The imbalance of power between
urban and rural Thailand,
particularly between Bangkok and the provinces, was a key election
issue in 1992, and was
usually expressed as a disparity in development. Yet this double standard
is
particularly severe when it comes to the environment.
Ironically, a good deal of
environmental deterioration upcountry
is due to the actions of urbanites: investment in the provinces by
Bangkok-based
naitoon; or the construction of large government projects such as dams
and power
plants to meet urban demand for water and electricity.
In either case, villagers
see their resources being exploited
but gain little in the process. Often, their only option is to move
to the city to work
for low wages in a factory.
This year did see the beginnings
of an attempt to deal seriously with
environmental problems. But even these solutions have so far been skewed
to the needs of wealthy (and thus powerful) areas.
The new Environment Law,
for instance, has given the Ministry of
Science, Technology and Environment (Moste) the power to declare severely
degraded areas Pollution Control Zones. The former National Environment
Board _ now
restructured and brought within Moste _ can then move in and, with
the
help of a newly established Bt500-million Environment Fund, oversee
a clean-up.
But the first such zones
to be declared are in Pattaya and Phuket, with Hua Hin
and Ko Phi Phi next in line. There's no doubt that these areas are
in need of a
massive scrubbing, but critics question whether this should come out
of government
funds. In effect, the money constitutes a subsidy for the ailing tourism
industry, while other
needy places _ such as coastal areas degraded by prawn farming and
the severely polluted Chao Phraya River _ continue to be neglected.
Authorities retort that tourist
resorts are highly visible and thus can serveas a good example of environmental
management; projects such as cleaning up the Chao Phraya are currently
``too ambitious'. Once the government has built centralized waste treatment
plants, they add, users in Pattaya and Phuket will have to pay for their
operation. For the moment, then, the Polluter Pays
principle enshrined in the new law is actually being interpreted as
``the polluter pays back'.
Still, if properly implemented, the Polluter Pays principle and the revised versions of the Factories Act and Hazardous Substances Act should in the long run greatly help urban areas cope with industrialization.
But the situation is much less
sanguine for the majority of the population which remains linked to the
rural economy. To use the lingo currently in vogue, some progress is being
made on the ``brown side' (i.e., regarding pollution) of the environmental
equation, but problems on the ``green side' (i.e.
regarding forests, soil erosion, destruction of natural habitats, and
so on) continue to deteriorate.
There is as yet no resolution to the potentially explosive problems of land tenure and deforestation. And the Chuan government's plans to build four new dams will simply add to rural woes. Meanwhile, the Royal Irrigation Department has vowed that thirsty Bangkok will receive sufficient water during the next dry season even though it will mean many farmers must forsake their second crop: in effect, the city has grabbed water from the country.
Rather than attempting to address agricultural problems squarely, the present administration hopes to lessen town and country disparities by promoting industrial investment in the countryside. But part of the lure for investors could be the promise of looser environmental controls.
Indeed, as industry begins
to move out of greater Bangkok, the pollution situation upcountry is getting
steadily worse. This year's crop of unnatural disasters _ including the
mass slaughter of fish in Isaan rivers, allegedly due to a molasses spill
from the Khon Kaen Sugar Mill, and toxic fallout
from lignite-burning power plants in Mae Moh _ are a case in point.
The molasses spill in March wrought a path of destruction down the Nam Phong-Chi-Mool river system. But this was only one cause of a larger `pescicide' which occurred in Northeastern waterways this year. For in April came news of the blasting of the Tana rapids, part of Kaeng Tana National Park, on the Mool River to make way for the Pak Mool Dam.
Contrast this to the many centralized waste water treatment plants being planned for Thailand's cities, the largest being a Bt20 billion system to serve the Bangkok metropolitan region.
Pollution has contributed
to the severe water shortage now being faced. This was perhaps the year's
biggest environmental story, but it was largely presented as a case of
too much water being allowed to run off into the sea. The Chuan administration
has used this argument as justification for proposing to build new dams
at Saiburi, Kaeng Sua Ten, Mae Wong and Haew Narok _ the latter
two being in national parks.
In fact, critics argue that the
so-called ``drought' is actually due to years of mismanagement of rural
resources: rampant deforestation, encroachment on watersheds, and the subsidizing
of water supplies leading to massive inefficiency. Farmers currently pay
nothing for irrigation, and a report
by the TDRI states that agricultural water efficiency lies below 30
per cent, compared to at least 50 per cent in Malaysia, China and Taiwan.
Urban domestic and industrial consumers also get off cheaply.
Dams themselves _ besides disrupting riverine ecosystems, inundating forests and displacing thousands of villagers _ are considered poor solutions since the large surface areas of reservoirs lead to increased evaporation.
A better solution, say some experts,
is to conserve watersheds and raise water tariffs so they reflect the real
cost of supplying this resource, thus inducing greater efficiency. In return,
they advocate giving farmers long-term water rights, ensuring them sufficient
supply to earn their livelihood, or allowing them to lease these rights
to other users should they wish to profit directly
from industrial development.
But giving villagers water rights seems to be as politically untenable as giving them land rights. Indeed, the land situation in Thailand is equally troublesome, and equally unfair.
The powerful elements of society can use their influence to acquire or encroach on public land. When caught, they are either given a small fine or let off scot free. But villagers who attempt to use land claimed by the government are told to clear out.
If there was one major victory for the disenfranchised in 1992, it was the scrapping of the khor jor kor resettlement scheme in the wake of the May Massacre. This brutal project _ supposedly designed to boost forest cover _ was slated to move 250,000 Northeastern families from 14 million rai of land authorities claimed as forest reserve.
The brainchild of the Royal
Forestry Department and certain military officers, khor jor kor would have
helped RFD officials replace the income lost since the logging ban by allowing
investors to set up plantations of fast-growing trees. Factory farms may
be good for the pulp and paper industry, say
environmentalists, but they don't serve as watersheds or act to prevent
soil erosion like real forests do.
But this victory is incomplete.
While the Anand II administration came up with an enlightened new reforestation
policy (which included the promotion of small-scale plantations and radical
reform of the RFD), it was never acted upon. Neither has the call by rural
development experts for implementing the principles of community forestry
been heeded. The Chuan government has yet to
come out with a clear policy on reforestation.
Instead, the conflict has been ignored, with the predictable result that it exploded again in December. The arrest of nine villagers, and the sentencing of conservationist monk Phra Prajak Khutajitto to a year in prison, set off protests anew in December. Although temporarily resolved, the situation could become truly serious once the planting season starts next year.
In the Northeast, land issues
often revolve around forestry, but elsewhere they centre on the tourism
industry. In Phuket, for instance, protests took place in December at Nai
Harn Bay and Bang Tao Bay over attempts by authorities and resort developers
to block public access to beaches. The Phuket Yacht Club has in fact been
ordered by the government to tear down part of its hotel which is
impeding access to a public road, but it has so far failed to take
action.
Meanwhile, in Krabi critics
have charged that the Dusit Rayavadee Resort is being built within the
confines of the Haad Noparattara-PP Islands National Park.
Industry is also involved
with land use conflicts. Protests by local residents of Ko Si Chang over
rock blasting on the island resulted in the government ordering a halt
to such operations. But a deep sea port slated for development there has
been given the go-ahead, despite fears that it would disrupt the local
fishing and tourism trades.
Clean air seems to be the one area where country folk seem to have an environmental edge over townies. But the disaster at Mae Moh in Lampang Province showed that this advantage may be fleeting.
Throughout October and November,
several episodes of acute acidic fallout took place, trickening hundreds
of nearby residents and destroying vegetation. The problem is due to the
excessive emission of sulfur dioxide from the 11 lignite-burning power
plants in the valley, and it is not a new one; villagers have long complained
about respiratory problems. But it took a severe
case of media attention for the government to finally come up with
Bt10 billion to install pollution control equipment on the four largest
existing plants.
The powers-that-be have long
been aware of the deteriorating air quality in cities, on the other hand,
since that is where they live. As a result, several steps are being taken
to improve the urban atmosphere, including mandatory installation of catalytic
converters on all new cars beginning in
January, imposing new emission strandards on vehicles, and improving
the quality of various fuel products. But there is still no word of the
strict new inspection and maintenance programme which has been promised.
When it comes to the area of toxic substances, all Thai citizens remain vulnerable because so few know of the dangers involved. But it remains the case that poorly educated rural people suffer the greatest exposure to these dangerous materials, whether at home or in the workplace.
In Ron Phibun District of
Nakhon Sri Thammarat, villagers have long been exposed to poisoning by
arsenic which leaches off tin mining operations and contaminates ground
water supplies. Mitigating steps by the government have achieved little.
This year the National Epidemiology Board of Thailand revealed that 1,500
people are now affected (including one man who has already died from skin
cancer), and that the coastal district of Ao Pak Phanang, laden
with export-oriented aquaculture farms, is threatened with contamination.
At the same time, rural migrants to the cities face occupational health hazards. Imports of asbestos _ a cancer-causing substance used as a cheap cement filler and in the manufacturing of car brakes, clutches and underlinings _ have doubled over the last decade, with disastrous consequences for thousands of Thai workers.
The latest survey performed found that 10.2 per cent of those working with the substance suffered from asbestos-related respiratory diseases, twice the rate from a study performed four years earlier. Defenders of the material argue that it is safe if used properly, but even a government official agreed that labourers in many factories do not have proper protection.
In some cases, at least, action is being taken. Egat and the MEA are exporting PCB-contaminated equipment for proper disposal abroad. And government officials have announced that Thailand would speed up its phase-out of ozone-destroying substances such as CFCs and halons. Imports of these materials had been growing rapidly, but the destruction of the ozone layer is a global issue, so Thailand's continued abuse could not be sustained.
Thailand is facing similar international pressure over its exploitation of Cambodian resources _ gems and timber in particular _ in territories occupied by the Khmer Rouge. With a ban on the export of logs from Cambodia due to take effect on Dec 31, Thai investors are racing to extract as much as possible from their concessions.
The environment is naturally an issue which stretches across borders, and events on the global stage to some extent mirror those in Thailand. Just as there is a split rich and poor areas in Thailand, around the world there is a great divide between North and South _ developed and developing countries _ regarding green issues.
The South was given its say this year at the Earth Summit, a global media extravaganza held in June in Rio de Janeiro. All over the world, governments and businesses hope to use resources for development; and while they argued over how to divide the spoils fairly, NGOs and activists urged them to do so as sustainably as possible.
Although it did raise environmental awareness a great deal, the meet was hardly an unqualified success. Again, there was more progress on the brown side than the green side.
Regarding the former, the
US under the Bush administration managed to withdraw the teeth from a convention
on climate change, but Japan and Europe vowed to halt increases in the
emission of greenhouse gases. Also, a document known as Agenda 21 will
guide scientists and economists working to find the real value of various
resources, so that governments can know the true costs of
exploiting them.
On the green side, however, North and South failed to come to a lasting agreements on managing genetic and forest resources. The US refused to sign a convention on biodiversity and a statement on forest principles had little real meaning.
In the end, Thailand lived
up to its global responsibilities by signing all the treaties. But as it
moves from South to North, the nation's biggest concern will be how to
deal with the North-South differences within itself.