Bounties, bullets and toxic waste: The ongoing war against Thailand’s eco-defenders

Thailand is facing a double crisis: an overwhelming volume of illegally dumped hazardous waste and a deadly climate of intimidation against activists trying to stop it.

In Prachin Buri province, environmental campaigner Sumet Rienpongnam now lives with a bounty of 2 million baht on his head. Sumet, 54, began campaigning when the stench from a local dump site spread across his community, causing daily misery.

He says he has faced multiple death threats along with constant surveillance this year, pointing to cigarette butts and energy drink bottles routinely discarded outside his home. On August 2, two of his dogs died of suspected poisoning, while a third fell gravely ill.

“I only began campaigning when it became difficult to bear the stink from the big pile of waste,” he said.

His efforts have also come at a heavy legal cost. In 2020, he was hit with a 50-million-baht defamation lawsuit after publicly accusing a company of dumping toxic waste. The case was eventually settled through mediation.

Sumet is not the only activist to face death threats after speaking up to protect local rights. Fellow campaigner Suntorn Komkai, from the same Prachin Buri network, says he is also living with a two-million-baht bounty on his head.

The EEC’s unofficial dumping ground

Activists say Prachin Buri’s waste crisis originates in Thailand’s industrial heartland of the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC).

The Strong Prachin Buri Network gathered at the provincial hall on August 17 to follow up on a petition signed by over 11,000 residents opposing the EEC Policy Committee’s decision to expand the corridor from Chon Buri, Rayong and Chachoengsao to Prachin Buri.

Locals claim that Prachin Buri has been turned into the EEC’s dumping ground, forced to absorb hazardous waste products that the industrial zone’s operators refuse to handle.

Residents report that EEC laws lean heavily in the favour of factory owners, leaving locals feeling like second-class citizens in their own homes.

“Industrial investment in the EEC also means more industrial waste,” observed Somnuck Jongmeewasin, research director of EEC Watch, which monitors health and other impacts of activities in the zone.

According to the watchdog, the EEC generates approximately 6 million tonnes of industrial waste every year, including 1.57 million tonnes of hazardous waste. However, waste-disposal facilities in the EEC can only process 2.76 million tonnes, leaving a massive surplus unaccounted for.

“That explains why Prachin Buri’s Si Maha Phot and Kabin Buri districts have become the primary dumping ground [for the corridor],” EEC Watch said.

The root of the crisis dates back more than a decade to the 2014 military coup, when the junta, known as the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), granted legal exemptions to waste-disposal facilities and issued over 1,600 operating licences.

Although these exemptions are no longer applicable, facilities in the EEC and elsewhere continue operating under their original permits.

Activists argue that authorities are ignoring severe environmental impacts from EEC operations because they favour business interests over the public good.

Compounding those impacts is the industrial zone’s huge demand for water, which has prompted plans for seven new dams in Khao Yai and Thap Lan national parks.

Recycling scam

Somnuck said that many facilities operate under the guise of recycling plants without actually recycling waste.

“Processes such as electronic waste segregation and welding generate toxic residue that cannot be recycled,” he said.

Thailand’s waste-segregation sector has mushroomed since China banned trash imports in 2018.

“The resulting influx of trash has led to landfill fires and electronic waste being dumped in public spaces in Prachin Buri. This was also where the missing cylinder filled with Caesium-137 was found,” said Somnuk, referring to a 2023 radioactivity scare that made international headlines. “So there are serious concerns about public safety and more.”

Caesium is a hazardous radioactive isotope that dissolves in water and soil, potentially contaminating the human food chain.

Penchom Saetang, director of the Ecological Alert and Recovery–Thailand (EARTH) Foundation, estimates that environmental and economic damage from toxic industrial waste has already exceeded 10 billion baht.

“There is also damage that is incalculable, such as groundwater contamination that leaves farmland ruined for generations,” she said, noting that even if polluting factories were closed today the environmental fallout would persist for decades.

Rights defenders targeted

Pranom Somwong of Protection International (PI) said activists have faced mounting harassment since the 2014 coup, ranging from lawsuits, surveillance, online bullying, smear campaigns, and pressure on families and communities to physical assaults and death threats.

“Since the coup, security agencies and the bureaucracy have become more powerful, while public participation and checks and balances have weakened,” Pranom said.

This has created an increasingly hostile environment for rights defenders – especially those challenging state agencies and businesses backed by the state, she added.

According to data collected by PI, more than 70 rights activists have been subjected to both legal and death threats in recent decades.

Groups like the NGO Coordinating Committee on Development (NGO-COD) have voiced concern that environmental activists like Sumet and Suntorn could face the same fate as Prajob Nao-opas.

Prajob was shot dead in broad daylight on February 25, 2013, after leading a protest against the dumping of toxic waste in Chachoengsao’s Phanom Sarakham district. Two suspects were sentenced to life in prison by the Court of Appeals.

Environmental lawyer Chamnan Sirirak warned that loopholes in Thai law continue to place activists in the cross-hairs, noting that protections in the 2017 Constitution, the Criminal Code and the Witness Protection Act kick in only after a crime has occurred.

“There is nothing in place to proactively protect someone who faces threats simply for exercising their rights,” he said. “If there is clear evidence of a threat, the state must step in before an activist becomes the next victim.”