Developing Science-Based Tools for Participatory Watershed Management in Montane Mainland Southeast Asia

Rockefeller Foundation Grant No. 2000 GI 086 Developing Science-Based Tools for Participatory Watershed Management in Montane Mainland Southeast Asia Final Report to the Rockefeller Foundation David E. Thomas ICRAF Project Leader Pornchai Preechapanya Pornwilai Saipothong International Centre for Research on Agroforestry (ICRAF) Chiang Mai, Thailand 2004 ICRAF Report to Rockefeller Foundation – Science based tools for participatory watershed management Page 2 Acknowledgements Research under this grant from the Rockefeller Foundation was conducted by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) working in close partnership with colleagues in Thailand. It resulted in major advances in innovations applying science-based tools to help strengthen multi-level efforts aimed at improving management of agroforestry landscapes in mountainous watersheds of northern Thailand. It also provides clear and informative examples of the emerging concept of landscape agroforestry, and why it is especially important in contexts such as upper tributary watersheds of the montane mainland Southeast Asia eco-region. These accomplishments could not have been achieved without sincere and diligent efforts by a highly motivated and dedicated research team able to build effective bridges across several types of disciplinary and institutional boundaries, and push forward the frontiers of collaboration with local institutions and initiatives: • Special acknowledgement goes to Mae Chaem District Officers and staff, other forestry and district officials, TAO leaders, sub-watershed management network members, and especially to the many people of Mae Chaem without whose collaboration none of this would have been possible. • Under the leadership of Pornwilai Saipothong, the GIS and modeling team at ICRAF Chiang Mai played a central role in most of the activities covered in this report. Key members of her team have included Anantika Ratnamhin, Chanwit Soonthornmuang, Theerasak Sangsrijan, Praphatsorn Punsompong, Sureeporn Sudchalee, and Orakul Chotinuntakul. • All components of this research have also depended heavily on our project field research staff based in Mae Chaem, including Sunthorn Sepan, Thanat Promduang, Nongluck Kaewpoka, and Sonat Natee, with additional assistance by Umpat Pitakum, Chamnong Chanpo, Nongnooch Utumporm, and Amporn Sriteng. • Dr. Pornchai Preechapanya led collaboration with the Royal Forest Department, and Department of National Parks, Wildlife & Plant Conservation after establishment of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. He also led research on local knowledge and was a key collaborating researcher in many components of this project. Collaboration was greatly facilitated by a special project structure for ASB Thailand conceived and authorized by Dr. Plodprasop Suraswadi when he was Director General of the Royal Forest Department, and by support from various senior agency staff, such as M.R. Bhadharajaya Rajani, Dr. Chaweewan Hutacharoen, Warin Jirasuktaveekul, Dr. Komon Pragtong, Sittichai Ungphakorn, and others. At the field level, Dr. Pornchai’s work benefited greatly from work by Chalathorn Choocharoen, Patarapong Kijkar, and various other colleagues. • Collaboration with the Queen Sirikit Forest Development Project was facilitated by Kowit Panyatrong, Issara Sirisaiyard, and Chatichai Naktipawan, including provision of facilities for our project office in Mae Chaem. • Collaboration with Raks Thai Foundation (Care-Thailand) was primarily through Wutikorn Kojornrungrot, Chanyuth Tepa, and Thammarong Malikaeo, with support from Promboon Panitchapakdi and other Care staff. We also benefited from ideas and insights from colleagues in the project advisory group, particularly Dr. Kanok Rerkasem of CMU, Sawatdee Boonchee of DLD, forestry officers, and district officials from Mae Chaem. • Key partners at Chiang Mai University included Dr. Thaworn Onpraphai and Dr. Attachai Jintrawet from the Faculty of Agriculture, Dr. Prasit Wangpakapattanawong and Dr. Yuwadee Peerapornpisa from the Faculty of Science, as well as Dr. Louis Lebel, Dr. Sidthtinat Prabudhanitisarn, and Ajan Chira Prangkio from the Faculty of Social Sciences. Dr. Methi Ekasingh and Ajan Phrek Gypmantasiri also played important advisory roles at many points, while Dr. Pongsak Angkasith and Dr. Pittaya Sruamsiri provided office space and support from the CMU Faculty of Agriculture. During the first half of the project, Dr. Horst Weyerhaeuser assisted Dr. Thaworn and Pornwilai with aerial photo and GIS work, and with various other activities while seconded to Chiang Mai University under the German CIM program. • Most of the studies employing analytical modeling have been conducted under the overall leadership of Dr. Meine van Noordwijk, who also provides overall leadership for ICRAF research in Southeast Asia, including support by several of his colleagues in Bogor. In addition, Dr. Jeffrey Richey and his colleagues at the University of Washington led work with river basin models, while Dr. Louis Lebel led work on modeling of plausible alternative future land use scenarios. • Institutional dimensions of our research benefited from collaboration with Nathan Badenoch and the REPSI Project of the World Resources Institute, with support from Frances Seymour and her staff at WRI. Economic studies of household agricultural production were conducted by Ms. Thitiya Angsajjapong • Administrative support was led by Ms. Pramualpis Kanthatham and her staff that included Saipim Channuan, Wattana Jaturasitha (Repsi), Nikom Onkew, Jiratorn Pinthong, Unchalee Chaipaet, Arerut Yarnvudhi As few donor organizations are willing and able to support such work, we are particularly grateful to the Rockefeller Foundation for their kind support in this endeavor. David E. Thomas, Ph.D. Senior Policy Analyst & ICRAF Project Leader Chiang Mai, Thailand ICRAF Report to Rockefeller Foundation – Science based tools for participatory watershed management Page 3 Contents I. Introduction and Background 6 II. Project Results and Findings 11 (1) Spatial Information Tools for Local Land Use Management Networks 11 (a) Locally-negotiated land use zoning 11 Localized Land Use Planning and Zoning 11 Current Land Use Zoning in Pilot Area Sub-Watersheds 16 Cross-Watershed Assessments of Current Land Use Zoning Patterns 29 (b) Land use change and accountability 34 Assessment Approach and Methods 34 Multiple Faces of Periods of Land Use Change in Mae Chaem 39 Information to Help Address Land Use Change Issues in Mae Chaem 47 (c) Information for local governance 54 Institutional Context of Local Natural Resource Governance 56 Toward spatial information systems to meet local needs 60 Applying spatial information to address an important local issue: Mae Tho National Park 63 (2) Tools for Community-based watershed monitoring and management 65 (a) Watershed monitoring tools 65 Monitoring site locations 65 Testing the monitoring toolkit 65 Assessing performance quality in the use of monitoring indicators 70 Lessons for further use of watershed monitoring tools 73 (b) Land use management information 74 Additional biological indicators of environmental quality 74 Local response to landslide disaster 75 Economic profitability of agricultural crops 78 Land use impact on sub-watershed stream flow 79 (3) Analytical Modeling Tools for Watershed Landscape Management 81 (a) Crop Trials and Modeling 81 (b) Exploratory Nested Modeling of Land Use Impacts on Watershed Services 83 (c) Impacts of Changing Agroforestry Landscape Mosaics on Watershed Functions 95 III. Progress Toward Addressing Key Questions 97 (1) Is it realistic to expect that plans negotiated through the participatory land use planning 97 process can be integrated into broader spatial information systems? (2) Can GIS and remote sensing tools help provide sufficient transparency and accountability to expect that national policy makers and the general public could accept official recognition of 97 land use agreements based on local plans? (3) Are local communities willing and able to conduct effective monitoring of watershed and 100 other environmental services? If so, can they be scaled up into broader monitoring networks? (4) Are analytical models likely to be useful in helping both local and higher level resource managers interpret and utilize spatial information system technology in their decision making 101 processes? If so, what types of models show the most promise? (5) Can science-based tools be expected to help manage competition and reduce upstream- downstream conflict? 102 ICRAF Report to Rockefeller Foundation – Science based tools for participatory watershed management Page 4 Figures page 1 Pilot spatial information network for participatory watershed management 6 2 Mainland Southeast Asia 7 3 Mae Chaem characteristics 7 4 Ethnic groups in Mae Chaem 8 5 Phase 1 sites 8 6 Phase 1 + 2 sites -- the strategic sample 9 7 Changing land use patterns in north Thailand 10 8 Prototype land use zoning map for Mae Raek 11 9 Overview of the project's participatory mapping process 13 10 Group, village and sub-watershed discussions 14 11 Examples of land use zoning maps for administrative villages 15 12 Watershed-level land use zoning map for Mae Tum sub-watershed 16 13 Land use zoning categories 17 14 Land use in community delineated zones of study area sub-watersheds 18 15 Spatial distribution of aggregate land use zones in Mae Yot 20 16 Spatial distribution of aggregate land use zones in Mae Tum 21 17 Spatial distribution of aggregate land use zones in Mae Suk

Load more