Biodiversity Environmental Impact Assessment (B-EIA) and

Piyapon farm, Phunphin District, Suratthani Province

B-EIA and P-SIA

Biodiversity – Environmental Impact

Assessment (B-EIA) and Participatory

– Social Impact Assessment (P-SIA)

Project:

Date:

Shrimp Farm (Piyapon farm)

November 2020

Biodiversity – Environmental Impact Assessment (B-EIA)

and Participatory – Social Impact Assessment (P-SIA)

Piyapon farm

Lee Led Sub-district, Phunphin District, Suratthani province

Prepared by:

International Environmental Management Co., Ltd.

5th floors, 2 K.C.C. Building, Soi Silom 9, Silom Road, Bangrak,

Bangkok 10500, Thailand

Tel: 02-1267914 E-mail: [email protected]

Submitted to:

Okeanos Food Co., Ltd (Piyapon farm)

85 Moo 4, Nadee, Muang, Samutsakhon 74000, Thailand

Tel: 034-8338036 Fax: 034-861167

E-mail: [email protected] /

[email protected]

This detailed qualification has been prepared by International Environmental Management Co., Ltd.

The document remains the intellectual property of International Environmental Management Co. Ltd.

It has been submitted on the basis of strict confidentiality. The contents must not be reproduced or

disclosed in whole or in part to without the written consent of International Environmental

Management Co., Ltd.

mailto:[email protected]


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020

File data: BEIA and PSIA Piyapon Farm final report (EN)_28 Jan 2021 I

PREFACE

Shrimp aquaculture producers seeking to comply with Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC)

certification are required to undertake a Biodiversity-inclusive Environmental Impact Assessment (B-EIA) and a Participatory Social Impact Assessment to comply with specific requirements of the ASC

Shrimp Standard1 developed by the Shrimp Aquaculture Dialogue (ShAD), a multi-stakeholder

standards development initiative that is in compliance with Codes of Good Practice for standard

development according to the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling (ISEAL) Alliance.

The goals of the ShAD including the B-EIA in the ASC Shrimp Standard are as follows:

The B-EIA process seeks to obtain the best possible biodiversity outcomes from land use changes. It is

important that all interested parties understand the process by which the assessment has been made and how and by whom any actions needed to deliver biodiversity objectives will be implemented and

monitored. The B-EIA must provide reliable information about, and interpretation of, the ecological

implications of the project from its inception to its operation and, where appropriate, it’s decommissioning. The B-EIA process also seeks to add value to ASC Shrimp Standard and contribute

to demonstrating compliance, while taking into account specific local landscape conditions.

The goals of the ShAD including the P-SIA assessment in the ASC Shrimp Standard are as follows:

Credible social sustainability standards must be able to respond to real human concerns that arise in

communities located near the farm in addition to those within its overall operations. In particular,

appropriate consultation must be undertaken within local communities so that potential conflicts are

properly identified, avoided, minimized and/or mitigated through open and transparent negotiations on the basis of an assessment toward risks and current impacts on the surrounding communities.

Communities will have the opportunity to be part of the assessment process. The impacts of aquaculture

operations on minorities and those prone to discrimination will be accounted for and opportunities for

these groups of people should be identified, evaluated and addressed. Negative impacts may not always

be avoidable; however, the process for addressing them must be open, fair and transparent. Therefore, these community requirements focus on due diligence through dialogue and negotiation with

surrounding communities.

The ASC Shrimp standard also cites the International Association for Impact Analysis (IAIA) in the following statement:

[Participatory] Social Impact Assessment includes the processes of analyzing, monitoring and managing

the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions

(policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment.2

The purpose of this report is to develope a B-EIA and P-SIA for “Piyapon farm”. To accomplish these

tasks, this report is divided into two sections – the B-EIA and the P-SIA. To ensure that there is strict

adherence to the intent of both assessments, this report is structured specific to the guidance checklist

provided in the ASC Shrimp Standards, which noted in the ANNEX 1 and ANNEX 2 of this report.

1 https://www.asc-aqua.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ASC-Shrimp-Standard_v1.1_Final.pdf 2 Vanclay, F. (2003) International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume

21, number 1, March 2003, pages 5-11. Retrieved on June 2019 from https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/IAIA-SIA-

International-Principles.pdf

https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/IAIA-SIA-International-Principles.pdf

https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/IAIA-SIA-International-Principles.pdf


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020

File data: BEIA and PSIA Piyapon Farm final report (EN)_28 Jan 2021 II

CONTENTS

PREFACE ......................................................................................................................................... I

CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... II

TABLE ........................................................................................................................................... IV

FIGURE ........................................................................................................................................... V

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ VI

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 B-EIA and P-SIA Requirements ................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Public communication ...................................................................................................... 2

1.1.2 Stakeholder engagement................................................................................................... 2

1.1.3 Report submission to local government and civil organization .......................................... 2

1.1.4 Transparency and consultation ......................................................................................... 2

1.1.5 B-EIA and P-SIA completed guidance document ............................................................. 2

1.2 Environmental and social impact assessment methodology ........................................................3

1.2.1 Issue screening ................................................................................................................. 3

1.2.2 Scoping ............................................................................................................................ 9

1.2.3 Environmental, social and health impact assessment ......................................................... 9

1.2.4 Identification of mitigation and prevention measures ...................................................... 12

2 BIODIVERSITY – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (B-EIA) .............................. 14

2.1 Farm information .................................................................................................................... 14

2.1.1 Farm location and current conditions .............................................................................. 14

2.1.2 Farm management .......................................................................................................... 15

2.2 Natural resource and environmental baseline ........................................................................... 23

2.2.1 Weather and air quality .................................................................................................. 23

2.2.2 Soil resource and quality ................................................................................................ 23

2.2.3 Water resource and quality ............................................................................................. 24

2.2.4 Landuse ......................................................................................................................... 29

2.2.5 Biological resources and diversity .................................................................................. 29

2.2.6 Conservation status ........................................................................................................ 35

2.3 Biodiversity service and values identification in public consultation ........................................ 37

2.4 Risk analysis: Actual of current farm ....................................................................................... 39

2.4.1 Possible alternative ........................................................................................................ 39

2.4.2 Detail analysis ................................................................................................................ 40

2.4.3 Biodiversity and environmental impact risk ranking ....................................................... 47

2.4.4 Biodiversity and environment impact mitigation and monitoring measures ..................... 55

2.4.5 Summary of measures to mitigate biodiversity impact .................................................... 56

2.5 Review process ....................................................................................................................... 57

3 Participatory Social Impact Assesment (P-SIA) ............................................................................ 58

3.1 Stakeholders and Participation ................................................................................................ 58

3.1.1 Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................................................ 58

3.1.2 Intent and public communication .................................................................................... 58

3.1.3 Document meeting and stakeholder listed ....................................................................... 59

3.1.4 B-EIA and P-SIA completed guidance document ........................................................... 59

3.2 Socioeconomic baseline information ....................................................................................... 59

3.3 Risk Analysis: Actual Impact of Current Farm ........................................................................ 60

3.3.1 Economic aspect ............................................................................................................ 61


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020

File data: BEIA and PSIA Piyapon Farm final report (EN)_28 Jan 2021 III

3.3.2 Access and use natural resources .................................................................................... 62

3.3.3 Human asset ................................................................................................................... 64

3.3.4 Physical infrastructures .................................................................................................. 66

3.3.5 Social and culture aspects ............................................................................................... 68

3.3.6 Governance aspects ........................................................................................................ 69

3.3.7 Local perception of shrimp farming and Piyapon farm .................................................... 71

3.3.8 Local perception of impacts on environmental, social and health from shrimp farming ... 73

3.3.9 Social impact risk ranking .............................................................................................. 76

3.3.10 Social impact mitigation and monitoring measures ......................................................... 85

3.4 Investigations into Priority Impacts ......................................................................................... 85

3.5 Social Impact Mitigation and Monitoring Measures................................................................. 86

3.5.1 Indicators of positive impacts ......................................................................................... 86

3.5.2 Indicators of negative impacts ........................................................................................ 86

3.6 Social Impact Mitigation and Monitoring Measures................................................................. 86

ANNEX 1 B-EIA Guideline For Auditor1................................................................................... 88

ANNEX 2 P-SIA Guildline For Auditor2 .................................................................................... 89

ANNEX 3 Farm coordinates and land title documents............................................................... 90

ANNEX 4 Stakeholder and meeting recorded ............................................................................ 92

ANNEX 5 Law / Reguration / Permit and Certificated ............................................................ 106

ANNEX 6 Farm Management Records ..................................................................................... 109

ANNEX 7 Threatened Species in Suratthani Province and Imporntant Species Around

Farm .......................................................................................................................... 115

ANNEX 8 Public Participation .................................................................................................. 119

ANNEX 9 IEM Personal For B-EIA and P-SIA ....................................................................... 124


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020

File data: BEIA and PSIA Piyapon Farm final report (EN)_28 Jan 2021 IV

TABLE

Table 1-1 Screening matrix for potential impacts on environmental and social ..............................4

Table 1-2 Potential impacts on environment and social - result of screening matrix .......................6 Table 1-3 World Bank’s Definitions of Impact Severity .............................................................. 10

Table 1-4 World Bank Definition of Biodiversity impact severity ............................................... 10

Table 1-5 Matrix score to evaluate significance of impact on environment and social .................. 11

Table 1-6 Impact level ................................................................................................................ 12 Table 1-7 Receptor sensitivity ranking ........................................................................................ 12

Table 1-8 Impact significance Evaluation.................................................................................... 12

Table 2-1 Ponds and pond area ................................................................................................... 16 Table 2-2 Standard for controlling water discharge from coastal aquaculture pond ...................... 18

Table 2-3 Farm water quality standard ........................................................................................ 19

Table 2-4 Feeding program during shrimp aged 1-20 Days per 100,000 shrimps ......................... 19 Table 2-5 Schedule of checking net............................................................................................. 19

Table 2-6 Schedule of water sampling during shrimp stocking .................................................... 20

Table 2-7 Species and number of rare animals found along the coast in Suratthani province ........ 33

Table 2-8 Protected area within 50 km from the farm .................................................................. 35 Table 2-9 Legal status and threat of animals found surronding the farm ........................................... 35

Table 2-10 Risk ranking of biodiversity and Environmental impact ............................................... 47

Table 2-11 Biodiversity – Environmental impact mitigation measures........................................... 55 Table 2-12 Biodiversity – Environmental impact monitoring measures ......................................... 55


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020

File data: BEIA and PSIA Piyapon Farm final report (EN)_28 Jan 2021 V

FIGURE

Figure 1-1 Impact assessment Method ............................................................................................3

Figure 2-1 The location of Piyapon farm ...................................................................................... 14 Figure 2-2 Environment surrounding the farm .............................................................................. 15

Figure 2-3 Buffer area of Piyapon farm ........................................................................................ 15

Figure 2-4 Farm layout and water management ............................................................................ 16

Figure 2-5 Water management process ......................................................................................... 17 Figure 2-6 Water pump station (a) and Clean water canal (b)........................................................ 17

Figure 2-7 Culture pond ............................................................................................................... 18

Figure 2-8 Treatment pond (a) and treatment canal (b) ................................................................. 18 Figure 2-9 Sludge pond ................................................................................................................ 22

Figure 2-10 Waste collection point of the farm ............................................................................... 22

Figure 2-11 Feed store of the farm ................................................................................................ 22 Figure 2-12 Soil group surrounding Piyapon farm ......................................................................... 24

Figure 2-13 Surface water resource in Lee Led Sub-district ........................................................... 25

Figure 2-14 Flood risk area in Lee Led Sub-district ....................................................................... 26

Figure 2-15 Flooded area surrounding the farm ............................................................................. 26 Figure 2-16 Artesian well within 1 km from the Piyapon farm....................................................... 27

Figure 2-17 Coastal eroded in Suratthani province ........................................................................ 28

Figure 2-18 Elevation (m. MSL) Of Piyapon farm......................................................................... 28 Figure 2-19 Landuse surrounding Piyapon farm ............................................................................ 29

Figure 2-20 Adjacent area of Piyapon farm ................................................................................... 29

Figure 2-21 Protected areas within 50 km radius from Piyapon farm ............................................. 30 Figure 2-22 Mangrove forest area in Lee Led Sub-distict .............................................................. 32

Figure 2-23 Seagrass beds in Ao Ban Don, Suratthani province ..................................................... 34

Figure 2-24 Habitat of endangered species within a radius of 50 km from farm ............................. 37

Figure 2-25 Perception on change of environmental quality .......................................................... 38 Figure 2-26 Perception on change of overall environmental quality ............................................... 38

Figure 2-27 Potential pollution issues in the communities ............................................................. 38

Figure 2-28 The condition of mangrove forest in community ........................................................ 39 Figure 2-29 Rare species found in the community ......................................................................... 39

Figure 2-30 Opinion on the importance level of environmental conservation ................................. 39

Figure 2-31 Spatial and temporal change of land use at Piyapon farm ............................................ 43

Figure 2-32 Environmental sampling point of Piyapon farm .......................................................... 56


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020

File data: BEIA and PSIA Piyapon Farm final report (EN)_28 Jan 2021 VI

ABBREVIATIONS

ASC Aquaculture Stewardship Council

CFRD Coastal Fisheries Research and Development Center

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

DGR Department of Groundwater Resources

DMCR Department of Marine and Coastal Resources

DNP Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation

DOF Department of Fisheries

m.MSL Meters above mean sea level

MNRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

NP National Park

ONEP Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning

PCD Pollution Control Department

PFO Provincial Fisheries Office

PONRE Provincial Office of National Resources and Environment

SAO Sub-district Administration Organization

WNHA Wildlife Non-Hunting Area

WS Wildlife Sanctuary

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

CFU/mL

colony-forming units per milliliter

AHPND Acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease

NHP Necrotising hepatopancreatitis

IHHNV Infectious hypodermal and haematopoietic necrosis

IMNV Infectious myonecrosis virus

TSV Taura syndrome virus

IWSSV White spot syndrome virus

YHV Yellow Head Virus

November 2020

File data: BEIA and PSIA Piyapon Farm final report (EN)_28 Jan 2021 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Okeanos Food Co., Ltd., henceforth is referred as “Okeanos Food”; intend to develop a sustainable shrimp production process with responsible environmental and social management systems. Hence, the

Piyapon farm has received an audit to certify the farm’s ability to reduce environmental impacts, manage

resources effectively, reduce the use of chemicals and drugs, preservation of important natural ecosystems and biodiversity, labor compliance, transparency and responsibility to local communities

according to the ASC shrimp standard requirements. Okeanos food has hired International

Environmental Management Co., Ltd. (IEM), to support and assist with completing the required ASC

Shrimp Assessments and required documentation.

IEM has completed the fieldwork and final report for B-EIA and P-SIA of Piyapon farm, which is

located in Lee Led Sub-district, Phunphin District, Suratthani Province present the following

assessment.

1.1 B-EIA and P-SIA Requirements According to the criteria 2.1.1 of the ASC standard, the farm owners shall provide a B-EIA and P-SIA for their shrimp farms under consideration of the farm size, where the ASC has pointed out guidelines

for selecting sponsors and implementing B-EIA and P-SIA that differ of farm size.3

The total area of Piyapon farm is 170.6155 rai (27.29848 hectares). Farm has 13 of culture ponds, with

68 rai (10.88 hectares) of pond area. Thus, they are considered as a medium farm according to the ASC standards and are required to conduct a B-EIA and P-SIA by a specialist organization.

International Environmental Management Co., Ltd. (IEM), is licensed to conduct environmental, social

and health impact assessment and licensed by the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Thailand (See in ANNEX 9). IEM was contracted by Okeanos food to conduct the B-EIA

and P-SIA for Piyapon farm.

The role of IEM’s ecologists and practitioners in the B-EIA team is to:

• Provide an objective and transparent assessment of the known biodiversity and ecological effects of the farm to all interested parties, including the general public.

• Facilitate an objective and transparent determination of the farm, in terms of its compliance

with national, regional and local conservation and biodiversity policies and regulations.

• Set out what steps must be taken to adhere to the requirements relating to designated sites,

legally protected areas, and monitoring, as encompassed in the ASC Shrimp Standard.

The role of the P-SIA is to ensure that:

• The views of all stakeholder groups have been considered.

• There has been adequate negotiation (about the outcomes for each stakeholder group) of the intended activity or changes in ongoing activity.

• Potential adverse consequences have been considered and classified according to the

likelihood (risk) and severity (size, effect) of impact.

• The activity has been redesigned as much as possible to reduce these consequences and

mitigation or compensatory mechanisms have been developed.

3 A small-scale farm is defined as having a maximum of 5 ponds, but the total production area is no larger than 5 hectares. A medium-scale farm is defined as 6 to 15 ponds but having a total production area no larger than 25 hectares. A large-scale farm is defined as more than 15 ponds or larger than 25 hectares in total production area. Cooperatives or clusters of small farms are defined as not bigger than 25-small-scaled-member farms and minimally

75% of the total production capacity comes from small‐scale farms. All other groups, cooperatives or clusters can only be

considered as a large-scale entity.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


1.1.1 Public communication

The B-EIA and P-SIA has been publicly (locally) communicated with sufficient time for interested

parties to participate and/or get informed. Two weeks’ notice was provided before actual interviews and fieldwork. No feedback or concern was received with respect to the interview timing and/or dates.

1.1.2 Stakeholder engagement

In this assessment, IEM has interviewed the stakeholders with questionnaires. The stakeholder is classified as 2 groups: (1) surrounding communities within 1-2 km of Piyapon farmand (2) Key

informants, including director or representative of local government agencies.

IEM designed a questionnaire as a tool to obtain social-economic information and also perceptions about

the project from stakeholders. Each stakeholder was personally interviewed (or in small groups for 1-3 person if they request) on local issues related to natural resource, environment and biodiversity as well

as their perceptions of the social and health impacts of the farm. The villagers were interviewed by

reading a questionnaire (with 83 questions), while the key informants were interviewed with 55 questions.

IEM completed the survey with listed stakeholders during 14-17 October 2020. This assessment

included meetings with 35 random stakeholders in surrounding communities within 1-2 km of Piyapon

farm (Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district, Phunphin district). Personal interviews were conducted with 12 key informants including (1) Chief Executive of Lee Led SAO. (2) Village headman of Moo 7 Klong Ko

village (3) Abbot of Khlong Ko temple (4) Director of Lee Led Health Promoting Hospital (5) Director

of Suratthani Fisheries province Office (6) Director of Phunphin District Fisheries Office (7) Director of

Marine and coastal resources office 4 Surratthani (8) Director of Coastal Aquaculture Research and Development Center, Region 3 (Suratthani) (9) Director of Suratthani province Office of Natural

Resources and Environment (10) Director of Wad Bang Pla school (11) Director of Wad Tri Thararam

school and (12) Director of Wad Khao Sriwichai

1.1.3 Report submission to local government and civil organization

IEM submitted the B-EIA and P-SIA report (draft) to key informants to verify the accuracy of the

information and provide feedback, then IEM submitted the final B-EIA and P-SIA report to be kept at

Farm's office. Copies were also submitted to the Fisheries, Environment and the office of the local government including: (1) Lee Led SAO., (2) Director of Suratthani Fisheries province Office, (3)

Director of Phunphin District Fisheries Office, (4) Director of Coastal Aquaculture Research and

Development Center, Region 3 (Suratthani), (5) Director of Suratthani province Office of Natural Resources and Environment and (6) Marine and coastal resources office 4 Surratthani, where any

interested person can review. There has been no request to send this report to a legally registered civil

organization.

1.1.4 Transparency and consultation

The B-EIA and P-SIA for Piyapon farm has been completed in accordance with the ASC assessment guidelines. Information has been disclosed to the public as per the ASC standards relationship

requirement (transparency and consultation) to ensure that the environmental and social impact

assessment processes are relevant, fair and credible according to COP6 Decision VI/74.

1.1.5 B-EIA and P-SIA completed guidance document

The B-EIA and P-SIA undertaken for Piyapon farm has been completed in accordance with guidance

under criteria 2.1 and criteria 3.1 of ASC Shrimp Standard v.1.1 (March 2019) as shown in ANNEX 1 and ANNEX 2 respectively. This is according to guidance of B-EIA and P-SIA relationship

(transparency and consultation) for the B-EIA and P-SIA process.

4 Convention on Biological Diversity (2002) Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological

Diversity the Hague, Netherlands 7-19 April 2002 Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7181


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


1.2 Environmental and social impact assessment methodology

Figure 1-1 Impact assessment Method

1.2.1 Issue screening

Identification of the environmental & social factors and related aspects was conducted via:

• Review of project description and planned/unplanned activities.

• Information obtained through stakeholder consultation.

• Knowledge developed by IEM’s extensive prior experience in assessing aquaculture farms.

• Data from studies and surveys.

The purpose of the screening step is to systematically review all proposed project activities and identify

potential environmental, social and health issues. Screening of issues is an important first step in an EIA. This screening step enables the detailed impact assessment component of this EIA to focus on the key

issues that are relevant to people and the environment.

In this report, a matrix (Table 1-1) was used in screening for key issues of environmental, social and

health impacts from farm’s activities including:

1) Environmental issues such as physical resources including soil resources, water resources,

air quality, biological resources, and diversity such as forest, wildlife and ecosystems. 2) Social issues, such as human-use values including land use, public infrastructures and

values for quality of life such as careers and employment, economy, culture, public health,

occupational health and safety.

The result of the screening impact was classified into 3 levels including: “Potential impact”, “Probable

impact” and “No impact”. Key issues that need to be addressed in detail are issues that may have

"potential impact" and/or "probable impact". See results of key issue screening in Table 1-2.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Table 1-1 Screening matrix for potential impacts on environmental and social

Screening matrix Construction

phase Farming activities

Emergency/ Unplanned event

Marine Shrimp Farm

Lan

d e

xcavati

on

an

d l

evelin

g

Facilit

ies c

on

str

ucti

on

Lan

du

se c

han

ge

Aq

uacu

ltu

re w

ith

salt

y

or

bra

ckis

h w

ate

r

Wate

r so

urc

e u

sed

(sea w

ate

r /

su

rface w

ate

r / g

rou

nd

wate

r /

tap

wate

r)

Sh

rim

p f

eed

man

ag

em

en

t

Ch

em

icals

man

ag

em

en

t

(Ch

em

icals

/pro

bio

tics/d

rug

s)

Sh

rim

p s

pecie

s m

an

ag

em

en

t

Use o

f in

frastr

uctu

re s

erv

ices

(Ele

ctr

icit

y/t

ap

wate

r/ r

oad

)

Waste

an

d h

azard

ou

s w

aste

man

ag

em

en

t

Waste

wate

r m

an

ag

em

en

t

Slu

dg

e m

an

ag

em

en

t

En

gin

e c

om

bu

sti

onกล

Tra

nsp

ort

ati

on

Lab

or

man

ag

em

en

t

Sh

rim

p e

scap

e

Dis

ease o

utb

reak

Flo

od

ing

Co

asta

l ero

sio

nง

No impact Potential impact Positive impact

En

vir

on

men

t A

sp

ects

Ph

ysic

al

Reso

urc

es

Topography

Air quality

Greenhouse gases emission

Odor

Noise

Soil resource

Seawater quality

Surface water quality

Groundwater quality

Land subsidence

Bio

log

ical

Reso

urc

es Flora (Marine/terrestrial)

Fauna (Marine/terrestrial)

Ecology (Terrestrial/Aquatic)

Protected areas


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Screening matrix Construction

phase Farming activities

Emergency/ Unplanned event

Marine Shrimp Farm

Lan

d e

xcavati

on

an

d l

evelin

g

Facilit

ies c

on

str

ucti

on

Lan

du

se c

han

ge

Aq

uacu

ltu

re w

ith

salt

y

or

bra

ckis

h w

ate

r

Wate

r so

urc

e u

sed

(sea w

ate

r /

su

rface w

ate

r / g

rou

nd

wate

r /

tap

wate

r)

Sh

rim

p f

eed

man

ag

em

en

t

Ch

em

icals

man

ag

em

en

t

(Ch

em

icals

/pro

bio

tics/d

rug

s)

Sh

rim

p s

pecie

s m

an

ag

em

en

t

Use o

f in

frastr

uctu

re s

erv

ices

(Ele

ctr

icit

y/t

ap

wate

r/ r

oad

)

Waste

an

d h

azard

ou

s w

aste

man

ag

em

en

t

Waste

wate

r m

an

ag

em

en

t

Slu

dg

e m

an

ag

em

en

t

En

gin

e c

om

bu

sti

onกล

Tra

nsp

ort

ati

on

Lab

or

man

ag

em

en

t

Sh

rim

p e

scap

e

Dis

ease o

utb

reak

Flo

od

ing

Co

asta

l ero

sio

nง

No impact Potential impact Positive impact

So

cia

l A

sp

ects

Hu

man

-used

Valu

es

Access to natural resources

Access to basic infrastructures

Agriculture and livestock

Other aquacultures

Attractions/Recreational Areas

Qu

ality

of

Lif

e

Economy

Human Resource

Social and culture

Governances

Healt

h Public health

Health service

Occupational health and safety


B-EIA and P-SIA

October 2020 แฟมขอมล : BEIA and PSIA Piyapon Farm final report (EN)_28 Jan 2021

6

Table 1-2 Potential impacts on environment and social - result of screening matrix

Key issues Activities Potential impact

1) Physical resource

1.1 Topography • Land excavation and leveling in

expanded area

• Land slide to adjacent area

• Flash flood or flood in adjacent area

1.2 Air quality • Engine combustion

• Garbage burning

• Air pollutants emission includes PM, NOx,

SOx and CO. Resulted to air quality is

poor.

1.3 Green House

Gases (GHGs)

Emission

• Waste fermentation in the farm

(i.e. sludge and compostable

waste)

• Power use (i.e. Electricity and

engine combustion)

• GHGs emission includes CO2 and CH4.

• These gases effect on climate change.

1.4 Odor • Management of solid waste,

feed shrimp and sludge.

• Odor disturbance from waste

accumulation/ sediment and wastewater/

shrimp feed.

1.5 Noise • Machinery and vehicle • Using water pump and vehicle

transportation. These may cause a

nuisance noise.

1.6 Soil quality • Farming with saltwater and

brackish water

• Moving sediment inside or

outside the farm

• Saline dispersion to adjacent area

• Salinity accumulation in farm area and

surrounding the farm

• Chemicals or heavy metal contamination

in the soil

1.7 Seawater quality • Discharge or overflow of

wastewater and sludge into

natural/public waterway

• Solid waste management

• Wastewater and sediment overflow into

the seawater. Organic matter and nutrients

in seawater increase and harm to aquatic

and benthic environment.

• Windstorm may blow solid waste of farm

into the sea. These may affect to seawater

quality and harm to marine animal.

1.8 Surface water

quality • Shrimp stocking with saltwater

or brackish water

• Waste management from

farming include wastewater,

sewage and sediment.

• Waste management

• Saltwater of culture pond overflow to the

freshwater resource surrounding the farm.

• Discharge wastewater, sewage and

sediment into surface water source.

Organic matter and nutrients in surface

water increase and harm to aquatic and

benthic environment.

• Windstorm may blow solid waste of farm

into the surface water. These may affect to

surface water quality and harm to aquatic

animal and benthic.

1.9 Groundwater

quality • Shrimp stocking with saltwater

or brackish water

• Saltwater of culture pond disperse to

groundwater resource.

• Chemicals or heavy metal contamination

in the soil

1.10 Soil subsidence • Shrimp stocking with

groundwater

• Land excavation and leveling

• Land subsidence because of using a lot

groundwater and heavy truck

transportation.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



2) Biological Resources and Diversity

2.1 Flora (Terrestrial/

Marine) • Forest / Mangrove forest -

Changing landuse of forest and

mangrove forests

• Forest / Mangrove forest -

Shrimp stocking with saltwater

and brackish water

• Forest / Mangrove forest -

Discharge wastewater and

sludge into natural canal or

public waterway.

• Loss of plant species (Terrestrial/ Marine)

• Saltwater and brackish water may affect to

inhibited terrestrial plant growth.

• Seawater quality may damage wetland.

May cause loss of biodiversity service

such as spawning and nursing area and

possible decrease in fishery resources.

2.2 Fauna

(Terrestrial/ Marine) • Wildlife and Marine life -

Changing landuse of forest and

mangrove forests

• Wildlife and Marine life -

Noise from farm activities (i.e.

pumping water, engine

combustion, Landscaping and

mowing).

• Marine life - Discharge

wastewater into natural canal

connected to the sea and

garbage blown into the sea.

• Loss of fauna habit by conversion of

landuse forest and mangrove forest to

aquaculture.

• Noise disturbance to local terrestrial and

aquatic animal.

• Loss of aquatic and animal species and

microorganism.

2.3 Ecological

system • Changes in landuse of forest

and mangrove forests

• Pollution emission such as

wastewater and Air pollution

• Loss of biodiversity service of wildlife and

marine animals such as habitant, food

source and shelter.

• Loss of plants, animal species,

microorganism in food chain. Impact to

ecosystem.

2.4 Protected Area • Farming within or close to

sensitive areas includes

protected area, Ramsar site

and World heritage site

• Loss of habitat of threatened species or

threatened by conversion of landuse.

• Loss of biodiversity service of terrestrial

and marine animals such as food source

and shelter.

3) Social Aspects: Human-used Values

3.1 Access to natural

resources • Use of water from natural/

public water sources.

• Use of forest and mangrove

forest resource.

• Changes in landuse from

mangrove forests

• Farm may obstruct water resources

access of other users.

• Loss of service from forest and mangrove

forests such as herbs, food and woods.

3.2 Access to basic

infrastructures • Use of public infrastructure (i.e.

Electricity, water supply and

road)

• Solid waste management

• Electricity and water supply use of farm

may pressure local services and other

users.

• Transportation of farms may pressure local

road use and road maintenance.

• Farm may pressure waste management of

Local authorities.

3.3 Agriculture and

livestock • Farm Water management such

as collecting seawater and

discharge wastewater into

natural canal)

• Saline dispersion to adjacent agricultural

farm may cause production decrease.

• Water quality decrease and can not be

used for agricultural or aquaculture.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



3.4 Other

aquacultures • Discharge waste from farming

includes wastewater and

sludge into natural/public

waterway

• Water quality decrease and can not be

used for aquaculture or may harm aquatic

animals and organisms.

• Fishery resource decreased and affecting

to local and coastal fisheries.

3.5 Attractions/

Recreational Areas • Discharge wastewater and

sludge into natural/public

waterway

• Marine debris

• Deteriorated water quality may also affect

marine tourism resource such as nearby

national park.

4) Social Aspects – Quality-of-life Values

4.1 Economy • Employment - Opportunity for

local people/ Thai workers/

Foreign workers.

• Farm contribution to the Local

and national economy.

• Increased numbers of jobs in local area

(i.e. culturing, harvesting, cleaning and

construction)

• Increase income for local business such

as fuel, construction materials, truck rent

and foods etc.

• Generate income for local government and

Revenue Department

4.2 Human Assets • Local people lose food

security.

• Education and local wisdom

• Health and sercurity

• Employer Land use changes are not suitable for land conditions.

• Local people lose income.

• Insufficient water sources for agriculture

and aquaculture farmers.

• Potential pressure on local educational

institutions at subdistrict, district and

province.

• Changes in lifestyle, knowledge and local

wisdom of local people

• Safety of life and asset

4.3 Social and culture • Migrant workers and their

family come in area, with

different cultures and traditions

• Transportation during farm

construction

• Shrimp stocking with saltwater

or brackish water

• May cause social conflicts in terms of

norms, morals, traditions, religious or

cultural that may not be accepted in the

community.

• Historic sites damage by farm activities

such as saltwater breaking the material of

Historic sites or truck traveling frequently

(within a radius of 2 km) impacting historic

sites.

• May cause annoyance/ stress to

community or conflict.

4.4 Governances • Control/ follow up/ inspect the

farm to comply with the laws,

regulations and license.

• Farm ignores and not follows the law or

regulations for shrimp farming. These may

cause severe environmental and social

impact.

• Employer lack of social responsibility

regarding labor, including (1) Child labor

(2) Forced labor (3) Health and safety

(Occupational Health and Safety) (4)

Freedom of association and the right to

collective bargaining (5) Discrimination

(6) Discipline practices (7) Working hours

and overtime and (8) Remuneration


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



• Relation management between the farm

and local peoples to

5) Social Aspects – Health

5.1 Public health • Vehicle use for transportation

of farm

• Machinery and vehicles use

during farm construction

• Discharge wastewater and air

pollutants to environmental

• Road accident in the community.

• Health effect to peoples in community

such as stress from nuisance noise and

respiration disease from exposure dust.

5.2 Health service • Increased of migrant workers in

community

• Transmission of disease that comes with

migrant workers

• Increased pressure on the local health

service

5.3 Occupational

health and safety • Worker health check up • See 4.2 Human assets

6) Emergency/Unplanned Event

6.1 Shrimp species • Farming non-native species

(L. vannamei)

• Shrimp escape successfully

during farming

• Loss of native species due to invasion of

non-native species (L. Vannamei)

6.2 Disease outbreak • Farming non-native species

(L. vannamei)

• Poor farm management system

• Outbreak of shrimp disease at the farm

and regional levels

• Disease transmission from non-native

species to native species

6.3 Flooding • Farm was flooded by overland

flow or sea tide resulting

shrimp was flooded into natural

environment

• Culture ponds damaged and non-native

shrimp escaped to environmental

6.4 Coastal erosion • Windstorm may affect coastal

erosion


non-native species (L. Vannamei)

• Loss of land or culture pond damage

1.2.2 Scoping

The scoping of environmental, social and health impacts, is done to determine what potential issues may

impact shrimp farming. Characteristics of impacts includes: extent or area of impact, duration of impact,

magnitude of impact and the proximity/location of sensitive receptors in relation to the project activity

IEM has determined the scope of B-EIA within 1-5 km radius of the farm. Sensitive receptor nearby the

farm area includes: ecology of Ko canal and Ao Ban Don Wetlands.

The scope of P-SIA includes the project stakeholders and communities within 1-2 km-radius from Piyapon farmcovering Moo 7 (Khlong Ko village), Lee Led Sub-district, Phunphin District, Suratthani

Province. Also, farm workers are included in this assessment.

1.2.3 Environmental, social and health impact assessment

The impacts that result from routine (planned) activities are assessed, as are those that could result from

credible accidental or unplanned events within the project scope (e.g. a fuel spill) or in the external

environment affecting the project.

The approach to assess the severity of potential impacts is discussed briefly below.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


The evaluation process for each effect aims to assess the severity of the impact on the receiving environment.

The severity of the impact is defined by comparing the intensity of the effect of the Project and the sensitivity

of the environmental receptors.

The first step is then to define the intensity and the sensitivity/vulnerability of the environmental receptors. The intensity of the effects of the Project is obtained by the evaluation of three parameters:

• Duration of the effect (irreversible impact, impact for a few years, a few months, a few weeks),

• Area concerned by the effect (nationally/regionally outside the project footprint, locally or inside the project footprint),

• Magnitude of the effect (toxicity...).

The consideration of these three parameters (duration, area, magnitude) will result on an estimated of the

intensity using the following graduations from (1) negligible, (2) minor, (3) moderate and (4) major.

The sensitivity of the environmental receptors is characterised by a number of criteria (biodiversity, presence

of fresh water aquifers...) and is defined by the specialists concerned, during the Environmental Baseline Study

(EBS).

The second step is to evaluate the severity of the impact by comparing the intensity of the effect of the project

and the sensitivity/vulnerability of the environmental receptors.

Impact severity can be qualified according to a scale which ranges from “negligible” to “major”, based

on World Bank’s definitions (Table 1-3) and for biodiversity (Table 1-4):

Table 1-3 World Bank’s Definitions of Impact Severity

Criteria Severity

Substantial adverse changes in an ecosystem. Effects are long-lived and natural recovery may not take place or only in the long term. Changes are well outside the range of natural variation and assisted rehabilitation is required.

Major

Moderate adverse changes in an ecosystem. Changes may exceed the range of natural variation. Potential for natural recovery in the medium term is good. However, it is recognised that a low level of impact may remain.

Moderate

Minor adverse changes in an ecosystem. Changes might be noticeable but fall within the range of normal variation. Effects are short-lived and natural recovery takes place in the short-term, however, it is recognised that a low level of localised impact may remain.

Minor

Changes in ecosystems that are unlikely to be noticeable (i.e. well within the scope of natural variation).

Negligible

Changes resulting in positive, desirable, or beneficial effects on an ecosystem. Positive

For example, the sensitivity of the receptors, in terms of biodiversity, can be evaluated using the

following scale:

Table 1-4 World Bank Definition of Biodiversity impact severity

Severity Definition

Major Area impacted includes a high rate of sensitive / protected fauna and/or flora in an area where a high level of biodiversity can be observed, or an ecosystem protected with an international or national importance.

Moderate Area impacted includes a few individuals of sensitive / protected fauna and/or flora or an ecosystem sensitive or protected locally.

Minor Area impacted includes no sensitive/protected fauna and/or flora, or an ecosystem not sensitive or protected.

Negligible Area impacted includes no sensitive /protected fauna and/or flora.

Positive Project contributes to the protection of a dedicated area and associated species benefits from the Project.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Identification of the environmental and social factors and related aspects will be conducted via:

• Review of project description and planned/unplanned activities.

• Knowledge developed by IEM company’s extensive experience in assessing oil and gas

facilities.

• Data from studies and surveys.

Potential impacts from activities during all phases of the Production Program will be considered and

aspects relevant to each development phase, as determined from screening, will be summarized.

The assessment of each aspect will be conducted during the EIA/IEE and will include the following

components:

• Description of the source and characteristic of the potential impacts.

• Identification of receptors sensitive to potential impacts.

• Description and evaluation of potential impacts.

• Identification of management measures to reduce potential impacts.

• Determinations of the residual impact severity or risk after management measures are included.

• A summary assessment table with a residual impact severity/risk ranking.

For each resource value a summary impact evaluation table will be provided as follows:

Table 1-5 Matrix score to evaluate significance of impact on environment and social

Resource Value

Impact Description

Level and Type of Impact

+1 0 -1 -2 -3

Impact Criteria Positive Negligible Low Medium High

Extent <1 km 1-5 km >5 km

Duration 0-1 yr 1-5 yr >5 yr

Magnitude Positive Negligible Low Medium High

Receptor Sensitivity Positive Negligible Low Medium High

Significance Positive Negligible Low Medium High

Residual Significance Positive Negligible Low Medium High

The above Matrix Method is used to consider the Impact Intensity and Receptor Sensitivity as follows:

Impact significance = Impact Intensity x Receptor Sensitivity

Note: Impact Intensity is determined using magnitude, extent, and duration of impacts. Receptor

Sensitivity is determined using the values of resources and environment that are lost or decreased as a

result of the project activities.

Stage 1: Analysis of Impact Level

Analysis of impact Intensity is determined using the sum of magnitude, extent, and duration of the

impact.

Impact Intensity = Magnitude + Extent + Duration


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Table 1-6 Impact level

Total Score for Impact Intensity Impact Level Score

7-9 Major 3

4-6 Moderate 2

1-3 Minor 1

Stage 2: Receptor Sensitivity Ranking

Table 1-7 Receptor sensitivity ranking

Impact Level Score

Major 3

Moderate 2

Minor 1

Stage 3: Impact Severity Evaluation

Table 1-8 Impact significance Evaluation

Impact significance

Impact Intensity

Minor Moderate Major

1 2 3

Receptor Sensitivity

Minor 1 Negligible

(1) Minor

(2) Minor

(3)

Moderate 2 Minor

(2) Moderate

(4) Moderate

(6)

Major 3 Minor

(3) Moderate

(6) Major

(9)

Source: Adapted from Nigel Rossouw (2003)5; Sippe (1999)6; and United Nations University (2007)

1.2.4 Identification of mitigation and prevention measures

The aim of the environmental impact assessment process is to reduce negative impacts and enhance the

benefits from an activity. As part of the assessment, process management measures are identified to

minimize the level of risk to ‘as low as reasonably practicable’. The following hierarchy of control was

used to identify appropriate management measures:

• Eliminate risk by removing the hazard.

• Substitute of a hazard with a less hazardous one.

• Prevention of potential events.

• Control the magnitude of an impact.

• Mitigation of the impact of an event on the environment

• Emergency response and contingency planning to enable recovery from the impact of an event.

For activities where the risk level is higher than low, management measures are required to prevent or

mitigate the risk to an acceptable level. Prevention measures are put in place to prevent a hazard or event

from occurring such as avoidance or reduction at source and pollution control equipment. Mitigation

measures are put in place to preveny or minimize the potential impact of an activities. This can include

spill response plans, monitoring and offsets.

5 Nigel Rossouw (2003) A review of methods and generic criteria for determining impact significance. AJEAM-RAGEE,

Volume 6 June 2003, p44-61 6 Sippe, R 1999. Criteria and Standard for Assessing Significant Impact: In Judith Petts edit. Handbook of Environmental

Assessment; Vol 1, Blackwell Science LtD, 1999.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Measures to prevent or mitigate (reduce) severity of potentially significant impacts will be developed

and linked back to the related activities, and an Environmental & Social Management Plan (ESMP) will

be prepared. The ESMP brings together the environmental and social management requirements needed

to prevent or reduce potential impacts from activities and accidental events and will form part of the

report and company commitment to the project.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


2 BIODIVERSITY – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (B-EIA)

2.1 Farm information

2.1.1 Farm location and current conditions

Piyapon farm is a medium commercial Litopenaeus vannamei farm, which there is located at latitude

9° 11.597' N and longitude 99° 14.625' E (WGS84) (Figure 2-1) The farm owner purchased the the

land with shrimp ponds from the previous landowner in 1999 and adjusted the pond size for farm

management.

The location of Piyapon farm is in Lee Led Sub-district, Phunphin District, Suratthani province, Thailand.

This Farm is located outside the saltwater aquaculture exclusion zone as announced by the Fisheries

Committee of Suratthani Province.7 Therefore, the farm area is allowed to conduct marine shrimp stocking and is considered as a coastal aquaculture farm. The farm must control water quality before

discharging into any natural canal or the surrounding environment as required by Notification of the

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.8

Figure 2-1 The location of Piyapon farm

Piyapon farm is located 3.74 km away from the Gulf of Thailand and is influenced by the tide through

Ko canal. The farm is surrounded by Oilpalm plantations, Shrimp ponds and communities. The sensitive

area surrounding the farm include Khlong Ko temple (0.39 km away from the farm) Lee Led Health

Promotion Hospital (1.49 km away from the farm) and community (67 m away from the farm).

(Figure 2-2)

7 Notification of Suratthani province fisheries committee defined the aquaculture areas as controlled businesses. Government

Gazette, Volume 134, Special Episode 153NGOR, dated 7 June 2017. 8 Notification of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment defined coastal aquaculture ponds as a source of pollution

that must be controlled to discharge wastewater into public water sources or into the environment. Government Gazette, Volume 122, Special Episode 129NGOR, dated 14 November 2005.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Figure 2-2 Environment surrounding the farm The buffer area surrounding Piyapon farm is as follows: 1) Northwest of the farm is close to Ko canal

with dense salt tolerant plants. There is the buffer area width about 14 m. The building nearby Ko canal

is approximately 12 m of empty space. The empty space of farm complies the Regulation No. 55 (B.E.

2543)9. (2) North of the farm is close to oilpalm plantation and adjacent shrimp ponds. The buffer area between the farm and Oilplam plantation is treatment canal and ridge about 11 m of width. While the

farm and adjacent shrimp ponds is about 8 m of buffer area. (3) West of the farm is close to shrimp

ponds and public channel, with 7 m of buffer area. (4) East of the farm is close to Oilplam plantation

and abandone shrimp ponds, with 5 m of buffer area. (5) South of the farm is close to Oilpalm plantation and shrimp ponds, with public road width 15 m of buffer area. (Figure 2-3)

Figure 2-3 Buffer area of Piyapon farm

2.1.2 Farm management

Piyapon farm has 230.3630 rai (36.8581 ha) of total area consisting of 178.8 rai (28.61 ha) of pond

production area and 51.563 rai (8.25008 ha) of other area. The detail is as follows. (Table 2-1)

9 Regulation No. 55 (BE 2543) issued under the Building Control Act 2552 Act. Government Gazette, Volume 124, Special

Episode 124, section 17KOR, dated 26 March 2007.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Table 2-1 Ponds and pond area

Pond Number of Pond Area (Rai) Area (Hectares)

Total of farm area - 230.3630 36.8581

Total of pond production area 32 178.8 28.61

Cuture pond 13 68.0 10.88

Freshwater pond 5 47.0 7.52

Disinfection pond 6 28.5 4.56

Tratement pond 4 16.0 2.56

Sludge pond 3 15.8 2.53

Treatment canal 1 3.5 0.56

The farm layout shows the detail of each pond on the farm including the area, capacity and water

direction (Figure 2-4). Piyapon farm manages water within an open system. Farm pumps seawater from

natural canal (Ko canal) for shrimp stocking and treats water from culture pond in the treatment canal

and treatment pond before discharging effluent into natural canal.

Farm produces 1-2 shrimp crops/pond/year on average. Each production cycle is 2-3 months, with 1-2 months break between each cycle. Currently, the shrimp production is approximately 350 tons/year at

full capacity.

Figure 2-4 Farm layout and water management


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


2.1.2.1 Water management

Water Water management of Piyapon farm is an open water management system. Farm pumps

seawater/brackish from natural canal (Ko canal) into freshwater pond. The water then passes improvement process in disinfection pond before being pumped into the culture pond. Effluent from

the culture ponds will be treated in the treatment canal and treatment pond before being discharged into

Ko canal. (Figure 2-5) The detail of water management of the farm as follows.

Figure 2-5 Water management process Pumping seawater into the freshwater pond Piyapon farm has 2 of water pump stations, which are located nearby the natural canal (Ko canal) in

northwest and north of the farm. Northwest of the farm has 2 water pumps including a 260 hp diesel

engine pump for pumping seawater that passes through a 24-inch pipeline and an electrical pump for pumping seawater through a 14-inch of pipeline. North of the farm has an electrical pump for pumping

seawater through a 14-inch of pipeline. The farm switches using the water pump and pumps

seawater/brackish at high tide based on the predicted water level of the Navy’s Hydrographic

Department. Freshwater ponds on the farm cover 47 rai, 3 m of depth and 225,600 m3 of capacity. Farm has installed net surrounding the channel and net bag size of 100-200 micron at the end of pipeline to

screen garbage and aquatic animals entrance the farm. Farm regulary checks and records water quality

before pumping into the farm.

(a) (b)

Figure 2-6 Water pump station (a) and Clean water canal (b) Pumping water from freshwater pond into disinfection pond

Water from freshwater pond will be naturally treated before pumping into disinfection pond to improve

water quality. The water is pumped through a 4-6-inch filter with double blue net no. 24 to eliminate

shrimp vectors. Farm then adds tea seed at a rate of 15-20 kg/rai to prevent shrimp vectors and adds 65% chlorine concentration at rate 20 kg/rai for disinfection. The disinfection pond area of the farm is

28.5 rai, 3 m of depth and 136,800 m3 of capacity.

Pumping water from disinfection pond into culture pond

Culture pond of the farm has 68 rai, 2 m of depth and 217,600 m3 of capacity. Water of disinfection

pond is pumped into culture pond by using electrical pump passing through a 4-6-inch pipeline and

filtered with double net bag to meet 1.2 m of water depth. Then, the farm adds tea seed at rate 15-20 kg/rai, 65% Chlorine concentration at rate 20 kg/rai and Bio redox at rate 1-2 kg/rai. Then, the aerators

are turned on continuously for 1-3 days to be ready for releasing shrimp fry.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Figure 2-7 Culture pond Water management of culture pond

Piyapon farm manages water in an opened water management system. Water from culture pond is

pumped into the treatment canal and treatment pond and left for a month for natural treatment. The

treatment canal is 3.5 rai, 3 m of depth and 16,800 m3 of capacity. While treatment pond is 16 rai, 3 m of depth and 76,800 m3 of capacity. There is enough area for treatment of wastewater on the farm

(Figure 2-8).

(a) (b)

Figure 2-8 Treatment pond (a) and treatment canal (b) Upper water of treatment pond will discharge through a net bag filters into Ko canal. The sediment will

collect in the treatment pond and treatment canal. The farm monitors water quality of treatment pond

to ensure they meet the standard for water discharge from coastal aquaculture ponds (Table 2-2). If the water quality is above water quality standard. Farm will treat to meet water quality standard. Thus,

Piyapon farm reduce organic loading in natural canal and decreases risk of shrimp escape into the

environment.

Table 2-2 Standard for controlling water discharge from coastal aquaculture pond

Parameters Standard

1. pH 6.5-9.0

2. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) ≤ 20 mg/L

3. Suspended Solids (SS) ≤ 70 mg/L

4. Ammonia (NH3-N) ≤ 1.1 mg-N/L

5. Total of Phosphorus ≤ 0.4 mg-P/L

6. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) ≤ 0.01 mg/L

7. Total of Nitrogen* ≤ 4.0 mg-N/L

Source: Notification of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment defined Prescribed standard of water discharge

from coastal aquaculture ponds. Government Gazette, Volume 122, Special Episode 49NGOR, dated 1 May 2004.

2.1.2.2 Preparation culture pond and water for shrimp culturing

All of culture ponds are earthern ponds with 30-50 cm high PE plastic fencing surrounding the pond.

There is a bird net above the culture pond to prevent contamination as part of their biosecurity system for the farm. After havesing shrimp, the farm will clean up the ponds and all equipment in culture pond.

Wastewater from cleaning will be pumped into treatment pond and treatment canal then the pond is

dried for about 10-14 days or more depending on weather conditions. During this process, the farm will repair the PE plastic fence, equipments and bird net, as well as clean up around the pond, and collect

garbage for another production cycle. When culture pond is ready to use. The farm will pump water


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


from disinfection pond into culture pond to water depth of 1.2 m and improve water quality to meet the

farm standard by adding chemicals include Cal-Mag and Solumic. (Table 2-3)

Table 2-3 Farm water quality standard

Parameters Standard Farm

pH 7.5-8.5 >7.5

Salinity 10-25 ppt >5 ppt

Alkalinity >100 ppm >150 ppm

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) ≥5 ppm -

Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN) 0-0.1 ppm <0.1

Calcium: Magnesium (Ca: Mg) 1:2 to 1:3 >350 ppm

Vibrio spp. Less than 1 x 103 CFU/ml less than 1 x 104 CFU/ml for shrimp culturing more than 1 month

2.1.2.3 Releasing shrimp fry into culture pond

Piyapon farm has selected PL 10-19 L. vannamei shrimp from the hatchery of Charoen Pokphand Foods

Public Company Limited (CPF). This is a registered hatchery in Thailand, certified to GAP and COC

standard. This allows for traceability of the stock back to the source and quality reliable.

When the shrimp larvae truck arrives at the farm, the farm officers check the documents including Aquatic Fry Movement Document (FMD), larvae health examination report, number of shrimp larvae

and water quality in tank (Salinity and temperature). The Farm will adjust water quality in tank to be

suitable for culture ponds by cuirculating water through a pass plastic tube for 1-2 hr. Farm then releases the shrimp fry through a plastic tube to a density of 100,000-150,000 shrimps/rai, depending on the

pond size.

2.1.2.4 Shrimp culture management

Feeding

Piyapon farm uses high-quality feed from a shrimp feed factory certified IFFO, RS and CoC standard

by the International Fishmeal Organization (IFFO). This allows the tracking of the raw fishmeal inputs. The factory is registered with the Department of Animal Feed and Veterinary Products Control Register.

The information on the feed labels includes a list of ingredients, date of manufacture, and expiration

date. This information provides reliable information on feed quality. The feedmill source of Piyapon farmis Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Company Limited (CPF). The Farm regularly orders and

records feed supplies. Feed is ordered regularly to keep the stock fresh.

After shrimp larvae are released into the culture pond, larvae are fed 3 times per day by hand sowing at

07.00 a.m., 11.00 a.m. and 04.00 p.m. (Table 2-4) Then, feeding is switched to an automatic feeder

during the daytime (07.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m.). Farm checks feed residues in the culture pond using dip nets and adjusts the feed amounts accordingly. Farm workers will check 1-2 nets/pond after feeding for

1-2 hr and record results regularly. (Table 2-5).

Table 2-4 Feeding program during shrimp aged 1-20 Days per 100,000 shrimps

Shrimp age (day)

Feed (kg)

Shrimp age (day)

Feed (kg)

Shrimp age (day)

Feed (kg)

Shrimp age (day)

Feed (kg)

1 2.0 6 4.0 11 6.5 16 9.5

2 2.4 7 4.5 12 7.1 17 10.2

3 2.8 8 5.0 13 7.7 18 10.9

4 3.2 9 5.5 14 8.3 19 11.6

5 3.6 10 6.0 15 8.9 20

Table 2-5 Schedule of checking net

Shrimp weight (g) Feed no. Number of feeding Checking net time (After feeding)

1-2 01 3 3

3-6 02 3 3

7-14 3s, 3p, 4s 3 3

>14 4s 3 3


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Water quality management and monitoring

Each shrimp production cycle at Piyapon farm is 2-3 months. Farm start culture shrimp at water depth

of 1.2 m. When the shrimp age is between 25-30 days, the farm will add 5 cm of water depth everyday through the double blue net bag filter to prevent shrimp vectors. If the water level is about 1.4-1.5 m.

Farm will pump water ou for 10 cm through double blue net bag into treatment pond and treatment

canal to maintain water level of culture pond to meet the farm’s standard.

Farm installs 2 types of aerators in each culture pond including 3-5 hp surface aerators (12-16 of Paddle wheel aerators) and 3-5 hp Ejectors (3-4 supercharges). These aerators are managed to have high

efficiency of shrimp farming.

During shrimp farming, the farm checks water quality of culture pond as per Table 2-6. Water monitoring will be conducted by farm’s scientist and environmental analysis public company. The

Farm records and keeps water quality data at the farm office.

Table 2-6 Schedule of water sampling during shrimp stocking

Parameters Frequency Respondent

pH Everyday Farm officer

Nitrite (𝑁𝑂2−)

Once time a week Environmental Analysis

public company

Salinity

Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN)

Calcium (Ca) : Magnesium (Mg)

Vibrio spp.

Water quality control at the farm includes preparing water, culturing and treatment. Piyapon Farm does not use antibiotics or chemicals according to international conventions i.e. Rotterdam Convention,

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and follows WHO water quality standards. The

farm uses chemicals and Probiotic microbes registered with DOF10 (See chemicals document from SOP of Farm)

Monitoring shrimp health

Before shrimp larvae are allowed into the farm, farm will randomly examine the quality of fry by

observing shrimp movement and check the certified documents such as FMD, notification of shrimp

health examination, and SPF / SPR-free certificate. In addition, the farm has requested the hatchery to examine shrimp disease (virus) for the white shrimp according to OIE (2019)11

Farm checks shrimp health daily during shrimp feeding in morning. The workers will observe the feed

consumed, appearance and swimming of the shrimp by using a dip net and observe the shrimp on the

pond edge. If farm finds shrimp sick or dead, this will be recorded and continually checked.

If abnormalities are found, the shrimp will be further examined by the coastal aquaculture research and

development regional center 3 (Suratthani) and farm will follow the shrimp health management plan of

farm.

Farms does not use antibiotics and complies with the WHO list of critically important antimicrobials

for human medicine12 and also the Thai Food and Drug Administration's announcement13 on the

treatment of aquatic diseases. Disease Outbreak prevention and management

Piyapon farm operates shrimp farm under the biosecurity system to reduce and protect against bringing

pathogens into or out of the farm. This includes inspection and cleaning of vehicles, equipment in

culture and harvesting processes, wase management, animal carcase removal and management and

effluent management.

10 https://www.fisheries.go.th/thacert/images/pdf/Notice/2558/ทะเบยนวตถอนตรายชนดท2.pdf

https://www.fisheries.go.th/thacert/images/pdf/Notice/2558/ทะเบยนวตถอนตรายชนดท3.pdf

https://www.fisheries.go.th/thacert/images/Present/ChemicalList1.pdf 11 OIE (2019) OIE-Listed diseases, infections and infestations in force in 2019. Accessed in August 2019 from

https://www.oie.int/animal-health-in-the-world/oie-listed-diseases-2019/ 12 http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s22251en/s22251en.pdf 13 http://food.fda.moph.go.th/law/data/announ_moph/P299.pdf



https://www.fisheries.go.th/thacert/images/Present/ChemicalList1.pdf

https://www.oie.int/animal-health-in-the-world/oie-listed-diseases-2019/

http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s22251en/s22251en.pdf

http://food.fda.moph.go.th/law/data/announ_moph/P299.pdf


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


If the farm suspects that shrimp are sick, the scientist of the farm will transport these shrimps for analysis in laboratory by government agencies including the Coastal aquaculture research and development

regional center 3 (Suratthani). If shrimp disease is found the Farm will immediately inform the

neighboring farms and Surratthani provincial fisheries office. Appropriate disease control and prevention requirements are implemented. At the same time, the farm will close the infected culture

pond and not allow people to pass through this area in order to prevent disease dispersion inside and

outside the farm.

If shrimp health problems is minor, the farm will follow the Farm standard shrimp disease measures including adjustment of feeding, controlling sediment residue, changing water, adding minerals and

chlorine. This approach to controlling shrimp disease varies by type of shrimp disease. In case of shrimp outbreak at the farm, the Farm will use different disease control approaches for small and large shrimps. For small shrimp, farm will shut down the pond by adding a concentration of 25-30

ppm of chlorine and then leave for 14 days to decompose. With large shrimp, farm will immediately

harvest shrimp to sell (emergency case). In this case the Farm will add chlorine 2-5 kg/rai before

harvesting for a day with aerators turned on. Then, more chlorine will be added 2-3 hours before harvesting. When shrimp harvesting is finished, the remaining sick or dead shrimp will be sent to a

sanitary landfill on the farm. The water will be treated with a chlorine concentration of 25-30 ppm and

then the pond is shutdown for 14 days for disinfection.

Ater shrimp pond is shut down it will have contaminated water and sediment residue in the pond. The

Farm then samples the water and sends to the Coastal aquaculture research and development regional

center 3 (Suratthani). If the results show that there is shrimp disease. The Farm will turn on aerators before pumping the water into the sedimentation canal. The remains of the sick or dead shrimp from

the infection will be sprinkled with lime then landfilled within the farm at least 50 cm away from the

pond edge. The farm workers will clean and disinfect the equipment used in the pond with chlorine 30

ppm.

2.1.2.5 Shrimp harvesting

All Shrimp production of Piyapon farm is sold directly to Thai Union Group and others. Shrimp will be

harvested by an external skilled contractor that has passed the GMP standard. Farm provides all needed

harvesting equipment, along with an inspector to observe the harvesting process, including, weighing

and size sorting, and transporting to processing plant.

Before working, Farm’s inspector will screen the contractor’s workers including ID card, work permit

for foreign worker, PPE, and provide training about occupational health and safety in shrimp harvesting

process.

Piyapon farm uses total harvesting method. Farm will pump water out through the net filter and the

workers will lay the trawl net for about 20 minutes to decrease shrimp stress. Then, farm will quickly

transport shrimp to the sorting shelter inside farm and put shrimp in cold water 4 oC. Workers check the

size and weight of shrimps, and pack shrimp with ice to keep them fresh for delivery to the factory.

2.1.2.6 Waste management

Sediment from culture pond

After shrimp harvesting, the farm pumps the sludge out of culture pond into sludge pond. Sludge from

treatment pond will also be pumped into the sludge pond. It was estimated that in an earthen pond or partial PE pond approximately 300 kg/ton shrimp sludge are produced. For a 100% PE pond

approximately 180 kg/ton shrimp sludge is generated (Na Nakorn, Chevakidakan, & Danterravanich,

2017)14. It is estimated that Piyapon farm will generate about 105 tons of sediment at full shrimp production of 350 tons/year.

14 Amonpak Na nakorn, Panalee Chevakidakan and Somtip Danteravanich. (2017). Environmental impact of white shrimp

culture during 2012-2013 at Bandon Bay, Surat Thani Province: A case study investigating farm size. Agriculture and Natural Resources, 51, 109-116. doi:10.1016/j.anres.2016.08.007


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


The Farm has 3 sludge ponds, 15.8 rai of total area, 2 m of depth, 50,560 m3 of capacity. It is estimated

the sludge pond can receive sludge for more than 480 years. Thus, Farm does not move sludge outside

the farm but farm plans to use sludge within the farm for pond edge and roads. If farm would like to

move sediment off farm, the Farm will be required to examine soil quality of sediment in area and

inform local government and communities before moving. This is to ensure that there is no impact

caused.

Figure 2-9 Sludge pond Solidwaste management

The garbage or solid waste is classified into 3 groups. The Farm provides lid-covered bins and solid

waste management in the farm as follows:

(1) General waste is natural waste and household waste including compostable and Non-compostable waste (ie. scraps of wood, plant and animal carcasses (not shrimp), foam

containers, plastic bags, and nets/grills). Farm will deposit compostable waste for fertilizer.

Non-compostable waste will be collected for deposal by Suratthani municipality. (2) Recyclable waste such as paper, plastic, glass, metal, will be sorted and collected for sale to

local waste recycle shops.

(3) Hazardous waste i.e., chemical containers, batteries, light bulbs, oil contaminated material,

will be collected in specific areas. This is safe for the farm’s workers and no leachate will pass outside these specific areas. When the farm has more hazardous waste collected, it will

be transported to disposal by Suratthani municipality.

Figure 2-10 Waste collection point of the farm

2.1.2.7 Feed and chemical storage management Piyapon farm has the feed and chemical store. Farm orders shrimp feed and chemical for use day by

day. There is no feed and chemicals storage room in the farm area. The feed bags and chemicals are

placed on wood pallet in the clean area and and well ventilated to maintain feed and chemical quality.

Figure 2-11 Feed store of the farm


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


2.1.2.8 Docement and record keeping

Piyapon farm has been legally registered as a shrimp farm with DOF (Registration no. is 8401000756).

The farm is also certified to GAP standard with the Provincial fisheries Department (GAP certificate no. is 1501-01-55-04006). (ANNEX 5)

The Farm keeps important documents for shrimp movement including aquatic animal fry movement

document (FMD), aquatic animal movement document (MD), monitoring reports such as health

examination report for seeds, water quality and pesticide residue detection report. The farm also records

and maintains information on farm management practices such as the number of shrimp released into

the culture pond, daily water quality measurement records, daily shrimp health examination report, feed

procurement report, feed amount (used and remaining), chemical use (amount, time period), on-farm energy consumption records (Electricity and fuel), internal meeting log and meeting reports with the

community, complaint log and resolved complaints records. The Farm keeps these records and reports

for verification for at least 12 months.

The Farm has announced and implemented the policy on environmentally friendly shrimp culture,

community participation, employment and work policy with human rights principles, and occupational

health and safety in workplace. The farm has developed a Work Instruction (WI) as the standard manual of work along with the biosecurity system which covers the management of shrimp escape. All

documents can be presented upon request.

2.2 Natural resource and environmental baseline Piyapon farm is in Lee Led Sub-district, Phunphin District, Suratthani province. The farm is in a

saltwater/brackish ecosystem. This study has divided natural resources and environment issues into 6

major parts, including weather, soil resources, water resources, coastal resources, land use and biological resources.

2.2.1 Weather and air quality

Suratthani province is on the east side of southern Thailand and the weather has 2 seasons:

(1) Summer season is during February to April, which is the end of monsoon. The weather is hot and humid. (2) Rainy season is during May to January, influenced by northeast monsoon from South china

sea and Southwest passes through Indian Ocean. This season has cooler weather and heavy rain. From

the yearly average weather statistics for the 30 years period (1981-2010), Suratthani province has an average temperature of 26.9 ˚C and an average rainfall of approximately 1,519.8 millimeters per year

(Meteorological Department, 2018)15.The statistics for the 67-year period (1951-2017) at Suratthani

meteorological station show that the highest and lowest temperature measured was 39.2 and 15.0 ˚C respectively. While the highest rainfall of approximately 457.1 mm./day was in November 1964.

According to storm statistics over a 68-year period (1951-2018), there was 9 storms from the Gulf of

Thailand that passed through Suratthani province including 6 Depression Storms (in 1960, 1962, 1977,

1983, 1999, 2004) and 3 Tropical storms (in 1970, 1972, 1992). Most of the storms occurred in

November and caused flooding in some areas. (Meteorological Department, 2019)16

According to the Air Quality Situation Report, measured at Regional Environment Office 14

(Suratthani) during 2015-2020, it was found that the air quality of Suratthani is good to very good. The average ozone levels over an 8-hour period exceeds the standard in some years (Pollution Control

Department, 2020)17.

2.2.2 Soil resource and quality

From Figure 2-12, Piyapon farm is on soil group No. 13. This soil series originated from marine sediment, which is usually found on the low coastal plain and estuary. Upper soil is black gray with

brown mottles. Lower soil is clay, dark gray or green gray with high Sulphur. The soil properties have

15 Meteorological Department (2017) Meteorologycal for agriculture in Suratthani province

http://www.arcims.tmd.go.th/DailyDATA/Agromettoknow/SS/อตนยมวทยานารเพอการเกษตรจงหวดสราษฎรธาน.pdf 16 Meteorological Department (2019) Climate data of Surattthani province http://climate.tmd.go.th. 17 PCD (2020) Thailand's air quality and situation reports. http://air4thai.pcd.go.th/webV2/download.php

http://air4thai.pcd.go.th/webV2/download.php


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


poor drainage and medium to high soil quality. The soil reaction is moderately acid to moderately base. The problem of this soil group is the salinity levels with Sulphur, high Hydrogen Sulfide that damages

plants (LDD, 2015)18. The soil is degraded soil and not suitable for plantation, but good for mangrove

forests and aquaculture ponds (Burea of soil resource survey and landuse plan, 2005).19

According to the soil quality measured surrounding Piyapon farm in October and December 2020, the

soil of oil palm plantation south and east of the farm is not saline soil. Soil quality at south of the farm

is 0.6 ppt of salinity and 1,159 µmhos/cm of Electrical Conductivity (EC). While soil quality at east of

the farm is 0.05 ppt of salinity and 306 µmhos/cm of Electrical Conductivity (EC). Thus, the soil quality

is not saline and no effect to plants.20

Source: Modified from soil database by Land Development Department (2015) Figure 2-12 Soil group surrounding Piyapon farm

2.2.3 Water resource and quality

2.2.3.1 Surface water Piyapon farm is located in Lee Led Sub-dsitrict, a Sub-district of the coastal area of Gulf of Thailand

(Ao Ban Don). The main surface water source of Lee led Sub-disrict includes Phunphin river, Rang

canal, Lee Led canal, Ko canal, Bang Huei So and Bang Po canal. Most of the aquaculture farms in Lee Led Sub-district use seawater/brackish Bang Po canal and Ko canal and discharge water into these

canals. (Figure 2-13). Surrounding the farm there are no freshwater sources, but there are some

man-made lagoons that receive rainwater for plantations.

Ko canal – This canal is a saltwater/brackish canal, which flows north of Piyapon farm and 14 m away

from the farm. Ko canal is connected to Lee Led canal and Bang So canal to disperse water to other

areas in Lee Led Sub-district. Most of the farmers use seawater from this canal for aquacuture farming

and perennial plantation. West of the farm has a public canal connected to Ko canal, which is 7 m away from the farm. Piyapon farm uses seawater and discharges effluent into this canal.

Bang Po canal – A natural canal stretches along boundary of Tha Khoei and Lee Led Sub-district, with

shrimp ponds along both sides of the canal. At the entrance to the canal there is a complete mangrove forest and the Education Center for the mangrove forest resource and the Crab Sesarma conservation

area. The villagers in Moo. 9 (Bang Po Village) and Moo 4 (Huay Sap Village) indicated that the water

quality in Khlong Bang Pho was of poor quality due to the discharge of effluent and sludge from shrimp

farms, wood factories and livestock farms (chickens). Bang Po canal is about 2.3 km away from Piyapon farm. The farm does not use and or discharge water into this canal.

18 Land Development Department (2015) The information of Soil resource in Thailand. http://gisinfo.ldd.go.th/ 19 Bureau of soil resource survey and landuse plan (2005) Soil types, Land Development Department, Ministry of

Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok. 20 FAO (2020) The soil sainity classes and crop growth. http://www.fao.org/3/x5871e/x5871e04.htm

http://gisinfo.ldd.go.th/

http://www.fao.org/3/x5871e/x5871e04.htm


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


According to interviews with local government and communities in Lee Led Sub-district in 2020, it

was found that the farmers use mainly water of Ko canal for aquaculture farming (including shrimp,

Catfish, Tilapia, Asian seabass and Giant mud crab aquaculture). In the last 10 years, the water quality

of Ko canal has deteriorated and aquatic animals have decreased due to the increase in Giant tiger prawn farming. Currenty, the water quality is better, and the local fisherman can catch more fish. The number

of aquaculture farms has decreased and the community has released aquatic animals into natural canals

in Lee Led Sub-district regularly. Piyapon farm has had complaints about effulent and sludge overflow

to public canal in 2018. The treatment canal has dense grass and sometime obstructs water flow. Farm

has solved this issue by digging and cleaning the treatment canal every year.

Figure 2-13 Surface water resource in Lee Led Sub-district The Department of Water Resource (2018)21 reported that the satellite image during 2005-2016 by

GISDA, shows that most of the coastal area of Lee Led Sub-district was considered a low-risk flood

area (i.e., has flooded 1-4 times in the past 12 years). (Figure 2-14) According to information and the

news on flood events since 1989 until now22, it was found that in 2011, many districts of Suratthani province were seriously flooded. The Phunphin district had flooded areas covering 16 Sub-districts

(includes Tha Sathon, Tha Kham, Hua Toei, Sri Wichai, Krood, Maluan, Bangngon, Tha Rong Chang,

Tapan, Lee Led, Khao Hua Khwai, Bang Duean, Bang Maduea, Phunphin, Nam Rob and Nong Sai)

and Tha Chang District had 6 Sub-districts flooded (Tha Chang, Sawiat, Tha Khoei, Pak Chalui, Khao Than and Khlong Sai). This flooding resulted in damage to agricultural areas, aquacultural ponds and

road. Lee Led SAO. (2011)23 reported that the area of Moo. 4 (Huay Sap Village) in Lee Led Sub-

district was the most severely flooded. From interviews with Lee Led SAO., it was found that many areas in Lee Led Sub-district are flash flooded every year. In particular, the area nearby the natural

canals is usually flash flooded in December. This area is a lowland and influenced by the high tides

through the natural canal at this time of year.

21 Land Development Department (2018) Repetitive Flooding Area of Thailand in 10 years period. Access in June 2019 from http://irw101.ldd.go.th/images/4_Warning/4_2_FloodWarning1/4_2_4_RepetitiveFlooding/fl_th2018.jpg 22 Climatological Center (2019) Report of natural disasters in the country. Meteorological Department accessed June 2019

from http://www.thaiwater.net/web/index.php/flood-history.html 23 Lee Led SAO. (2011) Information of flooded area in Lee Led Sub-district http://www.leeled.go.th/detail.php?id=282

http://irw101.ldd.go.th/images/4_Warning/4_2_FloodWarning1/4_2_4_RepetitiveFlooding/fl_th2018.jpg

http://www.leeled.go.th/detail.php?id=282


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Source: Modified from the flood risk area by Water resource regional office 10, Department of Water Resource

Figure 2-14 Flood risk area in Lee Led Sub-district From the interviews with the Director of Phunphin District Fisheries Office, the shrimp farms in coastal

Sub-district of Phunphin District were severely flooded in 2011. The villagers and farm owner interviews noted that the area along Ko canal was flash flooded in 2011. The house in northwest of the

farm was flooded for a week, with 30-40 cm of water level. While the owner of Piyapon farm said that

the ponds of farm also flash flooded. The south farm area was flooded about 1 m (Figure 2-15). After that these floods the farm regulary monitors the water level of natural canals, has improved the flood

emergency response plan, and use the sludge from the farm to increase the pond edge height. The Farm

has not been flooded since 2011.

Figure 2-15 Flooded area surrounding the farm

2.2.3.2 Groundwater

Artesian wells in Lee Led Sub-district are found within sedimentary sandstones and many artesian wells

are located in groundwater potential level B3 and G2. The Department of Groundwater Resources

(2015)24 reported that some of artesian wells on the sedimentary sandstones in Suratthani province had

24 Department of Groundwater Resources (2015) The situation of groundwater in Thailand in 2015: quarter 1st, Accesss on

January 2020 from http://www.agriinfo.doae.go.th/year58/diaster/dgr_report.pdf.

http://www.agriinfo.doae.go.th/year58/diaster/dgr_report.pdf


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


poor water quality (Brackish or salty water) because of seawater encroachment. The communities in Lee Led Sub-district use water supply from Suratthani provincial waterworks authority and Domestic

water Supply.

Source: Modified from Groundwater Management Information System, Department of Groundwater Resource.

Figure 2-16 Artesian well within 1 km from the Piyapon farm The artesian well database from the Department of Groundwater Resources (2011)25 (Figure 2-16), it was found that in a radius within 1 km from Piyapon farm, there is 1 artesian well at Khlong Ko

temple (Artesian well No. 5506003). This artesian well is about 410 m away from the farm and

operating now. The artesian well at Khlong Ko temple is located on G2 (water supply rate more than 20 m3/hr and a TDS more than 1,500 mg/l). According to groundwater quality of Khlong Ko temple in

October 2020, it was found that water quality is good (freshwater). Results showed salinity at 0.5 ppt

and Electrical Conductivity (EC) at 979 µmhos/cm. The salinity of groundwater may be influenced by the tide and the aquaculture ponds nearby the Khlong Ko temple. Within the farm area has a shallow

well in south of the farm area, 8 m of well depth and poor water quality (brackish).26 The farm only

uses water of shallow well for consumption. Thus, Piyapon farm has no effect to artesian well at Khlong

Ko temple but may affect to water quality change of shallow well.

2.2.3.3 Seawater and shoreline

Lee Led Sub-district is located on the coastal area of the Gulf of Thailand (Ao Ban Don). Piyapon

farmis about 3.4 km away from the coast with mangrove forests and shrimp ponds providing a buffer

area. Ao Ban Don is connected to many rivers and natural canals and there is the large cockle farming

area of Suratthani province. A seawater quality report in 2019 on coastal waters of Suratthani province in 2019 reported that the water quality at the mouth of Tha khoei canal (Ao Ban Don) is moderate. In

the past 5 years (2015-2019), the trend of seawater quality at mouth of Tha khoei canal is classified as

good (Regional Environment Office 14 (Suratthani).27

Coastal erosion, DMCR (2018) 28 reported that in 2018, Suratthani province had coastal erosion

covering 3 Sub-districts including Tha Chana, Chollakhram and Don Sak. The shoreline in Lee Led

Sub-district is stable. The coastal situation reports in past 55 years (1952-2008), found that the coastline

25 Department of Groundwater Resource (2015) Groundwater Management Information System Retrieved from:

http://gmis.longdo.com/home 26 Notification of Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment issued determinated ground water zone and depth of

ground water well in 2011, Government Gazette, Volume 129, Special Episode 21NGOR, dated 23 January 2012. 27 Regional Environment Office 1 4 ( Suratthani) (2 0 1 9) Environmental situation report of east southern in 2019.

http://www.mnre.go.th/reo14/th/index 28 DMCR (2018) Coastal eroded situation in Suratthani province http://km.dmcr.go.th/th/c_1/s_398

http://gmis.longdo.com/home

http://www.mnre.go.th/reo14/th/index

http://km.dmcr.go.th/th/c_1/s_398


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


of Lee led Sub-district was considered a low risk of erosion (erosion rate less than 1 m/year). Due to there is now mangrove forests along the coast to prevent coastal erosion. If considering the worst-case

situation in the area, the shores are at risk of being eroded at a rate of more than 5 m/year. If that was

the case, the coastal areas of Piyapon Farm has a low chance of being eroded. The buffer area between

farm and the coast can support potential erosion for more than 680 years. (Figure 2-17)

Source: DMCR (2019) Central Database System and Data Standard for Marine and Coastal Resources.

Figure 2-17 Coastal eroded in Suratthani province For the sea tidal flood risk, Piyapon farm is located near Ko canal and influenced by the tides along the

natural canal. According to the sea level recorded at Ko Prab station, Suratthani over the past 25 years

(1995-2019) it is found that the highest sea level of Suratthani province was 2.35 m MSL in 2016 (Hydrographic Department, 2020) 29.The elevation of Piyapon farmusing Google API (Figure 2-18), it

was found that the farm has 4-9 m MLS of elevation and the lowest point of farm is near the public road

in south of the farm area. While the adjacent area of the farm is approximately 6-9 m MLS. The farm and adjacent area near Ko canal were flash flooded in 2011 as discussed in 2.2.3.1. But there has not

been flooding after 2011. Therefore, the farm has a low flooding risk.

Figure 2-18 Elevation (m. MSL) Of Piyapon farm

29 Department of Marine (2020) Seawater level at water station of Hydrographic Department (Document - No public)


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


2.2.4 Landuse

The landuse information in Lee Led Sub-district by LDD (2019)30, showed that in 2000, most of landuse

was paddy field, fruit trees and aquaculture ponds. The mangrove forest spread along the coastline. The

land of Piyapon farm was previously used for aquaculture ponds and Coconut plantation. In 2018, most

of landuse have changed to Oilpalm plantation. While Piyapon farm remains the same type of landuse, that is aquaculture pond and some Coconut plantation changed to shrimp pond. Due to soil properties

being saline soils and not suitable for plantations. (Figure 2-19)

Source: LDD (2019)

Figure 2-19 Landuse surrounding Piyapon farm According to the farm survey in October 2020 (Figure 2-20), it was found that surrounding Piyapon

farm is Litopenaeus vannamei shrimp ponds, Oilpalm plantation and natural canal (Ko canal).

Surrounding the farm is the road and canal to provide a buffer area between the farm and adjacent area.

The detail of adjacent area of the farm is as follows; Northwest of the farm is pond edge and wilderness

providing a buffer area between farm and Ko canal. North and south of the farm is a treatment canal

and public road between the farm and oilpalm plantation. East and west of the farm is treatment canal

and natural canal between the farm and other shrimp farm.

(a) Northwest (Ko canal) (b) North (Oilpalm plantation) (c) South (Oilpalm plantation)

Figure 2-20 Adjacent area of Piyapon farm

2.2.5 Biological resources and diversity

Suratthani province has a forest area of about 2,353,412 rai, representing 28.79% of the total provincial

area (Forest Land Management Office, 2018) 31 . There are mangrove forests (47,829.71 Rai),

representing 0.59% of the total provincial area (DMCR, 2018) 32 . During 2015-2017, Suratthani

province has continuously increased the size of forest and mangrove areas.

30 LDD (2012) Landuse in 2000 and 2018 [Electronic files – Not public] 31 Forest Land Management Office (2018) The forest recorded in Satun province

http://forestinfo.forest.go.th/Content/file/stat2561/Table%202.pdf 32 DMCR (2018) Marine and Coastal resource in Suratthani province. Accessed on January 2020 from

https://www.dmcr.go.th/detailLib/3758

http://forestinfo.forest.go.th/Content/file/stat2561/Table%202.pdf



B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Piyapon farm is located on the coastal plain of the Gulf of Thailand, Suratthani. The forests and protected areas within 50 km-radius from the farm are shown in Figure 2-21. Considering the risk to

forest resources the farm is far away from the forest and protected areas and there is no chance to

encroach on these forest areas. The farm uses seawater and discharges effluent into the natural canal. This may affect mangrove forest resources. Thus, this section will discuss the terrestrial and mangrove

forest areas nearest the farm, including Tha Khoei-Khlong Sai-Maluan and Bangngon forest and Nam

Khem Tha Chang Mangrove forest. We will also discuss details of the protected areas, including

Ao Ban Don Wetland and Khao Tha Phet Non-hunting area.

Figure 2-21 Protected areas within 50 km radius from Piyapon farm

2.2.5.1 Forest and wildlife

Tha Khoei, Khlong Sai, Ma Luan and Bang Ngon forest33 – There area is 12.3 km west of Piyapon

farm. This area was declared a national conserved forest in B.E. 2521 (1978), with an area 145,937.5 rai (23,350 hectares). The area covers in Tha Khoei and Klong Sai Sub-district, Tha Chang District and

Ma Luan and Bang Ngon Sub-district, Phunphin District, Suratthani province. There is Tropical rain

forest with several plants species include large perennials, medium sized perennials and economic wood

(et. Cotylelobium lanceolatum Craib, Hopea sp. and Dipterocarpus sp.), undergrowth plants, shrubs, Climber and Palms. Wildlife species found include (et. Hylobatidae, Macaca spp., Colobinae, Sus

scrofa and Macaca arctoides), and Birds (et. Pycnonotidae, Dicrurus annectans, Buceros bicornis,

Argusianus argus, Irena puella and Gallus gallus), gibbons and reptiles.

33 Ministerial Regulation No. 588, B.E. 2516 issue by National Reserved Forest Act, B.E. 2507 prescribing of Tha Khoei,

Khlong Sai, Ma Luan and Bang Ngon Forest in Tha Khoei and Klong Sai Sub-district, Tha Chang District and Ma Luan and Bang Ngon Sub-district, Phunphin District, Suratthani province was the National Reserved Forest, Government Gazette,

Volume 90, Special Episode 140, dated 9 November 1973.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Khao Tha Phet Non-hunting area34 - Khao Tha Phet forest is located in Dan Makham Tia Sub-district, Mueang District, Suratthani province and was declared a Non-hunting area in B.E. 2520 (1977), with

area of 2,906 rai (464,96 hectares). The area includes 8 km of mountains and forest composed of 1) Hill

Evergreen Forest which is approximately 75% of total forest area and plant species found including (et. Cotylelobium lanceolatum, Hopea ferrea Laness, Dipterocarpus alatus Roxb.ex. G.Don and

Cinnamomum parthenoxylon) and 2) Mixed Deciduous Forest which is 25% of total forest area and

plant species including (et. Irvingia malayana, Nephelium hypoleucum, Artocarpus lacucha and

Palaquium obovatum), with grasslands that spread along the foothills.

The common animal species found include Sus scrofa, Tragulus javanicus, Gallus gallus, Indian small

civet, Paradoxurus, Herpestidae, Petaurista, Giant Gourami, Monkey, Colobines, Bengal monitor,

Gliding lizards, snake and birds (et. Copsychus malabaricus, Treron curvirostra, Dicruridae,

Caprimulgus sp., Picidae, Centropus, Nectariniidae). The important species include Panthera tigris,

Tragulus napu, Arborophila cambodiana, Berenicornis comatus, Aceros nipalensis, Rhyticeros

subruficollis, Buceros rhinoceros, Otus rufescens, Otus sagittatus, Dinopium rafflesia, Picus

xanthopygaeus, Arborophila charltonii, Aceros corrugatus, Anthracoceros malayanus, Bubo

coromandus, Pycnonotus melanoleucos, Pycnonotus zeylanicus, Dendrocopos hyperythrus and

Gecinulus grantia. The Khao Tha Phet Non-hunting area is located 14.9 km southeast of Piyapon farm

and the farm has no effect on this area.

2.2.5.2 Mangrove forest and marine animals

Tha Chang Mangrove forest35 – Piyapon farm is located 3.2 km. south of Tha Chang Mangrove forest.

This area was declared a national conserved forest in B.E. 2508 (1965) with an area of 8,343 rai

(1,334.88 hectares). There is forest cover in Tha Chang, Tha Khoei, Khao Than and Khlong Sai Sub-

district, Tha Chang District, Suratthani province. Plant species found include (et. Rhizophora apiculata Blume, Rhizophora mucronata Poir, Vigna mungo, Xylocarpus granatum, Xylocarpus moluccensis,

Cerbera odollam Gaertn, Barringtonia asiatica, Wollastonia biflora (L.) DC., Derris trifoliata Lour,

Planchonella obovata (R.Br.) Pierre, Pluchea indica, Ceriops decandra (Griff.) Ding Hou),

Brownlowia tersa (L.) Kosterm), Ceriops tagal (Perr.) C.B.Rob, Avicennia officinalis, Kandelia candel, Sonneratia caseolaris, Avicennia alba). Animal species found include (et. Macaca fascicularis and

Penaeus monodon, Fenneropenaeus merguiensis, Sesarma, Heliacus variegatus, Oxudercinae, Chanos

chanos, Scatophagus argus Linnaeus, Ardeidae, Nycticorax nycticorax).

Ao Ban Don Wetland36

– Ao Ban Don Wetland is 3.4 km away from Piyapon farm. This area was

declared an international wetland. The area covers 6 districts including: Chaiya, Tha Chang, Phun Phin,

Mueang, Kanchanadit and Don Suk. Ao Ban Don is a 1-2 km wide mud flat and mangrove area about 2 km away from the aquaculture ponds. Ao Ban Don receives freshwater from Ta Pi river and natural

canals in Suratthani province. The water from Tha Thong canal, Kadae canal and Ram canal in Plaiwas

Sub-district flows into Ao Ban Don. The plants found include more than 26 species. Common species

found include Avicennia officinalis, A. alba, A. marina, Sonneratia caseolaris, S. ovata, Rhizophora mucronate, R. apiculate and Bruguiera cylindrica. Birds found include more than 75 species of

Waterfowl, 28 species of shorebirds, 57 species of Resident birds (et. Butorides striatus, Ixobrychus

sinensis, Turnix suscitator and Halcyon capensis), 18 species of Migratory birds (et. Pluvialis fulva, Charadrius mongolus and Alcedo atthis). Fish (50 species) are found in the mangrove forests. Economic

fish species include Chanos chanos and Lates calcarifer.

According to the information of mangrove forest area in Lee Led Sub-district, Phunphin District,

Suratthanai province (DMCR, 2018)37, showed that Ao Ban Don has dense mangrove forest along the

34 Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives prescribing of Khao Tha Phet forest in Dan Makham Tia Sub-district, Mueang

District, Suratthani province was a Non-hunting area issue by Wild Animal Reservation and Protection Act, B.E. 2503., Government Gazette, Volume 94, Special Episode 68, dated 26 July 1977.

35 Ministerial Regulation No. 58, B.E. 2508 issue by National Reserved Forest Act, B.E. 2507 prescribing of Tha Chang Mangrove Forest in Tha Chang, Tha Khoei, Khao Than and Klong Sai Sub-district, Tha Chang District, Suratthani province was the National Reserved Forest, Government Gazette, Volume 82, Special Episode 114, dated 31 December 1965.

36 ONEP (2020) Wetland in Thaland http://wetlands.onep.go.th/wetland/map 37 DMCR (2018) Mangrove forest situation in Suratthani province. Accessed from

https://km.dmcr.go.th/th/c_1/s_424/d_19122

http://wetlands.onep.go.th/wetland/map


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


coastline. The mangrove forest area as part of the cabinet resolution in 2000 covers approximately 7,519.16 rai and the remaining mangrove forest area in 2014 is approximately 7,152.2 rai. The

mangrove forest survey surrounding the Piyapon farm (Figure 2-22), found that Piyapon farm is not

located in the mangrove forest area as per the cabinet resolution in 2000 of Thailand. The farm is 2.6 km away from the remaining mangrove forest area. Thus, Piyapon farm does not change the mangrove

forest area.

Source: Modified from the report of marine and coastal resource in Suratthani province, DMCR (2018)

Figure 2-22 Mangrove forest area in Lee Led Sub-distict DMCR (2018)38 surveyed the mangroves in Suratthani province in the area of Ta Krop sub district,

Phum Riang Subdistrict, Lamet Subdistrict, Khao Than Subdistrict, Tha Chang Subdistrict, Tha Khoei

Subdistrict, Don Sak Subdistrict, Chai Khram Subdistrict, Lee Led subdistrct, Bang Chana Subdistrict, Khlong Chanak Subdistrict, Bang Kung Thani Sub-district And Tha Thong Mai Sub-district, which is

in the Ao Ban Don junction area. Plants in the mangrove forest are diverse. There is at least 10 Families,

14 Genus, and 24 Species with a total density of 192.26 tree/rai. The most common species is Rhizophoraceae. The highest density species are Rhizophora apiculata, 36.00 tree/rai followed by

R. mucronata and Bruguiera cylindrica with a total density of 35.39 and 24.96 tree/rai respectively.

Shannon-Wiener diversity index; (H’) was 2.337. The highest Important Value Index (IVI) is

Rhizophora apiculata 32.13 followed by Rhizophora mucronata and Bruguiera cylindrica equal to 30.57 and 30.49 respectively. These perennials are classified as restricted wood. Logging requires

permission from government agencies.

The diversity of organisms in the mangrove forest areas includes a total of 8 Families, 8 Genus, and 9 Species with total density of 7.43 inds/m2. The most common species is Red mangrove shell with a

total density of 2.29 inds/m2 followed by Orange-claw marsh crab with total density of 1.96 inds/m2.

In addition, other types were also found, including Brotia sp., Periwinkles shell, Yellow lipped cassidula and Polychaeta. Seabirds found include 11 Orders, 18 Families, and 29 Species. The most common

birds are Anastomus oscitans, Microcarbo niger, and Himantopus himantopus respectively. Economic

fish found include 3 families, and 3 species such as Mugilidae family including Grey mullet,

Istiophoridae family including Sailfish and Ambassidae family including Ponyfish.

38 DMCR (2018) Marine and coastal resource in Suratthani province in 2018. Access on August 2019 from




B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


The diversity of organisms in the mangrove forest areas includes a total of 8 Families, 8 Genus, and 9 Species with total density of 7.43 inds/m2. The most common species is Red mangrove shell with a

total density of 2.29 inds/m2 followed by Orange-claw marsh crab with total density of 1.96 inds/m2.

In addition, other types were also found, including Brotia sp., Periwinkles shell, Yellow lipped cassidula and Polychaeta. Seabirds found include 11 Orders, 18 Families, and 29 Species. The most common

birds are Anastomus oscitans, Microcarbo niger, and Himantopus himantopus respectively. Economic

fish found include 3 families, and 3 species such as Mugilidae family including Grey mullet,

Istiophoridae family including Sailfish and Ambassidae family including Ponyfish.

Nikom Laaongsiriwong (1997)22 surveyed seawater quality and plant plankton at Ao Ban Don, Tha

Thong canal and Ram canal in Suratthani province during 1992-1994 and found that Ram canal has

poorer water quality than Tha Thong canal and Ao Ban Don. The plankton population found included 46 genus in Ao Ban Don, 55 genus in Ram canal and 52 genus in Tha Thong canal. The most Plankton

abundant genus was Trichodesmium. While the diversity index of Ao Ban Don, Ram canal and Tha

Thong canal was 1.037, 0.952 and 0.303 respectively.

Busaya Plong-On et., al. (2016)39 studied the distribution of phytoplankton and water quality in coastal aquaculture areas in Ban Don Bay, Suratthani. All 83 phytoplankton species were found. The average

summer density was 5 . 6 x106 unit/m3. Important phytoplankton include: Rhizosolenia pungens,

Pleurosigma spp., Nitzschia spp., Rhizosolenia formosa and Surirella spp. In the rainy season the average density was 8.0 x 106 unit/m3. Important phytoplankton are Surirella spp., Skeletonema spp.,

Coscinodiscus spp., Pleurosigma spp. and Nitzschia spp. The diversity index is in the range

1 . 2 7 9 -2 . 13 5 and most of the seawater quality is higher than the level specified by the coastal water quality standard for aquaculture.

Natthawadee Nokket et., al. (2008)40 studied marine benthos in seagrass beds at Khlong Yai Phum

Reang of Ban Don Bay, Suratthani, which is a community area. There is a lot of floating fish cage

culture in this area also. Benthic animals found included 11 species of seagrass in abundance of 733 inds/m2. The most prevalent shellfish groups are Potamididae, Terebridae and Littorinidae. Sea worm

groups include the highest number of species including Ampharetidae, Nereidae, Maldanidae and

Fiabelligeridae.

Rare marine animals - DMCR (2018)41 reported that Suratthani has important rare marine animals

including Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin (Sousa chinensis), which is common in Don Sak district

and nearby areas. There appears to be a slight increase in the population of dolphins. Whale shark is

most common around Ko Tao and Mu Ko Ang Thong. Dead Whale sharks have not been found. However, the number of dead sea turtles found has increased. Other whales have been identified. These

include species such as Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera brydei), and the False Killer Whale (Pseudorca

crassidens), (Table 2-7).

Table 2-7 Species and number of rare animals found along the coast in Suratthani province

Common name Scientific name

Data source

Dead body Naturally In

community

1. Green Turtle Chelonia mydas 46

2. Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata 5

3. Olive Ridley Lepidochelys olivacea 1

4. Indo-Pacific Finless Porpoise Neophocaena phocaenoides

28 ≥30

5. Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin Sousa chinensis 13 ≥ 200

39 Bussaya Plongon et., al (2016) Phytoplankton Distribution and Water Qualities in Coastal Aquaculture Area at Bandon

Bay, Surat Thani Province http://tujournals.tu.ac.th/tstj/detailart.aspx?ArticleID=4795 40 Natthawadee Nokkate et., al. (2008) Macrofauna in Seagrass beds at Ban Don Bay Suratthani Province, Thailand. Access from https://www.dmcr.go.th/detailLib/313 41 Department of Marine and Coastal resources (2018) Situation of rare marine animal report in 2018. Access from

https://dmcrth.dmcr.go.th/attachment/dw/download.php?WP=rUqjMT02qmIZG22DM7y04TyerPMjAJ04qmIZZz1CM5O0hJatrTDo7o3Q

http://tujournals.tu.ac.th/tstj/detailart.aspx?ArticleID=4795





B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Common name Scientific name

Data source

Dead body Naturally In

community 6. Irrawaddy Dolphin Orcaella brevirostris 15 ≥ 30

7. Common Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus

≥ 15

8. Bryde's Whale Balaenoptera edeni

≥ 3 ≥ 1

9. False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens

≥ 40

10. Baleen whales Balaenoptera sp. 2

≥ 5

11. Dugong Dugong dugon

≥ 3

12. Whale shark Rhincodon typus

≥ 12 ≥ 54

Source: Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (2018)

According to interviews with stakeholders surrounding Piyapon farm, it was found that some villagers have found Irrawaddy dolphin (29%) and Dugong (12%). The data of threatened species surveyed in

Thailand and globally are limited and not clearly classify the threatened species population. According

to reviews population of rare marine animal in Suratthani province during 2014-2017, found 15-20 individuals of Dogongs in Ao Don SaK, Suratthani and Ao Khanom, Nakhonsithammarat. 42

Irrawaddy dolphin (16 individuals) were found at Ao Don Sak, Suratthani during 2012-2015.

Coral - The shoreline of Ao Ban Don has no coral because this area receives sediment from Ta Pi River. However shallow water coral was found at Mu Ko Angthong National Marine Park. This

area is less affected from sediment of Ta Pi River.

Seagrass – seagrass in Suratthani province is found in the areas of Ao Ban Don, Ko Pha Ngan, Ko Tao

and Ko Samui, with a total area of 1 7 ,8 2 0 rai. DMCR reported on a seagrass survey at Ban Don Bay (Laem Pho, Laem Sai, Ban Lang, Tha Chang, Phunphin and Ban Bang Chana) in 2 0 1 5 . The survey

found two species of seagrass, which are Halophila beccarii and Halophila ovalis in good condition, but

the water is turbid because freshwater flows into the sea in this area. Piyapon farm is about 3.9 km away from the seagrass beds in Ao Ban Don and the farm has water treatment before discharge to

environment. Thus, Piyapon farm may have low affect to seagrass beds. (Figure 2-23)

Figure 2-23 Seagrass beds in Ao Ban Don, Suratthani province 2.2.5.3 Flora and Fauna found in the farm and surrounding the farm

The ecological conditions of Piyapon farm reflects an agricultural area in a coastal ecosystem.

According to survey and interviews the villagers in October 2020, it was noted that the landuse

surrounding the farm includes aquaculture ponds, Oilpalm plantations and dense general plants spread

in the farm. While surrounding the worker’s house found backyard garden and fruit trees that include Coconut, Star-goose berry, Chili, Acacia Pennata and bamboo. The general animals found in the

42 DMCR (2013) The situation of Dugong inThailand https://km.dmcr.go.th/th/c_10/d_935

https://km.dmcr.go.th/th/c_10/d_935


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


community include Asian water monitor, Brahminy Kite, Zebra dove, Great egret, Intermediate egret, Brown-headed gull, Little Cormorant, White-breasted Waterhen, Asian Openbill, Siamese cobra and

Nicobar Crab-eating Macaque. While some villagers said that they have been found rare species

including Bat hawk, Straw-headed Bulbul, Olive-backed Woodpecker, Wallace’ Hawk Eagle, Dugong and Irrawaddy dolphin. The environment along Ko canal has mangrove plants and Salt tolerant plants

including Mangrove palm and Cork tree. The aquatic animals found include Nile Tilapia, Mozambique

tilapia, Mystus nigriceps, Plotosus, Giant mud crab and Sesarma. The detail of these species is provided

in ANNEX 7.

According to interviews with the farm’s workers, it was found that they have not found rare animal or

plant species of Suratthani or any mammals or marine animals around the farm. Due to the farm is far away from the coast and protect areas.

2.2.6 Conservation status

2.2.6.1 Protected area

The protected areas within 5 0 km-radius from the farm is in (Table 2-8). The Piyapon farm is not

located in a protected area.

Table 2-8 Protected area within 50 km from the farm

Protected area Type of protected area IUCN (1994)*

Distance (km)/ Direction

Khao Tha Phet Non-hunting area (Dry Evergreen forest and Mixed Deciduous Forest)

III 14.9/Southeast

Thung Thong Non-hunting area (Moist Evergreen Forest) III 34.3/South

Tai Rom Yen National Park II 38.8/Southeast

Kang Krung national Park II 42.8/Northwest

Note: * IUCN Protected Areas Categories System:

I Strict protection

Ia) Strict nature reserve

Ib) Wilderness area

II Ecosystem conservation and protection

III Conservation of natural features

IV Conservation through active management

V Landscape/seascape conservation and recreation

VI Sustainable use of natural resources

2.2.6.2 Legal status and threat According to the discussion in 2.2.5.2 and 2.2.5.3, the marine animals found in the central Gulf of Thailand and the species of animals found surrounding the farm according to the Conservation and

Protection of Wildlife Act 1992 including the Thailand Red Data (ONEP, 2017)43 and IUCN (2019)44

are the least concerned (LC) and Not Evaluated (NE) animals as follows.

Table 2-9 Legal status and threat of animals found surronding the farm

Common name Scientific name Legal status[1] Threat status

ONEP[2] IUCN[3]

Marine animals found in the central Gulf of Thailand

Green Turtle Chelonia mydas Protected CR EN

Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Protected CR CR

Olive Ridley Lepidochelys olivacea Protected CR VU

Indo-Pacific Finless Porpoise Neophocaena phocaenoides Protected EN VU

Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin Sousa chinensis Protected EN VU

43 IUCN (2019) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2. Access from http://www.iucnredlist.org.

Downloaded on 18 July 2019. 44 IUCN (2019) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2. Access from http://www.iucnredlist.org.

Downloaded on 18 July 2019.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



ONEP[2] IUCN[3]

Irrawaddy Dolphin Orcaella brevirostris Protected VU EN

Common Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus Protected EN LC

Bryde's Whale Balaenoptera edeni Protected EN LC

False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens Protected LC LC

Baleen whales Balaenoptera sp. Protected EN LC/DD

Dugong Dugong dugon Protected CR EN

Whale shark Rhincodon typus Protected VU EN

Wildlife in Non-hunting area Khao Tha Phet

Tiger Panthera tigris Protected EN EN

Greater mouse-deer Tragulus napu Protected EN EN

Chestnut-headed Partridge Arborophila cambodiana Protected EN LC

White-crowned hornbill Berenicornis comatus Protected EN EN

Rufous-necked hornbill Aceros nipalensis Protected EN EN

plain-pouched hornbill Rhyticeros subruficollis Protected EN VU

Rhinoceros hornbill Buceros rhinoceros Protected EN VU

Reddish Scops Owl Otus rufescens Protected EN NT

White-Fronted Scops owl Otus sagittatus Protected EN VU

Olive-backed Woodpecker Dinopium rafflesia Protected EN NT

Streak-throated Woodpecker Picus xanthopygaeus Protected EN LC

Chestnut-necklaced Partridge Arborophila charltonii Protected CR VU

Wrinkled hornbill Aceros corrugatus Protected CR EN

Black hornbill Anthracoceros malayanus Protected CR VU

Dusky Eagle Owl Bubo coromandus Protected CR LC

Black-and-white Bulbul Pycnonotus melanoleucos Protected CR NT

Straw-headed Bulbul Pycnonotus zeylanicus Protected CR CR

Yellow-crowned Woodpecker Dendrocopos hyperythrus Protected CR LC

Pale-headed Woodpecker Gecinulus grantia Protected CR LC

Terrestrial and aquatic animal have been found in the farm and surrounding the farm

Bat hawk Macheiramphus alcinus Protected CR LC

Storm's stork Ciconia stormi Protected CR EN

Olive-backed Woodpecker Dinopium rafflesia Protected EN NT

Wallace’ Hawk Eagle Spizaetus nanus Protected EN NE

Straw-headed Bulbul Pycnonotus zeylanicus Protected CR CR

Dugong Dugong dugon Protected CR VU

Irrawaddy Dolphin Orcaella brevirostris Protected CR EN

Brahminy Kite Haliastur indus Not Protected LC LC

Asian Openbill Anastomus oscitans Protected NE LC

Siamese cobra Naja kaouthia Protected LC LC

Common Water Monitor Varanus salvator Protected LC LC

Zebra dove Geopelia striata Protected LC LC

Common Myna Acridotheres tristis Protected NE LC

Great egret Ardea alba Protected NE LC

Intermediate Egret Egretta intermedia Protected NE NE

Brown-headed gull Laridae Protected NE NE

Little Cormorant Microcarbo niger Protected LC LC

White-breasted Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus Not Protected NE LC


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



ONEP[2] IUCN[3]

Nicobar Crab-eating Macaque Macaca fascicularis Not Protected NE VU

Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus Not Protected NE LC

Mozambique tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus Not Protected NE VU

Mystus nigriceps Mystus nigriceps Not Protected NE LC

Plotosus Plotosus Not Protected NE NE

Giant mud crab Scylla serrata Not Protected NE NE

Sesarma Sesarma Not Protected NE NE

Remark CR = Critically endangered EN = Endangered VU = Vulnerable NT = Near Threatened LC = Least Concern DD = Data Deficient NE = Not Evaluated Source: [1] Ministerial Regulation Prescribing the fauna protected species 2003. Access from

http://www.krisdika.go.th/librarian/get?sysid=728736&ext=htm [2] Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, ONEP (2017). Thailand red data:

vertebrates Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Bangkok. Page 112. [3] IUCN (2019) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2. Access from

http://www.iucnredlist.org.

Alliance for Zero Extinction presented habitat/key biodiversity area (KBA) and endangered species

(KBA) from IUCN Database on the following interactive map: There is NO KBA or habitat of

endangered species near Piyapon farm . (Figure 2-24)

Source: Modified from the 2018 Global AZE map. Access from http://zeroextinction.org/site-identification/2018-global-aze-map/

Figure 2-24 Habitat of endangered species within a radius of 50 km from farm

2.3 Biodiversity service and values identification in public consultation Stakeholder interview results within 1 - 2 km radius of Piyapon farmraised questions about the

environment and biodiversity. The survey results are discussed below:

With respect to environmental quality in the communities near the farm over the past 5 years, it was

found that 76% of respondents perceived that air quality did not change, while 19 % indicated that air quality has deteriorated and 5% of respondants perceived that air quality was better. For surface water

quality and/or sea water, 62% of respondents indicated that water quality has not changed and 33% of

respondents indicated that water quality has deteriorated. Only 5% of repondants perceived that water quality was better. Soil quality, 88% of respondents indicated that they noticed no change, while some

respondents perceived that soil quality has deteriorated 12%. For noise levels in the community, 67%

of respondents agreed that the noise in the community was unchanged and 33% stated that noise levels in the community has deteriorated. (Figure 2-25) All can be concluded that most of respondants

perceived that air quality and surface water quality have not changed.

http://www.krisdika.go.th/librarian/get?sysid=728736&ext=htm

http://www.iucnredlist.org/


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Figure 2-25 Perception on change of environmental quality The perception of communities of change in overall environmental quality noted that; 56% of

respondents indicated that they perceived no problem with pollution, while 44% perceived a pollution

problem. (Figure 2-26). The respondents indicated that the important pollution issue in the communities

is noise from the machine use (54%), followed by Water discharge from aquaculture pond (38%) and

others (8%). (Figure 2-27)

Figure 2-26 Perception on change of overall environmental quality

Figure 2-27 Potential pollution issues in the communities Regarding the perception of changes to local resources, it was found that the 58% of respondents stated

that mangrove areas have expanded. While the respondents stated that mangrove area has not change

(33%) and deteriorated (9%). For mangrove plant species, most of respondents indicated that mangrove

plant species has not change (54%). While the respondents perceived that mangrove plant species have

increased (44%) and decreased (2%), (Figure 2-28).

5% 5% 0% 0%19%

33%

12%

33%

76%62%

88%

67%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Air Surface water/Seawater

Soil Noise

Perc

en

tag

e o

f re

sp

on

den

tsEnvironmental quality

Better Poor No change

Good / No problem

56%

Pollution problem

44%

Overall of environmental quality

Water discharge from aquaculture pond

38%

Foul smell from livestock

4%

Noise from machine use

54%

Pollution issues

Foul smell from

anaerobic digestion

4%


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Figure 2-28 The condition of mangrove forest in community For the rare species or conservation species in the communities, it was found that 74% of respondents

said that they never found rare animals, but 26% of respondants said they have found rare animals. For the rare plants, it was found that all of respondents (100%) have never seen any rare plants. This

community area is far away from the conservation forests and protected areas of Suratthani province.

Most of villagers stay at home and indicated that they never see rare animal and plant species.

(Figure 2-29)

Figure 2-29 Rare species found in the community

The perception of the importance of environmental conservation indicated that most of respondents

perceived that environmental conservation is is important to very important (93%). While 5% of

respondants perceived that they were not sure and 2% of respondants perceived that it is not important.

(Figure 2-30).

Figure 2-30 Opinion on the importance level of environmental conservation

2.4 Risk analysis: Actual of current farm

2.4.1 Possible alternative

Piyapon farm started L. Vannamai shrimp farming in 1999, with correct certificate title deeds. The farm

owner purchased agriculture land from previous landowner for shrimp farming. Thus, the possible

alternatives of the farm considered for 3 cases that include "No farm expansion", "Farm expansion" and "Closure of Farm" scenarious as follows;

58%44%

9% 2%

33%

54%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Mangrove area Mangrove plant species

Perc

en

tag

e o

f re

sp

on

den

tsMangrove condition in the community

Better Poor No change

74%

100%

26%0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Rare animal species Rare plant species

Perc

en

tag

e o

f re

sp

on

den

ts

Rare species in the community

Not found Found

70%

23% 2% 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very improtant Improtant Not important Not sure

Perc

en

tag

e o

f re

sp

on

den

ts

Inportance level of environmental conservation


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


2.4.1.1 No farm expansion scenario

The land at Piyapon farm is saline soil with Sulphur and not suitable for plantation. This land was used

for aquaculture pond for more than 21 years. If farm has no expansion, land use will remain the same as shrimp or other aquaculture farming or oilpalm plantation. This approach will not affect the current

potential impacts on coastal agricultural ecosystem that currently exists. 2.4.1.2 Expansion of farm scenario

As discussed in 2.2.4, surrounding the Piyapon farm are aquaculture ponds and oilpalm plantation.

If the farm expands, the farm can lease or purchase the aquaculture ponds or oilpalm plantation nearby the farm. Farm should provide a suitable buffer area between pond expansion and natural canal and

excavate the pond base to engineering standard to protect against possible land slides into natural canal.

When expanding the farm, it is necessary to register additional pond numbers with the Department of Fisheries and receive GAP certification. Thus, expansion would not have significant impact to landuse

and or access to natural water source of others in the community.

2.4.1.3 Closure of farm scenario

If the farm decides to stop shrimp farming, the farm may rent out and/or sell the land to the new

landowner. Then, the landowner will manage the land for the most economic benefits from either shrimp or other aquaculture farming or perennial plantations suitable for existing soil quality. This approach

has insignificant change on the current impacts and benefits of development in this area.

2.4.2 Detail analysis From the impact screening results in Table 1-1, the key issues that need to be addressed include:

opportunities and constraints for biodiversity; Biophysical changes from the farm activities; Spatial and

temporal scale of shrimp farm influence; Biodiversity trends; and Possible biodiversity impacts of

shrimp farming, as follows.

2.4.2.1 An analysis of opportunities and constraints for biodiversity

Piyapon farm is located on the coastal ecology of the Gulf of Thailand and influenced by tidal flows

through natural canals (Ko canal). The coastline is a mud flat with dense mangrove forests. The villagers

in Lee Led Sub-district use seawater/brackish from Ko canal for aquaculture farming, local fishery and

plantation. There are mangrove plants and salt tolerant plants spread along the natural canal, which

provides habitat for seawater/brackish aquatic animals, endemic birds and shorebirds. Opportunities – Piyapon farm is a medium sized commercial L. Vannamai shrimp farm in Lee Led Sub-district. Piyapon farm manages water as an open system base on eco-friendly approach

consistent with the company's environmental policy. Thus, the activities of the farm provide a good

opportunity for maintaining and enhancing biological resources. The ecosystem and biodiversity are as

follows;

➢ Farm is not located in any protected areas and there is no corridor in the farm area. Surrounding the farm are shrimp ponds, oilpalm plantation and natural canal. There are

the trees spread in the farm and dense palm mangrove growing along Ko canal. Some

animal species can freely move inside and outside the farm. As well as the villagers can

reach Ko canal. Thus, farm does not obstruct the corridor of animals and/or villagers.

➢ Farm installed 2 water pump points near the channels connected to Ko canal for pumping water into the freshwater pond. Farm only pumps seawater when the sea level

is high based on the predicted water level of the Navy’s Hydrographic Department and

does not block water flow in Ko canal. The farm area has a small water channel

connected to the Ko canal and Farm does not use water from this water channel. Thus, the farm does not obstruct the natural water flow and keeps it available for other users.

➢ In 2011, Piyapon farm was flash flooded. After that, the farm improved flood

monitoring plan and used sediment to adjust the height of pond edge. Thus, farm now

has decreased flood risk.

➢ Piyapon Piyapon farm manages water as an open system. The water from the culture

pond is treated in the treatment canal and treatment pond for a month. The farm checks


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


water quality of treatment pond before discharging into natural canal (Ko canal). Farm does not use prohibited chemicals for water improvement. Sludge from the culture

ponds is collected in the sludge pond for use on the farm. Thus, farm decreases chemical

residues and organic load in the ecology of the natural canal.

➢ Farm cultures shrimp using a biosecurity system and provides a shrimp stocking

procedure that is strictly implemented. If shrimp disease breaks out on the farm, the

Farm will follow the shrimp disease management standard and will not discharge

wastewater or dead shrimp into the environment. Therefore, the farm protects the environment from shrimp disease impacts.

➢ Farm strictly follows the law and regulations of GAP standard and recommendations

of the Department of Fisheries and environmental law relating to water discharge from

shrimp farms. The farm does not impact environmental quality and decreases the

potential impact on biodiversity in the area. It also does not impact the local community and only provides an economic benefit or contribution.

The farms management provides a good opportunity for the ecology and bio-diversity in this agriculture

area to be balanced with sustainable farm operations. Constraints – Activities of shrimp culture at Piyapon farm may cause pressure on biodiversity creating

two possible issues:

➢ White leg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) is alien species, that may invade native

species in Thailand. Piyapon farm has installed nets at the outlet of culture pond, inlet

to treatment pond and sludge pond. A shrimp escape procedure has been developed in case of any incidents. Thus, the above farm management practices protect the impact

of biological diversity of native species.

➢ The potential loss of biodiversity in a developed area is difficult to measure in terms of

time, space, or type of biodiversity affected. This is due to the inherent limitations of

available information about species and related ecosystems. 45 Therefore, it is good practice to put environmental enhancement measures in place. The Farm is committed

to support the local environmental enhancement activities and to provide training to

further support these initiatives. The farm is committed to work with communities and local governments.

2.4.2.2 Biophysical changes from existing farm activities

2.4.2.2.1 Soil quality The land of Piyapon farm is influenced by the tidal zone through Ko canal, and 3.4 km away from the

coastline of Gulf of Thailand. The farm area was a saline/brackish aquaculture pond and perennial

plantation for more than 21 years. This land is saline soil with sulphur and poor quality. Burea of soil resource survey and landuse plan suggested to leave this area to be a mangrove forest or use for

aquacultural pond. Resulted to most of landuse surrounding the farm was shrimp pond or another

aquaculture. Thus, the soil properties at farm area and surrounding are natural saline soil. However, Piyapon farm has measured salinity and electronic conductivity (EC) in the soil surrounding the farm

(oilpalm plantation) to monitor possible saline dispersion from culture pond to the adjacent area. 2.4.2.2.2 Groundwater quality and land subsidence

As previous discussed, Piyapon farm area influenced by the tidal through Ko canal and located on the

sedimentary sandstone aquifer. Department of Groundwater Resources reported that some of artesian wells on the sedimentary sandstones in Suratthani province had poor water quality (Brackish or salty

water) because of seawater encroachment. The land of Piyapon farm area is about 410 m away from the

artesian well of Khlong Ko temple, where there are many shrimp ponds. If groundwater quality surrounding the farms has high salinity or conductivity, it is difficult to determine if it was caused by

45 Aiama D., et al (2015). No Net Loss and Net Positive Impact Approaches for Biodiversity: exploring the potential

application of these approaches in the commercial agriculture and forestry sectors. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 66 pp.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


shrimp farming or natural conditions. However, the farm measures conductivity and salinity of artesian wells of Khlong Ko temple to monitor groundwater quality change surrounding the farm.

With respect to possible land subsidence. Within 1 km-radius from Piyapon farm, there are 1 artesian

wells at Khlong Ko temple (Artesian well No. 5506l003) and 1 of shallow well inside the farm. Piyapon farm does not use groundwater from artersian well of Khlong Ko temple but uses water of shallow well

for consumption on the farm. Thus, there is no chance land subsidence from Piyapon farm. Due to Land

subsidence occurs when large amounts of groundwater have been withdrawn from certain types of

rocks.

2.4.2.2.3 Surface water and seawater

Shrimp cultivation with saltwater or brackish water may affect the change of nearby freshwater quality.

The Farm area influenced by sea zone through natural canals (Ko canal). Many farmers have used

seawater/brackish from this canal for shrimp farming and plantations over a long time. According to

survey around farm determined that there is no public freshwater source within 1 km-radius from the farm. Thus, Piyapon farm does not increase salinity in freshwater resources within a 1 km-radius from

farm.

For water quality of surface water and seawater, Lee Led Sub-district has many aquaculture farms that

use seawater/brackish and discharge effluent into Ko canal. Piyapon farm uses natural seawater from

Ko canal for shrimp stocking and discharges treated wastewater back into this canal. The sludge from the culture ponds, treatment pond and treatment canal is collected in sludge ponds. Therefore, Piyapon

farm can decrease any impact to surface water or seawater quality in long term.

2.4.2.2.4 Air quality and noise

Air quality changes may be caused by (1) odor from piled up weeds and pond sludge (2) pollutants from

combustion of diesel engines (generator and water pump) that includes; dust, carbon dioxide (CO2), Carbon monoxide (CO) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). These gases may result in causing greenhouse climate

effects. Possible noise impacts may be caused by the operation of various machines, particularly water

pumps and vehicle transport.

According to interview and filed survey surrounding Piyapon farm, there is no nuisance odor from the

sediment pond, or odours from weed decomposition or garbage from households. Because the farm collects waste in covered trash bins and general waste and hazadard waste is deposited by Surathani

municipality. The sludge pond has the large area to dry sludge and decrease odor nuisance.

Diesel engine combustion from generators, water pumps and vehicle use emit dust and gases (CO, SO2,

NOx and CO2) into environment. Water pumps and generator of Piyapon farm is in good ventilation area and well pollutants dispersed. For the vehicle usage, the farm uses motorcycle and light truck for

transportation inside and outside the farm. Air quality around farm will not change or be significantly

impacted.

The greenhouse gas emissions, Chutarat (2011)46 studied the dynamics of carbon in the shrimp pond

ecosystem from 24 farms including small, medium, and large farms. The average greenhouse gas

emission rate was 3.66 kg CO2e per kilogram of shrimp. This includes energy use (electrical and fuel) and shrimp feeding as the main source of greenhouse gases. Therefore, greenhouse gases emission of

Piyapon farmis approximate 1,281 tonCO2e/year at full capacity of 350 tons/year. Currently, farm

decreases the greenhouse gases emission include recording electrical use helps to monitor and prevent

excess electricity usage, and monitoring of shrimp feeding helps the farm to use food efficiently.

Noise may be caused by the operation of pumping water (Diesel engine and electrical engine). This sound occurs occasionally, such as using electric pumps to pump sea water into the freshwater pond

1-3 times per month for 3-4 hours per time according to the tidal cycle, and during shrimp harvest to

pump the water and sediment out of the pond, 2 -3 hours at a time. The animals found on the farm are

animals that can adapt to humans. These animals will leave when disturbed but will return when the machinery is turned off. While the trees growth along the farm boundary will decrease noise to adjacent

area.

46 Jutarat Kittiwanich (2011) Management of carbon Dynamic in shrimp farm to reduce product loss and carbon dioxide

emissions. Department of fisheries.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


2.4.2.2.5 Biological resource, ecology and diversity

Changes in mangrove forest or wetland areas - mangrove forests and wetland areas are important

habitats, food sources, spawning and nursery areas. The ASC shrimp requirement, for farms developed

after 1 9 9 9 require the B-EIA to prove that the current farm did not cause mangrove deforestation or

alteration of the natural wetland.

Aerial photo interpretation and satellite photos were analysed for the period of 1995-2020

(Figure 2-31). It was found that the location of the Piyapon farm (latitude 9°11.597’ N and longitude

99°14.625’ E (WGS84)), which the adjacent area was previously an aquaculture pond and plantation

area in 1995. In 2007, some plantation area was changed to aquaculture pond. Currently, all of farm area is aquaculture pond. From this discussion, it was showed that Piyapon farm is not located in the

wetlands or mangrove forest. Therefore, the farm did not deforest mangroves or alter wetlands after

1999.

(a) B.E. 2538 (1995) (b) B.E. 2550 (2007) (c) B.E 2563 (2020)

Source: (a) Aerial Photo (RTSD, No. R303 (1995), (b) (c) Landsat/Copernicus Google Earth (2020)

Figure 2-31 Spatial and temporal change of land use at Piyapon farm

Animal disturbance – Piyapon farm is agricultural area on the coastal ecosystem. The landuse includes

aquaculture ponds, perennial plantations, livestock and communities. The important ecology of the farm

includes natural canals (Ko canal) and Ao Ban Don wetland.

Piyapon farm is close to Ko canal and 3.5 km away from the Gulf of Thailand (Ao Ban Don). According to interviews of stakeholders and survey, it was found that most area of Lee Led Sub-district are

aquaculture ponds and oilpalm plantation. At the mouth of Ko canal found mangrove forest along

coastline and mangrove plants growing along Ko canal include Palm mangrove and Cork tree. The farm and surrounding found general backyard garden and fruit trees. There are many animals found inside

the farm including Asian water monitor, Reticulated python, Monocled cobra, Zebra dove, Great egret,

intermedaite egret, Cormorant, Brahminy kite, White-breasted waterhen, Asian openbill, Crab-eating macaque and Ducks. Aquatic animals found includes Giant freshwater prawn, Nile Tilapia,

Mozambique tilapia, Mystus nigriceps, Plotosus, Giant mud crab and Sesarma.

However, most animal species that can access the farm include birds, small mammals, rodents, reptiles,

amphibians, brackish fish/sea fish as discussed in 2.2.5.3. These animals may be affected by noise of water pumps, generators and mowing machines that are used within the farm. Small aquatic animal

(include crab and fish) and biota in natural canal may be infected by disease from non-native species

and effect of poor water quality. Marine animals include dolphins, Dugong and Sea turtle, which are not able to access the farm. However, they could possibly be indirectly affected by deteriorating sea

water quality and marine garbage.

Piyapon farm is managed using a Biosecurity system, to prevent impacts and possible contamination.

The edge of culture pond is fenced with PE plastic to a height of 30 cm. Also, netting has been installed above the culture pond to prevent entry of animals and restrict bird access. The farm has treatment

canal, water channel, road and the trees fence along the farm boundary to be buffer. Farm does not use

chemicals or pesticides in the farm. Farm does not allow workers to hunting and has a procedure for


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


predator management. Thus, some animals and microbials can live and reach the food on the farm and surrounding the farm. The animals can adapt to human activity well. The animals will leave when

disturbed but will return when the machinery is turned off. While electrical pumps decrease noise on

the farm.

The Piyapon farm area away from the protected areas and habitats of endangered species including

Khao Tha Phet Non-hubting area (14.9 km from the farm), Thung Tong Non-hunting area (34.3 km

from the farm), Tai Rom Yen National Park (38.8 km from the farm) and Keang Kung national Park

(42.8 km from the farm). Some animals species can reach the farm. It is difficult for farm’s workers to correctly identify the species of animals that may show up on the farm. Therefore, there is no need to

write explanations about how to deal with the endangered wildlife that may enter the farm. If an animal

appears on the Farm, employees should take a photo (if possible) and notify the Farm management to record, coordinate, and provide information to the local government authorities who are responsible

including:

Marine and Coastal Resources Administration Office 5 (Suratthani)

120/20 Moo 7 Kadae Sub-district, Kanchanadit district, Suratthani 84160

Tel: 077-379151 Protected Area Regional Office 1 (Suratthani)

148 Moo.5 Kanchanawithi Avenu, Bang Kung Sub-diatrict, Mueang district, Suratthani 84000

Tel: 077-272058

2.4.2.3 Spatial and temporal scale of shrimp farm influence

Thailand began commercial shrimp cultivation in 1980, with black tiger prawn Penaeus monodon.

Then, Whiteleg shrimp L. vannamei were introduced into Thailand in 2000, and the farmers started farming L. vannamei in 2002. Later the farmers suffered impacts from saltwater intrusion and

wastewater drainage from the culture. The coastal aquaculture ponds were defined as a source of

pollution that must control the discharge of Farm effluent water into public water ways or the environment. Potential impacts on the environment and biodiversity from shrimp marine farming of Piyapon

farmincludes: (1) L. vannamei escape may affect native species and (2) Shrimp disease outbreak. The

possible impacts from shrimp escape are still unclear but it is thought that Litopenaeus vannamei could

populate within a 5 km radius from the coastal and mangrove forest (See in 2.4.2.5) However, farm monitors shrimp escape from the fine nets installed at inlet and outlet pipeline surrounding the farm.

Farm regularly records the number of shrimp escape and reviews the shrimp escape management plan.

Thailand had an Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS) outbreak in 2009. This impacted shrimp farms for 3

years. Currently, EMS still occurs in some areas and has become endemic in Thailand. It has been found

that natural marine shrimp may be infected by TSV, WSSV and YHV. Serrated mud crab too may be infected by TSV and IHHNV. However, the Piyapon farm regularly checks shrimp disease according

to the farm’s standard in order to prevent impact to native species. Even, the Thai government support the shrimp farming. The trend of shrimp farming in Suratthani

province is decreasing. Due to shrimp disease and increase of cost. Thus, the shrimp farming in future

will develope on previous aquaculture pond to decrease cost of land adjustion and increase of commercial farm.

2.4.2.4 Biodiversity treands: In case of no shrimp farming

The area of Piyapon farm was previously used for aquaculture pond and plantation area for more than

21 years. If the farm owner did not lease and purchase these lands, the original owner may have

continued shrimp farming or other aquaculture pond or plantation. This approach has insignificant change on the current impacts and benefits of development in this area. If shrimp ponds are abandoned

biodiversity would not be significantly affected as the original saline sulfate soils remain. The animals

and birds may move into the farm area and salt-tolerant plants will growth naturally.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


2.4.2.5 Possible biodiversity impacts of shrimp farming

Litopenaeus vannamei is a foreign species in Thailand which was imported from United States of

America since 2000 (ONEP, n.d.)47 White shrimp (L. vannamei) escape may affect the ecology and local species, but little is known of these possible impacts at this time.

Suwanna Panutrakul et., al. (2 0 1 0) 48 studied the likelihood of population establishment of escaped

Litopenaeus vannamei across the eastern coast of Thailand in Chonburi, Chanthaburi and Trat. It was found that there were a large enough number of appearances of Litopenaeus vannamei to be detected in

wild shrimp caught by shrimp floating seine, push net and trawl nets. The highest and most consistent

appearance of whiteleg shrimp was found in the push nets but it was found that the average percentage

of whiteleg shrimp per weight of native marine shrimp is highest in floating seine. Therefore, it could be expected that most of the escaped whiteleg shrimps into the coastal zone will live in the area of 5 km

from the coast. Vannamei whiteleg shrimps which were found were in the mature stage and the

development of gamete in both males and females was in the ready stage of breeding, indicating that the whiteleg shrimp escaped from the aquaculture ponds have the potential to reproduce in the wild.

This will result in whiteleg shrimp having a high possibility to populate in nature. The TSV, WSSV,

and YHV infections were observed in vannamei shrimp and seven other species caught in coastal waters. The WSSV and YHV infection rates were higher than that of TSV. The result of this study

indicated that the indigenous shrimp population and the escaped whiteleg shrimp that live in the eastern

coastal areas of Thailand may be infected.

The Andaman Sea tsunami in 2 0 0 4 flooded shrimp ponds along the coast. IUCN (2 0 1 7 )49 It was reported in the database of natural resources and biodiversity that in Ko Yao Yai Sub-district, Ko Yao

District, Phang Nga province, there are white shrimp found in mangrove forests at Klong Hia and

Khlong Ya Mee. Briggs etal (2004) cited in Senanun et al (2007) that there was evidence that fishermen in southern Thailand caught L. vannamei on both Andaman coasts and the Gulf of Thailand after the

Great Flood in 2003.

Jareeporn Ruengsri et., al. (2 0 0 5 ) studied the acceptance of TSV and IHHNV viruses in Thai native species and found that many aquatic species native to Thailand e.g. black tiger prawn (P. monodon),

speckled shrimp (Metapenaeus monoceros), dwarf prawn (Macrobrachium equideus), krill (Acetes sp.),

mantis lobster (Chloridopsis immaculatus), freshwater prawn (M. lanchesteri and M. rosenbergii),

mangrove crab (Sesarma sp.) and mud crab (Scylla serrata) were susceptible to viruses and died due to infection. The mortality of affected species associated with a causative agent was confirmed in most

species, except the mud crab and freshwater prawn (M. rosenbergii). However, viral particles can be

detected in surviving animals 10 days after infection50

Suratthani province was severely flooded in 2011, due to flash floods and high tides. The coast Sub-district

suffered flooding over a wide area and also the ponds of Piyapon farm. Many shrimp escaped into natural

water source. According to interviews with local government and fishermans in Lee Led

Sub-distirct, it was indicated that in past 4-5 years, there is no report of the local and coastal fisherman catching L. vannamei shrimp in Ko canal and Gulf of Thailand (Ao Ban Don). After that the farm Piyapon

farm improved flooding emergency plan and provided escape management procedures to monitor shrimp

escape. The farm strictly follows and regular reviews shrimp escape management procedures. Thus, farm works to prevent the risk to native species.

According to the previously researches, it was found that direct discharge of effluents and sludge into the

environment can easily pollute the surrounding water and soil quality (Deb, 1998)51. These effluents can

47 http://chm-thai.onep.go.th/webalien/doc/AquaAnimal_AS.pdf 48 Suwanna-Panutrakul et., al. (2553). ikelihood of population establishment of escaped (Litopenaeus vannamei) in eastern

coast of Thailand. Chounburi: Faculty of Science, Burapha University. 49 IUCN (2560) Natural resource and biodiversity in Ko Yaow Yai Sub-district, Ko Yaow District, Phang Nga province.

Access from https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/koyaoyaifinalreport-21nv17_small.pdf 50 Jareeporn Ruengsri et., al (2005) Prevalence of Taura syndrome virus (TSV) and Infectious hypodermal and

haematopoieticnecrosis virus (IHHNV) in white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) populations and susceptibility to infection of some aquatic species native to Thailan: Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, 2005, 27 special episode: 215-224.

51 Deb AK. 1998. Fake blue revolution: environmental and socioeconomic impacts of shrimp culture in the coastal areas of Bangladesh. Ocean & Coastal Management 41:63–88


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


reduce the dissolved oxygen, create hypernutrification and eutrophication, increase sedimentation load, and cause changes in the benthic communities (Flaherty and Karnjanakesorn 1 9 9 5) 52. This too reduces

sunlight penetration into the water column, which, in turn, ruins primary productivity and the trophic

structure of the ecosystem. Piyapon farm manages water as an open system. Farm treats wastewater in treatment canal and treatment pond before discharging effluent into Ko canal. For the sludge of culture

pond, treatment pond and treatment canal collect into the sludge pond and dries the sludge to use on the

farm. Thus, the sediment is still on the farm area and not discharge to environment. From the previously discussed, it demonstrates that Piyapon farm decrease the organic loading into natural canal (Ko canal) and/or the Gulf of Thailand (Ao Ban Don). Therefore, the farm may have low

impact to water quality and biodiversity surrounding the farm. However, the farm is aware of the natural

resources and environment surrounding the farm and regularly monitors water quality of effluent every month in accordance with the effluent quality standard for coastal aquaculture ponds.

52 Paez-Osuna F. 2001. The environmental impact of shrimp aquaculture causes, effects, and mitigating alternatives.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


2.4.3 Biodiversity and environmental impact risk ranking

The potential environmental impacts identified during the screening process are further assessed to determine the level of impact significance in Table 2-10. Table 2-10 Risk ranking of biodiversity and Environmental impact

Issues Farm activities Potential impact Evidence/ Farm management/

General measures

Magnitude +

Extent + Duration

Impact level

Sensitive level

Significant level

1. Physical resources

1.1 Topology

1.1.1 Land excavation and levelling

• Land slide to adjacent area

• Flash flood or flood in adjacent area

• Farm expanded shrimp pond based on engineering standard and engineer slope of

pond within farm area. Farm provides buffer area between the farm and natural canal and public road.

• Farm leaves the trees and grass growth along natural canal and public water channel to prevent land slide.

• Farm dug sludge from treatment canal to prevent water overflow to public road.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 2 Minor

1.2 Air quality 1.2.1 Engine combustion

1.2.2 Solid waste

incineration

1.2.3 Land excavation and leveling

• Air pollution emission such as PM, NOx, SOx and CO. Resulting in air

quality decreasing.

• Dust from adjust the depth of pond

• Farm uses dissel engine water pump and electrical water pump for pumping water in the farm, diesel engine generator for emergency and vehicles for transportation.

• Farm does not incinerate solid waste on the farm

• Surrounding the farm has trees fence to decrease dust dispersion.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Minor

1.3 Greenhouse

gases emission 1.3.1 Farm activities

include use of electricity, engine combustion and shrimp feeding

1.3.2 Disposal of soild waste to landfill on

farm

• GHGs emission

includes CO2 and CH4. These gases's effect on climate change.

• The maximum shrimp production of existing

pond is about 350 tons/year. Greenhouse gases estimated from existing pond are estimated at 1,281 tonCO2e/year at full capacity.

• Farm recorded energy used of farm to decrease excess electricity used.

• Farm regularly checked shrimp feeding to decrease/optimize existing feed in culture ponds.

(1 + 2 + 2) = 5 2 1 Minor

1.4 Odor 1.4.1 Waste management, Feed management/

• Odor disturbance from waste

accumulation/ sediment and

• Farm classified solid waste for 3 types and provided covered waste bins for the farm.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Minor


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures

Magnitude + Extent + Duration

Impact level

Sensitive level

Significant level

sediment management, landfill

wastewater/ shrimp feed

• Farm transports waste to collect at waste collecting point of Suratthani municipality for sanitary waste disposal.

• Farm provides septic tank for sewage treatment.

• Farm has the large sludge pond and decreases anaerobic digestion of sludge.

1.5 Noise 1.5.1. Use of engine

and machinery • Noise from water

pumps, machinery and truck carry soil

• Farm uses electrical water pump for pumping in the farm to decrease noise to adjacent area.

• Farm uses diesel engines during daytime.

• Surrounding the farm has frees fence to decrease sound level to communities.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Negligible

1.6 Soil quality 1.6.1 Shrimp farming

with salty or brackish water

• Saline dispersion to

adjacent area

• Salinity accumulation inside farm and outside the farm area

• Soil properties at the farm area is marine

sediment with saline sulfate soil.

• The farm landuse was an aquaculture pond and perennial plantation for more than 21 years.

• Farm uses natural saltwater /brackish for

shrimp stocking in earthen pond.

(1 + 1 + 3) = 5 2 1 Minor

1.6.2 Moving sediment inside and outside the farm

• Saline dispersion to adjacent area

• Shrimp stocking in earthen pond. Sediment collect is estimated at about 105 tons at the full shrimp production of 350 tons/year.

• Farm has 1 of sludge ponds, 15 rai of total pond

area, 48,000 m3 of capacity and can be receive sludge for more than 480 years at the full shrimp production.

• Farm excavates sediment to improve the pond edge within the farm and no plan to move sediment outside the farm.

(1 + 1 + 2) = 4 2 1 Minor

1.6.3 Disposed soild waste in the landfill of farm

• Soil deteriorated • Farm collects waste in covered labelled garbage bins.

• Farm transports general waste and hazadard waste to deposal by Suratthani municipality.

(1 + 1 + 2) = 4 2 1 Minor


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures


Impact level

Sensitive level

Significant level

1.7 Seawater quality

1.7.1 Discharge of wastewater or sediment from shrimp

farming to environmental

• Contamination of chemicals and Antibiotic into the sea.

• Increase organic matter and turbidity into the sea. These may harmful to marine animals and

benthic.

• Farm uses seawater from Ko canal connect to Gulf of Thailand at Ao Ban Don.

• Farm manages water with open system. Wastewater from culture pond is pumped into treatment canal and treatment pond, and then left for natural treatment for a month before discharge to Ko canal.

• Farm pumps sludge from treatment canal, treatment pond and culture pond to collect in

sludge pond.

• Farm does not use chemicals and antibiotics for shrimp stocking.

• In 2018, seawater quality at coastal of Ao Ban Don was moderate to good.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Minor

1.7.2 Disposed soild waste in the landfill of farm

• Windstorm may blow solidwaste of farm into natural canal connected to the sea.

• Farm provides covered bin for each garbage type and Farm does not leave garbage into natural water source.

• Farm collects garbage to disposal by Suratthani municipality.

(1 + 2 + 2) = 5 2 1 Minor

1.8 Surface water quality

1.8.1 Wastewater and sediment management

• Contamination of chemicals and Antibiotic into freshwater resource

• Increase organic matter and turbidity

into the freshwater resource. These may be harmful to aquatic and benthic.

• Farm manages water with open system. Wastewater or effluent from culture pond will be pumped into treatment canal and treatment pond for natural treatment for a month before discharge to Ko canal.

• Farm pumps sludge from treatment canal, treatment pond and culture pond to collect in sludge pond. Then, farm will use sediment to adjust the road and pond edge.

• According to interviews the local agencies and stakeholders surrounding the farm found that the water quality of Ko canal in past 10 years has deteriorated due to water discharge from Giant tiger prawn farming.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 2 Moderate

1.8.2 Shrimp farming with salt or brackish water

• Overflow or dispersion of salty water into

freshwater resource

• Within 1 km-radius of the farm has no found freshwater source.

• Farm influenced by the sea tidal passes through Ko canal and uses natural seawater for shrimp stocking in earthern pond.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Negligible


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures


Impact level

Sensitive level

Significant level

• Farm is located on the allowce area for marine shrimp farming of Suratthani province.

1.8.3 Waste management

• Windstorms may blow solidwaste at farm into natural water source

• Leachate flow into natural canal

• Farm provides covered bins for each garbage type and collects waste for disposal by Suratthani municipality.

• Farm does not leave garbage into surface water source.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Minor

1.8.4 Land excavation and leveling

• Landslide into natural canal during construction and increase turbidity in water resource and harm to aquatic

animals.

• Farm excavates and fills the land base on engineering standards and providess suitable buffer areas from the natural canal.

• Farm leaves local plants to grow up along the public water channel and Ko canal to prevent the landslide in natural canal.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 2 Minor

1.9 Groundwater quality

1.9.1 Shrimp farming with salt or brackish water

• Saltwater of culture pond disperse to groundwater resource.

• Farm uses natural seawater for shrimp stocking in earthen pond.

• Inside the farm area there is no artesian well

but there is shallow well. This shallow well is 8

m of depth and poor quality (Brackisk), which the farm workers use for consumption.

• The nearest artesian well from the farm is at Khlong Ko temple (410 m away from the farm) and has good water quality (freshwater)

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 2 Minor


• Leachage flow into groundwater

• Farm provides lid-covered bins and solid waste management as discussed in 2.1.2.6.

• Farm does not deposit general waste or hazadard waste within the farm.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Negligible

2 Ecology resources and Biodiversity

2.1 Flora species 2.1.1 Forest/

Mangrove forest - Land excavation and leveling

• Loss plant species and forest/mangrove forest area.

• Loss habitant of wildlife and aquatic life

• Farm is far away from teimportant protecdt areas including Khao Tha Phet Non-hunting area (14.9 km), Thung Thong Non-hunting area (34.3 km), Tai Rom Yen National Park (38.3 km) and Kaeng Krung National park (42.8 km)

• According to interviews the communities surrounding the farm, all of respondants have

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Negligible


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures


Impact level

Sensitive level

Significant level

not been found the rare plant species but found general plant species as discussed in 2.2.5.3.

• Farm is 3.2 km away from the forest area and

mangrove forest area.

2.1.2 Forest/

Mangrove forest - Discharge of wastewater or sediment from shrimp

farming to environmental

• Contamination from chemicals and probiotics in water resource and increased minerals and organic matter cause Algae bloom.

• Farm is 2.5 km away from remaining mangrove forest and farm area near Ko canal has dense mangrove plants that grow up, such as palm

mangrove and Cork tree.

• Farm does not use chemicals or antibiotics for shrimp stocking.

• Farm discharges effluent passed sedimentation and natural treatment into Ko canal.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Minor

2.2 Fuana

species 2.2.1 Wildlife/Marine

life – Farm activities includes land use change, animal protection, water pumping and machinery use

• Animal disturbance,

reduction of habitat, and food source

• Animals injured or dead by farm activities. These may decrease animal population and loss of biodiversity.

• Farm is far away from the protect areas including Khao Tha Phet Non-hunting area (14.9 km), Thung Thong Non-hunting area (34.3 km), Tai Rom Yen National Park (38.3 km) and Kaeng Krung National park (42.8 km)

• Northwest of the farm is close to Ko canal and 2.5 km away from remaining mangrove forest.

• According to interviews the communities surrounding the farm, some of respondants have found rare animal species including Bat hawk, Straw-headed Bulbul, Olive-backed Woodpecker, Dugong and Irrawaddy dolphin.

However, it was not found those species data from local agencies and previous research studies. The general animal species found surrounding the farm is discussed in 2.2.5.3.

• Farm let small animals and birds living in the farm and does not allow farm workers to injure

or kill animals.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 2 Minor

2.3 Ecology 2.3.1 Landuse changes of mangrove forest

• Loss of biodiversity service of terrestrial and marine animals such as habitant, food source and shelter.

• The farm area is located on coast ecology system of Gulf of Thailand and there is mangrove forest along the coastal and Ko canal.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Minor


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures


Impact level

Sensitive level

Significant level

• The farm is 1.6 km away from the mangrove forest cabinet resolution B.E. (2543) 2000 and 2.5 km away from remaining mangrove forest.

• Satellite image found that the land of farm was an aquaculture pond and plantation since 1995 until now. Piyapon farm did not deforest mangroves or alter wetlands after 1999.

2.3.2 Discharge of

wastewater, sediment and salty water to environment

• Poor environmental and loss of biodiversity

• Farm manages water with open system. Water treated from treatment pond and treatment canal will be discharged into Ko canal.

• Farm has 16 rai of treatment pond area with 76,800 m3 and treatment canal has 3.5 rai and 16,800 m3 of capacity. There is enough for effluent volume from culture pond.

• According to survey and interviews communities, it was found that the mouth of Ko canal has mangrove forest and mangrove plants spread along Ko canal. The local fishermans stated that the fishering capacity has increased due to improved water quality

over the last 10 years.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Minor

2.4 Protect area 2.4.1 Farming within or nearly sensitive area such as Protected area, Ramsar site and Heritage site

• Loss of biodiversity service of terrestrial and marine animals such as food source and shelter.

• Loss of threatened species of plant and animals

• Piyapon farm started shrimp farming in 1999, with correct land certificates.

• The landuse of farm was designated for aquaculture ponds and plantations for more

than 21 years.

• Farm is not located on the protected areas of Suratthani province. The nearest protect area of the farm is Khao Tha phet Non-hunting area. (14.9 km)

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Minor

3 Emergency/ Unplanned event

3.1 Shrimp escape

3.1.1 Escape of non-native species

• Loss of native species due to invasion of non-native species (L. Vannamai)

• Farm manages water with opened system and discharge water treated into Ko canal.

• Farm installed net at water outlet of culture pond and treatment pond, install net at inlet of treatment pond and sludge pond. Farm

provides the farm’s worker to check shrimp escape during water discharging.

(1 + 3 + 2) = 6 2 2 Moderate


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures


Impact level

Sensitive level

Significant level

• Farm provided and seriously followed the shrimp escape management plan.

3.2 Shrimp disease outbreak

3.2.1 Shrimp disease outbreak in farm and offsite.

• Shrimp disease in non-native species (L. Vannamai) may disperse to animal native species.

• Farm manages water with opened system and discharge water treated into Ko canal.

• Farm regularly checks shrimp health and disease in culture pond. If farm suspects that shrimp are sick, the Farm will send shrimp sample to laboratory.

• If the Farm has a shrimp disease outbreak then disease management procedure is strictly followed.

(2 + 3 + 1) = 6 2 2 Moderate

3.3 Flooding 3.3.1 Flooding of shrimp pond


non-native species (L. Vannamai)

• Farm is 3.4 km away from the coast of Gulf of Thailand and northwest of the farm and close to Ko canal, There is a buffer area ofr more

than 14 m.

• Piyapon farm was considered a low flood risk (flooded 1-4 times in the past 12 years).

• Water of Ko canal overflowed into the ponds of Piyapon farm in 2011. After that the farm

improved flood monitoring plan and used sludge to adjust the pond edge. There is no flooding on the farm since 2011 until now.

• The lowest point of Piyapon farm is about 4 m MLS. of elevation. The highest sea level in past 25 years of Suratthani province measured at

2.35 m MLS.

• There is a water channel connected to the Ko canal and which passes through the farm area. The buffer area between pond and water channel is more than 4.5 m.

(2 + 2 + 1) = 5 2 1 Minor

3.4 Coastal erosion

3.4.1 Coastal erosion from windstorm and shrimp ponds damage

• Loss of native species due to invasion of non-native species (L. Vannamai)

• Farm is 3.4 km away from the coast and mangrove forest along coastline.

• If consider the worst erosion case (Eroded 5 m/year). The buffer area of Piyapon farm provides for more than 680 years of erosion protection.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Negligible


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures


Impact level

Sensitive level

Significant level

3.5 Land subsidence

3.5.1 Use of groundwater for shrimp farming

• Use a lot of groundwater for shrimp stocking

• Within 1 km-radius of the farm there is 1 artesian at Khlong Ko temple (410 m away from the farm) and 1 of shallow well (inside the

farm).

• Farm does not use water from artesian well at Khlong Ko temple, but the farm uses water of shallow well for consumption.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Negligible

3.5.2 Land excavation

and leveling

• Heavy truck transport during construction

• Farm excavated and filled the land base on engineering standard to protect against possible land subsidence.

• Farm uses 6 tons Wheeled Excavator for excavation and filling the land.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 2 Minor


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


2.4.4 Biodiversity and environment impact mitigation and monitoring measures

Biodiversity environmental impact risk ranking is provided in Table 2-10. The environmental and

biodiversity issues that require the additional mitigations (Risk is in range of “Medium” and “High”) are as follows; Table 2-11 Biodiversity – Environmental impact mitigation measures

Activities Potential impact Mitigation measures

1) Environmental and Biodiversity

1.1 Discharge wastewater and sediment into natural canal or public canal

• Contamination of chemicals and Antibiotic into water source

• Increase organic

matter and turbidity

into the water source.

It may harm to aquatic

and benthic

environment.

• Farm regulary checks water quality of treatment pond every month before discharge into public canal.

• Farm should check water quality of Ko canal at least 2 times/year.

• Farm should monitors DO change of natural canal. Farm should measures DO, salinity and Temperature outside of sluice gate for 2 times/day (morning and evening) at least 2 times a month for calculation the mean DO fluctuation.

• Farm should record and public the water quality results to community.

2) Emergency/ unplanned event

2.1 Non-native species (L. Vannamai) escape during farming

• Loss of native species because invasion of non-native species (L. Vannamai)

• Farm installed nets at the outlet of culture pond and treatment pond, inlet of sludge pond and treatment pond to monitor shrimp escape and record regulary.

• Farm reviews shrimp escape management plan yearly to increase efficiency of shrimp escape management of farm.

2.2 Farming of non-native species (L. vannamei), farm management and shrimp disease outbreak management

• Dispersion of shrimp disease of non-native species to native species.

• Shrimp disease outbreak in farm and regional level.

• Farm provides shrimp disease management plan and strictly follow.

• In case of shrimp outbreak in farm. Farm will close the pond and control shrimp disease following shrimp disease management plan and also checking water quality before discharge into natural canal.

2.3 Flooding the farm area

• The ponds of farm damaged and white shrimp escape to environment

• Sludge dispersion into the environment

• Farm should record water level in Ko canal to monitor flooding.

• Farm used sediment to adjust the pond edge every year to prevent flash flooded.

Table 2-12 Biodiversity – Environmental impact monitoring measures

Environmental Impact

Monitoring measures

Soil quality • Farm measures Electrical Conductivity (EC) in soil adjacent area every 6 months for 1 soil sampling point as follows. oilplam plantation (east of the farm), Coordinates at 9°11.827' N, 99°14.619' E

Note: EC measured should not exceed the EC reference (the first year of soil monitoring)


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Environmental Impact

Monitoring measures

Groundwater quality

• Farm measures Electrical Conductivity (EC) in groundwater from adjacent area of farm every 6 months for 1 groundwater sampling point as follows.

Artesian well at Khlong Ko temple (North of the farm), Coordinates at 9°12.224' N, 99°14.460' E

Note: EC measured should not exceed 1,500 μmhos/cm.

Shrimp disease outbreak

• Farm checks shrimp disease in disinfection pond at least 1 time per year.

• Farm checks shrimp disease during shrimp stocking at least 1 time per year.

Shrimp escape • Farm regularly checked and recorded number of shrimp escape from the net installed at inlet and outlet of the pond.

Figure 2-32 Environmental sampling point of Piyapon farm

2.4.5 Summary of measures to mitigate biodiversity impact

No net losses are contemplated. The following are measures that should be taken to minimize further

likelihood of biodiversity damage or loss and improve Farm’s operation for pollution prevention:

(1) Strictly follow Farm’s work instructions,

(2) Secure Farm licences and receive a standard quality audit from a certified body as required and scheduled,

(3) Continuously monitor and record farm management information and keep those records for

verification at least 12 months, such as record of shrimp stocking, water quality records,

record of shrimp health, record of disease detection in pond water and shrimp, record of feed management (feed in-feed out, usage amount), record the use of chemicals, antibiotics, and

probiotics, record of energy consumption, record of internal meeting, record of meetings

with communities, record of complaints and resolution etc,

(4) Prevent pollution by using the waste management hierarchy eg. good quality feed, with the best feeding management, adequate oxygen to pond water, use probiotic and biological

treatment through the food chain,

(5) Manage the farm as an environmentally friendly farm. Do not use chemicals and antibiotic.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


(6) Identify potential hazards to health and the environment, both in normal operations and in

the event of an accident. And determine the necessary safety measures as appropriate.

(7) Properly handle dead shrimps to prevent transmission of disease. Prevent the transmission

of disease to natural water bodies,

(8) Install seine or net to prevent L. vannamei escaping into the natural environment both during culture and harvesting periods. Strictly follow the shrimp escape management plan,

(9) Allow neighbors the opportunity to provide feedback on the environmental data and to

participate in determining corrective measures to alleviate problems and potential health

risks.

(10) Educate the local fishermen on classification of L. vannamei from native shrimp species. Keep record if L. Vannamei shrimp are found in the natural environment (size, time, species,

location where found) for long term biodiversity assessment.

2.5 Review process

Local government shall receive a copy of B-EIA statement and related management documents. There

was no request from stakeholders to send this report to a legally registered civil organization. The

B-EIA will be made available to all stakeholders and any interested party for review. Any comments

put forward by either party will be taken into consideration prior to implementing any final mitigation

and compensation measures. (If deemed warranted).

This biodiversity environmental impact assessment of biodiversity should be reviewed every 6 months

according to the ASC's recommendations, especially on issues that may have a significant impact on

biodiversity. Participation of affected communities and civil society will be fulfilled by presenting the

B-EIA and the P-SIA report for the social/community sector to exchange ideas.

October 2020 แฟมขอมล : BEIA and PSIA Piyapon Farm final report (EN)_28 Jan 2021

58

3 Participatory Social Impact Assesment

(P-SIA) 3.1 Stakeholders and Participation IEM’s P-SIA team compiled and presented a questionnaire to the local public with the objective to

collect general socio-economic information and obtain perceptions about Piyapon farm’s Shrimp

management activities that might possibly cause impacts to the local people.

Figure 3-1 The surrounding communities of Piyapon farm

3.1.1 Stakeholder Groups

IEM has classified stakeholders into 2 groups: (1) stakeholders who live within 1-2 km from the farm, and (2 ) key informants who are head or representatives of the local authorities/government agencies

responsible for the area where the farm is located.

Stakeholder Definition:

• Primary stakeholders: those affected, either positively or negatively, by a farm development or

operation (ie. Communities near the farm).

• Secondary stakeholders: those who are indirectly affected by a farm development or operation (i.e. Government Agencies dealing with the farms).

IEM surveyed stakeholders' opinions surrounding Piyapon farmas detailed in Title 1.1.2.

3.1.2 Intent and public communication The P-SIA has been publicly (locally) communicated with sufficient time for those interested to

participate and/or get information. The IEM team conducted the socio-economic survey using a questionnaire during 14-17 october 2020. Before the interviews, the farm’s intentions and the goal of

the interview’s activity were described to stakeholder.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


3.1.3 Document meeting and stakeholder listed All meetings regarding this report have been recorded. Any comments were noted and attached to the

“Stakeholder Report Form”. Meeting records are attached to the final report; names and contact details of participating stakeholder are included. The original questionnaire will be stored at the consulting firm

following Thailand’s participation principles ANNEX 4. 3.1.4 B-EIA and P-SIA completed guidance document This P-SIA undertaken for the Piyapon farmhas been completed after the completion of B-EIA in

accordance with guidance under Criteria 2.1 of ASC Shrimp Standard v.1.1 (March 2019)53 and

according to guidance on B-EIA and P-SIA relationship (Transparency and Consultation).

Transparency and public disclosure of environmental impact statements ensures that the B-EIA and

P-SIA process is relevant, fair and credible. All B-EIA’s and P-SIA’s under the ASC Shrimp Standard

are required to be transparent.

3.2 Socioeconomic baseline information Piyapon farm is located in Moo7 Lee Led Sub-district, Phunphin District, Suratthani Province. Lee Led

Sub-district is mostly low lying plain with Phunphin Canal that flows to the sea. In rainy season, most

areas of flooding. The total area of Lee Led Sub-district is 26.6 km2 or 16,661 rai which covers an

administrative area of 8 villages

Piyapon farm has villages surrounding the farm in Moo 7 Khlong Ko village, Lee Led Sub-district. The

populationand household statistics report 2019 stated that the population and household numbers in Moo

7 Ban Klong Ko were 400 people ang 196 household.54 The interviews indicated that 79% of respondents

were local people wich have beem in community for over 10 year.

Occupation – Most people (97.54%) work in agriculture and 2.46% are engaged in general worker,

trading and government service.

From DOF database of certified aquaculture farms, there are 200 shrimp famers in Phunphin District that have been certified GAP Standard in 2020.

Economic – The economic structure of Suratthani province found that most of the income comes from the

agriculture sector followed by industrial, service sector (hotels/restaurants) and commercial sector (wholsale/retail), in that order.

The supply (production) of Whiteleg shrimp in Suratthani province noted that during the years 2015-2019,

the trend of production of Whiteleg shrimp in Suratthani province has increased in production rates because

of the aquaculture area increase. The development culture is better and the climate is more suitable for shrimp

farming.

Source: Suratthani Provincial Agriculture and Cooperatives Office

Figure 3-2 Trend of production of Whiteleg shrimp in Suratthani province during 2015-

2019

53 ASC Shrimp standard V.1.1 (2019). Accessed from https://www.asc-aqua.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ASC-Shrimp-

Standard_v1.1_Final.pdf 54 Department of Local Administration (2020) Official statistics registration system. Accessed from

shttps://stat.bora.dopa.go.th/stat/statnew/statINTERNET/#/TableTemplate5/Area/statpop?yymm=62&ccesc=%

26453

40496 39819 40411 40657

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

2558 2559 2560 2561 2562

Sh

rim

p p

rod

uct

(to

ns/y

ear)

Year

Whith shrimp production during 2015-2019

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Education and Religion – In Lee Led Sub-district there are 3 primary schools, 1 child development

center (pre-school) and 8 places to read the village newspaper. The people in Lee Led Sub-district are

mainly Buddhists. In Plaiwas Sub-district there are 3 temples and 2 house of priest, 1 mosque and 1 Christian church Public health – Lee Led Sub-district has Lee Led health promotion hospital which is in the service

network of Phunphin Hospital.The medical personnel of the both hospital is detailed in (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1 Medical personnel classified by hospital

Phunphin Hospital Lee Led Health Promotion Hospital

medical staffs number medical staffs number

Doctor 130 Doctor 2 Registered Nurse 119 Registered Nurse 2

Dentist 13 Dentist -

Public Health Technical

Officer 7 Public Health Technical

Officer 3

Thai Traditional

Medicine - Thai Traditional Medicine -

Traditional Chinese

medicine -

Traditional Chinese

medicine -

Alternative medicine 13 Alternative medicine 4

Public Health Officer 2 Public Health Officer 1

Dental Assistant 1 Dental Assistant 1 Aide to Traditional Thai

Medicine - Aide to Traditional Thai

Medicine 1

Pharmacist 9 Pharmacist - VHV. 200 VHV. -

Home caregivers 1 Home caregivers - Other 224 Other 2

Total 719 Total 16 Source: Suratthani Provincial Public Health Office access from https://sni.hdc.moph.go.th/

The health Data Center reported by Suratthani provincial Health Office in 2019 noted that the main

causes for admission as inpatients in Phunphin district includes: schizophrenia followed by Behavioral

and psychoactive disorders caused by use of psychoactive substances. The major causes of admission

as outpatients are high blood pressure followed by neoplasm. The major causes of death were heart attack.55

COVID-19 situation in Thailand detected the first case on January 13, 2020. From January to November

2020, Thailand had accumulated 3,874 cases of the infection of which 3,1715 cases recovered, 99 cases were treated in hospitals and 60 deaths. Suratthani province had 19 cases of COVID-19. Currently,

no new cases have been found in Suratthani province. Suratthani Province has measures to control the

COVID-19 situation. There is a COVID-19 control checkpoint for entering and exiting the province. The people leaving their home must wear a mask and social distance to reduce the risk of infection. Public infrastructure - the main road in Lee Led Sub-district is Rural Road Sor Dor No.4177 (Shortcut

to Mueang Suratthani District). The roads within the community consist of asphalt road concrete roads

and dirt road. There is convenient transportation. Households can access electricity from the PEA (Phunphin). Local people use water from the Provincial Waterworks.

3.3 Risk Analysis: Actual Impact of Current Farm The risks and actual (past and present) impacts of the current or intended farm are assessed and at least

two alternatives are considered (one of these is the “no farm or no expansion” scenario). Concepts

covered include:

55 Suratthani Provincial Public Health Office (2019). Standard Report Group >> Morbidity / Mortality. Medical and Health Data

Warehousing System: HDC Suratthani Public Health Office.

https://sni.hdc.moph.go.th/hdc/reports/page.php?cat_id=491672679818600345dc1833920051b2


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


• Economic aspects (influence on employment opportunities, influence on other livelihoods in

community). • Natural resource access and use (land and water tenure, influence on quality and availability

of natural resources including water). • Human assets (food security, health and safety, education, indigenous knowledge). • Physical infrastructure (access to roads, electricity, telephone, housing, waste disposal

systems). • Social and cultural aspects (indigenous/traditional/customary rights and beliefs, social

exclusion/inclusion, gender equity, changes in age composition of the community, local

informal institutions and organizations). • Governance aspects (influence of aquaculture on norms, taboos, regulations, laws, conflict

management and whether these changes add up to more or less transparency, accountability

and participation in decision making.

3.3.1 Economic aspect Economic aspects consist of influence on employment opportunities and influence on other livelihoods

in community.

Influence on employment opportunities - general employment in Suratthani consists of both local and

migrant workers; most are from Myanmar followed by Laos and Cambodia. In 2 0 1 9 , 4 8 . 1 1 % of labourers in Suratthani worked in the agricultural sector. The unemployment rate in Suratthani was

0.61%.56

According to stakeholder interviews, most respondents (35%) were merchants or personal business

followed by farmers (rice cultivation/orchard/field crop) (21%) and aquaculture farmer (18%), and 56% of respondents had a secondary occupation.

Respondents (50%) earn an average of 9 ,0 0 1 -15,000 baht/month and the average expenditure for the

whole family was 1 3,977 baht/month. Most respondents (47%) stated that their income was sufficient to cover expenses without savings, while 33% of respondents had sufficient income with savings, only

21% had financial problems (Figure 3-3).

The income of shrimp farm workers according to interviews indicated that the farm worker had an

average income of about 12,000 THB per month. This is in accordance with the minimum wage of

Suratthani (Suratthani minimum wage in 2020 was 325 THB per day).57,58

Figure 3-3 Average income (THB/month)

56 Suratthani Provincial Labor Office (2019) Surat Thani Province Labor Situation Report, Year 2019 (January -

December).https://suratthani.mol.go.th/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2020/02/%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A2%%B8%B5-1.pdf

57 Wage committee announcement on minimum wage rate (No.10) http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2562/E/316/T_0065.PDF

58 Daily wage is 325 THB, average working day 26 days/month, therefore income is about 8,450 THB/month or 101,400

THB/year.

< 9,00017%

9,001-15,00050%

15,001-30,00031%

30,001-50,0002%

financial problemd

21%

sufficient to cover expenses without

savings46%

sufficient income with

savings33%

Financial statusAverage income (THB/mount)

http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2562/E/316/T_0065.PDF


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Currently, Piyapon Farm has 8 culture workers and 1 farm manager. Farm workers are both Lao and

Thai workers, who have received news of employment opportunities from current workers. However,

the farm gives priority consideration to local people who want to work on the farm. Influence on livelihoods in community – The topography of Lee Led Sub-district is a fertile plain area

that has resulted in the occupation of local fisheries, agricultural cultivation (coconut, oil palm) and

aquaculture, who live a simple life that is in harmony with their habitat and environment.

Local people use simple tools for cultivation and fishing including labor exchange between community

members. Most agricultural products are used for consumption within the family. The locals have yet to

have trade with the outside society.

Currently, the communities in Lee Led Sub-district continues to coexist with nature, focusing on the

conservation of mangrove forest to preserve the ecological integrity that provides a tourist destination

to increase income for local people.

For shrimp aquaculture in Lee Led Sub-district, more environmentally conscious farming methods have been developed. Discharges of wastewater into natural canals and water management has been modified

by treating the water before water discharges off farm or reusing water to reduce the impact on the

environment.

In addition, shrimp culture is mostly sold to cold storage or large factories for export. This has resulted

in a shift to modernization and development of a better of life.

From Figure 3-4, Stakeholders noted that 66% considered shrimp farming important to the community,

while 9% considered shrimp farms not important and 16% were uncertain.

Figure 3-4 Importance of shrimp farming to community Figure 3-5 With respect to the possible impact of shrimp farms on the local and national economy, 52% of respondents stated that shrimp farms in their community had no impact on local and national

economies, while 48% agreed that shrimp farms had a positive impact.

Figure 3-5 Impact of shrimp farming on local and national economic

3.3.2 Access and use natural resources Natural resource access and use includes: land and water tenure, influence on quality and availability of

natural resources, including water. Aquaculture farming requires a brackish water source and may in

some cases discharge water to a natural water source.

No Importance9%

Low9%

Moderate47%

High19%

uncertain16%

No Effects52%

Slightly Positive

13%

Positive25%

Very Positive10%


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Land use – The Lee Led Sub-district is low plain and close the sea, which is influenced by sea water

rise along natural water canals. The condition of the soil is saline soil and flooded during the rainy

season. 80% of the landuse in Lee Led Sub-district is shrimp farm area and 18% is agricultural area such as coconut plantation, oil palm and mixed fruit trees etc.

Land tenure – The location of Piyapon farmis on private land. The land tenure documents indicated that

Piyapon farmlegally owns their land (refer to certificate of ownership from the farm). The land of farm has been used as an aquaculture pond for over 21 years and is not located in any protected forest area.

Hence, No natural corridor inside farm.

The environment around the farm is as follows: north and east side is adjacent to oil palm plantation, west is next to Ko canal and south is close to shrimp farms. The farm has a sediment canal and public

road as a buffer between the farm and neighboring areas as discussed in Section 2.1.1.

Water resource uses - Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district has Ko canal which is a Sub-canal from Phunphin

canal, flowing through Moo 7, Khlong Ko village, into the Gulf of Thailand. The canal is influenced by high tide which causes the water quality in Ko canal to become brackish water. The people use fresh

water or brackish water for agriculture (oil palm plantations and coconut) and brackish or salt water for

fisheries and aquaculture. Piyapon Farm uses water from the Gulf of Thailand through natural canal (Ko canal) for shrimp stocking. Farm pumps sea water from the channel that connects to Ko canal. There

are wilderness and dense mangrove plants. Along the canal, there are dense palm and mangroves forest.

Ko canal is approximately 20-60 meters wide, and local fishermen can use boats to travel along the canal to make a living. Thus, the farm does not hinder access water of local peoples.

Surrounding of Ko canal has shrimp farming, other aquaculture farming (such as Tilapia and Catfish)

and local fishery. According to interviews of the community about issue of water quality of Ko canal

from aquaculture farming, it was found that there are many aquaculture farms use and discharge effluent into Ko canal. The farmers and fishermans precieved that the operation of Piyapon farm is no impact to

water use of community and other farmers. But Farm may has impact to water quality change of Ko

canal.

Figure 3-6 The environment surrounding Ko canal Water sources for use in the community – Respondents stated that water sources for agriculture comes

from natural sources (61%), followed by rainwater (33%) and tapwater (6%). Water resources for aquaculture mainly come from Ko canal (88%) followed by rainwater (8%) and artesian well (4%).

Figure 3-7 Water Issues

Rain33%

Tap water6%

Natural source water

61%

Water sources for agriculture

Rain8%

Groundwater well4%


88%

Water resources foraquaculture


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Drinking water and domestic use water – The respondents stated that the major sources of water from

the Provincial Waterworks (93%), while drinking water is from bottles (77%). From interviews, 65% of

respondents believed that there were problems with water resources in the community. The major

problems were floods (87%) followed by poor water quality (13%) (Figure 3-8).

Figure 3-8 Water Issues

3.3.3 Human asset Human assets consist of food security, health and safety, education, indigenous knowledge etc. Food security is the ability to access adequate, safe and nutritious food to meet food needs and preferences.

The risks that may affect food security include changes in agricultural land use, income distribution, and

water system issues. These issues are detailed below. Land use changes - 80% of the area of Lee Led Sub-district is shrimp farm. The land of Piyapon Farm has been used as shrimp culture ponds for more than 2 1 years. Piyapon Farm bought shrimp pond land

from the previous landowner and started to operate shrimp culture since 1999. The soil in Piyapon Farm is sea sediment with the potential to form sulfuric soils. Without proper soil management, agricultural yields tend to decline rapidly and therefore unsuitable for crop cultivation. This

area also floods in the rainy season making it suitable for fisheries. Therefore, Piyapon Farm is considered

to have suitable land use for the local conditions and does not impact on food security due to improper land use.

Income distribution – Lee Led Sub-district has fresh-food markets, flea market and grocery shops, which

farm workers and local people can access good, healthy food at reasonable prices, as Lee Led Sub-district

is an agricultural and fishing community. The Agricultural products and fisheries is sufficient for consumption and is priced lower than that of urban or industrial areas. Moreover, farm workers' spending

provides income to the community and supports the local economy.

Water source problem – Lee Led Sub-district is on the coast of the Gulf of Thailand. The Phunphin canal

flows into the Gulf of Thailand and connects to the Ko canal, Lee Led canal and Rang canal. Farm uses water from Ko canal, where Farm will pump water only during the peak sea rise, an average of 1-2 times

a month. According to interviews with local government and surrounding stakeholders there are no water

shortages or conflicts between other aquaculture farmers.

Piyapon Farm has water discharge from the culture pond outside the farm, but farm will improve the

quality and check the quality before water discharge off the farm, Therefore, Piyapon Farm helps reduce

pressure on water quality in natural water sources.

Health and safety – All farm workers are temporary worker ( the temporary under contract with duration of less than 12 months). Those workers are not required to register for social insurance as the Social

Security Act (No.4) B.E. 2558 (2015)59 The workers will use the health insurance under their labor

permit, which covers medical treatment and health examination. As well as the farm provides first aid kits that cover the work area of the employee within the farm. A good patient referral system is in place

for local emergencies/ambulance service, and emergency numbers are posted and are easy to see.

59 Social Security Act (No.4) B.E. 2558 (2015) http://www3.mol.go.th/sites/default/files/laws/th/prb1.pdf

good/no problem

35%

have problem

65%

Water issues

Poor water quality13%

flood87%

Details of water source problems

http://www3.mol.go.th/sites/default/files/laws/th/prb1.pdf


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


For the COVID-19 situation, Farms have preventive measures which require workers to wear a mask

when leaving the farm, washing hands frequently and social distancing to reduce the risk of infection.

For occupational safety, Farm arranges training program on safety before working and provides reviews annually by the licensed safety officer. The farm provides personal protective equipment that is suitable

for the work of the employee and Farm ensures all employees wear the required PPE properly during

working hours. The Farm posts visible hazard warning signs and safety requirements (such as fire

suppression and chemical control methods etc). The medical facility used by local people is the Lee Led HPH, which is within 5 km. The local health

service provider is the Phunphin Hospital (16 km) away. From stakeholder interviews, most of respondents (7 7 %) were admitted to the public hospital (Phunphin Hospital) while 9 % were admitted to Lee Led

Health Promoting Hospital and 6% were admitted to a private hospital.

From stakeholder interviews, the majority of those interviewed (85%) stated that health services in the

area are sufficient to meet their needs while 15% said that public health services were insufficient to meet the needs due to the lack of medical personnel and certain types of medical equipment, making the access

to public health services quite time-consuming and sometimes having to travel to get medical treatment at

Suratthani hospital, which is a distance from the community.

Figure 3-9 Public health facilities and availability health services for communities

From Figure 3-10, the main causes of illness were colds (49%) , followed by diabetes/ blood pressure

(30%). As for the availability of public health services, Phunphin Hospital has 90 beds for patients, while Lee Led HPH does not have beds for inpatients. If the patient has severe symptoms, they will be referred

to Phunphin Hospital and Suratthani hospital. The medical personnel of the both hospitals is detailed in

(Table 3-1).

Figure 3-10 Cause of illness in the community

Life and properties security of local people – Lee Led Sub-district has 2 patrol office and 2 police

officers. From the statistics report on criminal cases categorized by crimes, Suratthani Provincial Police

Not treated4%

Private clinic4%

District Health Promotion Hospital

9%

State hospital

77%

Private hospital6%

Health service

Sufficient85%

not sufficient

15%

Sufficiency in health services

cold49%

accident5%

Chronic disease (diabetes, high blood pressure, high

blood fat)30%

Stomach disease

5%

Hepatitis2%

Anemia2%

Body aches and bone marrow

5%Kidney disease

2%


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Station found that most of the cases where a person was arrested were those in which the state was the

injured, followed by property offenses.

From stakeholder interviews, the majority of those interviewed (90%) stated that migrant workers or

shrimp farm workers do not affect the life and properties security of the local people, while 6% said that

they have concern on burglary and 4% said that the entry of migrant workers had a positive impact.

Figure 3-11 Life and properties security of local people

Education and local wisdom – Lee Led Sub-district has 3 schools include 1of high school (Wad Khao

Sriwichai) and 2 of primary schools (Wadtritrararam and Wad Bang Phla). The detail is provided in

(Table 3-2).

Table 3-2 Number of students in each school surrounding the farms

School name Total of student

Thai student

Foreigner student

Number of students of farm wokers

Wad Bang Phla school 213 185 28 1

Wad Tritararam school 122 88 34 2

Wad Khao Sriwichai school 389 323 66 1

The farm is located at Moo 7, Khlong Ko village. All of children at the farm can access education in the

schools. The schools do not restrict access to local people. Family members of migrant workers can

access education in local educational institutions. The migrant workers of Piyapon Farm have 4 childrens studing at Wad Bang Phla school, Wad Tritararam school and Wad Khao Sriwichai school.

According to interviews with the director of these educational institutions, it was found that the existing

foreign students have positive impact to the local educational institutions. The foreign students help the

school to increase the average student number, budget and welfare. Therefore, the existing migrant workers of Piyapon Farm have a positive affect on local educational institutions.

Local wisdom is knowledge that arises from the ability, experience and creativity in the invention of

equipment or tools used in the life of local people. Shrimp farming is a local wisdom that arises from the local adaptation experience of the community, since the community originally made use of land

mainly in agriculture when brine water invaded the and and yield decreased. Farmers have changed their

livelihood to suit the environment, such as growing salt tolerant plants, brackish aquaculture and local fishermen. In addition, there is also a development of professional tools, equipment or the concept of

occupation such as fish trapping equipment, aquaculture methods or cultivation in order to obtain higher

yields, etc.

3.3.4 Physical infrastructures Physical infrastructure includes: access to roads, electricity, telephone, housing, waste disposal systems, water consumption, etc.

Roads - The roads in the community are asphalt roads, concrete and dirt roads. The traffic condition is

light. According to interviews, 98% of respondents said there were sufficient roads within their

communities to meet their needs, while 2% said roads were insufficient as some areas did not have access roads or were gravel roads making travel more difficult. Piyapon Farm is located adjacent to the

lawsuit on life, body and sex

2%

lawsuit to property

4%

lawsuit to special fault base

2%

lawsuit in which the state is the victim

92%

The lawsuit was arrested in Suratthani Province

Negative2%

Slightly Negative

4%

No Effects90%

Slightly Positive4%

Public live and properties security


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


rural road Sor Dor No. 2007 (Shortcut to Mueang Suratthani District). The road inside the farm is a dirt

road and does not allow outsiders to enter and exit without permission. Electricity - Electricity is integral to the farm operation for aeration systems and pumps, as well as

lighting for residences and outbuildings. Shrimp Farm and community uses electricity service provided

by PEA. Respondents (98%) said they had sufficient electricity, while 51% said that they had problems

with electricity usage due to power drain and frequent power outages.

(a) (b)

Figure 3-12 Backup power generator (a) and Fuel storage plant (b) Telephone and internet systems – Most of farm workers use mobile phone with personal wireless

internet signal system and the workers freely use mobile phone. According to interviews with stakeholders surrounding the farm, all respondents identified local telephone signals as good and had no

problems with using local calls. Housing – Farm provides housing with 1 person per house. The housing includes toilets and places to

cook which is safe, clean, hygienic and is enough for farm workers and their families. Therefore, Farm does not put pressure on housing of local people.

Figure 3-13 Farm workers housing Water for drinking and domestic use – From interviews with stakeholders about domestic water, it was found that most of people use water supply from Provincial Waterworks Authority (93%), while 7% use

water from natural source (Ko canal). The villagers will let natural water sediment with alum and

disinfect with natural sunlight before using for cleaning kitchenware and bathing. One villager stated that she had itchiness from using water of Ko canal in the past 3-4 years. Currently, there is no skin

irritation or diarrhea from domestic use of natural water (Ko canal). That is associated with the

interviews with Lee Led Health Promotion Hospital that there is no patient report of skin irritation or

diarrhea from using the water of Ko canal. The main cause of diarrhea is eating unhygienic food. While skin irritation is use of water with agriculture chemicals or irritation plants. For drinking water in this

area 77% of respondents stated that they buy bottled water, while 21% stated that they drink tap water

and 2% stated that they drink rainwater (Figure 3-14).

According to interviews with farm workers, it was found that the farm uses tap water for domestic use

and the farm owner buyst 1.5 litter bottles for drinking water from local store for the farm workers. Interviews with stakeholders about water supply system indicated that tap water is enough for the community and widely access the tap water, but some time the tap water quality was poor (high

turbidity) and low water flow or no water when water supply system is being maintained.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Figure 3-14 Sources of water for household consumption

Waste management system – Lee Led of the SAO. has no policy to provide waste collection services.

They support local people sorting and manage their own waste. 98% of those interviewed manage waste

by incineration or landfill, while 2% take the garbage to the SAO. where the waste is collected for disposal. Piyapon Farm has sorted waste as well and different types of waste are disposed of as detailed

in Section 2.1.2.6. The farm does not put much pressure on local waste disposal services.

Overall, the basic infrastructure needs of the farm do not put pressure on local services and do not

compete for resources from the local area.

3.3.5 Social and culture aspects Social and cultural aspects consist of indigenous/local rights and beliefs, social exclusion/inclusion,

gender equity, changes in age composition of the community, local informal institutions and

organizations etc.

Traditions and beliefs - The important customs and traditions of Lee Led Sub-districts include Songkran Festival, Chak Phra Festival (Pulling the Buddha (image)), offering of robes and Long boat racing during

the end of Buddhist Lent. These are similar to the traditions found in Lao. Farm workers who are from

Lao can participate in local activities. The farm does not prevent participation in religious activities, traditions or ceremonies in the community. However, most of the farm workers return home during the

long holidays. Therefore, farm workers have no effect on local traditions and beliefs.

Communication between communities - Most people in Lee Led Sub-district use local dialects

(southern language) for communication. The communication between farm workers and local residents uses common language to communicate. Interviews with farm workers indicated that they were able to

coexist with the people of the community. There was no problem with different races, languages, and

they are treated equally. Therefore, the workers of Piyapon Farm do not have communication problems with local people.

Recreation and tourism attractions – Lee Led Sub-district have ecotourism activities within the

community, including planting mangrove forests, boat trips to see local lifestyle, watching fireflies and

birds etc. The main attractions around the farm includes the Ban Huai Sap Mangrove Resources Learning Center, a learning center for mangrove ecosystems and marine animal conservation. The

Center has Samae crab conservation projects and provides a place for recreation for people both inside

and outside the community. The operation of shrimp farm can have an impact on the quality of seawater and integrity of the natural ecosystem.

The presence of shrimp farm in the community does not change the social structure or impact local

cultural. Society is typical of local ssouthern Thailand, where Buddhists live together and help each other. Piyapon Farm promotes and supports activities and traditions within the community through the

farm CSR activities. This helps to provide community awareness of farm activities and contributions

and helps to build relationships with the surrounding communities.

Tap water93%


7%

Domestic used water

Bottled water77%

Rain2%

Drinking water

Tap water

21%


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Figure 3-15 Ban Huai Sap Mangrove Resources Learning Center

3.3.6 Governance aspects Governance comprises the processes of governing and consists of laws or regulations regarding

aquaculture processes, decision making, conflict management, participation and transparency. (See

related laws and regulation in Annex 5)

Legal Workforce Management - Farms comply with relevant standards and laws as follows: Thai labor standards (TLS 800-2010)60, Ministerial Regulations for Agricultural Work Protection Act B.E. 2557

(2014)61, the Labor Protection Act B.E.2541 (revised edition B.E. 2562)62. The labor management of

Piyapon farm is as follows (Table 3-3). Table 3-3 Labor management of Piyapon farm

Topic Labor management of Piyapon Farm

1. Forced Labour Labor Standard Policy - Farms do not use forced labor. Do not collect personal

documents of employees and do not require protection payments

2. Remuneration of

Labor

Labor Standard Policy – Farm pays the labor wages according to the minimum

wage as described by law. There is a contract that specifies compensation. A

Salary slip is provided with payment details. Employees can resign by notifying

in advance and will receive full payment of their wages as per actual work.

3. Working hours Labor Standard Policy - Working hours are, 07.00 am – 05.00 p.m. including 2

hours for lunch. Work 6 days/week, 1 day off (holiday) and there are holidays according to important festivals.

4. Discrimination Labor Standard Policy - Farm treats workers equally and there is no

discriminating against gender, race, or beliefs. Workers receive the same wage for

the same type of work. Employees have opportunity to develop skills, be

promoted, and raise salaries equally according to ability and diligence.

5. Disciplinary practice Labor Standard Policy - Farm has disciplinary actions for employees in 4 stages:

(1) verbal warning (2) written warning (3) suspension without wages and (4)

termination. Farm strictly follows disciplinary practice according to the Labor

Protection Act 2541.

6. Child labor and

women workers

Piyapon does not employ workers under the age of 18. Currently, the farm does

not have women workers.

7. Freedom of

association and

Right to collective

bargaining

The farm does not restrict freedom of association or collective bargaining of

employees i.e. labor unions. Employees can express opinions or make complaints

about their work through three channels: (1) Direct complaint to the farm

manager (2) Complaint box and (3) Direct complaint to farm owner.

8. Occupational Safety,

Health and Environment

Occupational Safety, health and environment policy

Farm arranges training program on safety before working and reviews are conducted annually by the licensed safety officer

Farm provides personal protective equipment that is suitable for the work of the

employee and Farm ensures all employees wear the required PPE properly during

working hours.

60 Thai labor standards, social responsibility of Thai businesses TLS 8001-2010, 2011. access from:

https://www.magnecomp.tdk.com/Document/TH_Labor/Thai_Labor_Standard_th.pdf 61 Ministerial Regulations for Labor Protection in Agriculture B.E. 2557 access from: http://un-act.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Labour-Ministerial-to-Protect-Agricultural-Workers-B.E.-2557-2014-TH.pdf 62 Labor Protection Act 1998 (Revised 2019) access from:

http://legal.labour.go.th/2018/images/law/Protection2541/labour_protection_2541_new62.pdf

https://www.magnecomp.tdk.com/Document/TH_Labor/Thai_Labor_Standard_th.pdf

http://un-act.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Labour-Ministerial-to-Protect-Agricultural-Workers-B.E.-2557-2014-TH.pdf

http://legal.labour.go.th/2018/images/law/Protection2541/labour_protection_2541_new62.pdf


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Farm posts visible hazard warning signs and safety requirements at hazardous

locations, such as fire suppression, chemical control methods. Emergency

numbers are posted in visible locations.

9. welfare benefits Farm provides first aid kits and a health insurance system for employees.

The farm provides clean, hygienic toilets.

Farm provides sufficient clean drinking water; and adequate housing which is

hygienic and safe with basic utilities (electricity/tap water).

Aquaculture provision - The Thai government promotes marine shrimp farming as a source of food and export with controls on shrimp and environmental impacts through laws and regulations of various

agencies, including: Department of Fisheries (DOF) – DOF has the policy on promoting white shrimp (L. vannamei)

farming in coastal areas with standardized farm management and quality products, which have passed the consumer and export standards. The DOF identifies Vannamei shrimp as a controlled aquatic animal.

Agriculturists who culture vannamei shrimp must be registered and audited to the Good Aquaculture

Practice Standard (GAP).63 Moreover, there are other mechanisms for shrimp source and destination control and production standards such as Aquatic Animal Fry Movement Document (FMD). Also the

Movement Document (MD) must be issued for water and shrimp sampling for disease control before

shrimp harvesting and distribution.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment states that, coastal aquaculture ponds are a

source of pollution that must control discharge of pond water that goes into public water sources or the

natural environment and must comply with water quality standards for effluent drainage control from

coastal aquaculture ponds64 to address problem of waste water discharge into natural water.

Local government - The farm owner requires permission from local authorities in accordance with Land

Excavation and Land filling Act B.E. 2 5 4 3 (2 0 0 0 ) 65, for expansion or excavation of shrimp culture

ponds where the soil is dug more than 3 m. from the ground level or the total area of ponds is over 10,000 m2 (6.25 rai). Environmental Conflict Management: people can complain about environmental problems to many

organizations i.e. village headman, head of village headman, local government, provincial governor,

Provincial Damrongdhama Center or the Prime Minister's office. However, the PONRE are directly responsible for complaints management with the organizations under the DOF such as the PFO, DFO

and CFRD etc.

In this regard, the farm has 3 channels to receive complaints and suggestions: (1) the farm has a comment box in front of the farm (2) can complaint directly to farm manager and (3) can directly complain to the

farm owner.

Environmental responsibility - Although problems with aquaculture and environment are still found in the area, the Department of Fisheries has promoted shrimp farming. The shrimp farmers are forced to

become standardized with GAP certification. The goal is further promote the TAS (Thai Agricultural

Standard), which is the highest standard from the Department of Fisheries and similar to the ASC Shrimp

standard both in terms of environmental impact reduction and increased social participation.

Piyapon Farm strictly complies with the laws including; compliance with laws that regulate aquaculture, environmental management and human resource management to promote a positive impact on the environment and society.

63 Announcement of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives Re: Marine shrimp farming business operator to register

and request permission from the competent official, October 10, 2000 access from http://laws.fish.ku.ac.th/pdf/4_freshwater5_11-Regulations.pdf

64 Notification of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Re: Designating coastal aquaculture ponds as a source of pollution that must be controlled wastewater discharged into public water sources or to the environment. Government Gazette Volume 122, Special Section 129 Ngor, dated 14 November 2005.

65 Land Excavation and Land filling Act B.E. 2543 (2000) http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/law/law2/%A1103/%A1103-20-

9999-update.pdf


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


3.3.7 Local perception of shrimp farming and Piyapon farm Piyapon Farm has operated shrimp farms for 21 years. In this section, the results of stakeholder

interviews are provided on their awareness of shrimp farming, and of the relationship between Piyapon

Farm and the community including complaints or concerns about the farm. From Figure 3-16, 93% of respondents know about vannamei white shrimp and 85% say they can

classify white shrimp (L. vannamei) and banana prawn correctly. In terms of understanding shrimp

culture, 58% of the interviewees stated that they have knowledge of shrimp culture because they have

cultivated shrimp before, while 42% of respondents stated that they did not have knowledge of shrimp culture. Respondents (42%) say they have some understanding, while 16% stated that they have well

understood and 42% say they did not understand the management of shrimp farms.

Figure 3-16 Perception about shrimp farm

Perception of the impact of shrimp farms Figure 3-17 from interviews has noted that the most positive

impact is that Local revenue increases (39%). Respondents (26%) noted that the most negative impact

was that water pollution has increased. However, some respondents are not aware of positive impacts

(14%) and negative impacts (65%).

Figure 3-17 Perception of impact on shrimp farm Opinions on shrimp farm operations are noted in Figure 3-18. Most respondents (98%) support

aquaculture farming in the area, while 2% said they disagreed because currently there is a a lot of shrimp farms in the area

Yes93%

No5%

Not sure2%

Do you know vannamei shrimp?

Yes85%

No15%

Able to classify Vannamei shrimp

No42%Yes

58%

Knowledge in shrimp culture

Not understand

42%

understand42%

Understand very well

16%

Understanding shrimp farm

management

Employment increase

7%

better livelihood

39%

Local revenue increase

5%

better environment

28%

Better transportation &

infrastructure5%

Compensation / Rental

2%

unknow14%

Positive impacts

Transportation & Infrastructure

disturb7%

Water pollution is increased

26%

Environment / natural resources

destroyed2%

unknow65%

Negative impacts


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Figure 3-18 Agree to shrimp farm in community

With respect to the awareness of Piyapon Farm (Figure 3-19), the majority of respondents (94%) know

Piyapon Farm, most respondents (56%) have not visited the farm. The interviewee (76%) indicated that they have not received information about Piyapon Farm, while 24% have received Piyapon Farm information

about its CSR activities and farm employment.

The interviewees (42%) indicated that they have migrant while 17% stated that they have workerThai workers from Suratthani and other provinces and 11% thinking that they were Thai workers from the local

area (Lee Led Sub-district). However, 30% of respondents stated that they were not aware of the source of

the labor on the farm.

Figure 3-19 Perception about Piyapon farm

Perceptions of the impact of the farm on local communities is found in Figure 3-20, All respondents

(100%) thought that Piyapon Farm did not affect basic necessities, while 96% stated that did not affect

quality of life, while 4% stated that farm has a positive impact on quality of life on employment income. Respondents (88%) thought that shrimp culture operation of Piyapon Farm did not affect on the

environment, while 12% stated that the Farm may affect the environment, causing impact to water

quality change; the respondents said they were unaware of the actual in-farm wastewater management practice. Therefore, it is thought that Piyaphon Farm has drainage into public canals as well as other

shrimp farms in the area. Respondents (98%) stated that there are no complaints about Piyapon Farm, only 2% stated that there

are complaints about the water overflowing outside the farm causing the road to flood in front of the farm and palm plantations nearby the farm. Also some concern about the noise from the water pump.

Agree98%

Disagree2%

Do you agree with local farming?

No6%

Yes94%

Do you know Piyapon Farm

Yes24%

No76%

Have you ever receivedany information from Piyapon

Farm

Yes44%

No56%

Have you ever visitedPiyapon Farm

Thai worker in Suratthani

and other provinces

17%

Thai wokers in local (Leeled)

11%

Foreign workers

42%

Did not know30%

Where does the farm worker come from?


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


For concerns about the operation of Piyapon Farm, 90% of respondents said that they did not have any

concerns about Piyapon Farm, while 1 0 % stated that they have concerns about the discharge of

wastewater off the farm affects the quality of natural water sources.

Piyapon Farm had a community meeting on October 17, 2020. The farm described farm water

management systems, shrimp disease management, employment, important plant and animal species,

and community complaints channel to help villagers to better understand the farm management system and to help get cooperation to conserve important local species.

The farm addressed the complaints about the water that overflowed off the farm during shrimp

harvesting, that caused flooding over the road in front of the farm and nearby oil palm plantations. Also

the concern about the noise from the water pump. The farm has a solution to the flooding issue by dredging the canal so that it can hold enough water and therefore not flood. The farm too will inspect

the water pump and repair the damaged parts that are causing the.

For concerns about wastewater discharge off-farm farm, the farm noted the farm did not drain wastewater into natural water canals. The farm treats wastewater in the sedimentation canal and

monitors water quality to meet the coastal water quality standards before allowing effluent off farm

(ANNEX 8). Therefore, the operation of Piyapon Farm reduces the risk of water quality impact in the

canal.

Figure 3-20 Perception of Impacts about Piyapon farm

3.3.8 Local perception of impacts on environmental, social and health from shrimp farming The interviewees were asked to score their perceptions as to whether they felt that the proposed activities

would have a positive or negative impact on 32 environmental and socio-economic parameters. The answer ranks attitude at 7 levels from extremely negative to extremely positive (of scale -3 to +3) . The minus scale implies a perceived negative impact, while the plus scale indicates a perceived positive

impact. Zero indicates a neutral perception regarding impacts from the project. The ranking system is

outlined in Table 3-4

Table 3-4 Ranking system

Negative Attitude Neutral Attitude Positive Attitude

-1 Slightly Negative 0 No effect +1 Slightly Positive

-2 Negative - +2 Positive

-3 Very Negative - +3 Very Positive

4% 0% 12%

96% 100%88%

Quality of life Basic necessity Environment

Effected No effected

Effects of Piyapon Farm on communities

No90%

Yes10%

Do you have any concernsabout Piyapon Farm

No92%

Yes8%

Have you ever know anycomplaint about Piyapon

Farm


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Responses, both positive and negative, were deemed significant based on the criteria outlined in Table

3-5 where significant scores are highlighted if responses are greater than: Table 3-5 Significant criteria

Criteria Response (%)

-3, +3 5%

-2, +2 10%

-1, +1 15%

0 20%

The attitude survey results identify that the perceptions of the level of impact both positive and negative

potentially caused by the planned development activities. This assists Piyapon farm to understand how

the stakeholders view the project. If responses to certain issues are determined to be significant, then

they should be further addressed to ensure that the public have factual information about the project and clearly understand the likely effect of the project. Those perceptions determined to be significant are

highlighted in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6 Perception of potential impact of Piyapon farm

Topic

% of Respondents

Very

Negative Negative

Slightly

Negative

No

effect

Slightly

Positive Positive

Very

Positive

1.1 Soil quality 0% 6% 8% 86% 0% 0% 0%

1.2 Surface water quality/

groundwater

2% 4% 14% 80% 0% 0% 0%

1.3 Sea water quality 0% 6% 6% 88% 0% 0% 0%

1.4 Air quality 0% 0% 10% 90% 0% 0% 0%

1.5 Noise 2% 2% 8% 88% 0% 0% 0%

2.1 Mangrove forest and

conservation areas

2% 2% 8% 88% 0% 0% 0%

2.2 Local land animals 0% 2% 6% 92% 0% 0% 0%

2.3 Local Aquatic Animals 2% 2% 4% 92% 0% 0% 0%

2.4 Marine animals 0% 2% 4% 94% 0% 0% 0%

2.5 Shorebirds / Seabirds 0% 2% 4% 94% 0% 0% 0%

2.6 Sea grasses 0% 2% 2% 96% 0% 0% 0%

2.7 Corals 0% 2% 2% 96% 0% 0% 0%

3.1 Local Fisheries 2% 4% 6% 88% 0% 0% 0%

3.2 Aquaculture (Sea

Prawn excluded)

0% 4% 2% 94% 0% 0% 0%

3.3 Local Livestock 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

3.4 Local Agriculture 0% 2% 2% 96% 0% 0% 0%

3.5 Local Industry 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

3.6 Local Transportation 0% 0% 2% 94% 2% 0% 2%

3.7 Local Land Prices 0% 0% 0% 58% 6% 30% 6%

3.8 Values of Recreation /

Tourism

2% 2% 0% 90% 6% 0% 0%

3.9 Conservation areas

such as the National Park

reserve

2% 2% 0% 96% 0% 0% 0%

3.10 Overall Local

Economics

0% 0% 0% 48% 12% 28% 12%

3.11 Overall National

Economics

0% 0% 0% 56% 14% 22% 8%

4.1 Public live and

properties security

0% 2% 4% 90% 4% 0% 0%

4.2 Occupation,

Employment

0% 0% 0% 66% 16% 14% 4%

4.3 Incomes 0% 0% 0% 70% 14% 14% 2%


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Topic

% of Respondents

Very

Negative Negative

Slightly

Negative

No

effect

Slightly

Positive Positive

Very

Positive

4.4 Recreation places &

Scenery

0% 2% 0% 96% 2% 0% 0%

4.5 Local culture and

tradition

0% 0% 2% 56% 2% 20% 20%

5.1 Health services 2% 0% 2% 94% 2% 0% 0%

5.2 Public Health and

Sanitation

0% 2% 0% 96% 2% 0% 0%

5.3 Public Mental Health 0% 4% 0% 90% 6% 0% 0%

5.4 Occupational Health

and Safety

0% 0% 0% 92% 6% 2% 0%

From the results of the survey, respondents perceived that the operation of Piyapon Farm had no

environmental, social and health impacts. The survey also indicates that those surveyed perceived

potential positive impacts of Piyapon farm on overall local / national economics, local land prices,

employment, incomes and local culture and traditions.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


3.3.9 Social impact risk ranking

The risks assess of social impacts from the activities of Piyapon farmcan consider the risks that may occur of culture ponds and workers housing with the evaluation details

as follows:

Table 3-7 Social impact risk ranking


General measures

Magnitude +

Extent +

Duration

Impact

level

Sensitive

level Significant level

1. Social Aspects (Human used Values)

1.1 Access to

and use of

natural

resources

1.1.1 Water use of natural/public sources.

• Large amounts of water

used in aquaculture may restrict other users water use needs

• Installing devices to block the flow of water may result in a conflict on water resources access of other

water users

• The The farm uses water from the Gulf of Thailand through natural waterways (Ko canal) and pumps sea water 1-2 times a

month only during the peak high tide.

• The farm has not installed equipment to obstruct water flow. Ko canal is about 20-60 meters wide, local fishermen can use boats to travel to the sea, including the water in the canal can flow to the end of the canal

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Negligible

1.1.2 Discharge wastewater and

sludge into natural/public water canal.

• Deteriorated water quality and can not use for domestic use

• Most of farmers in Lee led Sub-dsitrct use saline water/brackish water and discharge effluent into Ko canal.

• Piyapon farm treat wastewater to meet the effluent quality standards from the coastal aquaculture facility before discharge into Ko canal. This activity may affect to water quality of Ko canal in longterm.

• According to interviews the local agencies and stakeholders surrounding the farm found that the water quality of Ko canal in past 10 years has deteriorated due to water discharge from Giant tiger prawn farming. Currently, the water quality of Ko canal is better. Due to

shrimp pond was decreased and stickly reglulation of water discharge form coastal aquaculture pond.

• From interviews with stakeholders about domestic water, it was found that most of peoples use water from Provincial Waterworks Authority (93%), while 7% use water from natural source (Ko canal).

(1 + 2 + 2) = 5 2 2 Moderate


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures

Magnitude +

Extent +

Duration

Impact

level

Sensitive


1.2 Access to

basic

infrastructures

1.2.1 Basic infrastructure needs: electricity, tap water, roads, telephone, and

housing.

• Large amount of electricity required in farm operation may cause insufficient electricity for local use.

• Electricity Service Unit is Provincial Electricity Authority which is sufficient for local people.

• Farm provides a backup power system with diesel engines in the event of an emergency power failure

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Minor

• Demand for tap water for consumption on the farm

may pressure local services and limit water use by other consumers.

• The area of Leelet Subdistrict Administrative Organization uses water supply from PWA Suratthani branch (Phor) has an average water

production rate of 4,969 m3 / day.

• Farm uses tap water from PWA and shallow groundwater pond for use in farm offices and workers' housing. According to interviews with stakeholders, all respondents indicated that tap water was adequate for their needs, so the existence of Piyaphon Farm had no impact on the water consumption of the

community.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Positive

• Transportation of farms vehicles may restrict the use of local roads and put pressure on local roads.

• Farm is located close to Rural raod Sor Dor 2007, two-lane asphalt road that can accommodate large vehicles weighing up to 25.2 tons and farm vehicles use this road for traffic.

• The traffic conditions on Rural raod Sor Dor 2007 are flexible. Most of the vehicles on this

road to the farm are small trucks and the farm has enough parking for vehicles to enter the farm, so farms are not the main cause of traffic jams.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Minor


• Large amounts of garbage from the farm may put pressure on local waste

transportation and disposal services

• Improper waste management makes it a breeding ground for carrier animals and a nuisance to neighboring residents.

• Farm provides garbage cans classified by type and covered with lids to prevent garbage blown or odor disturb neighboring houses.

• The farm's waste collection point is away from public water resource and has no leachate into land or public water resource.

• Farm regularly disposes waste to reduces the source of pathogens, foul odors from waste accumulation.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Minor


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures

Magnitude +

Extent +

Duration

Impact

level

Sensitive


1.3 Agriculture

and Livestock

1.3.1 Farm water management (Sea water storage / drainage into natural)

• Seawater in reservoir may cause saline dispersion to adjacent agriculture farms causing production to decrease.

• Discharging wastewater and sludge into natural/public

waterway may affect agricultural areas /livestock that use the same water source

• of the farm is near Ko canal, which is fresh water/ brackish water canal with salinity range is 0-30 ppt.

• The soil properties surrounding the farm is sulphur acid soil and is not suitable for cultivating plants. This area has been used as for aquaculture ponds for over 21 years.

• Piyapon Farm uses natural sea water for shrimp culture. All ponds of the farm are earthern pond

• North and east of the farms are close to oil palm plantations, with wastewater canals and roads as buffer between the farm and agricultural areas.

• Piyapon Farm treats water in sedimentation canal and treatment ponds before allowing

clear water to flow into the public canal for a time per month.

• The farm measures the effluent quality to meet the effluent quality standards from the coastal aquaculture facility.

(1 + 1 + 3) = 5 2 1 Minor

1.4 Fisheries

and other

aquaculture.

1.4.1 Discharge wastewater and sludge into natural/public water canal.

• May effects to local fishery and other aquaculture farm

owners who use the same water source.

• May cause fishery resources to decrease, affecting local / coastal fisheries.

• The water user of Ko canal include Aquacultural farmers (shrimp and fish and local fishermans.

• According to interviews with aquaculture farmers and local fishermans, it was found that the operation of Piyapon farm has no impact water resource use but may affect water quality change of Ko canal.

• Piyapon Farm manages with an open water management system, where farm treats wastwater to meet the wastewater quality standards from the coastal aquaculture establishment, and then decharge water into

the public canal (Ko canal).

• In past several years, the water quality in Ko canal degenerated and the amount of aquatic animals decreased due to the wastewater

(1 + 2 + 2) = 5 2 2 Moderate


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures

Magnitude +

Extent +

Duration

Impact

level

Sensitive


drainage from the black tiger shrimp farms. Currently, the villagers in Lee Led Sub-district stake care of mangrove resources and environmental quality. This has increased mangrove areas, improved water quality and now local fishermen are able to catch more fish.

1.5 Attractions/

Recreational

Areas

1.5.1 Discharge wastewater and sludge into natural/public waterway and marine

debris.

• Deteriorated water quality may also affect marine tourism resources, such as nearby national park.

• Lee Led subdistrict have a conservation resource training center for Ban Huai Sap Mangrove Resources, which is an important natural tourist attraction for the community.

• The farm provides garbage cans covered with lids to collect waste in the farm.

• Farm has open water management system, where farm treats water in the sediment canal to the wastewater quality standards from the coastal aquaculture establishment, and then

drains the water to the public canal (Ko canal). Thus, shrimp farm operations may have an indirect impact on sea water quality and mangrove ecosystems.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 2 Minor

2. Social Aspects (Quality-of-life Values)

2.1 Economy 2.1.1 Employment - Opportunity for local people/ Thai workers/ Foreign workers.

• Generate income for workers and increase

money circulation in the community.

• Potential conflicts between workers from other regions and local workers.

• The farm posts job advertisement in front of farm and give employment opportunities local people.

• Most of the local people in Moo. 7, Lee Led, are trading/own businesses and farmers, where they have their own land, and employ many foreign workers to work in the community.

• From interviews with farm workers found that migrant workers were able to do activities with local people with no conflicts.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Positive

2.1.2 Farm contribution to the Local and national economy.

• Economic activity of farm and workers. supports local business

• Farm does not prevent workers to spend time in community. Farm workers can freely use local service such as fuel, construction materials and food.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Positive


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures

Magnitude +

Extent +

Duration

Impact

level

Sensitive


• Farm workers have a positive impact on economy in the community.

• Farm income contributes to provincial/national economy but may be affected by low shrimp prices

• Farm pays local taxes (such as signage tax, house and land tax) and central (corporate

income tax, vehicle tax).

• All shrimp products are sent to processing plants for local consumption and for export. The export increases the GDP of Suratthani province and country.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 2 Positive

2.2 Human Assets

2.2.1 Local people lose food security.

• Land use changes are not suitable for land conditions.

• Local people lose income.

• Insufficient water sources for agriculture and aquaculture farmers.

• The location of Piyapon Farm has been used as an aquaculture pond for over 21 years. The area surrounding the farm is shrimp farm and

the nearby canal fresh water/brackish water (Ko canal) are sufficient for shrimp farming.

• From interviews with stakeholders, there were no conflicts between farmers, water users in the community and local people still are able to catch fish for their livelihoods and generate income normally.

• Local people earn income from the distribution of agricultural and fisheries

products. The existence of the farm has not changed the income of the community.

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 2 1 Minor

2.2.2 Education and local wisdom

• Potential pressure on local educational institutions at subdistrict, district and province.

• Changes in lifestyle, knowledge and local wisdom of local people

• According to interviews with director of school in communities, it was found that the existence of foreign students has positive impact to local education institutions. The foreign students increase average number of students in school and improved the budget

and welfare. So, the existence of migrant workers within farms has a positive impact on local educational institutions.

• The entry of migrant workers has not changed livelihood or local wisdom. Shrimp farmer and agriculture farmer still use the wisdom gained from living experience and knowledge inherited from their ancestors in their careers.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Negligible


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures

Magnitude +

Extent +

Duration

Impact

level

Sensitive


2.2.3 life and property security of local people

• The crime of migrant workers in local.

• According to interviews with stakeholders, most of the stakeholders stated that the existence of Piyaphon Farm migrant workers has no impact on the safety of life and property of local people. While most of the lawsuits arising in Suratthani province are cases where the state is the victim.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Negligible

2.3 Social and culture

2.3.1 Migrant workers with different cultures and traditions.

• Potential social conflicts in

terms of norms, morals, and traditions, religious or cultural that may not be accepted in the community.

• Piyaphon Farm's migrant workers are Lao people whose culture is not much different

from Thais.

• Farms allow farm workers to participate in important local religious or cultural events. Local people do not prevent the participation of migrant workers

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Negligible

2.3.2 Farm activities. • Historic sites are indirectly destroyed by farm activities

such as saltwater seeping into the water and impacting structurres. Or trucks traveling frequently (within a radius of 2 km) causing vibrations and impact to structures.

• There are no historical or archaeological sites within a radius of 2 km from the farm. There is only Wat Klong Ko (about 0.39 km away from the farm), which is 8 years old.

• Farm trucks (less than 25 tons) use Rural Highway no. 2007 when in a community area, trucks must limit their speed, thus reducing the risk of road damage in front of the temple.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Negligible

2.4 Governance 2.4.1 Control / follow up / inspect the farm to comply with the laws, regulations and licenses.

• Poor governance of

licensing agencies (DOF) and local agencies (SAO.) may result in environmental and social impacts.

• Shrimp farming is promoted by Department of Fisheries, and DOF requires farms to meet standards.

• Farm complies with relevant laws, including laws relating to aquaculture, the environment and natural resources labor and social welfare, including local regulations.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 2 Positive

2.4.2 Legal labor management

• Employer lack of social responsibility regarding

labor could include impacts to:

(1) Forced Labour

(2) Remuneration of Labor

(3) Working hours

(4) Discrimination

• Farm does not employ workers underage of 18 and female workers for shrimp culture.

• Farm has a policy to legally hire workers. Foreign workers of the farm have work permits and Lao workers of farm are trained

to protect their rights with employers.

• Farm strictly follows Thai labor law

(1 + 3 + 1) = 5 2 2 Positive


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures

Magnitude +

Extent +

Duration

Impact

level

Sensitive


(5) Disciplinary practice

(6) Child labor and women worker

(7) Freedom of association and Right to collective

bargaining

(8) Occupational Safety, Health and Environment

(9) welfare benefits

• Farm follows occupational health and safety laws and provides training and monitoring of safety practices.

• Farm supports worker rights including providing drinking water and clean housing, and safety on the farm. There are adequate and sanitary toilets including sufficient electricity and tap water.

• Farm manages employment equality, and equal pay for equal work.

2.4.3 Public participation.

• Lack of awareness and misunderstandings about marine shrimp farming.

• Managing relationships with communities and resolving conflicts with

communities.

• Listening to community opinions.

• Farm attends meetings with the community at least twice a year to provide information and proactively receive feedback from the community.

• Farm manages to receive feedback from the community by providing a Comment box and through verbal comments directly to the farm manager.

• Farm has a complaint management process, focusing on prompt response, sincerity, and

resolving problems to ensure satisfaction for both parties.

• In the event of a conflict, there are government agencies at both the local and provincial levels that can serve as a mediator.

• Farm organizes CSR activities to promote relationships and to contribute to the community.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Positive

3. Health

3.1 Public health / accident.

3.1.1 Car and truck transportation

• May cause road accident in the community where the farm is located.

• Noise and vibration from large trucks entering the farm.

• The local roads are in good condition, and traffic is light.

• Farm has regulations to control farm staff and related contractors to strictly follow the farm vehicle safety rules and related laws.

• Trucks enter the farm and reduce the speed

when passing through the community area, reducing the noise and vibration that are annoying local people.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 2 Minor


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures

Magnitude +

Extent +

Duration

Impact

level

Sensitive


3.1.2 Farm activities. • May cause annoyance / stress to the community until a possible conflict occurs.

• Activities causing the nuisance are noise and odour.

• The farm manages the waste and shrimp feed within the farm according to the Farm Standards Manual, so there is no odor from the sludge or shrimp feed.

• The use of water pumps, aerators and engines generates noise. The farm will carry out maintenance of the pumps to help reduce noise from defective equipment.

• The farm should provide a barrier at water pump station or partition to cover water pumps to decrease noise nuisance to

communities. Farm should not pump water during nighttime (10.00 pm – 06.00 am.)

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 2 Minor

3.1.3 Water discharge into natural canal

• Disease and health effect from water use causing skin irritation or diarrhea ect.

• The farm treats wastewater in treatment pond and checks water quality to meet the effluent quality of coastal aquculture pond standard before discharge into the natural canal (Ko canal).

• According to interviews the local agencies and stakeholders surrounding the farm found that the water quality of Ko canal in past 10

years has deteriorated due to water discharge from Giant tiger prawn farming. Currently, the water quality of Ko canal is better. As the number of shrimp ponds has decreased and stick reglulation of water discharge ftom coastal aquaculture pond.

• From interviews with stakeholders about domestic water, it was found that most of peoples use water from Provincial

Waterworks Authority (93%), while 7% use water from natural source (Ko canal).

• Some of villagers stated that had experienced skin irritation from using water of Ko canal in the past 3-4 years. Currently, there is no skin irritation or diarrhea from domestic use of natural water (Ko canal). That is associated

(1 + 2 + 1) = 4 1 2 Minor


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



General measures

Magnitude +

Extent +

Duration

Impact

level

Sensitive


with the interviews with Lee Led Health Promotion Hospital that there is no patient reports of skin irritation or diarrhea from using the water of Ko canal.

3.2 Health services

3.2.1 Increased migrant workers

• Increased pressure on the local health service/ district/province health and

Regional Center Hospital.

• The farm workers have the right to health service provided through health insurance according to the work permits. The workers

can check health and receive medical treatment at the government hospital, so there is minimal additional pressure on local public

health systems.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 2 Minor

3.2.2 Communicable disease transmitted from migrant workers.

• Communicable diseases may come with foreign workers.

• Foreign workers of farms are legally registered who have received health check-ups including communicable disease before being to work permit in Thailand

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 1 Negligible

3.3 Employee health

3.3.1 Occupational Safety, Health and Environment.

• Work accident

• Safety Working with Hazardous Chemicals

• Working Environment

• The farm provides life jackets for water operations and neatly arranged mechanic tools.

• Farm has check electrical equipment to prevent electric shock from damaged electrical equipment.

• Shrimp culture workers wear long-sleeved shirts, long pants, light fabrics, are able to ventilate well, have a hood to cover the head

and face, reduce direct exposure to sunlight, as extreme heat conditions can cause heat stroke.

• Farm provides training and provides personal safety equipment for workers exposed to chemicals.

• Farms provide drinking water and rest areas at various locations for workers; provides appropriate rest periods to reduce exposure to

the sun during the heat.

(1 + 1 + 1) = 3 1 2 Minor


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


3.3.10 Social impact mitigation and monitoring measures Social impact risk ranking is provided in Table 3-7. The social issues that require the additional

mitigations (Risk is in range of “Medium” and “High”). Table 3-8 Social impact mitigation measures

Activities Potential impact Mitigation measures

1) Social Aspects (Human used Values)

1.1 Discharge wastewater and sludge into natural/public water canal.

• Poor water quality and can not use water for domestic use.

• May effects to local fishery and other aquaculture farm owners who use the same water source.

• May cause fishery resources to decrease, affecting local / coastal fisheries.

• Farm should check water quality of natural canal (Ko canl) at least 2 times/year.

• Farms should record the drainage and check the quality of the effluent before every discharge in accordance with standard of water discharge from coastal aquaculture ponds.

• Farm should provide effluent monitor results to the public.

Table 3-9 Social monitoring measures

Aspect Monitoring

Farm activity • Records complaints from farm workers and corrections

Community participation • Records complaints from community and corrections.

• Records of meeting minutes with the community to obtain feedback and concerns and to identify solutions (if any).

Discharge wastewater • Record the dissemination of information to monitor water effluent quality to the public.

Table 3-10 Social monitoring measures

Risk Mitigation Closure/Reclamatio

Farm is phased out/sold/bankrupt

• The farm is sold to shrimp farming or other aquaculture farming interests

• The farm is sold for other purposes, residential, commercial or agriculture

• Nothing required, providing all ponds are routinely maintained.

• Pond edges should be destructed to adjust the land level. Sediment Ponds cleaned out &/or clean topsoil moved in. All other ponds would require replacement of topsoil, if reused for crop production or shelterbelt plants

Dismissal of workers when close down

Thailand's compliance with labor laws that require compensation for dismissal

-

3.4 Investigations into Priority Impacts The priority impact and concern of the government and stakeholders, both key informants and communities around the farm, include wastewater or farm effluent management, which, if poorly

managed and uncontrolled, will lead to the quality of water resource declining and possibly impacting

another aquatic ecosystem in Gulf of Thailand. Piyapon farm places importance on this issue although farm have discharge water off farm, but the farm

pays attention to environmental controls and abide by law. The farm treated the water from culture and

monitors the water quality before discharge outside the farm as required by law. In addition, the farm

has a good farm in accordance with the shrimp farming standards. Farms reduced the number of culture ponds and increased brackish water reservior, sedimentation canals and sludge ponds. The farm keep

sludge in sludge ponds so there is no need to move the sludge off the farm, resulting in a positive change

in man-made processes. It can be seen that the Piyapon farm does not directly affect the natural system and or processes.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


In addition, the farm manages water and culture pond to meet GAP standard of DOF. The Farms

wastewater management is subject to the standards for wastewater drainage from coastal aquaculture

pond and fram must report the effluent auality to local government agencies (the SAO of Plaiwas). For social aspects, most respondents know some factual information about the farm. Stakeholders have

a positive perception of the farm benefiting income, employment and local/national economy including

local cultural traditions.

The farm should provide additional information to the local community on its farm management

practices. This will help increase the local communities understanding and cooperation in the future.

This information and ongoing CSR activities will promote a positive perception of Piyapon farm to the local community.

3.5 Social Impact Mitigation and Monitoring Measures Suggestions to increase positive impacts and reduce negative impacts will in principle include

compensation for land and affected people. In the case of the Piyapon farm there is no impact to the local community, so compensation is not necessary at this time.

There are no complaints from the community and/or the provincial government agencies. However, the

environmental laws of Thailand follow "Polluter Pays Principle" which, when proven to the polluters,

polluters are responsible for paying fines for causing damage and budgeting for the restoration of that damage. No pollution has been identified.

An important suggestion to Piyapon farm is to provide accurate information to the community about

environmentally friendly farm management practices to show the farm has a commitment to not being a polluter and their support to the community from the farm's CSR activities.

The advanced certification of the Department of Fisheries (TAS 7401-2557) should be a goal to upgrade

to the national farm standard. The TAS standard is very similar to the ASC Shrimp Standard. It can be

seen that, both national and international shrimp culture standard can contribute to the same goal to

ensure ecofriendly farming, impact reduction and biodiversity preservation with community

participation, standardized labor practice and human rights. The farm operation under TAS standards

can maintain the ASC standard as well.

3.5.1 Indicators of positive impacts • Increased public confidence in the operation of Piyapon farm

• Increased community involvement in environmental protection.

• Sustained good relationship between Farm and community.

• Sustained good relationship between Farm and community. 3.5.2 Indicators of negative impacts

• Community anxiety on environmental impact from Farm. • Community complaints received, relative to Farm operations. • Monitoring reports indicating pollutant levels above regulatory standards

3.6 Social Impact Mitigation and Monitoring Measures A summary with recommendations and conclusion has been made available to all parties involved in

the process B-EIA and P-SIA processes. The key measures can be summarized as follows:

1. Farms will comply with relevant laws, such as Law on Aquaculture (Marine Shrimp),

Environmental Law, Forest, Protected Area and Wildlife Protection. The farm has an

arrangement that all Official Government documents kept at the farm are always checked and

maintained such as the Farmer identification card, GAP Certificate of DOF, Copy of title deeds, etc.

2. Farm will be certified and maintain standards as defined by the state.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


3. Farm agrees to be randomly checked quality in accordance with the requirements of the

Department of Fisheries.

4. Farm meets with government officials and stakeholders to discuss BEIA and P-SIA results and mitigation and monitoring requirements.

5. Communities can comment on environmental information and participate in corrective

measures to Mitigate problems and potential health risks. 6. Farm provides a complaint box at the entrance to the farm where people can write concerns or

suggestions to the farm. Also, comments can be made through the village headman, the

Municipality, both verbally and written.

7. Hold at a minimum, 2 meetings per year with community to discuss updates or issues. (if any)

8. When receiving complaints, the farm will investigate the causes and correct them according and

report back to the complainant or relevant local authorities.

9. Farm will strictly operate in accordance to its standard operating procedures (please see at the farm)

10. Farm will monitor and keep records about shrimp culture and environmental quality for at least

12 months.

11. Prevent pollution and waste by using a hierarchy of waste management. Manage the farm in an environmentally friendly manner.

12. Farm must manage shrimp death properly according to guidelines to prevent the spread of

disease and to not allow the transmission to the natural water source. 13. Farm must install seine or net to prevent Litopenaeus vannamei from escaping into the natural

environment both during culture and harvesting periods.

14. Provide education to the local fishermen on the classification of white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) from local shrimp species. If there is a mix of shrimp caught in nature. The caught

shrimp should be recorded (Size, time period found, Species, Fishing spot) to assess the long-

term biological impact.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


ANNEX 1 B-EIA Guideline For Auditor1

1. Quality of the B-EIA process (e.g., was it participatory and transparent).

(a) B-EIA carried out by a valid expert in accordance with the farm scale.

(b) The B-EIA was publicly (locally) communicated with sufficient time for interested parties to participate

and/or get informed.

(c) Stakeholders are listed and impact descriptions are documented and in preparation of the final B-EIA

report, meetings with the listed stakeholders (or by stakeholders chosen representatives) have taken place.

(d) These meetings have been recorded and the minutes are attached to the final report; names and contact

details of participating stakeholders included.

(e) Evidence is provided that draft and final B-EIA reports have been submitted to local government

representatives and, if requested by stakeholders, a legally registered civil organization chosen by these

stakeholders.

(f) Evidence is provided that the final B-EIA reports have been submitted and reviewed by a specialist with

appropriate expertise on biodiversity issues.

(g) B-EIA completed according to guidance on B-EIA and P-SIA relationship (transparency and

consultation).

2. Risk analysis: actual (past and present) impacts of the current farms, or potential impacts of the intended farm or expansion of existing farm and at least two alternatives (one of these is the “no farm or no expansion” scenario).

Concepts to cover include:

(a) The type of farming, possible alternatives and a summary of activities likely to affect biodiversity.

(b) An analysis of opportunities and constraints for biodiversity (include “no net biodiversity loss” or

“biodiversity restoration” alternatives).

(c) Expected biophysical changes (in soil, water, air, flora and fauna) resulting from proposed or existing

activities or induced by any socioeconomic changes.

(d) Spatial and temporal scale of influence, identifying effects on connectivity between ecosystems, and

potential cumulative effects.

(e) Available information on baseline conditions and any anticipated trends in biodiversity in the absence of

the proposal.

(f) Likely biodiversity impacts associated with the proposal or current operations in terms of composition, structure and function of surrounding ecosystems.

(g) Biodiversity services and values identified in consultation with stakeholders and anticipated magnitude,

direction and timeline of changes in these (highlight any irreversible impacts).

(h) Possible measures to avoid minimize or compensate for significant biodiversity damage or loss, making

reference to any legal requirements. Information required to support decision making and summary of

important gaps.

(j) Proposed IA methodology and timescale.

3. Impact statement is available and contains all of the requirements listed above along with a clear indication of

authors and affiliations.

4. Review process, reviewers (decision makers), and decisions clearly documented.

5. Clear understanding as to how options for mitigation and offsetting were determined and how avoidance actions were prioritized over compensation.

6. Names, affiliations and experience of the reviewing specialist are documented and clear understanding of how

affected groups were involved and how balanced consideration was given to conservation vs. development goals

in the peer review.

7. The management system is clearly stated, including the mitigation monitoring goals and strategies.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


ANNEX 2 P-SIA Guildline For Auditor2

1. Quality of the p-SIA process (e.g., is it participatory and transparent).

(a) The intent to conduct a p-SIA is locally publicly communicated with sufficient time for interested parties

to participate and/or get informed.

(b) In listing stakeholders, in making impact descriptions, and in preparation of a final p-SIA report document

meetings with the listed stakeholders (or by stakeholders chosen representatives) have taken place.

(c) These meetings have been minuted and these records are attached to the final report; names and contact

details of participating stakeholders are included.

(d) Evidence is provided that draft and final p-SIA reports have been submitted to a local government

representative and, if stakeholders so desire, to a (by stakeholders chosen) legally registered civil

organization.

(e) B-EIA done and completed according to guidance under 2.1 (appropriate accreditation and consultation).

2. The risks and actual (past and present) impacts of the current or intended farm and at least two alternatives (one

of these is the “no farm or no expansion” scenario). Concepts to cover include:

(a) Economic aspects (influence on employment opportunities, influence on other livelihoods in community).

(b) Natural resource access and use (land and water tenure, influence on quality and availability of natural

resources including water).

(c) Human assets (food security, health and safety, education, indigenous knowledge).

(d) Physical infrastructure (access to roads, electricity, telephone, housing, waste disposal systems).

(e) Social and cultural aspects (indigenous/traditional/customary rights and beliefs, social

exclusion/inclusion, gender equity, changes in age composition of the community, local informal

institutions and organizations).

(f) Governance aspects (influence of aquaculture on norms, taboos, regulations, laws, conflict management

and whether these changes add up to more or less transparency, accountability and participation in

decision making.

3. Research and report probable impacts that is likely to be most important. In doing this, it is important to arrange

meetings with stakeholders to let them prioritize and to let them express how they assess/view/feel; identify both

positive and negative risks and impacts.

4. Do deeper investigations into priority impacts with a focus on the question: “What changes will lead to if they

indeed come about?” These include:

(a) Physical effects to man‐made and natural structures and processes.

(b) Likely adaptations and the social and economic effects of making such adaptations.

(c) How these effects and indirect effects would compare to having no intervention.

(d) How effects may or might be cumulative.

5. Make recommendations to maximize the positive and minimize the negative, with consideration to

compensation options for those lands and people impacted. Also include recommendations on how to avoid these

issues with theintended farm or farm development.

6. Propose a mitigation plan assuming the farm development will take place or continue (in an adapted form if that

seems appropriate); include a “closure and reclamation plan” explaining how repair or restoration will take place

after farm closure or bankruptcy (see P2).

7. Develop and approve with all stakeholders a monitoring plan and indicators on both positive and negative risks

and impacts (make use of FDG and/or PRA methodologies in this step).

8. A summary with recommendations and conclusions is made available to all involved in the process and, through

local public notices, made accessible to all members of the local community.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


ANNEX 3 Farm coordinates and land title documents

Farm coordinates

Note: Satellite imagery from Google earth 2020

Point Longitude_E Latitude_N Point Longitude_E Latitude_N

1 99° 14.208' 9° 11.779' 22 99° 14.489' 9° 11.545'

2 99° 14.258' 9° 11.828' 23 99° 14.482' 9° 11.545'

3 99° 14.315' 9° 11.934' 24 99° 14.445' 9° 11.566'

4 99° 14.348' 9° 11.953' 25 99° 14.439' 9° 11.562'

5 99° 14.537' 9° 11.805' 26 99° 14.423' 9° 11.575'

6 99° 14.527' 9° 11.818' 27 99° 14.440' 9° 11.624'

7 99° 14.537' 9° 11.830' 28 99° 14.439' 9° 11.636'

8 99° 14.497' 9° 11.861' 29 99° 14.397' 9° 11.683'

9 99° 14.525' 9° 11.878' 30 99° 14.365' 9° 11.725'

10 99° 14.387' 9° 11.980' 31 99° 14.267' 9° 11.746'

11 99° 14.434' 9° 12.004' 32 99° 14.257' 9° 11.734'

12 99° 14.616' 9° 11.869' 33 99° 14.229' 9° 11.750'

13 99° 14.583' 9° 11.854' 34 99° 14.657' 9° 11.574'

14 99° 14.648' 9° 11.758' 35 99° 14.613' 9° 11.702'

15 99° 14.596' 9° 11.734' 36 99° 14.597' 9° 11.728'

16 99° 14.594' 9° 11.727' 37 99° 14.598' 9° 11.730'

17 99° 14.608' 9° 11.702' 38 99° 14.644' 9° 11.751'

18 99° 14.653' 9° 11.573' 39 99° 14.653' 9° 11.747'

19 99° 14.642' 9° 11.568' 40 99° 14.669' 9° 11.750'

20 99° 14.604' 9° 11.521' 41 99° 14.706' 9° 11.590'

21 99° 14.505' 9° 11.557'

WGS 1984


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Land documents

No. Land certicicate type Cerficate no. Area (Rai)

1 N.S. 4 GOR 17155 17.7625

2 N.S. 4 GOR 16927 10.4425

3 N.S. 4 GOR 37929 34.5948

4 N.S. 4 GOR 26238 7.8788

5 N.S. 4 GOR 17159 7.0275

6 N.S. 4 GOR 37932 10.6973

7 N.S. 4 GOR 17156 8.9725

8 N.S. 4 GOR 26120 14.6003

9 N.S. 4 GOR 37931 19.41

10 N.S. 4 GOR 17273 8.3475

11 N.S. 4 GOR 37930 12.192

12 N.S. 3 KOR 735 9.675

13 N.S. 3 KOR 1104 9.015

14 N.S. 4 GOR 17157 18.4675

15 N.S. 3 509 5.75

16 N.S. 3 446 14.8525

17 N.S. 3 247 10.075

18 N.S. 3 70 10.6025

Total area 230.363


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


ANNEX 4 Stakeholder and meeting recorded Key informants and stakeholders listed

Name Organization / Address Interviewed

date

Mr. Songpol Srimahadthai Fisheries Suratthani Province office 14/10/2020

Mrs. Supaporn Kaewakson Coastal Aquaculture Research and Development

Center (Suratthani)

14/10/2020

Mr. Teeraphan Puangsunthorn Marine and Coastal Resources Management

Office 4 (Suratthani)

14/10/2020

Ms. Chananchida Chunchiew Lee Led Subdistrict Administrative Organization 14/10/2020

Mr. Surin Vejvimol Provincial Affairs Bureau 14/10/2020

Mr. Prasarnsuk Kaewpichai Provincial Affairs Bureau 14/10/2020

Mr. Suwicha Jaimuang Fisheries Phunphin District Office 14/10/2020

Ms. Nipaphan Srifah Natural Resources and Environment Suratthani

Provincial Office

15/10/2020

Mr. Teerachat Chidjui Lee Led Sub-district Health Promoting Hospital 10/11/2020

Mr. Sumit Nilarun Director of Wad Bangphla school 01/12/2021

Mrs. Jilaporn Meethep Director of Wad Tritararam school 01/12/2021

Mr. Yuttana Buanphech Director of Wad Khaosriwichai school 01/12/2021

Mrs. Kanchana Duangsuwan 55/4 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Ms. Sirilak Kongmeesuk 24/6 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Saiyud Thakua 18/4 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Lamyai 20 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Ms. Somsong Thakua 18/7 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Ms. Chaweewan Thakua 18/6 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Noppadol Sukpibul 3/1 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Panya Thakua 18/5 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Pramuan Kongsook 7/3 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Ms. Jinda Kaewjamnong 71/1 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Prayoon Sarakul 9849 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Jamnong Petchmanee 6 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Suchada Luechai 23 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Prasit Kongmeesuk 8/1 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Narong Thakua 18/2 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Saisamon Kaewchon 14 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Mingbạllạng Suanploy 14/3 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Ms. Nopparat Suanploy 14/2 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Thawee Worakijniporn Does not specify 15/10/2020

Ms. Piyapa Kongmeesuk 26/9 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Uthai Saengla-or 49/1 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Kwanruethai Maneepai 30/5 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Miss Chonthicha Singsom 41/3 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Pranom 31/2 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Mr. Attaphon Intapoj 49 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Vinya Chamnongpan 27/2 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Pranee Kong-on 35 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Lamjuan Khunthong 27/3 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Piangjai Chamnongpan 47 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Mala Charoenkhun 55 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Pratum Tubtimphian 59/2 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Kuan Thakua 28 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Preida Chamnongpan 22 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Somsri Chudam Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Panupong Vetvimol 90/1 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Sanya Leung-On 58 Moo 5 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Chalerm Wichai 26/6 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Suriya Meeanan 6 Moo 5 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mrs. Ubon Kaewsaihuan 21/4 Moo 5 Lee Led Sub-district 15/10/2020

Mr. Sittisak Sedsawat Does not specify 15/10/2020

Mrs. Soontreeya Worayos 41/3 Moo 5 Lee Led Sub-district 16/10/2020

Mrs. Prapath Phetmanee 93/1 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 17/10/2020

Mrs. Jarin Petpimol 1 Moo 7 Lee Led Sub-district 17/10/2020


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Location of stakeholders around the farm


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Summary of interviews with key informant

(1) Suratthani Provincial Fisheries Office

Date: October 14, 2020 Time: 09.00 p.m.

Attendees

Mr. Songpol Srimahadthai Fisheries scholar

Ms. Noppatsorn Muangnak Environmental Analyst (Environmental and Health) Ms. Phonphan Kulsonnan Environmental Analyst (Participation)

A representative of Okeanos Food

Meeting records

Mr. Songpol Srimahadthai had completed a questionnaire on economics, social, health and environment

including questions on household base data and attitudes on aquaculture activity (Key Informant). He

was aware of Piyapon Farm’s intention to acquire the farm certification in accordance with ASC Shrimp

standard.

Mr. Songphol said that in Phunphin District, there are about 200 shrimp farms, most of them small farms,

whlie the large shrimp farms, there are approximately 20 shrimp farms. Suratthani province have a

combined aquaculture system, where shrimp are raised in conjunction with other economic aquaculture such as tilapia and snapper to help treat water from shrimp aquaculture.

Mr. Songphol said that Provincial fisheries are responsible for regulating marine shrimp aquaculture

because marine shrimp are controlled aquatic animals, which the Provincial Fisheries are registrar and certified standards. Currently, the Department of Fisheries has developed a system APD to enable

farmers to register their farms, request an aquaculture purchase certificate, and be able to traceable the

origin of the shrimp. In addition, the Department of Fisheries attaches importance to the GAP standard.

If the shrimp farm does not meet the GAP standards, the shrimp cannot be sold to the cold storage.

In the future, the Department of Fisheries plans to develop the GAP standard TAS-7436 as a general

standard that every farm must have in order to make the Thai standard equivalent to the international

standard. As for the environmental issues in Suratthani province, there has never been a complaint about shrimp farming and Piyapon Farm has no any complaints from the farm's operations.

Mr. Songphol stated that shrimp farming has many positive impacts such as increased employment,

local income increased and improved transportation and infrastructure. For negative impact, Mr.

Songphol said that the shrimp farm operations had no negative impact as currently; the shrimp farms are better managed than in the past, including more stringent aquaculture standards have resulted in a

reduction in the negative impact of shrimp farming.

Mr. Songpol has no concerns about shrimp farming in the area and agreed if more shrimp aquaculture areas were developed or expanded and encouraged to develop continuously in terms of marketing,

export and consumer safety.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


2) Leeled Subdistrict Administrative Organization


Attendees

Ms. Chananchida Chunchiew Chief of the Permanent Secretary

Mr. Surin Vejvimol Village Head Moo 6, Ban Bang Nai Ban

Mr. Prasarnsuk Kaewpichai Village Head Moo 7, Ban Klong Ko Ms. Noppatsorn Muangnak Environmental Analyst (Environmental and Health)

Ms. Phonphan Kulsonnan Environmental Analyst (Participation)


Meeting records

Ms. Chananchida Chunchiew, Mr. Surin Vejvimol and Mr. Prasarnsuk Kaewpichai had completed a

questionnaire on economics, social, health and environment including questions on household base data

and attitudes on aquaculture activity (Key Informant). Theye was aware of Piyapon Farm’s intention to

acquire the farm certification in accordance with ASC Shrimp standard.

Mr. Prasarnsuk said that Leeled sub-district has about 300 aquaculture farms include shrimp farms, fish

farms and crab farms. Mr. Surin said that shrimp farmers in Leeled sub-district began black tiger prawns

cultured before they changes to white shrimp cultures, which previously they have discharge water after

cultivation into natural water sources degraded the water quality in the canal.

Ms. Chananchida said that Leeled Subdistrict there are been a complaint about the drainage of water

into natural canals. When the agency receives the complaint, it will go to investigate and mediate, if the

negotiation is unsuccessful, the police will report and prosecute. Piyapon Farm has no any complaints

about the operation of the farm.

For the positive and negative impacts of shrimp aquaculture, all respondents indicated that shrimp

farming has many positive impacts are local income increased and better local and national economies.

For the negative impact is causes environmental problems. All three respondents have concerns about

the drainage of water into natural water sources, degrading water quality.

However, all three respondents agree on the development / increase of cultured farm areas in the

responsible area, but must increase the appropriate amount according to the area conditions, the farm

management is environmentally friendly and must have good pollution management and meet legal

standards.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


3) Marine and Coastal Resources Management Office 4 (Suratthani)

Date: October 16, 2020 Time: 01.00 a.m.

Attendees

Mr. Teeraphan Puangsunthorn Director of Mangrove Resource Conservation Division



Meeting records

Mr. Teeraphan Puangsunthorn had completed a questionnaire on economics, social, health and environment including questions on household base data and attitudes on aquaculture activity (Key

Informant). He was aware of Piyapon Farm’s intention to acquire the farm certification in accordance

with ASC Shrimp standard.

Mr. Teeraphan said that mangrove forest area in Leeled sub-district has area increase an average of 1-2

meters per year, with the major species of trees are Cork tree and Olive mangrove. The aquatic animals

found in mangrove areas are crab samae, sea bass, mullet fish. In addition, there are larvae of aquatic animals that inhabit the mangrove forest such as sea shrimp, black crab, meder's mangrove crab,

periwinkle, hard clam, oysters. For land animals, the most common are the macaque monkeys, water

monitor, mangrove pitviper and many other birds that come to live or forage in the mangrove forest

floor, such as egrets, little cormorant, hawks and Asian openbill.

For environmental problems in Suratthani province, there has a complaint about water pollution caused

by the post-culture drainage of the shrimp farm, causing the natural water sources to decay, affecting

farmers who share the water and Local fishermen could not piscatory fish in the canal. For Piyapon Farm has no a complaint about the operation of the farm.

Mr. Teeraphan stated that shrimp farming has positive impact are farmers earn more income and living

life improved. As for the potential negative impacts, Mr. Theeraphan stated that culture has many

negative impacts such as soil structure changed, sea water quality deteriorates, natural propagation decreases and mangrove forests decreased, causing a lack of diversity of life, etc.

Mr. Theeraphan proposed ways to increase the positive impact and the negative impact are farms must

have a systematic farm management, provide appropriate technology for aquaculture and environmental protection campaigns. In addition, Mr. Theeraphan is concerned about the expansion of saltwater to

freshwater areas, causing changes in natural resources and the environment.

However, Mr. Teeraphan agree on the development of marine shrimp farming in the area, but must not invade or destroy mangrove areas and have to manage the farm systematically so as not to affect the

environment and community.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


4) Coastal Aquaculture Research and Development Center (Suratthani) Office


Attendees

Mrs. Supaporn Kaewakson Fisheries Officer (Professional)

Ms. Noppatsorn Muangnak Environmental Analyst (Environmental and Health)



Meeting records

Mrs. Supaporn Kaewakson had completed a questionnaire on economics, social, health and environment

including questions on household base data and attitudes on aquaculture activity (Key Informant). She

was aware of Piyapon Farm’s intention to acquire the farm certification in accordance with ASC Shrimp standard.

Mrs. Supaporn said that The agency is responsible for the assessment of shrimp farm standards and will

check farm management. In addition, the agency also has a health screening service for larva shrimp, quality of pond water and effluent and epidemics in shrimp. Mrs. Supaporn said that in Suratthani

province, there had been complaints about shrimp farms about draining off the farm which affected the

environment but had no impact on the community.

Mrs. Supaporn thinks that shrimp farms have positive impacts such as local employment, increase local income and better economic. The negative impact is that the ecosystem has changed.

Mr. Supaporn suggested ways to increase the positive impact that farms can generate more income for

the community by hiring local workers. For process to reduce the negative impacts is to replace the forest in the destroyed area. In addition, Ms. Supaporn does not have any concerns about shrimp culture.

Mr. Supaporn agrees with the development or expansion of cultured areas, but must be in a permitted

area without affecting the performance and in accordance with the law.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


5) Phunphin District Fisheries Office


Attendees

Mr. Suwicha Jaimuang Fisheries Phunphin District Office

Ms. Noppatsorn Muangnak Environmental Analyst (Environmental and Health)



Meeting records

Mr. Suwicha Jaimuang had completed a questionnaire on economics, social, health and environment including questions on household base data and attitudes on aquaculture activity (Key Informant). He


standard.

Mr. Suwicha said that the district fisheries officer will be responsible for farmers registration for people in the Phunphin district, then will bring registration information of local people to the province fisheries

office. Mr. Suwicha stated that shrimp farming is a way of life for the people in the community because

shrimp farming has been promoted for more than 10 years, a profession that has been passed down for generations and is a profession in the life of the local people.

For complaints from shrimp aquaculture in Phunphin District, there have been complaints about the

drainage of wastewater into natural water sources affecting local fisheries causing it to be unable to catch animals, but there has never been any complaints about the operation of Piyapon Farm.

Mr. Suwicha said that shrimp farms have positive impacts is farmers earn more income For the negative

impacts, Mr. Suwicha stated that shrimp farming has slightly impacts such as wastewater, but if the

farm has good water management, shrimp farming has no negative impact on the environment and community. Currently, there are standards in aquaculture that focus on the environment causing reduce

the negative effects that had previously occurred.

Mr. Suwicha is concerned about the use of chemicals in the culture to cause chemical residues in shrimp, if a chemical residue is detected shrimp will not be able to sell and may affect farmers. Mr. Suwicha

recommends that bio-organic shrimp farmers do not use chemicals and if they are using food

supplements, they should first check to make sure that the ingredients of the product do not contain any

prohibited substances according to the announcement of the Department of Fisheries.

Mr. Suwicha agrees if there is more development of marine shrimp farming areas but requires good farm

management and only culture in the permitted saltwater zones.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


6) Provincial office of Natural Resources and Environment Suratthani.


Respondents

Ms. Nipaphan Srifah Director of Environment Division

Questionnaire summary

Ms. Nipaphan Srifah had completed a questionnaire on economics, social, health and environment including questions on household base data and attitudes on aquaculture activity (Key Informant). She


standard.

Mss.Nipaphan said that Suratthani province has several shrimp farms, there has complaint about the

drainage of waste into the environment, which the problem of the said complaint has been resolved, and

with the Suratthani Province Environment Division already inspecting and informing the shrimp farm

to resolve the problem and Piyapon Farm has no complaint on farm operation.

Mss. Nipaphan believes that shrimp farming has both positive and negative impacts on the community.

The positive impact is to help develop the economy and generate income for the community, while the

negative impact is wastewater is discharge to the environment.

Mss. Nipaphan suggested that all shrimp farms pay attention to treating the water from the aquaculture

to meet the standard of coastal aquaculture pond effluents before discharges to the environment to build

understanding on shrimp farm management for surrounding communities and natural resources are

restored.

Mss. Nipaphan is concerned about the water quality of the natural water canals, if the farm does not

treat the water from the farming, it will cause environmental impacts in the natural canals and disagree

on expanding the shrimp farming area, but provide shrimp farm farmers to develop their existing shrimp ponds to have a good management system.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


7) Leeled sub-district Health Promoting Hospital

Respondents

Mr. Teerachat Chidjui Director of Leeled Sub-District Health Promoting Hospital


Mr. Teerachat Chidjui had completed a questionnaire on economics, social, health and environment including questions on household base data and attitudes on aquaculture activity (Key Informant). She


standard.

Mr. Teerachat stated that Leeled HPH. providing health care services for general diseases, which the hospital serves both local people and migrant workers who come to live in the local. Mr. Theerachat

reported that there had been migrant workers from shrimp farms to receive treatment for respiratory

disease, which Mr. Theerachat stated that the access to health services of migrant workers from shrimp farms was not under pressure local health facilities.

For concerns about health and disease caused by migrant workers of shrimp farms. Mr. Teerachat

concerned about respiratory and digestive diseases. Mr. Teerachat recommend for migrant workers to maintain good health to reduce the risk of illness. For the availability of health services of Leeled Health

Promoting Hospital, Mr. Theerachat saw that medical supplies were insufficient to provide services to

the people in the community.

For environmental impact, Mr. Teerachat stated that has no received any complaints about the environmental impact from the shrimp aquaculture business and think that shrimp farming has no

environmental impact on Leelet HPH and has no received any complaints from the operation of Piyapon

Farm.

Mr. Teerachat thinks that shrimp farms have many positive impacts such as help promote the economy

and increase income. For the negative impact are soil degradation and increased water pollution.

However, Mr. Theerachat disagrees if there is a development or expansion of the aquaculture area

because there are now enough cultured areas. The shrimp culture must be suitable for the area and emphasize the conservation of nature in the community.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


8) Wad Bangphla school

Respondents

Mr. Sumit Nilarun Director of Wad Bangphla school


Mr. Sumit Nilarun had completed a questionnaire on economics, social, health and environment including questions on household base data and attitudes on aquaculture activity (Key Informant). She


standard.

Mr. Sumit stated that Wat Bang Pha La School has 28 students foreign studying within the school whose

presence of foreign students does not put pressure on educational institutions and the differences in

language, traditions and cultures of foreign students and Thai students do not affect educational

institutions, including the performance of personnel. Thai students and international students can learn

and live together, where all students are treated equally and are not discriminated against treating

students according to different nationalities. The positive and negative social impact on the educational institutions is local. Mr. Sumit informed that

shrimp aquaculture had no negative impact on local educational institutions and he stated that shrimp

aquaculture had a positive impact on educational establishments as the children of migrant worker

increased the average student population of school and receive support budgets increase. Mr. Sumit

suggested that shrimp farms should increase local employment in order to generate income for parents

of students and to increase income for local residents.

For concerns about shrimp aquaculture that may affect local educational institutions. Mr. Sumit said that

were no concerns about shrimp aquaculture activities or the existence of migrant workers in the

community, as he viewed shrimp farming as promoting and learning the occupation of the community.

And Mr. Sumit agreed on the development and expansion of shrimp aquaculture areas in local. The

expansion of shrimp farms could have implications for increasing the number of students in local schools

and help educational institutions to be developed even further as the government allocates a budget for

each school based on the number of students of each school.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


9) Wad Tritararam school

Respondents

Mr. Jilaporn Meethep Director of Wad Tritararam school


Mrs. Jiraporn Meethep had completed a questionnaire on economics, social, health and environment including questions on household base data and attitudes on aquaculture activity (Key Informant). She


standard.

Mrs. Jiraporn stated that Wat Tritararam School has 34 foreign students studying within the school, the existence of foreign students does not put pressure on the education institution, which foreign students

being very enthusiastic about their studies and their parents are very supportive and cooperate with the

school as well. In addition, Mrs. Jiraporn informed that foreign students studying are all Lao foreign students, whose language, traditions and culture are similar to that of Thailand, thus there is no problem

of language, tradition and culture differences within the school. And the school treats all students equally

in terms of teaching, scholarships and welfare without discrimination of race as a criterion in the treatment of students.

The positive and negative social impact on the educational institutions in local. Mrs.Jiraporn shrimp

aquaculture had no negative impact on local educational institutions and she saw that shrimp culture had

a positive impact on educational institutions because shrimp culture helped create careers and income for parents and students, enabling them to contribute to their families and used as expenses in the daily

life of the students. Mrs.Jiraporn suggested that employers encourage employees to pursue secondary

occupations along with shrimp culture to generate more income for workers.

Concerns about the possible education institutional impacts of marine shrimp farming in local. Mrs.

Jiraporn is concerned about the relocation of parents as some of the students' parents change jobs

frequently, forcing the students to relocate to their educational institutions according to their parents and

not continue to study.

Mrs. Jiraporn agrees with the development / expansion of shrimp aquaculture areas in local and she

think that the number of foreign students that may increase from expanding shrimp aquaculture areas

has no impact on local educational institutions in both budget and burden of personnel is increasing as

the government has allocated funds to support all students in the school without discrimination.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


10) Wad Bangphla school

Respondents

Mr. Yutttana Buanphech Director of Wad Khaosriwichai school


Mr. Yutttana Buanphech had completed a questionnaire on economics, social, health and environment including questions on household base data and attitudes on aquaculture activity (Key Informant).

He was aware of Piyapon Farm’s intention to acquire the farm certification in accordance with ASC

Shrimp standard.

Mr. Yuttana stated that there are 66 foreign students studying in Wat Khao Sriwichai School, who are

Lao and Myanmar nationals. The existence of foreign students does not put any pressure on educational

institutions. Most foreign students are born and studied in Thai schools since childhood, so there is no

problem with language, traditions, culture and communication with school personnel. Wat Khao

Sriwichai School treats all students equally.

Mr. Yuttana stated that shrimp culture had no negative impact on local educational institutions and he

think that shrimp aquaculture had a positive impact is create income for local residents. Mr. Yuttana has

no concerns about shrimp farming or the existence of migrant workers and agrees with the shrimp farm

will develop / expand shrimp aquaculture areas, which if the number of foreign students increased from

expanding the farm, it would help the school to receive budget for educational development increase.

Therefore, Mr. Yuttana informed that the increase in the number of international students has no impact

on the budget or burden on the school as the government agencies have allocated sufficient funds for

the number of students enrolled and does not use nationality as a criterion scheduled budget.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Interview Key informants

Interview stakeholders


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


ANNEX 5 Law / Reguration / Permit and Certificated

State laws and regulations

1 The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560 (2017). 2 Royal Decree on Fisheries B.E. 2558 (2015).

2.1 Announcement of Department of Fisheries requires that operator of controlled

aquaculture business must prepare aquatic animal movement document (No. 2), B.E. 2559 (2016).

2.2 Announcement of the Suratthani Fisheries Committee on Determine the aquaculture zone

for controlled species: marine shrimp 2017.

3 Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act B.E. 2535 (1992). 3.1 Notification of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment regarding coastal

aquaculture ponds as a source of pollution that must be controlled on water discharged into

public water or environment. 3.2 Notification of Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Establish standards for

controlling water discharge from coastal aquaculture ponds.

4 The Marine and Coastal Resources Management Promotion Act B.E. 2548 (1915). 5 The Public Health Act B.E. 2535 (1992) and the Amendments.

6 The Act of Establishes Plans and Procedures for Decentralization to Local Administrative

Organizations, B.E. 2542 (1999).

7 The Labor Protection Act, B.E. 2541 (1998). 8 Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990) and Amendments.

9 Safety, Occupational Health and Workplace Environment Act B.E. 2554 (2011).

10 Royal Decree on Foreign Workers Employment Management B.E. 2560 (2017). 11 Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act B.E. 2535 (1992).

11.1 Ministerial Regulation defined wildlife to be protected wildlife.

12 Animal Feed Quality Control Act, B.E. 2558 (2015).

13 Animal Diseases Act B.E. 2558 (2015). 14 Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979).

15 Hazardous Substances Act B.E. 2535 (1992) and Amendments.

15.1 Notification of the Ministry of Industry Re: List of Hazardous Substances B.E. 2556 (2013).

16 Notification of the Wage Commission (No. 9) on the minimum wage applicable on April 1,

2018. 17 Land Excavation and Land Filling Act B.E. 2543 (2000).

18 Ministerial Regulation Concerning Labour Protection in Agricultural Work B.E.2557

(2014).

19 The Cleanliness and Orderliness of the Country Act, B.E. 2535.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Farm identification card

GAP Standard certificate of Fisheries Department, Thailand


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Shrimp food standard certificate, International Fishmeal Organization (IFFO)


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


ANNEX 6 Farm Management Records

Example of shrimp larvae quality report


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Example of Aquatic Animal Fry Movement Document (FMD)


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Example of Aquatic Animal Movement Document (MD)


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Example of water quality analysis results


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


ANNEX 7 Threatened Species in Suratthani Province and

Imporntant Species Around Farm Threatened Species in Suratthani

Common name

Scientific name

Habitats

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Bat hawk

Macheiramphus alcinus

Khlong Phraya Wildlife Sanctuary

CR/LC

IUCN reported that Global population of Bat

hawk is about 670-6,700 individuals, with stable

population trend, while Thailand has not found a

study of Bat hawk population, because it is the

rarest endemic species in Thailand and Bat hawk

have been reported in no more than 10 sites in

the south. The bat hawk is a good indicator of the

integrity of the rainforest and in 2015; Mr

Somchai Lerdkasemsan recorded a picture of

Bat hawk at Bala Forest, Narathiwat Province.

According to interviews with local residents

within a 1 km radius from the farm, 6% of those

interviewed said they had seen Bat hawk

Common name

Scientific name

Habitats

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Straw-headed Bulbul

Pycnonotus zeylanicus

Suratthani

CR/CR

IUCN reported that Global population of Straw-headed Bulbul is about 600-1,700 individuals, with decrease population trend. DNP (2011) reported that Strawheaded Bulbul is a resident of Thailand. Currently, it issmall amount and only found in the southern region. No population survey report in Thailand. According tointerviews with local residents within a 1 km radius from the farm, 6% of those interviewed said they had seen Straw-headed Bulbul.

Common name Scientific name Habitats Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Olive-backed Woodpecker

Dinopium rafflesii

Khao Sok National Park/ Khlong Saeng Wildlife

Sanctuary

EN/NT

IUCN does not have a report on the population of Olive-backed Woodpecker but reported that population trend is decreasing. DNP (2011)65 reported that Olive-backed Woodpecker is a rare local bird of Thailand and is only found in some where southern regions. There is no study of the population in Thailand. According to interviews with local residents within a 1 km radius from the farm, 24% of those interviewed said they had seen Olive-backed Woodpecker.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Common name

Scientific name

Habitats

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Wallace’ Hawk Eagle

Nisaetus nanus

Khao Sok National Park/ Khlong Saeng Wildlife

Sanctuary/Ban Na Seang.

EN/VU IUCN reported that Global population of Wallace’ Hawk Eagle is about 2,500-9,999 individuals, with decrease population trend. BCST (2016) 66 reported that found 1 Wallace’ Hawk Eagle in the Khao Sok-Khlong Saeng forest group on January 15, 2014, representing 0.04%-0.01% of Wallace’ Hawk Eagle population around the world. According to interviews with local residents within 1 km radius from the farm, 27% of those interviewed said they had seen Wallace’ Hawk Eagle

Common name

Scientific name

Habitats

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Irrawaddy Dolphin

Orcaella brevirostris

Kanchanadit CR/EN IUCN does not report on the population of Irrawaddy Dolphin, but reported that that population trend is decreasing. In 2015, DMCR67 reported that the population of Irrawaddy Dolphin in central of Gulf of Thailand was about 30 individuals in Suratthani province. 57 Especially, Ao Ban Don. According to interviewing the communities within 1 km of the farm found that 29% of interviewer has been found 4-5 inviduals of Irrawaddy Dolphin in deep sea on Gulf of Thailand but no found along the coastal.

Common name

Scientific name

Habitats

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Dugong Dugong dugon Suratthani CR/VU IUCN does not report on the population of Dugong, but reported that population trend is decreasing. Bangkok post group (2019)68 reported that Australia is the densely-inhabited of dugong in the world, with about 80,000 individuals. DMCR. (2013)69 reported the population of dugongs in Thailand is 240 individuals, representing 0.3% of the dugong population found in Australia. According to interviews with local residents within a 1 km radius from the farm, 12% of those interviewed said they had seen Dugong.

66 Bird Conservation Society of Thailand. Assessment and Monitoring Program for Important Areas for Bird Conservation

and Biodiversity (IBAs) in Thailand. 67 Thai Marine and Coastal Resources Book (2015). Status of Marine and Coastal Resources Page. 27- 77. Department of

Marine and Coastal Resources. 68 Bangkok post group, Post today newpaper, World, Fate after the departure of Mariam access from:

https://www.posttoday.com/world/598237 69 Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (2013). Central database system and standardized marine and coastal

resource.The status of the dugong in Thailand access from: https://km.dmcr.go.th/th/c_10/d_935


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Local animal species

Common name

Scientific name

Status ONEP/IUCN Population / trend

Brahminy Kite

Haliastur indus

LC/LC

IUCN there are no reports of Brahminy Kite population surveys around the world, but stated that the population trend is decreasing. (Ferguson-Lees et al. 2001) The global Brahminy Kite population is estimated to be more than 100,000. (Brazil 2009) The population of the Brahminy Kite population in China is approximately 100 pairs and in Thailand there is no study of the Brahminy Kite population. The Brahminy Kite is a protected wildlife according to the Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act BE 2535, it is a bird that can be found in many areas

Common name

Scientific name

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Siamese cobra

Naja kaouthia

LC/LC

IUCN does not report on the population of Siamese cobra, but reported that population trend is decreasing. In Thailand, the population of Siamese cobra is not studied because it is least-concern species and is found densely distributed in Thailand.

Common name

Scientific name

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Common Water Monitor

Varanus salvator

LC/LC

IUCN does not report on the population of Common Water Monitor, but reported that population trend is decreasing. In Thailand, the population of Common Water Monitor is not studied because it is least-concern species and is found densely distributed in Thailand.

Common name

Scientific name

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Nicobar Crab-eating Macaque

Macaca fascicularis

LC/VU

IUCN does not report on the population of Nicobar Crab-eating Macaque, but reported that population trend is decreasing. In Thailand, the population of Nicobar Crab-eating Macaque is not studied because it is least-concern species and focus on controlling the population of Nicobar Crab-eating Macaque not to breed, causing trouble to the community.

Common name

Scientific name

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Asian Openbill

Anastomus oscitans

LC/LC

IUCN does not report on the number and trend population of Asian Openbill. ( BCST, 2017) 70 reported that were found Asian Openbill is about 5 3 ,4 4 5 individual from 4 9 count points across Thailand and Asian Openbill is considered the most populous bird in Thailand.

70 Bird Conservation Society of Thailand with Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation: The results of

the Asian waterfowl winter 2017 (Asian waterbird Census 2017) access from: https://www.bcst.or.th/wp-

content/uploads/2018/07/BCST-AWC-2017.pdf


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Common name

Scientific name

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Common Myna

Acridotheres tristis

LC/LC

IUCN does not report on the population of Common Myna, but reported that population trend is increasing. In Thailand, the population of Common Myna is not studied because it is least-concern species and is found densely distributed in Thailand.

Common name

Scientific name

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Great egret

Ardea alba

LC/LC

IUCN reported that Global population of Great egret is about 590 ,000- 2 ,200 ,000 individuals, but the population trend is unknown. BCST (2017) reported that there were found populations of White-breasted Waterhen from 4 9 spots around in Thailand, is about 2,993 individuals.

Common name

Scientific name

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

Intermediate Egret

Ardea intermedia

LC/LC

IUCN does not report on the population of Intermediate Egret, but reported that population trend is decreasing. BCST (2 0 1 7 ) reported that there were found populations of White-breasted Waterhen from 49 spots around in Thailand, is about 4,337 individual.

Common name

Scientific name

Status ONEP/IUCN

Population / trend

White-breasted Waterhen

Amaurornis phoenicurus

LC/LC

IUCN does not report on the number and trend population of White-breasted Waterhen. BCST (2017) reported that there were found populations of White-breasted Waterhen from 49 spots around in Thailand, is about 198 individual.

Common name Scientific name Status ONEP/IUCN Population / trend

Little Cormorant Microcarbo niger LC/LC I IUCN does not report on the number and trend population of Little Cormorant. In Thailand, Little Cormorant is common in every region; it is considered the most common type of cormorant. BCST (2017) reported that there were found populations of Little Cormorant from 49 spots around in Thailand, is about 4,564 individual.

Common name Scientific name Status ONEP/IUCN Population / trend

Zebra dove Geopelia striata LC/LC IUCN does not report on the population of Zebra dove, but reported that population trend is stable. For Thailand, Popular to raise Zebra dove, especially in the South. Zebra dove breeding of South people is like a lifestyle.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


ANNEX 8 Public Participation Summary village meeting, 1/2020

Date: October 17, 2020

Time: 10.00 – 12.00 a.m.

Meeting place: Klong Ko Temple Pavilion Moo 7 Leeled Sub-district Phunphin District

Suratthani province

Number of attendees: 33 persons

Attendees:

1. Mr. Prasert Chanjukon Leeled Subdistrict Headman

2. Mr. Prasansuk Kaewpichai Village Headman Moo 7

3. Mr. Sawai Khamchat Assistant Village Headman Moo 7 4. Mr. Ramesh Pratuyai Village Headman Moo 1

5. Mr. Adul Praserit Assistant Village Headman Moo 1

6. Ms. Phonphan Kulsonnan IEM 7. Ms. Noppatsorn Muangnak IEM

8. Khun Orapim Kheawplod Villager

9. Khun Suthep Suanploy Villager

10. Khun Sukkaparch Suanploy Villager 11. Khun Prapas Phetmanee Villager

12. Khun Jaran Wchwimon Villager

13. Khun Phatsaya Thakuaw Villager 14. Khun Thawach Pol-in Villager

15. Khun Teerasak Pleesamut Villager

16. Khun Netwach Na Nakhon Villager 17. Khun Yaowarech sangtaptim Villager

18. Khun Ampom Lumduan Villager

19. Khun Saiyard Thakuaw Villager

20. Khun Mala jaleankhun Villager 21. Khun Jureerat Pongmeesuk Villager

22. Khun Punya Thakuaw Villager

23. Khun Somsong thakuaw Villager 24. Mr. Panya Niraso Okeanos Food Co., Ltd.

25. Mr. Teerathorn Limsomboon Okeanos Food Co., Ltd.

26. Ms. Chananthida Thiphawan Okeanos Food Co., Ltd.

27. Mr. Mana Sukcharoen Okeanos Food Co., Ltd. 28. Mr. Wattanachai Phankhla Okeanos Food Co., Ltd.

29. Ms. Apaporn Srikunchon Okeanos Food Co., Ltd.

30. Ms. Prapatsorn Ngamsaeng Okeanos Food Co., Ltd. 31. Ms. Panida Tantipisit Okeanos Food Co., Ltd.

32. Ms. Nithawadee Jiamprasra Okeanos Food Co., Ltd.

33. Ms. Onuma Danwattananusorn Okeanos Food Co., Ltd.

The objective of this meeting with the community is to provide information on the correct operational

activities of Piyapon Fram and to allow attendees to ask questions and to suggest useful information on

farm management and to good results for people in the community.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Meeting details Topic/Agenda Details / resolutions, results are summarized in the

meeting

responsible persons

1. Introduce the farm

and inform the

purpose of the

meeting

• Leeled Subdistrict Headman

Opening the meeting and introducing Piyapon Farm

and Okeanos Food Co., Ltd. to villagers.

• Representatives Farm

Mr. Thawat Phon-in Farm representative introduces

himself and informs the purpose of meeting with

Village Headman Moo 1, Moo 5, Moo 7 and villagers

around the farm.

Mr. Thawat said that Piyapon Farm is working on the

ASC Shrimp Farm Standard, which is an

environmentally friendly and sustainable shrimp

farming quality control standard.

• Representatives Okeanos Food

Okeanos Food has an introduced and explained the

basics information of the ASC standard for Piyapon

Farm.

1. Leeled Subdistrict

Headman

2. Representatives

Farm

3. Representatives

Okeanos Food

4. Representatives

IEM Co., Ltd.

2. Farm policy

2.1 Employment

2.2 Requesting

information from

the farm or

wanting to find out

about the farm

2.3 Receive

complaints or

suggestions

2.4 Community

engagement


2.1 Employment

The farm informs the community that the farm has a

policy to hire workers at least 18 years old and to pay

legal wages, have benefits such as free drinking water,

cooking gas and housing, including providing training

to educate employees.

Currently, the farm give an opportunity local people

first applying for jobs or contracting for activities such

as lane cleaning , pond cleaning and grass cutting. The

farm will job posting on the farm front and if anyone

is interested, you can contact us with details in the job

application form.

2.2 Requesting information from the farm or

wanting to find out about the farm

The farm informed the villagers that if the villagers

wish to inquire about information due to doubts about the farming process or want to learn about shrimp

farming, the farm can provide information with local

people.

Villagers can contact the farm as follow: phone

number 081 - 8918547 (Mr. Piyapon Samuang) or a

comment box in front of the farm or come to meet the

owner directly at the farm, where the farm will hurry

to respond to the requested information within 14

days.

2.3 Receive complaints or suggestions

The farm spoke to villagers that if the operation of

Piyapon Farm had any impacts on people neighboring

of the farm, the affected people could report or

suggest the farm through the channels provided by the

farm. Farm will immediately investigate the cause,

and if the problem is found to be caused by farm

activities, the farm will take immediate corrective action, including taking measures to prevent

recurrence.

1. Representatives

Farm


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


2.4 Community engagement

Farm talked with the villagers that the farm intends

to operate shrimp farm activities to be able to live

together with the community sustainably. If the

villagers have anything that the farm can help or

support, the farm will be happy to support it if it

benefits the community.

3. Farm management

system


The farm explained shrimp culture and management

of the farm with the villagers that the farm has an open

management farm system and has an efficient water

treatment system from shrimp culture. If the farm will

water discharge, the farm will be treated before

discharge to the natural canal.

1. Representatives

Farm

4. Assessment of

environment and

communities

surrounding the

farm.

• Representatives Okeanos Food

Okeanos Food said that in during 2-3 days, IEM

company has conducted environmental and social impact assessments with communities surrounding

the farm as part of process the ASC standard.

The farm will send a draft impact assessment report to

the SAO of Leeled and village Headman Moo 7 to that

local people or those who are interested can request to

read the evaluation results If there is any suggestion or dispute about the details of the report can contact

for details with the Farm, The SAO of Leeled and

Village Headman 7.

Representatives Okeanos Food also informed the

attendees about local and rare animals and asked for cooperation for villagers to inform the farm or the

Marine and Coastal Resources Management Office

No. 4 (Suratthani). 077-379151 Or the Office of

Conservation Area 4 (Suratthani) Tel 077-272058 In

case of encountering such rare animals.

• Representatives IEM Co., Ltd.

IEM said that impact assessment team of IEM surveyed

and interviewed 41 household on environmental and

social impacts on 15-16 October 2020. The results were

as follows:

56% of the respondents had knowledge of shrimp

aquaculture as they had previously cultured shrimp,

while 56% had an understanding of farm management

details. For the positive impact, mostly respondents

think that shrimp farm making increased trading in

community follow by make career jobs for the local

people. As for the negative impact, most respondents

indicated that shrimp farms caused increased water

pollution or increased water pollution. 98% of the

respondents agreed if shrimp aquaculture areas were

expanded or developed within the community.

All respondents (100%) thought that Piyapon Farm

did not affect quality of life and basic necessities no

change. Respondents (85%) thought that shrimp

culture operation of Piyapon Farm did not affect on

the environment, while 15% stated that the Farm may

be effected the environment, causing impact to water quality changed.

1. Representatives

Okeanos Food

2. Representatives

IEM Co., Ltd.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Respondents (90%) stated that there are no complaints

about Piyapon Farm, while 10% stated that there are

complaints about The water overflowed off the farm,

while the shrimp was harvest causing the roads in

front of the farm and nearby palm plantations flooded and problem noise from the pump. For concerns about

the operation of Piyapon Farm - 95% of respondents

said that they did not have any concerns about

Piyapon Farm, while 5% stated that they have

concerns about the discharge of wastewater off the

farm because water quality in natural water resources.

5. Concerns and

suggestions to the

farm

• Leeled Subdistrict Headman

Sub-district Headman would like the farm to help

support the construction of pavilions and roads as a

tourist attraction in the community, as the Leeled sub-

district has fertile forests suitable for ecotourism.


The farm is willing to support the construction of

pavilions and roads. The farm has explained

concerns about environmental impacts, the issue of

draining off the farm. The farm has treated water

from culture and has checked the water quality to

meet the standards set by the Department of

Fisheries before the water is drained outside the farm.

1. Leeled Subdistrict

Headman

2. Representatives

Farm

6. Complaints from

the community

• Villager

The villagers have issues with wastewater when they

are shrimp are harvest; the farm releases the

wastewater into the canal causing the water to overflow into the villagers' areas and the noise of

pump water. (Pump during the months of March -

April takes 4-5 hours / time).


The farm clarified the complaint received that the

farm will improve. With noise problems, diesel water

pumps, the farm will maintain broken pipes to reduce

noise caused by equipment malfunctions and the farm

will not turn the end of the pipe towards the

community. For the overflow after shrimp harvest, the

farm will dredge the canal so that it can store enough

water during shrimp capture, not overflowing outside

the farm.

1. Villager

2. Representatives

Farm

7. Other • Representatives Farm

The farm thanked the participants who attended the

meeting.

1. Villager

2. Representatives

Farm


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Public meeting


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


ANNEX 9 IEM Personal For B-EIA and P-SIA

IEM is an environmental consulting company with more than 30 years of experience in Thailand and

South East Asia as well as Central Asia. IEM expert has been licensed to produce environmental and

social impact assessment reports for more than 25 years from the Office of Environmental and Natural

Resources and Environmental Policy in Thailand (see attached appendix). Beside environmental, social

and health impact assessment, IEM also specializes in environmental, labor, occupational health and

environment in workplace law. IEM has permanent environmental analysts both Thai and foreign and

has a wide range of expert specialists for each project. This B-EIA / P-SIA, was completed by the

following personel.

Ron Livingston Project Manager - ESHIA Expert

B.Sc., M.N.R.M.

Mr. Ronald David Livingston is President and CEO of International Environmental Management (IEM). IEM is based in Thailand, with branches in Cambodia, Vietnam and Country. Mr. Livingston has more than 35 years of experience in natural resources and environmental management. He has extensive experience with seismic, exploration drilling and production ESHIA project in the Hydrocarbon sector. Mr. Ronald served 1 0 years with the Canadian Government of the Northwest Territories, as senior director/ADM, Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment.

His experience in Asia extends over 30 years serving many industrial, government and multi-lateral organizations. Presently Mr. Ronald is an EIA expert registered and licensed by ONEP, Thailand. He is authorized to prepare the environmental, social and health impact assessment report, responsible for environmental, social and health impact assessment and set up mitigate measures including monitoring measures.

His expertise includes: Policy, strategic planning and institutional strengthening, Health, Environment and Safety Management Systems, Qualitative and Quantitative ESH Risk Assessments, Health, safety and environmental audits, Emergency oil spill response services, Public Involvement, Natural resource management, Training and capacity building in previoussaid areas. Important environmental and social impact assessment projects in Thailand and abroad such as the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

Over the past six years, Mr. Ronal has experience in environmental impact assessments of biodiversity and social contributions to marine shrimp farms in several provinces of Thailand such as Trang, Satun, Chanthaburi, Chumphon, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Songkhla, Phangnga, Trat, Surat Thani and Ratchabur

Dylan Jenkins Environmental analyst (Geology and Environment)

B.Eng. (Agricultural

Engineering)

Mr. Dylan Patrick Jenkins is an agricultural engineer and responsible for the EIA program at IEM. He graduated a bachelor's degree in agricultural engineering from the University of Manitoba, Canada.

Dylan has over 10 years of experience in geoengineering in various development and construction projects related to quality control, management, inspection and exploration in geo-environmental engineering and materials, including drilling. Field, site survey, sampling, laboratory analysis and environmental sample quality control.

Dylan has experience in environmental and social impact assessments in over 25 water, onshore and offshore drilling projects in several countries including Thailand, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


Noppatsorn M. Environmental Analyst (Environment and Health)

B.Sc. (Environmental

Health)

& M. Sc. (Environmental

Pollution and Safety)

Miss Nopphassorn Muangnak graduated master’s degree in Environmental Pollution and Safety from Suranaree University of Technology. Currently she is a Environmental analyst of IEM and responsible on Environmental and Health.

Khun Noppatsorn has experience in risk and impact assessment on climate change project in 2017. She worked with the Bureau of Hydrology Research and Development, Department of Water Resources which led het to experience in water resources management and corporate communication. In addition, she has experienced in lab analysis for environmental pollution such as wastewater, air and rain pollution. Moreover, she has experience and expertise in research on environment and health. Especially the air pollution in Thailand.

Currently, she is responsible for environmental impact assessment and public participation in the development of aquaculture farms and oil and gas industries. She has more experienced on biodiversity and environmental assessment and social of aquaculture farms in any province such as Trat, Ratchaburi, Suratthani, Satun and Trang including experience in environmental GIS mapping for over 2 years.

Pakaporn T. Environmental Analyst (public participation)

B.A. (Tourism)

M.A. in Environmental

Social Science

Ms. Pakaporn graduated a Master's degree in Social Science from Mahidol University. Currently serving as a social analyst at IEM.

Khun Phakaphon has more than 6 years of experience in environmental and social impact assessment. She has extensive experience in communicating with the community and organizing community engagement meetings. Including expertise in field surveys, economic and social data in many areas of Thailand. Khun Phakaphon has extensive experience in conducting environmental impact assessment reports, petroleum and natural gas exploration projects, for more than 20 projects, where she is currently responsible for public participation impact assessment for aquaculture farms in Thailand.

Phonphan K. Environmental Analyst (Environment Health/public participation)

B.P.H. (Environmental

Health)

Miss Phonpan Kulsornnan graduated from Kasetsart University in Public Health Sciences Program (Environmental Health). She is interested in global climate change and has made independent study reports about the amount of greenhouse gas emissions of drinking water plants. She specializes in community health and has experience in field work to survey on public health and socio-economic, health and environmental aspects of stakeholders from several aquaculture farms in Chumphon, Songkhla, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Trang, and Trat. She is able to communicate with the community very well.


B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020



B-EIA and P-SIA

November 2020


This aquaculture farm B-EIA & PSIA report was prepared by International Environmental Management

Co. Ltd. and conforms to the ASC Shrimp Standard. The B-EIA and PSIA teams consist of competent

and qualified environmental and social scientists, biologists and ecologists.

International Environmental Management Co. Ltd.

Mr. Ronal David Livingston

President & Environmental Expert

Documents

Biodiversity Environmental Impact Assessment (B-EIA) and