Environment: Thai Court Order To Replant Trees 'practicable'

[webfact]

ENVIRONMENT
Court order to replant trees 'practicable'
Opas Boonlom,
Kawintra Jaisue,
Janjira Pongrai
The Nation



BANGKOK: -- The Central Administrative Court verdict ordering the Department of Highways to replant a large number of trees along a Tararath Road section in Nakhon Ratchasima, were felled for an expansion project three years ago, is practicable, not far-fetched or unrealistic as many critics say, the court's spokesman said.

The verdict on May 16 stipulated precisely what the plaintiffs want enacted, said spokesman Phairoj Minten. "But complying with the verdict doesn't mean that exactly the same 128 trees must be replanted or that the new trees must be of the same size," he said, and added, "But the number of trees must be 128, and they must be of a size close to the felled ones. The species are not important because the plaintiffs are not specific about that," he added.

The 130 plaintiffs comprising three groups - local residents, motorists who regularly use the route, and members of the Stop Global Warming Association (SGWA) - want the road to be restored to its previous state, designated Route 2090, with large trees providing shades for the lanes.

"The court's verdict needed to address all the issues and it is therefore delivered with precise description, to prevent it being complied with evasively or trickily," he said.

The Department of Highways is required to comply with the verdict within 60 days. Director-general Chatchawal Buncharoenkij had earlier said he had activated a legal process to appeal against the verdict. The grounds were that it was not actionable, and not practical especially in ecological terms, because large trees have to be uprooted from elsewhere to be replanted on the 8.1-km stretch of the road that was widened from two to four lanes.

He said the newly grown trees, though large-sized, would not have roots strong enough to hold the trunks firmly, which may result in them being toppled by storms, endangering motorists.

"The Department's efforts to appeal against the verdict is not a sign of arrogance against the court, but will lead to an extended explanation [during the appeal process] of the department's full jurisdiction to carry out its duties," he said.

"Otherwise it will become a precedent and hamper the operations of the Department of Highways in the long run for future expansions of roads," he added.


-- The Nation 2013-06-10

[OzMick]

I always get a laugh from our "green" friends. Where do they think mature trees will come from if not dug up and transplanted from somewhere else. What does this achieve?

[Thai at Heart]

If they can fit all these trees on the hillsides and cuttings next to this road they are logistical geniuses. Incredible, whilst entire forests are cleared and burnt every year, this bunch worry about 150 odd trees cut down to widen a stretch or road that was before an absolute death trap.

[seajae]

only in Thailand, we dont care how many pwoplw are killed as long as we have the shade over the road again, just goes to show how stupid some people really are. Instead of fixing a deadly section of road they decide they want it to stay the same, does this mean that the next time someone is killed here their family can take these idiots to court to seek justice.

[geriatrickid]

The negative comments aside from being sad, are ignorant.

- Large infrastructure projects in Thailand are supposed to be preceded by an environmental impact study, and assurances are always given, that the road expansion will be in "harmony" with the local area.

In this case, the government agency did not respect its undertaking. More importantly, the plaintiffs were a diverse group including locals and users of the roadway. These local residents and users are legitimately concerned about a highway that can be an eyesore.

- The presence of older trees with established root systems act to stabilize the soil and to muffle road traffic. It is unfortunate that some of the more snotty comments do not take into account that there are a number of residents that live in close proximity to this road and not only must they see the traffic, they must hear it too.

- Yes, the tress will be taken from elsewhere, however, the forestry department is supposed to have plantations for exactly this purpose. Every major infrastructure project in the past decade that involves the destruction of old growth trees has been accompanied by assurances from the developers that there would be replanting.

In this specific case, assurances were given that the local green space would be protected and that there would be replanting. There was no replanting. The locals had been after the highway department for some time to take action on the blowing dust, the noise and the air pollution. No one listened to some legitimate grievances. And now the courts have acted.

I find it odd that some people are quick to complain about protests where roads are blocked etc. In this case, we have the locals seeking redress from the courts. The courts judged the case on its merits. This is a good decision and will encourage developers to behave responsibly. The highway department should not appeal, but should instead act to quickly honour its undertaking to the local population.

[manarak]

The "similar size" part is indeed peculiar.

I can only guess the major point here is the shade and not the trees.

Probably the somtam vendors need shade

[OzMick]

The negative comments aside from being sad, are ignorant.

- Large infrastructure projects in Thailand are supposed to be preceded by an environmental impact study, and assurances are always given, that the road expansion will be in "harmony" with the local area.

In this case, the government agency did not respect its undertaking. More importantly, the plaintiffs were a diverse group including locals and users of the roadway. These local residents and users are legitimately concerned about a highway that can be an eyesore.

- The presence of older trees with established root systems act to stabilize the soil and to muffle road traffic. It is unfortunate that some of the more snotty comments do not take into account that there are a number of residents that live in close proximity to this road and not only must they see the traffic, they must hear it too.

- Yes, the tress will be taken from elsewhere, however, the forestry department is supposed to have plantations for exactly this purpose. Every major infrastructure project in the past decade that involves the destruction of old growth trees has been accompanied by assurances from the developers that there would be replanting.

In this specific case, assurances were given that the local green space would be protected and that there would be replanting. There was no replanting. The locals had been after the highway department for some time to take action on the blowing dust, the noise and the air pollution. No one listened to some legitimate grievances. And now the courts have acted.

I find it odd that some people are quick to complain about protests where roads are blocked etc. In this case, we have the locals seeking redress from the courts. The courts judged the case on its merits. This is a good decision and will encourage developers to behave responsibly. The highway department should not appeal, but should instead act to quickly honour its undertaking to the local population.

I believe that you are blowing smoke, old man. Forestry has plantations with 3m diameter trees, up yo 50 years old, for transplanting? How much extra dust comes from a 4 lane road compared to a 2 lane? The road pictured is built right to the forest edge, so where is the re-planting to be done? And what has the complaint of a few NIMBYs got to do with the rabid tree-huggers of SGWA?

[keith101]

- The presence of older trees with established root systems act to stabilize the soil and to muffle road traffic. It is unfortunate that some of the more snotty comments do not take into account that there are a number of residents that live in close proximity to this road and not only must they see the traffic, they must hear it too.

what a contradiction , you want to hear which you now can or do you want it muffled at least now any one living just off the highway has a better chance of not only seeing traffic but can hear it coming as well has to be safer for everybody .

Edited June 10, 2013 by keith101

[Roadman]

The idea to reinstate greenery up to the highway edges is sensible especially if the trees were felled with due process, but the verdict from the courts as the Director General of Highways pointed out, but not in his nice words, is bloody stupid, for the reason of the size and risk of the damn things and having less area to pack the same amount of trees back into.

The courts sensible finding should have been to fine the Highways Departments big time so that they get the idea to follow consultation rules and also require them to produce a replant plan of the road edge area with sensible sized trees that would grow into the space, and for them to implement that process.

[Thai at Heart]

The idea to reinstate greenery up to the highway edges is sensible especially if the trees were felled with due process, but the verdict from the courts as the Director General of Highways pointed out, but not in his nice words, is bloody stupid, for the reason of the size and risk of the dam_n things and having less area to pack the same amount of trees back into.

The courts sensible finding should have been to fine the Highways Departments big time so that they get the idea to follow consultation rules and also require them to produce a replant plan of the road edge area with sensible sized trees that would grow into the space, and for them to implement that process.

If they had had to build it with enough space around it to accomodate these enormous trees, the cost of building the damn thing would have been prohibitive. It is hewn out of the side of hills with cuttings into the side of the rock. Where would they be meant to plant the trees? Into the rocks? Presumably this tree issue, is why the stretch going down onto the other side hasn't ever been widened, and is today an absolute death trap of trucks and buses overtaking on blind corners and dodging death.

[itchybum]

I always get a laugh from our "green" friends. Where do they think mature trees will come from if not dug up and transplanted from somewhere else. What does this achieve?

Yes, they could come from other development sites where they would be bulldozed into the ground.

Besides, they should not have been cut down in the first place.

If they can fit all these trees on the hillsides and cuttings next to this road they are logistical geniuses. Incredible, whilst entire forests are cleared and burnt every year, this bunch worry about 150 odd trees cut down to widen a stretch or road that was before an absolute death trap.

150 very large trees that formed an elegant long entry to a world heritage area.

Death trap my arse.

But it is now as I witnessed on this nice new 4 lane highway just a few days ago.

Shame it was a child though.

[itchybum]

only in Thailand, we dont care how many pwoplw are killed as long as we have the shade over the road again, just goes to show how stupid some people really are. Instead of fixing a deadly section of road they decide they want it to stay the same, does this mean that the next time someone is killed here their family can take these idiots to court to seek justice.

Ignorance is bliss.

[SSSlongtime]

done near us ,road had large trees for miles ,looked great ,outstanding old trees , all cut down for wood so we where told ,man purchased all the trees standing is that possible ,

[Joe Mamma]

A small victory, and we need some to counter the vast urbanization. I saw Las Vegas, where there are not so many trees go to a huge layer of concrete and cement, buildings, streets etc. Now the heat is soaked up by the surface and the place is getting heated up, changing the whole local weather systems, even the old time residents are boiling mad.

[itchybum]

It is a pointless victory because it is at appeal now, another 3 years.

If they lose they will replace the trees with anything, as it says no species described or demanded.

They will not be cared for and will all die within a year.

The large trees replanted need constant care for a couple of years at least.

The trees they planted along the side to re vegetate the side was unbelievable. They stuck sticks in the ground. 3/4 died.

Everything about this country is quite pathetic really...just another point on the board.

[winstonc]

they appeal because they dont do RESPONSIBILITY,here do they,it might also mean some contractor wont get as much cream as he thought,NO WAY i need to fiddle the taxpayer,how couyld i afford mt hi-so car,,now ive gotta pay the tax mmmmmmmmmmmmm

[khunken]

This is a great precedent. While it is virtually impossible to replace the original trees, it should make the highways dept think twice before destroying any more.

From memory, this is a highly controversial road widening project that local people were against. Why was the road widening done? I don't know the answer but the various projects, both in, and around the national parks may well have had something to do with it.

[itchybum]

This is a great precedent. While it is virtually impossible to replace the original trees, it should make the highways dept think twice before destroying any more.

From memory, this is a highly controversial road widening project that local people were against. Why was the road widening done? I don't know the answer but the various projects, both in, and around the national parks may well have had something to do with it.

Nail head.

It was so all the hiso holiday house owners in the area could get there from the highway 3 minutes faster and drive at 120k's in what was a splendid serene environment and attractive prelude to a wonderful area.

As I said...stupid is a stupid does.

[Thai at Heart]

This is a great precedent. While it is virtually impossible to replace the original trees, it should make the highways dept think twice before destroying any more.

From memory, this is a highly controversial road widening project that local people were against. Why was the road widening done? I don't know the answer but the various projects, both in, and around the national parks may well have had something to do with it.

If it's the road I am thinking of, it's the main thoroughfare from the industrial estates to isaan.

It gets a lot of haulage. In fairness, the park up there does seem well forested. It is sad that big trees had to go, but that is progress. Instead of putting them back on the roadside which is impractical why not reforest somewhere more practical?

[xen]

The Central Administrative Court verdict ordering the Department of Highways to replant a large number of trees along a Tararath Road section in Nakhon Ratchasima, were felled for an expansion project three years ago, is practicable, not far-fetched or unrealistic as many critics say, the court's spokesman said.

It would not be easy to transplant trees that original size and have them survive so yes it is unrealistic . Better for them not to have removed them in the first place. Or plant some faster growing species from a small size and look after them until they are well established. Fro what i have seen of tree transplants in Thailand they transplant trees with ridiculously small root balls .

[MaxLee]

The Central Administrative Court verdict ordering the Department of Highways to replant a large number of trees along a Tararath Road section in Nakhon Ratchasima, were felled for an expansion project three years ago, is practicable, not far-fetched or unrealistic as many critics say, the court's spokesman said.

It would not be easy to transplant trees that original size and have them survive so yes it is unrealistic . Better for them not to have removed them in the first place. Or plant some faster growing species from a small size and look after them until they are well established. Fro what i have seen of tree transplants in Thailand they transplant trees with ridiculously small root balls .

"BUT, BUT, BUT,.... think about all the "poor people" who have bought so many cars due to the First Car SCAM, and all the high so rich who have their important luxury cars snuggled for free,... so therefore Thailand needs more roads than it needs trees, and bedsides that Thailand is in need of a high speed train system and Formula 1 track facilities... to hell with the trees......"

I'm just being ironic here

Edited June 11, 2013 by MaxLee

[hellodolly]

The negative comments aside from being sad, are ignorant.

- Large infrastructure projects in Thailand are supposed to be preceded by an environmental impact study, and assurances are always given, that the road expansion will be in "harmony" with the local area.

In this case, the government agency did not respect its undertaking. More importantly, the plaintiffs were a diverse group including locals and users of the roadway. These local residents and users are legitimately concerned about a highway that can be an eyesore.

- The presence of older trees with established root systems act to stabilize the soil and to muffle road traffic. It is unfortunate that some of the more snotty comments do not take into account that there are a number of residents that live in close proximity to this road and not only must they see the traffic, they must hear it too.

- Yes, the tress will be taken from elsewhere, however, the forestry department is supposed to have plantations for exactly this purpose. Every major infrastructure project in the past decade that involves the destruction of old growth trees has been accompanied by assurances from the developers that there would be replanting.

In this specific case, assurances were given that the local green space would be protected and that there would be replanting. There was no replanting. The locals had been after the highway department for some time to take action on the blowing dust, the noise and the air pollution. No one listened to some legitimate grievances. And now the courts have acted.

I find it odd that some people are quick to complain about protests where roads are blocked etc. In this case, we have the locals seeking redress from the courts. The courts judged the case on its merits. This is a good decision and will encourage developers to behave responsibly. The highway department should not appeal, but should instead act to quickly honour its undertaking to the local population.

Welcome to Thailand. You got it rite. A land full of should's and supposed to's.

Maybe I am missing some thing but all I could see in the picture was some trees that could do with a little bit of pruning and a road that was made more dangerous by an abrupt edge to it.