The Environmental Conservation and Quality Act was passed with much
fanfare by the Anand administration in 1992. But even its
main drafters acknowledge it has produced mixed results.
Part of the problem lies in the law's vague wording on certain issues,
but as with many affairs in Thailand, it is implementation and
enforcement of the law which are principally lacking.
This is not to say the law should be considered a failure. It has had
some important successes, most notably in creating a
professional bureaucracy which can monitor and assess environmental
affairs, and then present options to policy makers. Before the
passage of the 1992 Act, these duties were carried out by an office
attached to the National Environment Board. Officials there found
themselves overwhelmed and virtually toothless.
The law set up three new agencies the Office of Environmental
Policy
and Planning (OEPP), the Pollution Control Department and
the Department of Environmental Quality Promotion which were
attached to the (renamed) Ministry of Science, Technology and
Environment. They were faced with the difficult task of creating a
set
of environmental rules and standards virtually from scratch, and
have not done a bad job of it.
To be sure, these agencies suffer from the same deficiencies in
manpower and budget, and the same obstacles in the form of
political interference and red tape, experienced by other government
departments. But on certain issues they have demonstrated a
good deal of courage in standing up to powerful interests.
Yet there is a major defect in the law: its failure to provide
citizens with the right to take legal action against
polluters and others who have damaged the environment. In Thailand,
it
is not clear whether people even have the right to
file such cases.
Kasem Snidvongs, the Science Ministry's permanent secretary and a key
drafter of the Environment Act, acknowledges that this is
a serious loophole. ''It's not clear how people affected by pollution
can take the case to court," he says. For instance, if a company
pollutes a river, damaging fish stocks, ''who is the affected party?
The Fisheries Department? The villagers? Who takes it to court?
The law is vague on this point".
However, this does not mean that everyone agrees that the Western
model is the one to follow. The late Dhira Phantumvanich,
another key drafter who was president of the Thailand Environment
Institute until his recent death, argued against using litigation to
achieve green goals.
''That just makes lawyers happy," he joked in an interview earlier
this year. ''Using the courts leads to too much confrontation rather
than solutions, and it causes delays."
But Kasem maintained that, ''There has to be a court process. There's
no other way to compensate for the loss of natural resources.
We need to amend the law about [liability] when pollution is
released."
Panas Tasaneeyanond, the director of the Environmental Law Centre and
considered the third key drafter of the 1992 law, also
stresses the legal option. ''I favour suing the government. The law
doesn't need to be changed, it's just that there have been problems
with implementation."
Several environmental lawsuits have already been filed by Panas
among others but they have been unsuccessful, in large part
because the judges simply don't seem to recognise that a property
owner should be responsible for the damage caused by pollution
he emits.
Another problem area is that of environmental impact assessments
(EIAs), the reports commissioned by developers to study the
affects of proposed projects. ''Project proponents still view an EIA
as the way to approve a project, rather than as a mechanism for
deciding whether or not a project should be built in the first place.
Even some government officials think that way," Kasem says.
Dhira also expressed concern over EIAs: ''If we did it over, I would
demand that public hearings be carried out at the beginning [of the
EIA process] and according to an established procedure, rather than
wait until the EIA is done and then hold a hearing, as is current
policy."
Panas pointed out that the law does not actually state that public
hearings must be held, claiming such a clause was cut from the
final bill against his wishes.
Dhira, meanwhile, complained that the Environment Fund set up under
the law has not been used to its full potential, particularly in
support of NGOs.
But Kasem did not agree. ''The creation of the Environment Fund has
been one of the most successful achievements of the law. It
allows the National Environment Board to allocate funds for
emergencies. Otherwise, we'd have to wait two years for money from
the
national budget."
A major source for funds should be polluters themselves, who under the
law are supposed to pay to clean up their own mess. But
the failure to implement the polluter pays principle stands out as
one
of Thailand's biggest problems. Kasem counselled patience,
contending that polluters would pay once treatment plants are up and
running. Yet Dhira did not share that view. He said that
surveys show people are already willing to pay, especially in Bangkok.
But perhaps the biggest weakness of the Environment Act is that it has
not improved the management of Thailand's natural
resources.
''For the [industrial] agencies, the environment is just an add-on
task. It's not a major part of their responsibility, and the
conservation
agencies in the Forestry Department are not given enough attention
or
support," said Kasem, who has argued for the creation of a
more centralised Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. ''So,
I'm still not satisfied with resource management."
Nor should he be. Until Thailand becomes determined to manage the way
resources are put into its economy, rather than just clean
up what the economy spews out, it will go on treating the symptoms
of
environmental illness rather than the disease itself.