Community-based Wetland Management in Northern Thailand€¦ · Community-based Wetland Management in Northern Thailand Yongyut Trisurat VOLUME 2, NUMBER 1

Community-based Wetland Management inNorthern Thailand

Yongyut Trisurat

VOLUME 2, NUMBER 1

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com First published in 2006 in Melbourne, Australia by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. © 2006 (this paper), the author(s) © 2006 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <[email protected]>. ISSN: 1832-2077 Publisher Site: http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com The INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY is a peer refereed journal. Full papers submitted for publication are refereed by Associate Editors through anonymous referee processes. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.CommonGroundSoftware.com.

Community-based Wetland Management in Northern ThailandYongyut Trisurat, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Abstract: Large areas of freshwater wetlands and mangrove forest in Thailand were converted to agriculture and shrimpfarms during the 19th and 20th centuries, such that few now remain in a natural state. Some of these areas are threateneddespite the fact that they are vital to the daily life of local people, who have relied on them for generations. Planning forwetlandmanagement is hampered by limited budget and lack of commitment by government agencies, low levels of acceptanceby local communities and the absence of any monitoring. Within this context, this paper focuses on the community-basedwetland management project in northern Thailand jointly implemented by the Office of Natural Resources and EnvironmentalPolicy and Planning (ONEP) and the Management and Protection of Wetland Areas (MPW) Project funded by DANIDA.The objectives of this paper are to identify ecological characteristics of wetlands (biological, physical and physio-chemicalfeatures), resource uses and management issues, using rural appraisal techniques and the Asian Wetland Inventory (AWI),to promote sustainable wetland management through the participation of local stakeholders in a strategic planning processat both local and provincial levels. The results show that various user groups, local government and provincial governmentare committing resources and effort to manage the wetland in a sustainable manner. The process reflects the fact that localcommunities must be involved from the start in the planning, implementing and monitoring stages of resource management.Without early involvement, such programs aimed at conservation and wise use of wetland resources cannot be successful.

Keywords: Wetland Inventory Approach (AWI), Participatory Planning, Community-Based Conservation, Strategic Man-agement, Thailand, Wetland

Introduction

RURAL THAI PEOPLE have relied onwetland goods and services for their dailylivelihood for generations. However, largeareas of wetlands in Thailand, especially

freshwater wetlands and mangrove forests, wereconverted to agriculture and shrimp farms during the19th and 20th centuries and few natural areas remain.The results of a national wetland inventory in 1999indicated that wetlands cover approximately 36,600km2 or 7.5 % of the country area (OEPP, 1999). Theinventory also identified 61 wetlands of internationalimportance, 108 sites of national importance andmore than 40,000 sites of local importance. Some ofthose wetlands are threatened by encroachment andothers by development activities.

To demonstrate the country’s recognition of theimportance of wetlands, Thailand ratified the RamsarConvention on 13th September 1998. Currently, tenwetland sites have been listed as Ramsar Sites. TheOffice of Natural Resources and EnvironmentalPolicy and Planning (ONEP), as the national focalpoint of the Ramsar Convention, formulated theNational Policies, Measures and Action Plans onWetland Management for 1997-2002, and developedmanagement plans for specific Ramsar Sites. Butplanning for wetland management is hampered bylimited budgets, lack of commitment from implement-ing agencies, low acceptance by local communities,and the absence of monitoring systems (UNEP/GEF,

2005). Thus, it is essential to strengthen communityorganizations and local administrations in conserva-tion and wise use of wetlands through communityparticipation and multi-stakeholder networking.

Goldstein (1994) comprehensively reviewed con-cepts, guidelines and case studies of community-based conservation produced by non-governmentorganizations (NGOs), government agencies, andfinancial sponsors in Africa, Asia, Australia and Pa-cific Islands. Fikret (1989) identified and discussedthe role of community-level institutions in the man-agement of common property resources and also in-cluded case studies of single and multiple resourcemanagement in various parts of the world. Basically,community-based conservation intentionally includesa range of activities and practices that directly or in-directly affect biodiversity conservation, and thereis no one definition. However, it has two broadlyrecognized objectives: 1) to enhance wildlife/biod-iversity conservation; and 2) to provide incentives,normally economic, to local people (Campbell andVainio-Matila, 2003). Community-based conserva-tion has three essential characteristics: 1) indigenouspeoples and local communities are concerned aboutthe relevant ecosystems that are related to them cul-turally and / or for livelihood; 2) they are the majorplayers in decision making and the implementationof decisions; and 3) management decisions and ef-forts towards conservation of biodiversity are volun-tary (EPA, 1997; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY,VOLUME 2, NUMBER 1, 2006

http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com, ISSN 1832-2077© Common Ground, Yongyut Trisurat, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]

EPA (1997) defines community-based environmentalprotection as action that local individuals and groupstake to address their own environmental concerns.In addition, Borrini-Feyerabend et al (2004) definecommunity conserved areas as natural and modifiedecosystems, including areas of significant biod-iversity, ecological services and cultural values,voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples andlocal mobile communities through customary lawsor other effective means. If this approach is imple-mented in government-designated protected areas,where decision-making power, responsibility andaccountability are shared between governmentagencies and other stakeholders, in particular localcommunities, it is named co-management of protec-ted areas. It is believed that people, who work, liveand have business in the community have commoninterests in protecting their shared environment andquality of life. In addition, they create a sense oflocal ownership of issues and solutions, and encour-age long-term community support and accountability.

A number of papers on various aspects andguidelines of community-based conservation havebeen published in recent years. Zorini et al (2004)used a participatory approach to identify alternativeresource uses for long-term sustainable use of man-groves in three communities relying on mangroveswamps in East Africa. In Australia, the first Indigen-ous Protected Area (IPA) was formally proclaimedin 1998 for Aboriginal-owned property. In addition,Aboriginal landholders can now establish formalconservation agreements under state or territory le-gislation or under indigenous law (Smyth, 2001). InThailand, the community-based approach was initi-ated for integrated watershed management(Contreras, 2004), however the debate on pros andcons of this approach is ongoing between conserva-tionists and socialists. A few case studies of com-munity-based mangrove forests and coastal zonemanagement in Thailand have been implemented,with the pioneer application of grassroots methodsto enhance local community involvement in themanagement of coastal resources being implementedby the Yad Fon (Rain Drop) Association in South-western Thailand (Quarto, 2005).

The objectives of this paper are to identify import-ant ecological characteristics (biological, physicaland physio-chemical features), resource uses andmanagement issues for the Nong Bong Kai wetlandin Northern Thailand, using rural appraisal tech-niques, economic valuation and the Asian WetlandInventory (AWI), to promote sustainable wetlandmanagement through the participation of localstakeholders in a strategic planning process at bothlocal and provincial levels.

MethodsNong Bong Kai Non-hunting Area was selected asone of two pilot projects implemented by the Officeof Natural Resources and Environmental Policy andPlanning (ONEP) through “Implementation of theRamsar Convention in Thailand: Management andProtection of Wetland Areas Project (MPW)”. Thisproject has been funded by Danish InternationalDevelopment Assistance (DANIDA) from 2001-2006. Nong Bong Kai wetland is located in Pa Sakand Yo Nok Sub-districts, Chiang Saen District,Chiang Rai Province in northern Thailand, approx-imately five km. from the Mekong River (Figure. 1).Initially, this area was an intermittent floodplainsurrounded by low mountains and hills. Later, aconcrete weir was constructed to store the water foragricultural uses, creating a small artificial lakecovering approximately 432 ha, and has been named“Chiang Saen or Nong Bong Kai Lake”.

The lake is an important tourist attraction forChiang Rai Province and also provides habitat forfeeding and resting migratory water birds in winter(November-February). Nong Bong Kai was formallydeclared a non-hunting area in 1985 by the Ministryof Agriculture and Cooperatives. Furthermore, it wasregistered as the 5th Ramsar Site of Thailand in 2001.Most of the Ramsar Site is covered by water but thereis also a narrow strip of deteriorated forest. All ofthe surrounding land belongs to private individuals.The lake’s boundary is not clearly demarcated onthe ground, thus Government officials and localpeople understand that the periphery of the non-hunting area is the water’s edge, although it fluctu-ates between wet and dry seasons.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIALSUSTAINABILITY, VOLUME 2

50

The MPW Project applied strategic planningguidelines (Ministry of Forests, 1998) and the Ram-sar Guidelines for Management Planning (RamsarConvention Bureau, 2002) through a consensus-based, multi-stakeholder participatory planning pro-cess to develop the Strategic Wetland ManagementPlan (SWMP) of Nong Bong Kai. This strategic planhas a 20 year horizon, 2004-2023 and its associatedaction plan covers 5 years, 2004-2008. Even thoughthe Ramsar Site is small (432 ha), the planning areacovers the whole of two sub-districts (100.7 km2)for practical implementation in the administrationsystem.

Before actual planning started, awareness buildingactivities were employed to increase stakeholderunderstanding of the functions and values of thewetland and to create interest its management. Parti-cipatory rural appraisal (PRA) was used to identifyresource uses and livelihoods of local communities,and key management issues. In addition, the MPWproject also applied the Asian Wetland Inventory(AWI) (Finlayson et al., 2002) and Geographic In-formation System (GIS) for developing andpresenting ecological characteristics (biological,physio-chemical and physical features) (Trisurat etal., 2004; Suthammawong, 2005). The planningprocess comprised seven steps, including 1) data

consolidation and analysis; 2) issue identification;3) development of vision, goals and objectives; 4)conflict resolution, management zone and strategicactions; 5) action plan development and projects; 6)implementation; and 7) monitoring and evaluation.

Representatives of resource utilization groups(e.g., water use, fish resources, bird conservation,and buffalo grazing, women’s group), were nomin-ated by their groups to voice their concerns and workwith local leaders (village headman), and represent-atives of government and local administrative organ-izations as a Planning Working Group (PWG)throughout the planning processes. In total, therewere 40 persons in the multi-stakeholder planningteam, and the proportion of government representat-ives and non-government representatives was approx-imately 50:50. The PWG was supported by wetlandecology experts and technicians, and natural resourcemanagement planners served as facilitators andprovided technical assistance. The PWG memberswere trained in planning, wetland management, mapreading and mapping using the Global PositioningSystem (GPS) to increase their capacities prior toimplementing the planning process. They also usedGPS to demarcate the boundary of the non-huntingarea and locate specific ecological features of NongBong Kai.

51YONGYUT TRISURAT

The planning process (steps 1-5) was implementedduring 2004, through four workshops of 2-3 dayseach, supplemented by additional suggestions re-ceived from organizations and other local stakehold-ers, who were kept informed of workshop delibera-tions through simultaneous informal communitynetworking and feedback mechanisms. The processtook less than one year to complete.

Results

Ecological CharacteristicsNong Bong Kai is a natural depression surroundedby a small catchment of 16.6 km2. The lake bed is4.5 meters at its deepest,, with an average depth of2 m, and the level subsides by about 1-1.5 m in thedry season. All of the water that flows into the lakeis surface run-off of 27 mcm/year from rainwater..Maximum water storage capacity is approximately4.9 mcm. The excess flows into downstream tributar-ies but there is significant loss through undergroundrecharge or seepage. The current water volume usedfor agriculture is 3.2 mcm but the water demand fordomestic consumption, agriculture and fishponds isapproximately 5 mcm.

The results of satellite imagery interpretation(2003) indicated that paddy fields cover approxim-ately 47 km2 or 46% of the two sub-districts, whichis dominant downstream. “Old clearing” is found inhilly areas and covers nearly 15%, mixed deciduousforest covers 9% on the surrounding hills, cash cropscover 6%, and water bodies account for 6 %. Otherland use categories occupy less than 5% each.

Dominant species of floating plants include Eich-hornia crassipes, Salvinia sp., and Imperata cylindric-al, that clumps together. Over the last 20-30 years,Mimosa pigra, an exotic species, was brought intothe area. It is now predominant in the drawdownzone and disperses rapidly. Nine exotic fish specieshave been introduced, the most serious of which isthe giant snake head fish (Channa micropeltes).There are at least 46 fish species from 17 families,with 17 species having economic value. Fivethreatened species are important for conservation.There were 15 species that seasonally migratedbetween Nong Bong Kai and nearby rivers but, now,migration has been reduced due to the lack of inter-connectivity in the hydrological system. Surveysfound that fish lay eggs and raise their young at theeast end of the lake because that area has been effect-ively protected by the Superintendent and fish habitatis still in good condition.

Wildlife habitat in Nong Bong Kai and vicinityhas been badly degraded. Only small animals (ro-dents) remain that can adapt to the degraded habitat.However, water sources in the lake and adjacentwetlands are moderately attractive for winter migrat-

ory birds. Water birds usually rest in the wetlandsand often feed on paddy grain in downstream areas.Thus, conflicts between farmers, officials and birdlovers are usually observed during the winter period.It was found that there are at least 225 bird speciesin the planning area. Of these, 219 are listed as pro-tected species in Thailand and 19 species are interna-tionally threatened. In addition,,there are 79 migrat-ory species, 23 resident breeders, 23 migratory andresident breeders, and 11 species of ducks. The mostfavourable duck habitats in the area are located inJo Thong Dam paddy (mud flats) followed by NongChalab pond, situated just north of the Ramsar Site.Nong Bong Kai Lake is ranked third among duckhabitats in this wetland. However, the birds in thefirst two habitats are often disturbed by buffalograzing during the day. Water birds in nearby wet-lands are not abundant due to extensive humanactivity and deteriorated habitats.

The results of water quality analysis in terms oftemperature, turbidity, pH, dissolved oxygen, dis-solved nitrate (NO3) and phosphorus (PO4)), indicatethat, at present, water quality is still in the standardrange of water sources and does not affect aquaticplants and animals. Alkali water is found to the westof Nong Bong Kai and to the east of the non-huntingarea office. This occurs because the villagers keepanimals such as buffalo, pigs and poultry in thoseareas and they release polluted water into the lakewithout proper treatment. The quantities of NO3 andPO4 are higher than the standard for drinking water.These readings occur in the area near the resorts andorange orchards in the northwest portion of NongBong Kai Lake. The water at the middle of the lakeis clearer than in the drawdown zone because it isnot disturbed by domestic animals.

Resource UsesThere are 21 villages in the two sub-districts. Percapita income in Yo Nok sub-district is slightlyabove the poverty line of US$ 625, while in Pa SakSub-district it is below. Seven of 10 villages, or ap-proximately 20 % of the total families in Pa Sak sub-district, and 5 of 11 villages, or approximately 53 %of the families in Yo Nok sub-district, use resourcesin the wetland and adjacent areas. This includesgathering bamboo shoots; fishing; corn farming;cattle raising, using water for agriculture, raisingchickens and fish, gardening and gathering edibleweed. There are 2.5 times as many families usingthe area from Yo Nok than Pa Sak because they arelocated down stream and are closer to the lake (Fig-ure. 2).

The direct economic value of Nong Bong KaiLake is estimated at about US$385,000 per year.Water from the lake generates incremental gross in-


52

come from agricultural production of approximatelyUS$ 115,000 per year, while resource harvesting andfish catching are worth a net value of US$ 90,000for each sector. Moreover, there are about 1,300tourists visiting Nong Bong Kai per year and theycreate more than US$ 85,250 value added annually.However, it is found that the value from lodging,

food and souvenir services have not yet been distrib-uted into communities. The indirect values of NongBong Kai wetland such as its bird habitat (partiallyreflected in the tourism values), food sources ofaquatic animals, underground water sources, floodand drought prevention etc., may also be significantbut they have not been valued.

IssuesFour major issues affecting the sustainable use andintegrity of Nong Bong Kai were identified (Figure3). The first major issue for management is the lowquantity of water available in the lake to meet thefuture needs of both agriculture and household con-sumption. This insufficiency is due to a deterioratedirrigation system and poor management of theavailable water. Increasing human population nearthe wetlands, and the proposed industrial park inChiang Saen district, may escalate the severity ofthis issue.

Another major issue is the degradation of thewetland ecosystem and surrounding areas. This issuecan be divided into three specific problems. First isthe water bird habitats, both inside and outside NongBong Kai, that are disturbed by buffalo grazing, es-pecially at Jor Thong Dam and Nong Chalab. Thisissue is causing conflicts between grazing and themaintenance of birds for tourism and local appreci-ation. Second is the fish habitat in the lake that isdamaged and threatened by excessive fishing andother human activities. Finally, is the integrity of thewetland and surrounding areas in the catchment thatare badly deteriorated. Exotic species such as theApple Snail, giant snake head fish and Mimosa shrubspread rapidly and invade native species. Mimosa

competes with other hydrophytes and could becomea severe problem for wetland management in thefuture.

The third issue is the declining water quality inthe Ramsar site due to the release of wastewater fromcultivated areas, human settlement, and chicken orpig farms situated in the catchment. For example,orange growers, use chemical fertilizers and pesti-cides on their farms and these substances contaminatethe water quality and accumulate in the wetland.Even though the existing water quality situation isnot serious, the trend is of concern for the future.

The last major management issue is related to theawareness of local people. Local residents lackawareness and understanding of wetland values andcannot foresee the impacts that result from over-ex-ploitation of the wetland resources. As discussedearlier, the non-hunting area has not been demarcatedon the ground and, with seasonal fluctuations inwater level, land speculators invade the wetland andfill the draw down area. In addition, the community-based mapping exercise found that several patchesof water body are now situated outside the legalboundary. They should be included in a revised non-hunting area declaration. It is evident from the abovethat the Ramsar site is being managed on a day-to-day basis, without a long-term strategy or integratedconcept of wise use, as required by the RamsarConvention.

53YONGYUT TRISURAT

Vision, Goals and ObjectivesThe strategic vision of the Nong Bong Kai Ramsarsite, developed by using the AIC approach (Appreci-ation, Influence and Consensus) (Smith, 1983), is“to have abundant water bird and fish species andto increase the natural heritage and beauty of NongBong Lake for ecotourism”. Meanwhile, the non-hunting area will seek cooperation from all local

stakeholders to protect, conserve and rehabilitatedeteriorated areas for conservation and sustainablewise use of the wetland resources. This vision state-ment will strengthen the existing management andadministration of the non-hunting area, which isweak and does not collaborate with other co-manage-ment partners. The vision statement is also relevantto the Ramsar guidelines. Further, the Nong BongKai stakeholders defined goals, objectives andguidelines for actions (Table 1).

Table 1: Summary of Nong Bong Kai Strategic Wetland Management Plan (SWMP)

Guidelines for actionsObjectivesGoalsIssues1) To manage the waterquantity and allocate suffi-

1.1.1 To increase the effi-ciency of the water manage-

1.1 The quantity of wa-ter is sufficient to meet

1. The quantity of water inNong Bong Kai Lake is in-

cient water for the needs ofment system or the waterthe future needs of cur-sufficient to meet the futurefarmers and householdusers.

quantity to meet the needs offarmers and household users

rent users living in twosub-districts around thelake

needs of agriculture andhousehold consumption

1) To set up appropriateguidelines on the introduc-

2.1.1 To conserve the wet-land ecosystem and restore

2.1 Ecosystem of NongBong Kai wetland and

2. The ecosystem health ofthe Nong Bong Kai wetland


54

and basin area has deterior-ated

tion and distribution ofexotic species in wetland

degraded areas surroundingthe lake caused by humanactivities

basin area can maintainits value and role ashabitat for migratorywater birds

2).1.1 To build awarenessand knowledge of the useand importance of wetlands,according to the Ramsarconvention, as well as theeffects of wetland ecosys-tem destruction3) To restore the deterior-ated ecosystem of the wet-land and surrounding areas4) To decrease top soilerosion and protect areas atrisk1) To improve and develophydrological connectivity in



3. Fish habitats in the lakeare damaged and threatened

the Nong Bong Kai wet-degraded areas aroundingbasin area can maintainby over-fishing and otherhuman activities land, Kok river and Luathe lake caused by human

activitiesits value and role ashabitat for migratorywater birds

river, and water sourcesboth inside and outside thebasin area.2) To control or decreasethe exotic fish species thatlive and breed in the wet-land3) To increase the popula-tion of native fish species inthe wetland4) To preserve and conservethe fish breeding areassensitive to disturbance ordestruction1) To build local awarenessand increase knowledge on



4. Habitat for waterfowlboth inside and outside the

water birds and wetlandvalues to farmers and youth

degraded areas surroundingthe lake caused by humanactivities

basin area can maintaintheir values and roles ashabitat for migratorywater birds

Nong Bong Kai are dis-turbed and destroyed bywater buffalo, there areconflicts between the fisher-ies and farmers

1) To educate the farmerson the effects of pesticide

5.1.1 To decrease the use ofchemical substances in agri-

5.1 The water quality inNong Bong Kai lake is

5. Water quality in NongBong Kai wetland tends to

55YONGYUT TRISURAT

be lower than the Thailandstandard for drinking and

use and the usefulness ofbiological controls.

cultural areas, and reducewaste matter and wastewater

higher than the Thailandstandards for household

domestic consumption, es- consumption and aquat-ic organism.

released from communities,poultry and tourist enter-prises.

2) To manage and controlpoint sources of pollution,waste matter and garbage inthe system

pecially in the areas nearhuman communities

3) To monitor water qualityin the lake and nearby watersources.1) To survey and set up aclear boundary of the Nong

6.1.1 To strengthen the effi-ciency of protection and

6.1 To have an effectivemanagement team

6. The areas around NongBong Kai Lake are invadedby land speculators Bong Kai Non-hunting Areamanagement and develop themechanism that consists

and areas which have poten-capacity of officials andof stakeholders whotial to be additional con-served zones

communities to participatein Nong Bong Kai wetlandmanagement

manage the wetland ac-cording to the RamsarConvention 2) To strengthen wetland

management efficiency andpotential of non-huntingarea officers, local adminis-tration organizations andcommunities according tothe Ramsar Convention1) To promote ecotourismwith community participa-

7.1.1 To gain knowledge andbuild awareness by people,

7.1 Sustainable use ofNong Bong Kai wetland

7. Local residents lack ofknowledge and understand-

tion to strengthen the wet-land’s value

farmers and youth about theimportance of the ecosystem

is occurring and the be-nefits are distributed

ing of the integrated func-tions and values of NongBong Kai wetland and use of the wetland, andfairly to communities in

the wetland areas. how plant and animal spe-cies should be conserved.

Conflict Resolution and ManagementZonesUsing GIS to display the ecological character, re-source use, and possible conflicts on the landscapeof the wetland, the PWG was able to explore spatialrelationships among conflicting users and to decidehow to optimize the uses of wetland resources. Ba-sically, one management issue and two resource useconflicts arose during this stage. First, local com-munities in Pa Sak sub-district (upstream) wantedto maintain water levels in the lake to sustain theirfishery but residents in Yo Nok sub-district (down-stream) wanted to drain water for second and thirdcrops. The MPW Project provided the forum forthem to discuss and resolve this conflict in whichstakeholders appointed a water user group, compris-ing representatives from both sub-districts, to monitorthe water level and allocate water as agreed.Secondly,, the buffalo grazing group agreed to raisetheir livestock in other places during the winter toavoid disturbing waterbird habitat, and this agree-ment was documented and signed by both parties.

Further, after local fishermen were able to see theareas of critical fish habitat and, foreseeing the im-pact of over-fishing, they agreed on locations forfishing and types of fishing gear. Later, the Superin-tendent and fishermen used bamboo sticks to demarc-ate a fish protection zone.

The zonation of Nong Bong Kai and the surround-ing two sub-districts basically followed the BiosphereReserve Zonation concept (Phillips, 1998), whichproposes three management zones - core zone, buffer,and transition zone. Nong Bong Kai zonation alsorecognizes multiple use in surrounding areas and theon-going land use planning implemented by theChiang Rai Provincial Declaration on Town andCountry Planning.. The PMG modified the aboveconcept and defined three main management zones:wetland protection zone, wise use zone, and intensiveor multiple use zone. These three zones were thensub-divided into eight sub-zones according to specif-ic uses and land ownership. Brief descriptions andmanagement intent, as well as management zonemaps, are presented in Table 2 and Figure 4, respect-ively.


56

Table 2: Summary of Management Zones of the Nong Bong Kai Ramsar Site and Vicinity

SizeManagement intenseDescriptionZone

%km2

4.34.3

Protect and maintain fish and waterbird habitats to facilitate breeding and

Land and water both inside and out-side the Ramsar site that contain1.WetlandProtec-

tion Zone nesting, and nesting activities, respect-ively.

abundant habitats for fish breedingand nesting, and water bird resting.

0.70.7

Protect, maintain and rehabilitate de-teriorated fish and water bird habitatsCritical and fragile habitats for fish

and waterfowl located inside theRamsar site

1.1 ProtectionZone

to facilitate breeding & nesting, andnesting activities, respectively.

0.40.4

Conserve and maintain waterfowlhabitats to facilitate resting and feed-Critical and fragile waterfowl habitats

on privately owned land outside the1.2 Special Water-bird ConservationZone

ing through collaborative manage-Ramsar site, e.g. Jor Thong Dam,Nong Chalab and Nong Ngiew. ment among officials, buffalo grazers

and land owners.

3.13.2

Manage water storage for domesticconsumption and irrigation purposes,Remaining water bodies in Nong

Bong Kai Lake outside zone 1.11.3 Water Conser-vation Zone and allow sustainable fishing through

agreements among user groups

12.112.2

Promote ecotourism and other sustain-able wise uses of the wetlands and

Agricultural and scattered communit-ies in the Nong Bong Kai catchment

2. Wise Use Zone other natural resources in the catch-where agricultural practices and other

ment area, and reduce chemical sub-stances e.g. pesticides and herbicides

land utilizations are harmonized withthe wetland environment and do notcause severe impacts to the lake’secological integrity.

11.912.0

Private land owners are educated andencouraged to reduce chemical sub-The terrestrial area in the catchment,

excluding zones 1 and 2.2, is basically2.1 Agriculturaleco-developmentzone

stances on their farmlands that wouldowned by private enterprise and indi- affect the lake ecosystem. In addition,viduals, and is being used for farmingand scattered residential purposes. soil and water conservation measures

are promoted.

0.20.2

Promote eco-tourism and develop fa-cilities for outdoor recreation and aAreas suitable for outdoor recreation

and services. These areas occupy the2.2 Service andRecreation Zone

nature education center to educateHQ of the Non-Hunting Areas and a and raise awareness about the import-narrow strip along the road from theHQ to Lake View Resort. ance of the wetland ecosystem and

its wise.

83.784.3

Management intensity in this zonefollows the Provincial Declaration onThe remaining areas of two sub-dis-

tricts outside the Nong Bong Kai3. Intensive andMultiple UsesZone

Chiang Rai Country and Town Plan-ning, dated January 12, 2003, thatcatchment where intensive and mul-

tiple land uses are practiced e.g. water aims to develop this area for agricul-bodies, rural and agricultural areas,and low density residential ture, community forest, aquaculture

and human settlement

2.32.4

Promote aquaculture, fish ponds, re-search related to fisheries and waterresources development

Natural and man-made water bodies,excluding Nong Bong Kai lake. Infra-structure and human activities that

3.1 Water Environ-mental QualityProtection andFishing Zone

will affect water quality are prohib-ited, except for the purpose of watertreatment.

76.276.7Promote as reduced-chemical agricul-The remaining areas outside the Nong3.2 Rural and Agri-

57YONGYUT TRISURAT

cultural Zone

ture and commercial area related toagriculture, such as post-harvest,Bong Kai catchment where intensive

agricultural land uses and scatteredcommunities are located. which does not cause impacts to hu-

mans or cultivated land

5.25.2

Aimed to develop it as human settle-ment, shop house, and specific indus-Areas that contain villages, large

communities and shop houses3.3 Low DensityResidential Zone tries that do not cause impacts to hu-

mans or the environment.100.0100.7Total

Action Plan and ProjectsThe action plan covers a duration of 5 years, 2004-2008. It consists of project definitions and a listingof projects by budget source and year of expectedimplementation (Table 3). The PWG proposed criter-ia to select projects for funding from theMPW/DANIDA budget, the local budget, and pro-vincial or central government budgets. The criteriafor utilizing the MPW/DANIDA budget included:urgent projects to be implemented in 2004, as thereis no time to get government budgets; projects to

educate local people on wetland values and promotewise use of wetlands; and projects to strengthen thecapacity of local people through participatory pro-cesses. The potential projects to be funded by localgovernment are those that strengthen communities,have limited budget requirements, and conform tothe legitimate roles of local government. Meanwhile,the larger projects that require larger budgets, createsignificant impact beyond the two sub-districts, andmay cause controversial issues that exceed the abilityof local administrative organizations are prescribedfor provincial or central government budgets.


58

Table 3: Summary of Projects and Budgets by Budget Source during 2004-2008 (US$ 1000)

% contribu-tion

TotalYearBudget sources

Number of pro-jects 1

20082007200520052004

/US$ 1000

19111416169Number ofproject

MPW/DANIDA

14.75172.7527.5033.7539.5049.2522.75Cost (US$)


Local Government

3.1837.254.5011.754.5015.251.25Cost (US$)


Provincial & centralGovernment

82.07961.2528.5036.00614.75281.001.00Cost (US$)


Total

100.001,171.2560.5081.50658.75345.5025.00Cost (US$)100.005.176.9656.2429.502.13Annual cost (%)

1 Some projects are implemented longer than 1 year

Based on the agreed criteria, the PWG proposed 45projects with a total budget of approximately US$1.2 million. The expected budgets to be funded bythe MPW, local government and provincial & centralgovernment are US$ 172,750, US$ 37,250, and US$961,250 respectively. Even though the proportion oflocal government expenditure is only about 3% ofthe total budget, they contribute almost 24% of thetotal project list. This indicates the important com-mitment of local government to be involved in pro-ject implementation after completion of the plan. Afew strategically important projects include: thepreparation of detailed guidelines for water alloca-tion; the feasibility study and environmental impactassessment of raising the weir to increase waterquantity; improvement of the water gate and irriga-tion network; and construction of the wetland educa-tion centre.

In addition, there are many community-basedconservation projects and implementation progressto date has been substantial. For instance, localcommunity groups e.g., Water Bird Lovers, Friendsof Chiang Saen Lake, Local Fishermen, Water Use,and Liquid Bio-fertilizer groups, etc. were officiallyestablished on a voluntary basis. In addition, theircapacities have been strengthened through varioustraining activities. Local committees from 15 villagesare participating in a liquid bio-fertilizer project madefrom the Apple Snail. In 2004, they produced 172tanks of fertilizer, which can effectively substitute

for chemical fertilizer, and also has important non-market values (e.g., health and environmental bene-fits). In addition, the revolving fund for the LiquidBio-Fertilizer Group increased approximately 56%from the original funding of the MPW Project. Theadditional funds came from the contributions oflocal governments (two sub-districts) and sharesbought by the members. Awareness of wetland con-servation and wise use activities are regularly andjointly conducted by stakeholders in the non-huntingarea, e.g., Bird Spirit Day, Chiang Saen Lake Rehab-ilitation Day, etc. In addition, Wetland International(Thailand Program) and local school teachers de-veloped wetland curriculums for various subjectsthat are now being used by primary and secondaryschools located around the lake.

Monitoring and EvaluationThe monitoring framework is divided into threelevels: 1) to assess progress in the application of thestrategy towards achievement of the planned vision,goals, and objectives of Nong Bong Kai SWMP; 2)to evaluate the progress of the project’s implementa-tion; and 3) to assess the awareness of stakeholdersand the change in the status of wetland ecologicalparameters. The Chiang Rai Provincial Office is re-sponsible for training the officers and stakeholdersfor monitoring. Examples of monitoring indicatorsare shown in Table 4.

59YONGYUT TRISURAT

Table 4: Examples of Monitoring Indicators for Nong Bong Kai Strategic Management

IndicatorsStrategic actionsGuidelines for actionsObjectivesAgreement of water users1) Establish a water man-

agement team and water1) To manage the waterquantity and allocate suffi-

1.1.1 To increase the effi-ciency of the water manage-

use regulations for organiz-cient water for the needs ofment system or the waterations, user groups andfarmers and household

users.quantity to meet the needsof farmers and householdusers

others affected by watershortages.

Irrigation system in place2) Construct an irrigationsystem that links wetlandswith the basin areas to in-crease water quantity.

Manual on how to controlexotic species in freshwaterwetlands

1) Set up guidelines oncontrol and monitoring ofthe Giant Mimosa andApple Snail distribution.

1) To set up appropriateguidelines on the introduc-tion and distribution ofexotic species in wetland

2.1.1 To conserve the wet-land ecosystem and restoredegraded areas aroundingthe lake caused by humanactivities

(Giant Mimosa and AppleSnail)Nature study center andnature interpretation pro-gram

2) Provide facilities andproduce informative mater-ials about the importanceof wetland ecosystems

DiscussionNong Bong Kai is the first wetland in Thailand toadopt Ramsar planning guidelines for community-based management planning. Various factors wereinfluential in determining the success of this project.The results show that the various user groups, localgovernment and provincial government are continu-ously involved in formulating and making decisionson conservation and wise use of the Nong Bong KaiRamsar site and surrounding area. In addition, theyare committing resources and effort to manage thewetland sustainably because they were involved fromthe start in the planning, implementing and monitor-ing stages of resource management. Another keyfactor is the extensive stakeholder preparation, andthe development of spatial ecological and socio-economic information prior to actual planning. TheLocal Initiative Fund also stimulated and providedincentive for stakeholder participation. This evidencesupports the wetland management observations ofFinlayson (2003) that: effective involvement of localcommunities in environmental management, incent-ives for local involvement; trust between parties;flexible approaches; capacity building; continuity ofresources and effort; and monitoring, would assuremore sustainable outcomes.

Community-based conservation or co-managementof protected areas is a new paradigm for biodiversityconservation that has been recognized by the RamsarConvention and is included in the recommendationsof the Vth World Parks Congress in Durban, 2003(IUCN/CEESP, 2003; McNeely, 2003; Lock andDearden, 2005). The Congress called for a ‘new

paradigm’ for protected areas, the characteristics ofwhich would see new and more people focused onprotected area legislation, as well as the re-engineer-ing of protected area people, etc. On the other hand,community-based conservation has been criticizedfrom various perspectives. For instance, Berkes(2003) indicated that community development object-ives are not necessarily consistent with conservationobjectives in a given case. Others say that conserva-tion and development objectives, both important intheir own right, should not be linked because themixed objective does not serve either objective well(Redford and Sanderson, 2000). In addition, integra-tion of the human dimension into protected areaswill undermine the creation of real protected areasfor maintaining ecological integrity, especially thewide-ranging larger forms that require wilderness(Lock and Dearden, 2005), and stands in contrastwith the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)that requires signatory nations to establish protectedarea systems as a response to the erosion of wildbiodiversity.

These criticisms and concerns are not applicableto human-dominant wetlands where local communit-ies have relied on wetland resources for the goodsand services of their daily livelihood for generations.Past experience has proven that government alonecannot manage wetland resources and enforce regu-lations effectively, such as the freshwater marsh inSam Roi Yot National Park (Wetlands International,2005). The Thai Constitution of 1997, and the En-hancement and Conservation of National Environ-mental Quality Act of 1992, now empower provincial


60

and local authorities (sub-district) and local com-munities to share responsibility and accountability,and to formulate their own environmental manage-ment plans. In addition, the Decentralization Act,1999 and the National Reform Act, 1999 have de-volved significant authority for budget planning anddevelopment because 35% of the national incomethrough taxation will be allocated to the local govern-ment. Moreover, the entry of civil society into forestgovernance in Thailand, in recent years, is seen bymany as the emergence of participatory and people-oriented forest science and management (Contreras,2004). In addition, the new National Wetland Man-agement Plan for 2003-2007 focuses on public parti-cipation in the conservation and management ofwetlands (UNEP/GEF, 2005). With all of these im-portant legal and institutional developments, this isthe right time to modify our traditionally centralizednatural resource management and replace it with in-tegrated, local multi-stakeholder participatory co-management processes. The challenge is how fastthis can occur and what decision-making mechanismwill effectively engage the responsible agencies atall levels to scale-up from this successful pilot projectand make the required effort to adopt this newparadigm of natural resources management in Thail-and.

ConclusionsThe findings of this project indicate that participatoryrural appraisal is very useful for identifying resourceuses and management issues at the Nong Bong KaiRamsar site in Thailand. After their integration withecological characteristics, developed in a GIS data-base, local stakeholders could visualize spatial rela-tionships between resource capacities and manage-ment issues on the landscape. In addition, the resultsshow that various user groups, local government andprovincial government stakeholders working togetherhave the capability to formulate a community-basedstrategic wetland management plan with technicalsupport from facilitators. Potential conflicts in re-source uses and management could be settled througha consensus-based decision-making approach, andmanagement zones could be delineated by the multi-stakeholder planning group to define how to usewetland resources and the surrounding area in asustainable manner. With the stakeholder buy-in thatwas facilitated by this participatory process, allparties are committing resources and effort to sustain-ably manage the wetland.

The success of the process reflects the fact thatlocal communities must be involved from the startof the planning, implementing and monitoring stagesof resource management. Without early involvement,such programs aimed at conservation and wise useof wetland resources cannot be successful. The res-ults of this pilot project also reveal that there are atleast two approaches to community-based wetlandmanagement. One is the bottom up approach whichis driven by a desire to resolve problems that areapparent within the community, such as the localconflict over water use. The other is top-down, inwhich an outside, national agency (ONEP) attemptsto enlist community cooperation to attain the Ramsarobjectives that the agency has perceived to be import-ant, such as preserving national and global wetlandvalues. In the first case, the superintendent or man-ager might act as a facilitator or source of expertise,and in the second case the manager takes on the roleof an educator about the broader roles of social re-sponsibility. Community-based conservation or co-management represents an increasingly strong altern-ative to central agency control of natural resourcesmanagement. It is also considered an effective toolto resolve local conflicts and to engage communitycooperation at the national level. It is hoped that thisnew planning paradigm will be up-scaled to otherRamsar sites and wetlands in Thailand in the nearfuture.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank DANIDA for finan-cial support; ONEP and the Chiang Rai Province foreffective cooperation. The authors are also verygrateful to the Planning Working Group (PWG) fortheir dedication and hard work during and after themanagement planning process. A number of scient-ists, socio-economists and colleagues, namelyDokrak Marod, Chongrak Watcharinrat, PrateepDuengkae, Sommai Jenkitkan, Sarawood Sangkaeo,Sumaree Wannarat, and Penporn Jankarnkit kindlyprovided information. In addition, the authors alsoacknowledge Lyndon Wester, Kem Lowry, JeffersonFox, and two anonymous referees for their valuablecomments on this manuscript. The preparation ofthis manuscript was supported in part by the Ful-bright Scholarship Program. The authors are gratefulto the University of Hawaii at Manoa and the East-West Center in Hawaii for hosting the primary authorduring manuscript preparation.

References

Berker, F. 2003. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621-630.Borrini-Feyerabend, G. Kothari A. and Oviedo, G. 2004. Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas. IUCN-

The World Conservation Union, Gland Switzerland.

61YONGYUT TRISURAT

Campbell, L.M. and Vainio-Matila, A. 2003. Participatory development and community-based conservation: opportunitiesmissed for lessons learned?. Human Ecology 31: 417-437.

Contreras, A. 2004. Civil society, environmental security and knowledge: forest governance in Thailand and the Philippinesin the context of ASEAN. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 4, 179-193.

EPA. 1997. Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting Ecosystems and Communities.U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., USA.

Fikret, B. 1989. Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. Belhaven Press,New York, London,

Finlayson, M. 2003. Ecosystem assessment: links between science and community – the common ground?. EcologicalManagement & Restoration 4: 3-4.

Finlayson, C. M. Begg, G.W. Howes, J. Davies, J. Tagi, K. and Lowry, J. 2002. A Manual for an Inventory of Asian Wetlands:version 1.0. Wetland International Global Series 10, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Goldstein, B. 1994. Community-Based Conservation. CPL Bibliography 313, Chicago, USA.IUCN/CEESP. 2003. Policy Matter 12, Special Issue on Community Empowerment for Conservation.

Www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/newsletter/PM12.pdfKratina, B, and Wells, M. 1992. Planning for People and Parks: Designing Dilemmas. World Development 20, no 20: 557-

570.Locke, H. and Dearden, P. 2005. Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm. Environmental Conservation

32: 1-10.McNeely, J. 2003. Workshop Stream: Building Broader Support for Protected Areas. Available at: http://w

ww.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/Proceedings/recommendations.pdfMinistry of Forests. 1998. Guide to Writing Effective Resource Management Plans: With an Emphasis on Higher Level

Plans. Ministry of Forests in Cooperation with Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BritishColumbia, Canada.

OEPP. 1999. National Wetland Inventory of Thailand. Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, Ministry of Science,Technology and Environment, Bangkok, Thailand. 142 pp.

Phillips, A. 1998. Biosphere Reserves and Protected Areas: What is the Difference? In IUCN (1998) Biosphere Reserve-Myth or Reality? Proceeding of a Workshop at the 1996 IUCN World Conservation Congress, Montreal, Canada.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Quarto, A. 2005. Case Studies of Successful Community Involvement in Sustainable Management of Coastal Resources.Available at: http w ww.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/SL/MAP%20Comm%20Involvement.pdf

Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2002. Guidelines for Management Planning for Ramsar Sites and Other Wetlands. IUCN-TheWorld Conservation Union, Gland Switzerland.

Redford, K.H. and Sanderson, S.E. 2000 Extracting humans from nature. Conservation Biology 14:1362-1364.Smith, W.F. 1983. Wholensee: the development of a new philosophy, model and process of organization.

www.odii.com/Papers/Wholeness-print.pdfSmyth, D. 2001. Joint Management of National Parks in Australia. In: Borrini-Feyerabend, G. Kothari, A. and Oviedo G.

(eds.), Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas. IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Gland,Switzerland.

Suthammawong, N. 2004. Habitat Modeling for Bare’s Pochart and Serruginous Pochart at Nong Bong Kai Ramsar Site,Chiang Rai Province. MS. Thesis. Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Trisurat, Y. Hall, B., and Howes, J. 2004. Implementation of the Asian Wetland Inventory (AWI) Approach: Chiang SaenLake Ramsar Site in Northern Thailand. Abstract Proceedings of the 7th International Wetlands Conference on25-30 July 2004. p. 321. Utrecht, the Netherlands.

UNEP/GEF. 2005. Thailand Wetlands National Action Plan. Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.Wetlands International. 2005. A Directory of Wetlands of International Importance. www.wetlands.org/RDB/Ramsar_Dir/Thai-

land/TH004D02.htmZorini, L. Contini, C. Jiddawi, N. Ochiewo, J. Shunula, J. and Cannicci, S 2004. Participatory appraisal for potential com-

munity-based mangrove management in East Africa. Wetlands Ecology and Management 12: 87-102.

About the AuthorDr. Yongyut TrisuratDr. Yongyut Trisurat is Assistant Professor Forestry at Kasetsart University in Thailand. He obtained his Ph.D.in Natural Resources Conservation at Asian Institute of Technology in Bangkok in 1997 and was a ResearchFellow at the Institute of Geography, Freie University Berlin in 1995, as well as a Fulbright Visiting Scholaraffiliated with the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawaii atManoa and the East-West Center in 2005. He worked for ten years as a park official for the Royal Forest De-partment. Dr. Trisurat has been involved in several international projects funded by ADB, CIDA, DANIDAand ITTO related to protected areas, biodiversity conservation, GIS, and wetlands.


62

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY EDITORS Amareswar Gala, Australian National University, Australia. Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Dang Van Bai, Ministry of Culture and Information, Vietnam. Diane Bell, The George Washington University, Washington DC, USA. Richard M. Clugston, Center for the Respect of Life and the Environment, and University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, Washington DC, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. John Dryzek, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Robyn Eckersley, University of Melbourne, Australia. Steven Engelsman, Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde, The Netherlands. John Fien, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Steve Hemnett, University of South Australia, Australia. Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Lily Kong, National University of Singapore, Singapore. Thangavelu Vasantha Kumaran, University of Madras, India. Steffen Lehmann, Queensland University of Technology, Australia. Jim McAllister, Central Queensland University, Australia. Helena Norberg-Hodge, The International Society for Ecology and Culture (ISEC). Reed Perkins, Queens University of Charlotte, USA. Peter Phipps, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Koteswara Prasad, University of Madras, India. Surekha Rao, Indiana University Northwest, USA. Judy Spokes, Cultural Development Network, Melbourne, Australia. Manfred Steger, Illinois State University, USA and RMIT University, Australia. David Wood, University of Waterloo, Canada. Lyuba Zarsky, RMIT University, Australia, and Tufts University, USA. Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com for further information:

- ABOUT the Journal including Scope and Concerns, Editors, Advisory Board, Associate Editors and Journal Profile

- FOR AUTHORS including Publishing Policy, Submission Guidelines, Peer Review Process and Publishing Agreement

SUBSCRIPTIONS The Journal offers individual and institutional subscriptions. For further information please visit http://ijs.cgpublisher.com/subscriptions.html. Inquiries can be directed to [email protected] INQUIRIES Email: [email protected]

Documents

Community-based Wetland Management in Northern Thailand€¦ · Community-based Wetland Management in Northern Thailand Yongyut Trisurat VOLUME 2, NUMBER 1