Such a move would speed up and centralise trials, reduce legal limitations and help the amendment of laws, they say.

Participants at a seminar on Tuesday about environment-related cases also urged that a special fund be set up to cover the cost of hiring experts and assessing environmental damage.

Dr Suntariya Muanpawong, from the Rapipattanasak Research Institute, said that while other countries improved their justice systems to support environmental cases and disputes, Thailand's justice system still lacked appropriate laws for natural resource conservation and environment-related health issues. There was no environment court or legal procedure for such cases.

Wutthichai Rujittawiwat, Head Judge of the Court of Appeal Region 6, said an environment court would centralise the procedure of criminal and civil laws, some labour laws, as well as the handling of such matters at provincial courts. And with specific laws, the trial procedure would speed up.

Currently, cases involving the environment go the Supreme Court's division for environmental lawsuits. And each entered the justice system depending on its nature - a case about land encroachment with officials involved, say, was sent to the Administrative Court, while a case about health hazards relating to a factory went to the Labour Court.

Wutthichai urged new laws be drafted to accommodate cases that have an impact which is usually not seen immediately.

He said a law amendment was needed so that lawyers did not have to put down 10 per cent of the cost of a trial, so parties that had suffered damage did not have to pay. He also urged each ministry to have experts who can assist trials and provide neutral information.

Dr Yanyong Inmoung, from Maha Sarakham University, urged that once an environment court had been set up, the processing of such cases be improved with education of police, local administrators, public prosecutors and courts. He said that police who took up the Pong River pollution case did not have enough knowledge - about matters such as water pollution indicators - to handle the case.

Dr Parinya Nutalai of the National Environment Committee, said that 99 cases of encroachment at Pattaya Beach had gone nowhere, so the new court should also allow "class actions" suits so similar complaints could be assessed at one time.

Praphan Sabsaeng, chairman of the Supreme Court's Section for Political Crime, said the justice system's assessment of environmental damage had limitations. For instance, criminal and civil laws determined damages for people but could not calculate long-term health and future impacts into money value.

   "What we can prove is medical bills, while future impacts are difficult to determine... If we cannot prove them, compensation will be small," he said.

Proof of wrongdoing was also problematic, Praphan said. For instance, all factories released wastewater into rivers within legal limits, but determining which firms were polluters took a long time and culprits were hard to identify.

He also urged the government to set a special fund to cover the cost of environment lawsuits, including lawyer fees, the cost of seeking more information and proving damage. Currently, affected villagers taking such cases to court - against, say, the Map Ta Phut industrial estate - had to carry all expenses.

Praphan also called for flexible damage assessments, so that if more damage was discovered in the future, more compensation could be sought. Currently, a case ends after a court ruling and plaintiffs must file a new lawsuit if further damage is found.

Surachai Trong-ngam, co-ordinator for a pro-bono lawyers project for environmental lawsuits, agreed that special court procedures and management support were needed for environment cases. Currently, lawyers and plaintiffs were the only groups searching for information for use as trial evidence.

Surachai also suggested unclear laws be amended, such as the Environment Act's article 97 which states that a person or firm that causes pollution must pay compensation.

In the case of scrap-metal scavengers poisoned by cobalt-60 in 2000, the government paid Bt6 million and Public Health Ministry was burdened with big medical bills but the private firm involved, Kamol Sukosol, only paid Bt600,000

after the matter went to the Civil Court.

The prospect of long and complex trials plus difficulty determining damages disheartened many affected villagers to the extent they preferred not to take their woes to court, said Somboon Sikhamdokkae, president of the Council of Work- and Environment-Related Patients' Network of Thailand.

Somboon told of her lawsuit that remained in court 10 years after she suffered a work-related respiratory disorder. She had had to talk about her case over and over at many courts.

Activist Penchom Saetang, from the Campaign for Alternative Industries Network, pointed out that plaintiffs - mostly poor villagers - had to endure the cost of assessing damage and suffered a lack of access to medical experts.

She urged government agencies to get more knowledge and information about areas before industrial estates were built so they could help assess any changes, and the information used as baseline data for environment lawsuits. 

Chularat Saengpassa

The Nation