Experts urge Krabi sea port study review

Academics are demanding the government review the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report for the planned Krabi coal sea port.

They say it lacks information about potential damage to the environment and locals’ livelihoods.

The call was made yesterday at a seminar at Chulalongkorn University.

The seminar was aimed at discussing faults in the EIA conducted for the construction of the coal port project proposed by the Electricity Authority Generation of Thailand (Egat).

Egat earlier defended the project saying Thailand needs to build more coal-fired power stations to meet its energy needs since f uture supplies of natural gas are uncertain.

The port would be used as a hub to transport imported coal to an 870-megawatt coal-fired power plant yet to be built in the Andaman coastal province.

Sonthi Kochawat, the secretary-general of the Thai Environmental Health Association, said the EIA study for the sea port was already complete.

It is likely the EIA will be scrutinised by the Expert Review Committee (ERC) of the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, which plans to meet from March 2-6, Mr Sonthi said.

“The power to make a decision rests solely with the ERC members who were appointed by the government,” he added.

“I believe the EIA will be approved despite local opposition,” he said.

Chainarong Sretthachau, an academic from Mahasarakham University in Maha Sarakham province, who led research on natural resources at the proposed sea port site, called on the ERC to conduct a thorough review of the EIA as it did not study marine life biodiversity.

The site is on the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance, and Mr Chainarong’s research also found more than 400 species of marine animals live there.

Mr Chainarong also said the EIA lacks cultural dimensions as it does not highlight the value of local fisheries and livelihoods.

“The three rounds of public hearings organised last year in Krabi are considered a failure as the EIA [obtained from the results of the public hearings] does not work in the eyes of local people.

“It ignores the public’s views,” Mr Chainarong said.