A team of academics and public policy campaigners discussed the current problems of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental and Health Impact Assessment (EHIA) process at a forum held at Chulalongkorn University yesterday.

The forum agreed that the current common practice of an EIA/EHIA study in Thailand did not encourage environmental protection and public participation in a project. Instead, it was used as a tool to legitimise a controversial project.

At the forum organised by Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute, the panellists concluded that the EIA/EHIA study procedure must be reformed and the SEA must be implemented first to select the most suitable policy before projects are planned.

Campaigner Prasitchai Nu-nuan from Save Andaman from Coal said that the current EIA/EHIA studying process contained many improper practices that led to conflicts and problems afterwards.

“In recent decades, every time there has been an EIA consideration, there has been been conflicts between the project owner and the local people and this is what happened in Krabi in the case of the coal-fired power plant,” Prasichai said.

“This is because the EIA/EHIA was conducted by the consulting company, hired by the project owner, so they benefit from the project and they will do everything to make the report pass.”

Supakit Nantaworakan from the Healthy Public Policy Foundation also stated that the EIA/EHIA process does not do enough to ensure good development. He said that an SEA can be an efficient tool to overview specific areas such as development strategies, energy options and economic progression choices.

“An SEA is the study into the potential of the area by considering the information from all sides and determining the impact of each development strategy option to see which choice is the best strategy for the area that also meets good standards such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals or the philosophy of sufficiency economy,” Supakit said.

“Compared to the EIA/EHIA, it is just an impact assessment of a single project and does not include a study on alternative options to the project.”

A proper SEA study could prevent conflicts on environmentally harmful projects, as the development has already been well planned to meet with the natural resource base and locals’ demands.

“An SEA will also open up space for all stakeholders to discuss policy planning for their area, which can effectively reduce disputes in the future,” he said.

Panellists also agreed that the country’s EIA/EHIA process needed to be reformed.

Mahasarakham University lecturer Chainarong Sretthachau stated the first thing that should be changed is the employer-employee relationship between the project owner and the study team.

“The common practice now is that the project owner hires the consultant company to conduct an EIA/EHIA for them, so the study team has a vested interest in the project, which leads to bias and a report of doubtful quality,” Chainarong said.

He suggested that the study team should be a neutral intellectual group and the process of study should not only be limited to the scientific approach to collect and assess the information, but other research methodologies, such as Tai Ban Studies (local folk wisdom), should also be used to ensure inclusive research.

He also stressed that public participation in the EIA/EHIA should be changed. The neutral committee should oversee the public hearing process and make sure that local people have a proper understanding of the project and its impact by ensuring full access to information on the project.

Supakit said the study should also include the estimation of benefits from a healthy environment and ecosystem to let the EIA/EHIA consideration committee realise the full cost of the project.

Meanwhile, Somboon Khamhang, secretary-general of the Non-Government Organisation Committee on Rural Development in the South, cautioned that an EIA/EHIA or SEA can be a harmful weapon against the local people if it were poorly implemented just to serve the project owners’ agendas.

Somboon also urged the public to closely monitor the upcoming EHIA study of the Krabi coal-fired power plant and the first public hearing of the Pakbara Seaport in Satun to prevent the disputes over EIA/EHIA in the future.

Recommendations on the EIA/EHIA reform

• The study team must not have an employer-employee relationship with the project owner to prevent bias.
• There must be a neutral committee to oversee the study process, public participation and the report consideration.
• There must be transparency in information about the project and the public participation process.
• People must have proper knowledge about the project and its impact before attending the public hearing forum.
• The study area must not be limited to only a few kilometres from the project site.
• The cost to the environment and livelihoods and the benefits from the ecosystem must be calculated and included in the report.
• There must be the good auditing system in place after the EIA/EHIA is passed to ensure the project follows good practices as per the EIA/EHIA report.

Source: The Nation