Mae Wong dam EHIA 'deeply flawed'

[Lite Beer]

Mae Wong dam EHIA 'deeply flawed'
Wasu Vipoosanapat,
Janjira Pongrai
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Park full of wildlife, including rare species and tigers, environmental groups say

The environmental health impact assessment for the Mae Wong Dam is too flawed for the project to get approved, environmentalists told an academic forum yesterday.

Somruthai Tasaduak, of the Water Resource Engineering Department at Kasetsart University, said the EHIA clearly showed key information about the project was missing.

"There are no details on how to direct water to communities and how to ensure that the water volume will be adequate for those who live downstream," he said. Somruthai said information on construction was also missing.

At the forum, hosted by the Seub Nakhasathien Foundation, speakers presented information on why they believed the Royal Irrigation Department project should not be given the green light.

It is understood the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning will submit the EHIA report to the Independent Commission on Environment and Health on November 19 for consideration.

Speaking at the forum, Dr Songtham Suksawang, an adviser to the chief of the National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department, warned that if the dam went ahead without a proper study on its possible environmental impact the country might lose one of its most abundant forest zones.

Unesco voices concerns

He said the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation's world heritage unit had written to the DNP to express concerns about the dam.

Somphot Duangchantrasiri - who heads the Khao Nang Ram wildlife research unit and took part in a study on wildlife diversity in the area where the dam would be built - revealed that there had been hundreds of wildlife species, including three newly discovered or very rare breeds, in the forest zone that would be submerged if the dam went ahead.

The breeds are the Giant Asian River Frog, Ichthyopis youngorum, and Pseudocalotes kakhiensis.

"Ichthyopis youngorum, for example, were last seen in Thailand in 1960," he said.

Petch Manopawitr, deputy director of the International Union for Conservation of Nature Southeast Asia, said the zone was among the last few places in Thailand with tigers.

The Mae Wong National Park covers parts of Kamphaeng Phet and Nakhon Sawan. The Mae Wong Dam would be constructed in the park.

Conservationists have been trying to get the national park world heritage status as part of the Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries. Songtham said the wildlife diversity study revealed information greatly different from what was contained in the EHIA prepared by a consulting firm hired by the Royal Irrigation Department.

"Our study found that the area chosen for the Mae Wong Dam project is the natural habitat of rare wildlife species," Somphot said.

Songtham said previously that the DNP had been told that the Mae Wong forest did not have significant value.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Mae-Wong-dam-EHIA-deeply-flawed-30247284.html

-- The Nation 2014-11-08

[Robby nz]

It would certainly be a travesty against nature and the environment in the Mae Wong area was flooded.

For more info on the National park that would be devastated by this dam see : https://www.thainationalparks.com/mae-wong-national-park

[ChrisY1]

There certainly seems to be a vested interest in having this dam built, given the report of the EHIA is obviously lacking very basic information, that a high school student would be able to complete.

It is not a too difficult task for an environmental engineer to deal with, but to leave out major species of wildlife, downstream water management and etc. definately points to a "manipulating" of the facts, and hoping that no-one would notice.

The company/author of this assessment should be questioned.

[AGareth2]

beautiful part of Thailand

[EricBerg]

Only money counts in LOS. That dam will be built.

[deepforest]

This "debate" has the appearance of assuming some burden of proving the biological significance of this area. Unless we are ready to ignore the law of the land, this is just a red herring.

• The area in question is an undisputed part of a National Park.
• The National Park Act of 1961 states:

"Within the national park, no person shall:

(1) Hold or possess land, including construct, destruct or burn forest;

(2) Collect, find-out, take away, do any matter what so ever with purport to harm or

decay timber, timber-gum, gum-turpentine, turpentine oil, mineral resources or other natural

resources;

(3) Take away or do any matter what so ever with purport to harm animal;

(4) Do any matter what so ever with purport to harm or decay soil, stone, pebble, or

sand;

(5) Alter waterway or decrease water in waterway, rivulet, marsh, canal, swamp;

(6) Close or obstruct water or land transportation way;

(7) Collect, find-out, take away, doing any matter what so ever with purport to harm

or decay orchid, honey, shellac, wood-charcoal, wood-bark, or bat dropping;

(8) Collect or do any matter what so ever with purport to harm flower, leaf, or fruit;

(9) Take vehicle in or out, or drive vehicle outside designated transportation way,

without permission of competent officer;

(10) Take off or land aircraft outside designated area without permission of competent

officer;

(11) Take or let livestock therein;

(12) Take pet or beast of burden in without permission of competent officer;

(13) Take advantage from land without permission of competent officer;

(14) Affix notification, advertisement or otherwise therein;

(15) Take any equipment for animal hunting or catching or any weapon therein without

permission of, and comply with condition specified by, competent officer;

(16) Shoot the gun, make explosion of any explosive, or fire any firework;

(17) Make a loud noise or nuisance to any person or animal;

(18) Lit garbage or any other thing outside designated area;

(19) Leave inflammable material which may cause fire."

• The proposed construction would clearly violate many of the above and possible some others.

\ the proposed construction is illegal.

Where is the ambiguity here? Why the emphasis on whether the area has globally rare species? This is shifting attention from the basic need to enforce existing laws.

[Robby nz]

This "debate" has the appearance of assuming some burden of proving the biological significance of this area. Unless we are ready to ignore the law of the land, this is just a red herring.

• The area in question is an undisputed part of a National Park.
• The National Park Act of 1961 states:

"Within the national park, no person shall:

(1) Hold or possess land, including construct, destruct or burn forest;

(2) Collect, find-out, take away, do any matter what so ever with purport to harm or

decay timber, timber-gum, gum-turpentine, turpentine oil, mineral resources or other natural

resources;

(3) Take away or do any matter what so ever with purport to harm animal;

(4) Do any matter what so ever with purport to harm or decay soil, stone, pebble, or

sand;

(5) Alter waterway or decrease water in waterway, rivulet, marsh, canal, swamp;

(6) Close or obstruct water or land transportation way;

(7) Collect, find-out, take away, doing any matter what so ever with purport to harm

or decay orchid, honey, shellac, wood-charcoal, wood-bark, or bat dropping;

(8) Collect or do any matter what so ever with purport to harm flower, leaf, or fruit;

(9) Take vehicle in or out, or drive vehicle outside designated transportation way,

without permission of competent officer;

(10) Take off or land aircraft outside designated area without permission of competent

officer;

(11) Take or let livestock therein;

(12) Take pet or beast of burden in without permission of competent officer;

(13) Take advantage from land without permission of competent officer;

(14) Affix notification, advertisement or otherwise therein;

(15) Take any equipment for animal hunting or catching or any weapon therein without

permission of, and comply with condition specified by, competent officer;

(16) Shoot the gun, make explosion of any explosive, or fire any firework;

(17) Make a loud noise or nuisance to any person or animal;

(18) Lit garbage or any other thing outside designated area;

(19) Leave inflammable material which may cause fire."

• The proposed construction would clearly violate many of the above and possible some others.

\ the proposed construction is illegal.

Where is the ambiguity here? Why the emphasis on whether the area has globally rare species? This is shifting attention from the basic need to enforce existing laws.

There will be those who will argue that the greater national good of supplying power and downstream water management exceeds the conservation value. They would be wrong.

These same ones will also likely be salivating at thought of all the lovely valuable timber contained in the trees that would have to be removed to make way for the dam.

[billd766]

There are 2 sides to the Mae Wong national park and the dam everybody is talking about is in the southwesternside about 10 km from Mae Wong village and is in the Nakhon Sawan part of the forest.

On the north western side there are also plans to construct a small dam and reservoir though this is actually just outside the park. The land is farming land, mostly man saparang and houses.

The land at the back of where we live is in the national park and is separated from us by a fence only. The land around here is Sor Por Kor land with no chanote land title.