You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

March 28, 2024

Developments in Thailand’s Draft Climate Change Law

Subscribe to Updates

On February 14, 2024, Thailand’s Department of Climate Change and Energy (DCCE) began holding public hearings on the draft Climate Change Act, which is being developed to help the country achieve its commitments under the Paris Agreement. These hearings, held throughout the country, are expected to be completed by the end of March 2024.

Key features and developments of the draft Climate Change Act are outlined below.

Supervising Authority

Under the current draft, the main supervising authority is changed from the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning to the DCCE.

The DCCE will focus on fostering collaboration with national and international governmental committees, agencies, and private sector organizations to facilitate the implementation of activities in alignment with the Climate Change Act.

Thailand’s Climate Change Master Plan

To be issued by the National Climate Change Policy Committee (NCCPC), the Climate Change Master Plan will serve as a national-level plan and framework for Thailand’s actions on climate change adaptation. The DCCE will review the plan every five years and is in charge of monitoring and enhancing state agencies’ implementation of the master plan.

GHG Database

The DCCE will establish and maintain a national greenhouse gas (GHG) database to track the quantity of GHG emissions from human activities, sequestration, and reduction efforts. In this regard, eight state agencies and other agencies to be prescribed by the NCCPC are required to store GHG-related information and submit reports to the DCCE.

If necessary, certain private entities (e.g., factory operators and energy companies) may be required to report activity data to government agencies for compiling the GHG database.

GHG Reporting

For the benefit of the emissions trading system, legal entities under private and public laws prescribed by the NCCPC are required to submit an annual report of the quantity of emissions or sequestration of GHG resulting from their operations within three months from the end of each calendar year. The report must be certified by the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization before being submitted to the DCCE. Reporting entities must keep their reports, records, and other relevant documents for at least seven years from the date of their submission.

Emissions Trading System

The draft Climate Change Act implements an emissions trading system (ETS), in regard to which the DCCE is responsible for developing and revising allocation plans and preparing reports summarizing plan implementation outcomes. The DCCE is also responsible for allocating allowances and emissions trading rights to prescribed controlled entities according to the specified criteria, duration, and methods, which must comply with the allocation plan.

Carbon Credits and Taxes

The draft Climate Change Act outlines carbon credit qualifications, licensing requirements for carbon credit businesses, carbon credit certification services, carbon credit trading centers, and other businesses related to carbon credits.

It also establishes a carbon tax system to levy taxes on goods based on the assessed amount of GHG at specific points in the product life cycle. This aims to encourage reduction of cross-border GHG leakage.

For more information on Thailand’s draft Climate Change Act, or on any aspect of energy, industrial, or other climate-related policies, please contact Kobkit Thienpreecha at [email protected], Witchupong Chittchang at [email protected], Rada Lamsam at [email protected], or Nathat Chongcharoenphanich at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​

April 23, 2024
Litigation is usually the last resort in resolving disputes. Most parties to a dispute try to avoid litigation altogether, fearing that seeking recourse with the courts or arbitration will lead to a disruption in commercial relationships, result in increased legal expenses, and generally lengthen the period in which the dispute remains unresolved. While some of these concerns may indeed be legitimate, sometimes litigation is the only means for a party to obtain relief. For parties contemplating such recourse, it is reassuring to know that the Thai court system is generally an accessible, unbiased, and balanced vehicle for the resolution of disputes. Civil Litigation in Thailand aims to introduce some of the fundamentals of Thai civil court procedures and practices. This brief guide covers the main issues concerning civil litigation in Thailand as either a plaintiff or a defendant. The full guide is available through the button below.
Read More
April 22, 2024
Trademark disputes in Thailand have undergone a significant transformation with the recent implementation of streamlined procedures aimed at expediting legal proceedings. This article explores the traditional process for resolving noncomplex trademark cases and introduces the latest regulatory amendments designed to enhance efficiency within the Thai legal framework. Traditional Process Overview The trademark registration process in Thailand involves several steps, including filing, examination, and granting registration. If the trademark registrar rejects an application on substantive grounds, applicants can appeal to the Board of Trademarks. If the board upholds the registrar’s decision, applicants can then pursue a civil suit with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) to revoke the trademark registrar’s and the board’s orders. Previous Regulations and Practice Historically, civil cases concerning trademark registrations followed standard procedures outlined in Thailand’s Civil Procedure Code, with specific adaptations for intellectual property matters under the Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996). Proceedings entailed various stages, including settlement of issues, evidence hearing, and judgment hearing, culminating in the opportunity for appeal. New Regulations and Practice In 2023, a pivotal development emerged with the issuance of Regulation for Intellectual Property and International Trade Cases B.E. 2566 (2023). This regulatory update introduced section 18, which deals with cases related to the revocation or appeal of Board of Trademarks decisions, such as those concerning trademark nondistinctiveness or opposition cases against Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property. Section 18 grants the IP&IT Court the authority to order parties to submit documents and evidence without the need for witness examination, thereby streamlining proceedings. Below is a comparison of the trademark procedures for cases related to the revocation or appeal of Board of Trademarks decisions: Traditional Approach Streamlined Approach Implementation and Implications In practice, the implementation
Read More
April 18, 2024
In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by
Read More
April 17, 2024
Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding
Read More

Contact

We have seven offices in six countries
across Southeast Asia.

Contact Us

Careers

We are always seeking great people to grow
our amazing team.

Join Us

Networks

© 2023 Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd. All rights reserved.

© 2020 Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy

| Legal Notice