Water plans rehash old, tired ideas

Water plans rehash old, tired ideas

Sawai Boonma suggests it takes fortitude and visionary leadership to proceed with large-scale hydraulic infrastructure projects in Thailand.

In his article "Big ideas like Kra canal take guts to follow through" (Bangkok Post, Jan 7), he queries whether the present military regime is sufficiently "open minded, imaginative and serious enough in its intent to reform the country, plus successful enough in reducing corruption" to take up the cudgel to commence huge water infrastructure schemes.

These include the long-dormant, but occasionally dusted off Kra canal idea; construction of a major drainage canal across the Central Plains to "eliminate the threat of flooding" along with "other associated investments", that he dubs Chao Phraya 2; and a scheme "to pockmark most of Thailand's agricultural areas with ponds 2-4m deep, beginning in the Northeast".

He rightly identifies that each of these projects would raise numerous questions and undoubtedly objections, whether on cost-implication grounds or potential environmental impacts, as is the nature of such ventures in the modern, information-rich world.

The proposed projects, one dealing with transport and commerce, another with flood control and the third with drought alleviation, all assume that Thailand remains deficient in hydraulic infrastructural development, and the solution to this perceived lack of hardware is more construction projects to regulate water.

Whether as part of state elite attempts at nation-building, a desire to overcome and dominate nature, an ideology of technocentrism and modernism, or leadership fears that the country may miss out in a global economic race fuelled by infrastructural development indicators (a "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality), many developing countries in Asia and elsewhere in the world have followed a similar road of an unending focus on large-scale water resource infrastructure construction.

Such a national preoccupation has sometimes been characterised as a "hydraulic mission", which dates back to 19th century European colonial efforts to tame rivers and control flows through science and technology.

What such an approach to development tends to share in common in each national case is a willingness of the leadership to override local concerns, opposition voices or democratic principles in pursuit of what a minority elite determine to be the "greater good of the nation".

A cursory knowledge of modern Thai history would acknowledge that it is littered with such projects, especially in the realm of water resources. The Pak Moon dam is perhaps the most iconic example in recent times, but each region has its own litany of cases.

The three megaprojects raised as potential solutions to the present impasse in water resources management in Thailand do not seem to offer any new or insightful approaches, but just appear to be rehashing old, tired, tried and often rejected plans, all no doubt with their own political interest groups lying behind and waiting for ripe opportunities to resurrect them.

However, without presenting a balanced and independent economic case for development based on current global paradigms (including a full cost-benefit analysis) they remain just vague ideas on paper with little to recommend them over and above a stack of other blueprint plans currently sitting in government bureaucracies.

So, the broader question arises, should Thailand still be rushing down the well-trodden path of the "hydraulic mission" in the 21st century, or is it time for a rethink in direction and ultimately, means and goals of "development"?

If one perceives that there has been more than enough hardware development to date resulting in many highly dubious outcomes, where should future development efforts focus?

An increasing number of observers believe that the next stage of water resources development evolution should seriously consider and explore primarily "software" solutions to dynamic societal problems. These would acknowledge the political aspects of developments and incorporate the views and aspirations of multiple different interest groups in planning and implementation.

Indeed, a strong case could be made that Thailand has reached a stage of maturity where it might seriously consider dismantling certain existing hydraulic infrastructure and rehabilitating damaged ecosystems from past poorly-conceived development projects, as is being widely done in the USA, Japan and several European countries.

To facilitate new directions in water resource development will require vastly different actor mindsets and ways of thinking about water governance. While participation is a much used (and abused) concept in Thai development circles, there is clearly a long way still to go to bring it and other current watchwords of "sustainable development" such as transparency, accountability and equity into mainstream practice.

Who knows, once the temptation of large pots of money available for infrastructural solutions to water resources development is taken off the table and energy is focused on managing water with the resources available, maybe holistic, innovative and creative solutions previously obscured, might open up to practitioners and policy makers?

We should be cautious about water infrastructure megaprojects at this particular juncture in Thailand's history, when domestic democratic structures are in a fragile state and the lessons of past development failure have not been widely assimilated.


David J H Blake is an independent researcher based in Taunton, United Kingdom.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (1)