Legal Problems and Legal Obstacles in Elimination of Waste For Sustainable Preservation of Environment

Abstract

               This thesis has the aim to study the legal problem and legal obstacle in elimination of waste for sustainable preservation of environment. The scope of the study ranges from conception, theories and relevant researches concerned with eradication of the waste in Thailand to those abroad. To put it more precisely, in order to comprehend the problems, the study concentrates on methodology of elimination of waste deployed under by-laws enforced by local administration organizations. The problems that this thesis is keen on to apprehend are both factual and legal. From the problems arise the information of how waste can be eradicated – incineration, sanitary landfill closure, recycling, organic fertilizer making, transferring waste into energy and other measures conducted from provincial to country organs. With the aforementioned information, the thesis specifies the problem and purports the measures to eradicate waste. The research methodology is in-depth interview and conducting a focus group of experts by means of purposive sampling. Comparison between Thai laws with foreign ones is conducted under the context of National Support and Preservation of Environmental Qualities Act B.E.2535, Public Health Act B.E.2535, Cleanness and Tidiness of Towns Act B.E.2535 and the authority and duties of local administration organizations under the Administrative Power Decentralizing Procedures and Plan Act; this leads to spotting legal loopholes which the thesis in turn suggest solutions. 
               The findings are as follows: 
               Finding 1 under National Support and Preservation of Environmental Qualities Act B.E.2535: in terms of inappropriate elimination of waste, Section 96 stipulates that in case of spread pollutants, the polluter has liability to make compensation for such damage; however, there are no provisions on the amount of damages. It is therefore suggestive that the provision designating the amount of damages should be enacted.
               Finding 2 under Cleanness and Tidiness of Towns Act B.E.2535: Sections 23 and 57 prohibit the construction waste to be left on the land or dropped into watercourses. The fact has it that there is action causing water pollution; nevertheless, the punishment under Section 57 is merely a fine of 10,000 Baht that is deemed as small in amount and disproportionate to the damage.
               Finding 3 under Public Health Act: Sections 8 and 69 stipulate that in case there is cause to suspect the damage likely to affect well-being of living, the Director General of Department of Health is required to issue an order to stop the action which affects the well-being. In case of violation of the order, the punishment of no more than a month’s imprisonment or a fine of no more than 2,000 Baht or both has to be applied; the amount of 2,000 Baht is not considered appropriate despite the terminology used as “severe” in Section 8. 
               Finding 4 under authority and duties of local administration organizations according to the Administrative Power Decentralizing Procedures and Plan Act B.E.2542: it is suggested that authority to obtain ownership of real estate to be used as a place of waste eradication in all kinds should be granted. Furthermore, there should be campaigns under the public relation for education of waste problems and drawbacks. 
               As summarized above, obvious for the problem this thesis finds out is that the punishment is inappropriate. Hence, there must be revision of punishment in the manner – as suggested by this study – that the overall criminal punishment has to be intensified; particularly, a fine rate has to be increased. Last but not least, an authorized organ specifically responsible for monitoring and regulating appropriate elimination of waste has to be established.