Asia Times: Thai waste-water project wasting money: report


	July 4, 2000	atimes.com

Southeast Asia

Thai waste-water project wasting money: report
By Gumisai Mutume

WASHINGTON - A new report raises serious concerns about a $600 million waste-water management project in Thailand that is partly financed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

The study by a Washington non-governmental group on the Samut Prakarn Waste-water Management Project (SPWMP) questions the absence of an environmental impact assessment on the project. The study also raises questions about the transparency of the ADB - the bank has allegedly not done much to investigate and quell allegations of corruption surrounding a project it has funded to the tune of $230 million.

Samut Prakan province is at the far end of the Chao Phraya River, where it empties out into the Gulf of Thailand. The provincial borders to the north and west adjoin metropolitan Bangkok. The province is home to many factories, which pour their waste water into the Chao Phraya as it goes out to sea.

The SPWMP was launched following a 1986 study in which government identified water pollution as the most serious problem confronting Thailand's urban environment. It set out to improve environmental sanitation, water quality and pollution control. One million Samut Prakan residents are expected to benefit from it once it is completed, but the very beneficiaries say they only became aware of a project that directly affects them in 1998 when signs were posted.

''Citizens allege that there is major corruption going on in the purchase of the land and construction of the pipeline,'' notes the report titled ''The Samut Prakarn Wastewater Management Project - Looking into the Issues and Exploring Accountability Mechanisms'' released this week by the Bank Information Center (BIC). Records show that the land on which the project is sited was bought at more than twice the official rate of the Land Department Office and all 17 plots were sold by one company.

BIC is an independent organization that provides information and strategic support to NGOs and social movements throughout the world on the projects, policies and practices of the World Bank and other multilateral development banks.

The new BIC report amplifies criticisms that the project may be irrelevant and that it may release treated waste water into the gulf affecting the livelihood of an estimated 30,000 people who are dependent on coastal fishing. ''Serious questions are being asked by residents about the necessity of the project,'' says Genevieve Gencianos one of the authors of the report. She says even the ADB recently admitted that the returns on the project have fallen since it was initiated.

A recent study by the Environmental Engineering Association of Thailand found that 90 percent of the 3,600 factories surveyed in Samut Prakan have their own waste-water treatment systems and 38 percent of them treat their water to acceptable levels. Industries in the area also claim there is no incentive to join the collective water treatment program as it costs more to join the system than to operate one's own facility.

Residents believe the project cannot go ahead without ADB financing and are lobbying the institution to stop funding at least until a public hearing is conducted and the environmental and social impact of the project are adequately assessed by neutral parties.

During the annual meeting of the ADB in Thailand in May, representatives from hundreds of villages formed part of the protests that greeted delegates calling for greater transparency and accountability from the institution. Requests for an environmental impact assessment are consistent with both government and ADB policy, notes Nurina Widagdo, the other author of the report.

The ADB claims it did conduct an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the project, but watchers say this is highly unlikely as the ADB lists the project as Category B, and not A. It is mandatory to carry out an EIA for all A category projects under the ADB's policies.

Activists argue that if the information is available, why is it that the ADB is not forthcoming in making it public in order to clear suspicions that have dogged the project for a number of years now.

''Pending these questions on the EIA . . . there is reason to demand that construction activities be postponed until citizens apprehensions about the project are answered through full and open public consultation,'' the report notes.

(Inter Press Service)

back to the top

©1999 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.