BANGKOK, THAILAND – A coalition of scientists, environmental groups and civil society organisations called on Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul to fully disclose all impact studies for the planned Southern Land Bridge megaproject and delay its approval.
Open letter presses for disclosure and delay
The coalition submitted an open letter on 10 April urging Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul to make all environmental and health impact assessment (EHIA) documents on the Southern Land Bridge publicly available. The signatories also asked the government to slow the approval process for the project.
They demanded that any decision be postponed until allegations regarding a lack of transparency and concerns over the quality of key studies had been clarified. According to the letter, the current pace did not allow for adequate public scrutiny.
Fast‑track plans and new special economic law under fire
The groups criticised the government for pushing ahead with the Chumphon–Ranong land bridge on a fast‑track basis while simultaneously drafting legislation for a Southern Special Economic Corridor. They argued that these steps were being taken without sufficient public oversight.
In their view, the process relied on studies that did not realistically reflect economic feasibility, environmental impacts or risks to local communities. The coalition warned that this approach could undermine trust in state planning.
Decades‑old vision raises new questions
The idea of a land connection between Ranong and Chumphon had circulated for around four decades and had been revived by successive governments. The current blueprint included deep‑sea ports in both provinces.
These ports would be linked by roads, rail lines, pipelines and other infrastructure across roughly 100 kilometres. The project was presented as a strategic transport corridor between oceans.
Bypassing Malacca: promised benefits versus costs
Supporters said the land bridge could shorten shipping times between the Indian and Pacific Oceans by allowing vessels to avoid the heavily trafficked Strait of Malacca. They argued this would strengthen Thailand’s role in regional logistics.
Critics questioned whether the project would be cost‑effective or efficient, as containers would have to be unloaded at one port, moved overland and reloaded onto ships at the other end. They warned that this double handling could erode the supposed advantages.
New EHIA reports for two deep‑sea ports trigger pushback
Activists mobilised again after EHIA studies were submitted for two planned deep‑sea ports: Laem Riw in Chumphon and Laem Ao Ang in Ranong. These assessments placed the two facilities at the centre of the current debate.
The reports were prepared by the Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (OTP) under the Transport Ministry. They were under review by the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP).
Five core objections: economics, environment, data, participation, World Heritage
First, the coalition questioned the project’s economic viability, pointing to conflicting assessments by state bodies. The National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) had deemed the investment economically unfeasible, while the OTP reached the opposite conclusion.
Second, they argued that the environmental reviews were too narrowly defined, as the EHIA evaluation considered only a five‑kilometre radius around each site. This, they said, failed to capture wider effects on ecosystems, livelihoods and especially fishing communities.
Disputed biodiversity data and risk analysis
Third, the signatories highlighted inconsistencies in data on marine biodiversity. They said the EHIA reports showed lower numbers and diversity of benthic species than earlier studies, raising doubts about the accuracy of the underlying information.
They also said key risks such as earthquakes, oil spills and fires had not been adequately assessed. These omissions, the letter argued, left major safety and environmental questions unresolved.
“Too little real say”: hearings under scrutiny
Fourth, the coalition criticised what it called insufficient public participation, saying affected communities had not been properly informed. Consultation processes, they argued, did not ensure genuine local involvement.
They added that the hearings had been dominated by government representatives and project‑related agencies. This dominance, they said, made an independent and open debate more difficult.
Chumphon and Ranong’s biodiversity and UNESCO prospects at stake
Fifth, the groups warned that the project could undermine the ecological value of Chumphon and Ranong, which they described as particularly rich in biodiversity. They cautioned that large‑scale interventions might cause irreversible harm.
According to the coalition, both provinces had been discussed as candidates for inclusion on the tentative list for UNESCO World Heritage sites. The letter said this prospect could be threatened by extensive infrastructure development.
Secrecy dispute: EnLAW challenges authorities
Apisak Tassanee from the network Beach for Life said there was no justification for withholding the full EHIA reports given the scale of potential impacts. He linked the issue directly to local livelihoods and public health.
“There is no justification for withholding the full EHIA reports, as the project could significantly affect livelihoods, health and the environment.”
said Apisak Tassanee, representative of the Beach for Life network.
The environmental law organisation EnLAW rejected the reasons given by ONEP and OTP for not releasing the documents, which cited the information law and data protection rules. EnLAW described the refusal as a violation of constitutional rights to access information and to participate in decision‑making.
“Invoking the information law and data protection to keep these reports secret violates constitutional rights to information and participation.”
said EnLAW, an environmental law organisation.
“Not against development” but demanding a sound basis
The coalition stressed it was not fundamentally opposed to economic development. Instead, it called for a thorough review of the studies and a slower approach until outstanding issues were resolved.
Thailand’s development, the letter said, had to be based on accurate information, ecological sustainability and fairness. The groups argued that only then could long‑term national interests and local communities be safeguarded.