Waste management regulation

Waste management in Thailand commenced since 1905, at the same time when local governance was established, so there are several laws that are related to domestic waste management. However, only laws that have made significant impacts on local waste management will be focussed in this part. The Table 2.1 show list of important waste management regulations in Thailand. According to the Table 2.1, since 1953, by the Municipality Act, it is a responsibility of local government in an urban area to collect and dispose of waste from the cities. Importance of waste management had not been developed until the Thai constitution mentioned this issue as a duty of local government in 2007. However, the definition of domestic waste or Municipal solid waste (MSW) have been created since 1992 in Public Health Act.

Thailand did not have a specific act for waste management before 2017; local governments operated their own systems under multiple laws, especially the 1992 Public Health Act, Cleanliness and Tidiness of the Country Act, and Dangerous Material Act. With these three acts, waste in Thailand was separated into three kinds—MSW, industrial waste, and infectious waste.

Table 2.1:

The List of Domestic Waste Management Related Laws

Type Year

(AD)

Name of the law Importance of waste management Main related Waste

management regulation

1988 Ministerial regulation of the industrial ministry:

regulation waste treatment

Standard of the landfill for private company and factory

1992 Public Health Act 1. Definition of domestic waste and infectious waste

2. Assign local government on the duty of solid waste

3. Limit waste management fee 1992 Support and Protect

Environment Quality Act

1. The cabinet will regulate any new kind of waste under advisory of pollution control committee 2. Pension for local people who get negatively impacted by pollution 1992 Cleanliness and Tidiness

of the Country Act

People have to bring the garbage to provided place by local government 1992 Dangerous material Act Separate domestic waste from

industrial waste 2017 Cleanliness and Tidiness

of the Country Act (volume 2)

1. A private company can operate waste management

2. Set provincial committee for waste management

3. Organic laws set the standard of waste treatment sites, and technology Administrative law 1905 Municipality Act Assign local governments to operate

waste management and treatment 1994 Tambon administrative

organization and council Act

Tambon administrations are responsible for waste management (collection and treatment)

1997 Provincial government act Allow provincial governments manage waste

1999 Decentralization Plan and Procedures Act

Allow local governments to join venture and hire private companies Constitutions 1997 constitution of Thailand 1. States have to management

pollution that affect people’s health (article 79)

2. Local governments have to manage environmental issues that produce a bad impact on local people’s health (Article 290)

2007 constitution of Thailand 1. People have rights to protect their quality of life in waste issues. (article 73)

2. Assign the duty of national and local government as a player of waste management (Article 290)

Industrial waste and infectious waste had their own standards and regulations as organic laws of the 1992 Public Health Act, and 1992 Dangerous material Act. According to these regulations, there was penalty for factories or industrial and infectious waste treatment sites that could not operate as per the standard. However, MSW did not have a legal-status standard of waste management and treatment. There were several versions of standards such as suggestions, but they had not become regulation as ministerial regulations for infectious and industrial waste. However, in case where the landfills or incinerators of domestic waste management produced a bad impact on environmental health, they could be shut down by other regulations. For example, it was not illegal for a municipality to open a low standard landfill. However, if this landfill leaked polluted water into the river, it was illegal because it caused contamination.

Because there were no specific regulations for domestic waste management, administrative laws also became an essential tool for waste management. Administrative laws assigned local governments to collect and dispose of domestic waste from their own area. Waste management-related laws and administrative laws regulated domestic waste management in Thailand at both local and national levels. This scenario changed a little bit after the introduction of Cleanliness and Tidiness of The Country Act in 2017. However, this act still confirms that waste management is a duty of local governments. Some idea of waste management is merged in this regulation. And they should be discussed here before going to the part of the government campaign.

I. Waste management as a duty of local government

Since to the introduction of the 1953 Local Administrative Act, waste management is a duty of local administrative organizations. This task has been mentioned again in the 1987 Public Health Act. Even the highest law of the nation, the 2007 constitutions of Thailand, also confirms the strong linkage between waste management and local government. Therefore, we can say that waste

management has been strongly considered as a task of local government. Although today in some cities, local governments are not operating their own waste management anymore and hire private companies run the system, local administrative organizations are still the actors that find the operators, make contracts, pay, and evaluate those private companies’ quality. Waste management consumes a lot of budget of local government each year. For example, in the case of Bangkok, municipality waste management is the biggest portion of the budget in 2016 (“7,000 million for waste disposal of Bangkok: Time to change the attitude”, 2017). Moreover, according to the interview with a local government officer of Chaingmai Municipality, he confirm that waste management is number one or two in local government’s list of necessities (Chiangmai Municipality, waste management section, 2016). The 2017 Cleanliness and Tidiness of the Country Act still confirms that waste management is a duty of local government. This nature also affects duties of national government in these issues. Because there is no room for the national government at the operational level, it becomes a policy-maker and auditor. This issue will be further discussed in the next part, which is about the structure of waste management. This nature also links to idea of political decentralization, which has been promoted progressively in 2007 in the constitution of Thailand. Therefore, the debate about who should be the owner of waste treatment sites (sub-district government, provincial government, or central government) is based on this nature.

II. Waste management is related to multiple issues and organizations

Every waste management, before 1992, operated under the administrative laws, especially the 1905 Municipality Act. This means Ministry of Interior has monopolised waste issues. However, the concept of waste management keeps changing. According to four waste management related laws—the 1992 Public Health Act, 1992 Cleanliness and Tidiness of the Country Act, 1992

Dangerous Material Act, and 1992 Support and protect environment quality Act—waste management is an activity related with several issues and organizations, such as environment, pollution, and health. For example, the standard of waste treatment sites has been set by the Pollution control department, health impacts on local people of waste treatment sites is investigated by Department of health, and standards of incinerators have been established by Department of industrial works. We can see that, with these examples, waste management has been considered as a multifaceted issue. There are several laws related to it even for only MSW.

This way of law usage requests local governments to deal with several national government organizations to operate waste management.

III. Static regulation

We can say that laws of waste management have been rarely changed unlike government campaigns that will be discussed in subsection 2.2.2. Thai local government had to deal with domestic waste by multiple indirect laws over 20 years. Although different national governments had several campaigns for waste management, no serious modifications have been made. This static nature of Thai waste management regulation is also a cause of the lack of frequent improvements in local waste management during these two decades. The 2017 Cleanliness and Tidiness of the Country Act is one of the newest regulations for waste management so far.

2.2.2 Government campaigns

The discussion about the government campaign for this research includes a statement of the prime minister to the parliament, national plans which approved by the cabinets, and an executive order of the government. The government campaign of waste management in this chapter will focus on only the campaign between 1997 and 2017, the time after Thailand political

decentralization and the start of the first waste management master plan. Compared to the regulations, the government campaigns change more frequently. On the other hand, their impact on local waste management is doubtable. Most of the campaigns and plans do not obtain legal status (ministerial regulations or Acts), especially campaigns of MSW management. However, several MSW policies from the Junta period since 2014 became a concept of the 2017 Cleanliness and Tidiness of the Country Act.

Table 2.2:

The Campaigns on Waste Management by Year

Year Name of PM Statement to parliament Plans and orders 1997 Chuan

Leekpai

There is no waste management policy.

However, because it is the start of

decentralization period, the government’s say that will support local government in environmental management

The first environmental quality management plan (1999–2006) 2001 Thaksin

Shinawatra

Support community for pollution control.

Support research for the reuse and recycle process. Apply the ‘polluter pays’

principle.

The environmental quality management plan (2002–2006) 2005 Thaksin

Shinawatra

The government will control the volume of waste, sewage, polluted gas, noise, and smell. Water treatment system will be built for the urban, agricultural, and industrial areas. The eco-waste treatment system will be established. And local governments will be support for this issue.

2006 Surayud Chulanont

There is no mention of waste

management. However, WtE have been mention as a part of selective energy

The environmental quality management plan (2007–2011) 2008 Samak

Sundaravej – Somchai Wongsawat

The government will control the volume of waste, sewage, polluted gas, noise, and smell. The eco-waste treatment system will be established. And local

governments will be supported for this issue.

2008 Abhisit Vejjajiva

The national government will increase the ability of the local government in

domestic waste and sewage treatment, increase the number of green spaces, and set the central waste treatment site in every province.

The first environmental health strategic plan (2009–2011)

2011 Yingluck Shinawatra

The national government will increase the ability of the local government in

domestic waste and sewage treatment, support cities in CO2 reduction activities for creating Thailand low carbon society, make the balance between industrial development and environment, and support the polluter pay principle and payment for ecosystem principle.

1. The environmental quality management plan (2012–2017) 2. The second

environmental health strategic plan (2012–

2016) 2014 Prayut

Chan-o-cha

Control pollution in waste, water, and air.

Waste management will be the first priority among pollution issues. The reuse and recycle system will be promoted. The area that faces urgent waste issues will be prioritised and the land of the government will be used for waste treatment. WtE will be supported. The standard for industrial waste has to be issued and implemented.

Every kind and perspective of waste will be operated, and regulations will be seriously implemented.

1. Waste treatment become urgent issues (Saowalak, 2014) 2. No more EIA for WtE (2016)¹¹

3. Waste management master plan (2016-2020)

We can see the trend of waste management in Table 2.2. From Chuan to Prayuth governments, waste management has got more attention steadily. There are governments that pay attention on the issues of waste management as well as the ones that do not. Thanksin is the first one who talked about waste management in his statement. After that, except Surayud, the issues of waste management became a tradition for prime ministers to mention it in their statement to the parliament. Waste management had been mentioned in the environmental section. Several plans got approval by the cabinets as a part of the government campaigns. However, none became a law,

11 Order of the Head of the National Council for Peace and Order No.55/2559 (2016) Subject: Case procedure

concerning certain cases under the jurisdiction of the Military Court

which is partially because of the political conflict in Thailand between 2006–2014. However, we can see the general details of these government campaigns in three points.

I. Efficiency of Government campaign

Unlike the laws, the government campaigns, except Prayuth’s campaigns, seem to create less momentum in waste management. There were serval new campaigns from 1997 to 2016;

however, none of them became regulations or laws for waste management. Moreover, most of the plans still link to old acts instead of current government policy. For example, all environmental quality management plans only mention the Act of Support and Protect Environment Quality as their origins of legitimacy. However, the first Environmental Health Strategic Plan 2009–2011 mentions Abhisit’s statement to parliament as its origin of legitimacy.

The plan—which is a product of each executive power in each period (national plan have to be approved by the cabinet)—hardly changes or rarely any new regulation is created that affects local environmental management. MSW management had no regulations before 2017. Every waste management related plan till now have been in the form of official suggestions. Moreover, sometimes, the new government abandoned the old plan and approved the new one, such as in Thanksin or Abhisit’s period. Consequently, there is no connectivity between different prime ministers, and the process of policy implementation had to be restarted continually. This might be a reason why the government’s campaigns were ineffective. However, during the Junta period of Prayuth, the government campaign in waste management was more effective and became laws.

II. Harmony and clash between government campaign and regulation

Some parts of government campaigns shared the same trend of waste management with the regulations. For example, from the beginning in 1997, governments handled waste issues as

environmental issues, and even now it is still in the environmental section of government policy.

However, government also adopted other perspectives for waste management after 2008, such as health issues. Environmental health strategic plan is a good result of this change because this plan is a product of cooperation between the Ministry of Environmental And Natural Resources and the Ministry of Public Health. For the first master plan of waste management, more than 10 organizations were mentioned for integrating several perspectives into waste management. These examples show that government campaign also treat waste management as an interdisciplinary issue that are also covered by the national regulations. However, there are also some points where the national government campaigns contradict with the regulations. For example, a centralized system of waste treatment during Abhisit’s and Prayuth’s periods are against the ideas of decentralization, which is a basic notion of most Thai local administrative laws. When the conflict happens, the current government can change the law. However, because of the inefficiency of government campaigns, few governments could do it in case of MSW management.

III. More centralized system of waste management

Although not every cabinet tries to centralized waste treatment system, we can see this attempt in some periods, especially during Chuan’s, Abhisit’s, and Pruyuth’ s periods. A huge sewage treatment project was established during Chuan’s period. According to the plan, this project was supposed to severe 3–4 provinces in Metro Bangkok area. However, the project had to be stopped because of the corruption; now this project is abandoned (Banchanont, 2015). Abhisit also stated in his policy introduction that he wanted to create a centralized waste treatment station in each province (Vejjajiva, 2008). Lastly, Prayuth’s policy about centralised waste treatment system might be the strongest one. After he announced waste management as an urgent national issue, he pushed several provincial governments to sign the contract for provincial waste treatment