E1187 v3 rev - World Bank Documents

LIVESTOCK WASTE MANAGEMENT IN EAST ASIA

Annex 3B

Environmental Impact Assessment (Thailand) Final Draft

Prepared by:

CMS Environmental Consultants

Bangkok, Thailand

September 2005

E1187v3 rev

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

ii

Table of Content

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. ix 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Background..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of the Report.................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Brief Introduction to the EA Report ............................................................................ 1

1.3.1 Importance of the Project .................................................................................... 2 1.3.2 Structure of the Report ........................................................................................ 2

1.4 Base of Assessment..................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1 Law and Regulations........................................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Technical Documents .......................................................................................... 3 1.4.3 Main Design Documents ..................................................................................... 3

1.5 Principles of Environmental Assessment..................................................................... 4 1.6 Relationship to Feasibility Study................................................................................. 5 1.7 EA Team..................................................................................................................... 5 1.8 Assessment Scope and Periods Covered...................................................................... 6

1.8.1 Assessment Scope ............................................................................................... 6 1.8.2 Periods Covered .................................................................................................. 6

1.9 Assessment Factors..................................................................................................... 6 1.10 Assessment Focus and Categorization......................................................................... 7 1.11 Assessment Criteria ................................................................................................... 7 1.12 Assessment Procedure ................................................................................................ 8

2 Policy, Legislation and Administration Framework........................................................... 10 2.1 Organization and Administrative Framework ............................................................ 10 2.2 National Policy and Strategy for Environmental Protection ....................................... 10 2.3 WB Requirements..................................................................................................... 13

3 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Project Components .................................................................................................. 14 3.3 Indicators of Project Success..................................................................................... 16 3.4 Project Area .............................................................................................................. 19

3.4.1 Ratchaburi Province................................................................................................ 19 3.4.2 Chonburi Province .................................................................................................. 21

3.5 Project Implementation Schedule .............................................................................. 21 3.6 Project Investment .................................................................................................... 22

4 Description of Existing Environment ................................................................................ 23 4.1 Chonburi Province .................................................................................................... 23

4.1.1 Geographical Environment................................................................................ 23 4.1.1.1 Topographical Information ............................................................................ 23 4.1.1.2 Soil Resources............................................................................................... 23 4.1.1.3 Meteorological Data ...................................................................................... 23 4.1.1.4 Water Resource and Quality .......................................................................... 24 4.1.1.5 Groundwater Quality and Quantity ................................................................ 27 4.1.1.6 Air Quality .................................................................................................... 28 4.1.1.7 Water Pollution Loading................................................................................ 29

4.1.2 Ecological Environment ........................................................................................ 30 4.1.2.1 Flora.............................................................................................................. 30 4.1.2.2 Fauna ............................................................................................................ 31 4.1.2.3 Coastal Natural Resources ............................................................................. 31

iii

4.1.2.4 Soil Erosion and Soil Conservation.............................................................. 31 4.1.3 Beneficial Usage ............................................................................................... 31

4.1.3.1 Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 31 4.1.3.2 Land Tenure and Ownership.......................................................................... 32 4.1.3.3 Land Use and Farming................................................................................. 34

4.1.4 Quality of Life................................................................................................... 35 4.1.4.1 Population ..................................................................................................... 35 4.1.4.2 Cultural Background ..................................................................................... 35 4.1.4.3 Public Health................................................................................................. 36 4.1.4.4 Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................... 36 4.1.4.5 Scenic Spot and Tourism............................................................................... 36 4.1.4.6 Socio-economic Development Plan ............................................................... 37

4.2 Ratchaburi Province.................................................................................................. 38 4.2.1 Geographical Environment................................................................................ 38

4.2.1.1 Topographical Information ............................................................................ 38 4.2.1.2 Geological Condition..................................................................................... 38 4.2.1.3 Weather ..................................................................................................... 38 4.2.1.4 Air Quality and Noise.................................................................................. 40 4.2.1.5 Soil Resources............................................................................................... 40 4.2.1.6 Surface Water Resource and Quality ............................................................ 41 4.2.1.7 Groundwater and groundwater quality ........................................................... 42

4.2.2 Ecological Environment .................................................................................... 42 4.2.2.1 Forests........................................................................................................... 42 4.2.2.2 Wetlands ....................................................................................................... 43 4.2.2.3 Natural Resource Conservation...................................................................... 43

4.2.3 Beneficial Usage ............................................................................................... 44 4.2.3.1 Infrastructure................................................................................................. 44 4.2.3.2 Land Use....................................................................................................... 44

4.2.4 Quality of Life................................................................................................... 46 4.2.4.1 Population and Cultural ................................................................................. 46 4.2.4.2 Social and Economic Development ............................................................... 47 4.2.4.3 Public Health................................................................................................. 47 4.2.4.4 Cultural Heritage and Tourism ...................................................................... 49

5 Public Participation........................................................................................................... 50 5.1 Consultation Method and Subject.............................................................................. 50

5.1.1 Consultation with Family/Individual ................................................................. 50 5.1.2 Consultation with Livestock Farmers................................................................. 50 5.1.3 Consultation with Government Agency and NGOs............................................ 50

5.2 Public Opinion and Suggestion ................................................................................. 51 5.2.1 Family/Individual Opinion and Suggestion........................................................ 51 5.2.2 Farm Laborers and Farmers Opinion and Suggestion......................................... 51 5.2.3 Governmental Agency and NGOs Opinion and Suggestion ............................... 52

5.3 Information Disclosures and Feedback....................................................................... 53 5.4 Beneficiary Participation Plan (BPP).......................................................................... 53 5.5 Summary of Public Participation................................................................................ 53

6 Analysis of Alternatives.................................................................................................... 54 6.1 Analysis of “Without Project” Alternative ..................................................................... 54

6.1.1 Current Status of Swine Farm in Thailand ......................................................... 54 6.1.2 Current environmental impacts from swine farms (without the proposed project).... 55 6.1.3 Present Status of Applied Research, Extension and Training ............................. 55

iv

6.2 Analysis of “With Project” Alternative .......................................................................... 55 7 Analysis of Environmental Impacts & Proposed Mitigation Measures .............................. 57

7.1 Potential Sources of Effect. ....................................................................................... 57 7.2 Analysis of Environmental Impact & Proposed Mitigation Measures during implementation & Construction Phase (Chonburi & Ratchaburi) .......................................... 57

7.2.1 Physical Resources............................................................................................ 58 7.2.1.1 Noise & Vibration impacts ............................................................................ 58 7.1.1.3 Soil Erosion and Disturbance......................................................................... 59 7.2.1.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................... 60 7.2.1.4 Surface Water Quality ................................................................................... 60

7.2.2 Ecological Resources ........................................................................................ 61 7.2.2.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem .................................................................................... 61

7.2.3 Human Use Values............................................................................................ 62 7.2.3.1 Land Use ....................................................................................................... 62 7.2.3.2 Transportation ................................................................................................... 62

7.2.4 Quality of life........................................................................................................... 62 7.2.4.1 Occupational health and safety .......................................................................... 62 7.2.4.2 Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................... 63

7.3 Analysis of Environmental Impact & Proposed Mitigation Measures During Project Operation in Chonburi and Ratchaburi.................................................................................. 63

7.3.1 Environmental Impact on Natural Resources ..................................................... 64 7.3.1.1 Physical resources of the Study Area ............................................................. 64 7.3.1.2 Ecological Resources..................................................................................... 65 7.3.2.1 Physical Resources ........................................................................................ 67 Mitigation measures...................................................................................................... 68 7.3.2.2 Ecological Resources..................................................................................... 70 7.3.2.3 Quality of life ................................................................................................ 70

7.3.3 Impact and Mitigation Measures of Biogas production System.......................... 71 7.3.3.1 Physical Resources ........................................................................................ 71 7.3.2.2 Ecological Resources ....................................................................................... 72 7.3.2.3 Human Use value .......................................................................................... 73 7.3.2.4 Quality of life ................................................................................................ 73

7.3.3 Impact and Mitigation Measure of Soil application of Manure........................... 74 7.3.3.1 Physical Resources............................................................................................ 74 7.3.3.2 Ecological resources.......................................................................................... 76 7.3.3.3 Human use values ............................................................................................. 76 7.3.3.4 Quality of life.................................................................................................... 76

7.3.4 Recycling by crop/fish uptake .................................................................................. 76 7.3.4.1 Recycling by crop ............................................................................................. 76 7.3.4.2 Recycling by fish uptake ................................................................................... 79

7.3.5 Removal by export to other region ........................................................................... 80 8 Environmental Management Plan ..................................................................................... 82

8.1 Implementation Organizations and Responsibilities .................................................. 82 8.1.1 Implementation Organizations............................................................................. 7 8.1.2 Role of PIU and Environmental Monitors.......................................................... 84 8.1.3 Supervision Organization .................................................................................. 87 8.1.4 Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan ............................................. 87

8.2 Environmental Monitoring Plan ................................................................................ 94 8.2.1 Monitoring Items............................................................................................... 94 8.2.2 Monitoring Implementers .................................................................................. 94

v

8.2.3 Monitoring Report System ................................................................................ 94 8.2.4 Pre-Implementation Monitoring (Baseline data) .............................................. 101 8.2.5 Monitoring during implementation/construction.............................................. 101 8.2.6 Monitoring during Operation........................................................................... 102 8.2.7 Monitoring Budget .......................................................................................... 102

8.4 Environmental Training/Institutional Strengthening Plan ........................................ 103 8.4.1 Training Objectives ......................................................................................... 103 8.4.2 Training Courses for Environmental Officers .................................................. 103

8.5 Budgets................................................................................................................... 104 9 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................ 106

9.1 General Conclusions ............................................................................................... 106 9.1.1 Selection of Project area .................................................................................. 106 9.1.2 Environment Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures .................................. 106

9.2 Recommendations................................................................................................... 107 9.2.1 Follow-up Program ......................................................................................... 107 9.2.2 Public Participation ......................................................................................... 107 9.2.3 Further suggestions and environmental requirements....................................... 108

10 List of References........................................................................................................... 109

Annex

A: Public and animal health risk assessment…………………………………………...109 B: TOR for Environmental Assessment, Local Consultant…………………………….114 C: TOR for Environmental Assessment, Local Consultant…………………………….117 D: Records of Public Consultancy……………………………………………………...119

vi

List of Tables TABLE 1-1 PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION MATRIX FOR MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FACTORS OF LWMEAP ................................9 TABLE 3-1 NUMBER OF SWINE FARM IN RATCHBURI PROVINCE..........................................................................................................20 TABLE 4-1 MONTHLY RAINFALL , TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY (2002)..............................................................................� TABLE 4-2 GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION OF THE CANNELS AND WATER BODIES IN BANBUNG DISTRICT.............................................� TABLE 4-3 AVERAGE MEASURED WATER QUALITY IN BANG PAKONG RIVER BETWEEN JANUARY – JUNE, 2003 ....................................26 TABLE 4-4 NUMBER OF GROUND WATER WELL IN CHONBURI PROVINCE. ...........................................................................................� TABLE 4-5 AIR QUALITY IN CHONBURI PROVINCE IN 2003................................................................................................................�TABLE 4-6 LOADING ESTIMATION FROM MAJOR POINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION IN THE STUDY AREAS..............................................29 TABLE 4-7 LOADS FROM PIG FARM IN AMPHOE BAN BUNG, CHONBURI PROVINCE.............................................................................29 TABLE 4-8 LOADS FROM PIG FARM IN AMPHOE PAK TOR, RATCHABURI PROVINCE.............................................................................29 TABLE 4-9 TYPE OF FARM HOLDING LAND : 1991-1999...................................................................................................................�TABLE 4-10 LAND USE IN CHONBURI PROVINCE ...............................................................................................................................34 TABLE 4-11 LIVESTOCK DATA, CHONBURI PROVINCE (2002 DATA)...................................................................................................34 TABLE 4-12 POPULATION DATA BY AREA AND AMPHOE (2002 DATA) .................................................................................................35 TABLE 4-13 NMBER OF DEATHS BY PRINCIPAL CAUSE GROUPS AND SEX (2002)...................................................................................�TABLE4-14 MONTHLY RAINFALL TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY 1998-2002 .......................................................................38 TABLE 4-15 TYPE OF FARM LAND HOLDING :1999............................................................................................................................44 TABLE 4-16 NUMBER OF ANIMAL FARM IN RATCHABURI PROVINCE ..................................................................................................46 TABLE 4-17 INCOME FROM ANIMAL PRODUCTS.................................................................................................................................46 TABLE 4-18 PUBLIC HEALTH DATA, RATCHABURI PROVINCE (2002 DATA) .........................................................................................47 TABLE 7-1 THE NOISE LEVEL OF THE MACHINERY AT DIFFERENT DISTANCES. ......................................................................................57 TABLE 8-1 ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PLAN, LWMEAP...............................................................................................................88 TABLE 8-2 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LWMEAP......................................................................................................90 TABLE 8-3 ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINE FOR POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE IN PROJECT OPERATION PHASE................................92 TABLE 8-4 CONSTRUCTION AIR QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM..................................................................................................101 TABLE 8-5 NOISE MONITORING PROGRAM DURING CONSTRUCTION................................................................................................102 TABLE 8-6: COST ESTIMATION OF ENVIRONMENT MONITORING........................................................................................................99 TABLE 8-7 SALARY COST OF ASSIGNED ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICERS...............................................................................................105 TABLE 8-8 COST FOR ENVIRONMENT TRAINING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICERS.............................................................................105 TABLE 8-9 TOTAL COST ESTIMATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ..............................................................................105

vii

List of Figures FIGURE 1-1 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR THE EA OF LWMEAP....................................................................................................8 FIGURE 2-1 SUPERVISION OF SWINE FARM ACTIVITY .......................................................................................................................11 FIGURE 3.1 MAP OF THAILAND HIGHLIGHTING CHANBURI AND RATCHABURI PROVINCES..................................................................15 FIGURE 4.1 SOIL GROUPS IN RATCHABURI PROVINCE........................................................................................................................41 FIGURE 4-2 FARM HOLDINGS IN RATCHABURI PROVINCE, 1999 DATA ................................................................................................45 FIGURE 6-1 SWINE FARMS IN EACH REGION OF THAILAND ................................................................................................................54 FIGURE 8-1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION DURING CONSTRUCTION STAGE...........................................................83 FIGURE 8-2 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION DURING OPERATION STAGE.................................................................83 FIGURE 8-3 MONITORING REPORT CHART......................................................................................................................................101

viii

List of Abbreviations

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

DO Dissolved Oxygen

EA Environmental Assessment

EMP Environmental Management Plan

TSS Total Suspended Solids

TSP Total Suspended Particulates

WB World Bank

TOR Terms of References

RTG The Royal Thai Government

GEF The Global Environmental Facility

FAO The Food and Agricultural Organization

PCD The Pollution Control Deportment

DLD The Department of Livestock Development

AWI Area-Wide Integration

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

OEPP The office of environmental policy and planning

MONRE Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment

MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative

MOI Ministry of Interior

PAO Provincial Administrative Organization

TAO Tambon Administrative Organization

NGOs Non-Government Organizations

PIU Project Implementation Unit

PLO Provincial Livestock Offices

LDD Land Development Department

DOA Department of Agriculture

NIC National Project Implementation

DEQP Department of Environmental Quality Promotion

PNREO Provincial Natural Resources and Environment Office

Exchange Rate

US$ 1.0 = Approx.40 Thai Bath in July 2004

ix

Executive Summary The livestock waste management project in Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces of Thailand, the Global Environmental Facility grant project (LWMEAP), aims at improving surface water quality in sub-catchment areas in the central and the eastern regions of Thailand, to demonstrate effectiveness of positive impacts of improved livestock waste management systems on coastal environments in the Gulf of Thailand and the international waters of the South China Sea. The total investment of the project in Thailand is approximately US $ 3.69 million.

This environmental assessment report is prepared to satisfy relevant environment protection requirements of both Thailand and the World Bank. The project is classified as World Bank’s Category B project, requiring discussion of significant environmental issues and preparation of an environmental management and monitoring plan (EMMP).

The proposed LWMEAP project is anticipated to assist the introduction of sustainable and adaptable livestock waste management systems through the use of biogas production system, livestock waste treatment system, and nutrient recycling. Further, the project aims at integration with other livestock waste management activities in Southeast Asia to reduce the negative local and global environmental impacts of rapidly increasing livestock production on the coastal areas of Thailand and the South China Sea.

The principal expected outcome of the proposed LWMEAP is to reduce waste load form livestock production to the local and international waters. The achievements of the project would bring about the reduction of swine waste contamination in freshwater and marine environments of the Gulf of Thailand and the South China Sea. The benefits of the project itself and through replication should lead to an improvement of land-based pollution from livestock production.

Moreover, other global benefits would happen in the areas of aquatic biodiversity, land degradation, and environmental change. The excessive nutrients loading (mainly N and P) from the intensive livestock production units to the environment can be reduced by the reduction of the organic waste loads to the local and surrounding areas. These will induce the more effective conservation of freshwater and coastal marine aquatic biodiversity; reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions; and decrease public health hazards and land degradation form overabundance of nutrients.

In Thailand, the national environmental protection policy is considered as one of the major national policies. The formulated environmental protection strategy aims at managing the country’s natural resources and values of environment to facilitate sustainable economic and social development. The Pollution Control Department (PCD) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) has identified swine farm as a point source of water pollution according to the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental quality Act 1992.

The effluent standards of wastewater treatment system from swine farm were set and this standard has been enforced since February 2002. The Department of Livestock Development (DLD) also established swine farm standard in 1999 to response to the environmental protection and food safety. These farm standards are voluntary and have no impacts on practices of swine farmers. Further, manure management in swine farm using biogas technology is strongly encouraged according to the Energy Act 1992 in order to reduce energy consumption and seeking for alternative sources of energy.

The proposed LWMEAP is a five-year project consisting of 4 components; (1) development of conductive policy framework, (2) demonstration of adaptive livestock waste management technologies, (3) development of decision support tools and regional cooperation, and (4) project

x

management and monitoring. The identified demonstration sites in Thailand are located in Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces, belonging to sub-catchment of rivers flowing to the Gulf of Thailand; the Bang Prakong River and the Maeklong River, respectively. The tentative large-scale demonstration site of the LWMEAP is the K.O.S. Farm located at Mu 5 DonSai Sub-district, Pak Tho District, and the tentative medium-scale demonstration site is the Weeraphan Farm, situated at Mu 3. Pak Tho Sub-district, Pak Tho District, Ratchaburi province. In addition, the potential small-scale demonstration site is the Sa-ard Farm, located at 102 Mo. 5, Marp Pai Sub-district, Ban Bung District, Chonburi province.

Chonburi province is situated on the Bang Prakong River basin in the eastern region of Thailand. Water quality, monitored in the Bang Prakong River in 2003 by PCD, generally meets the established standard except for dissolved oxygen concentration and coliform bacteria contamination. Climate of the province is under the influence of monsoon climate. The annual average temperature in Chonburi province varies between 18.9oC and 37.0 oC, while the average precipitation is 6.4 mm in February and 226.5 mm in May, with the average annual rainfall of 1,103.3 mm.

In Ratchaburi province, majority of the area is situated on the banks of the Maeklong River in the central part of Thailand. Climate of Ratchaburi province is under the influence of the southwestern monsoon climate. During 1998-2002, the average annual rainfall varied within the ranges of 1,037.9 - 1,397.4 mm. The annual average temperature varies between 18.3oC and 38.1oC. The most important river in the province is the Maeklong River. According to the data provided by PCD, water quality of Maeklong River is poor (below the established standard). It is believed that the low water quality is due to wastewater discharge from households, industry and agricultural activities, especially livestock farming.

The proposed LWMEAP has won strong support form individuals, farmers, NGOs, and every level of the government authorities both at the national level and the local level in Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces. Staff members of provincial and city project offices, the livestock bureaus at the national, provincial and city levels and officers of the Minister of Public Health and the Ministry of Agriculture are strongly supporting the implementation of the LWMEAP. The majority of farm laborers and farmers support the LWMEAP implementation and willing to participate in the project and expect to benefit from it. Majority of interviewees regard the LWMEAP as a good environmental project, which should reduce environmental pollution and reduce damage to ecological environment. Therefore, it is believed by the majority that the project will bear important significance on the protection of natural water resources.

At present, Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces face major problems resulting from swine farming such as foul odor, wastewater, pig-generated solid and liquid waste, zoonotic diseases, and proliferation of insects. Foul odor from swine farm make people living in its vicinity feel annoyed, and it is the public belief that it may be cause for health related problems such as headaches and asthma, and is the major source of complains from the neighboring communities. Direct discharge of wastewater from swine farm into surface water resources is also believed to cause significant water pollution that might have direct impacts on the water quality in the Gulf of Thailand. Furthermore, solid and liquid wastes generated from swine farm may be sources of zoonotic pathogens that may create health impacts on animals and human being.

Implementation of the pilot projects under the LWMEAP is expected to have positive impacts on methodologies utilized to manage environmental problems resulting from swine farming. Other swine farmers can also adapt the lessons learned from the pilot project implementation, which could provide additional intangible project benefits. Further, the proposed LWMEAP is seeking a win-win approach, i.e., develop livestock waste management systems through nutrient recycling, biogas production, and assure sustainable utilization of scarce land resources through

xi

waste management technology improvement and adoption of more efficient waste disposal methods.

The principles of the sustainable development objectives and the scientific evaluation are followed in the environmental assessment and the design of the environmental management plan for the proposed LWMEAP. Furthermore, the environmental study is focused on environmental concerns to ensure that the project is developed in a sustainable manner and detailed environmental management plan is developed to minimize/prevent any potential damage, which the project might cause on the natural (ecological) and social environment and enhance its positive impacts. The attentions are focused on ensuring that sustainable economic development and environmental protection policies are pursued to ensure that significant negative environmental impacts are not emerging and positive impacts are enhanced. Special attentions is paid in this environmental assessment study to ensure that livestock waste generated within the project areas is reduced, and as much as possible the produced solid and liquid manure is reused and recycled in the surrounding farms as organic fertilizer. These will provide benefits to the environment by reducing the use of expensive inorganic fertilizer in crop production, and improve soil physical, chemical and biological characteristics.

The potential environmental impacts of LWMEAP activities during implementation/construction and operation periods were assessed and the potential sources of environmental risks on natural resources and values of the environment were identified. Accordingly, recommendations for mitigation measures to prevent or reduce the potential negative impacts and environmental risks of the project activities have been proposed. Results of the environmental assessment indicated that the LWMEAP, in general, is an environmentally friendly project. Implementation of project components is conductive to the improvement of the environment, and its impact on social environment is also positive. If the project is successfully implemented, and mitigation and control measures recommended in this report are adopted, potential negative impacts of the project on the environment will be minimized and positive impacts will be enhanced. No nature reserves or National parks exist in the study areas of Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces and endanger wildlife species are not believed to be present.

There are a number of unavoidable aspects of the project implementation/construction that unless handled appropriately, might have potential adverse impacts on natural resources and social environment in the project areas. The majority of potential environmental impacts, identified during construction/implementation phases are temporal and limited in magnitude. The magnitude of impacts will depend on success of and manner in which the proposed specific environmental mitigation plans and programs are implemented. The temporary negative impacts are believed to be minor, including minor potential noise, air and water pollution. All these impacts can be prevented or reduced to insignificant levels by following the recommendation proposed in the EMP and proper construction practices. The project contractors or proponents must adhere to the requirement of the EMP and practice sound environmental management practices and mitigation measures proposed in this report to prevent adverse impacts during construction and project implementation phases.

Since the LWMEAP is basically an environmental improvement project, if successfully implemented, the environmental impacts during project operation is believed to be mainly positive. The potential negative environmental impacts during the operation period are believed to happen mainly due to mishaps. The identified potential environmental impacts are environmental hazards/risks that can occur only if mistakes are made by the construction teams, operational management personnel, or project design teams. The environmental impacts can occur due to poor management, poor or under design of manure treatment facilities, poor

xii

construction of facilities and/or over application or untimely application of manure in agricultural fields.

During operational phase, potential environmental issues that are identified in the report include: (1) potential impact (Nutrient overload) on surface and groundwater resources, and soil, if liquid manure is over applied on cropland (not according to the soil characteristics and inherent nutrient levels), or discharged to the surface water before reaching the discharge standards (2) potential soil pollution through applying waste sludge from respective manure management facilities improperly on croplands, natural wetlands or “waste land”, (3) potential adverse impact on biodiversity, contagious animal diseases on wildlife, increase in plant diseases and yield reduction if improper or intensive application of effluents on soil or inadvertent or deliberate discharge of the effluent to water bodies (due to potential under design of facilities), (4) potential air pollution (toxic gases and odor) as well as greenhouse effect (CO2, CH4), in case biogas reactors gas collection systems are not working properly, and fermentation of livestock manure, (5) potential hazard of explosion that might occur due to poor design or operation of biogas systems, and (6) permanent land occupancy and change of land use where construction of a lagoon/central biogas/waste water treatment facility are proposed that might use a relatively large area of farm land.

Water pollution can negatively impacts the quality of both surface and groundwater resources within and downstream of the project area. Risk of spills, structure failure, and purposeful discharges must be taken into account. The potentially contagious animal diseases caused by dangerous pathogens, bacteria and virus can be spread out through the application of untreated swine wastes and can cause proliferation of diseases. In addition, nutrients pollution in the water bodies may occur through leaching of nutrients accumulated in soil, when excessive amounts of solid and liquid manure were applied.

Regarding these possible adverse impacts, the corresponding mitigation measures are proposed for the purpose of prevention and reduction of negative impacts to the insignificant levels. Moreover, to ensure the effective implementation of the proposed environmental mitigation measures, the Environmental Management Plans (EMP) have been formulated and presented in chapter 8, in which the responsibilities of the project management offices, other related institutions and cost have been clearly spelt out.

For the project implementation, the National Project Implementation Committee (NIC) will be established. Consequently, the NIC will designate the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) to take responsibility regarding the EMP implementation to guarantee that the proposed LWMEAP project would have neither significant nor irreversible adverse impacts on the natural resources and values of the environment in the project areas. A dynamic approach to the environmental monitoring and management plans by further incorporating measures to include additional measures to reassess the EMP will be carried out, if unforeseen environmental impacts are identified during implementation/construction and operation periods of the project.

In order to assure that findings of the EMP are incorporated in the project design of future sub-project and a dynamic approach to the EMP is followed, a number of interim reports will be prepared by the PIU environmental officers of both Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces. These are (1) an interim report at the end of the pre-construction period to provide input to the implementation phase, (2) interim annual reports on the completion of implementation and construction activities, (3) annual reports during the monitoring of project operation, and (4) a final report, summarizing impacts and successes of mitigation measures.

The achievement of the proposed LWMEAP, if successfully implemented, would not only lead to the reduction of environmental degradation, but it would also improve quality of life of the

xiii

swine farmers and the neighboring communities. The project will have positive impacts on the socioeconomic of the project beneficiaries although the impacts of the project appear to be small considering the size and magnitude of the swine farm industry in Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces. If the LWMEAP is successfully implemented, it could have more significant positive environmental impact by being used as pilot scheme for dissemination of information and to form a basis for further development of an integrated swine farm industry within and outside the project areas.

In addition, if successfully implemented, the project should provide for strengthening of the capacity of line agencies in applicable of new finding and new environmental improvement technologies and should also strengthen the natural environment in implementation of laws and regulations. Moreover, the proposed LWMEAP project would not only promote the local social and economic development, but would also increase the living standard of the farmers and the neighboring societies. It is believed that the application of the better swine farm environmental management and best management practices will guide livestock farmers in the use of rationale and environmentally balanced methods to reduce point and non-point source pollution within the project area.

The proposed project activities, if implemented successfully, and if the recommended mitigation and control measures, presented in this report are adopted, the impacts will be highly positive on long-term environmental and social environments. It is recommended that the World Bank, GEF and relevant government departments in Thailand to support the implementation of this project and urge the earliest start.

1 Introduction 1.1 Project Background The Royal Thai Government (RTG) applied for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) grant for the preparation of a project on livestock waste management in East Asia to address pollution problem from increased growth and intensification of livestock production in Thailand. The project aims at integration with other livestock waste management activities in Southeast Asia to reduce negative local and global environmental impact of livestock waste and its impact on the South China Sea and the Gulf of Thailand ecosystem. Benefits of the project itself and through replication will lead to an improvement of land-based pollution from livestock production, and an environmentally sound geographic distribution of livestock production. Further, other global benefits would happen in the areas of aquatic biodiversity, land degradation, and environmental change. The East Asian countries participating in this project are China, Vietnam and Thailand. In Thailand, the project designated sub-catchments in central (Ratchaburi province) and eastern region (Chonburi province) to demonstrate the effectiveness of waste management technologies in reduction of nutrient loading of water resources and better use of animal waste in crop production. The desired outcome of the project is to identify best management practices that are technically, socially and environmentally acceptable and beneficial and dissemninate the findings in other parts of the country and within the region.

1.2 Purpose of the Report The proposed livestock waste management project in Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces of Thailand (LWMEAP) aims at improving (1) the surface water quality in sub-catchment areas in the central part and the eastern part of Thailand, (2) The coastal environments in the Gulf of Thailand and the international water of the South China Sea through integrated, comprehensive, demand driven, and sustainable livestock waste management. The proposed LWMEAP project will assist the introduction of the sustainable and suitable livestock waste management systems through the use of biogas collection, wastewater treatment system, nutrient recycling, and other appropriate and adaptable manure management techniques. In addition, the principal expected outcome of the proposed LWMEAP project is to reduce nutrient load from livestock production to the local and international waters. Achievements of the proposed LWMEAP project would bring about the reduction of swine waste contamination in the marine environments both locally (downstream waterways) and regionally (the Gulf of Thailand and the South China Sea).

Aims of this environmental assessment (EA) report include:

(i) Qualitative analysis and assessment of present natural environment and socioeconomic conditions in the project areas and determine scope and extent of potential future impacts of the project during construction, implementation and operation;

(ii) To determine potential environmental impacts and to disseminate the findings to the project development and implementation teams; and

(iii) To prepare mitigation measures to reduce/eliminate the identified potential negative impacts/environmental risks and prepare an environmental management plan (EMP) for pre-implementation, implementation/construction and operation of the project.

The term of reference (TOR) for compilation of the EA report between the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the CMS Engineering and Management Co., Ltd. – the local consultant is presented as Annex A.

1.3 Brief Introduction to the EA Report

2

1.3.1 Importance of the Project

Demand for livestock products is growing at an extremely high rate as a result of growing population, rising incomes and urbanization. Livestock production – especially pig – in Thailand is continuously increasing. Pig consumption has raised from 5.872 million animals in 1986 to 7.815 million in 2003 (Swine situation Report by DLD,2004). Livestock production in Thailand has also rapidly grown particularly swine production to provide for both local demand and export. Structure of the production has been changed from traditional production systems or extensive culture with 4-5 pigs in backyard to intensive pig farming. As a result, Wastewater from swine farms has become a major environmental issue of the rapid development of livestock in Thailand. Disposal of wastewater leads to water pollution in vicinity of the production areas especially in Tha Chin and Bang Pakong river basins where swine farms are concentrated.

RTG has addressed the livestock waste problem by establishing regulations to reduce the negative impact of livestock production on the environment. According to the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act of 1992, the Pollution Control Department (PCD), Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (former Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment) has endorsed swine farms as a point source of water pollution. PCD defines swine farms into 3 categories: group A, group B and group C. Group A refers to swine farms with more than 5,000 pigs, group B are swine farms with 500-5,000 pigs and group C are swine farms with 50-500 pigs. Effluent wastewater standard was set. The standard differs by group of the farm. As of February 2002, regulations for swine farms group A and group B are regularly enforced. Due to lack of officer to monitor, PCD has not successfully implemented the regulation, presently. Since the small-scale farms or the farms that belong to group C are normally limited in term of investing capital, the standard has not been enforced in such farms and the wastewater standards will be used only as guideline for promotional incentives.

Review of available documents clearly shows that the main focus of already introduced measures to mitigate water pollution problem from livestock production particularly swine farm is at the end of the pipe. The applied measures do not address the underlying cause of excessive concentration of livestock production and only relieve the symptoms. Despite an increasing awareness of the issue at the local and political level, technical solutions and policy instruments are still to be developed and implemented. Aside from the PCD control of wastewater from swine farms, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) has established standards in 1999 for swine, poultry and cattle farms. These farm standards are voluntary and hence they are rarely observed by the farm owners except the poultry farmers since their produce is mainly for export. As for swine farms whose products are consumed domestically these farm standards have had no impact on the practices of swine farms.

The proposed project areas in the Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces are located in sub-catchments of the Maeklong River and the Bang Pakong River, respectively. Both demonstration sites are close to the Gulf of Thailand. Furthermore, implementation of pilot projects under the LWMEAP project may have major impact on methodology used to improve status and quality of the natural resources within the project impact areas (water resources, soil resources, aquatic flora and fauna). It is hoped that through dissemination of project findings, other swine farmers within and outside the region also adapt the lessons learned from the pilot project implementation that should provide additional intangible project benefits. Additionally, the LWMEAP project is seeking a win-win approach, i.e. to both develop livestock waste management system through nutrient recycling, and manure treatment, and assure sustainable utilization of scarce land resources through adoption of more efficient manure management technologies.

1.3.2 Structure of the Report

3

The report provides an assessment of the environmental impacts of the development of LWMEAP. It is arranged in the format provided by the World Bank for rural development projects. Section 1 describes proposal and brief introduction of the EA report, base assessment, principles of the EA, and its relationship to feasibility study, the EA team, assessment scope and period covered, assessment factor, assessment focus and categorization, assessment criteria and assessment procedure. Section 2 describes institutional and administrative framework and national policies and strategies in relation to such development schemes. Section 3 provides a description of the proposed development project, while Section 4 provides a description of the existing physical (natural), ecological and socio-economical environment. Section 5 describes the public participation whereas Section 6 describes the alternatives that have been considered in the project planning process, mainly with or without the project. Section 7 identifies the potential impacts that could be expected from the proposed project both during construction and operation and proposes viable mitigation measures for to minimize these impacts. Section 8 is devoted to the presentation of an environmental management plan (EMP) for the proposed project including the implementation framework, a mitigation plan, a monitoring plan for the pre-implementation, implementation/construction and operation periods and a training plan, while section 9 presents the general conclusions and recommendations.

1.4 Base of Assessment This assessment was carried out according to the laws and regulaions of the RTG and the World Bank technical documents. A list of the material used for the preparation of this report is presented below.

1.4.1 Law and Regulations

- Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act 1992, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment;

- Public Health Act 1992, Ministry of Health;

- Water Irrigation Act 1942, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative;

- Decrees on Standard of Waste Water Discharge from Swine Farm Origin 1992, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment; and

- Decrees on Declaration of Swine Farm as an Origin of Public Water Pollutant 1992, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment

1.4.2 Technical Documents

- The World Bank Operational Policy 4.01, 4.04, 4.10;

- The World Bank Policy Disclosure of Information;

- Terms of References (TOR) for an Environmental Assessment and Safeguard (EA) of the GEF

1.4.3 Main Design Documents

- Proposal for Area Wide Integration Project with the Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nation;

- Project Proposal to obtain GEF funds;

- Food and Agriculture Organisation and Department anf Livestock Development (2002) Policy Implication of Area-Wide Integration (AWI) of Specialized Crop and Livestock Activit, Bangkok;

4

- Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (2004) Planning Framework for Environmental Management. Expert Committee on Restructure of Environmental Management and Organization, Bangkok;

- Office of Environmental Policy and Planning (1997) National Policy and Plan for Conservation and Promotion of Environmental Quality (1997 - 2016), Bangkok

- Office of Environmental Policy and Planning (1996) Thailand : Policy and Prospective Plan for Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Qualtiy 1997 - 2016, Bangkok

All the above documents are available at the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) or the FAO representative office and the World Bank Office in Bangkok.

1.5 Principles of Environmental Assessment Since TRG regulation does not require preparation of EA reports for project related to manure management of animal farms, this EA report was mainly prepared to satisfy requirements of the World Bank. However, the preparation of the EA report also carried out following the EIA guideline provided by the Office of Natural Resource and Environmental Policy and Planning (OEPP). Principles of the sustainable development objective and scientific evaluation are followed in the EIA and design of the environmental management plan for the LWMEAP. The same attention are paid to both economic development and environment protection so that the economic growth keeps the same pace with the environmental protection and does not cause significant negative environmental impacts. Special attention is paid in this study to ensure that livestock waste within project areas is reduced and as much as possible, the produced waste (solid and liquid manure) is reused in the surrounding farms to not only reduce the use of inorganic fertilizers in crop production, but to also improve soil physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. The attention is also particularly made to ensure that project is developed in a sustainable manner and detailed environmental management plan is developed to minimize or prevent any potential damage that project might cause on the natural (ecological) or social environment and enhance its positive impacts. As additional project areas (sub-catchments) are identified within the project provinces, more detailed environmental assessment of such components might be necessary to be made to ensure that potential impacts on ecological and social environment are fully understood and appropriate mitigation measures are provided. If it is believed that any sub-component of the project can potentially cause significant environmental pollution (soil, water, air), more detailed assessment will be made of such sub-components and more detailed and project specific measures will be developed in order to provide basic documents of environment protection to be used during project implementation. To prevent duplication of effort and to reduce the project cost, the EA team has made full use of the available data and findings in preparation of this report.

Since the project is generally a livestock waste management project and does not include any major land clearing or construction activities, it is classified as a Category B project according to the World Bank Operational Policy (OP 4.01). Therefore, the EA is carried out in a “simplified way” with main attention of the study being on the significant environmental issues (SEIs) likely to be caused by the project. This assessment was made based on the consultations with the World Bank consultants, Thai Environmental specialists and the National Steering Committee.

An assessment method of environmental matrices is used for this EA. This method has been widely used in the environmental assessment of various projects since proposed by Leopold, et al.1 (1971). An environmental matrix employs a list of project activities and a list of

1 Source: Leopold, L.B., Clarke, F.E., Manshaw, B.B. and Balsley, J.R. (1971), A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impacts, U.S. Geological Survey Circular No. 645, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

5

environmental parameters or impact indicators. The two are related in a matrix in order to identify cause–effect relationships. Column headings generally list the project activities while the row headings show the environmental parameters of the affected system. Entries in the resulting matrix cells may simply show that an interaction takes place or they may be qualitative or quantitative estimates of the interaction. Table 1-1 represents the preliminary identification matrix, prepared for the LWMEAP project.

1.6 Relationship to Feasibility Study As mentioned in 1.4, environmental impact assessment (EIA) as well as feasibility study for swine farm is not required according to the Thai regulations. In order to establish a swine farm in Thailand, the farmer has to obtain permission for construction from the local authority such as TAOs. Farmer is encouraged to register with the Provincial Agricultural Office for gaining incentives and promotions from the government.

As required by the World Bank, the EA report was prepared simultaneously with project preparation. Report was prepared in close cooperation with the social assessment (SA) teams as well as other project teams working on different project components. Consultation was also made with DLD as the Project Implementation Unit (PIU), local administration office (Tambon Administration Office or TAO), communities, and livestock farmers. The EA team cooperated with the SA team to conduct extensive interviews and discussions with local authorities and community’s members on environmental and health related issues. Obtained results from interviews and discussions were taken into account in the preparation of the EA report.

In a bid to off-set or mitigate the potential impact to the environment at the design stage, the EA team has already provided the PIU with the draft working guidelines to satisfy the needs for environmental protection, and how to ensure coordination between environmental protection and economic development. As mentioned earlier, the EA team conducted extensive discussions with the local responsible agencies and community related to environmental and health impacts. The EA team, therefore, used main findings from the discussions of the SA team in the EA report. Possible environmental issues were analyzed and necessary mitigation measures were considered and costed in the EMP. In summary, the EA team has prepared the EA report, in close collaboration with other technical teams for the LWMEAP project.

1.7 EA Team The CMS Engineering and Management Co., Ltd. was assigned by the FAO as the local consultant for conducting EA study and preparing this report. Appointed staff participating in the EA team consists of an EIA expert, 4 senior environmental scientists and an environmental engineer. The EIA expert who works as project manager has already obtained permission to carry out EIA study from the OEPP. The team members have been involved in EIA studies of many different projects throughout Thailand.

The CMS Engineering and Management Co., Ltd. is an interdisciplinary Thai engineering and environmental consulting company, established since 1991. It has more than 10 years of experience. Engineers and environmental scientists in the company have successfully involved in various environment related activities particularly in carrying environmental impact assessment, feasibility study, formulation of environmental mitigation plan, detail design and construction of wastewater treatment plant and waste disposal facilities. The company has registered with the OEPP to provide service on environmental impact assessment (License No. 6/2541). The company’s clients are both private and governmental agencies.

6

1.8 Assessment Scope and Periods Covered 1.8.1 Assessment Scope

The EA study focuses mainly in 2 appointed demonstration site in Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces, located in central and eastern region of Thailand. Required data for the EA was collected and analyzed. Assessment of environmental impacts was carried out. Consequently prevention and mitigation measures to reduce the impact during construction, implementation, and operation phase were proposed. Further, environmental monitoring program during different phases of the project was also scheduled

The EA report will follow the methodologies and topics provided in the following guidelines/ standards:

¾ The law and regulation of the Office of Natural Resource and Environmental Policy and Planning (2535 B.E.), the Ministry of Science and Technology, Thailand, regarding the rule, regulation, methodology, and guideline of the EIA report submitted to the Office of Natural Resource and Environmental Policy and Planning

¾ The World Bank Operation Policy 4.01 Environmental Assessment.

Project details and data regarding the existing environment in the project area was collected and analyzed. Existing environment condition in the project area was studied. Related data was collected from governmental reports, other study team members, and line agencies involved. The consultant collected available data covering the 4 aspects of the environment values: physical resource, ecological resource, human use value, and value of quality of life.

1.8.2 Periods Covered

The environmental assessment covers different phases of project implementation including:

1) Design Stage

2) Implementation/Construction period (3 years)

3) Operation Period (5 Years)

1.9 Assessment Factors The proposed LWMEAP project is an integrated livestock waste management project that could include removal by treatment, recycling crop/fish uptake and removal by expert to other regions that could be used under scarce land resource environment Therefore, the environmental impacts and their interactions should not be complex. The assessment factors are identified using an environmental interactive matrix (Table 1-1) based on field surveys, collection of secondary data, consultation with the other study teams, the environmental sensitivities of the project areas, and lessons learned from other similar livestock waste management projects. In order to assess the anticipate environmental impact from the LWMEAP project, details of the project and the secondary data obtained from involved teams and authorities in accordance with the field data collected will be considered. The study will cover the physical resources, the ecological resources, the human use value, and the value for the quality of life. Further, various aspects of the environment impact assessment were integrated to assess overall quantity and quality of the impact generated during construction and operation phases of the project in comparison with existing environment condition. The Thai government regulation and standard and other accepted standards of the Office of Natural Resource and Environment, as a reference point, will be applied to assess the environmental impact. Results of the impact assessment to the environmental indices will be summarized into three categories; low, medium and high. Identified environmental factors include:

7

1) physical resources covering

- Ambient Air (Total suspended particulates or TSP)

- Noise

- Water Resource i.e. 1) Surface water (water hydrology, water quality including pH, BOD, Nutrients such as TN and TP Coliform Bacteria) 2) groundwater

2) Ecological Resource such as terrestrial ecosystem and aquatic ecosystem

3) Human use Value such and Land use, Transportation, Water supply, Waste management and Water drainage system

4) Quality of life such as Socio-economic, Public attitude to the project and public health.

1.10 Assessment Focus and Categorization

Even though EIA is not required for such proposed project activity according to the Thai regulation, the assessment was conducted on the same basis of EIA guideline of other activity. The main focus of the study is to determine potential environmental impacts and risks of the project on ecological environment, water environment and social environment during construction, implementation and operation phases. Furthermore, water quality, land use, soil erosion, solid and liquid manure as nutrient source, reduction of inorganic fertilizer use and potential changes in agricultural practices are identified as the main issues that should be reviewed in this EA report to determine potential environmental impacts/risks.

The goals of this study are to ensure that the project will not have any significant negative impacts or environmental risk on the physical, ecological and/or social environment of sub-catchment and its vicinity, and to enhance the positive impacts of the proposed project and the environment. The study focuses on the potential impact of the project especially water resources, health of human inhabitants, domesticated and wild animals in project areas, biodiversity in order to ensure the sustainable growth within the project areas.

1.11 Assessment Criteria

For the purpose of national environmental quality enhancement and conservation, the RTG enforces ambient environmental quality standard to protect national environmental conditions. Discharge standards were established for several point sources of pollution that have the potential to cause environmental damage. Therefore, the assessment was conducted based on both ambient and discharge standards.

A. Surface Water Quality Standard

(i) Surface Water Quality : Classification and Objectives, Notification of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Energy, 1985, publish in the Royal Government Gazette, Vol. 103, Part 60,date April 15, 1986

(ii) Bangpakpng, Nakornnayok, Prachinburi River Water Quality Standard, Notification of National Environment Board, date March 9, 1991

(iii) Maeklong River Water Quality, Draft of Notification of National Environment Board, with approved by the Environmental Committee on water, dated April 27, 1990.

B. Swine Farm Effluent Standard

(i) Swine Farm Effluent Standard, Notification of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, 2001, publish in the Royal Government Gazette, Vol. 118, Part 18, date February 23, 2001.

8

1.12 Assessment Procedure

The procedure for this assessment is presented in Figure 1-1

Assignment of EA Task

Field Studies

Identification of the Objectives of

Environmental Assessment

Selection of Environmental Impact Factors

Figure 1-1 Assessment Procedures for the EA of LWMEAP

Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Standard

Mitigation Measures Compilation of EA Report

Compilation of Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan

Social Environment Ecological Environment Physical

Social Environment Ecological Environment Physical Environment

Alternative AnalysisEnvironmental Impact

9

Table 1-1 Preliminary Identification Matrix for Main Environmental Impact Factorsof LWMEAP

Environmental Parameters

Physical Environment Ecological Environment Social Environment

Project Components

Wat

er h

ydro

logy

Wat

er q

ualit

y

Noi

se

Soi

l ero

sion

Am

bien

t ai

r

Sol

id w

aste

Flo

ra a

nd F

aun

a

Nat

ure

rese

rves

basi

c cr

opla

nd

Wet

land

Bio

dive

rsity

Soi

l ch

arac

teri

stic

s

Lan

d u

se

So

cia

l-ec

onom

y

Cul

tura

l and

Nat

ural

H

erita

ge

Pu

blic

he

alth

Em

ploy

men

t

Dow

nstr

eam

wat

er

user

s

Development of ConducivePolicy FrameworkDevelopment of policiesand decision-support tools 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1

Capacity-building, awareness-raising, and enforcement of relevantpoliciesand regulationsat local level

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1

Thedevelopment of related national communicationsand trainingprograms

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Demonstation of Livestock Waste ManagementRecycling by crop/fish uptake 0 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 -1 1 -1Removal by treatment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0Biogas digester 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0Lagoon 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0Removal by export to other region e.g.ascompost or other manureproducts

0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0

Development of Decision Support Toolsand Regional SupportEvalution of needs based on theneeds based on theevaluation ofproject’ sactivities

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1

Development of common decision support toolsand standards 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1Capacity building 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0Regional dissemination 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1Project Management and MonitoringProject Management 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0Project Implementation MonitoringProject Management 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0Notes: 0= No Impact 1 = Slight positive impact 2 = Medium positive impact 3 = Significant positive impact-1= Slight negative impact -2=Medium negative impact –3=Significant negative impact* If native seed mix is applied, otherwise the effect is –2+ If there is no competition for feed between wild animals and livestock, the impact is zero.

10

2 Policy, Legislation and Administration Framework According to the RTG regulation, the project related to manure management of animal farms is not required to prepare an EA reports. This EA report, therefore, mainly follows the technical requirement of the World Bank. An assessment was made under supervision from the World Bank consultants and the National Steering Committee (NSC). The completed EA report is subjected to review and approval of the World Bank Safeguard Group and NSC. 2.1 Organization and Administrative Framework In Thailand, environmental management practice of livestock production is under supervision of a number of concerned ministries. According to the government organization reengineering (2545 B.E) the new Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment (MONRE) WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE YEAR 2002, consisting of 11 government departments and 5 state enterprise. Responsibilities of the MONRE are (1) to reserve, to conserve and to rehabilitate the natural resource and environment,(2) to manage the sustainable usefulness of the natural resource and environment, and (3) other duties regarding the natural resource and environment.MONRE would implement the policy and plan regarding to environmental enhancement and conservation, while MOAC would mainly participate in promotion of animal health and improvement of production efficiency for better quality of life for producers and consumers. Local administration office in each area would provide supervision in activities in responsible area. (Figure 2-1) 2.2 National Policy and Strategy for Environmental Protection

The environmental protection is considered as one of the major national policies in Thailand. The long-term strategy is to develop projects that are both economically and environmentally sound. Relevant national policy and strategy for environmental protection from livestock production in Thailand are as follows.

1) The Policy and Prospective Plan for Enhancement and Conservation of National Quality, 1997– 2016 is implemented as a framework for administration, promotion and conservation of the nation’s environmental quality. Formulated environmental protection strategy regarding to the policy aims at managing the country’s natural resources and the environment to facilitate and not to obstruct economic and social development.

2) According to the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act of 1992, the PCD, MONRE endorsed swine farms as a point source of water pollution. Effluent wastewater standard was set. The standard has been enforced since February, 2002.

3) In order to respond to environmental protection and food safety, the DLD also established farm standards in 1999 for swine, poultry and cattle farms. These farm standards are voluntary and hence they are rarely observed by the farm owners except the poultry farmers because their products are exported. As for swine farms whose products are consumed domestically these farm standards have had no impact on the practices of swine farms.

4) In addition, manure management in swine farm using biogas technology is strongly promoted according to the Energy Act, 1992 in order to reduce energy consumption and research for alternative energies.

11

Figure 2-1 Supervision of Swine Farm Activity

Ministry of Agricultureand Cooperative (MOAC)

Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironment (MNRE)

Ministry of Interior (MOI)

DLD

Provincial DLDOffice

PCD OEPP DEQPProvincial Office

TAO PAO

EnvironmentalRegional office

ProvincialNRE office

SwineFARM

EffluentStandard

LegalEnforcement

LegalEnforcement

Technical Assistance andPromotion

12

13

2.3 WB Requirements According to the WB requirements, the EA report for LWMEAP should satisfy the following Bank policies: 1) Operational Policy 4. 01 Environmental Assessment 2) Operational Policy 4. 10 Indigenous People 3) WB Procedures on Information Disclosure EA team has reviewed and understood the above policies and would follow the technical requirements of the WB as outlined in the WB EA Source Book.

14

3 Project Description Demonstration sites of the proposed livestock waste management project are located at Ratchaburi and Chonburi Provinces in Central and Eastern part of Thailand, respectively. Figure 3-1 present the location of project areas. Total project investment is approximately 3.69 million USD. Obtained from 3 sources including the GEF fund (1.1 million USD.), RGT (0.71 million (USD) and participating private sector (1.88 million USD)

In this Chapter, details of project objectives, project components, indicators of project success, project area, project implementation schedule and project Investment is provided.

3.1 Project Objectives Major objective of the project is to reduce the negative local and global environmental impacts of rapidly increasing livestock production in selected watersheds in the coastal areas of Thailand. The proposed project demonstrates best manure management practices and is hoped to reduce land-based pollution from livestock production of international water of the Gulf of Thailand and ultimately South China Seas through replication of project findings within the country. Other global benefits would occur in the areas of biodiversity, land degradation, and climate change. In particular, the proposed project would lead to an environmentally-sound geographic distribution of livestock production and thereby to the following global and regional environmental benefits:

• Reduction of livestock production waste load. It is believed that animal waste currently contributes more than half of the total organic waste loads that is polluting Gulf of Thailand and South China Sea;

• More effective conservation of freshwater and coastal marine aquatic biodiversity as a result of reduced water discharges into riverine and other aquatic habitats;

• Reduction of land degradation from excessive nutrient loading in areas downstream of intensive livestock production areas;

• Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (methane, nitrous oxides) and gases of local importance (ammonia) released from livestock waste; and

• Reduction of public health hazards and occurrence of zoogenic diseases.

3.2 Project Components The above mentioned objective will be achieved by supporting an integrated and comprehensive approach to managing animal-induced pollution. The main elements of the approach will be 1) the development of functional decision support tools and methodologies for use by the public and private sector, 2) at regional level, address different stages of economic and institutional development so that replicability of project findings throughout the region is facilitated, 3) testing reduction, treatment and mitigation measures and 4) the creation of a policy dialogue among stakeholders and enabling policymakers to evaluate the cost-benefits and cost-effectiveness of various policy and technical environmental management options. The proposed GEF project will strengthen institutional capacity and decision-making systems for industrial livestock management at the central and provincial levels in Thailand. The project would be implemented a five-year period. Project components would be defined in detail during preparation. The following four components have been identified at this stage:

15

FIG 3-1 MAP OFF RATCHABURI AND CHONBURIPROVINCES

D: 2547\FAO-001\RECMS : FIG 3-1.PPT

Figure 3.1 Map of Thailand highlighting Chonburi and Ratchaburi Provinces

16

Component 1: Development of Conducive Policy Framework. This component would include: (a) development of policies and decision-support tools that would work on the trial and evaluation of relevant policy options, such as spatial planning of livestock production, economic instruments, registration procedures, and the formulation of technical standards; (b) a second sub-component that would work on capacity-building, awareness-raising, and enforcement of relevant policies and regulations at local level through training of local government officials as well as farmers, and (c) the development of related national communications and training programs. The component would be implemented under close cooperation between the environmental and the agricultural agencies (at national, provincial and local level) in the countries and would be linked through a regional support unit (Component 3) to capture the benefits of transfer of cross-country experiences and other synergy effects.

Component 2: Demonstration of Livestock Waste Management.

This component would be implemented in a limited number of micro-watersheds in each country and focus on demonstrating how practical and cost-effective manure management technologies could improve water quality. Three livestock waste management technology options will be demonstrated: (a) recycling by crop/fish uptake; (b) removal by treatment; or (c) removal by export to other regions e.g. as compost or other manure products. A combination of these three is also possible. This component would rely heavily on the guidance of the agricultural agencies and a partnership with the private sector. Sub-components would include area-wide planning with GIS techniques, surveys and registration procedures, and the actual physical demonstration of improved waste management, both for a large number of small producers (multiple-point source pollution) and for selected large farms (single point source pollutions). The component would be closely tied in with capacity building of local officials, extension workers and farmers in manure and nutrient management, animal health, and the impacts of water pollution on public health, to be included under Component 1.

Component 3: Development of Decision Support Tools and Regional Support.

A common observation in the three countries is that developing awareness of environmental and public health issues associated with livestock waste mismanagement is often not translated into adequate action because of the lack of knowledge and experience about how to deal with these issue. On the other hand, most of the tools and approaches required to effectively and efficiently address the issue are common to Thailand, Vietnam and Guangdong province, and beyond to other countries and provinces bordering the South China Sea This regional would therefore draw on cross-country synergies and economies of scale in supporting the achievement of project objectives. This component would have four sub-components: (a) evaluation of needs based on the evaluation of project’s activities (b) development of common decision support tools and standards (c) capacity building, and (d) regional dissemination.

Component 4: Project Management and Monitoring

This component would include: (a) Establish national implementation committee (NIC) at department level. (b) Establish Project implementation unit (PIU) within DLD, that will be responsible for implementation.

3.3 Indicators of Project Success Success of the project will be measured based on various output and outcome indicators. The overall indicators are;

17

• Water quality downstream of project areas

• Flows of organic matter, Nitrogen and Phosphorus entering the south China sea per unit of output

• Adoption rates of improved livestock waste management approaches

• Awareness of pollution threats and health problems from livestock waste

• Comprehensive and agreed proposals for legislation, policy measures and resource allocation at national provincial and local level

• Public and farmer awareness and adoption of environmentally friendly livestock waste management practices

• Number of farms that have adopted an improved system ;

• Water quality (N, P, BOD, COD and total Coliforms of water resources and nutrient balances in soils compared against baseline data gathered during initial project implementation

• Percentage of hectarage of farms in target areas where nutrient management plans have been implemented

• Demand and interest for project intervention by farmers outside pilot watershed areas

• Extent of differences in environmental legislation among countries

• Awareness of threats to pollution of trans-boundary water bodies (South China sea) from nutrient loading from animal waste within bordering countries

• Adoption of manure waste management technologies within countries bordering South China Sea

• Demand for project intervention by governments and local farmers in other countries bordering South China Sea

• Support from the national steering committees and project management offices

• Policy framework established

• Level of involvement of Pig Board in environmental policy development/permitting procedures

• PIU offices established and staff assigned

• Level of cooperation between DLD and Energy Promotion Foundation (EPF)

• Amount of funds provided by EPF

• Existence of Codes of Practice (COP)

• Number of incentives identified

• Existence of licensing procedures

• Codes of Practice (COP) submitted and legalized

• Volume of manure being marketed

• GIS tools implemented

• Number of maps produced and used in zoning

• Degree of compliance with the standards

18

• Number of incentive programs established

• COP Implemented and assessed

• Amount of TAO funds devoted to policy enforcement

• Number of training courses developed for specific target groups

• Number of PIU staff trained

• Number of provincial staff member trained

• Number of TAO officers trained

• Network established

• Number of study tours

• Number of programs and promotional materials developed

• Website Functioning & number of hits

• Site – specific subsidy and incentive schemes implemented

• Agents trained in manure management technologies and practices, livestock management and health, human health, participatory extension approaches

• Extension manuals for extension agency stall developed

• Appropriate extension materials for dissemination to farmers developed

• Farms successfully adopted the promoted technologies

• Technical hand – book describing manure and waste management options developed and adopted by local authorities in each country

• Guidelines for selection of appropriate manure management options developed

• Guidelines for farm selection developed

• Farm – level baseline surveys prepared

• Strategies prepared and applied

• Manure management systems commissioned

• Farmers involved in selection, design, implementation and monitoring of schemes

• All farm level scheme operators trained

• % pig farms who have adopted technologies demonstrated by the project

• Manure market in X locality increased by Y %

• Component procedures and approaches reviewed and adjusted as required on an annual basis.

• Number of evaluations performed (outputs, effects, impacts)

• Number of support tools developed

• Number of technology verified/validated

• Number of participants

• Number of training conducted and number of trainers trained

19

• Number of tours conducted and number of participants

• Numbers produced

• Numbers translated

• Number of times accessed and number of materials posted

• Number of activities facilitated

• NIC established

• M & E plan for measurement of effects and impacts at farm and component level prepared and implemented (environmental, process, socio-economic, health, delivery efficiency, etc.)

3.4 Project Area Since the proposed project demonstration sites are located in two provinces, Ratchaburi and Chonburi, project description is presented separately for each site to simplify further analysis of the information.

3.4.1 Ratchaburi Province

Ratchaburi province is located in the central region of Thailand. Large area of the province situates on bank of the Mae Klong River. The river flows through various districts in Ratchaburi province including Ban Pong, Potharam, Muang Ratchaburi before entering the Gulf of Thailand at Samut Songkram province. Apart from Mae Klong River, there are some 53 canals in the province.

Ratchaburi province is the most congested area of swine farming in Thailand. DLD report indicates that some 1,174,344 swine were raised in this province in 2003 that constituie about 15% of total swine in the country (7,815,534). Total of 853 swine farms exist in Ratchaburi province that are classified into 3 categories depending on farm size. There are 144 large farms (group A), 580 medium farms (group B) and 129 small farms (group C). Data in Table 3-1 shows that small and medium farms are mostly located in Potharam district, whereas, large farms are mostly found in Paktor district of which only 12 farms have been certified by DLD as reaching the required standards. This implies that most of the farms in this province do not have proper management practices and can potentially cause environmental pollution including covering wastewater, odor and soil pollution.

20

Table 3-1 Number of swine farm in Ratchaburi province

District Category No. of farms No. of Swine 1. Muang Group A 25 90,544

Group B 82 76,109Group C 17 389

2. Bang Pae Group A 9 45,984Group B 64 29,903Group C 22 704

3. Dumnern Sadurk Group A 1 673Group B 42 16,916Group C 16 471

4. Photaram Group A 42 156,412Group B 203 145,707Group C 27 882

5. Ban Pong Group A 12 48,478Group B 71 32,224Group C 19 626

6. Pak Tor Group A 43 353,816Group B 70 60,081Group C 15 398

7. Jorm Bung Group A 12 75,876Group B 36 32,256Group C 7 201

8. Suanpeung Group A - -Group B 8 2735Group C 2 22

9.Keing ampoe banka Group A - -Group B 4 900Group C 4 78

Total 853 1,174,344

Source: Collected from DLD Provincial Office, 2003

Two swine farms were pre-selected as demonstration sites located in the vicinity of Pak Tor District. Those are KOS farm and Kanchana farm. Detail information of those farms including number of pigs, water and electricity consumption and farm management practices is as follows.

1) KOS farm

- Total 10,000 pigs,

- Existing large lagoon are simple earth excavation without lining,

- Separated solids and liquid waste,

- Interested in biogas/electricity,

- Possible spreading treated wastewater to local crop land,

- Frequent washing down (450,000 litres per day),

- Large farm with evaporated system,

- High electricity cost (about 170,000 Baht per month),

21

2) Kanchana farm

- Total 29,000 pigs,

- Large modern farm,

- Large 10 lagoons in series,

- Separated solids and liquid waste,

- Treated wastewater irrigated to rice ground and overflow to woodland

- Interested in anaerobic digestion system.

3.4.2 Chonburi Province

Chonburi province is situated in the Bang Pakong river basin in the eastern region of Thailand. This province is also congested with swine farms. It is report that number of swine in this province is about 575,780 swine or about 7.52% of total swine in the country. Total 147 swine farms with approximately 158,140 swine are in Bang Pung district where the project demonstration site is located that can potentially cause water pollution in Bang Pakong River.

Four more farms were also pre-selected as demonstration sites in Chonburi province. Those all are located in Marb Pai Sub-district, Banbung District. Those are Sa-ard fram, Jae-nee farm, Sakhon farm and Lacksana farm. Detail information of those farms is as follows.

1) Sa-ard Farm

- Medium and untidy farm

- Very limited land

- Possible spreading treated wastewater to local crop land,

- Discharge directly to nearby stream without any treatment

- Seperated solids and liquid waste

- Large water lagoon

- Near local school

- Total 3,000 pigs

2) Jae-nee Farm

- Total 2,000 pigs

3) Sakhon Farm

- Building around edge of farm, lagoon system in centre

- 5 lagoons in series

- Seperated solids and liquid waste

- Treated wastewater overflow to nearby stream

- Total 2,300 pigs

22

4) Lucksana Farm

- Fixed-dome digester (Anaerobic digestion)

- Biogas used for cooking

- Drying beds for sludge

- Run off to local ground

- Digested release via lagoon to local area

- Large water lagoon

- Total 2,500 pigs

3.5 Project Implementation Schedule An overall period of the proposed project would cover 5 years period. The first year would spent or build-up the system. Operation period would be carried out for 4 years. Environment monitoring activities and training for environmental officers shall be also conducted simultaneously during both project’s implementation and operation period. Details of those are provided in environmental management plan (EMP) as shown in Chapter 8.

3.6 Project Investment The total project investment is estimated to be about 6.049 million USD. The costs based on the proposed scales of the three main components of the project are:

• total investments for Conducive Policy Framework is about 1.789 million USD (or about 29.6 %),

• Demonstration of Livestock Waste Management about 3.69 million USD (or about 61 %),

• The decision support tools development and regional co-ordination about 2 million USD (This part is exclude from the Country’s budget)

• project management and monitoring about 0.57 million USD (or about 9.4 %).

23

4 Description of Existing Environment Two demonstration sites were designated in 2 provinces, Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces. Description of existing environment is provided at provincial level.

4.1 Chonburi Province 4.1.1 Geographical Environment

4.1.1.1 Topographical Information

Chonburi province is located on the eastern coast of the Gulf of Thailand in the eastern region of the Kingdom. The province covers total area of 4,363 sq. km. (2,726,875 rai) or about 0.85% of the total area of the Kingdom with various physiographic features including mountains, flat coastal land, lowlands (wetlands), and islands. Mountainous area fiorms the boundary between Chonburi and the neighboring provinces, Chacheng Sao and Chantaburi. Flat land is found in Pan Thong and Panut Nikom districts as well as the western part of the province. Western side of the province is coastline with total length of 160 km. Beaches and islands in this area are famous tourist destinations including Pattaya beach.

4.1.1.2 Soil Resources

Soil survey reports, prepared by the Land Development Department indicate that the dominant soil series in the demonstration site is Ban Bung Series. The main physical characteristic of this soil Series are:

Topsoil

Soil texture: sandy loam or loamy sand

Soil color: brown-gray or dark brown

SubsoilSoil texture loamy sand

Soil color: gray-pink or light brown

Ban bung series have good permeability and is suitable for growing crops such as cassava and sugarcane.

4.1.1.3 Meteorological Data

Chonburi province has monsoon climate. There are 3 difference seasons, winter (November –February), summer (March – May) and Rainy season (June – October). The highest temperature is normally found in April. The heavy rain normally occurs in October. Average monthly rainfall, temperature and relative humidity measured at Chonburi meteorological station are presented in Table 4-1.

24

Table 4-1 Monthly rainfall, temperature and relative humidity (2002)

Temperature (oC) Relative humidity (%) Month Rainfall

(mm.)

No. of rainy days Minimu

mMaximum Mean min. Mean max.

Annual 1,103.3 121 18.9 37.0 51.48 87.90

January 21.8 2 18.9 35.6 51.48 80.87February 6.4 2 22.6 37.0 56.64 86.14March 28.5 5 22.3 36.6 57.32 84.65April 79.3 5 23.5 37.0 53.07 84.77May 266.5 14 23.9 35.5 58.90 87.90June 170.5 17 24.2 34.9 58.20 87.70July 54.8 13 24.4 35.7 55.87 81.81August 137.8 15 23.7 34.5 61.06 86.81September 161.0 20 24.0 34.0 61.17 87.53October 71.6 14 22.1 35.1 54.94 85.61November 66.6 7 21.1 35.7 52.61 83.35December 38.5 7 22.3 35.4 55.10 83.97Source : Chon Buri Meteorological Station

4.1.1.4 Water Resource and Quality

Surface Water

Chonburi province is situated in the Bang Pakong river basin, the largest river basin in the eastern region. The basin has total area of 8,706 sq.km. covering 5 provinces including Nakorn Nayok, Saraburi, Chacheng Sao, Prachinburi and Chonburi. Most of the basin is flatland. The basin can be divided into 4 sub-basins: Bang Pakong river, Nakorn Nayok river, Klong Tarad and Klong Loung river sub-basins.

Chonburi has approximately 394 cannels and water bodies. Detailed geographical information of the cannels and water bodies in Ban Bung district where the proposed demonstration site is located is shown in Table 4-2.

25

Table 4-2 Geographical information of thecannels and water bodies in BanBung district

Size (m.) Water Level Water Quality Agriculture (Rai) DrivingSub-District No. Name

Weith Length DepthRainySeason

DrySeason

Appearance

Taste

Other

Consumption (House) Rainy

SeasonDried

Season

SmallEnterpri

se

Fishryand

Lisvestock DrivingDistance

(m.)Yea

rBan Bung 1 Huai Nam Joan 3 2,000 1.5 1 0.5 2 1 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

2 Huai Nong Sara 3 1,000 1.5 1 0.5 2 1 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

3 Huai Ma Fai 3 800 1.5 1 0.5 2 1 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

Ban Bung Municip. 1 Huai Bung 4.5 NV 2 NV NV 1 1 9 NV 10 NV 0 0 NV NV

2 Huai Kwai Pueak 4.5 NV 2 NV NV 1 1 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

Klong Kew 1 Huai Map Khla 6 6,000 3 2 NV 2 1 9 NV 2,000 NV 0 30 NV NV

2 Huai Map Phlu 5 NV 2 1.5 NV 2 1 9 NV 2,500 NV 0 20 NV NV

3 Klong Ra Waeng 8 NV 3 2 1 2 1 9 NV 3,000 NV 0 43 NV NV

4 Huai Yao 5 NV 2.5 2 NV 2 1 9 NV 1,800 NV 0 33 NV NV

5 Huai Nong Pru 6 NV 3 2 NV 2 1 9 NV 2,800 NV 0 18 NV NV

6 Huai Lam Pak 5 NV 2 1.8 NV 2 1 9 NV 1,500 NV 0 27 NV NVHao Kun TaeMunicip.

1 Huai Map Toei 2.5 1,500 1.8 2 1 2 1 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

2Huai Nong KlangDon

2 500 1.5 1.9 0.8 2 1 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

Map Phai 1 Huai Map Phai 5 10,000 2 NV NV 2 2 9 150 300 NV 0 0 NV NV

2 Huai Khok Jam Pa 1.5 8,000 1 NV NV 1 1 9 40 100 NV 0 0 1 NV 2542

3 Huai Yang 8 10,000 4 NV NV 2 3 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

4Huai Ko MaiLaem

3 8,000 1.2 NV NV 1 3 9 100 20 NV 0 0 NV NV

Nong Sak 1 Huai Lam Nang 15 NV 4 3 3 2 1 1 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

2Huai Lam NamDam

15 NV 4 3 3 2 1 1 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

Nong Sum Sak 1 Huai Map Phai 7 1,500 3 1 NV 2 2 2 60 NV NV 0 0 NV NV

2Huai Nong SumSak

7 1,500 3 1 NV 2 2 1 40 NV NV 0 0 NV NV

Nong Bon Daeng 1 Nong Ma Kua 4 2,800 2.5 NV NV 2 3 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

2 Map Uaeng 5 2,500 2 NV NV 2 3 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

3Huai Sai WangNam Dam NongYang

8 5,000 3 NV NV 2 3 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

26

Table 4-2 Geographical information of thecannels and water bodies in BanBung district

Size (m.) Water Level Water Quality Agriculture (Rai) DrivingSub-District No. Name

Weith Length DepthRainySeason

DriedSeason

Appearance

Taste

Other

Consumption (House) Rainy

SeasonDried

Season

SmallEnterpri

se

Fishryand

Lisvestock DrivingDistance

(m.)Yea

r4 Huai Toei Sai

Wang Yai Porn8 3,000 4 NV NV 2 3 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

Nong IE-Run 1 Klong Yai 6 7,500 2.5 1.5 0.5 2 1 9 NV 2,500 2,100 0 0 1 NV 2534

2 Klong Pa Daeng 8 12,300 3 2 1 2 1 9 200 2,000 1,500 0 50 0 1,000

3 Huai Nong Pru 4 1,200 2 1 0.5 2 1 9 NV 1,000 800 0 10 0 1,000

4 Huai Lam Pang 4 1,000 2 1.5 0.5 2 1 9 50 80 80 0 0 0 1,000

5 Klong Nong Soang 4 1,500 2 1 0.3 2 1 9 50 1,000 1,000 0 0 0 1,000

6 Huai Thru 3 6,000 2 1.5 0.5 2 1 9 50 650 600 0 0 0 1,000

7 Huai Pung 3 2,000 2 1.5 0.5 2 1 9 50 250 100 0 0 0 1,000

Nong Phai Kaew 1 Huai Nong Pru 8 2,000 3 3 1 2 1 9 50 1,500 500 0 0 NV NV

2 Huai Klong Yai 10 2,500 5 5 1 2 1 9 20 1,000 300 0 0 NV NV

3 Huai Pong YaPlong

6 6,000 2 2 1 2 1 9 20 2,500 500 0 0 NV NV

4 Huai PaYup 10 3,000 3 3 1 2 1 9 30 1,000 400 0 0 NV NV

Nong PhaiKaaew Municip.

1 Huai Klong Yai 20 4,750 6 5 2 1 1 9 443 5,649 1,659 224 113 NV NV

2 Huai Su Kreab 20 4,000 3 2 1 2 1 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

3 Huai Pang 15 5,600 2.5 2 1 2 1 9 NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

123,450.00 1,353 33,159 9,539 224 344

NV = No ValueWater Quality is classified based on Appearance Taste 1 = Tasteless Other 1 = PollutedDriving 0 = Never

1 = Clear 2 = Brackish 2 = Contaminated with Chemicals 1 = Drived

2 = Turbid 3 = Saline 9 = Not clear

27

Surface Water Quality

Water quality measurements conducted by PCD in 2003 indicate that water quality in Bang Pakong river generally meets the established standard with the exception of dissolved oxygen concentration and coliform bacteria contamination. Average of measured data is shown in Table 4-3. Water in cannels and water bodies in Ban Bung district is normally turbid and tasteless. Water is mainly used for plantation, household consumption, fishery, livestock, and household industry.

Table 4-3 Average measured water quality in Bang Pakong River between January – June, 2003

Parameter Unit Average measured Standard value 1. DO mg/l. 4.2 ³ 4.0 2. BOD mg/l. 1.1 � 2.0 3. FCB MPN/100 ml 2,400 � 4,000 4. TCB MPN/100 ml 3,500 � 20,000 5. NH3 mg/l. 0.20 � 0.50 6. Turbidity NTU 107 100

Source: Pollution Control Department, 2004.

PCD also monitors coastal water quality in the province. Measured data indicates contaminated condition of the water in almost all monitoring stations.

4.1.1.5 Groundwater Quality and Quantity

Groundwater in Chonburi province is limited due to topographical condition. Quality and quantity of the water varies depending on its origins. Total of 150 groundwater wells are reported in the province. The wells are mostly found in Bo Tong and Panutnikom district (Table 4-4). A total of 15 wells are in Ban Bung district where the demonstration site is located.

Table 4-4 Number of ground water well in Chonburi province.

Amphoe

Department of

Mineral

Resources

Department

of Public Work

Department

of Health

Office of

Accelerated

Rural

Development

Total

Muang

Chonburi

- - 4 - 4

Phanat Nikhom - - 17 10 27

Bo Thong 40 8 11 34 93

Ban Bung - 3 11 1 15

Nong Yai - - 5 6 11

Total 40 11 48 51 150

28

Source : Master Plan and Action Plan for Water Resource Conservation in River Basin in Central Region, OEPP, 2003

Groundwater Quality

Groundwater in Pan Tong and Panutnikom district is saline. It is tasteless in Muang and Bang Lamung district. Groundwater within the province generally has higher concentration of iron and chloride than the accepted drinking water standard.

4.1.1.6 Air Quality

Measured air quality data by PCD indicates that air quality in this province meets the national standards. It is also found that ozone gas and particulate matter have potential to reach the standard. The data is shown in Table 4-5.

29

Table 4-5 Air quality in Chonburi province in 2003Station

Sulfer dioxide Nitrogen dioxide Carbon dioxide Cabon monoxide ��������� (O3)���������������� 10 ������ (PM10)

Hourly average(ppb)

Hourly average (ppb) Hourly average (ppb) 8 hrs. average (ppm) Hourly average (ppb) 24 hrs. average

Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min

Municipal Youth Center, 56.0 3.6 0.0 78.0 11.6 0.0 2.7 0.5 0.0 1.9 0.5 0.1 117.0 17.1 0.0 117.9 37.4 15.2

Sriracha District

Office of General Education, 22.0 3.1 0.0 89.0 16.5 0.0 3.7 0.5 0.0 2.3 0.5 0.0 127.0 16.5 0.0 108.2 36.8 12.1

Muang Chonburi District

Standard 300 170 30 9 100 120

Source : Planning and Evaluation Division, Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Management, 2004.

30

4.1.1.7 Water Pollution Loading

Estimation on water pollution loading in the study areas as a result from Baseline team study indicates in Table 4 – 6 to Table 4 – 8 Table 4 – 6 Loading Estimation from Major Point Sources of Pollution in the Study Areas

BOD Loads** (Kg) in 2003 (no of population)

BOD Loads (Kg) in 2010 (no of population)

Amphoe Province

Domestic Pig Farm Total Domestic

Pig Farm

Total

Ban Bung*

Chonburi 814 (21,423)

4,744 (158,140)

5,558 1,130 (27,087)

9,014 10,144

Pak Tor Ratchaburi 128 (3,815)

24,920 (830,661)

25,048 146 (3,849)

39,124 39,270

Remarks: *Amphoe Ban Bung consists of three municipalities (Ban Bung, Hua Kunjae, Nong Phai Keaw)

** Average BOD loading from swine farm is of 30 g/d per head. (25) *** Loads from factories are minimal and no information. Table 4 – 7 Loads from pig farm in Amphoe Ban Bung, Chonburi Province Year No of Pig Changes BOD Loads 2003 158,140 +0.90 4,744 2002 83,211 +0.75 2,496 2001 47,644 +0.10 1,429 2000 43,459 1,304 Average 83,114 2,493

Table 4 – 8 Loads from pig farm in Amphoe Pak Tor, Ratchaburi Province Year No of Pig Changes BOD Loads 2003 830,661 +0.57 24,920 2002 530,661 +0.48 15,920 2001 357,457 +0.14 10,724 2000 313,832 9,415 Average 508,153 15,245

Remarks: Estimate from Information Centre, Livestock Development Department 4.1.2 Ecological Environment 4.1.2.1 Flora

Forest in Chonburi province can be classified into 2 major types; dry evergreen forest and mangrove. Dry evergreen forest is generally found in the mountain at elevations below 900 meter above sea level (masl). Chonburi Provincial Forestry Office reported that the dry evergreen forest covers about 488.9 sq. km. or 305,562.5 rai of the province. The significant dry evergreen forest in this province includes Kao Keaw-Kao Chumpoo wildlife conservation area, some area of Kao Ang Ru Nai wildlife conservation area, and Kao Che Oan wildlife conservation area. The report also indicates total mangrove of 6,500 rai is located along coastline in Chonburi province. The area is mainly in Muang and Sattaheap district.

31

4.1.2.2 Fauna

Dry evergreen forest in Chonburi province is habitat of a number of wild animals belonging to mammals, birds, and reptile families.

4.1.2.3 Coastal Natural Resources

Chonburi province has 160 km of coastline in the western side and is very rich in natural resources. Regional Environmental Office 13 (Chonburi province) reported status of the coastal natural resources that is summarized below:

1) Coral reefs

Coral reefs around various islands in Chonburi province are famous tourist destination in Thailand. They are presently found in deteriorated condition as a result from coastal water pollution, tourism and fishery activities.

2) Phytoplanktons

Marine Science Institute, Brurapa University has been regularly monitoring diversity and quantity of phytoplankton in coastal areas of the province. Report indicates that plankton is regularly bloom in this area, particularly Noctiluca scintillans, resulting in water pollution and fish kill.

3) Zooplanktons

Marine Science Institute, Burapa University also reports that copepod is dominant zooplankton found in this area.

4) Aquatic resources

The large number of fishing ports in Chonburi province is a good indicator of richness of aquatic resources in this area. Marine fishery includes harvest of both squid and shellfish. However, the richness of aquatic resources has been decreasing due to overfishing and use of inappropriate fishing gears.

4.1.2.4 Soil Erosion and Soil Conservation

Eastern region environmental status 2003 reports soil erosion as a major problem during monsoon, particularly in farming areas on sloping land. Total area of eroded land is estimated at 19,876,150 rai in flat land and 3,565,470 rai in high land.

Apart from soil erosion, Chonburi province also has landslide and soil deterioration problems. The environmental regional office 13th, Chonburi, has proposed to include soil resource management measures in the regional environmental management plan. The measures cover soil mitigaion, soil and water resource conservation and protection measures to prevent soil erosion and landslide and promotion of local knowledge on soil conservation.

4.1.3 Beneficial Usage

4.1.3.1 Infrastructure

Chonburi province has 14 power generating stations, providing 1,000,000 kW-hr electricity for 311,963 households. Pipe water in the province is provided by the Provincial Waterworks Authority. Raw water comes from reservoirs. Quantity of water in the reservoirs varies depending on volume of rainfall. Present production capacity is 79,591,365 m3 from the total capacity of 95,746,800 m3 providing piped water to 133,083 households.

Chonburi province has a good transportation system. Eastern railway travels between Sri Racha district and Bangkok. Total length of highways in the province is 759.12 km that is under

32

supervision of the Department of Highway. This province also has marine transportation infrastructure. Laem Chabang port is located in this province. There are also two airports in this province, one training airport (Bang Pra airport) and one commercial airport (Au Ta Pao air port).

4.1.3.2 Land Tenure and Ownership

Data from Office of Agricultural Economics, MOAC indicates that between 1991 and 1999, the area of farm land in the province has decreased from 1,530,233 rais to 1,310,158 rais. Land holdings are classified into owned and mortgaged land. Details are shown in Table 4-9.

33

Table 4-9 Typeof Farm Holding Land : 1991-1999

Owned (rai) Others (rai)Year

Farm holdingland (rai)

Total OwnedMortgaged out(period unspecified)

Mortgaged out(period specified)

Total RentedMortgaged in (periodunspecified)

Mortgaged in(period specified)

Free of charge

1991 1,530,233 1,062,797 986,431 76,338 28 467,436 329,346 2,748 141 135,2011992 1,521,370 1,076,904 1,035,752 4,115 444,466 358,390 2,987 83,0891993 1,515,971 1,086,489 1,056,467 30,022 429,482 341,223 2,688 85,5711994 1,460,938 1,070,012 1,013,410 54,492 2,110 390,926 345,417 1,981 43,5281995 1,407,607 1,029,569 960,367 65,190 4,012 378,038 353,390 1,452 501 22,6951996 1,377,856 1,018,166 952,641 63,379 2,146 359,690 325,607 1,975 1,058 31,0501997 1,343,287 1,008,789 948,818 58,205 1,766 334,498 316,773 2,680 1,155 13,8901998 1,305,611 983,952 928,146 54,199 1,607 321,659 301,592 1,149 1,021 17,8971999 1,310,158 983,540 924,763 57,027 1,750 326,618 300,484 1,852 968 23,314

Source : Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agricultureand Cooperatives, 2003.

34

4.1.3.3 Land Use and Farming

Brurapa University has surveyed land use in Chonburi province. The urban area in this province has been rapidly expanded. Land is mostly used for agricultural activity, forestry and community, respectively (Table 4-10).

Table 4-10 Land Use in Chonburi Province

Type of Land Use Area (sq.km.) 1. Agriculture 2,999.92. Community 492.93. Uninhabited land 139.34. Livestock 28.15.Forestry 583.46. Low land 25.07. Aquaculture 63.58. Mining 13.59. Water resources 27.910. Industry 73.911. Others 6.4

Source : Brurapa University, 2003

Livestock production (poultry, swine, cattle) in Chonburi province covers larger area compared to other provinces in the eastern region. Livestock population is high in Ban Bung district as shown in Table 4-11.

Table 4-11 Livestock Data, Chonburi Province (2002 Data)

Type of livestocks Amphoe/King amphoe

Cattle Buffaloes Duck Chicken Geese Swine

Total 15,396 7,612 1,753,850 49,202,248 481 575,780

Muang Chon Buri 550 634 50,020 638,516 - 10,644

Phanat Nikhom 3,730 2,954 573,206 2,905,447 122 211,907

Ban Bung 2,523 1,430 167,053 32,527,560 - 85,716

Si Racha 1,486 260 147,949 2,002,014 - 88,187

Bang Lamung - 377 137,789 862,112 167 20,631

Phan Thong 1,058 243 347,970 2,116,480 - 48,800

Sattahip - 23 3,695 40,823 192 462

Nong Yai - 418 43,050 4,116,184 - 17,158

Bo Thong 654 596 232,518 3,021,535 - 84,545

Ko Sichang - - - - - -

King Amphoe Ko Chan

- 677 50,600 971,577 - 7,730

Source : Chon Buri Provincial Livestock Office.

35

4.1.4 Quality of Life

4.1.4.1 Population

Area of Chonburi province is divided into 10 districts and one semi-district. According to statistical data provided by Administration Registration Center, Regional 2, total population in the province is 1,129,886 (male 566,350 and female 563,536) or about 259.0 capita per sq. km. Population in Ban Bung district, where the demonstration site is located, is about 92,116 or 141.5 capita per sq.km. Details of population are presented in Table 4-12. Table 4-12 Population data by area and Amphoe (2002 data)

Number of population

Amphoe/King amphoe total male female

Number of Births

Number of deaths

Number of in-

migrants

Number of

out-migrants

Population density(per sq-Km)

Total 1,129,886 566,350 563,536 22,384 5,628 99,597 89,683 258.969

Muang Chan Buri District 258,917 127,913 131,004 5,758 1,366 21,904 22,321 1,131.670

Phanat Nikhom District 119,424 57,946 61,478 1,440 772 4,911 5,087 264.885

Ban Bung District 92,116 46,171 45,945 1,175 507 6,588 5,823 141.521

Si Racha District 191,387 95,447 95,940 6,518 839 17,748 17,096 310.474

Bang Lamung District 185,171 89,606 95,565 3,634 787 22,049 16,032 394.803

Phan Thong District 47,875 23,474 24,401 543 369 2,738 2,269 276.675

Sattahip District 129,223 71,857 57,366 2,377 561 15,447 14,150 387.566

Nong Yai District 22,049 11,281 10,768 231 103 1,734 1,447 55.472

Bo Thong District 44,289 22,234 22,055 655 215 2,775 2,434 56.668

Ko Sichang District 4,941 2,508 2,433 37 27 708 579 286.617

Ko Chan Minor District 34,494 17,913 16,581 13 82 2,995 2,445 138.614

Source : Administration Registration Center Reginal 2, Department of Iacal Administration, Ministry of Interior. 4.1.4.2 Cultural Background

According to historical information, an area of the Chonburi province previously used to be a location of 3 important realms during 657 – 1057 and 1157 – 1357. Those are Muang Praya Rae, Muang Sri Palo, and Muang Pra Rot. Therefore, some historical sites still remain in the area such as Muang Praya Rae historical site, Muang Sri Palo historical site, and Muang Pra Rot historical site. However, there is no cultural heritage site found in Ban Bung district where the demonstration site is located.

36

4.1.4.3 Public Health

Chonburi has 26 hospitals with a total of 3,996 beds. Ratio between doctor and patient is approximately 1:1,896. Whereas, ratio between patient and bed is 283:1. Principal causes of death are shown in Table 4-13.

Table 4-13 Nmber of deaths by principal cause groups and sex (2002)

Cause group Total Male Female

Total 6,570 4,004 2,566

Heart diseases 212 149 63

Accident and poisonings 829 668 161

Malignant neoplasm, all forms 629 369 260

Hypertension and cerebtovascular disease 327 199 128

Suicide, homicide and other injury 256 183 73

Diseases of liver and pancrease 158 104 54

Pneumonia and other diseases of Lung 333 240 93

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis 184 92 92

Tuberculosis, all forms 160 125 35

Dengerue haemorrhagic faver 1 1 -

Others 3,481 1,874 1,607

Source : Office of the Permanent Secretary for Public Health, Ministry of Public Health.

4.1.4.4 Cultural Heritage

Chonburi province has a number of cultural heritage sites such as Kog Panom historical site, Muang Pra Rot historical site, and Praya Rae historical site. Those spread over different district of the province including Muang district, Panut Nikom district, Bo Tong district and Sattaheap district. However, there is no cultural heritage site found in Ban Bung district where the demonstration site is located.

4.1.4.5 Scenic Spot and Tourism

Chonburi province has different kinds of tourist destinations including natural and historical site. Famous registered natural sites in Chonburi province are Sri Chang Island, Bang Saen beach, and Jontein beach. Registered historical sites include Kog Panom historical site, Muang Pra Rot historical site, and Praya Rae historical site. Famous tourist destinations in this province are Mong Moon market, Marine Science Institute, Yai Intra Ram temple.

Provincial statistical reports indicate that 5,370,097 tourists visited Chonburi in 2002, an increase of 8.2% compared to 2001. Tourists mainly come from China, Hong Kong, United Kingdom and Taiwan. Total income generated from tourism was 42,392.44 million Baht. In order to response

37

to natural resource deterioration from tourism activities, Chonburi Provincial Office formulated Strategic Plan to improve and conserve tourist destination. Major strategy is to educate local people on natural resource conservation and to establish tourist destination and cultural conservation group.

4.1.4.6 Socio-economic Development Plan

Chonburi province formulated the provincial social and economic development plan under the provincial strategic development plan, fiscal year 2004–2007. The plan promotes various activities to improve livelihood of inhabitants. The main goals of the development plan include:

1) Economic and competitiveness

- Agricultural, industrial production and services increases by 4-5% per year.

- Investment in the province increase by 3% per year.

- Income generated from tourism increase not less than 10% per year.

- Income generated from the one tumbon one product increases by 5% per year.

2) Poverty Reduction

- Number of poor family decreases by 80% by 2006.

- Unemployment rate reduce to less than 4-5% per year.

- Labour productivity increases 3% per year.

- Encourage education system and accessible innovation and technology.

- Promote community networks.

3) Standard of living improvement

- Children complete basic (12 year) education requirement.

- Poor people can access to standard health services by 2006.

- Reduce criminal cases to less than 1.2 case per 1,000 capita.

- Reduce drug cases to less than 1.8 case per capita.

4) Good governance

- Having good administration system with good structure and inspection system

- Developing information system to improve working performances,

- Promoting public participation in government administration according to the constitution,

- Building capacity of local administration office

5) Natural resources and environment

- Protect water resources and preventing water pollution,

- Ensure environmental conservation of Natural resources.

38

4.2 Ratchaburi Province 4.2.1 Geographical Environment

4.2.1.1 Topographical Information

Ratchaburi province is located in the central region of the Kingdom of Thailand. The province is on the 4th Highway, about 100 km south of Bangkok. It covers an area of 5,196.465 sq.km or 3.2 million rais, bordering Kanchanaburi province to the north; Petchburi province to the south; Nakorn Pathom, Samut Sakorn and Samut Songkram to the east; and the Union of Myanmar to the west.

Topographical condition of Ratchaburi province can be divided into 3 different types as follows.

1) Flatland : In the eastern side of the province including Ban Pong, Poh Tha Ram and Pak Tar district are flatland with 0-3% slope and elevation range of 5-20 masl. Bang Pae and Damnern Sadurk districts, and tertiary of Mae Klong river are in lowland flats, covering about 29.5% of total area of the province.

2) Hilly land: Hilly land form is present in the central part of the province particularly in Soun Pung, and Jom Bung districts and some parts of Poh Tha Ram, Ban Pong, Pak Tur and Muang districts. The average elevation in this regopn is 20 to 300 masl, covering 38.4% of the total area of the province.

3) Highlands: Highland physiographic unit is present at elevation over 300 masl. Highlands are present at the boundary between the province and Union of Myanmar, covering about 32.1% of the province.

4.2.1.2 Geological Condition

Various types of rock formation are present in Ratchaburi province including

- Kang Krajay rock group which is sandstone, hard soil and mud rock and normally found in the western side of the province,

- Tong Pa Phum rock group which is sandstone and limestone and also found in the western side of the province,

- Ratchaburi rock group which is limestone and Dolomite stone,

- Aum Pang rock group which is mud stone, sandstone and limestone, and

- Sedimentary rocks (water and wind blown).

With this characteristic of geological condition makes Ratchaburi province having different kind of minerals such as fluoride, phosphates, Barite, antimony, dolomite.

4.2.1.3 Weather

Ratchaburi province is located in an area with South-western monsoon climate. Rain shadow due to the influence of Tanow Sri mountain range causes reduction in rainfall intensity and volume in parts of the province in compasrison to other parts of the country. Meteorological data measured at Ratchaburi meteorological station during 1998 – 2002 indicates that total average annual rainfall in Ratchaburi province is between 1037.9 – 1397.4 mm. Number of rainy days in a year during that period was 103 – 142 days. The lowest and highest temperature are found between 18.3 – 23.6 C and 33.2 – 38.1 C, respectively. Whereas, relative humidity is between 47 - 69%. Details of the data is presented in Table 4-14.

39

Table4-14 Monthly rainfall temperature and relative humidity1998-2002Temperature (qC) Relative humidity(%)YEAR Rainfall (mm.) No. of rainy days

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum1998 1354.4 110 21.0 38.1 47 921999 1397.4 142 18.3 36.3 51 922000 1037.9 120 20.3 34.9 69 922001 1349.7 127 23.6 33.2 - -2002 1067.3 103 19.8 37.2 55.7 93

Source: Ratchaburi Meteorological Station

40

4.2.1.4 Air Quality and Noise

PCD’s air quality monitoring station was set at Muang Ratchaburi district in order to measure ambient air quality covering sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3) and particulate matter less than 10 micron (PM10). Measured data can be summarized as follows.

- Hourly average SO2 concentration is 4.2 ppb with maximum value of 71.0 ppb From 8,204 measured data, no data exceeds the established standard of 0.30 ppm

- Hourly average NO2 concentration is 9.7 ppb with maximum value of 68.0 ppb From 8,326 measured data, no data exceeds the established standard of 0.17 ppm

- Hourly average CO concentration is 0.4 ppm with maximum value of 2.6 ppm From 8,331 measured data, no data exceeds the established standard of 30 ppm

- Average 8 hour CO concentration is 0.4 ppm with maximum value of 1.5 ppm From 8,678 measured data, no data exceeds the established standard of 9 ppm

- Hourly average O3 concentration is 18.3 ppb with maximum value of 122 ppb From 8,350 measured data, no data exceeds the established standard of 0.10 ppm

- Daily average PM10 concentration is 48.4 µg/m3 with maximum value of 124.3 µg/m3 From 313 measured data, there are 3 data exceeds the established standard of 120 µg/m3

Daily average noise level (Leg) in 2001 is between 51.8 – 70.0 dBA. No measured data exceeds the established standard of 70 dBA.

4.2.1.5 Soil Resources

Soil in Ratchaburi province can be divided into 5 groups as shown in Figure 4-1 Details of each group of soil are as follows.

1) Mountain soil group: Mountain soil is normally found at mountain or mountain range with more than 35% slope. This group of soil is very erodable.

2) Paddy soil group: This group mainly consists of clay soil, friable soil and sandy loam. The soil has poor permeability. It is suitable for paddy rice development.

3) Shallow soils: This group is lateritic and has low productivity.

4) Cropland soil: This group mainly consists of friable soil, sandy loam and clay. It is mostly found in highland area.

5) Sandy soil: This group of soil is mainly found in highland area. It has good water drainage capability.

41

Figure 4 -1 Soil group in Ratchaburi Province

35%

27%

12%

16%

10%Mountain Soil

Paddyfield Soil

Crop Soil

Shallow Soil

Sandy Soil

Figure 4.1 Soil Groups in Ratchaburi Province

4.2.1.6 Surface Water Resource and Quality

Surface Water

Surface water in Ratchaburi province can be classified into 2 major types; natural surface water and irrigation water.

- Natural surface water

It covers all rivers, channels, and natural reservoirs. National Statistic Office reports that there are a total of 60 reservoirs and 53 channels in the province. Two important rivers in the province are Mae Klong River and Pa She River.

• Mae Klong River

Mae Klong is the most important river in Ratchaburi province. The river originates from Kae Yai and Kae Noi. It flows through the province and discharges into the Gulf of Thailand at Samut Songkram province. Total length of the river is of 140 km.

• Pa She river

Pa She is originated from Tanow Sri mountain range in the western side of the province. The river flows from the south of the province, through Soan Pung and Jom Bung district and discharges into Kae Noi at Muang district, Kanchanaburi province. Total length of the river in the Ratchaburi province is of 80 km, approximately.

- Irrigated surface water

There are number of irrigation project in Ratchaburi province including the royal irrigation project, constructed reservoir, dam and others. National Statistic Office reports that there are total 59 small constructed reservoirs, 20 concrete dams, and a weir.

Surface Water Quality

Water quality in Mae Klong River has been deteriorated. In order to respond to this problem, PCD has established Mae Klong River water quality standards in 1994 to ensure its continuing

42

beneficial usages. The available data indicate that water quality in the river beginning from the river mouth in Samut Songklam province to Ban Phae, Muang district in Kanchanaburi province is classified as class 3 or medium clean fresh surface water resources used for consumption (but passing through an ordinary treatment process before using) and agriculture. PCD also regularly monitors water quality in the river. There are a total of 12 PCD monitoring stations. The stations that are set in Ratchaburi province include Sirilak bridge, Nar Muang sub-disitrict, Muang district; Jed Samean bridge, Jed Samean sub-district, Poh Tha Ram district; and Ban Pong bridge, Ban Pong district.

Monitored data indicates that water quality in the Mae Klong River is below the establish standard particularly in Jed Samean sub-district, Poh Tha Ram sub-district and Ban Pong district. This is believed to be the result of wastewater discharge from households, industry and agricultural activity especially livestock farms.

In January, 2002, water quality in the Mae Klong River was in serious pollution problem. Report from PCD in cooperated with other responsible agencies in the area indicates that major cause of the problem is effluent from preserved radish factories. There are more than 30 factories in this area. The factories produce more than 30 million kilogram per year. And wastewater from such factories has average BOD concentration of 12,000 mg/L. This problem was solved and water returned into the natural condition.

4.2.1.7 Groundwater and groundwater quality

Groundwater in Ratchburi province mainly comes from 2 sources; groundwater source in sedimentary rock, and groundwater source in hard rock.

- Groundwater from sedimentary rock source: Groundwater from this source is found in Ban Pong district, Ban Pae district, Poh Tha Ram district, Muang Ratchburi district, Damnern Sadurk district and Pak Tor district. It consists of 2 levels namely Chao Praya water level and Hill water level. The Chao Praya water level is found at 50 m depth. Shallow water is normally brackish. Deeper Water (more than 200 m deep) is fresh with a yield of more than 200 m3 per hour.

- Groundwater from hard rock source: Groundwater from this source is normally found in hilly area such as Ban Pong district, Poh Tha Ram district, Muang Ratchburi district, Pak Tor district and some part in Jom Bung district. Water is found at 12 m depth with maximum yield of 10 m3 per hour. Water quality is generally good for consumption.

Ratchaburi province has total of 2,286 groundwater wells throughout the province. Groundwater consumption in the province is about 3,056 m3/day for household consumption, 76,327 m3/day for other business, and 82 m3/day for agriculture.

4.2.2 Ecological Environment

Ratchaburi province has two important ecological systems; forests and wetlands.

4.2.2.1 Forests

Data from satellite imagery interpretation indicate that Ratchaburi province has total forest area of 1,658 sq.km or 31.9% of total area of the province. The forest area can be classified into natural forest (1,536 sq.km), planted forest (95.2 sq.km) and rehabilitated forest (26.5 sq.km). In addition, the province has a wildlife conservation area, Mae Nam Pa She wildlife conservation area with an area of 489.31 sq.km, and 7 conserved forest areas including:

- Par on the left bank of Pa She river in Saon Pung district, Jom Bung district, and Ban Kar minor district;

43

- Par Kao Bin in Muang district and Jom Bung district;

- Par Pu Yang-Par Pu Sam Sorn in Pak Tor district;

- Par Kao Krod and Par Kao Plong in Muang district;

- Par Nong Klang Nern in Muang district

- Par Yang Dan Tab To Ko in Jom Bung district;

- Par Sum Sam in Ban Pong district.

Different types of flora and fauna are found in the forest areas in Ratchaburi province.

4.2.2.2 Wetlands

Mae Klong river is a major wetland area of the province. The river is rich in biodiversity. At least 45 kinds of tree are identified along the river bank and a minimum of 102 species of fish are found in the river.

4.2.2.3 Natural Resource Conservation

RTG formulated and supported natural resource conservation projects in Ratchaburi province as follows.

1) Forest and wildlife conservation project

The projects aim to protect wildlife and rehabilitate forests.

- H.M. Queen Forest Project: the project is located in two different areas:

• Kang Som Maew, Ban Yuy, Soan Pung district with an area of 4.8 sq.km or 3,000 rais; and

• Yang Hak sub-district, Pak Tor district, with an area of 218 sq.km. or 136,250 rais.

- Natural Conservation Area, Ratchaburi

It is a project created by Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn. The project is on the left bank of the Pa She river in Soan Pung district with total area of 140 sq.km.

2) Water resource conservation

People in the province have concerns about water environment in their area. Therefore, a network namely “Mae Klong Conservation Group” was established supporting by the Social Institution Fund (SIF). Objectives of the network are

- to participate in formulation of Mae Klong river basin development plan,

- to participate in formulation of good and effective water resource management policy and planning,

- to enhance water and environmental conservation,

- to disseminate green agricultural concept,

- to encourage public participation in Mae Klong river basin,

- to expand network to students in schools.

The network has joined with other active stakeholders such as local government and educational institution to carry out their activities mainly related to Mae Klong water quality conservation. Important activities of the network during 2003 – 2004 are:

44

- monitoring water quality in Mae Klong river and connected canals during June 2003 –present;

- providing training on water conservation for students;

- providing training on green agriculture for farmers.

3) Soil resource conservation

Ratchaburi province has soil erosion problem specifically along river bank of Mae Klong River and Pa Shee River. In order to prevent such problems, “forestry agricultural concept” has been demonstrated and employed. Specific kind of grass is grown in the steep areas in order to prevent soil erosion.

4.2.3 Beneficial Usage

4.2.3.1 Infrastructure

Transportation

Highway No. 4 or Petcha Kaseam road and highway no. 338 are main road transportation within the province, connecting Ratchaburi province to other neighboring provinces.

ElectricityThere are 2 electricity generation plants in the province; Ratchaburi Electricity Generation Plant public company (generation capacity of 2,175 MW) and Trienergy Co., Ltd. (generation capacity of 700 MW). Provincial Electricity Authority of Thailand provides electricity for 175,974 households in the provinces with total electricity consumption of 1.45 GW/hr.

Waterwork

Number of household with access to pipe water in Ratchaburi province in 2002 was 35,656. Total tap water consumption was of 19,691,288 m3.

Communication

The Communication Authority of Thailand provides services in Ratchaburi province which enable people to make local and international contact. Total number of telephone line in the province in 2002 was 41, 347.

4.2.3.2 Land Use

Report on land use in Ratchaburi province in 1999 indicates that agricultural land and forest cover 1,778.04 and 1,304.53 sq.km, respectively. Total agricultural land, used for different activities, is shown in Figure 4-2 and farm land holding type is shown in Table 4-15.

45

13%

47%

30%

4%4% 0% 2%Dwelling

Paddy field

Under field crops

Under Fruit trees and tree crops

Under vegetables and flowers

Livestock farm area

Idle land and others

Figure 4 -2 Farm holding land in Ratchaburi 1999

Figure 4-2 Farm holdings in Ratchaburi Province, 1999 data

Table 4-15 Type of Farm Land Holding :1999

Owned (rai) Others (rai)

Tot

alla

ndus

efo

rag

ricu

ltur

alpu

rpos

e

Tot

al

Ow

ned

Mor

tgag

edou

t(p

erio

dun

spec

ifie

d)

Mor

tgag

edou

t(p

erio

dsp

ecif

ied)

Tot

al

Ren

ted

Mor

tgag

edin

(per

iod

unsp

ecif

ied)

Mor

tgag

edin

(per

iod

spec

ifie

d)

Fre

eof

char

ge

1,111,272 862,622 729,140 132,647 835 248,650 202,113 2,042 - 44,495

Major agricultural products are rice, sugarcane, tapioca and various kinds of fruit trees such as mango, coconut. Livestock is also important agricultural activity in the province including dairy cow, cattle, swine and poultry. Number of farms is shown in Table 4-16 and income from animal products is shown in Table 4-17.

Dairy cow: Dairy farms are mainly located in Poh Tha Ram and Bang Pae district providing fresh milk to dairy factories in Nong Poh, Poh Tha Ram, Ban Pong and Jom Bung districts.

Cattle: Cattle farms are located in Poh Tha Ram and Pak Tor district.

Swine: Swine farms are widely found in Poh Tha Ram, Pak Tor and Muang district. The farm provides swine for rising in other area of the country.

Poultry: Poultry farms are mainly located in Poh Tha Ram, Pak Tor and Muang district.

46

Table 4-16 Number of Animal Farm in Ratchaburi Province

No. Type Number of Farm 1 Dairy farm 2,713 2 Cattle 76 3 Buffalo 3 4 Swine 1,706 5 Chicken 219 6 Hen 322 7 Duck 14

Source: Ratchaburi Provincial Administration Office, 2003 Table 4-17 Income from Animal Products

No. Type Animal/year Baht 1 Swine 1,836,554 6,978,905,200 2 Milk (tons) 86,932,560 1,043,190,720 3 Pork 20,400,000 1,020,000,000 4 Chicken 12,920,020 581,400,090 5 Cow 14,715 176,580,000 6 Meat 312,000 18,720,000 7 Duck 42,000 3,780,000

Source: Ratchaburi Provincial Administration Office, 2003 4.2.4 Quality of Life

4.2.4.1 Population and Cultural

Population

Ratchaburi province has total population of 830,275 (male 408,255 and female 422,020) or 159.9 capita per sq.km. Population living in municipality area is about 596,337 or about 71.82% of total.

Cultural

The 99.3% of people lives in Ratchaburi province are Thai nationality. The rest is Chinese, Burmese and Japanese. And 98.3% of the people are Buddhist. Only 1.2% and 0.2% are Christian and Misaim, respectively. There are a total of 386 Buddhist temples, 66 Buddhist centers and 14 Christian church, and 2 mosques.

Historical objects found in Ratchaburi province indicates that the province has been inhabited for more than 2,000 years. Some local traditions, including religious festivities have been practiced for generations.

47

4.2.4.2 Social and Economic Development

The Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board reports that total provincial production in 2000 reached 56,131 million Baht (average per capita production of 69,642 Baht). Agricultural product produced 8,350 million Baht coming from farming activities (4,901 million Baht), livestock (2,110 million Baht), fishery (126 million Baht), agricultural related service (129 million Baht) and agricultural processing product (1,081 million Baht).

4.2.4.3 Public Health

Ratchaburi is centre of public health services in the western area of the Kingdom. There are 11 governmental hospitals, 11 public hospitals, 162 health centers, and 163 clinics. Death ratio of population in the province in 2002 is 687.7 per 100,000 capita. Major causes of death are reported in Table 4 -18.

48

Table 4-18 Public health data, Ratchaburi Province (2002 data)

Cause of death Number of death Rates per 100,000 population

Total Male Female Total Male Female

Total 5,693 3,203 2,490 687.7 787 591.8

Diseasesof heart 193 104 89 23.3 25.6 21.2

Accidentsand poisonings 501 386 115 60.5 94.8 27.3

Malignant neoplasm, all forms 629 384 245 76.0 94.3 58.2

Hypertension and cerebro-vascular diseases 289 152 137 34.9 37.3 32.6

Suicide, homicide and other injury 148 108 40 17.9 26.5 9.5

Diseasesof liver and pancreases 138 86 52 16.7 21.1 12.4

Pneumoniaand other diseasesof lung 207 113 94 25 27.8 22.3Nephritis, nephritic syndromeandnephrosis 131 65 66 15.8 16 15.7

Tuberculosis, all forms 113 83 30 13.7 20.4 7.1

Dengue hemorrhagic fever 3 2 1 0.4 0.5 0.2

Others 3,341 1,720 1,621 403.6 422.6 385.2

Source : Office of the Permanent Secretary for Public Health, Ministry of Public Health.

49

4.2.4.4 Cultural Heritage and Tourism

Cultural Heritage

There are many important cultural heritage sites in Ratchaburi province such as:

- Ratchaburi National Museum, Muang district, Ratchaburi;

- Wat Muang Traditional Museum, Ban Pong district;

- Handicraft Museum, Muang district and Jom Bung district; and

- Wall painting at Wat Kong Ka Ram, Poh Tha Ram district.

Tourist Destination

There are different kinds of tourist destinations in Ratchaburi province including; historical sites and archaeology, cultural and traditional heritages, and natural tourist destination. Some interested destinations are as follows.

Archaeology

- Wat Maha Tard Worawiharn,

- Ra Kung crave,

- Kao Tump Pra,

- Wat Kong Ka Ram

Cultural and traditional heritage

- Dumnern Sadurk floating market,

- Klong Poh Huk floating market,

- Klong Ton Khem floating market

Historical site

- Kao Wang,

- Koo Boa historical site,

- Ratchaburi National Museum,

- Pawothai Museum,

- Ko Si Narai Pond

Natural tourist destination

- Kao Bin crave,

- Jom Pon crave,

- Kang Kaow crave,

- Sirikit forest garden, for example.

50

5 Public Participation livestock waste management project in Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces of Thailand granted by the Global Environmental Facility (LWMEAP) aims at demonstrating the impact of better livestock waste management in reducing pollution of water resources entering the Gulf of Thailand and South China Sea through integrated, comprehensive, demand driven, and sustainable livestock waste management. Further, the project aims at integration with other livestock waste management activities in Southeast Asia to reduce the negative local and global environmental impacts of rapidly increasing livestock production along the coast of Thailand and the South China Sea.

5.1 Consultation Method and Subject In accordance with the World Bank requirements, and to better learn the opinion and suggestions of the public in the areas affected by the project development, the EA team had made some attempt during the preliminary project preparation period by means of meeting with individuals, farm laborers, swine farmers, NGOs, and concerned government authorities. The EA team made four field trips to the project areas and visited number of persons in both Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces. Questionnaires were distributed and talks were held with individuals, farm laborers, farmer representatives, staffs of the District Livestock Offices, and the local officers of the government department under the Ministry of Public Health, as well as the non-governmental environmental protection agencies. Their opinion and views on the project were solicited. Visits were also made to some farmer households to have the understanding of the status of swine farm production and management, pig-generated waste management, living standard, public health and their understanding and attitude toward the project. In addition to the primary data collected from the four field trips of the EA team, the secondary data derived from the social assessment (SA) team were utilized to assess public participation in the LWMEAP project.

Further, the SA team conducted the focus group discussions of stakeholder and in-depth interviews with knowledgeable representative from each group of stakeholder and relevant government officials at provincial, district and sub-district of affected communities.

5.1.1 Consultation with Family/Individual

The EA team consulted 20 families/individuals in Chonburi province and 15 families/individuals in Ratchaburi province during field trips to learn their opinions and suggestions on the project development plans. The families or individuals were interviewed and asked to answer the questionnaires. During the consultations, the EA team first gave short introduction regarding the proposed LWMEAP project and the project components to the consulted family or individual, and then requested for their opinion and suggestions with regard to the proposed project development and recorded their opinion.

5.1.2 Consultation with Livestock Farmers

The total of 10 farmers/farm laborers in Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces were interviewed and asked to respond to questionnaires during field trips of EA and SA teams to gather their opinions and suggestions on the project development plans. The short introduction was first given concerning the proposed LWMEAP project and the project components to the consulted farm laborers and farmers, and then requested for their opinion and suggestions regarding the proposed project development and recorded their opinion.

5.1.3 Consultation with Government Agency and NGOs

During site visits, the EA team visited the concerned government agencies and NGOs in Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces and asked questions to obtain their opinion and comments

51

towards the project. In addition, consultation meetings were arranged with specialist within the lined agencies in Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces to hear their concerns and comments with regard to the proposed project.

The six governmental agencies located in the project area of Chonburi province were interviewed. These are (1) Public Health Office of Ban Bung District, (2) Tumbon Bang Pai Public Health Center (Ban Bung District), (3) the Administration Authority of Tumbon Marp Pai (Ban Bung District), (4) Ban Hauy Yao school, (5) Ban Kao Mai School, and (6) Marp Pai School. Further, officers of the locality NGOs the Chonburi Volunteers Networks for Conservation of the Coastal Resources and Environment were interviewed to learn their opinion, concerns and suggestions regarding the development and execution of the LWMEAP.

For Ratchaburi province, the five governmental agencies located in the project area were interviewed. These are (1) District Livestock Office of Pak Tao District, (2) the Administration Authority of Tumbon Pak Tao (Pak Tao District), (3) Public Health Office of Pak Tao District, (4) the Administration Authority of Tumbon Don Sai, and (5) Tumbon Don Sai Public Health Center. Further, the EA team had discussed with officers of the Maeklong River Conservation Networks (the local NGO in Ratchaburi province) to earn their opinion and suggestions.

5.2 Public Opinion and Suggestion The following findings are based on the consultation made by EA and SA teams during their field trips to Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces. Public opinion and suggestion recorded by the EA team and results of social assessment conducted by the SA teams are summarized. The main findings are as follows.

5.2.1 Family/Individual Opinion and Suggestion

Both in Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces, majority of the interviewees living in the vicinity of swine farms strongly support the LWMEAP. At present, foul odor, and flies affect communities living next to swine farms, especially in the rainy season. People living in the vicinity of swine farms experience indigestion, headache, and skin allergy; and feel agitated by noise of pigs, flies and mosquitoes. For the other enterprises such as rice farmers, cattle farmers, and vegetable gardeners, all complain that flooding of untreated wastewater affects health of both cattle and human being, destroys fresh grass, rice field, and vegetable gardens, and lowers the quality of water, both for cattle and household members.

All of the interviewee’s hope that the LWMEAP execution will bring about the reduction of (1) wastewater discharge to the natural water bodies, (2) foul odor, and (3) flies in the vicinity of swine farms. They believe that overall environmental quality of the communities will be better, due to reduction of swine farm foul odor and flies, and consequently mental health of the public living in the communities next to swine farms will also be better. The interviewees recommended that public relation and information concerning the LWMEAP execution should be carried out before the period of the project implementation/construction. Concerned organizations responsible for implementation/construction and operation of the LWMEAP should continuously oversee and monitor results of the project execution in order to solve problems that might be occurred.

5.2.2 Farm Laborers and Farmers Opinion and Suggestion

All of the farm laborers and farmers interviewed support the project. Most of the interviewees view environmental pollution resulting from swine farming as major concerns and are well aware of environmental degradation and its impacts on their livelihood. There are lots of farmers who have insufficient investment and knowledge regarding environmental technology and management in swine farming, and also have difficulties to access to valid information. Some of

52

the large-scale swine farmers and majority of the small and medium scale swine farmers lack proper waste management systems. The majority of them have only a pond receiving solid and liquid waste and sometime this untreated wastewater is released into the nearby canal. The majorities of swine farm owners are aware of the need to having a standard waste management system, and the need to set their farms according to DLD Handbook of Standard Farm by the end of 2005.

5.2.3 Governmental Agency and NGOs Opinion and Suggestion

Schools located in Tumbon Marp Pai (Marp Phai sub-district) of Chonburi province are (1) Ban Hauy Yao School, (2) Ban Kao Mai School, and (3) Marp Pai School. All these schools were affected by environmental problems (foul odor, wastewater discharge, and flies) as a result of the neighboring swine farming. Causes of these environmental problems are believed to be from poor environmental mismanagement of the swine farms and lack of standards and enforcement of environmental laws to control environmental problems by concerned government agencies.

All of the interviewed teachers strongly support the project because they believe that project may bring about a better overall environmental quality, which will result in a better environment for teaching and learning at school. The implementation of the LWMEAP is believed to improve physical and biological environment of the communities. Furthermore, the consistent implementation and monitoring of the project implementation by the government agencies was recommended.

Public Health Office of Ban Bung District, and Tumbon Bang Pai Public Health Center are responsible for control of environmental problems and are annoyed with swine farming in the project area in Chonburi province, while for Ratchaburi province, Pak Tho District Livestock Office, the Public Health Office of Pak Tho District, and Tumbon Don Sai Public Health Center are responsible according to the public health act 1992. The Administration Authority of Tumbon Marp Pai in Chanburi and Tumbon Pak Tho and Tumbon Don Sai in Ratchaburi province are responsible for permission of swine farming in their locality and control of environmental problems and complain. The officers of these government agencies said that, at present, there is year round public outcry resulting from swine farm problems such as foul odor, wastewater discharge, and flies, especially in the rainy season. Causes of the public outcry emerge from (1) the environmental mismanagement of the swine farms, (2) location of the swine farms close to the communities, and (3) lack of environmental standards and/or enforcement of laws to control environmental problems from swine farming by the concerned government agencies. They indicated that swine farm environmental problems can not be easily solved by the concerned law enforcement because swine farmers evade responsibilities and do not seriously solve the problems.

The officers of the local NGOs in Chonburi province the Chonburi Volunteers Networks for Conservation of the Coastal Resources and Environment strongly support the project. They expected that the LWMEAP execution would give a good coastal water quality that will bring about a good environment for their conservation of marine life project. The environmental quality of the communities will also be better by the reduction of various problems resulting from swine farms such as foul odor, flies, chemical and solid waste. They recommended that details of project should be opened to the public in order to know about details and impacts that might be occurred from the project execution.

The officers of the Maeklong River Conservation Networks (the local NGO of Ratchaburi province) also strongly support the project. They anticipated that in case of successful implementation/construction and operation of the LWMEAP and its replication will bring about a good water quality of the Maeklong River, which is corresponding to their objectives.

53

Consistency monitoring of the project activities and training of swine farmers regarding waste management system, wastewater treatment system operation and maintenance are recommended for the sustainable management of swine farming and reducing of the public outcry.

5.3 Information Disclosures and Feedback

Information disclosures were carried out since May 2004. The project details were spread out to the public in the LWMEAP project area by staffs of all the LWMEAP project teams (i. e. the DLD officers, the EA team, the SA team, and the feasibility study team) involved in project preparation. The information was provided that included project briefing, potential environmental that could possibly brought about by the proposed project and comments and suggestions were sought from family/individual, the concerned government authorities, farm laborers, swine farmers, NGOs, and communities.

In addition, the EA report was made available to the public at the regional environmental center and the public library in Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces. The names and places where such documents are available to the public were posted at the Department of Livestock Development in Bangkok, the Provincial Environmental Office, and the Provincial and the District Livestock Office in Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces. The DLD will prepare the Complaint Books and Boxes to collect and record the public complains on environmental issues. Upon receiving the complaint, the DLD will make arrangement with the concerned local governmental agencies to solve the issues.

5.4 Beneficiary Participation Plan (BPP)

In order for the farmers to participate in the project more actively during project implementation, construction and operation phases, it was suggested that the Project implementation Unit (PIU) should develop a detailed BPP. Presently the SA team has been assigned to prepare BPP for the LWMEAP. The detailed plan of participating activities in each stage of the project implementation should be clearly set up and participants including, individuals, farm laborers, farmers, governmental organizations, NGOs and particularly the disadvantage groups including woman in the project area should be encouraged to participate in the project activities.

5.5 Summary of Public Participation

The community and public involvement process was initiated during the environmental and socioeconomic surveys. The LWMEAP has won strong support form individual, farm laborers, farmers, NGOs and every level of the government authorities both at the national level and the local level in Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces. The DLD, which will play a leading role in administration of the project, should guarantee its successful implementation. Staff members of the provincial and district project offices, staffs of the livestock bureaus at provincial, and district levels and officers of the Minister of Public Health, who were interviewed support the implementation of the LWMEAP project.

Furthermore, the majority of the consulted swine farmers support implementation of LWMEAP, are willing to participate in the project, and expect that they will benefit from it. This should lay a solid foundation for successful project implementation. The PIU should attached great importance to the public opinion and should make sure that detailed BPP is implemented and concrete plans for information disclosure of the LWMEAP is in place. It will be to the project advantage to ensure that farm laborers and swine farmers feel to be partners of the project and project should seek their constructive suggestions and to ensure their active participation in the project planning and design. Integration of their suggestions into project design can play a significant role in safeguarding the active involvement of swine farmers in the project.

54

6 Analysis of Alternatives Since the proposed project mainly aims at improvement of physical, biological and social environment, the project study team focused on only reviewing the “with” and “without” project scenarios. No other alternatives were considered by the project proponents. Discussion on both alternatives is provided in this chapter.

6.1 Analysis of “Without Project” Alternative A number of major constrains for livestock (Swine farm) production system exist in the project areas which limit livestock farmers and income. Ratchaburi, and Chonburi provinces face major environmental problems from swine farm such as wastewater, pig-generated solid and liquid waste, odour, zoonotic diseases, and proliferation of insects.

6.1.1 Current Status of Swine Farm in Thailand

As mentioned in previous chapters, swine farms are congested in Thailand. Swine farms are mostly in small scale. The farms are wide spread throughout the country and mostly located in central region particularly in Ratchaburi and Nakorn Prathom provinces (figure 6-1). In the eastern region, the farms are concentrated in Chonburi and Cha Choeng Sao provinces. Number of farms has been gradually increasing at an average rate of 5% per year due to market demand. The DLD reported that more than 50,000 swine farms were in operation in Thailand in 2003. Only 97 farms or about 0.002% of total are certified as standard farm by DLD. This implies that most of the farms in the country do not have good environmental management practices in place. This can lead to significant environmental problems including water pollution, odour, and public complain.

39%

18%

16%

9%

18%

Central

Eastern

South/Easten

Northern

Southern

Figure 6-1 Swine farms in each region of Thailand

55

6.1.2 Current environmental impacts from swine farms (without the proposed project)

Obvious environmental impacts from swine farm particularly on water pollution could be regularly found in some areas of the country where the farms are congested. Untreated wastewater would be directly discharged into the environment and receiving water body. Monitoring report done by PCD indicates that wastewater from swine farm is a major cause of water quality degradation in Bang Pakong and Tha Chin river. The rivers are the receiving body of Chacheng Sao and Nakorn Prathom provinces, respectively. Water pollution in these rivers would have direct impact on coastal water quality in the Gulf of Thailand. Moreover, wastewater and swine manure would be a source of zoonotic pathogens that can cause health impact on human and animals.

In order to response to the problem, the PCD, as a responsible agency, has established effluent standard for swine farms aiming at mitigating water pollution problems from the swine farm. The standard is originally enforced within Group A (large scale) and Group B (medium scale) farms. Practically, most of the farms do not meet the standards. Financial constraint is reported as a major reason for non-compliance.

Another serious environmental impact from swine farm is odour. Odours generated from the farm do not bother only inside the farm, but also its vicinity. Without proper ventilation, gases generated from aerobic digestion of manure such as ammonia, methane and hydrogen sulfide, normally contain in swine house. The gases could have direct effect on lung and bronchi of farm workers and/or even lethal impact on swine itself.

Public complain on odour from swine farm is regularly occurred in Thailand particularly where the farm is located in or near communities. The odour would normally make people living in its vicinity feel annoyed rather than causing health effect. Research indicates that some odours are caused by chemicals that would be able to cause health effect such as headache and asthma even in very low concentration.

6.1.3 Present Status of Applied Research, Extension and Training

Waste minimization and recovery in swine farm have been widely studied and researched by various educational institutions in Thailand. However, in-depth, applied research has not presently conducted because of budget constraints. Extension and training of the suitable environmental management is still limited and not appropriately formulated.

For the project areas in Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces, lack of well-developed and assertive extension sections to disseminate results of the applied research and new technology to swine farmers is evident. There are large gaps between new available scientific knowledge in an areas of feeding technology, waste management technology, and breed improvement and what is available to the farmers. Inadequate number of well-trained and experienced extension personnel makes it difficult to launch regular farmer training, and a lot of new technologies and new research results can not be transferred to farmers, resulting limited production and lack of environmental improvement.

6.2 Analysis of “With Project” Alternative Main objectives of the project are to improve natural environment and livelihood of the swine farmers through an establishment of demand driven and sustainable development of manure management systems. Achievement of this project would mainly mitigate degradation of surface water and groundwater. Treated wastewater may be reused for cleaning swine house floor and fish culture. Remain organic matters will be taken by aquatic plant and fishes, respectively. The fishes would not only be protein sources, but also provide economic benefits to the farmer.

56

Solid manure can be employed as organic fertilizer in agricultural fields near the demonstration sites in Ratchaburi province. Land application with the manure would directly reduce production cost of crops. Due to its prices is comparatively lower than chemical fertilizer.

Offensive odour and emitted methane, a significant green house gas, would also be reduced by proper treating swine manure and wastewater. Reduction of offensive odour and improvement of the surrounding environment would be able to relief conflicted between the farm owner and community particularly the site in Pak Tor district in Ratchaburi province. In case that biogas system is introduced as applicable manure management technology, economic benefits would be obtained from uses of generated gas in the project operation phase. Generated methane gas from the system can be used as alternative fuel for cooking and warming for the newborn pigs. If the system is large enough, electricity can be generated for the farm consumption.

In term of health, the proposed project would directly improve farm sanitation that will be beneficial to both farm workers and neighboring communities. Where swine manure is systematically controlled and treated, it would automatically reduce impacts caused by polluted water, odour, and other disease carrier pests such flies, fruit flies and roaches. This will significantly improve health and standard of living of the workers and communities. If the project is successfully implemented, physical health will be improved. This would consequently reduce cost of health care to the government.

Total BOD loading from demonstration sites in Ratchaburi and Chonburi province measured by the Manure Management team are of 8,373 and 1,207 kg BOD per day, respectively. Comparing with loading estimation from the Environmental Baseline Team presented in Table 4 – 6, it indicates that BOD loading from both demonstration sites in Pak Tor District is about 33% of total BOD loading from major point sources in the area. Whereas, loading from the 4 demonstration sites in Ban Bung District, Chonburi province is about 21% of total BOD loading in such area. Therefore, It can be concluded that negative impacts of the proposed project itself appear to be negligible, if any, considering the size and magnitude of the swine farm industry in Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces. The project, if successfully implemented, should have positive impact on the socioeconomic environment of the project beneficiaries. It could have significant impact on activities of neighboring farming communities by being used as pilot scheme for dissemination of information and form a basis for further development of integrated swine farm industry for other areas. If successfully implemented, the project should provide for strengthening capacity of the lined agencies in application and dissemination of project finding and new environmental improvement technologies, as well as enforcement of environmental policies in other parts of the country. The proposed project would not only promote the local social and economic development, but should also improve living standard of farmers and neighboring societies. In the “with project” scenario, the impacts of the project on the natural resource and environment are believed to be highly positive, while the social and economic impacts appear to be generally positive.

Negative impacts those may occur such as water quality and soil disturbance, noise pollution during the project’s construction phase and over application of solid manure in crop land and possible runoff those may occur in the project’s implementation phase. Those were carefully considered be the EA team. The team has identified impact mitigation measure to handle such impacts as indicate in the environmental management plan. The plan also includes environmental monitoring program. It shall be incorporated into the project design documents and will be carried out by the PIU to minimize the impacts.

57

7 Analysis of Environmental Impacts & Proposed Mitigation Measures The EA team has considered the potential environmental impacts of the project activities during construction, implementation, and operation and has identified potential sources of environment impacts and risks on natural resources at different stages of project. The scope covers the significant issues during the construction, implementation, and operation periods. The study team has proposed recommendations for mitigation measures to prevent or reduce the potential negative impacts and environmental risks of the project activities. The assessment is provided separately for the two project provinces; Chonburi province and Ratchaburi province. The details are as follows

7.1 Potential Sources of Effect. Potential sources of effect have been identified through review of available project documents and field visits by the EA team to the project areas. The available information was also used to identify if any construction, implementation or operation activities could potentially cause environmental impacts, and the main identified issues are described as follows:

Access Roads: Because the actual location of the waste water treatment systems of the demonstration site such as biogas reactor or aerobic/anaerobic ponding or lagoons or facilities are not identified, thus in some area the temporally access road may be constructed to utilize as the route to transport construction equipment and materials. In some areas that have access road to the construction sites of the demonstration farm, it may need only for the improvement of the road to a good condition and utilize as the transportation route of the construction equipment and materials. However, the actual needs and total length of the access road will be finalized after location of the waste treatment systems were set and designed

Machinery: Machineries for construction work, especially for construction of biogas, lagoon, ponding and treatment facilities, includes Backhoe, Bulldozer, Trucks and cement mixer.

Temporary Land Occupancy and Labor Camp: During project construction, temporary land occupancy for labor camps, storage of construction material, equipment house, parking site etc. cannot be avoided. However, it is assumed that these units during construction phase will be within the perimeter of the area earmarked for construction of treatment facilities and no additional land will be occupied by the above units involved in construction of the projects.

7.2 Analysis of Environmental Impact & Proposed Mitigation Measures during implementation & Construction Phase (Chonburi & Ratchaburi) Major environmental impacts occurred during construction phase would mainly on water quality and soil disturbance. Noise, dust and occupational health and safety shall also be taken into account in the impact assessment process during this period. All those mentioned impacts can be prevented or relieved by well planning and proper construction practices. The project contractors or proponents must seriously implemented environmentally sound management practices. Otherwise, a number of proposed construction activities could cause significant environmental impacts.

The EA team have found that major potential environmental impacts during the construction phase of the project demonstration sites in both Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces do not have any major differences. The team, therefore, combined assessment and mitigation measures for those impacts together. Details of the impacts and proposed mitigation measures are discussed as follows.

58

7.2.1 Physical Resources

7.2.1.1 Noise & Vibration impacts

Noise impacts

Noise generated during construction of pig farm wastewater systems originates from machinery and equipment used in earthworks. In certain areas, piling is needed for support of system structure. Machinery required in such activities is the backhoe. Although noise impact during construction period is temporary, noise produced by backhoes is characteristically of high sound intensity and irregularity. If not managed, noise from machinery will have a significant impact on the surrounding acoustic environment.

An evaluation of noise impacts from backhoe activities in construction of wastewater systems is shown in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1 The noise level of the machinery at different distances. Noise level (dB(A) Machinery

At source 10 m 15 m 30 m 35 m 50 m 100 m 150 m Backhoe 88 85 81.5 75.4 74 71 65 61.5 Mixer 87 81 75 69 67 66 63 61 Bulldozer 86 80 74 68 66 65 62 60

Since there are no regulations in Thailand specifically controlling noise levels from construction activities, two closely related regulations to be considered are:

(1) Ministry of Interior Decree on Safety in Workplace, promulgated in accordance with Section 2 (7) of the Revolution Party Proclamation No. 103, Part 3.

Article 13 states that an employee shall:

a. Work no longer than 7 hours per day in 91-dBA environment.

b. Work long than 7 hours, but no more than 8 hours per day in 90-dBA environment.

c. Work longer than 8 hours per day in 80-dBA environment.

Article 14 states that an employee shall not work in a noise environment exceeding 140 dBA.

(2) The National Environment Board Proclamation No. 15 (1997) on Noise Standards, promulgated in accordance with Section 32 (5) of the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act 1992.

Article 2 establishes the general noise standards as follows:

a. Maximum noise is not to exceed 115 dBA.

b. The 24-hr average noise is not to exceed 70 dBA.

Negative impact assessment is done on the affected, who can be divided in two groups.

1) Construction workers

Table 7-1 indicates that noise generated by backhoe activities at point source is 88 dBA, comparable to workers performing tasks in construction area. Contractors will allow for 8 work hours and only in daytime. Thus, to compare the 88-dBA noise levels that construction workers are subject to with Ministry of Interior Decree on Safety in Workplace, standards of 90 dBA of working longer than 7 hours, and less than 8 hours per

59

day are not violated. Noise impact from construction, hence, is minimal. Nonetheless, to protect against noise from backhoe activities, the following measure is recommended.

- Backhoe operators and workers in close proximity shall wear protective equipment, such as ear plugs or ear muffs.

2) Neighboring communities

Considering noise levels indicated in Table 7-1, a distance of less than 30 meters will result in a noise impact of 71 – 88 dBA, which exceeds the general noise standards as stated in the National Environment Board Proclamation No. 15 (1997) on Noise Standards of 24-hr average of less than 70 dBA. However, such standards are for an average value obtained in a 24-hour period. Hence, the noise standards of WHO are the more appropriate reference, which suggests that maximum noise for the general public in 8 hours is 75 dBA. Therefore, for pig farms that situate more than 30 meters away from communities, noise impacts only disturb those working on site. For pig farms located closer than 30 meters to communities, noise impacts affect both people on and off-site. Nevertheless, impacts will only occur during work days when earthwork is performed and backhoe activities required.

Mitigation Measures:

1. Construction site should be located 35 meters away from the surrounding communities because the noise level from the construction activities will be within the noise standards of WHO and cease to cause impact on the surrounding communities.

2. Set the work period between 08.00 and 17.00 in order to prevent impact during resting hours of the communities.

3. If the construction site of the wastewater treatment system is near school, hospitals and other noise sensitive areas, use of noise silencers should be enforced.

4. Constantly maintain machinery especially the joints, use lubrication to lessen friction, and replace noise-generating parts.

5. Follow the rules and regulations regarding construction and provide personal protection equipment for the workers at the construction site.

Vibration impacts

The process of driving in the pilings for the system foundations of the livestock manure treatment may cause vibration impacts.

Mitigation Measures:

1) Install equipment to reduce vibration according to manufacturer’s recommendation.

2) Set the time for driving the pilings to be during the daytime to avoid the impacts occurring during the resting hours of the communities.

7.1.1.3 Soil Erosion and Disturbance

Construction of ponding , lagoon and biogas systems has to open cut and excavate approximately 5 meters depth of top soil. Where the construction site is in soft soil area and is carried out during rainy season, the excavation may cause soil erosion. The construction may also cause physical disturbance and pollution problems on soil. Significant of the impacts depends mainly on type of soil and application of land in each project demonstration site. The construction process of the system components would normally take certain area of land and may disturb existing land application purposes. In an area with soft soil or damaging of covered vegetation may increase rate of soil erosion. However, these impacts might be not significant since the construction will

60

be done on free space within the selected farm. In addition, impact on soil quality may occur from machine activities, spilled oils and construction materials.

Mitigation Measures:

1. Use sheet piles.

2. Refrain from construction during rainy season. Provide and enforce wet weather shut down procedures

3. Work on large ponds shall be done with appropriate side slopes in order to prevent sliding.

4. Should be design and construct lagoons that do not leak. Typically, regulatory agencies specify that infiltration rates are to be less than 107 cm.

5. All cleared land should be planted as soon as possible to prevent soil loss by water and wind erosion and surface runoff during the rainy season;

6. During construction of biogas reactors, ponds and lagoons or pretreatment facilities of livestock waste, rehabilitation or building new canals for drainage, a plan for earth and stone borrowing and dumping should be prepared to keep a balance between filling and excavations to reduce waste material. The earth waste and stone chips, if cannot be used in construction, should be piled in designated areas and either be removed to dump sites or be compacted layer-by-layer and then be timely covered with vegetation;

7. Construction work must be controlled and managed strictly to avoid generation of pollutants due to machinery activities.

7.2.1.3 Air Quality

Activities that may cause dust problems during construction of wastewater treatment systems are earthworks, which may be a nuisance to workers and communities. Severity of problems depends on exact activities, characters of soil, moisture, wind speed and duration of activities. Soils at demonstration site in Ratchburi are mainly clay. In addition, areas allocated for construction are within the farms, where most of which are located in open land with good ventilation. Thus, impacts caused by construction of wastewater systems are minimal. Nonetheless, to prevent impacts of dust problems that may occur in farms located in sandy areas and in close proximity to communities, the following measures are proposed:

Mitigation Measure

Contractors should spray construction areas and dirt piles with water to reduce particulate matter twice a day during dry months.

7.2.1.4 Surface Water Quality

Construction of treatment systems for wastewater generated by pig farms as proposed will not affect the hydrology surface water quality because no works will be performed on any canal or water body.

Impacts on surface water quality may be present in cases where construction of treatment systems takes place near natural water bodies in the rainy season. Such impacts can be categorized as follows:

1. Impacts from removing rain water off construction site. Water that floods construction site must be removed by pumping to canals or water bodies nearby. Should pumps with high flow rates are used, a lot of suspended solids may contaminate the water, making it

61

cloudy and silting the natural waterways. Though such impacts occur in a brief period of time, preventive measures shall be undertaken as follows:

2. Impacts from runoffs that carry dirt dug up from construction of ponds into the natural waterways, resulting in cloudiness of water. However, such cloudiness is not expected to last because these dirt particles are dense. Silting may occur when a lot of dirt is washed into the natural waterways.

Mitigation measure:

- Use pumps with low flow rates to remove floods to the natural waterways.

- Refrain from piling dirt near the natural waterways.

- Use sandbags to prevent dirt being washed off by rain into natural waterways.

- There should not be any construction activities close to waterway (50 m.)

- Pumping of turbid water directly to water resources is prohibited. Setting pond should be provided to prevent silt and sediments loading to the water bodies.

7.2.2 Ecological Resources

7.2.2.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem

• Chonburi Province

The construction of the wastewater treatment system will destroy the local flora in and around construction sites. The importance of the loss of flora depends on 2 factors: 1) location of the system and 2) type and size of the system. The impacts are assessed as follows.

- Location of the system. If the system is located in an area with no significant flora then the impacts are low. The project is located in Amphur BanBung which does not contain any rare or endangered flora species. The construction of the system will remove mainly herbaceous and shrub layers covering the ground. Therefore, construction of systems will not significantly affect the terrestrial ecosystem.

- For location of wastewater system, if the system located in the area that do not have scarce flora and fauna, it can be concluded that impacts, which may generated would be at insignificant level. Tumbon Nongsumsark, Tumbon Ban Bung and Tumbon Klong Keaw, in Ban Bung district of the Chon Buri province have natural wildlife and reserved area i.e. the Khao Khew-Khao Chumpoo natural reserves. However, the selected site of the project located in Tumbon Map Pai, approximately 10 km. far away from the Khao Khew-Khao Chumpoo natural reserves. Thus, it can be anticipated that the construction and operation of the project will not generate any impacts on the natural reserves. For location of the waste treatment system, there have no significant flora and fauna. The construction of waste treatment system will destroy grasses and weed that cover the area. Therefore, it can be concluded that there have no impacts on natural reserves.

- For the type and size of the system, there would be minimal influence on land resources and space provided. The type selected may be pond/lagoon, or biogas system. Therefore, the construction for this project does not require large areas of land and will not cause the loss of any significant flora and fauna.

Mitigation Measures:

1) Select the construction site where there are no significant flora species.

2) Store equipment and machinery away from areas containing significant flora species and important natural resources.

62

3) Select construction methods that prevent and reduce the impacts to significant flora species and important natural resources.

4) Properly collect and manage waste from the construction activities to prevent any impacts especially aesthetical issues.

• Ratchaburi

Terrestrial Ecosystem

Because construction sites of wastewater treatment systems in Ratchburi are located in open lands within pig farms. Most of these are covered with herbaceous layer. Some areas are open lands with sparse trees. Some construction sites will require removing grasses and trees. Large trees should be dug up and replanted at another location on-site. Therefore, construction of biogas systems requiring large pieces of land will not significantly affect the terrestrial ecosystem.

Aquatic Ecosystem

Impacts from construction on aquatic ecosystems will take place only in the rainy season as a result of turbidity and siltation as is described in 7.3.1.3. Cloudiness of water is caused by suspension of fine soil particles in water. This phenomenon not only reduce dissolved oxygen in water, but will also prevents sunlight from reaching submerged aquatic plants. Yet, such cloudiness will take place for a short time, and particles suspended in the water will settle to the bottom. Therefore, impacts from construction to the aquatic ecosystems are minimal.

7.2.3 Human Use Values

7.2.3.1 Land Use

Because construction sites of wastewater treatment systems are located in open lands within pig farms, such construction activities do not have the potential to affect land use in the close vicinity. On the other hand, construction of wastewater treatment systems maximizes use of land within farms.

7.2.3.2 Transportation

Machinery, equipment and construction materials will be transported to the construction site during the construction of pig farm wastewater treatment system sharing the existing route to the farm. During the transportation, other commuters may be affected. However, the number of machinery, equipment and materials are small, the number of transportation trips are also small. Therefore, the impact in the traffic during the construction is low.

7.2.4 Quality of life

7.2.4.1 Occupational health and safety

During the construction of pig farm wastewater treatment system, 2 groups of stakeholders are expected to be affected from Occupational Health and Safety aspects. These include:

1. Construction workers in the construction site who may be exposed to unsafe operations.

2. Farm workers and residents in the neighborhood. The construction of wastewater treatment system may pose health and environmental risks such as dust, noise and vibration to people around the site.

In order to prevent risks and reduce any losses from the construction, the construction contractor must strictly follow the environmental mitigation measures proposed.

63

Mitigation Measures:

1. Construction contractor should be develop a safety action plan and ensure that all staff members are strictly compiled with the safety action plan. The plan also prevents and reduces pollution problems and any accidents.

2. The safety action plan should include at least trainings on safety for construction workers, preparing protective equipment, installing warning signs in risky areas, providing machinery and working inspectors and recording any accidents occurred during the construction.

7.2.4.2 Cultural Heritage

Cultural relics can be divided into the existing on-ground historical sites and the underground cultural relics, which have not been unearthed. Generally speaking, the adverse impact on on-ground historical sites is either from the direct destruction activities of human or from air pollution such as acid rain and sulfur oxides. Since the proposed project is not associated with producing sulfur oxides or acid rain, no significant impact is envisaged in this aspect.

Breaking ground is the straightest way of destroying underground cultural relics. The construction activities with respect to biogas reactors, ponding or lagoon , pretreatment facilities of livestock, and specially the excavation for lagoon or rehabilitation or building new canals for drainage, some significant adverse impact on cultural relics should be envisaged during project construction phase.

Mitigation Measures:

1) All staffs of the project and construction workers should be trained on identifying cultural relics and the consciousness of protecting cultural relics prior to construction;

2) During construction, if cultural relics are found, then construction should stop and the supervision or foreman should protect the site, and authorized agencies such as The Fine Arts Department should be notified. Construction/excavation could only start after the issuance of clearance from the lined agencies.

7.3 Analysis of Environmental Impact & Proposed Mitigation Measures During Project Operation in Chonburi and Ratchaburi Since the main objective of the project as described in Chapter 2 of this report is to improve general environmental and social-economic condition of the project area and to reduce nutrient loading of soil and water resources by livestock waste, If the project is implemented successfully, the negative environmental impacts of the project should be minimal. However, dueto the nature of the project, a number of potential negative impacts can not be avoided. A number of activities, especially if not handled in an environmentally sound manner, can potentially have significant adverse effects on both natural and social environments. This section discusses such issues and provides mitigation measures to prevent or minimise the potential adverse environmental impacts. These potential impacts are described seperately based on three different potential manure management processes that are identified by the project. The three groups corresponding to proposed livestock manure treatment technology include: (1) Removal by treatment such as 1.1) Ponding and lagoon systems (aerobic and/or anaerobic) , 1.2) biogas production , (2) Recycling crops /fish uptake and (3) Removal by export to other regions eg. Compost or other manure produced.

64

7.3.1 Environmental Impact on Natural Resources

7.3.1.1 Physical resources of the Study Area

Surface water and water quality

The construction of the wastewater treatment system for swine farms will reduce problem of contamination of untreated wastewater discharging into natural receiving waters and causing pollution. The wastewater from the swine farm will treated to reduce the contamination of organic matter, total nitrogen, and phosphorus. The potential impact include.

- Reducing organic matter: The contamination of organic matter in the natural receiving waters will increase the oxygen demand to digest organic matter loading. If the dissolve oxygen concentration is not adequate then the water quality will deteriorate. Treatment of wastewater before discharging into the natural receiving waters such as rivers will benefit the overall water quality.

- Reduction of total nitrogen and phosphorus concentration: These nutrients originate from the swine manure. If discharged into the natural water bodies, the nutrients will feed aquatic plants and algae causing algae bloom and eutrophication. Plants and algae cover water surface will prevent sunlight reaching to the lower depths and prevent mixing of oxygen, thus lowering the dissolved oxygen concentration. Therefore, reduction of total nitrogen and phosphorus in wastewater from treatment facilities of swine farm and the water bodies will benefit the overall water quality, reducing algae bloom and lowering dissolve oxygen problems.

In the overall picture, the constructions of wastewater treatment facilities for swine farms will have positive impact on the surface water quality. Chonburi province is in the Bangpakong watershed area which is the largest watershed area in the eastern part of Thailand, covering 5 provinces, and consequently flows into the Gulf of Thailand. Wastewater from swine farms is the point source of water pollution, therefore, construction of wastewater treatment system will enhance the effluent water quality before discharging into the canals and main river and finally the Gulf of Thailand.

Mitigation Measures:

d. Consistency sampling effluent water to analyze for pH, SS, Total P, Total N, COD, BOD and Fecal Coliforms in order to verify system performance;

e. Check and repair leakage of collection pipes to prevent uncontrolled spills;

f. Provide trained personnel to maintain systems in order to maximize system performance.

g. Inspect and prevent intentional discharges of untreated wastewater.

Groundwater

Groundwater in amphur Banbung, Chonburi province, is within the unconsolidated rock. The aquifer is relatively shallow and is in sandstone. Proper setup of the collection pipes and construction of wastewater treatment system should reduce contamination of groundwater resources from pollutants and pathogens. This will give positive impact on the groundwater quality and not impact on the utilization of groundwater.

Mitigation Measures:

1) Consistency sampling of both influent and effluent of the treatment system to analyze pH, SS, Total P, Total N, NO3-N, NH4-N, COD, BOD and Fecal Coliforms in order to verify system performance.

65

2) Check and repair leakage of collection piping to prevent uncontrolled spills and percolate into to groundwater.

3) Provide trained personnel to maintain the treatment systems in order to maximum system performance.

4) Inspect and prevent intentional discharges of untreated wastewater to the groundwater which could be contaminated with pollutants and pathogens.

Air Quality

Wastewater from the swine farm contains manure and leftover food consisting of protein and carbohydrate. The digestion of protein creates ammonia gas and amine compounds. The digestion of carbohydrates creates alcohol compounds, mercaptans, methane and hydrogen sulfide which are toxic to human being. The gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide have a foul odor and are dangerous if presented in high concentration. Good farm sanitation management and wastewater management will ensure that all wastes are collected properly and control the generation and dispersion of toxic gases. Selection of biogas system will provide methane gas that can be utilized in other activities. Therefore, construction of wastewater treatment system will benefit the overall air quality as well as reducing foul odors and toxic gases.

Mitigation Measures:

1) Proper evaluation and maintenance of the gas control system and replace when the parts reach their age limitation to ensure maximum operational efficiency.

2) Set farm sanitation system and technology usage to control and eliminate odor at various facilities to reduce the foul odors.

7.3.1.2 Ecological Resources

Nature Reserves

For the natural reserves, the evaluation of impacts should follow the following primary criteria:

1) The quality and quantity of all potentially affected habitats

2) The amounts of habitat and species loss, damage, or disturbance which could occur.

3) The important of affected species.

4) The intensity and duration of impacts (including longer-term effects upon populations and productivity).

During implementation/construction phase of the project, a certain amount of vegetation could bepermanently or temporarily removed or disturbed due to construction of biogas reactors, pond and lagoon or livestock manure treatment facilities, construction/rehabilitation of drainage canals, construction or upgrading of access roads, etc. These impacts mostly are direct (or primary) and usually temporary in nature. However, exact type and amount of vegetation that would be disturbed are not known at this stage of the project development. The dominant species of wildlife species in the study area of Chon Buri and Ratchaburi provinces are believed not to be presented. Therefore, it is believed that project activities will have any significant impacts on present flora and fauna.

However, in case the proposed project site is near natural reserves or significant wildlife habitats, the potential negative impacts caused by activities during the construction/implementation phase are mainly reflected in the following aspects:

66

1) Increase possibilities of encroaching to the nature reserves and the habitats of wildlife;

2) Block travel/migrating routes of animals, thereby affecting the opportunities of drinking and eating outside the natural reserves;

3) Destroy vegetation and sources of food for some wildlife inside or outside the nature reserves;

Mitigation Measures:

1) Avoid construction of manure treatment facilitires in proximityt of environmentally sensitive areas such as nature reserves and wildlife habitats or major wetlands at the inception of project t construction phase and at the very beginning of the project planning and design phase;

2) In the preliminary design phase, the project proponents should submit the project plans of the sub-projects whose sites are potentially close to nature reserves and wildlife habitats to the authorized agencies for their review and approve;

3) Minimize use of heavy/loud machinery in construction activity of the project, and if they have to be used, keep them far from nature reserves and wildlife habitats. If that construction activities near sensitive areas cannot be avoided, make every effort to reduce noise and dust level as much as possible;

4) Wastes from construction work should be properly disposed to avoid any impact on the surrounding areas (particularly neighboring watershed areas);

6) Strictly manage working hours of the labor force, enhance workers’ awareness of protection of natural resources and wildlife, and provide necessary directions to prevent them from entering inside of nature reserves, not to hunt wildlife and/or damage vegetation inside the reserves.

Aquatic Ecosystem

Completion of wastewater systems results in cleaner effluent discharges from swine farms into natural receiving waters, creating positive impact on the general water quality in canals and in the Bang Pakong and consequently the Gulf of Thailand. Flora and fauna as well as can take advantage from better quality of water in canals, the Bang Pakong river and the Gulf of Thailand. And, consequently, aquatic plants and animals will have a suitable place to inhabit, feed, reproduce and rear the young.

Mitigation Measures:

- Consistency sampling of the effluent water to analyze pH, SS, Total P, Total N, NO3-N, NH4-N, COD, BOD and Fecal and Total Coliform Bacteria in order to verify system performance.

- Check and repair leakage of collection system to prevent uncontrolled spills.

- Provide trained personnel to maintain systems in order to maximize system performance.

- Inspect and prevent intentional discharges of untreated wastewater.

7.3.1.2 Quality of Life

Health

Farm sanitization and wastewater treatment systems are beneficial for both farm workers and neighboring communities. Swine farm waste is systematically controlled and treated, reducing impacts caused by polluted water, odors and other pests, such as flies, fruit flies and roaches, all

67

of which are disease carriers. This will significantly improve health of workers and communities. If project is successfully implemented, quality of life will be improved and consequently should reduce the cost of health care to the government.

Mitigation Measures:

1) Administer routine physical examination of farm workers to protect against illnesses and pest-associated diseases.

2) Work with public health and disease prevention authorities in controlling various insects and pests, particularly during outbreaks of diseases.

3) Regularly clean collection system and applied insecticide covers to prohibit growth of nuisance and disease-causing insects and pests.

7.3.2 Impact and Mitigation Measures of Ponding and Lagoon system

Generally, if successfully implemented, Pond and lagoons certainly bring about more environmental benefits than without the project. Microbial action in the system substantially reduces chemical and biochemical oxygen demands (COD and BOD, respectively), total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS), nitrogen (e.g. nitrate nitrogen, organic nitrogen) and phosphorous concentration in of livestock manure.

However, Ponding and lagoon systems could have potential environmental risks due to improper operation, under-sizing, inappropriate transport of manure stock (trucks, piles, piping, etc), insufficient aeration mechanisms, unfavourable weather condition causing overflow, breakage of embankments, if build over ground, etc. Major environmental impacts could include water pollution due to overflow or breakage of the embankment, odor problems due to poor aeration, and insect (mosquitoes) proliferation that could not only be nuisance to neighbors, but could also cause increase incidence of water-borne diseases such as hemorrhagic fiver.

7.3.2.1 Physical Resources

Water pollution

Water pollution can negatively impact the quality of both surface and groundwater resources within and downstream of the project area. Risks of spills, structural failure, and purposeful discharges must be taken into account. Since the project is not proposing full treatment of livestock manure, the effluent from ponds and lagoons system contains substantial nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient load and should be disposed on agricultural lands as plant nutrient source. Effluents from well-designed and properly operated systems have a very low potential for pollution of water resources. However, unfavorable weather events such as repeated typhoons or frequent occurrence of high intensity rainfalls may significantly increase the potential nutrient pollution risk from open Ponding or lagoon systems due to potential overflow.

There are two potential pollution pathways during operation phase. If Ponding and lagoon overflows or if ponding and lagoon contents are purposefully drained into a surface waterway, this material will contaminate the receiving waters. On the other hand, poor construction of system dikes, especially in the case of above ground lagoons, can lead to lagoon dike failures. In both cases, pollutants from lagoons will pollute receiving water bodies and cause significant impact on downstream flora, fauna and human settlements who are relying on using the surface water resources. Movements of the pollutants in water flow could cause groundwater pollution through percolation, especially in areas with large proportion of coarse texture soils. There are two other possibilities for groundwater pollution in ponding and lagoon system: seepage through the lagoon floor if the soils are coarse texture or if there are large percentage of connected

68

macropores, and seepage of nutrient under the manure storage areas if the floor is earthen, lateral flow through the side walls of the lagoon (through-flow).

There is also a potential risk of nutrient loading to groundwater in agricultural lands used for manure application if excessive levels of effluent are applied to the cropland and/or if the manure is applied at inappropriate times (when soils are saturated, just before inception of rainfalls, wrong application timing, etc). The latter creates a situation in which more nutrients, especially nitrogen is being applied than is being used by the crop. Excess nitrogen will be transported beyond the root zone through leaching process and will eventually appear in the groundwater, causing major health problems especially in children and expecting mothers.

Mitigation measures

1) Appropriate and effective technology and management alternatives must carefully be considered and planned in order to achieve required levels of environmental acceptability.

2) Design and build a collection and/or treatment system for wastewater from livestock confinement buildings.

3) Ponding and Lagoon system must be designed strictly following technical criteria such as co-efficient of percolation soil material in the constructed ponding and lagoon through measurement of percolation rate, infiltration rate, etc .

4) The system dike specifications should be prepared and fully adhered to ensure that in when specific lagoon dikes are stable and will not fail under even the most extreme weather conditions.

5) It is fobiden to discharge effluent from the system into surface water bodies at any times except in special circumstances when specific size storm events have happened that can potentialally cause structural breakdown. Under such special conditions, it is generally assumed that there will be sufficient water in the water course to minimize the effects of the discharged effluent from the system on natural resource (dilution effect). Incase the effluent must be discharged for expectable reason relevant wastewater treatment standard of swine farm must be met. According to this standards limits for the main parameters as follow;

6)

Maximum value of the established standard Parameter Unit

Group A Group B

pH - 5.5 - 9.0 5.5 - 9.0

BOD5 mg/L 60 100

COD mg/L 300 400

SS mg/L 150 200

TKN mg/L 120 200

Air pollution

Air pollution is most often related to manure management techniques. Toxic gases that can be predicted during ponding and lagoon system operation are CO2, CH4, H2S, NH3, NOx,, and some organic gases. These gases are generated especially from first phase of degradation process of

69

the livestock manure and are potential sources of air pollution, some of them (e.g. CH4, CO2) are greenhouse gases. In addition, Dust can also be a problem due to activities of manure collection and transport trucks.

Odor problems: Odors are primarily the direct result of gas emission as the products of anaerobic decomposition of manure, and are secondary source of air pollution. Large anaerobic Ponding and lagoon system and use effluent for irrigation has the potential to emit odors that can travel long distances. Heavily loaded lagoons are a notorious odor source.

Mitigation measures:

1) Manure management options that reduce gas emissions and odor levels should be favoured. For example, appropriate collection frequency can reduce odor dispersion in livestock confinement buildings. The system can be covered and gas be collected for biogas development, thereby reducing odors.

2) Ensure that appropriately sized collection and/or treatment system for wastewater from livestock confinement buildings is provided.

3) Control operation process of the system to prevent or minimise toxic gas emission.

4) Strictly control collection and transport of manure procedures to prevent and minimise pipe leakage and leakage from trucks.

5) Include tree planting around the facilities to absorb/reduce dispersion of volatile and toxic gases, dust and odors.

Soil pollution

Source of soil pollution is the application of effluent from lagoon or ponding on cropland. In case of excessive application, or if manure is applied on saturated soils with high rates can create a condition in which more nitrogen and phosphorous are being applied than is being used by the crop causing nitrogen losses, vegetative overgrowth of agricultural crops, causing crop lodging and delay in seed development/seed filling, etc. Soil pollution by heavy metal is also an issue that should be carefully considered and additional of soluble salts that originate from animal manure could potential cause salinization.

Mitigation measures:

1) Monitor soil nutrient levels, determine nutrient and other needs of each soil type, and measure nutritional characteristic of effluents to ensure that the impact of land application of manure is advantageous to planted crops.

2) Effluents from lagoon must be strictly monitored (sampled and analysed for nutrients and periodically for heavy metals) and appropriate quantities should be determined to provide appropriate nutrient levels to satisfy plant needs before applying the effluent on croplands.

3) It is necessary to design nutrient management strategies to provide the crop with the appropriate amount of nutrients that is need by plants while minimizing the amount of soluble nutrient that escape from the root zone through optimum application of chemical and organic manure fertilizers.

4) Effluent from pond and lagoon must be strictly monitor (sampled and analyzed for nutrient and periodically for heavy metals) and appropriate quantities should be determined to provide appropriate nutrient levels to satisfy plant needs before applying the effluent on cropland.

70

7.3.2.2 Ecological Resources

Fauna and Flora

The proposed project, if successfully implemented, should improve the quality and may increase the carrying capacity of the cropland. If the quality of effluent is controlled, improvement of cropland should increase productivity and even quality f harvest. Planting trees not only will increase the number of plants, but will also protect the fauna biodiversity within the project area by providing shelter and shade.

Mitigation Measure:

A well designed, planned and implemented project is a prerequisite condition.

1) Planting trees around the ponds and lagoons, especially down wind of the residential areas is recommended to reduce odor and increase aesthetic appearance of the project.

2) Study and identify appropriate trees, commercial plants, and crops that are better suited for application of liquid manure (effluent) and promote their use within project areas.

Human use value

Land use

Construction site of ponding system and lagoon system are located in open lands within swine farms, construction site do not have the potential to affect land use in the close vicinity area.

Mitigation Measure:

No significant mitigation measure is recommended.

7.3.2.3 Quality of life

Landscape

Normally, the ponding and lagoons system are not aesthetically appealing.. However, considering the potential positive impacts and environmental benefits of reduced nutrient load to water bodies, it will have a much better aesthetic appeal than the present condition.

Mitigation measures:

- It is proposed to plant trees around the lagoon or the pond, especially between the lagoon and residential areas.

Public health

In general, the project, if successfully implemented, should have positive impacts on public heath of farmers and the neighboring communities through reduction of non-point sources of pollutants and pathogens in the surface water and ground water. However, there is a potential for secondary impacts on human health through primarily adverse impacts on air pollution. Operation workers may potentially be in danger of being directly impacted by toxic gases and odor. Problems of disease vectors such as flies, mosquitoes, rodents, pathogens, bacteria and other micro-organisms should be considered. These could lead to some respiration or digestion diseases or other dangerous diseases.

Mitigation measures:

1) Administer routine physical examination of farm workers to protect against illnesses and pest-associated disease.

2) Work with public health and disease prevention authorities in continually controlling various insects and pests, particularly during outbreaks.

71

3) Regularly clean collection piping and install covers to prohibit growth of nuisance and disease-causing insects and pests.

4) The measures provided mitigate air, water, and soil pollution if successfully conducted could minimize negative impacts on human health.

7.3.3 Impact and Mitigation Measures of Biogas production System

The main objective of biogas production from livestock manure is to reduce adverse impacts of livestock manure on the environment. However, unlike pond and lagoon systems, enclosed anaerobic digestion systems for biogas production are not subject to pronounced influences of the weather, making effluents from digesters more stable and uniform than effluents from pond and lagoon system. Additionally, odors are controlled and, if implemented correctly and there is no gas leakage, the produced methane gases are burned prior to release into the atmosphere. Anaerobic digestion processes result in source strength reduction by converting incoming organic matter to methane, carbon dioxide and small amounts of pathogenic microbial biomass. Weed seeds are destroyed, and odors are reduced. At the same time, biogas reactors supply additional source of fuel for the farm. If successfully implemented and as long as there are needs for the produced gases, environmental benefits of biogas system are positive. In addition biogas system does not effectively reduce the nutrient load of the effluent to acceptable levels to allow release of the effluent to the water bodies. The potential negative environmental impacts and risks of biogas production system include:

7.3.3.1 Physical Resources

Water quality

Impact Assessment:

Liquid in biogas pits have high content of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) and can be potential source of water pollution if it is purposefully discharged to water bodies, or leak to shallow groundwater. Draining of biogas tank effluent to water bodies as a result of poor system operation, causing an excess amount of water in the receiving pits. Direct discharge of effluent from biogas system to water bodies also causes nutrient loading to surface and groundwater resources and causes non-point source pollution of surface water and groundwater resources. Poor construction of biogas pits could also allow for leakage of nutrient rich effluent to shallow groundwater resources and surface waters. Transportation of livestock manure to centralised biogas plants can also cause soil and water pollution if transport regulations are not fully enforced and/or if mechanical problems with transport vehicles occur.

Mitigation Measures:

1) Technical and management principles for biogas system design and operation must be strictly followed.

2) Improve extension capacity and provide training/awareness building in the areas of manure use as crop nutrient and health and environmental impact of discharge of effluent into water bodies.

3) Effluent from a digester should be retained in a holding pond and used either as recycled flush water or for irrigation.

4) A centralized pre-treatment plant for wastewater is recommended in case its available amount is bigger than demand of using it.

72

• Air quality

Impact assessment:

In case biogas reactors gas collection systems are not working properly, gases can escape to the atmosphere and cause air pollution (toxic gases and odour) as well as greenhouse effect (CO2,CH4). Manure transportation from swine house and facilities to the centralised biogas plant by trucks can be a source of dust and unfavorable odour since toxic gases can release naturally from transport vehicles.

Risk of biogas system explosion due to mistakes or technical/operational problems, especially in hot weather condition, is also a major environmental concern.

Mitigation measures:

1) Technical and managerial principles of biogas system design and operation must be strictly followed.

2) Provide training/awareness building for swine farmers on the potential environmental risks of poor operation of biogas reactors.

3) Prepare monitoring programs with regard to air quality within proposed project areas, especially at and around biogas system.

• Soil pollution

Impact assessment:

Wastewater from cleaning of swine house and other facilities or from biogas pits if applied intensively on cropland can cause increase in soil nutrient load. Nutrient overload can not only increase the potential for leaching of nutrients into groundwater, but could also increase the nutrient content of the soil. In the case of grain crops such as rice, high nitrogen can also promote vegetative growth, delays seed formation and cause lodging and significant yield loss. Waste sludge and wastes in biogas reactors, if applied improperly on croplands, can also polluted the soil.

Mitigation measures:

1) Timing of application and quantity of effluent to be used on crops land should be accurately determined before any application of biogas effluent on soils. The amount of effluent that can be applied must be calculated based on crop nutrient needs at different growth stages and actual nutrient availability of the soil to prevent soil pollution and loss of crop yield.

2) Waste sludge and wastes from biogas reactors must be disposed properly, either by disposal in sanitary landfills or pre-treated with solidification method before landfilled or used for other purposes.

7.3.2.2 Ecological Resources

Flora and Fauna and Nature Reserves

If applied properly, effluents from swine house and other facilities and biogas reactors will improve productivity and quality of vegetation, contributing to flourishing of flora within the area. However, improper or intensive application of effluents can have adverse impact on biodiversity and will promote increase in plants that require higher nitrogen levels and reduce the other genera such as Leguminacea. Water, soil and air pollution can also cause reduction in flora biodiversity. The proposed project appears to be neutral with regard to fauna biodiversity. However, potentially contagious animal diseases caused by dangerous pathogens, bacteria,

73

and/or viruses can be spread out through application of untreated effluent and can cause proliferation of diseases. Inappropriate over-application of effluent could also cause disappearance of some useful insects and appearance of harmful insects in agricultural fields that can also cause increase in plant diseases and yield reduction.

Mitigation Measures:

A well designed, planned and operated project is prerequisite condition.

1) Plants that can sustain higher levels of effluent application (high N and P requirement) should be identified and promoted for the areas close to the biogas facilities. Establishment of young trees around the biogas plants should be promoted.

2) Prepare a plan for early identification and control of potentially contagious diseases that might establish within project areas.

3) Extra care must be taken to ensure effluent is treated properly and if there are outbreak of animal disease within project area, application of effluent should be stopped and should only be resumed after clearance is provided by the appropriate line agencies.

7.3.2.3 Human Use value

Land use

Construction of biogas reactor and installation of manure collection system (if any) in the project site will occupy some potentially productive land within the farming communities. The final locations of the manure treatment plants are not yet finalized. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the benefit/loss of land use change at this time.

Mitigation Measure:

No mitigation measure is recommended.

7.3.2.4 Quality of life

• Aesthethics

Impact assessment:

Aesthathically, the biogas reactors are not very appealing on their own. However, their benefits and reduction of unsightly and unhealthy open drains and manure ponds surely outweigh their look.

Mitigation measures:

Planting of trees around the biogas reactors should be encouraged that will not only improve aesthethics, but can also reduce odour levels.

• Socio-Economic

The construction of pig farm wastewater treatment system using biogas system in Ratchaburi Province will have positive effects on general communities by promoting peaceful coexistence between pig farms and residents in the community and improving the environment in surrounding area. At the operation stage, economy in Ratchaburi Province will benefit from the wide spread use of the biogas system. Economic benefits include:

1. Energy can be saved. Biogas can be used as alternative energy resource in the farm for cooking or heating for the newborn pigs. If the biogas system is large enough, electricity can be generated for internal consumption or selling surplus supply to external users.

74

2. Consumption of paid water can be reduced. Treated water, through biogas systems using several ponds, can be recycled and utilized for pigsty floor cleaning or other purposes.

Consumption of chemical fertilizer can be reduced. Biological sludge from biogas system can be used as organic fertilizer because of high nutrients such as N, P and K.

7.3.3 Impact and Mitigation Measure of Soil application of Manure

When main purpose of using livestock manure is to fertilize agricultural fields (manure recycling), manure should be treated to remove pathogens and weed seeds before application on land. One of the potential pre-treatment processes that manure can go through before land application is composting. The main impacts of composting process as well as land application of manure are briefly described:

7.3.3.1 Physical Resources

Water pollution

Impact assessment:

During composting process, especially during fermentation phase significant amount of wastewater is created. Maintenance activities including cleaning floors, equipments, machineries, and etc can also add to possibility of water pollution. Water pollution potential from manure collection from swine house and other facilities should also be considered. Eutrophication is one of the main impacts of release of wastewater rich in nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous into the natural water resources. It is important to ensure that effluent from wastewater treatment system meets the PCD discharge standards from swine farm before release to surface water bodies.

Land application of manure should follow strict rules to ensure that manure is applied at the right times during the growing season and at the right quantities so that crops receive appropriate quantities of nutrient at the right stages of growth. Haphazard and indiscriminant application of manure will not only cause nutrient overloading to the soil and leaching of nutrient into the groundwater, it can also cause serious injuries to the crops and reduce the crop yield and even burn the crops in extreme circumstances.

Mitigation measures:

1) Appropriate, effective, and adaptable composting and manure application technologies should be used, and management alternatives should be considered and planned carefully to achieve appropriate and environmentally acceptable nutrient load in discharge water.

2) It is necessary to design and build a collection and/or treatment system for wastewater from composting process.

3) Quantity and timing of liquid and solid manure application to agricultural land should be established for different crops in different soil types and climatic conditions based on an crop’s physiological characteristics and nutrient needs, inherent nutrient levels within the soil, and cropping patterns (previous and following crops).

Air pollution

Fermentation of livestock manure is notable source of air pollution since this process potentially produces CO2, CH4, and other volatile organic gases, causing increase in nuisance odors. Odors can also be generated during other phases of composting process, especially during collection and separation and before fermentation. Screening process is also a potential source for increase of dust and especially fine organic particulates. Dust can also be generated from collection and transportation activities

75

Manure application on land, especially if it is not immediately incorporated into the soil (ploughed in) can cause significant nitrogen loss to atmosphere due to ammonification process, causing both atmospheric and odor pollution and in extreme cases eye irritation may occur.

Mitigation measures:

1) Ventilation systems should be installed in composting plant to reduce the impacts of toxic gases and odors to workers and the surrounding environment.

2) Strictly control of manure collection and transportation system to prevent or minimise pipe leakage and scatter from trucks.

3) Plant trees to absorb toxic gases, dust and odors.

4) Incorporate the manure into the soil by ploughing it into the soil immediately after application of manure to prevent gaseous losses to the atmosphere.

Noise

Activities of vehicles, trucks and composting equipment such as separators, screeners, conveyors, and packaging section during operation phase can cause noise.

Mitigation measures:

The composting plant should be located at appropriate distance from the residential areas. Workers who are working within the plant should be supplied with protective gears such as ear plugs to reduce potential harmful effect of long term exposure to noise.

Soil pollution

Livestock manure has long been regarded as beneficial material and has been used for centuries as an effective nutrient source for higher crops. It provides organic matters to soil that improves its physical properties (improved soil structure). However, if manure is applied at excessive levels, it can cause soil toxicity due to nutrient overloading and disturbance of nutrient balance within the soil.

Impacts of manure on soil include:

¾ Excessive levels of nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and some micronutrients;

¾ Soil pollution from heavy metals (especially Cu and Zn);

¾ Potential increase in soil salinity (soluble salts mainly excreted from animal urine)

¾ Increase in level of number of cations and anions such as Na+, Ca2+, K+, Mg2+, Cl-, and SO4

2-.

Mitigation measures:

1) Manure should be applied to land at rate determined by the soil, climate, crop physiological needs, and etc. The implementation is that nutrients should be applied in amounts needed by crop without adverse effects on either soil or water (surface and groundwater).

2) Pre-treatment technology (composting) and composting process should strictly be followed to produce a product that has appropriate component of nutrients and organic matters and minimize quantity of weed seeds and pathogens

3) Manure (compost) samples should be regularly collected and analysed in order to avoid over-application of nutrient and/or causing nutrient imbalance that could detrimentally affect crop yields.

76

7.3.3.2 Ecological resources

Fauna and Flora

Like pond and lagoon system as well as the biogas production, soil application methodology, if successfully implemented, should improve the soil quality and increase the productivity and quality of crops. Manure application on cropland should improve biodiversity by improving soil fauna population.

Mitigation Measure:

A well designed, planned and implemented project is prerequisite condition.

Planting young trees as much as possible is always recommended. Studies should be conducted to determine higher plants that best suited for liquid and solid manure application and promoting for planted within project area.

7.3.3.3 Human use values

Land use

Construction of pond/lagoon/biogas/waste water treatment facilities in the project site will occupy a relatively large area. Construction of composting plant and installation of manure collection system (if any) in project site will occupy some potentially productive land within the selected farm. Since, the final location of the manure treatment plants are not yet finalized, therefore, it is not possible to determine the benefit/loss of land use change at this time.

Mitigation Measure:

No significant mitigation measure is recommended.

7.3.3.4 Quality of life

Landscape

Simply, appearance of a pre-treatment facility in the proposed project area would reduce the beauty of landscape. However, if comparing to ultimate expected benefits of the project, this option will be certainly better than present situation.

Mitigation measures:

Planting trees around the composting plant to reduce its visibility from residential areas should be encouraged to also reduce odor and other annoying problems as well as the unpleasant landscape.

7.3.4 Recycling by crop/fish uptake

7.3.4.1 Recycling by crop

There are 2 types of agricultural land application of swine manure.

1) Solid manure application: There are 2 types of solid manure application i.e.

(i) Application of fresh semi-solid manure: For the fresh semi-solid manure, which has moisture contents approximately 80% at the agricultural area, the suitable time to apply the semi-solid manure is at the stage of 15-30 days before planting crop in order to prevent burning of the planted crop, because heat was generated during the fermentation of the fresh semi-solid manure. Heat generated is advantage for degradation of manure and kill weed seed and pathogenic microorganism that may harmful to crop and human health, and (ii)The application of dry manure: Before application of dry manure, the fresh

77

manure was drying until the moisture content close to 55-65% before applying to the agricultural area.

2) Liquid manure application: Liquid manure and sludge from fermentation process of the Biogas system was utilized as fertilizer for crop, which is suitable much more than the application of the fresh manure because nutrients in manure, especially nitrogen, which changed in the fermentation process to the form of ammonia that plant can uptake directly. Further, fermentation process will destroy pathogenic microorganism that may harmful to crop and human health.

Utilization of swine manure as fertilizer for the agricultural land may generate both position and negative environmental impacts, which can be assessed in details as follows.

Air Pollution:

Utilization of swine manure in the form of semi-solid and dry solid may create odor annoying to the vicinity area at the transportation route and the neighboring area of the applied sites. When swine manure was applied in the area, fermentation process will occur, which may be the cause of soil nitrogen loss in the form of ammonia. Further, hydrogen sulfide, which is harmful odor to human health, especially the respiratory system will also occur.

Mitigation Measure

During transportation of swine manure, the manure should be kept in close container and the transported truck should be entirely covered with canvas.

If swine manure has to stock in the agricultural area, storage room should be provided. In addition, location of the swine manure storage room should be away from the neighboring communities.

Effective microorganism should be applied at the swine manure storage room to control odor.

For dry manure, swine manure should be dry before using. Drying area of swine manure should locate far away from the community area to prevent impact of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide generated from fermentation processes during drying period on the neighboring communities.

Water Pollution

Utilization of swine manure in agricultural area may create contamination of nutrient such as nitrogen and phosphorus to surface water resources or groundwater resources. There are 2 case of nutrient contamination including:

Leachate due to inappropriate applying quantity of swine manure. The excessive applying of swine manure may occur due to the lacking of a good swine manure management.

Leachate and swine manure loss during transportation and storage, especially during the rainy season may occur, if transportation of manure without covering and storage of manure in the open area.

Leachate from swine manure to surface water resources will increase organic matter to surface water resources leading to the increment of oxygen consumption of microorganism and decrease oxygen concentration in water. In addition, nutrient in swine manure, especially nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, which are important nutrients that cause blooming of plankton and algae, may cause Eutrophication of water resources resulting in degradation of water quality.

Mitigation Measure

Utilization of swine manure in agricultural area should have a good implementation and management plan to optimize the applying quantity of manure, other factors regarding plant

78

growth, such as type of crop, nutrient requirement of crop at each stage of growth, soil characteristic and climatology should be considered.

For transportation, swine manure should be kept in close container and trucks that utilize for transferring of swine manure should be entirely covered with canvas to prevent damage of swine manure from the rain and inhibit leachate of nutrient in swine manure to surface water and groundwater resources.

For swine manure storage, the entirely covered storage room should be provided to prevent damage of swine manure and inhibit leachate of nutrient in manure to surface water and groundwater resources.

Soil resources

Utilization of swine manure in agricultural area will improve soil texture and increase soil fertilities. Soil that applied with swine manure can adsorb more nutrients, which can reduce nutrient loss from leaching processes. Further, swine manure may help soil drainage and air transferring in the soil and soil can keep moisture content for long period of time, and consequently increase soil fertilities because of the containing of essential nutrients such as Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium and other important nutrients in swine manure.

In addition, Nitrogen containing in supernatant and sludge from biogas fermentation system was changed into the form of plant available ammonia by microorganism. Supernatant and sludge from biogas fermentation system is safe from pathogen and weed seed because high temperature occurring during fermentation period may kill pathogenic microorganism and weed seed containing in swine manure.

However, utilization of swine manure in excess quantity may generate accumulation of nutrient leading to alteration of soil nutrient balance especially nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and some micronutrient. In addition, soil salinity may increase and number of cation and anion such as Na+, Ca2+, Cl- and SO4

2-may also increase in soil resulting in the unsuitable condition of soil for crop planting.

Mitigation Measure

A good implementation and management plan to optimize quantity of manure that will apply to agricultural area should be set up.

In the rainy season, fresh swine manure should carefully be applied to the agricultural.

Fauna and Flora

Application of swine manure in agricultural area will generate advantage to plant in the aspects of increase in production, enhance quality and consistency produce. Moreover high concentration of nutrient in swine manure will increase soil fertilities and improve soil texture to the suitable condition for plant growth in the long period of time. Nutrient remaining in soil will release through microorganism degradation of organic matter. In addition, plant growth will give benefit to soil animals and other animal in the aspect of increasing food source and habitat, which will increase stability of the ecosystems.

However, swine manure should be correctly utilized, especially the application of fresh swine manure. When fresh swine manure was added in soil, crop may die to heat generated from fermentation processes of swine manure. The consumption of soil nitrogen may happen resulting in the reduction of soil nitrogen.

Mitigation Measure

79

Fresh swine manure should be applied at the stage of soil preparation approximately 15-30 days before crop planting to prevent crop damage from heat generated from fermentation processes.

Public health

Storage room of swine manure may be acted as a source of animal carrier such as mice and fly, which will carry diseases to the public in the vicinity area.

Mitigation Measure

Close storage room should be constructed for storage of swine manure. Consistency cleaning of the storage room and applying of insecticide should be conducted to prevent animal carrier dwelling in the swine manure storage room.

Land Use

Utilization of swine manure as fertilizer in the agricultural area will (1) increase soil fertilities, which will be suitable for plantation, and (2) improve soil texture to the appropriate condition for plant growth. Thus, it can be deduced that advantage in the aspect of soil efficiency increasing to the suitable condition for agricultural activities.

Economic

Utilization of swine manure as fertilizer in agricultural area will reduce cost of production for agricultural produce regarding plant nutrients because swine manure is sheaper than chemical fertilizer. Thus, positive impact on advantage will go to farmer in the form of benefit and may also give benefit to consumer. Further, unit price of agricultural product may reduce because of cost reduction of farmer.

7.3.4.2 Recycling by fish uptake

Utilization of swine manure as a fish food can be done with 2 method i.e. (1) directly use fresh swine manure as a fish food, or (2) use swine manure as a raw material to produce fish food. Fish food obtained from swine manure is suitable for carnivore fish. In addition, swine manure may used as fertilizer in herbivore fishpond. The suitable application rate of swine manure in herbivore fishpond will induce blooming of plant plankton that will acted as a food sources for various type of herbivore fish.

Utilization of swine manure as a fish food may generate impact on the environment as follows,

Air Pollution

Application of swine manure as a fish food may create odor annoying to area in the transportation route and the vicinity area of the fishpond. Further, toxic gas originating form fermentation of swine manure such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, which are harmful odor to human health, especially respiratory system, may be generated.

Mitigation Measure

During transportation of swine manure, the manure should be kept in close container and the transported truck should be entirely covered with canvas.

If swine manure has to store in the agricultural area, storage room should be provided. In addition, location of the swine manure storage room should be away from the neighboring communities.

Effective microorganism should be applied at the swine manure storage room to control odor.

Water Pollution

80

Two aspects of environmental impacts were considered i.e. (1) impact on quality of water in fishpond, and (2) impact on quality of surface water.

(1) Impact on quality of water in fishpond: The excessive application of swine manure in fish ponds will increase oxygen requirement for swine manure degradation, resulting a reduction of oxygen concentration in water, which varies with quantity of the remaining manure in the pond.Furthermore, the oxygen depletion may occur at the bottom of fishpond. Accumulation of swine manure in fishpond is a source of food for plant and zooplankton. When plankton, especially blue green algae, bloom, oxygen concentration in water may deplete at the nighttime dueto the consumption of oxygen by plant plankton. In addition, during a day without plenty of sunlight for a long period of time, oxygen depletion of water in the pond may have occurred.

Mitigation Measure

Farmer have to control and adjust quantity of swine manure, that used as a fish food, in association with the maintenance of water quality in the pond.

Consistency evaluation and checking up of aerator in fishpond should be done to obtain the efficient operation of aerator.

(2) Impact on quality of surface water: Drainage of water from fishpond to rehabilitate the pondbefore the next round of fish culture to water resources may affect quality of water, because water draining from fishpond contains organic matter and nutrients. Loading of nutrients will lead to oxygen consumption of microorganism, resulting in depletion of oxygen in surface water resources. In addition, nutrients in swine manure, especially nitrogen, and phosphorus, which is important nutrient that create blooming of plankton and algae, may cause euthophication of water resources resulting in degradation of water quality.

Mitigation Measure

Control and inhibit directly drainage of water from fishpond to surface waters resource. Water from fishpond may be reuse in other agricultural activities such as watering of vegetable and fruit plant garden. This method can utilize the remaining nutrient in water from fishpond.

Public Health

Fresh swine manure that used as a fish food may contaminate with pathogenic microorganism. Those pathogenic microorganisms may infect fish and cause of diseases in fish pond, and consequently, impact on human being, who eat those fish.

7.3.5 Removal by export to other region

For the exportation of swine manure to the outside area and use as fertilizer or raw materials, truck will be utilized to transfer these manure. Thus assessment of impact that may emerge from transportation activities was carried out including:

Air Pollution

Dust and odor may generate during the transportation of swine manure and may affect to vicinity area of the transferring route. Fermentation of swine manure can cause odor annoying to the public in the souring area.

Mitigation Measure

During transportation of swine manure, the manure should be kept in close container and the transported truck should be entirely covered with canvas.

Noise pollution

81

Noise may generate during the transportation of swine manure and may affect to vicinity area of the transferring route.

Mitigation Measure

Avoid transportation of swine manure during the recreation time of the pubic.

82

8 Environmental Management Plan An introduction of project that influences on environmental conditions would normally require preparation of environmental management plan (EMP). The EMP is normally prepared during the project preparation stage. All identified impacts, and proposed mitigating measures and monitoring activities of the project covering design, construction, implementation and operation of the project are considered in the development of the EMP.

In Chapter 7, all possible environmental impacts were identified and analyzed and corresponding mitigation measures were proposed. In order to ensure that all those measures will be properly implemented, the project implementation organization and responsibilities would be firstly discussed in this chapter. The mitigation measures and environmental monitoring plan and corresponding responsibility are identified, assessed, and presented to ensure that no significant environmental issues are overlooked and the negative impacts are prevented or reduced to minimum.

8.1 Implementation Organizations and Responsibilities 8.1.1 Implementation Organizations

In Thailand, DLD would be directly responsible for livestock industrial development, promotion and control. According to the Ministerial Declaration of October 9, 2002, the DLD has the following missions;

a) To research, develop and transfer technologies for livestock development.

b) To set standards, supervise, control, inspect and certify quality of livestock products and livestock farming.

c) To improve the efficiency of livestock production through animal health, animal nutrition animal husbandry and quality standard of products.

Operationally, DLD has four sections in relation to its missions and functions; General Administration, Animal Health, Livestock Production and Livestock Product Standards. Each section works through the Regional Bureau of Animal Health and Sanitation 1-9, and the Provincial Livestock Offices (PLO) as shown in the Organization Chart of the DLD.

83

General

Administration

Animal

Health

Livestock

Production

Product

Standards

- Office of the

Secretary

- Personnel Division

- Financial Division

- Legal Affair Division

- Planning Division

- Information

Technology

Center

- National

Institute of

Animal Health

- Bureau of

Disease

Control

Veterinary

Services

- Bureau of

Veterinary

Biology

- Animal Nutrition

Division

- Animal Husbandry

Division

- Bureau of

Biotechnology

for Animal

Production

- Bureau of Livestock

Development and

Technology Transfer

- Bureau of Quality

Control of

Livestock

Product

- Bureau of

Livestock

Standard and

Certification

- Bureau of Animal

Health and

Sanitation

1 - 9

DLD is responsible for livestock development in Thailand. DLD has been involved in project preparation since the very beginning stages and will be responsible as the implementing agency for the project. In terms of project implementation, the National Project Implementation Committee (NIC) will establish. The committee would consist of member from related responsible agencies such as PCD, DEQP, LDD. DLD would play the role of secretariat of NIC. NIC will designate the project implementation unit (PIU) for each component of the project. Each unit member would come from both responsible agencies and DLD.

PIU should identify one of the members as environmental monitoring officer and he/she should be responsible for implementation of EMP of the project and implement other relevant environment protection laws of Thailand during project implementation/construction and operation phases. The environmental monitoring officer will be responsible to collect all required data, monitoring of the implementation of the EMP and checking whether the mitigation measures of each sub-component of the project are successfully undertaken. PIU shall also be responsible for preparation of the environment protection materials and documents related to project implementation for World Bank review. The PCD and other government agencies that have expertise in environmental monitoring field such as LDD and DOA should also participate

DLD Executive

PLO

84

in the PIU as member. The PLO and TAO would involve in the project implementation as part of operation agency. The PLO would handle project funds, which flows from the PIU and provides technical support for farmers, other department’s technical staff in the provincial level and TAO. Whereas, TAO would have direct responsibility on environmental monitoring in order to ensure that there is no significant environmental impacts. The environmental management and organizations during implementation and operation phases are diagrammed in Fig.8-1 and Fig. 8-2, respectively.

PIU is responsible for preparation of interim report and monitoring tasks during each phase of the project implementation and at least the first five years of project implementation. The environmental reports required include: (1) an interim report at the end of the pre-construction program, to provide input to the implementation phase; (2) annual reports on the completion of implementation and construction activities; (3) annual reports during the monitoring of project operation; and (4) a final reports, summarizing impacts and successes of mitigation measures. PIU’s member, PLO and TAO should be trained by the project to enable them to fully take their responsibility of ensuring the adoption of all EMP activities, particularly at farm level for TAO and PLO. The TAO and PLO are responsible for reporting environmental status of the project including water quality of receiving water bodies, groundwater quality and other possible environmental impacts of the project to PIU and PCD.

8.1.2 Role of PIU and Environmental Monitors

As was discussed in 8.1.1, implementers of EMP will be PIU. They are responsible for ensuring the smooth implementation of the mitigation measures and the monitoring plan as is detailed in the environmental assessment report. Their major tasks include:

a. Review and implementation of mitigation and monitoring activities with comments on the activities as needed to obtain minimum acceptable environmental performance level in the overall project;

b. Regularly check implementation of pollution control measures in project sub-components

that might have pollution problems such as Recycling by crop/fish uptake, Removal by

treatment, removal by export to other regions;

c. In close cooperation with the project design and implementation teams, make sure that the

relevant mitigation measures contained in the EMP are reflected in the final project plans

and that necessary conditions for project monitoring are in place;

d. Supervise the implementation of the environmental protection measures as specified in the

environmental mitigation plan;

e. Provide written guidelines whenever gaps in environmental performance are found and to

take corrective measures;

f. Implement the environmental monitoring plan including engaging and supervising monitoring institutions and ensure that all sampling activities as defined in the monitoring plan are completed on a timely manner;

g. Deal with the complaints concerning the environmental aspects and accept the supervision

of the PCD;

85

h. Supervise environmental issues during project implementation/construction and urge

construction/implementation teams to follow relevant regulations; and

86

NIC

PIU

Local governmental agencies

including PLO, LDD, DOA, TAO

Design Unit PCD

Figure 8-1 Environmental Management Organization during Construction Stage

NIC

PIU

Local governmental agencies

including PLO, LDD, DOA,

PNREO, and TAO

Figure 8-2 Environmental Management Organization during Operation Stage

87

i Be responsible for other actions needed for implementing the EMP.

8.1.3 Supervision Organization

DLD would be major supervision organization of the project. Whereas, PCD would provide

technical supports to DLD. Several agencies would involve in the supervision both in local and

national levels. The PLO and PAO are expected to provide technical supervision on to farmers

and TAO, while. TAO will have the overall responsibility for the demonstration sites. At the

national level, PCD will also be involved in supervision of ambient environmental status in the

site’s vicinity as well as any possible environmental impact of the demonstration site.

8.1.4 Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan

In order to ensure the effective implementation of the proposed environmental mitigation

measures for the project, environmental monitoring and management plans have been

formulated. Detailed activities of the monitoring and management plan are shown in Tables 8-1

and 8-2.

88

Table 8-1 Environment Monitoring Plan, LWMEAP

Stage Organization Monitoring items Monitoring ObjectivesFeasibility Study DLD, NIC 1. Review EA

2. Review EMP draft1. Guaranteea completeenvironmental assessment, and appropriatesubject identification,emphasize the key points.2. Make sure it reflects the possible, significant potential problems which might be producedby this project3.Guarantee aconcretepracticable action plan of mitigation measures

DLD, PIU, NIC 1. Review thepreliminarydesign for environmentalprotection and EMP

1. Strictly execute EMP2. Ensure that all national environmental laws and regulations with regards to projectconstruction/implementation areconsidered.

DLD, WB 2. Check whether investment forenvironment protection is inplace.

3. Secure that sufficient environmental protection investment is in place

3. Check selection of projectareas.

4. Check whether there aresufficient water resources in theproject areas5. Ensure that the project areasare far away from the nature reserves buffer and core areas,and make sure that the project will not block themigration route of wild animals.

4. Supervise dust and noisepollution, if found to bean issue.

6. Take recommended measures in EMP to dust and noise pollution.7. Ensure that construction teams follow EMP, and relevant stateand local lawsandregulations.8. If noise is found as an environmental nuisance, enforce proposed construction timesaccording to EMP.

5. Inspect whether there areunderground cultural relics.

9. Protect cultural relics

Design &Implementation

DLD, ProvincialNaturalResources andEnvironmentOffice(PNREO), PIU

6. Check whether constructionwill cause accelerated soilerosion.

10. Ensure erosion control measuresaccording to EMP.

Operation DLD, PIU 1. Inspect the implementation ofEMP in operation stage2.Check the implementation ofmonitoring plan3. Verify whether it is necessaryto take further environmentalprotection measures forunforeseen environmentalproblem.

1. Protect theenvironment; minimize theenvironmental impact during operation phase.2. If necessary, review and amend theEMP to overcome unforeseen impacts.3. Guaranteeall manure waste is properly treated and fully applied according torecommended and applicable technology.

89

Stage Organization Monitoring items Monitoring ObjectivesDLD, PCD, PIU 1. Check whether the project has

any impact on surface waterquality, groundwater quality,nature reserves, rare flora orfauna.2. Check if project is causingaccelerated soil pollution.

1. Ensure that project will not cause negative impact on water resources and their availabilityfor downstream users. Report any wrong doings to theappropriate regulatory agencies.2. Prevent contamination of surface and groundwater contamination from over application ofmanure according to the EMP3. Prevent any potential project impact on nature reserves, rare flora and faunaby enforcingthe EMP.

90

Table 8-2 Environment Management Plan for LWMEAP

Environmental Issues Mitigation Policies and Control Measures ImplementersResponsibleAgency

A. Design Phase

1.TheProject

1. Optimize project design and plan to minimize its potential negativeenvironmental impacts.2. Plan and design project sub-components in order to avoid environmental sensitive areas such ascore and/or bufferzones of nature reserves and wildlife habitats, natural and cultural relics, and to reasonably arrangeconstruction scheduleto minimize land occupancy and reduce land occupancy time.3. Strengthen PLO and TAO to carry out environmental monitoring activities.4. Project sub-components that close to nature reserves and/or habitats of wild animals for approval of relevantdepartments.5. Prepare sitespecific EA reports for newly identified project sites.

Design teams PIU

2. Land Use

1. If construction of limited access roads is required, they should bedesigned to minimize land occupancy andavoid/minimize damage to vegetation.2. Biogas/lagoon/ponding for manure treatment development will requireacquisition of some land. Unless the newlyacquired land is state owned, new land cannot be claimed from local farmers/inhabitant for construction of manuretreatment facilities, unless it strictly follows land resettlement guideline presented by the social assessment team.

Design Teams PIU

3. Water Resource1. Promote appropriate water use procedures to reduce water usewithin project areas.2. Promote reuseand recycling of water resources within project areas.

PNREO PIU

B. Construction phase

1. Soil Erosion

1. After the manure management facilitiesand respective canal/drainagesystem construction is finished, vegetation, grassplanting should be arranged to cover theexposed sideslope. To get effective results, the sideslope plantation should becompleted one month in advance to the rainy season.2. After completion of construction work, vegetative cover should be planted assoon as possible to prevent wind and soilerosion, as well as runoff.3. Theconstruction should employ restrict soil erosion control measuresduring construction to prevent soil erosion andincreased sediment load in nearby river/water bodies.4. As much as possible, theexcavated material should be used in construction and any surplus should bedisposed offproperly.

ConstructionTeams

PIU

2. Noise

1. Some the livestock farms in Thailand are located within residential areas. Within 100m-300m of the construction site,construction activities are forbidden and should be stopped between 7.00 pm.- 7.00 am.2. Theaccess roads should beselected away from sensitive locations such asschools, high density residential areas, andhospitals. Maximum allowablenoise level according to the Thailand laws is 70 dbA.3. When the construction site is close to school, no construction work with heavy machinery should be allowed duringschool hours; when the construction site is close to densely populated residences or hospitals, construction work with

ConstructionTeams

PIU

91

Environmental Issues Mitigation Policies and Control Measures ImplementersResponsibleAgency

heavy machineries, producing high noise levels, should not bearranged during evening hours. To reduce the noisepollution of construction machineries, silencers should beused on mufflers.4. The construction operator’s work time should be arranged in accordance with the labor hygiene standard, and personalprotection measures such as wearing earplugs, earmuffs, helmets, etc. should be provided to the operators.

3. Air quality

1. Mixing equipment should be placed far from residential areas, hospitals and schools. Sealing, vibration reducing anddust absorbing measures should be adopted.2. According to national labor laws, labor protection measures should be provided to the operators of the constructionmachineries, such as protective glasses and masks.3. Water should be sprayed during dry, dusty days on the construction sites and related roads to prevent dust.

ConstructionTeam

PIU

4. Natural and culturalrelics

1. Inform contractors and construction workers on recognition of cultural relics and importance of protecting them.2. During construction, if cultural relics are found, construction should stop, the construction supervisor should protectthe site, and concerned department should be immediately notified to handle the find.

Construction Team,Fine Art Dept.

PIU

5. MinorityNationalities

1. Respect the living style and traditional customs of minority nationalities, if any present in future project areas.ConstructionTeam

PIU

C. Operation phase

1. Land Application

1. Ensure that manure management plans, formulated by the project, are followed by local farmers to ensure sustainableuse of treated liquid and solid manure

2. Enhance the capability of agriculture provincial office, responsible for extension activities, supervision andenforcement of regulation on the use of organic manure and nutrient additives to the soil.3. Ensure that manure application rates and timing, proposed by the project, does not cause significant increase in soil andwater resources nutrient loading by monitoring soil and water nutrient levels.4. In line with the principle of balancing nutrient and livestock number, transportation and other collection/transportationmeans should be developed to reduce pressure of livestock waste to the environment.5. Investigate/monitor potential impact/acceptability of the use of treated manure on paddy rice fields and ensure that nosignificant impact occur on water resources.6. Ensure that the line agencies provide appropriate extension services to promote best management practices with regardto manure application on cropland and prevention of nutrient loading of soil and water resources.7. Undertake soil monitoring of selected areas, applying solid/liquid manure to establish the effect of land application ofmanure on soil and water quality.

PIU, PAOPLO

2. Water resources

1. Undertake a rigorous surface and groundwater water quality monitoring program to establish baseline data and thedynamic change of water quality due to manure management practices.2. Ensure that appropriate measures are adopted to reduce water use in cleaning/washing of pigs and piggery facilities.3. Ensure the use of appropriate equipment for application of liquid manure (from waste treatment lagoons, and biogasfacilities) on land to reduce over-application/runoff.4. Ensure that appropriate water-manure ratios are used for lagoon/biogas/wetland waste treatment plans to optimize

EnvironmentalOfficer, PCD

PIU

92

Environmental Issues Mitigation Policies and Control Measures ImplementersResponsibleAgency

nutrient load of the liquid manure.5. Monitor theefficiency of waste treatment lagoons, biogas systems, and constructed wetlands and ensure optimaldesign, maintenance, and operation of the facilities.6. Promote reduction and reuseof water resources during piggery operations.7. Promote use of treated wastewater isused for irrigation or fish production according to the local/national regulations.

3. Flora, fauna, andnature reserves

1. Project financed lagoon/constructed wetlands should use flora, fauna in the project area.2. If wild animals arepresent in the project areas, ensure that their travel routes arenot blocked by project facilities.3. Use only the native plants in lagoon and constructed wetland development.4. Observe impact on new plantsand animal population as well as soil wormsand microbial activity.

Environmentalofficer,Universities

PIU

4. Soil Erosion

1. Superviseand enforcedischarge rates of treated effluents and land application rates of liquid manure to prevent watererosion and runoff.2. Apply soil conservation measures to reduce soil erosion down slope of fields used for land application of liquid manureand waste treatment plants.

PAO PIU

5. Safe land applicationof treated solid andliquid manure

1. Monitor level of pathogens and parasite in the liquid and solid manurebefore their application On crops, especiallyvegetables and market garden crops.2. Ensure that optimal retention time, temperature, and pH conditions are observed to effectively eliminate pathogensduring composting, digestion in the biogas, and in the treatment lagoon.3. Ensure use of appropriate disinfecting measures before final discharge of treated waste water such as killing thepathogens of biogas sludge by ultra violet rays of the sun through air drying, etc.4. Monitor to ensure the wastewater treatment from the biogas tanks or piggery farms meet thenational standard forirrigation and agricultural purposes.5. Improve watershed management and agricultural practices by adapting results of applied research conducted by thenational and local institutions, project, and AWI, and including them in the extension programs, especially in theapplication of treated manure and/or sediment from biogas tanks to thecrop.6. Monitor and evaluatesafe use of treated manure.7. Promote timely and well-balanced application of farmyard manure

PLO, PAO,Universities

PIU

6. Land use change

1. Ensure application of appropriatemanure treatment technologies to minimize/reduce land requirement for thetreatment facilities.2. Use of organic manure (solid and liquid manure) in cropping should improve soil nutrient load and structure. Thismight increase potential crop yield and increase land value. Land improvement should be monitored and be consideredas an added economic value in lieu of lost land to manure treatment plans.

PLO, PAO PIU

D. Environment Monitoring

93

Environmental Issues Mitigation Policies and Control Measures ImplementersResponsibleAgency

2. SurfaceWater

Pre-implementation phase (baseline data collection):a. Monitoring items: pH, DO, total P, total N, NO3-N, NH3-N, COD, BOD5, fecal and total coliforms, and suspendedsolids.b. Monitoring frequency: Twicea yearc. Monitoring periods: once in rainy season and once in dry seasond. Location to be monitored: upstream, midstream and downstream of the receiving water of the project site

Environmentalofficer, WaterResources Dept.,PCD

PIU

Implementation/operation phase:a. Monitoring items: pH, DO, total P, total N, NO3-N, NH3-N, COD, BOD5, fecal and total coliforms, and suspendedsolids.b. Monitoring frequency: four times a yearc. Monitoring periods: one in the dry period, one during the first heavy rain, one in the wettest month and oneat theendof thewet periodd. Location to be monitored: upstream, midstream and downstream of the receiving water of the project site

Environmentalofficer, WaterResources Dept.,PCD

PIU

3. Groundwater

Implementation/operation phase:Monitoring items: pH, DO, total P, total N, NO3-N, NH4-N, COD, BOD5, fecal and total coliformsb. Monitoring frequency: four times a yearc. Monitoring periods: one in the dry period, one during the first heavy rain, one in the wettest month and oneat theendof thewet periodd. Location to be monitored: top and bottom of slope of the land application areasat 3 different levels installedpiezometers

Environmentalofficer, WaterResources Dept.,PCD

PIU

4. Soil quality

Implementation/operation phase:Monitoring items: pH, EC, TKN, TP, available PMonitoring frequency: Five times a yearMonitoring period: After harvestLocation to be monitored: top and bottom of slope of the land application areas

Environmentalofficer, PAO,PCD

PIU

5. Pathogen in soil

Implementation/operation phase:Monitoring items: fecal coliforms.Monitoring frequency: TwiceMonitoring period: before and after manure applicationLocation to be monitored: Within land application area

Environmentalofficer, Publichealth Institute

PIU

94

For Year 2 and onward program or project operation phase may have some potential environmental issues. Therefore, applicable action for encountering such issues shall be proposed as an environmental guideline. Detail of the action is provided in Table 8-3 8.2 Environmental Monitoring Plan The main purpose of this section is to summarize the needs of monitoring and to prepare a sound environmental monitoring program. The main objectives of the plan are:

(1) to ensure that all the mitigation measures specified in the EA report will actually be carried out;

(2) to evaluate the monitoring data to determine whether the environmental protection measures as proposed (including design, implementation, and operational procedures) are actually furnishing adequate environmental protections and if not, to indicate the correction measures that is needed, and

(3) to ensure sustainable use of natural resources (such as water, land, and soil) by the project.

8.2.1 Monitoring Items

The monitoring program includes monitoring for each of the individual environmental issues as identified in Chapter 7.

8.2.2 Monitoring Implementers

The PIU would be a responsible agencies for environmental monitoring activities in the project area. PIU would contact university and local consultant to perform monitoring task specified in EMP as implementers. The PIU, PLO, PAO and TAO would closely supervise the contractors in order to ensure that the activities are collectedly carried out. And PLO and PAO shall be assigned from PIU to response to any possible emergency situation such as overflows from the pondor application land. The PIU are responsible for requesting for monitoring activities by the contractors according to the requirement of EMP and whenever the situation arises.

8.2.3 Monitoring Report System

The reporting system for environment monitoring is shown in Figure 8-3. After completion of each environmental monitoring task, the contractors should submit the monitoring report directly to PIU. The TAO, PLO and PAO shall be provided copies of the report. The PIU, then, report the monitoring results specified in the EMP to NIC and the World Bank. During implementation/construction, and the first five years of operation phases, PIU should submit annual environmental quality report to the World Bank. All submitted reports should also be available to PCD as well.

96

Table 8-3 Environmental guideline for potential environmental issue in project operation phase

Environmental Issue Mitigation Policies and Control Measure Environmental Guideline / Applicable Actions1. Ensure that manure management plans, formulated by theproject, are followed by local farmers to ensuresustainable use oftreated liquid and solid manure

Invite local stakeholders such as swine farm and cropland owner etc. to participate as the manure managementplan monitoring committee

2. Enhance the capability of agricultureprovincial office, responsiblefor extension activities, supervision and enforcement of regulation onthe use of organic manureand nutrient additives to thesoil.

Provide training to agriculture provincial officer onrelated topics in order to enable to fulfill his/her activitiesincluding extension activities, supervision andenforcement of regulation on the use of organic manureand nutrient additives to the soil

3. Ensure that manureapplication rates and timing, proposed by theproject, does not cause significant increase in soil and water resourcesnutrient loading by monitoring soil and water nutrient levels.

Strictly carry out environmental monitoring programmeproposed in “Environmental Monitoring Issue”mentioned in Table 8-2

4. In linewith the principle of balancing nutrient and livestocknumber, transportation and other collection/transportation meansshould be developed to reduce pressure of livestock waste to theenvironment.

- Identify appropriate manure collection andtransportation means which is applicable in the site.- Provide training on good manure collection andtransportation practice to workers responsible forcollection and transportation

5. Investigate/monitor potential impact/acceptability of the use oftreated manure on paddy rice fieldsand ensure that no significantimpact occur on water resources.

Strictly carry out environmental monitoring programmeproposed in “Environmental Monitoring Issue”mentioned in Table 8-2

6. Ensure that the lineagencies provideappropriateextension servicesto promote best management practices with regard to manureapplication on cropland and prevention of nutrient loading of soil andwater resources.

Regularly arrange meeting between PIU and the lineagencies in order to determine appropriate andapplicable best practices, evaluate results and providerelated suggestion and recommendation for furtherimprovement

1. Land Application

7. Undertake soil monitoring of selected areas, applying solid/liquidmanure to establish the effect of land application of manure on soil andwater quality.

Strictly carry out environmental monitoring programmeproposed in “Environmental Monitoring Issue”mentioned in Table 8-2

2. Water Resources 1. Undertakea rigorous surfaceand groundwater water qualitymonitoring program to establish baselinedata and the dynamic changeof water quality due to manure management practices.

Strictly carry out environmental monitoring programmeproposed in “Environmental Monitoring Issue”mentioned in Table 8-2

97

Environmental Issue Mitigation Policies and Control Measure Environmental Guideline / Applicable Actions2. Ensure that appropriate measures areadopted to reducewater use incleaning/washing of pigs and piggery facilities.

Provide training on appropriate water use in pig farm tofarmers and responsible officer in order to ensure thatthe responsible persons fully understand and implementthe practicesDesignate responsible officer to regularly inspect theimplementation of the practice

3. Ensure the use of appropriateequipment for application of liquidmanure (from waste treatment lagoons, and biogas facilities) on land toreduce over-application/runoff.

Provide training on appropriate application of theequipment to farmers and responsible officer in order toensure that the responsible persons fully understand theapplicationDesignate responsible officer to regularly inspect theimplementation of the practice

4. Ensure that appropriatewater-manure ratios are used forlagoon/biogas/wetland waste treatment plans to optimize nutrient loadof the liquid manure.

Investigate appropriate water-manure ratios using forthe treatment plantsProvide training on the treatment plant operationspecifically on water-manure ratios to farmers andresponsible officer in order to ensure that the responsiblepersons fully understand the applicationDesignate responsible officer to regularly inspect theplant operation in order to ensure the optimize nutrientload

5. Monitor theefficiency of waste treatment lagoons, biogas systems,and constructed wetlands and ensure optimal design, maintenance, andoperation of the facilities.

Invite expert from university or related institution toregularly evaluate treatment design, operation andmaintenance program

2. Water Resources

6. Promote reduction and reuse of water resources during piggeryoperations.

Provide both technical and practices of water reductionand reuse in pig farmsFormulate appropriate media eg. poster, newsletter etc.to dissemination to farmers.

98

Environmental Issue Mitigation Policies and Control Measure Environmental Guideline / Applicable Actions7. Promoteuse of treated wastewater is used for irrigation or fishproduction according to the local/national regulations.

Provide both technical and practices of treatedwastewater reuse particularly for irrigation or fishproductionOrganize site visit to demonstration site on treatedwastewater reuse technique

1. Project financed lagoon/constructed wetlands should use flora,fauna in the project area.

Investigate flora and fauna in the project area that can beeffectively used in the lagoon/ constructed wetlandProvide knowledge to maintain effectively use of suchflora and fauna in the lagoon and wetland

2. If wild animals arepresent in the project areas, ensure that theirtravel routes are not blocked by project facilities.

Survey the project area prior the construction in order toavoid blocking of the wild animal travel route

3. Use only the native plants in lagoon and constructedwetland development.

Investigate the native plants in the project area that canbe effectively used in the lagoon/ constructed wetlandProvide knowledge to maintain effectively use of such theplants in the lagoon and wetlandDesignate responsible officer to regularly inspect growthand population of the plants

3. Flora, fauna andnature reserves

4. Observe impact on new plants and animal population as well as soilwormsand microbial activity.

- formulate monitoring programme to investigatepossible impacts new plants and animal population aswell as soil worms and microbial activity

1. Supervise and enforce discharge rates of treatedeffluents and land application rates of liquid manure toprevent soil erosion and runoff.

Determine appropriate discharge rates of treatedeffluents and land application rate of liquid manure thatwould not cause soil erosion and runoff in the projectareaDesignate appropriate discharge rate as a condition in

farm registrationFormulate soil erosion inspection team to monitor

4. Soil Erosion

2. Apply soil conservation measures to reduce soil erosion down slopeof fields used for land application of liquid manureand wastetreatment plants.

- Identify appropriate soil conservation measure that issuitable for using in the project area- Disseminate such appropriate measure to the farmers

99

Environmental Issue Mitigation Policies and Control Measure Environmental Guideline / Applicable Actions1. Monitor level of pathogens and parasite in the liquidand solid manure before their application On crops,especially vegetables and market garden crops.

Strictly carry out environmental monitoring programmeproposed in “Environmental Monitoring Issue”mentioned in Table 8-2

2. Ensure that optimal retention time, temperature, and pH conditionsare observed to effectively eliminatepathogens during composting,digestion in thebiogas, and in the treatment lagoon.

Identify optimal environmental conditions those affectpathogen elimination in the treatment including retentiontime, temperature, and pH conditionsProvide training on controlling the optimal conditions ofthe treatment plant to the plant operator

3. Ensureuse of appropriate disinfecting measures before finaldischarge of treated waste water such as killing thepathogens ofbiogas sludge by ultra violet rays of thesun through air drying, etc.

Identify appropriate measure to eliminate pathogen infinal discharge of treated wastewaterProvide training on such measure to the plant operatorDevelop regular disinfecting monitoring program of thefinal discharge

4. Monitor to ensure the wastewater treatment from the biogas tanks orpiggery farms meet the national standard for irrigation and agriculturalpurposes.

Develop regular monitoring program of the finaldischarge especially designated parameter in thestandard before using in the crop landProvide training on controlling the optimal conditions ofthe treatment plant to the plant operator to enable his/herto effectively operate the plant

5. Improvewatershed management and agricultural practices byadapting results of applied research conducted by the national andlocal institutions, project, and AWI, and including them in theextension programs, especially in the application of treated manureand/or sediment from biogas tanks to thecrop.

Study useful information from research on application oftreated manure and sediment from biogas tanks andapply the research with the project area and establishedtreatment plant

6. Monitor and evaluatesafe use of treated manure. Develop pathogens, heavy metals monitoring program forthe production and soil from the crop land in the projectarea

5. Safe landapplication of treatedsolid and liquidmanure

7. Promote timely and well-balanced application of farmyard manure Formulate appropriate farmyard manure

100

Environmental Issue Mitigation Policies and Control Measure Environmental Guideline / Applicable Actions1. Ensureapplication of appropriatemanure treatment technologies tominimize/reduce land requirement for the treatment facilities.

Formulate working plan to minimize land application foroperation of treatment facilities

6. Land use change

2. Use of organic manure (solid and liquid manure) in cropping shouldimprovesoil nutrient load and structure. This might increase potentialcrop yield and increase land value. Land improvement should bemonitored and beconsidered as an added economic value in lieu oflost land to manure treatment plants.

- Establish data collection program on economic benefitsobtained from an improvement of soil nutrient load andstructure as result from use of organic manure tocompare with crop productivity of land using for manuretreatment plants.

101

Figure 8-3 Monitoring Report Chart

8.2.4 Pre-Implementation Monitoring (Baseline data)

The pre-implementation monitoring program is designed to achieve two main objectives. The first one is to check whether the mitigation measures contained in the environment assessment report have been incorporated in the final design document and in the construction contracts. The second is to assess the existing conditions, including seasonal variability of the various parameters. The monitoring items and related issues can also be found in table 8-2. 8.2.5 Monitoring during implementation/construction

The monitoring program is designed to evaluate the construction activities during the implementation period and to ensure that they meet the set up criteria. The construction of the lagoon/biogas systems could bring about some potentially adverse impacts on environmental parameters including air quality, soil erosion, acoustic environment, public health, biological resources, etc.

Air Quality: Dust monitoring to control and reduce construction generated dust levels and provide the basis for additional measures (as required). Table 8-4 presents air quality monitoring program for the project areas, if found necessary by the PIU or in case of complaints.

Table 8-4 Construction Air Quality Monitoring Program

Monitoring Site Item Frequency Sampling Timing Implementer Construction sites within 100m of residential areas

TSP Twice during construction

Hourly sampling during working hours

Construction Contractor

Noise: The construction noise-monitoring program is presented below (see Table 8-5) to monitor the impact of construction noise. If the construction site is more than 200m from residential areas, this monitoring is unnecessary.

PIU PCD World Bank

PLO, PAO, TAO

Environmental Officer

102

Table 8-5 Noise Monitoring Program during Construction

Site Monitored Frequency Monitoring period Monitoring timing Implementer

within 200 m of construction site

Once during construction

1-day Continuously monitor during working hours

Construction Contractor

Soil Erosion: Soil erosion could occur at construction sites, during construction of lagoons and/or centralized biogas facilities near water bodies (rivers, creeks, canals, waterways, etc.). Construction induced water erosion could cause increase in sediment load in water bodies that could negatively impact aquatic flora and fauna. PIU will be responsible to ensure that adequate soil conservation measures are provided along the slopes such as hay-bale, silt fence and/or fiber mats to prevent significant increase in the sediment load of rivers and lakes within the project area.

8.2.6 Monitoring during Operation

The potential negative environmental impacts during project operation phase may happen mainly dueto mishaps or mistakes by operators or design problems. Potential environmental risks include possible pollution of surface water and groundwater due to over application and/or untimely application of livestock manure on agricultural land, inadequate or inappropriate manure management technologies, poor compaction of the lagoon floor, deep percolation of nutrients into groundwater, breakage of lagoon embankments (above ground lagoons), explosion of biogas facilities, under capacity of the constructed treatment system, wrong technical design or construction, improper operation/maintenance of the manure treatment system, etc. The main parameters that should be monitored include surface water and groundwater quality especially where treatment system is setup. More detailed and relevant information on environment monitoring parameters, implementing agencies and responsible institutions are presented in Table 8-2.

8.2.7 Monitoring Budget

The total cost of environmental monitoring is estimated based on implementation of three proposed demonstration sub-watersheds, one demonstration site is proposed in Chonburi province and two sites in Ratchaburi province. Each area may consist of 3-5 swine farms within asmall sub-catchment. Appropriate manure treatment facilities will be constructed in each swine farm. Surface water will be sampled from the receiving water bodies at 3 different sampling stations; upstream, midstream and downstream. Removed solid and liquid manure would be applied as organic manure for land application (manure recycling) within the catchment area or closed by. In order to optimize monitoring cost, maximum of three agricultural fields that are receiving manure, representing major cropping patterns, will be selected in each province to carry out environmental monitoring activities during the project operation period.

103

Table 8-6: Cost Estimation of Environment Monitoring Estimated cost (USD)

Period Monitoring Activity Chonburi Ratchaburi

Installation of batteries of piezometers (3 agricultural fields and 3 manure treatment systems @US$ 100 per battery 600 600Construction of benchmarks at sampling points 100 200

Pre-implementation (once)

Sub-total 700 800Surface Water quality (only on receiving water of the project site, 3 sampling stations x 1 sampling/ station x 100 USD/sampling x 4 times/year) 1,200 2,400Groundwater quality (6 sampling/land application, 6 sampling treatment systems x 100 USD/sampling x 4 times/year) 4,800 4,800Soil analysis (3 cropping systems, x 5 sampling/ 2 crop seasons x 80 USD/sampling per year 1,200 1,200

Implementation period(1 year- period)

Sub-total 7,200 8,400Surface Water quality (only on receiving water of the project site, 3 sampling stations x 1 sampling/ station x 100 USD/sampling x 4 times/year)

4,800 9,600Groundwater quality (6 sampling/land application, 6 sampling treatment systems x 100 USD/sampling x 4 times/year) 19,200 19,200Soil analysis (3 cropping systems, x 5 sampling/ 2 crop seasons x 80 USD/sampling per year 4,800 4,800

Operation (Years 2-Year 5)

Sub-total 28,800 33,600Total 36,700 42,800

Total EMP 79,500

8.4 Environmental Training/Institutional Strengthening Plan 8.4.1 Training Objectives

Main objective of environmental program is to strengthen the capability of all stakeholder in the environmental monitoring activities specified in the EMP and to improve their capacity to ensure successful implementation of the mitigation and monitoring plans during implementation and operation of the project. The trainees could also include environmental officers from PIU, PLO, TAO and PNREO. In order to ensure successful implementation of the EMP, intensive training courses will be provided to full-time staff of the PLO, PAO, TAO and PNREO who will be assigned as the environmental officers at different levels and participating in LWMEAP project. The officers should have at least a degree from accredited universities in one of the relevant natural resource areas (livestock management, water resources, agricultural extension, agronomy, soils, environmental science, etc). They should have a minimum of three years of field experience. If some activities specified in the EMP is to be contracted out to local consultant or university, their staff should also attend the training courses, but the cost of training should be born by their institution. Contractors’ staff members including project manager and coordinator are encouraged to attend the workshop on project implementation procedure especially in monitoring report system. However, the cost of attending the workshop and accommodation should be born by the contractor.

8.4.2 Training Courses for Environmental Officers

The following courses are proposed to be included in the environmental training program for assigned environmental officer from PLO, PAO, TAO and PNREO.

104

- Application and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, standards and norms of the Thai government concerning environmental protection;

- Environmental management criteria utilized by the World Bank; and

- Environmental technology and environmental monitoring techniques including:

(1) Status of surface waters, principles of hydrogeology, and groundwater distribution;

(2) Basic knowledge of environmental monitoring;

(3) Pollution control technologies; and

(4) Basics of soil and water sampling and sample treatment for analysis of different elements identified in EMP.

Participating officers from relevant responsible agencies in the NIC and PIU as well as universities would be able to provide training on the above subject for the assigned environmental officers. In order to optimize cost of the training, training course for the officers in both provinces can be combined together.

8.5 Budgets Budget for EMP implementation would cover 3 major expenses: (1) salary of assigned staff in both responsible agency (PIU) and implementers (PLO, PAO, PNREO and TAO) (2) budget for carrying activities specified in the EMP; and (3) training courses. If any contractor is interested to attend the workshops, the cost will be charged to the attended contractors. The estimated costs for salary and training for environmental officers are presented in Table 8-7, 8-8 and 8-9, respectively.

105

Table 8-7 Salary Cost of Assigned Environmental Officers

Preparation Implementation (1 years)

Operation (4 years) Environmental

Officers Total m/m

Total Cost USD

Total m/m

Total Cost USD

Total m/m

Total Cost USD

PIU 1 500 3 1,500 8 4,000Provincial officer 4 1,000 16 4,000

Sub total 500 2,500 8,000 Grand total 11,000

Notes: 1. This is an opportunity cost. The staff is fully employed by the respective PIU for other technical activities and will be assigned to EMP for 25% of his/her time per year during implementation and 17% (2 months per year) for supervision of the project during the operation periods. 2. Estimated cost of PIU officer is estimated at 500USD per month and provincial staff is estimated at 250 USD per month. Table 8-8 Cost for Environment Training for Environmental Officers

Training Plan No. of Personnel

Training Contents Time (Day)

Daily cost USD

Total cost USD

1. Classroom training 1.1 Trainers 2 5 60 600 1.2 PIU Personnel 2 5 50 500 1.3 Provincial officer 8 5 50 2,000 1.3 Facilities & management

As per Environmental Training Program

2,500 Subtotal 5,600 2. Field/practical training 2.1 Trainer 2

Field Trips 5 60 600

2.2 PIU Personnel 2 5 50 500 2.3 Provincial officer 12 5 50 3,000 2.4 Facilities & management

5,000

Subtotal 9,100 Total 14,700

Table 8-9 Total cost estimates for Environmental Management Plan

Reference Preparation Implementation Operation Subtotal* Item USD

Incremental staff cost Table 8-6 500 2,500 8,000 11,000

Training Table 8-7 14,700 14,700

EMP Table 8-5 1,500 17,100 62,400 79,500

Sub-Total 16,700 19,600 70,400 105,200

Contingency, 10% 1,670 1,960 7,040 10520

Total 18,370 21,560 77,440 115,720

The actual cost of EMP, with 10% contingency

106

9 Conclusions and Recommendations 9.1 General Conclusions The environmental and social analysis of the livestock waste management in Thailand project indicated that while the project would have no major direct negative impact on the natural resources and values of the environment, its overall social and environmental impacts would be positive. The project, if successfully implemented, (1) should improve the conditions of surface water quality and soil fertilities within the project counties, increase food supply for livestock, and should increase farmer income and livestock production. Therefore, well being of the public in the vicinity of the project areas may improve in the forms of better environmental quality. The proposed project, in general, will have a positive impact on the socio-economic conditions of the farming communities by improving their livelihood, through the increase in energy recovery from manure waste and sustainable income the operation of swine farm.

9.1.1 Selection of Project area

The demonstration sites cover small, medium and large swine farms in Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces. Farmers who participated in the project implementation have shown willingness to join the livestock waste management project and have provided support. Further, the selected sites are some of the highest concentration of swine per hectare and, thus, are considered best suited as demonstration sites for improvement manure management and recycling technologies.

9.1.2 Environment Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

The potential environment impacts of the project during implementation/construction phase of the project in both Chonburi and Ratchaburi provinces are temporal and limited in magnitude. There are, however, a number of unavoidable aspects of project implementation, which if not well handled, may have potential adverse impacts on both natural resources and values of the environments in the localities. The magnitude of such impacts will depend on the success of and manner in which the proposed project specific environmental mitigation plan and programs are implemented. In addition, the temporary negative impacts are believed to be minor and include minor potential noise, air, and water pollution. However, if the mitigation measures proposed in this report are successfully implemented. The degree of environmental impacts during the construction phase of the project will be insignificant.

During the operation period, potential environmental impacts that are identified in the EA report including:

(1) Potential impact on water resources (surface water and groundwater);

(2) Potential health effect from pathogen and parasite through the application of solid and liquid manure to the agriculture area; and

(3) Potential cumulative impacts of nutrients that may accumulate in the lauds, when the solid and liquid manure were applied or transported to the water bodies by runoff and through flow causing eutrophication and increase in BOD and COD.

Regarding each possible adverse impact, the corresponding mitigation measures are proposed for the purpose of preventing or reducing negative impacts to insignificant levels. The use of better swine farm environmental management and best management practices based on the latest findings of research and extension component of the project should guide livestock farmers in the use of the rationale and environmentally balanced methods to reduce point and non-point source pollution within the project areas. However, the effective implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would be a challenge to the project proponent. To cope with the complex of

107

strengthening, environmental issues, an environmental management plan (EMP) including institutional strong thinning, environmental training and environmental monitoring plan is developed. Further, the EMP should be strictly implemented to ensure that the proposed project would have neither significant nor irreversible adverse impacts on the natural resources and values of the environment in the project areas.

9.2 Recommendations In order to prevent potential negative impacts of the proposed project and to improve the likelihood of having a successful project, it is suggested to adopt a dynamic approach to the environmental monitoring and management by further incorporating measures to include additional measures to reassess the EMP, if unforeseen environmental impacts are identified during project development and operation periods.

9.2.1 Follow-up Program

A follow-up program is recommended to analyze the overall impacts of the project implementation and operation. Such program will be served to verify that predictions of impact put forward in the planning stages are as expected, and if not, adequate and timely corrective measures would be developed and implemented. Hence, corrective measures can be undertaken before irrevocable impacts have occurred. Information gathered from these programs is also used as input to refine future design.

The proposed program should incorporate the monitoring plan as presented in Chapter 8.

A number of interim reports should be prepared by PIU environmental officers of both Chonburi and Ratchaburi Provinces, as outlined below, to ensure that findings of the EMP are incorporated in the project design of future sub-projects and a dynamic approach to EMP is followed by the project; (1) An interim report at the end of the pre-construction program, to provide input to the implementation phase; (2) Interims annual reports on the completion of implementation and construction activities; (3) Annual interim reports during the monitoring of project operation; and (4) A final report, summarizing impacts and successes of mitigation measures.

If significant unforeseen negative impact is discerned at any stage, the schedule will allow for a re-evaluation of the situation and provide sufficient time to implement further measures. Reports should be submitted to senior NIC management, the World Bank, and various regional lined agencies, if requested, for review and comments.

9.2.2 Public Participation

The community and public involvement process was initiated during the environmental and socio-economic surveys when, livestock farmers and village communities were contacted to obtain baseline information. It is imperative that these processes should continue so that the project participants feel that they are involved in the project and that their views and concerns are being adequately considered in the project planning process. In order for the beneficiaries to participate in the project design more actively, it was suggested to develop detailed beneficial participation plans for the projects and have been prepared by the PIU. These plans detail participating activities in each stage of project implementation and participants including livestock farmers, government organizations, NGOs and particularly the disadvantaged groups including women and disadvantaged people in the project area. Since dates of participating activities are specified in these plans, it is suggested that the PIU develop a concrete schedule based on the prepared plan to guarantee a smooth implementation of the plan during project implementation.

In general, the majority of livestock farmers support the implementation of the project. In addition, staff of the provincial and city project offices, staff of the livestock bureaus at

108

provincial, city and county levels and officers of the Ministry of Agriculture who were interviewed strongly support the implementation of the project.

9.2.3 Further suggestions and environmental requirements.

Project beneficiaries should strictly follow the concerned law and regulation for the national environmental quality protection.

109

10 List of References 1. Statistics Book of Ratchaburi Province 2003, National Statistical Office

2. Environmental Report of west Region in Thailand 2003, Environmental office in 8th region

3. Environmental Quality Management Plan of West Region in Thailand 2004-2006, Environmental office in 8th region

4. Soil Survey Report in Ratchaburi Province 1982, Soil Survey Division Land development Department

5. Data of Air and Noise Quality in 2003, Air Quality and Noise Management Bureau Pollution Control Department.

6. Data of Mae Klong Conservation Network in Ratchaburi Province, Mae Klong Conservation Network in Ratchaburi Province.

7. Website of Ratchaburi Province (www.ratchaburi.go.th)

8. Website of Department of Mineral Resources (www.dmr.go.th)

9. Website of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department (www.dnp.go.th)

10. Website of Army Secretary, Army1 (www.army1.rta.mi.th)

11. Website of Tourism Authority of Thailand (www.tat.or.th)

12. Statistics Book of Chonburi Province 2003, National Statistical Office.

13. Environmental Report of East Region in Thailand, 2003

14. Action plan and Master plan for Environmental Problem Solution, 1996.

15. Soil Survey Report in Chonburi Province 1983. Soil Survey Division of Land Development Department.

16. Data of Land use in West Region 2004, Burapha University

17. Data of Farm Holding Land 1991-1999, Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, 2003

18. Master Plan and Action Plan for Water Resource Conservation in River Basin in Central Region, OEPP, 2003

19. Data of Number of Livestocks in 2002, Chonburi Provincial Livestock Office

20. Website of Chonburi province (www.Chonburi.go.th)

21. Website of Data of Chonburi province (www.choncity.com)

22. Website of National Statistical Office (www.nso.go.th)

23. Website of Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning. (www.onep.go.th)

24. Seminar Document “Biogas Technology Transfer from Manure and Wastewater Treatment Plan in farm”, Biogas Service Part, Institute of Science and Technology Research and Development, Chiangmai University

110

25. Study report: Project of Development and Transfer Technology for Management of Effluent from Swine farm 1999, Pollution Control Department.

26. Document of Technology of Biogas in 2003, Dr. Somchai Jansawang, Kasetsart University.

27. Practice Guideline: Practice in Swine farm by Standard, Office Standard in Livestock ,Office of System Development and Standard of Livestock Product, The Department of Livestock

28. Research Document: Trend for Decrease Problem from Swine Farm, Agriculture Faculty, Ubon Ratchathanee University.

29. Public Document: How to use Poultry Manure?, The Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Material and Environment Research, Mahanakorn University of Technology.

30. Method of Organic Fertilizer Production, The Department of soil, Agriculture Faculty, Kasetsart University.

31. Use fertilizer from Biogas pond for agriculture, Dr. Manas Sanmanecchai.

32. Document of Conclusion in Seminar, “The Examination of Farm Standard”, Thai Swine Veterinary Society, 11 September 2002

111

Annex A:

Public and animal health risk assessment

112

Animal agriculture has intensified with larger numbers of animals being raised in confinement with smaller land bases per operation. With increased animal densities, manure volume, handling and disposal become important issues with social and economic implications for farms and communities. The livestock enterprises are coming under increasing social pressure to control the odors and contaminants from their operations. Waste from livestock farming has increasingly been identified as a potential source that contributes to the degradation of the environmental and water quality. The focus on livestock farms as potential sources of waterborne pathogens in watershed systems is the result of several converging trends. Media and consumer awareness of food-borne and water-borne illnesses is high. Public health officials have identified livestock manure as a potential source of enteric (intestinal) bacterial and protozoan agents. Although manure has the potential to harbor a number of different animal and human pathogens, few of these microbial agents cause the majority of human waterborne disease outbreaks around the world. The development and implementation of cost-effective strategic plans to control and manage the potential risk to water and food supply systems from pathogenic organisms depends largely on understanding the sources of these agents, the mechanism by which they move from the sources and enter the water and food supply systems, and the factors that play role at different level of the pathway. The primary success in addressing the objective of Animals and Public Health component of the project relies on the followings.

1. Determining the endogenous (to the country) animal pathogens that impede optimal production and pose risk to human health

2. Assessing the impact of these pathogens on human health

3. Describing farm practices that are intended to promote animal health and reduce human risks

Endogenous animal pathogens The goal is to identify food- and waterborne pathogens that affect the optimal performance of animals and have zoonotic (transmitted between animal and man) potential. The emphasis will be on pathogens associated with swine production and also pathogens that can be potentially transmitted to pigs via orofecal route. Pathogens of interest are listed below:

1. Viruses -Novoviruses, HepatitisA ,Rotaviruses, Influenza Viruses 2. Bacteria -Salmonella spp., E. coli, Erisepalothrix rhusiopathiae,

Brucella spp., Campylobactor jejuni, Shigella spp.,Vibrio spp., Clostridium perfiringens, Clostridium botulinum,Listeria monocytogenes, Bacillus cereus,Staphylococcus aureus, Mycobacterium spp.

3. Nematode -Ascaris suum

4. Protozoa -Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia spp., Cyclospora spp Balantidium Coli

In Thailand, Viral Hepatitis and Novovirus (Norwalk-like viruses) has never been reported in animals. Annual cases report in 2001 from National Institue of Animal Health revealed that Rotaviruses was isolated among 25 submitted swine farms. Influenza Seropositive was found in 639 pig farms across the country. Campylobactor jejuni, Shigella spp., Vibrio spp., Clostridium perfiringens, Clostridium botulinum, Listeria monocytogenes, and Bacillus cereus have been mention to cause diarrhea in piglets. Unfortunately, prevalence or incidence of those mentioned

113

bacterial diseases have never been done. Reported from Salmonella and Shigella Center, Ministry of Public Health in combination with data from Center for Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring in Food-borne Pathogens (under WHO Programme), Chulalongkorn University shows that Salmonella spp.occured in 1445 swine farms during 2001. Of 1445 samples, Salmonella cholerasuis accounted for 121 samples, 117 samples are Salmonella typhimurium. Prevalence of Erisipelothrix rhusiopathiae, E. Coli (Hemolytic), Brucella spp., Brucella spp., Ascaris suum, and Balantidium coli are 3.17%, 16.70%, 0.9%, 4.08% and 37.7% respectively (Table1). Table 10.1: Prevalence or number of infected pig farms that pathogens have zoonoticpotential

Pathogens in Pig Prevalence (%) Case Reports (Number of Infected Farm)

Virus Rotavirus - 25 Influenza Viruses - 639

Bacteria Salmonella spp. - 1445 S. cholerasuis - 121 S. typhimurium - 117

Erisipelothrix rhusiopathiae

3.17 -

E. Coli ( Hemolitic ) 16.70 - Brucella spp. 0.90 -

Nematode Ascaris suum 4.08 -

Protozoa Balantidium coli 37.70 -

Impact of pathogens on human health The purpose of this section is to assess the risk to public health associated with the presence of pathogens in swine population. According to prevalence and case report of pathogens among human and pig population ( Table2 ), there are many diseases that have data both in human and pig population, especially, Rotaviruses, Influenza, Salmonella spp., and Brucellosis. Salmonella spp. is the only organisms of concerned. Because Salmonella spp. can survive in pig manure at least 170 days at 280C. In addition, Campalobactor jejuni, Shigella spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia spp., and Cyclospora spp. have been reported in human. Unfortunately, data of Campalobactor jejuni, Shigella spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia spp., and Cyclospora spp. is not available in pigs population. Since pigs can be reservoir of Campalobactor jejuni, Shigella spp., Cryptosposidium spp., and Giardia spp., and Cyclospora spp. Therefore, risk identification of these pathogens is needed prior to recycling pig manure in salad

114

crop. Finally, risk of diarrhea that is caused by Balantidium coli may also need to be assessed. Because Balantidium coli. Is almost 40% in pig population Table 10.2: Prevalence and/or case report of Pathogens among humans and Pigs population

Human Animal

Pathogens Prevalence(%)

Case Report

Prevalence(%)

Case Report (farms)

Virus Rotavirus 17.2 469 - 25

Hepatitis E - 29 - - Influenza - 42371 - 639

Bacteria Salmonellaspp. - 2413 - 1445 S. enteritidis - 304 - - s. cholerasuis - 105 - 121 S. typhimurium - 48 - 117 Erysipelothrix spp. - - 3.2 - Campylobactor jejuni 14.1 - - - Shigella spp. 12.5 - - - E. coli - - 16.7 - Brucella spp. - 103 0.9 -

Nematode Ascaris suum - - 4.08 -

Protozoa Cryptosporidium spp. 3.7 - - - Giardia spp. 14.4 - - - Cyclospora spp. 8 - - -Balantidium coli - 1 37.7 -

Farm practices that play a role The goal is to perform hazard analysis of critical control points (HACCP) to identify modifiable practices associated with potential contaminants from agriculture sources and to mitigate the public health risk. Most of the intensive farm in Thailand use antibiotic heavily to control porcine respiratory disease complex and diarrheal diseases in piglets and growing pigs. Antibiotics that has been used frequently are listed in Table 4. Majority of swine farms mix antibiotic in feed for controlling porcine respiratory complex and have never had withdrawal periods. Antibiotics assessment in pig waste need to be established prior to manure recycling in order to prevent antibiotics resistance mechanism in microorganisms and also prevent environmental contamination from antibiotics. Antihelmintics drug in intensive swine farm is used regularly. Therefore, Nematode, Cestode and Trematode problems is rarely seen in normal practice. The prevalence of lava migration in vital organs from slaughter check is less than 0.0001%. Therefore, critical control point is very hard to establish.

115

Table 10.3: List of antibiotic frequently used in swine farmsAntibiotic Name Route of administration Dosage Cephalosporin (third generation) Intramuscular 20 mg/kg Cetiofur Intramuscular 5 mg/kg Lincomycin Feed 100 ppm Gentamycin Intramuscular 5 mg/kg Kanamycin Intramuscular 10 mg/kg Zinc-Bacitracin Feed 100 ppm Macrolide

Tylosin Feed 150 ppm Erythromycin Feed 100 ppm Tiamulin Feed 50 ppm Tilmicosin Feed 100 ppm

Sulfa Sulfaquinoxaline Feed 100 ppm Sulfathiazole Feed 100 ppm Sulfadimidine Feed 100 ppm

Trimethoprim+Sulfaquinoxaline Feed 100 ppm Fluoroquinolones

Enrofloxacin Feed 500 ppm Beta-lactam

Ampicillin Feed 400 ppm Amoxycillin Feed 400 ppm Procain Penicillin G Intramuscular 25000 IU/kg

Colistin Feed 400 ppm Tetracycline

Chlortetracycline Feed 200 ppm Doxycycline Feed 50 ppm Oxytetracycline Feed 200 ppm

116

ANNEX B:

TOR for Environmental Assessment, Local Consultant

117

The consultant will prepare a study that identifies the baseline environmental situation; evaluates the project’s potential environmental impacts in its area of influence; examines project alternatives; identifies ways of improving project selection, siting, planning, design, and implementation by preventing, minimizing, mitigating, or compensating for adverse environmental impacts and enhancing positive impacts; and includes the process of mitigating and managing adverse environmental impacts throughout project implementation. For the preparation of EA, the national consultants are strongly encouraged to obtain detailed information from the following World Bank documents: Operational Policies OP 4.01, Bank Procedures BP 4.01, and the requirements stipulated in environmental regulations in respective countries. The Bank’s other safeguard requirements (Operational Policy/Bank Procedure OP/BP) that might be triggered under this project are: OP/BP 4.04-Natural habitats, OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary resettlement, OD 4.20 Indigenous People, and Information Disclosure Policy. Local consultants must ensure that EA preparation work should also take into account procedures established by environmental authorities in respective countries. The following EA documents should be prepared: EA for the entire project; and EA for each component, including the EMP. The EA for the overall project will be prepared by a international environmental consultant to be contracted by FAO. The EA for the overall project will include all demonstration components, with inputs provided by the local consultants. Local consultants will be responsible for the EAs will be required for specific demonstration components in respective countries. Depending on the kind of demonstration component schemes identified, water quality monitoring may be required in the cause of EA preparation. Each EA will be reviewed and commented on by the international consultant as part of the internal review process. According to Bank’s requirement of public consultation and information disclosure policy, the local EA consultants should conduct consultation with local interested groups, especially the project affected people and NGOs, at least two times in accordance with OP 4.01. EA should be made available locally and through the Bank’s Public Information Center for review by interested parties. The EA report will be prepared to include the following items: 1. Executive summary

Concisely discusses significant findings and recommended actions. 2. Policy, legal, administrative framework

Discusses the policy, legal and administrative framework, scope and standards of EA, EA participants and organization.

3. Description of the proposed projectConcisely describes the proposed project components, and its geographic, ecologic, and temporal context, including any offsite investments that may be required. Indicates the need for any resettlement plan. Includes a map showing the project site and the project’s area of influence.

4. Environmental setting of the proposed project

Describes the physical, biological and socio-cultural environment, areas of special designation.

118

5. Environmental impacts of the proposed projectPredicts and assesses the project’s likely positive and negative impacts during the construction as well as the operational phases, identifies mitigation measures and any residual negative impacts that cannot be mitigated, explores opportunities for environmental enhancement, identifies key data gaps and uncertainties, and specifies topics that require further attention.

6. Analysis of alternativesSystematically compares feasible alternatives (including the “without project” situation) in terms of their potential environmental impacts, the feasibility of mitigating these impacts, their capital and recurrent costs, their suitability under the local conditions, and their institutional, training, and monitoring requirements. For each of the alternatives, quantifies the environmental impacts to the extent possible and attaches economic values, where feasible.

7. Environmental management plan (EMP)Includes mitigation and monitoring plans, plans for capacity development and training,

implementation schedule and cost estimates. The mitigation plan identifies and summarizes anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts; describes each mitigation measure and associated impacts, designs, and equipment requirements; estimates any potential environmental impacts of these measures; and provides linkages with other mitigation plans required for the project. The monitoring plan provides a specific description and technical details of monitoring measures, including the parameters to be measured, methods to be used, sampling locations, frequency of measurements, detection limits (where appropriate); and monitoring and reporting procedures.

8. Public Consultation/ParticipationA free standing chapter describing public consultation/participation in the preparation of the EA.

An initiation report including detailed methodology and work plan is expected by March 5, 2004. A draft report is expected by April 31, 2004. The consultant must submit the report in the manner requested by the FAO. The consultant is expected to fully complete the reporting and documentation requirements by August 31, 2004, or as agreed to with the FAO.

9. Appendixesa. List of contributors to EA report –individuals and organizations; b. References – written materials used in EA preparation both, published and

unpublished; c. Records of interagency and consultation meetings, including consultations for

obtaining the informed views of the affected people and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The record specifies any means other than consultations (such as surveys) that were used to obtain the views of affected groups and local NGOs.

d. Tables presenting the relevant data referred or summarized in the main text of the EA. e. List of associated reports (such as resettlement plans if prepared).

119

Annex C:

EA Team

120

List of EA Team for Environmental Impact Assessment of livestock waste management in Thailand

Name – Surname Responsibilities Position Qualification

1. Rowiwan Piyasilisilp Consultant overview theEA report Project Advisor andEnvironmental Expert

M.Sc (Environmental Science)

2. Narintorn Suntornsatit Impact Assessment of Ecological Resource Environmental Scientist M.Sc (Environmental Science)

3. Wasana Peethamnongsin Impact Assessment of Air and Noise Quality Environmental Scientist M.Sc (Environmental Science)

4. Kuntera Sailampor Impact Assessment of Soil and landuse Environmental Scientist M.Sc (Environmental Science)

5. Nawarat Sarpchoreon Impact Assessment of Water Quality Environmental Scientist M.Sc (Environmental Science)

6. Nanapat Sarapok Impact Assessment of Human health and Aesthetics Environmental Scientist B.Sc (Environmental Science)

7. Oranuch Karong Impact Assessment of Socio-Economic Environmental Scientist B.Sc (Environmental Science)

121

Annex D:

Records of Public Consultancy

122

No.CMS-NPS-001

August 16, 2004 To whom it may concern, Subject: Livestock Waste Management in East Asia

The CMS Engineering and Management Co., Ltd. has been assigned by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) to carry out an environmental assessment study emphasis on an introduction of adaptive livestock waste management systems in two proposed demonstration areas under “Livestock Waste Management in East Asia Project”. The demonstration sites are located in Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces where swine farm activity is condensed. The main outcome of the project is to reduce livestock production waste load that currently polluting the local (Gulf of Thailand) and international wasters (the South China Sea).

In order to fulfill objectives of the project, public opinions on the assessment shall be obtained from all stakeholders. We, therefore, would like to inform all interested person that copies of the environmental assessment report are presently available at the Chonburi and Ratchaburi Natural Resources and Environmental Provincial Office and Regional Office. If you would like to have any comments and suggestion related to the project and the report, please kindly send it directly to Ms. Narintorn Soontornstit – Project Coordinator, fax 0 2476 7079 or [email protected] by August 31, 2004. Your comments and suggestions would be great benefits for further preparation and implementation of the project.

We look forward to receiving your favorable opinions.

Yours Sincerely,

(Ms. Narintorn Soontornstit)

Project Coordinator

123

No.CMS-NPS-002

August 16, 2004 Dear Sir or Madam, Subject: Livestock Waste Management in East Asia

Enclosed please find an environmental assessment report that the CMS Engineering and Management Co., Ltd. prepared for the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) under “Livestock Waste Management in East Asia Project”. Aim of the project is to support introduction of adaptive livestock waste management systems in two proposed demonstration areas. The demonstration sites are located in Ratchaburi and Chonburi provinces where swine farm activity is condensed. The main outcome of the project is to reduce livestock production waste load that currently polluting the local (Gulf of Thailand) and international wasters (the South China Sea).

In order to fulfill objectives of the project, public opinions on the assessment shall be obtained from all stakeholders. We, therefore, would like to put the environmental assessment report in your library in order to make it available for public access.

Yours Sincerely,

(Ms. Narintorn Soontornstit) Project Coordinator

124