CPF’s top executive has made a big surprise this week by showing up at the House panel’s inquiry session to explain the company’s role in the current controversy over the spread of invasive blackchin tilapia fish from Africa
Mr. Prasit Boondoungprasert, Chief Executive Officer of Charoen Pokphand Foods PCL (CPF), made a big surprise at the Parliament on Thursday afternoon as he and his staff showed up upon the invitation by the House’s research and innovation standing committee, which helps its sub-panel examine the current controversy over the spread of the invasive fish. The issue has escalated into legal action against each other between the company and civil advocacy groups exposing the issue.
As explained by the committee’s sub-panel, the sub-panel has invited the CPF’s executives twice but its invitations were turned down so it had to forward the matter to the committee to try inviting them again. The committee had to limit the discussion topics to the company’s proposals to support the government’s mitigation measures and the session was conducted closed door without the media presence.
As revealed by the committee’s chair, Takorn Tantasit, the company explained its role in supporting the government’s efforts to eradicate the fish in the waters. It also reaffirmed its role in importing the fish into the country in 2010, stressing that it followed the fish disposal procedures and submitted the dead fish to the Department of Fisheries as earlier clarified in its documents submitted to the sub-panel. (Read: CPF reaffirms it has no role in the spread of invasive blackchin fish)
Other companies’ roles were raised including some 11 companies found to have exported the fish to at least 17 countries from 2013 to 2016. The committee would like to learn more about their roles in the controversy especially on the point as to where they got the fish from. The department’s chief will be invited to clarify the point before the committee’s fact-finding report will be forwarded to concerned agencies to take further action, Mr. Takorn noted, stressing that it is treating the issue without bias.
According to Mr. Takorn, as additionally reported by Thai PBS, the company noted to the committee that it did not have a role in submitting the fish fins to the department, suggesting that it was the department’s duty. Second, the department must examine the dead fish, suggesting that the work was not the company’s. These are among some key conditions set for the company in the beginning so that it could import the fish for its research in 2010.
The committee would also like to learn more about the contradicting statements over the company’s ponds; as to whether they were earthen-based or cement-based, so it requested the company to submit proofs of evidence to it to accompany its examination.
Mr. Prasit was briefly interviewed by the press while hastily leaving the meeting. He was asked repeatedly whether the company did submit the dead fish to the department and whether the company had or could show photographic evidence to prove its claim on this point. He declined to confirm on this, but repeatedly answered that the company did follow the procedures on the fish disposal as explained earlier.
He acknowledged the notion of the spread of the fish but insisted that the spread was not from the company. The CEO suggested concerned agencies as well as the media look into other possible causes, pointing out that a large number of the fish were exported while their sources of origin are still in question.
“We are confident that it was not from us, but what caused this spread is the task of the committee or concerned agencies to investigate. I would like to ask the media to also help look into this additionally. 2,000 fish were imported while over 300,000 were exported without knowing yet where they were from, we cannot comment on this any further,” said Mr. Prasit.
Asked what the fish research was, Mr. Prasit briefly replied that it was for “breeding improvement” and was just “an experiment”, stoping short to explain further citing the complicated terminology.
The sub-panel’s meeting, meanwhile, invited respected law experts and concerned legal offices as well as BioThai’s representatives to share information and insights on the issue. BioThai’s secretary general, Witoon Lianchamroon, pointed two critical points at the meeting as to why the company’s farm at Yisan was suspected to be the centre of the spread.
Besides the department’s DNA testing and research in 2017 suggesting that the fish was from the same source, its DNAs showed that it was not from multiple imports. Mr. Witoon shared his observation on what the department had found out after 2011 as it stepped up its procedures concerning the import and research of other fish by the company. Mr. Witoon said the department’s procedures and conditions imposed for the fish import and research contained a loophole as they were not enforced by law. To prevent such an incident from taking place again, the country desperately needs a new biosafety law to take care of the issue. (Read: CPF accused of breeding blackchin fish since first fish import)
The sub-panel had also discussed potential legal action against the wrongdoers in this case and agreed that they could be brought under administrative or civil charges. However, there is still a question about a criminal lawsuit; as to whether it can be proceeded against the wrongdoers considering the loopholes of the laws. For instance, the company had imported the fish before the new fishery law was promulgated in 2015 and it’s still unclear whether the company did raise the fish during the time it took effect.
The Lawyers Council of Thailand so far has set to file administrative and civil lawsuits against the department and the company on behalf of the affected fishers. It said it’s confident in the evidence in its hands. (Read: Lawyers Council sets to file lawsuits against concerned agencies and “the company” over blackchin fish invasion)
Indie • in-depth online news agency
to “bridge the gap” and “connect the dots” with critical and constructive minds on development and environmental policies in Thailand and the Mekong region; to deliver meaningful messages and create the big picture critical to public understanding and decision-making, thus truly being the public’s critical voice