sources expressed as a percentage of irrigated land, and (3) the risks of conflicts and
water scarcity. The findings suggested that water security in upstream communities
was actually lower than that of the downstream communities, which is at odds with
conventional wisdom which suggests that upstream farmers control water resources
at the expense of downstream water users.
A lack of trust between potential buyers and providers of environmental services
is probably one of the most significant constraining factors when trying to set up
viable PES schemes. Evidence from northern Thailand suggests that trust levels
between the potential buyers of environmental services (e.g., water authorities or
drinking water companies) and the upstream sellers of environmental services
cannot be taken for granted, and may need to be built-up over the course of
designing PES schemes (Sangkapitux et al. 2009). If tree planting by rural
communities or individual farmers is required under a PES scheme, trust is also
needed between local people and the Thai Forest Department, a major problem in
the northern Thai hillsides, where farmers who leave their land fallow for more than
3 years to allow trees to regrow, risk losing their land rights to that same department
(cf. Neef et al. 2003).
9.4.4.3 Institutional Environment Around PES
Upstream and downstream users in Thai watersheds are mutually dependent upon
each other and engage in constant bargaining to overcome the effects of negative
environmental externalities. Upstream communities, mostly populated by the
socially marginalized Hmong ethnic minority group, cannot afford to extract a
greater share of water resources if they want to avoid serious resource conflicts with
their downstream peers, who belong to the Thai majority and who have stronger
social and political ties with regional and national policy-and decision-makers.
Sangkapitux and Neef (2006) found a strong correlation between land and water
tenure (in-)security, as upstream communities tend to live in national parks and
other protected forest areas without having officially recognized land ownership
rights. Findings from this study also indicated that farm households with high water
security had a lower tendency to apply soil conservation measures, which
emphasizes the need to look at the whole range of environmental services that
land managers potentially provide (or consume).
Most studies on PES maintain that credible intermediaries are crucial to facilitate the PES mechanism, and the diversified NGO scene in Thailand could be a
major enabling factor for future PES schemes in the uplands. It is widely acknowledged; however, that a legal framework at the national level is needed to provide a
sufficiently durable institutional support base for such PES schemes, and such a
legal framework does not currently exist in Thailand, where the state continues to
be regarded as the major if not sole protector of forest resources in upland areas, and
neither individual nor communal rights to resource management in sensitive watershed and forest conservation zones are recognized under official laws (Neef and
Thomas 2009). In a recent stakeholder meeting organized in the Mae Sa watershed
9 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development in the Southeast. . .
349
water scarcity. The findings suggested that water security in upstream communities
was actually lower than that of the downstream communities, which is at odds with
conventional wisdom which suggests that upstream farmers control water resources
at the expense of downstream water users.
A lack of trust between potential buyers and providers of environmental services
is probably one of the most significant constraining factors when trying to set up
viable PES schemes. Evidence from northern Thailand suggests that trust levels
between the potential buyers of environmental services (e.g., water authorities or
drinking water companies) and the upstream sellers of environmental services
cannot be taken for granted, and may need to be built-up over the course of
designing PES schemes (Sangkapitux et al. 2009). If tree planting by rural
communities or individual farmers is required under a PES scheme, trust is also
needed between local people and the Thai Forest Department, a major problem in
the northern Thai hillsides, where farmers who leave their land fallow for more than
3 years to allow trees to regrow, risk losing their land rights to that same department
(cf. Neef et al. 2003).
9.4.4.3 Institutional Environment Around PES
Upstream and downstream users in Thai watersheds are mutually dependent upon
each other and engage in constant bargaining to overcome the effects of negative
environmental externalities. Upstream communities, mostly populated by the
socially marginalized Hmong ethnic minority group, cannot afford to extract a
greater share of water resources if they want to avoid serious resource conflicts with
their downstream peers, who belong to the Thai majority and who have stronger
social and political ties with regional and national policy-and decision-makers.
Sangkapitux and Neef (2006) found a strong correlation between land and water
tenure (in-)security, as upstream communities tend to live in national parks and
other protected forest areas without having officially recognized land ownership
rights. Findings from this study also indicated that farm households with high water
security had a lower tendency to apply soil conservation measures, which
emphasizes the need to look at the whole range of environmental services that
land managers potentially provide (or consume).
Most studies on PES maintain that credible intermediaries are crucial to facilitate the PES mechanism, and the diversified NGO scene in Thailand could be a
major enabling factor for future PES schemes in the uplands. It is widely acknowledged; however, that a legal framework at the national level is needed to provide a
sufficiently durable institutional support base for such PES schemes, and such a
legal framework does not currently exist in Thailand, where the state continues to
be regarded as the major if not sole protector of forest resources in upland areas, and
neither individual nor communal rights to resource management in sensitive watershed and forest conservation zones are recognized under official laws (Neef and
Thomas 2009). In a recent stakeholder meeting organized in the Mae Sa watershed
9 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development in the Southeast. . .
349