Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) of the free trade agreement between the European Free Trade Association and Thailand – A critical analysis
All the versions of this article: [English] [français]
Alliance Sud and Public Eye | December 2024
Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) of the free trade agreement between the European Free Trade Association and Thailand – A critical analysis
Executive Summary
EFTA has published an ex-ante Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) of the Free Trade Agreement
between the European Free Trade Association and Thailand, marking the first time it has undertaken
such an exercise.
We credit EFTA for having drawn up Terms of Reference (ToRs) enabling a well-rounded assessment.
The ToRs had called for analysis of tariff and non-tariff measures, asked for a combination
(“intermingling”) of quantitative and qualitative considerations, direct attention to a broad range of
sustainability aspects (“economic, social, human rights, and environment”) and attributed due
weight to stakeholder consultations. In addition, the SIA process was initiated in time to inform the
negotiations.
At first glance, the SIA report presents a detailed consultation process giving weight to diverse
stakeholder views and paying attention to their subjective perceptions of impacts of the agreement.
Its summary announces a case-study approach to specific issue areas. The report recognizes the
shortcomings of quantitative modelling and draws on other sources and methods for analysis of
issues where data are lacking.
Unfortunately, though, the SIA falls short of its promises. It contains strong methodological and
analytical shortcomings which limit its usefulness for negotiators, stakeholders or the general
public. It has four main flaws: (1) the economic impact analysis is essentially unconnected from the
sustainability analysis, (2) the lens through which the sustainability aspects are analysed is too
broad to enable useful conclusions, (3) the analysis and risk assessment that the report promises
are not clearly presented, and (4) the report contains many inconsistencies, further diminishing its
capacity to serve as a basis for policy conclusions.