Strengthening Collaboration with Government Agencies and NGOs to Advance Marine Resource Conservation and Societal Well-being

Effective policy development does not end when legislation is enacted. Continued monitoring and evaluation are necessary to determine whether regulatory interventions achieve their intended objectives and whether further adjustments are required. Through his advisory role, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Udomsak Saengow emphasized the importance of maintaining rigorous enforcement of existing alcohol-control laws, examining emerging evidence, and assessing the public health and social implications of proposed policy changes. His recommendations highlighted that policy effectiveness depends not only on the wording of legislation but also on consistent implementation, evidence-based decision-making, and the ability to respond to emerging risks.

One immediate concern was the potential weakening of enforcement before the amended Alcoholic Beverage Control Act came into effect. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Udomsak cautioned that government signals suggesting greater flexibility in alcohol sales on major Buddhist holidays and on trains and railway stations could undermine the consistent enforcement of existing restrictions. At the time of his comments, the proposed amendments had not yet entered into force, meaning that the existing legal requirements remained applicable. He therefore emphasized the need for the government to maintain strict enforcement, particularly during major tourism periods such as the Songkran festival. This recommendation demonstrated the importance of monitoring not only formal legislative changes but also administrative practices and policy signals that could influence compliance before new provisions become legally effective.

To support this position, he drew attention to evidence from Thailand and other countries concerning the relationship between alcohol availability and social harm. Research from Western Australia found that hotels granted extended alcohol-trading hours experienced approximately three times as many assaults as hotels that did not receive such extensions. Evidence from 18 Norwegian cities also associated an additional hour of alcohol sales with a 13–22% increase in assaults. In Thailand, research has identified a relationship between greater alcohol-outlet density and higher alcohol consumption. Although these findings arise from different regulatory and social contexts and do not establish that every relaxation of restrictions will produce identical outcomes, they provide important evidence for assessing the potential risks of expanding alcohol availability.

These findings informed a precautionary approach to policy evaluation. Rather than assuming that longer sales hours or fewer restrictions would automatically generate economic benefits, policymakers were encouraged to consider the possible consequences for violence prevention, public safety, and alcohol-related harm. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Udomsak also stressed that tourists should not be regarded solely as consumers of nightlife and recreational services, as many do not drink alcohol. Their safety deserves equal consideration, and serious incidents involving visitors could damage Thailand’s international reputation. This perspective illustrates how monitoring and evaluation can help policymakers consider the wider consequences of regulatory decisions, including impacts on people who may otherwise be overlooked in discussions focused primarily on commercial activity.

Another important dimension of his policy analysis concerned the influence of commercial interests on alcohol-control legislation. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Udomsak distinguished among three broad groups in Thailand’s alcohol market: large domestic businesses, smaller businesses seeking to expand their operations, and large multinational companies seeking greater market access. He explained that these groups may pursue different approaches to regulatory reform, ranging from maintaining existing market conditions to advocating changes that reduce barriers to business expansion. Multinational companies may also use lobbying, trade organizations, partnerships with domestic businesses, sponsored campaigns, and engagement with think tanks to advance their preferred policy positions.

This analysis highlighted the importance of examining not only the stated objectives of proposed amendments but also the distribution of their potential benefits and costs. Relaxing alcohol-control measures could increase market competition and make business operations easier, but the long-term consequences may differ among market participants. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Udomsak noted that smaller businesses with distinctive products can eventually become acquisition targets for larger companies. He also raised concerns that international trade pressures could encourage multinational alcohol producers to seek additional markets in emerging economies, including Thailand. These considerations reinforced the need for independent evidence and transparent policy deliberations when assessing proposals to relax existing restrictions.

From a monitoring and evaluation perspective, this analysis provides a basis for examining whether regulatory changes achieve their stated economic objectives and how their benefits and risks are distributed across society. Relevant questions include whether increased market access produces sustained opportunities for smaller businesses, whether market concentration changes over time, and whether economic gains are accompanied by increased alcohol-related social and health costs. Such questions can help government agencies and researchers distinguish between claims made in policy debates and outcomes demonstrated through evidence.

Tourism performance offers another example of why policy evaluation should consider multiple indicators. Historical data for 2007–2019 showed that international tourist arrivals in Thailand increased from approximately 14.5 million to 39.9 million, while tourism revenue rose from approximately 548 billion baht to 1.9 trillion baht during a period in which alcohol-control legislation and related restrictions were in place. Research examining extended operating hours in five pilot provinces also found that tourist growth was lower than in comparison provinces that did not extend operating hours. These observations do not establish that alcohol restrictions caused tourism growth or that relaxing restrictions would necessarily reduce tourism. Instead, they challenge the assumption that loosening alcohol controls automatically produces stronger tourism outcomes and demonstrate the importance of examining comparative evidence before introducing policy changes.

The findings suggest that tourism strategies should be evaluated using a broader range of indicators, including visitor numbers, tourism revenue, public safety, alcohol-related incidents, and the quality of the visitor experience. Policymakers can also explore alternative approaches to strengthening the nighttime economy through cultural activities, creative industries, and safe recreational environments rather than relying primarily on increased alcohol sales. This provides a more balanced basis for assessing economic development alongside public health and social well-being.

The amended Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, B.E. 2568 (2025), introduced additional provisions concerning advertising, marketing communications, sales to intoxicated persons, administrative enforcement, and support for people experiencing alcohol-related problems. These provisions create a strengthened legal framework for addressing several aspects of alcohol-related harm. However, their effectiveness must ultimately be assessed through implementation and outcome data rather than inferred from legislative changes alone. Continued evaluation could examine compliance with marketing restrictions, enforcement consistency, patterns of alcohol consumption, alcohol-related injuries and road traffic incidents, interpersonal violence, access to treatment and rehabilitation, and the economic and social consequences of regulatory changes.

This approach supports adaptive management by enabling policymakers to review measures in response to observed outcomes, emerging research, and changing social conditions. Where evidence indicates that an intervention is not achieving its objectives or is producing unintended consequences, government agencies can use the findings to reconsider implementation strategies, strengthen enforcement, or evaluate the need for further policy adjustments. Universities can contribute by conducting independent research, interpreting evidence, identifying emerging risks, and communicating findings to government agencies and civil society partners.

Through his participation in national legislative deliberations, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Udomsak Saengow brought research-based perspectives on alcohol availability, tourism, commercial influence, and public safety into discussions concerning Thailand’s regulatory framework. His recommendations illustrate how academic expertise can support the diagnosis of policy challenges, the assessment of potential interventions, and the development of evidence-informed approaches to implementation and future evaluation. This engagement reinforces Walailak University’s contribution to cross-sector policy development under SDG 17 while supporting the broader public health objectives of SDG 3.