Big projects, big mess, big problems

28 March 2000

Big projects have become big problems. The Yadana pipeline ended in messy disputes between authorities and environmentalists. Two power projects in Prachuab are stuck in a controversial process of public hearings. Four dam projects are on hold. Thousands are camped at Pak Mool in protest about other dam projects stretching back over 20 years. Samut Prakan becomes more dangerous every day while controversy rages over waste disposal plans. In the south, authorities and activists are arming for the next big standoff over the Thai-Malaysia project.

The environmental expert, Dr Suthawan Sathirathai, was asked to serve on the mediating committee over the Yadana pipeline. She agreed because it seemed like a chance to broker public participation. But the experience was a nightmare. The petroleum authority wanted the committee to stop the protests, and got angry when it would not cooperate. The protesters wanted the committee to stop the pipeline and got angry when it could not deliver. The committee was hated by both sides.

As a result of this experience, Dr Suthawan has launched a project to find better ways for managing the decisions on these big projects.

How did things get so entangled? Over twenty years ago, Thailand still seemed to have lots of natural resources. And the government had a monopoly on the information and power for making decisions. It initiated many big projects which were rough on the environment, and rough on the people who happened to be in the way. But it could get away with it. Such power breeds abuse. Officials, contractors, and land-speculators made profits, while people and resources were getting hurt.

Now, resources no longer seem abundant, and the government no longer has a monopoly on information and power. But as the protests over big projects escalated over the last 15 years, the government backpedalled. It fiddled the figures on project evaluations. For environmental studies, it hired consultants sure to give the "right" answer because they wanted more jobs. It grudgingly allowed mean amounts of compensation. It played divide and rule to split up communities which protested. The result has been a steady erosion of trust. Now as soon as a new big project starts, people arrive to tell the local inhabitants what they can expect. Deterioration in the environment. Mean compensation. Resettlement to an area of barren rock. And even before they reach that stage, their community torn apart by the strategies of divide and rule.

A few days ago, Dr Suthawan held the first meeting of her project on Good Governance, Public Participation and the Decision-making Process for Environmental Protection.

From the start, the meeting was divided over a basic issue. On the one hand, the Dhamanat Foundation argued: "People are not innocent. They have self interests. And these interests may not be the same as those of the nation (chat)." By implication, those unlucky enough to live on the sites chosen for big projects would just have to sacrifice for the nation. On the other hand, the lawyer Panat Tasneeyanond argued that "the people are actually the owners of public resources".

On the one hand, Dr Vanchai Vatanasapt argued that the problem was to find a way to avoid and dispel conflicts. On the other, Dr Anan Ganjanapan suggested that conflict was a good thing because it provided the opportunity to achieve social justice. Only through some conflict do we come to understand what is the value of the environment, and who have rights to decide how it is used or abused..

The 1997 constitution allows people to participate in decisions over natural resources which affect them. But nobody seems in a big hurry to pass the laws to implement this principle. In reality, a lot of decisions are still made non-transparently inside government bodies.

Besides, what does "participation" mean. It’s a new concept. It’s been imported from the west and even the translation is clumsy (kan mi suan ruam). There’s no tradition or culture of public participation in big decisions. There are no mechanisms. As Parichart Siwaraksa said, the authorities tend to see public participation as "public relations"—a strategy for gaining support for decisions which have already been made. Government has called "public hearings" which were chaotic and meaningless. The people’s trust is still diminishing.

Professor Apichai Puntasen argued that the Thai elite likes doing big projects with big foreign companies. It’s modern and advanced. And there are lots of side-benefits. But, Apichai noted, the results are very damaging. It might be better to do several, smaller projects with more local involvement and more friendly technology. He suggested that for any project valued over 5 billion baht, the proposer should be forced to investigate such smaller, friendlier alternatives. It would have to prove convincingly that the big project had real advantages.

Overseas participants related how environmental assessments and participatory decision-making processes had worked elsewhere. In the USA, environmental laws became effective only after people repeatedly challenged the authorities through the courts. In Canada, repeated protests taught big project owners to involve local people in decisions from the very beginning. The message was clear. People have to fight.

Panat pointed out that even without enabling laws, the 1997 constitution provides a lot of weapons. People can demand access to better information, challenge official abuse in the administrative court, and call on the courts to enforce environmental laws. The first attempt to use the provision to launch a people’s bill with 50,000 signatures is over community forestry.

This meeting was only a beginning, but a very important beginning. As Dr Suthawan summed up, mechanisms for participation need to be devised, and a culture of participation must be developed. More fundamentally, she argued "wisdom in these matters is not only intellectual but spiritual. We need to be clear on what is social justice and what is injustice. There will never be any justice if the elite always thinks of its own benefit. What is really needed is a spiritual change so that the elite starts to understand and honour social justice."