Questions still remain on pollution control in eastern industrial zone

To environmentalists, the NEB's decision is their victory. They say it is time industrialists listened to the grievances and demands of local communities.

Petrochemical companies see the decision as a setback, indicating what they have done over the past two years is not good enough to show their commitment to control toxic emissions in the area.

Even Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva could not give a clear comment on this issue. After chairing the NEB meeting on Monday, he admitted he could not base his view on the progress of the companies' plans, which were implemented in 2007.

"We did not pay much attention to that. If the plans were good enough, there should not have been complaints from local people," he said.

An explanation could be the absence of progress reports from the private sector. Industrial companies only announced their move to collect environmental data a week after the court's ruling on March 3. But as the ruling will take effect within 60 days, it means the NEB can wait for progress reports before making a further decision, to ensure that it is fair to all parties.

Initiated during the interim government of Surayud Chulanont and with input from the government, local communities and the private sector, the companies agreed to invest Bt17.85 billion on 21 major projects to reduce toxic emissions. This followed the government's decision that levels of pollution must fall to a certain mark before plants could be expanded or before new ones could be built. To date, the companies have invested nearly Bt10 billion on the cleanup projects.

If the zones are designated for pollution control, it remains unclear what will happen to the emission-reduction projects. Before proceeding with additional investment, should the industrial plants wait for additional demands from local communities? There is no answer to that question from any agency or the Board of Investment.

After the court's ruling, there is doubt whether the cleanup projects have yielded satisfactory results. There is also doubt whether the latest environmental reports were submitted to the court for its decision, or whether the decision was based purely on data from 2007 when many local people were diagnosed with pollution-related complaints and diseases.

If the 2007 data were used in this case, it should be noted that the situation has since changed.

As observed by reporters who accompanied Industry Minister Charnchai Chairungruang to Rayong last Friday, local communities themselves have differing views. Some want the NEB to appeal against the court's ruling, but others do not.

Environmental problems are a common issue that affect the public at large, not just local people who breathe polluted air or cultivate damaged land in industrial areas. The government is thus responsible for coming up with concrete evidence whenever it announces environmental policy that will affect the public. It is clear the court's ruling will encourage people elsewhere in the country to stage similar protests against industrial plants in their localities. Certainly, this decision will also affect the Southern Seaboard project, which it is hoped will attract over Bt200 billion in new investment.

Abhisit did make a surprising remark before attending the NEB meeting. It was about Thai Airways International's plan to move domestic flights back to Suvarnabhumi. He said that THAI should take into account public opinion: "Most people prefer THAI maintains the domestic service at Don Mueang."

The remark was surprising given the absence of any survey to prove his point.

And Abhisit did it again with the Map Ta Phut case.

Petrochemical companies have complained they have invested hugely in production facilities and toxic-emission reduction, but the public is still condemning them for a lack of social responsibility. Yet, the companies have not been strong enough in pressing the government to look at their own data.

They have also been crying foul over the pressure from local communities. A frequently asked question is how environmental protection could be improved if local communities had a bigger say. Indeed, it is the local politicians who would have a bigger say.

It is appropriate for the government to protect citizens. More stringent environmental rules will increase investment costs, and if companies shift their investments elsewhere because of environmental rules, nobody can complain when they do so.

But all decisions should be based on proven facts, not just public emotion, which can swing on variables. The NEB did not do its job properly this time. It did not use reliable information to support its decision, and it did not use information that it could share with the rest of society.

Certainly, this is raising big concerns: Who will have to shoulder the future costs of its decision?