Change the pipeline route

The national committee set up to review the Yadana gas pipeline project is due to make its recommendations next week, and it's clear what their conclusion should be: Change the project's route so that it does not pass through the 1A watershed forest in the Huay Khayeng reserve, home to several rare species of wildlife.

The Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) can no longer complain about any delay such a procedure might involve because Egat has already announced the Ratchaburi power plant it is building to receive the gas will not be finished on time, and may in fact be delayed by several months.

This should give the PTT time to re-route the pipeline so it can run along the road to the border town of Ban I-Tong, instead of passing through pristine forest. That will mean there is only one track crossing through the forest instead of two, greatly reducing the impact on wildlife.

The PTT has anyway revealed that, contrary to its earlier hyperbolic assertions, a delay won't cost it that much: The money it must pay to Burma will simply count toward future purchases of natural gas. In the end, it will only lose money it would have gained as interest.

Meanwhile, the PTT must make sure the route it has already begun clearing through the Huay Khayeng forest is replanted and, most importantly, well guarded -- night and day -- to protect it against the poachers and encroachers who have already begun to descend on the area like locusts. It should set up a large bond to pay for any damage that might ensue if an accident or sabotage causes the pipeline to explode.

A route adjustment could have been worked out a long time ago if the project approval process had been carried out in a proper and transparent manner. But the pipeline was approved by the earlier Chuan administration without any consideration for the environmental impact on Kanchanaburi's forests or the opinions of the province's residents.

The environmental impact assessment (EIA) which was eventually carried out included a poll which found that only two of 136 local people sampled understood what the project is; 110 said they had no knowledge about it at all. The EIA was also poorly done -- its wildlife survey was thoroughly inadequate -- but it was nevertheless hurriedly approved by environmental authorities last March due to the PTT's claims of facing a strict deadline.

In fact, the national committee could do Thailand a great favor by urging a revamp of the whole EIA process, which badly needs fixing. EIA reports are (inadequately) funded by project developers themselves, who pressure the consultant firms they hire to downplay projected impacts and finish up their surveys as quickly as possible.

A possible alternative was obliquely proposed by committee chairman Anand Panyarachun, who noted that in other countries EIAs are funded by project financiers like the World Bank. If the impacts prove to be too great, then they simply don't fund the project.

There also needs to be more quality control of consultants' work, perhaps by penalising firms which produce shoddy reports, or taking away their licences altogether. Finally, politicians can no longer be allowed to get away with approving projects whose EIAs have yet to be performed.

As for the Yadana project itself, opponents are no doubt hoping it will simply be cancelled, but realistically speaking, the committee is unlikely to choose this option. The pipeline has already progressed too far, and the critics themselves have to admit that their protests against the project came rather late in the game.

The best reason to cancel the pipeline is that the hard currency sent by the PTT to Burma will prop up the brutal and corrupt military junta there for years to come. But even some pipeline opponents admit that, deplorable as it may be, most Thais simply don't care about the project's impact on Burma.

Only time will tell if this indifference eventually comes back to haunt Thailand.