A presentation before the hearing by
Sirinimit Wongsunthorn, a
representative of Team Engineering
Consultants, the company which
carried out the oft-criticised EIA report
for the pipeline project, spurred panel
members into raising many questions
about the EIA process in general.
Chiraphol Sintunawa, a lecturer at
Mahidol University, echoed the
comments of many environmentalists
when he argued that ''the funding for
EIAs should not come from the
project owners, as is currently the
case,'' because it gives them too
much control of the EIA process.
Committee chairman Anand
Panyarachun noted that consultant
firms vying for EIA contracts are
businesses and therefore may have a
tendency to try and please their
clients -- the project owners -- in
order to keep them as customers in
the future.
Anand also praised an approach
used in other countries where the
budget for EIAs come from project
financiers like the World Bank instead
of the project owners themselves. If
the survey shows that the social and
environmental damage is too great,
then the project does not receive
funding.
Sirinimit, meanwhile, coolly answered
the panelists' questions and
defended her company's survey
methods. She noted, for instance,
that EIAs must not only satisfy the
project owners but also the Office of
Environmental Policy and Planning
(OEPP), an EIA evaluation committee
and finally the National Environment
Board (NEB).
OEPP secretary-general Saksit
Tridech also testified before the
public hearing Tuesday, recounting
how the original draft EIA had to be
revised because of the lack of
comprehensive data on wildlife in the
affected area.
Saksit said that the Royal crab, a rare
species endemic to Kanchanaburi,
was previously thought to be found
only in Sai Yok National Park but has
now been spotted in the Huay
Khayeng forest, near the route of the
pipeline. He announced that the
OEPP will propose at an upcoming
meeting of the NEB that the area be
declared an environmental
conservation zone.
Asked if he was satisfied with the
work of the consulting firm, Saksit
simply said that revision is part of the
EIA process.
But other voices were far more
critical. Testifying before the
committee, Surapol Duangkhae,
deputy secretary-general of Wildlife
Fund Thailand, read off a long list of
points where the EIA had allegedly
presented faulty or incomplete
information.
Environmentalists have complained,
for instance, that the EIA claims there
are no elephants in the affected
forest during the dry season, when in
fact there is a herd of 40 to 50
animals.
Chiraphol said that local villagers
knew about the wildlife situation but
the surveyors apparently didn't pay
attention to their information.
''This is a major weakness of the EIA
system,'' he said. ''Villagers know a lot
about the local situation but they
don't seem to be allowed any input.''
Sirinimit noted that villagers were
polled about the pipeline project and
reported that 79 per cent expressed
support for it, claiming it would
improve the local economy and the
national energy supply.
But a closer look at the statistics
shows that only two out of the 136
people polled claimed to have a
''good understanding'' of the project.
Most of the respondents, 110, said
they knew nothing at all about it.
Asked if there were any weaknesses
in her company's research methods,
Srinimit said that the firm carries out
''assessments'' rather than research.
''If we did it over again, I would try to
make an assessment along the entire
pipeline, rather than sampling [at
certain sites].''
Meanwhile, Piti Yimprasert, the
Petroleum Authority of Thailand
(PTT) official in charge of natural gas
development, was less circumspect
about his company's achievements,
insisting that the pipeline is ''100 per
cent secure'' and that ''the PTT's
compensation system is the best in
the world''.
According to Suchit Pitragool, a
geologist from Chiang Mai University
who testified before the committee on
Monday, the pipeline runs along the
Three Pagodas fault, an active
earthquake zone, for roughly 100
kilometres.
Saksit testified that the pipeline
should be able to withstand an
earthquake of 8.0 on the Richter
scale without any damage. Suchit,
however, said that the seismic risk
depended on the location of an
earthquake's epicentre more than on
its strength.
''If an earthquake of magnitude 5.0
hits in the Andaman Sea then there
should not be any problems,'' he said.
''If it hits right under the pipeline then
it would probably cause damage.''
Suchit said that the last major
earthquake to strike along the
pipeline route occurred on March 11,
1959, when a quake measuring
between 5.0 and 6.0 on the Richter
scale hit Muang district's tambon
Klaundo.
BY JAMES FAHN