|
|
| Faculty of Law | National University of Singapore | |
|
APCEL Report : Thailand Back to : Index : ASEAN Project : Thailand
The Kingdom of Thailand occupies a land area of 514,000 square kilometres on the South East Asian mainland, with a coastline some 3,219 kilometres in length. With a population of over 59 million (July 1997 estimate), Thailand is administratively divided into 76 provinces (changwat). The largest cities are the national capital, Bangkok (population 8 million), the northern city of Chiang Mai (population 2 million), and the southern city of Hat Yai (population 1.5 million). Thailand’s per capita gross domestic product stands at US$7,770 (1996 estimate). The Thai economy is largely dependent upon agriculture, industry and services, with the main income earners being manufactured goods, rice and other agricultural products, fisheries, minerals and tourism. In the past two decades, rapid industrialisation in Thailand has witnessed an accompanying decline in the environmental health of the country. As with many neighbouring countries, Thailand has experienced a host of environmental problems, ranging from deforestation and declining fish yields to air and water pollution in major cities and industrial areas. Severe pollution affecting the fisheries industry in the Gulf of Thailand, health problems arising from pollution at the Lamphun Industrial Area and the traffic problems in Bangkok are only several of the instances of environmental degradation facing the Thai government and people. In many respects, the experience of Thailand chronicles the classic instance of a rapidly-industrialising developing economy struggling to ensure the sustainability of its developmental policies.
Thailand is a constitutional monarchy, with the King as the Head of State. The leader of the government is the Prime Minister, who presides over a Cabinet of Ministers. The Thai Parliament is the supreme law-making authority, and consists of the Senate, whose members are appointed, and the House of Representatives, whose members are elected for four-year terms. The structure of governance is divided into national, provincial (changwat) and district levels, with the provinces headed by changwat governors and districts by district chiefs. The city of Bangkok (the Bangkok Metropolitan Region) has its own governmental authority known as the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority. Environmental management is conducted on a national basis by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MOSTE). The main departments under MOSTE are the Office of Environmental Policy and Planning (OEPP), the Pollution Control Department (PCD) and the Department of Environmental Quality Promotion (DEQP). These are further divided into several divisions and regional offices which take charge of specific environmental concerns at the national and provincial levels. The OEPP is the main body tasked with policy formulation and the development of environmental management plans. It coordinates with other national and provincial agencies in the development and implementation of these plans. The OEPP also coordinates the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system in Thailand, and is responsible for international cooperation. The PCD, as its name suggests, takes charge of pollution issues, and is the body charged specifically with implementing pollution control laws and emission standards. The DEQP is responsible for promoting public education on the environment, and takes charge of environmental information, public and media relations, research and training as well as NGO liaison. Apart from these three agencies, there exist a myriad of other bodies operating under the aegis of MOSTE which take charge of specific environmental issues. These include the Department of Energy Development and Promotion, the Department of Science Service, the Office of the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), the Office of Atomic Energy for Peace, the Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research (TISTR), the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) and the Waste Water Management Authority (WMA). In Thailand, the responsibility over natural
resource management resides primarily with the sectoral ministries. In
particular, the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and the Ministry
of Interior, together with their constituent departments, enjoy broad jurisdiction
over numerous natural resource sectors. The following is a list of competences:
In recognition of the widely dispersed authority over natural resources, the Thai government has established the National Environmental Board (NEB), which is a high-powered policy-making committee chaired by the Prime Minister. Members of the NEB include the Ministers of the respective sectoral ministries whose activities impinge upon the environment, the heads of relevant government boards as well as representatives from the private sector. Very significantly, the NEB aims to coordinate the environmental protection efforts of governmental agencies inter se at the central level and with those of local governments at the provincial level. The main powers of the NEB include the submission of policies and plans to the Cabinet for approval, the prescription of environmental standards, the approval of Environmental Quality Management Plans and provincial action plans, the amendment, improvement and enforcement of laws, and the monitoring of environmental compliance by government agencies and state enterprises. The environmental NGO movement in Thailand is significant. There are over 70 NGOs registered with the DEQP, which registers and liaises with the NGOs. Thai law grants juristic status to NGOs, and only registered NGOs may request governmental assistance and support for their activities. The environmental NGOs are involved in a variety of activities ranging from population and community development to natural resource protection and pollution control. Several of these NGOs receive the patronage of the Thai royal family. NGOs also have representation in the National Environmental Board (NEB). One of the most well-known organisations is the Thailand Environment Institute (TEI), which plays a catalytic role in coordinating governmental, non-governmental, academic, private sector, media and general public action in relation to environmental management. NGOs however, still face many substantial problems. The requirement for registration before financial support is available deters many NGOs because registration entails high costs and increased regulation by the authorities. Also, as in many developing countries, NGOs are viewed with suspicion and distrust for their perceived "anti-development" stance. In addition, NGOs generally lack financial, manpower and research resources, and this often affects the credibility of their work.
In Thailand, the hierarchy of laws is as follows:
As in many developing countries, overlaps in administrative jurisdiction occur at the central level amongst government agencies inter se, as well as between central and provincial authorities. One major problem lies in the division of competences and the lack of coordination amongst the following bodies and the separate laws which they administer:
In practice however, these inter-agency arrangements do not always work optimally. Several environmental standards have yet to be prescribed due in part to the NEB’s infrequent meetings. Channels of communication with provincial governments are difficult to maintain, especially in the more remote regions. From an even broader perspective, the provisions for multi-agency cooperation are hampered by the realities of political administration in Thailand. Thai governments are regularly formed by coalition - the respective sectoral ministries may be headed by officials from different political parties with disparate interests. Hence, there is often considerable difficulty in bringing about common policies for administration. Administrative policies lack continuity due to frequently changing governments, and this results in a lack of a consistent environmental policy. Operational conflicts also occur as a result of many policies being formulated by non-elected academic bureaucrats. Also, as in many countries, decision-making is influenced to a considerable extent by the vested interests of industrialists, political parties, corporations and local authorities. In the result, officials involved in operational implementation are often confused by inconsistencies in policy directives emanating from politicians and bureaucrats. Under the EQA, Section 6(1) entrenches the people’s right to be informed and to obtain information for the purposes of public participation in the enhancement and conservation of national environmental quality. Sections 6(2) and 6(3) provide for the right to state compensation arising from environmental damage and the right to complain against environmental offenders respectively. The right to information under Section 6(1), however, is subject to an exception crafted for officially-classified information and secrets pertaining to privacy and property rights of individuals. Further, the right to complain and petition under Section 6(3) is dependent upon the discretion of government officials to act upon the complaint. As a result, it would appear that the rights to information and complaint are effectively curtailed, since NGOs and the general public can only obtain such information or remedies which the government officials are prepared to provide.The established means of communicating the people’s concerns through NGOs are not altogether perfect. Apart from the problems raised by the registration requirement and the negative perception of NGOs, the NGO representation in the policy-making National Environmental Board (NEB) is outnumbered by governmental representation. Also, NGOs are never selected or elected by the people to advance their interests - questions therefore arise as to whether NGOS are truly representative of the people’s will. In relation to settling disputes, Thai culture has long preferred non-litigious means of settlement. In this respect, many environmental disputes are settled out-of-court through mediation efforts, even though the EQA does not itself provide any alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. These ad hoc mediation efforts are not always satisfactory - for the most part, there is no clear evidence that the injured parties or their representatives have had any meaningful participation in the deliberations of the mediating bodies. It would be preferable if the ADR process is institutionalised within the EQA. Alternatively, environmental disputes could be explicitly settled under the arbitration laws and procedures currently in force. The above concerns find particular relevance in regard to projects requiring the preparation of EIAs. As it turns out, the right to information is often subject to the discretionary power of government officials. The extent to which these officials take into account the opinions and interests of the people in reviewing EIAs, as well as in enforcing guarantees promised by proponents, is not clear. To overcome these problems, Thai experts believe that measures such as the holding of public hearings should be adopted to take into account the opinions of affected residents. The EQA 1992 is clearly one of the more comprehensive pieces of framework environmental legislation in the region. In emphasising pollution control (which is its main focus), it attempts to pursue environmental protection from a more holistic and coordinated approach by prescribing multi-agency collaboration in environmental decision-making, as well as clearer division of competences between central and provincial authorities. In relation to the latter, it clearly recognises the pivotal role of changwat (provincial) governments, and even anticipates provincial inaction by providing for central government responses. Natural resource management issues, however, remain largely untackled in the EQA, principally because these reside in the realm of other sectoral legislation and agencies. Thus, the monumental challenge remains for Thailand to effectively implement the inter-agency cooperation for which the EQA so eloquently provides. In other areas, the prescription and enforcement of specific emission and effluent standards remain a pressing concern, as the Thai economy becomes increasingly industrialised. In this regard too, the EIA process is in need of further improvement, particularly in relation to NGO and public participation. In conclusion, not only are more detailed regulations needed to handle specific environmental issues in Thailand, more effective enforcement and implementation of existing laws are needed to achieve responsible environmental management.
Mining
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About
Us | Annual Reports | Workshops | ASEAN Project Copyright © 2002. Faculty
of Law. All rights reserved. |
 |