Corrupt Thai Politicians Push Large Dam Project Despite Lack of Proper Study by Phairath Khampha 31 August 2001 Large sanctuary area will be inundated Money-making and political interests outweighed forest conservation concerns as Thailand's National Environment Board on August 29, 2001 approved the Tha Sae dam project in Chumphon province. Corrupt politicians in Thailand had been interfering in the Tha Sae Dam project in Chumphon province. They wanted the approval of the project to be hurried so that they could then start to make a lot of money through corrupt design and construction contract schemes and through siphoning money meant for compensation to people affected by the project. It seems no one in Thailand has learned much from previous such dam-building fiascos. Surapol Duangkae, secretary-general of the Wildlife Fund Thailand, said politicians had been trying to give the project a push, despite the absence of a reliable environmental impact assessment study. Questions remained about the inundation of lush forest area in the Prince of Chumphon Wildlife Sanctuary and the relocation and compensation scheme. The study, carried out by TEAM Consulting, one of Thailand's largest engineering consulting firms, had been rejected for a seventh time by an expert panel under the Office of Environmental Policy and Planning. TEAM is well-known for cosying up to corrupt politicians and government officials and assisting in getting controversial projects under way, even if they mean the destruction of thousands of livelihoods. As a reward for these efforts, TEAM's owners are quietly paid well by the politicians and officials. Moreover, he said an inspection by the Forestry Department finally confirmed that some 2,000 rai (1 rai = 1,600 m2of sanctuary area would be underwater. That contradicted information provided by the Royal Irrigation Department, the project developer, which said the sanctuary would not be flooded. The Royal Irrigation Department has become notorious for carrying out "white elephant" projects whose only real intent was to create money-making opprotunities for corrupt politicians and government officials and others among Thailand's economic and political elite. The facts would have to be passed to the expert panel, which would require an impact alleviation plan from the developer. However, the NEB, he said, had bypassed the panel, after some quiet back-room financial arrnagement, placing the project on the agenda of its last meeting on August 17. The board was supposedly preoccupied with inland prawn farming at the time and had no time to consider the project. Harn Yawalert, of WFT, said there were reports that a senior politician approached the OEPP's expert panel, urging quick approval, and offering favourable arrnagements. "He also said the problem of forest inundation should be cleared between phuyai (people with high authority) after their terms were met." Although the person's name was not disclosed, Mr Harn said the NEB had three Chart Thai party members, a party of reknownedly corrupt politicians. He referred to Deputy Prime Minister Dej Boonlong, who acted as NEB chairman on behalf of the prime minister, Science, Technology and Environment Minister Sonthaya Khunpleum, and Nikhon Chamnong, a Chart Thai executive and newly-appointed member. The presence of Mr Nikorn was unprecedented. "Never before has a party member been appointed to the board. That seat is supposed to be filled by NGOs," Mr Harn said. Mr Nikorn defended his role, saying that he represented the people's sector and not the party. He said he asked to be on the NEB because of a long-standing interest in the environment. Moreover, he said he wanted to act as a bridge between state organisations and the people's sector. "I noticed that it was hard for the people's sector to put its side to the board. From now on they can use me," he said. What he was saying was that the people's concerns would be filtered through him, thus making it even more difficult for such concerns to be propoerly heard. With regard to the issue of floods in the wildlife sanctuary, Mr Nikorn said he was prepared to raise the matter at the board's next meeting on August 29. He said attempts to speed up the process was related to concern about flood problems. "The dam was created as a flood prevention measure for Chumphon which was earlier hit by the Depression Gay," he said. This is a classic justification for such projects in Thailand when no other obvious social or economic benefits can be identified. Political meddling in rushed approval process - Environment study procedures breached Another environmental group on August 28 rallied at Government House to denounce interference by unnamed politicians in the approval process of Tha Sae dam project in Chumphon province. In an open letter to the prime minister, the Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation of 17 Institutes demanded the government investigate the matter. Romadon Punjor, co-ordinator of the group, said the proposed dam would flood part of Krom Luang Chumphon Khet Udomsak wildlife sanctuary. Even more importantly, the rules relating to preparation of an environmental impact study had been breached, Mr Romadon said. The dam project was included on the agenda of the National Environment Board meeting the following day, without an approval from an expert panel of the Office of Environmental Policy and Planning. The group stated that the people behind the rush to get approval for the project's environmental impact study were politicians and businessmen who stood to benefit from the dam's construction. They did not name the people. Villagers from Lop Buri and from Buri Ram also rallied at Government House. They said they had suffered from irrigation projects that were inappropriately designed and had now input from the end-users and obviously had been constructed just for the purpose of building a project for money. Residents of Lop Buri's Chai Badan district complained they had not been compensated for loss resulting from the Pasak Cholasit dam project, which had done nothing to improve their agriculture. Villagers from Buri Ram demanded compensation owed them by virtue of the July 11, 1989 cabinet resolution relating to the impact from the Lam Praimat and Huaytoey projects. Tha Sae dam gets approval from NEB - Conservation loses to greed, politics and corruption Greed and political interests outweighed forest conservation concerns as the National Environment Board approved the Tha Sae dam project in Chumphon province. Deputy Prime Minister Dej Boonlong, the board chairman, said the panel approved the dam despite concerns it would flood part of Krom Luang Chumphon Khet Udomsak wildlife sanctuary. Dykes could be built in an attempt to prevent flooding, he said. A forestry official said wildlife would benefit from the flooding, especially during the dry season. But he also stood to make a lot of money through lucrative forestry contracts for cutting timber stands within the area to be flooded by the reservoir. Mr Dej said the panel told the Irrigation and Forestry departments to work on the dyke plan. This would minimise environmental impacts and reduce costs. How he knows this without a proper environmentla impact assessment and studies was quite unclear. The relocation of villagers from the reservoir area and the issue of compensation, would be looked into by the Ministry of Interior and the Irrigation Department, Mr Dej said. The only question was how villagers should be compensated. Hannarong Yaowalert of Wildlife Fund Thailand challenged the claim that the dam would be effective in preventing flooding. "Experts at the Japan International Co-operation Agency suggested dredging of Hua Wang Panang Tak and Nakata canals would be an effective solution," he said. Mr Hannarong said the the notoriously corrupt Irrigation Department had told a panel of environmental experts that the dam would be no use as a flood control measure if the canals were dredged. The last thing they wanted to see was canal dredging because then there would be no pretext and justification for constructing the dam, thus a loss of lucrative design and construction contracts. Mr Hannarong rejected claims the dam would be a source of water for wildlife and demanded a public hearing, amid the fact that approval was rushed through and the true beneficiary was a steel manufacturer in Prachuap Khiri Khan. Mr Dej denied this even though he was very close friends with the manufacturer. "The dam should be built as soon as possible to prevent flooding in Chumphon province, which cost lives and loss of property," he said. Apichai Chvajarernpun, deputy secretary-general of the Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, said a proper approval process was followed and political interference did not play a part. But yet no report was produced. A forestry official said the department had not yet approved an Irrigation Department request to use part of the sanctuary as a reservoir for Tha Sae dam. "We have not received a formal request from the developer so far, Krisana Pruksawan, of the office of the department secretary, said. "Whether the department would allow use of the sanctuary depends on how large an area would be inundated."