Across Asia, climate adaptation strategies that involve large-scale infrastructure and Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) often result in an uneven distribution of risks and benefits. This research examines the designation of agricultural land in western Ayutthaya, Thailand, as designated flood retention zones (Tung Rub Nam) under the national Large-Scale NBS (LS-NBS) programme. Using frameworks of socio-ecological governance and socio-hydrological dynamics, this study analyzes how centralized flood management is constrained in its capacity to support local livelihoods. Findings suggest that the current compensation model imposes a "risk-bearing" burden on rural communities to safeguard urban capital. The article advocates for a paradigm shift towards ethical flood governance through the implementation of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and the promotion of Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs). Additionally, it explores the potential of international climate cooperation frameworks, such as Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, to establish reliable financial mechanisms to reward farmers as Ecosystem Service Providers (ESPs). Nonetheless, the study also notes that, without comprehensive capacity-building and safeguards against power asymmetries, these global mechanisms may reproduce extractive patterns like those seen in forest carbon governance. While the analysis provides a conceptual and evidence-informed foundation, operationalizing these approaches will require further institutional and economic assessments by policymakers.
Keywords: Article 6, ecosystem service providers (ESPs), flood governance equity, nature-based solutions (NBS), and socio-hydrology
Link to the original full article: https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/3937
ABSTRACT
Across Asia, climate adaptation strategies that involve large-scale infrastructure and Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) often result in an uneven distribution of risks and benefits. This research examines the designation of agricultural land in western Ayutthaya, Thailand, as designated flood retention zones (Tung Rub Nam) under the national Large-Scale NBS (LS-NBS) programme. Using frameworks of socio-ecological governance and socio-hydrological dynamics, this study analyzes how centralized flood management is constrained in its capacity to support local livelihoods. Findings suggest that the current compensation model imposes a "risk-bearing" burden on rural communities to safeguard urban capital. The article advocates for a paradigm shift towards ethical flood governance through the implementation of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and the promotion of Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs). Additionally, it explores the potential of international climate cooperation frameworks, such as Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, to establish reliable financial mechanisms to reward farmers as Ecosystem Service Providers (ESPs). Nonetheless, the study also notes that, without comprehensive capacity-building and safeguards against power asymmetries, these global mechanisms may reproduce extractive patterns like those seen in forest carbon governance. While the analysis provides a conceptual and evidence-informed foundation, operationalizing these approaches will require further institutional and economic assessments by policymakers.
Keywords: Article 6, ecosystem service providers (ESPs), flood governance equity, nature-based solutions (NBS), and socio-hydrology
摘要
在亞洲各地，涉及大規模的基礎設施與以自然為基礎的解決方案（NBS）的氣候調適策略，往往導致風險與利益的分配不均。本研究探討泰國阿育塔亞西部地區的農地，如何在國家級大規模以自然為基礎的解決方案（LS-NBS）計畫架構下，被劃定為指定滯洪區（Tung Rub Nam）。本研究採取了社會生態治理與社會水文動態的框架，分析了集中式洪水管理模式在支援當地人民生計方面的能力如何受到限制。研究結果顯示，現行的補償模式迫使農村社區承擔了「風險負擔」的責任，以保障都市的資本財產。本文倡導透過實施「生態系統服務支付」（PES）及推動「短鏈食品供應鏈」（SFSCs），可推動朝向具倫理性的洪水治理模式。此外，本文亦探討國際氣候合作框架（如《巴黎協定》第6條）的潛在作用，以建立可靠的財務機制，獎勵身為生態系統服務提供者（ESPs）的農民。儘管如此，本研究也指出，若缺乏全面性的能力建設及針對權力不對等現象相關的保障措施，這些全球性機制可能會重現類似於在森林碳排放管理中常見的榨取模式。儘管這項分析提供了一項具概念性且以實證為基礎的概念，但若要將這些方法付諸於實踐，仍需政策制定者進行進一步的制度與經濟評估。
要約
アジア全域において、大規模なインフラや自然に基づく解決策（NBS）を伴う気候変動適応戦略は、しばしばリスクと便益の不均衡な配分をもたらす。本研究は、タイのアユタヤ西部における農地が、国家規模のNBS（LS-NBS）プログラムの下で指定洪水調整区域（トゥン・ルブ・ナム）として指定された事例を検証する。本研究では、社会生態学的ガバナンスおよび社会水文学的ダイナミクスの枠組みを用い、中央集権的な洪水管理が地域の生計を支える能力においてどのような制約を受けているかを分析する。その結果、現在の補償モデルは、都市の資本を守るために農村コミュニティに「リスク負担」を強いていることが示唆された。本稿は、生態系サービス対価支払い（PES）の導入と短距離食品サプライチェーン（SFSCs）の推進を通じて、倫理的な洪水ガバナンスへのパラダイムシフトを提唱する。さらに、パリ協定第6条などの国際的な気候変動協力枠組みが、農家を生態系サービス提供者（ESPs）として報いるための信頼できる資金メカニズムを確立する可能性についても考察する。しかしながら、包括的な能力構築や権力の不均衡に対する是正措置が講じられなければ、こうしたグローバルな仕組みが、森林炭素ガバナンスで見られるような搾取的なパターンを再現してしまう可能性もあると指摘している。本分析は概念的かつ実証に基づいた基盤を提供しているものの、これらのアプローチを実際に運用するには、政策立案者によるさらなる制度的・経済的評価が必要となるだろう。