The fish breed fast with hundreds of eggs laid and kept inside the mouths of mature male fish for every few weeks. Credit: Agriculture Ministry

CPF accused of breeding blackchin fish since first fish import

BioThai has presented to the public today photographic evidence and statements by CPF’s past farm workers that show the company’s farm in Yi Sarn had bred blackchin fish since it first imported them in late 2010

At the panel discussion, Blackchin Tilapia Fish and Environmental Disaster, organised by BioThai and partners today, the fish and legal experts joined the panel to discuss the ongoing spread of the invasive blackchin tilapia fish and the ecological damage caused by the phenomenon as well as potential legal action and biosafety reform.

During the presentation, Mr.Witoon Lianchamroon, BioThai’s Secretary-General and a former member of the National Biosafety Committee, presented a set of facts and information concerning the breeding of the fish at the farm by the company. This greatly contradicts the statement made by the company before the House’s research and innovation sub-panel, which was tasked to investigate and find facts about the issue yesterday. 

At the meeting, the company’s executive invited by the sub-panel failed to show up in person to clarify the company’s role and involvement in the spread of the fish, which has now extended to 17 provinces in the East and the South. Instead, it sent in two documents, four pages in total, to explain the company’s actions since it first imported the fish from Gana in late December 2010.

Citing the poor health condition of the fish, which died consecutively, from 2,000 to 50, the company eventually decided “not to start” the research and dropped the plan. This took only 16 days, suggesting that the company has nothing to do with the ongoing spread of the fish. (Read: CPF reaffirms it has no role in spread of invasive blackchin fish)

But according to Mr. Witoon, the imported fish had been bred at the farm until the outbreak was first reported in canals around the company’s farm in late 2017. Based on the photographs taken at the farm back in 2011 to 2017 and statements by the past farm workers there, they had hatched the fish’s eggs and bred their juveniles in fish cage nets placed in open-air earthen ponds. At least three major natural canals, Khlong Donchan, Khlong Luang, and Khlong Somboon (Bang Yao) flow through the farm and by both of its flanks, with one running close to the ponds. 

The workers said the water used in the farm was treated as a closed system, through which it was circulated and treated through the water facility system. But sometimes the wastewater ponds and their connecting canals needed to be cleaned and the wastewater in those facilities was discharged into adjacent natural canals. Mr. Witoon said the fish may have been accidentally discharged into those natural surroundings through this process. 

Those three canals, along with several others, were identified by the Fisheries Department as the first spots of the outbreak. Their DNAs testing showed they shared the same sources of origin, not from imports in different periods of time. 

At that time, the company was the only entity that had imported the fish into the country before the outbreak was first reported in late 2017. And the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which had probed into the case following the residents’ complaints filed to it, concluded that the company did not follow the guidelines on fish import and research as instructed by the department and the biosafety committee.

“There is no need to try to find the fish fins or the fish jars as claimed by the company. These surrounding facts and the residents’ statements pointed to the same fact,” said Mr. Witoon.

l The photographic evidence presented by BioThai. Credit: BioThai

Mr. Witoon said the civil society along with the legal experts are contemplating on taking the case to court as the damage is not only to the environment but the economy, comparing the case to the damage done by the spread of GMO papaya and BT cotton in the early 2000s, which can still have adverse economic implications these days. Based on the Fishery Department’s estimates in early 2018, more than 30 million fish were estimated in water sources, causing damage worth around 350 million baht already.

The case could be filed to both a civil court and an administrative court, depending on who would be subject to the court case filing, the company or concerned government agencies, Mr. Witoon pointed out. The case, he noted, has demonstrated once again how a major capitalist can influence the law and enforcement of the country as so far no one is held responsible despite the years-long outbreak.

Currently, there is no direct law to regulate and ensure biosafety in the country. The draft laws on this issue have been on and off as both supporters and opponents of the documents have been vying for room to dominate the law content.

Surachai Trong-ngam, a lead lawyer and committee member of the environmental law advocacy organisation, EnLaw, agreed with Mr. Witoon and other panellists that it’s time to reform the country’s biosafety measures as they are currently weak. The issue, he stressed, should rather be addressed from the beginning by a good biosafety system and law.

“It’s the right of the people that is protected under the constitution (from environmental disasters brought by biological contamination and invasion,” said Mr. Surachai.

CPF, meanwhile, has not yet responded to the request made by Bangkok Tribune today to ask it to make comments or clarify facts over the accusation.

Watch the FB Live recording here https://www.facebook.com/share/v/jQRXus8FkPFJJWhR/?mibextid=KsPBc6