Evolution or revolution? Reflecting on IA effectiveness in Thailand

Figures & data

Table 1. Legislative regulations, relevant guidelines and evaluation of IA practice in Thailand.

	Reviewed documents
Legislation	NEQA no.1 & NEQA no.2, relevant ministerial notifications, Public participation in EIA	(Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2019a, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2019b, Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning (ONEP) 2019, The Prime Minister 2018, World Bank 2006)
Guidance/guidelines	SEA, EIA, SIA, HIA, EHIA guidelines	(NESDB 2017, Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning 2007, Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning 2013, ONEP 2006, ONEP 2009)
	Public participation guidelines	(ONEP 2006, Public Service Centre: Office of the Permanent Secretary 2009)
Documentary analysis of past evaluations of IAs in Thailand
Focus of evaluation	Scale/aspect of evaluation	Type of study conducted
EIA	National EIA system/challenges, response & opportunities	Briefing, Working paper (Baird and Frankel 2015, Wangwongwattana et al. 2015), publication (Swangjang 2018)
	National EIA/EHIA system	Independent study (Thesis) (Fakkum 2013)
HIA, EHIA	Project HIA/EHIAs/effectiveness	Research studies (Chanchitpricha 2012, Chanchitpricha and Bond 2018)
SEA	Non-mandatory SEA practice/effectiveness	Research studies (Chanchitpricha et al. 2019, Wirutskulshai et al. 2011)

Table 2. The aspects of effectiveness and their components.

Effectiveness aspects	Description	Components/criteria –Directly connecting with
⌘ Procedural	: the process reflects institutional and professional standards and procedures	►Relevant policy framework and procedures for IA process – IA system ►Institutional roles & collaborations – IA system & people within IA system ►Integrating IA in planning process – IA system & people within IA system ►Public participation & stakeholders – IA system & people within IA system ►Good quality of IA findings as a clear and understandable evidence – IA system & people within IA system ►Communicating IA findings to stakeholders – people within IA system ►IA timing is complied with regulatory – IA system
⌘ Substantive	: the assessment lead to changes in process, actions, learning or outcomes	►Regulatory framework for implementing IA in decision- making – IA system ►Incorporation of proposed changes – IA system & people within IA system ►Informed decision-making – IA system & people within IA system ►Close collaboration between project proponent and IA practitioner – people within IA system ►Parallel development – IA system ►Early start – IA system ►Institutional and other benefits – IA system & people within IA system
⌘ Transactive	: invested resources are used efficiently within the IA process	►Cost – IA system ►Time – IA system ►Skills – people within IA system ►Allocated roles – people within IA system ►Availability of human resources – IA system & people within IA system
⌘ Legitimacy	: the extent to which IA process delivers outcomes which stakeholders consider to be fair, and which delivers acceptable outcomes.	Organisational legitimacy
		►Openness, transparency & equity – stakeholder perception on IA practice, successful public consultation – IA system & people within IA system ►Distribution of powers in IA process & system – balanced powers among relevant authorities; successful statutory consultation – IA system & people within IA system
		Knowledge legitimacy
		►Knowledge accuracy: the evidence base applied in IA process was reliable – IA system & people within IA system ►Knowledge integration: all key findings are utilised in subsequent stages/decisions; satisfactory/understandability/comments in using IA in decision-making process – IA system & people within IA system ►Knowledge diffusion: the full range of evidence regarding the IA practice was able to be accessed – IA system & people within IA system ►Knowledge spectrum: both formal and informal knowledge was integrated in the IA process – people within IA system

^{Based on Sadler (1996), Pope et al. (2018) and Chanchitpricha et al. (2019)}

Figure 1. Identifying changes required for IA practice based on the aspects of effectiveness.

Table 3. Evolution of impact assessments in Thailand.

IA on a Discretionary basis					SEA ✦ :
IA as supporting PP in IA process			SIA ⋆:	HIA ⋆:	: : :
Law enforcement by NEQA	EIA ☑ : : :		: : : : :	: : : : :	: : : : :	EHIA ☑ : : :	NEQA no.2 B.E. 2561, new content of EIA section applied; SEA introduced on a discretionary basis	New related ministerial notification for EIA& EHIA are enforced, all old versions are abolished
Milestones	1975	1992	1996	2000	2005	2010	2018	2019

Remarks: ✦: IA on a Discretionary basis; ⋆: IA as supporting PP in IA process; ☑: IA as Law enforcement by NEQA; : highlighted in the Act but not clearly/directly mandatory/direct enforcement not yet available in other relevant regulations

Table 4. Overall picture of IA effectiveness in the Thai context (according to the current findings of effectiveness assessment).

						Findings based on documentary analysis of the IAs from past evaluations
Effectiveness	Components/criteria in achieving effectiveness	Mandatory EIA*	Mandatory EHIA	Non-mandatory HIA	Non-mandatory SEA	Strengths	Limitations/Challenges
Procedural	►Relevant policy framework and procedures for IA process	Yes*	Yes	Partially	Partially, very limited	☺ Addressing SD in national Policy & Planning ☺ Long-term experiences in IA practice provides lessons ☺ Availability of legislation on EIA/EHIA implementation	☹ Limited legal regulations for SEA ☹ Limited collaborations ☹ Limited integration/connections of ecosystem service issues and EIA system ☹ Limited effective relevant database provided for IA practice ☹ Limited creative/effective approaches for public participation ☹ Ineffective communication of relevant guideline/regulations/information ☹ Integrating climate change issue in IA practice ☹ The legal mandate (NEQA B.E.2561 no.2) has been recently enforced, this could take some time to build clear understanding and acceptance among relevant stakeholders (e.g. IA practitioners, project proponents)
	►Institutional roles & collaborations	Yes*	Partially	Partially	Partially
	►Integrating IA in planning process	Partially*	Yes	No	Partially
	►Public participation & stakeholders	Partially*	Yes	Partially	Partially
	►Good quality of IA findings as a clear and understandable evidence	Partially*	Partially	Partially	Partially
	►Communicating IA findings to stakeholders	Partially*	Partially	Partially	Partially
	►IA timing is complied with regulatory	Partially*	Partially	N/A	N/A
Substantive	►Regulatory framework for implementing IA in decision- making	Yes*	Yes	No	No	☺ Addressing SD in national Policy & Planning ☺ Availability of legal mandate on implementing EIA & EHIA in decision making ☺ Involved stakeholders have learned from IA process, which could lead to desirable outcomes e.g. better decision-making for project development	☹ Limited legal regulations for implementing SEA in decision making ☹ Informed decision-making for SEA not well communicated ☹ Early start issue ☹ The legal mandate (NEQA B.E.2561 no.2) has been recently enforced, this could take some time to build clear understanding and acceptance among relevant stakeholders involved in decision-making process i.e. regulators.
	►Incorporation of proposed changes	Partially*	Partially	Partially	?
	►Informed decision-making	Yes*	Yes	?	Partially
	►Close collaboration between project proponent and IA practitioners	Yes*	Yes	N	Partially
	►Parallel development	Partially*	Yes	N	Partially
	►Early start	Partially*	Partially	Partially	Partially
	►Institutional and other benefits	Partially*	Partially	Partially	Partially
Transactive	►Time	Partially*	Partially	Yes	Partially	☺ The practice associated with timeframe for IAs suggested by Terms of Reference (TORs) ☺ Allocations of roles in IA practice in relation to their fields of expertise	☹ Limited human resources available in IA-related practices e.g. experts in EIA/EHIA, SEA ☹ Limited financial support for IA research ☹ Adaptive capacity to changes among IA-related staff
	►Cost	Partially*	Partially	Yes	Partially
	►Skills	Partially*	Partially	?	Partially
	►Allocated roles	Partially*	Partially	?	Partially
	►Availability of human resources	Partially*	Partially	Partially	Partially
Legitimacy	►Openness, transparency & equity – stakeholder perception on IA practice, successful public consultation	Partially *	Partially *	Partially*	?	☺ Increasing perception of IA implementation & knowledge	☹ Lack of trust in EIA findings as conducted by licensed consultants as they are paid by project developers ☹ Costs of IAs are typically not disclosed ☹ Feedback/comments by EIA review expert panel have not yet been widely disclosed to relevant actors. ☹ Concerns/conflicts on limiting rights of the people related to IA practice for some project development can be arisen, according to the enforcement of the latest version of EIA regulations as revised in NEQA no.2 (B.E.) ☹ Ineffective communication may lead to challenges in communicating related knowledge/correct understandings
	►Distribution of powers in IA process & system – balanced powers among relevant authorities; successful statutory consultation	Partially*	Partially*	N/A*	?
	►Knowledge accuracy – the evidence base applied in IA process was reliable	Partially*	Partially*	P *	Partially
	►Knowledge integration – all key findings are utilised in subsequent stages/decisions; satisfactory/understandability/comments in using IA in decision-making process	Partially*	Partially*	?*	?
	►Knowledge diffusion – the full range of evidence regarding the IA practice was able to be accessed	Partially*	Partially*	Partially*	No
	►Knowledge spectrum – both formal and informal knowledge was integrated in the IA process	No*	No*	Partially*	No

Sources: reflected and allocated into the most recent IA effectiveness categories based on the findings of relevant past-evaluation of IAs in Thailand (Chanchitpricha 2012; Fakkum 2013; Baird and Frankel 2015; Wangwongwattana et al. 2015; Chanchitpricha and Bond 2018; Swangjang 2018; Chanchitpricha et al. 2019) and relevant legislation for IA practice

Remarks: Yes = IA is likely to fully achieve effectiveness criteria; Partially = IA partial1y achieve effectiveness criteria; No = IA is unlikely to achieve effectiveness criteria; ? = unclear or not enough evidence to justify; * = effectiveness and legitimacy of IA assessed in this paper based on the relevant findings obtained from the published works/past IA evaluations as cited, and it is not yet formerly assessed based on this criteria framework formerly

Table 5. Number of ONEP human resource available and EIA reports as submitted to ONEP during 2011–2014.

Governmental authority	No. of total staff
Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP): Environmental Impact Evaluation Bureau	122
Year	Total EIA reports submitted
2011	1568
2012	1633
2013	2057
2014	2404

Source: Adapted based on Wangwongwattana et al. (2015, p. 26, 28)

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. 2019a. Ministerial notification of the ministry of natural resources and environment re: specifications of projects or actions which are subject to conduct environmental impact assessment (EIA); and principles, methods and requirement in the preparation of environmental impact statement (in Thai). In: Thai Government gazette no 136 special section 3d published on 4 January 2019. Bangkok, Thailand: Cabinet and Royal Gazette Publishing Office (CGPO). p. 1–11.

 Google Scholar

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. 2019b. Ministerial notification of the ministry of natural resources and environment re: specifications of projects or actions which may cause severe effects on environmental quality, health, and quality of life of affected people in community; and such projects or actions are subject to conduct Environmental and Health Impact Assessment (EHIA). In: Thai Government gazette no136 special section 3d; published on 4 January 2019. Bangkok, Thailand: Cabinet and Royal Gazette Publishing Office (CGPO). p. 12–18.

 Google Scholar

Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning (ONEP). 2019. Notification of ONEP re: public participation guideline in the preparation process of environmental impact statement (in Thai). Thai Government gazett no 136 special section 36d. Bangkok, Thailand: Cabinet and Royal Gazette Publishing Office (CGPO). p. 31.

 Google Scholar

The Prime Minister. 2018. The enhancement and conservation of national environmental quality act (NEQA) (no.2) B.E. 2561. Thai Government gazette, no 135, special section 27a, published on 19 April 2018 Bangkok, Thailand.

 Google Scholar

World Bank. 2006. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and Strategic Environmental Assessment Requirements [Online]. Washington (DC): Environment and Social Development Department (East Asia and Pacific Region). [Accessed 2015]. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/949001468167952773/pdf/408730PAPER0EI1onal1review01PUBLIC1.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning (ONEP). 2007. Guideline for health impact assessment in EIA report in Thailand (in Thai). Bangkok:ONEP.

 Google Scholar

Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning (ONEP). 2013. Guideline for health impact assessment in EIA report in Thailand (in Thai). Bangkok: ONEP.

 Google Scholar

ONEP. 2006. Guideline of public participation and social impact assessment in environmental impact assessment process (in Thai). Bangkok:ONEP.

 Google Scholar

ONEP. 2009. Strategic enironmental assessment: SEA (in Thai): office of natural resources and environment policy and planning (ONEP).

 Google Scholar

Public Service Centre: Office of the Permanent Secretary. 2009. Public participation guideline upon The regulation of the Prime Minister Office on public consultation B.E. 2548 (in Thai). Bangkok: The Secretariate of the Cabinet Printing Office.

 Google Scholar

Baird M, Frankel R. 2015. Mekong EIA briefing: environmental impact assessment comparative analysis in lower Mekong couuntries. Washington, D.C.:PACT.

 Google Scholar

Wangwongwattana S, Sano D, King PN. 2015. Assessing environmental impact assessment (EIA) in Thailand: implementation challenges and opportunities for sustainable development planning (working paper). Hayama, Japan: Institute of Global Environmental Strategies.

 Google Scholar

Swangjang K. 2018. Comparative review of EIA in the association of Southeast Asian Nations. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 72:33–42.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fakkum S. 2013. Environmental and health impact assessment system in Thailand [Independent study]. Bangkok, Thailand: National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA).

 Google Scholar

Chanchitpricha C 2012. Effectiveness of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in Thailand: a case study of a Potash mine HIA in Udon Thani Norwich: University of East Anglia.

 Google Scholar

Chanchitpricha C, Bond A. 2018. Investigating the effectiveness of mandatory integration of health impact assessment within environmental impact assessment (EIA): a case study of Thailand. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 36:16–31.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chanchitpricha C, Morrison-Saunders A, Bond A. 2019. Investigating the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Thailand. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 37:356–368. 10.1080/1461551720191595941.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wirutskulshai U, Sajor E, Coowanitwong N. 2011. Importance of context in adoption and progress in application of strategic environmental assessment: experience of Thailand. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31:352–359.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pope J, Bond A, Cameron C, Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A. 2018. Are current effectiveness criteria fit for purpose? Using a controversial strategic assessment as a test case. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 70:34–44.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar