng 1,958 99 153 392 1,314 5 8 20 67 - 0.08 0.40 1.34 1.82 3.00 608 Mae Khan 1,833 214 690 660 269 12 38 36 15 - 0.38 0.72 0.29 1.39 2.29 610 Mae Klang 616 54 78 21 463 9 13 3 75 - 0.13 0.07 1.50 1.70 2.80 612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 3,896 57 859 1,667 1,311 1 22 43 34 - 0.22 0.86 0.67 1.75 2.88 615 Mae Teun 2,896 46 587 1,094 1,152 2 20 38 40 - 0.20 0.76 0.80 1.75 2.89

Upper Sub-Basins 14,458 815 2,860 3,949 6,815 5.6 19.8 27.3 47.1 - 0.20 0.55 0.94 1.69 2.78 605 Ping part 2 1,616 960 352 106 199 59 22 7 12 - 0.22 0.13 0.25 0.59 0.98 606 Mae Rim 508 67 161 147 134 13 32 29 26 - 0.32 0.58 0.53 1.42 2.34 607 Mae Kuang 2,734 996 803 576 352 36 29 21 13 - 0.29 0.42 0.26 0.97 1.60 609 Mae Lee 2,081 578 980 366 156 28 47 18 8 - 0.47 0.35 0.15 0.97 1.60 611 Ping part 3 3,452 429 922 298 1,696 12 27 9 49 - 0.27 0.17 0.98 1.42 2.34 614 Mae Had 520 56 287 55 123 11 55 11 24 - 0.55 0.21 0.47 1.23 2.03

Middle Sub-Basins 10,911 3,085 3,504 1,547 2,660 28.3 32.1 14.2 24.4 - 0.32 0.28 0.49 1.09 1.80 616 Ping part 4 2,983 702 1,071 339 680 24 36 11 23 - 0.36 0.23 0.46 1.04 1.72 617 Huay Mae Thor 644 119 180 114 231 19 28 18 36 - 0.28 0.36 0.72 1.35 2.23 618 Klong Wang Chao 649 4 259 32 353 1 40 5 54 - 0.40 0.10 1.09 1.59 2.62 619 Klong Mae Raka 902 282 587 6 27 31 65 1 3 - 0.65 0.01 0.06 0.72 1.19 620 Klong Suan Mark 1,132 93 391 4 644 8 35 0 57 - 0.35 0.01 1.14 1.49 2.46 621 Lower Ping 2,980 1,512 1,118 12 337 51 38 0 11 - 0.38 0.01 0.23 0.61 1.00

Lower Sub-Basins 9,289 2,712 3,606 508 2,271 29.2 38.8 5.5 24.5 - 0.39 0.11 0.49 0.99 1.63

Ping Basin 34,659 6,613 9,970 6,005 11,747 19 29 17 34 - 0.29 0.35 0.68 1.31 2.16 * combined with lower Mae Chaem data

Percentage Distribution

Non-forest

Total Point

Land Use Restriction Score

Relative Weightmultiplied by % of land area

Land Use Restriction Category

Sub-Basin Total Non-forest

unit: square kilometers unit: Percent unit: Score 3.2.2

Tenure Reserved Watrshd Protected Tenure Reserved Watershed Protected Tenure Reserved Watershed Protected Relative Other 1AB not Nat Park Other 1AB not Nat Park Agric

Reserve park/wls WL Sanct Reserved park/wls WL Sanct Score Conflict

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 Score602 Ping part 1 501 173 189 5 134 35 38 1 27 - 0.38 0.02 0.80 1.20 2.24 603 Mae Ngad 264 151 70 1 43 57 26 0 16 - 0.26 0.00 0.49 0.76 1.41 604 Mae Taeng 269 85 54 36 94 32 20 13 35 - 0.20 0.27 1.05 1.52 2.83 608 Mae Khan 411 181 162 38 30 44 39 9 7 - 0.39 0.18 0.22 0.80 1.49 610 Mae Klang 96 46 8 0 42 48 8 0 44 - 0.08 0.01 1.32 1.41 2.64 612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 432 45 179 110 98 10 41 26 23 - 0.41 0.51 0.68 1.61 3.00 615 Mae Teun 190 29 57 67 37 16 30 35 19 - 0.30 0.70 0.58 1.58 2.96

Upper Sub-Basins 2,163 710 718 257 478 32.8 33.2 11.9 22.1 - 0.33 0.24 0.66 1.23 2.30 605 Ping part 2 1,005 821 153 6 26 82 15 1 3 - 0.15 0.01 0.08 0.24 0.45 606 Mae Rim 128 60 49 11 9 47 38 8 7 - 0.38 0.17 0.20 0.75 1.40 607 Mae Kuang 1,156 918 216 5 16 79 19 0 1 - 0.19 0.01 0.04 0.24 0.45 609 Mae Lee 697 412 269 5 12 59 39 1 2 - 0.39 0.01 0.05 0.45 0.84 611 Ping part 3 563 355 141 3 65 63 25 0 12 - 0.25 0.01 0.35 0.61 1.13 614 Mae Had 206 49 145 2 11 24 70 1 5 - 0.70 0.01 0.15 0.87 1.63

Middle Sub-Basins 3,756 2,614 973 31 138 69.6 25.9 0.8 3.7 - 0.26 0.02 0.11 0.39 0.72 616 Ping part 4 1,022 565 427 15 14 55 42 2 1 - 0.42 0.03 0.04 0.49 0.91 617 Huay Mae Thor 84 44 25 2 13 53 29 3 16 - 0.29 0.05 0.47 0.81 1.52 618 Klong Wang Chao 169 4 148 1 16 2 87 1 9 - 0.87 0.02 0.28 1.17 2.19 619 Klong Mae Raka 372 184 184 2 2 49 50 0 1 - 0.50 0.01 0.02 0.52 0.98 620 Klong Suan Mark 411 89 302 1 19 22 74 0 5 - 0.74 0.00 0.14 0.88 1.64 621 Lower Ping 2,501 1,442 1,054 1 3 58 42 0 0 - 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.80

Lower Sub-Basins 4,557 2,328 2,140 22 67 51.1 47.0 0.5 1.5 - 0.47 0.01 0.04 0.52 0.98

Ping Basin 10,476 5,652 3,831 310 683 54 37 3 7 - 0.37 0.06 0.20 0.62 1.16 * combined with lower Mae Chaem data

Total Point Non-

forestRelative Weight

Agricultural Conflict Score

multiplied by % of agric area

Percentage DistributionAgricultural areas located in

Sub-Basin Total Non-forest

Figure 2-39. Agricultural Conflict Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins



While this indicator is a useful preliminary estimate of these types of social conflict conditions, there are at least four limitations in this data that should be noted: (1) field verification (‘ground-truthing’) of this land use data has been quite limited; (2) various types of agroforestry practices that maintain substantial tree cover (e.g. miang agroforests or rotational forest fallow fields) are not detected as agriculture or secondary forest regrowth, especially in midland and highland zones; (3) local livelihoods in many areas, but especially in midland and highland zones, include substantial land-based components other than the currently cropped fields detected by remote sensing (see Figure 2-7 for conservative estimates reported by village leaders); and (4) land use claims by vari-ous interests – including lowland land speculators and tourism interests – are not detectable by this type of remote sensing. Thus, while this indicator is useful for distinguishing relative differences among Ping sub-basins, it should be viewed as a very conservative indicator of the absolute level of conflict between local livelihoods and policies restricting land use in national forestland zones. In the longer term, considerations under a category such as this should expand to include agricul-tural crops or practices that are seen as “inappropriate” in ways that are not reflected in the above indicator. For example, certain types of tree crops and/or conservation farming practices are seen as the only “appropriate” type of land use for areas classified as watershed class 2 or 3. At this time, however, the author is not aware of any spatial datasets that are capable of distinguishing these types of crops or practices in a reliable and systematic manner. If such data could be obtained in the future, however, it could easily be crossed with the watershed classification spatial dataset to identify where ‘hotspots’ of inappropriate land use exist. A similar approach could be taken for other types of land use considered as “inappropriate” for various types of zones that have been or may be mandated by public policy at various levels. Development of datasets required to imple-ment such an approach could help sub-basin management organizations move beyond the aggre-gated tables of generalized data that currently dominate discussion of such issues, to being able to identify exactly where and why such discrepancies exist.

(c) Ethnicity, settlement density and urbanization

Cultural diversity is an important characteristic that features in most descriptions of northern Thai-land, including the Ping River Basin, and a very large portion of this diversity has long been con-tributed by mountain ethnic minority communities. Historically, the Thailand nation state has taken an approach that excluded most of these communities from direct involvement in mainstream society and its governance institutions, including assignment of citizenship and recognition of their land use systems. Responsibility for these communities was assigned to the Department of Public Welfare and other agencies under special ‘highland development’ policies. But during the last 15 years, and especially since approval of the 1997 national constitution and associated decentraliza-tion and devolution policies, there has been dramatic change in many areas of the Ping Basin. Most communities now have citizenship and official registration, and their communities are incorporated into new village and sub-district local governance mechanisms with status equal (at least in princi-ple and in law) to that of any other citizen of Thailand. While these changes are promising, there is still substantial division within northern Thai society between lowland society dominated by ethnic Thai communities in relatively densely settled valley floors and urbanizing areas, and mountain society where more sparsely settled by communities his-torically dominated by mountain minorities referenced by the single term chao khao. To help see the distribution of these issues, upland villages and their ethnicity are mapped in Figure 2-40, and ethnic distributions in sub-basins are listed in Figure 2-41. Various livelihood and land use activi-ties of some mountain minorities are often, and increasingly, cited as an important issues and causes of environmental deterioration. Particular focus is directed toward highland communities who have transformed their agriculture to intensive commercial production of horticultural crops, often in response to opium crop substitution programs. A somewhat less, but still quite important target of lowland concern and ‘development’ programs are midland ethnic minority communities dependent on livelihoods that employ any form of shifting cultivation. Many of these midland communities are also seen as comprising a major component of the rural poor. Given the role of these communities as a special target of poverty and environmental concerns, as well as an impor-tant new voice (and vote), especially in upper sub-basins, they clearly need to be included as an important stakeholder in sub-basin management activities.

Figure 2-40. Upland villages, ethnicity, agriculture & forest lands

Sources: (1) DNP data on forest lands (obtained from KUFF) and land cover (obtained from ONEP); (2) ONEP data on village, town & factory locations & sub-basin boundaries



Figure 2-41. Upland population (<500 masl) of sub-basins by ethnic group, 1998 Upland

total Thai Haw Htin Lawa Karen Hmong Lisu Lahu Akha Yao Mixed /other

persons 23,339 5,646 4,071 380 93 1,445 1,017 2,871 6,975 681 160 households 4,750 1,570 621 62 18 271 126 532 1,395 135 20 settlements 108 45 2 1 1 12 1 11 31 3 1

persons 4,200 352 296 357 1,794 611 790 households 817 92 54 78 322 120 151 settlements 40 11 1 6 8 8 6

persons 18,552 6,142 1,676 2,176 650 5,236 2,102 451 119 households 3,606 1,534 235 393 79 877 387 79 22 settlements 125 52 8 21 2 26 13 2 1

persons 18,646 3,476 10 11,983 2,809 368 households 3,470 824 4 2,215 364 63 settlements 132 26 1 91 12 2

persons 9,188 151 6,875 2,162 households 1,529 43 1,215 271 settlements 55 3 49 3

persons 23,545 2,783 17,497 2,797 431 37 - households 3,706 624 2,774 239 59 10 settlements 137 6 119 10 1 1

persons 19,371 1,521 3,989 11,955 1,589 317 households 3,425 345 708 2,137 205 30 settlements 142 14 20 98 9 1

persons 22,101 591 19,641 639 195 1,035 households 3,988 118 3,600 73 32 165 settlements 154 3 144 3 1 3

persons 138,942 20,662 6,043 380 4,092 71,929 11,663 11,212 10,760 1,922 119 160 households 25,291 5,150 910 62 730 12,683 1,357 1,915 2,077 365 22 20 settlements 893 160 11 1 22 540 40 50 56 11 1 1

persons 13,170 6,721 4,614 1,217 588 30 households 2,350 1,572 506 163 99 10 settlements 49 36 9 2 1 1

persons 8,297 4,677 2,094 1,291 69 106 60 households 1,696 1,137 391 128 13 21 6 settlements 68 46 16 3 1 1 1

persons 8,142 4,421 3,721 households 2,121 1,201 920 settlements 87 69 18

persons 22,600 22,600 households 4,766 4,766 settlements 52 52

persons 18,977 932 17,487 558 households 3,966 244 3,660 62 settlements 89 6 82 1

persons 2,146 838 1,308 households 547 215 332 settlements 7 2 5

persons 73,332 17,589 - - - 47,210 6,463 1,286 106 588 60 30 households 15,446 4,369 - - - 10,069 696 176 21 99 6 10 settlements 352 159 - - - 173 13 3 1 1 1 1

UPPER SUB-BASINS

Mae Teun

Mae Klang

Upper Part of Mae Chaem

Lower Part of Mae Chaem

Mae Khan

Mae Taeng

Mae Ngad

Upper Part of Mae Ping

Mae Li

Third Part of Mae Ping

Mae Had

Mae Kuang

Second Part of Mae Ping

Mae Rim

MIDDLE SUB-BASINS

persons 3,827 1,902 20 1,804 101 households 691 451 4 218 18 settlements 15 10 1 3 1

persons 1,148 1,148 households 222 222 settlements 12 12

persons 4,057 454 233 3,069 301 households 462 45 353 64 settlements 9 1 7 1

persons - households - settlements -

persons 725 237 460 28 households 117 49 64 4 settlements 4 1 2 1

persons 6,692 666 1,241 262 921 3,602 households 979 125 160 37 156 501 settlements 22 4 1 1 3 13

persons 16,449 2,356 - - - 2,304 6,574 692 921 - 3,602 - households 2,471 451 - - - 445 795 123 156 - 501 - settlements 62 10 - - - 19 13 4 3 - 13 -

persons 228,723 40,607 6,043 380 4,092 121,443 24,700 13,190 11,787 2,510 3,781 190 households 43,208 9,970 910 62 730 23,197 2,848 2,214 2,254 464 529 30 settlements 1,307 329 11 1 22 732 66 57 60 12 15 2

Lower Part of Mae Ping

LOWER SUB-BASINS

Ping River Basin

Khlong Wang Chao

Khlong Mae Raka

Khlong Suan Mak

Fourth Part of Mae Ping

Huai Mae Tho

note: includes some settlements in Maehongson Province located within Ping River sub-basins source: tabulation by author from 1998 highland village survey and GIS boundaries of sub-basins, both provided by ONEP


Yet another dimension of cultural diversity has been emerging in various major lowland areas of middle and lower sub-basins of the Ping River Basin, where relatively high density settlements are giving rise to processes of urbanization closely linked with national and international markets, in-formation, ideas and world views. These areas are increasingly associated with population centers where commercial, service and industrial sectors are driving agricultural intensification, urbaniza-tion, economic growth and restructuring, and other powerful forces associated with ‘modernization’ and changing patterns of natural resource use and abuse, as discussed in earlier sections of this re-port. This is another important component of Ping River Basin society that cannot be excluded if pilot sub-basin management organizations are to have wider relevance. Thus, since more than 60 percent of mountain ethnic minority populations are in upper sub-basins, whereas high settlement densities are primarily associated with middle and lower sub-basins: Sub-Criterion 3.3. The upper sub-basin should give priority to areas with strong upland eth-nic minority presence, and other sub-basins should give priority to inclusion of densely settled areas. In order to assess Ping sub-basins according to this sub-criterion, two indicators are proposed as sufficient for the purposes of this project: Indicator 3.3:1. Upland Ethnicity Score. This indicator provides a single value estimate of the degree to which issues associated with upland ethnic minority communities are likely to play an important role in sub-basin management activities. It is calculated by assigning a relative upland ethnicity weight to different ethnic components of the sub-basin population. For these purposes, the unitary notion of chao khao is replaced by grouping of ethnic components of the population on a basis similar to longstanding practices in Laos that associate ethnic groups with the zones where their cultures and livelihoods were primarily evolving (Lao loum, Lao theung, Lao soung), at least at the beginning of the current era of ‘modernization’, which in Thailand was about 1960. Thus, northern Thai and ‘Haw’ Chinese are combined in the group with lowland traditions, while ethnic Lua, Karen and Htin are combined into a midland traditions group. The highland traditions group includes other ethnic minorities, such as the Hmong, Lisu, Akha, Lahu and Yao. Estimates of the relative magnitude of populations of these groupings in each of the Ping sub-basins from Figure 2-41 are used in the calculations in Figure 2-42. Although these groupings may at first glance appear to duplicate geographical altitude zone data that was used to group Ping sub-basins under criterion 1, they are fundamentally different in that they are based solely on people and their ethnicity. While it is likely there would have been a strong correlation with geographical altitude zones in the past, these correlations are weakening as lowland Thai communities are established in midland and highland zones, and as various midland and highland groups settle in other zones, sometimes as a result of government policies and pro-grams, and sometimes at their own initiative. Calculations in Figure 2-42 employ weights for each of these three groupings, meant to indicate the relative intensity of their association in public policy debate with issues linked to natural resource management (see sections I.A.6 and II.B.2). Given the high profile of ethnic groups with highland traditions in environmental and natural resource issues, and their close association with headwater hill evergreen forest areas, a weight of 3 is assigned for these groups. Ethnic minority groups with midland traditions receive a weight of 2, whereas ethnic populations with lowland traditions receive a weight of zero. These weights can be adjusted according to consensus or expert opinion. Since population data from regular mainstream sources in Thailand do not specify ethnicity, calcu-lation of values for this indicator uses rough estimates constructed by the author by combining data from different sources. Since one essential component is disaggregated demographic data that in-cludes ethnicity, ethnic minority populations have been estimated from a 1997 survey of highland communities in 20 provinces of Thailand [DPW 1998], which was made available in spreadsheet format by Panya and ONEP. Since this data includes ethnicity, village population and point coor-dinates locating each village, a GIS shape file was constructed, which was then clipped to the Ping River Basin and combined with sub-basin boundaries from ONEP. This allowed aggregation of population by ethnicity, but only for ‘highland community’ components of sub-basin populations.

Figure 2-42. Upland Ethnicity Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins unit: persons unit: Percent 3.3.1

Traditions: Lowland Midland Highland Lowland Midland Highland Lowland Midland Highland RelativeKaren, Hmong, Lisu Karen, Hmong, Lisu Upland

Lua, Htin Akha, etc Lua, Htin Akha, etc Ethnicity0.00 2.00 3.00 Score

602 Ping part 1 79,771 66,149 2,078 11,544 83 3 14 - 0.05 0.43 0.49 0.83 603 Mae Ngad 66,986 63,434 357 3,195 95 1 5 - 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.26 604 Mae Taeng 72,687 61,953 2,176 8,558 85 3 12 - 0.06 0.35 0.41 0.71 608 Mae Khan 106,041 90,871 11,993 3,177 86 11 3 - 0.23 0.09 0.32 0.54 610 Mae Klang 44,497 35,460 6,875 2,162 80 15 5 - 0.31 0.15 0.45 0.78 612 Mae Chaem upper (with lower) - - - *613 Mae Chaem lower 96,408 57,796 33,441 5,171 60 35 5 - 0.69 0.16 0.85 1.46 615 Mae Teun 57,642 36,132 19,641 1,869 63 34 3 - 0.68 0.10 0.78 1.33

Upper Sub-Basins 524,032 411,795 76,561 35,676 79 15 7 - 0.29 0.20 0.50 0.85 605 Ping part 2 663,600 657,151 - 6,449 99 - 1 - - 0.03 0.03 0.05 606 Mae Rim 84,761 81,141 2,094 1,526 - 607 Mae Kuang 290,988 287,267 3,721 - 99 1 - - 0.03 - 0.03 0.04 609 Mae Lee 147,846 125,246 22,600 - 85 15 - - 0.31 - 0.31 0.52 611 Ping part 3 20,852 2,807 17,487 558 13 84 3 - 1.68 0.08 1.76 3.00 614 Mae Had 44,716 43,408 1,308 - 97 3 - - 0.06 - 0.06 0.10

Middle Sub-Basins 1,252,763 1,197,020 47,210 8,533 96 3.8 0.7 - 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.16 616 Ping part 4 171,896 169,971 20 1,905 99 0 1 - 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.06 617 Huay Mae Thor 15,903 14,755 1,148 - 93 7 - - 0.14 - 0.14 0.25 618 Klong Wang Chao 19,918 16,315 233 3,370 82 1 17 - 0.02 0.51 0.53 0.91 619 Klong Mae Raka 30,731 30,731 - - 100 - - - - - - - 620 Klong Suan Mark 65,470 64,745 237 488 99 0 1 - 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 621 Lower Ping 378,141 371,449 666 6,026 98 0 2 - 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.09

Lower Sub-Basins 682,059 667,966 2,304 11,789 98 0.3 1.7 - 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.10 -

Ping Basin 2,458,854 2,276,781 126,075 55,998 93 5.1 2.3 - 0.10 0.07 0.17 0.29 * combined with lower Mae Chaem data

Population Ethnicity Percentage Distribution

Thai, Haw

Point Score

Upland Ethnicity Score

Relative Weightmultiplied by % of persons

Sub-Basin Total Thai, Haw

source: tabulation by author from 1998 highland village survey and GIS boundaries of sub-basins, both provided by ONEP



These data were then combined with sub-basin total population estimates from Panya, which are more recent, and the difference between the totals was assumed to consist of lowland ethnic groups not covered by the highland village survey. Given the two different sources and dates for each data set, this is very likely to be somewhat of an underestimate of the absolute numbers of mountain ethnic minorities.8 Since the methodology was consistent across all sub-basins, however, compari-son of relative proportions across sub-basins should still be valid. Thus, this approach is deemed suitable for the purpose of relative sub-basin assessment at this stage of the project. There are two additional issues associated with these data and calculations. The first is that com-parison of upland ethnic minority populations have some minor differences with calculations de-rived from Dr. Methi’s provincial decision support system database (Figure 2-43). A preliminary rapid assessment of these differences indicate they are associated with higher resolution boundary files and more careful screening of village point locations and data records in Methi’s system, as well as with the exclusion of all villages outside Chiang Mai and Lamphun provincial boundaries. The difference in the Lawa population in Mae Chaem, for example, relates largely to several vil-lages that are within the Mae Chaem sub-basin boundaries (according to ONEP data), but within the boundaries of Mae Hong Son province, rather than Chiang Mai.

Figure 2-43. Upland minority data from pilot provincial decision support system. Year 1999

1 Ping part 1 46,797 27,673 19,124 2,138 4,071 380 93 1,018 1,017 681 2,731 6,840 - 155 2 Mae Ngad 35,683 31,680 4,003 352 296 - - 357 - 790 1,462 575 - 171 3 Mae Taeng 23,150 6,989 16,161 4,125 1,676 - - 2,237 650 451 4,801 2,102 119 - 7 Mae Khan 59,271 42,612 16,659 1,391 - - - 11,477 2,809 - 368 - - 614 9 Mae Klang 23,688 15,436 8,252 - - - - 6,090 2,162 - - - - -

11 Mae Chaem upper 22,145 - 22,145 2,103 - - - 16,131 2,797 - 431 - - 683 12 Mae Chaem lower 27,586 11,027 16,559 1,272 - - 1,923 11,096 1,032 - - - - 1,236 14 Mae Teun - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Upper Sub-Basins 238,320 135,417 102,903 11,381 6,043 380 2,016 48,406 10,467 1,922 9,793 9,517 119 2,859 4 Ping part 2 237,885 227,341 10,544 5,257 - - - - 4,614 - 643 - - 30 5 Mae Rim 17,220 9,935 7,285 3,845 - - - 1,894 1,417 - 69 - 60 - 6 Mae Kuang 225,272 220,720 4,552 3,594 - - - 958 - - - - - - 8 Mae Lee 73,384 62,160 11,224 - - - - 11,224 - - - - - -

10 Ping part 3 58,116 46,274 11,842 48 - - - 11,236 558 - - - - - 13 Mae Had 13,195 13,195 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Middle Sub-Basins 625,072 579,625 45,447 12,744 - - - 25,312 6,589 - 712 - 60 30 15 Ping part 4 - - 16 Huay Mae Thor - - 17 Klong Wang Chao - - 18 Klong Mae Raka - - 19 Klong Suan Mark - - 20 Lower Ping - -

Lower Sub-Basins - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ping Basin

Htin Lawa

Distribution of Population EthnicityUpland Villages

Sub-Basin Total persons Lowland population

Total upland population Thai Haw MuserKaren mixedHmong Akha Lisu Yao


The second issue, which will also be relevant to the next indicator, is the author’s concern about the total sub-basin population values obtained from Panya. An obvious example for this author is the Mae Chaem sub-basin, where Panya lists a total of more than 96,000 people. When compared with Methi’s data (or other data that ICRAF has acquired), there appears to be a discrepancy than is more than what one would expect from some minor boundary differences. Nevertheless, overall population from Panya has continued to be used for consistency sake in calculating the relative rankings of sub-basins for the purposes of this report. While none of these differences are likely to be significant enough to affect the overall outcome of considerations in which they are being used here, this is a cautionary note that underscores the need for carefully checked common databases that are made available to different stakeholders so that they can avoid misunderstandings resulting from conflicting data obtained from different sources. Discussions of ethnicity also provide a link with the cultural heritage of each ethnic group, as well as the common heritage of cultural diversity. Since these can relate to visions of preferred future land use and livelihood options, they may also be worthy of further study and learning. The report

8 More recent data from 2002 exist, but we have not yet been able to gain access to it.


by CMU [2004] was able to draw on a range of qualitative, localized and often anecdotal data to put together a strong and very informative discussion of river life, culture and problems of primar-ily lowland Thai communities living in close proximity to main channels of the Ping River. Similar treatment for other groups in the basin could bring additional balance, and perhaps serve as back-ground and resource material for consideration by pilot sub-basin management organizations. In-deed, it is precisely the directions of development and change that are occurring in various high density settlement areas of major lowland valleys that give rise to the second indicator under this sub-criterion. Indicator 3.3.2: Population Density Score. This indicator provides a single value estimate of the relative population density of sub-basins in the Ping River Basin. Its calculation is straightfor-ward, as indicated in Figure 2-44, based on the ratio between estimates of total population provided by Panya (which should be regarded as tentative) and total land area of each sub-basin as provided by ONEP. Ratio values for each sub-basin (persons per square kilometer) is converted to a 3-point scale of relative population density, wherein the sub-basin with highest population density is as-signed a value of 3.0.

Figure 2-44. Population Density Indicator Scoring

3.3.2

People Land RelativeLand PopulationArea Density

persons sq km per/sq km Score602 Ping part 1 79,771 1,974 40.4 0.30 603 Mae Ngad 66,986 1,285 52.1 0.38 604 Mae Taeng 72,687 1,958 37.1 0.27 608 Mae Khan 106,041 1,833 57.8 0.42 610 Mae Klang 44,497 616 72.2 0.53 612 Mae Chaem upper (with lower) (with lower) *613 Mae Chaem lower 96,408 3,896 24.7 0.18 615 Mae Teun 57,642 2,896 19.9 0.15

Upper Sub-Basins 524,032 14,458 36.2 0.26 605 Ping part 2 663,600 1,616 410.5 3.00 606 Mae Rim 84,761 508 166.8 1.22 607 Mae Kuang 290,988 2,734 106.4 0.78 609 Mae Lee 147,846 2,081 71.1 0.52 611 Ping part 3 20,852 3,452 6.0 0.04 614 Mae Had 44,716 520 85.9 0.63

Middle Sub-Basins 1,252,763 10,911 114.8 0.84 616 Ping part 4 171,896 2,983 57.6 0.42 617 Huay Mae Thor 15,903 644 24.7 0.18 618 Klong Wang Chao 19,918 649 30.7 0.22 619 Klong Mae Raka 30,731 902 34.1 0.25 620 Klong Suan Mark 65,470 1,132 57.8 0.42 621 Lower Ping 378,141 2,980 126.9 0.93

Lower Sub-Basins 682,059 9,289 73.4 0.54 -

Ping Basin 2,458,854 34,659 70.9 0.52 * combined with lower Mae Chaem data

Population Density

Population Density

Sub-Basin Population

Relative sub-basin values of this indicator can also be compared visually with the distribution of administrative villages and municipal areas shown in the map on the right side of Figure 2-37. That figure also indicates the location of district towns, in which significant portions of local populations are concentrated. Although the lower Ping sub-basin has the second largest total population, it is distributed more widely among more dispersed settlements than is the case in middle sub-basins with high overall population densities. And in midland and highland areas of upper sub-basins, populations tend to be even more dispersed than indicated by the distribution of administrative vil-lages, since in these areas administrative villages tend to be composed of multiple small settlements of the same or different ethnic groups (see Figure 2-40). In any event, it is important to emphasize that high-density settlement and urban areas often have a range of important stakeholders in sub-basin management, as discussed in earlier sections of this report, and there are usually multiple sec-tors that will need to be represented in an effective sub-basin management organization.


(d) Health

Public health is a major element of concern related to environmental management issues generally, and it features prominently in the logic underlying development of this project. In the context of the Ping River Basin, the currently most commonly perceived aspects of public health that might be improved through basin management would include those related to illness linked to sanitation and water-borne diseases associated with water pollution, respiratory illnesses associated with air pollu-tion (including smoke), or illness due to toxic effects from chemicals increasingly used in agricul-ture and industry. Indeed, agricultural, domestic/urban, and industrial uses of water are seen as the primary causes of decreasing water quality that threatens aquatic and ecological health, as well as the health and well-being of downstream human populations. Thus, Sub-Criterion 3.4. Priority should be given to sub-basins with relatively high levels of health problems associated with water or air pollution, or use of toxic chemicals. In order to assess Ping sub-basins according to this sub-criterion, several preliminary health prob-lem indicators were tentatively developed, and very substantial effort was made to identify suitable data sources that could allow them to be implemented. Given the units of aggregation in which readily available health data are reported, however, this has proved to be a daunting task. Thus, it has proved useful to again turn to data extracted from the national rural development data-base (กชช.2ค) to identify village-level health data that could be aggregated to sub-basin level. Re-view of the potentially relevant variables resulted in the data presented in Figure 2-45, as well as data on health care, maintenance and training, as displayed in Figure 2-46. Variables in Figure 2-45 include cases of AIDS, and levels of poultry for sale are an indicator of risk of exposure to avian influenza (bird flu). While there are some interesting patterns of diversity and uniformity in these data, none of the data available directly address the prevalence of water-borne or air pollution dis-ease, or of poisoning from consuming water polluted with toxic substance from agricultural or in-dustrial sources. There are, however, data that indicate various conditions under which people would be at higher risk of having health problems associated with some of these issues, and data on cases of applicator poisoning from agricultural chemicals. Thus, 3 sub-indicators are developed for purposes here: Indicator 3.4.1: Village Water Supply Problem Score. This indicator provides a single value description of levels of problems associated with having year-round supply of clean water for drinking and domestic purposes in Ping sub-basins. Its implementation is based on data in Figure 2-44 on households without access to piped water systems, or year-round supplies of clean water for drinking or domestic use. .Sub-basin values for each of these component indicators are assigned a weight that can be adjusted according to expert opinion or consensus. Initial calculations assign a weight of 1.0 to piped water, 2.0 to domestic water, and 3.0 to clean drinking water. Weighted val-ues are summed and converted to a 3 point scale. Calculations are presented in Figure 2-47. Indicator 3.4.2: Village Waste Management Problem Score. This indicator provides a sin-gle value description of wastewater and solid waste (trash and garbage) management deficiencies in Ping sub-basin villages. Implementation is based on data in Figure 2-44 on village reported percep-tions of whether a problem exists or not, and if it exists whether current management efforts are sufficient to address the problem. Values used to calculate this indicator reflect only conditions where a problem is seen to exist in a village, but where current management efforts are seen as in-adequate. The same approach is taken for both wastewater and solid waste and a relative weight can be assigned to each. Initial calculations use a weight of 2.0 to solid waste and 3.0 to wastewa-ter, assuming risk of health problems related to wastewater are somewhat more likely. Weighted values are summed and converted to a 3 point scale. Calculations are presented in Figure 2-47. Indicator 3.4.3: Pesticide Poisoning Score. This indicator provides a single value description of the relative incidence of cases of poisoning from agricultural chemicals in the sub-basin. Im-plementation is based on data in Figure 2-44 related to cases of pesticide poisoning per 10,000 per-sons in the general population. As these levels have already been calculated in Figure 2-44, those values are simply converted to a 3 point scale. Calculations are presented in Figure 2-47.


Figure 2-45. Village reported data related to environmental health issues, 2003 Risk

Work teta- hepa- epi- otherVillages House- Persons not in hh not problem insuffic problem insuffic Injury nus titis B lepsy ***reported holds reported village using village people village people exists mgmt exists mgmt # per % of # per

unit: number number number % vill %hh % vill %hh % vill %hh 10k pers villages 10k pers602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 32 42 1.1 21 1.1 20 14 12 48 32 23 14 17 - 0.9 1 3 23 25 20603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 25 35 - 18 1.0 15 2 2 10 4 15 18 10 0.5 0.5 2 6 20 53 24604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 4 17 1.9 17 1.9 15 19 17 50 29 11 6 2 1.1 0.4 9 5 16 7 23608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 6 11 1.8 10 0.6 6 4 1 36 28 13 6 7 - 0.1 5 4 32 50 31610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 17 21 4.9 13 4.9 14 15 12 59 46 20 10 8 - 0.8 1 5 21 9 27612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 20 27 2.0 17 - 11 12 10 53 43 91 10 15 - 0.8 2 2 5 14 4613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 13 29 2.6 24 2.6 16 - - 8 5 9 12 9 - 0.6 1 2 7 3 5615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 5 10 7.8 23 - 5 5 5 29 25 33 9 17 1.4 - 2 3 2 3 5

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 15 24 2.4 17 1.2 12 7 6 33 24 23 11 10 0.3 0.5 3 4 19 27 19605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 19 29 0.5 4 0.3 4 16 9 39 23 21 10 11 - 0.9 3 2 28 50 42606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 20 28 - 13 - 12 4 2 48 32 10 5 5 - - - 2 29 108 29607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 12 22 0.4 6 0.8 6 13 11 39 23 20 5 3 0.1 0.3 3 2 18 35 34609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 32 40 1.3 6 0.6 3 9 8 45 35 19 4 3 - 0.1 1 3 8 28 9611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 16 23 1.3 8 - 6 6 6 39 25 33 14 12 0.2 0.3 4 4 16 21 30614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 10 14 - 10 - 5 6 6 48 29 135 23 34 - - 5 7 17 9 29

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 17 26 0.7 6 0.4 5 12 9 40 25 25 8 7 0.1 0.4 3 2 20 38 32616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 14 27 0.6 6 0.6 5 4 4 18 12 69 14 19 - 2.5 2 5 3 18 34617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 8 9 - 6 - 5 8 8 8 8 55 8 1 - - 3 4 9 31 25618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 24 45 - 5 - 5 - - - - 4 18 5 - - 3 - 1 5 6619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 36 61 2.2 6 - 7 9 2 22 13 10 4 1 - - - 5 3 7 36620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 40 53 2.0 17 4.0 18 4 4 10 10 9 12 14 - 0.7 2 2 2 9 14621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 26 39 2.8 13 2.8 13 10 7 22 15 64 29 51 0.2 2.5 2 5 3 25 21

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 24 38 2.0 11 2.0 10 8 6 19 13 55 22 34 0.1 2.1 2 5 3 20 24

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 18 29 1.4 9 1.0 8 10 7 33 22 32 12 15 0.1 0.9 3 3 15 31 27

Water Supply Major Illness

not clean all yearpoultry for salePoisoningnot enough all year


DomesticPiped Drinking2003 Reporting population

% villSub-Basin

sick persons per 10,000 overall population

T.B. AIDS

Percent of villages

***especially diabetes, cancer, heart disease

WastewaterPollution Work Safety

Garbage Pesticide


Figure 2-46. Village reported health care services, local knowledge & training, 2003

village tradVillages House- Persons health medic child play sports recreationreported holds reported service >30 min >1 hour spec care ground facility rest area

unit: number number number602 Ping part 1 90 12,595 46,651 80 21 44 12 49 47 38 78 24 7 4 - 603 Mae Ngad 100 11,276 38,717 95 3 13 3 46 32 41 67 20 23 23 3 604 Mae Taeng 52 6,155 26,725 90 21 48 27 63 42 37 71 33 12 7 1 608 Mae Khan 170 21,654 79,900 92 15 39 15 48 39 53 84 26 18 13 0 610 Mae Klang 41 6,234 24,389 80 7 34 17 59 54 37 56 20 7 4 0 612 Mae Chaem upper 51 4,323 25,122 63 - 92 80 53 63 25 61 8 12 11 - 613 Mae Chaem lower 76 7,190 32,443 87 18 55 30 39 37 46 58 18 5 16 1 615 Mae Teun 77 6,523 29,439 68 29 75 61 12 29 29 57 9 19 23 -

Upper Sub-Basins 657 75,950 303,386 84 15 47 26 45 41 41 70 21 14 13 1 605 Ping part 2 371 58,431 202,200 91 18 13 - 44 35 41 78 29 15 12 4 606 Mae Rim 56 7,161 25,869 89 - 59 20 57 43 36 79 11 11 9 6 607 Mae Kuang 494 71,676 249,368 91 20 30 3 54 32 39 73 23 17 16 1 609 Mae Lee 159 24,738 85,966 86 20 23 1 48 45 58 73 12 9 11 0 611 Ping part 3 233 35,623 126,305 91 23 29 3 33 44 53 77 17 12 11 2 614 Mae Had 31 4,470 14,787 77 16 6 3 39 39 45 87 19 21 7 0

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 202,099 704,495 90 19 25 3 47 37 44 76 22 14 13 2 616 Ping part 4 181 24,420 92,251 91 9 34 4 35 22 48 73 19 11 20 0 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 1,664 6,703 100 - 33 17 67 33 83 100 42 11 24 - 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 1,823 7,749 88 - 82 35 29 18 41 88 24 21 21 1 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 6,068 23,848 84 7 40 9 20 29 44 67 16 15 9 1 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 7,758 30,305 80 4 46 - 20 20 52 80 16 14 12 - 621 Lower Ping 388 50,301 196,223 86 17 38 4 29 18 45 73 14 17 15 -

Lower Sub-Basins 693 92,034 357,079 87 13 39 5 30 20 47 74 16 15 16 0

Ping Basin 2,694 370,083 1,364,960 88 16 34 9 42 34 44 74 20 14 14 1

Health care services

Sub-Basinnearest hospital

2003 Reporting population travel time toOutside training

trainees per 1,000 persons

Village health maintenancechildren exercise - rest nutri-

tionmother & child other


Percent of villages

tambon hospital

Percent of villages

3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3

water drinking domestic waste solidsystem water water water waste

no not notTotal piped clean enough Total Total

Households water all year all year Villages Populationunit: number number

weight: 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0602 Ping part 1 12,595 42 21 20 13.65 2.75 90 12 32 11.41 2.21 47 17 0.93 603 Mae Ngad 11,276 35 18 15 11.19 2.09 100 2 4 1.50 0.29 39 10 0.53 604 Mae Taeng 6,155 17 17 15 8.15 1.28 52 17 29 11.32 2.19 27 2 0.06 608 Mae Khan 21,654 11 10 6 4.55 0.31 170 1 28 8.35 1.62 80 7 0.37 610 Mae Klang 6,234 21 13 14 7.76 1.17 41 12 46 15.48 3.00 24 8 0.42 612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 11,513 28 21 14 10.45 1.89 127 4 43 13.12 2.54 58 11 0.61 615 Mae Teun 6,523 10 23 5 6.31 0.79 77 5 25 8.02 1.55 29 17 0.93

Upper Sub-Basins 75,950 24 17 12 8.67 1.42 657 6 24 8.03 1.56 303 10 0.55 605 Ping part 2 58,431 29 4 4 6.14 0.74 371 9 23 8.24 1.60 202 11 0.56 606 Mae Rim 7,161 28 13 12 8.72 1.43 56 2 32 9.58 1.86 26 5 0.25 607 Mae Kuang 71,676 22 6 6 5.56 0.58 494 11 23 8.40 1.63 249 3 0.08 609 Mae Lee 24,738 40 6 3 8.22 1.30 159 8 35 11.47 2.22 86 3 0.09 611 Ping part 3 35,623 23 8 6 6.29 0.78 233 6 25 8.34 1.62 126 12 0.67 614 Mae Had 4,470 14 10 5 4.82 0.39 31 6 29 9.49 1.84 15 34 2.00

Middle Sub-Basins 202,099 26 6 5 6.28 0.78 1,344 9 25 8.78 1.70 704 7 0.37 616 Ping part 4 24,420 27 6 5 6.22 0.76 181 4 12 4.02 0.78 92 19 1.06 617 Huay Mae Thor 1,664 9 6 5 3.38 - 12 8 8 3.85 0.75 7 1 0.01 618 Klong Wang Chao 1,823 45 5 5 9.16 1.55 17 - - - - 8 5 0.24 619 Klong Mae Raka 6,068 61 6 7 12.30 2.39 45 2 13 4.23 0.82 24 1 - 620 Klong Suan Mark 7,758 53 17 18 14.58 3.00 50 4 10 3.58 0.69 30 14 0.78 621 Lower Ping 50,301 39 13 13 10.86 2.00 388 7 15 5.56 1.08 196 51 3.00

Lower Sub-Basins 92,034 38 11 10 9.87 1.74 693 6 13 4.76 0.92 357 34 1.99 - -

Ping Basin 370,083 29 9 8 7.66 1.15 2,694 7 22 7.56 1.47 1,365 15 0.84 * combined with lower Mae Chaem data

percent of households % villages thousands of persons

Sub-Basin

Problem exists but management absent

or inadequate

Village Water Supply Village Waste Management Chemical Poisoning

Water supply

problem Point Score

Relative Water Supply

Problem Score

Waste manage-

ment problem

Point Score

Relative Waste

Manage-ment

Problem Score

agricultural chemical poisoning (pesticide)

Relative Pesticide Poisoning

Scorecases per

10,000 persons


Figure 2-47. Health Problem Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins


(e) Additional socio-economic data

A very wide range of additional socio-economic, cultural and historical data could conceivably be added to the list of sub-criteria and indicators listed in this section. Indeed, data on a range of other variables has already been presented in various tables, and ONEP staff have suggested data related to crime and drugs. In order to help some of these additional lines of possibilities, Figure 2-48 pre-sents village reported data on several variables related to social problems, including people with disabilities, broken families, violence (both self-inflicted and directed toward others), and crimes associated with drug use. Figure 2-49 increases the focus on drug use patterns and social problems associated with them. Various patterns of diversity and uniformity in these data are, indeed, very interesting and could help provide insights on issues that could quite possibly be important for various sub-basin management organizations, as well as for efforts to develop sub-basin support programs or activities at higher levels. The same is true for a considerable range of variables al-ready presented, such as those related to public health (Figures 2-45, 2-46), local knowledge (2-21), education (Figure 2-19), group membership (Figure 2-20), community-level functions (Figure 2-18), employment (Figures 2-12, 2-14), indicators of economic integration (Figure 2-13), and possi-bly others. A few of these data will contribute to local capacity indicators in the next section.

However, this author does not feel that that inclusion of further issues is practical for inclusion in sub-basin selection criteria in this section at this stage. The most important reason is that the list of sub-criteria and indicators is already perhaps too long to be useful and easily understood. Thus, some difficult decisions are required to establish priorities. Moreover, many of these variables are likely to have substantial co-variance with differences in levels of urbanization, prominence of low-land or upland areas, diversity of ethnic groups, or other factors that various selected sub-criteria and indicators are already seeking to capture. We also need to not lose sight of the fact that many variables will have variation among locations within a sub-basin that is likely to be as great or greater than variation among sub-basins. Thus, it would appear more appropriate at this stage to view these additional issues as topics for further consideration at the individual sub-basin level. If sub-basin stakeholders and leaders see them as important, such issues could be explored through more detailed assessments conducted in their sub-basin, as well as through discussion with and by emergent sub-basin management organi-zations in the context of their relevance for consideration and activities under specific conditions and at specific locations. Village level data such as those used in analyses in this report could help provide a starting point for such efforts at sub-basin level.


Figure 2-48. Village reported data related to disabilities and social problems, 2003

psycho- +home self- extortion disturb growth rapelogical -less injury of users -ances center immoral

unit:602 Ping part 1 12 14 34 4 10 6 8 0 2 15 4 9 2 11 18 11 4 11603 Mae Ngad 10 24 20 9 27 8 8 0 3 3 5 1 2 6 8 6 2 2604 Mae Taeng 8 9 15 2 10 4 10 3 2 5 1 17 8 10 29 27 4 8608 Mae Khan 17 20 29 11 25 3 9 0 8 8 1 8 2 4 5 6 2 3610 Mae Klang 11 23 16 14 16 5 11 3 3 22 3 24 5 27 29 20 2 10612 Mae Chaem upper 4 16 14 3 19 11 6 0 3 2 1 4 2 2 10 10 0 4613 Mae Chaem lower 2 2 6 4 5 2 5 1 1 6 4 3 1 1 5 4 1 0615 Mae Teun 8 19 16 8 10 5 8 0 6 6 - 9 5 5 14 12 3 8

Upper Sub-Basins 10 16 21 7 17 5 8 1 4 8 2 8 3 7 12 10 2 5605 Ping part 2 9 13 25 7 15 2 12 1 3 10 1 8 2 8 19 12 2 3606 Mae Rim 22 17 26 7 25 5 12 1 1 38 1 14 5 18 25 14 5 7607 Mae Kuang 11 12 26 9 16 4 12 0 5 8 1 3 1 6 10 5 0 2609 Mae Lee 16 14 25 9 15 5 12 1 2 6 1 4 1 4 11 3 1 3611 Ping part 3 11 15 31 11 17 5 9 1 3 23 3 8 3 11 15 11 3 6614 Mae Had 15 28 20 16 30 11 9 0 3 55 5 0 0 3 3 0 0 0

Middle Sub-Basins 12 14 26 9 16 3 11 1 3 13 1 6 2 8 14 8 1 3616 Ping part 4 14 9 33 15 21 3 11 1 2 19 2 7 2 6 12 8 1 6617 Huay Mae Thor 15 39 36 7 18 7 13 6 3 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0618 Klong Wang Chao 28 13 40 12 32 1 14 1 4 14 3 12 0 0 18 35 0 29619 Klong Mae Raka 14 16 26 6 15 8 11 1 11 13 3 2 2 0 2 2 2 2620 Klong Suan Mark 14 21 32 14 16 7 6 0 4 20 1 12 2 8 10 8 2 6621 Lower Ping 14 14 38 11 18 11 10 1 5 14 2 5 2 5 7 4 2 4

Lower Sub-Basins 14 14 36 12 19 8 10 1 4 16 2 6 2 5 8 6 1 5

Ping Basin 12 14 28 9 17 5 10 1 4 13 2 6 2 7 12 8 2 4

%hh

brawls othersuicide assaults killings theftsight hearing limbs retarded


Social problems due to narcotics users

Percent of villages

DisabilitiesBroken families

disabled persons per 10,000 overall population cases per 10,000 overall population

Violence

Sub-Basin

Figure 2-49. Village reported data related to drug use, 2003 Drug

Problem social Estimated Amphet- Other wage Preventexists impacts users amines types labor programs

# per presentunit: 10k pers %vill

602 Ping part 1 50 31 184 7 6 - 87 - - 12 33 42 10 3 1 96 93 4 2 603 Mae Ngad 49 8 130 0 18 1 81 0 1 3 42 37 11 6 1 100 92 8 - 604 Mae Taeng 62 42 159 2 18 - 78 1 1 3 22 47 6 11 11 98 100 - - 608 Mae Khan 56 14 99 2 4 - 94 0 - 15 35 33 3 11 3 99 94 5 1 610 Mae Klang 56 37 145 - 6 - 93 1 - - 10 64 20 6 - 100 91 4 4 612 Mae Chaem upper 37 14 132 3 63 5 29 - - - 37 53 - 5 4 100 74 21 5 613 Mae Chaem lower 43 7 108 - 14 - 86 - - 10 67 13 11 - - 97 70 27 3 615 Mae Teun 29 18 70 - 59 1 40 - - - 31 47 - 5 18 99 100 - -

Upper Sub-Basins 49 19 126 2 14 0 83 0 0 8 35 39 8 6 3 99 91 8 2 605 Ping part 2 61 24 109 1 1 1 93 3 1 8 6 53 11 21 2 100 96 4 - 606 Mae Rim 64 36 186 - 3 - 93 3 1 11 14 55 13 7 - 100 86 14 - 607 Mae Kuang 43 13 59 1 0 0 92 5 2 15 7 50 4 22 2 99 93 7 - 609 Mae Lee 30 13 58 - - 1 97 2 - 7 38 43 7 3 1 97 96 2 2 611 Ping part 3 52 24 108 0 1 4 93 2 - 15 30 32 2 17 5 98 91 4 4 614 Mae Had 6 3 18 - - - 100 - - - - 100 - - - 100 100 - -

Middle Sub-Basins 48 19 86 1 1 1 93 3 1 11 14 48 8 18 2 99 94 5 1 616 Ping part 4 34 15 73 - 2 10 87 1 - 5 46 42 3 3 1 99 92 8 - 617 Huay Mae Thor 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100 - - - 618 Klong Wang Chao 71 41 363 - - 1 99 - - - 90 8 - - 2 100 100 - - 619 Klong Mae Raka 7 4 10 - - 67 29 4 - - 100 - - - - 78 100 - - 620 Klong Suan Mark 26 16 44 - - 5 94 2 - - 7 62 - 32 - 100 92 8 - 621 Lower Ping 26 10 51 - 0 3 93 2 2 10 33 44 4 7 3 96 96 - 2

Lower Sub-Basins 28 12 59 - 1 6 91 1 1 6 45 38 3 5 2 96 94 3 1

Ping Basin 43.0 17 87.8 1 5 2 90 2 1 9 26 43 7 12 2 98 93 6 1

workers jobless othersless

% of villages

Known users by type of drugScale

Heroin Opium

Known users by occupationtrend last year

student farmer


Sub-Basinsame more

Percent of known users Percent of known usersPercent of

villages

Ganga Inhalent



6. Local capacity and administrative complexity

While it is clearly important to have representation of conditions under which a reasonable range of natural resource and socio-economic issues are likely to be key elements of pilot sub-basin man-agement activities, it is also important to consider elements affecting the likelihood of significant progress being made under the project. We should also consider how other sub-basins will view the relevance of project activities in terms of the capacity of their local governments and communi-ties to provide essential support for sub-basin activities. Thus,

Criterion 4. Selected sub-basins should represent a reasonable mix of local organizational capacities and relevant skills, but avoid areas where excessive administrative complexity may prevent adequate testing of model approaches within the project timeframe.

In order to apply this criterion, three more specific sub-criteria are proposed to assess conditions associated with each key issue included in this criterion: Sub-criteria and indicators are summa-rized in Figure 2-50, where overall scores are relative within sub-basin groupings and relative weights are all set to 1.0.

(a) Local organizational capacity

Two components of the organizational capacity of local institutional actors depicted generally in Figure 2-23 are likely to have a substantial effect on the outcome of this project. Of key importance will be the degree to which very local groups and watershed and/or natural resource management networks have begun to emerge within a given sub-basin. Progress is likely to be most rapid where such groups and networks have emerged as a result of local initiative, where appropriate skills exist based on local knowledge and experience as well as training from outside public and private sources, and where groups have reached the point where they are seeking to build alliances that can allow them to work at a wider level. If other conditions of such sub-basins are relevant, progress in such areas could provide a powerful demonstration effect for areas where such networks are not yet active. Since the longer term viability and sustainability of multi-level networking efforts depends on linkage with local governments, whether with TAOs through the “prachakhom window” or through other mechanisms, it is also important that pilot project experience includes sites where capacity of local governments are currently at both low and relatively higher levels. Thus, Sub-Criterion 4.1. Priority should be given to sub-basins where local communities have high levels of participation in community activities, where they are experienced with local group organizations, and where they are actively involved in community learning processes. A rea-sonable mix of capacities of local (sub-district) government should be included. In order to assess Ping sub-basins according to this sub-criterion, four indicators have been devel-oped to capture a few key characteristics. Unfortunately, however, data for three of these indicators is only readily available at this point for middle and upper sub-basins Indicator 4.1.1: Local Government Capacity Score. This indicator provides a value that reflects the overall composite capacity of local government units in a sub-basin, as characterized by their status as a municipality (tessaban) or their TAO rating assigned and monitored by units of the Ministry of Interior (MOI) responsible for monitoring and supporting TAO development.

MOI assigns a rating to all TAO’s in the country, on a scale of 1 to 5, based largely on their overall annual budget; with Class 1 TAO’s having the largest annual budget. The overall annual budget of a TAO reflects its ability to collect local taxes, which in turn reflects a combination of the eco-nomic activity and land values of areas under their jurisdiction, as well as the ability of the TAO to levy and collect local taxes. The classification level of the TAO also reflects the number and type of permanent staff positions that the TAO has available to it, which directly affects its ability to handle issues and activities within its mandate. Thus, persistently low TAO ratings reflect some combination of a low level of economic activity, ineffective local leadership, and/or conditions that undermine TAO ability to raise local funds, such as the inability of TAO’s in upper tributary water-sheds to collect land taxes in areas zoned to any type of forest land status.

4.3. Simplicity4.1.1. 4.1.2. 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.3.1.

Loc Govt Community Group Community Local Project-related Admin Capacity Participation Organization Learning Specialists Training Simplicity

Score Score Score Score Score Score Score source: MOI / onep MCC - CDD MCC - CDD MCC - CDD กชช.2ค / onep กชช.2ค / onep Panya, ONEP

Upper Sub-Basins 0.5 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.3 2.1 2.6weight: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

602 Ping part 1 1.5 13 1.1 0.0 1.3 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.5603 Mae Ngad 2.0 14 0.0 1.6 2.4 1.9 2.2 3.0

0.83.0 3.0 3.00.0 1.7 0.0

3.00.2 3.0 3.0

1.5 2.4

3.03.0 3.0

3.0 3.02.5 2.9

2.8604 Mae Taeng 0.7 11 0.2 2.7 0.3 1.9 2.9 2.4608 Mae Khan 16 1.2 1.6 2.6 2.5 2.2610 Mae Klang 10 1.7 0.0 2.9 0.3 3.0612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 1.2 12 0.4 1.9 2.1 1.4 2.1 2.1 2.3615 Mae Teun 0.5 11 0.0 1.9 1.9 1.4 0.3 2.5 2.7

Middle Sub-Basins 1.1 2.3 2.0 1.3 2.1 1.6 1.8weight: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

605 Ping part 2 1.3 12 2.5 2.0 1.2 2.0 1.2 0.0606 Mae Rim 2.9 14 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.7607 Mae Kuang 2.1 13 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.3 0.6609 Mae Lee 0.0 10 0.5 2.2 1.9 0.4 1.9 0.5 2.5611 Ping part 3 0.6 11 0.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 2.2614 Mae Had 14 0.2 2.0 1.1 2.3 2.8 3.0

Lower Sub-Basins 0.8 0.7 1.5 2.4weight: 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

616 Ping part 4 1.5 5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.8617 Huay Mae Thor 7 0.1 2.8 0.6618 Klong Wang Chao 6 0.2 0.7 2.2619 Klong Mae Raka 0.5 4 0.0 1.0 0.4 2.7620 Klong Suan Mark 0.0 4 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.8621 Lower Ping 1.6 5 1.5 0.5 2.0 1.2

Ping Basin 0.8 1.8 1.7 2.3* combined with lower Mae Chaem data

4.2. Specialist Knowledge4. OverallLocal Org

Capacity &

4.1. Capacity

Simplicity Score weighted

total Sub-Basin

ge 118 Participatory Watershed Management for the Ping River Basin Project

Figure 2-50. Organizational and Administrative Indicator Scoring

Pa


In order to implement this approach, lists of TAO ratings for 2002 were obtained from the MOI’s Department of Provincial Administration website [ http:\\www.dopa.go.th/local/abt.htm ]. GIS shape files of TAO and municipality boundaries for the Ping Basin were then obtained from ONEP. TAO ratings were manually inserted into the database of the TAO boundary files, which was then combined with shape files of municipality boundaries and sub-basin boundaries. This resulted in a database file that could yield data on the areas covered by TAO under each of the rating levels, as well as municipalities. An area, rather than population, basis is seen as more suitable for assessing capacities related to management of natural resource and environment issues, and the ONEP water-shed committee agreed. Thus, suitably aggregated data was inserted into appropriate columns of the calculation table in Figure 2-51, and weights were assigned to each of the category columns. Given the substantial presence in all sub-basins of local governments in the lowest capacity cate-gory (class 5), a mix of capacities is best represented by the relative presence of local governments with higher capacity status. Thus, since requirements for establishment of municipalities (tambon, muang or nakhon) are all already quite high, and their responsibilities are even greater than class 1 TAOs, they were assigned a weight of 3.0. Class 1 to 5 TAOs were assigned weights intended to reflect the declining capacity of each category. Thus, the resulting score yields a depiction of the overall proportion of local government capacity across the entire landscape of the sub-basin. The other three indicators are all derived from indices developed by the Thai government’s Com-munity Development Department, which employ data from the national village-level rural devel-opment database9 analyzed by the author in preparing many of the sub-basin data tables in this part of the report. Since these indices are computed from variables in this database, index values for each village are apparently only available in tabular format. As with the CDD development index used as one of the poverty indicators in the previous section,10 the only known source for these data in a spatial format is Dr. Methi’s pilot provincial decision support system, where they are only available for middle and upper Ping sub-basins located in Chiang Mai and Lamphun provinces. Thus, implementation of these indicators suffers from the same limitations. Distributions of avail-able village values for these three indices are displayed in Figure 2-53. Indicator 4.1.2: Community Participation Score. This indicator provides a single score value that reflects the relative distribution of the degree to which households in a sub-basin partici-pate in community and local governance affairs. Implementation is based on the CDD community participation index, which classifies participation by households into three relative categories (high, medium and low), for which relatives weights of 3, 2 and 1, respectively, are assigned in the calcu-lations presented in Figure 2-52. Indicator 4.1.3: Group Organization Score. This indicator provides a single score value that reflects the relative distribution of the degree to which households in a sub-basin are members of active local groups. Implementation is based on the CDD group organization index, which classi-fies household group activity into three relative categories (high, medium and low), for which rela-tives weights of 3, 2 and 1, respectively, are assigned in the calculations presented in Figure 2-52. Indicator 4.1.2: Community Learning Score. This indicator provides a single score value that reflects relative distribution of the degree to which households in a sub-basin actively engage in community learning processes. Implementation is based on the CDD community learning index, which classifies households into three relative categories (high, medium and low), for which rela-tives weights of 3, 2 and 1, respectively, are assigned in the calculations presented in Figure 2-52. In the future, it would be very useful for Ping basin and sub-basin management to build a catalogue of data such as these for the entire set of sub-basins. And it would be even more useful to also in-clude more direct data on presence and strength of local networks, as well as efforts and activities conducted by NGOs and government agencies to provide various types of support for local net-works and emerging alliances or federations of networks.

9 กชช.2ค 10 Derivation of the development index includes the 3 indices here, plus 27 additional ones.

http://www.dopa.go.th/local/abt.htm




Figure 2-51. Area-Based Indicator Scoring for Local Government Capacity unit: square kilometers unit: Percent 4.1.1

Munic Munic Munic 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Score Score sq km 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 0.75 0.25

602 Ping part 1 1,974 42 - - 14 921 997 2 - - 1 47 51 0.06 - - 0.01 0.35 0.13 0.55 1.13 603 Mae Ngad 1,285 6 - - - 0 1,278 0.5 - - - 0 100 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.25 0.26 0.04 604 Mae Taeng 1,958 16 - - - 146 1,795 1 - - - 7 92 0.03 - - - 0.06 0.23 0.31 0.22 608 Mae Khan 1,833 139 - - - 438 1,257 8 - - - 24 69 0.23 - - - 0.18 0.17 0.58 1.24 610 Mae Klang 616 18 - - 29 376 193 3 - - 5 61 31 0.09 - - 0.07 0.46 0.08 0.70 1.68 612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 3,896 102 - - - 261 3,532 3 - - - 7 91 0.08 - - - 0.05 0.23 0.36 0.39 615 Mae Teun 2,896 3 - - - - 2,893 0.1 - - - - 100 0.00 - - - - 0.25 0.25 -

Upper Sub-Basins 14,458 327 - - 43 2,142 11,946 2 - - 0.3 15 83 0.07 - - 0.00 0.11 0.21 0.39 0.52 605 Ping part 2 1,617 168 90 21 277 467 594 10 6 1 17 29 37 0.31 0.14 0.03 0.26 0.22 0.09 1.04 3.00 606 Mae Rim 508 - - - - 58 450 - - - - 11 89 - - - - 0.09 0.22 0.31 0.21 607 Mae Kuang 2,734 296 32 2 198 401 1,805 11 1 0.1 7 15 66 0.32 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.74 1.85 609 Mae Lee 2,081 36 - - 0 393 1,651 2 - - 0 19 79 0.05 - - 0.00 0.14 0.20 0.39 0.53 611 Ping part 3 3,452 27 - - 1 299 3,125 1 - - 0 9 91 0.02 - - 0.00 0.06 0.23 0.31 0.24 614 Mae Had 520 8 - - - 14 498 1 - - - 3 96 0.04 - - - 0.02 0.24 0.30 0.19

Middle Sub-Basins 10,911 534 121 23 477 1,632 8,124 5 1 0 4 15 74 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.11 0.19 0.54 1.10 616 Ping part 4 2,983 108 - - 174 189 2,512 4 - - 6 6 84 0.11 - - 0.09 0.05 0.21 0.45 0.77 617 Huay Mae Thor 644 - - - - 34 610 - - - - 5 95 - - - - 0.04 0.24 0.28 0.09 618 Klong Wang Chao 649 - - - - 80 569 - - - - 12 88 - - - - 0.09 0.22 0.31 0.22 619 Klong Mae Raka 902 - - - 6 9 887 - - - 1 1 98 - - - 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.04 620 Klong Suan Mark 1,132 4 - - - 477 651 0.3 - - - 42 58 0.01 - - - 0.32 0.14 0.47 0.83 621 Lower Ping 2,980 197 - - - 1,215 1,568 7 - - - 41 53 0.20 - - - 0.31 0.13 0.64 1.45

Lower Sub-Basins 9,289 309 - - 180 2,004 6,796 3 - - 2 22 73 0.10 - - 0.03 0.16 0.18 0.47 0.84

Ping Basin 34,659 1,170 121 23 700 5,778 26,866 3 0.3 0.1 2 17 78 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.19 0.46 0.79 * combined with lower Mae Chaem data

Area-Based Local Gov't Capacity Score Relative Capacity TAO Classification LevelTAO Classification Level Relative Weight of capacity by

elected sub-district govtLocal Government Classification Percentage Distribution

Point Tssbn

multiplied by % of land area

elected sub-district government

Sub-Basin Total Area Tessaban


Figure 2-52. Indicator Scores for Strength of Local Communities 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4

Year = 2003

TotalHouseholds

unit: numberweight: 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

602 Ping part 1 11,552 729 197 10,626 2.86 - 909 4,702 5,941 2.44 1.26 5,364 444 5,744 2.03 2.71 603 Mae Ngad 10,504 - 680 9,824 2.94 1.64 397 1,775 8,332 2.76 2.42 5,634 252 4,345 1.83 1.94 604 Mae Taeng 7,130 - 110 7,020 2.98 2.68 1,850 2,249 3,031 2.17 0.28 3,651 1,134 2,345 1.82 1.91 608 Mae Khan 17,545 - - 17,545 3.00 3.00 93 1,274 16,178 2.92 3.00 10,157 1,735 5,653 1.74 1.64 610 Mae Klang 5,685 - 362 5,323 2.94 1.67 931 3,325 1,429 2.09 - 4,612 425 648 1.30 - 612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 10,663 276 - 10,387 2.95 1.92 429 2,756 7,478 2.66 2.07 6,502 1,110 3,051 1.68 1.39 615 Mae Teun estimated based on similarity with Mae Chaem: 1.90 estimated based on similarity with Mae Chaem: 1.90 estimated based on similarity with Mae Chaem: 1.35

Upper Sub-Basins 63,079 1,006 1,351 60,728 2.95 1.89 4,610 16,083 42,392 2.60 1.85 35,921 5,102 21,789 1.77 1.73 605 Ping part 2 68,131 707 373 67,051 2.97 2.45 4,410 15,941 47,780 2.64 1.99 42,883 8,101 17,147 1.62 1.19 606 Mae Rim 4,491 121 - 4,370 2.95 1.87 117 1,853 2,521 2.54 1.62 1,785 426 2,280 2.11 3.00 607 Mae Kuang 64,040 1,069 570 62,401 2.96 2.11 3,176 14,132 46,732 2.68 2.14 37,392 7,768 18,880 1.71 1.52 609 Mae Lee 23,278 424 - 22,854 2.96 2.24 1,643 5,664 15,971 2.62 1.91 17,667 1,580 4,031 1.41 0.41 611 Ping part 3 15,139 - - 15,139 3.00 3.00 2,216 3,622 9,301 2.47 1.38 9,128 2,024 3,969 1.66 1.32 614 Mae Had 3,861 - - 3,861 3.00 3.00 - 1,346 2,515 2.65 2.04 2,727 - 1,134 1.59 1.06

Middle Sub-Basins 178,940 2,321 943 175,676 2.97 2.35 11,562 42,558 124,820 2.63 1.97 111,582 19,899 47,441 1.64 1.26 616 Ping part 4617 Huay Mae Thor618 Klong Wang Chao619 Klong Mae Raka620 Klong Suan Mark621 Lower Ping

Lower Sub-Basins


Sub-Basin Low (1) Medium (2)

Group organization Community learning

No. of Households

Medium (2)High (3) Low (1) High (3)High (3) Low (1) Medium (2)

No. of Households No. of Households

Distribution of community strength indicatorRelative Comm Partic Score

Relative Group

Organiz Score

Relative Comm

Learning Score

Sum of weight

proportions

Sum of weight

proportions

Sum of weight

proportions

Community participation

Figure 2-53. Spatial distribution of community strength indicators, 2003

Source: Methi Ekasingh [2005], based on 2003 data from Community Development Department



(b) Project-related local knowledge and training

Local participation and relevant knowledge, experience and skills are likely to be very important in a pilot project such as this one. Knowledge and skills particularly relevant to the central themes of efforts under this project would relate to natural resources and the environment, public health and livelihood development. These subject areas are likely to include a range of issues for which local knowledge and experience with local conditions will be highly relevant. Moreover, it is likely to be only at the local level where local knowledge and experience can be effectively integrated with ad-ditional knowledge and information from outside sources to develop more innovative and effective approaches to addressing local problems than have been possible in the past. At the same time, since collaboration among stakeholders representing both local interests and the interests of downstream and wider society are central to the project, it will also be very relevant to have a reasonable number of people in the sub-basin who are familiar with concepts, approaches and tools employed by relevant outside organizations and agencies. We have already seen that sub-stantial numbers of people have received training, and much of it is focused on particular groups, and especially on many that are government-induced in nature. Thus, Sub-Criterion 4.2. Priority should be given to sub-basins with relatively widespread presence of relevant local knowledge specialists, as well as a strong cadre of local people who have re-ceived relevant training from outside organizations and agencies. In order to assess Ping sub-basins according to this sub-criterion, two indicators have been devel-oped to capture and synthesize key information. Indicator 4.2.1: Local Specialist Score. This indicator provides a single value that depicts the overall degree to which there is widespread presence of local knowledge specialists in sub-basin

Figure 2-54. Indicator Scores for Project-related Local Knowledge and Training 4.2.1 4.2.2

TotalVillages

unit: numberweight: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

602 Ping part 1 90 57 49 46 50 2.92 75 12 22 37 2.36 603 Mae Ngad 100 37 46 43 42 2.23 18 48 58 41 3.00 604 Mae Taeng 52 40 63 45 50 2.85 24 19 30 24 0.79 608 Mae Khan 170 40 48 51 47 2.60 31 31 51 38 2.49 610 Mae Klang 41 51 59 41 50 2.91 30 11 21 21 0.32 612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 127 48 45 28 40 2.09 43 22 37 34 2.07 615 Mae Teun 77 22 12 21 18 0.29 44 42 28 38 2.54

Upper Sub-Basins 657 42 45 40 42 2.26 39 27 38 35 2.13 605 Ping part 2 371 25 44 50 40 2.03 16 30 36 27 1.18 606 Mae Rim 56 45 57 53 51 3.00 35 26 36 32 1.82 607 Mae Kuang 494 31 54 49 44 2.43 27 33 48 36 2.29 609 Mae Lee 159 28 48 39 38 1.92 18 21 28 22 0.47 611 Ping part 3 233 23 33 35 31 1.31 19 26 43 29 1.39 614 Mae Had 31 48 39 41 43 2.29 38 29 53 40 2.79

Middle Sub-Basins 1,344 28 47 46 40 2.08 22 29 41 31 1.58 616 Ping part 4 181 13 35 36 28 1.11 27 31 29 29 1.38 617 Huay Mae Thor 12 25 67 56 49 2.82 16 35 18 23 0.60 618 Klong Wang Chao 17 - 29 40 23 0.68 22 42 43 36 2.25 619 Klong Mae Raka 45 33 20 28 27 1.02 13 25 25 21 0.36 620 Klong Suan Mark 50 6 20 18 15 - 4 25 26 18 - 621 Lower Ping 388 8 29 26 21 0.52 22 32 47 34 2.00

Lower Sub-Basins 693 11 30 29 23 0.71 21 31 38 30 1.54

Ping Basin 2,694 27 42 40 36 1.77 25 29 40 31 1.69 * combined with lower Mae Chaem data

1 from data in Figure 2-21 2 from data in Figure 2-22 3 average of agriculture, cottage industry, foods & artisans

health occupa-tional overall

weighted average

Sub-Basinpercent of villages trainees per 1,000 persons

Project-related local knowledge & training indicators

Local Specialists1Relative

Local Specialist

Score

Outside Training2 Relative Project-related

Training Score

nat res environ

traditional medicine

liveli- hoods3 overall

weighted average

conservation


villages. It is implemented using data on specific variables present in the national village-level rural development database, which are available for all sub-basins as displayed in Figure 2-21. The per-centage of villages reporting presence of local knowledge specialists in natural resources and envi-ronment, traditional medicine, and key livelihood skills (agriculture, cottage industry, foodstuffs, artisans) are assigned a weighted average value, and resulting totals are converted to a 3.0 point scale, as shown in the calculations in Figure 2-54. All weights have are set at 1.0 at this point. Indicator 4.2.2: Project-related Training Score. This indicator provides a single value that reflects the relative level of local participation in training in subjects related to natural resources and environment, public health and livelihood development during the year immediately preceed-ing preparation of 2003 village reports. It is implemented using data on specific variables present in the national village-level rural development database, which are available for all sub-basins as displayed in Figure 2-22. Numbers of trainees reported per 1,000 persons in these subject areas are used to calculate a weighted average across the three general subject areas, and resulting totals are converted to a 3.0 point scale. Calculations are shown in Figure 2-54, with all weights set to 1.0 at this point.

(c) Administrative complexity

Given the very short project time frame, it seems wise to try to avoid sub-basins where mis-matches between administrative and watershed boundaries result in a complex set of administrative units that would require major coordination efforts before the project could progress. Thus, Sub-Criterion 4.3. Priority should be given to sub-basins with relatively lower requirements for coordination across administrative units. In order to assess Ping sub-basins according to this sub-criterion, an indicator has been developed to capture and synthesize key information. Indicator 4.3.1: Administrative Simplicity Score. This indicator provides a single value that depicts the overall proliferation of administrative units in a sub-basin, and provides for relative weights that can reflect levels of difficulty and time delay in coordination among multiple units of the same general type. The overall score is on a scale of 3 relative to other sub-basins. Thus, a score of 3.0 indicates the sub-basin has the greatest administrative simplicity among Ping sub-basins, whereas lower scores indicate proportionately greater administrative complexity. Calculation involves a two-step process, as reflected in the calculation table shown in Figure 2-55. The first step is to simply catalog the various relevant administrative units for each sub-basin ac-cording to the column heading categories in the left side of the table. The types of units considered follow from the general types of units depicted in Figure 2-23. The second step is then to assign weights according to the simplicity (or ease) of coordination with and among that type of unit. For example, preliminary tentative weights already in the table reflect the hypothesis that it is relatively difficult to coordinate among provinces, and least difficult to coordinate among local forestry units. Broader experience, especially at local levels, should be drawn upon to ascertain whether such hy-potheses are valid or not, and how the weighting regime could be further refined.

unit: number of admin units unit: Score 4.3.1

Province District Loc Govt Watershed Conserv WeightedWatrshd Parks Complexity

units & WLS Total Score** 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 1.5

602 Ping part 1 1 5 13 3 3 4 3.0 12.5 26.0 3.0 6.0 50.5 2.5 603 Mae Ngad 1 2 11 1 2 1 3.0 5.0 22.0 2.0 1.5 33.5 2.8 604 Mae Taeng 1 3 14 1 8 4 3.0 7.5 28.0 8.0 6.0 52.5 2.4 608 Mae Khan 1 5 19 3 8 2 3.0 12.5 38.0 8.0 3.0 64.5 2.2 610 Mae Klang 1 1 5 1 3 2 3.0 2.5 10.0 3.0 3.0 21.5 3.0 612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 1 3 14 2 19 4 3.0 7.5 28.0 19.0 6.0 63.5 2.3 615 Mae Teun 2 2 9 1 8 2 6.0 5.0 18.0 8.0 3.0 40.0 2.7

Upper Sub-Basins 1.0 3 11 2 6 2 3.0 6.6 21.3 6.4 3.6 40.8 2.6 605 Ping part 2 2 13 76 13 3 1 6.0 32.5 152.0 3.0 1.5 195.0 - 606 Mae Rim 1 3 9 - 4 3 3.0 7.5 18.0 4.0 4.5 37.0 2.7 607 Mae Kuang 1 10 63 13 1 2 3.0 25.0 126.0 1.0 3.0 158.0 0.6 609 Mae Lee 1 5 16 4 - 1 3.0 12.5 32.0 - 1.5 49.0 2.5 611 Ping part 3 3 7 17 2 3 3 9.0 17.5 34.0 3.0 4.5 68.0 2.2 614 Mae Had 2 2 5 1 - 1 6.0 5.0 10.0 - 1.5 22.5 3.0

Middle Sub-Basins 1.7 7 31 6 2 2 5.0 16.7 62.0 1.8 2.8 88.3 1.8 616 Ping part 4 2 7 30 2 1 3 6.0 17.5 60.0 1.0 4.5 89.0 1.8 617 Huay Mae Thor 1 2 4 1 1 2 3.0 5.0 8.0 1.0 3.0 20.0 3.0 618 Klong Wang Chao 2 4 4 - - 2 6.0 10.0 8.0 - 3.0 27.0 2.9 619 Klong Mae Raka 2 5 9 - - 1 6.0 12.5 18.0 - 1.5 38.0 2.7 620 Klong Suan Mark 1 3 9 1 - 3 3.0 7.5 18.0 - 4.5 33.0 2.8 621 Lower Ping 2 7 49 8 - 2 6.0 17.5 98.0 - 3.0 124.5 1.2

Lower Sub-Basins 1.7 5 18 2 0.3 2 5.0 11.7 35.0 0.3 3.3 55.3 2.4

Ping Basin 1.4 4 19 3 2 4.2 11.1 37.6 3.2 3.2 59.4 2.3 * combined with lower Mae Chaem data ** calculated as [(<max total>-<total>) / (<max total>-<min total>)] *3

Sub-Basin Province Relative Coord. Difficulty Weightmultiplied by number of units

Tambon Munic

Administrative Units Administrative Simplicity Score Admin

Simplicity Districts

DOLA MoNRELoval Govt


Figure 2-55. Administrative Simplicity Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins


7. Putting it all together

Most of these criteria and indicators were proposed in the inception report so that, to the extent they were seen as useful, the project consultant team could include them in formulating their proposal for at least a pair of candidate sub-basins for each of the lower, middle and upper sub-basin group-ings. Their findings were to be submitted for consideration by basin stakeholders at to the water forum discussed in the next section of this report.

As indicated in previous sections, the author has been able to obtain data to quantify 23 of the 24 natural resource, socio-economic, and organizational indicators proposed in this report. For four of these indicators, however, data were not available in a suitable form for lower sub-basins. To help provide a visual overview of the results, sub-basin values of score calculations before application of relative indicator weights are summarized by bar charts in Figure 2-56. There do not appear to be obvious biases in this data for or against any particular sub-basin

In order to help facilitate consideration of these criteria and indicators, as well as any future as-sessments of diversity and priorities among sub-basins that may find these analyses useful, this sec-tion summarizes indicator calculations and presents an example of how to use provisions for deriv-ing weighted overall values for each sub-basin.

(a) Criteria summary tables and weighted calculations

It is important to note that Figures 2-25, 2-32 and 2-50 are summary tables for each of the sets of sub-criteria and indicators associated with a major guiding criterion. Results of calculations for each individual indicator have been entered into the summary table for their overall guiding crite-rion. These tables contain provision for transparent methods of assigning two additional types of weights:

• In deriving overall values for each criterion, relative weights can be applied to different sub-criteria and each of their indicators, in order to reflect different levels of importance or prior-ity they are seen to have in the decision-making process. As indicated in those tables, weights are all set to the default value of 1.0, which implies an equal weight for each.

• Summary tables include separate lines for these weights under each of the sub-basin group-ings (lower, middle, and upper). Since discussions of each indicator in this report suggest that it may be appropriate to assign higher priority to some sub-criteria or indicators under condi-tions specific to one sub-basin grouping or another, this provision allows different weighting regimes for each sub-basin grouping.

Again, these weightings can be used as a transparent method for reflecting expert opinion, they can be derived through stakeholder consensus, and/or they can be used to conduct a simple sensitivity analysis on indicator or sub-criteria aggregations. In any event, the weightings are optional, and if they are not seen as useful or necessary, or if they appear to over-complicate matters, they can sim-ply be ignored.

(b) Overall summary table

As a final step toward closure in drawing conclusions from this set of criteria and indicators, Figure 2-57 introduces an overall summary table that summarizes overall values derived in the data tables for each major guiding criterion. This table again has provision for assigning different weights for each of the major criteria, and weighting regimes can be different for each of the sub-basin group-ings. In this case weights have been assigned to give greatest weight to socio-economic issues (3.0), followed by natural resource issues (2.5), and local organization (1.5). While this table applies the same weighting regime across all sub-basin groupings, the values for each individual criterion are derived through calculations that have used weighting regimes that reflect differences among sub-basin groups. These weight assignments follow reasoning presented for each sub-criterion and indicator in previous sections of this report, and are presented in the fol-lowing tables as an example of how the weighting system can be implemented.

Figure 2-56. Bar Charts of Un-weighted Indicator Scores for Ping Sub-Basins

0 1 2 3

Ping part 1

Mae Ngad

Mae Taeng

Mae Khan

Mae Klang

Mae Chaem upper

Mae Chaem lower

Mae Teun

Ping part 2

Mae Rim

Mae Kuang

Mae Lee

Ping part 3

Mae Had

Ping part 4

Huay Mae Thor

Klong Wang Chao

Klong Mae Raka

Klong Suan Mark

Lower Ping

ConversionDeteriorationErosionFlooding

0 1 2 3

Low DryIrrigationGroundwater

Low

erM

iddl

eU

pper

Forest & Land Deterioration,

Flooding

Water Use & Competition

0 1 2 3

Low IncomeLow DevelopmtPop Density

Poverty & Density

0 1 2 3

RestrictionConflictEthnicity

Land Access, Competition,

Ethnicity0 1 2 3

Loc GovtParticipationGroupLearning

0 1 2 3

Clean waterWastePoisoning

HealthLocal Organization Capacity &

Administrative Complexity0 1 2 3

SpecialistsTrainingSimplicity

Note 1: Data for lower and upper Mae Chaem are combined into one value listed under lower Mae Chaem Note 2: Indicators for natural hazards, population density, ethnicity and administrative simplicity were integrated into other charts to enable a single page display.



Figure 2-57. Overall Summary of Weighted Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins

(c) Example weighted criteria calculations

Natural Resources Issues. Weighted indicator scoring calculations for the natural resource issue criterion are shown in Figure 2-58. Values displayed in columns under each indicator are the same values obtained in calculation tables for each of those indicators presented in previous sections. Thus, the differential weighting regime used is entirely reflected by values entered into cells with background colors associated with sub-basin groupings in this table. This application is quite sim-ple, and is based on two notions: (1) Since land and forest degradation indicators are seen as espe-cially critical in upper sub-basins, a weight of 2.0 has been assigned to appropriate cells. (2) As water use and water quality indicators are seen as having especially high importance in middle and lower sub-basins, a weight of 2.0 has been assigned to those cells to reflect these priorities. Socio-economic Issues. In the case of socio-economic issues, weighted calculations are shown in Figure 2-59. Four major considerations were used in applying weights: (1) Given the importance of poverty to this project, a weight of 2.0 was applied to the low income score for all 3 sub-basin groups. (2) Given the special importance of land use access and competition in upper sub-basins, a weight of 3.0 was assigned to land use restrictions and 2.0 to agricultural conflict indicators for the upper basin grouping. (3) Roles and representation of upland ethnic groups is very important in upper sub-basins and was applied a weight of 2.0, whereas inclusion of urbanizing population cen-ters is especially important in middle (assigned 3.0), and lower sub-basins (assigned 2.0). (4) Due to the special importance of waste management in middle sub-basins, it was given a weight of 2.0. Local Capacity and Complexity. Weighted calculations of the local organization criterion are pre-sented in Figure 2-60, where weights are assigned following two lines of consideration: (1) Local government capacity was assigned a weight of 2.0 in middle and lower sub-basins because strong local government would be an advantage in seeking to establish a sub-basin management organiza-tion as quickly as possible under conditions that often involve substantial numbers of people and some rather complex social situations. For upper sub-basins this weight was left at 1.0 because work with relatively low capacity local governments will be necessary in order to provide a context that is reasonably representative of upper sub-basins, where such conditions are normal.

1. Grouping

Bias

Upper Sub-Basins 1.88weight: 2.50 3.00 1.50

602 Ping part 1 119 2.24 13 2.3 24 0.6 10603 Mae Ngad 1.9 96 2.27 1.9 11 0.7 17 1.7 12604 Mae Taeng 1.9 109 1.59 1.9 11 1.9 23 0.5 10608 Mae Khan 2.1 89 1.95 2.1 11 0.0 14 13610 Mae Klang 1.9 114 1.87 1.9 11 2.3 24 0.0 9612 Mae Chaem upper * * 1.43 * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower

3.0 3.0

3.0

2.8 117 1.88 0.0 8 27 0.7 10615 Mae Teun 2.4 114 1.93 1.9 11 2.2 24 0.9 10

Middle Sub-Basins 2.54weight: 2.50 3.00 1.50

605 Ping part 2 95 2.80 2.4 18 12 0.0 9606 Mae Rim 1.4 78 2.32 0.8 11 2.5 11 2.9 12607 Mae Kuang 2.0 84 2.63 21 0.0 6 0.2 9609 Mae Lee 1.8 82 2.59 1.8 15 1.7 10 1.2 10611 Ping part 3 0.3 67 2.33 0.0 7 2.7 11 1.4 10614 Mae Had 0.0 64 2.73 0.3 8 1.1 8 12

Lower Sub-Basins 2.80weight: 2.50 3.00 1.50

616 Ping part 4 1.5 58 2.81 0.9 11 1.1 8 1.0 3617 Huay Mae Thor 0.0 44 2.54 0.1 9 0.0 6 0.7 3618 Klong Wang Chao 2.1 64 2.53 0.0 8 13 1.0 3619 Klong Mae Raka 2.0 62 2.99 0.8 11 2.1 11 0.0 3620 Klong Suan Mark 2.1 63 2.55 0.4 9 2.3 11 4621 Lower Ping 72 2.94 17 1.0 8 2.4 4

Ping Basin 2.33* combined with lower Mae Chaem data

Score weighted total Score weighted

total Score Score weighted total

2. OverallNatural

Sub-Basin

Lowland Zone

weighted total Score

Resource Issues

Economic Issues

3. Overall 4. Overall Local Org Social &Capacity & Simplicity

3.0

3.0 3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.03.0 3.0

Summary Overall

Weighted Scores


Figure 2-58. Natural Resource Issues Weighted Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins

2.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.1.3. 2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.3.3. Forest Forest Soil Flooding Landslide Agric Groundwater Low Dry

Conversion Deterior Erosion Risk Risk Irrigation Use Season Flow Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score

source: CMU CMU Panya Panya <<N/A>> Panya Panya PanyaUpper Sub-Basins 0.4 0.5 1.8 - 1.8 0.1 1.4

weight: 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0602 Ping part 1 3.0

1.9

3.01.5

3.00.6 3.0

3.0 0.9 3.0 3.01.8 1.0 2.5

7 3.01.1

3.0 3.00.9

13 0.6 2.4 1.6 1.4 - 0.7 0.0 1.4603 Mae Ngad 11 0.6 0.3 1.6 1.2 - 2.3 0.1 2.2604 Mae Taeng 1.9 11 0.7 0.2 1.4 2.8 - 2.7 0.0 0.8608 Mae Khan 2.1 11 0.5 0.4 1.8 1.4 - 0.5 0.7610 Mae Klang 1.9 11 0.5 0.5 2.3 1.6 - 0.0 1.0612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * - * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 0.0 8 0.3 0.1 1.6 1.6 - 0.9 0.0 0.9615 Mae Teun 1.9 11 0.2 0.4 2.3 1.3 - 1.1 0.0 2.4

Middle Sub-Basins 1.0 0.9 1.0 - 1.9 1.3 1.8weight: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

605 Ping part 2 2.4 18 2.0 0.7 1.5 - 1.5 2.2 1.9606 Mae Rim 0.8 11 0.6 1.1 - 1.7 0.1 0.8607 Mae Kuang 21 1.3 1.1 0.8 - 2.5609 Mae Lee 15 0.8 1.1 0.9 2.2 - 1.7611 Ping part 3 0.0 7 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 - 1.1 0.2 1.2614 Mae Had 0.3 8 0.8 0.6 2.8 0.9 - 1.6 0.1 0.0

Lower Sub-Basins 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.7 - 1.6 0.4 1.9weight: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

616 Ping part 4 0.9 11 1.1 2.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.2 0.0 1.7617 Huay Mae Thor 0.1 9 0.2 0.9 1.7 1.0 - 0.3 0.1 2.1618 Klong Wang Chao 0.0 8 0.7 0.8 1. - 0.2 0.0 0.9619 Klong Mae Raka 0.8 11 1.3 1.7 0.7 - 0.7 0.0 2.2620 Klong Suan Mark 0.4 9 1.1 0.3 1.7 1.4 - 0.7 0.1 1.8621 Lower Ping 17 0.3 1.1 2.2 - 2.0 0.6 2.3

Ping Basin 0.7 1.4 1.5 - 1.7 0.6 1.6* combined with lower Mae Chaem data


total Sub-Basin

2.3. Water UseNatural

Resource

2. Overall 2.1. Degradation 2.2. Hazards


Figure 2-59. Socio-Economic Issues Weighted Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins

3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 Low Village Low Land Use Agricultural Upland Population Water Waste Pesticide

Income Development Restriction Conflict Ethnicity Density Supply Management Poisoning Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score

source: MCC / Panya MCC - CDD KUFF/onep Panya/onep ONEP, Panya Panya กชช.2ค / onep กชช.2ค / onep กชช.2ค / onepUpper Sub-Basins 1.6 1.433 2.8 2.3 0.8 0.3 1.4 1.6 0.6

weight: 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0602 Ping part 1 2.3 24 0.8 2.4 2.6 2.2 0.8 0.3 2.8 2.2 0.9603 Mae Ngad 0.7 17 1.2 0.6 2.8 1.4 0.3 0.4 2.1 0.3 0.5604 Mae Taeng 1.9 23 1.4 2.2 3.0

2.33.0 3.0

3.0 3.0 3.02.2 2.8 3.0

3.0 3.02.5 1.2

3.00.1

3.02.1

3.02.0 3.0

2.8 0.7 0.3 1.3 2.2 0.1608 Mae Khan 0.0 14 1.0 0.4 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.6 0.4610 Mae Klang 2.3 24 2.2 2.8 2.6 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.4612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 27 1.8 2.9 1.5 0.2 1.9 2.5 0.6615 Mae Teun 24 0.0 2.9 1.3 0.1 0.8 1.6 0.9

Middle Sub-Basins 0.6 0.4 1.8 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.8 1.7 0.4weight: 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0

605 Ping part 2 12 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 1.6 0.6606 Mae Rim 11 0.6 1.2 2.3 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.3607 Mae Kuang 0.0 6 0.5 0.1 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.6 1.6 0.1609 Mae Lee 1.7 10 1.3 1.2 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.2 0.1611 Ping part 3 2.7 11 1.1 1.8 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.8 1.6 0.7614 Mae Had 1.1 8 0.0 2.2 2.0 1.6 0.6 0.4 1.8 2.0

Lower Sub-Basins 1.5 1.6 1.0 0.1 0.5 1.7 0.9 2.0weight: 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

616 Ping part 4 1.1 8 2.1 1.7 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.1617 Huay Mae Thor 0.0 6 0.8 2.2 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0618 Klong Wang Chao 13 2.4 2.6 2.2 0.9 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.2619 Klong Mae Raka 11 2.7 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.2 2.4 0.8 0.0620 Klong Suan Mark 2.3 11 1.5 2.5 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.8621 Lower Ping 1.0 8 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.9 1.1


3.4. Health


total Sub-Basin

Social & Economic

3.2. Competition 3.3. Minorities & Urban3. Overall 3.1. Poverty

4.3. Simplicity4.1.1. 4.1.2. 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.3.1.

Loc Govt Community Group Community Local Project-related Admin Capacity Participation Organization Learning Specialists Training Simplicity

Score Score Score Score Score Score Score source: MOI / onep MCC - CDD MCC - CDD MCC - CDD กชช.2ค / onep กชช.2ค / onep Panya, ONEP

Upper Sub-Basins 0.5 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.3 2.1 2.6weight: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0

602 Ping part 1 1.9 23 1.1 0.0 1.3 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.5603 Mae Ngad 2.6 25 0.0 1.6 2.4 1.9 2.2 3.0

0.83.0 3.0 3.00.0 1.7 0.0

3.00.2 3.0 3.0

1.5 2.4

3.03.0 3.0

3.0 3.02.5 2.9

2.8604 Mae Taeng 0.4 20 0.2 2.7 0.3 1.9 2.9 2.4608 Mae Khan 26 1.2 1.6 2.6 2.5 2.2610 Mae Klang 19 1.7 0.0 2.9 0.3 3.0612 Mae Chaem upper * * * * * * * * *613 Mae Chaem lower 0.9 21 0.4 1.9 2.1 1.4 2.1 2.1 2.3615 Mae Teun 0.0 19 0.0 1.9 1.9 1.4 0.3 2.5 2.7

Middle Sub-Basins 1.1 2.3 2.0 1.3 2.1 1.6 1.8weight: 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0

605 Ping part 2 0.1 18 2.5 2.0 1.2 2.0 1.2 0.0606 Mae Rim 2.7 25 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.7607 Mae Kuang 1.1 21 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.3 0.6609 Mae Lee 0.0 18 0.5 2.2 1.9 0.4 1.9 0.5 2.5611 Ping part 3 0.1 18 0.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 2.2614 Mae Had 26 0.2 2.0 1.1 2.3 2.8 3.0

Lower Sub-Basins 0.8 0.7 1.5 2.4weight: 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.0

616 Ping part 4 1.0 12 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.8617 Huay Mae Thor 16 0.1 2.8 0.6618 Klong Wang Chao 15 0.2 0.7 2.2619 Klong Mae Raka 0.5 11 0.0 1.0 0.4 2.7620 Klong Suan Mark 0.0 10 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.8621 Lower Ping 0.8 12 1.5 0.5 2.0 1.2

Ping Basin 0.8 1.8 1.7 2.3* combined with lower Mae Chaem data

Simplicity Score weighted

total Sub-Basin

4.2. Specialist Knowledge4. OverallLocal Org

Capacity &

4.1. Capacity

Developing Watershed Management Organizations in Pilot Sub-Basins Page 131

Figure 2-60. Local Organization Weighted Indicator Scoring for Ping Sub-Basins

Final Report:


(2) A weight of 2.0 is assigned to the two specialist knowledge indicators in all sub-basin group-ings, because of its potential importance in providing support for sub-basin management organiza-tions; (3) Due to the need to minimize bureaucratic difficulties in the short time available for the project, a weight of 3.0 was assigned to administrative simplicity in all sub-basin groupings. The “bottom line” results of applying these weights to the indicators proposed in this report can be seen in the summary overall weighted scores shown in the left column of the table in Figure 2-57. The highest score (3.0) for each sub-basin grouping is highlighted by red fonts. Similar relative values for each of the major criteria are listed in other columns.

(d) Example weighted criteria calculations

Thus, under these weighting regimes, sub-basins have been ranked as proposed candidate sites for the project for each of the sub-basin groupings. Results are displayed in Figure 2-61. Of course, other weighting regimes could yield different results. This is why considerable effort has been made to make all weightings explicit and transparent, so that they can be adjusted to accommodate different rationales.

Figure 2-61. Example Calculated Sub-basin Rankings Rank Sub-basin Score

Upper Sub-Basins 1 Ping part 1 3.0 2 Mae Chaem combined 2.4 3 Mae Klang 2.0 4 Mae Teun 1.8 5 Mae Taeng 1.6 6 Mae Ngad 0.7 7 Mae Khan 0.0

Middle Sub-Basins 1 Ping part 2 3.0 2 Mae Kuang 2.3 3 Mae Rim 1.8 4 Mae Lee 1.5 5 Mae Had 0.5 6 Ping part 3 0.0

Lower Sub-Basins 1 Lower Ping 3.0 2 Klong Wang Chao 2.7 3 Klong Mae Raka 1.7 4 Klong Suan Mark 1.3 5 Ping part 4 1.1 6 Huay Mae Thor 0.0


8. Data and information used in analysis and application of selection criteria.

Data required to assess each of the indicators proposed in previous sections of this report were ob-tained from a range of sources. Indeed, data continued to be acquired after submission of the au-thor’s inception report, resulting in several modifications that have been incorporated into this final report. Many of these changes have been associated with questions, suggestions and requests from ONEP staff and those who they have asked to review reports under this project. Others have re-sulted from access to additional data that the author believes improves the quality, range and/or depth of the analysis. Thus, sources of data used for analysis and implementation of selection criteria presented in this final report include

Office of Natural Resource & Environmental Policy & Planning (ONEP)

Staff at ONEP directly provided data on sub-basin boundaries and highland villages. They also provided the author with data originating from other sources:

• Chiang Mai University: data from a study conducted for ONEP [CMU 2004], including spatial data files on interpretation of land use from remote sensing analysis, digital bounda-ries of provinces, districts, tambons and municipalities, and village point locations.

• Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation: Classification of forest and land use from remote sensing interpretation (2000), and digital watershed classification boundaries.

• National village-level rural development database (see notes below)

Panya Consulting

Staff at Panya provide data on stream flows, ground water, and irrigated agriculture area obtained through their earlier work with water resource management agencies, erosion rates believed to have come from the Department of Land Development, and population and income data from unspeci-fied sources.

Kasetsart University Faculty of Forestry

Staff of the Forestry Faculty associated with this project provided copies of data originally from the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation on boundaries of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and forest reserve lands, as well as a second data set on highland villages.

Multiple Cropping Center, Chiang Mai University

Dr. Methi Ekasingh and his colleagues have kindly provided data from their pilot provincial deci-sion support system databases for Chiang Mai and Lamphun province on population by ethnicity, distribution of income from agricultural and non-agricultural sources, soil erosion, and spatial dis-tribution of indices developed by the Community Development Department on village develop-ment, community participation, group organization, and community learning. They have also pro-vided high-resolution images on agricultural land use, sloping lands, and two pilot sub-basins.

ICRAF Chiang Mai

Data provided by ICRAF included a medium resolution (100 m) digital elevation model con-structed data from the Thailand Environment Institute together with additional data digitized by ICRAF staff, and digitized preliminary boundaries of the new Mae Tho National Park. ICRAF also provided legal versions of all computer software used in these analyses.

Ministry of Interior

Data was obtained from a Ministry of Interior website on classification of Tambon Administration Organization (TAO) capacity rankings.


National village-level rural development database

During discussion of the first draft of the author’s inception report with ONEP staff, the author suggested that one potentially interesting and useful source of socio-economic data might be avail-able from the national village-level rural development database, with its biennial village reports conducted through the Community Development Department. It was proposed that if this data were linked with georeferenced point locations for each administrative village, it would allow the data to be combined with polygon shape files such as sub-basin boundaries (or any other units that can be spatially mapped), so that aggregations of village level data could be assessed at a sub-basin level. Subsequently, ONEP staff provided the author with a version of 2003 data extracted from the na-tional database for villages in the Ping Basin, which had been linked to ONEP’s shape file of ad-ministrative village locations by a consultant they contracted. Although it was initially very diffi-cult to work with this data due to the complexity and structure of the large database file, the author made a major investment of time in developing an analytical approach that allowed its extensive use in this report. One hopes that this can help serve as an example of why village-level data is very important, and how it can be used in future analyses and assessments.

Some notes on data quality

In terms of data coverage, there were two limitations: (1) Since various data could not be disaggre-gated for upper and lower Mae Chaem sub-basins due to the non-standard nature of this division of the physical catchment, indicator calculation tables all aggregate calculations for Mae Chaem into a single unit. (2) Since data obtained from databases of Dr. Methi’s pilot provincial decisions sup-port system are only available for Chiang Mai and Lamphun provinces, implementation was only possible for middle and upper sub-basins, and values for Mae Teun had to be estimated. Regarding more specific quality issues the following observations are offered:

• General. A considerable number of often minor, and sometimes major differences were encountered in comparing datasets on similar variables from different sources. There are, of course a wide range of technical, definitional, and interpretational reasons for many such differences, and many others have encountered similar problems. While the author has found ways to deal with these issues at the level of relative sub-basin comparisons that should not prejudice the outcome of the results of this analysis, coping with differences at a much more local level are often far more problematic. Moreover, this is frequently cited by local leaders as a significant problem that they face. Such issues are one of the major mo-tivating forces that have driven Dr. Methi and his colleagues to pour an enormous amount of effort into developing their pilot provincial decision support systems, which provide a very high resolution and high quality platform for screening, matching, and maintaining data from a wide variety of sources. And since it is designed to be accessible at all levels from province to village, and from river basin to very small local levels of sub-watersheds, it is a potentially extremely useful tool for use in sub-basin management programs, and a wide range of other uses.

• Population. The author remains somewhat skeptical about some of the population figures obtained from Panya Consulting for reasons such as the data for Mae Chaem, which appear quite high. As this was the only dataset available for the entire set of sub-basins, however, the author assumes that any errors in these estimates are similar across the Ping basin, and thus should not greatly affect efforts to assess relative differences among them.

• Income. Data obtained from Panya Consulting on income levels also appear to be question-able, as indicated by comparison between these values and values obtained from Dr. Me-thi’s database, as illustrated in Figure 2-33. Thus, Methi’s data were used for middle and upper sub-basins, while use of Panya data was continued for lower sub-basins due to the lack of any readily available alternative source that could be aggregated at sub-basin level.

• Soil erosion. Sub-basin rankings based on data from Panya Consulting (presumed to have originated at the Land Development Department) also show considerable divergence from


results using data from Dr. Methi’s system, as illustrated in Figures 2-26 and 2-27). But since only Panya data was available for all sub-basins, they were used in final calculations.

• Discarded indicators. Some indicators employed in the author’s inception report were dis-carded. Major example include: (1) An overall indicator of local economic and social strength/weakness drawn directly from the CMU [2004] report was rejected because of the very ambiguous nature of this index and lack of specific information on how it was de-rived, as well as the lack of variability among sub-basins that it was able to capture. In middle and upper sub-basins it was replaced by the CDD index of village development. (2) Water quality index from Panya Consulting was also very ambiguous in terms of how it was derived, while the wastewater score from CMU [2004] seemed fairly arbitrary and un-clear about how these judgements were made. Thus, they were both replaced by indicators calculated from variables in the national village-level rural development database, and moved to become part of the health indicator section (see Figures 2-47 and 2-45).

• National village-level rural development database11. There are five particular issues asso-ciated with this database that the author observed while conducting these analyses:

(1) There are some overall problems revealed by some simple data consistency checks that indicate fairly little effort has been put into preventing or screening out errors that may re-sult from data entry (such as transposed numbers or order of magnitude errors). Some quick scans conducted by the author indicate such errors are present in only a quite small minority of data records, so that it is quite unfortunate that database managers at the na-tional level have apparently not made the small additional investment that would be re-quired to more effectively minimize these problems.

(2) Data on local knowledge reflect a difference of understanding among village leaders making their reports, which appears to be related to the lack of clear explanatory informa-tion in the questionnaire. As a result, the author feels the data on magnitudes of local knowledge specialists in individual villages is unusable in their present form. However, it does appear that the fact that village leaders believe local knowledge specialists are present in some subject areas but not others, provides a basis for assessing how widespread are dif-ferent types of specialists on a village presence/absence basis. This is the approach used in Figures 2-21 and 2-54.

(3) Data on education appear to be (perhaps somewhat ironically) among the weakest in this database. This appears to be related to the very unclear and often convoluted nature of how questions were asked in the original questionnaire. It almost seems like the questions were written by lawyers, and definitely not pre-tested before being implemented in the na-tional system. In the author’s attempts to salvage data for at least a few key variables, re-ports from another 370 villages were eliminated because of impossible internal inconsis-tencies in their reports. This at least allowed the construction of workforce educational at-tainment levels, as displayed in Figure 2-19, but a number of other potentially very interest-ing variables still remained unusable. This is another very unfortunate shortcoming that should have been avoidable through a fairly modest amount of effort at the national level.

(4) In analyzing data collected through this type of system, it is always useful to consider what the village leaders reporting this information may consider to be incentives to answer particular types of questions in one way or another. Questions on the degree of household participation in community affairs could be one example, wherein it would generally not be in the best interest of a village leader to report low participation rates. One approach to avoiding problems that might result in the use of particular variables is to construct an in-dex that combines data on various related variables. This has been the approach of the Community Development Department, and we have been able to employ some of the re-sults in areas where Dr. Methi has put CDD results into a spatially explicit format. Another

11 กชช.2ค


Figure 2-62. Map of 2003 village reporting status

more future-oriented approach might be to increase transparency in these types of informa-tion systems by making reports such as this more available to the general public, and espe-cially to members of the village about which the report is concerned.

(5) Regarding the coverage of this data, completed 2003 data records are available for 2,694 villages out of the 2,966 villages contained in the ONEP village location file. Thus, the question arises as to whether there might be a systematic bias resulting from the types of villages for which there is no report for 2003. In order to help clarify this issue, Figure 2-62 displays a map that indicates the locations of villages that reported and did not report data for 2003. It appears most of the non-reporting villages are associated with relatively densely-populated lowland areas, and many may actually be located within municipal areas. Only an extremely small number are located elsewhere, and all the non-reporting villages are quite well distributed among the various sub-basins. Thus, the author feels it is safe to assume that non-reporting villages was not a source of systematic bias.

One final note is that during the period when the author was discussing with ONEP the potential benefits of working with this data, the author was still not aware that Dr. Methi and his colleagues were already incorporating this approach into their pilot provincial decision support databases. Subsequent discussions with Dr. Methi revealed our parallel efforts, as well as the extensive work they have put into data screening and quality control, as well as into providing much easier accessibility to the variables in the database. The author truly hopes their approach does represent the future for how these data can be more effectively managed, maintained, and – most importantly – used for a wide range of creative purposes.


C. Project Sub-Basin Selection Process: water forum approach

This section is composed of two parts. The first presents recommendations made by the author prior to the convening of the project Water Forum events, while the second tries to briefly capture some key aspects of the actual outcome of those events and the resulting pilot sub-basin selection process.

1. Recommendations for water forum process As the author understood at the time, the Water Forum approach was planned as the primary vehi-cle for providing a platform for more public participation in the process of pilot sub-basin selection. These were planned to be large one-day events where many local leaders from each Ping sub-basin were being invited to participate. Thus, given the scale and short duration of this event-oriented process, the author proposed that there were at least five essential component phases of Water Fo-rum-related activity, as diagrammed in Figure 2-63, that require some rather careful consideration:

(a) Preparation of proposed processes and considerations

Preparations for the Water Forum included consideration of some combination of criteria and indi-cators proposed in the author’s inception report, and/or proposed by Panya consultants, as well as collection and processing of relevant data, and hopefully nomination of at least two suggested can-didate sub-basins for each of the lower, middle and upper sub-basin groupings in the Ping Basin. Collaboration was suggested in developing an approach for clearly articulating the reason for, and the nature of activities conducted to prepare for the Forum, the informing (not predeterming) role of quantitative criteria and indicators, and the role of the Forum itself. This appeared to be in line with basic processes proposed by Panya staff and concurred to by this author.

(b) Communication of proposed processes and considerations

After articulating the overall purpose of this project and its pilot sub-basin approach, the next ob-jective of activities at the Forum itself should be to clearly and effectively communicate our per-ceptions of the pilot sub-basin selection process, and our approach to using systematic criteria and indicators as a decision-making aid. Visual aids that should be able to help facilitate this commu-nication process could include: (a) large poster-size printouts of clearly color coded spatial data layers used to evaluate indicators; and (b) large printouts of data calculation tables, such as those shown in this report, or perhaps more simplified versions that still communicate essential features of the assessment process. Ideally these visual aids should be placed where they can be easily viewed during discussions and referenced by speakers, rather than off in a corner where they can only be seen during coffee breaks. Smaller copies can be included in handout briefing books. Time should also be budgeted to field questions of clarification from forum participants.

(c) Solicitation of feedback, additional information and alternative points of view

The next objective should be to genuinely solicit feedback on our approach to sub-basin selection, the nature and utility (or not) of the criteria and indicators employed, and sources, adequacy, and accuracy of data used in this process. Caution sometimes needs to be taken to prevent such events from degenerating into a soapbox for long diatribes from various disenchanted and/or egocentric folks who love microphones. Indeed, depending on the size of the gathering and nature of the par-ticipants, it may be more useful to break into smaller discussion groups than to try to gain feedback through large plenary sessions, although time and logistic considerations may be additional con-straints on this approach. If smaller discussion groups are used, each should have some relatively clear objectives that they try to achieve, and facilitators should try to see that participation is as in-clusive as possible. The process should also place emphasis on soliciting additional information that could help further strengthen assessments (such as additional information about local network experience, for example).

And, there should also be adequate “space” for alternative points of view – especially if they can offer constructive proposals for how to alter or improve the sub-basin selection approach. For ex-


Figure 2-63. Flow of the planned participatory sub-basin selection process

Water Forum Preparation of pro-posed processes, cri-teria, indicators, & considerations

Communicate proposed proc-esses & considerations

Feedback, other information, alternative views, ideas

Clarify points of disagreement & decision process

Collaborative decisions on how to proceed

Knowledge of local conditions, priorities, experience, etc

Pilot sub-basin & leaders for

each grouping

Understanding, ideas & support from

other sub-basins

ONEP & consultants

Local leaders & officials

ample, with some gatherings it would not be inconceivable that an effective and innovative leader might propose a far more intuitive approach to sub-basin selection that could rapidly gain broader support from Ping Basin stakeholders than the more analytical approach taken by people such as ourselves. Moreover, there may be a brilliant line of argument about why one of the sub-basins not on our candidate list should be selected.

(d) Clarification and discussion of any points of disagreement

As a result of these discussions and deliberations, there may be particular interpretations or points of disagreement that warrant further clarification and/or at least limited discussion across the broader group of participants. This phase is important for setting the stage for decisions to be made about sub-basin selection and future actions, so it is important to defuse any trends toward either cynicism or major confrontation, even if some factions just have to agree to disagree with each other.

(e) Collaborative decisions on how to proceed

The first and most obvious objective of this phase is to reach a decision on sub-basin selection. If possible, it would clearly be best if there is at least a substantial enough majority consensus that a final decision can be made “on the spot” at the Forum itself. If further considerations must be submitted to people in distant places beyond the Ping Basin before a final decision can be made at some future date, it will substantially detract from the perception (even if not from the reality) of participation in and ownership of the decision-making process, and possibly the project itself.

The second very important objective here should be to try to mobilize widespread support for the pilot sub-basin project, even among people in sub-basins that are not selected. Some of these areas are likely to have substantial relevant experience that could be a valuable resource for pilot areas.


Moreover, all sub-basins should be encouraged to continue or start building networks and other types of activities that can provide a foundation for rapid progress during the subsequent expansion phase of Ping Basin management activities. Indeed, the use of newsletters, web pages or other ap-proaches to communicating progress and issues at pilot sub-basins as the project progresses may be a valuable investment to help build momentum for spin-offs and expansion of project activities.

2. Implementation and outcome of the water forum process

The actual Water Forum events were organized at two major venues. The first was held on 10 March 2005 in Kamphaengphet for lower Ping sub-basins, while the second was held on 14 March 2005 in Chiang Mai for middle and upper sub-basins. In organizing these events, ONEP and Panya Consultants agreed to classification of sub-basins into lower, middle and upper groupings following the logic proposed by the author and presented earlier in this report.12 Total numbers of different types of participants in these events are indicated in Figure 2-64. Figure 2-64. Number of participants in Water Forum events for pilot sub-basin selection

Participants Lower Ping (Number)

Upper Ping (Number)

Representatives of central government agencies 13 15 Representatives of provincial agencies 43 44 Representatives of district agencies 12 14 Representatives of local administration heads & members 83 174 Representatives of farmers/sub-basins 28 36 NGOs, Independent Experts, Media 3 28 Project Steering committee 10 12

Total 192 323 Source: Panya Consultants, Progress Report 1

What is not reflected in the numbers in Figure 2-62, however, is the fairly disproportionate number of participants representing each sub-basin. This was to be expected, of course, because of the dif-ferences in accessibility according to the difficulty and time for travel to the meeting venue. As mentioned earlier in this report, the approach that ONEP, this author, and Panya staff had all taken in preparing for sub-basin selection reflected a very technocratic approach that assumes deci-sion making will be based on the types of quantitative evidence used in formulating criteria and indicators. At the Water Forum events, senior consultants from Panya presented a set of criteria and indicators that was a composite of their own work combined with some simplified elements of the criteria and indicators presented in the previous sections of this report. Presentations included recommendations for some candidate sub-basins, but they tried to make it clear that the floor was open for consideration of any sites. The floor was then opened for questions, discussion and gen-eral debate on sub-basin selection, and at the Chiang Mai venue there was a split into separate groups for middle and upper groupings of sub-basins. In retrospect, the process that followed in all three sub-basin groupings was probably inevitable given the size and formality of the meeting, as well as the types of activities that had previously been conducted at similar levels under emerging efforts to develop river basin management organi-zation in Thailand. The main outcome was that the meeting soon developed into a competition for sub-basin selection, which was, no doubt at least partly due to perceptions that significant financial resources might be flowing into selected sub-basins. This type of thinking had been further stimulated by perceptions

12 Various project-associated technocrats and consultants initially opposed this approach because it differed from previous practices and they believed local people would find it too difficult to understand. After careful review, however, senior Panya and ONEP staff concurred in the logic, and approved the approach. We all found it very interesting that people from the various sub-basins understood the approach very quickly, and had far less difficulty understanding it than had been the case for various officials and technocrats.


of the implications of World Bank involvement in the project, as well as by very recent pro-nouncements by Thai government leaders that major resources were going to be channeled into river basin restoration and development. As a result, the technocratic approach soon faded into the background, although speakers arguing for one sub-basin or another would often include references to particular indicator data that sup-ported their argument. Faction-based (pak puak) blocks began to form, and it soon became clear that a reasoned compromise outcome would be unlikely. Thus, calls for a direct vote soon emerged. And, since there was no previously agreed upon basis for how representation should be reflected in voting, most all participants were allowed to cast a vote. While the voting process was transparent, it was biased by the disproportionate presence of people from different sub-basins. This was fur-ther amplified by the departure of representatives from some more remote sub-basins (such as Mae Chaem, for example) as soon as the direction the process was taking became clear. Thus, the ex-tremely high correlation between the three sub-basins that were selected and their accessibility to the venue should be no surprise. That being said, consultant staff from Panya did make an effort to disaggregate numbers of voting participants and compare that with the outcome of the voting process. And it was quite interesting that the total number of votes cast for the “winning” sub-basins was far higher than the number of participants from that sub-basin who were voting. So there is evidence that at least a significant number of participants did vote for a sub-basin other than their own. We can only speculate, how-ever, about their reasons for doing so. It is also very interesting to look at the outcome of sub-basin selection in comparison with the out-come of application of technocratic quantitative criteria and indicators as developed by this author and by Panya Consultants. The outcome of the basically political process that captured decision-making at the Water Forum events resulted in: Upper Sub-Basin: Ping Part 1 Middle Sub-Basin: Mae Kuang (including Mae Tha) Lower Sub-Basin: Ping Part 5 (Lower Ping) These results are virtually identical with leading candidate sites proposed by Panya. Moreover, leading sub-basin scores derived from this author’s calculations – as detailed in this report – gave the same results for upper and lower sub-basin groups, while the selected middle sub-basin had the second highest score in that group (see Figure 2-61). While it is difficult to know what conclusions to draw from this outcome, it is apparent at least that there is no bottom-line discrepancy between selection of sub-basins at the Water Forum events and selection that would have followed from use of the more technocratic quantitative approaches. At the same time, however, it is important to note the nature of processes that currently occur at the level of river basin hierarchy at which the Water Forum events were held. There is currently still a quite apparent lack of common identity and purpose, as well as comfort with and ability to engaged in clearly reasoned, evidence-based negotiation processes.


Summary of Suggestions and Recommendations in Part II:

1. Priority or ‘pilot’ sub-basins should be selected in full consultation with local leaders in all sub-basins, with a clear understanding that ALL sub-basins will receive support for their efforts to build participatory management organizations after the pilot phase.

2. Technical criteria used to support ‘pilot’ sub-basin selection should be pragmatic, able to use data from readily available secondary sources, easy to implement quickly, & simple enough to be communicated to a wide range of river basin stakeholders. They also need to be clearly linked with major issues, logically sound, & reasonably quantitative.

3. Categorization of lower, middle & upper groups of sub-basins in the Ping Basin should be based on their bias toward lowland or upland conditions, using relative proportions of their area in lowland, midland & highland altitude zones, as in Indicator 1.1.

4. The range of relevant stakeholder & institutional interests then needs to be assessed accord-ing to sub-basins & sub-basin groups. Key sets of stakeholders for the Ping Basin should include: (a) central government agencies; (b) local administrations; (c) forestry agencies & policies; (d) agriculture of various types; (e) private business; (f) urban centers; (g) local government; and (h) civil society & academia. A diagrammatic framework for stakeholder relationships is proposed in Figure 2-23, & discussions of stakeholders are in section II.B.2.

5. Data to help this analysis become more quantitative should be derived from village-based data sources such as กชช.2ค linked with GIS, so that they can be aggregated at sub-basin & sub-basin category levels.

6. A minimum set of quantitative criteria for selection of a pilot sub-basin within each group of sub-basins needs to include at least three major categories. The proposed logic for de-veloping specific sub-criteria & quantitative indicators is summarized in Figure 2-24.

• Severity of natural resource issues: Selected sub-basins should include conditions mak-ing it likely that issues will arise related to forest & land degradation, natural hazards, & water use. Sub-criteria & indicator details are in section II.B.4.

Available data needed to quantitatively assess these indicators should be improved in several key areas: (a) designation of areas as deteriorated forest; (b) soil erosion; (c) landslide risk; (d) flash flood risk; and (e) areas under sprinkler or small-scale pump ir-rigation. Sources of data on groundwater & stream flow need to be more transparent.

• Severity of socio-economic issues: Selected sub-basins should include areas where poverty & health problems are relatively high, where land use is restricted & conflict is likely, & areas where upland minorities and/or urban populations play significant roles. Sub-criteria & indicator details are in section II.B.5.

Available data needed to quantitatively assess these indicators should be improved in several key areas: (a) village-level income data by type of source; (b) Community De-velopment Department indices are needed for the entire river basin in a spatial format; (c) up-to-date protected area boundaries that include newly declared areas; (d) better classification of agriculture areas, especially in mountain zones; (e) access to more re-cent data on ethnicity; (f) more clear & consistent urban population data; (f) better data on water quality & existing & planned wastewater treatment facilities; (g) better data on pesticide residues, & illness linked with water quality, air quality & toxic wastes; and (h) additional health data should be made available on a village-level basis.

• Local organizational capacity and administrative complexity. Selected sub-basins should have reasonable levels of local organizational capacities & relevant skills, but avoid areas where excessive administrative complexity may prevent adequate testing of model approaches within the project timeframe. Sub-criteria & indicator details are in section II.B.6.


Available data needed to quantitatively assess these indicators should be improved in several key areas: (a) data on the existence, status & effectiveness of local networks and/or other prachakhom organizations related to natural resource management within sub-basins; (b) data on the nature & coverage of emerging alliances & federations of relevant types of networks; (c) data on presence & nature of support for local organiza-tions & networks provided by NGOs and/or government agencies; (d) Community De-velopment Department indices are needed for the entire river basin in a spatial format; (e) improved consistency of data on local knowledge specialists; (f) improved informa-tion on difficulty of coordination among administrative units at different levels.

7. Relative weights applied to reflect the importance of different criteria & indicators in the context of a particular analysis need to be assigned in a transparent manner. This will help them to be clearly understood, and allow them to be adjusted to reflect different experience, expert opinion, or consensus.

8. A proposed rationale for assigning relative weights is explained in section II.B.7.(c)., along with results of indicator calculations using these weights. Assignments of sub-basin rank-ings based on these calculations are displayed in Figure 2-61.

9. Given the importance of village-level data in assessing sub-basin characteristics & patterns of diversity, a few suggestions are made for ways to improved กชช.2ค data:

• Data entry & screening checks need to be improved to prevent some of the obvious er-rors & inconsistencies that are present in a minority of database records.

• Data on local knowledge specialists can be improved by adjusting the questionnaire to more clearly explain definitions & criteria for identifying local specialists.

• Data on education could be greatly improved by re-writing questions in a manner that can be clearly understood by local leaders providing the information, and by having cross-checks on demographic data to assure consistency.

10. In conducting pilot sub-basin selection using a ‘Water Forum’ approach, five essential component phases of activity are proposed (as summarized in Figure 2-62):

• A preparation phase should include careful consideration of technical criteria & indica-tors (such as those in this report or others), and clear articulation of (a) the reason for & nature of activities conducted to prepare for the forum; (b) the informing (not prede-termining) role of quantitative criteria & indicators; and (c) the role of the Forum itself.

• The Forum should begin with clear articulation of the above information, followed by clear explanation of proposed quantitative criteria & indicators and their potential use as a decision-making aid, including appropriate visual aids to facilitate understanding of the data & calculations.

• The next phase should center on soliciting feedback, additional information, and alter-native points of view from stakeholders represented in the Water Forum, using smaller discussion groups if necessary.

• Effort should then be shifted to clarification of major views, interpretations or dis-agreements, in order to set the stage for a constructive decision-making process.

• The final phase should center on reaching a decision on sub-basin selection, and on mobilizing widespread support for the pilot project among representatives from all sub-basins in the river basin, including encouragement for further efforts throughout the river basin to continue building networks or other activities that can provide a founda-tion for rapid progress during subsequent expansion.

11. Future river basin-level activities, or those involving multiple sub-basins, such as a ‘Water Forum’ should prepare for the likely lack of common identity & purpose that can be achieved at that level, as well as associated difficulty in engaging in clearly reasoned, evi-dence-based processes. It seems unlikely that this situation will be able to improve until such processes can first be achieved at sub-basin levels.


III. Management Organizations for Ping River Sub-basins

After the pilot sub-basin selection process was completed, the author’s next assignment was to work on development of organizational models for sub-basin management organizations that could be tested within pilot sub-basins. Thus, while the Panya Consultants group began gathering more detailed information in pilot sub-basin areas, the author engaged in work on organizational models the findings of which are reported in this part of the report.

A. International Experience with River Basin Management Organizations As an introduction, this first section surveys various international trends toward integrated river basin management, reviews some of the most recent comparative international literature on river basin organizations, and summarizes some of the major implications for RBO development. This sets the stage for following sections that examine contextual factors and trends at the sub-basin level in Ping River basin, discuss implications for structural considerations for sub-basin organiza-tions, and propose an indicative array of RSBO organizational models for selection and adaptation through participatory processes. The final section discusses the process through which RSBOs can be established and developed in pilot sub-basins.

1. Movement toward integrated river basin management

Various elements of water management at river basin levels have existed in parts of the world since ancient times. Infrastructure and social organization associated with these efforts have waxed and waned through the centuries. Indeed, some of the existing organizations that we now recognize as river basin organizations were established during the early 20th century, although many of these are now undergoing various types of reform and re-engineering as they seek to adjust to changing con-ditions. One important aspect of these changing conditions is a new wave of global interest in updating and broadening concepts associated with integrated watershed and river basin management, which is now also spawning a new generation of river basin organizations around the world. Many of the major ideas and concepts being employed in these efforts are reflected in events that have led to international agreements and institutional policy reforms, as well as in the emergence of various types of regional and global civil society organizations offering support functions facilitated through the internet.

(a) Intergovernmental agreements and institutional policy reform

The current large surge in interest in integrated watershed management at the river basin level be-gan in 1992 with the twin events of the Dublin Conference on Water and the Environment and the United Nations Rio de Janeiro Conference on Environment and Development. The four key guid-ing principles formulated in Dublin and accepted in Rio are displayed in Figure 3-1. These principles reflected the judgment that a more comprehensive approach to water management is necessary for sustainable development. This awareness, together with the need for participatory institutional mechanisms to involve all sectors of society in decision-making processes, called for new coordinating mechanisms, and a substantial range of institutions throughout the world began responding. Among the first were the European Union and the international development banks.


EU Water Framework Directive13

In the wake of the Dublin and Rio de Janeiro conferences, pressure for a fundamental rethink of water policy in the European Community came to a head in mid-1995: The European Commission, which had already been considering the need for a more global approach to water policy, accepted requests from the European Parliament's environment committee and from the Council of environ-ment ministers. The Communication was formally addressed to the Council and the European Par-liament, but also invited comment from all interested parties, such as local and regional authorities, water users and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Various organizations and individuals responded in writing, with most comments welcoming the broad outline given by the Commission. A two day Water Conference was then hosted in May 1996, which was attended by some 250 dele-gates, including representatives of Member States, regional and local authorities, enforcement agencies, water providers, industry, and agriculture, as well as consumers and environmentalists. The outcome of the consultation process was a widespread consensus that, while considerable pro-gress had been made in tackling individual issues, the current water policy was fragmented, in terms both of objectives and of means. All parties agreed on the need for a single piece of frame-work legislation to resolve these problems. In response to this, the Commission presented a Pro-posal for a Water Framework Directive with the following key aims: • water management based on river basins • expanding the scope of water protection to all waters, surface waters and groundwater

13 See www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html

Figure 3-1. Dublin Statement Principles

GUIDING PRINCIPLES Concerted action is needed to reverse the present trends of over consumption, pollution, and rising threats from drought and floods. The Conference Report sets out recommendations for action at local, national and interna-tional levels, based on four guiding principles. Principle No. 1 - Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment Since water sustains life, effective management of water resources demands a holistic approach, linking social and economic development with protection of natural ecosystems. Effective management links land and water uses across the whole of a catchment area or groundwater aquifer. Principle No. 2 - Water development and management should be based on a participa-tory approach, involving users, planners and policy-makers at all levels The participatory approach involves raising awareness of the importance of water among policy-makers and the general public. It means that decisions are taken at the lowest appropriate level, with full public consultation and involvement of users in the planning and implementation of water projects. Principle No. 3 - Women play a central part in the provision, management and safe-guarding of water This pivotal role of women as providers and users of water and guardians of the living environment has seldom been reflected in institutional arrangements for the development and management of water resources. Acceptance and implementation of this principle requires positive policies to address women’s specific needs and to equip and empower women to participate at all levels in water resources programmes, including decision-making and imple-mentation, in ways defined by them. Principle No. 4 - Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good Within this principle, it is vital to recognize first the basic right of all human beings to have access to clean water and sanitation at an affordable price. Past failure to recognize the economic value of water has led to wasteful and environmentally damaging uses of the resource. Managing water as an economic good is an important way of achieving efficient and equitable use, and of encouraging conservation and protection of water resources.

Source: Global Water Partnership: www.gwpforum.org

http://www.gwpforum.org/

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html


• getting citizens involved more closely • achieving "good status" for all waters by a set deadline • "combined approach" of emission limit values and quality standards • getting the prices right • streamlining legislation

The directive specifies a single system of water management: River basin management. This was seen as a better model than administrative or political boundaries. Initiatives in Maas, Schelde and Rhine river basins served as positive examples of this approach. Management is to include:

• The river basin management plan. For each river basin, some of which traverse national fron-tiers - a "river basin management plan" will be established and updated every six years, and will provide the context for co-ordination requirements. The plan is a detailed account of how the objectives set for the river basin (ecological status, quantitative status, chemical status and protected area objectives) are to be reached within the timescale required. The plan will include all the results of analysis: the river basin's characteristics, a review of the impact of human ac-tivity on the status of waters in the basin, estimation of the effect of existing legislation and the remaining "gap" to meeting these objectives; and a set of measures designed to fill the gap. An economic analysis of water use within the river basin must also be carried out, in order to en-able a rational discussion on the cost-effectiveness of various possible measures. It is essential that all interested parties are fully involved in this discussion, and indeed in the preparation of the river basin management plan as a whole.

• Public participation. In getting EU waters clean, the role of citizens and citizens' groups is viewed as crucial. There are two main reasons for an extension of public participation. The first is that decisions on the most appropriate measures to achieve objectives in the river basin management plan will involve balancing the interests of various groups. Economic analy-sis is intended to provide a rational basis for this, but it is essential that the process is open to the scrutiny of those who will be affected. The second reason concerns enforceability. The greater the transparency in establishing objec-tives, imposing measures, and reporting standards, the greater the care Member States will take to implement the legislation in good faith, and the greater the power of the citizens to influence the direction of environmental protection, whether through consultation or through complaints procedures and the courts. Care of Europe's waters will require more involvement of citizens, interested parties, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), so the directive requires full dis-closure of information and consultation when river basin management plans are established. Furthermore, a biannual conference provides for a regular exchange of views and experiences in implementation, and a network for exchange of information and experience between water professionals throughout the Community.

World Bank policy reform The World Bank responded within the first year following the Dublin and Rio conferences by pub-lishing a new policy paper on water resources management [World Bank 1993]. It proposed a new approach to managing water resources that is to ‘build on the lessons of experience’. At its core is the adoption of a comprehensive policy framework and the treatment of water as an economic good, combined with decentralized management and delivery structures, greater reliance on pric-ing, and fuller participation by stakeholders. The policy places emphasis on developing “a comprehensive framework of analyzing policies and options, to help guide decisions about managing water resources in countries where significant problems exist, or are emerging, concerning the scarcity of water, the efficiency of service, the al-location of water, or environmental damage…The framework would facilitate the consideration of relationships between the ecosystem and socioeconomic activities in river basins. The analysis should take account of social, environmental, and economic objectives; evaluate the status of water resources within each basin; and assess the level and composition of projected demand. Special attention will be given to the view of all stakeholders”. (emphasis added)


“The results of analyses at a river basin level would become part of the national strategy for water resource management. The analytical framework would provide the underpinnings for formulating public policies on regulations, incentives, public investment plans, and environmental protection and on the inter-linkages among them. It would establish the parameters, ground rules, and price signals for decentralized implementation by government agencies and the private sector. Decentral-izing the delivery of water services and adopting pricing that induces efficient use of water are key elements of sound water resource management. But, for decentralized management to be effective, a supportive legal framework and adequate regulatory capacity are required, as well as a system of water charges to endow water entities with operational and financial autonomy for efficient and sustainable delivery of services”. [World Bank 1993, p. 11] The policy goes on to mandate inclusion in country policy dialogues and country assistance strat-egy formulations development of: (i) a national comprehensive analytical framework; (ii) institu-tional and regulatory systems; (iii) incentives; (iv) poverty alleviation; (v) decentralization; (vi) participation; (viii) health and environmental protection, including rural and agricultural pollution, urban and industrial pollution; groundwater protection and needs of water-dependent ecosystems; (ix) cooperative management of international resources [World Bank 1993, p. 67-76]. After nearly a decade of experience with this policy, the World Bank’s Operations Evaluation Di-vision conducted an independent evaluation of progress [Pitman 2002]. Findings from the study were a major feature in processes that led to a further articulation of World Bank policy in the form of a new water resources sector strategy document [World Bank 2004]. Among the ‘messages’ contained in this document is one that states, The main management challenge is not a vision of integrated water resources management but a “pragmatic but principled” approach that respects principles of efficiency, equity and sustainability while recognizing that water resources manage-ment is intensely political and that reform requires the articulation of prioritized, sequenced, prac-tical and patient interventions. Another notes that the policy provides broad principles and not in-flexible prescriptions, and that What is appropriate in a particular country (or region) at a particu-lar time will involve adaptation of these general principles to the specific economic, political, so-cial, cultural and historical circumstances. Asian Development Bank policy reform The regional development banks followed fairly similar approaches. Beginning in 1996, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) began convening regional water policy consultation workshops, which in 1997 and 1998 were held in collaboration with the Global Water Partnerships (see below). The ADB found that these consultations “demonstrated a sense of urgency among stakeholders to avoid a crisis of scarcity, pollution, and environmental degradation by adopting a more holistic and inte-grated approach to future investments in water and its management.” They also revealed, “that in-stitutional reforms are key to effectively addressing the technical, economic, social and environ-mental issues concerning water” [ADB 2001, p. 9-10]. ADB also acknowledged “broad global agreement on the approaches to improved water resources management”, as indicated in the policy of the World Bank, the EU framework for water management, and the 1998 adoption by OECD of the integrated water resource management model in its analysis of the performance and challenges of water management in its member countries. Accordingly, in 2001 the ADB published a new water policy document [ADB 2001]. Under the banner of “water for all”, the policy’s principal elements include: (i) Promote a national focus on water sector reform. Developing member countries will be sup-

ported to adopt effective national water policies, water laws, and sector coordination arrange-ments; improve institutional capacities and information management; and develop a national action agenda for the water sector. Throughout, the needs of the poor will be specifically fac-tored into legal, institutional, and administrative frameworks.


(ii) Foster the integrated management of water resources. Integrated management will be based on conducting comprehensive water resource assessments, and concentrating interlinked water in-vestments in river basins.

(iii) Improve and expand the delivery of water services. Focusing on water supply and sanitation (both rural and urban), irrigation and drainage, and other subsectors, support will be provided for autonomous and accountable service providers, private sector participation, and public-private partnerships, emphasizing equity in access to water for the poor and underserved.

(iv) Foster the conservation of water and increase system efficiencies. Packages that combine water use and resource management charges to recover costs, improved regulation and increased pub-lic awareness, as well as provisions to ensure that the poor are not excluded, will be supported.

(v) Promote regional cooperation and increase the mutually beneficial use of shared water re-sources within and between countries. The primary focus will be on the exchange of informa-tion and experiences in water sector reform. Support will be provided to enhance awareness of the benefits of shared water resources, create sound hydrologic and socio-environmental data-bases relevant to the management of transboundary water resources, and implement joint pro-jects between riparian countries.

(vi) Facilitate the exchange of water sector information and experience. Socially inclusive devel-opment principles will support and promote stakeholder consultation and participation at all levels, increase access to basic water services by poor consumers, and enhance water invest-ments in the DMCs through public-private-community-NGO partnerships.

(vii) Improve governance. This will be accomplished by promoting decentralization, building capac-ity, and strengthening monitoring, evaluation, research, and learning at all levels, particularly in public sector institutions.

The policy also notes the approved ADB strategy for poverty reduction, and specifically provides for the involvement of the poor in water conservation and management. Since the specific needs and vulnerabilities of the poor are central in formulating sound and equitable water strategies, the poor must be enabled to influence decisions that affect their access to water for both consumptive and productive uses. The policy also notes the considerable potential for mobilizing community effort to directly contribute to pro-poor water development, and that knowledge bases of the water needs of the poor must be developed.

(b) Global and regional civil society organizations With support from western countries, the World Bank, regional development banks, and other sources, a considerable range of new global and regional institutions have begun emerging to pro-vide further support for integrated water resource management in river basin contexts. The follow-ing examples indicate how organizations are beginning to specialize at different levels, and build information and support to help meet the needs of various actors and stakeholders involved in these processes. One effect is a growing body of ‘grey literature’ that should not be ignored. World Water Council14

The World Water Council seeks to be a global-level international water policy think tank dedicated to supporting the world water movement for improved management of the world's water resources and water services. In response to ideas discussed at the Dublin and Rio conferences, the Interna-tional Water Resources Association organized a special session at its Eighth World Water Congress in Cairo during 1994, which resulted in a resolution to create the World Water Council. A found-ing committee was formed in 1995, and by 1996 the WWC was legally incorporated with its head-quarters in Marseille, France. It has since organized a series of three World Water Forum events, and the fourth is to be held in Mexico during early 2006. The mission of the Council is "to promote awareness, build political commitment and trigger action on critical water issues at all levels, including highest decision-making levels, to facilitate the effi-

14 http://www.worldwatercouncil.org

http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/


cient conservation, protection, development, planning, management and use of water in all its di-mensions on an environmentally sustainable basis for the benefit of all life on earth". Council ob-jectives are: • To provide a platform for a common strategic vision on water resources and water services

management on a sustainable basis, and to promote the implementation of effective policies and strategies worldwide;

• To provide advice and relevant information to institutions and decision-makers on the devel-opment and implementation of comprehensive pro-poor policies and strategies for sustainable water resources and water services management, with due respect for the environment, and so-cial and gender equity;

• To contribute to the resolution of issues related to transboundary waters. World Water Forum events are seen as leading movement from the World Water Vision (a pro-spective view of the future state of global water resources presented at the 2nd Forum) to establish-ment of concrete actions and commitments derived from the 3rd Forum. The 4th Forum will focus on achievement of water-related Millennium Development Goals, and the Council seeks to estab-lish cooperation and coordination mechanisms to transform the global vision into concrete actions that integrate local knowledge. The Council also claims to have had a strategic role in promoting and facilitating establishment of dialogues at basin, local and national levels, on crosscutting issues that were not sufficiently ad-dressed, such as Water for Food and Environment, and Water and Climate. In 2001, the Council established a Panel on Financing Water Infrastructure, whose mandate is to look for new sources of funding for water to achieve the 2025 'water security' scenario of the World Water Vision. The WWC is also home for the Water Policy journal, but its cost limits worldwide access. Global Water Partnership15

The Global Water Partnership seeks to help build a working partnership among all those involved in water management – government agencies, public institutions, private companies, professional organizations, development agencies and others committed to Dublin-Rio principles. This wide-ranging partnership seeks to identify critical knowledge needs at global, regional and national lev-els, help design programs for meeting these needs, and serve as a mechanism for alliance building and information exchange on integrated water resources management. The GWP's specific objec-tives are: • Clearly establish principles of sustainable water resources management, • Identify gaps and stimulate partners to meet key needs with available human and financial re-

sources, • Support action at the local, national, regional or river basin level that follows sustainable water

resources management principles, • Help match needs to available resources.

The range and directions of its interests are reflected in the web-based “ToolBox” that GWP is in the process of developing (see Figure 3-2). Although now mostly still in early stages of develop-ment, web pages contain definitions, descriptions, characteristics, lessons learned, references, links to other sources, etc. Figure 3-3 displays the initial information on river basin organization charac-teristics and lessons learned. As a further indicator of the flavor of information from GWP, their website suggests that four things need to be done to do to make water governance more effective • establish water policies, laws, regulatory framework; devolve decision-making, encourage bet-

ter service delivery by autonomous public sector agencies and private sector operators.

15 http://www.gwpforum.org

http://www.gwpforum.org/


• establish policies and institutional structures for managing river basins and aquifers and processes to overcome conflict over water allocation.

Figure 3-2. The GWP “ToolBox” A: THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

A1. Policies setting goals for water use, protection & conservation. A1.1. Preparation of a National Water Resources Policy. A1.2. Policies with relation to water resources.

A2. Legislation water policy translated into law. • facilitate realignment of economic

and financial practices, including full cost pricing for water services - with appropriate mechanisms to protect the poor.

A2.1. Water rights. A2.2. Legislation for water quality. A2.3. Reform of existing legislation.

A3. Financing & incentive structures - allocating financial resources. A3.1. Investment policies. A3.2. Public sector institutional reform. A3.3. Role of the private sector. • establish with help of international

partners mechanisms to strengthen river basin management, and transboundary water agreements allowing for equitable use of shared waters.

A3.4. Cost recovery and charging policies. A3.5. Investment appraisal.

B: INSTITUTIONAL ROLES B1. Creating an organisational framework forms & functions.

B1.1. Transboundary organisations for water resource mgmt. B1.2. National apex bodies.

B1.3. River basin organisations. 16GWP-Southeast Asia B1.4. Regulatory bodies and enforcement agencies.

B1.5. Service providers and IWRM. B1.6. Civil society institutions & community based organisations. B1.7. Local authorities.

B2. Institutional capacity building developing human resources. B2.1. Participatory capacity and empowerment. B2.2. IWRM capacity in water professionals. B2.3. Regulatory capacity. B2.4. Knowledge sharing.

C: MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS

In addition to its global activities and websites, the GWP is also developing regional-level platforms, including one in Southeast Asia. The GWP South-east Asia Technical Advisory Committee (GWP-SEATAC), whose members are professionals from several countries, including Thailand, developed the document “Our Vision for Water in the 21st Century” as a Southeast Asia contribution to the Second World Water Forum and Ministerial Conference at The Hague, the Netherlands during 2000 [GWP-SEATAC 2000]. The document in-cludes Southeast Asia’s framework for action for a better water future, formu-lated to meet the foremost challenges facing the region, which are seen to be:

C1. Water resources assessment - understanding resources & needs. C1.1. Water resources knowledge base. C1.2. Water resources assessment. C1.3. Modelling in IWRM. C1.4. Developing water management indicators.

C2. Plans for IWRM - options, resource use, human interaction. C2.1. River basin plans. C2.2. Risk assessment and management.

C3. Demand management - using water more efficiently. C3.1. Improved efficiency of use. C3.2. Recycling and reuse. C3.3. Improved efficiency of water supply.

C4. Social change instruments - water-oriented civil society. C4.1. Education curricula on water management. C4.2. Training of professionals. C4.3. Training of trainers.

• Managing water resources efficiently and effectively

C4.4. Communication with stakeholders. C4.5. Water campaigns and awareness raising. C4.6. Broadening participation in water resources mgmt.

• Moving towards integrated river basin management

C5. Conflict resolution - managing disputes & ensure water sharing. C5.1. Conflict management. C5.2. Shared vision planning. • Translating awareness to political

will and capacities C5.3. Consensus building.

C6. Regulatory instruments - allocation and water use limits. C6.1. Regulations for water quality. • Moving towards adequate and

affordable water services C6.2. Regulations for water quantity. C6.3. Regulations for water services.

C6.4. Land use planning controls and nature protection. Thailand has been an active partici-pant in GWP activities in Southeast Asia, largely through the initiative of Dr. Apichart Anukularmphai and his colleagues, who were central in efforts

C7. Economic instruments - value & prices for efficiency & equity. C7.1. Pricing of water and water services. C7.2. Pollution charges. C7.3. Water markets and tradeable permits. C7.4. Subsidies and incentives.

C8. Information management & exchange - improve knowledge. C8.1. Information management systems.

C8.2. Data sharing - national and international. 16 http://www.gwpseatac.org

http://www.gwpseatac.org/


Figure 3-3. From the GWP ToolBox: B1.04. River Basin Organizations

Characteristics River basin organisations (RBOs) are specialised organisations set up by political authorities, or in response to stake-holder demands. RBOs deal with the water resource management issues in a river basin, a lake basin, or across an important aquifer. The focus here is the basin organisations that are domestic, not transcending state boundaries. River basin organisations provide a mechanism for ensuring that land use and needs are reflected in water manage-ment - and vice versa. Experience has varied dramatically in the ability of these organisations to achieve IWRM. Their functions vary from water allocation, resource management and planning, to education of basin communities, to devel-oping natural resources management strategies and programs of remediation of degraded lands and waterways. They may also play a role in consensus building, facilitation and conflict management (C5). Recent innovation has focused on an integrated river basin management approach (IRBM), a subset of IWRM, and catchment management rather than single sector approaches. (See also C2.2 Basin management plans) The form and role of a river basin organisation is closely linked to its historical and social context. Key characteristics of sustainable river basin management are: • Basin-wide planning to balance all user needs for water resources & provide protection from related hazards; • Wide public and stakeholder participation in decision-making, local empowerment (B2.1); • Effective demand management (C3); • Agreement on commitments within the basin, and mechanisms for monitoring those agreements; • Adequate human and financial resources. • Varying opinions exist about the most effective scale of application: the success of a river basin organisation may

depend on such things as, the level of human and institutional capacity of the civil society, the degree to which water resources are developed, and climatic variability (arid versus temperate river basins, for example). The pol-icy and legislative framework will govern the purpose and effectiveness of the RBO.

Lessons learned Experience shows that all RBOs evolve with time and see their composition and duties adapted from time to time re-flecting the real needs of the moment. Successful river basin organisations are supported by: • An ability to establish trusted technical competencies; • A focus on serious recurrent problems such as flooding or drought or supply shortages, and the provision of solu-

tions acceptable to all stakeholders; • A broad stakeholder involvement, catering for grassroots participation at basin-wide level (e.g. water forums); • An ability to generate some form of sustaining revenue; • The capacity to collect fees, and attract grants and/or loans; • Clear jurisdictional boundaries and appropriate powers.

to organize the First Southeast Asia Water Forum in Chiang Mai during 2003. The theme of that forum was ‘conflict resolution and basin organizations’. It reaffirmed regional views on the need for both integrated water resource management and river basin organizations. Some of this effort now appears directed toward efforts of an ASEAN Working Group on Water Resource Manage-ment (AWGWRM) focusing on strengthening integrated water resource management in the region.

17Network of Asian River Basin Organizations (NARBO)

Acknowledging that integrated water resources management needed partnerships for action, and that such partnerships need support through knowledge sharing and capacity building, the Network of Asian River Basin Organizations (NARBO) was established to share knowledge and build ca-pacity for IWRM in river basins throughout monsoon areas of Asia. NARBO was jointly estab-lished in 2003 during the 3rd World Water Forum through a letter of intent signed by the ADB, the ADB Institute, and the Japan Water Agency (JWA). The network was officially launched during November 2003 at the 1st Southeast Asian Water Forum held in Chiang Mai, and its charter was ratified during its first general meeting in Indonesia during February 2004. The goal of NARBO is to achieve integrated water resources management in river basins through-out Asia. Its objective is to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of RBOs in promoting IWRM and improving water governance, through training and exchange of information and experiences

17 http://www.narbo.jp

http://www.narbo.jp/


among RBOs and their associated water sector agencies and knowledge partner organizations. Its scope of activities includes: • Promoting advocacy, raising awareness, sharing information, good practices and lessons

learned on IWRM through the NARBO web site, publications, case studies, electronic newslet-ter, guidelines and sourcebooks, and media relations.

• Supporting establishment of river basin organizations (RBOs). • Supporting NARBO members to improve water governance for IWRM through capacity build-

ing of RBOs by training courses, workshops, performance benchmarking activities, advisory visits, scholarship programs, RBO exchange visits, staff exchange programs, and twinning pro-grams.

• Building capacity of RBOs to implement IWRM through technical advice on planning, conser-vation, development, and the proper and efficient operation and maintenance of water re-sources facilities.

• Fostering regional cooperation for improved management of water resources in transboundary river basins.

As of January 2005, NARBO membership includes 12 River Basin Organizations (including the Bang Pakong River Basin in Thailand), 15 government organizations (including Thailand’s Minis-try of Natural Resources and Environment), 15 regional “knowledge partners” (including the Thai-land Water Resources Association chaired by Dr. Apichart Anukulamphai), 3 inter-regional knowl-edge partners, and one multilateral development cooperation partner (ADB). Its website is man-aged by the Japan Water Agency in collaboration with ADB and the ADB Institute. The ADB In-stitute will also lead work on developing guidelines and sourcebook materials on IWRM practices and lessons learned, river basins in Asia, standards and manuals, and other topics of interest to be shared through website downloads and CDs, in collaboration with JWA, ADB, the International Water Management Institute, the Mekong River Commission, and other interested partners. Training activities conducted thus far include the 1st NARBO training on IWRM held during 2004 in Thailand, a benchmarking workshop, and its 2nd IWRM training workshop held in Sri Lanka dur-ing April 2005. It also has held general meetings, initiated twinning arrangements, and plans the 3rd training course for November 2005 in Korea. It also plans to participate in the 2nd Southeast Asia Water Forum scheduled for August 2005 in Indonesia.

2. Recent international literature on river basin organizations This section introduces key recent international literature on river basin organizations of a more conventional nature by first presenting a very brief picture of recent trends in international river basin literature, followed by a focus on findings from some very recent major reviews and com-parative studies of river basin organizations supported by the World Bank.

(a) Recent trends in international literature

Given the policies, resources and human effort being directed toward these worldwide efforts to promote integrated water resources management through river basin organizations, it should not be surprising that it is also leading to a very rapid growth in the literature associated with these sub-jects. As might be expected, much of this literature has been generated by research staff based in development banks and their networks of associates, including key centers of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)18 now operating under the Future Harvest banner, and especially the International Water Management Institute (IWMI)19, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)20, and their academic colleagues. Indeed, internationally funded initiatives such as the CGIAR system-wide Food and Water Challenge Programme are likely to further stimulate research activity generating such literature. 18 See www.cgiar.org 19 See www.iwmi.org 20 See www.ifpri.org

http://www.cgiar.org/

http://www.iwmi.org/

http://www.ifpri.org/


Given the relatively limited access that this author has to more conventional repositories of interna-tional literature, which increasingly reside in ever more expensive journals and books published in major centers in developed western countries, this section is based primarily on literature that is available in the public domain and accessible via the open internet. This in itself has been an in-structive experience because these are the same limitations that are faced by people in the vast ma-jority of “developing world” contexts where integrated water resources management in a river ba-sin context is being promoted. One advantage is that most all literature cited in this and following sections in this part of the report is included in PDF versions on a CD that accompanies this report. Assuming the literature accessible for this review is reasonably representative, there seems to have been three general but somewhat overlapping surges of relevant literature since the Dublin and Rio Conferences. The first surge of literature appears to have focused primarily on reviewing existing theory and experience. As momentum for integrated water resource management and promotion of River Basin Organizations was first building during the mid-1990’s, new reviews of earlier experi-ence began to be published [e.g. Lee 1995]. One obvious early target for a case study example was the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in the United States [Miller 1998], and researchers began digging into more that would emerge later. Researchers also began to review the growing body of research on local organizations for natural resource management [e.g. Rasmussen 1995], as well as on integrated water resource systems [e.g. Keller 1996] modeling water resources management at the basin level [e.g. McKinney 1999], and taking a closer look at relationships between land use and maintenance of watershed and environmental services [Chomitz 1998, Calder 1999].. In the second surge of literature, which seems to have begun growing rapidly near the turn of the millennium, continuing reviews helped provide building blocks for researchers to focus more on how several relevant lines of activity were beginning to converge. One area of convergence was embodied in work contributing to the emerging field of natural resource governance [e.g. Bruns 2000, Kaosa-ard 2000, Knox 2001, Dupar 2002]. Water resource engineering and economics be-gan jointly exploring simulation modeling at different spatial scales [Droogers 2001], analyses of river basins began articulating hydronomic zones [Molden 2001b], risk began to be factored into integrated water resource management [Rees 2002], and water use and productivity began to be assessed at river basin levels [Molden 2001c]. Linkages of land and water degradation with food and environmental security were reviewed [Penning de Vries 2003], and methods developed to as-sess land and water legal and institutional frameworks in Asia [Hannam 2003]. Building on emerg-ing insights, a World Bank background paper articulated linkages between water and rural devel-opment [Molden 2001a], integrated water resource management was re-articulated in the new con-text [GWP TAC 2000], a framework was developed for more careful institutional analyses of water resources management in a river basin context [Bandaragoda 2000], and river basin closure and development trajectory concepts began emerging [Molle 2002, 2003]. There was also exploration of issues and gaps in linkages between policy and research on environmental services [e.g. Tomich 2004, Douglas 2005, FAO-Cifor 2005], as well as efforts to employ multiple types of simulation modeling to address policy questions that included sites in Thailand [van Noordwijk 2003]. Especially near the end of this period, we also begin to see emergence of some challenges to the “conventional wisdom” underlying especially policies of the World Bank and regional develop-ment banks regarding integrated water resources management and river basin organizations. Ana-lysts in India [e.g. Shah 2002] began to be particularly prominent in efforts to articulate differences in contextual conditions in western developed societies where most examples of promising inte-grated water resource and river basin management have been cited, and conditions in densely set-tled, poor areas such as found in much of Asia. In a somewhat similar vein, issues related to the scale of orientation of river basin institutional arrangements, and needs for ‘locally embedded proc-esses’ are identified by some as critical in contexts such as the Mekong River Basin [Miller 2003]. Some also began viewing debate reflecting contested views of civil society and its role in redefin-ing state-society relationships as a key emerging arena of dialogue important for river basin man-agement in Thailand and the Mekong Regions [Laungaramsri 2002].


These developments helped set the stage for the third surge of literature that has just begun emerg-ing during the last two years. Much of the focus of this literature is on assessing Post-Dublin-Rio experience with river basin organizations, and particularly on how well they are functioning as re-source management institutions. Although still quite short by many historical standards, there has been enough experience at many locations to make at least a preliminary round of assessments to see what lessons can be learned from this recent era of experience. While a substantial range of re-search supported by the World Bank and regional development banks is still underway, one of the first high priority lines of work has recently been releasing a series of outputs directly related to this project.

(b) World Bank sponsored comparative studies

Along with review [Pitman 2002] and further articulation of its water policy [World Bank 2004], several lines of research obtained World Bank support. Institutions organizing and contributing to various related and often cross-linked sets of studies have included the World Bank, the Interna-tional Water Management Institute, the International Food Policy Research Institute, and various associated academic institutions. One line of activity particularly relevant to this project is being conducted under the Agriculture and Rural Development Department in association with the Water Resources Management Group of the bank. The central theme of this work seems to have been captured rather well in the name of a major study Integrated River Basin Management and the Principle of Managing Water Resources at the Lowest Appropriate Level, which has now published a summary report on institutional and policy analysis of river basin management decentralization [Kemper 2005]. This work is based on a coordinated set of river basin institutional studies that includes:

(i). Accountability through decentralization: Lessons for integrated river basin management

This synthesis study was based on a review of literature on decentralization, including experience in various river basins from different continents, and in the fields of education, health care, roads, irrigation and public infrastructure, with the aim of drawing lessons for productive decentralization in integrated river basin management [Mody 2004]. The study’s definition of its understanding and expectations of decentralization are worth quoting here:

“Decentralization is a process of transitioning from a governance structure in which power is con-centrated at the central or national level to one in which the authority to make decisions and im-plement them is shifted to lower level governments or agencies (including parastatal organiza-tions). The resulting governing structure is anticipated to deliver public services more efficiently and equitably. Because of proximity to the locus of action, decentralization offers the prospect of lower transactions costs and the generation of information most relevant for serving the consumer of public services. As such, it is expected that decision-makers at decentralized levels may be held more directly accountable for the outcomes of their actions than an anonymous bureaucrat in the central government.

In addition to accountability, successful decentralization depends on a number of other factors in-cluding negotiated voluntary arrangements, conflict resolution mechanisms, and the institutions necessary to support them. Moreover, the study sees common challenges to decentralization as including: “(1) inadequate financing; (2) paucity in skills, particularly with respect to management and supervision; (3) resistance from those who benefit from the centralized structure; (4) how to sustain interest in the participatory process for the long term. Leadership is also critical to ensuring that administrative, political, and fiscal decentralization operate in tandem.” Findings of the study see key trade-offs between central control and decentralization that include: • Centralization tends to have greater technological economies of scale; • Decentralization tends to have lower transaction costs, due to greater information and account-

ability • Decentralization can result in greater equity, if institutional structures for local accountability

are present to prevent local elites from capturing all benefits.


• Conflict resolution is essential to reduce transaction costs and for any progress to be made un-der decentralization. Decentralized structures can more effectively reach negotiated resolution, but it may require clearly defined property or priority rights, whereas central authority can use more authoritarian means.

• Centralization can result in a larger pool of highly qualified technical expertise, whereas this tool may be dissipated with decentralization

• Regarding service provision, central agencies are best at providing services requiring advanced technical expertise, management and information that are difficult to provide through a distrib-uted system, but decentralization may perform better where information about local conditions and more direct monitoring are important.

• Local tax bases, especially in developing countries, are inadequate to meet funding needs, whereas centralized agencies have access to funds that can be transferred to improve equity, but also to influence or distort local decision-making. This suggests need for a balance between central and local powers.

Lessons learned from other sectors suggest there are four high priority areas that need to be ad-dressed in river basin decentralization: (1) devising ways to overcome financial inadequacy at the lower level; (2) making a commitment to incorporating opportunities to upgrade skills, particularly management skills, when designing programs while also ensuring that the expertise accumulated in central bureaucracies is not dissipated; simultaneously encouraging those facing retrenchment to contribute to the new systems wherever feasible; (3) assuring beneficiaries of the pre-reform struc-tures that their rights would be protected; and (4) planning to sustain a long-term commitment to the decentralization process as it is likely to be slow and drawn out, perhaps by demonstrating posi-tive outcomes in a key element of the sector in question.

(ii). A quantitative global analysis of experience with decentralization in river basins

This study is based on questionnaires returned from 83 river basin organizations from around the world [Dinar 2005]. Analysis of this data was also integrated into a broad cross-country analysis of the economics of water institutions and performance that was published as a monograph in institu-tional economics [Saleth 2004], which also includes an interesting recent review of institutional theory and interpretations associated with water and river basin management.

Four different sets of variables in the questionnaire result in findings that can be summarized as: • Stressed resource conditions (e.g. water scarcity) and the presence of multiple major problems

appear to be stimulants to effective action that result in perception of more improvement after decentralization, and more success in meeting basin management objectives.

• A relevant agenda based on broad basin management objectives that addresses all stakeholders’ concerns and provide fora for dispute resolution are perceived to be effective and successful; some improvements take long periods of time before they can become evident.

• Government support is an important factor that has to be included at the right dose – supportive governmental involvement is good as long as it allows the stakeholders to initiate and lead the reform process.

• Presence of existing user groups in the basin is linked with greater improvements after decen-tralization, and an RBO budget is an important tool for management, enhancing participation, and if managed well, can promote the decentralization process.

(iii). Comparative study of institutional arrangements for river basin management in 8 basins

This research was based on much more in-depth studies of eight RBO’s selected to represent a range of contexts and conditions. Study sites and sources of background and detailed institutional analysis on each include: • Fraser River Basin in Canada [Calbick 2004, Blomquist 2005f]; • Tarcoles River Basin in Costa Rica [Ballestero 2003, Blomquist 2005e]; • Alto Tiete River Basin in southeastern Brazil [Johnsson 2005b]; • Jaguaribe River Basin in eastern Brazil [Johnsson 2005a];


• Guadalquivir River Basin in Spain [Giansante 2004, Blomquist 2005d]; • Warta River Basin in Poland [Blomquist 2005c]; • Murray Darling River Basin in Australia [Haisman 2004, Blomquist 2005b]21; • Brantas River Basin in Indonesia [Ramu 2004, Bhat 2005].

Some of the key characteristics of the study river basins are presented in Figure 3-4, along with a few comparative points for the Ping River Basin. Basin institutional studies were combined into a comparative study of institutional arrangements for river basin management [Blomquist 2005a]. These studies found a very substantial range of basin characteristics, initial conditions and major water management problems across the 8 basins, as indicated in Figure 3-4, as well as differences in performance of the RBOs over time. Comparative analysis completed at this time has identified three factors associated with effective start-up of RBOs, and six factors associated with the longer-term sustainability of effective operations. Factors affecting start-up include:

• Stakeholder involvement. Means need to be established to attract the interest of all relevant stakeholders, and to get them actively involved in RBO processes. Means for accomplishing this have varied widely, but all of the 8 basins were successful in securing initial involvement.

• Incentives: One of the most important incentives for stakeholder involvement was the presence of major water resource problems, but prospects for infrastructure investments were also im-portant in some cases. Strong cultural conflicts were only present in one case.

• Champions: Government commitment for support made them a champion in some basins, while individual charismatic leaders were very important in several. Supra-national influences in some basins included World Bank projects and the EU Water Framework Directive.

Factors affecting sustainability of effective RBO operations over the longer term include:

• Keeping stakeholders engaged: Stakeholder perceptions that they are engaged in important is-sues, and are making a positive difference are especially important. Consistency of government support is also important, as are regular and frequent interaction, and perceptions that their views and interests are welcome.

• Participatory decision-making: Stakeholders need to participate in substantive basin manage-ment decisions, which was most common in planning, water allocation, infrastructure opera-tions, and design of headwater protection; but less common in levying water charges, collecting fees, flood control, monitoring, or altering land use.

• Balancing stakeholder incentives with achieving desired outcomes: Incentives need to be tied to performance criteria, to help assure that their involvement improves management.

• Responsiveness to environmental change: Conditions and problems change as a result of many factors, and in order to remain relevant the RBO needs to be able to effectively respond to changing environmental conditions.

• Consistency of government support: Consistency of government support is very important, and at least as important as magnitude of support in the longer term. Longevity is also associated with financial resources coming from multiple levels, and less reliance on central government funds is linked with autonomy to keep plans locally relevant.

• Managing conflict: It is important for opposing parties to have representation and ability to voice their views and communicate constructively. While champions are important in processes like this, for the longer term RBOs also need to develop mechanisms not dependent on them.

21 Organizational arrangements in the Murray Darling River Basin are also promoted by Australians as a model for improved management in other areas, including the Mekong River Basin. For example, see http://www.mekong.es.usyd.edu.au/case_studies/rbm/MDMK/index.htm

http://www.mekong.es.usyd.edu.au/case_studies/rbm/MDMK/index.htm

































































Figure 3-4. River Basin sites with in-depth case studies Continent North America South America Europe Australia Asia

Country Canada Costa Rica SE Brazil East Brazil Spain Poland SE Australia Indonesia Thailand River Basin Name Fraser Tarcoles Alto Tiete Jaguaribe Guadalquivir Warta Murray-Darling Brantas Ping

Area (square kilometers) 238,000 2,155 5,985 72,560 57,017 55,193 > 1,000,000 11,800 34,659 Population (millions) 2.7 2.0 17.8 2.0 4.0 6.8 2.0 15.0 2.5

Principal water management problems • Flooding X X X X X X • Seasonal water scarcity X X X X X X • Drought exposure X X • Water storage X • Water allocation X X X • Inter-sectoral conflict X X X X • Pollution X X X X X X • River ecology X • Erosion X • Headland urbanization X Basin organization initiation 1997 Early

1990’s 1994

(1997/98) Early 1990’s 1927 (1985/99)

1991 (1999) 1914 (1992) 1990 (1999)

• Central government initiation X a. X X X X X • Stakeholder initiation X X X • Accompanied by broader reforms X X X X X X • Supra-national influence - IADB WB WB EU EU - WB tech asst

Type of basin organization NGO Quasi-govt commission

committee + RB

agency Commission + state

company Central govt

agency Central

govt agency

Inter-govt com-mission + self-

finance unit

State company under water

agency ?

Responsibilities • Planning &/or coordination X X X X X X X X ? • Infrastructure operation & maintenance X X X X X ? • License water use / allocate supply X X X ? • Set / collect water charges X X X ? • Water quality monitoring X X X ? • Land use or new water use/discharge X X ? Stakeholder organizations multi-scale Repres-

entative multi-scale

Sub-basin commit-tees

Repres-entative none Basin advisory

committee none multi-scale

Funding sources Gov+projects Cent govt Cent govt Users Govt+users Cent govt Govt+users Govt+users Govt


3. Major overall lessons for river basin organizations This section draws on information from sources discussed in previous sections, in an effort to summarize some of the major lessons for river basin organization that can be learned from interna-tional experience. These lessons are then employed in and adapted to the specific context of sub-basins in the Ping River Basin in subsequent sections.

(a) Absence of a “blueprint” for RBOs

Not only are there are no blueprint models for river basin organizations, but the very notion is fi-nally being discarded, and replaced with acceptance of diversity coupled with recognition of the need for RBOs to be ‘localized’ in their specific environmental, historical, cultural, social, political and economic context. Yet there are still many lessons to be learned from the diverse experience with RBOs from around the world. What is emerging from studies and experience, however, is that lessons need to be viewed at a somewhat more abstract level, in order to allow for variation associated with localization processes that drive adaptation for different specific contexts. Thus, major elements for learning from this diverse experience include basic operational principles that are associated with different types and degrees of RBO performance, as well as considerations regarding organizational structure of RBOs that can facilitate or constrain their performance.

(b) Key principles for RBO operation and development

Basic concepts underlying all this current interest in RBOs have a fundamental central focus on integrated water resource management, decentralization and accountability. Scope of IWRM-IRBM. A key basic proposition is that the increasingly complex and contentious context of water resource and river basin management requires its integration with a growing range of natural resource, environmental, economic, political, social, and cultural considerations. Indeed, it is the very importance of water to so many aspects of life and human society that is bringing us to this more complex approach requiring more holistic systems-oriented points of view. Thus, one of the first challenges is where to draw boundaries for the mandates of integrated water resource man-agement and integrated river basin management, or how integrated is ‘integrated’? While there is considerable anxiety among many about the growing scope of integrated river basin management, there is a growing amount of evidence that RBOs with relatively wide mandates are better able to attract and hold interest of major stakeholders, who feel they are involved with work that is relevant to their needs, especially in basins where there are multiple major problems. Clarity and mutual understanding of the scope of an RBO mandate, however, as well as the capacity, or-ganizational arrangements and resources to cope with it, are essential factors. Subsidiarity and decentralization. Associated with this complexity is the concept of subsidiarity, which provides much of the rationale for decentralization programs. It is based on the key proposi-tion that, especially in complex management systems, decisions are best made at the most local level where they are possible and viable. A corollary is that where local decisions are not possible or viable, they should be raised to the next higher level in the hierarchy, where the same principles are then applied. The end result is seen to be decisions that are made at their most appropriate lev-els, resulting in the greatest overall efficiency and equity possible for the management system. Thus, where systems are highly centralized, decentralization reforms are a means to improve sub-sidiarity, efficiency and equity. Experience with decentralization to and within river basin organizations indicates: (1) There are some trade-offs, and centralized approaches may still be especially important where there are tech-nological economies of scale, where substantial pools of high-level expertise need to be main-tained, or where local tax bases are inadequate. Centrality is less effective where local experience, knowledge, negotiation or monitoring are required. (2) decentralization does appear to provide sig-nificant improvements in efficiency and equity in most decision-making processes, including re-


duced transaction costs and negotiated resolution of disputes, but it requires basic rules, procedures, and capacities in local institutions, and often clearly defined rights and priorities regarding access to and use of water and related natural resources [see also Bruns 2005]. Accountability. One of the important justifications for decentralization using the subsidiarity prin-ciple is that the resulting management system will have greater efficiency and equity. This is largely based on the proposition that decentralization results in improved accountability. This, in turn, results from the lower transaction costs associated with closer proximity, as well as generation of information that is more relevant for consumers of public services. Moreover, local decision-makers may be held more directly accountable for the outcomes of their actions than anonymous bureaucrats in central governments. Experience with decentralization to and within RBOs indicates that greater accountability can in-deed be achieved. This is dependent, however, on adequate local institutions to prevent benefit and organization capture by groups of local elites, on accessibility to venues for negotiation of disputes, and on sufficient stakeholder participation, leadership, expertise, information and financial re-sources. Funding from central sources can reduce accountability in decentralized systems when it is accompanied by conditions that distort local decisions, although it can also help achieve greater overall equity. Moreover, in RBO organizational hierarchies there is a need for both upward and downward types of accountability. Most assessments of experience have focused on downward accountability to constituent stakeholders and consumers of public services, where decentralization can result in sub-stantial improvements. They also acknowledge, however, that there is a need for upward account-ability, at least to the degree that it can help assure that stakeholders located beyond the domain of local jurisdictions receive fair consideration and treatment of their legitimate views, concerns and needs. One manifestation of this concern about balance between local autonomy and central control is reflected in conclusions that a combination of funding from central and local sources is often as-sociated with strong RBO performance.

(c) Structural considerations that can facilitate or constrain RBO performance

Assessments of experience indicate that structural characteristics of RBOs can either help to facili-tate, or impose significant constraints on the performance of RBOs, while others are more neutral in their performance, but often important in specific social and cultural contexts. Major examples include: Type of organization. RBOs come in a great variety of forms, that include agencies, committees, commissions, companies, NGOs, etc., and there are numerous sub-type variations for each of these. Indeed, even among the small sample of RBOs where the in-depth studies reported above were conducted, as figure 3-4 indicates, only two of them were of the same type (agencies of the central government), and several had different official identities for different parts of their operations. The main point is that the RBO is able to function effectively to achieve its objectives under its man-date, and its ability to do so under any given type of organizational format or official or legal iden-tity will depend on what it seeks to do, how it seeks to do it, and how these different forms of or-ganization are operationally, technically and legally defined and operated in the context of a spe-cific society. Levels of organization. There is wide variation among RBOs regarding the number of hierarchical levels of organization. Some have a single organizational level, while others have several nested organizational levels. Lower levels of organization can be made up of existing groups or organiza-tions that associate themselves with the RBO, or they can be newly formed subsidiary units that have a dependent or relatively autonomous relationship with the RBO. While there are no major rules for what is best, there are conclusions that where relevant existing groups already exist, RBO performance is much better when they become building block units at more local levels. There are also observations that scale matters, in that as sub-units become smaller, their relative advantages


for various functions change. Thus, very small units often find local financing to be more difficult, there may be limitations in the pool of expertise available, they may find it difficult to employ technologies or conduct activities that have significant economies of scale, and it may be more dif-ficult in some cases to avoid capture by local elites. On the other hand, very small units often have stronger interpersonal relationships and social capital, more shared views, experience, interests and needs that enables them to organize more efficiently and effectively. Thus, much depends on the local context of the RBO. Stakeholder representation and roles. RBOs employing integrated water resource management principles clearly function best when the full range of stakeholders is represented and actively par-ticipating. Means for trying to achieve stakeholder participation, however, have varied widely, from RBOs with only informal interaction with stakeholder groups, to RBOs with elaborate stake-holder organizations at multiple nested levels. While most RBOs have been able to attract initial stakeholder interest, many have seen diminished stakeholder participation over time. Assessments of experience indicate that stakeholders need to perceive that they are engaged in important issues, that their views and interests are welcome and considered, that they actually participate in impor-tant decisions, that stakeholders with different views are treated fairly, and that real progress is be-ing made toward achieving RBO objectives in an open, fair and equitable manner. And, actual stakeholder groups want representatives who really represent their views. Leadership. Experience confirms that leadership and emergence of individual ‘champions’ is a very important factor in RBO performance. Top-down institutional leadership, however, appears to have a negative effect on performance. Moreover, where leadership is strongly focused on particu-larly charismatic local leaders, RBOs face a challenge in seeking to facilitate emergence of other leaders, or altering their approach in order to achieve long-term organizational sustainability. Responsibilities. Again, there is a wide range in the types of roles played by RBOs. Most all of them have a major role in planning, policy and/or coordination functions, which is seen as one of the most important roles of most RBOs. Depending on the characteristics of the basin, its types of problems, and the quality, caliber and availability of expertise from different sources, the RBO may also play a major role in monitoring conditions and identifying and analyzing problems as part of the overall planning process cycle, and there may be various types of activities, projects or opera-tions that it conducts directly. Some RBOs also play a major role in employing and operating regu-latory or economic incentive tools, including registration, zoning, allocation, licensing, fees, etc., where they are relevant. Where RBOs operate and maintain water resource infrastructure, such as those for irrigation, water supply, drainage, or electrical generation, they often establish self-financing units that can take on the form of a parastatal or private company. Information. Virtually all studies and assessments of experience agree on the need for high quality and openly accessible information. In some societies, this can be provided from a substantial range of sources with which the RBO can develop an alliance or collaboration. In many others, however, information and data are scarce and often of dubious quality, gaps are wide, expertise is low or highly concentrated in particular agencies or stakeholder groups, and public information access is not a cultural norm. Coalitions and alliances. Increasingly, RBOs face a situation where they are expected to respond to broader mandates, but in a more decentralized manner. Experience confirms that, under the right conditions, this can increase stakeholder participation, accountability, efficiency and equity. But those ‘right conditions’ include needs for more capacity, tools, information, and other resources at local levels of distributed systems where such things are often scarce. Moreover, RBOs cannot do everything themselves, and most of them depend on agencies, local governments, civil society or-ganizations, and private sector interests to implement their plans and provide various types of mate-rial, social and intellectual support for their operations. Accordingly, it is now widely recognized that RBOs need to join with a range of other groups and organizations to form and build coalitions,


alliances and networks at various levels, beginning within their basins, but extending outward as far as possible in all relevant directions. Indeed, the emergence of efforts from local to global levels to support such coalitions and net-works, and to accumulate and provide access to information, training and resources that can assist them in their efforts, is clearly evident from the growth of internet websites devoted to these issues, a few of which are mentioned in the first part of this section. While work they do is not yet recog-nized or incorporated into more academic reviews in the literature, it probably has far more poten-tial for reaching and assisting the actual managers of RBOs.

(d) Management tools and policy instruments

One of the advantages of the web-based venues for information exchange is their orientation to-ward the interests and needs of users and actors. One interesting example of this is the organization of the web-based ‘toolbox’ for integrated water resource management that the Global Water Part-nership is constructing.22 They classify ‘management instruments’ under 8 categories: • Water resource assessments (knowledge base, modeling, indicators, assessments) • IWRM Planning (with a special sub-section on river basin plans) • Demand management (use efficiency, recycling and reuse, supply efficiency) • Social change instruments (curricula, training, communications, campaigns, participation) • Conflict resolution: (shared vision planning, consensus building, conflict management) • Regulatory instruments (regulations for water quality, quantity, services; land use control) • Economic instruments (water pricing, pollution charges, water markets/trade, subsidies) • Information (information management systems, data sharing)

The GWP toolbox also includes additional information under the heading of an ‘enabling environ-ment’ that has information on water policies, laws, investment policies, incentive structures, cost recovery policies, and investment appraisal, which many economists or development organization types would consider “management instruments” at higher levels of social organization. The web-site design even includes ways to combine selected components of the toolbox to see how they might interact in contributing toward a ‘solution’ of a problem. Some elements of various of these tools are incorporated into discussions in remaining sections of this report, in the more specific context of Ping River sub-basins and pilot management organiza-tions for them. Other elements, and particularly those related to economic instruments, are the sub-ject of a separate consultancy under this project, and thus not discussed further in this report.

22 See figure 3-2 for full listing, or access at http://gwpforum.netmasters05.netmasters.nl/en/index.html

http://gwpforum.netmasters05.netmasters.nl/en/index.html


B. Structural Considerations for River Sub-Basin Organizations (RSBOs)

Having reviewed various characteristics, conditions, trends and current issues related to develop-ment of sub-basin organizations in the Ping River basin, as well as international experience with river basin organizations, this section turns to considerations necessary for configuring organiza-tional structures and arrangements under the range of conditions present both in pilot sub-basins and in other Ping sub-basins targeted for future expansion. These considerations will help deter-mine the identity, composition, range of responsibilities, and set of relationships in a RSBO. Sub-sequent sections employ these considerations in proposing an indicative array of potential organiza-tional models from which sub-basins can choose and adapt, followed by suggestions for some basic stages and steps for establishing and further developing pilot Ping River sub-basin organizations (RSBOs).

1. Mandate, responsibilities & authority These factors relate largely to the identity of the RSBO, and set the framework under which con-figuration of other components can be considered:

(a) Scope of the Mandate

As discussed in previous sections, the first wave of central government-initiated basin management activities in the Ping Basin focused quite narrowly on water resource issues. Especially in the Up-per Ping, a second wave added emphasis on forest land use, pollution from agricultural chemicals and trash. This project is now committed to an even broader mandate for RSBOs that, in addition to natural resources and the environment, includes consideration of at least related public health and poverty-linked socio-economic equity issues. Moreover, one important component of the current confusion that needs to be addressed in this project is directly related to these expanding mandates.

In comparison with RBOs elsewhere that have been reviewed in recent international literature, ini-tiatives in the Ping Basin have already become quite broad. Problem identification exercises under this project, as well as predecessor and parallel activities, indicate people understand that at least several dimensions of natural resource and environment issues will require quite broad considera-tion of issues related to quality of life and sustainability if fundamental causes of problems are to be effectively addressed. The CMU studies and plans seek to push the frontiers of consideration further into the realm of culture, esthetics, and other aspects of the quality of life in riparian com-munities.

Thus, this movement toward more holistic perceptions appears to be initiated from both national and local levels. Moreover, there appears to be an interesting parallel with trends in the administra-tion hierarchy to focus efforts for coordination and integration at the most local levels of govern-ance. Accordingly, although this may be a quite ambitious undertaking, it appears that conditions within the Ping Basin (and especially the Upper Ping) favor a broader, more holistic and integrated mandate for RSBOs. The main exception appears to come from elements of government agency hierarchies that would prefer, or feel constrained to keep matters focused on issues clearly within the mandate domains of their agency. This raises questions about ownership of these efforts, actual operational definitions of participation, and whose vision will be reflected in RSBO mandates. It is also clear, however, that RSBOs cannot do everything, and that they are not intended to be a substitute or rival organization that competes with the development planning processes of the ad-ministration hierarchy. The challenge, then, if RSBOs are to employ broad considerations of natu-ral resources, environment, livelihoods and life in their respective sub-basins, will be how to define RSBO roles and responsibilities in a way that can constructively complement regular development planning processes of local government, central agencies, and the administration hierarchy.


(b) Role and Responsibilities

Thailand appears committed to a multi-level RBO system, and even the earliest consultations indi-cate stakeholder groups are demanding this approach [Anukularmphai 2004a]. The degree and manner of engagement by stakeholders has also been evolving, along with the effective operational definition of stakeholder participation [Tan-kim-yong 2001]. Based on both Thai and international experience, there appear to be four general areas of possible roles and responsibilities where RSBOs need clarity:

• Problem identification & analysis. Up to this point in basin organization development, there have been two distinct pathways for problem identification and analysis. The first has been based on analysis by ‘experts’ from government agencies or their consultants that has relied heavily on available data sets obtained primarily from government agencies or research studies they have commissioned. The second has centered on local communities, local leaders, and lo-cal governments, often with facilitation or assistance from outsiders, who employ their detailed experience-based knowledge of local conditions to identify and analyze problems. Although there have been various common conclusions from application of these two different types of knowledge systems, there have also been some substantial differences [Walker 2002].

Thus, recent projects, including this one, have been making increasing efforts to combine these two pathways, in order to provide cross-checks, as well as to benefit from the different strengths of both approaches. There are also efforts in some areas to adapt some of the scien-tific tools normally used only by government agency or academic research institutions for di-rect use by local communities [e.g. Thomas 2004a], as well as efforts by academic groups and some officials and NGOs to integrate local knowledge into their monitoring and research pro-grams.

In any event, there now appears to be widespread consensus that both types of knowledge sys-tems are relevant to problem identification and analysis, and that activities at the sub-basin level should be seeking some type of synthesis. If a joint approach is accepted, the main issue then becomes whether RSBOs will be expected to take the lead in identifying and analyzing problems, with support by staff from agencies and other sources, or if leadership is provided by agencies and others, with RSBOs playing a supporting role.

• Program and project planning. This appears to be the area where general stakeholder support for a strong role by RSBOs is strongest, and this resonates with international experience. While ideas and suggestions for specific activities and projects have been, and are expected to be forwarded by government agencies and the range of other stakeholder groups, the RSBO is ex-pected to play a major role in the screening, narrowing and sorting of what is desired by vari-ous stakeholders, into what is most acceptable and doable in short, medium and longer terms, according to priorities established for each time frame.

The major challenges for the RSBO are to establish priorities and planning criteria that reflect the goals and objectives of their overall management program, to articulate how specific activi-ties are expected to help achieve those objectives and goals, and to allocate available resources in a transparent manner according to mutually agreed upon priorities and criteria. In order to provide an overall framework for this type of approach, international experience suggests that an overall river sub-basin management plan needs to be developed. This usually requires a multi-year process that involves extensive stakeholder interaction, public discussion, consensus building and public education.

At least at this point, major funding for implementation activities is expected to come from central government sources that would be distributed to appropriate implementation units. Thus, there is also a major question about the degree to which central agencies or other stake-holders influence the goals, objectives, criteria, and priorities employed in this process. Again, the issue is whether RSBOs will be expected to take the lead in these processes, with support by staff from agencies and other sources, or if leadership is provided by agencies and others, with RSBOs playing a supporting role.


• Implementation. There appears to be two lines of thinking about the potential role of RSBOs in implementing programs and projects in Ping sub-basins:

The most common view is that RSBOs would primarily serve as planners and coordinators, and specific action-oriented projects and activities will mainly need to be implemented through regular administrative and budgetary channels of some combination of local governments, lo-cal administrations, and/or central agencies. This is also common in international experience, except for cases where specific authorities, companies, or agencies are established to imple-ment or operate what is usually some type of income producing infrastructure facility or ser-vice, or where activities are not conducted through other agencies or organizations. Since in-come generating types of operations have not yet been proposed for Ping RSBOs, this view would see RSBO implementation activities limited to those that are not conducted by other agencies or organizations in the sub-basins. Examples might include information, studies, con-sensus building, public education or various types of monitoring activities, as well as other ar-eas that may emerge under the specific conditions in a particular sub-basin. Even where such activities are implemented directly through an RSBO, however, much or most of the organiz-ing, mobilizing, and operating work may well be delegated to local building-block organiza-tions associated with the RSBO, such as local networks or civil society organizations. In any event, emphasis is on working with local government and organizations to strengthen their ca-pacity to implement programs and projects compatible with RSBO mandates and plans, and to only create new implementation channels to fill gaps in existing systems. Given this type of context, it is most likely that roles for sub-basin organizations in implementation processes for most major projects would be limited to advisory, assistance, and monitoring roles. Leadership of project implementation would most likely be specified in the project design, and budgets would be allocated and supervised by the relevant agency or local government unit.

A second point of view sees RSBOs as much more implementers that could receive substantial amounts of funding directly from central government channels for the full range of major pro-ject activities under their mandate and plans. It is not very clear, however, the extent to which this view supports development of RSBO implementation capacity that would duplicate those of local governments, agencies, or other groups within the sub-basin. Experience both in Thai-land (such as the Ministry of Interior’s former Department of Accelerated Rural Development) and internationally suggests that efforts to duplicate or compete with such existing capacities would undermine rather than enhance the ability of RSBOs to develop effective integrated pro-grams with broad-based stakeholder participation. While it might be feasible to develop RSBO capacity to receive block funding from central budgets that it could manage and allocate to lo-cal governments and organizations within their sub-basin, it is less clear how such a process could work in relationships to activities conducted by local units of central government agen-cies. This approach would also require much greater effort to develop RSBO financial man-agement capacities and procedures providing transparency and accountability in managing relatively larger amounts of funds. There also needs to be careful consideration of the degree to which this might conflict with government concepts of not introducing additional levels of bureaucratic structure into national governance systems.

• Regulation. River basin organizations in other countries are sometimes tasked with applying tools to affect human behavior through regulatory or economic means. Examples include regu-lation of water use, water discharge quality, land use, etc., using methods such as licensing, taxation, zoning and prohibitions. To be effective, such tools also require authority for moni-toring and enforcement. In Thailand, many of these options are currently limited by the ab-sence of basic legislation related to water rights and to recognition of land use in upper water-sheds. Moreover, exploration of what types of incentives may be possible, effective, and workable in pilot sub-basins is the subject of a separate specialized consultancy under this pro-ject. Thus, while this report does not consider these issues and aspects in detail, this could be another dimension of RSBO roles and responsibilities that will need to be considered. Such du-


ties could have structural implications for elements such as authority to issue and enforce regu-lations, as well as how to manage any financial flows that are associated with economic tools.

• Monitoring & learning. International experience seems mixed in the degree to which river ba-sin organizations assume responsibility for monitoring functions. In many cases this appears to be related to a more narrow focus on water resources that can be monitored by trusted special-ized units and agencies. At least three factors appear to be emerging in the Ping River Basin that would argue for a relatively strong RSBO role in monitoring. The first reason follows from the broad issue area mandate that seems to be emerging, at least in the Upper Ping, that will require information on conditions and parameters far more diverse than specific water re-sources that can be relatively easily instrumented (at least in more wealthy societies). The sec-ond reason is that the type of analysis and planning processes that will be required to fulfill this broad mandate over the long term will require an iterative learning process that will clearly re-quire feedback information on how this range of conditions and parameters are changing over time. The third factor relates to the awareness raising and public education value of participa-tion in monitoring and assessment processes, and active engagement in linking the findings with problem identification, analysis and planning in a learning cycle.

While these arguments may seem to make monitoring an area of obvious importance for longer term management operations at the sub-basin level, it is perhaps the type of role that has had the least attention under initiatives in Thailand thus far. This may be related to the great em-phasis on planning that has occupied most effort do date, along with the fact that little imple-mentation of planned projects has actually been done (except for the numerous small check dams built last year in the Lower Ping). But it may also be related to aversions to monitoring and evaluation in general, as discussed in the previous section of this report.

If a monitoring and learning component is to be incorporated into RSBO operations, there are three types of monitoring that will need to be developed: (1) monitoring inputs and outputs of projects implemented through the various channels of central agencies or local governments, in order to assure and understand linkages between plans and implementation and how they can be improved; (2) monitoring of local environmental and other parameters needed to assess changing conditions in the sub-basin, and assessment of improving conditions or emerging is-sues or problems; and (3) assessment of management program outcomes and their impact on target and other conditions in the sub-basin relative to their objectives and goals.

(c) Main Sources of Authority

In order to function effectively, river sub-basin organizations will also need to have various types of authority, depending on the nature of their roles and responsibilities. In any event, they will need to be able to convene meetings and workshops, including invitation of government officials and people from various sectors of society, as well as access to information from a range of official and other types of sources. RSBOs will need sufficient authority, or access to authority, to conduct planning processes that can be incorporated into central government and local government planning and budgetary processes. They will also need to be able to manage at least funds for their own op-erational activities. And to the extent that they may become involved with regulatory types of is-sues, they may also need at least access to authority for issuance of regulations or licenses, collec-tion of any fees or taxes, and means for enforcement of compliance. If they lack these types of au-thority themselves, then they essentially become advisory bodies that would need to either be at-tached to, or otherwise formally linked with, some type and level of official organization, or be-come a semi-governmental organization with formal status. Where RSBOs retain only an advisory and public awareness role, they might remain a non-governmental organization with formal or in-formal legal status. International experience displays a wide range in primary sources of authority for RBOs, from government agency status, to semi-independent commissions or parastatal compa-nies, to NGO status and authority. In Thailand, RBO initiatives have thus far primarily been led by elements of the central govern-ment, most of which have now been consolidated within the Ministry of Natural Resources and


Environment (MoNRE) – exceptions include the Royal Irrigation Department and some others. Thus, responsibilities for planning programs to date have been assigned to departments within MoNRE (DWR and DNP) that have sufficient staff based in Ping sub-basins to seek and facilitate local participation in the planning processes. The various committees have been established through official directives issued either by agencies, or by provincial governors, who have very considerable authority in their jurisdictions including local administration operations. Local gov-ernments are seen as a very important source of increasing authority in the longer term, but their individual jurisdictions are relatively small. Thus, at the sub-basin level, authority derived from local government would need to be based on arrangements with multiple local government units, which could perhaps be facilitated by network relationships among them. An informal but poten-tially important additional source of authority can also come from general public awareness and consensus, especially if it can be mobilized through social or political channels to enforce its wishes on formal institutions at various levels. Access by RSBOs to these various sources, types and levels of authority could vary, and is likely to be strongly influenced by the sense of involvement or ownership felt by each type of source in RSBO structures and operations. If, for example, the RSBO is seen as an extension of a central agency, it is likely to have strong access to the central authority of that ministry, but may lack sub-stantial access to authority in other ministries, provinces and local administration, or local govern-ment. If, on the other hand, there are mutual perceptions of a real partnership arrangement, the RSBO may be able to access multiple sources of authority, but perhaps to a somewhat lesser degree than if it was under the exclusive authority of that source. In this case, much will depend on the ability of RSBO leadership to cultivate a common sense of ownership among the various sources of authority, and on incentives for the sources of authority to collaborate with RSBOs.

2. Representation: core membership, constituencies, selection processes One of the key determinants of the sense of partnership or ownership of stakeholders in RSBO op-erations will relate to how they are represented in the membership and operational processes of the RSBO. And, the complexity of representational issues increases quite dramatically with the scope of the RSBO mandate, and the associated range of stakeholder interests and relevant sources of au-thority. Since emerging conditions in Ping River sub-basins suggest needs for a relatively broad mandate, and thus inclusion of stakeholders from various sectors and levels, considerations related to representation are likely to be both complex and important. Three general areas of consideration appear particularly important:

(a) Balance

Relevant stakeholders need to perceive that their interests and views are included in RSBO consid-erations, that they have a clear role in RSBO processes, and that decisions are not dominated by other particular factions or groups. One of the primary measures that can help establish such per-ceptions is balance in stakeholder representation in the organization. Thus, particular attention needs to be given to overall levels of balance of representation in several dimensions:

• Sector balance. Overall balance is needed among the various sectors of stakeholder interest that are relevant to the mandate of the RSBO, as well as the specific conditions that are present in that specific sub-basin. Moreover, sectors need to be considered on both an institutional and subject area basis. Examples of subject area sectors often include distinctions among forests, water, subsistence and commercial agriculture, industry, tourism & recreation, urban areas, public health, etc. In principle, there are various ways that these subject areas might be com-bined or further sub-divided in order to make them fit more appropriately with conditions in a particular sub-basin. Thus far, however, it appears the most common approach has been to de-fine sectors to fit with institutional organization, and especially central government agencies. And given the nature of the government agency sub-culture, this means each relevant agency feels a strong need to have its own representative. Thus, if overall institutional balance is to be achieved, there needs to be at least as many representatives from outside government agencies.


Under broad mandates, numbers begin multiplying rapidly, and this does not yet included is-sues related to appropriate relative numbers, and thus weights of representation.

• Central-local balance. Another type of institutional balance reflects representation from at least operational home bases of stakeholders that are located at different levels of organizational hi-erarchies. Of particular concern would appear to be central agencies based in Bangkok, pro-vincial administrations and associated decentralized agencies, and local governments. Similar types of levels may be relevant for private sector and/or civil society organizational units in some sub-basins. The common theme is balance among views that represent concerns of con-stituencies at these very different spatial, organizational, social, and political scales.

• Local balance. Even within the ‘local’ level, there are still several representational issues that may be important, although concern may vary according to sub-basin conditions and contexts. Local administration, local government, local civil society, and local private business can sometimes hold quite different ‘local views’ that are difficult to lump into the role of one or few representatives. Moreover, there are also concerns about representation of views of sub-stantial numbers of local villagers, farmers, urban groups or other types of ethnic, cultural, so-cial or livelihood groups that may differ from these institutional views, and there may be sen-timent toward having participation by respected local leaders or figures who derive their per-sonal charisma and/or respect from other types of sources (elders, teachers, monks, advisors, etc.). In sub-basins where ethnic minorities are stakeholders, there is clearly a need for their views to be adequately represented.

• Gender balance. This type of balance is not listed here as an effort to pander to the concerns of the World Bank or international audiences. Rather, it is a reflection of the fact that in all of the project meetings held thus far – at all levels – women have made up only a very tiny fraction of the people participating in these process events. While it is still very common in Thai society for men to dominate participation in public political and governmental events (in contrast to many other aspects of society and life), one cannot help but be somewhat concerned about how well interests of women are being represented in this process. This is especially true when broad RSBO mandates include water, agriculture, health, livelihood and other issues in which (as all stakeholders are aware) women play a very prominent, if not dominant role. It is also worth noting that no one ever seems to raise or explore this issue.

As these discussions indicate, full representation of all of these elements in a relatively large and complex sub-basin could grow to a very large number. Thus, it is important to consider whether particular types of representatives could be perceived as representing constituencies that include multiple components of groupings among which balance is sought. It may be worthwhile to invest in efforts to facilitate dialogue and negotiation among some of these stakeholder groups to explore potential for common representation. In any event, consideration must also extend to overall bal-ance among components, and whether some should have relatively greater voice (and votes) than others in order to achieve an overall sense of equity.

(b) Scale of core membership

Social interaction processes change with the size of a group. This has been clearly demonstrated in early project meetings with plenary sessions at Upper/Lower Ping basin and individual sub-basin levels, as well as with smaller working groups, and even smaller informal discussions. Different people feel more or less comfortable at these different scales, as reflected in who speaks, how they speak, and what they say. This, in turn, strongly influences their perceptions of the degree to which they have been able to participate. Of course, participation is also influenced by familiarity and a wide variety of other social factors, and even the venue and facilities where interaction takes place. As a ‘rule of thumb’, it would probably be best if the main decision-making body or ‘assembly’ of the RSBO could be limited to a size of about 20-50 representatives, depending on needs for repre-sentation and balance. While there is no ‘magic’ number, smaller groups are likely to function more efficiently and effectively. The central challenge, then, is how to keep the core assembly


membership as small as possible, while also achieving the types of balance discussed in the previ-ous section. Of course, this does not mean to imply that all RSBO activities need to be conducted at the full RSBO assembly scale. As is normal practice in most such organizations, one would expect that the assembly would appoint various working groups or sub-committees to conduct detailed activities and report their findings and recommendations back to the full assembly for overall consideration and decisions as appropriate.

(c) Selection processes

Another factor that is likely to have very strong influence on perceptions of representational bal-ance, ownership and participation in an organization such as an RSBO is the process through which representatives are selected. One of the several very interesting summary observations made by Dr. Apichart regarding development of river basin organizations in Thailand during earlier years [Anukularmphai 2004a], was that as stakeholders began to become more engaged in these activi-ties, they also began to question not only the roles of various stakeholders, but also the degree to which they represented the real views of the constituencies they were supposed to represent. While most stakeholder groups wanted some transparent and participatory process for selecting their rep-resentative, he also notes that some groups preferred some form of election process, while others were more comfortable with consensus-type processes. For stakeholders from government agencies, another set of considerations will most likely be needed. For central agencies, given the nature of their sub-culture, it is probably unlikely that most would accept a representative who is not at least an official within their department. And in some departments, it would have to be within their division or other sub-unit. Even if they are based within the area, differences can still be associated with their being based at the regional, provincial or district level. At provincial levels, issues can arise in sub-basins that span the borders between multiple provinces, as we have heard from the Lower Ping. In many cases these concerns expressed by government agencies are really related to personal or factional rivalries among officials at vari-ous levels within or between agencies, which are often not seen or understood by outsiders. While it is fairly unlikely that it will be possible for the full range of government agencies potentially relevant to sub-basin activities to have their own full representation, most sub-basins will probably want to avoid representation by only one or a few narrow agencies. Thus, sub-basin groups may need to consider particular individuals who are likely to be able to coordinate among some set of agencies, or to allocate a specific number of positions to a group or range of agencies and ask them to work it out themselves according to their own protocols and processes. A relatively new set of stakeholder groups now present in many areas revolve around agency-induced groups, some of which have relatively formal membership, and others of which involve an loose entourage of people associated with a “volunteer” position, such as a “soil doctor” (maw din) an environmental volunteer, or a village health worker. Similar situations can arise when there are members of the village who are closely associated with an NGO or other type of outside group. These groups are likely to already have their social structures in place and will be able to select their own representative, unless there are rivals competing for group leadership. There is some-times a tendency, however, for people who are using these positions to help build their social stand-ing to want to try to speak for a larger group than they actually represent, and to echo the views of the organizations or agencies with whom they are associated and from whom they have received training and likely other benefits. Their presence in the “chemistry” of a sub-basin assembly can actually have a very positive effect, because of their ability to argue the point of view of the outside agency or organization in the context of their also being a member of the community, rather than an outsider. Problems are likely to arise, however, if they are allowed to dominate organizational proc-esses. Thus, for these groups there is likely to be a problem not so much with the selection process as in the need for enough diversity to insure checks and balances.


Perhaps one of the most ideal situations is where relevant local networks have already emerged and have found ways to deal with representation among the internal elements of their constituencies. Known examples can include either tambon-centered or small sub-watershed-centered networks. These can, again be considered as building-block units that are capable of forwarding their own representative in whatever way they see fit. There can be some confidence in this approach where the nature of the network is such that it will fall apart if leaders or representatives do not respond to or represent the needs of their constituencies. Even in this case, however, there will likely need to be some positions where those who do not subscribe to networks and their interests or views, have a chance to help select other representatives, through local elections or other types of processes. Thus, probably the most difficult aspect is likely to arise from components of the sub-basin popula-tion who are not already part of the entourage of an organized interest group, and who will thus find it more difficult to have their views represented. Some of these potential groups can be large, such as various types of agricultural interests, or women or children, for example. Others can be quite few in number, but particularly vulnerable to negative impacts on their livelihoods or well being resulting from sub-basin management activities. Still others may be few in number but very powerful and skeptical of sub-basin management processes, such as local businessmen, wealthy investors, absentee landlords, or others. For cases where groups are small, it is more likely that they will be able to reach a consensus on who would be most appropriate to represent their inter-ests. But where groups are large, with diverse points of view, and/or where they have factions or rivalries among their leaders, some type of more formal but open and transparent process of voting may be necessary. Thus, experience indicates that selection processes will need to consider identification of various types of local context-specific stakeholder constituencies, in which selection processes can be es-tablished that are most compatible with group perceptions of equity and appropriateness. A single ‘blueprint’ approach is unlikely to be satisfactory, so flexibility for localization of these processes needs to be preserved. In any event, however, representatives need to be downwardly accountable to the constituency groups that selected them, so that fixed terms for re-selection and other suitable mechanisms (possibly including recall-type procedures) need to be identified and established to assure that this occurs. Since more detailed assessments or outside assistance needs to be context-specific, further support from outside needs to involve interactive and on-site processes.

3. Leadership Leadership will be another key element that will influence perceptions of identity and ownership, as well as the practical functionality, quality, and pace of the RSBO and its activities. This is strongly echoed by international experience. While many of the most important characteristics of leadership are associated with personal traits, there are also pressures to define the institutional pool from which leaders can be selected, or even to link leadership positions with status or position within associated institutions. Various government agencies and officials, for example, feel that various leadership positions need to be earmarked for someone from their agency or at least a gov-ernment official, and preferably one associated with their ministry. Others feel it is appropriate for someone assigned to a particular agency position to automatically assume an RSBO leadership po-sition. The converse of this approach may occur when stakeholder groups outside government cir-cles want to exclude consideration of government officials (or other stakeholder groups) from hold-ing the leadership position. However, many stakeholder groups – in both government and non-government circles – also rec-ognize the central importance of individual leadership qualities and characteristics. This is inferred by Dr. Apichart’s comments about how early progress at the Upper Ping/Lower Ping levels began to accelerate as individual leaders began stepping forward to play active roles in the consultative workshops and processes they were tying to conduct [Anukularmphai 2004a]. Moreover, ONEP leadership and senior staff from several agencies have also expressed their willingness to open top RSBO leadership positions for selection through elective or consensus processes within sub-basins. Their only reservation has been that some of the secretariat-type positions may need to be reserved


for agency staff who can provide appropriate technical assistance and capacity building support, at least until RSBOs reach a point in their development that they can provide these functions from other sources. Effective open election or consensus processes for selecting RSBO leadership can also help build stronger cohesion among the assembly of representatives. In the case of elections where numerous factions exist, sometimes this process can be further encouraged by setting the standard for election higher than a mere plurality of voters. At the same time, close attention may also need to be paid to assure that elections are not divisive so that one alliance of factions can effectively capture the or-ganization, and thus exclude the views and interests of others. This is one reason why some groups prefer processes that can result in a consensus whenever possible. It is also important to note that, as Dr. Apichart has mentioned, there are already various capable and promising people who have stepped forward to assume leadership roles in predecessor activi-ties to this project. ONEP and project staff are familiar with many of these people and have made efforts to include them in project events and activities. If establishment of more long-term RSBO arrangements entails new processes for selecting its leaders, some special effort should be made to make the reasons for this process clear to these people, so that they will be encouraged to be candi-dates if they so desire, and that the process does not reflect dissatisfaction regarding their previous work.

4. Institutional positioning and linkages As we have seen in previous sections, RSBOs will need to develop various types of linkages with different types of organizations at levels that are both above and below the sub-basin level in or-ganizational and natural resource hierarchies.23 Perhaps one of the simplest ways to think of these linkages is to distinguish between two types: primary vertical linkages associated with subsidiarity and accountability, and primary horizontal linkages associated with alliances or coalitions.

(a) Subsidiarity and accountability (vertical) linkages

Subsidiarity. As introduced earlier24, the principle of subsidiarity seeks to locate decision-making at the most local level where it is possible and effective. For RSBO’s, this would mean that they would look to more local levels contained within their domain as the primary source for ideas, ini-tiatives, and actions. Assuming households and villages are at the most local level, intermediate levels still more local than the RSBO would include local governments (TAO, tessaban), the dis-trict level of local administration, and civil society groups and organizations with membership and interests at smaller that sub-basin levels, and especially local sub-watershed management networks. Thus, in relationship with these more local levels, the RSBO would seek to address issues that more local levels find difficult or impossible to address by themselves, and to assess and address issues that only emerge at the broader sub-basin level. On the other hand, the sub-basin level is the most local level of hierarchies that include larger ‘sub-basins’ (e.g. Upper Ping / Lower Ping), provinces, river basins (e.g. entire Ping), regions, river sys-tems (e.g. Chao Phraya), and national levels. Within this context, the RSBO needs to be seen as a primary source of ideas, initiatives and activities at the sub-basin level, which would be at the com-ponent building block level of efforts to address legitimate concerns that emerge at, or are best managed by, these broader components of society and its natural resources. The RSBO would also view higher levels as a venue to which they could pass issues that it finds difficult or impossible to address within its own jurisdictional domain. Accountability. While resource governance-related organizations at these various levels need to have sufficient recognition, authority, and resources to take the initiative on issues that are best ad-dressed at their level, good governance also requires that they be accountable for their actions. 23 Sections I.B.3 and I.B.4 identify and discuss the relative positioning of sub-basins in these hierarchies. 24 Section III.A.3.


Thus, RSBOs need to be accountable to levels both below and above their position in these hierar-chies. Accountability requires mechanisms and tools that can provide real incentives and disincen-tives to help assure appropriate behavior. Under current conditions, incentives for upward accountability to higher-level organizations relate closely to access to authority and funds derived from central sources. Downward accountability to lower levels relates primarily to the degree to which local constituencies can determine participa-tion in the RSBO, both in terms of representation and the rules of the game. While higher-level authorities can withdraw funds or recognition, lower level groups can change members (if they have the authority) or withdraw local legitimacy through non-participation, non-compliance, boy-cott or active opposition. To the extent that implementation activities would be channeled through central agencies, provincial local administration, or local government, any of them could also with-draw support and any matching funds or other resources they are requested to provide – provision of such support is also a positive incentive for behavior seen as acceptable. Some groups may also be able to access auxiliary channels for seeking incentives or resolving disputes, such as through political organizations and hierarchies that are able to influence behavior at other levels.

(b) Alliances and coalitions (horizontal) linkages

It will also be useful, and at least for some issues important, for RSBOs to establish linkages with other organizations at or near the same level of institutional and natural resources hierarchies. As these would be essentially peer-to-peer types of relationships, they are conceived more as alliances or coalitions among organizations that share similar types and levels of concern. Within the RBO framework, the most obvious type of horizontal linkage would be with other RSBOs. Since this current project focuses on pilot organizations in three of the 20 official sub-basins of the Ping River Basin, it will not yet have an opportunity to deal with dynamics that will occur at the river basin level once all sub-basins have functional RSBOs in place. Once this oc-curs, however, there should be an increase in sub-basin-to-sub-basin exchange. This is likely to result in the emergence of some degree of alliance formation among sub-basins with relatively similar characteristics and interests. Land use insecurity in forest lands and associated inability of local governments to establish local tax bases might be one possibility, concern about industrial water pollution might be another, and many more possibilities are conceivable. Insofar as these re-late to upstream-downstream issues at river basin level (Upper/Lower Ping or entire Ping), negotia-tions among groupings of sub-basins may emerge. In another dimension, we might also see group-ings of sub-basins wanting to focus on similar types of capacity building or public education lines of activity, or even groupings wherein RSBOs with greater capacity seek to help develop capacity of weaker ones. Many forms are possible, and such alliances may be short, medium or long-term in nature, and relatively focused or broad in scope. Relevance and appropriateness should deter-mine the pathway, and flexibility should be substantial. As a second type of linkage, RSBOs could also seek to facilitate building of horizontal alliances or coalitions among various types of organizations within their sub-basin. Participation by district administrations, local governments, civil society networks and groups, and local business opera-tions and interests could be sought, as well as by units of central agencies based in or responsible for areas of the sub-basin. Even within various of these sector groupings, RSBOs could seek to facilitate alliances through which relevant issues are assessed, discussed and negotiated, including the manner in which their interests can be best represented in RSBO processes and negotiations. Emerging higher-level civil society networks could play a major role in such efforts in sub-basins where they are active, including direct collaboration with RSBOs. A third type of linkages may involve support for building alliances or coalitions among similar types of groups, and/or groups with similar types of concerns, which cross sub-basin boundaries. Some of these groupings may already exist, such as the association of TAO in Chiang Mai prov-ince, for example, and may well be able to help assist with RSBO-related issues or activities.


Given this substantial range of promising directions for building alliances and coalitions, RSBOs may well want to consider where the comparative strengths of their own operations lie, and where they should seek to build partnerships with institutions that may be more advanced and capable of conducting various types of activities. Indeed, they may even want to seek assistance from RBO or other types of organizations at higher levels to help facilitate emergence or extension of civil soci-ety or other types of groups with special capacities to play prominent partnership roles in multiple sub-basins.

5. Legal status There has already been considerable discussion under this project regarding the preferred legal status for RSBOs. While various parties appear to have their clear preferences, there are in princi-ple a variety of options that could be adopted. One option about which there has been little discussion, is for RSBOs to simply be organizational sub-units under a River Basin Organization and thus assume the same legal status as its parent or-ganization. While this might simplify the overall procedures for establishing RSBOs, it would only pass to another level the question of legal status, which would then be raised regarding the RBO. Moreover, the uniformity this would impose on all RSBOs would undermine efforts to encourage self-determination, and decrease flexibility for local adaptation. In any event, if we assume that each RSBO would have its own legal status, at least in principle, there would appear to be several options. The organization could be: • Operational unit that is a direct extension of an agency domain, and remains under the official

authority of a ministry. This type of unit would presumably be subject to all relevant general government and ministerial regulations and procedures. It would thus need to function in a manner similar to other government agencies, most probably as an analogue to a regional office of a central agency, or a unit similar to a national park. Non-ministry stakeholders would probably have a status of advisors, and official planning and budgets would follow normal pro-cedures.

• Separate government agency authorized to coordinate with other agencies and outside organi-zations. This type of unit would be quite similar, but would need an institutional location within the central government that would allow it to have official linkages with multiple minis-tries. This option has been used at the RBO level in some other countries. Given the govern-ment coordination difficulties in the Thailand case, it is difficult to see where it could be lo-cated other than under the Prime Minister’s Office. And even then, history indicates its ability to function effectively would in no means be a foregone conclusion.

• Committee established under the authority of a provincial governor. This type of unit would rely on the coordination mandate of the provincial governor and the local administration sys-tem to bring together multiple ministries and non-governmental groups and interests. Sub-basins with portions of their area in different provinces would need to seek arrangements that could be mirrored and matched in each province. This is the approach that appears to be most commonly proposed and used to establish the initial sub-basin committees.

• Semi-independent commission or authority. While this is a less common practice that would probably involve a quite elaborate establishment process in the case of Thailand, it is a form of organization that has been used at the RBO level in several countries. Although constrained to follow various basic government procedures, this type of organization could have considerably more flexibility and greater engagement with non-governmental groups and interests, depend-ing on the terms specified in its establishment.

• Independent semi-formal organization recognized through registration under one or more spe-cific ministries. This might be a relatively easily implemented option that has been used in the past by various ministries. While it can be rapid, simple and relatively flexible, one of its ma-jor limitations is its lack of recognition and legitimacy in relationships other than with the min-istries under which it is registered and recognized.


• Legally independent non-profit association or foundation. This option would make the organi-zation a legally registered and recognized juristic entity (nittibukon) that can, among other things, engage in legal contracts and be sued in a court of law. It would become, in essence a formal NGO (although that term commonly has a more narrow definition in Thailand).

• Informal network of local government and civil society institutions. This informal network op-tion would mean the organization would remain at the informal civil society level, although it might be able to become recognized as a prachakhom organization by local government institu-tions in the sub-basin.25

Another option employed in some cases elsewhere in the world, is where RBOs have been estab-lished as semi-private or private companies or corporations. This option is usually associated with situations where the company operates income generating infrastructure or services (most often associated with hydropower, irrigation, or water supply), and where the government may hold some degree of ownership or stock. Since no such activities have been proposed thus far for RSBOs in Thailand, this option is not explored further in this report. If such operations became part of plans in the future, however, this type of company or parastatal enterprise might also be considered. Juristic identity A significant point of discussion and debate as this project has been unfolding is whether and when RSBOs should register as juristic entities (nittibukon). As seen in the listing above, in Thailand this usually implies official registration as an association, a foundation or a private company or corpo-ration. In this respect, TAO are both elected local governments and juristic entities, but such status is derived from special legislation passed by Parliament that provides for their establishment and enhanced functions. Thus, if RSBOs are to be registered under existing legal provisions, we must assume that their choices are limited to the usual legal options. Major positive impacts of becoming a juristic entity that are frequently mentioned include: (1) both perceived and legal independence from any parent or patron institution or organization; (2) ability to enter into legal agreements; (3) accountability through the regular legal system; and (4) accessi-bility to a range of funding sources. Some of the potential negative aspects of becoming a juristic entity that sometimes enter into the opposite sides of these discussions include: (1) more formal structures and rules may decrease or-ganizational flexibility and advantages of informal communications and relationships; (2) it may increase perceptions that the RSBO is seeking to compete with TAOs, tessaban or provinces re-garding mandates, jurisdictions, duties, power, and/or budgets; (3) there may be legal problems regarding the authority of RSBOs if there are needs for them to engage in regulation and enforce-ment activities; (4) it is not clear whether they would be legally able to receive regular budgets from central government sources, as some have said they would like to see, or whether they would be limited to grants through processes similar to other NGOs; (5) it is not clear what tax implica-tions there may be for various types of activities in which they may engage. Specialized legal counsel may be able to answer some of these questions. In short, there appears to be no ‘magic’ associated with juristic entity status, and there may be some trade-offs involved. In principle, juristic entity status may appear to be most desirable for RSBOs organized along the lines of multi-level and/or cross-sector partnerships (such as models 2, 3 and 4 in section III.C.), whereas there the advantages for RSBOs associated more strongly with central government agencies (such as models 1 and 2 section III.C.) are much less clear.

25 See section II.B.2.(h) for discussion of these types of institutions and arrangements


6. Operational components and specialists RSBOs must also consider the types of operational component sub-units that the organization should have, and the types of specialist skills that will be required for them to function properly. Given the large variation in conditions among Ping River sub-basins, a standard one-size-fits-all type of blueprint approach appears to be very inappropriate. It is also inappropriate in principle to seek to impose a particular structure on a ‘participatory’ organization. There are, however, at least three basic types of components that RSBOs need to consider:

(a) RSBO assembly.

This would be the main plenary body where the full range of representatives in the sub-basin con-ducts overall deliberations and decision-making processes. Whether it is called an assembly, an association, a commission, a committee or something else is not important, although it may be de-sirable to have some degree of consistency in terminology among sub-basins. Major issues regard-ing its membership and the manner in which they are selected were discussed above under repre-sentation.26

(b) Working groups.

In most all cases, RSBO assemblies will likely need to establish working groups or sub-committees to focus on individual issues and/or types of activity. Some of these may be ‘standing’ or relatively permanent working groups that conduct activities that are necessary on an on-going or periodic ba-sis over long periods of time. Others may be ‘ad hoc’ or more temporary working groups that are organized to address a specific issue or task, and they can be disbanded when the issue is resolved or task is accomplished. Establishment and membership of both types of working groups should be deliberated and approved by the RSBO assembly, which should be the source of authority and mandate of the working group. In terms of permanent working groups, we have already noted that at the Upper Ping and Lower Ping levels there are currently three working groups focused on (1) planning (2) data and informa-tion, and (3) public relations and awareness. Dr. Apichart has noted how participation and local initiative increased after working groups were established, which underscores the importance of these working groups, as well as the need for them to have capable and motivated leaders and staff, along with the resources required for them to conduct effective operations. The types of permanent working groups at the Upper/Lower Ping level covers three important ar-eas, although this author would prefer to rename the groups as (1) program and project planning; (2) data and information; and (3) public participation and awareness. In addition, it is strongly rec-ommended that two additional areas be considered27: (4) problem identification and analysis, and (5) monitoring and learning. These are all functions that need to be considered, but each RSBO assembly should ultimately determine how they are operationally grouped and labeled in a given sub-basin, along with other functions that they may identify themselves. In considering these issues, the RSBO assembly should also consider interests, special skills, and capacities of RSBO assembly representatives and potential staff, as well as the special interests, local knowledge and skills of individuals, groups and organizations in the sub-basin that may be well suited for forming partnerships with the RSBO in conducting some of these activities. In such cases, however, the RSBO will still need to retain a strong oversight role. In any event, the RSBO will need to identify any gaps in the mix of specialist skills needed, and develop a strategy for building appropriate capacity, or gaining access to those skills from other sources.

26 See section III.B.2. 27 See discussion of RSBO roles and responsibilities in section III.B.1.


(c) Secretariat.

RSBO assemblies will also most likely need to establish secretariat operations to conduct regular administrative and operational tasks that will be required for the RSBO to function smoothly, effi-ciently, and effectively. Administration, communications and financial management will be among the important core functions for all sub-basins, and others may be identified locally. In addition to its core operational tasks, a second set of important secretariat functions would be to provide the operational base for activities of both permanent and temporary working groups. One obvious example would be for a permanent working group on data and information management, which will be of critical importance for many RSBO functions and will require some type of sup-porting technical staff and equipment infrastructure. Similarly, a group on public participation and awareness is likely to require a fixed contact point, and its own materials and equipment. There will be an important set of decisions associated with where secretariat functions will be lo-cated and how they will be operated, and preferred outcomes are likely to vary among sub-basins. At least initially, there may well be a need for at least facilities and logistical support that may need to be provided by a unit of a central agency, local administration, or other type of organization in the sub-basin. And in the case of such support coming from a government unit, its policies or regu-lations may require that an official from that unit be an official member of the secretariat. While it is not recommended that any particular agency should automatically be head of the RSBO secre-tariat in all sub-basins, universal presence at the request of RSBOs should pose on problem. In-deed, there may be certain functional relationships that an agency could provide to RSBOs, from which such widespread acceptance would be a logical result. Such arrangements might be particu-larly relevant in relation to data and information systems (especially GIS, databases and electronic networking) and capacity building. Indeed, capacity building is particularly important, and con-certed efforts should be made by all major stakeholder groups to help build relevant aspects of ca-pacity in the RSBO and its working groups and secretariat.

C. Proposed Array of Organizational Alternatives for RSBOs

Given the various alternative structural options under each of the considerations discussed in the previous section, it appears there are an almost infinite number of structural variations possible for RSBOs to choose from. There are, however, some important factors that further constrain the do-main of choices. Perhaps the most important ones relate to the need for some internal consistency to avoid incompatibilities among options for different dimensions of RSBO structure and function. Many such incompatibilities would most certainly lead to important problems or the demise of the organization within a short period of time, while others would sow the seeds of tension and contra-diction that would at least be likely to cripple the organization over the longer term. In order to paint a clearer picture of how various relatively internally consistent and compatible combinations can provide a set of reasonably realistic alternative scenarios for RSBO organization, this section describes five alternative organizational models that represent variations falling under three generic types. The unifying theme for distinguishing these generic types centers on identity, participation and subsidiarity issues discussed in previous sections. Under this participatory watershed management project, it must be stakeholders within a sub-basin who decide for themselves what type of ‘model’ of organization is best for them. Thus, to help facilitate decisions by sub-basin committees and stakeholders regarding the type of RSBO they want to establish, a comparison chart of various major structural and organizational characteristics of each indicative type of model is presented in Figure 3-5. In addition to providing an overview of model types, the chart may also be useful in considering how changes in various components are associated with changes in overall orientation of alternative types of RSBOs. Indeed, the choices made in pilot sub-basins, and the similarity or differences among them, should be very informative for efforts to develop support services, and to anticipate options and needs for Ping sub-basins at the overall level.


It is important to note that many of the attributes described for each of these models could be al-tered or adjusted in various ways. Thus, the specific combinations chosen are meant to be indica-tive of a certain type of RSBO organizational model, but each can be further ‘tweaked’ and ‘fine tuned’ to improve its performance under specific conditions.

1. Government-oriented models These two indicative models continue past trends in Thailand toward establishment of RBOs and RSBOs through central government initiative aimed primarily at improving government programs. Type 1. Focused government model The central focus of this model is on efficiency and effectiveness in utilizing the institutional appa-ratus of a single ministry to implement activities within the mandate of that ministry – in this case the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE). Thus, participation under the RSBO is primarily to assist and improve the design and implementation of MoNRE programs. Ma-jor characteristics include:

• Mandate: Since this model focuses on the mandate of MoNRE, the scope of the RSBO mandate is limited primarily to issues related to water use, forest land use, various forms of pollution, and solid waste and waste disposal.

• Roles & responsibilities: The role of the RSBO is primarily to provide advice and assis-tance for MoNRE agencies in identifying and analyzing problems, project planning, and monitoring environmental conditions. Central agency staff conduct implementation, other types of monitoring, and any regulatory or incentive measures through their normal opera-tional channels, but are assisted by the RSBO in public awareness and training activities.

• Main source of authority & legal identity: MoNRE provides authority for establishing the RSBO and for the various lines of activity it conducts, in a manner somewhat similar to a regional office of a central agency. It is probably not particularly necessary to seek an in-dependent legal status.

• Representation: All relevant departments and agencies of MoNRE contribute representa-tives. Provincial local administrations are invited to assign representatives, including dis-trict officers, kamnan and village headmen in the sub-basin, in addition to TAO leaders. Relevant livelihood, business and/or industry representatives are nominated by heads of agency units of the ministry located in the sub-basin, and/or local administration leaders. MoNRE conducts final selection of representatives and appoints them through an official directive.

• Leadership, assistance, information: Chairman, deputy and main secretariat positions are all filled by officials from units of agencies under MoNRE. Under a lead agency approach, DNP continues to provide leadership in Upper Ping sub-basins, and DWR continues to lead work in Lower Ping sub-basins. Technical assistance and information are provided by various units of MoNRE, who are able to hire consultants or commission studies when needed.

• Primary linkages: Upward linkages for subsidiarity and accountability place strong empha-sis on the administrative hierarchy of MoNRE. Downward linkages focus primarily on lo-cal units of agencies under MoNRE, and on district officers, kamnan and TAO leaders. Relationships with local civil society organizations are informal and under the discretion of local agency and local administration staff.

• Main funding sources: Funds come primarily from central government budget allocations to MoNRE and its relevant departments and agencies, through which allocations are made to RSBO activities. Project plans are incorporated into regular processes, and implementa-tion flows through normal agency and TAO channels.


While in many ways this appears to be a government agency business-as-usual model, there are still several ways in which it would be an improvement over current conditions. It would, for ex-ample, require some real coordination among departments of MoNRE, in order to develop a uni-form set of ministry guidelines regarding sub-basin delineations, leadership and responsibilities, a single set of sub-basin organizational arrangements, etc. Moreover, many of the issues related to confusion could be clarified in the context of a relatively narrow focus, and action plans could be adapted quite readily from earlier plans already produced under activities led by DWR and DNP. In comparison to other approaches, this model would be relatively quick and easy to define and organize, and it could probably be established through a ministry-level directive issued by MoNRE. The key potential weaknesses of this model relate to its tendency to be dominated by the views and policies of a single ministry. The identity of the RSBO will likely tend to become regarded as a public relations interface for MoNRE and its agencies and associates. Emphasis will tend to be strong on water, soil and forest conservation, water use and pollution, waste and trash reduction and disposal, and any other major programs of the ministry. Remedial measures will tend to be strong in these areas, but unable to address major underlying causes that require broader considera-tion or action by other ministries or sectors. RSBOs preferring this type of model might seek to mitigate potential weaknesses by modifying arrangements to include, for example, at least some elected leaders and broader local network and civil society representation, by employing public hearings and other types of tools to enhance pub-lic participation and transparency, and/or by seeking stronger interaction with planning processes of local governments in the sub-basin regarding broader underlying issues and associated develop-ment needs.

Type 2. Broader government model The main focus of this model is still on efficiency and effectiveness in utilizing government institu-tional arrangements and mechanisms, but the scope is broadened to include activities within the mandate of multiple ministries. Given the difficulties in coordination among ministries at high lev-els, the provincial local administration hierarchies are brought in as a partner to assist with coordi-nation and integration of plans at more local levels. Its major characteristics include:

• Mandate: Since this model focuses on mandates of multiple ministries (MoNRE, MoPH and MoAC), the scope of the RSBO mandate includes issues related to water use, forest land use, various forms of pollution, and solid waste and waste disposal, as well as agricul-tural production and public health.

• Roles & responsibilities: The role of the RSBO is primarily to provide advice and assis-tance for agencies of MoNRE and other partner ministries in identifying and analyzing problems, project planning, and monitoring environmental conditions. Agency staff under each ministry conduct implementation and other types of monitoring, as well as any regula-tory or incentive measures, through normal operational channels, and are assisted by the RSBO in conducting public awareness campaigns and training activities.

• Main source of authority & legal identity: Since this model involves multiple ministries, the highest level of authority needs to come from either a unit such as the Prime Minister’s Office, or through a formal agreement among the three ministries. This is complemented by authority from provincial governors for establishing the RSBO and conducting coordi-nation and integrated activities within each province. It may seek an independent legal status in the future if it is useful.

• Representation: All relevant departments and agencies of MoNRE and partner ministries contribute representatives. Provincial local administrations, including district officers and kamnan, are represented. Local governments are represented by TAO leaders. Relevant livelihood, business and/or industry, and civil society organization representatives are


nominated and selected by other representatives. Final appointments are by the provincial governor through an official directive.

• Leadership, assistance, information: Chairman, deputy and main secretariat positions are all filled by officials from units of agencies under MoNRE, partner ministries, or the pro-vincial local administration. Technical assistance and information are provided by various units of MoNRE, partner ministries, local administration offices, and/or short or long-term consultants that can be hired by the RSBO or participating agencies.

• Primary linkages: Upward linkages for subsidiarity and accountability place strong empha-sis on the administrative hierarchies of MoNRE and partner ministries, as well as any higher level office (e.g. PM’s Office) that may be involved. These may include organiza-tions at higher river basin levels (RBOs), which may be an intermediate level for relations with higher levels for various issues or processes. Downward linkages focus primarily on local units of agencies under MoNRE, partner ministries, and local administration officials and kamnan, as well as TAO leaders. Relationships with other local civil society organiza-tions are informal and accountability depends on their relationships with local administra-tions and local government.

• Main funding sources: Funds come primarily from central government budget allocations to MoNRE and partner ministries, and perhaps to some extent provincial governors, through which support is provided for RSBO operational activities. Project plans are incor-porated into regular processes, and implementation flows through normal agency and TAO channels.

Relative to the focused government model, this may be a more ambitious model to implement, but it also provides some important additional features. In addition to requiring substantially improved coordination among MoNRE policies and agencies, the model also seeks coordination among mul-tiple ministries. As this is not likely through normal channels, the model relies on an umbrella high-level directive or cross-ministry agreement, combined with a partnership with provincial gov-ernors and local administration to help coordinate activities at sub-basin and more local levels. With broader government participation, it may be able to consider and address some more complex underlying causes and effects of sub-basin problems, and encourage more broad-based local par-ticipation. The key potential weaknesses of this model relate to tendencies toward domination associated with its still strong links with central and provincial government. It may be difficult to attract and main-tain participation by strong local leaders who want to avoid domination by officials, and local fac-tions friendly with government officials may seek to capture control. Moreover, there may be a tendency for the RSBO to be regarded primarily as a source of government funds, resulting in local tendencies to say what they think central agencies want to hear in order to obtain funds that can help boost factional prestige and welfare. RSBOs preferring this type of model might seek to mitigate potential weaknesses, for example, by modifying arrangements to include at least some elected leaders, by more transparency and local initiative in selecting local representatives, and by employing public hearings and other types of tools to enhance public participation and transparency. It may also want to emphasize strong inter-action with planning processes of provinces and local governments in the sub-basin regarding broader underlying issues and associated development needs, both within and beyond mandates of participating ministries.


2. Multi-level partnership models

These two indicative models employ multi-level partnerships to establish the sub-basin level as the primary venue for an interface between top-down and bottom-up processes. Type 3. Central – local partnership model This model places its main focus on creating a real partnership among groups and organizations from central to local levels, but with a degree of asymmetry that assigns somewhat greater weight to central and provincial government agencies. Primary coordination and integration functions are shifted to provincial and local levels, and implementation plans are integrated into the regular de-velopment planning process. This reduces or eliminates needs for formal cross-ministry agree-ments at high levels, while expanding the range of issues available for RSBO consideration. Major characteristics include:

• Mandate: Since this model centers on a central-local partnership, its mandate can be broader than issue areas directly under the mandate of MoNRE and specific partner minis-tries. Thus, RSBO mandates could expand to include water use, forest land use, agricul-ture, pollution, solid waste and waste, public health, education, infrastructure, livelihoods and/or other issues of local relevance and importance for management at the sub-basin level.

• Roles and responsibilities: The role of the RSBO under this model shifts into more of a leadership mode for tasks such as identifying and analyzing problems, planning, monitor-ing of environmental conditions and program impacts, and conducting public awareness campaigns. Project implementation and monitoring are probably still through normal agency, local administration and local government channels, with the RSBO providing more advice to improve implementation operations and monitoring, and assisting with training activities. It may also be possible for the RSBO to have a stronger implementation role and directly receive funds that it manages and allocates among partner institutions, lo-cal governments and civil society groups and networks. In any event, the RSBO takes a leading role in monitoring environmental conditions and program impact, with assistance from its various stakeholder groups.

• Main source of authority & legal identity: There are multiple sources of authority that in-clude MoNRE and other participating ministries, provinces and their local administrations, and local governments in the sub-basin. RSBO establishment is under the authority of pro-vincial governors. It may well want to seek a more independent legal status whenever members feel it is appropriate and useful, but it will need to consider how that may affect any regulatory roles or funding channels that are included in its operational design.

• Representation: Central ministry representation includes MoNRE and any other ministries that are seen as important for fulfilling the scope of the locally agreed upon RSBO man-date. Local administration is represented by provincial, district and kamnan levels, and lo-cal government is represented by TAO leaders or their selected representatives. Represen-tatives of business, industry, livelihood groups, civil society and local communities are in-vited, and may be selected by voting or consensus in the RSBO assembly – selection of the initial set of representatives may require a larger forum or other mechanism to solicit nominations from a relatively broad base within sub-basins. There is a rough balance among governmental and local representatives.

• Leadership, assistance, information: Under this model, RSBO chairman and deputy posi-tions are filled by the RSBO assembly through voting or consensus procedures. Secretariat positions are filled by a mix of officials designated by agency or local administration lead-ership, and staff selected by the RSBO assembly through voting or consensus procedures. Technical assistance and information are solicited from and provided by a wide range of


government and non-government sources, including agencies, local governments, academ-ics, civil society organizations, and other non-governmental and private sector sources.

• Primary linkages: Upward linkages for subsidiarity and accountability place strong empha-sis on provinces and higher-level river basin organizations (RBOs), as well as administra-tive hierarchies of MoNRE, other ministries that may be involved, and provincial gover-nors. Downward linkages emphasize local governments, participating civil society organi-zations, and other groups represented in the RSBO assembly, as well as district administra-tions and local units of agencies under MoNRE and other participating ministries.

• Main funding sources: Funding for RSBO operations and activities come from a combina-tion of sources that include budgets allocated to MoNRE and other central agencies, discre-tional funds under the provincial governor, and local government budgets.

This model represents efforts by MoNRE and its agencies to reach downward in administrative and natural resource hierarchies to form a real partnership with local administration, local governments, civil society and other local stakeholder groups. While the ministry and province local administra-tion still provide a degree of leadership, this model encourages and requires much more active local participation and decision-making. Key potential weaknesses relate to its greater complexity and needs for coordination, as well as a need for strong local leadership that can balance tendencies toward domination by government, local elites, business interests or other locally influential factions. RSBOs preferring this type of model might seek to mitigate potential weaknesses by seeking multi-level dialogue with partner institutions, and by seeking ways to encourage and strengthen capacity of local leaders, as well as mechanisms to assure transparency, accountability and access to infor-mation.

Type 4. Local – Central partnership model The main focus is also on creating a real partnership among groups and organizations from central to local levels, but with a degree of asymmetry that assigns somewhat greater weight to local gov-ernment and civil society groups and institutions.

• Mandate: Since this model centers on a local-central partnership, its mandate can be much broader than issue areas directly under the mandate of MoNRE and specific partner minis-tries. Thus, RSBO mandates expand to include water use, forest land use, agriculture, pol-lution, solid waste and waste, public health, education, infrastructure, livelihoods and/or any other issues deemed to be locally relevant and important at the sub-basin level.

• Roles and responsibilities: The role of the RSBO under this model is to provide leadership for most tasks, including identifying and analyzing problems, formulating programs and plans, and monitoring of environmental conditions and program impacts. Projects are im-plemented and monitored through normal agency, local administration and local govern-ment channels, but the RSBO provides both advice to and local assistance for implementa-tion operations, and assists with project monitoring. It may also be possible for the RSBO to have a stronger implementation role and directly receive funds that it manages and allo-cates among partner institutions, local governments and civil society groups and networks. The RSBO takes the lead role in monitoring environmental conditions and program impact, with assistance from its various stakeholder groups, and in conducting active public aware-ness campaigns and public education programs.

• Main source of authority & legal identity: There are multiple sources of authority that in-clude sub-basin local governments, provinces and their local administrations, MoNRE and its agencies, and other participating ministries, as well as from public awareness and sup-port. Initial RSBO establishment is under the authority of provincial governors. In order to


strengthen its identity as an independent organization, it would most likely want to register as an independent juristic entity as soon as possible. In doing so, however, it will need to consider how that may affect any regulatory roles or funding channels that are included in its operational design.

• Representation: Central ministry representation includes MoNRE and any other ministries that are seen as important for fulfilling the scope of the locally delineated RSBO mandate. Local government representatives play very active roles, while local administration is rep-resented by provincial, district and kamnan levels. Representatives of business, industry, livelihood groups, civil society and local communities may be selected by voting or con-sensus in the RSBO assembly, or selected by local constituent groups where they are pre-sent. Development of constituent groups or alliances at the sub-basin level is encouraged, and new groups or alliances may petition the RSBO to request representation. While gov-ernmental representatives are prominent, local representatives have at least a modest ma-jority.

• Leadership, assistance, information: Under this model, RSBO chairman and deputy posi-tions, as well as secretariat positions, are filled by the RSBO assembly through voting or consensus procedures. People are nominated for these positions according to their personal characteristics and standing, rather than their institutional affiliation. Technical assistance and information are solicited from and provided by a wide range of government and non-government sources, including agencies, local governments, academics, civil society or-ganizations, and other non-governmental and private sector sources.

• Primary linkages: Upward linkages for subsidiarity and accountability place strong empha-sis on provinces and higher-level river basin organizations (RBOs), as well as units of MoNRE and other ministries responsible for national and other relevant policies that affect sub-basin issues and activities. Downward linkages emphasize local governments, civil so-ciety networks and organizations, local communities, and other constituent groups repre-sented in the RSBO assembly, but also include local units of agencies under MoNRE and participating ministries.

• Main funding sources: Funding for RSBO operations and activities come from a combina-tion of sources that include local government budgets, discretional funds under provincial governors, and budgets allocated to MoNRE and other central agencies, as well as any available grants or non-governmental sources.

This model represents efforts by local governments and organizations in the sub-basin to organize themselves and reach upward in administrative and natural resource hierarchies to form a real part-nership with provincial local administration, government agencies under MoNRE and other partici-pating ministries, and any other relevant stakeholder groups. Its structure helps reduce threats of government domination, but requires strong local leadership, participation, and initiative. Key potential weaknesses relate to its complexity, and threats of local factional domination, or stagnation if different local interests cannot negotiate effectively among themselves. RSBOs preferring this type of model might seek to mitigate potential weaknesses by seeking ways to strengthen the roles and capacity of local networks, civil society institutions, local government, and constituency groups, by encouraging local leadership and initiative, by strengthening negotia-tion and conflict management capacity, and by providing regular forums for communication among all sectors, as well as through mechanisms to assure transparency, accountability, and strong public information, education and participation programs.


3. Non-government alternative models This indicative model views the RSBO as a further extension of bottom-up non-governmental proc-esses.

Type 5. Local non-government model The main focus is on effectiveness in mobilizing non-governmental groups and civil society institu-tions to formulate, advocate and monitor activities within the mandate of the RSBO. Its major characteristics include:

• Mandate: Since this is a non-governmental model, its mandate is very flexible and can be much broader than issue areas directly under the mandate of any set of ministries. Thus, RSBO mandates can include water use, forest land use, agriculture, pollution, solid waste and waste, public health, education, infrastructure, livelihoods and/or any other issues deemed to be locally relevant and important at the sub-basin level, and they can be re-grouped and repackaged according to local analyses and needs.

• Roles and responsibilities: The role of the RSBO under this model is to provide leadership especially for identifying and analyzing problems, and for monitoring project and program impacts. While they can also provide leadership for program and project planning, they can only propose and advise that their plans are adopted by local governments and/or cen-tral agencies and their ministries. They can also serve as advisors for implementation pro-jects under normal agency, local administration and local government channels, including monitoring. The RSBO takes an advisory or assistance role in monitoring environmental conditions, with assistance from its various stakeholder groups. The RSBO places very strong relative emphasis on public awareness and public education, as well as on mobiliza-tion campaigns to place constructive pressure on politicians and government agencies to improve their programs.

• Main sources of authority & legal identity: Given its non-governmental orientation, the main sources of its authority are less formal than other models. Much of its authority is de-termined by the degree to which it is recognized as a relevant civil society prachakhom in-stitution by sub-basin TAOs, and can thus act as an advisor to local government. Its other primary source of authority comes from popular support through its public awareness, pub-lic education, and mobilization campaigns, and resulting political influence through elec-toral processes. Initial RSBO establishment is as an informal network, but it may seek to evolve into a more independent legally registered non-government entity in the future.

• Representation: RSBO membership centers on representatives of civil society, livelihood groups, business, industry, and local communities that may be selected by voting or con-sensus in the RSBO assembly, or selected by local constituent groups where they are pre-sent. Development of constituent groups or alliances at the sub-basin level is encouraged, and new groups or alliances may petition the RSBO to request representation. Central ministry, local administration, and local government representation is through advisors in-vited by the RSBO assembly.

• Leadership, assistance, information: Under this model, RSBO chairman and deputy posi-tions, as well as secretariat positions, are filled by the RSBO assembly through voting or consensus procedures. Chairman and deputy positions are limited, however, to those who are not government officials. Technical assistance and information are solicited from and provided by local governments, as well as academics, civil society organizations, and other non-governmental and private sector sources. Information, data, and training assistance are also solicited from local administration and relevant government agencies, but access is of-ten limited to what is available to the general public.

• Primary linkages: Upward linkages for subsidiarity and accountability place strong empha-sis on higher-level river basin organizations (RBOs). Downward linkages emphasize civil


society networks and organizations, local communities, local governments and other con-stituent groups represented in the RSBO assembly.

• Main funding sources: Since regular funding for RSBO operations and activities from gov-ernment sources are extremely limited, support is primarily from local governments through their prachakhom status, grants from various government or non-government or-ganizations (usually on a project-type basis), and any other available non-governmental sources.

This model represents efforts by local non-governmental groups and organizations in the sub-basin to lead efforts to organize themselves into an independent RSBO outside the government sphere, in order to conduct independent analyses, program planning and monitoring activities that seek to provide advice and some assistance to local governments, provincial administrations, and central agencies, as well as strong efforts to raise public awareness and mobilize public support and pres-sure for integrating improvements into all relevant decisions made in the public policy arena. Its strengths relate to its independence, flexibility, and strong grounding in local communities and conditions, and its access to information, advice and assistance from a wide range of non-governmental and academic sources. Similar models have sometimes been applied internationally, such as in the Fraser River Basin in Canada where strong issues between the government and Na-tive American communities made it the option most acceptable to all stakeholders [Calbick 2004, Blomquist 2005f]. Key potential weaknesses relate to the absence of formal links with government organizations, which may result in weakened ability to influence develop planning processes, less access to gov-ernment information, less ability to interact constructively with higher policy levels representing wider stakeholder interests beyond the sub-basin, and less access to basic support to sustain its op-erations over the long term. RSBOs preferring this type of model could seek to mitigate potential weaknesses by upgrading roles for at least local governments, by building mechanisms to assure regular constructive interac-tion with relevant government institutions and agencies at multiple levels, by registering with min-istry funding programs for NGOs and peoples organizations, as well as by seeking clear prachak-hom recognition by all TAOs and tessaban in the sub-basin. The RSBO secretariat may also want to include a unit responsible for exploring a wide range of possible funding sources.

Focused Government Broader Government Central-Local Partners Local-Central Partners Local Non-GovernmentScope of Mandate

water use X X X X Xforest land use X X X X X

agriculture land use X X X Xpollution X X X X X

solid waste / trash X X X X Xhealth X X X X

education X X Xinfrastructure X X X

livelihoods X X XDuties

identify & analyze problems advice/assistance advice/assistance lead lead leadplanning advice/assistance advice/assistance lead lead lead / advise

implementation advise advise advise / assist adviseimplementation monitoring advise advise assist adviseenvironmental monitoring advice/assistance advice/assistance lead lead advise / assist

impact monitoring advise lead lead lead / assist

ministry ministries - prov min - prov - TAOs TAOs - prov - min - public TAOs advisor / public awarenessRepresentation

ministries MoNRE agencies MoNRE, agric, health MoNRE, other relevant MoNRE, other relevant invited advisorsprovince / district Prov - Dist Officers Prov - Dist Off-Kamnan Prov - Dist Off-Kamnan Prov - Dist Off-Kamnan invited advisorslocal government TAOs, Kamnan TAOs TAOs TAOs invited advisors

business / industry selected selected invited / voted voted / group-selected voted / group-selectedlivelihood groups selected selected invited / voted voted / group-selected voted / group-selected

civil society <informal> selected invited / voted voted / group-selected voted / group-selectedlocal communities selected PYB selected invited / voted voted / group-selected voted / group-selected

Leadershipchairman / deputies Officials Officials voted voted voted local non-gov

Secretariat Officials Officials officials / voted voted votedTechnical info/advice Officials Officials / consult offic / acad / priv / non-gov offic / acad / priv / non-gov gov / acad / priv / non-gov

Primary LinkagesUpward Ministry PingRB / Ministries PingRB / Prov / Min PingRB / Prov / Min PingRB

Downward Min units / District Districts / TAOs District / TAOs TAOs / Networks / groups Networks / groups

MoNRE Ministries Min / Prov / TAOs TAOs / Prov / Min / non-gov TAOs / grants / non-gov

Main authority sources

Main funding sources


Figure 3-5. Comparison chart of five indicative alternative models for sub-basin organization.


D. Proposed Process for Developing RSBOs in Pilot Sub-Basins

This section seeks to place decisions related to establishing and developing long-term RSBOs in pilot sub-basins in the context of five general development phases. This sequence of phases has already begun, and will extend far beyond the timeframe of this project. International experience confirms that development of effective long-term river basin organizations is a long-term process. Thus, expectations about the contributions that a project such as this one can make to RSBO devel-opment in Ping sub-basins need to be realistic, and they need to be formulated and assessed within this longer-term framework. Sequential Phases in RSBO Development The five phases of RSBO development proposed in this section are based on a range of assessments from international literature, much of which is listed in the bibliography. But they are also constructed in a manner that reflects the particular circumstances faced by this project in the context of current conditions in the Ping Basin, as discussed in previous sections of this report. The five phases of RSBO development pro-posed for this project are listed in Figure 3-6.

Figure 3-6. Phases of Ping RSBO Development 1. Getting started

• Preliminary sub-basin committees • Initial action planning process

2. Establishing long-term organization and processes • Review initial planning experience • Select, localize and establish long-term RSBO organizational model

3. Launching implementation in a River Basin Management framework • Outline initial long-term River Basin management plan • Begin implementation and monitoring • Begin systematic capacity building • Build parallel Ping Basin – level support capacities

4. Strengthening long-term management planning and learning processes • Management plan elaboration, refinement and consensus building • Annual progress reviews, learning and adjustments

5. Maintaining long-term organizational relevance, vitality &performance

In theory, and for many river basins in practice, efforts to establish and develop river basin organi-zations seek to move through a logical process of analysis, consensus building, organization and planning before any implementation activities begin. In this case, however, a multi-stage process is proposed wherein an initial ‘getting started’ phase provides for a preliminary sub-basin committee and initial action planning process, in order to build on existing plans and locally perceived needs to begin implementation. This is followed by a second phase wherein experience from the first phase is reviewed as a basis for informing the process of selecting and establishing an organiza-tional structure for the long term RSBO. The third phase completes the launching process for the long term RSBO by formulating an initial outline for a long-term basin management plan, and be-ginning implementation, monitoring, and capacity building activities. The fourth phase moves to a multi-year time frame wherein the long term management plan is carefully elaborated and refined based on the most widespread consensus possible among stakeholders, and on learning and adjust-ments that follow from annual reviews of progress. The fifth and final stage employs an even longer time frame, wherein the overall goals, programs, structure and functions of the RSBO are reviewed and adjusted in order to assure its continuing relevance, vitality and performance. A final section discusses factors likely to affect the time that is likely to be required during these phases.

1. Getting started This initial phase is somewhat unusual when compared to international literature and guidelines on river basin organization development. It is proposed, however, in response to contextual conditions present in the pilot sub-basins, and indeed in all sub-basins of the Ping river basin. As explained in previous sections, this project is the most recent in a series of efforts to develop action plans for the Ping river basin. But thus far, there has been very little implementation of any of the activities and


projects that have been planned, and many have begun questioning the credibility of the overall Ping basin program. Thus, this phase is designed to mitigate some of these concerns by quickly establishing a preliminary basin committee and developing an initial action plan that seeks to build on previous plans while introducing a broader mandate, formulation of initial sub-basin goals and objectives, and articulation of initial priorities and selection criteria, which are then applied during review and screening of existing and new project proposals.

(a) Preliminary sub-basin committees

The approach of this project was to establish an initial sub-basin committee for each pilot sub-basin. A draft directive specifying membership (Figure 3-7) and major responsibilities for each committee was reviewed during initial workshops in each sub-basin. Workshop suggestions were incorporated into a final version being prepared for provincial governors to issue as a directive. Coordination issues were also explored regarding requirements in the sub-basins where more than one province is involved (Mae Kuang and Ping part 5), as well as issues raised in Ping Part 5 (Lower Ping) regarding wider agency representation. Draft directives were similar in form and format to earlier directives used to establish committees under previous planning activities.28 In-deed, even during a further expansion phase, a convening function and authority will be necessary. Although discussions and plans have varied as the project unfolded, at this point the author was told to consider preliminary committees as already established. More formal long-term RSBOs would be considered later in the project. Thus, the focus here is on long-term RSBOs to manage and further develop sub-basin programs into the future.

Figure 3-7. Preliminary sub-basin committees (1st draft for comment)

Ping 1 M Kuang Lower Ping DWR official chair 1DNP offical chair 1 chair 1 Province MoNRE vice chairman 1 vice chairmen 2 vice chairmen 2ONEP secretary 1 secretary 1 secretary 1Head, SB coordinating WG secretary 1 secretary 1 secretary 1district officer position 5 position 7 position 8

TAO representatives 4 representatives 8 representatives 8local people rep named 1 named 1 named 1local advisors rep named 1 named 1 named 1NGO rep named 1 named 1 named 1SB witayakorn to be selected 1 to be selected 1 to be selected 1ethnic minorities to be selected 4 to be selected 1 to be selected 0teacher/respected person to be selected 1 to be selected 2 to be selected 2local farmers to be selected 3 to be selected 2 to be selected 3

local industry to be selected 1 to be selected 2 to be selected 2service sector business to be selected 2 to be selected 2 to be selected 2

Total number: 28 33 34

If the final structure of preliminary committees was reasonably similar to what is listed in Figure 3-7, it appears to be closest in form to the focused government model pre-sented in the previous section of this report. However, its mandate is more similar to the broader government model, but without including any official coordination or representation linkages with other ministries. It also appears open to at least a modest level of civil society representation. Cen-tral agency officials are kept to a small number, but they occupy most leadership positions. Thus, it appears reasonable to consider experience under the preliminary committee to be work under a fo-cused government model that has been somewhat modified in the direction of a broader govern-ment model. As will be seen in the next part of this report, the project finally settled on a tempo-rary modified focused government model working group operating under the authority of ONEP until stakeholders select their own preferred type of longer-term organization. This appears to have been a reasonable compromise that could be used elsewhere.

(b) Initial action planning process

Responsibilities of preliminary sub-basin working groups include preparation of the first sub-basin action plan. The action planning process is planned to begin with articulation of sub-basin program goals and objectives, as well as criteria and priorities for selecting proposed action projects and in-corporating them into short, medium and long term plans.

28 See section I.B.1 for more information on previous governmental planning activities


Given the short time frame for this project, however, the time available for developing widespread understanding and consensus was quite limited. Thus, the project sought to develop initial action plans through a series of three sub-basin level action planning workshops. In addition, further input into the process was to be sought through workshops at district level, and possibly smaller meetings at even more local levels within each district. Projects developed under earlier DWR and DNP led planning processes were to be reviewed and considered for inclusion under these plans, as well as revised and new proposals that fit under this project’s expanded mandate to consider public health and poverty-related livelihood issues. Staff of Panya Consultants were to assist a team of local co-ordinators selected from volunteers, in facilitating the action planning process at multiple levels in each sub-basin. The project needs to recognize some of the limitations and trade-offs in this initial planning proc-ess. In principle, it would be good to start the action planning process with a relatively ‘clean slate’, and follow a logical process to systematically develop plans and component projects in an appro-priate sequence. The reality is, however, that each sub-basin has one or more set of projects that have already been developed under previous planning processes. Those associated with these plans and projects want first consideration to be given to results of these previous efforts. Under the cir-cumstances this seems both reasonable and quite unavoidable, especially since any alternative ap-proach would be likely to generate negative results that would probably undermine implementation of a more theoretically desirable planning process. Moreover, while this may be a situation where planning redundancies are unusually great, it is very highly unlikely that any sub-basin in the country does not already have various relevant projects that have already been planned. Indeed, action planning processes can build on this aspect by also seeking to review regular local development plans of TAOs in the sub-basin at the same time. This in itself could be a learning opportunity, as well as a precedent for coordinating and reconciling among local plans and planning processes. Thus, there are four areas in which the initial action planning process needs to place particularly strong emphasis:

• Formulating initial goals, objectives, priorities, criteria. Perhaps the most important challenge for the action planning process is to attempt to quite quickly articulate goals and objectives for initial sub-basin action planning, as well as initial priorities and appropriate criteria to use in assessing and selecting projects for inclusion into initial short, medium and long term components of the action plan. While particular emphasis needs to be placed on the short term component, it will also be important to obtain at least an initial map of thinking about the medium and longer term components as well.

• Reviewing and screening existing sub-basin plans. These efforts will apply the initial criteria and priorities during review and screening processes. As they do this, they will also be seek-ing to establish and implement logical processes that will link proposed actions with objec-tives and goals, and thus make these action plans more than just an aggregation of projects.

• Reviewing and linking with TAO and provincial plans. These efforts should help to identify common interests and areas where initial sub-basin goals, objectives, and priorities may overlap with existing TAO and provincial development plans. They may also lead to discus-sions about what types of activities and projects might be most appropriate and effectively implemented at sub-basin or TAO levels, as well as TAO capacity building needs and the types of partnership arrangements that may be most useful and effective for both levels.

• Selecting priority initial ‘demonstration’ activities. In order to maximize the learning that can be derived from the initial action plan developed during this first phase, it is also proposed that selection of activities and projects for inclusion in the action plan place considerable emphasis on ‘demonstration’ projects. This term is meant to include projects that will either test some commonly held beliefs about means for achieving sub-basin objectives and goals, or projects that will demonstrate the potential of innovative ideas about which there is still considerable local skepticism. By including these types of projects, the sub-basin working


groups can gain experience with negotiations associated with them, and they will make good targets for developing monitoring systems that can check in a transparent manner whether claims of their proponents are justified. Similarly, appropriate studies of complex or particu-larly difficult issues could also be part of these demonstration activities.

Although it would be challenging to achieve these objectives during the short period of time avail-able under this project, Panya staff and their local facilitation teams were expected to invest a great deal of effort into doing the best job they can do within these constraints. It is important to try to complete the initial action plan so that it can be submitted for funding consideration as quickly as possible. In addition, it may be useful for project staff to view the action planning process con-ducted under the preliminary sub-basin working group structure as producing outputs that will then feed into processes to consider and establish a long term RSBO that will manage and refine the full appropriate range of sub-basin activities from that point forward.

2. Establishing long-term organization and processes Once the flurry of activity required during the first phase is completed, it will become time for sub-basin stakeholders to reflect on and learn from their experience in order to establish an improved organizational framework for a long-term sub-basin management organization. If sub-basin stake-holders are fairly satisfied with initial arrangements, or if they are reasonably united in their views about how they should be modified, this phase could be quite brief. In any event, we have hoped that as much as possible could be accomplished within the short time frame of this current project.

(a) Review initial planning experience

Some stakeholders may suspect that preliminary sub-basin working groups and initial action plans may pre-empt some important considerations and decisions regarding the nature and design of RSBOs and their programs in pilot sub-basins. Some may even claim it makes any further efforts to consider RSBO structure, function and planning unnecessary. It can also be argued, however, that preliminary working group and action plans will give a range of sub-basin stakeholders experi-ence in trying to develop more systematic planning processes under a somewhat expanded man-date, which could provide them with more experience, understanding and insight that may be valu-able in selecting and adapting the most appropriate type of long-term RSBO arrangements for con-ditions in their sub-basin.

Thus, the first task during this phase is to review sub-basin experience with conducting initial ac-tion planning processes under the organization provided by the preliminary watershed working group structure. In conducting this review, sub-basin stakeholders may wish to bring some addi-tional representation into their discussions, perhaps including elements in the sub-basin who may have expressed any dissatisfaction with the initial committee structure or the action planning proc-esses, and they may also wish to seek assistance from a facilitator from outside the sub-basin. The review should include consideration of experience related to the structural considerations discussed in III.B, relative to the range of model options presented in section III.C of this report. The main questions here are whether sub-basin stakeholders feel there are ways in which the mandate, struc-ture and/or function of a long-term RSBO may need to differ from the initial phase.

(b) Select, localize and establish long-term RSBO organizational model

Based on the foregoing review of first phase experience, it will now be time for sub-basin stake-holders to select, localize and establish their desired RSBO organizational model, including its reg-istration as a juristic entity if desired at this point. Experience with the preliminary sub-basin working group that is similar to a modified type 1 model could help underscore the importance of two factors about the indicative alternative models pro-posed in this report. First, the indicative models seek to describe an array of possibilities for RSBO configuration, so that experience with one model can help them see more clearly how the other models differ or are similar. Second, as their experience under this process will indicate, compo-nents of any one of the models can be modified in many different ways, and RSBOs should feel


free to experiment with refinements they believe will improve their performance under specific and changing conditions within their domain. Moreover, experience with this two stage process can also help point out that RSBO configurations can be dynamic over time, and configurations can change along with perceptions, needs, capacities and conditions. Comparison of modified RSBO configurations with the array of indicative models in this report may also help alert RSBOs to various issues and/or contradictions that may need to receive special attention in order to avoid new problems. One example has already been seen in comparing the draft preliminary committee structure, where the mandate was broadened to include issues under ministries outside of MoNRE, but those ministries have no representation or coordination agree-ments. Participants in the Lower Ping workshop that reviewed the draft already noticed this issue. In any event, preliminary sub-basin working groups, augmented by appropriate additional stake-holders if necessary, should open their minds to consideration of at least the full range of alterna-tive RSBO possibilities proposed in this report. Moreover, they can also consider both what is practical for them now and in the near term, as well as the type of organization toward which they would like to evolve over time, and the types of capacities and requirements that would entail. During sub-basin efforts to select, modify and localize a suitable organizational model, we should also not be surprised if the three pilot sub-basins – and other sub-basins in the future – decide on different preferred configurations for their RSBO. Based on discussions at early project work-shops, for example, we might speculate – as indicated in Figure 3-8 – that:

Figure 3-8. Possible starting points and trajectories in pilot sub-basins (speculative)

start

goal

start

goal

start

goal ???? ????

Ping Part 1

Mae Kuang

Ping Part 5

Local Non-Government

Focused Government

Broader Government

Central-Local Partners

Local-Central Partners

• In the Ping part 1 sub-basin, informal networks among local governments and civil society groups are already quite advanced. A substantial range of stakeholder groups appear able to communicate rather well and have some mutual understanding of each other’s positions, even on topics where they disagree. Leaders appear quite confident and have already established network relationships among local governments in the sub-basin. Thus, it would not be surpris-ing if they choose an RSBO configuration that is more in the direction of one of the multi-level partnership models based on strong local initiative and leadership. As suggested in Figure 3-8, they may want to begin with more of a central-local partnership model, but would probably want to move to more of a local-central partnership as soon as they are confident enough in their capacity to do so.

• In the Mae Kuang sub-basin, there has also been substantial progress in developing informal linkages among local governments and civil society groups and networks. But a wide range of strong stakeholder interests are present in the sub-basin, including powerful urban, industrial, service enterprise, and private investor interests and groups, as well as a particularly poor area involving ethnic and cultural minorities. There are also some key rivalries among local leaders.


As this makes local communication, organization and negotiation initiatives quite difficult in some respects, it would not be surprising if they choose an RSBO configuration that has a somewhat stronger degree of government agency, or at least local administration involvement. As Figure 3-8 suggests, this might take the form of a central-local partnership model, or even a broader government model. Given their confidence and expressed desire for self-determination, however, it would also not be surprising if they would want to work toward a multi-level local-central partnership model as they continue to build their already considerable local capacities.

• In the case of the Lower Ping sub-basin, it appears that government initiative and management are very strong and important in the minds of most stakeholders, and that even most relevant civil society organizations are government-induced. Thus, it would not be surprising if they choose an RSBO configuration that is more in the direction of one of the government-oriented models, and perhaps one that is similar to the draft preliminary committee but with broader agency representation. Whether or how this might change over the longer term is not yet clear, but as Figure 3-8 suggests, they may well want to maintain substantial government agency leadership even if they move in the direction of a multi-level partnership model.

It bears repeating that this is mere speculation based on preliminary general impressions and dis-cussions, and that it is highly possible that the outcome of stakeholder decisions in each sub-basin will differ somewhat, or even drastically from these hypothetical outcomes. The choice of struc-tural options for an RSBO lies, as it should, with the stakeholders of each sub-basin. Speculation about their decision is only provided to help illustrate general principles.

3. Launching implementation in a River Basin Management framework This phase moves into somewhat more of a multi-tasking mode, which may well extend somewhat beyond the time frame of this initial pilot project. Thus, this phase builds on experience during the first ‘getting started’ phase, and employs the long-term RSBO structure established during the sec-ond phase, in outlining an initial long-term river sub-basin management plan, beginning actual im-plementation and monitoring of activities and projects under the initial action plan, and launches systematic long-term capacity building efforts. If the RSBO was not registered as a juristic entity during phase 2, such registration may be considered during this phase.

(a) Outlining a long-term river sub-basin management plan

International experience from around the world is very consistent in claiming that effective long-term management plans need to be formulated through processes that employ extensive stakeholder participation and consensus-building processes. Moreover, such processes are almost without ex-ception multi-year endeavors. Indeed, efforts in the Ping Basin would appear to be very ill advised to believe that the initial action plans formulated under the brief first phase of the sequence here could possibly substitute for the ‘real thing’ over the longer term. Thus, given the sequence of phases proposed here for RSBO development under conditions spe-cific to the Ping River Basin, this phase begins with providing an opportunity for the newly estab-lished long-term RSBO to develop an outline of a long-term management plan. While this outline would build on experience during the first phase, it would also refine the scope of the mandate and the planning and operational processes to be consistent with the structure and functions of the long-term RSBO established during the second phase. The RSBO Management Plan provides a broader framework within which action plans are embed-ded. Figure 3-9 provides an example of the types of components that would need to be contained within the management plan. These are, of course, indicative components that are subject to modification according to local conditions and circumstances. Indeed, the partnership and capacity building component is already an addition to what is commonly included in such management plans in places like the U.S., in recognition of some of the relatively different needs, and often somewhat more difficult conditions encountered here.


• Statement of priority problems to be addressed in the management plan. Many of the major problems in pilot sub-basins have already been identified, and will be further explored and articu-lated during the first two development phases. Initial criteria and priorities are also developed during the first phase, while the second phase adds reconsid-eration of RSBO mandate, structure and function. Thus, by this point the RSBO should be in a reasonable posi-tion to make a quite clear articulation of the priority sub-basin problems that the management plan will seek to address. At least some of these problems are quite likely to in-clude aspects about which there currently is insufficient information or understanding, and ef-forts to address these needs or gaps are clearly eligible for inclusion in the management plan.

Figure 3-9. Management Plan Components RSBO Management Plan

1. Statement of priority problems to be addressed in the management plan

2. RSBO vision statement, goals and objectives 3. Action plans for achieving goals and objectives 4. Monitoring and information strategy 5. Partnership and capacity building strategy 6. Funding strategy

• RSBO vision statement, goals and objectives. Again, experience from the first phase, which was reviewed during the second phase, together with considerations made in selecting and lo-calizing the long-term RSBO mandate, structure and functions, should put the RSBO in a good position to clearly state the basic vision of the role of the RSBO, the goals toward which it as-pires, and the more specific objectives it seeks to accomplish. Objectives are likely to continue to be grouped into those for short, medium and long-term time horizons.

• Action plans for achieving goals and objectives. One or more action plans provide the logi-cally linked specific activities and projects through which the RSBO will seek to achieve its objectives and goals. Having passed through several potentially evolutionary steps since the initial action planning process, this should be a good time to review the logic of the initial ac-tion plan, identify gaps, additional needs, and perhaps some dubious activities that do not merit pursuing further. Some RSBOs may even wish to begin formulating separate but coordinated action plans that will seek to begin steps toward addressing some of the larger and more diffi-cult issues that underlie various problems in the sub-basin, to conduct public education cam-paigns and mobilize participation, or to group activities and projects that will address needs in different sectors, or that will be implemented by different partner institutions or groups.

• Monitoring and information strategy. International experience confirms that monitoring is so important for river basin management that an overall monitoring strategy needs to be a separate component of the sub-basin management plan. The strategy needs to include all three basic monitoring sub-components: (1) monitoring activity and project inputs and outputs; (2) moni-toring indicators of changing conditions in the sub-basin, including criteria and means for measuring the indicators; (3) monitoring outcomes and assessing impacts of activities and pro-jects under RSBO action plans. It also needs to map out what will be done, who will do it, how it will be done, how findings will be assessed, and how findings will feed back into RSBO learning processes. Moreover, the strategy needs to include an information component that maps out how information will be acquired, how it will be managed, and especially how it will be accessed, used and disseminated to provide a basis for learning and public education, as well as a means for helping achieve transparency and accountability. Needs for information tools, including items such as measurement technologies, spatial information or negotiation support systems, should also be incorporated into this strategy as needs are identified.

• Partnership and capacity building strategy. It should be clear by now that RSBOs will not be able to be effective or sustainable unless they develop both vertical and horizontal partnership linkages with other organizations and institutions, as discussed in previous sections of this re-port. In order to reduce complexity and avoid potential confusion and conflict, the partnership component of this strategy will clarify existing and desired RSBO partnerships, and designate key persons responsible for maintaining or developing the linkage mechanisms involved. Ob-


vious elements for emphasis within the sub-basin include local governments, sub-watershed networks and other relevant building block groups, but hopefully there will also be a substan-tial and growing number of other productive peer-to-peer, cross-sector, upward and downward partnerships that continue to emerge. The capacity building component of this strategy will map out RSBO capacity building needs and means for addressing these needs, including con-sideration of partners as both beneficiaries of and providers of capacity building efforts.

• Funding strategy. Basically, the previous sub-basin management plan components map out what will be done and why, how it will be done, who will do it, and what they will need to ac-complish it. This strategy maps out ideas about how the funding resources can be obtained to pay for it. While there may be some special funding provided for river basin and sub-basin ac-tivities and projects during the next few years, they are not likely to be sufficient or flexible enough to meet all needs, and there is considerable uncertainty about sustainability over the longer term. While the government needs to make a clear commitment to helping sustain these efforts over the longer term, RSBOs also need to be aware of the need for them to prove them-selves and establish their credibility through the strength of their performance in addressing sub-basin issues and problems. They also need to consider how they can mobilize funding from a range of sources to maintain their programs and operations over the longer term, including how many if not most of their activities and projects can be integrated into processes such as the regular development planning mechanisms of local governments and provinces.

All of these component statements, plans and strategies that contribute to the RSBO management plan are meant to be first iterations based on current views, understandings and conditions. They are expected to be subject to change as RSBOs continue to grow and evolve. Moreover, conscious efforts during the next phase to deepen participation and consensus building in the sub-basin, are designed to encourage further evolution of the management plan.

(b) Beginning implementation and monitoring

Hopefully, funding for activities and projects in the initial action plan will have been approved by the beginning of this phase, so that implementation can begin. This will undoubtedly be an impor-tant element in verifying the credibility of RSBO development efforts. And perhaps just as impor-tantly, it will begin to make most of these rather abstract considerations come to life as real people implement concrete projects that their advocates claim will improve conditions in the sub-basin. Thus, it will also provide clear and concrete objectives for monitoring and information components to begin focusing their efforts, as well as specific needs for capacity building and partnerships. Moreover, to the extent that first phase efforts were successful in including activities and projects with demonstration value, they should begin providing real world input into sub-basin learning processes.

(c) Beginning systematic capacity building

As the initial outline of a long-term sub-basin management plan is formulated by the new long-term RSBO, activities and projects begin move into action, and monitoring and information sys-tems begin to come online, RSBOs will need to begin implementing their capacity building strat-egy. While the project includes provisions to assist with some initial aspects of capacity building, as international experience indicates, this will be a high priority objective for some time to come.

What is likely to be most urgently needed is practical information, tools, training, study tours and other means to respond to the immediate practical needs of emerging RSBOs. The time for propa-ganda and often sanctimonious preaching of the gospel of environmentalism is rapidly passing in most sub-basins, and the time for identifying, developing, adapting and refining practical and effec-tive approaches, methods and tools to accomplish the tasks at hand is rising. Thus, an appropriate balance between two types of practical educational materials is needed: (1) materials that provide specific and practical tools and assistance for addressing needs that are already locally perceived as important; and (2) materials that expand local horizons with new ideas and tools. Both are impor-tant, but participatory decisions about priorities would be most appropriate.


There is a specific component of this project that is focused on training and capacity building, and Panya staff working on that component have been conducting activities to assess needs in pilot sub-basins and seek information and other means for meeting those needs. In doing this, they can an-ticipate some of the needs related to building capacity to conduct action planning processes and other aspects of RSBO management planning, including process such as awareness raising, nego-tiation and conflict management. They can also anticipate capacity building needs related to vari-ous lines of activity as reflected in projects already included previous plans developed under proc-esses led by DWR and DNP. It is probably quite safe to assume that at least most of these lines of activity will be included in initial action plans formulated under this project. They may also antici-pate that some materials might be useful for increasing attention to areas where this project is ex-panding the RSBO mandate, with particular emphasis on aspects related to public health, poverty and livelihoods. And perhaps particular attention should also be given to various aspects of moni-toring. Such anticipation, however, needs to be grounded in interaction with stakeholders in the sub-basin, in order to be consistent with the bottom-up participatory mandate of this project.

As part of these efforts, the project provides for training and development of ‘tool kits’ for RSBOs. It is increasingly common to use terms like ‘tool kits’, as in the Ramsar handbooks and case studi-es29 that include topics such as river basin management, participation and water management and allocation [Ramsar 2004a, 2004b, 2004c], or the term ‘toolbox’ as in Global Water Partnership website30 that provides information materials to support integrated water resources and river basin management. Indeed, the organization and basic options presented in the GWP toolbox may be useful in the process of considering models for the Ping RSBO tool kit, although the content for various component tools is at this point still rather sparse. As materials continue to be accumulated at websites such as these, some may well be worthy of translation and adaptation into Thai lan-guage and context. A few other examples of materials supporting operations of river basin and wa-tershed management organizations are from the U.S., many of which are somewhat more devel-oped than the global and Asian websites at this point in time. They include watershed guides acces-sible through the “know your watershed” website coordinated by Conservation Technology Infor-mation Center31, and publications in the bibliography of the “watershed academy”32 and other pub-lications33 of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [e.g. EPA 2005, 2003a, 2003b, 1997a, 1997b]. There are also numerous other interesting examples, such as the watershed primer prepared for river basins in Pennsylvania [Novak 2000], watershed management planning publications linked to the Potomac River Basin website34, the Center for Watershed Protection website35, and many more that can be accessed through searches on the internet. Many also include examples of existing river basin management plans, as well as links to training materials and tools related to numerous associated topics and technologies. There are also, of course, a substantial number of materials, training curricula, and tools that have already been developed, tested, and used by various networks, projects and organizations in Thai-land that may be very relevant for RSBOs and this project. Staff of Panya Consultants have been making efforts to seek some of these out. Obvious examples include the sub-basin planning hand-book that the CMU Social Research Institute developed for ONEP, which uses the Ping part 1 sub-basin as an example [ONEP 2004], as well as the handbooks for stream detectives, and other mate-rials developed and published by the Green World Foundation – and there are many others, often of varying quality. Unfortunately, there are few, if any repositories in Thailand where such materials are systematically collected that could serve as a library or knowledge base about these matters.

29 http://www.ramsar.org/lib/lib_handbooks_e.htm 30 http://gwpforum.netmasters05.netmasters.nl/en/index.html 31 http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/ 32 http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/itsannot.html 33 http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/publications.html 34 http://www.potomacriver.org/get_involved/wmp.htm 35 http://www.cwc.org/index.html

http://www.ramsar.org/lib/lib_handbooks_e.htm

http://gwpforum.netmasters05.netmasters.nl/en/index.html

http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/

http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/itsannot.html

http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/publications.html

http://www.potomacriver.org/get_involved/wmp.htm

http://www.cwc.org/index.html


(d) Building parallel Ping Basin – level support capacities

There will clearly be needs for information support systems, technical assistance and technical analysis, as well as education, training and other types of support systems that will need to be based at higher than sub-basin levels in the river basin hierarchy. If such facilities and services have not yet emerged in the Ping Basin, strong efforts should be made during this phase to build at least three types of RSBO support functions at the Ping Basin level:

Ping RBO Knowledge Center. Given the major information needs of the RSBO development process, and the absence of systematic collections of many of the types of information most needed, development of an RBO-level knowledge center needs to be developed to serve as:

• Library and clearinghouse for access to a wide range of relevant Thai language training curric-ula, materials and publications. Distribution could be through hardcopies, web-based digital forms, and links with organizations that prefer to handle distribution by themselves.

• Contact center for links with groups, organizations, agencies and individual resource persons with useful experience, tools, and local or scientific knowledge that can assist with RSBO or-ganization, program development, implementation and capacity building, including training, demonstrations, cross-visits, study tours, and a range of additional formats.

• Center for facilitating development of appropriate forms and formats of communication and training materials that can help meet need of the full range of different types of stakeholders and interest groups in Ping sub-basins.

• Center for coordinating two-way translation and adaptation of relevant materials to facilitate information exchange at international levels, as well as with minority languages spoken within the Ping Basin.

Ping River Basin projects need to take initiative in helping establish and develop such a center for use by the pilot and other sub-basins, which can be a source of information and a model of knowl-edge accumulation and access for other basins and sub-basins in the future.

Mobile RSBO Technical Support Teams. Although not necessarily a large operation, a few small mobile teams could provide specific types of largely on-site technical assistance to RSBOs to help build capacity in areas where systematic on-site assistance is difficult to obtain from existing groups, organizations or institutions. Examples of topics where technical assistance could be most helpful during early phases of development include: (1) participatory analysis, learning and plan-ning; (2) stakeholder participation, negotiation, consensus building, and public education; (3) monitoring and information management systems and technologies. Contacts, scheduling, and or-ganizational and administrative support for mobile technical support teams could be through the Ping RBO Knowledge Center. Depending on demand, teams may include part-time staff with regular employment at partner institutions such as academic institutions, private sector businesses, or civil society organizations.

Ping RBO Data & Analytical Support System. There are also needs for some more sophisticated tools and technologies to provide support for RBO and RSBO programs and activities in the Ping Basin. Spatial information systems and analytical modeling are clearly relevant here, as well as other types of databases and analytical tools. Some of these technologies will currently be beyond the human resource and financial capacities of most RSBOs. Employing principles of subsidiarity and coalitions, the most logical location for centers of this type activity would be at appropriate regional institutions – and at least linked with major universities – that could operate facilities that could function at a river basin level, but designed and operated to be able to provide support ser-vices for RSBOs and their stakeholder groups. Their operations, information and services must be clearly and easily accessible, and at least linked with the Ping RBO Knowledge Center. They must not be hidden away in an obscure cubicle in Bangkok where they can be accessed only by a small circle of ‘insiders’. Initial efforts in regional institutions related to spatial information systems and environmental monitoring are already being supported by ONEP and, as already mentioned36, there 36 See, for example, section I.B.6(e)


are equally important efforts supported by others. There is a strong and urgent need to begin link-ing these various efforts and to facilitate their convergence into a system with very important po-tential and implications.

As the various phases of RSBO development continue to unfold, there may also be additional needs for support functions or services at river basin or other higher levels of social organization. In or-der to provide one example, it is conceivable that a need for an ombudsman function could emerge, in order to provide a channel for various sub-basin stakeholders to seek redress for unjustifiable damages, abuse, or exploitation they believe they are suffering from RSBO programs, and that their plight is being unduly excluded or ignored by RSBO participatory processes.

Clearly, these types of activities should be developed through partnerships with various institutions, organizations, and groups already based and active in the Ping Basin. This is definitely not a call to create more high-overhead bureaucratic institutions that will try to compete with existing activities, or an information control point for any type of elitist cliques or special interests. Organization to meet these needs should be flexible and directed by a mindset that seeks coordination and partner-ships aimed at facilitating widespread learning and mutual improvement of performance in achiev-ing common objectives and goals. In any event, it makes sense to anticipate some of these needs now, and contribute to efforts that can help make them become a reality.

4. Strengthening long-term management planning and learning processes

International experience indicates that performance and long-term success of river basin organiza-tions are strongly associated with careful assessment, consideration, and consensus building. These processes normally require a multi-year process even in highly developed countries where local capacities are already quite strong. Moreover, there is no evidence that substitute short-cut ap-proaches have been able to meet these needs.

Thus, this phase shifts into a multi-year mode, wherein RSBOs seek to further broaden and deepen understanding and consensus in the sub-basin, and reflect results in further refinements of RSBO analysis, planning, monitoring and learning processes under the draft river sub-basin management plan. Emphasis during this phase needs to be on efforts that are conducted systematically and care-fully, and not unduly rushed by unreasonable time constraints.

It is particularly important that these processes are not seen as yet a further iteration of redundant planning processes. As this phase begins, long-term RSBOs will be operational, initial action plans will have begun implementation, and monitoring processes will have begun operating. Thus, real experience and information will be providing a concrete context for considering how well proc-esses are working and the directions in which they are headed. Hopefully, this should help facili-tate efforts to further refine these processes and directions in order to achieve a broad enough con-sensus among stakeholders to make RSBOs meaningful and viable organizations. There are two basic lines of activity that are central to efforts during this phase to strengthen long-term manage-ment and planning processes, and both may wish to draw upon technical assistance from the basin-level support activities launched during the previous phase.

(a) Management plan elaboration, refinement and consensus building

There is a range of issues and concepts that stakeholders may need to consider as they elaborate and refine the sub-basin management plan and build consensus among sub-basin stakeholders. In order to encourage and support local decision-making, some of these considerations are posed here in the form indicative questions, rather than in the form of instructions or requirements. These questions have been constructed to reflect issue areas seen as important both from international ex-perience and from current operational issues identified from previous and current activities in the Ping River basin and its sub-basins. They are meant to be indicative, however, and not an exhaus-tive list of the considerations that RSBOs might wish to make. Thus, efforts to answer these ques-tions should help RSBOs raise even more questions, the answers to which should help lead to their


articulation improved long-term management plans and component strategies and designs for fur-ther developing and refining their RSBO through processes that are localized to the needs and wishes of sub-basin stakeholders in the context of their perceptions of conditions they face.

How discussion of these questions occurs is also likely to vary according to sub-basins, the type of organizational configuration they have selected, and the local adaptations they have made. Some answers are likely to be readily available, while others are not. Some will be more appropriate than others under conditions in a specific sub-basin. The considerations involved are many, and consid-erable time may be required to address the full range of issues. In some cases, stakeholder consen-sus may have already been reached, and representatives may feel confident to answer questions in multi-stakeholder meetings or workshops. In other cases, it may require a more iterative process where stakeholder representatives feel a need to confer with their constituency groups before inter-acting with other groups. Again, what is deemed as appropriate must be determined in the context of conditions and perceptions of stakeholders in each sub-basin.

Management plan components 1-2. Linking mutual understanding with RSBO proc-esses: How will a sense of common identity and direction be further developed and maintained? • What are the different views about what the sub-basin should look like 20 or 50 years from

now? In order to achieve those views, what things need to be maintained or restored, and how? What things need to change, and how? Is there widespread agreement about these views? Who disagrees, and why?

• What are the common interests and the differences among stakeholder views inside the sub-basin about these issues? How do these differ from views of stakeholders downstream or connected with interests, agencies or organizations outside the sub-basin?

• Do stakeholders with different views have a mutual understanding of why those differences exist? If not, what can be done to improve communication and mutual understanding?

• Under each different view, who will benefit and be better off? Who will lose benefits, and what will they lose? How do you know? Who thinks this would be fair? Who thinks it would not be fair? Why?

• How can the RSBO assure all stakeholders (inside and outside the sub-basin) that their voice will be heard, and their needs and views will be fairly considered? How will they know if this is true? How often will stakeholders meet? Who are the leaders? Who makes the rules?

• How much do RSBO efforts or various stakeholder groups rely on government agency leader-ship? How much do they rely on individual leaders? What can be done to encourage more and broader leadership within the sub-basin?

Management plan components 1-3. Linking problems & priorities to goals, objectives, projects and activities: How can action planning processes help solve real important problems? • What are the most important sub-basin problems? What problems require the most urgent at-

tention? How do you know what projects are most important and most urgent? • Which of these are within the RSBO mandate? Who is affected by these problems, and how?

How do you know? Who is not affected by these problems, and why? • What are the plans and projects that have already been developed? What important or urgent

problem will they address, and how? Who will benefit from them, and why? Who will not benefit from them, and why? How do you know?

• What urgent problems are not addressed by current plans and projects? Why? Who suffers from these problems, and how? Who is not affected? Who can address these problems? What do they have to do? When? What resources and funding are required?

• What important problems are difficult to address by sub-basin projects? Who suffers and how? Who benefits from the current situation? Who is not affected? Why are they difficult to address? Could progress be made with more time? With more resources? With more


analysis, technical or other assistance from outside sources? With wider social or political alliances? What needs to be done to begin making progress? Who can do it? When? What resources and funding are required? How will you know if progress is being made toward long-term or distant goals?

• Could negotiations among groups with different views and interests help formulate compro-mise views that all sides could view as reasonable and fair? How much would each group benefit and lose from a compromise solution? Could part of the benefits received by one group be used to help compensate for losses of others? How would you know what was fair?

• Who could help stakeholders with different views and interests negotiate among themselves? How would they do this? Are there methods or tools that could help? Outside assistance?

Management plan component 4. Monitoring and information strategy: How can moni-toring, analysis and information management capacity be improved? • How do you know that projects will be conducted as planned? How do you know if they

achieve their objectives? How do you know if they have significant impact on the problem they seek to address? How can future projects be improved from their experience?

• How do you know if a project is likely to be implemented as planned? How do you know if project cost is appropriate? How do you know if the results of a project are worth its cost?

• What information do you need to answer all of the questions above? Do you have that infor-mation? Could you get the information from known sources? How do you know if the in-formation is complete, balanced and/or correct? How could the information be improved?

• What are the kinds of information where measurements are made and data records are kept? Who makes the measurements and keeps the records? What are the methods they use? Do you have access to the data? Do you know how to interpret and use the data? Do you know if the measurements and data are correct?

• Are there other types of information or data that could help answer important questions, help improve communication, or help facilitate negotiations, but are not available? Do you know how to obtain that information? How much of the information could be gathered from as-sessments or measurements made by sub-basin stakeholders themselves? Which ones? How could assistance or training help? Who could provide it?

• What does the RSBO need to do to help raise public awareness? What types of public educa-tion are needed? What topics? How do you know? How can information be most effectively packaged and communicated to different types of stakeholders? How do you know what ap-proach is most effective? How will information from the RSBO be communicated to differ-ent stakeholder groups? Does the RSBO need assistance with public communication? If so, what type of assistance? Who could best provide the assistance? When? What would it cost?

Management plan component 5. Partnerships and capacity building: What coalition and partnership relationships are important, and how will they be built? • What stakeholder groups have networks among individuals or small local groups in the sub-

basin? Are there local sub-watershed management networks in the sub-basin? What other local groups and networks are involved with issues within the RSBO mandate? What have the networks or groups achieved? Where are they most effective or less effective? Why?

• How do stakeholder groups and networks interact with local governments? Does their local government listen to them? Do they have good suggestions or ideas that the local govern-ment could use? Do they ever get assistance from local government? Do they help plan or implement local government projects? Do local governments identify any as prachakhom?

• What stakeholder groups are parts of networks that reach beyond the sub-basin? What types of groups in other areas are also in their network? Are any of them linked with universities? NGOs? Other local governments? What information or assistance do they receive through the network? What do they contribute? Are there groups in other areas with whom sub-


basin stakeholders would like to develop network relationships? If so, what kind of groups, and where are they located? Who could help develop such relationships?

• Are there important powerful stakeholders located inside or outside the sub-basin who refuse to participate in or cooperate with RSBO? What is the source of their power? Are there higher-level sources of authority that could help the RSBO gain their cooperation? How can the RSBO seek assistance from that authority?

• How can the RSBO join with other sub-basins to help address issues at the Ping river basin or Chao Phraya river system levels? What kinds of things could be done best at the sub-basin level? What kinds of things need to be done at higher levels? How could the sub-basin par-ticipate and contribute?

• Are there other Ping sub-basins with similar issues and problems? How do you know what people in other sub-basins are doing? Do people in other sub-basins complain about prob-lems coming from your sub-basin? Do you have problems caused by people in other sub-basins? Do people in other sub-basins have experience, activities, organizations or skills that you would like to learn more about? Do you have experience, activities, organizations or skills that could provide good examples or lessons for people in other sub-basins?

Management plan component 6. Funding strategy: What are the various ways that fund-ing can be mobilized to help maintain RSBO operations and programs over the long term? • How will programs and projects planned by the RSBO be integrated into development plan-

ning processes of local governments? Of provincial plans? Of relevant central agency units? Are there activities/projects that can be implemented locally without outside assistance? Are there other sources of assistance or funding? How do you know? Where can you find out?

(b) Annual progress reviews, learning and adjustments

The second basic line of activity central to efforts during this phase to strengthen long-term man-agement and planning processes is closely related, but is focused specifically on experience that is being generated by implementation of activities and projects under initial action plans. Moreover, this is a line of activity that will most likely continue over the longer-term, well beyond this phase of RSBO development.

More specifically, initiation of an annual review process is proposed, wherein implementation pro-gress is reviewed by the RSBO. Especially during initial early annual reviews, particular attention may be given to progress of ‘demonstration’ activities and projects contained in action plans. Data and information from RSBO monitoring systems should be included in the review. Discussions should be held with people in the sub-basin who believe there are clear benefits from the activity, as well as with skeptics and any people who believe they are suffering as a result of the activity.

Example objectives of the review of specific activities and projects could include: (1) to verify that inputs are received and outputs are being delivered as planned; (2) to identify what problems are being encountered and whether any additional information, capacity building, or other needs have emerged; (3) to determine the degree to which outputs are helping achieve the desired outcomes; (4) to determine whether there are any unanticipated negative consequences of the activity. (5) to identify ways in which the activity or project could be improved; (6) to determine whether there is potential for replicating or scaling up the activity or project in other parts of the sub-basin or in other sub-basins.

Objectives at the RSBO systems level would seek to determine how well the monitoring, analysis, planning, participation, and capacity building strategies and processes are functioning, and to make recommendations about how they could be further improved and refined. Moreover, this annual review process is intended to become a key component of a long-term con-tinuous learning cycle of problem identification, analysis, planning, monitoring, and outcome and impact assessment. As this is intended to be a participatory process involving all relevant sub-basin


stakeholders, transparency, public information access, and downward and upward accountability will be key factors in the ability of the RSBO to establish and maintain perceptions of its relevance, usefulness, and credibility among stakeholders. This, of course is what will be a major determinant of the degree of local participation, involvement, initiative and support.

5. Maintaining long-term organizational relevance, vitality and performance This final phase of RSBO development takes the strengthened and well functioning organization into its long-term operation and maintenance mode. RSBOs are seen as long term organizations devoted to improving natural resource management, the environment, health, livelihoods, and vari-ous other aspects of the quality of life in their sub-basin domains. By the beginning of this phase, RSBO operations should include an iterative cycle of analysis, updating of goals, objectives and rolling project plans, implementing projects and activities, and monitoring conditions, outcomes and impacts. It is through this type of learning cycle that they will be able to continue making clear and meaningful step-wise progress toward their long-term objectives. And, this needs to be done in a manner that is transparent for all stakeholders. Moreover, they need to remain credible and ac-countable to both their local constituency groups and legitimate interests of downstream and larger society. In order to continue functioning effectively over the long term, RSBOs also need to maintain the active participation of stakeholders, and assure that they perceive their efforts as being relevant to their needs and part of something that is both important and making a difference. This will require that RSBOs work to continually improve their operational systems and respond to changing condi-tions. One important element of this process is to establish a second learning cycle at another level and time horizon. This cycle would focus on analyzing changing conditions in the sub-basin, and periodically assessing the need for RSBO programs and operations, identifying ways to improve RSBO structure and functions so that they can better respond to those needs, implementing the changes needed, and monitoring the outcomes and impacts of their efforts on RSBO performance and stakeholder satisfaction. Although establishment of a learning cycle at this level is quite far beyond the ability of this short-term project to develop, test and establish, seeds can be planted even during early phases. Indeed, if seen from the appropriate perspective, for example, the transition from the phase 1 preliminary sub-basin working group to the long-term RSBO established in phase 2 can itself be viewed as a first experience with efforts to review how well the RSBO structure and functions are able to be effective in helping achieve significant improvements in management of sub-basin resources and environmental services. The consensus building, learning and refinement processes that are built into the third and fourth phases are intended to further strengthen these processes, mindsets and information in a manner that should make periodic review and refinement of overall mandates, pro-grams and structures a logically obvious process.

6. Factors affecting the time horizon of RSBO development The above discussions have indicated that the first three phases of RSBO development may be rela-tively short, whereas the fourth phase involves a multi-year process, and the fifth and final phase moves the RSBO into an open-ended long-term operation and maintenance mode. This final section seeks to bring somewhat more clarity to time horizon issues by briefly presenting some of the factors and issues that are likely to affect the relative amount of time required to com-plete various key elements and thus phases of RSBO development: RSBO establishment. Establishment of the RSBO as discussed in this report will be the central activity of the second development phase. Thus, time requirements will include first phase efforts to develop the initial action plan, review of first phase experience, and agreement on a suitable or-ganizational model and modifications. The main factors that should affect the duration of these activities include: (1) the amount and quality of plan development available from prior action plan-


ning processes led by DNP and/or DWP; as well as other local planning processes (2) the degree to which stakeholders agree or differ in their views on experience during the first phase; (3) the de-gree of unity among and within stakeholder constituencies regarding the most suitable organiza-tional model and modifications; and (4) motivation and availability of key leaders and stakeholder representatives required to make these decisions. Initial outline of long-term management plan. This activity is scheduled for the beginning of phase 3. Its timing and duration will depend on the degree to which previous work of local networks, ac-tivities associated with prior action planning processes, and reviews of experience during phase 2 are able to provide a solid foundation for articulation of the components of a full-scale sub-basin management plan. If there are clear ideas and relatively unified views, it is possible that this could be done quite quickly. If there is still confusion, many questions, and divergent points of view, the process could require at least several months. In any event, if basin-level mobile technical assis-tance teams are also being established during the third phase, they may be able to assist sub-basins in negotiating agreement and articulating the plan in an appropriate form for further refinement during phase 4. Action plan implementation. Initial sub-basin action plans will be developed during phase 1, and are likely to be largely based on projects and activities included in prior planning processes under the leadership of DNP and/or DWP. If these initial action plans are developed considering the framework of RSBO development proposed in this report, the initial action planning process should be able to be completed quite quickly – assuming sufficient sub-basin stakeholder availability and motivation. The RSBO development framework proposed here provides for action plan funding approval processes to occur during the second phase, so that implementation of the initial action plan could begin as phase 3 is entered. Since this could be a quite short period of time, one hopes that there are sufficient earmarked or discretionary funds available in the government system to allow for this type of timing. As indicated in various sections of this report, it is very important for the credibility and momentum of RSBO development efforts that implementation begins in this type of time frame. Moreover, this proposed RSBO development framework assumes this to be the case, and incorporates learning from initial action plan implementation as a key component of fur-ther RSBO development processes. Capacity building. While there will be some capacity building activities that are to begin under the pilot project during phases 1 and 2, it should be very clear that capacity building will be a quite long-term process with needs that will continue to evolve at least through phase 4 of the RSBO de-velopment process. This is one of the primary reasons that a basin-level learning center and tech-nical support operations are proposed for establishment during phase 3. These operations should receive very high priority for medium to long-term support, and if they can be implemented in an effective manner, they should be able to more than justify the investments required by accelerating and improving the quality of RSBO development processes. Elaborating and refining the management plan and building stakeholder consensus. It should by now be clear that this core component of phase 4 efforts should be a multi-year process. Indeed, its companion implementation progress review and learning cycle refinement process will occur in annual cycle increments. Under most circumstances, it would appear that at least 2 to 3 cycles would be necessary to assure performance is adequate. Moreover, the breadth and depth of stake-holder understanding and consensus required for the sub-basin management plan to become a really meaningful element of local resource governance, and a guide for livelihood behavior and development, will in all likelihood require extensive and iterative investigation, analysis and con-sensus-building processes. Experience demonstrates that these should not, and cannot be unduly rushed. And, since action plans are being implemented in tandem with these processes, there would appear to be no reason why enough time could not be provided to conduct these tasks properly. Long-term participation and satisfaction. This key component of phase 5 is in a category of its own in that this is an open-ended process. It is expected, however, that the periodicity of overall RSBO system reviews would not be likely to occur at less than about 5-year intervals. There could be pro-


visions, however, for a petition submitted by a specified percentage of stakeholder representatives in the RSBO assembly to conduct a special system review due to significant contextual changes, urgent unanticipated problems, or emergence of significant improprieties. Summary of Suggestions and Recommendations in Part III:

1. It is useful for leaders of, and advisors to, efforts to develop sub-basin management organi-zations to understand the global context of trends toward river basin management, includ-ing: • intergovernmental agreements & institutional polices (discussed in section III.A.1(a) ) • emerging global & regional civil society organizations (discussed in section III.A.1(b)) • recent international literature on river basin organizations (discussed in section III.A.2) Suggested overall lessons that can be drawn from international experience with river basin organizations are summarized in section III.A.3.

2. Based on review of experience at both international and Ping River Basin levels, six areas

of consideration are proposed for priority consideration in developing models of organiza-tion for river sub-basin management organizations (RSBOs):

• Mandate, responsibilities & authority. Conditions in the Ping Basin favor a broad and integrated mandate for RSBOs, but their roles and responsibilities need to construc-tively complement regular development planning processes and the administration hi-erarchy. Both ‘expert’ and local knowledge need to be combined in problem identifica-tion & analysis, but either agencies or local organizations probably need to take a lead-ership role. Program and project planning is an area for RSBO leadership, but an over-all sub-basin management plan is needed to provide goals, objectives, priorities, and resource allocation. RSBOs need to clarify their roles in terms of project implementa-tion and any regulation functions. Conditions in the Ping Basin argue for a strong RSBO role in monitoring & learning. Access to sources of authority will depend on a common sense of ownership.

• Representation: core membership, constituencies & selection processes. Particular at-tention needs to be given to achieving appropriate stakeholder balance among sectors, between central & local government, among elements of local governance systems, and between gender groups. The main RSBO ‘assembly’ or decision-making body needs to be of a manageable size, probably in the range of 20-50 representatives, with appropriate working sub-groups, Selection of stakeholder representatives needs to be transparent and participatory, while allowing flexibility for election or consensus proc-esses. Those outside the entourage of an organized interest group also need representa-tion, and mechanisms such as fixed terms are needed to assure all representatives are accountable to their constituents.

• Leadership. While flexibility needs to be maintained, attention needs to be given to the individual leadership qualities and characteristics of potential leaders. Where numerous factions exist, cohesion may be encouraged by election standards higher than a plural-ity of voters. If new selection procedures are established, current leaders should be en-couraged to become candidates.

• Institutional positioning & linkages. RSBOs will need to develop linkages with other organizations at levels above & below the sub-basin in organizational hierarchies, as well as peer-to-peer linkages among organizations at similar levels. The principle of subsidiarity implies more local levels should take the lead in most issues, and raise is-sues they have difficulty addressing to the RSBO. The RSBO should pass issues they cannot resolve to river basin or other higher levels. All levels need sufficient authority


and resources to take initiative at their level, and all must be accountable for their ac-tions. Alliances will be needed among local organizations within sub-basins, among sub-basins in the context of river basin level issues and processes, and among local groups with similar concerns in networks that cross sub-basin boundaries. RSBOs should seek partnerships to strengthen their overall operations.

• Legal status. RSBOs should consider the advantages and disadvantages of different op-tions for their official legal status, and there should be flexibility for it to change over time as capacity develops and conditions change.

• Operational components & specialists. While RSBOs should have flexibility to design their own structure, they need to consider at least 3 basic types of components: (a) an RSBO assembly where the full range of stakeholder representatives conducts overall deliberations & decision-making processes; (b) permanent & temporary working groups to lead efforts in program & project planning, data & communications, public participation & awareness, problem identification & analysis, and monitoring & learn-ing; (c) a secretariat to conduct administrative & operational tasks, support working groups, & manage facilities. Location of the secretariat needs careful consideration.

3. An array of five alternative sub-basin organizational models is proposed for consideration,

selection & adaptation by sub-basin working groups & stakeholders (see Figure 3-5):

• Focused government model. Main focus is on helping MoNRE design & implement its programs in a more effective & efficient manner, and coordinate work of its agencies. MoNRE takes a strong leadership role, with RSBO providing assistance.

• Broader government model. Main focus is on improving effectiveness & efficiency of programs within MoNRE, plus coordination with other ministries. Provincial admini-strations partner with MoNRE in coordination & integration of plans, with RSBO as-sisting.

• Central – local partnership model. Main focus is on a partnership between central & local levels, with the RSBO providing more leadership in identifying & analyzing problems, planning monitoring of conditions & impacts, and public awareness. Partici-pating ministries are reaching down to local partners for work within their mandates.

• Local – central partnership model. Main focus is on a local-central partnership with RSBO leading most tasks. Local organizations and civil society groups are reaching up for partnerships with relevant ministries under locally defined mandates.

• Local non-government model. Main focus is on mobilizing non-governmental groups & civil society institutions to formulate, advocate & monitor activities within a locally-defined RSBO mandate.

4. A five phase process is proposed for developing river sub-basin management organizations

(RSBOs) in the context of the Ping River Basin, as summarized in Figure 3-6:

• Getting started. This phase builds on existing organizations & plans in establishing a preliminary sub-basin working group & formulating initial action plans. Emphasis is on articulating goals, objectives, criteria & priorities for selecting action plan compo-nent projects, reviewing & screening existing sub-basin plans, linking with TAO & provincial plans, & selecting priority ‘demonstration’ activities & local studies.

• Establishing long-term organization and process. This phase centers on participatory review of experience with planning processes at sub-basin and other relevant levels, and selection and localization of an initial organizational model for a long-term RSBO. Views should also be solicited about directions in which the RSBO should evolve.

• Launching implementation in a River Basin Management framework. This phase moves into ‘multi-tasking’ mode, wherein activities under the initial action plan begin


implementation, and monitoring systems begin to be established and activated. At the same time, a broader RSBO Management Plan (see Figure 3-9) is outlined, which in-cludes strategies for monitoring, information, partnerships, capacity building & fund-ing. Initial implementation of the capacity building strategy also begins, in parallel with efforts at the Ping River Basin level to build support capacities in terms of a knowledge center, mobile technical support teams, and data & analytical systems.

• Strengthening long-term management planning & learning processes. This phase moves to a multi-year approach, with emphasis on broadening and deepening under-standing and consensus in the sub-basin. RSBO structures, plans and processes are fur-ther refined, based on careful consideration of various views, and emphasis on learning from experience with actual implementation activities. To help stimulate these consid-erations, a number of questions are suggested in section III.D.4. An annual review process would become part of a long-term continuous learning cycle of problem identi-fication, analysis, planning, monitoring, and outcome & impact assessment. This proc-ess should be participatory, inclusive, transparent, accessible, and both downwardly and upwardly accountable.

• Maintaining long-term organizational relevance, vitality & performance. The final open-ended phase takes well-functioning RSBOs into long-term operation & mainte-nance mode. In addition to annual learning & adjustment cycles, a second perhaps 5 to 6 year cycle is added to focus on longer-term changing conditions, & on assessments of RSBO performance & stakeholder satisfaction, including needs for programs & op-erations, and ways to improve structures & functions to respond to those needs.

5. Suggestions about factors that are likely to influence the time frame required to implement

this five phase process of RSBO development can be found in section III.D.6.


IV. Project Implementation in Pilot Sub-basins

This part shifts discussion from analysis and preparation to the actual process of project implemen-tation in the three selected sub-basins. We begin with discussion of the key activities involved in the implementation process. Following sections discuss project results, first in terms of outputs of the planning process, and then in terms of lessons learned from this experience. Since sub-basin plans developed under the project are still being finalized with assistance of the team from Panya Consultants, assessments of project outputs made in this report are still very preliminary. Lessons drawn from project experience, and recommendations contained in the final part of this report, however, are based more broadly on the author’s assessments and views on overall implementation processes and experience.

A. The time factor It is difficult to proceed with discussion about implementation under this project without first clari-fying the context of timeframe issues. The core origin of these issues relates to a series of delays in project implementation. The nature of and reasons for many of these delays are beyond the knowl-edge of the author, and are not a specified concern of his job under this project. They have, how-ever, had very substantial impacts on project components reported on here, and have directly af-fected the degree to which project outputs could be achieved, and their qualitative characteristics. Major points made here follow from the partial information provided in Figure 4-1. Upper and lower parts of this figure represent different “slices” on the content of the project. The upper por-tion presents a sequential overall project implementation point of view, while the lower portion separates activities by project components. The content of this report is associated with component 1 in the lower portion, and with lines in the upper part labeled with the “WME” acronym. The three columns on the right side of Figure 4-1 represent time frames for project implementation that were noted at different points (there were also more intermediate iterations). The first time column reflects the schedule in the proposal document approved through the ASEM funding mechanism. This document was submitted in May 2003, approved in July 2003, and fol-lowed in less than two weeks by formal approval by the Thailand Cabinet of Ministers, which au-thorized implementation of the project in the context of the Thai government system. Implementa-tion under this schedule would have coincided with planning initiatives led by DWR and DNP. For whatever reasons that followed, calls for proposals from consulting firms, and for applications for two independent consultant positions were issued just over a year later. The second time col-umn reflects the revised timing cited during this application process. While the “watershed man-agement expert” position was contractually established during September 2004, selection and con-clusion of a contract with the consulting firm that would provide the central implementation func-tion for the three major project components was not concluded until about February 2005. Although various project implementation activities then began, such as Water Forum events to se-lect pilot sub-basins during March 2005, subsequent delays arose that further affected “field” im-plementation activities led by Panya consultants. Thus, the last column in Figure 4-1 reflects the actual timing of some key project implementation activities. Although lists of dates are only partially complete, information is sufficient to see that while some reconnaissance activities began in July, most activities conducted in direct association with people and institutions in the three pilot sub-basins have occurred during the four-month period of Sep-tember through December 2005.


The central point to be made here is that interpretation of project activities and their results can only be fully understood when placed in the context of this timing issue. More specific implications are explained in the context provided by subsequent sections.

Figure 4-1. Project work plan timing revisions.

Item Task/Report ASEM proposal

First project proposed date Actual date

0 ASEM Tehcnical Assistance Funding Proposal submit/approve 19 May 2003 18 Jul 2003Thailand Ministerial Cabinet Approval 29 Jul 2003

1 Project Initiation and Area Scoping1.1 sign contract WME (watershed mgmt consultant) Nov 2003 17 Sep 2004 17 Sep 20041.2 sign contract EE (environmental economist consultant) Mar 2004 17 Sep 2004 17 Sep 20041.3 sign contract CF (consulting firm) Mar 2004 01 Nov 20041.4 project team site visits 03-05 Nov 2004 09-12 Nov 20041.5 project initiation meeting 08 Nov 2004 08 Nov 20041.6 inception report WME submit/approve - selecting sub-basins Nov 2004 Feb/Mar 20051.7 inception report EE submit/approve - identify key pollution sources Nov 20041.8 inception report CF submit/approve - project work programs Dec 20041.9 watershed rapid assessment report 01 Dec 20041.1 Sub-Basin Water Forum events 24-25 Nov 2004 10-14 Mar 20051.1 Execute participatory selection process 10 Dec 20041.1 Execute pollution sources selection process 10 Dec 2004

2 Project Initiation and Area Scoping2.1 sub-basin participatory environment & poverty assessment report 30 Dec 20042.2 interim report WME submit/approve - sub-basin management models Feb 2005 Jul/Aug 20052.3 interim report EE submit/approve - regulatory & incentive mechanisms 30 May 20052.4 final report WME submit/approve - summary & action plan Apr 2004 Jun 2005 Nov/Dec 20052.5 final report EE submit/approve - framework for assessing performance May 2005 15 Jul 20052.6 reults measurement report CF submit/approve 30 Jun 20052.7 technical, organizational & educational toolkits 30 Apr 2005 Oct-Nov 2005

3 Implementation and Training3.1 implementation of participatory sub-basin management model 15 Jul 2005 Nov-Dec 20053.2 implementation of regulatory and incentive programs 15 Jul 20053.3 delivery and evaluation of training programs 30 Jul 2005 Nov 20053.4 CF component 1 report Apr 2004 30 Jul 20053.5 CF compontent 3 report May 2005 30 Jul 2005

4 Monitoring4.1 assessing performance of pollution source groups 15 Jul 20054.2 modification of incentive mechanisms and monitoring framework 30 Jul 20054.3 CF component 2 report Mar 2005 30 Jul 2005

5 Information Dissemination5.1 provincial and national workshops Jun-Jul 2005 Jul-Aug 20055.2 final report and executive summary Aug 2005 26 Aug 2005

Work Plan for Participatory Watershed Management for Ping River Basin Project (FM-PO-001)

1 COMPONENT 1 : Participatory Micro-Watershed Management (PMM) Nov 2003 - Apr 2004

1.1 Selection of 3 Pilot Micro-Watersheds Feb-Mar 20051.2 Water Forum for Participatory Selection Mar 20051.3 Detailed Assessment (Stocktaking) Mar-May 20051.4 Micro-Watershed Association Establishment Mar-May 2005 Oct-Dec 2005

sub-basin working group establishment Oct 2005sub-basin long-term organization workshops Nov-Dec 2005

1.5 Action Plan Development May-Jul 2005sub-basin project meeting 1 July 2005CF sub-basin PRAs on local plans Sep 2005sub-basin working group meeting 1 Nov 2005sub-basin working group meeting 2 Nov 2005sub-basin working group meeting 3 Nov 2005

1.6 Toolkits Design May-Jul 2005 Oct-Nov 20051.7 Dissemination Aug-Sep 2005

2 COMPONENT 2 : Enhancing capaicy of communities in pilot sub-basins Mar 2004 - Mar 2005

2.1 Selection of Local Facilitators Apr 2005 Oct 20052.2 Identification of Training Needs Apr-May 20052.3 Development of Training Materials May-Jun 2005 Sep-Nov 20052.4 Facilitators Training Jul 2005 09-13 Nov 20052.5 Assisting Community Groups Training Jul-Aug 2005 Nov 2005

3 COMPONENT 3 : Strengthen regulatory & incentive structures in pilot sub-basins Mar 2004 - May 2005

3.1 Identification of Key Polluter May 20053.2 Selection of 20-25 Sources/MW Jun 20053.3 Incentive Mechanism Program Development Jul 20053.4 Regulatory and Incentive Options Dialogue with Deteriorators Jul-Aug 20053.5 Supporting Program Implementation Aug-Dec 20053.6 Evaluation Criteria Setting Sep-Oct 2005

4 COMPONENT 4 : Project management, results measurement & dissemination Nov 2003 - Aug 2005

4.1 Project Coordination 2004-2005 2004-Feb 20064.2 Results Measurement Framework Development Jul-Sep 20054.3 Dissemination Workshop Oct 2005


B. Implementation activities

This section reviews the author’s contact with, involvement in, and some impressions of the seven major types of implementation activities that were conducted under the leadership of other project and local leaders, primarily in a very intensive manner during the final several months of the pro-ject, which was identified in the previous section.

1. Preliminary surveys After selection of the project’s three pilot sub-basins, preliminary survey activities were conducted by members of the team from Panya Consultants. Although the author was not directly involved in these activities, there appear to have been three primary types of information involved. The first type was obtained through the gathering of secondary data and information from sources at provin-cial, agency and national levels. The second type of information was obtained from district and tambon level offices, officials and leaders within the individual sub-basins. The third type involved more primary types of data collection, primarily through collaborating with local key informants while conducting field reconnaissance surveys, which are described by the consultant team as par-ticipatory rapid appraisal (PRA) techniques. Given the various Panya sub-teams involved, their often simultaneous activities at different sites, and their exploratory PRA approach, it was not possible for the author to have a close engagement with all these activities. Although the author has not yet seen any specific reports arising from these exercises, he has seen various data that have been presented or used in sub-basin working group meetings and deliberations. The author has also had a number of consultations with Mr. Ku-sol from the Panya team regarding the PRA work in pilot sub-basins related to land use, agriculture and agricultural pollution. As part of these consultations, the author has been provided with a fairly detailed printed version of their mapping of sources of agricultural pollution in the Ping Part 1 sub-basin. Meanwhile, the author was involved in conducting further analysis of secondary data on all Ping sub-basins, and especially in analysis of village-level data from the national rural development da-tabase in order to further characterize especially socio-economic characteristics of the wider set of Ping sub-basins. Much of this data was presented in tables in Part II of this report. This has helped provide insights for discussions in sub-basin working groups, as well as what the author hopes will be useful data for consideration during further assessments and development of activities in other sub-basins and wider support programs. As part of these further investigations of secondary sources, the author has also been collaborating with Dr. Methi Ekasingh at the CMU Multiple Cropping Center, in reviewing data in their pilot provincial decision support systems that are being introduced to Chiang Mai, Lamphun and Chiang Rai provinces. This has helped clarify in more detail the distribution of types of agricultural land use in middle and upper Ping sub-basins (see Figure 1-8), to complement the more natural re-sources oriented land use information available from MoNRE and associated sources (as in Figures 1-9 to 1-11). It has also helped provide biophysical, economic, ethnic and social data for use in various of the analyses associated with sub-basin selection criteria and indicators presented in Part II of this report. Dr. Methi has also kindly provided spatial maps of the middle and upper pilot sub-basins as shown Figures 4-2 through 4-5. Most of the maps used under this project at individual pilot sub-basin level have focused on how sub-basins are divided among administrative units, including provinces, districts and tambons, or on boundaries of forest land categories or forest cover. While this is all helpful and very relevant information, Dr. Methi’s maps are shown here to help display another dimension of spatial organi-zation in the two pilot sub-basins that fall within the domain of his system.


There has been a considerable amount of discussion within this project, and in various parts of this report, about local sub-watershed units and various types of local management and networking ac-tivities that are occurring at this more local type of level. While such efforts are commended and acknowledged, some concern has also been voiced that these local sub-watershed (lumnamyoi) lev-els are too ambiguous and informal to be useful.

Figure 4-2. Mae Kuang major sub-watersheds and settlements


In order to help explore some of the available information that can help clarify these issues, Dr. Methi has employed multi-level delineations of watersheds in two of our pilot sub-basins, using his high-resolution digital elevation model and analytical features in his decision support system. Thus, Figures 4-2 and 4-4 present depictions of Mae Kuang and Ping Part 1 sub-basins, respec-tively, that include delineations of major sub-watersheds at the first more local level within the sub-


basins. These maps also include locations of villages and roads. In the Mae Kuang, eight major sub-watersheds are shown, while seven are shown for Ping Part 1. Some of these sub-watersheds contain only a few villages, while others contain fairly large numbers of settlements and complex road networks.

Figure 4-3. Mae Kuang more local sub-watersheds & water resources


Figures 4-3 and 4-5 take sub-watershed delineations to the next level of disaggregaton, which breaks the sub-basins down into much greater numbers of much more local sub-watersheds. These maps also include water storage reservoirs, streams and irrigation canals. While the system pro-vides for several more levels of disaggregation, these two levels appear to be the most useful for purposes here.


By comparing the two maps for each sub-basin, one can begin to see how sub-watersheds might be distinguished for purposes of management by local sub-watershed management networks. Neither level appears most appropriate for all situations. Rather than its spatial size, probably the most im-portant consideration is the complexity of the sub-watershed unit, both in terms of its biophysical characteristics and its patterns of human social organization. In the more sparsely settled upper sub-watersheds of Ping Part 1, for example, some units may be manageable by local networks at the major sub-watershed level. In Mae Kuang, however, most all major sub-watersheds are quite complex, many in terms of settlement density, and some in terms of canal systems.

Figure 4-4. Ping Part 1 major sub-watersheds and settlements


These examples can help us see why substantial flexibility (ambiguity) needs to be maintained in defining levels and spatial scales of local sub-watersheds where local groups and networks can es-


tablish and maintain effective management. There are thresholds of local management capacity that depend on a wide variety of factors and are affected by characteristics such as kinship, cultural and livelihood diversity, length of settlement, traditional and other existing institutions (including those that are agency-induced), and degree of competition for or conflict over resources, amongst others. Physical scale is only one of these characteristics.

Figure 4-5. Ping Part 1 more local sub-watersheds & water resources


Thus, it should not be surprising that emerging local sub-watershed management networks show considerable diversity in the scales at which they operate. Moreover, if we overlay these maps with the boundaries of local government jurisdictions, forest land categories or other agency jurisdic-tional boundaries, or other types of spatially defined units, we can also see how complexity can be further increased. These factors can further affect organizational viability at different spatial scales.


We can also see, however, many of the potential benefits of broader networks and alliances among very local sub-watershed management units that can help deal with broader issues, and can also help local units to interface with various types of larger administrative units with whom they need to interact, and who may be able to help provide support for their efforts. One obvious example is the sub-district, (TAO), for example, which appears to be particularly active in providing a frame-work for local network integration in the Ping Part 1 sub-basin. At the same time, we should not be surprised to see that local leaders are demonstrating some diffi-culty in overcoming obstacles to management in the highly complex areas of the Mae Kuang sub-basin. Indeed, the predictable nature of the implications of this complexity helps us question the wisdom of seeking to combine the clearly distinct Mae Tha watershed into a single sub-basin man-agement unit with the already highly complex Mae Kuang watershed. All these factors point to the need for maintaining ‘space’ for local communities and networks to take the lead in defining the most “appropriate” units for sub-watershed management within Ping sub-basins. They also help underscore the need for greater collaboration across levels in defining sub-basin administrative units. The reality and importance of these issues have been demonstrated in experience under this project in pilot sub-basins.

2. Establishing sub-basin working groups

Figure 4-6. Final sub-basin working group composition

Ping 1 Mae Kuang Lower PingProv NRE (chair) 1 2 2 Prov ONEP (sec) 1 1 - water working group 1 2 - NR working group 1 1 Project Consultant 1 1 1

Articulation of the process for RSBO development in pilot sub-basins proposed by the author in Part III of this report began with discussion of preliminary sub-basin committees that were under consideration at that time. After further consideration by project leadership, including discussions and suggestions in the author’s interim report, the composition of the committee was revised, and its status was changed to a working group. This helped underscore the preliminary nature of its role under the project. DWR organization 1 The final composition of the working groups appointed for each sub-basin is summarized in Figure 4-6. Half or more of the working groups members are from non-governmental groups or constituencies, and about one-third have direct links with agencies under the MoNRE, including the chair and secretary positions. The balance are provincial or local officials.

DNP organization 1 1 RFD 1 1 Provincial office 1 2 2 Provincial irrigation 2 Local officials 2 3 1 Upper/Lower Ping 1 1 1 Local technicians 3 2 2 Peoples representatives 5 4 4 Peoples organizations 2 1 2 NGO 1 1 1 Business 2 2 2

TOTAL 23 24 24

Directives establishing these working groups were issued near the end of October by ONEP. The authority and du-ties of the sub-basin working groups, as specified in that

MoNRE 7 8 8 Province / local officials 3 5 5 Non-government 14 12 12 MoNRE 30% 33% 33% Province / local officials 13% 21% 21% Non-government 61% 50% 50%


directive, include four activities:

• To formulate a 4-year implementation plan for managing natural resources and the environ-ment in the sub-basin, including a proposed work plan and projects for urgent management during the first year.

• To use public relations, disseminate information, and build understanding to provide people with awareness and understanding of various results or implementation methods that follow from the natural resources and environment implementation plan.

• To coordinate and implement activities together with the (previously existing) Upper (or Lower) Ping Coordination Office for restoration of natural resources and the environment.

• To consider models for establishing an organization to administer natural resource and envi-ronmental management in the sub-basin over the long term.

Thus, ONEP leadership decided to establish modified organizational Type 1 working groups as a temporary measure to conduct planning, disseminate information, and build public awareness and understanding, in coordination with the existing Upper/Lower Ping coordination offices. They would also convene considerations of the full range of organizational types discussed in Part III of this report. If accomplished before the end of the project, this would represent completion of the first two of the five phases of RSBO development proposed in Part III of this report (Figure 3-6).

_________________ Given the short period of time then remaining for implementation, the project work plan was modi-fied to include a series of at least three major meetings of these working groups to focus on devel-opment of sub-basin action plans, and additional meetings to review experience and consider other organizational models for long-term management. Due to the intensity of efforts in the three pilot sub-basins during this final period, the author was again faced with the situation of being physically unable to participate fully in all these meetings and activities. Thus, he has employed the strategy of following as many meetings and activities as possible in the Ping Part 1 sub-basin, in order to try to get a clearer sense of how work has pro-gressed. This was supplemented by participation in project-wide meetings, and by reviewing available documentation on activities in the other two pilot sub-basins. As all of this documentation is in the Thai language, this has taken more time and effort than anticipated. Moreover, this strat-egy is reflected in the information that could be included in remaining sections of this part of the report.

3. Initial vision, goals and strategy

The first round of project working group meetings began with consideration of sub-basin visions, goals and strategies. To get the process moving as quickly as possible, previous vision statements formulated for prior projects were reviewed, along with some additional examples forwarded by Panya Consultants that were derived from various sources, including their discussions with various stakeholders. While not all working group members were able to attend, there was a quorum. In the Ping part 1 meeting there was considerable brainstorming and discussion of alternative vi-sion statements put forward by working group members themselves. The working group then de-ferred decision on the vision while they went through discussions of individual goals and objec-tives. They then took these statements back to discuss with colleagues and constituents before ar-riving at final decisions at the next working group meeting. Discussions were all very open, seri-ous and mature, and almost everyone volunteered their own points of view and engaged in con-structive discussions. In terms of the process, form and operating style, these discussions managed to achieve what had seemed a very distant vision at the Water Forum events.


There appears to have again been considerable diversity among sub-basins, however, in how these processes unfolded. Reports of the first Mae Kuang working group meeting indicate a substantial amount of discomfort among working group members, many of whom seem to have felt a need to take these issues for consultation with their colleagues and constituents before they were willing to enter into substantive discussions and/or debate. The Lower Ping report, on the other hand, indi-cates that this working group quickly adopted very slightly modified versions of examples pre-sented to them and concluded the entire meeting by noon. Of course there are tendencies to formulate vision statements that are either short, and perhaps somewhat poetic, but often very ambiguous “feel-good” statements, or a statement that is so long and rambling that no one can remember it. Since Ping part 1 discussions tried to be careful about including all key elements, while still keeping it short and hopefully somewhat motivational, these discussions were actually making an important contribution to mapping out the scope of the or-ganization’s mandate without explicitly trying to do so. At the other extreme, organization in the Lower Ping appears to be proceeding based on similar previous efforts it already completed under leadership of the Department of Water Resources, with assistance from Kasetsart University.

4. Project local staff and capacity building Immediately after sub-basin working groups were established, ONEP and Panya collaborated with working group leaders to select six “local facilitators” from each sub-basin to work directly with the project. Fifteen “community trainers” from each sub-basin were subsequently selected to fur-ther assist with project activities at more local levels. The project is (quickly) implementing several types of capacity building components, which focus on different target groups within pilot sub-basins. Two of these target groups (local facilitators and community trainers) are people selected to participate directly in helping facilitate implementation activities under the project. Other capacity building activities observed by the author are being in-tegrated into project activities. For those participating directly in the project, there were two train-ing events that were central to helping strengthen their capacity to work under the project:

(a) Local facilitator37 training

Training for the six local facilitators from each pilot sub-basin was held during 9-13 November 2005 in Tak province. Training was composed of six major modules, plus field trips. The author was allowed to comment on and offer suggestions for training based on draft outlines of most of the main modules.38 Various of the subsequent adjustments and further articulation of training ma-terials responded to some of the questions or suggestions raised. The final modules employed were:

Communications Skills39 Module

This training consisted of four sub-modules on (1) mass relations techniques, (2) basic public rela-tions, (3) knowledge dissemination techniques, and (4) experience with mass relations and public relations in watershed management. Written materials prepared for these sub-modules indicate that:

• The first sub-module was developed and taught by a military expert lecturer in mass relations and communications. It includes some perspectives that are somewhat different than might be found in many western academic, activist, or social organizer circles, and includes a section on conflict resolution. Only a list of sub-topics is available in written form, however, and the author sees no indication that something more lasting or widely useable will be produced un-

37 วิทยากรลุมน้ําสาขา 38 See appendix b for the content of the author’s comments. 39 (1) เทคนิคดานมวลชนสัมพนัธ, (2) หลักการประชาสัมพันธ, (3) เทคนิคการถายทอดความรู, (4) ประสบการณดานมวลชนสัมพนัธและการประชาสัมพันธในการจัดการลุมน้ํา


der the project. These materials are interesting not only for their content, but also for the point of view they represent, which is widespread among various important stakeholder groups.

• The second and third sub-modules have a more conventional base in communication theory and social psychology, which is touched on very briefly in the introduction. Much of the main focus of written materials is on techniques for helping gain acceptance of local audiences, and use of tools such as pin boards, flipcharts, posters, leaflets and folders. As in the first sub-module, there is also attention to public speaking arts. In the thin booklet on this module, there is no evidence of reference to ideas based on knowledge dissemination theory per se.

• The author has not received any written or presentation materials related to the fourth sub-module.

From the author’s point of view, it would have been interesting if these types of presentations could have been complemented by presentation of some views, approaches, and techniques employed by people who are somewhat more on the activist community organizer side of the spectrum. This might have added some useful additional techniques or tools, as well as a more complete view of the paradigms used by different stakeholder groups.

Natural Resources40 Module

This appears to be a very central module of the training program, which includes three important sub-modules on (1) natural resource processes and management in watersheds, (2) community par-ticipation in watershed management, and (3) management tools. The substantial written and presen-tation materials prepared for these sub-modules by Dr. Monthon indicate that:

• The first sub-module is notable for its efforts to present a broad view of biophysical processes and related watershed issues in as straightforward and simple a manner as possible, and the accompanying presentation uses a substantial amount of graphic visualizations. One of its techniques is to focus on the point that watershed management is really all about management of resources within a watershed.41 This allows inclusion of many forms of human activity and issues, which are generalized into urban, agricultural and forest ecosystems within the water-shed, which then provides a basis of examining interactions among them, with particular fo-cus on water resources. The author’s only very minor point is that the distinction between ag-ricultural and forest ecosystems should allow for landscapes that are intermediate between the two (or have mixtures of both) – like the ones found in most Ping River sub-basins.

• The second sub-module demonstrates just how far thinking has changed in various parts of the forester’s world, as it articulates an understanding of types and levels of participation, as well as a potential trajectory of change in community-state relationships in Thailand. While the overall focus is on conservation, the issues and principles have wider relevance.

• The third sub-module focuses on local plans, rules and organization as tools for management. In doing so, it appears that this module is intended to provide the main introduction for local facilitators into the planning processes that would be occurring in very rapid fashion under the project. Examples used in this sub-module focus on development of a pair of plans focused on addressing conservation problems: (1) a conservation plan, and (2) an extension plan. A series of steps is articulated for developing these plans, based on participatory problem identifica-tion, collaborative articulation of goals and strategies, development of priorities, assignment of roles and responsibilities, identification of needs for assistance, and aggregation of projects into plans that contribute to addressing priority needs under sub-basin goals and strategies.

40 (1) การจัดการทรัพยากรธรรมชาติและสิ่งแวดลอมในพืน้ที่ลุมน้ํา, (2) การมีสวนรวมของประชาชนในการจัดการลุมน้ํา, (3) เคร่ืองมือในการจัดการ: แผน กฎระเบียบ องคกร 41 The author sees this as an important and useful point and refers to it elsewhere in this report.


Mountain Minorities42 Module

It is very interesting indeed that the Panya team decided to solicit input from IMPECT43 for this module. IMPECT is one of the early broad-ranging non-governmental network organizations in northern Thailand, and its membership is primarily based on mountain ethnic minority communi-ties. Thus, they are able to articulate points of view that are quite different than what one will hear from either government agencies or mainstream academic institutions. This is reflected in the ma-terials prepared and distributed under the project, which also include some data from a more recent survey of mountain (“highland”) communities than was employed in Part II of this report.44 The author believes even the manner in which these materials are written can make a very useful con-tribution to improving discussion of issues related to these communities in Ping River sub-basins. One hopes that there will be an opportunity to further develop and expand these types of materials for future use in all Ping River sub-basin where these stakeholder groups are important. Moreover, it is a good sign that strategic network organizations such as this are being invited to participate in Ping River Basin management activities, and the author hopes that such relationships will continue and further expand in the future.

Health45 Module

This module began with a review of health data from provinces and districts within the three pilot sub-basins, followed by information on several high profile health threats. Health data revealed:

• In Ping part 1, water-borne diarrheal diseases and malaria are of particular importance, as is AIDS and a moderate level of accidents. While pesticide use is reported as high, related re-ported illnesses are quite low. Although AIDS was the leading cause of death, it has recently fallen below cancer and respiratory failure.

• In Mae Kuang, the highest rates of illness are from respiratory diseases, followed by food poi-soning, diarrhea and amoebic dysentery. While pesticide use is reported as high, related re-ported illnesses are quite low. Leading causes of deaths are cancer and heart disease.

• In the Lower Ping, leading illness is diarrheal diseases, followed by accidents, respiratory dis-ease, food poisoning and Dengue fever. While pesticide use is reported as high, related re-ported illnesses are quite low. Leading causes of death are heart disease, cancer and respira-tory disease.

The health threat section covers basic information on Dengue fever, malaria, avian influenza, AIDS, liver fluke, and foot-and-mouth disease. While this is an interesting module that is to be commended for developing an approach that began with an assessment of health data in the particular localities where local facilitators will be work-ing, the author feels it would have been good to see a bit more specific information about how sub-basin management activities might be able to help address issues such as diarrheal diseases. It was also a bit disappointing to see no reference to intestinal parasite infestations that the author under-stands are significant in at least many mountain communities. Regarding pesticide issues, it is in-teresting to see the low levels of reported illness compared to the high profile of this issue in public discussions and debate, as well as pesticide poisoning data from village reports (Figure 2-45).

42 กลุมชาติพนัธุ 43 สมาคมศูนยรวมการศึกษาและวัฒนธรรม ของชาวไทยภูเขาในประเทศไทย (ศ.ว.ท.) 44 The author has heard previous reference to this data, but has not yet been able to gain access to the disag-gregated database in order to update the analysis in Part II. 45 สาธารณสุข: สาเหตุของโรค วิธีปองกันโรค การดูแลสุขภาพรางกาย


Pollution46 Module.

Training sessions under this module included four sub-modules on (1) water pollution manage-ment, (2) agricultural pollution management, (3) community pollution management, and (4) indus-trial pollution management. In the printed materials, sub-modules 3 and 4 were combined.

• The first sub-module is focused on water pollution, and its associated written materials are in the form of a training handbook that includes a 5-page general introduction to the environ-ment and causes of pollution. This is followed by brief discussion of the sources, problems and impacts of water pollution, and then by a chapter on approaches for preventing and man-aging water pollution. The final chapter focuses on methods for monitoring water quality.

• The second sub-module tackles agricultural pollution by beginning with a discussion on how pollution arises in agricultural practices and differences between point and non-point sources. While animal wastes, salts and sediment are mentioned as sources of pollution, the main focus is on use of agricultural chemicals, and especially chemical fertilizers and pesticides. With the exception of sections on how make compost and liquid organic fertilizers, and how to take soil and plant samples for analysis by experts, the bulk of the remaining materials focus on types of alternative practices that can reduce or eliminate chemical use, including criteria used by groups promoting different approaches. The written materials also include summary de-scriptions of how 36 herbs can be used for pest control based on local knowledge techniques.

• The third sub-module on community pollution is split into two sections on wastewater pollu-tion and solid waste disposal. The very brief wastewater section lists estimates of wastewater generation, types of pollutants in wastewater and some of their impacts, simple and technical indicators of water quality, titles of relevant laws, and a few paragraphs on types of treatment at household and community levels. The also brief solid waste section lists regional waste generation estimates, definitions of major types of waste, some potential impacts, titles of re-lated laws, and a few paragraphs on types of management at household and community levels.

• The final sub-module on industrial pollution is based on a short but concise summary of in-dustrial pollution sources and types, their environmental impacts, a list of titles of relevant laws, indicators and standards of relevant water quality parameters, and a few paragraphs on “clean technologies” and waste treatment methods.

Local Knowledge & Local Organization47 Module

This module, which was organized and presented by Dr. Pornchai Preechapanya, began with an introduction to local knowledge and it relationships with scientific knowledge, followed by tech-niques for eliciting local knowledge in the context of local watershed landscapes. Examples in-cluded local knowledge related to perceptions of how trees affect water absorption and release, and how plants help capture water, reduce soil erosion, and cycle nutrients, as well as biological indica-tors of weather patterns, water quality, and predictors of floods and landslides. He also discussed perceived ecological functions of cattle and buffalo grazing in forests. A second section of this module focused on relevance and roles of institutional rules from national to local levels, as well as the organizational units of government agencies, local communities, local governments, and non-governmental organizations, including discussion of the roles of local networks and prachakhom. The module ends with discussion of roles for local organizations in monitoring watershed functions and environmental quality, including use of both local knowledge and simple science-based tools. Written materials distributed under this module include materials published in association with ICRAF on folk knowledge about agroforestry systems used in watershed areas [Preechapanya 2001], local institution roles in natural resource governance, and annotated artistic renderings of watershed landscapes. Much of this work has been conducted in collaboration with local communi-

46 (1) การจัดการมลพิษทางน้าํ, (2) การจัดการมลพิษทางการเกษตร, (3) การจัดการมลพษิจากชุมชน, (4) การจัดการมลพิษจากอุตสาหกรรม 47 ภูมิปญญาทองถ่ินและองคกรทองถ่ิน


ties in the Mae Chaem sub-basin and the Ping part 1 sub-basin, with supplementary information from a range of other locations [Preechapanya 2005]. Presentations also draw on findings from Dr. Pornchai’s other research on local knowledge-based biological indicators of environmental quality, as well as on materials published by the Green World Foundation on biological indicators of water quality. Although he has now left his position as head of the DNP’s northern watershed research center, Dr. Pornchai will continue his contributions to this type of work as deputy director of the Queen Sirikit Botannical Garden, which is based in the Ping’s Mae Rim sub-basin.

(b) Training of community trainers48

Fifteen community trainers from each sub-basin were selected during the third week of November, and a training session was held for them during 28-30 November in Chiang Mai. The focus of training was largely on simplified elements under the natural resources and pollution modules in the facilitator training. A common venue in Chiang Mai also allowed for both joint and separate sessions, as well as a degree of interaction among community trainers from different sub-basins. This has allowed, for example, initiation of discussions between Ping Part 1 and Mae Kuang groups about various upstream-downstream relationships between them, as well as commonalities and differences in the problems and approaches. While the main project task of community trainers will be to conduct field trips cum study tours for large groups of stakeholders (estimated at 150 persons each) in each sub-basin, their training is also presumed to have spin-off and residual effects in helping to build capacity in pilot sub-basins.

(c) Other project capacity building activities

Additional project capacity building efforts can be seen in sub-basin workshops where articulations of vision statements, goals and objectives have been developed to set the framework for assessing proposed projects and assigning priorities to them. During these processes, Panya staff have sought to provide a degree of mentoring as they work through the tasks and associated issues, although the very tight time frame for these activities has been an important limitation. Further efforts have been made in regard to articulation of criteria and indicators for monitoring of both projects and environmental conditions in pilot sub-basins. Various resource persons have been pulled into the process, and at least some of their contributions can definitely be seen as helping strengthen the capacity building process. Again, while interest was strong in the Ping Part 1 work-ing group, for example, time constraints limited this to a first installment on what should be a much longer-term and in-depth process.

5. Project ‘toolkit’ materials It is the author’s understanding that the training materials discussed in the previous section are be-ing developed into more complete and publishable formats as the primary components of the ‘tool-kits’ specified as an output of this project. Since the author’s input and comments on specific com-ponents of those materials are mentioned in the previous section, and were the subject of a project memo49 during their development, those comments need not be repeated here. Rather, this section focuses of a few additional components, and some overall observations regarding the categories of toolkits envisioned in the project terms of reference.

(a) Technical toolkits for forest conservation, community forestry, biodiversity, waste re-use and re-cycling, water and soil conservation, organic farming, etc.

Technical toolkits appear to have received the greatest emphasis under the project thus far. Train-ing documents (and hopefully associated presentations) on natural resource management, pollution,

48 วิทยากรชุมชน 49 See appendix b for the substance of those comments.


and health modules of the facilitator training program appear to fall into this category. The materi-als on local knowledge furnished by Dr. Pornchai, which responds to one of the author’s sugges-tions on these materials, will presumably also be part of a technical toolkit. In addition, the author has been provided with copies of (1) a handbook on soil and water conserva-tion, and (2) a video CD on sustainable agriculture produced by the Department of Land Develop-ment. Both of these also appear to be slated for inclusion in technical toolkits. The author notes that his earlier suggestions regarding the soil and water handbook have not yet been addressed, so he assumes they will not be incorporated into those materials. One of the main points of those sug-gestions was that materials need to assess and address why especially soil conservation types of practices have seen so little adoption despite many years of extension efforts, as well as specific examples of sites where they are working well. Training materials on water, community and industrial pollution are only slightly longer than brief brochures or what might be called “information sheets” in many western contexts. That is probably fine if they are developed into such formats, but what is clearly missing is information about where interested people or groups can find additional information. Especially items like lists of titles of laws, or paragraphs on types of prevention or mitigation methods are of little use if interested peo-ple have no information about how and where they can access further details. Indeed, each of the prevention or mitigation measures could well be the topic of individual extension-type brochures or booklets. Training materials on natural resources and agricultural pollution have more details and illustra-tions, and could be further developed into booklets. But again, recommended reading and sources of additional information need to be provided. Mr. Kosul’s summary of herbal alternatives to pesti-cides derived from local knowledge is only the tip of a potentially very interesting iceberg. Copies of appropriate existing publications from beyond the project, such as those provided by Dr. Pornchai, should also be included in toolkits. Another clear example would be copies of Green Word Foundation publications on methods and tools for ‘stream detectives’, which could also be included in the ‘type 3’ toolkits, below. Many other examples are also likely to exist, but unfortu-nately, there are no known central collections of these types of materials.

(b) Organizational toolkits for roles and responsibilities of communities, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, consultative processes for budgets and expendi-tures, credit and savings fund; monitoring of action plan implementation, evalu-ating intervention results and disclosure.

Project training materials that appear to fit in this category include the sub-modules of the natural resource training related to community participation and ‘management tools’ (i.e. plans, rules and organization). It also includes contents of the communications skills module (which the author notes should be expanded to include additional points of view), and the mountain minorities mod-ule (which deserves further refinement, expansion and wide dissemination). It could also include the local organization component of Dr. Pornchai’s local knowledge and organization module, and associated publications. A community planning handbook previously published by ONEP was used by the project, and should be included as part of this toolkit [ONEP 2004]. Areas that still appear to be missing here (although Panya staff may have materials that the author has not yet seen) include information on expenditure processes, credit and savings funds, and evaluation of intervention results and disclosure. Resource persons who assisted working group discussions on criteria and indicators might be a potential source of materials related to evaluation of intervention results and disclosure. Regarding sources outside the project, given the large number of initiatives during recent years that have centered on or employed revolving funds, there must be a considerable number of materials


available from various sources. The scope for their potential role in projects we are seeing in emerging plans will be discussed a bit further later in this report. Conflict management is another area where the author believes there must be a range of fairly recent materials from other sources that could be included – or at least suggested as further reading – in project toolkits.

(c) Awareness and education toolkits for use in schools, health centers, community radio networks, village fairs, etc.

There is at least some degree of overlap between materials in the previous two types of toolkits and what could be included in this third type of toolkit. Materials for distribution at activities such as village fairs should presumably be more in the form of attractive brochures or ‘information sheets’ that include sections on where and how to get more information, as well as items like posters, shirts, etc., that feature specific concepts, points, slogans, etc. Dr. Pornchai’s annotated artistic renderings of landscapes are another interesting example. The DLD’s video CD is yet another type of attractive format whose time has come. While some of these types of materials could also be useful for capturing attention in schools, health centers, etc., these types of venues are also likely to have a need for more detailed informa-tion written in a language and style appropriate for students or non-specialist audiences. One ex-ample of technical materials that have already been employed at a number of schools in the Ping Basin is the ‘stream detectives’ package of handbooks and materials published by the Green World Foundation in Bangkok, and available at places like Suriwongse Bookstore in Chiang Mai. Materials for community radio networks is a bit more of a specialized area, and might well include a list of local persons who are knowledgeable and articulate about the sub-basin management ef-forts and issues. Indeed, interviews or discussions with such people could be conducted and pack-aged for airing by interested stations in a logical sequence. Overall, it may also useful to reflect a bit on what does NOT appear to be included in the training materials cum ‘toolkits’ at this point. In addition to the items noted above, a few examples include:

• Information about the more ‘full-blown’ type of long-term participatory river basin manage-ment processes (as opposed to watershed management and project compilations), as discussed in Part III of this report.50

• Associated materials focused on building widespread consensus among the full range of stakeholders in river basins or sub-basins regarding the content and implementation ap-proaches of a more holistic long-term management plan.

• Materials with more breadth and depth of discussion about livelihood development and liveli-hood alternatives that could be realistic viable options for major groups of sub-basin stake-holders.

• Information on more dimensions of urban environmental quality, including many cultural and quality of life dimensions that were championed in the earlier study by CMU [2004].

• Information that addresses flood plain, riverbank, stream channel and canal issues, including impacts of encroachment, infrastructure, and engineering modifications.

• Information on more aspects of and approaches for improving water use efficiency by the range of types of stakeholders present in sub-basins.

• Materials that introduce concepts like alternative future scenarios, which can help sub-basin stakeholders think about and visualize preferred trajectories for future development.

50 See especially part III.D.3., above.


• Materials that explain and explore the nature of trade-offs between livelihood and environ-mental objectives, the distribution of costs and benefits among different stakeholders, and possible compensating measures for those who accrue more costs than benefits.

• Information on concepts and experience related to incentives for more environmentally-friendly behavior, including but not limited to economic and regulatory incentives. (Perhaps more information in this area may come from another component of this project)

• And the author is certain that others can help add many important items to this list that have been overlooked here.

Moreover, all materials need to place a high priority on providing suggestions for further reading and/or contacts where people can gain access to further information. Discussions here about training materials and toolkits are also closely related to the author’s earlier suggestions regarding development of a “knowledge center” for the Ping River Basin, which will be re-visited in the final part of this report.

6. Developing initial action plans During the period wherein initial sub-basin working groups were considering vision statements, goals and objectives for sub-basin management plans, staff from Panya Consultants were also gath-ering substantial amounts of information through their ‘PRA’ techniques in pilot sub-basins. Since by this time there was a general consensus emerging that project planning efforts need to be built on and coordinated with previous sub-basin and local government planning work, the consultant team began gathering lists of relevant projects from these sources. It is the author’s understanding that the list was also supplemented with new project ideas that emerged during this process. Thus, the planning documents that the author has seen thus far consist of long lists of hundreds of small (and a few fairly large) projects, for which budgets and overall responsibilities are assigned, primarily to local governments and/or units of line agencies active in the area. There is not yet any detail provided for any of the projects, or any indication of any linkage relationships among them. Familiarity with proposed projects appears mixed among members of the working group, but fur-ther information on many of them can be provided by various members. Given this vast amount of very indicative information, the Panya team has been working to catego-rize the long project lists into at least aggregates that can be viewed, summarized, and hopefully assessed by sub-basin working groups. An example is provided in the next section. Now that work-ing groups have articulated their sub-basin vision, goals and objectives, project staff are now work-ing to collate project lists according to the objectives they would aim to help achieve. At least in the Ping Part 1 sub-basin, there have been various additional project ideas that have emerged as discussions in the working group have evolved, and many appear very relevant and quite interesting. It is not yet clear, however, how many of these can be developed into concreted project proposals in time to be included in the current action planning process. It is the author’s understanding that working groups will now seek to go through those lists, screen-ing them for their appropriateness and contributions to achieving objectives, and ranking them in terms of priorities. They will also be seeking to identify gaps, and to either seek ideas and propos-als to fill those gaps, or flag them as needing further consideration in the future. In this regard, the author has also been encouraging consideration of activities such as studies (per-haps somewhat along the lines of those supported in some areas by the Thailand Research Fund) in topic areas where it is not yet possible to identify specific local actions that could effectively ad-dress important issues or needs. Whether this occurs or not remains to be seen.


7. Selecting long-term RSBO organizational structures An initial round of sub-basin workshops were held at strategic venues within individual sub-basins to present and solicit ideas about experience to date with Ping Basin programs, and to encourage thinking about organizational alternatives for sub-basin management. The five types of organiza-tional alternatives discussed in Part III of this report have provided a centerpiece for suggested al-ternatives for stakeholders to consider. The general response to this initiative appears to have been positive in most cases. It has also re-vealed once again the basically cultural differences among upper and middle sub-basins on one hand, and lower sub-basins on the other. Response has been rather rapid in middle and upper sub-basins that local communities and non-governmental leaders want to have basic “ownership” of sub-basin organizations. While officials and government agencies are seen as valuable and essen-tial partners, they do not want to see agency domination of sub-basin management processes. In the lower sub-basin, however, stakeholders appear quite comfortable with their agency-induced organ-izational structure, and functions that are in line with ministry mandates. They do appear, however, to show preference for linkages with both MoNRE and MoAC, and to have strong roles for local leaders of agency-induced organizations and networks. This initial round of workshops was followed by a general workshop for numerous stakeholders from all three sub-basins convened in Chiang Mai on 17 December 2005. After general presenta-tions and discussions in the morning, participants broke into separate groups for each sub-basin during the afternoon. Although the author has not yet seen what the specific outcomes of those considerations have been, discussions with various participants during the workshop indicate that it is not likely that sub-basins will yet be able to provide a definite decision that will allow them to begin implementing any new organizational structure. The overall process, and the lines of thinking underlying it, however, have begun.


C. Results 1: Initial Sub-basin Action Plans Action plans for each of the individual sub-basins are seen as a major output of this project. In-deed, it appears that at various points and among various stakeholders, the focus on action plans has even tended to be seen almost as an end in itself. And, in the view of a number of local leaders and community members, generating a series of action plan documents has been the primary func-tion of all Ping Basin management programs thus far. Despite sometimes growing skepticism about what will actually be accomplished under these plans, however, there is also recognition that these efforts are aimed at trying to formulate program approaches that are more participatory and integrated, and that aim to help development programs that are more responsive to local needs and quality of life issues for both current and future generations. At the time this report is being written, sub-basin action plans are still a work in progress. Discus-sion in previous sections has already described the nature of the processes and activities involved in trying to quickly bring closure to this endeavor. Thus, this section can only try to take a preliminary look at what is likely to be the nature of the action plans, based on progress and trends thus far.

1. Plan components In order to set a framework for considering the components of the action plan, this section builds on discussions in Part III of this report that propose a list of five major components that need to be included in a long-term RSBO management plan (see Figure 3-9 and accompanying text).

(a) Articulation of problems, vision, goals and objectives

Each sub-basin has articulated a vision statement and associated sets of goals and objectives for management in their sub-basin. And efforts are underway to structure their action plans in a man-ner wherein all proposed projects are explicitly linked with the objectives they will seek to help achieve. Moreover, vision statements reflect perceptions of issues and problems that at least sev-eral major stakeholders perceive to exist in the sub-basin, so that the overall structure is intended to be problem-solving in its nature.

In reality, formulation of sub-basin vision statements, goals and objectives have had input from various directions, and especially from previous iterations of this process under earlier Ping Basin programs, or under other agency or local government planning efforts. In some cases, such as Ping Part 1, there was some fairly serious (but very rapid) effort to really consider new formulations. In other cases, such as Lower Ping, they appear comfortable with ones similar to previous efforts. The process in Mae Kuang has been perhaps a bit more contentious and affected by local rivalries. While previous efforts along these lines have helped sub-basin working groups accomplish these tasks at a pace that may have been more difficult in the absence of such experience, it appears that it may have also influenced perceptions of the scope of the mandate for sub-basin management. This is reflected in the relatively wide range of basic problems that have been identified, and to varying extents included in vision statements. While in some cases there is at least a degree of fol-low through in goal and objective statements, there also appears to be a progressive narrowing at each level that seems to draw in the conceptual boundaries to be closer to the mandate domains of the key patron government agencies. Although this is not necessarily a problem, it may be worth recognizing, and perhaps reconsidering (and possibly re-validating) after a reasonable period of experience with actual implementation and monitoring.

(b) Action plans that target improved livelihood, health and environment outcomes

If the logic of sub-basin vision statements, goals and objectives is sound, and if their scope suffi-ciently covers livelihood, health and environment issues and needs, then the key remaining element of targeting should be that specific action projects make significant contributions toward achieving objectives, and thus goals.


The long lists of preliminarily proposed projects have gone through an initial sorting into four ma-jor categories, in order to provide a reasonable degree of order for initial scanning and considera-tion by sub-basin working groups. As already noted, after final articulation of sub-basin vision, goal and objective statements, the lists are now being resorted into categories that follow more di-rectly and precisely from stated objectives. Unfortunately, however, the resorted lists were not yet available to the author in time for inclusion in this report. Thus, in order to help provide a general overview of what was in these initial lists, Figure 4-7 summarizes the list of proposed projects initially presented to the Ping Part 1 sub-basin working group. Columns in this table represent the four initial sorting categories. Again, it is important to emphasize two major points: (1) this list of projects has NOT yet been screened by the working group according to the objectives of the project, and (2) the four categories are being replaced by actual goals and objectives for purposes of resorting and subsequent screening and consideration.

Figure 4-7. Initial classification of projects proposed in Ping Part 1 sub-basin.

District Tambon projects budget projects budget projects budget projects budget projects budgetMuang Nae 11 7.7 5 1.7 - - - - 16 9.4 2%Chiang Dao 8 2.4 6 1.9 - - - - 14 4.3 1%Mae Nae 12 1.1 21 16.6 - 1.3 2 - 35 19.0 4%Muang Ngay 9 0.7 12 1.1 - - - - 21 1.8 0%Thung Khao Puang 14 2.6 5 10.7 - - - - 19 13.3 3%Ping Khong 11 4.2 3 0.3 - - - - 14 4.6 1%Mae Taeng 8 9.9 2 3.5 15 4.0 12 9.7 37 27.1 6%Kid Chang 4 33.6 2 3.5 19 4.9 9 9.2 34 51.1 11%Saw Lae 5 2.9 12 140.8 - - - - 17 143.8 30%Mae Haw Phra 15 6.5 10 1.7 - - 1 0.7 26 9.0 2%Ban Phao 2 0.1 12 0.9 - - - - 14 1.0 0%Intakil 5 1.8 2 0.2 - - - - 7 2.0 0%Sanmahaphon 8 29.3 8 1.1 25 35.1 10 1.8 51 67.3 14%

Sansai Mae Faek 8 0.8 14 1.9 11 0.8 7 2.9 40 6.4 1%Sri Dong Yen 16 3.4 8 1.5 24 3.4 38 9.1 86 17.4 4%Nong Bua 7 1.9 3 1.0 - - - - 10 2.9 1%Nam Phrae 19 15.5 10 6.4 23 3.7 38 12.9 90 38.5 8%Ban Phong 4 0.2 3 0.4 20 4.3 10 6.5 37 11.5 2%Sansai 8 3.9 3 0.3 - - - - 11 4.2 1%Longkok 5 0.2 - - 14 0.4 6 1.0 25 1.6 0%Piang Luang 9 3.6 1 0.8 14 5.8 6 16.4 30 26.5 6%Muang Haeng 9 1.7 6 3.3 14 1.1 16 4.7 45 10.8 2%

Total: 197 134.0 148 199.6 179 64.8 155 74.9 679 473.4 100%29% 28% 22% 42% 26% 14% 23% 16% 100% 100%

Phrao

Vienghaeng

[budgets in millions of Baht] Total

Chiang Dao

Mae Taeng

Chaiprakhan

Natural Resources Environment Public Health Livelihoods

Rows in this table list numbers of projects and aggregate values of budgets by districts and tam-bons. This structure follows from the local administrative processes involved in coming up with the projects, as well as the perceived structure of processes that are most likely to be involved in pro-ject implementation. While this is likely to be the format for presentation in all sub-basins, in the case of the Ping Part 1 sub-basin it also reflects the particularly strong involvement of TAO gov-ernments in leading efforts to provide a focal point and interface with local networks of various sorts and other types of local initiatives that are related to the topics under consideration. The formulating of action plans in this format adds to proliferation in the number of projects. For example, a single line of training activity of broad relevance across many villages and tambons might appear as a single line item in the budget of a central government agency, or even a provin-cial office. In a context like this, however, it would need to be broken into as many as 22 separate projects in order to be conducted in all tambons in the Ping Part 1 sub-basin (and even more in the Mae Kuang). Of course, another factor that adds to project proliferation relates to the apparent preference in some areas for multiple projects of very modest scale, rather than a few big projects. Examples in Figure 4-7 include the 12 natural resources projects totaling 1.1 million baht in Mae Nae, or the same figures for environment projects in Muang Ngay, along with numerous others. In terms of the columns in the table, while these initial groupings have been somewhat helpful in seeing the general distribution of projects, variation within some categories revealed needs for im-


provements in the categorization system. A more detailed look at the actual projects contained in each category reveals, for example, that some items listed under natural resources could arguably be included under environment or livelihoods, as well as some items under environment that might also be conceived as being under livelihoods. Project resorting based on actual goals and objectives should provide a substantial improvement, but the author has not yet seen the outcome. We can also see both ‘lumpiness’ among tambons, and very substantial differences in relative allo-cations across the four categories. Much of the lumpiness in budget allocations is due to a few quite large projects for things like water treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, and even slaughterhouse facilities by a few tambons. Whether such items are seen as appropriate for inclusion in the action plan, and what priority is assigned to them in allocating scarce resources will be a decision for sub-basin working groups. In any event, however, the logic underlying such deci-sions, including their linkage with and contribution to sub-basin objectives, should be clearly stated if they are included in the final action plan. While such lumpiness is an invitation for further scru-tiny, such scrutiny might be equally applicable in cases where equal allocation are made across all tambons. These are clearly examples where transparency and accountability should come into play. Most of the unevenness in allocations across categories is found in the public health and livelihood categories. The author’s impression is that this relates to considerable uncertainty about what would be eligible for inclusion, and especially to the shortage of available project proposals that would be doable and acceptable. This situation follows from the absence of these issue areas in previous Ping Basin planning exercises, and especially in the case of livelihoods, to the combina-tion of no single ministry with a corresponding mandate, and uncertainty about what could be done. Judging from discussions in the Ping 1 sub-basin working group, it may be possible to make some improvements in these areas before finalizing the action plan. At the same time, however, it is also recognized that some areas (and perhaps some objectives) will need to be flagged in the action plan as important sub-basin concerns where considerable further effort is necessary in order to identify and design actionable projects that can help address these concerns. If so, one hopes that at least a modest amount of resources might be accessible for conducting such efforts. In the case of the Mae Kuang sub-basin, a quick look through the many hundreds of projects listed in their preliminary list reveals a range of proposed projects that appears to be an approximation of the full range of programs of related government agencies active in those topic areas, but there is great variation among types of projects proposed for different localities within the sub-basin. At least wide diversity should not be surprising in a sub-basin as complex and diverse as Mae Kuang. For the many activities in proposed project lists that appear quite similar to the types of programs that have been developed and promoted by government agencies, one is tempted to ask if these types of activities are so promising, why have they not already addressed these problems without the need for sub-basin management organizations? The first response to that question would likely be that they did not succeed because they did not have full participation and support from local communities. And this may well be a valid point. And at the same time, when local communities are put into the position of being asked what support they want to receive from government agen-cies, one of the most common lines of response will be in terms of what it is that they perceive to be available from government agencies. All this results in a kind of chicken-and-egg syndrome that reinforces the persistence of current lines of activity, and tends to screen out any new lines of analysis or innovation. While this is unfortunate, it is not unusual anywhere in the world. Another closely related issue is the types of projects that stakeholders perceive are eligible for in-clusion in action plans such as those being developed under this project. In most agency, local government and provincial planning processes, there has been a presumption against inclusion of any types of activities that are too exploratory in nature (much of which is due to previous cases of budgetary abuse), accompanied by a bias in favor of activities that are more construction or training oriented. However, the nature of many livelihood-associated problems, for example, still requires a substantial degree of exploration before more specific activities can be developed and articulated. This appears to be one of the problems associated with the shortage of livelihood related activities,


as well as the lack of new ideas and creativity in those that are submitted. The author has repeat-edly encouraged inclusion of study or exploratory activities in areas of the action plan where they are appropriate and justifiable (especially in relation to livelihoods and agricultural practices), but the degree to which they will actually appear remains to be seen. Although these initial sub-basin lists are likely to be substantially modified in the final action plans, they are most likely indicative of at least the order of magnitude of numbers and budgets of pro-jects that will be included. The point here is that these plans are likely to request very substantial amounts of funding to be distributed among a large number of projects. The author’s impression is that this is in no small part related to the high-profile statements of national government leaders regarding the high priority they assign to Ping Basin management, and the often very large amounts of resources they cite as evidence of their commitment. Indeed, previous Ping Basin program planning efforts have operated in the same atmosphere, and aggregation of their resulting budgets has also resulted in very large budget requests. One suspects that these tendencies have not been discouraged by patron government agencies, especially where agency leaders view such programs as potential sources of funding to supplement agency programs during an era when more national budgets are being shifted from central line agencies into programs led by local government. Ex-perience thus far, as well as general trends in the public policy arena, however, raise some ques-tions whether anywhere near these levels of funding support will actually become available for these purposes. This possibility makes the processes of justification and priority setting even more important, and again underscores the need for adequate transparency and accountability.

(c) Monitoring indicators and information strategy

Sessions have been held with sub-basin working groups on criteria, indicators and measures for monitoring and assessing progress of sub-basin implementation activities. At least in the case of the Ping part 1 sub-basin where the author has been able to most closely follow project activities, there has been some quite interesting (but very rushed) consideration of monitoring criteria and indicators. Moreover, in addition to monitoring specific project outputs, these discussions have been wide enough in scope to extend to means for monitoring outcomes and impacts, as well as monitoring and analysis that can help identify newly emerging issues and problems. Awareness of the needs for such mechanisms appears to be quite strong across the full range of stakeholders pre-sent in the sub-basin working group. While these discussions have been good, it is not yet clear how many concrete proposals can be included in this initial action plan. Regarding monitoring of project outputs, the author has not yet seen much effort directed toward clarification of the role of sub-basin working groups (or RSBOs) versus local governments and line agencies. It was already mentioned earlier in this report51 that there has been some considerable divergence in thinking about the role of sub-basin organizations regarding project implementation. From the discussions and action projects emerging from work in sub-basins, there appears to be a quite clear assumption that most project implementation will be conducted under the authority of local governments, and to at least some extent line agencies. Such units have their own regulations and mandates for monitoring project inputs and outputs. What is not yet clear, however, is the de-gree to which sub-basin organizations will (or should) have some at least collaborative oversight function in monitoring inputs and outputs of projects included in sub-basin plans. And if they are to have such roles, there will clearly need to be mutual understanding and arrangements about how such monitoring activities will be conducted. At the outcome and impact (and new problem identification) levels, monitoring needs to be more closely linked with criteria and indicators identified for those levels. Again, discussions have be-gun regarding such criteria and indicators, and the need for sufficient baseline data has been recog-nized. At least in the Ping Part 1 sub-basin, it is also clear that working group members recognize the need for collaboration in obtaining data from both local and outside sources. Indeed, they have even recognized the potential synergy of linking outside sources such as interpretation of remote

51 See especially section III.B.1.b.


sensing data with local understanding that can greatly enhance the quality and depth of such inter-pretations. It is not yet clear, however, whether this type of activity will be reflected as one or more projects under the action plan, whether it will be seen as an operational expense of the sub-basin organization, or whether they will be looking for funding support from the outside partners. In order to help develop what could become a more coherent overall monitoring strategy, lists of projects and activities contained in the final action plan can be tagged and re-sorted according to their monitoring needs. This would provide aggregations of projects that could help identify the scope of, and potential complementarities within monitoring activities, and facilitate formulation of the most efficient and effective monitoring program and arrangements that are possible. In terms of a more holistic monitoring and information strategy, the first step would be to combine the monitoring information needs identified above, together with information required by the crite-ria and indicators identified at the objective and goal levels of the sub-basin program. This could produce a package of information requirements that could then be assessed in terms of sources from both within and outside the sub-basin. Whether all this can be completed before the end of the project, however, remains questionable. Moreover, there are still elements of a full-scale river sub-basin monitoring and information strate-gy52 (and system) that will clearly be beyond the capabilities of this project to formulate – much less establish, test and conduct. Beyond its information requirements, the monitoring strategy needs to map out how monitoring will be conducted, how findings will be assessed, and how findings will feed back into RSBO learning processes. The information component of this strategy needs to map out what information is needed, how it will be acquired, how it will be managed, and espe-cially how it will be accessed, used and disseminated to provide a basis for learning and public education, as well as for helping achieve transparency and accountability. Needs for information tools, including items such as measurement technologies, spatial information or negotiation support systems also need to be incorporated into this strategy as needs are identified.

(d) Partnership and capacity enhancement strategy So far, the author has not seen anything that could be described as an overall sub-basin capacity enhancement strategy. It appears clear, however, that a very considerable number of components are likely to be embedded within the action plan. Thus, it certainly would make sense to bring them together into an overall capacity development plan where it would be easier to identify gaps and consider means for providing the support services that would be required. A first step toward building a more coherent capacity building strategy could again be made by tagging and resorting lists of projects in final action plans according to their training needs and sources. This would provide aggregations of projects that could help identify the scope of, and po-tential complementarities among training activities, and facilitate formulation of the most efficient and effective training program and arrangements that are possible. It would be especially useful in organizing various training assistance requirements from particular sources, and for negotiating and scheduling arrangements with those sources. It could also help identify gaps and additional needs, for which sources could be sought out in a more systematic, rather than ad hoc basis. To the extent that capacity building needs for RSBO-level operations have been integrated into various projects under the action plan, some of the arrangements required to meet these needs can also be part of the above process. To the extent that they are not yet included, however, or to the extent that they emerge during project implementation, a sub-basin capacity building strategy needs to include responsibilities for people who will endeavor to help obtain appropriate assistance. In-ternational experience underscores the fact that capacity building is most likely to be a quite long-term need in developing RSBOs, and those needs are likely to change and evolve over time. 52 See especially section III.D.3.a. in this report


Moreover, as sub-basins begin increasing interaction with each other, and with River Basin and other higher levels in their biophysical and administrative hierarchies, additional interests, needs, and opportunities are likely to emerge, Thus, it may also become useful to consider how to best develop both vertical and horizontal partnership linkages with other organizations and institutions, as discussed at various points in this report. A partnership component for this strategy can begin with facilitating networks and other types of interactions within individual sub-basins, and that ex-perience can be useful in developing partnership linkages with other sub-basins and other types of organizations beyond their sub-basin. Two-way interaction through such channels can help build local capacity, help mobilize expertise and other types of additional capacity and support when needed, and help provide means for local experience to be provided to assist others in their learning processes.

(e) Financing mechanisms

The project’s terms of reference cite intentions for the project to develop financing mechanisms at two-levels: capital investments through local government budgets, and operational budget through instruments like community savings and credit fund. Discussions of project and activity financing mechanisms as project implementation has unfolded, however, have focused at a different level. All discussions among ONEP staff, Panya staff, and working group members that the author has witnessed have centered primarily on issues related to alternative channels through which central funds might be provided to finance activities and projects proposed under project action plans. Pos-sible channels under discussion include allocations to line ministries, allocations to provincial funds under the control of the Governor or the Provincial Council, or allocations directly to TAO or tessaban local governments. So far, it appears that most projects being proposed for inclusion in sub-basin action plans assume funding would flow from central sources through local governments (TAO) or regular line agencies (but specified for approved projects). This approach has been strongly reinforced by statements from high level government leaders that major funding from central sources will be directed toward Ping Basin management. There is also still discussion about specific mechanisms through which funds might be delivered to local levels, if and when they are made available and approved at high central government levels. One line of discussion, for example, has related to the implications of a sub-basin organization registering as a legal entity (nittibukon), and the degree to which this might facilitate or hinder flows of funds to it from various central sources. Much of this discussion, how-ever, assumes that RSBO’s would play major project implementation roles, whereas sub-basin working groups appear to be moving in the direction of RSBO emphasis on planning, coordination and monitoring, with most implementation through local governments or line agencies. The discus-sion is still relevant, however, in terms of budgets for gap-filling or operational roles for RSBOs. The implied notion in the terms of reference that these central funds would focus exclusively on capital investment, however, is somewhat confusing. If central funds are only for capital invest-ment, then it is not clear how use of “community savings and credit funds” could be justified for most of the types of non-capital investment activities being proposed under these action plans. Many of the projects in initial lists, for example, involve various types of training activities. Most would agree that it would be more than a bit ironic if local communities were expected to pay for forest or water conservation training programs from their community savings or revolving funds so that other members of society could benefit from their activities. Perhaps, however, thinking behind the terms of reference sees such training or capacity building activities as investment in human capital. And in a similar vein, planting trees in national forest lands could be seen as investment in natural capital. If so, then that would be fine, but it would still be difficult to see how, at least at this stage of their evolution, regular operating expenses of sub-basin management organizations could be financed from savings funds (whether at household, group or community level), unless the RSBO operations are able to help generate funds that create those savings.


Most potential sources of truly local funds (i.e. not just central funds flowing to local governments) are seen as possibly coming from local government sources through local taxes (in those jurisdic-tions where significant amounts of local tax can be collected), or at least in principle from local user fees or license fees, or from other types of income generating or cost recovery activities. Perhaps the most obvious possibility for local financing of operating expenses would be in cost recovery for new or improved services that would be provided as a result of government capital investments in facilities such as reliable water supply, wastewater treatment, trash disposal, or even the slaughterhouse being requested by a tambon in the Ping Part 1 sub-basin. In these cases, the main source of operating expense cost recovery might be from user fees. Since many of these types of services and facilities are currently operated at village, tambon or tessaban level, it is not yet clear that there would be a direct management role for sub-basin organizations. They might, however, help facilitate acquisition or upgrading of such services and facilities, which would then be operated and provide cost recovery at the village or local government level. Whether a sub-basin organization would be able to obtain any operating expenses from such activities, however, remains to be seen. It might also be possible that there could be cost recovery for services that would clearly decrease payments, taxes or penalties that would otherwise be incurred. It is even conceivable that there might be some form of cost recovery for various activities taken in one part of the sub-basin (or larger river basin) for which the primary beneficiaries are located further downstream or elsewhere, but for which a mechanism such as user fees might be established. International examples of this primarily focus on downstream municipal water supplies or local parks with entrance fees. Another type of possibility for local financing of activities might be from funds that are generated through fines, penalties or taxes on behavior that violates rules and regulations established through or in association with sub-basin organizations. Since at this point at least, RSBOs do not have offi-cial legal authority to levy such fines, penalties or taxes, procedures would again appear to require local government collaboration and authority. It is conceivable, however, that agreement might be reached wherein such revenues collected from designated types of violations or taxes might go into a special community fund earmarked for certain types of activities conducted by the RSBO. While arrangements of this type may be conceivable, social costs of negotiations and establishment are likely to be high, and particular attention would need to be paid to assure transparency and ac-countability in their operations. Such arrangements are far more common at a village level, where they can be organized and conducted in a less formal manner than is likely to be possible at a sub-basin level. It is not clear, however, whether these types of funds would fall under the category of “community savings and credit funds” cited in the terms of reference. Indeed, it would seem that the only potentially logical role for financing from “community savings and credit funds” would be more in terms of micro-capital investments (including human capital) at household or group level that would generate an ability to repay the investment, or that would cre-ate benefits that would justify allocation of resources for repayment. It is much more difficult to see how these types of sources could be used to finance “operational budgets” of sub-basin natural re-source, environment, or public health programs. It might be appropriate at this point in the discussion to take a look at what exists at village level in terms of “community savings and credit funds”. Thus, if one accepts village leadership reports as reasonable at least at a rough estimate level, then Figure 4-8 provides rough estimates from 2003 of households receiving funds through membership in local groups, sources of household producer credit, and villages with rice or cattle/buffalo banks for each of the three pilot sub-basins. These types of savings groups and government capitalized community revolving funds are sup-posed to be use for producer credit. And together with the BAAC, and to a lesser extent coopera-tives, they appear to be the primary sources of producer credit for local communities. Even in terms of households receiving any types of funds through groups of which they are a member,


those funds are supposed to be used for either liveli-hood development or for education – either of which is seen as an investment that will be able to generate additional income.

those funds are supposed to be used for either liveli-hood development or for education – either of which is seen as an investment that will be able to generate additional income.

Figure 4-8. Sub-basin group funds and credit sources, 2003

Lower Ping

Mae Kuang

Ping Part 1

percent of households Local groups Where, then, are these “community savings and credit funds” that are being viewed as potential sources of “operational expenses” for sub-basin organization programs and projects? Stories of “mis-use” of government revolving funds for re-payment of other debts or for purchase of household goods or luxury items is already a matter of very substantial discussion in the mass media and public policy arena, and speculation about default on payments in at least the newer types of government revolving funds is widespread. Thus, it is very difficult to see how the chemistry of activity in this area could be compatible with sources of “operational expenses” for sub-basin programs.

Where, then, are these “community savings and credit funds” that are being viewed as potential sources of “operational expenses” for sub-basin organization programs and projects? Stories of “mis-use” of government revolving funds for re-payment of other debts or for purchase of household goods or luxury items is already a matter of very substantial discussion in the mass media and public policy arena, and speculation about default on payments in at least the newer types of government revolving funds is widespread. Thus, it is very difficult to see how the chemistry of activity in this area could be compatible with sources of “operational expenses” for sub-basin programs.

members 81 91 84 also received funds 55 40 37

also agric group 36 43 29 also agric coop 25 33 26

percent of households Producer credit Prod savings group 31 24 12

Cooperative 11 18 7 BAAC 38 26 17

Commercial bank 5 2 4 Private lendor 7 1 1

Gov't revolving fund 66 53 61 other sources 1 1 2

percent of villages In-kind "banks" Rice 12 11 27

Cattle/buffalo 4 11 11 1

Source: Figures 2-20 and 2-17 Source: Figures 2-20 and 2-17 In short, the most clearly justifiable uses for “community savings and credit funds” appear to be associated with activities that could help improve the earning capacities of individuals or households. Activities associated with clearly viable liveli-hood alternatives to current activities, however, appear at least at this point to be among the weak-est components of these plans.

In short, the most clearly justifiable uses for “community savings and credit funds” appear to be associated with activities that could help improve the earning capacities of individuals or households. Activities associated with clearly viable liveli-hood alternatives to current activities, however, appear at least at this point to be among the weak-est components of these plans. This discussion helps remind us that a financing strategy is another important, and often fairly complex component of a full-scale long-term river sub-basin management plan. International ex-perience suggests long term organizational viability and sustainability are indeed enhanced by an appropriate mix of funding support from central and local sources. Supplementary funding on ei-ther an operational or project basis from private business or private or parastatal non-profit sources can also be important, as can donations from private, public or membership sources. Moreover, some RSBOs establish separate units for managing income producing services and facilities, such as hydroelectric power generation or water supply or treatment. At least in some cases, such units can help subsidize other operations and projects that benefit the general public or disadvantaged groups.

This discussion helps remind us that a financing strategy is another important, and often fairly complex component of a full-scale long-term river sub-basin management plan. International ex-perience suggests long term organizational viability and sustainability are indeed enhanced by an appropriate mix of funding support from central and local sources. Supplementary funding on ei-ther an operational or project basis from private business or private or parastatal non-profit sources can also be important, as can donations from private, public or membership sources. Moreover, some RSBOs establish separate units for managing income producing services and facilities, such as hydroelectric power generation or water supply or treatment. At least in some cases, such units can help subsidize other operations and projects that benefit the general public or disadvantaged groups. But these are all complex issues that require careful consideration and often extensive negotiations and consensus building. They cannot be established in a 3 to 4 month period. Thus, exploration and development of a full sub-basin financing strategy again remains beyond the scope of this cur-rent project.

But these are all complex issues that require careful consideration and often extensive negotiations and consensus building. They cannot be established in a 3 to 4 month period. Thus, exploration and development of a full sub-basin financing strategy again remains beyond the scope of this cur-rent project.

53(f) Implementation arrangements (f) Implementation arrangements53

The degree of internal ambiguity that is still present in project action plans, together with the exter-nal ambiguity in prospects for support for any of these plans to actually be implemented, seems to preclude at this point articulation of very specific details of overall action plan implementation ar-rangements.

The degree of internal ambiguity that is still present in project action plans, together with the exter-nal ambiguity in prospects for support for any of these plans to actually be implemented, seems to preclude at this point articulation of very specific details of overall action plan implementation ar-rangements. A considerable amount of the internal ambiguity arises from the large number of projects and the lack of detail provided on each. At one level, however, this ambiguity may be less than it appears to an ‘outsider’, because local understandings may implicitly follow from the assignment of re-sponsibility for individual projects. For example, if the unit responsible for the project is a TAO, it

A considerable amount of the internal ambiguity arises from the large number of projects and the lack of detail provided on each. At one level, however, this ambiguity may be less than it appears to an ‘outsider’, because local understandings may implicitly follow from the assignment of re-sponsibility for individual projects. For example, if the unit responsible for the project is a TAO, it 53 การแปลงแผนไปสูการปฏบิัต ิ


appears to be assumed that implementation arrangements will proceed using the normal procedures that they employ. The main sources of remaining ambiguity at this level, then, relate to approval processes for projects contained in the action plan, and how funds will be channeled to the TAO for approved projects under their responsibility. Projects for which line agencies would be responsible would be in a similar situation, and there also appears to be the assumption that implementation would need to follow their standard agency practices. There has been some local concern that has been voiced, however, that in either of these types of situations, funds flowing to either local governments or line agencies for approved projects con-tained in action plans need to be clearly earmarked for use only in connection with and under the terms of those projects. The details of how this could be achieved and monitored, however, have not yet been part of discussions in which the author has participated. For some of the same reasons, ambiguity becomes more apparent at the level of overall action plan implementation and monitoring. At this level, the author is not aware of any discussions among the working group that have, for example, assigned responsibilities for assisting, managing, or moni-toring overall implementation plan arrangements. It is very possible, of course, that such assign-ments could be made during the finalization stages of action plan preparation. On the other hand, the current directives from which the sub-basin working groups derive their authority do not in-clude responsibilities that extend beyond preparation of the plan, facilitation of local discussion and understanding, and consideration of organizational arrangements for a long-term RSBO. In this context, it appears that plans are for the follow-on long-term RSBO to assume responsibilities re-lated to project implementation, monitoring, coordination and support during implementation and further development of sub-basin action plans. But these organizations do not yet exist. If consideration of RSBO structures reaches enough closure by the end of the project that sub-basins can move ahead in establishing their long-term RSBO, then moves could be taken to bring much more clarity to many of the sources of internal ambiguity. If modest levels of funding sup-port could be made available to allow it, they could, for example, move to establish their sub-basin assembly and secretariat, and form appropriate working groups or sub-committees that could focus on bringing much greater clarity to many of these implementation issues and questions. At the level of external processes, however, there is if anything even greater ambiguity regarding sources of funds, plan and project approval processes, channels through which funding and/or other forms of support would flow, any additional requirements or limitations associated with those channels, and the myriad of other specific questions that will arise if and when support is obtained and implementation is able to proceed. Some of these questions have already been raised in project discussions, but clear answers were not given because of the uncertainty that exists at all levels. Not surprisingly, this has contributed to skepticism among communities and local leaders within sub-basins, as well as among staff in government line agencies. This skepticism, in turn, discour-ages investing a great deal of further effort in working out detailed implementation arrangements for projects and activities that may not even happen.

2. Comparison with results of previous sub-basin planning Efforts to compare project planning processes and action plan outputs with recent previous plan-ning activities in the Ping Basin are, once again, severely constrained by the fact that this report is being written without having the final project action plans in hand. Thus, this section will seek to help establish a baseline for these comparisons by looking at action plan summaries of the most recent round of sub-basin planning conducted under the leadership of DWR and DNP. A few comparative observations can then be made, based largely on process observations and the prelimi-nary project lists discussed in previous sections. Since there were some significant differences in the planning processes conducted by DWR and DNP, as well as in the format of their summary reports on resulting action plans, discussion needs


to be separated for portions of the Ping Basin that were under the jurisdiction of each of these agencies.

(a) Lower pilot sub-basin

Plans for sub-basins in the Lower Ping were formulated under the leadership of the Department of Water Resources (DWP), and results have been collated and summarized in the recent second pro-gress report54 by the Kasetsart University led team involved with these efforts. The nature and findings of the participatory processes employed in formulating these plans are also included in that report. Discussion of problem identification, however, must have been mainly in their first report which has not been made available to the author. In order to help portray the overall nature of the plans and how they vary across the various sub-basins involved, Figure 4-9 presents the basic structure of the types of components in the plans, and

Figure 4-9. Projects under DWP-led plans for Lower Ping sub-basins Nakhon Sawan

Kamphaeng-phet Tak

storage 13 108 107 canals 152 372 186

piped systems 9 34 26 monitor quality - 4 2

deep wells - 7 - drainage 1 57 4

pumps 3 9 - management conservation 2 10 3

plant replacement forest 9 45 34 plant economic forest - 2 5

fire control - 10 3 participation management - 22 11

reduce chemicals 12 23 7 organic practices 22 36 6 soil convervation - 2 1

cover crops 2 11 1 soil quality 1 29 5

conserve resource - 4 - land use 1 3 1

land tenure 1 1 1 motivation 7 58 18

information 3 19 4 activities 4 35 12

networking 6 28 11 social rules use in mgmt 1 2 7

local org 19 70 19 system 5 19 10

industry 1 6 1 community-hh 4 9 1

transport - 19 - industry 2 2 2

agriculture 2 3 1 trash 4 13 2

wastewater 1 1 - dust 1 2 -

monitoring 3 11 3 econ mechanisms resource mgmt - - -

extension 2 6 6 participation 8 12 8

consv-develop tourism care of tourist attractions 6 22 9

develop community roads improve/build 17 32 3 local landscapes 7 13 10

extension - 6 2 env sanitation system - 2 1

culture

care & development

trash

water pollution

air pollution

local org particpation

environment

agriculture

domestic water supply

flood preparations

conservation

dangerous agriculture

soil care

land use control

extension

groups and networksorg capacity

prevent & mitigate

participation

conserve

water

forest

soil

participation

Human envrionment

Management Admin

Pollution

Natural Resources Activities

54 KU 2005


the number of projects under each of those components in areas under each of the three provinces involved. The structure of this figure was determined by the type of data available in the progress report, which was such that summarizing data on budget levels was not feasible in time to be in-cluded in this report. The overall structure of this plan includes four major components covering (1) natural resource activities, including water, forest and soil centered actions; (2) pollution related activities, (3) hu-man environment activities, and (4) management administration activities. Thus, there are no spe-cific components regarding public health or livelihood development. Closer examination indicates there are, however, some sub-components that are similar to some of the areas of activity that are emerging under public health and livelihood elements of the current project. Domestic water qual-ity, environmental sanitation, and pesticide use, for example, have all been linked with public health. The current project is likely to further expand the domain of public health considerations. There are very few components within the DWR plan, however, that relate to livelihood develop-ment in a reasonably direct manner, with the possible exception of efforts to conserve and develop tourist attractions. It is also interesting to note that in the initial project workshop in the Lower Ping, efforts to identify and explore problems related to livelihoods (and to a bit lesser extent pub-lic health) were able to generate very little interest among workshop participants. In terms of the number of specific projects under each component, two-thirds of the projects in-volve natural resource activities, and more than half (52 percent) of all projects are for water re-source related activities. About 13 percent are pollution related projects, while 9 percent are di-rected toward improving the overall human environment. The remaining 11 percent are for man-agement administration projects aimed at strengthening participation and local organizational ca-pacities. Thus, the overall picture is one of very strong emphasis on agricultural water supply. Secondary emphasis is split among reducing agricultural chemical use, replanting some forest areas, trash dis-posal, road construction, and some attention to tourism, local landscapes and cultural activities, and non-agricultural pollution. Although the author has not yet been able to see the preliminary project lists for the Lower Ping under the current project, it will be very interesting to see the degree to which they differ from what is contained in this plan. In terms of local organization for managing and implementing project activities in Lower Ping sub-basins, there is very strong emphasis on local natural resource and environment protection volun-teer groups, and networks among these groups. About 11 percent of all projects are related to build-ing capacity of these groups, and strengthening public participation through extension services pro-vided through them. Thirty-six groups, of about 50 to 100 volunteer trainees in each, have already received training in association with this program, and a number of specific projects are aimed at further building their capacity. These are clearly in the category of agency induced local organiza-tions closely linked with MoNRE and its implementing agencies. Units responsible for implement-ing projects are primarily TAO (or tessaban) and line agencies in MoNRE or MoAC. From what has been seen thus far, one suspects that management and implementation arrangements that will be proposed under this project will not diverge very far from this pattern.

(b) Middle and upper pilot sub-basins

Plans that cover middle and upper sub-basins of the Ping River Basin have been developed under the leadership of DNP. Summary booklets are available at the individual sub-basin level,55 and an overall summary has been published and distributed at an “Upper Ping” workshop held during im-plementation of this project.56 The flow of the following discussion relates to their report structure.

55 For pilot sub-basins, see Mae Kuang Working Group 2005 and Mae Ping Part 1 Working Group 2005 56 Upper Ping Coordination Office 2005.


Summary reports prepared by DNP include considerable emphasis on problem identification. And, their lists of locally-identified problems and needs appear to be not very different from those being identified under the current project. While the list of agency concerns about deterioration and needs for forest and soil conservation are very prominent, along with some water management and quality issues, there is also substantial emphasis on problems related to lack of land use security in upland areas, low prices for agricultural products, high input prices, lack of alternative crops and occupations, rising rural debt, erosion of traditional practices, beliefs and values, unfair treatment by middlemen, and negative impacts of activities of ‘influential’ persons. Action plans developed in response to these problems and needs have been aggregated into five broad categories, as follows:

• Natural resource restoration. These projects are aimed at restoring forest cover and quality in areas that are defined as having been “encroached” and/or deteriorated. It includes (1) pro-jects for planting forests by local communities, state agencies, and private organizations, (2) projects to increase soil moisture to facilitate forest restoration, including weirs, check-dams, etc., (3) projects to protect areas for natural forest regeneration, (4) projects to improve forest boundaries to prevent encroachment, (5) projects to convert “excess” forest fallows into per-manent forest using “incentives”.

• Forest resource use administration. These projects are based on recognizing the reality of communities located in forest lands, and seek to establish collaborative working relationships in managing forest resources. It includes (1) projects to establish local “intermediary organi-zations” to administer local forest resource use, and develop their skills and capacities, (2) projects to establish local standards and agreements on forest use, and volunteers to monitor and enforce local rules, (3) projects to employ local cultural practices and rituals to strengthen management, (4) projects to provide recognition incentives for local communities to protect their forest.

• Land use administration. These projects are aimed at establishing clear land use boundaries to reduce conflict and encourage better long-term management in line with “expert” recommen-dations. It includes (1) projects to establish local baseline land use maps and forest bounda-ries, (2) projects to establish computer facilities for recording and showing land use data, making local land use models, and training in how to use them, (2) projects to resolve land use conflicts by establishing “intermediary organizations” to administer networks at sub-basin and local sub-watershed levels, convene appropriate local forums, seminars and public hear-ings, disseminate information, and monitor land use, (3) projects to reduce soil erosion using vegetative strips, tree inter-planting, special measures in high risk areas, and (4) projects to train and educate farmers and local leaders on “technically proper” land use, and to provide incentives for adoption through awards and investment funds.

• Address drought and hazards. These projects are aimed at reducing impact of dry season wa-ter shortages and rainy season landslides. It includes (1) projects to conserve and reduce dry season water use, (2) projects to store or improve access to domestic water during dry season, (3) projects to map areas at high risk of natural hazards, and implement special measures there, (4) projects for sub-basin early warning systems and response training, (5) projects to construct shallow wells, deep wells, water storage structures.

• Community environment quality. These projects are aimed primarily at reducing environ-mental pollution. It includes (1) projects to establish community systems for managing trash and garbage, including reuse and biogas regeneration, (2) projects to better manage and re-duce use of agricultural chemicals, (3) projects to monitor water quality, (4) projects to substi-tute natural materials for plastics.

In terms of resource allocations among these five categories, Figure 4-10 presents overall budget totals for all the projects included in plans for the Ping Part 1 and Mae Kuang sub-basins.


In terms of relative resource allocations, both plans allocate 30 to 40 percent of their budgets to restoring natural forest resources, in line with the central mandates of the DNP. Plans for the Ping Part 1 sub-basin allocated a similar proportion of resources to the overall area of reducing conflict by clarifying land use boundaries, making arrangements for community roles in managing forest resources, and promoting more “technically proper” land use practices, whereas in the Mae Kuang only 7 percent of budgets are allocated to such activity. Budgets for efforts to address drought and natural hazard problems show a similar difference in allocation patterns, with Ping Part 1 allocating 27 percent, while Mae Kuang allocates a more modest 16 percent. On the other hand, the more densely settled and urbanized Mae Kuang sub-basin allocates nearly 40 percent of its budget to community environmental quality, while Ping Part 1 allocates only 13 percent to this purpose. Thus, relative allocation patterns do seem to be associated with different sub-basin characteristics.

Figure 4-10. Total budgets of DNP-led plans for upper and middle pilot sub-basins. Ping Part 1 Mae Kuang Ping Part 1 Mae Kuang

millions of Baht percent of budget Component Plan

One cannot ignore, however, the enormous difference in terms of the absolute value of budgets for each of these sub-basins. With the total budget level in Mae Kuang more that 13 times the size of Mae Ping Part 1, even parts of their plan receiving the smallest proportion of budget allocation are very substantially greater in absolute value than their counterparts in the Ping Part 1. The Mae Kuang is larger, both in terms of area (1.4 times as big) and people (3.6 times as great), it is very complex, and it faces particularly difficult problems in terms of issues related to human settlements and dry season water availability. Even so, however, differences of this magnitude are very inter-esting, at least. While it is still more difficult to anticipate the content of project plans for these sub-basins than for plans in the Lower Ping, it would not be surprising to see some fairly similar overall patterns of differences in resource allocation. Since these sub-basins appear to have taken the public health and livelihood development components of the current project’s mandate more seriously, however, it may be possible there could be greater proportions of resources allocated into these lines of activ-ity. In the preliminary lists from Ping Part 1 (Figure 4-7), for example, nearly half of the projects and 30 percent of the total budget was associated with these two new categories, with activities proposed in about one-half of the tambons in the sub-basin. Given the short period of time they have had to develop ideas in these areas, however, it may also be useful to assess how many pro-posed projects have simply been shifted from one category to another. Moreover, while one also anticipates many more projects and a much larger aggregate budget in Mae Kuang, it will be very interesting to see if a similar ratio emerges between budgets proposed for these two sub-basins. Another difference that seems to appear during initial review of DNP plans relates to the ambiguity in the role of overall sub-basin organizations under the DNP-led plans. This is particularly reflected in the proliferation of ‘intermediary organizations’ (ongkan klang) that are envisioned in their work plans, each of which would deal with a specific sub-topic under conservation of forest, soil or water resources. On the other hand, there are sets of activities under ‘administration’ (borihan) lines of activity that would provide support for sub-basin meeting venues, network support and sub-basin management operating expenses that have not yet been as clearly articulated in plans under this project (although discussions indicate an intention to do so). Thus, this difference may not be as great as it seems if these ‘intermediary organizations’ are viewed as equivalent to working groups or sub-committees that would be established under sub-basin management organizations to deal with specific issues, as discussed in Part 3 of this report.

Natural Resource Restoration 73 1,229 31 39 Forest Resource Use Admin 34 155 14 5 Land Use Administration 36 57 15 2 Address Drought & Hazards 64 500 27 16 Community Environment Quality 31 1,229 13 39

Total budget: 239 3,170 100 100


Another possible difference deals with scope of the sub-basin management mandate. DNP staff have been quite clear in their articulation of their approach as being limited primarily to the domain of issues for which their parent ministry (MoNRE) has a mandate. While they have made efforts to push the limits of that mandate in a few areas, such as public health, there are clearly major areas, such as livelihoods and debt, where they have admittedly limited the scope of projects that they could consider. As one example, the only livelihood-oriented projects appear to revolve largely around a vague notion of extension support for non-agricultural work, with a few examples noted from a predict-able short list of handicrafts, along with support for developing ecotourism and organic agriculture. The remaining problems and needs identified by villagers remain unaddressed. It remains to be seen, however, how far action plans under the current project will push beyond the territory already charted by DNP organized efforts. So far, the author has heard discussion of a range of local problems that is quite similar to those that appear to have resulted from DNP prob-lem identification exercises. While discussion of ideas about what to do about them has been growing during this project, identification of actionable projects appears to have made much less progress, so that the final project action plan may still be similarly limited in scope.

3. Comparison with stated vision, goals & strategy Again, since plans being formulated under this project have not yet been finalized, it is not yet pos-sible for the author to make a reasonable overall assessment of how well these plans will match with the visions, goals and strategies that have been articulated by sub-basin working groups. In the Ping Part 1 sub-basin where the author has been able to most closely follow the processes leading to these plans, proposed projects are being classified so that they can be listed under sub-basin goals and objectives identified by the working group. While those listings have not yet been made available, it is clear that there are some objectives under which specific projects have not yet been proposed. Sub-basin working group members have stated their intention to check with their constituents to see if there are any proposals that have been developed that could fit into these cate-gories. It has been agreed, however, that if such proposals are not yet available, those topics should be identified as priority areas for further work on problem analysis and project development. There are also discussions about whether modest amounts of funds might be requested to support such efforts. How such funds may be identified in the action plan, however, remains to be seen. Indeed, this is one example of activities that the author has repeatedly suggested for consideration by sub-basin working groups and the project, which would be aimed at study, analysis and project devel-opment in topic areas where immediate specific project-type activities by local communities, groups or agencies are not yet obvious. To the extent that processes in the Ping Part 1 sub-basin are indicative of how parallel work is pro-gressing in other sub-basins, working groups have made quite impressive progress considering the very short period of time available for them to conduct this work. They appear to understand the concepts involved in constructing a problem-solving logical framework for program development and project screening and selection, and their discussions leading to their vision, goal and objective statements were well-reasoned, maturely discussed and debated, and carefully considered. It will be very interesting to see how the final list of projects is constructed, and how well logical linkages are able to link these project with achieving their objectives. One suspects that one of their greatest constraints in this process will be the time available. This is unfortunate. But even if we assume the most optimistic outcome for project action plans, if we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that there are very high probabilities that various projects and activities are not likely to contribute much toward achieving the stated goals. Some may be “pet projects” or “party line” projects insisted on by powerful or otherwise influential key stakeholders. Others may


be accepted based on currently accepted conventional wisdom that will later prove to be un-founded. This is normal during initial stages of a complex process such as this. The real challenge lies in how participatory processes can be used to weed out such activities over time as their faulty properties become evident, and replace them with efforts that are more effective and efficient. In the context of the bigger picture, then, we also need to realize that whatever the quality of rea-soning that working groups are able to incorporate into their action plans under this project, the real test of how well their actions match their vision, goals and objectives will come from how they are able to learn from implementation experience, and adjust their actions to more effectively achieve their objectives as conditions, needs and desires continue to evolve over time. This is a process that becomes central during the three remaining phases of RSBO development. At the core of this process is what this report has referred to as a learning process, which is closely linked with effective monitoring (of conditions, as well as project outputs), information manage-ment and accessibility, participation, consensus building, transparency and accountability. While it looks as though the project will almost be able to complete the first two phases of RSBO develop-ment, the real tests and measures of what they have, and will be able to achieve are yet to come. And very importantly, plan documents that are outputs of this project are not the end of the story. There is still time to improve programs and correct shortcomings and errors as part of the learning processes that need to underlie further RSBO development.

D. Results 2: Initial Lessons from Pilot Project Experience This section seeks to take a step back from the details of the current status of project planning out-puts, in order to take at least a brief and preliminary look at what have been some of the lessons we have learned from implementation activities under this project. It is difficult to suggest or request that local communities engage in problem solving oriented learning processes if we are not able to do the same.

1. Not starting with a clean slate It should be quite obvious by now that one of the prominent lessons from experience under this project is that no future projects related to river basin or sub-basin (or local sub-watershed) man-agement should ever assume their project will start with a “clean slate”. Thus, project design can-not employ only linear logical processes based on theoretical considerations. Yes, it might have been nice if this project could have had more time “in the field”, and could have begun in an environment where thinking about sub-basin management could have emerged from “blue sky” brainstorming about the possibilities, and a logical participatory process of where it should be headed, what it should look like, and what it should do. But that was not in the cards. In fact, the social landscape was littered with preconceptions about sub-basin programs, previous it-erations of sub-basin planning processes, probably vastly over-optimistic promises from govern-ment leaders, and many large piles of rivalries and sub-cultural baggage affecting views and rela-tionships within and among most major stakeholder groups. Particularly in retrospect, it is not clear why this should have been a surprise. In any event, after its long period of hesitation, the project has sought to adapt itself to these reali-ties. In doing so, it had to build social bridges with agencies and leaders associated with previous (and actually still on-going) sub-basin planning processes, which largely involved fence-mending negotiations among agencies within the same ministry. And in doing so, it needed to recognize currently existing plans – despite whatever flaws may be perceived in them – must be incorporated as one of the initial building blocks upon which the project could seek to add value and further de-velopment.


The project has also seen how local participation needs to be included at all levels of program and project development, even including, for example, the process of sub-basin delineation. The prob-lems arising in Mae Kuang serve as a clear example of what could have largely been avoided if central agencies had explored what was already happening before such decisions were made. And perhaps even more importantly in the long run, the project had to recognize the central impor-tance of local initiatives (some of which were agency induced) already taking place within pilot (and other) sub-basins. These groups, networks (at various levels), and local government initiatives have proved to be the essential building block components of sub-basin organization, as well as very valuable resources for activities such as capacity building (as in the case of IMPECT). Moreover, the sub-basin level has indeed demonstrated its very great potential for becoming a key venue for developing the interface between top-down and bottom-up processes. But it has also be-come clear that this process must become much more interactive (in the multi-directional sense of this term) if it is to be truly effective and viable.

2. The multiple dimensions of diversity in pilot sub-basins Various aspects of project implementation have further underscored both the presence and impor-tance of diversity among and within Ping River sub-basins. The project developed early hypotheses that there is substantial variation among sub-basins in vari-ous types of characteristics and conditions that prevail, as reflected in the analyses of secondary data presented in earlier sections of this report. These clearly include differences among biophysi-cal, economic, and ethnic characteristics, amongst others. And, such differences were indeed found among the three pilot sub-basins. Moreover, configurations of key sub-basin issues and stake-holders are closely related to these characteristics.

• In the Ping part 1 case representing upper sub-basins, the largely mountainous terrain is asso-ciated with large areas of protected forest and substantial ethnic minority communities, result-ing in important forest land and forest cover/condition issues, and associated issues of liveli-hoods dependent on upland cropping practices perceived by other stakeholders as being at “inappropriate” locations and using “inappropriate” amounts of agricultural chemicals.

• In the Mae Kuang case representing middle sub-basins, forest land and forest cover and con-dition issues are also prominent in mountainous areas, but only a relatively small number of Northern Thai and Karen communities are located there. While other ethnic minorities also exist, they have already been induced to resettle into communities near more urbanized areas, so that problems they face are now more associated with their status as marginalized poor communities in the urban fringe. Existence of a substantial reservoir and links with water supply for Chiang Mai City and its suburbs, combines with substantial reliance on pumping of groundwater in terms of water supply issues, while intensive settlement along the main river channel adds issues associated with main channel flooding. In addition to intensive water-consuming lowland crops and orchards, complexity also includes sets of powerful stake-holders associated with industry and large recreational facilities, as well as wealthy investors buying land for speculation purposes, and part-time peri-urban farmers.

• In the Lower Ping case representing lower sub-basins, there are three quite distinct biophysi-cal areas. Steeply sloping mountainous areas cover a quite small portion of the sub-basin. They are almost completely under protected area status, and there are very few communities resident within those boundaries. At the other end of the spectrum, a relatively minor portion of the sub-basin is in lowland areas through which the main channel of the Ping River flows. This land is mostly in paddy, or within areas where urban centers and industrial investment are expanding. A third quite large portion of the sub-basin is in relatively gently sloping up-land areas that are officially reserved forest land. Virtually all of this area has been converted to upland cropping of cassava, sugarcane and maize, and is populated by a large number of dispersed villages that are primarily ethnic Thai, mixed with a few minority communities. Not


surprisingly under previous and current forest land policies, this has been a prime target for programs such as land reform.

But diversity has also extended further into social and cultural dimensions than were discussed dur-ing pre-implementation analyses. While we had some notion that there was a likely difference among sub-basins in the current type and level of local organization that could provide building blocks for sub-basin organization, it was only through closer work with the three pilot sub-basins that further clarity was brought to life.

• In the Ping part 1 sub-basin, local governments (TAO) have been providing a quite strong fo-cus for local organization, including local networks of both agency-induced and locally-initiated types, and they reflected the very substantial progress that has been made regarding local organization in that sub-basin. While differences of opinion exist, it is clear that they had already made very substantial progress in moving discussion toward open and more ana-lytical approaches that seek to achieve mutual understanding among stakeholders. They are also aware of the local stakeholder groups who have not yet joined these processes, and ap-pear willing and eager to encourage their participation. This includes groups ranging from some wealthy investors, to some remaining ethnic minority communities.

• In the Lower Ping, it appears to be agency-induced local organizations that have been the main focus for local organization, and the more central role of the patron agency in networks among local units also appears to be much more clear. Given the apparent general acceptance of this approach, many of the main issues have centered on roles and coordination among agencies, especially in the context of a somewhat broader mandate than previous efforts. Not surprisingly, they also appear to have relatively little experience in working with industrial stakeholders, who are seen as particularly important in terms of water and pollution issues.

• In the somewhat more intense and complex conditions of Mae Kuang, the situation appears to be more mixed. While there is clearly some strong local leadership and initiative, some of them are quite closely allied with particular agencies and their interests. Moreover, previous organization had been evolving in parallel lines in the Mae Kuang and Mae Tha watersheds, and both were becoming quite strong. Thus, when they were combined into a single sub-basin under this project, various tensions and rivalries among leadership factions began to emerge. These tensions were reinforced by the existing division of the (consolidated) Mae Kuang sub-basin into areas under the jurisdiction of Chiang Mai and Lamphun provinces. These factors have further complicated work on what was already a very complex set of stakeholders and conditions covering most of the eastern side of Chiang Mai Valley.

Another quite distinct, but related difference emerged in general perceptions about the most appro-priate balance between local initiative and agency leadership that was desirable among the majority of local stakeholders. Evidence from pilot sub-basins indicates that differences here may center on the earlier Lower Ping – Upper Ping delineations in the Ping River Basin. This difference is per-haps most clearly reflected in project efforts to facilitate articulation by sub-basin stakeholders of the type of sub-basin organization that they would prefer. Organizational alternatives on the table during these discussions are largely those that were presented in Part III of this report. In this case, both the Ping part 1 and Mae Kuang sub-basins quite quickly articulated their desire to have an or-ganization that is primarily based on local leadership and initiative. While government agencies are welcome as participants and advisors, it is preferred that they play a reduced role in terms of leadership in the sub-basin organization. They also recognize, however, that agencies may need to phase down their role somewhat gradually as local organization further builds its capacity. In the Lower Ping, however, there still appears to be acceptance of a quite strong leadership role for ma-jor government agencies (mainly MoNRE, but also MoAC), although perhaps with somewhat more emphasis on interaction through their local agency-induced leaders and networks. Given the data and assessments presented in earlier sections of this report, these results should not be very surprising. It has been these types of diversity, however, that fed many types of problems for government agency programs that have long sought to apply uniform approaches, policies, and


regulations across all areas of the country. Relatively recent programs to support much stronger roles for local government – especially at sub-district and provincial levels – has been the primary approach of national efforts to try to evolve means for moving toward more localized forms of governance that can better address issues affected by these types of diversity. Experience under this project appears to be validating the need for sub-basin organizations that can operate under similar general principles of subsidiarity, and within a framework that allows sufficient flexibility for lo-calization. It should also be noted that districts have played a quite low profile role, focusing mainly on their convening, coordination and information function, in line with trends of change in national governance systems.

3. Need for appropriately-timed multi-dimensional collaborative processes Experience under this project appears to be reflecting international experience that development of truly collaborative processes requires consistency and persistence, and thus takes time. It also ap-pears to reinforce notions that initiatives and support are most effective and efficient when they are coordinated and various components are appropriately timed. Many of the lessons learned in this regard have been through various problems that the project has encountered. One dimension of these problems has related to the sequential manner in which the project was conceived and implemented. While the manner in which project plans were laid out in the original document were quite logical, they seem to have retained several key top-down preliminary ele-ments that ignored other lines of activity that were also underway. One of the first ways in which these issues were reflected was in the delineation of sub-basins for the project. As has already been discussed in the first part of this section, this process reflected a lack of collaboration both with other agencies, and with local stakeholders. While this issue had its greatest impact for this project in the Mae Kuang sub-basin, impacts can also be anticipated else-where. Because of the author’s links with the Mae Chaem sub-basin, for example, it is also clear that lack of any efforts to collaborate with local leaders at this early stage resulted in a problem there as well. This time, however, the early top-down decision was to separate the large watershed into two sub-basins. The delineation was apparently based on the presence of an agency gauging station. Meanwhile, more than 20 local networks in the Mae Chaem watershed had been working to build watershed-wide organizational linkages to support development of a single sub-basin organi-zation. The top-down decision thus undermined local efforts that should have been applauded and supported by the agencies and the Cabinet resolution that were involved. A second dimension of these problems relates to the more than one year delay that occurred be-tween approval and actual initiation of project “field” activities, which has also already been men-tioned in previous sections of this report. If this delay did not occur, implementation of this project would have been in parallel with – and very possibly in collaboration with – sub-basin planning programs led by DNP/DWR. The delay, however, resulted in initial tensions between this project and the already on-going sub-basin planning efforts under DNP & DWR, as well as very substan-tial confusion within local sub-basins, both of which should have been avoidable. Although these issues were eventually resolved fairly well under the project, it was an additional drag on project implementation that helped to further shorten the amount of time available to work with stake-holders and local communities on activities at the core of the project concept. A program like this does not center on ‘field work’ that can be done in a few months of intensive activity. Development of a participatory management program for the Ping River Basin involves millions of people, some of whom live in cities of significant size, and most of whom are dispersed in thousands of villages. It is their participation – as reflected in their everyday decisions – that is critical to the success of these efforts. While people in the lower sub-basins may be more willing and able to adapt themselves to normal central agency style programs and operations, people in middle and upper sub-basins appear to demonstrate a clear desire for local ownership and leader-ship in these programs. In order for this to happen, local leadership and processes within sub-


basins must be taken more seriously, and they must have the time necessary for processes to be conducted in an appropriate manner. A third dimension of these problems, which relates to both of the previous two, was the lack of co-ordination in timing of high-level pronouncements of massive financial resources to be invested in Ping River Basin management programs. During the period that project initiation was delayed, high-profile announcements were made of government intentions to invest massive financial re-sources into Ping Basin programs. While this helped get people’s attention regarding the potential importance of these programs, it also helped divert thinking about how to develop long-term col-laborative problem-solving institutions into more of an effort to quickly capture as many financial resources as possible. Although many of the most inflated promises have since begun to fade, the project also suffered a bit from the way in which various people interpreted implications of World Bank involvement. Repeated efforts were necessary in order to explain the nature of the Bank’s involvement in this project, in order to dispel ideas that massive funds would be made available from this source. In principle at least, it would have been far more desirable for the program to seek to market and establish itself as a multi-level collaborative approach for developing long-term sub-basin management institutions. Effective collaborative efforts could have then been further encouraged by reasonable but consistent funding of at least their most promising activities. At this point there appears to be some concern that by the time the series of planning exercises have been completed, funding will no longer be a priority of the government. In short, achievement of a vision that includes organizations capable of multi-level and multi-sectoral collaboration, needs to be implemented through a process that in itself demonstrates col-laboration – and associated coordination – at all key levels. The fact that there have been very sub-stantial problems in this regard at multiple levels is quite obvious to all stakeholders. Moreover, this has done little to help build motivation and optimism in the long-term importance and viability of sub-basin management organizations.

4. Mandates, management plans, consensus building & time horizons Continuing on the collaboration theme – which is at the core of the project concept – we now turn more explicitly to project efforts directed at developing collaborative processes within pilot sub-basins. In this regard, the project should be able to learn from both its progress and its problems. The last three to four months of project implementation are likely to prove noteworthy for their intensity and resourcefulness in terms of trying to complete a complex collaborative process at multiple locations in such a short period of time. And it appears that the outcome of these efforts will (hopefully) provide at least an initial picture of a basically reasonable approach that at least almost completes the first two of the five stages of RSBO development proposed in Part III of this report. Indeed, if one considers the amount of time involved, project efforts are likely to appear quite admirable. Relative to the picture painted in the funding approval document, however, this is a much more preliminary outcome than originally envisioned. While delays in project implementation rendered the original goals unachievable, it can also be argued that even the time horizons outlined in the approval document were extremely optimistic for a project that sought to build fully tested and functional organizations and fully articulated collaborative sub-basin management plans. Our re-view of international experience indicates virtually no examples where this took less that two to three years (and more often considerably longer), even in more developed societies where strong local communities have high capacities. A number of questions remain about the scope of mandates for sub-basin organizations. Although they have been able to articulate a substantial range of problems and underlying forces that drive them in the context of their sub-basins, most still encounter difficulty in developing programs and plans that address the full range of issues they have identified. And in plans that are developed, the content is usually closely related to central concerns of the patron agency overseeing the planning


process. Indeed, in sub-basins where planning has been under the leadership of DWR, water re-source development projects are dominant, while forest resource projects dominate plans developed under leadership from DNP. And under this ONEP-led project, explicit expansion into the areas of public health and livelihood development is being promoted. On one hand, this can be seen as evi-dence of agency-driven agendas. But on the other hand, it also reflects efforts by MoNRE to try to better match agency leadership with the dominant perceptions, issues and needs in different parts of the Ping Basin, as well as to bring in broader visions from agencies like ONEP. Moreover, one can also choose to focus on the fact that agencies are making – no matter how tentative – efforts to reach beyond their previous domain boundaries. Both DWP and DNP have their own traditions and perceptions of watershed management, which is reflected in the nature of their work. But both are beginning to learn that this type of work involves – as Dr. Monthon puts it in his training materials – “management of resources in a watershed”, which is much more that just “watershed manage-ment”. Is the glass half empty, or is it half full? Although much remains to be done, very consider-able progress is being made. In any event, project experience seems to underscore the necessity of moving on, beyond the stage of yet another iteration of planning without implementation (“plan-ning” is a popular play on words to describe this condition). Experience under this project has helped underscore the fact that fur-ther learning needs to be much more experience-based and empirical, in order to maintain and ex-pand interest and participation, further build consensus, and begin putting into place, testing and refining remaining components of a river sub-basin management system that are not yet fully estab-lished and functional. Moreover, even the eventually more definitive conceptual and operational boundaries for sub-basin management in the context of the Ping River Basin cannot be determined without more experience derived from actual implementation, combined with feedback on real-world impacts and changing conditions provided by an effective monitoring system, in the context of increasingly participatory learning processes that can guide further refinement and adaptation. Another dimension of the mandate issue relates to the central question of the degree to which sub-basin organizations are likely to become implementing organizations. From what the author has seen thus far, it does not appear likely at this point that RSBOs will play a very central role in im-plementing major projects proposed under these action plans. Indeed, sub-basin working group discussions related to this topic that the author has been able to observe all seem to implicitly ac-cept the line of argument that implementation of major projects seen as duplicating lines of activity already under the jurisdiction of local governments or line agencies would simply result in much more tension, confusion and conflict. Thus, although discussions have not been very explicit in this regard, there appears to be a fairly general acceptance of roles for RSBOs in analysis, planning and monitoring – and in organizing and implementing gap-filling activities. The question of whether RSBOs should implement projects that would normally be implemented by other stake-holders, however, does not really appear to be open to discussion. In short, experience of this project has underscored the importance – particularly in the context of actual conditions in the Ping River Basin – of doing the best that can be done to build on existing local initiatives and planning process, and then moving on to further development and refinement in the context of the next stages of RSBO development. At the same time, however, experience has helped point out how unfinished sub-basin management processes are after the first two phases of the development process. This reinforces calls for continuing support – which changes its nature as processes continue to build and evolve – without which sub-basin management organizations stand little chance of achieving the lofty goals that have been set for them by stakeholders at local, na-tional, and even international levels.

5. Capacity building, assistance and support Continuing, but evolving needs for capacity building, assistance and support for sub-basin devel-opment have been identified by international experience as very critical for the long-term develop-ment, viability and sustainability of river basin and sub-basin organizations. And experience under this project only serves to reinforce this point.


General awareness of natural resource concerns and environmental issues appears to already be quite high, even in relatively remote parts of sub-basins. Much of this is no doubt associated with the quite extensive training efforts that have been made, as reflected in village reported data from 2003 presented in Figure 2-22. While data such as these provide little or no insight into the quality or effectiveness of such training, it is at least clear that substantial training efforts have been un-derway for some time and have involved a considerable number of people in Ping sub-basins. In-deed, project activities have, at least to the author’s knowledge, revealed no real lack of general awareness. As data in Figure 2-21 point out, most villages also have people they consider local specialists in topics highly relevant to these efforts, who have skills and knowledge derived from various combinations of local and outside sources. Thus, it appears that the time has come for train-ing activities that are aimed much more at practical methods and tools that can help support local efforts to identify, develop, plan, implement and monitor specific problem-solving activities. At the same time, there are also needs for enhancing various types of capacities involved with de-veloping, refining, managing, and further adapting participatory processes, organization and activ-ity at both the sub-basin and more local building-block levels. At least some of these needs are expected to be reflected in various projects under final action plans. While much of the support re-quired will be in the form of access to information and tools, and various forms of relatively con-ventional training, there is likely to also be needs for additional forms of engagement that may in-volve at least periodic involvement with mentoring processes. The majority of training activities under this project have focused on information and skills that are seen as potentially useful in those elements of sub-basin management processes directly related to articulating and prioritizing initial sub-basin plans. This emphasis logically follows from the time available and the portion of the overall sub-basin management and development processes that is occurring during the “field” presence of the project. Specific training activities have focused on sub-basin local facilitators and community trainers, while some (very rushed) additional efforts have been made to work with sub-basin working groups in ways that are more similar to a mentor-ing approach. Examples of the latter began in sub-basin workshops where articulations of vision statements, goals and objectives were developed to set the framework for assessing proposed pro-jects and assigning priorities to them. Further efforts have been made in regard to articulation of criteria and indicators for monitoring of both projects and environmental conditions in pilot sub-basins. Various resource persons have been pulled into the process, and at least some of their con-tributions can definitely be seen as helping strengthen the capacity building process. Information ‘toolkits’ being developed under this project primarily follow from training provided for the project’s local facilitators. Considerable efforts were made to make materials as well-rounded, and yet concise as possible, and there are some interesting innovations involved, includ-ing the range of people and ideas that were drawn into the process. If these materials are developed into interesting and attractive formats, they should make some useful contributions to the informa-tion available for sub-basin development programs. Yet in the larger scheme of things, much more is needed than some information packages devel-oped during a few months of intensive effort. A few ideas about some of the more obvious subject area gaps have already been mentioned.57 But beyond this, approaches for capacity building assis-tance and support need to be developed that can be more interactive and tailored to meet needs of localized groups and organizations in the context of the diversity of circumstance found in Ping sub-basins. Moreover, they need to move beyond textbook and lecture style training into the realm of mentoring processes and interactive assistance that can foster independent local analysis and creativity which is able to draw on a wide range of local and outside information. And especially in relation to the important area of livelihood development and its interface with environmental issues, efforts need to foster development of local entrepreneurship that can identify 57 See section IV.B.5.


and realize viable creative responses to the world of today, and especially tomorrow, where often ephemeral opportunities come and go within the context of socially imposed constraints and ethi-cally motivated responsibilities. As this represents what is no doubt an incredibly ambitious and open-ended process, it is also meant to demonstrate that real capacity building has a vision that merges into social learning processes that are at the heart of human society, culture and change. Efforts to integrate human analysis and action under frameworks such as river basin management should not shy away from their potentially important role in these processes.

6. Financing mechanisms Most key issues related to financing mechanisms and related propositions in the project terms of reference to mobilize “community savings and credit funds” to support sub-basin “operational budgets” have already been discussed under the ‘Results 1’ section, above. The main lessons that can be drawn from preliminary assessments include

• High-profile promises by government leaders that there would be massive infusion of central government funds into Ping Basin programs diverted discussion from truly local funding sources into discussions of channels through which central funds could flow to local levels.

• Local funding sources that did not originate from central sources, might include funds derived from local taxes, license fees, fines or user fees, cost recovery mechanisms, or revenue from income generating activities.

• Since only local (or higher level) government is authorized to levy taxes, license fees, or fines, it would only be possible to mobilize such sources to support operational funds in collaboration with local governments. Such arrangements are likely to be very difficult to negotiate.

• Cost recovery through user fees might be an option, particularly for operational funds associ-ated with centrally-funded investments in facilities such as reliable water supply, wastewater treatment, trash disposal, or similar types of projects contained in final sub-basin action plans.

• Existing (or likely) community savings and credit funds are primarily intended and used for producer credit purposes. Thus, the only logical use for funds from “community savings and credit funds” would appear to be for micro-investments in livelihood activities, or possibly education or skill upgrading, that would have reasonable prospects for generating additional in-come that could be used to repay these savings or revolving funds, rather than for sub-basin program “operational funds”.

• Long-term consistency of central support is likely to be more important overall than the magni-tude of support during any particular period.

Since relatively finalized versions of sub-basin plans under this project are still not yet available, it has not been possible to engage in more systematic deliberations about alternative funding mecha-nisms for various elements of these plans. Once plans and project lists become available, they could be flagged and sorted by categories that would reflect different potential types of funding sources. In is almost inconceivable, however, that this could be completed, much less discussed and negotiated, before the end of the project. In terms of RSBO operational budgets (as opposed to budgets for projects under the action plan), working groups and sub-basin leaders are clearly still expecting central funding support. Indeed, no other viable options appear to be immediately available at this point. Thus, one important lesson here is that these types of issues – along with various others discussed in previous sections – can only be assessed, explored, and negotiated after detailed plans, projects and activities have been developed to the point that an initial funding needs assessment of the sub-basin program can be conducted. This once again underscores the need to focus on sub-basin plans as the beginning of the process, and not as the end product that can be delivered at the last moment.


Summary of Suggestions and Recommendations in Part IV:

1. Spatial assessments of local sub-watershed configurations conducted in combination with natural resource, demographic & other data can help anticipate & understand organiza-tional issues within sub-basins, as discussed in section IV.B.1., including needs for col-laboration in defining official sub-basin boundaries, and for maintaining ‘space’ for local communities & networks to take the lead in defining the most ‘appropriate’ units for sub-watershed level management within sub-basins.

2. Suggestions regarding local facilitator training materials include:

• Communications skills module. It would have been interesting if these presentations could be complemented by views, approaches, & techniques employed by people more on the activist community organizer side of the spectrum. This might add some useful techniques or tools, & a more complete view of paradigms used by different stake-holder groups. While these skills are useful for facilitators & local leaders, earlier sug-gestions included emphasis on how to facilitate participation, dialogue, trade-off analy-sis, & negotiations, including use of systematically acquired data & information.

• Natural resources module. (a) In the natural resources processes & management sub-module, distinctions between agricultural & forest ecosystems should allow for land-scapes intermediate between the two (or have mixtures of both) – as found in most Ping River sub-basins. (b) Focus of the community participation module is on conser-vation, but the issues & principles have wider relevance. (c) The management tools sub-module appears to provide the main introduction into planning processes of the project. Earlier concerns & recommendations (appendix b) were largely addressed.

• Mountain minorities module. It is good that IMPECT provided help with this module, as they can articulate points of view quite different from government agencies or aca-demic institutions. Materials like these can help improve discussion of issues related to mountain minority communities, & they should be further developed & expanded for future use in all sub-basins where these stakeholder groups are important. It is a good to have strategic network organizations like this participate in basin management ac-tivities, & such strategic partner relationships should further expand in the future.

• Health module. While this module should be commended for an approach that began with assessment of health data in pilot sub-basins, it would by good to see more spe-cific information on how sub-basin management might help address issues like diar-rheal diseases, as well as intestinal parasite infestations that are significant in at least many mountain communities. Since use of pesticides was stressed as an issue, it would be useful to have an explanation why associated reported illness was very low, and somewhat in contrast to village reports (Figure 2-45).

• Pollution module. Sub-module materials are quite informative, but other than agricul-tural pollution, they are very brief with no information about how & where further in-formation or details can be accessed. The agricultural pollution sub-module includes an interesting introduction to herbal alternatives to pesticides that should be further devel-oped. Earlier recommendations regarding these modules are in appendix b.

• Local knowledge & local organization module. This useful module was added by drawing in a well-known researcher on local knowledge, who provided materials from published sources. This helped address earlier suggestions that more on local knowl-edge & experience could help balance emphasis on theoretical “scientific” knowledge, and provide information useful in ‘front line’ discussions, & often debate, about rela-tionships between theoretical ‘scientific’ knowledge & local knowledge & experience.


3. Packaging and development of training materials for technical toolkits should consider:

• Earlier suggestions on the soil and water handbook that are not yet addressed include a need to assess and address why especially soil conservation types of practices have seen so little adoption despite many years of extension efforts, as well as specific ex-ample of sites where they are working well.

• Since training materials on water, community & industrial pollution are very brief, they might be developed into brief brochures or “information sheets”. But they still need in-formation about where interested people or groups can find additional information. Lists of titles of laws, or paragraphs on prevention or mitigation methods are of little use without information about where to access further details. Each prevention or miti-gation measure could be the topic of individual extension-type brochures or booklets.

• Training materials on natural resources and agricultural pollution have more details and illustrations, and could be further developed into booklets. But again, recom-mended reading and sources of additional information need to be provided.

• Appropriate existing publications from beyond the project, such as those on local knowledge, should be included in toolkits. Another example would be Green Word Foundation publications on methods and tools for ‘stream detectives’, which could also be included in awareness & education toolkits. Many other examples are likely to exist, but there are no known central collections of these types of materials.

4. Development of training materials for organizational toolkits should consider:

• Project materials that may fit in this category include natural resource sub-modules on community participation and ‘management tools’ (i.e. plans, rules and organization), contents of the communications skills module (which should be expanded to include more points of view), and the mountain minorities module (which should be further re-fined and expanded). It could also include the local organization component of Dr. Pornchai’s local knowledge and organization module, and associated publications.

• Areas apparently missing at this point include information on expenditure processes, credit & savings funds, and evaluation of intervention results & disclosure. Resource persons who assisted working group discussions on criteria and indicators might be a potential source of materials related to evaluation of intervention results & disclosure.

• Given the many recent initiatives employing revolving funds, there should be materials available from various sources. Recent materials on conflict management should also be available from other sources for inclusion or suggested as further reading.

5. Packaging & development of materials for awareness & education toolkits should consider:

• Materials for distribution at activities such as village fairs should be more in the form of attractive brochures or ‘information sheets’ that include sections on where & how to get more information, as well as items like posters, shirts, etc., that feature specific concepts, points, slogans, etc. Dr. Pornchai’s annotated artistic renderings of land-scapes, & the DLD video CD are examples of potentially attractive formats.

• While some of these types of materials could be useful for capturing attention in schools, health centers, etc., these venues are also likely to need more detailed informa-tion in a style appropriate for students or non-specialist audiences. One example of technical materials already employed at various Ping Basin schools is the ‘stream de-tectives’ package of handbooks and materials published by Green World Foundation.

• Materials for community radio networks are more specialized, & might include lists of local persons knowledgeable & articulate on sub-basin management efforts & issues. Interviews with such people could be conducted & packaged in a logical sequence.


6. It may be useful to reflect on what is NOT included in training materials cum ‘toolkits’ at this point. In addition to the items noted above, a few examples include:

• Information on more fully developed long-term participatory river basin management processes (as opposed to watershed management & project compilations), as in Part III.

• Materials on building widespread consensus among stakeholders in river basins or sub-basins regarding the content and approaches of a holistic long-term management plan.

• Materials with more breadth and depth of discussion about livelihood development and livelihood alternatives that could be realistic viable options for sub-basin stakeholders.

• Information on more dimensions of urban environmental quality, including many cul-tural & quality of life dimensions championed in the earlier study by CMU [2004].

• Information that addresses flood plain, riverbank, stream channel and canal issues, in-cluding impacts of encroachment, infrastructure, and engineering modifications.

• Information on more aspects of and approaches for improving water use efficiency by the range of types of stakeholders present in sub-basins.

• Materials that introduce concepts like alternative future scenarios, which can help sub-basin stakeholders think about & visualize trajectories for future development.

• Materials to explain & explore trade-offs among livelihood & environmental objec-tives, distribution of costs & benefits among stakeholders, & compensating measures.

• Information related to incentives for more environmentally-friendly behavior, includ-ing but not limited to economic and regulatory incentives.

• All toolkit materials need to place high priority on providing suggestions for further reading & contacts where people can gain access to further information, and on how information needs relate to recommendations on development of a “knowledge center”.

7. Although final action plans for pilot sub-basins were not yet available for this report, some

suggestions regarding their general content are based on preliminary information:

• A relatively wide range of basic problems have been identified, and to varying extents included in vision statements. While there is at least a degree of follow through in goal and objective statements, there appears to be a progressive narrowing at each level that draws conceptual boundaries closer to key patron government agency domains. It may be worth reconsidering this issue after a period of experience with implementation.

• Much ‘lumpiness’ in preliminary allocations among tambons is due to a few large pro-jects for water treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, & even slaughter-house facilities. Whether such items are seen as appropriate, and the priority assigned to them are decisions for sub-basin working groups, but the logic underlying such deci-sions should be clearly stated. Further scrutiny may be needed for unusual lumpiness, or where allocations are equal across tambons. Transparency & accountability are key.

• Inclusion of study or exploratory activities in areas of the action plan where they are appropriate & justifiable (especially regarding livelihoods) are strongly recommended.

• As general trends in the public policy arena suggest funding levels may be less than promised, justification, priority setting, transparency & accountability are crucial.

8. Sub-basin monitoring & information plans should consider:

• Although agencies & local governments have their own regulations & mandates for monitoring project inputs & outputs, sub-basin organizations should at least collaborate in monitoring inputs & outputs of projects in sub-basin plans. There will need to be mutual understanding & arrangements about how such activities will be conducted.


• Final action plan project & activity lists can be tagged and re-sorted according to their monitoring needs. This can help identify the scope of, & potential complementarities within monitoring activities, and facilitate formulation of the most efficient and effec-tive monitoring program & arrangements possible. For a more holistic monitoring & information strategy, monitoring needs could be combined with information required for goal & objective level criteria & indicators into a package of information require-ments that could be assessed in terms of sources within and outside the sub-basin.

9. Sub-basin capacity building & partnership plans should consider:

• Since numerous capacity building components will likely be embedded in action plans, they should be brought together into an overall capacity building plan. Final project lists can be tagged & resorted according to their training needs & sources. This could help identify the scope of, and potential complementarities among training activities, and formulation of the most efficient and effective training programs & arrangements possible. It will be especially useful in organizing, negotiating & scheduling assistance from particular sources, and systematic identification of gaps and additional needs.

• If RSBO operational capacity building needs have been integrated into projects, ar-rangements required to meet these needs can also be part of the above process. If they are not yet included or emerge later, the capacity building strategy needs to include re-sponsibilities for obtaining appropriate assistance. International experience indicates capacity building is a long-term need that will change & evolve over time.

• Since awareness is fairly high & local specialists are present in most sub-basins, train-ing activities should emphasize practical methods & tools to support local efforts to identify, develop, plan, implement & monitor specific problem-solving activities. Em-phasis should also be given to developing, refining, managing, & adapting participa-tory processes at both the sub-basin & more local levels. While support will require ac-cess to information, tools, & relatively conventional training, needs for mentoring processes are also likely.

• Thus, beyond project toolkit information packages, more interactive & tailored support will be needed, including mentoring processes and interactive assistance that can foster independent local analysis & creativity drawing on both local & outside information.

• Especially regarding relationships between livelihood development and environmental issues, efforts need to foster local entrepreneurship that can identify and realize viable and creative responses to changing opportunities and constraints.

• As sub-basins interact more with each other, and with other levels, more interests, needs, and opportunities are likely to emerge. Thus, they should consider how to best develop vertical and horizontal partnership linkages with other organizations and insti-tutions. A partnership strategy can begin with facilitating networks & interactions within sub-basins, and that experience can help in developing partnership linkages with other sub-basins and organizations beyond their sub-basin. Two-way interaction can help build local capacity, mobilize expertise & other types of support, and provide lo-cal experience to assist others.

10. Additional suggestions based on project experience include:

• Future projects related to river basin or sub-basin (or local sub-watershed) management should accept that they will not start with a “clean slate”, so that project design cannot use only linear logical processes based on theoretical considerations. Local participa-tion needs to be included at all levels of program and project development, even in-cluding processes like sub-basin delineation. Currently existing plans – despite what-ever flaws they may have – must become one of the initial building blocks upon which projects can seek to add value and further development. Local initiatives (some of which were agency induced) already taking place within sub-basins are of key impor-


tance, and these groups, networks, and local government initiatives are essential build-ing block components of sub-basin organization. The sub-basin level has demonstrated its great potential for becoming a key venue for developing the interface between top-down and bottom-up processes, but this process must become much more interactive if it is to be truly effective and viable.

• There is important variation among sub-basins in biophysical, economic, ethnic, & other characteristics. Configurations of sub-basin issues & stakeholders are closely re-lated to these characteristics. Diversity in social & cultural dimensions is also reflected in the types & levels of local organization available as building blocks for sub-basin organization. Ping Basin programs should learn from this experience to better antici-pate sub-basin needs in designing & building RSBO support services & facilities.

• This project & international experience confirm that development of truly collaborative processes requires consistency & persistence, and thus takes time. While project delays made some original goals unachievable, even time horizons in the approval document were too short to achieve fully tested & functional organizations & fully articulated collaborative sub-basin management plans. At least 2 to 3 years (usually more) are needed even in societies where strong local communities have high capacities

• Further Ping Basin efforts must move beyond the stage of yet another round of plan-ning without implementation (“plan-ning”). Further learning needs to be much more experience-based and empirical, in order to maintain and expand interest and participa-tion, further build consensus, and begin putting into place, testing and refining remain-ing components of a river sub-basin management system that are not yet fully estab-lished and functional. Efforts need to do the best they can to build on existing local ini-tiatives and planning process, and then move on to further development and refinement in the context of the next stages of RSBO development. We can now see more clearly how unfinished sub-basin management processes are after the first two phases of the development process. Even further refinements of operational mandates for RSBOs need more experience derived from actual implementation, along with feedback on real-world impacts and changing conditions provided by an effective monitoring sys-tem, in the context of increasingly participatory learning processes to guide further re-finement and adaptation. Without continuing support – which changes its nature as processes continue to build and evolve – sub-basin management organizations stand little chance of achieving the lofty goals that have been set for them by stakeholders at local, national, and even international levels.

• Initiatives and support are most effective and efficient when they are coordinated and various components are appropriately timed.

11. Suggestions and comments related to financing mechanisms include:

• A financing strategy is an important and often fairly complex component of a full-scale long-term river sub-basin management plan. International experience suggests long term organizational viability and sustainability are enhanced by a mix of funding sup-port from central and local sources.

• Issues related to financing mechanisms can only be assessed, explored, and negotiated after detailed plans, projects and activities are developed to the point that an initial funding needs assessment can be conducted. This underscores the need to focus on sub-basin plans as the beginning of the process and not as an end product delivered at the last moment. Once plans become available, they could be flagged and sorted by categories that would reflect different potential types of funding sources.

• High-profile promises by government leaders of massive central government funding for Ping Basin programs diverted discussion from truly local funding sources into dis-cussions of channels through which central funds could flow to local levels.


• Local funding sources that do not originate from central sources might include funds derived from local taxes, license fees, fines or user fees, cost recovery mechanisms, or revenue from income generating activities.

o Since only government units are authorized to levy taxes, license fees, or fines, it would only be possible to mobilize such sources in collaboration with local gov-ernments. Revenues from designated types of violations or taxes might go into a community fund earmarked for certain types of activities managed by the RSBO.

o Cost recovery through user fees may be an option for operational funds associated with centrally-funded investments in facilities like reliable water supply, wastewa-ter treatment, trash disposal, or similar types of projects in sub-basin action plans.

• Existing community savings & credit funds are primarily intended & used for producer credit purposes. The logical use for such funds appears to be for micro-investments in livelihood activities, or perhaps education or skill upgrading with real prospects for generating additional income that could be used to repay savings or revolving funds.

• For RSBO operational budgets (as opposed to budgets for projects under action plans), working groups & sub-basin leaders are clearly still expecting central funding support. No other viable options appear to be immediately available at this point. In any event, central support will remain important, and its long-term consistency has been shown to be more important overall than the magnitude of support during any particular period.

• In other countries, supplementary funding for either operations or projects from private business or private or parastatal non-profit sources can also be important, as can dona-tions from private, public or membership sources. Some even establish separate units for managing income producing services and facilities, such as power generation or water supply or treatment, which sometimes help subsidize operations and projects that benefit the general public or disadvantaged groups.

• Many of these issues are complex and require careful consideration, and often exten-sive negotiations and consensus building. They cannot be established in a 3 to 4 month period. Thus, exploration and development of a full sub-basin financing strategy ap-pears to remain beyond the scope of this current project.

12. Final action plans for pilot sub-basins under this project should be compared with sub-

basin plans developed under previous planning efforts led by DNP and DWR. This can help assess how much conditions, processes and actors under this project have affected “bottom line“ views about what should be done at this point. This report seeks to help fa-cilitate his process by providing some baseline summaries of those plans, and an example assessment of preliminary proposals for the Ping Part 1 sub-basin. (see section III.C.2.)


V. Recommended Agenda for Further RSBO Development This brief final part builds on findings and other materials in previous parts of the report in seeking to articulate a few key items that are recommended for integration into the agenda for further RSBO development in the Ping River Basin.

1. Accepting reality & diversity: basin-wide step-wise improvement approach Experience with the three pilot sub-basins has demonstrated a substantial range in views and ideas about sub-basin management. And when this is combined with the survey of sub-basin diversity presented in the earlier sections of this report, it becomes quite obvious that we should expect even more diversity as management efforts presumably intensify in more sub-basins of the Ping River Basin. This diversity should be embraced and viewed more as a strength than a weakness, perhaps viewing it as somewhat of an analog to contrasts between monocultures versus biologically and genetically more complex natural ecosystems. While sub-basin plans are an important tool for helping to translate ideas into concrete actions, and to allocate the resources necessary to support those actions, it is also clear that sub-basin plans should not be seen as an end in themselves. If the objectives set forth in the goal of a project like this one are to really be realized, sub-basin management organizations should perhaps be viewed as being somewhat like a social organism. This means that focus needs to be placed on the processes through which the organizations come to life, function, maintain themselves, and learn to respond and adapt effectively to the changing environment in which they live. Accordingly, recommendations here focus on an appropriate general framework within which ex-pansion of support for development of sub-basin organizations will operate. Key themes of this framework include

• Minimum imposed uniformity. If the framework for developing sub-basin organizations is to accept and incorporate diversity, it needs to provide the ‘space’ for adaptation and acceptance of differences among localities. Thus, the longstanding quest for uniformity in local pro-grams and structures needs to be relaxed. Mandates, organizational structures, approaches to representation, implementation arrangements, and the myriad of other details of organiza-tional characteristics and functional organization should be allowed to vary according to the diverse range of circumstances, perceptions, and initiatives found among Ping sub-basins.

• Focus on processes enabling effective localization. In order to help bring more coherence to efforts to weave diverse organizations into a functioning system at broader scales, and to pro-vide systematic and meaningful support, program focus needs to be placed more on processes than on the specific patterns of individual outcomes. It is this type of focus on processes compatible with localization and diverse outcomes, for example, that has led to the articula-tion of the five phases of RSBO development found in Part III of this report.

• Accepting current plans as a starting point. Existing plans include those prepared under lead-ership of DWP and DNP, as well as existing plans of provincial and local governments, and any plans made by semi-formal or informal organizations or networks. As explained in regard to the first phase of RSBO development, and very much reinforced by experience under this project, the time has come to accept initial sub-basin plans that have already been developed – warts and all – as the starting point for transition from “plan-ning” into the next phase of more experience-based and empirical learning processes. The marginal value added by fur-ther efforts to improve plans and planning before any implementation begins is already ap-proaching zero. Variation in the initial characteristics and quality of plans needs to be seen as another manifestation of the diversity that exists among Ping sub-basins.


• Interactive support for gradually improving organizations, plans, and implementation. A cen-tral feature of the paradigm shift that is required at this point is to set aside the quest for per-fect plans, and focus instead on how sub-basin organizations can best move ahead in a man-ner wherein they are continuously seeking to make incremental improvements based on their learning from experience and access to a growing body of local and science-based knowl-edge, as well as through broader and deeper participation and growing consensus. If this view is a guiding principle, then approaches for developing more appropriate support systems to help facilitate incremental improvement of this diverse set of efforts will be able to emerge.

In short, the five phase process for developing river sub-basin management organizations in the Ping Basin is recommended as a guiding framework for helping to focus further programs and sup-port efforts on the fundamental processes of RSBO development. By placing greater focus on these basic processes, these efforts should be able to deal more effectively and efficiently in provid-ing support for sub-basin organizations that reflect a diverse range of conditions and starting points.

2. Dealing with complexity: mandates, roles, plans and funding While an orientation toward processes and empirical learning can help sub-basin development pro-grams to accept and integrate diversity, it can also help guide both local initiatives and outside as-sistance in efforts to disentangle and more effectively address some of the more complex issues they face. Some examples include:

• Mandates. Conceptual and operational boundaries that are established in identifying and ar-ticulating RSBO mandates need to be able to evolve over time and adapt to changing condi-tions and perceived needs. Boundaries of the previous round of sub-basin planning were closely related to mandates of patron agencies. Those agencies have, however, encouraged wider thinking about issues and problems, which has helped identify important additional is-sues that need serious attention. And in response to these problems, agencies have at least sought to begin expanding the range of activities into at least the realm of mandates of other agencies within their ministry (or former ministry in the case of MoAC).

During the project, we have seen further growth and openness in discussions about the nature of many of the underlying issues and forces driving processes that have led to many condi-tions now seen as environmental and related public health problems. Some of these problems can be at least largely addressed by some quite direct local actions that can be organized and implemented under discrete local projects. Various such projects appear to be included in plans being formulated under this project. Other problems, however, are clearly not so easily addressed, and are thus likely to form a smaller and generally weaker part of the plans. One of the areas where this is most clear is in the many issues that relate to technologies being employed in cash income generating components of local livelihood systems.

Moreover, sub-basins appear to be diverging somewhat in their approaches to dealing with such complex issues. Some want to further explore what they might do, while others want to externalize such issues for treatment by others. Either approach should be seen as acceptable, and subject to change over time. The “best approach” for a given locality will be derived from learning processes that carefully consider – and periodically reconsider – their vision, goals and objectives, in light of their perceptions, motivations and capabilities.

• Roles. There are several aspects of stakeholder roles in RSBO development and sub-basin

management that relate to complexity issues. First, are the issues associated with the basic orientation of an RSBO in relationship to major roles in project and activity implementation. Some higher level agency officials think sub-basins should play a major implementation role, while working groups in all three pilot sub-basins perceive the role of an RSBO to be primar-ily in the realm of analysis, planning, coordination and monitoring. Again, there are really no right or wrong answers, other than what will be the most viable and effective approach that can actually be conducted by sub-basin stakeholder groups.


A second aspect relates to the roles of government agencies. Initial planning and organization activities at the sub-basin level have clearly been conducted under the patronage of govern-ment agencies. Some sub-basins are quite comfortable with that, although they may want to shift a bit more emphasis to leaders of agency-induced local groups and networks. Given the close relationships between them, that should presumably pose no problem. Other sub-basins, however, want to have more local ‘ownership’ of RSBOs, and see government agencies as playing key support roles. Thus, government agencies need to be encouraged to be flexible in this regard, and responsive to decisions by RSBOs regarding the nature of their role. It ap-pears that there will be even less scope in the future for imposing national level views arbi-trarily. Rather, they will need to be negotiated, and government agencies will be key repre-sentatives of national interests at the negotiating table. Moreover, RSBOs can also be seen as a forum for negotiations between agencies with histories of problematic relationships – such as DNP and RFD (and even ALRO), or DWP and RID, for example – which may actually help bring about some of the coordination and even collaboration that has been promised for so long, but never realized. Thus, there is no reason for agency officials to feel slighted if they are not chairing all the proceedings. Rather, they should feel fortunate to have an opportunity to work at the forefront of efforts exploring the frontiers of resource governance in Thailand.

Other aspects relate to roles of TAO, tessaban, prachakhom, private business, NGOs, and other stakeholder groups within Ping sub-basins, as well as the horizontal and vertical link-ages, partnerships and alliances in which they are embedded or seek to establish. There is clearly divergence in how local social chemistries are interacting and exploring locally appro-priate configurations. Localization employing learning process oriented approaches is very well suited to helping explore these complex issues and chart a suitable and self-correcting course in such situations.

• Plans. If we have already accepted current plans as a starting point, RSBOs need to employ

learning approaches as the complexities of real-world implementation and impacts move to the center stage of their work. In order to help achieve a learning approach, various additional tools are likely to be needed, which can include annual reviews of progress, rolling plans that are updated based on the learning achieved during each year, and public access to information derived from all these efforts. Moreover, effective monitoring systems are so important they are treated separately in the next recommendation.

• Funding. Although many have envisioned massive flows of central government funds to fi-

nance a huge range of activities in sub-basins, reality is likely to be much more complex, and much less generous. We have already begun exploring some of the dimensions of this com-plexity in previous sections of this report. Moreover, scarcity of funds is likely to provide more incentive for closer coordinating relationships with regular local development planning processes at TAO, tessaban, and provincial levels. It is also likely to foster more creativity in finding ways to mobilize other sources of local or non-governmental funding, as well as mechanisms such as cost recovery, community funds, or revolving funds for activities where they are appropriate and potentially viable. Furthermore, it is worth noting here that interna-tional experience indicates that multiple sources of funding that include local to national level sources are associated with river basin organizations that are demonstrating highest levels of satisfaction among stakeholders, and that are showing the most promise for long-term viabil-ity and sustainability. While this might suggest that more modest levels of funding could be a “blessing in disguise”, development of such multi-source, multi-level funding arrangements are likely to be very complex, and subject to change over time. Thus, learning-oriented proc-esses would again appear most appropriate.

As this brief indicative list shows, the potential returns to investments that support development of learning-oriented approaches are high, with impacts that can help address complex issues associ-ated with many important aspects of sub-basin organization development.


3. Building a solid foundation: collaborative monitoring & learning systems The organizations and plans that have been developed under this project reflect in many ways the ideas and theories of various stakeholders, and particularly those forwarded by various government line agencies. But in order to move to the next stage of making an effective management organiza-tion become a reality, it is clearly necessary to move to a much more evidence-based learning ap-proach to assessing impact of the various types of activity to be conducted under the plans that are being proposed. Some of these activities are likely to have the type of impact that their proponents have promised. Various others, however, are very likely to fall short of those goals, either because they are not really effective, practical or viable, or because they may be necessary but insufficient to address the full range of forces driving the problem. In any event, there is a very clear need to be able to assess their impacts in a transparent and effective manner, so that all stakeholders can see and accept the assessments required to establish and implement a learning process. Monitoring is an essential feedback component of a learning system. One important step toward developing approaches for effective monitoring systems is being taken through projects such as the one now being implemented by CMU researchers under support by ONEP.58 It is important to make a thorough review of the range of currently available and potential biophysical criteria, indi-cators and measures of key dimensions of environmental quality in the Ping River Basin. And, it is very important to strengthen support for efforts that can help to both establish a strong set of base-line data on current conditions, and to begin much more systematic efforts to monitor continuing change in those conditions. Far too little effort has been allocated to these lines of activity in the past, which has contributed to the lack of awareness of how conditions are (or are not) changing, as well as to often misdirected and unnecessarily divisive debate about both trends and causation un-derlying perceived problems. In articulating and establishing criteria, indicators and measures of environmental conditions, it is also clearly necessary to place much more emphasis on direct involvement of local communities in the monitoring processes. Three types of reasons why this is particularly important relate to trust, to detailed familiarity, and to capacity building. In terms of trust, there have been a considerable number of cases where outside government agencies or advocacy-oriented academics or non-governmental groups have claimed to have expert knowledge that backed their efforts to dictate to local communities what they should do or not do. Having no access to the details of that knowl-edge or to means to either verify or contradict the findings and the conclusions drawn from it, communities have generally been faced with either accepting the outside experts by faith, or with rejecting the experts and their findings as suspect and politically motivated. In any event, use of expert findings in this manner have placed local communities at a very large disadvantage in any negotiations regarding restrictions that experts or agencies want to place on their behavior. Regarding detailed familiarity, various types of information are simply not accessible through stan-dard sensors or sampling processes. Remote sensing, for example, can identify the ‘footprint’ of landscape change – but it offers little direct information about why, how, or by whom. Information on important elements such as complex livelihood strategies, dependency relationships, accumulat-ing debts, and local rivalries and conflicts can be even more difficult to assess from the outside. While well conducted local questionnaires or PRA techniques can provide more information, they can also miss many things compared to knowledge by people who are continuously engaged in a given society and ecosystem, and very often have even inherited insights from generations of oth-ers who have done the same. There are many areas with great scope for interactions, comparisons and cross-checks. Moreover, all parties need to remember that arrogance that follows from blind faith in one’s own chosen set of ideas and tools has led many people astray and even amok. In terms of capacity building, direct community participation in monitoring processes can also help a much wider range of stakeholders to understand much more clearly what is being measured and how it is done. In doing so, it helps build credibility among all stakeholders in the monitoring

58 See CMU 2005


process. And, perhaps most importantly where disputes are present or likely to arise, it provides tools that can be employed by all sides to individually or jointly measure impacts of activities around which dispute revolves, and can thus facilitate negotiation and conflict management. And whenever it is possible, perhaps the most ideal approach is to seek a complementary balance among types of monitoring techniques, including interaction, and even collaboration where it is appropriate. In the pilot sub-basins, we have seen a very substantial openness to use of monitoring technologies that are beyond the ability of local communities to employ by themselves. Obvious examples include interpretation of remote sensing data, as well as laboratory analyses of toxic sub-stances in water or elsewhere in the environment. At the same time, however, people also want to have access to at least visualizations of such data so that they can see how their understanding may correspond or diverge from its findings. Many also see important complementarities where local knowledge and community monitoring can substantially improve interpretations of data such as remote sensing, or add a far larger number of monitoring data points that can help everyone better understand local diversity and variability. Thus, there is considerable potential for synergies in building knowledge and understanding, as well as effects that can foster consensus building. In or-der to achieve this, however, information access and transparency will be critical.

4. Accessing tools & experience: a river basin knowledge & support center In addition to improved monitoring approaches, much more concerted efforts need to be directed toward support systems that can more effectively address additional information and capacity building needs driven by local initiative and learning processes. The information ‘toolkits’ being developed under this project are fine, but they are insufficient to address needs that clearly exist. In recognition of these needs, the author proposed in an earlier project report three types of RSBO support functions that need to be developed at the Ping Basin level, which were presented again in Part III of this report.59 Needs identified and views expressed by local leaders and resource persons in pilot sub-basins during the final months of intensive implementation activity under this project very strongly and consistently confirm the three types of needs included in that proposal. Since no action in this direction appears to have been taken thus far, it is strongly recommended here that if efforts to encourage and promote sub-basin management organizations are to continue and expand, urgent consideration needs to be given to establishing a Ping River Basin Knowl-edge and Support Center. It would be comprised of three key components that focus on areas of activity such as (but not necessarily limited to) the following:

• Information Center. This center would build on thinking that specified ‘toolkits’ as an output of this project, but would take these efforts to another level. The information center would (1) serve as a library and clearinghouse for access to a wide range of relevant Thai language training and extension materials and publications that exist in a variety of forms (including ‘toolkits’ from all relevant projects), but are not systematically collected into libraries or other accessible central locations; (2) serve as a contact center that could help link groups, organi-zations, agencies and individual resource persons who could help provide or exchange infor-mation on experience and tools through training, demonstrations, cross-visits, study tours, or a range of additional formats; (3) serve as a center for developing appropriate forms and for-mats of informational and training materials that can help meet needs of the range of stake-holders and interest groups in Ping sub-basins; (4) serve as a center for coordinating two-way translation and adaptation of relevant information, to facilitate international exchange and communication in minority languages.

• Responsive technical support teams. This component of the operation would focus on mobi-lizing human and informational resources that could help guide and mentor RSBO-related groups in an interactive manner, with emphasis on on-site efforts. These efforts could build

59 See section III.D.3.d.


on the information center’s resource person database to help match needs and resources, and schedule interaction. Emphasis would be on topics where systematic on-site assistance is dif-ficult to obtain from existing groups, organizations or institutions that could be linked through the information center. In addition to various technical and operational issues and processes, topics might also extend into areas such as improving representation, selection processes and accountability in sub-basin assemblies, facilitating constructive interaction and negotiation among stakeholders, building a broad-based consensus, approaches for improving equity and participation by poor or disadvantaged groups, how to interpret monitoring data and build it into the learning process, or how to manage information to provide wide access, transparency, and public education. Response persons or small teams could include interested volunteers, students and/or staff from the considerable range of academic, private business, government agency, and civil society organizations located in the Ping Basin that could be seen as poten-tial partner institutions.

• RBO data and analytical support system. This component would focus on more sophisticated tools and technologies to provide support for RBO and RSBO programs and activities. Spa-tial information systems, analytical modeling, instrumented water quality and flow monitor-ing, and other types of databases and analytical tools are strong candidates. Interest in and needs for these types of linkages have already emerged during project discussions of monitor-ing criteria and indicators in project sub-basins, as well as in frequenly expressed frustrations with lack of access, and contradictions in data from different sources. Examples of highly relevant on-going work include the provincial decision support system that Dr. Methi Ekas-ingh’s group has developed at CMU (a few small examples of output were seen earlier in this report), ONEP supported work at CMU on monitoring criteria and indicators led by Dr. Wasant Jompakdee, the forest resource-oriented spatial information system being developed and applied by Mr. Wittaya at the DNP’s watershed office next door to CMU, all of which have already been cited in this report, as well as a substantial range of others.

Indeed, the center would depend heavily on partnerships with relevant institutions, organizations, and groups already based and active in the Ping Basin. It would not seek to dominate information flows, or to create a new high-overhead bureaucratic institution trying to compete with existing activities. Rather, it would place emphasis on serving as a focal point, a convenor, and a channel for information assembly, synthesis, translation into widely accessible forms, and dissemination that would complement existing activities by increasing their potential coverage and impact. Its most likely location would be at a regional institution such as a major university, but it must main-tain very strong linkages with government agencies, civil society organizations and networks, in-terested private businesses, and other major stakeholders. Linkage of its operational base with pro-vincial ONEP offices might be an attractive option, especially during its development phase. In any event, it must place strong emphasis on openness and equal access to information and services.

5. Refining the policy environment: coordinated long-term commitment, support, & incentives

Experience both internationally and in Thailand confirms the importance of high level support and an ‘enabling’ policy environment for the emergence, viability, relevance and sustainability of meso-scale initiatives like river basin and sub-basin management organizations. Experience under this project only serves to further confirm this need. In this regard, however, it is clarity and consistency that are needed far more than high profile but ephemeral promises of massive financial resource infusions. The project has seen quite clearly how poorly timed examples of the latter can create as many or more problems than benefits. It has also seen substantial discouragement and skepticism that planned projects will ever be implemented. In this kind of environment, it is increasingly difficult to mobilize serious efforts to invest time, en-ergy and creative thought into long-term visions, innovations and institutions.


Thus, there is a very urgent need at this point for a clear policy statement of long-term commitment to building fully operational and effective RSBOs in the Ping River Basin (and other river basins, if that is the intention). Without this, the prospects for further progress are not very bright. It is im-portant to note, however, that this statement should not be about huge amounts of money to be dis-tributed among sub-basins. The most critical point is the commitment to an important role for these organizations in helping to direct and assess activities at whatever scale are possible accord-ing to resource availabilities. This commitment is also very important as a policy signal to the gov-ernment agencies involved with this effort that their efforts thus far have not been in vain, and that they will be expected to continue moving in the directions implied by these efforts. They need to understand that this has not been just another temporary diversion from the “old ways” of doing things, and that people who perform well in these types of programs are likely to be recognized by the upwardly-accountable system in which their career paths are embedded. As preparations are made to expand support for RSBO development to other sub-basins, considera-tion needs to be given to how MoNRE will seek to coordinate its efforts. In doing so, it should consider a role for ONEP and its provincial counterpart offices in this process because: (a) is pre-sumed links with policy and planning processes in MoNRE, and (b) its lack of ‘field’ implementa-tion units means it must collaborate with other agencies and organizations. Thus, it appears quite well placed to act as coordinator and facilitator, where it could work closely with provinces, DWP, DNP, Upper & Lower Ping leaders, existing networks, and relevant NGOs, business leaders and academics. Close relations with the Ping Basin Knowledge and Support Center are recommended. A clear mandate for all MoNRE agencies to work with the new RSBOs will be required. Regarding funding, the most important thing that is needed is assurances that at least a modest level of core operating expenses will be made available over a term that is at least long enough to include all five phases of the river sub-basin development process as discussed in this report. If availability of such funding needs to be contingent on meeting some reasonable standard of performance, and the criteria and indicators for meeting the standard are made public information, that would be fine. But processes cannot proceed in a coherent manner if there continues to be so little predictability present in the system as we see at this point. Moreover, the whole area of developing incentives for the quality of both RSBO processes and sub-basin management impacts, also deserves serious consideration and emphasis. The same is true for efforts to identify and develop incentive approaches that can be employed by RSBOs to encourage improved behavior within their sub-basins. While some basic ideas have already been included in, for example, various activities under DNP-led sub-basin plans, much more serious ef-fort needs to be devoted to these issues, and such efforts need to be conducted in close collabora-tion with stakeholder members of Ping sub-basins. Mechanisms such as sliding scale matching funds and a considerable range of other techniques are among the possibilities. Such incentives should extend into areas such as creative efforts to mobilize appropriate local sources of funding, to creativity and progress in integrating sub-basin management with local development planning processes, to innovative approaches to working with private business, and to creative and effective means for addressing important livelihood issues. One hopes that additional insights into some of these issues, at least in terms of how they relate to pollution issues, will emerge from the separate consultancy on economic incentives that is being conducted in association with this project.

6. Developing means to assure equity & accountability Experience in project pilot sub-basins has further underscored the importance of power relation-ships among stakeholders, and efforts by some stakeholders to seek dominance over others. While this is normal in all societies, it also creates needs in participatory institutions such as RSBOs for mechanisms that can help assure there is as much equity and accountability as possible.

Thus, four lines of activity are recommended for particular emphasis and additional effort:


• Constructive balanced organizational process monitoring. At least during the first three stages of the RSBO development process, there is a need for monitoring mechanisms that include a balance between local and outside elements. The objective of this type of monitoring is to help assure that all major stakeholders have adequate representation that is accountable to their constituencies, and that distributions of costs and benefits associated with sub-basin management are including sufficient attention to equity issues. Outside input into such moni-toring processes might be managed through the Ping Basin Knowledge and Support Center.

• Transparent information. Access to information, including the means by which it has been de-rived, is a critical element for assuring equity and accountability, and a frequently identified problem among sub-basin leaders and stakeholder groups. Studies and other information gathering commissioned by government agencies that could be very useful in sub-basin man-agement are still frequently inaccessible, even by other government agencies – despite a con-stitution that assures equal access. And a parallel problem is often encountered regarding ac-cess to information at local levels. There is a need for very substantial improvement in infor-mation access at all levels if institutions such as RSBOs are to stand any chance of realizing their stated objectives.

• Channels for redress of grievances. Majority rule is a basic tenet of democratic institutions. But in most societies it is accompanied by recognition of the basic rights of minorities. Dur-ing the development and implementation of sub-basin management plans, cases are likely to arise where some stakeholders feel their basic rights are being violated by various activities, even if those activities are backed by a majority of other stakeholders. One hopes that RSBO processes will be able to identify and effectively address such concerns. But the larger sys-tem needs to also consider contingencies where this may not happen. Thus, just as there is now an administrative court where people can seek redress from being unfairly treated by government administrative systems, efforts should be made to devise suitable channels for re-dress of legitimate grievances by stakeholders that are unjustly treated by RSBOs.

• Accountability to constituents. While experience under this project demonstrates that very substantial progress is being made in many places, instances have occurred where people have complained that leaders who claim to represent views of various stakeholders are not really doing so. Thus, it appears that there are still needs for some particular attention to mechanisms for insuring that representatives are held accountable to their constituencies. Some examples of such mechanisms were already introduced in Part III of this report, such as requirements for selection and reselection at fixed intervals (terms), or even recall mecha-nisms where abuse of power or gross misrepresentation can be demonstrated. Indeed, selec-tion process themselves are an important issue, which is complicated by preferences among different groups for voting or consensus approaches. There need not be a single standardized approach for all stakeholder groups. But the bottom line is whether members of any given group feel their representatives are being held accountable for their actions.

_____________________________________

Perhaps the most important recommendation to be made by this report is that ONEP, MoNRE and its constituent agencies, the highest levels of government, and especially the people of the Ping River Basin continue their very promising efforts to seek creative and innovative ap-proaches for improving resource governance at this potentially very important sub-basin level.

It is an honor to have been able to play this very small role in one little corner of this process.


Summary of Suggestions and Recommendations in Part V:

1. A general framework for expansion of support for development of river sub-basin organi-zations (RSBOs) throughout the Ping Basin should include at least four important themes:

• Minimum imposed uniformity. This is needed to provide ‘space’ for adaptation and ac-ceptance of differences among localities in circumstances, perceptions, needs and ini-tiatives.

• Focus on processes enabling effective localization can help bring coherence to these ef-forts, as in the five phases of RSBO development found in Part III of this report.

• Accepting current plans as a starting point. This can help efforts move beyond “plan-ning” into the next phases of more experience-based and empirical learning processes.

• Interactive support for gradually improving organizations, plans, and implementation needs a paradigm shift to RSBOs that are continuously making incremental improve-ments based on learning from experience, growing local and science-based knowledge, broader and deeper participation, and growing consensus.

2. An orientation toward processes & empirical learning can help guide efforts to disentangle

and address complex issues such as:

• Mandates. Since problem identification is now broader than action projects, experi-mental learning & partnerships can help explore ways to address remaining problems..

• Roles. Careful experimentation can help further refine views about implementation, leadership, representation, other stakeholder roles, linkages, partnerships & alliances.

• Plans. Planning processes need to include annual progress reviews, rolling plans, and public access to information, combined with effective monitoring systems.

• Funding. More modest levels than anticipated in initial plans may provide incentives for creativity in mobilizing different types of central, local or non-governmental funds.

3. Since balanced and effective monitoring systems are critically important for transparent

evidence-based learning, they need to include:

• Review of available and potential biophysical criteria, indicators & measures of envi-ronmental quality, establishment of strong baseline data on current conditions, & more systematic monitoring of change in those conditions. This can help address poor under-standing of how conditions are (or are not) changing, and often misdirected & unneces-sarily divisive debate about both trends & causation underlying perceived problems.

• Much more emphasis on direct involvement of local communities in monitoring proc-esses, in order to (a) build understanding & trust in monitoring information; (b) expand types of information used in analysis, interpretations, comparisons & cross-checks; and (c) build credibility that can help facilitate negotiation & conflict management.

• Efforts to seek a complementary balance among monitoring techniques, including ap-propriate levels of interaction & collaboration, in order to foster synergies & consensus building. Information access & transparency will be critical for these efforts.

4. Urgent efforts should be made to establish a Ping River Basin Knowledge & Support Cen-

ter at the river basin level, with three types of services to support sub-basin level work:

• Information center. Services would include (a) a library & clearinghouse for access to relevant training & extension materials & publications in a variety of forms; (2) a con-tact center to link groups, organizations, agencies & resource persons who can provide


or exchange information on experience & tools; (3) a center for developing forms of materials appropriate for the range of stakeholders; (4) a center for coordinating trans-lation & adaptation of information for international exchange & minority languages.

• Responsive technical support teams. Services would focus on helping guide & mentor RSBO-related groups, especially on topics where systematic on-site assistance is diffi-cult to obtain. Topics might include technical & operational issues & processes, repre-sentation, accountability, stakeholder interaction & negotiations, building consensus, improving equity & participation, using monitoring data in learning processes, manag-ing information to provide wide access, transparency, & public education, etc..

• RBO data & analytical support system. Services would focus on sophisticated tools to support RBO & RSBO programs & activities, such as spatial information systems, ana-lytical modeling, instrumented monitoring, & other types of databases & analytical tools. This would build on ongoing work at CMU, DNP & elsewhere.

The center would depend on partnerships with institutions & groups in the Ping Basin, and serve as a focal point, convenor, & channel for information synthesis & dissemination to complement existing activities and increase their coverage & impact.

5. High level support and an ‘enabling’ policy environment are needed, including coordinated

long-term commitment, support and incentives.

• Clarity & consistency are needed more than high profile temporary promises of mas-sive funding.

• A clear policy statement of long-term commitment to building fully operational & ef-fective RSBOs that would play an important role in helping direct & assess activities according to resource availabilities is needed to reduce uncertainty & as a policy signal to government agencies to continue moving in the directions implied by these efforts.

• ONEP and its provincial counterpart offices are well placed to help coordinate and fa-cilitate support for collaborative processes to expand support of RSBO development.

• A reasonable level of core operating expenses for all five phases of the RSBO devel-opment process is necessary. Funding could be contingent on standard of performance, if assessment processes are transparent and fair.

• Serious attention to incentives for improved quality of RSBO processes & sub-basin management impacts, and for RSBO use in encouraging improved behavior within sub-basins, should be a priority consideration..

6. Given realities of power relationships among stakeholders, mechanisms are needed to as-

sure as much equity & accountability in RSBO development & operations as possible:

• Constructive balanced organizational process monitoring that includes balance between local & outside elements, would help assure stakeholders have adequate & accountable representation, & that distributions of costs & benefits include attention to equity.

• Transparent information. Access to information, & the means by which is derived, is critical for assuring equity & accountability. It is now seen by many groups as a prob-lem.

• Channels for redress of grievances. Efforts should be made to devise suitable channels for redress of legitimate grievances by stakeholders if they are unjustly treated by RSBOs.

• Accountability to constituents. Mechanisms such as fixed terms &/or other measures are needed to help insure that representative are accountable to their constituencies.


References This symbol indicates the document is viewable in PDF format on the accompanying CD-ROM.

1. ADB. 2005. ‘Empowering People – One River Basin at a Time’. Thailand water actions web page of

Asian Development Bank website http://adb.org/water/actions/THA/empowering-people.asp

2. ADB. 2004. ‘Upstream, Downstream’. Thailand water actions web page of Asian Development Bank website http://adb.org/water/actions/THA/upstream_downstream.asp

3. ADB. 2001. Water for All: The Water Policy of the Asian Development Bank. Manila: Asian Devel-opment Bank. 50 p.

4. Anukularmphai, A. 2004a. ‘River Basin Committees Development in Thailand: An evolving participa-tory process (EPP)’. Paper for Training program on integrated water resources management and strengthening of River Basin Committees, 26 July – 6 August 2004, Bangkok and Chiang Mai, Thai-land. Network of Asian River Basin Organizations. Asian Development Bank website: http://adb.org/water/narbo/2004/Training-Program/materials.asp

5. Anukularmphai, A. 2004b. ‘Evolving participatory process of river basin management in Thailand’. Presentation at Training program on integrated water resources management and strengthening of River Basin Committees, 26 July – 6 August 2004, Bangkok and Chiang Mai, Thailand. Network of Asian River Basin Organizations. Asian Development Bank website:

http://adb.org/water/narbo/2004/Training-Program/materials.asp

6. Ballestero, M. 2003. Tarcoles River Basin, Costa Rica: Background Paper. Study on Integrated River Basin Management and the Principle of Managing Water Resources at the Lowest Appropriate Level. Washington DC: The World Bank. 114 p.

7. Bandaragoda, D.J. 2000. A Framework for Institutional Analysis for Water Resources Management in a River Basin Context. Working Paper 5. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 45 p.

8. Barker, R., F. Molle. 2004. Evolution of irrigation in South and Southeast Asia. Comprehensive As-sessment Research Report 5. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 45 p.

9. Bhat, A., K. Ramu, K. Kemper. 2005. Institutional and Policy Analysis of River Basin Management: The Brantas River Basin, Indonesia. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3611, May 2005. Washington DC: The World Bank. 50 p.

10. Blomquist, W., A. Dinar, K. Kemper. 2005a. Comparison of Institutional Arrangements for River Ba-sin Management in Eight Basins. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3636, June 2005. Wash-ington DC: The World Bank. 46 p.

11. Blomquist, W., B. Haisman, A. Dinar, A. Bhat. 2005b. Institutional and Policy Analysis of River Basin Management: The Murray Darling River Basin, Australia. World Bank Policy Research Working Pa-per 3527, February 2005. Washington DC: The World Bank. 37 p.

12. Blomquist, W., A. Tonderski, A. Dinar. 2005c. Institutional and Policy Analysis of River Basin Man-agement: The Warta River Basin, Poland. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3528, Febru-ary 2005. Washington DC: The World Bank. 37 p.

13. Blomquist, W., C. Giansante, A. Bhat, K. Kemper. 2005d. Institutional and Policy Analysis of River Basin Management: The Guadalquivir River Basin, Spain. World Bank Policy Research Working Pa-per 3526, February 2005. Washington DC: The World Bank. 40 p.

14. Blomquist, W., M. Ballestero, A. Bhat, K. Kemper. 2005e. Institutional and Policy Analysis of River Basin Management: The Tarcoles River Basin, Costa Rica. World Bank Policy Research Working Pa-per 3612, May 2005. Washington DC: The World Bank. 50 p.

http://adb.org/water/actions/THA/empowering%20-people.asp

http://adb.org/water/actions/THA/upstream_downstream.asp




15. Blomquist, W., K. Calbick, A. Dinar. 2005f. Institutional and Policy Analysis of River Basin Manage-ment: The Fraser River Basin, Canada. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3525, February 2005. Washington DC: The World Bank. 34 p.

16. Bruijnzeel, L.A. 2004. ‘Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees?’. Agriculutre, Ecosystems and Environment 104(1): 185-228.

17. Bruns, B., C. Ringler, R. Meinzen-Dick (Editors). 2005. Water Rights Reform: Lessons for Institutional Design. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. 336 p.

18. Bruns, B., R. Meinzen-Dick (Editors). 2000. Negotiating Water Rights. International Food Policy Re-search Institute. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications. 390 p.

19. Calbick, K.S., R. McAllister, D. Marshall, S. Litka. 2004. Fraser River Basin Case Study, Canada: Background Paper. Study on Integrated River Basin Management and the Principle of Managing Wa-ter Resources at the Lowest Appropriate Level. Washington DC: The World Bank. 129 p.

20. Calder, I.R. 1999. The Blue Revolution. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. 192 p.

21. Charuppat, T. 1998. Forest Situation of Thailand in the Past 37 Years (1961-1998). Forest Resources Assessment Division, Forest Research Office. Bangkok: Royal Forest Department. 116 p.

22. Chomitz, K.M., K. Kumari. 1998. The Domestic Benefits of Tropical Forests: A critical review. The World Bank Research Observer 13(1): 13-35.

23. CMU. 2004. [Project to develop a master plan and implementation plan for conservation and devel-opment of environmental and water quality of the Ping River and its tributaries]. Final report submit-ted to the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Ministry of Natural Re-sources and Environment. Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai University. [Thai language] 590 p.

24. CMU. 2005. [Project on Monitoring and evaluation of environmental quality and implementation of restoration of natural resources and environment in the Ping Basin]. Interim report submitted to the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai University. [Thai language]

25. Dinar, A., K. Kemper, W. Blomquist, M. Diez, G. Sine, W. Fru. 2005. Decentralization of River Basin Management: A Global Analysis. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3637, June 2005. Wash-ington DC: The World Bank. 91 p.

26. Douglas, E.M., K. Sebastian, C.J. Vorosmarty, S. Wood, K.M. Chomitz. 2005. The Role of Tropical Forests in Supporting Biodiversity and Hydrological Integrity: A synoptic overview. World Bank Pol-icy Research Working Paper 3635, June 2005. Washington DC: The World Bank. 23 p.

27. DPW. 1998. Highland Communities within 20 Provinces of Thailand, 1997. Technical Document. Hill-tribe Welfare Division, Department of Public Welfare. Bangkok: Ministry of Labor and Social Ser-vices.

28. Droogers, P., G. Kite. 2001. Estimating productivity of water at different spatial scales using simula-tion modeling. Research Report 53. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 16 p.

29. Dupar, M., N. Badenoch. 2002. Environment, Livelihoods, and Local Institutions: Decentralization in Mainland Southeast Asia. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. 77 p.

30. Ekasingh, M. 2005. Final Report of the Project Decision Support System for Agricultural Resource Planning and Management in Upper Northern Thailand. Chiang Mai: Multiple Cropping Center, Chiang Mai University.

31. EPA. 2005. Community-Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National Estuary Program. Publication EPA-842-B-05-003. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 97 p.

32. EPA. 2003a. Getting in Step: A guide for conducting watershed outreach campaigns. Publication EPA 841-B-03-002. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 136 p.


33. EPA. 2003b. Getting in Step: Engaging and involving stakeholders in your watershed. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 75 p.

34. EPA. 1997a. Community-Based Environmental Protection: A resource book for protecting ecosystems and communities. Publication EPA 230-B-96-003. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

35. EPA. 1997b. Top 10 Watershed Lessons Learned. Publication EPA 840-F-97-001. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 p.

36. FAO-CIFOR. 2005. Forests and floods: Drowning in fiction or thriving on facts? RAP Publication 2005/03. Forest Perspectives 2. Bangkok & Bogor: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and Cinter for International Forestry Research. 30 p.

37. Giansante, C. 2004. Guadalquivir River Basin, Spain: Background Paper. Study on Integrated River Basin Management and the Principle of Managing Water Resources at the Lowest Appropriate Level. Washington DC: The World Bank. 74 p.

38. GWP Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Integrated Water Resource Management. TEC Back-ground Papers No. 4. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership. TAC Background Papers No. 4. Stock-holm: Global Water Partnership.

39. GWP-SEATAC. 2000. Our Vision for Water in the 21st Century. Southeast Asia Technical Advisory Committee of the Global Water Partnership. Quezon City, Phillipines: SEATAC

40. Haisman, B. 2004. Murray-Darling River Basin Case Study, Australia: Background Paper. Study on Integrated River Basin Management and the Principle of Managing Water Resources at the Lowest Appropriate Level. Washington DC: The World Bank. 81 p.

41. Hannam, I. 2003. A Method to Identify and Evaluate the Legal and Institutional Framework for the Management of Water and Land in Asia: The outcome of a study in Southeast Asia and the People’s Republic of China. Research Report 73. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 33 p.

42. Heyd, H., A. Neef. 2004. Participation of local people in water management: Evidence from the Mae Sa watershed, Northern Thailand. EPTD Discussion Paper 128. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. 46 p.

43. Johnsson, R.M.F., K. Kemper. 2005a. Institutional and Policy Analysis of River Basin Management: The Jaguaribe River Basin, Brazil. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3649, June 2005. Washington DC: The World Bank. 42 p.

44. Johnsson, R.M.F., K. Kemper. 2005b. Institutional and Policy Analysis of River Basin Management: The Alto-Tiete River Basin, Sao Paulo, Brazil. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3650, June 2005. Washington DC: The World Bank. 53 p.

45. Jompakdee, W. 2004. ‘Rivers in Jeopardy and the Role of Civil Society in River Restoration: Thai ex-periences’. CMU Journal (2004) Vol. 3(1): 59- 71.

46. Kaosa-ard, M. 2000. Ecosystem Management in Northern Thailand. Resource Policy Brief. Regional Environmental Policy Support Initiative. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. 26 p.

47. Keller, A. J. Keller, D. Seckler. 1996. Integrated Water Resource Systems: Theory and policy implica-tions. Research Report 3. Colombo: International Irrigation Management Institute. 15 p.

48. Kemper, K., A. Dinar, W. Blomquist (Editors). 2005. Institutional and Policy Analysis of River Basin Management Decentralization: The principle of managing water resources at the lowest appropriate level – when and why does it (not) work in Practice? Washington DC: The World Bank. 62 p.

49. Kite, G., P. Droogers. 2000. Integrated Basin Modeling. Research Report 43. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 30 p.


50. Knox, A. R. Meinzen-Dick. 2001. Collective Action, Property Rights, and Devolution of Natural Re-source Management: Exchange of knowledge and implications for Policy. CAPRI Working Paper 11. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Property Rights and Collective Action. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. 63 p.

51. KU. 2005. [Project to formulate community plans for restoration of natural resources and environ-ment, establish volunteer natural resource and environment protection groups, and provide knowledge on establishing community organizations in the Lower Ping River Basin]. Second Progress Report to the Department of Water Resources, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Bangkok: Kaset-sart University. [Thai language]

52. Laungaramsri, P. 2002. ‘Competing discourses and practices of "civil society": a reflection on the envi-ronmental movement in Thailand and some implications for the Mekong Region’. Paper presented at Mekong Dialogue Workshop on International transfer of river basin development experience: Australia and the Mekong Region, 2 September 2002. 9 p.

53. Lebel, L., A. Contreras, S. Pasong, P. Garden. 2004. Nobody Knows Best: Alternative perspectives on forest management and governance in Southeast Asia. International Environmental Agreements: Poli-tics, Law and Economics 4: 111-127.

54. Lee, D., A. Dinar. 1995. Review of Integrated Approaches to River Basin Planning, Development and Management. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 1446, April 1995. Washington DC: The World Bank. 18 p.

55. Mae Kuang Working Group. 2005. [Plan for restoration of natural resources and environment in the Mae Kuang sub-basin]. Mae Kuang Sub-basin Working Group. Office for Coordination of Restoration of Natural Resources and Environment in the Upper Ping River Basin. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. [Thai language]. 49 p.

56. Mae Ping Part 1 Working Group. 2005. [Plan for restoration of natural resources and environment in the Mae Ping Part 1 sub-basin]. Mae Ping Part 1 Sub-basin Working Group. Office for Coordination of Restoration of Natural Resources and Environment in the Upper Ping River Basin. Ministry of Natu-ral Resources and Environment. [Thai language]. 108 p.

57. McKinney, D.C., X. Cai, M. Rosegrant, C. Ringler, C.A. Scott. 1999. Modeling water resources man-agement at the basin level: Review and future directions. SWIM Paper 6. Colombo: International Wa-ter Management Institute. 59 p.

58. Miller, B., R. Reidinger (Editors). 1998. Comprehensive River Basin Development: The Tennessee Val-ley Authority. World Bank Technical Paper 416. Washington DC: The World Bank. 86 p.

59. Miller, F., P. Hirsch. 2003. Civil Society and Internationalized River Basin Management. Working Pa-per No. 7. Sydney: Australian Mekong Resource Center, University of Sydney. 19 p.

60. Mody, J. 2004. Achieving Accountability Through Decentralization: Lessons for integrated river basin management. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3346, June 2004. Washington DC: The World Bank. 52 p.

61. Molden, D. U. Amarasinghe, I. Hussain. 2001a. Water for rural development: Background paper on water for rural development prepared for the World Bank. Working Paper 32. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 89 p.

62. Molden, D., J. Keller, R. Sakthivadivel. 2001b. Hydronomic zones for developing basin water conser-vation strategies. Research Report 56. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 30 p.

63. Molden, D., R. Sakthivadivel, Z. Habib. 2001c. Basin-level use and productivity of water: Examples from South Asia. Research Report 49. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 24 p.

64. Molle, F. 2003. Development trajectories of river basins: A conceptual framework. Research Report 72. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 32 p.


65. Molle, F., N. Ngermprasertsri, S. Sudsawasd. 2002. ‘Are water user organizations crucial for water management? A post-mortem analysis of water user groups in Thailand and the prospect for reincarna-tion’. Paper prepared for the 6th Conference on Participatory Irrigation Management, Beijing, 20-26 April 2002. 23 p.

66. Molle, F. 2002. The closure of the Chao Phraya River Basin in Thailand: Its causes, consequences and policy implications. Paper presented at Conference on Asian Irrigation in Transition - Responding to the Challenges Ahead. 22-23 April 2002 at Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. 16 p.

67. Neef, A., A. Bollen, C. Sangkapitux, L. Chamsai, P. Elstner. 2004. ‘Can local communities manage water resources sustainably? Evidence from the Northern Thai Highlands’. Paper 203 presented at ISCO conference on Conserving Soil & Water for Society: Sharing Solutions. International Soil Con-servation Organisation. 6 p.

68. Nitivattananon, V., S. Tasingsa, H. Ludwig. 2004. ‘Planning for the management of conflicting water uses in Thailand watersheds: A case study’. Paper presented at the 30th WEDC International Confer-ence on People-Centered Approaches to Water Resource and Environmental Sanitation, Vientiane, Lao PDR. p. 363-369.

69. Novak, J.M., W.H. Woodwell (editors). 2000. A Watershed Primer for Pennsylvania: A collection of essays on watershed issues. Publication sponsored by the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the Al-legheny Watershed Network, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Pitts-burgh: Resource Center of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Western Regional Office. 172 p.

70. ONEP. 2004. [Handbook for formulating plans for restoration of natural resources and environment at the community level by community participation]. Bangkok: Office of Natural Resources and Environ-mental Policy and Planning. [Thai language]. 79 p.

71. Panya. 2003. Integrated Plans for Water Resources Management in the Ping River Basin. Final Report (English language executive summary volume, six Thai language volumes) submitted to DWP by Panya Consulting Company and Sima Hydro Consultant Company. Bangkok: Department of Water Resources, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

72. Panya. 2004. Participatory Watershed Management for Ping River Basin. Technical Proposal to Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Thailand. Bangkok: Panya Consultants Ltd.

73. Penning de Vries, F.W.T., H. Acquay, D. Molden, S.J. Scherr, C. Valentin, O. Cofie. 2003. Integrated land and water management for food and environmental security. Comprehensive Assessment of Wa-ter Management in Agriculture Research Report 1. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Manage-ment Institute. 62 p.

74. Pitman, G.K. 2002. Bridging Troubled Waters: Assessing the World Bank Water Resources Strategy. Operations Evaluation Department. Washington DC: The World Bank. 116 p.

75. Preechapanya, P. 2005. [Research projects on participatory watershed management]. Research report. Watershed Research Division, Office of Watershed Conservation and Management, Department of Na-tional Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. [Thai language]. 179 p.

76. Preechapanya, P. 2001. [Folk knowledge about agroforestry ecosystems in watershed areas of northern Thailand]. Chiang Mai: Chiang Dao Watershed Research Station and the International Centre for Re-search on Agroforestry (ICRAF). [Thai language] 127 p.

77. Ramsar. 2004a. River Basin Management: Integrating wetland conservation and wise use into river basin management. Handbook 4, Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands (2nd edition). Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 31 p.

78. Ramsar. 2004b. Participatory Management: Establishing and strengthening local communities’ and indigenous people’s participation in the management of wetlands. Handbook 5, Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands (2nd edition). Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 96 p.


79. Ramsar. 2004c. Water Allocation and Management: Guidelines for the allocation and management of water for maintaining the ecological functions of wetlands. Handbook 12, Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands (2nd edition). Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 57 p.

80. Ramu, K.V. 2004. Brantas River Basin Case Study, Indonesia: Background Paper. Study on Integrated River Basin Management and the Principle of Managing Water Resources at the Lowest Appropriate Level. Washington DC: The World Bank. 76 p.

81. Rasmussen, L.N., R. Meinzen-Dick. 1995. Local Organizations for Natural Resource Management: Lessons from theoretical and empirical literature. EPTD Discussion Paper 11. Washington DC: Inter-national Food Policy Research Institute. 35 p.

82. Rees, J.A. 2002. Risk and Integrated Water Management. TEC Background Paper No. 6. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.

83. Rosegrant, M., X. Cai, S. Cline 2002a. World Water and Food to 2025: Dealing with Scarcity. Wash-ington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. 322 p.

84. Rosegrant, M., X. Cai, S. Cline 2002b. Global Water Outlook to 2025: Averting an Impending Crisis. Food Policy Report. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. 26 p.

85. Saleth, R.M., A. Dinar. 2004. The Institutional Economics of Water: A cross-country analysis of insti-tutions and performance. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publish-ing. 398 p.

86. Samabuddhi, K, W. Techawongtham. 2003. “Plan to fix Ping River out today: Praphat sees return to health in 3 years”. Bangkok Post, 20 December 2003.

87. Sangchyoswat, C., M. Ekasingh. 2005. Assessment of spatial distribution of land degradation. In: M. Ekasingh et.al. (editors) Final Report of the Project Decision Support System for Agricultural Resource Planning and Management in Upper Northern Thailand. Chiang Mai: Multiple Cropping Center, Chiang Mai University.

88. Sethaputra, S., S. Thanopanuwat, L. Kumpa, S. Pattanee. 2001. ‘Thailand’s Water Vision: A case study’. In: Le Huu Ti & T. Facon (Editors). From Vision to Action: A synthesis of experiences in South-east Asia. Publication RAP/2001/06. Bangkok: UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and UN Food and Agriculture Organization Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. pp. 71-96.

89. Shah, T. I. Makin, R. Sakthivadivel. 2002. ‘The Challenges of Integrated River Basin Management in India: Issues in transferring successful river basin management models to the developing world’. Water Policy Briefing 3. IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program. Colombo: International Water Management Insti-tute. 6 p.

90. Tangtham, N. 1998. Hydrological Roles in Highland Watersheds. In: B. Thaiutsa, C. Traynor, S. Thammincha (Editors). Highland Ecosystem Management. Proceedings of the International Sympo-sium on Highland Ecosystem Management. 26-31 May 1998. Chiang Mai: The Royal Project Founda-tion.

91. Tan-kim-yong, U. 2001. ‘Decentralization and political space for local civic communities in national water policy and planning’. In: K. Suryanata, G. Dolcemascolo, R. Fisher, J. Fox (editors). Enabling Policy Frameworks for Successful Community Based Resource Management Initiatives. Honolulu and Bangkok: East-West Center and Regional Community Forestry Training Center. p. 276-304.

92. TEI. Thailand on a Disc. CD-ROM. Bangkok: Thailand Environment Institute.

93. Thomas, D.E., P. Preechapanya, P, Saipothong. 2004a. Developing Science-Based Tools for Participa-tory Watershed Management in Montane Mainland Southeast Asia. Final report for the Rockefeller Foundation. Chiang Mai: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). 103 p.

94. Thomas, D.E., P. Preechapanya, P. Saipothong. 2004b. Landscape Agroforestry in Northern Thailand: Impacts of Changing Land Use in an Upper Tributary Watershed of Montane Mainland Southeast


Asia. ASB Thailand Synthesis Report: 1996 – 2004. Final draft for circulation. Chiang Mai: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). 184 p.

95. Thomas, D.E. 2003. ‘Montane Mainland Southeast Asia – A Brief Spatial Overview’. In: Xu Jianchu, Stephen Mikesell (Editors), Landscapes of Diversity: Indigenous Knowledge, Sustainable Livelihoods and Resource Governance in Montane Mainland Southeast Asia. Proceedings of the III Symposium on MMSEA 25–28 August 2002, Lijiang, P.R. China. Kunming: Yunnan Science and Technology Press. p. 25–40.

96. Thomas, D.E., P. Preechapanya, P. Saipothong. 2002. ‘Landscape Agroforestry in Upper Tributary Watersheds of Northern Thailand’. Journal of Agriculture (Thailand), Volume 18 (Supplement 1): S255-S302.

97. Tomich, T.P., M. van Noordwijk, D.E. Thomas (Editors). 2004. Environmental Services and Land Use Change: Bridging the gap between policy and research in Southeast Asia. Special Issue of Agricul-ture, Ecosystems and Environment, Volume 104(1). Amsterdam: Elsevier Press. 244 p.

98. Upper Ping Coordination Office. 2005. [Plan for Restoration of Natural Resources and Environment in the Upper Ping River Basin]. Chiang Mai: Office for Coordination of Restoration of Natural Resources and Environment in the Upper Ping River Basin. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. [Thai language] 223 p.

99. Van Noordwijk, M, J. Richey, D.E. Thomas. 2003. Landscape and (Sub) Catchment Scale Modeling of Effects of Forest Conversion on Watershed Functions and Biodiversity in Southeast Asia. ASB BNPP Activity 2 Technical Report, Functional Value of Biodiversity – Phase II. ASB Report to the World Bank. Nairobi: Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Programme, World Agroforestry Centre. 238 p.

100. Walker, A. 2002. Forests and Water in Northern Thailand. CMU Journal (2002) Vol. 1(3): 215-244.

101. World Bank. 2004. Water Resources Sector Strategy: Strategic directions for World Bank engagement. Washington DC: The World Bank. 78 p.

102. World Bank. 1993. Water Resources Management. A World Bank Policy Paper. Washington DC: The World Bank. 140 p.

103. World Bank. 1959. A Public Development Program for Thailand. Report of a mission organized by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development at the request of the government of Thailand. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. 301 p.

104. Ziegler, A.S., T.W. Giambelluca, R.A. Sutherland, M.A. Nullet, S. Yarnasarn, J. Pinthong, P. Preecha-panya, S. Jaiaree. 2004. Toward understanding the cumulative impacts of roads in upland agricultural watersheds of northern Thailand. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 104: 145-158.


APPENDICES


Appendices

a. Terms of Reference The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) has received a grant from ASEM Trust Fund in cooperation with the World Bank for a technical assistance team to help improve environmental quality in the Ping River Basin. The team will contribute to achieving enhanced livelihood and health outcomes for the communities in the basin, and to replicating the team’s ex-perience (especially the management model) to other river basins in the country. The main devel-opment objective of this TA team will be achieved by: • Developing a participatory “micro-watershed” (sub-basin) management model that provides

access to all stakeholders (communities, local government agencies and private sector enter-prises) in the decision making process and demonstrating its implementation.

• Enhancing capacity of stakeholders, especially community groups and local government, to participate in the planning, implementation and monitoring of interventions.

• Strengthening regulatory and incentive mechanism to modify behavior of watershed users. • Developing a result framework to monitor environment, health and livelihood outcomes.

Regarding these objectives, MoNRE has assigned the office of the Natural Resources and Envi-ronmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) to take a major role under this grant in arranging activities associated with participatory watershed management for Ping River Basin Project. In order to ful-fill project objectives, four components of activities, have been designed as follows: • Component 1: Participatory “micro-watershed” (sub-basin) management • Component 2: Enhancing capacity of community groups in the 3 “micro-watersheds” • Component 3: Strengthening the regulatory and incentive structure for improved behavior of

users in the three “micro-watersheds” (sub-basins) • Component 4: Project coordination, results measurement and dissemination

Part of the grant proceeds is applied to a contract under this TOR for an Expert (Watershed Man-agement). Dr. David E. Thomas, senior policy analyst of the World Agroforestry Centre, has been contracted to provide these services.

Objectives The Watershed Management Expert will work with ONEP and the selected consulting firm on Component 1. The objective is to develop a participatory “micro-watershed” (sub-basin) manage-ment model that provides access to all stakeholders (communities, local government agencies and private sector enterprises) in the decision making process, and to demonstrate its implementation. The specific poverty-related objective of this component is to enable the testing of a watershed-level institutional model that will provide sustainable and equitable access to the use of water and ecological resources by stakeholders, including poor communities. The Ping River Basin watershed is comprised of twenty “micro-watersheds” (sub-basins). The project will target three “micro-watersheds” (sub-basins) in the upper, middle and lower sections of the basin, and results and find-ings will be applied to the remaining ones.

Scope of Services The Watershed Management Expert shall report to the Director of the Natural Resources

and Environmental Management Coordination Division of ONEP, who serves as Project Manager and shall carry out the following duties: • To provide guidance and advice to ONEP and the selected consulting firm/individual in con-

ducting a rapid survey of the entire watershed to assess the health, livelihood and environ-mental status. The assessment will assist in selecting the three priority “micro-watersheds” (sub-basins) out of the twenty “micro-watersheds” (sub-basins) in the Ping River Basin for a more detailed stock-staking exercise.


• To develop practical criteria (including a participatory selection process) for selecting the three priority “micro-watersheds” (sub-basins) out of the 20 in the Ping River Basin to serve as pilot “models” of watershed management for further implementation, and work with ONEP and other stakeholders in the selection process.

• Together with other stakeholders, develop a participatory micro-watershed management model based on existing literature and local wisdom, knowledge, and experience in Thailand.

• To participate in field visits as requested by ONEP. • To develop an action plan which should include but not be limited to the following processes:

(i) Targeting of actions for improved livelihood, health and environment outcomes (ii) Developing monitoring indicators (iii) Developing a financing mechanism at 2 levels: capital investments through local gov-

ernment budgets, and operational budget through instruments like community savings and credit fund

(iv) Outlining implementation arrangements in which participatory processes will be em-bedded

(v) Preparing a capacity enhancement strategy

• To provide guidance and advice to ONEP and the selected consulting firm in developing rele-vant operational processes in the form of guidance notes, which shall cover the Technical, Or-ganizational and Educational toolkits for the local communities along the Ping River Basin which shall cover the following:

(i) Technical toolkits for forest conservation, community forestry, biodiversity, waste re-use and re-cycling, water conservation, soil conservation, organic farming, etc.

(ii) Organizational toolkits for roles and responsibilities of communities, alternative dis-pute resolution mechanisms, consultative processes for budgets and expenditures, credit and savings fund; monitoring of action plan implementation, evaluating inter-vention results and disclosure.

(iii) Awareness and education toolkits for use in schools, health centers, community radio networks, village fairs, etc.

Expected Outputs

• An Inception report (10 copies) shall be provided to ONEP by an agreed upon deadline. A re-port outline shall be approved by ONEP. The inception report shall include the identification of the practical criteria (including a participatory selection process) in selecting the three priority micro-watersheds. ONEP should provide comment and suggestion on the report within two weeks after receiving the report.

• An Interim report (10 copies) shall be provided to ONEP by an agreed upon deadline. A report outline shall be approved by ONEP. The interim report shall include the participatory micro-watershed management model. ONEP should provide comment and suggestion on the report within three weeks after receiving it.

• The Final report (20 copies) shall be provided to ONEP by an agreed upon deadline. A report outline shall be approved by ONEP. The final report shall integrate the inception and interim reports with the action plan to implement the participatory micro-watershed management model. ONEP should provide comment and suggestion on the report within three weeks after receiving it.

• All reports shall be written in English.

Implementation Arrangement The Watershed management Expert will work closely with ONEP, the selected consulting firm /individual, project coordinator, and other stakeholders. The Expert will report directly to the Pro-ject Manager. Only office space (in Bangkok and Chiang Mai) and telephone/fax will be provided.


b. Comments on project processes and ‘toolkit’ training materials

Comments on project draft organization and training material outlines, October 2005. 1) ONEP Directives to establish initial sub-basin NRE management planning work-

ing groups - แตงตั้งคณะทํางานเฉพาะกิจจัดทําแผนปฏิบัติการจัดการทรัพยากรธรรมชาติและสิ่งแวดลอม พื้นที่ลุมน้ําสาขา

This appears to be an interesting compromise for initial planning organization. It seems to be clear that this is an ad hoc (temporary) sub-basin working group with a mandate (a) to conduct initial planning processes, with particular emphasis on urgent activities for the first year of im-plementation, (b) to encourage and facilitate public discussion and understanding in sub-basins, (c) to coordinate and join with existing Upper/Lower Ping organizations, and (d) to manage consideration of arrangements to establish a long-term management organization (RSBO) ap-propriate for their sub-basin.

MoNRE role. Given this definition of the working group’s mandate, it seems reasonable for ONEP to issue the directive, and for provincial NRE officers to chair the working group*. And given the need for the Ministry to move in a more coordinated direction toward defining a sin-gle set of committees and organizations for Ping Basin initiatives, it is very appropriate that representatives of DWR and DNP-led planning processes are brought into the planning proc-esses under this project. Considering the extensive land use rights issues in Upper Ping sub-basins, the presence of RFD in those sub-basins also appears appropriate. Moreover, staff from the ONEP provincial office also provide secretariat support, along with ONEP’s project con-sultants.

*Note: In the draft directive for Mae Kuang, I believe that either the chair or deputy (most likely the deputy) should probably be from Chiang Mai Province – both are listed as being from Lamphun, but this may be a typographical error.

Province role. Provincial administrations are represented in all sub-basin working groups, along with government officials representing local administrations. In the case of the Lower Ping, provincial irrigation offices are specified. The most obvious difference from various pre-vious lines of thought is the absence of specific representation by districts, and especially TAO. Thus, one question might be how TAO points of view and perspectives will enter into the proc-ess.

Non-governmental role. It appears to me that non-governmental representation is distributed among: (a) sub-basin representatives at the Upper/Lower Ping level; (b) local technical special-ists (นักวิชาการทองถ่ิน); (c) representatives of the general public (ภาคประชาชน); (d) people’s organiza-tion representatives (องคกรประชาชน); (e) NGO representatives (องคกรพัฒนาเอกชน); and (f) representa-tives of business and industry. The balance among these groups varies somewhat among the three pilot sub-basins, and appears to represent efforts to ‘localize’ representation according to differing conditions. I expect that some observers are likely to question why there is only one NGO representative position in each of the working groups. Thus, I would hope that the indi-vidual selected is someone with good relationships in the broader NGO community and its various networks, so that at least procedures and processes are seen as open and transparent as possible to their scrutiny, comments and suggestions through the selected person. Similarly, I hope the business representatives are able to communicate and network effectively with the range of business interests present in, and impacting on, the sub-basin – the specific additional representative from industry in Lamphun seems to be a good idea. Moreover, I hope that rep-resentatives of the general public are seen as appropriate by as many social sub-groups and fac-tions in the sub-basin as possible, and that the working groups will make special efforts to see that all their work is transparent and accessible to the range of public groups and interests in the sub-basin – as part of component (b) of their mandate, above. The issues raised earlier by Ajan Avorn are relevant here.


Overall balance. As I interpret the directives, it appears that staff from various components of MoNRE (ONEP, DWR, DNP, RFD, consultant) will compose about one-third of the working group members, including the chair, deputy chair and secretariat. Provincial & local govern-ment officials will make up about 20 percent in Mae Kuang & Lower Ping, but only about 13 percent in Ping Part 1. Combined non-governmental representation (see above) will be about half of the working groups in Mae Kuang and Lower Ping, and 60 percent in Ping Part 1. Given the nature of the mandate for these working groups and the need to balance many fac-tors, this overall balance appears reasonable for efforts to develop multi-level collaborative re-lationships. While various groups or interests might complain about their relative representa-tion, we must hope that the individuals selected to represent each interest group will be able to communicate effectively in both directions (and that there is sufficient time to do so), thereby making the process as open and transparent as possible.

2) Working group meetings for implementation planning - แผนการจัดประชุมคณะทํางานเฉพาะกจิ

จัดทําแผนปฏิบัติการจัดการทรัพยากรธรรมชาติและสิ่งแวดลอม ในพื้นที่ลุมน้ําสาขานํารอง

The core of the project process is composed of a series of 3 rounds of meetings scheduled for each sub-basin working group, and one final broader sub-basin workshop. According to the dates on the draft schedule (which are now under revision), the process sequence would be:

a) First round of sub-basin working group meetings. These meetings will focus on explain-ing establishment of the working groups and project processes, consideration of sub-basin visions, strategies and criteria, how to consolidate plans and set priorities, and how to summarize work plans and projects under a draft implementation plan. Alternative models for long-term sub-basin management organizations will also be introduced.

b) Second round of sub-basin working group meetings. The second meeting will focus on consideration of draft sub-basin management implementation plans, and on consideration of structural aspects of establishing a long-term sub-basin management organization.

c) Final sub-basin workshop: As I understand it, this workshop would be open to broader participation of people in the sub-basin (as in the first project workshop held in each sub-basin), in order to propose the full project implementation plan and build broader under-standing of components plans aimed at first year projects, medium-term plans, and long-term plans, including explanation of budgets. The workshop would seek commitments by units responsible for plans and projects, and would propose elements for incorporation into TAO 3-year development plans.

d) Third round of sub-basin working group meetings. This final sub-basin-level meeting will focus on finalizing sub-basin management implementation plans, and on implementing the establishment of long-term sub-basin management organizations.

It is not altogether clear to me about the logical sequence between meetings c) and d). In the sequence as presented, it appears that the sub-basin level workshop would be an effort to build broader understanding and input, and seek public commitments to the plan before it is finalized and submitted by the working group. If this is the sequence intended, it might also make sense to discuss selection of a structural model for the long-term sub-basin management organization at this workshop. However, if the reverse order is intended (the third working group meeting is held before the final workshop), then I assume that the final sub-basin workshop would serve as a forum where the working group’s final product is presented to wider sub-basin groups and interests. In this case, it might make sense to seek ratification at this workshop for both the plan and the ar-rangements selected by the working group for a long-term sub-basin management organization. In this case, problems might arise that could be difficult to resolve if there should be significant dissent on elements of the plan or the RSBO.


In any event, it appears that the timetable will be tight and quite ambitious. One would hope that the intervals between working group meetings will be sufficient for discussions within and/or among various sub-groups and interests within the sub-basin. This could help strengthen their ability to provide input, as well as their confidence in “buying into” the initial plan and long-term organizational arrangements. My own opinion is that it should also be made clear that the long-term sub-basin management organization (RSBO) will be able to adjust and im-prove medium and long-term plans as part of its efforts to develop, articulate and build broad public consensus on an overall long-term river sub-basin management plan (as suggested in more detail in my interim report, pages 66-70).

3) Training to strengthen community potential in watersheds - การเสริมสรางศักยภาพชุมชนใน

พื้นที่ลุมน้ํา

In order to strengthen local capacity to implement the project process and launch longer-term sub-basin management processes, a hierarchical set of 3 levels of training are scheduled to be conducted under the project:

a) Local facilitator training - การฝกอบรมวิทยากรลุมน้ําสาขา (Local Facilitators)

This training for the 6 facilitators from each sub-watershed is to consist of:

• Three days of “regular” lecture training on (1) public relations, (2) NRE management, (3) pollution management, (4) public health (see comments on outlines under 4.abce., below)

• One day of “special” lectures on (5) Government conservation agency mandates and watershed management – ภารกิจของสํานักบริหารพ้ืนที่อนุรักษ 14 และการจัดการลุมน้ํา (no outline available) (6) “New age” agriculture – การเกษตรยุคใหม (no outline available) (7) Ethnic groups – กลุมชาติพันธุ (see comments on outline under 4.f., below)

• Field study tours: “new plan” forest village (หมูบานปาไมแผนใหม) and a cattle raising farm (การเล้ียงโค “พันธุตาก” ณ ฟารมโค)

According to the dates in the draft schedule (which is now under revision) this training is scheduled to take place after the second working group meeting, at about the same time as the final workshop. It would seem logical, however, that this training should come earlier within the project implementation process. But given the tight schedule, there may be other con-straints on how soon it could be organized and conducted.

There are a lot of lectures here, and participants are not university students. I recognize, how-ever, that people listed as responsible for these training components have very substantial ex-perience as educators, and at least several have supported youth training programs related to NRE that have reached beyond regular academic contexts. Thus, I hope that these “lecture” sessions will include substantial periods of discussion that can help localize the context of more theoretical elements, that there can be some opportunity for local input, feedback and questions from participants (which can serve as an example for facilitators), that as many practical tools for measuring actual properties and impacts can be presented as possible, and that there are numerous specific, concrete and practical examples.

Subject-wise, livelihood issues appear to be limited to the presentation on “new age” agricul-ture and the study trips to a government-supported forest village project and a cattle raising farm. I am not sure if the cattle raising enterprise is a local or government-induced initiative, but it would be very beneficial if some positive examples of promising locally-initiated liveli-hood improvement (and/or other NRE management) activities could be incorporated into the program.

In addition, there appears to be a heavy emphasis on theoretical “scientific” knowledge here, and very little about local knowledge and experience. The balance intended may be better than it appears, however, within individual subject topics that are identified by academic labels. I


suspect that facilitators will be at the ‘front line’ of discussions, and often debate, about rela-tionships between theoretical ‘scientific’ knowledge and local knowledge and experience. Thus, it would be good to help them be able to facilitate dialogues between these two realms of knowledge as effectively as possible.

It will also be important to keep in mind that emphasis should be on information these facilita-tors will be able to use in working with community trainers and community people who will need to employ techniques that rely on lectures as little as possible. I note with interest the ap-proach outlined for the public health section, which appears to be developed around actual health problems that have been identified within the individual sub-basins. b) Community trainer training - การฝกอบรมวิทยากรชุมชน (Community Trainers) This training will consist of three days of lectures on (1) NRE management; (2) pollution man-agement. Any other activities are not specified. Local facilitators will presumably be available to assist community trainers in these and additional topic areas.

Dates in the draft schedule (which is now being revised) indicate it is to take place at about the same time as the final sub-basin working group meetings. c) Community training - การฝกอบรมตัวแทนชุมชน (Community Members) This consists of two days of study tours and field lectures for 150 people in each sub-basin. Dates in the draft schedule (now undergoing revision) indicate this training will be held after project implementation planning processes have all been completed. It will be a challenge to manage this large-scale effort as effectively and creatively as possible. Overall, the logic for how these training sessions match with the implementation planning process of the project is not very clear to me. I appreciate, however, that the very tight time schedule may well be an issue, and it could be dominating some of the considerations here. I hope that these training sessions can also be opportunities for two-way communication that can help identify different levels of information that people within the sub-basin either already have or feel it will be important to acquire. This will be extremely important from a perspec-tive that is a bit longer term that this particular project. Moreover, it could help feed into longer term efforts to identify and/or develop longer term information and support services for sub-basin development (at both sub-basin and river basin levels), as also discussed in more de-tail in my interim report (pages 42, 50-51, 68-70).

4) Training material outlines -

The draft outlines provide further insight about what is being planned for the training processes under the project: a) Public relations & knowledge transfer techniques – เอกสารประกอบการฝกอบรม เทคนิคดาน

มวลชนสัมพันธ หลักการประชาสัมพันธ และเทคนิคการถายทอดความรู This appears to be a useful contribution that includes a range of potentially valuable informa-tion about concepts, ideas and techniques. The outline of information to be presented is di-vided into two parts. The first part seems to draw on social psychology and collective action principles, and then turns to techniques for eliciting information and managing conflicts. The second part emphasizes communication arts in managing news and in public speaking. While these are all skills that are useful for facilitators and local leaders, I hope there will be special emphasis on how to facilitate things like participation, dialogue, trade-off analysis, and nego-tiations, including use of systematically acquired data and information. The term “public rela-tions” (ประชาสัมพันธ) has been used too often for advertising, propaganda and information ‘spin’ purposes where form has been far stronger than substance, and motives are often cynical and self-serving. Real leaders in Thai culture are often not oratorical or debate champions, and the


need for multi-directional communication is one of the fundamental reasons driving the need for RSBOs. Moreover, listening is often at least as important as convincing others. b) NRE management – เอกสารประกอบการบรรยาย การจัดการทรัพยากรธรรมชาติและสิ่งแวดลอม This appears to be a major component that potentially includes a wide range of material on wa-ter, forest and land use principles and issues, in addition to participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation approaches and techniques. Some of these subjects have provided the theoreti-cal basis for most of the constraints that are placed on land use and land use rights, much of the upstream-downstream conflict among communities and interest groups in society, and a wide range of forceful and authoritarian lectures, programs and orders in the past. Moreover, the language of conservationists has developed ‘jargon’ terms that treat many people with disdain and mock their cultural practices – some of which have been successfully employed for centu-ries. Thus, there are numerous sensitivities here, and some have ethic and cultural overtones. If we want to try to overcome problems through local collaboration and initiative, there is a need to de-politicize some of the jargon, rhetoric and authoritarianism that has been built into many writings and presentations on these topics (some of which has been passed on from Western sources), so that facilitators will be able to communicate more effectively.

Fortunately, the individuals listed as responsible for this training are aware of most all of these issues, and have very considerable experience in discussing these topics with a wide range of audiences. Thus, it will be very interesting to see how these training materials are developed, and possibly how they might be further developed and refined in the future (see comment at the end of this section).

It will also be interesting to see (1) how local knowledge and experience can be interfaced with the often more generalized theoretical knowledge; (2) what practical techniques and criteria for measuring and monitoring actual impacts are presented, and perhaps approaches for managing and using monitoring and negotiation support information; and (3) participant response, ability to absorb the information, and suggestions for future improvements. Moreover, it would be good to help facilitators to stimulate and manage discussions about why past programs have failed to improve management of natural resources and the environment, and ways in which the issues and problems involved can be better addressed in the future. c) Pollution management - การจัดการมลพิษ Materials on pollution management are divided into four separate modules:

i) Water pollution – เอกสารประกอบการฝกอบรม การจัดการมลพิษ (มลพิษทางน้ํา) Topics listed under the outline for this module seem to have very substantial overlap with elements of the other modules on pollution management. In order to reduce confusion, I suggest that this module focus primarily on topics such as (1) an overview of pollution in sub-basins that introduces the three component types that are the subject of other modules; (2) practical methods and tools for measuring forms of water pollution; (3) where and how to get assistance with water pollution problems and measurements. Monitoring tools could even include the bio-indicator and additional ‘stream detective’ tools for which the Green World Foundation has published very good Thai language materials. Suggestions for sys-tematic approaches for monitoring and managing and using the data that is generated would also be very helpful.

ii) Industry pollution – เอกสารประกอบการบรรยาย การจัดการมลพิษอุตสาหกรรม The outline is too brief to give an indication of what level of information will be presented here. Assuming that information on “clean technology” currently listed under the outline for module i) is largely directed to small to large scale enterprise and industry, it would seem more appropriate to discuss it within the context of this module. Moreover, monitor-ing of industrial pollution does not appear in the outline, but hopefully it will be included somewhere here. As past experience in many places indicates, without effective, practical


and accessible means for monitoring, pollution can lead to initially unnoticed irreparable damage, as well as to fears that generate unfounded anxiety or even panic.

iii) Community pollution – เอกสารประกอบการฝกอบรม การจัดการมลพิษชุมชน Some of the material currently listed under module i) on how to best use and conserve wa-ter associated with daily domestic life (bathing, laundry, etc.), as well as basic sanitation is-sues would seem to be more appropriately presented as part of this module.

I am also curious about how much will be said about coliform bacteria and practical ways in which communities can deal with this problem, including ways to monitor, identify and measure the nature of the problem, if present, in their communities. Intestinal parasites are another issue in various types of villages. Both of these issues clearly link with public health – so that there should be some coordination among these training components.

iv) Agriculture pollution - การจัดการมลพิษการเกษตร While this outline is brief, it appears reasonably complete in its basic components, and I have already had several discussions about some of these issues with the person responsi-ble. One important issue is practical approaches for sampling and monitoring chemical pol-lution from agriculture. While there may be some ‘clue-like’ indicators (such as eutrifica-tion), developing an effective means for monitoring pesticides and herbicides remains a major challenge – so far, a lot is being said based on very sparse and incomplete data. A second issue is practical and viable alternatives for use of agricultural chemicals. While organic agriculture and local knowledge are included in this outline, there are not likely to be any “quick fixes” that eliminate such chemicals, until better knowledge, tools and viable alternatives are developed on both the producer and consumer ends of the production chain.

d) Handbook for soil & water conservation - คูมือการอนุรักษดินและน้ํา Since it is not specified where this handbook would be used in the training programs, I assume it is meant to be a general purpose reference toolkit component for local facilitators and/or community trainers. Its subject matter presumably relates to various of the other subject areas.

There have been numerous versions of elements of these materials, and some (such as those published by the Green World Foundation) have high quality presentations for local general audiences. I hope authors will draw from these sources and list them as suggested materials for further reading. In terms of what this handbook could add:

• It would be good if the handbook could include a realistic and practical discussion of why measures promoted in the past have not been adopted, how these issues can be addressed, and hopefully examples of where and why proposed approaches have worked.

• There is nothing listed in the outline about measurement and monitoring of key indicators of actual conditions and change over time. Since it will be a very important aspect of RSBO efforts to improve sub-basin management, I hope information on tools that can be used by both local communities and outside “experts” are included in the handbook.

e) Public health – การอบรมวิทยากรลุมน้ําสาขา (ดานสาธารณสุข) This very brief outline is quite interesting in the approach to be used in this training. By begin-ning with the actual public health problems encountered in the pilot sub-basins, it immediately becomes relevant and concrete for local residents. With their attention gained in this manner, discussions of each of the relevant problems – including hot topics like AIDS and bird flu – should be more effective. It would be good for the project to learn more about the sources of data used in this analysis, and for the presentation to also help identify ways to improve local monitoring and identification of public health problems. Moreover, I hope there can be some coordination between these public health issues and the public health implications of issues covered under the various pollution modules.


f) Highland minority groups & ethnic knowledge in NRE management - เอกสารบรรยาย

พิเศษ เร่ือง กลุมชาติพันธุบนพื้นที่สูงและภูมิปญญาชนเผาในการจัดการทรัพยากรธรรมชาติและสิ่งแวดลอม First, I think this is an interesting outline, that serves as an example of how progress is being made in trying to address some of the difficult and often contentious issues that are inherent in aspects of this topic. Thus, the following comments are made from a constructive point of view, and in the context of the continuous flow of information from Southern Thailand that shows what can happen when relationships go bad. The outline is divided into 5 components:

• Highland ethnic groups in Thailand, What version of history will be used here? Will there be provision for helping facilitators to encourage discussion, questions, or articulation of alternative views on historical developments? Similar questions arise regarding traditional livelihoods of the various groups and the types of transitions they are passing through.

• Highland policy and community development implementation directions. It will be a good contribution to have a clear explanation of the reasoning behind official highland develop-ment policies, and presumably their local manifestations. In this context, it is also good to have discussion of the impacts of highland development on NRE. What appears to be miss-ing, however, is the impacts of NRE policies (as well as citizenship and other policies) on local livelihoods and opportunities of mountain minority communities. It may also be use-ful to note that in the context of these policies ‘highlands’ refers to everything above 500 or 600 m.a.s.l., whereas other views distinguish a middle or midlands zone, with highlands located above 900 or 1,000 m.a.s.l. – reflecting different ecological, ethnic and historical development patterns. Policies have often used only a small part of knowledge that is al-ready available from various sources.

• Community processes in solving highland community problems. Ideas about restoration of local knowledge and community culture are indeed appropriate, as are methods for strengthening community organizations and networks for both NRE and other purposes. It will be interesting to see how these materials develop. Hopefully, they will include exam-ples and contacts with communities where promising efforts are underway. A range of lo-cal views on these topics will be at least as interesting as official views.

• Structural factors with impact on community participation in NRE management. Discus-sion of the national constitution and the proposed community forestry law are clearly rele-vant here. While international treaties are also relevant, it should be clear that declaration of protected area status at a particular location is a matter of national public policy (wherein local communities have historically had very little or no voice). Presumably, dis-cussion of legal provisions and pressures will include issues and problems related to their impacts, and recognition of at least some types of injustices they have caused.

• Hopes for the future. These appear to be very well intentioned, and even noble directions for efforts that are badly needed and long overdue. Topics include legal adjustments needed for participatory NRE management employing local knowledge and traditions, and greater equity in resource utilization, as well as establishment of a participatory partnership strategy for improved NRE management. I look forward to the details that will be pre-sented here to help facilitators to develop this type of approach.

Terminology note: While I am the first to recognize my own limitations in understanding the subtleties of the Thai language, I do feel I should ask what are the implications of distinctions between ‘tribal’ communities (ชุมชนชนเผา) versus ‘local’ communities (ชุมชนทองถ่ิน)? Does this mean that only ethnic Thai can form local communities, or that Thai communities are somehow not ‘tribal’? If there is some technical distinction here, I wonder how many people understand it? Why not use mountain versus lowland communities, or minority group versus majority group communities? I often try to put myself in the place of others to think about how I would feel if people referred to me or the group to which I belonged with terms such as these [Indeed, some of my Cherokee relatives have been in similar situations, and I know how they felt about it]. Part of the collaboration process for effective sub-basin management will require at least a


degree of ‘reconciliation’ that needs to include more attention to politically-charged, ill-informed, or even just simply inconsiderate terminology that has been widely used in the past. While references to traditional agroecosystem management strategies or spiritual beliefs are where such terms are often most obvious, many more subtle types of references also need to be addressed. g) Overall Comments on training materials. These materials look quite promising, and they should make a useful contribution to the types of materials that need to be collected by the type of Ping RBO Knowledge Center proposed in my interim report (page 69-70). Indeed, after these materials are developed and tested under this project, it may be useful for ONEP to consider how they can be further refined and pub-lished for broader access and distribution. This could perhaps be done in partnership with an organization experienced in producing high quality publications for this type of audience – such as the Green World Foundation, for example.

It would be good for all authors to provide lists of materials for further reading and study. They might also provide ONEP with a list of known references they identify as they develop these materials. This list could be another input into development of the Ping RBO Knowledge Cen-ter, which I hope ONEP will consider as a high priority.

5) Plans for establishing RSBOs - แผนการการจัดตั้งองคกรระดับลุมน้ําสาขาในพื้นที่ลุมน้ํานํารอง This draft outline contains three sections.

• องคกรท่ีไดรับการสนับสนุนจากหนวยงานภาครัฐ This first section summarizes the various already existing relevant government induced, recognized or supported organizations related to pilot sub-basins. Out of curiosity, I asked a Thai colleague at CMU who was not already familiar with these issues to read this outline. As a result, I believe that there needs to be some ef-fort put into developing an approach for presenting this material in a manner that can be clearly understood by a general audience. My colleague suggests that perhaps some simple diagrams, maps and timeline charts could help a great deal. This is a very confusing topic for many people, and it would be very helpful to clarify the nature of, and relationships among these groups.

• แนวทางในการจัดต้ังองคกรลุมน้ํา This second section outlines a process for considering and selecting an organizational model for a long-term RSBO appropriate for conditions and experience in each pilot sub-basin. As this process is very similar to what I proposed in my interim report, I am pleased with the overall process outlined here. The short descriptive titles for the 5 models I proposed appear to be quite in line with their English language equivalents, and I hope that subsequent more complete descriptions of each alternative model will be equally well articulated in Thai. There are at least three items that I think may be particu-larly important that do not yet appear in this outline (but may already be included in con-siderations under existing headings):

a) consideration of methods for selection of representative members of the RSBO (and the length of their terms, and perhaps recall procedures);

b) provision for establishing key working groups under the RSBO – especially for sub-basin data and information, and for public participation and awareness; and

c) beginning efforts to build an effective monitoring system.

These are all discussed in more detail in my interim report, and I will be happy to discuss them informally with anyone in the project wishing to do so.

• แผนการดําเนินงาน This final section is a brief preliminary list of dates for accomplishing the ac-tivities contained in the outline. These dates are currently under revision. As with the other components of the project process, the time schedule is very tight. Nevertheless, if


these tasks can be accomplished with reasonable quality (open, inclusive, based on clear understanding, etc.) before the end of the project, it should be quite an achievement. As I said in my interim report, the feasibility of establishing a long-term RSBO by the end of the project will probably depend on the degree of unity and consensus present in each sub-basin. I remain optimistic about possibilities in Ping Part 1 and Lower Ping sub-basins, but still feel some concern about resolving some of the complex issues in Mae Kuang, includ-ing some of the ones raised earlier by Ajan Avorn.

developing watershed management organizations in pilot ......final report: developing watershed...

Documents