treatment facilities, including those for wastewater requires a huge amount of capital – acting as a barrier to wastewater management in many regions. Creative solutions are required to finance management over the long term (Rammont and Nu- rul Amin, 2009). Economic Instruments (EI) are tools which can be used to support regulatory frameworks by recovering some of these costs. They generate market-conforming in- centives, both positive and negative, that are directed to bring about behavioural change (Rammont and Nurul Amin, 2009). There are challenges in the implementation of economic
policy instruments, in particular that they tend to require a high level of institutional capacity (Russell and Powell, 1996), other challenges include administration, politics, inconsisten- cies, need for enforcement of legislation and flaws in design (O’Connor, 1998).
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT AND WASTEWATER
Ecosystem-based management is an integrated approach to management that considers the entire ecosystem, including
Challenges of applying economic instruments to finance wastewater management in Thailand
Following a period of economic growth and environmental deg- radation in 1987–96, Thailand started to give priority to envi- ronmental issues in the early 1990s when increased economic performance allowed for environmental protection and man- agement. In 1992 Thailand reinvigorated its environmental acts of 1975 and 1978 as the Enhancement and Conservation of the Environmental Quality Act (NEQA 1992), which featured the im- plementation of two Economic Instruments – the polluter-pays principle (PPP) and the establishment of an Environmental Fund (EF) (Rammon and Nurul Amin, 2009).
Thailand focused on the use of EIs for central wastewater man- agement. Capital investment for basic infrastructure was man- aged by central government (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment). Once constructed, responsibility was handed over to local government for operation and management. In 1999 the government established the Determining Plans and Process of Decentralization to Local Government Organization Act. Local government organizations were then handed responsibility for environmental management, including wastewater management – guided by the National Economic and Social Development Plan which focuses on improving water quality, reducing water pollution, applying the PPP and promoting the involvement of the private sector in water pollution management. However due to the high costs in dispensing this responsibility, LGOs needed the continuing support of central government.
This support was provided through two main channels: (1) bud- getary allocation, and (2) grants and soft loans through the En- vironmental Fund. This fund provides financial support for both government and the private sector for provision of control, reme- dial and disposal systems, and to support the implementation of
64
activities on enhancement and conservation of environmental quality. Fees collected under the PPP contribute to the EF. Au- thority for making the charges under the PPP also falls to the local government authorities.
Rammon and Nurul Amin, 2009 identified a number of chal- lenges to the uptake of these EIs in Thailand: Failure to follow up with concrete laws and regulations to sup- port charge implementation
•
• •
• •
•
Lack of willingness by local authorities to charge under the PPP. Lack of cooperation between water and wastewater authori- ties (water supply is administrated by two centralized authori- ties; wastewater under local governments as part of their mis- sion to provide environmental management). Willingness of local government to charge and residents’ ac- ceptance to pay. Complexities in accessing the EF: long process of approval, lack of active public relations, lack of contributory fund, per- sonnel problems and loopholes in the law and regulations are commonly cited problems related to accessing the EF Within Thailand, different cities and districts have different waste management approaches.
Thailand’s two-pronged strategy of providing financial support from EF and levying charges to implement the PPP for use of EIs in WWM is far from being a success. Even if the subsidy part of the strategy works, the PPP part does not. The confusion be- tween willingness to pay and willingness to charge has resulted in a deterioration in water quality. It is suggested that greater ef- forts to explain the benefits of wastewater management to local populations would result in greater acceptance to pay charges, and therefore make it easier for local authorities to ask.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88