It was hardly a surprise when Deputy Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej
and
Industry Minister Korn Dabbaransi recently attacked environmental
critics of the Yadana gas pipeline, claiming they were "dancing
to the tune of
Burmese opposition groups". From the moment this project was thought
up, it has
been overwhelmed by politics on all sides.
The pipeline, which will transport natural gas from Burma's Gulf of
Martaban through Kanchanaburi province to a Thai power plant in Ratchaburi,
has
become the main symbol of Thailand's policy of constructive engagement.
Opponents of Burma's ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council
claim it will almost single-handedly prop up the regime by supplying
it with
US$200 million (Bt5.2 billion) in revenue. They also say human rights
violations - including forced relocation of villages - were committed
to clear the
way for the pipeline.
Supporters of the project - which is being carried out by the France-based
Total, US-based Unocal and the Petroleum Authority of Thailand's
Exploration and Production Co (PTTEP) - respond that by fostering economic
development in Burma, the pipeline and gas production agreement will
eventually help
lead to greater political openness. They deny any human rights abuses
have occurred, claiming the developers have chipped in to improve the
living
standards of local people.
These are important issues, of great interest to people all over the
world.
But there are also some crucial environmental issues surrounding the
Yadana project.
Gas is generally cleaner to burn than coal or oil, but producing it
can be a
dirty business, as shown in the Gulf of Thailand where Total and Unocal
have admitted to dumping mercury into the sea. Building the pipeline
will
also cause problems, not just for Burmese and Thai people living along
the
route, but for Thailand as a whole and for anyone who cares about the
survival
of endangered species.
Samak, who is supposed to be the administration's point man on the
environment, is apparently unaware of this shows. But many Thai
officials are in fact to blame. The pipeline project was first publicly
proposed
in 1990. The Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT), which is building
the
pipeline on the Thai side, has had seven years to study the
environmental situation and prepare local villagers for the project.
But it had
accomplished neither task by the time its deadline for beginning
construction arrived earlier this year.
A technical hearing to gather local views was only organised at the
last
minute, and in a highly irregular move the Office of Environmental
Policy and Planning (OEPP) approved the project on condition that the
PTT would
carry out further wildlife studies.
When the state-owned PTT negotiated the contract to buy the natural
gas
several years ago, the Thai government was only concerned about two
things: promoting economic links with Burma to justify the constructive
engagement policy, and getting a cheap price for the gas.
In its eagerness to complete the deal, the Thai government arguably
subverted due process. First the PTT signed a contract -later accorded
"special approval" by the Cabinet, to use Korn's own words - which
locked it into a schedule that the threatens huge penalties if the
Thai pipeline
project is not finished on time.
Then, in a non-transparent process, they agreed to build the pipeline
based on Burmese specifications. The major considerations for the Burmese
side
were to make both the underwater pipeline - which is expensive - and
the
overland route, which is insecure, as short as possible. So the pipeline
runs virtually due east from the Yadana field to Ban I-Tong, on the
border in Kanchanaburi.
Unfortunately, from there it has to pass through a 1A watershed region
and a pristine forest that is home to several endemic and endangered
species,
including Kitti's hog-nosed bat - the world's smallest mammal, found
only in the limestone caves around Rajini crab. The area is also seismically
active, adding another element of insecurity to the project.
From the Thai perspective, it would have been much better to bring the
pipeline in at Ratchaburi's Suan Phung district, where it would have
run
a shorter distance, without passing through pristine forest, to the
power plant.
Once the entry point was decided, however, there was no avoiding damage
to the forest. And the PTT has not explained how it plans to keep the
illegal poachers, loggers and settlers from moving into the virgin
forest, as
they always do when it is opened up for development.
The whole Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was called into question,
not just by NGOs, but by the OEPP itself, whose expert committee rejected
the report three times. Carried out by Team Engineering Consultants,
the
report was obviously lacking. It did not state what mitigation efforts
the contractors would take to reduce the risk of landslides or the
damage to
forest and wildlife.
The EIA also claimed the pipeline would not pose any threat to Kitti's
hog-nosed bat or the Rajini crab, said Wildlife Fund Thailand's Suraphol
Duangkhae, simply because when the consultants walked along the route,
they didn't spot any endangered animals. Proper wildlife studies, he
pointed
out, can require years of work in the field.
The PTT had the time to carry them out, but it didn't have a sense of
urgency. The oil company knew the OEPP would succumb to political
pressure and pass the EIA rather than cause a delay in construction
that would
force the payment of penalties. And that is exactly what happened.
The OEPP
meekly accepted the PTT's promise to carry out further studies, and
passed the
report to the National Environment Board, which approved it forthwith.
Meanwhile, we simply don't know what the environmental situation is
in
Burma, as the area is off-limits to outsiders.
What we do know is that the tense political and security situation in
Burma has once again damaged Thailand: in physical terms, it has meant
the
pipeline will damage local forest more than necessary; and in social
terms, the official obsession with constructive engagement has prevented
the
project from being carried out with proper public participation.
In this light, the comments by Samak and Korn - which suggest it is
okay
to complain about social and environmental problems, but not about
the
political conflict which has exacerbated them - make even less sense.
Everyone knew that the Yadana project would have profound implications
for Burma, but it has also shown once and for all that the process
for
approving development projects in Thailand is broken, and must be fixed.
(TN)