An Introduction to the Interrelation of Canada’s Impact–Benefit Agreement (“IBA”) and Thailand’s Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”)

Abstract

                 The concept which natural resources deter country development, mainly on economic, is known as the "curse" of natural resources. This paper scrutinises the community participation process to diminish the resource curse's impact through IBA in Canada and EIA in Thailand. Both regimes apply community participation in resource development, but they are different in detail. As a private contractual arrangement, the study shows that IBA aims to ensure that economic consequences will create less adverse effects on local communities, potentially from natural resource exploitations. The process imposed the Crown (State) to consult and accommodate to facilitate the project development and protect local communities' rights.

                  In comparison, EIA is utilised as a precautionary measure to mitigate adverse effects in the project development area. Community participation in EIA occurs through public hearings, which has a controversial issue on project quality. Although, Thailand and Canada are using the public ownership regime, the framework of IBA could not be found in the Thailand’s legal system.[1] According to the Thailand’s administrative laws, the concession and license for resource development would commence only by the permit or commitment of the government in the form of     a state contract. Lastly, the Canada’s experience could be applied to diminish the drawback of EIA in Thailand.