On Friday, a group of angry villagers from Nakhon Si Thammarat travelled to Bangkok to protest against the planned construction of the Wang Heeb Dam in an ecologically pristine watershed forest.
The 2.3-billion-baht dam will inundate areas occupied by a large number of families in Thing Song district.
At a glance, some people may believe that the protest by the villagers is self-serving. But please look again.
Initially, I agree with the villagers in that the government should reconsider the project given there are a few questions surrounding it.
Anchalee Kongrut writes about the environment in the Life section, Bangkok Post.
For me, the problem of the Wang Heeb Dam reflects a deep-seated problem in the way the authorities develop infrastructure projects.
Thai authorities are known for having a one-track mind when they want to pursue an infrastructure development project.
In some cases, our state agencies have the ability to turn a deaf ear to arguments -- either from local people or experts.
Wang Heeb Dam is the latest example of a display of stubbornness by the authorities. Despite the many questions regarding the feasibility of the project, the Royal Irrigation Department (RID) is adamant the dam must go ahead.
Somchai Siaosirithawon, deputy director-general of the RID, told the media last month the agency "had to" pursue the project as it had completed several processes, including an environmental impact assessment (EIA) study, which earned approval from the National Environment Board (NEB) in 2016.
In short, the project must be completed because, as the agency stressed, it had been approved!
Before making any judgement, I think we should look into the background of the project.
The dam project was initiated 20 years ago to solve the drought problem that plagued the area in the 1980s.
But the Irrigation Department only had the environmental assessment study conducted in 2003 and updated in 2009 -- a decade ago.
The project was left to gather cobwebs until the NEB board approved the EIA on May 27, 2016.
Last December, the cabinet approved the project amid fierce resistance from villagers and conservationists.
Given so many questions surrounding it, the most relevant in my opinion concerns the change in land use of the designated dam site over the last two decades.
The location of the dam is classified as a 1A watershed forest area. Two decades ago, we may have had more forest cover and some agencies may think it was alright to sacrifice some for development.
But the current situation is different. The country needs to preserve more of its forests. Meanwhile, new alternatives for water management such as weirs and small check dams have been discovered. It should be noted that while the project was shelved for the last two decades, the state has built a number of small irrigation projects to feed farmland.
So the questions are simple. Is it rational for the government to approve a project that was proposed to tackle a problem 20 years ago? Another question is how can the cabinet make a decision on the project with information that was obtained a decade ago?
The Agriculture Ministry, early last year, assigned Deputy Agriculture Minister Wiwat Salyakamthorn to head a special committee comprising environmental experts to review the project. It looked into the feasibility of the dam.
The study, released in May last year, found that building a dam in an ecologically rich watershed area is not viable because the environment and land use has changed over the past decade.
The study recommended alternative projects such as small reservoir weirs as a more appropriate and cheaper option.
Needless to say, the study gained little -- if any -- recognition from the RID.
Interestingly, after the study was released, Deputy Minister Wiwat, who is known for his conservation efforts, was not appointed to take care of the dam project.
The situation in the village is worrying. Last week, the district chief ordered two community leaders to be arrested on grounds of obstructing local officials from entering the dam site. Currently, villagers are fighting back by staging their protest in Bangkok. Now, they are drawing support from conservationists and villagers across the country.
Their fight might sound self-serving, but a big question remains. Is the project that was conceived of 20 years ago still relevant in the present time? Is the decision being made using up-to-date information?
Thailand has changed over the last two decades. It's about time the state agency faces reality and adjusts to change.