SGA Thailand
Thailand
Geographical coverage
Geographical scale of the assessment | Sub-national |
---|---|
Country or countries covered | Thailand |
Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name |
Asia South East Asia Thailand - Nan, Khon Kaen, Samut Songkram |
Geographical scale of the assessment
Sub-national
Country or countries covered
Thailand
Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name
Asia South East Asia Thailand - Nan, Khon Kaen, Samut Songkram
Conceptual framework, methodology and scope
Assessment objectives
The broad aims of the assessments were to improve understanding of the services provided by ecosystems to people and how they are or might be affected by development and to evaluate the use of ecosystem assessments for sub-national development planning. More specific aims related to assessing services with respect to development policy problems in three provinces: sustainability of food and energy crops in Khon Kaen Province; alternatives to monoculture maize in uplands of Nan Province; maintaining local water-related livelihoods in Samut Songkhram Province.
Mandate for the assessment
The assessment processes in 3 provinces were parts of the Poverty-Environment Initiatives programme in Thailand, conducted under the direction of the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, the Ministry of Interior, and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Thailand.
Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)
System(s) assessed
- Coastal
- Forest and woodland
- Cultivated/Agricultural land
Species groups assessed
• No detailed analysis of individual species beyond key agricultural crops (e.g. maize, rubber, sugarcane, cassava, rice)
Ecosystem services/functions assessed
Provisioning
- Food
- Water
- Raw materials
Regulating
- Climate regulation
- Moderation of extreme events
- Regulation of water flows
- Waste treatment
- Erosion prevention
- Maintainence of soil fertility
- Biological control
Supporting Services/Functions
- Nutrient cycling
- Soil formation and fertility
- Primary production
- Life cycle maintenance
Cultural Services
- Recreation and tourism
- Aesthetic Enjoyment
- Inspiration for culture
- Art and design
Scope of assessment includes
Drivers of change in systems and services
Yes
Impacts of change in services on human well-being
Yes
Options for responding/interventions to the trends observed
Yes
Explicit consideration of the role of biodiversity in the systems and services covered by the assessment
No
Timing of the assessment
Year assessment started
2010
Year assessment finished
2012
If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish
Periodicity of assessment
Assessment outputs
Website(s)
Report(s)
Communication materials (e.g. brochure, presentations, posters, audio-visual media)
Journal publications
Training materials
Other documents/outputs
Tools and processes
Tools and approaches used in the assessment
- Scenarios
- Ecosystem mapping
- Stakeholder consultation
- Response options
- Surveys of residents experiences and perceptions
- Community-based data collection and analysis
- Technical advisory team provided assistance with methods, design of surveys, analysis and critical interpretation of findings.
Process used for stakeholder engagement in the assessment process and which component
Government stakeholders primarily engaged through meetings. Local residents engaged as part of research process (Samut Songkram) or as respondents and discussants.
Key stakeholder groups engaged
Residents and local government. Private sector involvement low.
The number of people directly involved in the assessment process
10-100
Incorporation of scientific and other types of knowledge
- Balance varied between provinces. Khon Kaen assessment made much greater use of agricultural science findings than two other sites which depended more on local knowledge and perception.
Supporting documentation for specific approaches, methodology or criteria developed and/or used to integrate knowledge systems into the assessment
Assessment reports peer reviewed
Yes
Data
Accessibility of data used in assessment
Tables of secondary data reproduced in reports.
Policy impact
Impacts the assessment has had on policy and/or decision making, as evidenced through policy references and actions
Only modest impacts so far and most are as part of existing public policy and planning processes. In Nan Province scenario exercise was taken on by Agricultural Planning Office. In Samut Songkram facilitators from assessment team of scenario exercise invited to contribute to provincial four year planning events. In Khon Kaen mostly recognition of stakeholder engagement process in local planning as way to go forward rather than specifc ecosystem assessment findings.
Independent or other review on policy impact of the assessment
No
Lessons learnt for future assessments from these reviews
Major effort to review these. Summarized in a paper: In prep. Lebel, L., S. Wattana, P. Talerngsri, S. Koonphol, and B. Lertsukekasem (2012.). Assessments of ecosystem services and human wellbeing: potential and limitations for sub-national development planning in Thailand. USER Working Paper WP-2012-05. Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai University: Chiang Mai
Capacity building
Capacity building needs identified during the assessment
Ecological understanding and policy analysis skills in assessment teams were modest; not clear that such expertise relevant to individual provinces is easy to acquire elsewhere.
Actions taken by the assessment to build capacity
Network and sharing experiences, Workshops, Communication and awareness raising
How have gaps in capacity been communicated to the different stakeholders
Knowledge generation
Gaps in knowledge identified from the assessment
Direct evidence about levels and trends in most regulatory and supporting services is very limited. Much is be indirect inference and subject to biases in beliefs.
Overall level of ecological knowledge in many of the systems assessed was surprisingly limited and this hampered assessment, especially if technical teams or local stakeholders were reluctant or unable to use scientific understanding from other locations.