Voice for Change Partnership : roles of CSOs in achieving SDG6
Session SDM - Juntopas.Thailand rural water supply 21
1. Thailand: Decentralization and Rural Water Supply The challenges of improving water quality at commune and village levels Muanpong Juntopas Research Fellow Stockholm Environment Institute Asia Centre, Bangkok
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13. Model Strength Weakness Suitable for Model 1 Village People Water Committee (nominated by users ) - Sense of ownership and responsibility because managed by their representative - Great flexibility-no need to follow bureaucracy procedure - Operation can be not in effective, not accountable - Weak accounting system/ documentations Problem to find funding support when need to expand or major face with major maintenance cost as not overseen by local authorities - Low water quality/local water users not sufficiently aware/able to monitor - Strong community with village leaders very committed and capable - Village Committee honest and transparent in operation Model 2 Joint management : Village committee and TAOs - Good participation- users & local authority - Better record keeping /financial accountability as Tao must be audited - TAOs oversight –more efficient problem solving - Budget from TAOs to service as needed - Suitable for transitional period - Better water quality assurance as more officers are involve in management - More procedure to follow in TAOs process –less flexible in operation than model 1 - Community and TAOs with moderate capacity - For village with problem in decision making/ problem for enforcing rules - Village committee busy/cannot fulfill tasks and needing support from TAOs Model 3 : Under TAOs management – including production, staffing, maintenance, sale, accounting/recording - Systematic, proper documentation, financial management - Budget support to water service by TAOs - Better pay for better staff system maintenance/able to compensate with higher salary than village - Able to control water quality - Less of direct participation from users/villagers - might be slow in demand response due to procedure - Some village not willing to hand over to TAOs as they can operate themselves, make enough money e to sustain service - Cost get higher for Water delivery service, hence higher water fee - For community/village not strong in finance / self organizing - Village with little expertise or time for management - For organized TAOs with higher capability in management Model 4: TAOs hire Private company. TAOs oversee, and monitor. delivery - Efficient/effective in water delivery as business is run by specialized agency. - TAOs able to plan and control service - More able to control water quality and quantity - High cost in hiring company, can result in higher water fee - Lack participation, sense of ownership from users/villagers - Village/community not strong in self organize - Modern TAOs with high competence, and high income & budget, but not enough staff, or unsuitable skills
14.
15.
16.
17.
Editor's Notes
Number one rice exporter
Progress in admin reformed in all sectors, esp public health, and due to which the quality of life of Thailand’s people has
The government also assigned years 1981 to 1990 as the “Decade of Water Supply and Sanitation in Thailand” in line with the UN declaration A marked increase in the socioeconomic development of the country, particularly in education and health
Despite these levels of access,
Rain harvesting programme has been undertaken by several actors; by households themselves, village committees, NGOs, and government
the physical assets, to TAO and technical support from DWR. On the one hand, moving water delivery from village up to commune level is a positive move in that it presents a good opportunity for service improvement. But in reality the transition is difficult. Today, clean water delivery is ‘not a “ mandatory service” by TAOs, and many villages are left to continue operating in existing condition. Technical support from old central departments has been long phased out