This chapter assesses Thailand’s policy framework for sustainable infrastructure planning, delivery and financing. It examines national strategic planning instruments and international commitments, including through the country’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC 3.0) and Long-Term Low-Emission Development Strategy (LT-LEDS), alongside sectoral frameworks in energy, transport and industry. The chapter analyses infrastructure investment needs, financing gaps and the role of public investment, private capital and sustainable finance instruments. It explores emissions trends, fossil fuel dependence, climate risks and adaptation challenges, as well as governance fragmentation, institutional co-ordination and project implementation capacity. The chapter also reviews infrastructure appraisal tools, strategic environmental assessment, environmental impact assessment, climate risk screening and the integration of environmental, social and economic considerations in infrastructure decision-making.
Accelerating Sustainable Infrastructure Investments
Abstract
This chapter assesses Thailand’s national policy framework for sustainable infrastructure planning, delivery and financing. It consolidates analytical work undertaken by the OECD and its partners under the Sustainable Infrastructure Programme in Asia (SIPA), complemented by desk research and stakeholder engagement. The chapter is structured around SIPA’s three analytical pillars: (i) national strategic planning and governance; (ii) sectoral framework conditions for sustainable infrastructure development; and (iii) mobilisation of sustainable finance.
Thailand has made important progress in strengthening the foundations for sustainable infrastructure development, underpinned by ambitious national climate commitments and an evolving policy framework. The country’s updated long-term low-emission development strategy (LT-LEDS), Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) 3.0, and National Adaptation Policy provide a clear long-term direction toward decarbonisation and resilience, while successive National Economic and Social Development Plans embed sustainability objectives into development planning. Institutional reforms, including the establishment of the Department of Climate Change and Environment (DCCE) and the preparation of a comprehensive Climate Change Act, signal growing political commitment to co-ordinated climate action. Thailand has also advanced market-enabling reforms, notably through the rollout of the Thailand Green Taxonomy, the rapid expansion of green and sustainability-linked bond markets, and targeted investment promotion measures in strategic industrial and logistics clusters. Together, these developments position Thailand as a regional frontrunner in aligning infrastructure investment with climate and development goals.
Despite these advances, Thailand faces persistent structural and institutional challenges that constrain the scale, speed and coherence of the sustainable infrastructure transition. The country faces a large and widening infrastructure investment gap, particularly for climate-aligned and resilience-oriented projects. Infrastructure planning and delivery remain fragmented across ministries and levels of government, limiting cross-sector synergies and consistent alignment with climate objectives. Energy, transport and industrial infrastructure remain emissions-intensive and exposed to climate risks, while adaptation and resilience investments remain significantly underfunded relative to mitigation. At the project level, weaknesses in monitoring, independent review, sustainability integration in procurement, and late-stage stakeholder engagement reduce transparency, value for money and public trust. Without stronger co-ordination between governance frameworks, sectoral policies and financing mechanisms, Thailand risks locking in carbon-intensive assets and increasing long-term fiscal and climate vulnerabilities.
Looking ahead, Thailand has a significant opportunity to translate its strong strategic ambition into more predictable, resilient and investable infrastructure outcomes. Strengthening centre-of-government co-ordination, improving the coherence of sectoral frameworks, and embedding sustainability and resilience more systematically across planning, appraisal and delivery processes will be critical. At the same time, clearer sectoral investment signals, improved project preparation and implementation capacity, and deeper integration of sustainable finance tools can help crowd in private capital at scale. By consolidating recent reforms and addressing remaining governance and implementation gaps, Thailand can enhance productivity, reduce climate risks and support a more inclusive and competitive growth model aligned with OECD standards. The priority actions below synthesise key recommendations across these sections.
Scale up climate resilience and adaptation across infrastructure systems. Prioritise adaptation in sectoral infrastructure-related policies and investment frameworks, integrate climate risk assessment into project preparation, and strengthen co-ordination between climate adaptation and disaster risk management institutions.
Strengthen governance and strategic planning for sustainable infrastructure. Reinforce centre-of-government co-ordination, especially for large infrastructure projects, clarify institutional mandates, and improve alignment between national, sectoral and subnational plans to embed sustainability and resilience more systematically into long-term infrastructure planning and monitoring.
Enhance sectoral framework conditions for low-carbon and resilient infrastructure. Improve policy coherence across energy, transport and industry, strengthen regulatory signals for clean energy and multimodal transport, and address barriers to industrial decarbonisation to reduce investment risk and avoid carbon lock-in.
Improve project appraisal, procurement and delivery practices. Complement life-cycle costing with independent reviews for large projects, integrate environmental and climate criteria into procurement, and strengthen project-level benchmarks, monitoring and accountability mechanisms.
Deepen sustainable finance mobilisation and market integration. Further operationalise the Green Taxonomy, expand sustainable finance instruments, strengthen demand-side incentives and data frameworks, and better align financial regulation with climate and resilience objectives to crowd in private capital.
This section sets the stage by exploring Thailand’s sustainable infrastructure needs, analysing the economic and environmental challenges shaping national priorities, and highlighting the implications for planning, financing and implementing sustainable and resilient infrastructure. The remainder of this chapter evaluates Thailand’s national policy framework for delivering infrastructure that is sustainable, inclusive and aligned with long-term economic growth objectives. This evaluation is structured around the three key pillars of the SIPA framework.
7.1.1. The infrastructure gap in Thailand
Thailand faces a significant infrastructure investment gap, particularly for sustainable and climate-aligned projects, requiring an urgent scale-up of investment to support its green transition. While quantification of Thailand’s infrastructure gap is challenging, available estimates suggest that substantial investment in sustainable infrastructure is required. The World Bank estimates that, between 2025 and 2040, Thailand will need to invest USD 260 billion – over USD 17 billion annually, or roughly 2.9% of GDP in 2025 – in energy, transport and industrial infrastructure to drive the country’s green transition (World Bank Group, 2025[1]). Beyond core infrastructure, Thailand’s broader climate ambitions require even greater investment (Table 7.1).
Source: World Bank Group (2025[1]), Thailand Country Climate and Development Report; Government of Thailand (2025[2]), Thailand Unveils Key Transport Plans for 2025-2026; Oxford Economics (2014[3]), Country Profile: Thailand; UNFCCC (2025[5]), Thailand's Second Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC 3.0); ADB (2025[6]), Thailand’s Climate Finance Landscape: Bridging the Gap to Net Zero; IMF (2022[7]), Thailand: Selected Issues; UNDP (2022[4]), Identified Investment Needed for Climate-Proof Transport Infrastructure in Thailand
A need to make the infrastructure resilient to climate impacts adds another layer to Thailand’s infrastructure financing challenge. Despite rising climate risks, adaptation remains critically underfunded. Between 2018 and 2024, less than 1% of total climate finance was directed toward adaptation measures (ADB, 2025[6]). In the transport sector alone, the UNDP estimates that an additional USD 0.42-0.45 billion is required to enhance climate resilience, particularly for roads, railways and urban transport systems vulnerable to extreme weather events (UNDP, 2022[4]). Without sustained increases in resilience-oriented investment, climate impacts are expected to raise long-term maintenance costs, reduce asset lifespans and exacerbate fiscal pressures – further widening the infrastructure financing gap over time.
Thailand’s gross fixed capital formation, an imperfect proxy for infrastructure spending, has ranged between 21-28% of nominal GDP over the past decade (Figure 7.1). This aligns with international benchmarks which recommend infrastructure investment of 5-6% of GDP for emerging economies aiming to close infrastructure gaps (Oxford Economics, 2017[8]). However, Thailand’s investment level remains modest compared with regional peers, especially given its relatively low 2024 value of 21.6% (World Bank, 2025[9]). By contrast, Indonesia recorded 29-33% of GDP over the past decade, while infrastructure-intensive economies such as China maintained levels close to 40% of GDP during the same period (World Bank, 2025[9]).
Gross domestic product (GDP) in billion constant 2015 USD (left axis) and gross fixed capital formation as a percentage of GDP (right axis), 2000 to 2024
Source: Author’s analysis of the World Bank Development Indicators (World Bank, 2025[9])
Although much of Thailand's existing climate investment already originates from private sources (Table 7.2), CBI estimates additional USD 31.9 billion in untapped green infrastructure investments (CBI, 2021[10]), further efforts are needed to mobilise private finance and investment. This process is aided by the Thailand SDG Investor Map, which highlights high-opportunity sectors like renewable energy and clean transport, where private investment can advance development and ESG goals (UNDP, 2022[11]). The government aims to improve co-ordination through its Integrated National Financing Framework (INFF), which seeks to integrate public budgets, risk-finance instruments and private capital around SDG priorities. (UNDP, 2023[12]). The country is also localising SDG action through a Joint SDG Fund initiative that developed a Voluntary Local Review framework and explored subnational financing options (UNDP, 2025[13]). However, adaptation continues to receive less than 1% of climate finance, and funding remains fragmented, underscoring the need to prioritise investment in climate resilience (ADB, 2025[6]).
Breakdown of Sources of Nationally Determined Contribution Investment, by Source of Funds (2018–2024)
Note: The data were compiled from corporate sustainability reports, registered carbon credit databases, financial institution disclosures, government budget allocations, and international climate finance portals spanning over 660 publicly available projects.
Source: (ADB, 2025[6])
At the same time, Thailand has demonstrated a clear strategic direction to address these needs. The government’s 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan provides a comprehensive framework for infrastructure development aligned with a low-carbon and climate-resilient transition. The plan emphasises modernisation of transport systems, expansion of renewable energy and development of future mobility solutions, reflecting a proactive and structured approach to closing the infrastructure gap. Concrete investments already underway illustrate this commitment. These include the expansion of dual-track railway networks to improve freight efficiency and reduce emissions, continued development of urban mass transit systems in major cities such as Bangkok, and scaling up renewable energy projects, particularly solar and wind power. In parallel, Thailand is investing in electric vehicle ecosystems, including nationwide EV charging infrastructure, to support the transition to cleaner transport. Together, these initiatives demonstrate that while the infrastructure gap remains substantial, Thailand is actively laying the groundwork to bridge it through systematic and forward-looking investments.
7.1.2. Sustainable infrastructure investments offer an opportunity for Thailand’s long-term competitiveness and development
Sustainable infrastructure investment presents Thailand with a durable pathway to strengthen long-term competitiveness, boost inclusive growth and reduce vulnerability to climate and economic shocks. Strategic sustainable infrastructure investment aligns directly with the nation's 20-year National Strategy (2018–2037) (Government of Thailand, 2018[14]) and successive 5-year National Economic and Social Development Plan (Government of Thailand, 2023[15]), which prioritise a shift toward greener, more resilient development. It also supports Thailand’s ambition to accede to the OECD, as sustainable, high-quality infrastructure investment is central to OECD standards on productivity, resilience, environmental performance and public investment governance, and sits at the intersection of two out of seven key policy areas in its accession roadmap: infrastructure, and environment, biodiversity and climate (OECD, 2024[16]). By focusing public and private capital on low-carbon and climate-resilient projects, Thailand can boost productivity, lower long-run operational costs for businesses and households and protect its critical human and physical capital from the destructive impacts of climate change.
Over the past two decades, infrastructure limitations have contributed to a productivity slowdown, eroding competitiveness and worsening congestion and air pollution (World Bank Group, 2023[17]). Although Thailand has made improvements, it has not kept pace with other countries, dropping five places in the IMD Competitiveness Infrastructure ranking in 2025 – from 25th to 30th – while health and environmental infrastructure ranked 58th out of 69 (IMD, 2025[18]). These deficiencies also impede progress toward the SDGs, as current systems for clean energy, recycling and emissions reduction remain insufficient to support a sustainable transition (Government of Thailand, 2025[19]).
Thailand’s long-term competitiveness depends on generating new sources of sustainable and resilient growth. Structural challenges, including climate risks, an aging population and the need to move up global value chains, require a shift toward more efficient and future-ready infrastructure systems. Recent country diagnostics by the World Bank underscore that achieving high-income status by 2037 – one of the headline objectives of the 20-year strategy – requires new engines of growth, supported by better human capital outcomes, innovation and more efficient public investment (World Bank Group, 2024[20]). Low-carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure directly supports these objectives, as it mitigates disaster damage, reduces energy and transportation expenses for firms, and creates new local market opportunities for green goods and services, thus future-proofing the economy.
The cost of inaction is substantial. Climate-proofing the transport sector alone is estimated to require around USD 400 million (UNDP, 2022[4]) – less than half the economic cost of the 2011 floods on the same sector (World Bank, 2012[21]). The World Bank highlights that, without proactive measures, Thailand’s energy infrastructure remains highly vulnerable to climate shocks, while climate change will drive increased energy demand and place additional stress on the grid (World Bank Group, 2025[1]). Industrial hubs are expected to face escalating water scarcity and other climate-related impacts unless adaptation measures are implemented (World Bank Group, 2025[1]). Beyond physical risks, failure to decarbonize presents significant transition risks to the broader economy, as major trading partners and multinational corporations increasingly exclude high-carbon suppliers (World Bank Group, 2025[1]). Collectively, these findings underscore that early, targeted climate action is far more cost-effective than responding to the compounded impacts of inaction.
Investments in sustainable transport, energy and industry provide interconnected benefits for competitiveness and long-term growth. Low-carbon transport infrastructure, including public transit, electrified transport and low-carbon logistics, reduces energy and transport costs, improves air quality and strengthens supply-chain efficiency, making Thai goods and services more competitive in global markets (World Bank Group, 2025[1]). In energy, deploying renewables, modernising grids, expanding storage and improving efficiency lowers electricity costs, enhances energy security and underpins industrial growth (OECD, 2024[22]). Beyond emissions reduction, decarbonising the industrial sector contributes to Thailand’s broader industrial strategies, as well as to strengthen resilience of exports of emission-intensive products (OECD, 2026[23]).
7.1.3. The need for infrastructure aligned with climate and broader sustainability risks and commitments
Thailand faces a wide range of climate-related hazards. Historical floods and droughts have caused major damage and climate projections indicate these events are likely to become more frequent and severe (OECD, 2025[24]). Coastal erosion already affects nearly 30% of Thailand’s coastline and, if left unaddressed, could cost the tourism sector roughly USD 1 billion annually by mid-2040s (World Bank, 2025[25]). These converging risks underscore the urgent need for climate-resilient development strategies to safeguard the nation’s long-term economic and environmental well-being (World Bank Group, 2025[1]).
At the same time, Thailand’s infrastructure systems are central drivers of GHG emissions. Thailand contributes to around 1% of global GHG emissions, and although GHG emissions per unit of GDP have decreased since 2001 – placing Thailand broadly in line with the global average and below many ASEAN peers – total GHG emissions and GHG emissions per capita continue to rise (Climate Watch, 2025[26]). The energy sector, including power generation, transport and energy-related emissions for industry, makes up the lion’s share of emissions, responsible for around two thirds of total GHG emissions in 2022 (Figure 7.2). This trend underscores the importance of targeted mitigation efforts in the energy and transport sectors specifically. At the same time, net negative emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) partially offset gross emissions, highlighting the critical role of Thailand’s forests and ecosystems as carbon sinks. However, poorly planned infrastructure development can undermine this capacity by driving deforestation, land degradation and ecosystem fragmentation, thereby reducing the country’s natural ability to sequester carbon (IPCCC, 2021[27]).
GHG emissions by sector (GgCO2eq), 2000-2022
Source: (UNFCCC, 2024[28])
Thailand faces a dual challenge of meeting rapidly rising power demand while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2023, natural gas accounted for 64.2% of electricity generation, while fossil fuels collectively made up over 80% of the total electricity mix (Figure 7.3). This reliance has supported industrial growth but has also created a structural carbon lock-in, constraining the scale at which cleaner energy sources can scale. On top of this, power demand is projected to increase sharply – from around 37 GW in 2024 to over 120 GW by 2050 – driven by urbanisation, industrialisation and climate-related pressures (World Bank Group, 2025[1]). Without a shift in infrastructure planning, rising demand risks locking in additional fossil-fuel capacity and emissions.
Electricity generation by source in GWh, 2000-2023
Note: Other renewables include geothermal.
Source: (IEA, 2025[29])
Aligned with Thailand’s commitment to a secure and sustainable energy future, sustainable infrastructure can serve as a pathway to strengthen energy security. In 2023, the country imported 57.5% of its total energy supply (IEA, 2025[29]). Although a large share of total energy imports stems from petroleum products for transport, Thailand is also a net electricity importer, relying on fossil- and hydropower-based imports from neighbouring countries including Lao PDR, Cambodia, Malaysia and Myanmar (IEA, 2023[30]). Declining domestic natural gas production has heightened exposure to fuel price volatility and cross-border supply disruptions (UNDP, 2025[31]), a vulnerability highlighted in 2022 when falling domestic output and global market shocks forced extended coal-plant operations and higher electricity tariffs (Bangkok Post, 2022[32]). Investing in sustainable infrastructure not only reduces dependence on imports but also enhances the resilience of Thailand’s energy system, enabling it to withstand supply disruptions while supporting long-term economic growth.
Strategic investment in making Thailand’s transport infrastructure sustainable presents an opportunity to simultaneously reduce emissions, improve public health, enhance urban quality and promote social inclusion. Rapid urbanisation has outplaced development of Thailand’s transport infrastructure, particularly in Bangkok. Private vehicles account for nearly 70% of all trips, contributing to severe congestion and environmental degradation (Nation Thailand, 2022[33]). Air pollution (including fine particulate matter, PM2.5, and ozone pollution from the transport sector) has been linked to around 3000 premature deaths in Thailand from 2017 to 2019 (Asian Transport Observatory, 2024[34]). Public transport systems remain fragmented and inaccessible in rural areas and for people with disabilities, reinforcing inequality and dependence on private vehicles (Market Research Thailand, 2025[35]).
Climate impacts are likely to exacerbate Thailand’s existing socio-economic inequalities. Vulnerable groups, such as low-income households, in flood-prone, drought-affected or coastal areas, face greater exposure to climate risks and have fewer resources to recover (World Bank Group, 2025[1]). With about 40% of Thailand’s population living in the flood-prone Chao Phraya River Basin, these hazards affect millions nationwide (Supharatid and Rojpratak, 2025[36]). While Thailand’s 2023 Gini coefficient of 33.5 suggests relatively moderate income inequality compared with ASEAN neighbours, only outperformed by Myanmar (World Bank, 2025[37]), wealth distribution tells a different story: in 2021, the top 10% held three-quarters of the country’s total wealth (World Bank, 2023[38]). This structural inequality means that climate shocks are likely to exacerbate socio-economic disparities, undermining inclusive development and making poverty-reduction efforts more difficult.
Aligning infrastructure investments with economic, social and environmental sustainability outcomes requires that the national strategic framework provides clear qualitative and quantitative objectives for sustainable infrastructure development. The national strategic planning framework includes (i) governance and strategic policy frameworks, i.e., the processes, systems, and practices through which infrastructure decisions are made, as well as strategic plans, policies and programmes driving infrastructure planning; (ii) long-term planning tools backed by robust modelling, scenario-building and foresight capabilities; and (iii) specific tools, methods and capabilities for mainstreaming sustainability into infrastructure planning and project-level appraisals.
Thailand has taken important steps to strengthen the governance and strategic planning framework for sustainable infrastructure. Long-term national strategies and five-year development plans provide continuity and policy direction, while recent institutional reforms – most notably the establishment of the Department of Climate Change and Environment (DCCE) and the preparation of the Climate Change Act—have begun to clarify responsibilities for climate mitigation and adaptation. Central planning institutions play a strong role in project appraisal and budgeting, and environmental impact assessments are well embedded in infrastructure decision making. However, fragmented mandates, cross-sector co-ordination undergoing systemic enhancement and gaps between planning and implementation continue to constrain effective delivery. To reinforce governance and strategic planning for sustainable infrastructure, Thailand should:
Strengthen centre-of-government co-ordination for infrastructure and climate policy. Clarify institutional mandates, reinforce the guiding and supporting role of central agencies, and expand the use of inter-ministerial co-ordination mechanisms to ensure that infrastructure decisions are consistently aligned with national climate, resilience and development objectives.
Improve integration across sectoral and spatial planning frameworks. Enhance co-ordination between national, sectoral and subnational plans to better capture cross-sector synergies, address trade-offs and ensure that infrastructure investments support coherent territorial development.
Embed sustainability and resilience more systematically in long-term planning. Integrate climate mitigation, adaptation and environmental resilience objectives more explicitly into infrastructure strategies and master plans, moving beyond project-level safeguards toward system-wide planning approaches.
Strengthen monitoring, evaluation and accountability mechanisms. Complement outcome-based monitoring with clearer project-level benchmarks on costs, timelines and delivery performance, and improve feedback loops to inform policy adjustments and future investment decisions.
Enhance stakeholder engagement and transparency in planning processes. Formalise mechanisms for consultation beyond early planning stages, including during project implementation, to strengthen public trust, manage risks and improve social acceptance of infrastructure projects.
Build institutional capacity for strategic planning and implementation. Invest in skills, data systems and analytical tools across central and line ministries to support evidence-based decision making, manage complex cross-cutting objectives and translate strategic plans into effective on-the-ground action.
7.2.1. National governance and strategic framework for sustainable infrastructure development
An overview of Thailand’s national strategic framework for sustainable infrastructure
Thailand's national development is guided by a robust, three-level national strategy designed to ensure policy and planning cohesion across state agencies. The 20-Year National Strategy (2018-2037) serves as the overarching first-level plan, focusing on the development of high-quality infrastructure to connect Thailand regionally and globally across transport, technology and economic sectors (Government of Thailand, 2018[14]). However, the strategy lacks a clear GHG reduction target, which creates an uncertain policy landscape and risks continued fossil fuel investment (Phongam, Achavanuntakul and Sirijintana, 2025[39]). Thailand’s updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC 3.0), which sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 47% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels and aligns with 1.5°C pathways and net-zero by 2050, exists outside this strategic framework. This Strategy is actioned via the five-year 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) (2023-2027), a second-level plan that mandates the development of infrastructure and supporting factors necessary for Thailand to become a strategic trade, investment and logistics hub. This plan specifically focuses on transitioning toward a "sustainable, value-creating economy" and ensuring the sustainability of production and consumption, thereby directly influencing green investment decisions in infrastructure. See Table 7.3 for a full overview of strategies and plans related to sustainable infrastructure.
Infrastructure is at the backbone of Thailand’s economic transformation. The two-year infrastructure development plan for 2025-2026 is the flagship infrastructure initiative aimed at transforming the nation into a leading regional transport and logistics hub. Aligned with the vision of modernising and integrating the national transport network, the plan is structured around five core strategic pillars: (1) Connectivity, to enhance seamless regional and intercity links; (2) Safety, to improve transport standards and infrastructure resilience; (3) Sustainability, by promoting green and low-emission solutions; (4) Efficiency, to reduce national logistics costs and urban congestion; and (5) Accessibility, to ensure public transit systems offer equitable and affordable services. This comprehensive plan commands a total investment of THB 253.45 billion (approximately USD 7.2 billion) and encompasses 287 high-impact projects spanning road and land, rail, water and air transport sectors (Box 7.2).
Land and road transport is the primary strategic priority sector, accounting for the highest volume of projects (91 projects). The focus is aimed at improving traffic management and fostering sustainable urban mobility. Significant motorway developments include the construction of the Chalong Rat Expressway extension and the Bangkok Outer Ring Road (M9). In a push for sustainability, the plan includes the acquisition of 1 520 new electric buses for public transport (BMTA). Measures to control congestion involve implementing congestion-based road usage fees in core urban centres, complemented by specific provincial focus projects in economic and tourist hubs such as Phuket and Chiang Mai.
Rail transport is a critical element of the investment portfolio, comprising 69 projects. The primary focus is on reducing national logistics costs and expanding mass transit capacity via high-value, long-term initiatives. Key rail projects include the development of three new Red Line suburban train routes alongside the implementation of a national capped metro fare of THB 20 per trip to boost public ridership. Further strengthening regional links is the continued advancement of Phase 2 of the Thai-China High-Speed Rail project.
The air transport sector is allocated 37 projects to increase passenger and cargo capacity, thereby helping to secure Thailand's role as a leading Aviation Hub. Major airport infrastructure upgrades include the Phase 2 expansions of both Chiang Mai and Phuket International Airports, as well as the planned expansion of Suvarnabhumi Airport with a new South Terminal, which is scheduled for 2026. The government is also preparing for the introduction of seaplane operations to enhance coastal connectivity.
Finally, water transport comprises 26 projects designed to strengthen maritime logistics and tourism infrastructure. Efforts are focused on advancing Phase 3 of Laem Chabang Port, a critical regional trade gateway. Furthermore, the plan funds the development of new cruise ship terminals in tourist hotspots like Samui, Pattaya, and Phuket, alongside necessary upgrades to 29 public piers along the Chao Phraya River.
Thailand’s energy transition is guided by an extensive but historically fragmented planning framework, which has yet to fully translate consolidation efforts into a coherent, climate-aligned strategy. Thailand’s strategic commitment to sustainable energy infrastructure is anchored in a set of sectoral plans: the Power Development Plan (PDP), the Energy Efficiency Plan (EEP), the Renewable Energy Development Plan (REDP), the Smart Grid Development Plan and the Fuel and Oil Security Plan. These plans were often developed independently, with limited co-ordination or integration (TDRI, 2025[46]). To address this fragmentation, a National Energy Master Plan (2022–2037) was drafted to consolidate the sectoral plans (Ministry of Energy, 2024[47]). However, in practice, this national plan largely replicates the individual targets of the sub-plans rather than establishing interlinked, integrated strategies across the energy sector, leaving gaps in alignment and potential synergies.
While Thailand has embraced a sustainability-oriented industrial vision under the Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) economy model, its core industrial planning framework remains only partially aligned with long-term decarbonisation objectives. Sustainability in Thailand’s industrial sector is primarily driven by the Bio-Circular-Green Economy Model, which aims to transform Thailand into a regional hub for sustainable industry and innovation. This vision is also closely linked to the development of Special Economic Zones, particularly the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC), where the government seeks to establish advanced industrial clusters as engines of future growth. Nonetheless, Thailand’s National Industrial Development Master Plan has a limited focus on sustainability (TDRI, 2025[48]).
Thailand’s transport policy framework covers a broad range of low-carbon objectives, but gaps remain in its alignment with climate targets and the integration of resilience measures. Thailand’s transport framework incorporates a wide range of low-carbon objectives, including e-mobility, biofuels, rail expansion and aviation efficiency, and is supported by dedicated strategies such as the Master Plan for Sustainable Transport System Mitigation of Climate Change Impacts and the 20-year Transport System Development Strategy. A review by the Asian Transport Observatory finds that while most transport policies adopted since 2015 include mitigation or adaptation elements, their alignment with national climate targets remains weak, with only limited linkage to the NDC or long-term strategy and insufficient integration of resilience and adaptation measures (Asian Transport Observatory, 2024[34]).
Strengthening institutional capacity and sound multi-level infrastructure governance
Thailand has strengthened its governance framework to facilitate the net zero transition. Established in 2023, the Department of Climate Change and Environment (DCCE) serves as Thailand’s central co-ordinator for climate mitigation and adaptation. While its mandate includes supporting ministries and provinces in developing climate plans, its legal authority and capacity are still evolving (World Bank Group, 2025[1]). The forthcoming Climate Change Act is expected to strengthen its role and clarify responsibilities, enabling more consistent implementation of climate-related policies across sectors, including key infrastructure domains such as energy, transport and industry (OECD, 2025[49]). Together, these developments reflect Thailand’s increasing shift towards the practical implementation of climate measures, with the DCCE and the draft Climate Change Act acting as key institutional mechanisms to enforce environmental standards for public infrastructure projects. In parallel, practical implementation tools are being advanced, including the introduction of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems for industrial emissions, the development of carbon standards for public projects, linkages to Thailand’s voluntary carbon market (T-VER), and emerging plans for emissions trading systems (ETS).
Despite progress, climate and infrastructure responsibilities remain fragmented across ministries and agencies, resulting in overlapping mandates and inconsistent implementation. To strengthen climate governance, the OECD has developed detailed recommendations to enhance the management of cross-cutting net-zero challenges from the centre of government in Thailand (Box 7.3).
OECD analysis identified concrete opportunities to reinforce institutional co-ordination, strategic planning and monitoring functions within Thailand’s centre of government (CoG), namely the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission, the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council and the Budget Bureau.
By strengthening these central institutions, Thailand can improve the coherence, effectiveness and sustainability of public governance in support of its long-term national goals. Thailand could consider: (1) Formalising cross-cutting mandates and clarifying roles across key CoG institutions and line ministries to reduce fragmentation and promote joined-up implementation of complex reforms; (2) Empowering the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission to lead co-ordination on cross-cutting priorities such as net zero; and (3) Strengthening the Office of the National Economics and Social Development Council’s strategic planning leadership by equipping it to issue guidance, build capacity, and support alignment across national and sectoral strategies.
A clear distribution of roles and responsibilities across different levels of government is needed to achieve net zero. Thailand could consider: (1) Clarifying and consolidating mandates among the Office of the National Economics and Social Development Council, Office of the Public Sector Development Commission, and line ministries; and (2) Streamlining governance structures, including committees and working groups, to reduce duplication and enhance decision-making efficiency.
Effective policy development requires cohesive governance structures, modern policy frameworks and strong public sector capacity. Thailand could consider: (1) Capacity building for civil servants and stakeholders on policy development practices for net zero; (2) Further strengthening co-ordination mechanisms; and (3) Fostering private sector and civil society engagement, integrating regulatory sandboxes and multi-stakeholder consultations.
A strong monitoring system is critical for tracking progress on net zero. This includes: (1) Developing an integrated performance monitoring framework; (2) Embedding monitoring results into decision-making processes; and (3) Enhancing data availability and integration.
Source: (OECD, 2025[49])
While the government has a clear lead organisation on sustainable infrastructure investment, there lacks co-ordination with key government agencies. The National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) leads the government’s work on sustainable infrastructure, with substantial involvement from sectoral agencies like the Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (OTP) under the Ministry of Transport, Energy Policy and Planning Office (EPPO) under the Ministry of Energy and the Department of Industrial Works (DIW) under the Ministry of Industry (UNDP and ENTEC, 2025[50]). However, the roles of the Department of Climate Change and Environment (DCCE) and the Bureau of the Budget (BB) are not clearly defined. To ensure sound “consideration of climate adaptation for smaller infrastructure-related projects”, more and better co-ordination with DCCE and BB is required, such as through consultation workshops and training events (UNDP and ENTEC, 2025[50]). The OECD also found that enhanced cross-government collaboration and co-ordination emerges as a key priority to streamline energy policy planning and implementation, particularly in small scale renewable energy deployment and energy efficiency in building sector (OECD, 2024[22]).
The 2024-2025 OECD Infrastructure Governance Survey evaluated how Southeast Asian government’s “practices for planning, commissioning and managing infrastructure support resilient and environmentally sustainable infrastructure development”. Under SIPA, the OECD Infrastructure Governance Survey included responses from Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand for the first time. Results of Thailand’s participation in this exercise are summarised in Box 7.4 below.
Thailand demonstrates a good alignment with OECD practices on infrastructure governance, supported by well-established planning, procurement and oversight frameworks. The governance indicators used by GOV assess core dimensions of infrastructure governance, including strategic planning, fiscal sustainability, procurement, transparency, stakeholder engagement, and climate and environmental integration. Through its first round of survey responses and active engagement with the OECD, Thailand has shown strong performance across many of these areas, while also identifying opportunities for targeted reforms to further strengthen outcomes.
Thailand has established several strong foundations for sustainable infrastructure governance. The country operates a 10-year, cross-sectoral infrastructure plan aligned with regional peers and integrates sustainability objectives into long-term planning. Life-cycle costing is used to assess project affordability and fiscal sustainability, and public procurement is supported by e-procurement systems and transparent tender publication. Thailand also collects and discloses environmental and climate risk data to inform infrastructure decisions, and environmental impact assessments are mandatory for major projects. Building on these strengths, further reforms could enhance value for money, sustainability and public trust:
Strengthen long-term planning and monitoring by improving co-ordination across sectors, integrating climate resilience more systematically into infrastructure strategies, and expanding project-level monitoring to include clear benchmarks on costs, timelines and delivery performance.
Enhance value-for-money and affordability assessments by complementing life-cycle cost analysis with independent expert reviews for large infrastructure projects, reducing risks of bias and strengthening fiscal discipline and credibility.
Align procurement more closely with sustainability objectives by introducing mandatory environmental requirements in technical specifications and systematically integrating climate and sustainability criteria into bid evaluation frameworks.
Deepen openness, integrity and inclusiveness in decision making by extending stakeholder engagement beyond early planning stages into construction and operation, strengthening anti-collusion safeguards, and improving access for small and medium-sized enterprises through simplified procedures and proportionate bond requirements.
Strengthen evidence-based decision making by expanding and standardising data collection and reporting on climate risks, biodiversity impacts and economic losses, and by developing frameworks to track procurement outcomes and environmental performance throughout the project life cycle.
Advance climate-resilient and nature-positive infrastructure by introducing climate impact assessments, strengthening adaptation requirements, and developing practical guidance on biodiversity integration and nature-based solutions across infrastructure sectors.
Source: (OECD/ADB, 2025[51])
7.2.2. Long-term planning tools: modelling, scenario-building and foresight capabilities
Developing and Implementing Thailand’s LT-LEDS
Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategies (LT-LEDS), recommended by Article 4.19 of the Paris Agreement, have emerged as a pivotal tool for sustainable, low-carbon infrastructure planning. LT-LEDS development are typically based on economic modelling underpinned by decarbonisation scenarios. They make it possible to translate net-zero targets at the scale of a national economy into sectoral GHG emission reduction targets, helping to elaborate sectoral decarbonisation plans, for example in energy, transport and industry. Their preparation can underpin a wide dialogue of national stakeholders across sectors of the economy to develop decarbonisation scenarios, is critical for raising awareness and support. They help align short-term actions with long-term goals, establishing an explicit link between 2030 emission levels, peaking date and time horizons for carbon neutrality. If well-conducted, they can deliver plans for and help drive investment into long-term sustainable, low-carbon infrastructure projects. Thailand’s LT-LEDS has significantly enhanced its national climate ambition (Box 7.5).
Thailand’s first LT-LEDS, submitted in 2021, was one of the first in the region initially aiming for carbon neutrality by 2065 and net-zero emissions by the "late second half of the century”. Following the Glasgow Climate Pact, Thailand updated its LT-LEDS to align with more aggressive global targets.
The revised LT-LEDS now targets carbon neutrality by 2050 and net-zero GHG emissions by 2065. This ambition is further raised by the NDC 3.0, which sets a net-zero target by 2050. The country also aims to phase down coal power plants by 2040 and phase them out by 2050, while the share of renewable electricity is estimated to reach 68% of total electricity generation in 2040 and 74% in 2050.
The development of this ambitious strategy was the result of a comprehensive and inclusive process, led by the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, which engaged a wide range of national stakeholders including government agencies, the private sector, non-governmental organisations and academia. Through national consultations and focus groups, Thailand has ensured that its climate policy is a broad and collaborative national effort.
Source: (UNFCCC, 2022[52])
A key component of this national effort is the ongoing work to create a legal framework to support the strategy's implementation. A new Climate Change Act is currently in its final stages of review, with the goal of establishing a national Climate Fund, a greenhouse gas reporting system and other mechanisms to facilitate the transition to a low-carbon economy. The new law will also help Thailand access international climate financing to support its adaptation plans (Nation Thailand, 2025[53]). The Department of Climate Change and Environment (DCCE), established in 2023 under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE), has been tasked with spearheading the country's climate action and policy co-ordination.
To translate the LT-LEDS into concrete actions, Thailand has implemented various measures. On one hand, the NDC 3.0 establishes a medium-term mitigation commitment, sets an economy-wide emissions reduction target and identifies priority sectors and measures that put Thailand on a practical decarbonisation trajectory over the next decade (Thammasat University, 2022[54]). Meanwhile, Thailand’s National Adaptation Policy (NAP) provides a structured and comprehensive framework for climate adaptation planning, identifying priority sectors, including infrastructure, and offering guidance on how adaptation actions should be integrated into sectoral and local planning to build resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate impacts (Phongam, Achavanuntakul and Sirijintana, 2025[39]). Taken together, the NDC 3.0 and NAP function as implementation vehicles that anchor near-term mitigation and adaptation actions within existing governance and planning systems, helping to maintain consistency with Thailand’s longer-term climate transition pathway.
Strategic foresight
Strategic foresight can help Thailand plan for long-term development and the net-zero transition. In Thailand, the Office of Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC) carries out foresight activities focused on improving public sector development. Its Strategic Foresight Unit examines domestic and global trends to offer guidance and raise awareness among government agencies (OECD, 2025[49]). While the OPDC’s work tends to focus on specific agendas, the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) co-ordinates broader national planning, including integrating forward-looking methods into five-year development plans and advancing Thailand’s Sustainable Development Goals. Strengthening the NESDC’s use of foresight for net zero policies could help the country better anticipate risks and seize emerging opportunities (OECD, 2025[49]). To harness the Unit for strategic infrastructure development, the government should ensure that it is equipped with a clear mandate, adequate resources and robust co-ordination mechanisms with planning departments of infrastructure-related ministries.
The OECD has developed a Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy to support global and national efforts in designing future-ready net-zero transition strategies amid high uncertainty (OECD, 2025[55]). This toolkit can help governments, including Thailand’s, and organisations stress-test their strategies against 25 plausible disruptions identified for the 2030-2050 period (Box 7.6).
Strategic foresight is a structured approach that enables policymakers to think ahead and prepare for a range of possible futures, rather than relying solely on current trends. In a highly interconnected world, changes in one area can create unexpected effects across environmental, economic and social systems (OECD, 2025).
Foresight exercises offer several benefits for long-term resilience planning. They create a space for reflection on complex, interconnected long-term issues, which is critical for developing robust and resilient economic strategies. They bring together stakeholders from various government branches, helping to break down organisational silos and foster collaboration. They enable participants to explore the interplay of global megatrends such as climate change, technological innovation, and geopolitical shifts, while promoting upskilling and cross-domain knowledge sharing. A learning-by-doing approach not only generates actionable recommendations but also equips participants with lasting strategic foresight skills to enhance anticipatory policymaking.
Under SIPA, the OECD’s Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy, which was developed to support more adaptive, systems-oriented policymaking, was piloted in infrastructure-focused exercises with the Department of Development (formerly National Economic and Development Authority, NEDA) in the Philippines (2022) and Bappenas in Indonesia (2023).
Both workshops applied participatory scenario development and stress-testing to explore how the countries’ draft infrastructure strategies (Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028; Indonesia’s Medium-Term National Development Plan, or RPJMN, 2025-2029) could perform under an array of conditions shaped by climate change, technological shifts, urbanisation and fiscal constraints. The exercises gathered participants from a variety of ministries and non-government representatives to stress-test the draft strategies against a variety of disruptions to identify vulnerabilities and refine investment priorities.
In Indonesia, the process informed adjustments to national infrastructure priorities in the context of the RPJMN, emphasising flexibility, cross-sectoral co-ordination and nature-based solutions. In the Philippines, it supported a more integrated view of climate risks and long-term infrastructure resilience, generating interest within the government to develop targets on investment in resilient infrastructure.
Thailand could further strengthen long-term infrastructure planning by systematically embedding strategic foresight methodologies to enhance the robustness and resilience of policies across a range of plausible future scenarios. To be effective, these efforts should be grounded, to the extent possible, in quantitative and qualitative data.
7.2.3. Policy-level and asset-level sustainability evaluation tools integrating environmental and social considerations
The adoption and effective use of policy- and project-level sustainability evaluation tools and methodologies, such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), can greatly enhance a country’s capabilities for planning and delivering sustainable infrastructure. These tools, even though requiring additional human capacity, time and additional finance to policy and project development and implementation, can bring important benefits such as better understanding of environmental impacts development of alternatives that reduce these impacts. This is particularly important when applied to infrastructure projects, which typically have very high costs over long periods of time.
Policy-level assessments
At policy-level, one of the main tools that have emerged are Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs). SEAs encompass a set of analytical and participatory methods designed to integrate environmental considerations into the development of policies, plans and programmes (OECD, 2006[58]). Their core objectives include embedding sustainability goals into strategic decision-making, collecting and analysing relevant data, including stakeholder input, for informed choices, assessing the potential environmental and health impacts of proposed actions, and establishing conditions for environmentally responsible implementation (OECD, 2006[58]).
Thailand has been applying Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for more than two decades, defining it as "a systemic process to support decision making in the planning process, taking into consideration a balanced view of economic, social and environmental factors, and placing importance on the engagement of all stakeholders to ensure sustainable development" (Government of Thailand, 2021[59]). Led by the NESDC, Thailand has formalised its approach through a number of initiatives. First, Thailand implemented a national SEA Guideline in 2018 (Government of Thailand, 2021[59]), and prepared area- and sector-based SEA manuals to facilitate government agencies and stakeholders in applying SEAs (NESDC, 2025[60]). Thailand also established a legal framework for SEA driving mechanism under the draft Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on SEA to mandate SEA in plan formulation in Thailand, covering infrastructure sectors such as energy, industry and transport (NESDC, 2025[60]). To date, Thailand has applied SEA in the planning processes of 16 infrastructure projects, although none directly relate to sustainable infrastructure in the energy, industry or transport sectors (NESDC, 2025[60]). This highlights a key opportunity to expand the use of SEA to guide future investments in these high-impact areas toward greater sustainability and resilience.
Thailand could consider making more systematic use of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs), given their multiple benefits. SEAs support environmentally sound and sustainable development while improving the quality, coherence and consistency of policy, planning and programming processes. By identifying environmental risks and trade-offs at an early stage, SEAs can help avoid costly policy reversals, saving time and public resources. They also enhance transparency, strengthen governance arrangements and build public trust in decision-making. In transboundary contexts, SEAs can further support co-operation and policy alignment across jurisdictions (UNDP and REC, n.d.[61]).
Effective implementation of SEA requires a combination of enabling framework conditions and sound implementation practices. At the institutional level, this includes strong political commitment, adequate and predictable funding, and the systematic integration of SEA requirements into sectoral planning and investment guidelines. Well-designed regulatory and administrative incentives are also important to encourage consistent application and compliance. In parallel, meaningful stakeholder engagement and knowledge dissemination are essential to ensure transparency and inclusiveness throughout the SEA process (OECD, 2006[58]). In the Thai context, broad stakeholder consultations and cross-sectoral engagement as well as communication strategies have been highlighted as challenges to successful SEA implementation in the country (Waller, 2023[62]).
From an operational perspective, SEA should be applied early in the planning cycle to inform strategic choices from the outset. Methodological flexibility is important, particularly in contexts where data availability is uneven, and the targeted use of external expertise can strengthen the quality and credibility of assessments. To maximise impact, SEA findings should be systematically reflected in the revision of plans and programmes. Finally, robust monitoring and ex post evaluation mechanisms are needed to assess effectiveness over time and support adaptive management (OECD, 2006[58]).
Project-level assessments
Thailand already has a well-established system of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). The country’s legal and institutional framework for EIAs is laid out primarily under the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act from 1992 and its amendment in 2018 (Government of Thailand, 2018[63]). The law establishes the legal foundation for mandating that all new projects on a list of 35 specified types, which are deemed to have a significant environmental impact, must submit an EIA report for review. Public participation is required for all projects, mandating at least two hearings for EIA, including a first hearing on the scoping stage and a second hearing on the draft report and measure stage. The review process is overseen by the National Environment Board and the EIA Expert Review Committee (ERC), which consists of a Chairman, licensing agencies and nine experts in each of the nine project clusters: land and air, water, water resource development, industry, petrochemical and chemical, energy, mining, petroleum development, and building and housing. The review for certain building and housing projects has been decentralised to specified high-potential and environmentally protected provinces. To support the EIA process, the government has developed several sector-specific guidelines as well as measures to enhance public participation such as the EIA clinic (Government of Thailand, 2022[64]). Thailand also has a digital monitoring and reporting system in place, Smart EIA+ (Government of Thailand, 2022[65]).
Despite robust legal underpinnings, EIAs are challenged by inefficiencies and lack of transparency. It is essential to increase public participation by broadening community engagement, ensuring the early involvement of stakeholders during the scoping phase, providing accessible summaries of EIA reports in local languages and actively promoting public awareness and understanding of environmental issues. Simultaneously, improving technical capacity is necessary, which involves training more qualified EIA consultants and reviewers, and continuously developing up-to-date sector-specific guidelines. To foster trust and accountability, transparency and accessibility must be enhanced by expanding the Smart EIA system to incorporate real-time updates and interactive maps, and by making all EIA-related documents, including baseline data, publicly available online. Finally, the decentralisation of the review processes will improve both efficiency and contextual relevance by empowering Provincial Expert Review Committees (ERCs) to handle local projects, supported by robust capacity-building programs for provincial offices and relevant personnel to maintain consistent national standards (UNDP and ENTEC, 2025[50]).
At project level, other evaluation tools can integrate sustainability criteria and significantly improve the strategic planning of sustainable infrastructure. These include classic cost-benefit analysis using environmental sustainability criteria, such as SAVi (Box 7.7), and the UNECE’s PPP and Infrastructure Evaluation and Rating System (PIERS), as well as climate risk assessment that analyse the level of risk that a project or its infrastructure components may face due to climate-related hazards. These enable a more holistic approach to measuring infrastructure projects’ cost-effectiveness, including environmental and social costs and benefits at all stages of the infrastructure lifecycle. They can also help attract sustainable finance to projects by introducing sustainability considerations into the planning process. Policies that reflect the cost of negative externalities (i.e., carbon pricing) impact the results of these valuation methods.
The Sustainable Valuation Asset (SAVi) methodology combines system dynamics with project finance modelling to capture the full economic, social, environmental and governance risks of infrastructure projects, and to quantify externalities in monetary terms. The SAVi methodology captures avoided costs and added benefits typically excluded from conventional CBAs, including the economic impacts of transport delays, air pollution, traffic accidents, climate-related damage to infrastructure and GHG emissions, among others. Its customisation to local conditions and co-creative engagement with stakeholders ensure that assessments reflect Thailand’s specific policy priorities, climate risks and development objectives.
By providing a life-cycle assessment of costs and benefits, it helps policymakers and investors identify priorities and trade-offs to build stronger cases for sustainable infrastructure investment. The methodology incorporates a wide range of economic, social and environmental impacts that are often omitted from conventional appraisal approaches, alongside financial analysis. SAVi assessments provide an evidence-based framework to better understand the full value, risks and trade-offs associated with infrastructure investments over their life cycle. SAVi can therefore complement existing decision-making processes and help inform the prioritisation and design of sustainable and resilient infrastructure investments in Thailand. In practice, the methodology can be applied to a wide range of use cases, including individual sustainable infrastructure projects in the transport and energy sectors, as well as broader policies and strategies at the city, regional or national level.
Under SIPA, and in collaboration with the Partnership for Infrastructure (P4I), the IISD held a capacity-building workshop in Thailand, introducing the SAVi approach as an integrated framework for assessing infrastructure projects beyond traditional financial and cost-benefit approaches. The workshop identified land transport as a priority area for further application, and, through case studies from Indonesia and the Philippines, demonstrated the collaborative nature of the methodology as well as its ability to reflect local conditions and policy priorities by using local data to customise analysis. The case studies also illustrated how SAVi captures tangible and intangible impacts, including avoided costs, added benefits and non-market values, showing that projects with higher upfront costs can deliver strong long-term economic and societal benefits.
7.2.3. Mainstreaming climate adaptation into infrastructure development
The economic consequences of climate-related events and disasters are severe in Thailand. Thailand ranks among the ten most flood-prone nations globally, with the Chao Phraya basin, home to roughly 40 % of the population and responsible for 66 % of GDP, particularly vulnerable (World Bank Group, 2025[1]). For instance, the catastrophic 2011 floods affected around 13 million people across 26 provinces, which inflicted damages and losses estimated at about THB 1.43 trillion (around USD 46.5 billion), or 12.6% of GDP at the time (World Bank Group, 2025[1]). In urban areas such as Bangkok, rising urban heat and flood related disruption are already undermining transport, housing and public services, with more than 700 flood hotspots identified in the city alone (TDRI, 2025[69]). Without robust adaptation measures, Thailand risks losing between 7% and 14% of its GDP by 2050 (World Bank Group, 2025[1]).
In response to growing climate threats, climate resilience has recently become a central factor in Thailand's national development planning. This is explicitly included in key national strategies, such as the 20-Year National Strategy and the 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan, which both contain milestones for reducing risks from climate change and natural disasters. Additionally, Thailand submitted its National Adaptation Plan (NAP) to the UNFCCC in 2024, outlining a comprehensive framework for adaptation actions across key sectors.
Thailand has already strengthened climate-resilient infrastructure in governance. For example, Thailand’s OPDC, MNRE and the Ministry of Transport (MOT), through its Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (OTP), have initiated inter-agency collaboration to develop climate-resilient transport systems, supported by capacity-building programmes conducted jointly with GIZ in 2025 (Changing Transport, 2025[70]).
Thailand is ramping up investments in infrastructure resilience. Thailand’s emerging tools for infrastructure resilience include the Green Infrastructure Investment Opportunities framework, which identifies over USD 30 billion of potential green and climate-resilient infrastructure investments, complemented by ongoing efforts to mobilise blended finance and local credit mechanisms for climate-aligned projects (ADB, 2021[71]). However, current funding remains overwhelmingly focused on projects like renewable energy and clean transport, while adaptation projects, such as disaster resilience and climate-proofing infrastructure, are critically underfunded. These essential projects often receive less than 1% of total climate finance (ADB, 2025[6]).
Transport infrastructure is particularly vulnerable to climate hazards. Thailand’s transport infrastructure faces an average annual loss of USD 125.78 million (0.01% of GDP) due to climate-related hazards, primarily on roads (78%) and rail (21%). Thailand ranks 66th on the National Road Vulnerability Index, which indicates room for improvement in network redundancy to ensure connectivity during disruptions. In addition, the fact that 10% of its population lives in low-lying coastal zones highlights its vulnerability to climate-related hazards (Asian Transport Observatory, 2024[34]). Under SIPA, UNDP and the National Energy Technology Centre (ENTEC) has developed guidelines for sound climate investment for sustainable infrastructure, with a specific focus on resilient transport (UNDP and ENTEC, 2025[50]).
Effective resilience planning requires a co-ordinated effort across various government and private sector bodies. The main stakeholders involved in transport infrastructure development include the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC), which plays a central role in pre-evaluating large-scale projects, and the Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (OTP) under the Ministry of Transport, which is responsible for transport-specific policies. The newly established Department of Climate Change and the Environment (DCCE) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment is also a key player in shaping the nation's climate policy. On the implementation side, Ministry of Transport agencies such as the Department of Highways (DOH), the Department of Rural Roads (DRR) and the State Railway of Thailand (SRT) are the primary implementers of transport infrastructure projects. Finally, institutions like the Bank of Thailand (BOT) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are crucial for promoting sustainable financing mechanisms, such as green and sustainability-linked bonds.
While national policies promote climate adaptation, most transport agencies do not include it in their plans. The Department of Highways is an exception, being the only agency with a climate change action plan. This indicates a significant gap between policy and practice. The Green Taxonomy, developed by the Bank of Thailand and the SEC (section 7.4.1), exists to classify climate investments, but guidance will be required for agencies to utilise such tools. Therefore, the OTP should promote climate risk assessment for large-scale public investments within the Transport Action Plan. This can be accomplished by encouraging implementing agencies to integrate climate investment into their action plans through workshops and training.
Climate adaptation and disaster preparedness are interdependent, but currently, they operate in silos. The Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM) under the Ministry of the Interior focuses on disaster strategies but lacks integration with climate adaptation efforts. As disaster intensity increases, a closer collaboration between these two areas is essential for effective preparedness. To align these efforts, the NESDC and OTP should engage with the DDPM. The goal is to synchronise disaster data and policies. Consultation workshops would help align disaster preparedness with climate investment policies, ensuring a more cohesive and comprehensive strategy.
The approval process for large-scale investments is thorough due to the use of public funds, with the NESDC requesting extensive documentation for its careful evaluation. This adds to the workload and can be time-consuming. The process needs to be streamlined to minimise additional steps for both project proponents and the NESDC. The approval process should avoid adding extra steps for transport infrastructure investments. Instead, climate adaptation considerations should be seamlessly incorporated into the existing approval criteria. This approach will minimise complications while ensuring projects are evaluated for climate resilience.
The NESDC's 11 assessment criteria lack specific requirements for climate change. This means that including climate adaptation is not mandatory for infrastructure investment projects. This oversight can lead to the development of infrastructure that is not resilient to future climate impacts. Climate considerations should be integrated into the existing criteria. This includes incorporating the cost of climate change into the financial, economic, and feasibility evaluations. The goal is to balance effectiveness and resilience. Additionally, climate impact should be included in the existing rules and standards of implementing agencies. Specifically, this can be done by:
Strengthening inter-agency co-ordination by enabling NESDC and OTP to work with supporting and implementing agencies to embed climate adaptation for transport infrastructure into their mandates through consultations and training.
Raising awareness among implementing agencies by having OTP promote the inclusion of climate adaptation and sound climate investment in Ministry of Transport action plans.
Involving disaster management agencies by engaging DDPM in consultations and data sharing to align disaster preparedness with climate-resilient transport investment.
Avoiding increasing approval complexity by integrating climate adaptation considerations into existing large-scale transport investment approval processes without adding new steps.
Integrating climate risks into existing criteria by incorporating climate costs and risks into financial, economic, and risk management assessments and updating current standards accordingly.
Two key tools for effective and resilient climate investment are the climate risk assessment and the cost-benefit analysis. Under SIPA, the UNDP together with the National Energy Technology Center (ENTEC), in close collaboration with NESDC and OTP, developed guidelines with the objective to support the integration of climate risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis tools into transport infrastructure planning and appraisal (Box 7.8). SIPA supported capacity-building workshops and policy dialogues with Thai government stakeholders to introduce and discuss the application of the guideline and related analytical tools. The guidelines encourage a policy-oriented approach to CBA which must look beyond direct repair costs to include indirect benefits, such as preventing income loss for infrastructure users. Without incorporating these broader socio-economic impacts, vital adaptation projects may incorrectly appear financially unviable, leading to significant under-investment in resilience.
The core of the analysis involved a Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) to assess the economic viability of implementing specific climate change adaptation countermeasures. The assessment’s scope compared the cost of investment in these measures against the resulting benefits, which were defined as the avoided costs of climate change impacts. The investment costs were estimated for various countermeasure packages, with service lives ranging from 13 years for measures like cape seal treatment (Measure D) and laying on a base course (Measure B) and a 40-year service life for mechanically stabilised earth walls (Measure E). The benefits were calculated by estimating the reduction in future emergency expenses across two critical categories: (1) Direct Expected Emergency Expenses, which are costs avoided by the implementing agency, such as repair costs; and (2) Indirect Expected Emergency Expenses, which are costs avoided by infrastructure users and the public, such as income loss due to road closures.
The results of the CBA demonstrated that the scope of benefits considered is the deciding factor in project feasibility. When the assessment only included Direct Expenses, the majority of countermeasure packages resulted in a negative Net Present Value (NPV) and a Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C Ratio) of less than 1. However, when Indirect Expenses were incorporated, the NPV of all countermeasure sets became positive, with B/C Ratios rising significantly to between 2.87 and 5.29.
Considering a discount rate (7%) and an inflation rate (1.59%), reveals that in a "without climate change" scenario, the value of emergency expenses trends downward over time due to the decreasing value of money. In contrast, under the "with climate change" scenario, the increasing frequency and severity of disasters offset the effects of discounting and inflation. This ensures that the expected emergency expenses remain high, reinforcing the economic justification for proactive investment in resilient infrastructure.
Note: 3D = three applications of countermeasure D, 3B = three applications of countermeasure B
Source: (UNDP and ENTEC, 2025[50])
7.2.4. Mainstreaming gender considerations into infrastructure planning and evaluation frameworks
Thailand has developed a legal and policy foundation for advancing gender equality, anchored by the 2017 Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on sex and mandates gender-responsive budgeting (Government of Thailand, 2017[72]), and the 2015 Gender Equality Act, the country’s first anti-discrimination law (Government of Thailand, 2015[73]). These commitments are reinforced by national strategic documents, including the National Strategy (2018–2037) (Government of Thailand, 2018[14]), the 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) (Government of Thailand, 2023[15]) and the Women’s Development Strategy (2023–2027) (Government of Thailand, 2023[74]). However, they do not explicitly link infrastructure and gender.
The consideration of gender in Thailand’s infrastructure sector remains limited and uneven, resulting in infrastructure planning and delivery that largely overlook the distinct needs, experiences and risks faced by women. Across infrastructure sectors, gender targets are absent from key planning documents, including the 20-Year Transport System Development Strategy (Government of Thailand, 2018[44]) and the National Energy Master Plan (Government of Thailand, 2021[45]). EIAs, though legally mandated, rarely apply standardised gender analysis, often reducing gender to generalised “community impacts”. Women’s participation in public hearings and infrastructure consultations remains low, reflecting entrenched norms and consultation processes that do not accommodate women’s care burdens or ensure adequate representation. Leadership gaps also persist, where women hold only 15.8% of ministerial roles in 2024 (World Bank Group, 2026[75]), mirroring low female employment in transport, construction and energy infrastructure sectors.
Although Thailand established a legal definition for women-owned businesses, the country currently lacks gender-responsive procurement policies and sex-disaggregated data is not systematically collected. This limits the country’s ability to promote women-owned businesses and gender-responsive enterprises. Monitoring and evaluation frameworks for infrastructure similarly lack gender-sensitive indicators, leaving gender outcomes untracked. 1
Despite these gaps, Thailand has engaged extensively with development partners, such as UNDP, UN Women, GIZ, ADB and OECD, to embed gender considerations in climate action, disaster risk reduction and sustainable infrastructure. These collaborations offer promising entry points for institutionalisation.2 One example of how social inclusion was integrated into SIPA-supported work is the cost-benefit analysis of climate-proofing road and rail transport, which explicitly considered the differentiated needs of women (Box 7.9). The analysis demonstrates how analytical tools can guide ministries in embedding gender into infrastructure planning and climate adaptation decisions. Cost-benefit analyses should therefore include indirect assessments of these gender equality and social inclusion (GEDSI) dimensions, since climate-related disruptions, such as road closures or detours, can create unintended risks for vulnerable populations (UNDP and ENTEC, 2025[50]).
To illustrate how Gender Equality, Disability and Social Inclusion (GEDSI) benefits can be quantified in economic analysis, an example assessment estimated income losses faced by retail vendors due to flood-related road closures between 2016 and 2025. The analysis calculated cumulative income losses using average daily household income and the total duration of road closures, demonstrating a measurable indirect benefit of climate adaptation through avoided losses.
Incorporating this avoided income loss as a GEDSI-related indirect benefit significantly improved the economic viability of adaptation measures. For example, the Benefit–Cost Ratio for the Cape seal treatment (D) increased to 6.31 when GEDSI benefits were included, compared to a substantially lower ratio based on direct benefits alone. This highlights the importance of integrating GEDSI considerations to capture the full social and economic value of infrastructure investments. The comprehensive inclusion of GEDSI benefits demonstrates that a thorough social and economic evaluation is critical, ensuring that investments are justified by reflecting the broader societal value and avoided costs across all segments of the population.
Note: D = cape seal treatment; B = laying the road 0.5m higher; E = mechanically stabilised earth wall
Source: (UNDP and ENTEC, 2025[50])
Moving forward, Thailand can significantly advance gender equality in sustainable infrastructure by adopting several key measures, including:3
Integrating clear, measurable gender-responsive infrastructure targets into national strategies to provide a binding direction for sectoral ministries;
Strengthening gender-responsive budgeting through sector-specific guidelines to help ensure infrastructure investments reflect the differentiated needs of women and men;
Mandating the use of gender screening tools during early project appraisal to allow ministries to systematically assess gender impacts and design appropriate mitigation measures;
Increasing women’s participation in infrastructure decision-making by holding consultations at times accessible to women and introducing minimum participation thresholds to ensure a broader range of perspectives inform project development;
Advancing gender-responsive procurement through legislation, data collection and incentives to promote supplier diversity and broaden economic participation;
Mainstreaming gender into national monitoring and evaluation frameworks and establish gender-sensitive grievance mechanisms to strengthen accountability and help ensure infrastructure investments contribute to more inclusive, equitable and sustainable outcomes.
While a robust national institutional and strategic planning framework provides a critical foundation for advancing sustainable infrastructure, it is equally essential that sector-specific frameworks align with overarching sustainability objectives to ensure coherent and effective implementation across the economy. Sector-specific frameworks refer to the set of policies, regulations, and standards that significantly influence investor decision-making by establishing obligations and shaping the conditions under which viable business models for sectoral projects can emerge. This section delves into Thailand’s framework conditions for investments in sustainable energy, transport and industrial sectors.
Thailand has put in place several sector-relevant foundations to support investment in sustainable energy, transport and industrial infrastructure. A growing body of sectoral master plans provide an overall direction for the transition outlined in Thailand’s NDC 3.0 and LT-LEDS. Recent policy developments, including the draft Climate Change Act, investment promotion measures in strategic industrial clusters and targeted pilots on industrial decarbonisation, have begun to address barriers to sustainable infrastructure deployment. However, gaps in policy coherence, regulatory clarity and project-level implementation continue to limit the scale and pace of investment. To strengthen framework conditions at the sectoral level, Thailand could:
Improve alignment between energy, transport and industrial master plans and Thailand’s long-term decarbonisation and resilience targets, including clearer guidance on fossil fuel phase-down pathways and prioritisation of low-carbon alternatives to avoid carbon lock-in.
Accelerate reforms that support renewable integration, grid modernisation and energy storage deployment, and ensure that power planning, market rules and tariff structures are consistent with long-term emissions reduction and energy security objectives.
Strengthen regulatory and planning frameworks that support public transport, rail and low-emission logistics, integrate climate resilience and emissions criteria into transport investment decisions, and improve co-ordination across agencies to unlock bankable transport projects.
Address regulatory and fiscal barriers that constrain the deployment of low-carbon technologies in emission-intensive industries and provide clearer long-term policy signals to support investment in bio-based materials, circular economy solutions and carbon management technologies.
Improve cross-agency co-ordination, streamline permitting and approval processes, and reinforce project appraisal, monitoring and accountability mechanisms to reduce regulatory risk and improve delivery of sustainable infrastructure projects.
Embed climate risk assessment, adaptation standards and resilience requirements into sectoral policies and investment frameworks—particularly in transport and energy systems exposed to flooding, heat stress and extreme weather—to safeguard long-term asset performance.
7.3.1. Framework conditions for sustainable energy infrastructure development
Transforming Thailand's energy infrastructure is critical to meet its climate and broader development goals. The energy sector emitted 92 223 ktCO2eq and made up around 24% of total GHG emissions in 2023 (UNFCCC, 2024[28]). CO2 emissions from electricity and heat producers reached over 84 million tonnes in 2023, representing more than one third of total energy-related CO2 emissions (IEA, 2025[29]), while net electricity demand is projected to increase by an average annual of 3.13% from 2018 to 2037 (Climate Policy Database, 2024[76]). To address this rising demand and the economic risks of fossil fuel reliance, Thailand is accelerating its energy transition. This shift is driven by rapid urbanisation and economic expansion, aiming not only to decarbonise the power mix but also to enhance energy security, provide affordable energy access and stimulate job creation (UNDP, 2025[31]; OECD, 2024[22]). Thailand’s energy transition is guided by comprehensive planning frameworks and strategies, as outlined in Section 7.2, which provide the policy foundation and roadmap for achieving these objectives.
Thailand’s structural reliance on fossil fuels undermines meaningful progress towards decarbonisation. The recent decision to extend the operational life of key fossil fuel power plants, from 2025 to at least 2031, with some refurbished until 2048, (Mongabay, 2025[77]) signals continued fossil lock-in rather than a transition away from high-emission infrastructure. This trajectory is further entrenched by sustained dependence on natural gas. Long-term supply contracts and planned capacity expansions, despite underutilisation of existing gas-fired assets, risk delaying renewable energy deployment and increasing exposure to stranded assets (IEEFA, 2026[78]). These dynamics reflect broader structural barriers within Thailand’s policy framework, including entrenched vested interests, carbon pricing coverage and ambition under development, and the absence of a legislated fossil fuel phase-out strategy (Phongam, Achavanuntakul and Sirijintana, 2025[39]). Addressing these challenges will require a coherent reform package, including the gradual phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies with revenues redirected toward clean energy and energy efficiency, the strengthening of carbon pricing instruments aligned with net-zero objectives and the legislation of clear and binding fossil fuel phase-out timelines consistent with national climate objectives.
Achieving renewable energy deployment consistent with national climate targets will require expanded transmission and distribution capacity, improved system flexibility and more effective electricity demand management, as current infrastructure and operational arrangements are not designed to accommodate a high share of wind and solar generation (OECD, 2023[79]). Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are critical for managing renewable energy intermittency, enhancing system reliability and reducing reliance on fossil-fuel-based balancing power. While storage deployment has been identified as a priority in Thailand’s power sector planning, meeting future system requirements will require significantly higher investment levels alongside continued cost reductions and technological advancement (UNDP, 2025[31]). Beyond national infrastructure, deeper regional electricity interconnection within ASEAN represents an important strategic opportunity. Enhanced cross-border power trade can strengthen energy security, facilitate renewable energy integration across countries, and increase overall system flexibility by enabling access to a more diverse generation portfolio (UNESCAP, 2026[80]).
While Thailand has expanded large-scale renewable generation over the past decade, financing for small-scale renewable energy systems remains limited. Scaling up this segment could improve energy security, reduce system-wide infrastructure costs, enhance grid resilience, support local employment and expand access to clean electricity in rural areas and off-grid islands. Progress has been hindered by insufficient policy support and a lack of financing instruments suited to smaller projects. Addressing these gaps will require clearer long-term policy signals, simpler licensing procedures, stronger public financial incentives for community-based models and targeted financial mechanisms – such as credit guarantees and Pay-As-You-Go support – to unlock private investment in small-scale renewables (OECD, 2024[22]).
Thailand’s clean energy targets as well as broader development objectives will require framework conditions capable of mobilising financing at the required scale and pace. Between 2018 and 2024, the energy sector dominated the climate finance landscape, accounting for 48% of total NDC-aligned investments (THB 761 billion / USD 22.4 billion). Despite this significant share, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) indicates that current funding levels are insufficient to meet the long-term requirements. To achieve established energy-related climate goals and current investment levels, the sector faces an annual financing gap estimated between USD 2.92 billion and USD 4.42 billion for the period 2030-2050 (ADB, 2025[6]). Notably, the updated NDC 3.0 suggests accelerating the net-zero target to 2050, which would further intensify these investment requirements. Between 2022 and 2037, estimated investment needs include THB 779 billion (USD 22 billion) for new renewable power generation and THB 974 billion (USD 28 billion) for energy efficiency improvements across the industrial, commercial, residential and agricultural sectors (Thailand Board of Investment, 2024[81]). Section 7.4 discusses policies to mobilise the financing and investment needed to address these gaps.
The social and economic implications of Thailand’s energy transition are substantial. The move away from fossil fuels risks job losses in conventional energy sectors, yet it also creates new job opportunities in clean energy sectors such as solar, wind and EV sectors. Targeted policies and programmes are needed to support women, youth and marginalised groups in gaining equitable access to these emerging roles. The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that about 60,000 jobs in Thailand’s fossil-fuel industries could be at risk by 2030 due to the global energy shift (ILO, 2023[82]), underscoring the importance of reskilling and upskilling initiatives (UNDP, 2025[31]). Ensuring that underrepresented groups can participate fully in the new energy economy will strengthen social inclusion (UNDP, 2025[31]). The OECD finds that increasing capacity building, fostering data collection and awareness-raising, with support of international development partners, are indispensable to ensure that the workforce is well-trained and local communities are informed about the benefits and opportunities of the clean energy transition as well as latest products available in the market (OECD, 2024[22]).
7.3.2. Sustainable transport infrastructure development – State of play and framework conditions
Thailand's transport sector significantly contributes to climate change. In 2023, CO2 emissions from transport reached over 81 million tonnes in 2023, representing more than one third of total energy-related CO2 emissions (EDGAR, 2025[83]; IEA, 2025[29]). While emissions growth has slowed since the adoption of the Paris Agreement and SDGs, the annual increase of 3% since 2015 remains concerning, particularly compared to the Asia-Pacific average of 1% between 2019 and 2023 (Asian Transport Outlook, 2024[84]). The Thai-German Co-operation on Energy, Mobility and Climate found that under current policies, transport CO2 emissions are projected to increase by 24% by 2030 and 58% by 2050, compared to 2020 levels (Agora Verkehrswende, 2024[85]). See section 7.2 for an overview of Thailand’s planning frameworks and strategies on sustainable transport.
Road transportation is the dominant source of CO2 emissions in Thailand’s transport sector. CO2 emissions from road transportation has averaged at 96% of transport emissions since 2000, while rail, navigation and aviation contribute only marginal shares (Asian Transport Outlook, 2024[84]). The sheer dominance of road transport is a key challenge, exacerbated by a high vehicle ownership rate per capita and insufficient public transportation infrastructure, particularly outside of Bangkok (TDRI, 2024[86]). Freight transportation is a key contributor to this challenge, as more than 75% of domestic freight is transported by road, resulting in high greenhouse gas emissions, congestion, and air pollution (ITF, 2025[87]). Under SIPA, the International Transport Forum (ITF) assessed freight transport in Southeast Asia and highlighted specific measures for Thailand to strengthen connectivity, resilience and sustainability (Box 7.11).
Thailand’s freight transport sector faces mounting environmental and structural challenges due to its overwhelming dependence on road-based logistics. Rail and inland waterway modes remain underutilised, together carrying less than 10% of total freight in 2025, including domestic and international but excluding sea transport. The adoption of low-carbon technologies such as electric and LNG-powered trucks is limited, hindered by high upfront costs, fragmented ownership among small trucking firms, and the absence of a nationwide charging or refuelling network. Without decisive policy intervention, freight emissions are projected to grow by nearly 70% between 2025 and 2050 under the Business-as-Usual (BAU) scenario (ITF, 2025[87]). Under SIPA, the International Transport Forum (ITF) assessed freight transport in Southeast Asia and highlighted specific measures for Thailand to strengthen connectivity, resilience and sustainability.
Freight transport is a critical enabler of Thailand’s industrial competitiveness and regional connectivity, particularly within major urban and logistics hubs such as Bangkok, the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) and Laem Chabang. However, the sector remains emissions-intensive, road-dependent and constrained by congestion, fragmented logistics systems and high exposure to climate risks. Logistics costs account for a relatively high share of GDP, reflecting structural inefficiencies and limited multimodal integration. With freight demand projected to grow significantly by 2040, accelerating the transition toward cleaner, more efficient and resilient freight systems will be essential to reduce emissions, improve productivity and safeguard long-term economic performance. To support this transition, the ITF’s work under SIPA has identified several priority policy directions for Thailand:
Accelerate the decarbonisation of freight vehicles by promoting the uptake of electric and alternative-fuel trucks in major industrial and urban hubs through subsidised financing, targeted tax incentives and import-duty exemptions, while strengthening fuel efficiency and emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles in line with international best practices.
Promote investment in enabling infrastructure and market incentives by supporting private investment in refuelling and charging infrastructure, introducing low-carbon tax credits and green logistics certification schemes, and facilitating adoption of cleaner technologies among small and medium-sized freight operators.
Expand multimodal and intermodal freight corridors by strengthening rail and inland waterway connectivity between Bangkok, Laem Chabang and the EEC, upgrading inland container depots and logistics hubs through public-private partnerships, and reducing reliance on road freight for long-distance and containerised transport.
Enhance logistics efficiency through digitalisation and trade facilitation by modernising customs systems, deploying digital logistics platforms to reduce dwell times and improve cargo throughput, and deepening cross-border integration through regional frameworks such as the ASEAN Single Window.
Strengthen climate resilience of freight infrastructure by integrating climate-resilient design standards into ports and logistics corridors in flood-prone areas, upgrading drainage and protection systems, and deploying early warning, real-time monitoring and predictive maintenance tools to reduce disruption risks.
Source: (ITF, 2025[87])
Thailand’s transport sector is increasingly exposed to climate-related risks. The country suffers an average annual economic loss of around USD 126 million (roughly 0.01% of GDP) due to hazards affecting its critical coastal transport infrastructure, primarily roads (about 78%) and rail (about 21%) (Asian Transport Outlook, 2024[84]). At the same time, Thailand's road vulnerability ranked 66th out of 202 countries globally in 2023, which indicates room for improvement in network redundancy to ensure connectivity during disruptions (Asian Transport Observatory, 2024[34]). In addition, the fact that 10% of the population lives in low-elevation coastal zones, exposing them to climate change-related risks (Asian Transport Observatory, 2024[34]).
Climate-proofing the transport system in Thailand will depend not only on policy ambition, but on whether existing framework conditions are capable of mobilising financing at the required scale and pace. While the sector received around USD 7.5 billion (16% of total NDC-aligned investments), current funding remains far below what is needed for the long term (ADB, 2025[6]). To meet transport-related climate goals, the ADB estimates that the transport sector faces an annual financing gap between USD 3.25 billion and USD 4.75 billion for the period 2030-2050 (ADB, 2025[6]). In the near term, the UNDP estimates an additional THB 13 billion to THB 14 billion (USD 400 million to USD 430 million) will be required to climate-proof transport by 2030 (UNDP, 2022[4]). Section 7.4 discusses policies to mobilise the financing and investment needed to address these gaps.
7.3.3. Framework conditions for sustainable industrial infrastructure development
Thailand’s industrial sector plays a central role in the national economy, contributing close to one quarter of GDP. In 2024, manufacturing activities accounted for around one quarter of GDP and generated approximately THB 4.5 trillion (USD 130 billion) in value added (Bank of Thailand, 2025[88]). Notwithstanding its economic importance, the manufacturing sector remains highly exposed to macroeconomic volatility. Structural challenges have intensified over time, including a gradual erosion of global competitiveness and a declining share in international manufacturing value chains (OECD, 2026[23]). Financial constraints further limit growth potential, as elevated household debt suppresses domestic demand while small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) continue to face restricted access to credit and long-term financing (World Bank, 2020[89]).
Decarbonisation of the manufacturing sector is critical for Thailand to meet its climate commitments and to support longer-term industrial transformation. Emissions from industrial processes and product use (IPPU) represented 10.5% of national greenhouse gas emissions in 2022 (UNFCCC, 2024[28]). At the same time, industry is Thailand’s largest end-use energy consumer, accounting for more than 47% of total final energy consumption in 2023 (Figure 7.4). Reducing emissions in manufacturing therefore offers substantial mitigation potential. Beyond climate benefits, industrial decarbonisation can enhance the resilience of Thailand’s export-oriented sectors, particularly as international markets increasingly apply carbon-related standards and border measures (OECD, 2026[23]). These efforts are aligned with Thailand’s ambition to become a regional hub for sustainable industry and innovation under the Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) economy model (Government of Thailand, 2021[42]). Further information on Thailand’s policy framework, planning and strategies related to sustainable industry infrastructure is provided in section 7.2.
Note: Unit is million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) per year. The data include ‘non-energy use’ category, which covers fuels that “are used as raw materials in the different sectors and are not consumed as a fuel or transformed into another fuel” (IEA, 2025[90]).
Source: (OECD, 2026[23])
Energy use in Thailand’s industrial sector has increased significantly over the past two decades, and the sector’s continued dependence on fossil fuels represents a significant challenge for decarbonisation. The manufacturing sector’s energy consumption has approximately doubled since 2000, reaching 24 Mtoe in 2023 (Figure 7.5), not including non-energy use. Over this period, changes in the energy mix have been limited, with the most notable development being a shift from oil towards greater use of natural gas. Coal and electricity – largely generated from fossil sources – remained the principal energy inputs in 2023, each accounting for about 30% of the industrial sector’s energy consumption. Natural gas represented around 16%, while oil contributed roughly 11%. By 2022, renewable electricity accounted for 13% of total electricity generation in the manufacturing sector (IRENA, 2025[91]). When non-energy uses of fuels are taken into account, fossil fuels accounted for around three-quarters of final energy consumption in manufacturing in 2023. This was driven primarily by oil products, which alone represented about half of total use, followed by electricity (15%) and renewable sources (9%) (Figure 7.6).
Megatons of oil equivalent (Mtoe), 2000-2023
Note: The data do not include ‘non-energy use’ category, which covers fuels that “are used as raw materials in the different sectors and are not consumed as a fuel or transformed into another fuel” (IEA, 2025[90]).
Source: (OECD, 2026[23])
Percentage, 2023
Note: The data include ‘non-energy use’ category, which covers fuels that “are used as raw materials in the different sectors and are not consumed as a fuel or transformed into another fuel” (IEA, 2025[90]).
Source: (OECD, 2026[23])
Decarbonising Thailand’s manufacturing sector will require robust framework conditions capable of mobilising significant upfront investment. While progress has been made, current investment levels remain insufficient to meet industry’s climate-related needs. Between 2018 and 2024, the industry sector attracted around 16% of total NDC-aligned investments, equivalent to USD 7.5 billion. Despite this, the Asian Development Bank estimates that additional financing of USD 1.78-2.78 billion will be needed in the industry sector to meet climate-related targets (ADB, 2025[6]). Section 7.4 discusses policies to mobilise the financing and investment needed to address these gaps.
The petrochemical and plastics industries play a central role in Thailand’s economic structure and emissions profile. Thailand hosts the largest petrochemical sector in the ASEAN region, and 16th globally, and plastics production represented 6.7% of GDP in 2023 (Krungsri, 2025[92]). Petrochemicals and chemicals sector is the second biggest employer in within the manufacturing sector, directly employing around 200,000 and indirectly an additional one million (SWITCH-Asia, 2025[93]). Leveraging its substantial biomass endowment, Thailand has emerged as the world’s third largest producer of bioplastics (OECD, 2026[23]) and has set an objective to establish itself as a regional hub for bioplastics by 2027 (Government of Thailand, 2018[94]). At the same time, the chemical and petrochemical industries are highly energy intensive, accounting for more than half of total industrial energy demand and over one quarter of the country’s overall energy consumption (Figure 7.4).
Thailand has introduced a number of key policies that could facilitate the decarbonisation of the petrochemical sector and the plastics value chain. These include the Draft Climate Change Act, the second phase of the Thailand Taxonomy, investment promotion measures implemented by the Board of Investment (BOI) and the development of special economic zones. Nevertheless, against a backdrop of heightened competitiveness pressures, existing measures remain insufficient to mobilise investment at scale. Strengthening financial instruments and policy incentives will therefore be essential to accelerate the uptake of low-carbon technologies and practices (OECD, 2026[23]).
To support these efforts, SIPA applied the OECD Framework for industry decarbonisation in the petrochemical and plastic industries in Thailand (Box 7.12). The report’s recommendations are operationalised through two Action Plans on bioplastics and CCS, which support Thailand’s emission reduction goals, advance the BCG Economy Model and strengthen industrial strategies to position Thailand as a regional hub. The Action Plans inform key national strategies and regulatory initiatives, support a whole-of-government approach and help policymakers prioritise finance, target public support, identify regulatory changes and align with ongoing and planned industrial projects.
The OECD, under SIPA and in co-operation with the Government of Thailand, applied the OECD Framework for Industry’s Net-Zero Transition. The framework provides a structured methodology to identify priority low-carbon pathways, financing instruments and enabling investment conditions. Based on analytical assessment and stakeholder consultations, three pathways were prioritised: bioethanol-to-bio-ethylene conversion (Option 1), expansion of bio-based and biodegradable plastics (Option 2), and deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) (Option 3). These options were selected for their alignment with national priorities, Thailand’s industrial structure and their current challenges in achieving commercial viability, rather than as an exhaustive set of solutions.
Bio-ethylene and bioplastics (Options 1 and 2). Scaling up bioplastics requires targeted regulatory, fiscal and demand-side reforms. The competitiveness of bio-ethylene is currently constrained by excise taxes and import duties on bioethanol; addressing these through tax exemptions, subsidy extensions and regulatory reforms would reduce cost gaps. Carbon pricing and a plastic pollution fee could further improve competitiveness, supported by accelerated implementation of Thailand’s emissions trading system (ETS) with coverage of the petrochemical sector. Scaling up investments in bioplastics industrial projects can draw on domestic capital markets, green and sustainability-linked bonds, concessional finance and the Thailand Taxonomy.
Demand-side measures are critical, including strengthened Green Public Procurement, bans on single-use plastics, bio-based content mandates, streamlined labelling schemes and the development of robust GHG accounting and MRV frameworks for bioplastics. These measures should be complemented by a sustainable biomass feedstock strategy and the development of industrial composting infrastructure. Common priorities across both options include a roadmap linking plastic pollution and emissions reduction, accelerated ETS implementation, mobilisation of domestic and international finance, and clearer long-term signals for bioplastic production.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) (Option 3). Scaling up CCS requires strong institutional and regulatory foundations. Priority actions include appointing a lead government agency, developing a comprehensive CCS legal framework across the value chain, amending the Petroleum Act, and undertaking geological assessments for CO₂ storage. Monetisation instruments – of CO2 emitted and avoided – are essential, notably accelerated ETS implementation with explicit recognition of CCS and strengthened voluntary carbon markets with clearer rules and international linkages. Early deployment will require targeted, time-bound support, such as carbon contracts for difference, as well as to establish viable CO₂ transport and storage business models.
CCS projects can leverage domestic capital markets, the Thailand Taxonomy and international financial and technical assistance, supporting flagship initiatives such as the Arthit project and the Eastern CCS Hub. Complementary demand-side measures, including definitions and emission-intensity criteria for low-emission plastics aligned with plastic pollution strategies, can further strengthen the CCS business case and support wider industrial decarbonisation.
Source: (OECD, 2026[23])
Priority recommendations
Thailand has made significant progress in building an enabling environment for finance for sustainable infrastructure. The introduction of the Thailand Sustainable Financing Framework, the phased rollout of the Thailand Green Taxonomy, and Asia’s first sovereign sustainability-linked bond issuance have strengthened market credibility and investor confidence and helps to mobilise finance for infrastructure projects. Rapid growth in green, social and sustainability bond markets – predominantly in local currency – has deepened domestic capital markets, while co-ordination through the Working Group on Sustainable Finance has aligned financial regulators around shared climate and sustainability objectives. These advances position Thailand as a regional frontrunner in terms of mobilising funds for sustainable infrastructure. To build on this momentum, Thailand should:
Further embed the taxonomy across financial regulation, public investment planning and procurement frameworks; strengthen monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) requirements; and provide practical guidance to public agencies and financial institutions to support consistent application, including for adaptation and resilience of infrastructure investments.
Expand sovereign and corporate green and sustainability-linked bond issuance, encourage municipal-level issuance under robust fiscal oversight, and further develop sustainability-linked loans and blended-finance instruments to mobilise private capital for energy, transport and industrial infrastructure.
Reinforce the use of green criteria in public procurement, sustainability-linked incentives and disclosure requirements to create market pull, while expanding credit guarantees and risk-sharing facilities, particularly for early-stage and climate-resilient infrastructure projects.
Continue strengthening Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and climate-risk disclosure frameworks across financial institutions and capital markets, improve availability and interoperability of sustainability data, and support common metrics to facilitate investor assessment of climate-aligned infrastructure opportunities.
Prioritise adaptation and resilience within sustainable finance frameworks, including dedicated instruments and eligibility criteria, and further embed Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) standards into public-private partnerships (PPPs), procurement and financial market practices to ensure environmental integrity, social inclusion and long-term project viability.
7.4.1. Green taxonomies
The development Thailand’s green taxonomy represents a critical milestone in aligning financial flows with sustainable infrastructure development. The taxonomy supports directing capital towards sustainable investments, strengthening the Thai financial market's ability to address climate-related risks and bolstering its national commitment to achieving carbon neutrality and net-zero by 2050 (UNFCCC, 2025[5]). By offering a consistent and reliable classification framework, the taxonomy can enhance the credibility of sustainability claims, mitigate risks of greenwashing, promote transparency across investment activities and scale up the issuance of green bonds and climate-related investment funds. It strengthens the capacity of Thailand’s financial sector to more systematically integrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations into their lending and investment decision-making, particularly in high-impact sectors such as energy, transport and industry, where infrastructure investment requirements are significant. Moreover, alignment with international standards can help attract cross-border climate finance and build investor confidence in Thailand’s transition to a low-carbon economy.
Thailand’s green taxonomy provides a comprehensive and evolving framework that aligns closely with global standards and covers the country’s major sources of GHG emissions. The Thailand Taxonomy Board, comprising the Bank of Thailand (BOT), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) and other public and private agencies, developed the taxonomy with support from international partners like the ADB, IFC and GIZ (Bank of Thailand, 2025[95]). Phase 1, launched in 2023, focused on the energy and transport sectors, while Phase 2, launched in 2025, expanded the scope to industrial processes, as well as agriculture, and water supply (sewage, waste and remediation). This comprehensive scope covers up to 95% of Thailand's domestic GHG emissions (Bank of Thailand, 2025[95]). Phase 1 has already delivered early results by equipping financial institutions with a clear framework to classify green and transition activities, supporting the initial alignment of lending portfolios and green bond issuances. Building on this foundation, Phase 2 significantly broadens both sectoral coverage and environmental ambition. While Phase 1 was primarily focused on climate change mitigation, phase 2 incorporates all six environmental objectives, including climate change adaptation, sustainable use and production of marine and water resources, promotion of resource resilience and transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention and control, and protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems. Phase 2 of the taxonomy brings 100% alignment with the EU taxonomy and 90-95% alignment with the ASEAN taxonomy. Critically, the framework includes Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) and Minimum Social Safeguards (MSS) as essential criteria, mitigating risks of adverse social or environmental impacts. The taxonomy is recommended to be reviewed every 3-5 years to respond to changes in technologies and policies.
Like the ASEAN taxonomy, the Thai taxonomy follows a “traffic light system”. Activities at or near net-zero, aligned with a 1.5°C pathway, are classified as “Green” source. Activities not yet "Green" but are on a reliable decarbonisation pathway, facilitating significant short-term emissions reductions, and must have a prescribed sunset date of 2040, are classified as “Amber” (Bank of Thailand, 2025[95]), This category was included to mobilise hard-to-abate sectors like cement, chemicals and steel, providing a pathway for CapEx alignment (Kungsri Research, 2025[96]; Bank of Thailand, 2025[95]). Activities causing significant harm that must be phased out are classified as “Red”.
Although there is no official list of projects subject to the Thai taxonomy, a few market participants are already operationalising the taxonomy through their own green finance frameworks. For example, the TPI Polene Power Public Company Limited (TPIPP) established its own green finance framework in 2025 that embeds the Thai taxonomy directly into project eligibility (TPIPP, 2025[97]). In 2025, TPIPP issued a USD 64.5 million green bond with a 3-year-and-2-month maturity and a 4.2% interest rate, channelling proceeds back into the company to support core green infrastructure, including the operation of its waste-to-energy facility (Bangkok Business, 2025[98]).
While Thailand’s green taxonomy provides a valuable common framework for guiding sustainable finance, its voluntary nature and absence of mandatory disclosure requirements limit its effectiveness and uptake across the financial sector. The framework references existing reporting standards, such as the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and is designed to enable harmonised data disclosure and benchmarking of green investments. However, it is intended only for voluntary use as a common reference tool by financial institutions, investors and government actors (DIW, 2024[99]; Bank of Thailand, 2025[95]), which can limit its practical application and impact (Kungsri Research, 2025[96]). Furthermore, the successful uptake across the financial sector is dependent on improving the data environment, building technical capacity within institutions and establishing clearer regulatory incentives to integrate the criteria into lending and investment decisions (OECD, 2024[22]).
While the "Amber" category is designed to encourage transition, OECD guidance warns that such transition categories carry risks of greenwashing if criteria are not science-based and transparent. They also risk creating market fragmentation when definitions diverge across jurisdictions and may even lock in carbon-intensive infrastructure if used to justify prolonged fossil fuel use. Ensuring credibility therefore requires stringent thresholds, robust disclosure and clear phase-out timelines for high-emitting assets (OECD, 2022[100]).
7.4.2. Sustainable and green finance instruments
The establishment of Thailand’s Sustainable Finance Framework marks a key development in the country’s efforts to mobilise sustainable investment and finance projects that support sustainable infrastructure development. Thailand’s Sustainable Financing Framework was issued in 2020 and developed by the Public Debt Management Office (PDMO) within the MOF. The framework establishes a foundation for mobilising sustainable debt instruments, such as green, social and sustainability bonds, to finance green projects, such as infrastructure critical to the country’s transition toward a low-carbon economy. The framework specifies that proceeds must be allocated exclusively to eligible expenditures that advance the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including in energy, industry and transport infrastructure sectors. Eligible green projects include renewable energy generation and energy-efficiency improvements, clean transportation infrastructure such as electric rail systems and mass transit, and industrial upgrades supporting resource efficiency and pollution reduction. The framework also sets out procedures for project evaluation, proceeds management and impact reporting, ensuring transparency and consistency with the International Capital Market Association’s Green and Social Bond Principles (Government of Thailand, 2020[101]).
Building on this foundation, the Sustainability-Linked Financing Framework represents a significant advancement in the country’s sustainable finance strategy, linking financial instruments to measurable sustainability performance and reinforcing its commitment to low-carbon, resilient infrastructure development. The Framework was issued in 2024 and enables Thailand to issue debt instruments, such as sustainability-linked bonds and loans, whose financial characteristics are directly tied to measurable sustainability performance targets (SPTs) in sustainability projects, including in infrastructure sectors. Aligned with the ICMA Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles and the ASEAN Sustainability-Linked Bond Standards, the framework outlines key performance indicators (KPIs) related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, expanding renewable energy capacity and improving transport efficiency. This approach shifts the focus from financing predefined eligible projects to incentivising sector-wide performance improvements, including in energy, industry and transport infrastructure sectors. Together, the two frameworks illustrate Thailand’s comprehensive strategy to channel both project-based and performance-based sustainable finance into infrastructure that underpins its long-term green growth and decarbonisation objectives (Government of Thailand, 2024(b)[102]).
In addition, the BOT is pushing financial institutions to systematically integrate environmental and climate risks. In 2023, the BOT issued a policy statement on “Internalising Environmental and Climate Change Aspects into Financial Institution Business” (Bank of Thailand, 2023[103]), outlining expectations for financial institutions to systematically integrate environmental and climate risks into governance, strategy, risk management and disclosure processes. The BOT requested financial institutions to apply this policy statement in accordance with their organisational structure and size, as well as the materiality of environmental risks on their business. The BOT is also actively collaborating with the World Bank to model the financial sector's risks related to flooding (World Bank, 2025(b)[104]), which directly impacts the resilience and financial viability of physical infrastructure.
Thailand is establishing itself as a regional leader in green and sustainable finance. Several institutions in Thailand have successfully issued green bonds to finance green infrastructure investment, particularly for transport and clean energy. The standards used to issue a green bond or extend a green loan in Thailand include the Green Bond Principles issued by the International Capital Market Association (ICMA), the ASEAN Green Bond Standards issued by the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum and the Green Loan Principles issued by the Loan Market Association (LMA) in 2020 (Thailand Working Group on Sustainable Finance, 2021[105]). An example includes the BTS Group Holding, which in 2021 issued approximately USD 33 million in green bonds to finance the MRT Green Line North and South extensions. The investment was estimated to avoid around 10,000 tonnes of CO₂ emissions annually between 2021 and 2025 (Sustainalytics, 2025[106]). In addition to use-of-proceeds instruments, Thai corporates have increasingly issued sustainability-linked bonds tied to emissions reduction targets and renewable energy expansion, reflecting growing alignment between corporate financing strategies and national climate objectives. Notably, SLBs make up over 20% of the country’s sustainable debt market in 2018-2024, a markedly higher share than other ASEAN economies (OECD, 2025[107]).
The green, social, sustainability and sustainability-inked (GSSS) bonds market has developed rapidly since the Thai Securities and Exchange Commission allowed the issuance of green bonds and sustainability bonds in 2018 and 2019 (Figure 7.7(a)). As of June 2025, the outstanding sustainable bond market valued USD 26.4 billion (ADB, 2025[108]). It has continued to post robust growth, expanding 4.8% q-o-q in Q2 2025 after a 4.6% q-o-q increase in Q1 2025. Thailand is one of the countries with the highest volume of green bond issuance in Southeast Asia, following Singapore and Indonesia (OECD, 2024[22]). According to data from the Thai Bond Market Association, green bonds in Thailand were mainly issued in the form of long-term corporate bonds (Thai Bond Market Association, 2023[109]). Interestingly, 98.5% of GSSS bonds outstanding as of June 2025 have been in Thai baht, showing strong liquidity in the Thai bond Market. These reflect growing investor awareness of climate- and sustainability-related opportunities and risks (ADB, 2022[110]). However, GSSS instruments represent only 4.76% of the broader outstanding local currency market as of June 2025 (ADB, 2025[108]).
Note: Data includes select sustainable bonds from various local sources
Source: Author’s elaboration based on the ADB “AsiaBondsOnline” Data Portal on Sustainable Bonds (ADB, 2025[111])
Sovereign issuance of sustainable bonds is a key player. In 2020, the government issued a 15-year bond to fund both green and social initiatives, followed by an additional sovereign issuance, raising a combined THB 247 billion (approximately USD 7.1 billion) by 2022 (Ministry of Finance, 2022[112]). Around 17% of the proceeds were allocated to green infrastructure projects, primarily clean transport, while the remainder supported COVID-19 recovery measures. These issuances were guided by the Sustainable Financing Framework, which establishes the principles for green, social, and sustainability instruments (Government of Thailand, 2020[101]). They also helped establish a domestic benchmark for sustainable debt, supporting broader market development and attracting private sector participation. In 2024, Thailand issued Asia’s first sovereign SLB raising THB 30 billion (USD 890 million), with specific targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction and zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) (Environmental Finance, 2025[113]). This issuance was guided by Thailand’s Sustainability-Linked Financing Framework for sustainability-linked bonds, loans and other debt instruments (Government of Thailand, 2024(b)[102]). Since the first sovereign sustainable bond issuance in 2020, Government LCY has driven the value of the outstanding sustainable bond market in Thailand (Figure 7.7(b)).
State-owned enterprises (SOEs) also play a critical role in channelling sustainable finance into infrastructure. Major entities such as PTT Group have expanded investments in renewable energy, while Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand has advanced clean energy generation and smart grid development. These efforts complement the sustainable debt market and reinforce Thailand’s transition toward low-carbon infrastructure systems.
Despite progress, further opportunities exist to scale up the Thai green bond market. Based on a sample pipeline of approximately 40 sustainable projects across transport, energy, water and waste sectors, the Climate Bonds Initiative estimated untapped green infrastructure opportunities in Thailand amounting to USD 31.9 billion in 2021 (CBI, 2021[10]).
In response to the growing need for climate-aligned finance, Thailand formed the Working Group on Sustainable Finance (WG-SF) to guide the country’s transition efforts. Established in 2019 within the “Three Regulators Steering Committee”, Thailand’s WG-SF is a non-statutory body that provides a regular platform for the three key financial regulators to discuss policy issues. It is mandated to foster and monitor a culture of sustainable finance throughout Thailand’s financial sector and is composed of representatives from the Ministry of Finance (MOF), the Bank of Thailand (BOT), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) and the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) (Government of Thailand, 2021[114]). In 2022, the WG-SF outlined five key strategic initiatives crucial for a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy: (1) Developing a Practical Sustainable Finance Taxonomy; (2) Improving the Data Environment; (3) Implementing Effective Incentives; (4) Creating Demand-led Products and Services; and (5) Building Human Capital (Government of Thailand, 2021[114]). While the WG-SF is an important first step in fostering sustainable finance, it should place a more explicit focus on sustainable infrastructure, given its central role in meeting Thailand’s climate and development goals and the large-scale investment required to deliver these sustainable infrastructure projects.
In recent years, financial authorities in Thailand have developed a wide range of sustainable finance policies, guidelines and codes, in addition to industry guidelines and platforms developed by industry associations (Table 7.6).
Source: Author’s elaboration.
Domestic financial conditions present a complicated landscape. Although Thailand’s financial sector and banking system appear sound and mature, with local commercial banks showing high capital adequacy and high liquidity coverage ratios (OECD, 2023[79]), high levels of private debt continue to pose challenges to domestic demand, particularly amid a tightening monetary policy environment. In addition, complex licensing procedures continue to constrain access to finance for some businesses. Streamlining licensing requirements and supporting firms in meeting compliance obligations would help alleviate these barriers and facilitate their access to loans (OECD, 2024[22]). Streamlining these administrative hurdles is crucial, as their complexity actively slows the execution of sustainable projects.
A core problem in the allocation of finance is the pronounced skewing of climate finance toward mitigation. Current funding remains overwhelmingly focused on projects like renewable energy and clean transport, while adaptation projects, such as disaster resilience and climate-proofing infrastructure, are critically underfunded. These essential projects often receive less than 1% of total climate finance (ADB, 2025[6]). This severe imbalance leaves critical public infrastructure vulnerable to accelerating climate impacts, such as major flooding, which directly threatens both the physical assets and their long-term financial viability.
7.4.3. Responsible business conduct framework
Infrastructure development in energy, industry and transport is associated with increased risks related to human rights, labour rights, environmental impacts and business integrity. As governments involve the private sector across the entire infrastructure lifecycle – from planning and financing to delivery, operation, maintenance and decommissioning – Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) plays an increasingly prominent role in the infrastructure sector. With private actors playing a growing role in financing and delivering sustainable infrastructure, attention is shifting to the broader social and environmental impacts of business activities. RBC provides a set of principles to help both public and private stakeholders steer infrastructure development in a more sustainable and responsible manner.
RBC helps improve the sustainability performance of infrastructure investments. By applying RBC principles and standards – particularly risk-based due diligence – companies and investors are better able to identify, prevent and address potential adverse impacts of their infrastructure activities on people, planet and society. Infrastructure projects and their related supply chains can have impacts related to human and labour rights, the environment and climate change, as well as anti-corruption. In this context, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on RBC, together with the Due Diligence Guidance, provide key international standards (OECD, 2018[115]).
Creating the right policy and regulatory environment is essential for governments to promote and enable RBC. The OECD Recommendation on the Role of Government in Promoting RBC underlines that governments should not only develop and implement laws and policies that encourage RBC but also exemplify RBC in their economic and commercial activities. In the infrastructure context, this involves establishing legal frameworks covering human rights, labour rights, environment and anti-corruption as well as implementing state policies on investment promotion and facilitation, public procurement, finance and the governance of state-owned enterprises, as well as efforts to promote meaningful stakeholder engagement and access to remedy (OECD, 2022[116]). Such an enabling environment, in turn, helps countries “keep and attract high quality and responsible investors”.
Under SIPA, the OECD led a review of RBC policies for sustainable infrastructure development in Thailand. Thailand has positioned itself as a regional leader on RBC and made notable efforts to address the sustainability challenges faced in infrastructure through its legal and regulatory frameworks. Sustainability and human rights are embedded at the core of Thailand’s national planning through the 20-year National Strategy, the 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023–2027), and its National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights (2019 and 2023) (Government of Thailand, 2023[117]), which provide a roadmap for responsible, climate-friendly infrastructure development. Under these frameworks, the Government has strengthened human and labour rights protections by increasing inspections and advancing ratification of additional ILO Fundamental Conventions, while promoting anti-corruption through partnerships that help companies prevent and address risks.
RBC considerations are also embedded in infrastructure-specific measures. For instance, the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) Act requires human rights and environmental safeguards, state-owned enterprises implement policies on social responsibility and anti-corruption, and public procurement increasingly incorporates environmental standards. In practice, these frameworks are supported by the application of ESG-related tools across the infrastructure lifecycle, including environmental and social impact assessments (EIA/ESIA) for infrastructure projects, stakeholder consultations with affected communities, and the integration of ESG criteria into public procurement and public-private partnership (PPP) processes (Suwansawat, 2025[118]). Community engagement and grievance mechanisms, supported by the National Human Rights Commission, ensure that these initiatives are transparent, participatory and respect the rights of affected communities.
While Thailand has made progress in embedding RBC considerations across policy areas applicable to sustainable infrastructure development, these efforts could be further strengthened and amplified. Recommendations include to:
Enhance efforts to promote and enable RBC through policy frameworks – particularly those applicable to infrastructure development.
Capitalise on upcoming reforms to strengthen the enforcement of existing legal and regulatory frameworks applicable throughout the infrastructure lifecycle to mitigate risks.
Further embed RBC-related considerations and risk-based due diligence across policy areas.
Take a whole-of-government approach to foster policy coherence on RBC.
Strengthen and expand efforts to provide access to remedy in infrastructure, going beyond project-level mechanisms.
As an investor, the government could conduct risk-based due diligence for infrastructure based on the OECD RBC Due Diligence for Project and Asset Finance Transactions.
As a sponsor, the government could promote RBC through PPPs and public procurement.
As an operator (i.e., SOE) involved in the planning and maintenance (and to some extent decommissioning) of infrastructure projects, the government can also incentivise SOEs to use risk-based due diligence aligned with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for RBC.
References
[108] ADB (2025), Asia Bond Monitor September 2025, https://asianbondsonline.adb.org/thailand/market_summary/th_market_summary_202509.pdf.
[111] ADB (2025), Data Portal, https://asianbondsonline.adb.org/data-portal/.
[6] ADB (2025), Thailand’s Climate Finance Landscape: Bridging the Gap to Net Zero, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/1072106/adb-brief-347-thailand-climate-finance-landscape.pdf.
[110] ADB (2022), Promoting Local Currency Sustainable Finance in ASEAN+3, https://www.climatebonds.net/files/reports/asean3_report.pdf.
[71] ADB (2021), Green Infrastructure Investment Opportunities Thailand, https://www.adb.org/publications/green-infrastructure-investment-thailand-2021.
[85] Agora Verkehrswende (2024), Towards Decarbonising Transport Thailand 2024, https://www.thai-german-cooperation.info/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/EN-Towards-Decarbonising-Transport-Thailand-2024_A-Stocktake-on-Sectoral-Ambition.pdf.
[34] Asian Transport Observatory (2024), Aichi 2030 Declaration on Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST): Country Profile Thailand, https://asiantransportobservatory.org/documents/300/16_Thailand_aichi-r2.pdf.
[84] Asian Transport Outlook (2024), Transport and Climate Profile Thailand, https://asiantransportobservatory.org/documents/219/Thailand-transport-and-climate-policy.pdf.
[98] Bangkok Business (2025), TPIPP has successfully issued debentures to conserve the environment with a limit of 2,000 baht., https://www.bangkokbiznews.com/pr-news/news/prnews/1201477.
[32] Bangkok Post (2022), Thailand to rely on coal for power longer amid record gas prices, https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2423135/thailand-to-rely-on-coal-for-power-longer-amid-record-gas-prices.
[88] Bank of Thailand (2025), Statistics, https://www.bot.or.th/en/statistics.html.
[95] Bank of Thailand (2025), Thailand Taxonomy Driving the Thai Economy Towards Sustainability, https://www.bot.or.th/en/financial-innovation/sustainable-finance/green/Thailand-Taxonomy.html.
[103] Bank of Thailand (2023), Policy Statement of the Bank of Thailand Re: Internalizing Environmental and Climate Change Aspects into Financial Institution Business, https://www.bot.or.th/content/dam/bot/fipcs/documents/FPG/2566/EngPDF/25660028.pdf.
[10] CBI (2021), Green Infrastructure Investment Opportunities Thailand, https://www.climatebonds.net/data-insights/publications/green-infrastructure-investment-opportunities-thailand.
[70] Changing Transport (2025), Building Climate-Resilient Transport in Thailand, https://changing-transport.org/building-climate-resilient-transport-in-thailand/.
[76] Climate Policy Database (2024), Power Development Plan (PDP) 2024 Thailand (2024), https://climatepolicydatabase.org/policies/power-development-plan-pdp-2024.
[43] Climate Policy Database (2013), Environmentally Sustainable Transport System Plan 2013-2030 Thailand (2013), https://climatepolicydatabase.org/policies/environmentally-sustainable-transport-system-plan-2013-2030.
[26] Climate Watch (2025), Historical GHG Emissions, https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions.
[99] DIW (2024), Sustainable Finance Taxonomies - Enabling the Transition towards Net Zero? A Transition Score for International Frameworks, https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.902603.de/dp2083.pdf.
[83] EDGAR (2025), Country Fact Sheet Thailand, https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/country_profile/THA.
[113] Environmental Finance (2025), Sustainability-linked bond of the year - SSAs/sub-sovereigns: Kingdom of Thailand, https://www.environmental-finance.com/content/awards/environmental-finances-sustainable-debt-awards-2025/winners/sustainability-linked-bond-of-the-year-ssas/sub-sovereigns-kingdom-of-thailand.html#:~:text=With%20specific%20targets%20for%20greenhouse,key%2.
[2] Government of Thailand (2025), Thailand Unveils Key Transport Plans for 2025-2026, https://thailand.prd.go.th/en/content/category/detail/id/52/iid/354054.
[19] Government of Thailand (2025), Thailand’s Voluntary National Review on the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, https://image.mfa.go.th/mfa/0/OznAy3tii2/E-booking/VNR_2025_(ENG).pdf.
[117] Government of Thailand (2023), 2nd National Adaptation Plan on Business and Human Rights (2023-2027).
[15] Government of Thailand (2023), The Thirteenth Plan (2023-2027) The National Economic and Social Development Plan, https://www.nesdc.go.th/en/the-national-economic-and-social-development-plan/the-thirteenth-plan-2023-2027/.
[74] Government of Thailand (2023), Women’s Development Action Plan 2023-2027.
[64] Government of Thailand (2022), Environmental Impact Assessment in Thailand, https://eiathailand.onep.go.th/.
[65] Government of Thailand (2022), Environmental Impact Assessment Information Center, https://eia.onep.go.th/site/index.
[42] Government of Thailand (2021), BIO-CIRCULAR-GREEN ECONOMY ACTION PLAN 2021-2027, https://www.nstda.or.th/en/images/pdf/bcg_action_plan.pdf.
[45] Government of Thailand (2021), National Energy Plan, https://www.eppo.go.th/index.php/en/component/k2/item/17093-nep.
[59] Government of Thailand (2021), Strategic Environmental Assessment Guideline (Revised Edition), https://sea.nesdc.go.th/sea3/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2-Strategic-Environmental-Assessment-Guideline_Full-Report_20230410.pdf.
[114] Government of Thailand (2021), Sustainable Finance Initiatives for Thailand, https://www.bot.or.th/content/dam/bot/financial-innovation/sustainable-finance/green/Sustainable_Finance_Initiatives_for_Thailand.pdf.
[101] Government of Thailand (2020), Sustainable Financing Framework, https://www.pdmo.go.th/pdmomedia/documents/2020/Jul/KOT%20Sustainable%20Financing%20Framework.pdf.
[44] Government of Thailand (2018), 20 Years Thailand Transport System Development Strategy 2018-2037.
[63] Government of Thailand (2018), Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act (No.2) B.E.2561 (2018), https://aipalync.org/document/download/2027.
[94] Government of Thailand (2018), Measures for the Development of Bio Industry in Thailand 2018-2027.
[14] Government of Thailand (2018), National Strategy 2018-2037, https://bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/pdf/National_Strategy_Summary.pdf.
[72] Government of Thailand (2017), Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560.
[40] Government of Thailand (2015), Climate Change Master Plan 2015-2050, https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/tha203759.pdf.
[73] Government of Thailand (2015), Gender Equality Act, B.E. 2558.
[102] Government of Thailand (2024(b)), Sustainability-Linked Financing Framework, https://www.pdmo.go.th/pdmomedia/documents/2024/Oct/PDMO%20SLB%20Framework_Final.pdf.
[29] IEA (2025), Thailand Emissions, https://www.iea.org/countries/thailand/emissions.
[90] IEA (2025), World Energy Balances, https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-balances#.
[30] IEA (2023), Thailand’s Clean Electricity Transition, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/dd5b10b2-b655-4c7d-8c09-.
[78] IEEFA (2026), Thailand’s gas conundrum: Overbuilt, underutilized, and increasingly expensive, https://ieefa.org/resources/thailands-gas-conundrum-overbuilt-underutilized-and-increasingly-expensive.
[66] IISD (2026), Guidance note on Sustainable Infrastructure Assessment using the SAVi methodology, Thailand.
[67] IISD (2025), Developing and Piloting a Model for Estimating the Direct and Indirect Benefits of Nature-Based Solutions for Road Resilience in Indonesia, https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-03/indonesia-nature-based-solutions-road-resilience.pdf.
[68] IISD (2024), A Sustainable Asset Valuation Assessment of the Mass Rapid Transit System in Pampanga, Philippines, https://www.iisd.org/publications/report/savi-mass-rapid-transit-pampanga-philippines.
[82] ILO (2023), Green Jobs Policy Readiness Assessment in Thailand, https://www.ilo.org/publications/green-jobs-policy-readiness-assessment-thailand.
[18] IMD (2025), World Competitiveness Ranking, https://www.imd.org/centers/wcc/world-competitiveness-center/rankings/world-competitiveness-ranking/.
[7] IMF (2022), Thailand: Selected Issues, https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2022/301/article-A001-en.xml.
[27] IPCCC (2021), WG III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_TS.pdf.
[91] IRENA (2025), Thailand Country Profile, https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Statistics/Statistical_Profiles/Asia/Thailand_Asia_RE_SP.pdf.
[87] ITF (2025), Enhancing the connectivity, sustainability and resilience of freight transport in Southeast Asia, https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/freight-transport-connectivity-sustainability-resilience-southeast-asia.pdf.
[92] Krungsri (2025), Industry Outlook 2025-2027: Plastics, https://www.krungsri.com/en/research/industry/industry-outlook/petrochemicals/plastics/io/io-plastics-2025-2027.
[96] Kungsri Research (2025), Decoding the Thailand Taxonomy: How Classification Drives Sustainable Business, https://www.krungsri.com/en/research/research-intelligence/taxonomy-2025.
[35] Market Research Thailand (2025), Mobility Reimagined: Shaping the Future of Transport in Thailand, https://marketresearchthailand.com/case-studies/mobility-reimagined-shaping-the-future-of-transport-in-thailand.
[47] Ministry of Energy (2024), Thailand PV Status Report 2023, https://pvstatus.dede.go.th/en/section_3-1.php.
[112] Ministry of Finance (2022), Sustainability Bond Annual Report, https://www.pdmo.go.th/pdmomedia/documents/2023/Jan/Cover%20Sus%20bond%20annual.
[77] Mongabay (2025), Anguish for residents as Thailand’s most polluting coal plant gets new lease of life, https://news.mongabay.com/2025/10/anguish-for-residents-as-thailands-most-polluting-coal-plant-gets-new-lease-of-life/.
[53] Nation Thailand (2025), Thailand’s First Climate Change Law Nearing Approval, with Focus on Carbon Reduction and Adaptation, https://www.nationthailand.com/sustaination/40053974.
[33] Nation Thailand (2022), ‘More vehicles than people’: Bangkok’s path to liveable city blocked, https://www.nationthailand.com/thailand/general/40022488.
[60] NESDC (2025), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Thailand, https://sea.nesdc.go.th/en/sea-in-thailand/.
[23] OECD (2026), Implementing the OECD Framework for Industry’s Net-zero Transition in Thailand: Decarbonising the Petrochemical Sector and Plastics Value Chain, Green Finance and Investment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b9978679-en.
[49] OECD (2025), Governing Cross-cutting Challenges from the Centre in Thailand, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdd76f47-en.
[107] OECD (2025), OECD Capital Market Review of Thailand 2025, OECD Capital Market Series, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0a975590-en.
[24] OECD (2025), OECD Economic Surveys: Thailand 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/426b9bc0-en.
[56] OECD (2025), Strategic foresight for successful long-term infrastructure planning, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/events/2023/3/strategic-foresight-workshop--rethinking-infrastructure-for-sustainable,-resilient-development/strategic-foresight-report-idn-bappenas-2023.pdf.
[55] OECD (2025), Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy: A Comprehensive Foresight Methodology to Support Sustainable and Future-Ready Public Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bcdd9304-en.
[57] OECD (2024), “Adapting infrastructure to changing climatic conditions: The case of the Philippines”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 46, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a4c3f35a-en.
[22] OECD (2024), Clean Energy Finance and Investment Roadmap of Thailand, Green Finance and Investment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d0cd6ffc-en.
[16] OECD (2024), Roadmap for the OECD Accession Process of Thailand, https://one.oecd.org/document/C(2024)118/FINAL/en/pdf.
[79] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Thailand 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4815cb4b-en.
[100] OECD (2022), OECD Guidance on Transition Finance: Ensuring Credibility of Corporate Climate Transition Plans, Green Finance and Investment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7c68a1ee-en.
[116] OECD (2022), Recommendation on the Role of Government in Promoting Responsible Business Conduct, https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2023/02/oecds-froukje-boele-on-the-oecd-recommendation-on-the-role-of-government-in-promoting-rbc.html.
[115] OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/15f5f4b3-en.
[58] OECD (2006), Applying Strategic Environmental Assessment: Good Practice Guidance for Development Co-operation, DAC Guidelines and Reference Series, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264026582-en.
[51] OECD/ADB (2025), Government at a Glance: Southeast Asia 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc89cb32-en.
[8] Oxford Economics (2017), Global Infrastructure Outlook, https://outlook.gihub.org/countries/Philippines.
[3] Oxford Economics (2014), Country Profile: Thailand, https://outlook.gihub.org/countries/Thailand.
[39] Phongam, H., S. Achavanuntakul and W. Sirijintana (2025), Thailand’s climate and energy policy landscape: a policy brief, https://collections.fes.de/publikationen/ident/fes/22326.
[36] Supharatid, S. and S. Rojpratak (2025), Sinking City : The future of Bangkok amid Climate Change and Rising Sea Levels, https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v40y2026i4d10.1007_s11269-026-04548-9.html.
[106] Sustainalytics (2025), Impact Report for Bonds and Loans BTSC Green Bond Framework.
[118] Suwansawat, S. (2025), Environmental, Social, and Governance Due Diligence in Thailand, https://chambers.com/articles/environmental-social-and-governance-due-diligence-in-thailand.
[93] SWITCH-Asia (2025), Plastic Policies in Thailand, https://www.switch-asia.eu/site/assets/files/4411/plastic_policies_th.pdf.
[69] TDRI (2025), Adapting cities to climate change, https://tdri.or.th/en/2025/01/adapting-cities-to-climate-change.
[48] TDRI (2025), Carbon Capture and Hydrogen: The Last Pieces to Net Zero, https://tdri.or.th/en/2025/12/carbon-capture-and-hydrogen-the-last-pieces-to-net-zero.
[46] TDRI (2025), Plans on Paper, Power in Limbo, https://tdri.or.th/en/2025/12/plans-on-paper-power-in-limbo/.
[86] TDRI (2024), Braving hurdles for green transport, https://tdri.or.th/en/2024/01/braving-hurdles-for-green-transport/.
[109] Thai Bond Market Association (2023), Green, Social, Sustainability Bond & Sustainability-linked, https://www.thaibma.or.th/EN/BondInfo/ESG.aspx.
[81] Thailand Board of Investment (2024), Thailand Investment Review, https://www.boi.go.th/upload/ejournal/2024/Issue4/TIR_Newsletter_Sep2024.pdf.
[105] Thailand Working Group on Sustainable Finance (2021), Sustainable Finance Initiatives for, https://www.bot.or.th/en/news-and-media/news/news-20210818.html.
[54] Thammasat University (2022), Roadmap to net zero emissions 2050 Thailand, https://collections.fes.de/publikationen/ident/fes/22326.
[97] TPIPP (2025), Green Financing Framework (Draft for Review), https://tpipolenepower.co.th/index.php/en/en-investment/debentures/green-debenture-information-en.
[31] UNDP (2025), Just Energy Transition in Thailand, https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2025-08/250703_thailand-report-web.pdf.
[13] UNDP (2025), Thailand Marks Milestone in Localizing SDGs Through Data-Driven Community Investment, https://www.undp.org/press-releases/joint-sdg-fund-achievement.
[12] UNDP (2023), Formulating Thailand’s Integrated, Risk-Informed Strategy to Finance Sustainable Development, https://www.undp.org/thailand/press-releases/formulating-thailands-integrated-risk-informed-strategy-finance-sustainable-development.
[4] UNDP (2022), Identified Investment Needed for Climate-Proof Transport Infrastructure in Thailand, https://www.undp.org/thailand/publications/identified-investment-needed-climate-proof-transport-infrastructure-thailand.
[11] UNDP (2022), SDG Investor Map Thailand 2022, https://www.undp.org/thailand/publications/sdg-investor-map-thailand-2022.
[50] UNDP and ENTEC (2025), Developing a Guideline for Sound Climate Investment for Sustainable Infrastructure towards Thailand’s NDC goals, with a Specific Focus on Resilient Transport.
[61] UNDP and REC (n.d.), Benefits of a Strategic Environmental Assessment, https://unece.org/DAM/env/eia/documents/SEAguides/Benefits_SEA_English.pdf.
[80] UNESCAP (2026), ASEAN Power Grid: Accelerating the region’s energy transition, https://www.unescap.org/story/asean-power-grid-accelerating-regions-energy-transition.
[5] UNFCCC (2025), Thailand’s Second Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC 3.0), https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2025-11/TH%20NDC%203.0.pdf.
[28] UNFCCC (2024), Thailand’s First Biennial Transparency Report, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/THAILAND%E2%80%99S%20BTR1.pdf.
[41] UNFCCC (2023), Thailand’s National Adaptation Plan (NAP), https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/NAP_THAILAND_2024.pdf.
[52] UNFCCC (2022), Thailand’s Long-Term Low Greenhouse Gas Emission Development Strategy (Revised version), https://unfccc.int/documents/622276.
[62] Waller, F. (2023), Government’s strategic environmental assessment push a tool for sustainable development, not a ‘magic pill’, https://www.nationthailand.com/blogs/special-edition/sustainability/400%0924467.
[25] World Bank (2025), Climate-Smart Investments Can Put Thailand on a High-Income Trajectory.
[37] World Bank (2025), Gini Index - Thailand, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=TH.
[9] World Bank (2025), World Bank Development Indicators, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators#.
[38] World Bank (2023), Bridging the Gap: Inequality and Jobs in Thailand, https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/thailand/publication/bridging-the-gap-inequality-and-jobs-in-thailand.
[89] World Bank (2020), Thailand Manufacturing Firm Productivity Report, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/497151606302306312/pdf/Thailand-Manufacturing-Firm-Productivity-Report.pdf.
[21] World Bank (2012), Thai Flood 2011: Rapid Assessment for Resilient Recovery and Reconstruction Planning, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/a1282547-3df7-5d52-98b0-dfeb15a30443.
[104] World Bank (2025(b)), Assessing and managing natural disaster risks for the financial sector in Thailand, https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/allaboutfinance/assessing-and-managing-natural-disaster-risks-for-the-financial-.
[75] World Bank Group (2026), Proportion of women in ministerial level positions (%), https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/indicator/sg-gen-mnst-zs.
[1] World Bank Group (2025), Thailand Country Climate and Development Report, https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/thailand/publication/th-ccdr.
[20] World Bank Group (2024), Thailand Systematic Country Diagnostic Update 2024: Shifting Gears - Toward Sustainable Growth and Inclusive Prosperity, https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/thailand/publication/thailand-scd2024.
[17] World Bank Group (2023), Thailand Public Revenue Promoting an Inclusive and Sustainable Future, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099052523201510112/pdf/P17715703a68af0590b7290234ea94ba989.pdf.