Effective implementation of cross-cutting policies, such as the transition to net zero, require particularly clear roles and responsibilities across government. This chapter analyses Thailand’s strategic planning framework and the roles and mandates of key actors, particularly within the centre of government, to ensure streamlined responsibility for cross-cutting challenges, including net zero implementation.
Governing Cross‑cutting Challenges from the Centre in Thailand
Abstract
Cross-cutting issues are complex, demand participation from many actors and require governments to work across traditional silos. In this context, clear roles and responsibilities as part of well-considered institutional setups are essential to ensuring alignment of efforts.
Thailand could benefit from reviewing and clarifying its roles and responsibilities for cross-cutting issues to reduce gaps or overlaps. This should include clarifying the roles of the centre of government (CoG) and other coordinating bodies within line ministries.
Strategic planning frameworks can help to frame clear roles and responsibilities for cross-cutting issues. Thailand’s robust strategic planning framework allows it to steer its policy agenda effectively, but the complexity and multiplicity of plans create challenges for coherent and cohesive action.
Strengthening the CoG’s role in co-ordination and setting good policy development approaches can increase the value and contributions of different actors, such as line ministries, provincial governments, civil society, academic institutions or the private sector.
In particular, net zero calls for enhanced governance approaches:
Governments cannot address policies by achieving net zero alone. Net zero is a complex and cross-cutting issue requiring citizens’ and stakeholders’ collective action. In this way, Thailand should also map different actors’ relevant contributions and roles.
CoGs play an essential role in steering cross-cutting issues such as net zero, given they require holistic government action and are often of the highest priority. Thailand could strengthen the CoG’s role in co-ordinating the development and monitoring of cross-cutting issues and in building the capacity of the public administration to deal with such policies.
Institutional setups to address cross-cutting policies are typically made up of a range of actors, including those in the national government (e.g. the CoG and line ministries), regional or local governments, the private sector, citizens and other stakeholders such as academia. Key actors in Thailand and their roles in cross-cutting issues are summarised in Table 2.1.
Clear roles and responsibilities are essential to effective action on cross-cutting issues such as net zero (OECD, 2024[1]). Governments need to shift traditional, siloed ways of working towards more collaborative, multi-actor approaches. In this context, multiple actors may be required to design and implement these policies, fund certain actions or provide data and feedback to inform decision making. As such, the role of the CoG in providing leadership and co‑ordination is key (Kaur et al., 2023[2]).
This chapter explores the CoG in Thailand’s institutional setup and roles and responsibilities for cross‑cutting issues, particularly for implementing net zero. The conclusion of this chapter presents a summary of opportunities to enhance the roles and responsibilities for cross-cutting issues through the CoG. The chapter is structured as follows:
Thailand’s strategic planning framework, outlining its priorities, including cross-cutting issues.
The COG’s role and responsibilities in steering cross-cutting issues.
The roles and responsibilities of line ministries and other actors in cross-cutting issues.
Strategic planning is instrumental for governments to effectively allocate resources and align initiatives across different agencies, reducing the risk of fragmentation, redundancy and misalignment (OECD, 2024[1]). Strategic planning frameworks outline the priorities for the government and can frame the required roles and responsibilities of the government and non-governmental actors, as well as the associated governance arrangements. The data collected through the “Survey on strategic decision making at the centre of government” (OECD, 2023[3]) (hereafter the Survey) demonstrate that this is a core role for CoGs. In 2023, 73% of OECD member and accession countries reported that formulating a long-term vision is a top or significant priority for their CoG. The next section presents a short overview of Thailand’s strategic planning framework to enable a more contextualised scan of the roles and responsibilities for cross-cutting issues such as net zero.
Thailand's strategic planning framework is rooted in the 20-Year National Strategy and the 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023–2027), which collectively guide the country’s development priorities and actions:
The 20-Year National Strategy, a policy framework enshrined at the national level, outlines 6 overarching strategies: Security, Competitiveness Enhancement, Human Resource Development, Social Equality, Green Growth, and Rebalancing and Public Sector Development. Climate change actions are addressed under the Green Growth strategy.
Complementing this, the 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023–2027), enacted by the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC), details 13 Strategic Milestone Plans, with specific milestones for climate-related goals: Milestone 10 focuses on fostering a circular economy and a low-carbon society, and Milestone 11 addresses reducing risks and impacts from natural disasters and climate change.
Together, these frameworks cascade through three interconnected layers of governance (see Figure 2.1), structuring national, agency, and provincial planning over 20-year, 5-year, and annual timeframes. All government agencies are required to align their action plans and short- and long-term strategies with both the 20-Year National Strategy and the 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan, ensuring coherence across the planning hierarchy.
Source: Drawn from NESDC (2023[4]), The Thirteenth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023‑2027), https://www.nesdc.go.th/article_attach/article_file_20230615134223.pdf.
In the context of net zero policies in Thailand, first level strategy includes the National Strategy 2018-2037 “twenty-year plan” which includes the National Strategy on Eco-friendly Development and Growth and the National Strategy on Public Sector Rebalancing and Development. The aim of the twenty-year plan is to transform Thailand into “a developed country with security, prosperity and sustainability” by 2037. The document is the country’s first national long-term strategy developed pursuant to Section 65 of the Constitution.
The National Economic and Social Development Plan 2023-2027 or “13th Plan” is second level and supports the 20-year Plan. The 13th Plan aims to boost the transition towards a higher value-added and more sustainable economy. It is a secondary-level policy and lays out 5 primary economic objectives:
Restructuring production and boosting research and development to thrive in the digital economy.
Evolving human resources to keep pace with swift digital advancements.
Ensuring equality of opportunity and fairness for all.
Preserving the environment.
Gearing up for future societal shifts and challenges.
The 13th Plan also annexes a second-level plan, the 18th Master Plan for Sustainable Growth for 2018‑2037, which operates alongside the Climate Change Master Plan 2015-2050. While the Climate Change Master Plan provides a broad vision and strategic framework for addressing climate change, it does not set specific target years for achieving carbon neutrality or net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For details on Thailand’s long-term emission targets—carbon neutrality by 2050 and net zero GHG emissions by 2065—see below.
Thailand’s Climate Change Master Plan (ONEP, 2016[5]) aims to aid Thailand in achieving its sustainable development and low carbon growth through three key strategies:
Climate change adaptation, which aims to build climate resilience by integrating policies and measures in all sectors.
Mitigation and low carbon development, which facilitates the development of GHG emissions reduction mechanisms and leads to sustainable low carbon growth.
An enabling environment for climate change management, which aims to build capacity for climate change implementation by enhancing the potential and awareness of stakeholders and developing databases, knowledge and technology to support climate change adaptation and mitigation (Kingdom of Thailand, 2021[6]).
The Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) facilitated the development of the plan and used a set of working groups that consisted of representatives from public, private and civil society organisations. The process also included two rounds of six regional public consultations.
Collectively, the second-level plans serve as the foundation for Thailand’s cohesive and strategic response to net zero. They outline a trajectory towards sustainability, from the immediate to long term, setting the targets, timeframes and guiding the approach across the layers of governance. The Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) is tasked with facilitating the development of these plans and monitoring their implementation alongside with the Department of Climate Change and Environment. The NESDC monitors, inspects and evaluates the performance of government institutions in driving the implementation of the 13th Plan through the National Monitoring and Evaluation System “eMENSCR”.
The third-level plans and strategies specific to net zero include:
Climate Change Master Plan 2015-2050.
National Climate Change Adaptation Plan (relating to UNFCCC).
Long-term Low Greenhouse Gas Emission Development Strategy (relating to UNFCCC).
Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) Action Plan on Mitigation 2021-2030 (relating to UNFCCC).
At a third level, line ministries produce action plans aligned to a national strategy to operationalise initiatives. The newly formed Department of Climate Change and Environment (DCCE) within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE) is of particular interest. In late 2023, the DCCE began its work on developing the NDC Action Plan on Mitigation 2021-2030, leading the charge in aligning Thailand’s net zero actions with national master plans and international standards.1 Key commitments in this plan include reducing national GHG emissions for achieving the NDC 2030 target in 5 sectors: energy, transport, IPPU, waste and agriculture.
Opportunities to enhance Thailand’s strategic planning framework
Thailand’s strategic planning framework is robust and well-developed. The diverse and thorough plans reflect the ambitious goals set by Thailand over the coming years and clearly lay out at detailed levels the roles and responsibilities required for the successful execution of the plans. Analysis of the planning frameworks and institutional arrangements, as well as interviews during the OECD fact-finding process, highlights a few potential challenges and respective opportunities.
Plans over multiple timeframes are a positive aspect of Thailand’s strategic planning practice. Net zero and other cross-cutting policy areas require careful balancing of short-term priorities with longer-term goals. Similarly, a clearly defined planning hierarchy can support the overall alignment of work at all levels. However, the extensive number of strategies and plans that exist for common cross-cutting issues, for example net zero, could hinder the alignment of government action.
Another challenge for Thailand is a comprehensive understanding of all initiatives contributing to cross‑cutting issues such as net zero. The fact-finding process revealed a lack of consistent understanding of which agencies or projects were contributing to net zero targets and, at times, conflicting views of which projects contributed directly or indirectly. This is further compounded by the complex nature of net zero, which can demand more sophisticated ways to understand contributions, interactions or dependencies from indirect projects or non-government efforts. Thailand may wish, for instance, to undertake a collaborative mapping exercise of direct and indirect contributions from different agencies and other stakeholders for achieving net zero. The overall consideration of the strategic planning framework ecosystem, including the actors and interactions, is a core priority for CoGs. In fact, it is a priority for 92% of countries surveyed and requires consideration of the whole system (OECD, 2020[7]). In 35% of countries surveyed, CoGs play a leading role.
Given the need for and existence of several short- and long-term cross-governmental and provincial strategies and plans in Thailand, ensuring transparency and easy access to this information is important. By compiling all documents and information about strategic planning in one portal or website, governments can not only enhance transparency but also foster accountability, consistencies and synergies across sectors and promote knowledge and understanding about strategic planning (OECD, 2024[1]). Box 2.1 presents an example of a platform used by the government of Czechia that enables access to strategic planning strategies, building knowledge and enhancing transparency. The NESDC could consider creating an online registry of all existing strategic plans and mapping exercises, which all ministries can access.
To ensure transparency, accountability and consistency across complex and multiple strategic planning arrangements, the Czechia developed a digital platform for submitting and reviewing documents. The eKlep platform allows for review and commentary from all government institutions, including line ministries and agencies.
eKlep is managed by the Office of the Government, which makes up the CoG in the Czechia. The strategic documents uploaded to the platform are added to a full online registry of all strategic and conceptual documents. This allows all documents to clearly display goals, measures, fulfilment responsibilities and success indicators. All line ministries and regions add their strategic documents to this registry. This compilation enhances transparency on the part of the Czech government and the CoG specifically. Furthermore, through this portal, the CoG also enables and promotes access to knowledge of strategic planning throughout the whole of the public administration and acts as a leader for knowledge-sharing practices throughout the government.
Source: OECD (2023[8]), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Czech Republic: Towards a More Modern and Effective Public Administration, https://doi.org/10.1787/41fd9e5c-en.
As highlighted by the EU-SIGMA Principles of Public Administration, stakeholder engagement is essential to ensure that the public sector modernisation vision, including its objectives and key steps, is shared by all stakeholders (OECD, 2023[9]). While in Thailand the process for developing the plans currently uses working groups and consultation processes, interviews indicated that the process could benefit from the further inclusion of relevant stakeholders.
Strengthening strategic foresight capacities in the public institutions responsible for net zero can add positive value to the strategic planning processes in Thailand. According to the unpublished 2023 OECD Survey, in 19% of countries, the CoG is primarily responsible for undertaking future thinking, foresight or modelling activities (OECD, 2023[3]; 2024[1]). Approaches such as foresight and long-term insights can support the development of long-term visioning. In Thailand, the OPDC engages in strategic foresight with a focus on public sector development. The OPDC’s Strategic Foresight Unit studies trends and impacts of global and domestic changes to propose recommendations and create awareness across government agencies on public sector reform. While the OPDC’s foresight activities are agenda-specific, the NESDC plays a central role in broader national policy development. The NESDC leads efforts to address Thailand’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), anticipate long-term challenges, and integrate forward-looking approaches into the country’s five-year development plans. Enhancing the NESDC's capacity to incorporate foresight tools for addressing net zero challenges could strengthen Thailand’s ability to adapt to future risks and opportunities. Box 2.2 highlights an example of a specific foresight network in Portugal and its success conditions.
In 2021, the Portuguese government established the Public Administration Planning and Foresight Services Network (RePLAN). RePLAN is an inter-ministerial network for public administration planning and foresight services and its objective is to support the government in building and aligning strategies for cross-cutting issues.
A wide range of data sources and evidence underpins Portugal’s planning processes. However, the various planning instruments currently in force can hinder opportunities to develop long-term, coherent visioning. RePLAN’s strategic priorities include streamlining the number of networks and prioritising those which address cross-cutting policy areas.
RePLAN also acknowledges the CoG’s role as a hub for central leadership on foresight and strategic planning. It uses the CoG to facilitate co-ordination, collaboration and co-operation across the public administration. Some key success factors for RePLAN to date are:
The establishment of a clear platform to bring together foresight and strategy from across diverse planning practices to establish more coherent and co-ordinated approaches.
A clear mandate, government empowerment and continuous political support.
The engagement of relevant stakeholders from civil society, academia and the private sector to drive evidence-informed and inclusive strategies and plans.
Source: Information provided by representatives of PlanAPP, Portugal.
Thailand’s centre of government is composed of several core institutions, particularly the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC), the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC), and the Budget Bureau. Each has a distinct mandate in strategic planning, coordination, or budget alignment. This section outlines the overall responsibilities of the CoG in managing cross-cutting challenges and highlights the roles of OPDC and NESDC through the lens of net zero as a case study.
The CoG in Thailand, particularly the NESDC and OPDC, is at the heart of the institutional structure for cross-cutting issues. It plays a key role in working with the Cabinet of Thailand (hereafter the Cabinet) to set the overall vision and strategy, supporting co‑ordination and quality assurance of cross-cutting issues and monitoring top priorities (OECD, 2024[1]). This reflects the report’s key findings on the crucial role of the CoG in public governance, which highlights the increasing importance of strategic planning for many CoGs globally (OECD, 2018[10]). CoGs typically steer whole-of-government approaches to implement the highest-level national strategies, for example those outlined in Thailand’s strategic frameworks.
As noted in Chapter 1, addressing cross-cutting issues such as net zero requires strong political will, sound institutions, and whole-of-government coordination. In many OECD countries, CoGs are increasingly taking on a central role in steering and co-ordinating climate and environmental policies, modernising their governance frameworks and decision-making structures to guide horizontal and vertical action across government (Kaur et al., 2023[2]).
The roles of the two most relevant CoG agencies in Thailand for addressing net zero cross-cutting issues - the NESDC and OPDC - are further detailed below. Both the NESDC and OPDC operate directly in relation to the Cabinet, as seen in Figure 2.2.
Note: By law, the Prime Minister has the authority to assign a Deputy Prime Minister to oversee and supervise NESDC (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council), Budget Bureau and OPDC (Office of the Public Sector Development Commission). DCCE (The Department of Climate Change and Environment); ONEP (Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning); PCD (Pollution Control Department); RFD (Royal Forest Department), DNP (Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation); EPPO (Energy Policy and Planning Office); MFD (Mineral Fuels Department); OAE (Office of Agricultural Economics); OTP (Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning); DIW (Department of Industrial Works). In orange: CoG entities.
The Office of the National Economics and Social Development Council (NESDC)
The NESDC is the central planning body, critical in supporting the development of comprehensive strategies that guide Thailand’s economic and social development.
The NESDC’s responsibilities (NESDC, n.d.[11]) include:
Facilitating the development of long- and medium-term national economic and social development strategies. To this end, the NESDC serves as the secretariat in developing Level 1 and Level 2 plans.
To review and provide quality assurance and policy advice on proposals and action plans (e.g. those developed by line ministries) to ensure alignment with the government’s broader goals before submission to the Cabinet for consideration.
To provide advice to the prime minister and the cabinet as required on key economic or social development policies. While the extent of demand from the political level is not fully clear within the framework of this review, the NESDC’s mandate suggests that it plays a key advisory role.
To co‑ordinate between the National Economic and Social Development Board and relevant agencies for the planning, monitoring and implementation of programmes.
While the NESDC has strategic functions dedicated to providing advice and recommendations on cross‑cutting issues, it does not have a full mandate and control over the development of such policies. Policy proposals, including for net zero, are prepared and developed by line ministries, which are also often the ones responsible for implementation. To bridge this gap, representatives of the NESDC typically participate in policy-level committees and subcommittees to oversee the process and guide the direction of policy proposals from operating entities to ensure alignment with Level 1 and Level 2 plans.
In addition to its central policy-making role, the NESDC has regional offices, including the Office of Economic and Social Development for the Central, Northeastern, Southern, and Northern Regions. These offices are responsible for integrating regional development policies, decentralising authority to regional and local administrations, supporting policy-based regional and area development planning, and coordinating plans and projects of government agencies and development partners.
The high interconnectedness of impacts stands as a key challenge for the NESDC and other CoG agencies in their net-zero planning and implementation activities. Thailand’s transition to net zero, same as in other countries, have impacts on different economy sectors, society and environment, necessitating a robust collaboration between different government entities. Consequently, the NESDC and other CoG agencies, such as the OPDC (see below), depend on their ability to collaborate, influence and leverage their relationships to influence policy directions. OECD research on policy development and the role of the CoG indicates that accountability between the CoG and line ministries is crucial, including when the CoG starts and stops their involvement (OECD, 2024[1]). This needs to be coupled with strong trust and relationships between both facets of the public administration.
Beyond participating in policy-level committees and subcommittees, the NESDC also plays a crucial secretarial role, ensuring the smooth functioning of numerous national committees (including subcommittees and working groups). These bodies provide strategic input on cross-cutting issues such as net zero, supporting policy coherence and alignment across government entities.
The Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC)
The OPDC supports good governance by setting frameworks for policy development, creating standards and capacity building related to public sector development within Thailand’s public sector. The OPDC’s mandate is primed to support the public sector in handling cross-cutting policy challenges by supporting the modernisation of the public sector and analysing and monitoring reforms, including ones for achieving net zero, within ministries, bureaus and departments. The OPDC can provide recommendations for restructuring roles and work processes within government agencies in line with the Public Sector Development Guidelines. The OPDC is also responsible for disseminating information across public entities to enhance a common understanding about modern and effective public administration. The Strategic Plan for Public Sector Development (2024-2027) guides the OPDC in its efforts to enhance the Thai public sector, focusing on the following key strategic areas:
Strengthening public service through citizen-centric approach.
Transforming the public sector towards open government.
Enhancing productivity in the public sector with innovation and digitalisation.
The OPDC serves as the secretariat of the Public Sector Development Commission (PDC). The prime minister of Thailand is the chairperson of the PDC and is supported by a structure of sub‑commissions (as of 2024, there were 12, each with their own committee and sub-committees) assigned depending on the priorities of the Commission. Ten key divisions support operational efficiency and strategic direction within the government (Figure 2.3).
Source: Adapted from OPDC (n.d.[12]), Subcommittee on Civil Service Development (Subcommittee on Public Sector Development), Office of the Public Sector Development Commission.
The varied divisions of OPDC work together to provide expertise across a range of functions, from legal and governance reform to digital transformation, to ensure that Thailand’s public sector operates to the highest standards of efficiency and accountability.
The OECD-EU SIGMA Principles of Public Administration thus recommend “designating one institution with overall responsibility for leading and co-ordinating public administration reform policy and implementation” (OECD, 2023[9]). In Thailand, the Public Sector Development Group (PSDG), established within every government agency, focuses on specific tasks related to public sector improvement. These include monitoring KPIs, overseeing organisational restructuring, implementing Business Continuity Plans (BCPs), maintaining knowledge management platforms, and supporting anti-corruption efforts (OPDC, n.d.[13]). While the PSDG plays an important role in enhancing the efficiency and resilience of public administration, broader co-ordination and integration of net zero policies, which often involve cross-cutting issues, require engagement and leadership from multiple institutions.
Additional divisions that are relevant include:
The Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation Division, which oversees the performance of top public sector priorities, ensuring alignment with Thailand’s strategic objectives in second- and third‑level plans. For further information on the OPDC’s monitoring function, please see Chapter 3.
The Regional Administration and Local Government Division, which ensures connection to the 76 provinces across Thailand. The OPDC provides technical support to the provinces and 18 provincial clusters, which are grouped based on geographical proximity and shared potential. The Division also assists these entities in addressing administrative challenges, outdated regulations and obstacles that hinder their efficiency. The OPDC frequently uses a sandbox model to resolve these issues, working closely with provincial administrations. Additionally, the OPDC ensures close collaboration between central, provincial and local administrations.
The Division of Government Innovation, which applies design thinking in a reduced-regulatory “sandbox” environment to develop innovative ways to respond to emergent policies, including prototyping and experimentation.
Akin to the national committee structure, the OPDC has governance committees (or sub-commissions) to harness expertise and respond to emergent needs. There are currently 12 sub-commissioners and committees. The complex and layered committee structures can create administrative burdens and hinder clarity on specific responsibilities.
Opportunities to enhance the CoG’s role in steering cross-cutting issues
In the context of Thailand, the OPDC – as part of the CoG – aims to become a “catalyst at the centre”, to enhance the co‑ordination and alignment of net zero policies across various ministries. To that end, the OPDC has committed to:
Developing guidelines for appropriate division of roles and authority between central, regional and local government administration.
Integrating tasks and linking work between government agencies and various sectors along the development chain.
Developing guidelines for delegating authority to government departments (OPDC, 2023[14]).
The OPDC has ambitions to maintain momentum and integrate cross-cutting issues, such as net zero, adopting recommendations from a recent review (Somboonpakorn, 2023[15]). This shift would position the OPDC as a central and key facilitator in steering and co‑ordinating Thailand’s net zero response strategy.
The OPDC’s drive to enhance co-ordination is in part due to the recognition that ministries currently lack specific mandates over net zero and need the support of a centralised co‑ordination process. Additionally, stakeholders interviewed for this report acknowledged the need to raise awareness of net zero policies, what they mean and practices to enable the government to achieve them. I
To elevate the Thai CoG’s ability to manage cross-cutting issues effectively, the OECD recommends that both OPDC and NESDC continue to enhance its role in:
Co-ordinating cross-cutting issues such as net zero.
Guiding good policy development.
Performance monitoring.
The CoG can strengthen its role in co‑ordinating cross-cutting issues
Inter-ministerial co-ordination
Principle 3 of the EU-SIGMA Principles of Public Administration (OECD, 2023[9]) highlights that good public administrations feature public policies that are coherent and effectively co-ordinated by the CoG. Given there is usually no single institution in a government responsible for delivering on cross-cutting policies, it is crucial that CoG builds its co-ordination capacities (OECD, 2024[1]). Thailand’s CoG agencies, for instance the NESDC and OPDC, could take on a significant role in designing and being key actors within the co‑ordination system for cross-cutting issues. This should be considered within the established and existing national sub-committees and working groups. For example, the sub‑committee and working group on policy, planning and integration may present an opportunity to expand oversight and interaction across the net zero ecosystem.
While both the NESDC and OPDC play a role in co‑ordinating net zero policies, there is an opportunity for these roles to be clarified and potentially consolidated, including interaction with the DCCE. For example, Thailand could consider consolidating mandates for co‑ordinating the policy development process and integrated cross-sectoral advice to the prime minister, ensuring cohesion across policy development and implementation and monitoring net zero goals.
The NESDC and OPDC could also consider creating a centralised inter-ministerial project management office or delivery unit to support governments in achieving their most mission-critical goals (e.g. net zero policies for Thailand). Several countries such as Australia, France, Indonesia, Jordan and the United Kingdom have all used such units. The types of units can support co‑ordinating the government’s entire response (policy responses and internal improvements) for such policies, including at the operational layer, project tracking and facilitating a greater exchange of information. These types of units can also consider policies such as whether the pace of improvements is sufficient for achieving the goals, how to ensure stakeholders are aligned (Gold, 2017[16]) and provide trusted and accurate information on government responses to citizens and whether there are sufficient collaboration mechanisms for the response. Ensuring that these units have direct access to the highest-level decision makers (e.g. through the NCCCP) and have mandates for working with line ministries to resolve policies will be key.
Co-ordination through vertical layers of government
While horizontal co-ordination across line ministries is important, so too is co-ordination of responses across different levels of government (OECD, 2019[17]). A culture of co-operation and regular communication across multi-level governance is essential for successful governance and long-term reform (OECD, 2019[17]). In Thailand, this is important for net zero policies given that provincial or local governments are often required to implement or enforce certain policies. During the fact-finding process for this report, stakeholders highlighted that co-ordination between provinces and local governments could be enhanced for net zero policies, noting that there are inconsistencies in the way line ministries engaged with these actors, which could lead to misalignment. Workshop participants during the process often presented cases where co-ordination with the provincial or cluster levels was not present.
The OPDC’s Regional Administration and Local Government Division currently plays a role in co‑ordinating with subnational governments. Progress is being made with the Royal Decree on Integrated Area Administration B.E. 2565 (2022) to co‑ordinate between national and subnational plans. The objective of this Royal Decree is to ensure that development plans at all levels can be uniformly connected within their respective areas. The OECD’s guidelines for implementing decentralisation recommend that countries establish governance mechanisms to manage disbursed responsibilities and create a culture of co‑operation and regular communication (OECD, 2019[17]). Tools for vertical co-ordination include, for example, dialogue platforms, fiscal councils, commissions and intergovernmental consultation boards. Some of these exist within the OPDC’s remit; however, stakeholders identified that co-ordination was not fully effective due to broader challenges, such as funding flows and the empowerment of subnational government leaders. In the absence of the OPDC developing an enhanced framework to co-ordinate horizontal and vertical alignment, dispersed policy action may not bring about the systemic changes needed for net zero (OECD, 2023[18]).
The CoG could play a role in guiding good policy development
Being responsible for the country’s economic and social development plan, the NESDC could enhance its role in guiding good practices around policy development. For example, the NESDC may wish to consider expanding its role and activities to include the establishment of frameworks, toolkits or guidance in using contemporary practices while integrating key ones into an overall policy framework. Further, it may want to consider its role in reviewing policy proposals with the OPDC to identify whether more innovative solutions or approaches could be utilised.
The OPDC could expand on its Innovation Lab and sandbox environments by creating capacity-building programmes for all staff and by having greater authority to reduce regulations and legislations, enabling all ministries to experiment more. Further information on these opportunities can be found in Chapter 3.
Monitoring
The OPDC’s monitoring function, performed through the Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation Division is integral to ensuring that the activities of line ministries advance operational progress to achieve Thailand’s overarching strategic national goals. This involves careful oversight of cross-sectoral activities and their synergies. Research for this report indicated that there could be opportunities for the NESDC and OPDC to review and further consolidate their monitoring responsibilities and, for example, consider how top policies, such as net zero, could be implemented through a central delivery unit.
The current CoG monitoring approaches, including opportunities to enhance these, are explored in Chapter 4.
Following an overview of Thailand’s strategic planning framework and the role of the CoG in co‑ordinating and steering action on cross-cutting issues such as net zero, this section provides a high-level overview of the roles of other ministries and stakeholders.
Line ministries
After the Cabinet endorses its priorities, implementation of the initiatives becomes the operational responsibility of line ministries to formulate into action plans and deliver them (Figure 2.2). Line ministries are critical in translating the Cabinet’s strategic priorities into concrete actions. Line ministries’ responsibilities include executing plans under their operational scope and aligning them with national goals, engaging stakeholders, contributing to policy monitoring and ensuring their initiatives align with broader cross-sectoral efforts.
For net zero, the primary line ministries responsible for producing third-level action plans include:
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE).
The Department of Climate Change and Environment (DCCE).
The Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP).
The Pollution Control Department (PCD).
The Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP).
The Royal Forest Department (RFD).
The Ministry of Energy (MOE).
The Energy Policy and Planning Office (EPPO).
The Mineral Fuels Department (MFD).
The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
The Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE).
The Ministry of Transport (MOT).
The Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (OTP).
The Ministry of Industry (MIND).
The Department of Industrial Works (DIW).
The Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation.
While line ministries have clear mandates, the interconnected nature of cross-cutting issues makes it difficult to obtain clarity on responsibility for certain targets or who can or cannot submit proposals and obtain funding for certain goals within the master plan.
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
The MNRE is particularly important in the context of net zero as it has authority via ministerial regulation (Government of Thailand, 2017[19]) over natural resources and environmental management, including the development of policy, strategy, systems and guidelines. Necessarily, this also includes co‑ordination and resource allocation functions. Within the MNRE, the DCCE was created in August 2023 to focus on the country’s net zero efforts. The relevance of the DCCE was discussed earlier in this chapter in relation to the realisation of Thailand’s strategic planning framework. The DCCE’s mandate also critically includes:
Supervising Thailand’s priorities and operations related to net zero.
Co‑ordinating with public and private agencies on net zero.
Assessing the country’s net zero risks and producing guidelines in line with Thailand’s international commitments (Government of Thailand, 2023[20]).
While the DCCE has an explicit mandate over co‑ordinating net zero efforts, the MNRE’s mandate is broader (Government of Thailand, 2017[19]), as it is responsible for drafting and implementing policy across a wide range of environmental policies. During the OECD fact-finding process, stakeholders suggested that the DCCE may need enhanced central agency support to drive its co-ordination function.
The DCCE does not currently receive direct support from the NESDC or OPDC to co-ordinate net zero policies or enhance its co‑ordination capacities. Insufficient CoG capacities (such as co-ordination and mediation), may inhibit the effectiveness of the DCCE’s functions. For example, the DCCE may face obstacles such as prolonged policy development and challenges in inter-ministerial collaboration. Thailand could consider how the CoG could better support and liaise with co-ordinating offices such as the DCCE within line ministries (Box 2.3).
Provincial/local governments
Thailand’s approach to achieving net zero is not just a central government task; it requires an integrated effort that extends down to the 76 provinces with a range of differences. Provincial level understanding of cultural and geographic nuance is critical as it enables the creation of tailored solutions that ensure initiatives are well-suited to local conditions. Good policy must consider the local context to best promote regional development (OECD, 2018[21]). As referred to earlier, the OPDC plays a pivotal role in providing technical assistance to the provinces and provincial clusters in addressing administrative challenges and obstacles hindering their operation efficiency.
In Ireland, the Department of the Taoiseach (DoT) plays a pivotal role in ensuring effective cross-government coordination and policy alignment. As the central agency supporting the head of government, the DoT provides strategic oversight and works closely with other government departments to drive policy coherence. This is particularly important for complex, cross-cutting issues that require collaboration between multiple ministries. The department facilitates interdepartmental coordination, ensuring that policy initiatives align with national priorities and that government-wide strategic objectives are consistently pursued. Through its engagement with senior policymakers, the DoT helps navigate bureaucratic challenges, streamlining decision-making and reducing policy fragmentation.
A key mechanism within the DoT that enhances this coordination is the Central Policy Unit (CPU), which plays a support role in policy development and inter-ministerial cooperation. The CPU provides analytical capacity and facilitates evidence-based policymaking across government departments. By acting as a hub for information exchange and best practices, it strengthens policy coherence and ensures that government strategies are not developed in silos. Additionally, the CPU assists in evaluating policy proposals, offering guidance to departments on implementation challenges and identifying areas where additional coordination is needed. This structured approach helps mitigate delays, improves collaboration, and enhances the overall effectiveness of government action on national priorities.
Source: OECD (2023[22]), Strengthening Policy Development in the Public Sector in Ireland, https://doi.org/10.1787/6724d155-en.
While the provinces and local governments have action plans with key priorities set out for cross-cutting issues such as net zero, the fact-finding process found that local governments face challenges in performing their role. Challenges include: the need for greater empowerment of the heads of local governments; limited financial resources; aligning multiple stakeholders with varying interests; and building the capacity of citizens to engage in public processes. Stakeholders believe that addressing these challenges would be easier with greater support from the OPDC and national government agencies and with capacity strengthening at the local level. Provincial capacity building and building of relationships is critical in this context, where line ministries must work collaboratively with the provincial level yet do not have the authority to direct its work (OPDC, 2023[23]).
Other stakeholders
A diverse group of stakeholders outside government also play an essential role in Thailand’s institutional landscape for addressing cross-cutting issues: civil society organisations, academic institutions, businesses, international entities and citizens themselves provide varied perspectives and specialised expertise. Their involvement ensures that a wide array of views is considered, fostering more resilient and comprehensive governance (Chapter 3 explores the interaction between these stakeholders and their impact on policy making). However, Thailand has indicated considering greater roles and responsibilities for other stakeholders to address cross-cutting issues such as net zero. This is in recognition of the fact that governments cannot achieve outcomes for net zero-related policies alone (Kaur et al., 2023[2]). While some mechanisms do exist, a lack of formal policy frameworks to define these roles and outdated or challenging legislative and regulatory frameworks inhibit greater responsibility from other actors. Thailand could also consider an ecosystem approach.
In this context, the two public entities - the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO), and the Energy Regulation Commission - play important roles in the institutional framework for net zero. As such, the TGO is responsible for GHG management through developing and promoting the carbon credit markets, registering and certifying GHG reduction projects and supporting the assessment of GHG emission reduction and impacts. The Energy Regulation Commission is responsible for regulating energy enterprises in accordance with the objectives of the Energy Industry Act B.E. 2550 (2007) and the national policy framework. The Commission ensures the energy industry meets safety and environmental standards and encourages businesses to use renewable energy. Together these entities contribute to the development and regulation of policies related to GHG management and energy regulation, respectively, offering specialised expertise and oversight to address net zero.
Overall, the roles and responsibilities in cross-cutting issues such as net zero can be unclear between the CoG institutions, different line ministries and co‑ordination offices within line ministries. This can make it unclear as to who is responsible for strategic policy making, as regards the agency responsible for implementation or regulation. Cross-cutting issues, such as net zero, require joint policy development and action; thus, clarity in roles is important.
Thailand could benefit from clarifying and better communicating on the division of institutional responsibilities. The United Kingdom’s approach in that regard could be of interest (Box 2.4). If applied in Thailand, a more clearly defined framework highlighting the respective responsibilities of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, CoG units, relevant line ministries, the TGO and Energy Regulation Commission would go a long way to improve the effectiveness of policy co-ordination and foster ownership for all bodies responsible for net zero policy.
The United Kingdom Climate Change Committee recommended in its 2022 annual report to parliament that “the UK Government needs to clearly map out the different roles and responsibilities in delivering Net Zero” (CCC, 2022[24]). An example of good practice is the Infrastructure Strategy and its chart for the distribution of roles and responsibilities. Cross-cutting guidance is required, setting out: i) each actor’s role and who is responsible for what in delivering net zero between and, in some cases, within the government’s departments; and ii) the unit responsible for co‑ordinating and monitoring delivery across government, and how this interacts with cross-government structures such as the Climate Action Implementation Committee. This should abide by the following core principles:
A focus on stewarding the system, aiming to delegate as much as possible to those with clear accountability for delivery.
An activity and skills base, focused on co‑ordinating more complex actions, requiring a whole system approach, not just actual delivery. A small, agile and dedicated team could be helpful in achieving this.
Sufficient seniority/empowerment to be able to bring together and influence decision makers across government.
Source: CCC (2022[24]), Progress in Reducing Emissions: 2022 Report to Parliament, https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Progress-in-reducing-emissions-2022-Report-to-Parliament.pdf.
Thailand could consider the following opportunities to clarify the roles and responsibilities for cross-cutting issues, such as net zero:
Map the roles, responsibilities and formal authorities of the CoG, line ministries and other actors, and look for duplication or opportunities to streamline or rebalance responsibilities. This would allow Thailand to design an overall co-ordination governance approach.
Consolidate mandates between the NESDC, OPDC and line ministries for steering and monitoring cross-cutting issues, including formal mandates and informal responsibilities.
Consider refining the MNRE mandate and expanding the existing environmental remit to specifically include responsibility in relation to net zero.
Consider integrating net zero into the OPDC’s mandate, making net zero policies a central mission to enable the consequential empowerment of line ministries (Somboonpakorn, 2023[15]).
Review, streamline and consolidate the committee and sub-committee structure in line with clarified roles and responsibilities. This should promote sound co-ordination and visibility of priorities across the administration and reduce duplicated roles.
Utilise digital platforms or technology to promote visibility and understanding of the roles of different actors and related priorities, policies or actions.
Formally strengthen the role of the CoG in the co‑ordination of cross-cutting policies and in achieving net zero. A clearer mandate of the CoG’s role in this will be necessary for further strengthen co-ordination mechanisms (see Chapter 3).
Design an overall co-ordination system and required mechanisms for cross-cutting issues, in particular for net zero policies.
Examine, streamline and improve existing co‑ordination mechanisms. The OPDC may wish to consider streamlining its own structure and number of sub-committees to enable it to be a “catalyst at the centre” and enable more focused and agile practices while bolstering co‑ordination functions.
Based on a cost-benefit analysis, consider the use of project management offices or delivery units for net zero to enable the highest level of co‑ordination, support and monitoring for this priority. Consideration should be given to how such units would be embedded into the structure and enabling conditions, such as formal or informal mandates and digital and data infrastructure.
Strengthen the role of the NESDC in guiding good policy development practices across the public administration. This should consider the needs of the public administration and will require clear mandates supported by senior officials.
References
[24] CCC (2022), Progress in Reducing Emissions: 2022 Report to Parliament, United Kingdom Climate Change Committee, https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Progress-in-reducing-emissions-2022-Report-to-Parliament.pdf.
[16] Gold, J. (2017), Tracking Delivery: Global Trends and Warning Signs in Delivery Units, Institute for Government, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Global%20Delivery%20report.pdf.
[20] Government of Thailand (2023), Royal Decree: Changing the Name of the Environmental Quality Promotion Department to Department of Climate Change and Environment.
[19] Government of Thailand (2017), Ministerial Regulation of Dividing Government Offices, the Office of the Permanent Secretary, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
[2] Kaur, M. et al. (2023), “Steering responses to climate change from the centre of government: A stocktaking”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 65, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b95c8396-en.
[6] Kingdom of Thailand (2021), Thailand Mid-century, Long-term Low Greenhouse Gas Emission Development Strategy.
[4] NESDC (2023), The Thirteenth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023-2027), Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, Office of the Prime Minister, https://www.nesdc.go.th/article_attach/article_file_20230615134223.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[11] NESDC (n.d.), History and Role of NESDC, Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, https://www.nesdc.go.th/nesdb_en/ewt_news.php?nid=4258 (accessed on 10 January 2024).
[1] OECD (2024), Steering from the Centre of Government in Times of Complexity: Compendium of Practices, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/69b1f129-en.
[8] OECD (2023), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Czech Republic: Towards a More Modern and Effective Public Administration, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/41fd9e5c-en.
[18] OECD (2023), “Reaching Net zero: Do mission-oriented policies deliver on their many promises?”, in OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2023: Enabling Transitions in Times of Disruption, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fd790e2c-en.
[22] OECD (2023), Strengthening Policy Development in the Public Sector in Ireland, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6724d155-en.
[3] OECD (2023), “Survey on strategic decision making at the centre of government”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
[9] OECD (2023), The Principles of Public Administration, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7f5ec453-en (accessed on 18 December 2023).
[7] OECD (2020), Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance: Baseline Features of Governments that Work Well, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c03e01b3-en.
[17] OECD (2019), Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa7-en.
[10] OECD (2018), Centre Stage 2: The Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government in OECD Countries, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/centre-stage-the-organisation-and-functions-of-the-centre-of-government.htm.
[21] OECD (2018), Rethinking Regional Development Policy-making, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264293014-en.
[5] ONEP (2016), Climate Change Master Plan 2015-2050, Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Thailand, https://climate.onep.go.th/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CCMP_english.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2024).
[14] OPDC (2023), “Presentation: Information for preparing a workshop to adjust roles and missions”, Unpublished, Office of the Public Sector Development Commission.
[23] OPDC (2023), “Presentation: Policy committee meeting: Integrated special management No. 1/2023”, Office of the Public Sector Development Commission.
[12] OPDC (n.d.), Subcommittee on Civil Service Development (Subcommittee on Public Sector Development), Office of the Public Sector Development Commission.
[13] OPDC (n.d.), The History of the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC), Office of the Public Sector Development Commission, https://www.opdc.go.th/en/about/history/.
[15] Somboonpakorn, A. (2023), “Suggestions for future public administration”, Unpublished.
← 1. The international standards highlighted for alignment in this report are primarily under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.