Browsing by Person "Hoffmann, Volker"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Collaborative water governance in Thailand : much ado about nothing?
(2015) Kanjina, Sukit; Hoffmann, Volker
The river basin committee (RBC) framework was first introduced in Thailand in 2002, and the current one adopted in 2007 has been implemented in all 25 river basins located in the country ever since. By all accounts, the RBC framework is innovative as far as Thailand’s administrative system and water resource sector are concerned. It was only recently that the former started to promote non-public sector participation, and the underlying legal framework expressly requires that representatives of the non-public sector, such as water user organizations and local experts, be included in the RBC together with those representing the public agencies concerned. The latter envisions the RBC as a new mechanism for managing water resources by using a river basin as a managerial unit. Based on the RBC framework’s prescription, it can be seen that Thailand is moving toward collaborative water governance, where both public and non-public sector representatives take part in decision making on water resource-related issues in their respective river basin. This study empirically examines the implementation process and outcomes of the RBC framework by using the Ping RBC arrangement as an illustrative case. It aims specifically to explore the formation and management of the RBC, its collaborative processes and participation, and the outcomes it generates. To this end, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants such as the officials responsible from Water Resources Regional Office 1 (WRO 1), and Ping RBC members; and an informal interview was applied as well with some DWR officials. In addition, relevant activities were observed through non-participant observation, while related documentary data, e.g. documents on the RBC framework, also were collected. The data gathered were analyzed by means of qualitative content analysis. It was found overall that the Ping RBC framework was established by following relevant directives. Ping RBC members include representatives from the public sector such as the Royal Irrigation Department (RID) and Department of Water Resources (DWR), as well as the provincial governors concerned and representatives from the non-public sector, including water user organizations (agricultural, industrial, commercial, service, and tourism sectors), local government organizations (LGOs), and the expert group; while WRO 1 serves as the secretariat. In addition, other governing bodies were established as well, including one river basin sub-committee, five provincial river basin working groups, and 20 sub-river basin working groups who, similar to Ping RBC members, represented both the public and non-public sector at the river basin, provincial, and sub-river basin level. It was discovered that regarding RBC management the Ping RBC and its governing bodies were governed by the lead organization-governed form, where WRO 1 played the leading role and left no room for involvement from other members. For example, it called the meetings and prepared their agenda. Indeed, meetings were the only activity organized for these river basin governing bodies and they were infrequent (e.g. twice per year for the Ping RBC). Furthermore, they were organized with a formal format, where the officer responsible normally provided information to the meeting, with virtually no deliberation or discussion. With these meetings being the only activity where members of the river basin governing bodies could get together, it was apparent that face-to-face dialogue, which is a crucial element in leading to others elements in a collaborative process, such as trust and shared understanding, was simply non-existent. Interaction between the secretariat and members of the river basin governing bodies, as well as among the members also failed to occur. Participation in the Ping RBC setup involved just information sharing, as members of the Ping RBC and its governing bodies were provided with only data on, for example, drought and flood situations. The governing bodies of the Ping River Basin, especially the Ping RBC, took part in approving river basin management and development frameworks as well as annual river basin management and development plans. However, their approval was unnecessary because the frameworks and annual plans in question were a collection of project plans gathered from the public agencies concerned and LGOs located in the river basin. They were prepared based on relevant policies and directives, with no need for approval from the Ping RBC setup before submission for national budget allocation. Since the frameworks and annual plans were the only outputs produced, it was therefore apparent that the Ping RBC framework performed virtually no functions to fulfill its mandates such as a water resource management plan, water user priority or water allocation. Evidently, the Ping RBC framework is an ineffective mechanism that is characterized by lack of collaboration, participation and outcomes, which have impacts on water resource management in the river basin. A similar result can be expected from the other 24 RBCs operating under the same administrative system and legal framework. Therefore, Thailand is still far from achieving collaborative governance in its water resource sector. Clearly, this unsuccessful RBC framework was influenced by the Thai administrative system; for instance, the public agencies involved have to follow their own policies and directives, thereby failing to make the RBC framework their top priority and only passively participating in the setup. However, the underlying cause is due largely to the RBC framework’s lack of authority. This is because the legal framework regulating the RBC framework has limited legal authority; consequently, virtually no authority is delegated to this arrangement. Accordingly, the RBC framework has no full authority regarding water resource management as its decisions, if any, can be enforced upon only public agencies and state-owned enterprises. Furthermore, it also has less authority when compared to other public bodies governed by superior legal frameworks; as such, it cannot force active participation in the RBC arrangement, and is not officially recognized (e.g. by the budget allocation system). It can be seen as important that with no authority delegated, non-public sector representatives do not share any decision making power despite their inclusion into the framework concerned. Therefore, to avert the same result generated by the RBC framework in moving toward collaborative water governance, policy changes are needed regarding its authority and implementation process at the national level, or at the DWR. Ideally, a change is required at the national level by passing a comprehensive legal framework, i.e. a Water Act. By this law, the RBC framework’s authority in managing water resources is secured and the framework itself is officially recognized. Arrangements for implementation of the RBC framework also can be prescribed, e.g. a budget allocation system recognizing the RBC framework and creating the RBC’s own office. However, this option is rather difficult to achieve, if not impossible, due to the lack of political support. A more probable change at the national level would be to issue a new regulation that revises the RBC framework, which can be done more easily than passing a law. Essentially, under this new regulation, the new RBC framework would be based at the provincial level. As such, the RBC would be abolished, while the provincial RBC and its governing bodies would be transformed to ‘collaborative watershed partnerships’ focused on a provincial river basin master/action plan. By this new regulation, the public bodies concerned would be obliged to follow the plan mentioned when preparing their water resource-related projects/programs, which would be applicable within authority of the regulation. In addition, diverse activities (e.g. meetings and capacity building) should be organized in order to support both the river basin governing bodies and implementing units of the DWR. The DWR should change its policies regarding implementation of the RBC framework, if there is no change at the national level, and the RBC framework continues to be carried out under the current regulation. It is essential in this circumstance for the DWR to encourage a revision of the RBC structure in order to make it less complex and more manageable, and shift the focus from the RBC itself to the river basin governing bodies at the provincial and sub-river basin level. Besides capacity building activities, and frequent and less formal meetings, the DWR should also direct its implementing units to facilitate the river basin governing bodies in order to develop a river basin management plan for respective provinces. This should be based on the problems and needs of the sub-river basins located in those particular provinces; and presented through the public agencies and LGOs concerned for consideration and inclusion in their own plans. This might be the only way to increase the likelihood of some elements of the river basin management plan being realized, given that the RBC framework has no authority or official recognition.
Conversion of subsistence farming to sustainable agroforestry in the Midhills of Nepal : participatory action research in system development
(2015) Schick, Alina; Hoffmann, Volker
In the Midhills of Nepal, agriculture is practiced mostly as subsistence farming on often small-sized terraces. Nowadays there are often only a few trees left in cultivated areas, which leaves the soil bare for several months of the year, mostly in winter. Degeneration processes by environmental influences on bare terraces, and a deficiency of organic material lead to poor soils and consequently to a reduced harvest. A rising population leads to a fragmentation of farms by spreading estates, thus leading to ever smaller-sized cultivated land areas. These often and increasingly do not produce enough food to feed farmers and their families. The possibilities of work in other income sectors are limited. Consequently, some farmers leave their land and move to Kathmandu. To break this chain it is necessary to develop new survival strategies. One solution is to ensure that existing farms can produce enough food to feed themselves and sell to make a living. This can theoretically be achieved by alternative farming methods and the introduction of new techniques. Agroforestry with its mixed farming styles and aspects of permaculture can eventually help to ameliorate the soils and provide extra nutrition and income through a perennially mixed plant production system that also includes several cash crops. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the actual situation of farmers in the region of Kaule, Nepal, and to assess the system change from subsistence farming to agroforestry. An existing agroforestry farm established in Kaule about 15 years ago will serve as a reference. For the system change to agroforestry several hypotheses were put forward on the assumption of the stated problems. These hypotheses have been tested by several methods such as socioeconomic and ecological field surveys, in combination with qualitative social research methods like interviews, questionnaires, protocols and direct observations. The results were then ordered in case studies per household and later accumulated into comparative group observations. The system change was then contextualised to a situation-based functional theory of adoption and diffusion of innovations in social systems. This study report is the written monitoring result of the three initial project years from 2009 to 2011 in Kaule, and in some cases supplemented by additional data from earlier and later years. Data on income and expenses, work distribution within the families, soil quality and biodiversity have been selected. General descriptions of farming methods and reports on several training sessions are also included, as well as the assessment of terrace sizes and meteorological data. After comparing single household situations in the case studies with those of accumulative group observations, two different livelihood strategies were found that seemed to be sustainable for the current situation in Kaule. One strategy is where several parts of families merge together to create bigger social structures and combine their land in bigger scales to produce their livelihood. Alternatively, like the case of the agroforestry farm, the other strategy is part-time farming with enhanced cultivation methods for nutrition and income production, in addition to external work based on higher education. When agroforestry was compared to a situation-based functional approach to describe its potential for adaption and diffusion, it was found that agroforestry in its complexity is difficult to establish and places high expectations on adopters. For households that cultivate only a few plants for personal consumption, agroforestry is not suitable, although they can adopt single elements of the package. The introduction of new plants and methods into farming systems needs to be preferentially planned by marketing prospects. The potential of diffusion of the innovation depends on the necessary support. Even though agroforestry, in the form it has been promoted by the project, is relatively complex, it allows farmers to choose out of its multitude of elements which ones to adopt. The adoption of further farming methods and plants and also additional components like composting or beekeeping can be further developed over time. The potential of agroforestry to enhance soil quality and to contribute to better crop production became apparent when it was compared to other project farms. The potential of diffusion of agroforestry to other farms in the area is possible, as long as suitable local structures like demonstration farms and locally organized project structures are established and continual trainings are organized. A mixture of self-help and external support is therefore favorable.
Recording, validating and scaling up local ecological knowledge of ethnic minority farmers in Northern Thailand and Northern Laos
(2015) Choocharoen, Chalathon; Hoffmann, Volker
Conceptually, local knowledge is recognized and investigated by a wide array of disciplines, and the focus has shifted from definition of ‘indigenous’ or ‘traditional’ knowledge to a perception of local knowledge as a dynamic concept and a principal basis for decision-making processes. This enables the creation of a research environment that is conducive to participatory approaches seeking to bridge the division between local and scientific knowledge. This thesis explains how local knowledge systems are composed by different know-ledge types, such as practices and beliefs, values, and worldviews. The knowledge systems change constantly under the influence of power relations and cross-scale linkages both within and outside the community. Likewise, local knowledge and practices need to be understood as adaptive responses to internal and external changes which result e.g. in disaster preparedness or sustainable growth of livelihoods at the local level. This thesis is based on interviews and using PRA tools about local knowledge and practices and attempts to give an overview and framework of local knowledge in sustainable land use and an understanding of the benefits and problems involved. Local knowledge systems (LKS) are an important part of the lives of the poor. They are the basis for decision-making of communities in food security, human and animal health, education, and natural resource management. LKS point to how indigenous people manipulate their knowledge, which has accumulated, evolved and practiced for generations. They epitomize the relationship and interaction between local peoples and their natural surroundings. In the study shown in paper I (Chapter 4), results based on group discussions shows farmers use 6 out of 8 scientific soil classifications. Through participatory soil mapping exercises, it was sought to develop a single, comprehensive soil classification reflecting the main soil types in the village territory. This process helped to explore the potential for using local soil classification towards regional soil mapping. It was concluded that the comparison of scientific soil classification and soil survey maps with local knowledge of soils can generate valuable synergies through integrating the perceptions of soil properties of scientists and farmers. Moreover, villagers in this research area will be able to have alternative or complementary options to grow plants and to generate improved revenues in the future. In paper II (Chapter 5), it was found that traditional silvopastoral systems are a key component of sustainable forest management. Forestry and forst use is a part of the established activities of upland farmers, who show interest in sustainable management and utilization of their natural resources. Local farmers knowledge has been so far excluded from governmental development policies. A country comparative analysis shows similar strategies of farmers but different (promoting / prohibiting) national policies. Local ecological knowledge about sylvo-pastoral systems can provide useful resources for striving towards more sustainable highland agro-ecosystems, if it is integrated into scientific analysis and policy making. Paper III (Chapter 6) found that cardamom plantations/collections are considered as an effective approach to poverty alleviation and sustainable rural development under conditions of increased resource scarcity in the uplands of Northern Laos. The analysis of the value chain revealed various potentials for development. The main policy implication is that protecting the remaining of natural and secondary forests, for instance through making use of evolving international support mechanisms for community based forest protection including REDD-plus, will not only be of advantage for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation, but would also improve the livelihoods of the poorest in the uplands of Northern Laos. The challenge for national resource managers is to combine the management of agricultural functions with ecological benefits through sustainable agriculture practices to enhance the livelihoods of local people. Local ecological knowledge can offer proven alternatives and complementary explanations of ecological cause-and-effect relationships. It may prove useful in further scientific investigation and can be utilized as a cross-reference with other findings and therefore contribute to sustainable resource management and improve the quality of local resources and livelihoods.