Collaborative process in the Ping RBC and its governing bodies

Collaboration between members and organizations involved in a collaborative arrangement is fundamental for its success. As discussed in Section 2.2, scholars have identified various issues concerning a collaborative process from a collaborative governance perspective.

When applying them in RBC framework implementation, these issues can be expressed as, for example, a face-to-face dialogue between RBC members, a sense of ownership for the RBCs and their governing bodies, or some immediate outcomes produced by the river basin governing bodies (see ANSELL & GASH, 2008). Evidence from Ping RBC implementation indicated that collaboration between members of this RBC, and those of its governing bodies was basically non-existent. The following sections present this evidence in detail.

5.3.1 Collaborative process in the Ping RBC

It was clear from Section 5.2.1 that Ping RBC members had very limited opportunity to interact with each other because the only forum in which they met was in the meetings arranged twice a year by WRO 1 via the URCMS. Quantitatively, it was already evident that the Ping RBC lacked face-to-face dialogue between its members (ANSELL &GASH,

2008). Information gained from Ping RBC meetings and meeting reports also indicated that interaction between the members during these meetings was limited.

As mentioned earlier, the Ping RBC meetings were of formal format with repeated procedure. They began with an open statement from the chairman, who asked the secretary (in practice, the assistant secretary - URCMS Director) to conduct the meeting by following the agenda, which was standardized and usually included 1) issues from the chairman, 2) approval of the report from the previous meeting, 3) issues to inform the meeting, 4) issues for consideration and approval, and 5) other issues.

For the first item on the agenda, the chairman normally informed the meeting of the reason why the actual chairman (Chiang Mai Governor) was absent. Indeed, the Governor never attended the meetings himself. In dealing with the second item, the assistant secretary asked for approval of the report from the previous meeting, which had been sent to each member beforehand. If there was any discussion here, it was only to correct typing errors in the report concerned. The assistant secretary then moved to the third item, which was to inform the meeting of various issues such as project implementations in the Ping River Basin by the public agencies concerned, or drought and flood situations. The members representing Bhumibol Dam, and the RID also presented water resource situations in the river basin. Generally, there was no discussion carried out on the third item. The assistant secretary usually outlined the five-year integrated river basin management and development planning framework, a planning process, or an annual integrated river basin management and development plan (see the following section) for the fourth item of the agenda. He then asked the members to consider and approve these items. This agenda generally drew some comments or questions for clarifications from the members, but without meaningful deliberation or discussions on the framework or plan concerned. The last item was open for issues brought up by the secretariat or Ping RBC members, for example, the secretariat would invite members to attend a certain meeting. There was no practical discussion here also. Overall, it could be seen that the meeting was largely a one-way communiqué from the secretariat. Thus, due to the infrequency of the meetings, there was little dialogue between RBC members.

Information deriving from interviews with Ping RBC members indicated further that contact between the Ping RBC Secretariat (i.e. WRO 1 and the URCMS) and members; or, among the members themselves was virtually nonexistent. According to the members interviewed, contact made from the Ping RBC Secretariat mainly concerned a meeting, for

example, sending an official invitation letter for a meeting, and afterwards sending a report of the meeting concerned, as well as requesting (see Box 5.3, mandates no.3). This was confirmed by a URCMS officer responsible, who explained that contact made was concerned mainly with meetings and information requests (particularly project plans): “we [the Ping RBC secretariat] made contact only during the meeting preparation - inviting them [members of the river basin governing bodies] to the meeting, so to say; and to get information from them. That’s all.” Conversely, members made virtually no contact with the Ping RBC Secretariat. For instance, a member representing the public sector stated that he made no contact to the Ping RBC Secretariat, except for sending plans: “no contact was made [to the Ping RBC Secretariat], this I frankly admit.” A member representing the agricultural water user organization group mentioned that the reason why he made no contact with the Secretariat was because “[the Ping RBC] was nonsense and it was not significant”; thus, he “had no intention” of making contact.

In addition, the members interviewed revealed that they made no contact with each other under the capacity of Ping RBC members. A public sector representative explained that he met RBC members only in the context of other committees or meetings; however, he never contacted these persons as a Ping RBC member, and received information on the RBC concerned only through meetings. Another public sector representative made a similar comment when pointing out that he contacted some RBC members on a personal basis, not as ‘a Ping RBC member’. He commented further that “the RBC was not really a talk of the town issue. It died out after the meeting.”

Apparently, the Ping RBC members lacked face-to-face dialogue and interaction, upon which other elements of a collaborative process such as trust and shared understanding could be built (ANSELL & GASH, 2008). Additionally, the comments shown above also suggested that the members did not value the Ping RBC. Indeed, some members from the non-public sector stated from the interview that they intended not to be involved in this arrangement. For example, a member representing LGOs commented that the Ping RBC meeting provided ‘little value’, and he preferred to work for his own jurisdiction, while a member representing the expert group stated that he would not participate as a Ping RBC member in the next term. Members from the public sector also pointed out that the Ping RBC was not relevant to their work, and therefore less of a priority when compared to their own work. For instance, one member from this group stated that the Ping RBC was ‘too far away’ from his line of duties. In contrast, a member whose duties concerned natural

resource management pointed out that he did not contact the Ping RBC or its secretariat as they played ‘little role’ in solving problems. He further explained that if a problem occurred (e.g. water source-related problem), he would directly contact WRO 1 because

“there [at WRO 1] is a center for coordination, where the problem can be solved promptly.

However, here [at the Ping RBC setup], there is only a gathering of plans, so that a meeting can be arranged.” Another member indicated that Ping RBC work was placed as the ‘very last’ priority, and she would only allow her designated representatives⁶²to attend Ping RBC meetings when they were really free from their own work. Thus, it was clear that the members did not share a sense of interdependency, which helps to facilitate collaboration (ANSELL &GASH, 2008; THOMPSON &PERRY, 2006).

5.3.2 Collaborative process in the Ping RBC’s governing bodies

The collaborative process in the governing bodies of the Ping RBC, like that of the Ping RBC itself, also was characterized by a lack of face-to-face dialogue. This insufficiency was evidenced clearly by the number of meetings, which were the only activity organized for these governing bodies, as presented in Section 5.2.2. It is highly unlikely that collaboration could take place when members of the collaborative arrangements concerned, such as the provincial river basin and sub-river basin working groups, met only once a year.

Information gained from the meetings and meeting reports indicated the same patterns as those found in the Ping RBC. That is to say, the discussions and interactions among members of the governing bodies concerned in the meetings were very limited, which could be expected, as the same official meeting format always applied, i.e. only the chairperson officially presided, and the secretariat conducted meetings with a similar standardized agenda, as presented in the previous section.

Interviews with the River Basin Sub-committee members also indicated the same feature as that in the Ping RBC case: virtually no contact was made between the secretariat and members, or among the members themselves. For example, a member representing the civil society group indicated that the secretariat contacted him only regarding the meeting, while he never contacted the secretariat. This member also stated that the members

62 As some representatives of the public sector could not attend Ping RBC meetings, they could send a designated representative instead. These designated representatives were formally registered with the Ping RBC Secretariat.

representing the civil society group in his province contacted each other only when it comes to the meeting (e.g. how to get to a meeting venue) - “if there is no meeting, we never call each other”; and, they simply ‘return to their place’ after the meeting. Similarly, a member representing the civil society group from another province pointed out that the secretariat also contacted him only regarding the meeting, and while there was ‘no issue’

that necessitated contact between them. This member explained further that he rarely contacted other members by saying, “they went on with their own business, so did I, and we met only in the meetings.” Indeed, these comments reflected an insufficient sense of interdependency. This is underscored further by the admission of a member from the civil society group that had no idea about the River Basin Sub-committee, and did not participate in its meetings. However, he remained active in the irrigation water user groups in his area.

In addition, a member of the River Basin Sub-committee representing the public sector, who was also appointed as a member and secretary of the Lamphun Provincial River Basin Working Group, provided a bit of picture regarding interactions in this working group. He stated that although he was a secretary, all secretarial work was performed by the URCMS, whose director served as an assistant secretary. This implied that little contact occurred between this member and the URCMS, even if the former was the official secretary.