One way or another, EIA process must change

At first glance, a proposal to amend the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process appears foolish and short-sighted. On the other hand, by offering unscrupulous developers a gold-plated opportunity to jump headfirst into a vat of their own badly mixed cheap cement, the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning may be revealing an unexpected level of shrewdness. 

The situation as it now stands is that EIAs are frequently illegitimate and fraudulent, and complaints, unless taken through legal channels, are largely overlooked. Many developers “negotiate” under the table (even before the furniture has been assembled!) and local residents are rarely consulted, if at all.  

Attempts to establish a new process within a more equitable and sustainable framework should be supported. However, the subcontracting of building inspections, as suggested by Pinit Lertudomtana (director of the BMA’s Building Control Division), is inappropriate and would simply maintain the status quo. Systemic streamlining is the way ahead and by having to face a new standard code of practice, the responsibility will be placed fairly and squarely into the hands of developers and local authorities. Laws need to be promulgated to ensure strict local and international compliance. 

Transparency is a key issue. Neighbourhood groups and regulators should be granted access to all relevant documents, from the inception of a project to its conclusion. This will facilitate regular comparative evaluations as the building process proceeds. Additionally, the right to access all performance and safety audits together with comprehensive insurance details (in order to see if they match the audits) would further ensure compliance.

A golden opportunity currently exists to trial the new parameters. A mega-extension to the Four Seasons Hotel is now allegedly undergoing the EIA process though, as usual, local residents have yet to be consulted. A case study of this kind would generate huge international interest and allow the building and hospitality industries (along with local authorities) much greater credibility. 

One thing is for sure – the current system does not work. Many developers and related entities in the building establishment are getting away with “blue murder” rather than providing “green living”. Does Bangkok (and indeed the whole of Thailand) wish to develop on clean, green and sustainable foundations or continue to sink beneath a dirty, brown quagmire of corrupt practice? A new, well-constructed EIA process might aid the former.

John Shepherd

Bangkok