Laporan EIA - EKAS - Jabatan Alam Sekitar

Transcription

Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
8 Final Impacts, Final Mitigation and Residual Impacts
8.1
Construction Phase
Evaluation Framework
The socioeconomic impacts are evaluated based on indicators such as the impact on
the livelihood of the local community and the permanence of this impact.
The assessment of the magnitude of an impact has been guided by the values
summarised in Error! Reference source not found. below.
Table 8.1 Significance rating categories used in the social impacts assessment
Significance
Criteria: Social Impact
Major
negative
impact
Considerable adverse change to current amenity, lifestyle and everyday community
activities and functioning.
Displacement or relocation of houses or businesses
Severance of many communities in the area from facilities and services.
Permanent and total loss of formal and informal recreational facilities of regional
importance, without opportunity for replacement / re-provisioning within the region.
An ‘unhealthy’ demographic structure is created in a community.
Permanent closure of one or more businesses.
Significant impact to many tourist attractions / facilities.
These impacts would be considered by society as constituting an important and
usually long term- permanent change to the social environment.
Significant
Adverse
Noticeable adverse change to current amenity, lifestyle and everyday community
activities, but with scope for some mitigation.
Relocation of a community and or recreational facility to a less socially appropriate
location.
Separation of a small number of residences from facilities and services.
Impact to a number of tourist attractions / facilities.
Adverse impact upon a large number of businesses, however their operations
remain viable.
The disruption of livelihood for a community.
These impacts are real but not substantial, and would be viewed by society as
constituting a fairly important and usually medium term change to the social
environment
PE Research
43
Significance
Criteria: Social Impact
Minor
Adverse
Localised or limited noticeable change to current amenity, lifestyle and everyday
community activities, which can be largely mitigated.
The functional usability of community and recreational (formal or informal) facilities
affected.
Localised or limited change to the operation of businesses or tourism facilities.
Temporary access alterations to residential properties, businesses, community
facilities and recreational areas during construction.
The disruption of livelihood for a group of households.
These impacts have little real effect, and would be viewed by society as constituting
a fairly unimportant and usually short term change to the social environment
Potential Impacts
8.1.1
Local Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector
8.1.1.1 Decrease/Loss in Fish Catch and Fishing Grounds
During the construction phase, the suspended sediment plumes from the dredging and
reclamation could potentially result in avoidance of the affected areas by fish.
In the present study, sediment spills will occur during dredging and reclamation
operations as well as the construction of jetties and shipyard piers. The TSS plume
stays well off the coast and does not enter the Sg Linggi estuary. Consequently, no
impact is anticipated on the mangroves, the mangrove fauna, nor the aquaculture
activities in the area.
Turbidity can potentially impact fish feeding ability, changes in habitat choice, altered
predator-prey relationships and increased anti-predator response. High suspended
solids can also cause gill damage in fish.
Suspended sediment plume impacts at concentrations high enough to potentially
result in avoidance of the affected areas by commercial fish (excess concentrations of
50 mg/l and above) is estimated as shown in Figure 8.1. Tolerance of commercial fish
to total suspended solids varies according to fish species/i/. The maximum TSS
simulated from the models show the localised 50 mg/L excess concentration during
Southwest and Inter monsoon.
PE Research
44
Figure 8.1
Mean excess TSS levels for SW (above) and Inter (bottom)
monsoons.
It is noted that predicted increases in TSS are within the range of natural variation
associated with the regular flooding of Sg Linggi and nearshore wave generate
turbulence. Moreover, the effects are only anticipated during the period of the
dredging campaign – a period of 5-6 months.
For aquaculture operators, there will be no water quality impacts as shown in the
model since the sediment plumes will not impact the Linggi River.
8.1.1.2 Navigation
It is estimated that there will be movements of one trailer suction hopper dredger
(12000 m3) (4 dredge calls per day) from the sand source area to the reclamation area
for 14 months. An additional trailer suction hopper dredger will be added for 3
months. This TSHD will have 4.7 trips per day from the dredge site to the disposal site.
PE Research
45
Hence, the fishermen will not be able to utilise these navigation areas for their fishing
as their equipment and personal safety will be at risk.
The dredging vessels will be moving at a low speed of 8 knots. Thus, there will be no
high wave impacts from these vessels. However, tug boats may go at a higher speed
and may cause higher waves to form increasing the risk to the fishermen.
As a result of the proposed project, the increase in marine traffic also increases the risk
of exposure to accidents for the fishermen and their fishing tools. Fishing activities are
not permitted within the Port Limits, however, there is still some fishing carried out by
small local fishing boats in the vicinity of the port. Fishermen do not frequent the areas
adjacent to the entrance and approaches to the channel. Fishing gear could however
be damaged and small boats may be damaged or sunk by a collision with larger vessel.
The construction of an access bridge will restrict the direct fishermen navigation
pathway from Linggi estuary to the coastal Kuala Linggi.
The dredging may interfere with existing aids to navigation; such aids to navigation
may need to be temporarily removed, then re-sited, perhaps in a new location, once
the dredging is completed. Temporary aids to navigation may be established during
the duration of the Proposed Project.
8.1.1.3 Waves
Big ships going near the port limit will need to reduce their speed to 8 knots hence it is
estimated that no big waves should occur near the project area that would bring sand
to the river. The project footprint itself will cause a decrease in wave action as
highlighted in the Hydraulic report.
8.1.1.4 Oil spill
There will be an increased risk of pollution of the water by leaking, or spilled oil or
other chemicals, as well as by other waste materials, which may be lost overboard or
dumped into the water.
8.1.1.5 Underwater Noise Impacts
The reclamation and piling works of the proposed project will inevitably increase the
level of underwater noise in an unprecedented level. The anthropogenic noise will
pose a significant disruption in a sound sensitive environment as most marine life are
attuned to the changes in sound level in various aspects of their life including
reproduction, feeding, avoiding hazards like predators, and navigation /ii/. Commonly
expected response to this is that the marine megafauna would avoid the area where
the construction sound is generated. Nevertheless, the likelihood of an adverse noise
impact upon a species would depend on the likelihood to which the species will be
found around that area. Due to the nature of the project construction, long term
detrimental effects on marine megafauna due to the project construction are not
expected.
PE Research
46
8.1.1.6 Prohibited Fishing Area
The Prohibited Fishing Area at Tg. Tuan has only minor impacts from the suspended
sediment plumes and thus the area will continue to be important nursery and fish
breeding area for the fishermen.
8.1.1.7 Cumulative Impacts
The fishermen will need to avoid the construction area, sediment plumes during the
construction period for navigation. Fishermen are unable to carry out fishing activities
during the project construction stage at the zone of impact. Restricted areas will be
marked with buoys.
Thus, the fishermen will incur higher monetary cost if they decide to fish further away
from their common fishing grounds. The fishermen whom choose not to go further
away to fish will probably receive less allowance and subsidies from the Department of
Fisheries. Overall, fishermen income will decrease and majority may not be able to
continue their livelihood as fishermen. Aquaculture operators should have the same
level of income as during the construction phase.
8.1.1.8 Impact Evaluation Based on DOE Guidelines
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Reversible, after reclamation and construction stage end
PREVALENCE
: cumulative from past events, i.e RTC and development in
Klebang
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: reclamation and construction period over 10 years
RISK
: Significant risk, livelihood matter
IMPORTANCE
: livelihood of both Malacca and Negeri Sembilan fishermen
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Major adverse Impact
8.1.1.9 Mitigation Measures

From the fishermen’s feedback, it seems that they are currently fishing within the
port limits, and that’s the reason they are asking for compensation for disrupted
activity that is expected to damage fishing grounds. It is important to conduct a
more detailed and comprehensive estimate of income and earnings from the fishing
activity if such data is to be used as inputs to the compensation package. The
cursory work done in terms of asking for household income is based on voluntary
response and has not been validated.

It is proposed that the government consider the proposal to compensate fishermen
through a “license buy back” scheme. For those fishermen who are directly
impacted, and who would like to give up fishing, this scheme would provide them
with some compensation. It can be effected through an ex-gratia payment, which is
discretionary but it will give cognizance to their fishing. The condition for this
payment is that they will retire from fishing. The value of this scheme shall be
determined by the relevant government agency. There are some examples of such
PE Research
47
cases, e.g. the US, and New Zealand. For those who want to continue fishing, the
relevant government agency shall try to provide options for them.

To pay fair compensation to fishermen and victims who are directly affected by the
proposed project. It is better if compensation mechanism is disclosed to them as
transparency will likely lead to acceptability, and reduce the sense of involuntary
deprivation.

Set up a committee or mechanism for communications to handle issues related to
the proposed project. It is important to provide clear and unambiguous information
about the project and its construction period, and related matters to the people so
that they are kept fully informed and so that they can make adequate plans to avert
from any adverse impacts.

It is also proposed that a grievance mechanism be set up that allows the local
people to make complaints, voice a grievance. More important, the committee must
be able to act to resolve these issues as soon as possible. Having such a
committee and giving them resources to respond and mitigate the problems
resulting from the project will help improve project reputation and reduce social
discontent.

Frequent security patrols should ensure that fishing activities are not carried out in,
or at the approaches to, the areas to be dredged.

Temporary Aids to navigation are installed to mark the leading approach, limits of
works area.

Movements of vessel in the vicinity are with the permission and under the guidance
of the port control or vessel traffic control station.

A Standard Operating Procedure to shipmasters on the details of the passage and
the requirements for safe passage to and from the working areas.

To design an arched access bridge which allows for fishermen boats to pass
through.
8.1.1.10 Residual Impacts
Although the risk of accidents is diminished, it is still possible for fishing accidents to
occur due to human negligence or fishing in the forbidden area.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
PREVALENCE
: cumulative from past events, i.e RTC and development in
Klebang
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
: Risk reduced
IMPORTANCE
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Significant adverse Impact
PE Research
48
8.1.2
Land Acquisition
The sea space area and access bridge land is owned by the State government. The
project proponent is in the process of obtaining the land and sea titles. Hence, there
will be no land acquisition from the local community.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
: Project
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: Permanent
RISK
: Loss of fishing
IMPORTANCE
: fishing ground for Negeri Sembilan fishermen reduces due to
change of boundary
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Moderate adverse Impact
No mitigation measures required.
No residual impacts.
8.1.3
Job Opportunities for Local Community
During construction, there will be 2000 job opportunities for those in the construction
line for those within Malaysia and international workers. Within the local community,
there are only 4% of the working population involved in construction.
There is little unemployment in the 5 km radius of the project area (0.4%) so the job
creation is unlikely to benefit the local community significantly.
However, it will benefit the construction industry throughout Malaysia as well as
internationally (legal foreign workers from Indonesia etc) as there is a limitation of
large construction projects around. Hence, those within the industry stand to benefit
as their expertise will be required.
PE Research
49
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
PREVALENCE
: project needs
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
: n/a
IMPORTANCE
: not important, low unemployment rate in local communities
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Insignificant Impact
Give priority to local residents for jobs and business opportunities during construction
and operation phases of the project. This can be done through contract arrangements
by imposing local content ruling
None.
8.1.4
National Job Opportunities
During construction, there will be 2000 job opportunities for those in the construction
line for those within Malaysia and international workers.
This will benefit the construction industry throughout Malaysia as well as
internationally (legal foreign workers from Indonesia etc) as there is a limitation of
large construction projects around. Hence, those within the industry stand to benefit
as their expertise will be required.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
PREVALENCE
: project needs
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
: n/a
IMPORTANCE
: job opportunities for worker from nationwide
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Minor positive impact
PE Research
50
None required
None required.
8.1.5
Business Opportunities for local community
Business opportunities should flourish with the addition of 2000 construction workers
within the area. Shopkeepers (4.7% of the working population) stand to benefit as well
as other locals that would like to earn extra income by setting up services to cater for
these construction workers.
The anticipated entry of foreign workers for the proposed project will further increase
the existing number of foreign workers that are living in the local area. Some locals
(10.8%) are rather optimistic that this may bring forth a potential spin-off effect to the
local small business community. They foresee a demand for residence (e.g. homestay,
rental of rooms and houses) and food (e.g. restaurants and grocery shops), among
others of which the local traders are able to provide. It is estimated that the daily
expenditure spent on food alone for an average of 2,000 workers in the proposed
project area would amount to about RM30, 000 daily.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
: increase in working population
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: Beyond construction period
RISK
: n/a
IMPORTANCE
: local communities and local businesses
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Significant positive Impact
The local government should consider planning areas where local businesses can be
set up in order to give locals a business opportunity but also to manage a free-for-all
situation of stalls being set up all over the place.
Set up a committee or mechanism for communications to handle issues related to the
proposed project. It is important to provide clear and unambiguous information about
the project and its construction period, and related matters to the people so that they
are kept fully informed and so that they can make adequate plans to avert from any
adverse impacts.
PE Research
51
It is also proposed that a grievance mechanism be set up that allows the local people
to make complaints, voice a grievance. More important, the committee must be able
to act to resolve these issues as soon as possible. Having such a committee and giving
them resources to respond and mitigate the problems resulting from the project will
help improve project reputation and reduce social discontent.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Permanent
PREVALENCE
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: Beyond construction period
RISK
: n/a
IMPORTANCE
ASSESSMENT DECISION
8.1.6
Influx of Foreign Workers
Illegal immigrant (PATI) could be attracted to come to Malaysia illegally to seek job
opportunities in construction as the result of the proposed project. However, the
project proponent will comply with all laws of the country and will only employ
construction workforce legally registered with the government of Malaysia.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
PREVALENCE
: project needs
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
: high risk, security and hygiene concerns
IMPORTANCE
: project site’s neighbouring communities
ASSESSMENT DECISION
adverse impacts.
PE Research
52
As with all construction activities in an area that does not have adequate social and
economic resources to absorb the demand, it is envisaged that all social facilities and
amenities will be fully utilised. The consultant envisages that all kinds of businesses will
sprout up in the study area that would service the new but temporary demand.
8.1.6.4 Impact Evaluation
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
PREVALENCE
: project needs
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
: high risk, security and hygiene concerns
IMPORTANCE
: project site’s neighbouring communities
ASSESSMENT DECISION
8.1.7
Tourism
Most of the chalets and homestays are located at the coastal areas. With the
implementation of the project, operators believe that the altered view will no longer
be attractive to the tourists.
Construction activities such as piling and dredging will cause the touristy areas along
the beach front to experience noise and air pollution (Refer to Section Error!
Reference source not found. and Section Error! Reference source not found.).
Sediment plumes will occur, hence making the area visually more polluted and not
pleasant for swimming. As the tourist in the area value tranquillity and beach and sea
view of shipping lanes landscapes, it is forecasted that during the project construction,
there will be less tourists of this nature.
Based on the sediment transport model results, it is considered that the erosion
observed at the beaches north of Tg. Che’ Amar may worsen after the phase 1 of the
project.
Recreational fishing in the sea will be impacted as there will be limited areas to fish
during the construction period of 10 years. However, tourism should not be affected
PE Research
53
for mangrove and riverine fishing as these areas will have no impact from the project
construction activities such as total sediment plumes.
Most likely, there may not be a need for any mitigation measure because it is very
likely that there will be a huge demand for accommodation by those involved in the
construction of the port. The character of their clientele will certainly change and it is
likely that there may even be pressure to convert more residential homes to meet the
additional demand.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
: project itself
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: beyond construction stage
RISK
: no longer attractive for tourism
IMPORTANCE
: Chalet and other tourism related operator/ activities
ASSESSMENT DECISION

Promote/ encourage working personnel to stay at the chalets/ homestays;
possibility of collaboration between project proponent and operators. This potential
increase in accommodation will offset the loss of seasonal tourist incomes
(weekends and holidays only).

Adequate compensation if project cause losses to the businesses.


discontent.

Beach nourishment is proposed during Phase 1 to create a 5 m – 10 m beach
buffer against potential erosion as well as improvements to beach quality.
The number of leisure tourist will decline and replaced with workers seeking
accommodation.
PE Research
54
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
: project itself
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
: change from tourism sector to business services
IMPORTANCE
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Minor positive Impact
8.1.8
Health and Safety
There will be noise pollution from the construction of the access bridge (1 year) which
includes piling and reclamation works. As materials are carried in by barges there will
be limited land traffic.
The safety of the villagers using the sea for transport is at risk and inconvenient for
them in their daily activities. It can also be anticipated that roads may be damaged by
lorry activities and increase the risk of road accidents even with limited land traffic.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Reversible, communities to adapt to traffic volume after few
months
PREVALENCE
: traffic volume
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: construction stage
RISK
: risk of road accident
IMPORTANCE
: road and sea transport user
ASSESSMENT DECISION

Put up clear road signs to warn communities about the presence of heavy vehicles,
limit their speed.

Measures to reduce dust or road damage cause by travelling heavy vehicle.

PE Research
55

discontent.
The presence of additional heavy vehicles and increase in traffic volume is inevitable. It
will pose increased risk to the local communities that use the main roads. It may be
important for physical restrains to be added on secondary roads, e.g. speed bumps. It
will be necessary to review the road hierarchy and establish road priorities so that the
traffic risk can be contained and managed. The JKR and/or project proponent needs to
quickly respond to the road damages caused by the heavy vehicles.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
months
PREVALENCE
: traffic volume
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: construction stage
RISK
: risk of road accident reduces
IMPORTANCE
: road and sea transport user
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Minor adverse Impact
8.1.9
Aesthetics
8.1.9.1 Evaluation Framework
The aesthetics impact will depend on the total suspended solids plumes generated
from construction activities.
8.1.9.2 Potential Impacts
The visual impact due to the Project will vary depending on the visual absorption
capacity of the landscape, viewing distance, relative number of viewers and period of
view. In principle, the further the distance away from the proposed Project, the less
the visual there will be for the existing settlement structures and vegetation cover.
The impacts are concentrated to the stakeholders along the coastline. There will be a
change in the landscape – from the current sea view of shipping lanes to a 10 year sea
view of port construction activities with sediment plumes.
PE Research
56
From local view inland therefore, the proposed Project will generally have at most a
low or zero visual impact as it is hidden by the vast existing agriculture areas along the
coastal zone.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
: KLIP and shipping activities
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
: current view turns into port
IMPORTANCE
: local villagers, tourist, chalet and F&B operator
ASSESSMENT DECISION
adverse impacts.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
IMPORTANCE
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Slight adverse Impact
PE Research
57
8.2
Operations
Potential Impacts
8.2.1
Local Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector
There will be a permanent loss of 3,150 ha of fish fauna habitat (soft coral area) due to
project footprint which is formerly part of the common fishing ground area.
8.2.1.1 Loss of Common Fishing grounds
Fishing is an important income source to the fishermen. From past experience, such as
the development of RTC and reclamation at Klebang, fishermen informed that their
output had decrease tremendously overtime due the event.
With the view of the project’s potential to destroy the fish breeding ground and
pollute the water body, fishermen are unable to carry out fishing activities during the
project construction stage and fishery stock will decline significantly in the future. They
will incur high cost if they are to fish further away from their common fishing grounds.
8.2.1.2 Marine Traffic
As a result of the proposed project, the increase in marine traffic also increases the risk
of exposure to accidents for the fishermen and their fishing tools. Fishing activities are
not permitted within the Port Limits, however, there is still some fishing carried out by
small local fishing boats in the vicinity of the port. Fishermen do not frequent the areas
adjacent to the entrance and approaches to the channel. Fishing gear could however
be damaged and small boats may be damaged or sunk by a collision with larger vessel.
The marine facilities are designed for a range of tanker sizes between 2,000 DWT and
200,000 DWT. Based on a market survey performed by the Ocean Shipping Consultants
(OSC) (a company of Royal Haskoning DHV), an estimated 55 vessels could utilise the
KLIP facility per year
8.2.1.3 Noise
Increased underwater noise can be expected operations owing to the increased vessel
activity due to the presence of tankers and Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC). Given the
number of these, the big vessels are likely to be significant local sound sources.
Studies of noise levels from oil tankers showed that each vessel would emit an average
source level estimate (71–141 Hz, root-mean-square pressure re 1 μPa ± SE) of
186±2dB. Tankers produce two times more acoustic power than cargo ships and 100
times more than research vessels. A combination of many tankers at one go around
the project site may cause disruption for acoustic contact for the dolphins /iii/.
PE Research
58
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Reversible, port limit will rehabilitate the fish population
PREVALENCE
: port limit and port activities
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: permanent until project closure
RISK
: loss of fishing ground and income
IMPORTANCE
ASSESSMENT DECISION

It is proposed that the government consider the proposal to compensate fishermen
through a “license buy back” scheme. For those fishermen who are directly impacted, and
who would like to give up fishing, this scheme would provide them with some
compensation. It can be effected through an ex-gratia payment, which is discretionary but
it will give cognizance to their fishing. The condition for this payment is that they will retire
from fishing. The value of this scheme shall be determined by the relevant government
agency. There are some examples of such cases, e.g. the US, and New Zealand. For those
who want to continue fishing, the relevant government agency shall try to provide options
for them.

To pay fair compensation to fishermen and victims who are directly affected by the
proposed project. It is better if compensation mechanism is disclosed to them as
transparency will likely lead to acceptability, and reduce the sense of involuntary
deprivation. Consider a buyback programme to compensate fishermen who wish to retire
from this occupation.

proposed project. It is important to provide clear and unambiguous information about the
project and its construction period, and related matters to the people so that they are kept
fully informed and so that they can make adequate plans to avert from any adverse
impacts.

It is also proposed that a grievance mechanism be set up that allows the local people to
make complaints, voice a grievance. More important, the committee must be able to act
to resolve these issues as soon as possible. Having such a committee and giving them
resources to respond and mitigate the problems resulting from the project will help
improve project reputation and reduce social discontent.

To increase the navigation aids for the use of fishermen along the coast to lessen the risk
to the fishermen during navigation and fishing. The revision of navigation aids should be
best done during realtime Full Mission Ship Handling Simulator.

The port management to inform all large ship pilots/captains to proceed at a slow speed at
fishing grounds and fishing navigation pathways.
PE Research
59
Fishing activities will be significantly impacted due to the disturbance to fisheries
resources. Fishermen will either stop fishing hence loss of income/livelihood or incur
higher cost to fish somewhere else. The exact impact cannot be determined based on
the limited work done for this DEIA, mainly because there are no records of fisheries
output and where those outputs are coming from. The reclamation will be carried out
within the port limits, and they are within their rights to do so since the proposed
activity is merely to develop the on-shore activities of the port operations.
From the fishermen’s feedback, it seems that they are currently fishing within the port
limits, and that’s the reason they are asking for compensation for disrupted activity
that is expected to damage fishing grounds. It is important to conduct a more detailed
and comprehensive estimate of income and earnings from the fishing activity if such
data is to be used as inputs to the compensation package. The cursory work done in
terms of asking for household income is based on voluntary response and has not been
validated.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Reversible, port limit will rehabilitate the fish population
PREVALENCE
: port limit and port activities
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
: risk reduce
IMPORTANCE
ASSESSMENT DECISION
8.2.2
Job Opportunities
It is estimated that there are 10,000 job opportunities within the area with this project.
However, there is little unemployment in the area and so the job creation is unlikely to
benefit the local community significantly.
Impact Evaluation
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
: project needs
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
: n/a
IMPORTANCE
: not important, local might not have the qualification to serve
the industry
PE Research
60
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Insignificant Impact

Give priority to local residents for jobs and business opportunities during construction and
operation phases of the project. This can be done through contract arrangements by
imposing local content ruling

impacts.

FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
: project needs
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
: n/a
IMPORTANCE
: change of local job structure
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Moderate positive Impact
8.2.3
Business Opportunities
Business opportunities should flourish with the addition of 10,000 project workers
within the area. Shopkeepers (4.7% of the working population) stand to benefit as well
as other locals that would like to earn extra income by setting up services to cater for
these construction workers.
The anticipated entry of foreign workers (people outside the 5 km boundary) for the
proposed project will further increase the existing number of foreign workers that are
living in the local area. Some locals (10.8%) are rather optimistic that this may bring
forth a potential spin-off effect to the local small business community. They foresee a
demand for residence (e.g. homestay, rental of rooms and houses) and food (e.g.
restaurants and grocery shops), among others of which the local traders are able to
provide.
PE Research
61
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: Permanent
RISK
: n/a
IMPORTANCE
ASSESSMENT DECISION

The local government should consider planning areas where local businesses can be set up
in order to give locals a business opportunity but also to manage a free-for-all situation of
stalls being set up all over the place.

impacts.

FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: Permanent
RISK
: n/a
IMPORTANCE
ASSESSMENT DECISION
8.2.4
Cost of Living
Port development project stands to bring in highly paid employees and customers with
the power to spend. Hence, these employees spending power is higher than the
average local within the community. The result is more inflation which is undesirable
PE Research
62
and punitive on the wage earners and low income self-employed found in the
community (5 km radius).
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
: increase in demand
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: construction stage and beyond
RISK
: moderate risk
IMPORTANCE
: local communities
ASSESSMENT DECISION


discontent.
Along with this, inflation is also anticipated due to the shortage of resources to meet
the new and rapid demand. The poor and vulnerable sections of the local community
will be the main victims, and interventions by the government will be necessary. In
particular, the local government which is the closest to the local community will have a
big role in this intervention.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
: increase in demand
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: construction stage and beyond
RISK
: risk reduce
IMPORTANCE
: local communities
ASSESSMENT DECISION
PE Research
63
8.2.5
Tourism
Most of the chalets and homestays are located at the coastal areas. With the
implementation of the project, operators believe that the altered view will no longer
be attractive to the tourists.
Although swimming in the sea may not be advisable due to increase in marine traffic
and sewage treatment plant release into the area, the sea view will still be attractive as
it is a visual change from the current sea view of shipping lanes to a landscape of port
activities.
It is predicted that the sheltering effect of the development will see a reduction of the
sediment transport rates particularly during SW monsoon conditions and the beach
will stabilize.
Most likely, there may not be a need for any mitigation measure because it is very
likely that there will be a huge demand for accommodation by those involved in the
operations of the port. The character of their clientele will certainly change and it is
likely that there may even be pressure to convert more residential homes to meet the
additional demand.
Recreational fishing will increase as a way to pass time by the project staff. The fish
that have migrated to other areas such as Tanjung Tuan can now return to the area.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
: project itself
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: permanent
RISK
: no longer attractive for tourism
IMPORTANCE
ASSESSMENT DECISION

Promote/ encourage working personnel to stay at the chalets/ homestays;
possibility of collaboration between project proponent and operators.

Adequate compensation if project cause losses to the businesses.

PE Research
64

discontent.

To set up new artificial reefs and other conservation programs for commercial fish
fauna.
Tourism related activities/ operators will be impacted but perhaps not in the way in
which the local hotel operators are envisaging the scenario.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
: project itself
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: permanent
RISK
: change from tourism sector to business services
IMPORTANCE
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Minor positive Impact
8.2.6
Health and Safety
8.2.6.1 Traffic Accidents
During the operations stage, there will be a lot of vehicles used that belong to the
project operations that will use the village roads as the main access to the project site.
The safety of the villagers is at risk and inconvenient for them in their daily activities. It
can also be anticipated that roads may be damaged and increase the risk of road
accidents.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
months
PREVALENCE
: traffic volume
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: Permanent
RISK
IMPORTANCE
: road user
ASSESSMENT DECISION
PE Research
65

Put up clear road signs to warn communities about the presence of heavy vehicles, limit
their speed.

Measures to reduce dust or road damage cause by travelling heavy vehicle.

impacts.

The presence of additional heavy vehicles and increase in traffic volume is inevitable. It
will pose increased risk to the local communities that use the main roads. It may be
important for physical restrains to be added on secondary roads, e.g. speed bumps. It
will be necessary to review the road hierarchy and establish road priorities so that the
traffic risk can be contained and managed. The JKR and/or project proponent needs to
quickly respond to the road damages caused by the heavy vehicles.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
months
PREVALENCE
: traffic volume
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
: Permanent
RISK
IMPORTANCE
: road user
ASSESSMENT DECISION
8.2.7
Aesthetics
Evaluation Framework
Evaluation is based on the social survey interviews with tourist operators, the listing
survey and the hydraulic modelling.
8.2.7.1 Potential Impacts
Swimming in the sea as a recreational activity will probably decrease due to increase in
marine traffic and sewage treatment plant release into the area. The sea view will still
be attractive as it is a visual change from the current sea view of shipping lanes to a
PE Research
66
landscape of port activities. However, there will definitely be a change in tourism
customer profile.
It is predicted that the sheltering effect of the development will see a reduction of the
sediment transport rates particularly during SW monsoon conditions and the beach
will stabilize. However, the beach composition will change from fine sand to silty sand
hence decreasing the beach quality value.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
IMPORTANCE
ASSESSMENT DECISION

Beach nourishment during Phase 1 to ensure the beach quality stays the same.

The sewage treatment plant should filter its water till it has no E. coli.
None predicted.
FACTOR
ASSESSMENT
MAGNITUDE
: Irreversible
PREVALENCE
DURATION AND
FREQUENCY
RISK
IMPORTANCE
ASSESSMENT DECISION
: Slight adverse Impact
PE Research
67
9 Social Environmental Monitoring Program
9.1
9.1.1
Social
Compliance Monitoring
Compliance monitoring for the proposed mitigation measures are set out in Table 9.11
below.
Table 9.1
Socio economic compliance monitoring programme
Required Activity
Compliance monitoring
Frequency
1)
Set up Community/ Community Leaders
Working Group
To submit committee
members names and
minutes of meetings
Prior to construction
start/ then monthly.
2)
Community awareness programmes and Regular consultations
dialogue
through establishment of
Community/ Community
Leaders Working Group
(CWG) involving village
heads/ JKKK.
3)
Provision of training/ education to locals
to increase employability and/or
entrepreneurial ability. Project
proponent needs to liaise with relevant
government agencies to develop such
programmes.
Number of Training /
Annual report
education programmes for
local community members to
commence at construction
so that the skills can be
utilised at operational stage.
Can be done together with
CWG
4)
Monitor changes in local people’s
income
Statistical data to show the
income of the local
community. Collect data
through CWG
Annual report
5)
Set up of local business register.
Registration exercise to be carried out
for individuals and local businesses/
suppliers.
Submit documentation of
employment registration
exercise.
At construction start,
then annually
6)
Siting of workers’ quarters to consider
sensitivity of neighbouring villages/
residential areas.
Proposed location of
workers’ quarters, expected
worker population to be
submitted to local authority
and discussed with local
community leaders. Submit
documentation of
consultations.
At construction start/ as
required
7)
Set up of Employment register
Monitoring of local employment by
Project proponent and all contractors
Provide statistical data of % Annual report
local employment. This
should include breakdown of
PE Research
At construction start/
then monthly
68
Required Activity
and subcontractors.
Frequency
job category (e.g. unskilled,
skilled labour, management,
etc.)
8)
Appropriate compensation/ assistance to Negotiations to be
villagers who live near the reclamation
conducted together with
and construction route
community affected from
project
To be settled prior to
the start of construction.
9)
Monitor health status of neighbouring
communities to the Project area
required
Dust management
procedures and mitigation
and air quality to be
recorded by the contractor
Consultations with local
health agency to monitor
public health among local
residents
10) Monitor of traffic congestion at Project
access roads
9.1.2
Annual report/
remedial actions when
any health emergency
occurs
Constant monitoring of
traffic management, involve required
JKR for road condition
Impact Monitoring
Impact monitoring in the socioeconomic sense refers to ongoing community
consultation with respect to issues identified as potentially significant during the DEIA
study, and also to determine whether any other unforeseen problems emerge
following construction start. The monitoring shall be carried out following the
methodology suggested below.
Methodology
9.1.2.1 Community/ Community Leaders Working Group (CWG
It is proposed that the project proponent to at least assign a liaison person if not sit in
as committee of the Community/ Community Leaders Working Group. With constant
community engagement through the working group, project information disbursement
will be more effective while community concerns can be addressed through collective
efforts.
9.1.2.2 Grievance Mechanism
Besides through the Community/ Community Leaders Working Group, it is proposed
that the project proponent prepare a grievance mechanism to look into complaints by
the affected communities directly. Complaint centres can be set up at areas where the
local community can voice their concerns wrt project activities. These can be located at
the site office, RTC Kuala Linggi, Fishermen Association Melaka Barat office at Kuala
Sungai Baru and Fishermen Association of Teluk Kemang at Kampung Telok. All
complaints are required to be registered. The complaints register will need to record
the date of the complaint, nature of complaint, date and nature of response, follow up
PE Research
69
action and resolution date. All entries into this complaints register will be summarised
in the Environmental Monitoring reports.
Details of the proposed monitoring elements are given in Table 9.2. All monitoring is
the responsibility of the Project proponent, who may also assign the tasks to its
contractors and subcontractors (but remains the responsibility of the Project
proponent), unless otherwise specified.
PE Research
70
Table 9.2
Socio economic monitoring programme (interviews, stakeholder
groups)
Parameter
Indicator
Employment opportunities
Number of local residents employed by the
Contractor
Negative Health and safety of the local
community from water pollution and air
quality from Project operations
Public complaints
Loss of livelihoods, reduced access to
resources.
Change in income from fishing catch; Public
complaints
Overwhelming of local communities due to
influx of people seeking jobs
Public complaints
Pressure on existing infrastructure and
amenities of the study area
Public complaints; dialogue with local
authorities.
Increase in crime and violence in the area.
Public complaints; dialogue with local
authorities
Disruption to existing recreational & tourism
activity
Public complaints
Potential dissatisfaction or conflicts among
local residents as a result of unrealised
employment expectations
Public complaints
Traffic congestion at Project access roads
Public complaints, changes in the amount of
vehicles per day
Social or cultural problems due to interaction
of traditional villagers with construction
workforce
Public complaints
Income from businesses
Change in income
Increase in housing prices
General property assessment of housing
9.2
9.2.1
Fishing and Aquaculture
Compliance Monitoring
Continuous consultation with the local fishermen and aquaculture operator on any
negative impacts or losses is recommended. Specific activities and compliance
monitoring are listed in Table 9.3.
Table 9.3
Compliance monitoring programme for mitigation of impacts to
fisheries.
Required Activity
Frequency
Establishment of Fishermen’s
Working Group prior to
construction start. Members
To submit committee members names
and minutes of meetings
Prior to construction
start/ then
quarterly.
PE Research
71
include fishermen and
aquaculture operators
Inform fishermen and local
fishermen associations (i.e.
Fishermen Working Group) of
work schedules, safety buffer
zones and restricted areas before
each construction phase and
when required (e.g. any change in
schedules, activities, etc.) and a
reminder for any of their own
responsibilities.
To submit schedule to Marine
Department and schedule to be included
in the EMP report
Appropriate compensation for
affected fishermen’s loss of
income and fishing grounds,
includes aquaculture operators.
Negotiations to be conducted together
with the Department of Fisheries,
Fishermen’s Kuala Linggi, Tanjung Dahan,
Kampung Tengah and Fisheries
Association of Telok Kemang Settlement
should be agreed upon prior to
construction.
To be settled prior
to the start of
construction.
Provide assistance to the affected
fishermen who want to continue
fishing (i.e. new jetty, fishing gear,
travel cost, etc.)
To have a list of fishermen who opt to
continue fishing and submit their details
to the DoF. A clear cut-off date is
compulsory.
To be done before
providing assistance
To submit minutes of the consultations
between fishermen working group and
proponents.
Participating fishermen would need to
comply with requirement (i.e. frequency
of fishing activities, to weigh in at
designated fish landing site, etc.)
Fishermen communities uplift
programmes such
entrepreneurship development
programme or co-operative.
Possibly provide start-up capital
or soft loans.
9.2.1.1
At construction
start/ then quarterly
Number of training / education
programmes, number of businesses setup
and their status (success/ failure)
Quarterly report
Annual report
Impact Monitoring
Monitoring of fisheries activities in the Project area shall be carried out on the
following basis:

Three sample sets prior to construction start/ then monthly for first 12 months, thereafter
quarterly during the reclamation / dredging and reclamation phase and up to 6 months
upon completion of construction.

Half yearly during the operation of the marine facilities.
Fisheries monitoring shall examine landings in terms of volume and species diversity.
This shall be undertaken through interviews with fishmongers and selected fishermen
PE Research
72
supported by data from the Department of Fisheries. This is to establish causes and
enable remedial action to be taken at the earliest possible.
Similar to the CWG, a separate Fishermen Working Group shall be established to
become the main channel for fishermen and aquaculture operators to address
concerns related to fisheries & aquaculture activities. Grievance Mechanism discussed
in 9.1.1.2 shall be the additional channel for fishermen and aquaculture operators to
voice their concerns in case they are unable to reach Fishermen Working Group
committee directly.
PE Research
73
10 Summary and Recommendation
Based on the above analysis, the social impacts of the proposed project will be
significant to the local people and fishermen.
From the interviews conducted to date, the local people do not seem to favour this
project particularly fishermen who depend on the area for their livelihood. However,
they feel helpless because they believe the project will be approved regardless of their
preference.
It is important to make sure that clear information is provided to the local
communities regarding the proposed project (some villagers are worried about
possible land acquisition). Mitigation measures should be adopted and proper social
consideration given to the affected stakeholders.
Viewing from a socio-economic perspective, the biggest benefit of the project to the
local community is that it will stimulate the local developments and the economy.
However, there are some negative impacts, for instance loss of income of those who
are affected, locals feel vulnerable due to influx of labours/ foreign workers that would
chang the social structure, etc. Mitigation measures have to be taken to minimize
these impacts.
Using the information gathered in the study, the following are the recommendations
for the project, so far as the social aspect is concerned:
Recommendation No.1: Environmental mitigation should be properly implemented to
reduce the potential impacts especially on fishery activities around the project site
Recommendation No.2: To pay fair compensation to fishermen and victims who are
directly affected by the proposed project. It is better if compensation mechanism is
disclosed to them as transparency will likely lead to acceptability, and reduce the sense
of involuntary deprivation. Consider a buyback programme to compensate fishermen
who wish to retire from this occupation.
Recommendation No.3: Give priority to local residents for jobs and business
opportunities during construction and operation phases of the project. This can be
done through contract arrangements by imposing local content ruling. The local
government should consider planning areas where local businesses can be set up in
order to give locals a business opportunity but also to manage a free-for-all situation of
stalls being set up all over the place.
Recommendation No.4: Impose strict conditions on the contractors in terms of
managing all non-local labour. This could be done by the project proponent via the
contracts that they issue and also by the local government in terms of their monitoring
and enforcement activities. A regular meeting to discuss and resolve matters between
the project proponent and key contractors with the government and local
representatives should be set up.
PE Research
74
Recommendation No.5: Set up a committee or mechanism for communications to
handle issues related to the proposed project. It is important to provide clear and
unambiguous information about the project and its construction period, and related
matters to the people so that they are kept fully informed and so that they can make
adequate plans to avert from any adverse impacts.
PE Research
75
Appendix
PE Research
76
ANNEX 1: LISTING FORM
KAJIAN PENILAIAN IMPAK ALAM SEKITAR
Borang “Listing” Isi Rumah
Nama responden:
___________________________
Alamat:
______________________________________________
Kampung:
__________________________
No.Telefon:
___________________________
Tarikh:
______________________________________________
Penemuduga:
__________________________
Bi
l
(A)
Nama
(B)
Jantina
(C)
Umur
(D)
Taraf
persekolahan
(E)
Pencapaian
pendidikan
tertinggi
(F)
Taraf
guna
tenaga
(G)
Kerja
utama
(H)
Tempat
kerja
utama
(I)
Sektor kerja
utama
(J)
Pendapatan
bulanan kerja
utama
(K)
Kerja
sambilan
(L)
Tempat
kerja
sambilan
(M)
Sektor kerja
sambilan
(N)
Pendapatan
bulanan kerja
sambilan
1
2
3
4
5
6
(B)
1- Lelaki
2- Perempuan
PE Research
(D)
1- Masih bersekolah
2- Telah tamat
persekolahan
3- Terlalu muda
4- Tidak pernah
bersekolah
(E)
1- Pra sekolah
2- Sekolah rendah
3- Tingkatan 1–3
4- Tingkatan 4–5
5- Vokasional / Teknik
6- Institusi kemahiran
teknikal dan
perdagangan
7- Tingkatan 6 /
Matrikulasi
8- Politeknik / Maktab /
Kolej / Universiti
9- Tidak pernah
bersekolah
(F)
1- Majikan
2- Pekerja
3- Pekerja sendiri
4- Pekerja keluarga
tanpa gaji
(G) & (K)
1- Nelayan
2- Petani
3- Penternak ikan
4- Penternak ayam
5- Penternak lembu / kambing
6- Professional
7- Pekerja kedai
8- Penjaja
9- Pekerja kilang
10- Suri rumah
11- Bersara
12- Pelajar
13- Tidak berminat untuk mencari pekerjaan
14- Menganggur (tidak bekerja tetapi bersedia untuk bekerja
dan aktif mencari pekerjaan)
15- Lain-lain, nyatakan
21- Perkeranian
22- Pekerja am
23- Pengurus / Penyelia kanan
77
(H) & (L)
1- Pinggir laut
2- Sungai, nyatakan
3- Kawasan kampung ini
4- Kawasan kampung sebelah,
nyatakan
5- Kawasan lain di Daerah
Kuala Linggi, nyatakan
6- Bandaraya Melaka
7- Tempat lain, nyatakan
(I) & (M)
1- Perikanan
2- Pertanian
3- Pembinaan
4- Pembuatan
6- Perdagagan jual borong /
runcit
7- Hotel /Chalet / Restoran
8- Pengangkutan
9- Pentadbiran awam
10- Pendidikan
11- Lain-lain, nyatakan
ANNEX 2: OPINION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
PENILAIAN IMPAK ALAM SEKITAR
BORANG KAJI SOAL SELIDIK PENDAPAT
Nama
________________________
responden
_
:
Kampung:
Tarikh:
Penemuduga
__________________________
:
_
________________________
_
_________________________
Projek Cadangan Pembinaan Pelabuhan Antarabangsa Kuala Linggi Termasuk
Penambakan di Kuala Linggi


Cadangan tapak terletak berhadapan Kota Bukit Supai ( Selat Melaka )
Pelabuhan ini akan dijadikan sebagai pangkalan barangan termasuk terminal minyak dan gas,
limbungan kapal, kawasan kapal-kapal berlabuh untuk memuatkan dan memunggah barang,
limbungan fakrikasi, dan pejabat kerajaan.
“Green Project”-Tiada lori kontena yang akan menganggu trafik dijalan raya kerana perdagangan
masuk melalui jalan laut akan keluar mengikut laluan laut

Gambar lokasi
1. Pernahkah anda mendengar projek cadangan pembinaan pelabuhan antarabangsa
ini?
1
Ya
2
Tidak
2. Pada pandangan anda, secara keseluruhannya, adakah projek cadangan ini akan
memanfaatkan penduduk di kampung ini?
1
Ya
PE Research
2
Tidak
3
Tidak tahu
78
3. Jika Ya/Tidak/Tidak tahu.Mengapa?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
4. Apakah maklumat-maklumat yang anda perlukan tentang projek ini?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
5. Apakah komen anda terhadap projek ini?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
6. Anggaran pendapatan Isi rumah bulanan:
1
Tiada Pendapatan
4
RM1,501 – RM2,000
7
RM5,001 – RM7,000
2
RM900 and ke
bawah
5
RM2,001 – RM3000
8
RM7,001 – RM10,000
3
RM901 – RM1,500
6
RM3001 – RM5000
9
Lebih daripada RM10,000
Terima Kasih Diatas Kerjasama Anda
PE Research
79
ANNEX 3: FISHING ACTIVITIES MAP
PE Research
80
ANNEX 4: CONSULTATION
Name
Encik Muhammad bin
Musa
Encik Hasni bin Yang
Ghazali
Person/Agencies
Ketua kampung Kuala
Linggi
Ketua Kampung Tanjong
Dahan
Date
27/2/2016
Venue
KM Chalet
28/2/2016
Encik Maslan bin Malek
Ketua Kampung Tengah
29/2/2016
Encik Abdul Ghani
Ketua Kampung Tanjung
Agas
Ketua Kampung Sungai
Raya
Ketua Kampung Bukit
Tembok
Ketua Kampung Telok
28/2/2016
Batrisya Coner,
berhadapan rumah
Ketua Kg
Rumah Ketua Kg
Tengah
Rumah Ketua Kg Tg
Agas
Kedai makan di Sg
Raya
Rumah Ketua Kg Bukit
Tembok
Rumah Ketua Kg Telok
Ketua Nelayan Kuala Linggi
28/2/2016
Ketua Nelayan Tanjong
Dahan
Ahli Persatuan Nelayan
Kampung Tengah
Kampung Tengah
Kampung Kuala Linggi
28/2/2016
Encik Abdul Jalil Hasan
b. Abdullah
Encik Ahmad Jaamat
Encik Mehat bin
Abdullah
Encik Haji Suhaimi
En MD Zin Bin Leper
En Rahman
En Ghani
Ahli-Ahli Persatuan
Nelayan Kampung Kuala
Linggi
Ahli-Ahli Persatuan
Nelayan Kampung
Tanjung Dahan
Md Isa b. Johar
Shapra bin Sulaiman
Hashim b. Mahat
Lee Swee Yong
Abdullah Sani bin Pun
Ahmad Azizuddin b. Aziz
PE Research
29/2/2016
29/2/2016
1/3/2016
28/2/2016
Rumah Ketua Nelayan
Kuala Linggi
Batrisya Coner, Tg
Dahan
Pantai Kg Tengah
28/2/2016
Pantai Kg Tengah
28/2/2016
Jeti Nelayan di RTC
Persatuan Nelayan
Kampung Tanjung Dahan
29/2/2016
Ahli Lembaga Pengarah
Persatuan Nelayan Telok
Kemang
Kemang
Kemang
Kemang
Kemang
Pembantu Ehwal Ekonomi
PNK
11/3/2016
Kedai Makan di
Persisiran pantai Tg
Dahan
PNK Telok Kemang
11/3/2016
PNK Telok Kemang
11/3/2016
PNK Telok Kemang
11/3/2016
PNK Telok Kemang
11/3/2016
PNK Telok Kemang
11/3/2016
PNK Telok Kemang
81
Setiausaha Kampung
Tanjung Agas
Pemuda Kampung Telok
11/3/2016
Pengusaha Ikan Sangkar Tg
Agas
Pengusaha Pangar Kupang
11/3/2016
Rumah Ketua
Kampung Tg Agas
Rumah Ketua
Kampung Telok
Rumah En Ramli
11/3/2016
PNK Telok Kemang
1/3/2016
PNK Telok Kemang
4/3/2016
PNK Melaka Barat
FGD Fisherman of Teluk
Kemang
Pengurus Persatuan
Nelayan Telok Kemang
Pengurus Persatuan
Nelayan Melaka Barat
PNK Telok Kemang
11/3/2016
PNK Telok Kemang
FGD Community Leader
Negeri Sembilan Site
Community Leader Negeri
Sembilan
11/3/2016
Rumah Ketua
Kampung Tg Agas
FGD Community Leader
and Fisherman Melaka
Site
Community Leader and
Fisherman (Kuala Linggi
and Tanjung Dahan)
Melaka
Pengusaha KM Chalet
12/3/2016
RTC Kuala Linggi
7/3/2016
KM Chalet
En R.Paiz
Pengusaha NDK Chalet
8/3/2016
NDK Chalet
En Samsudin Ariffin
7/3/2016
Istana Homestay
En Nor Azizman
Pengusaha Istana
Homestay
Pengusaha Guest House
10/3/2016
Guest House
Pn Hasnah Abas
Pengusaha Anas Sejati
10/3/2016
Anas Sejati
En Azahari
Pengusaha Bora- Bora
Chalet
Pengusaha Umang-umang
Chalet
10/3/2016
Bora- Bora Chalet
8/3/2016
Umang-umang Chalet
Junaina bt. Abu Kassim
Sukri b. Ab. Rahman
Ramli Bin Puteh
Abidin Bin Awang
En Asnam
En Hj Kamarudin
En Hj Kamaludin Bin Hj
Ali
En Mahbuk Kusiran
PE Research
1/3/2016
82
ANNEX 5: NOTES OF THE STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION SESSIONS
Meeting Discussion Notes
A. Village headman (Ketua Kampung)
1.) Perbincangan bersama Ketua Kampung Kuala Linggi
Tarikh: 27 Februari 2016 (Sabtu)
Masa: 3.00 – 5.00 petang
Tempat: KM Chalet, Kampung Kuala Linggi, Melaka
Nama Ketua Kampung: Encik Muhammad bin Musa
Perkara-perkara yang dibincangkan:
1. Pengenalan oleh pihak PE dan penerangan mengenai projek KLIP kepada ketua
kampung.
2. Kampung Kuala Linggi dibahagikan kepada beberapa bahagian dan juga anggaran
jumlah rumah:
 Kampung Nelayan – 15 rumah
 Kampung Seberang Parit – 20 rumah
 Kampung Tok Perun- 5 rumah
 Kampung Telok (Kuala Linggi) – 15 rumah
 Belakang Masjid – 15 rumah
 Pantai Kuala – 15 rumah
 Bukit Darat – 60 rumah
 Taman Kelisa – 60 rumah (Tidak Termasuk Rumah KUIM )
3. Anggaran penduduk adalah seramai 500 orang.
4. Kebanyakan nelayan tinggal di kawasan persisiran pantai.
5. Kebanyakan yang tinggal di kampong adalah pesara dan remaja (bawah 17 tahun).
Kebanyakan belia (18-30 tahun) berhijrah ke tempat lain untuk mencari pekerjaan atau
menyambung pelajaran.
6. Ketua kampung telah dimaklumkan mengenai projek KLIP ini di dalam mesyuarat
ketua-ketua kampung.
7. Ketua kampung juga menyatakan bahawa para nelayan di Kampung Kuala Linggi sudah
mengetahui mengenai projek KLIP ini.
8. Ketua kampung memberi beberapa nama untuk melakukan kerja listing.
9. Profile kampung akan diserahkan kembali kepada pihak PE pada hari rabu (2/3/2016)
10. Ketua Kampung menjawab borang kaji selidik.
PE Research
83
Isu-isu yang dibincangkan:
1. Isu keselamatan penduduk daripada segi trafik:
 Laluan lori-lori untuk aktiviti penambakan dan pembinaan pelabuhan
(jangkamasa aktiviti ini dijalankan)
 Kebimbangan mengenai trafik selepas pelabuhan ini beroperasi
2. Isu pendapatan/sara hidup:
 Projek ini akan menyebabkan pendapatan nelayan terjejas akibat aktiviti
penambakan dan pembinaan pelabuhan.
 Perniagaan chalet/homestay/bilik sewa akan terjejas kerana tarikan pelancong
kurang.
 Aktiviti pelancongan seperti memancing di sungai linggi juga akan terjejas.
Cadangan-cadangan yang diberikan:
1. Pampasan yang setimpal haruslah diberikan kepada penduduk yang terjejeas
pendapatan mereka iaitu:
 Nelayan
 Pengusaha chalet/homestay/bilik sewa
 Penduduk yang berdekatan dengan laluan penambakan dan pembinaan
PE Research
84
2.) Perbincangan bersama Ketua Kampung Tanjong Agas, Negeri Sembilan
Tarikh: 28 Februari 2016 (Ahad)
Tempat: Rumah ketua kampung, Tanjong Agas, Negeri Sembilan
Nama Ketua Kampung: Encik Abdul Ghani
kampung.
2. Kampung Tanjong Agas dibahagikan kepada dua bahagian:
 Kampung Tanjong Agas
 Kampung Cina Bukit Ibol
3. Maklumat awal daripada ketua kampung, anggaran penduduk adalah seramai 1000
orang dan mengikut banci yang dilakukan oleh ketua kampung sendiri pada bulan
November 2015, terdapat 178 buah rumah dan 4 buah rumah masih dibina (tiada
berpenghuni).
4. Anggaran nelayan adalah sebanyak 8 orang sahaja.
5. Kebanyakan yang tinggal di kampung adalah pesara dan remaja (bawah 17 tahun).
6. Kebanyakan belia (18-30 tahun) berhijrah ke tempat lain untuk mencari pekerjaan atau
menyambung pelajaran.
8. Ketua kampung akan mencari beberapa pekerja untuk melakukan kerja listing. 200
borang listing diserahkan kepada ketua kampung. Anggaran listing akan diserahkan
kembali pada pihak PE pada hari jumaat (4/3/2016)
9. Profile kampung akan diserahkan kembali kepada pihak PE pada hari jumaat (4/3/2016)
1. Isu keselamatan penduduk daripada segi trafik:
 Laluan lori-lori untuk aktiviti penambakan dan pembinaan pelabuhan
(jangkamasa aktiviti ini dijalankan)
 Kebimbangan mengenai trafik selepas pelabuhan ini beroperasi
2. Isu pendapatan/sara hidup:
 Projek ini akan menyebabkan pendapatan nelayan terjejas akibat aktiviti
penambakan dan pembinaan pelabuhan.
 Aktiviti pelancongan seperti memancing di sungai linggi(sewa sampan dan bot
berenjin) juga akan terjejas.
PE Research
85
Pampasan yang setimpal haruslah diberikan kepada penduduk yang terjejeas pendapatan
mereka iaitu:


PE Research
Nelayan
Penduduk yang berdekatan dengan laluan penambakan dan pembinaan
86
3.) Perbincangan bersama Ketua Kampung Tanjong Dahan, Melaka
Masa: 9.00 – 11.00 malam
Tempat: Batrisya Coner, Kampung Tanjong Dahan, Melaka
Nama Ketua Kampung: Encik Hasni bin Yang Ghazali
kampung.
2. Anak-anak muda kampung kebanyakannya keluar daripada kampung untuk mencari
pekerjaan diluar. Hanya 10 hingga 15 orang anak muda sahaja yang menjadi nelayan.
3. Anggaran terdapat 140 buah rumah di Kampung Tanjong Dahan, lebih kurang 40%
rumah terletak di kawasan persisiran pantai.
4. Anggaran 65% adalah nelayan bagi penduduk yang duduk di kawasan persisiran pantai.
5. Bot nelayan diletakkan di sepanjang persisiran pantai.
7. Ketua kampung telah memberi nama dan nombor telefon seorang penduduk untuk
menjadi penemuduga.
8. Profile kampung telah diserahkan kepada pihak PE.
1. Isu nelayan:
 Lesen para nelayan telah dibekukan.
PE Research
87
4.) Perbincangan bersama Ketua Kampung Batu Tembok, Negeri Sembilan
Tarikh: 29 Februari 2016 (Isnin)
Masa: 10.30 hingga 11.30 pagi
Tempat: Rumah Ketua Kampung, Kampung Bukit Tembok
Nama Ketua Kampung: Encik Ahmad Jaamat
kampung.
2. Anggaran terdapat 300 lebih buah rumah dan 600 lebih orang penduduk.
3. Anggaran nelayan adalah seramai 4 hingga 5 orang sahaja.
5. Ketua kampung memberi nama dan no. telefon setiausaha kampung untuk mengisi
maklumat Profile Kampung.
PE Research
88
5.) Perbincangan bersama Ketua Kampung Sungai Raya, Negeri Sembilan
Masa: 10.30 hingga 11.30 pagi
Tempat: Kedai Makan Kampung Sungai Raya
Nama Ketua Kampung: Encik Abdul Jalil Hasan b. Abdullah
kampung.
2. Kampung Sungai Raya dibahagikan kepada tiga bahagian, berikut adalah anggaran
jumlah rumah dan jumlah penduduk:
 Kampung Sungai Raya – 90 hingga 100 buah rumah, lebih daripada 300 orang
 Kampung Singkang – 10 hingga 15 buah rumah, 40 hingga 50 orang
 Kampung Ayer Itam – 8 hingga 10 buah rumah, 20 hingga 30 orang
3. Anggaran terdapat 50 buah rumah yang terletak di bahagian tepi laut.
4. Anggaran nelayan adalah seramai 8 hingga 10 orang sahaja.
5. Anggaran 65% adalah nelayan bagi penduduk yang duduk di kawasan persisiran pantai.
7. Ketua kampung akan menghubungi pihak PE sekiranya berjaya mencari penemuduga
untuk membuat listings.
8. Anggaran Profile kampung akan diserahkan kepada pihak PE pada Khamis (3/3/2016).
9. Maklumat Pengerusi Nelayan telah diberikan kepada pihak PE.
1.
Disebabkan kampung Singkang dan Kampung Ayer Itam jauh daripada jalan utama,
ketua kampung mencadangkan bahawa kedua-dua kampung ini tidak dimasukkan ke
dalam listings.
PE Research
89
6.) Perbincangan bersama Ketua Kampung Tengah, Melaka
Tempat: Rumah Ketua Kampung, Kampung Tengah
Nama Ketua Kampung: Encik Maslan bin Malek
kampung.
2. Kampung Tengah dibahagikan kepada tiga bahagian dan juga anggaran jumlah rumah:
 Rumah Kampung – 400 hingga 500 buah rumah
 Taman Ceri Indah – 100 hingga 150 buah rumah
 Taman Kuala Permai – 600 hingga 700 buah rumah
3. Anggaran rumah yang berada di kawasan persisiran pantai adalah sebanyak 300 hingga
400 buah rumah.
4. Kebanyakan nelayan tinggal di kawasan persisiran pantai.
6. Ketua kampung akan menghubungi pihak PE sekiranya berjaya mencari penemuduga
untuk membuat listings.
7. Anggaran Profile kampung akan diserahkan kepada pihak PE pada Jumaat (4/3/2016).
PE Research
90
7.) Perbincangan bersama Ketua Kampung Telok, Negeri Sembilan
Tarikh: 01 March 2016 (Selasa)
Tempat: Rumah ketua kampung, Kampung Telok, Negeri Sembilan
Nama Ketua Kampung: Encik Mehat bin Abdullah
kampung.
2. Anggaran penduduk adalah seramai 500 orang.
3. Anggaran rumah adalah sebanyak 120 buah. Ini tidak termasuk rumah sewa.
4. Anggaran nelayan adalah lebih daripada 20 orang.
5. Kerja listing akan dilakukan oleh penduduk tempatan. Maklumat penemuduga telah
diterima oleh pihak PE. Sebanyak 140 listing telah diserahkan kepada penemuduga.
Anggaran dikembalikan semula pada hari Khamis (3/3/2016).
6. Profile kampung telah diserahkan kepada pihak PE pada hari Selasa (1/3/2016)
PE Research
91
B. Fishermen (Nelayan)
1.) Perbincangan bersama Para Nelayan Kampung Tengah
Masa: 12.00 – 1,30 petang
Tempat: Pantai Kampung Tengah, Melaka
Nama Nelayan:
1. Abdul Ghani
2. Abdul Rahman
1. Pengenalan oleh pihak PE dan penerangan mengenai projek KLIP kepada para nelayan.
2. Nelayan berdaftar yang ada adalah seramai 11 orang. Tetapi yang aktif adalah seramai
7 orang sahaja.
3. Nelayan yang tidak berdaftar adalah seramai 20 orang termasuk awak-awak
(pembantu nelayan).
4. Purata hasil jualan tangkapan seorang nelayan sebulan adalah sebanyak RM 600.
5. Minima purata tangkapan sehari adalah sebanyak 20 Kg seorang. Maxima purata
tangkapan sehari adalah sebanyak 150 Kg seorang.
1. Isu pendapatan nelayan:
 Purata hasil tangkapan nelayan berkurangan semenjak aktiviti Ship To Ship
dijalankan.
 Jaring-jaring musnah akibat kehadiran kapal besar di kawasan penangkapan
ikan mereka.
 Purata hasil tangkapan juga berkurangan akibat aktiviti penambakan di
Kelebang, Melaka.
 Pernah menerima pampasan sebanyak RM 1600 untuk aktiviti cari gali bijih
timah, tetapi projek tersebut masih belum dijalankan atau sudah dibatalkan
(tidak tahu status sebenar).
2. Isu lessen nelayan:
 Pembekuan lesen oleh Jabatan Perikanan Melaka
 Nelayan-nelayan yang tidak mempunyai lesen sudah memohon lesen daripada
Jabatan Perikanan, namun tidak diluluskan
 Nelayan yang tidak berlesen berisiko ditahan oleh pihak Maritim.
1. Jika penambakan dan pembinaan KLIP member kesan kepada nelayan di Kampung
Tengah, maka pampasan yang setimpal haruslah diberikan.
PE Research
92
2.) Perbincangan bersama Para Nelayan Kampung Kuala Linggi
Tempat: RTC Kampung Kuala Linggi, Melaka
Nama Nelayan:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Mat Sali
Ishak Harun
Haji Suhaimi
Alias Musa
Azizul
Ibrahim
Amin
Mazan
2. Nelayan berdaftar yang ada adalah seramai 36 orang. Manakala nelayan yang tidak
berdaftar adalah seramai 16 orang.
3. Terdapat nelayan yang keluar ke laut berseorangan ataupun membawa seorang awakawak (pembantu nelayan).
4. Tempat nelayan meletakkan kapal/perahu mereka adalah di RTC Kampung Kuala Linggi.
Manakala bagi beberapa nelayan , mereka berlabuh di di tebing jalan kearah restoran
terapung Fort Supai dan juga tempat membaiki kapal/perahu nelayan.
5. Purata hasil jualan tangkapan seorang nelayan sebulan adalah sebanyak RM 3000.
7. Antara jenis hasil tangkapan oleh nelayan:
 Kerapu
 Jenak
 Tenggiri
 Ketam
 Pari
 Malung
 Siakap
 Senangin
 Merah
 Udang
 Kerang
 Semilang
PE Research
93





Bawal hitam
Bawal putih
Cencaru
Senohong
Kurau
1. Lokasi penambakan yang bakal dilakukan adalah diatas karang yang menjadi
pembiakan/lubuk ikan bagi nelayan mencari rezeki . Antara kawasan pembiakan ikan
yang akan terkesan daripada penambakan:
 Batu mandi
 Tukun Tayar/konkrit
 Karang Tompang
 Karang Payang
 Beras Basah
2. Isu pendapatan nelayan:
 Penambakan projek KLIP akan menyebabkan para nelayan hilang segala punca
pendapatan selama beberapa tahun.
 Purata hasil tangkapan nelayan berkurangan semenjak aktiviti Ship To Ship
dijalankan.
 Tumpahan minyak dari STS juga menjadi kan hasil penangkapan berkurangan
 Jaring-jaring musnah akibat kehadiran kapal besar di kawasan penangkapan
ikan mereka.
 Purata hasil tangkapan juga berkurangan akibat aktiviti penambakan di
Kelebang, Melaka.
 Pernah menerima pampasan sebanyak RM 1600 untuk aktiviti cari gali bijih
timah, tetapi projek tersebut masih belum dijalankan atau sudah dibatalkan
(tidak tahu status sebenar).
 Penambakan untuk pembinaan RTC juga menyebabkan hasil tangkapan
semakin berkurangan.(kerang ,udang dan ikan)
3. Isu lesen nelayan:
 Semasa pemeriksaan (inspection) kapal tidak mengikut syarat-syarat
menyebabkan pembaharuan lesen tidak dapat diluluskan.
 Terdapat juga syarat-syarat lain yang tidak ditepati oleh nelayan menyebabkan
pembaharuan lesen tidak dapat diluluskan.
1. Pampasan yang dicadangkan adalah berdasarkan bayaran bulanan.
2. Pampasan secara lump sum juga boleh dipertimbangkan sekiranya bayaran yang
diberikan adalah berpatutan.
PE Research
94
3.) Perbincangan bersama Para Nelayan Kampung Tanjong Dahan, Melaka
Tarikh dan masa:
1. 28 Februari 2016 (Ahad) – 11.00 malam hingga 1.00 pagi
2. 29 Februari 2016 (Isnin) – 5.00 hingga 6.30 petang
Tempat: Kedai Makan Santai Seafood, Kampung Tanjong Dahan, Melaka
Nama Nelayan:
1. Tambichek bin Jalil
2. Md Zin bin Leper
3. Nasir bin Samat
4. Muhammad Nasir bin Derus
5. Zainal bin Hashim
6. Alwi bin Omar
7. Sehat bin Said
8. Abu Kasim bin Adi
9. Basir bin Razali
10. Borhan bin Yusuf
2. Senarai nama nelayan yang berdaftar dan senarai ahli nelayan telah diserahkan kepada
pihak PE.
3. Terdapat nelayan yang keluar ke laut berseorangan ataupun membawa seorang awakawak (pembantu nelayan).
4. Tempat nelayan meletakkan kapal/perahu mereka adalah sepanjang persisiran pantai
Kampung Tanjong Dahan.
6. Terdapat nelayan yang menjual hasil tangkapan kepada tauke-tauke yang lain kerana
harga yang dijual lebih tinggi.
7. Antara jenis hasil tangkapan oleh nelayan:
 Kerapu
 Jenahak
 Tenggiri
 Ketam
 Pari
 Malung
 Siakap
 Senangin
 Merah
 Udang
 Kerang
PE Research
95
 Semilang
 Bawal hitam
 Bawal putih
 Cencaru
 Senohong
 Kurau
8. Anggaran penangkapan udang sehari oleh seorang nelayan adlalah 3 Kg yang
dianggarkan bernilai RM 50.
9. Sampan kecil hanya berkeliaran di kawasan berdekatan pantai tidak melebihi 5 km
(berdekatan beting basah dan tanjong serai) di mana hasil tangkapan boleh mencecah
20 hingga 30 Kg ikan sehari, contohnya ikan senangin.
10. Para nelayan menyatakan bahawa isu pampasan pernah dibincangkan sebelum ini di
dalam mesyuarat antara para nelayan dan Datuk Mustafa daripada T.A.G Marine.
Dalam mesyuarat tersebut, pihak T.A.G Marine menyatakan bahawa bayaran
pampasan akan dilakukan mengikut 2 peringkat: Peringkat pertama, pampasan akan
dibayar kepada para nelayan Kampung Kuala Linggi dan Kampung Tanjong Dahan
sahaja. Peringkat kedua, pampasan akan dibayar kepada semua nelayan yang terlibat
tetapi akan melalui UPEN.
1. Lokasi penambakan yang bakal dilakukan akan memusnahkan semua tukun dan karang
berkemungkinan menyebabkan para nelayan hilang punca pendapatan dan tidak
dapat ke laut untuk menangkap ikan lagi.
2. Lokasi tempat mengambil pasir adalah tempat mengawai untuk para nelayan (kawasan
ikan pari).
3. Isu lesen nelayan:
1. Pampasan yang setimpal haruslah diberikan kepada para nelayan. Cadangan adalah
dengan memberi pampasan secara lump sum kepada para nelayan.
2. Pampasan lebih harus diberikan kepada para nelayan yang berhampiran dengan
kawasan penambakan (nelayan Kampung Kuala Linggi dan nelayan Kampung Tanjong
Dahan).
3. Sekiranya pampasan diberikan, pampasan tersebut terus diberikan kepada nelayan
tanpa melalui persatuan.
4. Agensi-agensi berkaitan haruslah datang sekiranya perjumpaan antara nelayan dan
Linggi Base diadakan:
 Jabatan Laut/ Penguatkuasa Maritim
 Jabatan Perikanan
 Jabatan Persisiran Pantai dan Sungai
 Jabatan Alam Sekitar
 World Wild Federation (WWF)
 UPEN
PE Research
96
C. Aquaculture Operator
1.) Perbincangan bersama Pemilik Panggar Kupang Kawasan Telok Kemang
Tarikh: 12 Mac 2016 (Sabtu)
Masa: 11.00 pagi
Tempat: Bilik mesyuarat Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Telok Kemang, Kampung Telok, Negeri
Sembilan
Nama responden: Abidin bin Awang
1. Satu hektar untuk mengusahakan Kupang dan kawasan memancing berdekatan Tg
Selamat (kawwsan laut berdekatan Kampung Telok)
2. Telah beroperasi dari tahun 1988
3. Melakukan pembinaan menggunakan kayu dan membuat para bagi aktiviti memancing
4. Masalah: Semenjak pembukaan hutan dan beberapa aktiviti pembinaan bedekatan
laut telah mengurangkan pembiakan kupang dan kerang semula jadi di kawasan ini
5. Tempoh matang: Bermula bulan januari- bulan Ogos (kira-kira 7-8 bulan ), 100 tali
sehingga 500 tali bagi benih kupang
6. Hasil satu tali seberat 15kg (1kg rm 6)
7. Pancing rm30 seorang @ booking satu bot rm 350 2 trip (1 trip= 10jam )
8. Ulasan mengenai Cadangan projek: Bagus untuk ekonomi tetapi haruslah dikaji kesan
pencemaran air kerana jika air keroh boleh menyebabkan lupusnya hasil kupang.
PE Research
97
2.) Perbincangan bersama Pemilik Sangkor Ikan
Tarikh: 12 Mac 2016 (Sabtu)
Masa: 9.30 pagi
Tempat: Rumah Ramli bin Puteh, Sungai Linggi (Tg Agas)
Nama responden: Ramli bin Puteh
1. Usahawan ikan sangkar di Sungai Linggi (Tg Agas) – mempunyai 16 petak sangkar
menternak ikan siakap.
2. Memberi makan dedak pada peringkat awal ikan/semasa masih menjadi anak ikan
3. Memberi makan anak ikan dari sumber tangkapan di laut selat Melaka dan sungai
linggi setelah ikan sudah berusia 2bulan.
4. Hasil pencarian anak ikan seberat 70kg sehari adalah wajib En Ramli bagi sumber
makanan kepada ikan-ikan ternakannya.
5. Ikan siakap yang matang berusia setahun akan mencecah berat sehingga 1kg seekor.
Menurut En Ramli ikan ternakanya akan dikira matang pada usia 7 bulan yang mana
beratnya mencecah 700g hingga 750g seekor.
6. Ulasan bagi projek cadangan perlabuhan: Pernah mendengar khabar mengenai projek
ini dan En Ramli merasakan aka nada manfaat kepada penduduk setempat kerana
ekonomi untuk anak cucu penduduk ini akan meningkat dimasa akan datang ,tetapi En
Ramli tidak menyangkal akan berlakunya pencemaran air dan sedikit sebanyak
kawasan ternakanya juga kan terkena impak dari projek ini. Anggaran sebanyak 25%30% kemungkinan hasilnya akan terjejas dan peningkatan kos bagi menghalang
perkara yang tidak diigini berlaku.
7. Pembinaan /Pembukaan RTC: Semasa penambakkan RTC Kuala Linggi telah
menjejaskan hasil dan ternakannya akibat dari pencemaran air .En Ramli telah
menggunakan waterjet bagi menghalang terjadinya perlupusan kepada ternakkannya.
Ini telah meningkatkan kos selengaranya . Tiada pampasan diberikan setelah RTC siap.
8. Masalah lain: Penternak dari Melaka –sangkar mereka telah dihanyutkan oleh banjir
dan beberapa insiden akibat dari pelanggaran kipas bot yang tersangkut dengan sauh
penternak sangkar ini. Akibat dari ini tong dan kayu dari sangkar mereka ini telah
melanggar dan membocorkan jaring En Ramli .Tiada ganti rugi diberikan.
PE Research
98
D. Chalet Operator
1.) Perbincangan bersama Pengusaha Chalet
Tarikh: 7 Mac 2016 (Isnin), 8 Mac 2016 (Selasa), 10 Mac 2016 (Khamis),
Masa: 9.00 – 11.00 pagi
Tempat: Chalet Pengusaha
Nama Pengusaha Chalet:
En Hj Kamaludin Bin Hj Ali
Pengusaha KM Chalet
En R.Paiz
Pengusaha NDK Chalet
En Samsudin Ariffin
Pengusaha Istana Homestay
En Nor Azizman
Pengusaha Guest House
Pn Hasnah Abas
Pengusaha Anas Sejati
En Azahari
Pengusaha Bora- Bora Chalet
En Mahbuk Kusiran
Pengusaha Umang-umang Chalet
9. Pengenalan oleh pihak PE dan penerangan mengenai projek KLIP kepada pengusaha
chalet.
10. Pihak PE mengambil maklumat dari pengusaha chalet mengenai harga dan jumlah bilik
yang dimiliki mereka .
11. Purata disini mempunyai 3 bilik dengan kadar RM 80 –Rm250 per bilik/semalam ,
Homestay pula dalam lingkungan RM 350 semalam
12. Kebanyakkan aktiviti disini dijalankan pada hujung minggu atau pun pada cuti am,
Kebanyakkan pelancong datang untuk berehat dan menikmati pemandangan laut
disini (ketenangan ).
13. Ada beberapa pengusaha chalet mendapatkan sumber makanan melalui laut (jarang
beli ikan di pasar).
14. Ada juga tidak kisah jika pembinaan ini dilakukan demi kemajuan kampung
15. Pertanyaan mengenai bila projek ini akan dimulakan dan bagaimana mengatasi
masalah yang mereka hadapi
16. Untuk kemajuan sangatlah digalakkan tetapi alam sekitar haruslah dijaga serta
dipelihara sebaik-baiknya
2. Isu kehilangan pemandangan indah Kuala Linggi dan penggunaanya (cth:mandi manda
air laut):
PE Research
99



Para pengusaha menyuarakan mengenai pemandangan yang indah yang
diminati pelancong-pelancong/Pelanggan yang datang ke chalet mereka akan
hilang/berkurangan disebabkan projek ini.
Aktiviti mandi manda di laut yang berhadapan dengan chalet akan terjejas
atau mungkin tidak dapat lagi merasai (mandi) air laut kerana pembangunan
perlabuhan ini mungkin akan menyebabkan air laut betukar kotor.
Adakal pelancong yang datang menginap di sini mengambil trip memancing di
kawasan berdekatan sini (upah -Nelayan)
3. Isu kemungkinan pendapatan akan bertambah disebabkan kemasukkan para pekerja
pembinaan:

Para pengusaha juga menyatakan kemungkinan kemasukkan pekerja-pekerja
bagi pembinaan ini akan menambahkan pendapatan mereka kerana sekarang
ini perniagaan mereka tertumpu di hujung minggu. Dengan kemasukkan para
pekerja ini mungkin akan menjadikan pendapatan mereka bertambah dan
tetap pada setiap hari atau bulan.
4. Isu sosial:

PE Research
Kemungkinan gelaja sosial juga akan bertambah jika tidak dikawal kerana
kemasukkan pekerja luar akan memberi impak kepada keadaan sosial
dikampung ini
100
E. Focus Group Discussion
1.) FGD bersama Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Telok Kemang, Negeri Sembilan
Tarikh : 11 Mac 2016 (Jumaat)
Masa
: 9.15 pagi
Tempat : Bilik mesyuarat Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Telok Kemang, Kampung Telok, Negeri
Sembilan
Senarai Kehadiran:
Bil
Nama
Jawatan
Agensi
1.
Md Isa b. Johar
PNK Telok Kemang
2.
Shapra bin Sulaiman
PNK Telok Kemang
3.
Hashim b. Mahat
PNK Telok Kemang
4.
Lee Swee Yong
PNK Telok Kemang
5.
Abdullah Sani bin Pun
PNK Telok Kemang
6.
Ahmad Azizuddin b. Aziz
Pembantu Ehwal Ekonomi
PNK Telok Kemang
7.
Muhammad Salman bin Shuib
Pegawai Penyelidik
PE Research Sdn Bhd
8.
Hamka bin Mohd Noor
Pegawai Penyelidik
PE Research Sdn Bhd
1. Pengenalan oleh pihak PE dan penerangan mengenai projek KLIP.
2. Jumlah ahli nelayan yang berdaftar di PNK Telok Kemang adalah seramai 263 orang.
Anggaran nelayan tidak berdaftar adalah antara 100 ke 150 orang (sepenuh masa dan
separuh masa).
3. Kawasan penangkapan ikan adalah dari selatan Tanjung Agas ke sempadan Sepang.
4. Majoriti nelayan adalah menangkap udang. Ikan juga ada ditangkap menggunakan
pukat hanyut.
5. Anggaran purata pendapatan nelayan adalah sebanyak RM 3,000 sebulan.
Isu-isu yang dibangkitkan:
1. Sempadan laut antara Melaka dan Negeri Sembilan perlu dipersoalkan. Ahli Lembaga
Pengarah menyatakan bahawa UPEN memaklumkan kepada mereka cadangan
pelabuhan ini masuk ke kawasan Negeri Sembilan.
2. Ahli Lembaga Pengarah mempersoalkan bagaimana keselamatan nelayan semasa
proses pembinaan dan juga selepas pelabuhan ini beroperasi. Keselamatan nelayan
akan menjadi lebih berisiko selepas pelabuhan ini beroperasi disebabkan kapal-kapal
besar yang masuk.
PE Research
101
3. Ahli Lembaga Pengarah menyatakan bahawa kemungkinan Persatuan Nelayan akan
lumpuh akibat daripada projek pelabuhan ini.
4. Ahli Lembaga Pengarah juga menyatakan bahawa sara hidup dan subsidi nelayan akan
terjejas akibat nelayan tidak dapat turun ke laut dan akan dimatikan lesen. Selain itu,
pengusaha ikan sangkar dan panggar kupang juga akan terjejas.
5. Kebajikan nelayan selepas pelabuhan ini beroperasi perlu diambil kira, seperti contoh
kerosakan peralatan disebabkan aktiviti yang dijalankan oleh pelabuhan.
6. Ahli Lembaga Pengarah mempersoalkan adakah akan ada boiler di pelabuhan itu.
Daripada pengalaman sebelum ini, fungsi boiler adalah untuk mencuci tangki gas, dan
chlorine akan dibuang ke laut. Chlorine ini akan menghancurkan karang dan membunuh
hidupan laut di dalam lingkungan 5KM jauh daripada tapak projek.
7. Ahli Lembaga Pengarah mempersoalkan bagaimana untuk menyelesaikan isu PATI yang
datang secara haram. Ini kerana banyak berlaku kecurian peralatan nelayan
termasuklah enjin bot. Kecurian ini banyak berlaku ketika musim perayaan.
8. Ahli Lembaga Pengarah mempersoalkan adakah akan ada penanda kawasan larangan
(seperti bouya) daripada tapak projek, dan sekiranya ada, berapa jauh daripada tapak
projek.
9. Ahli Lembaga Pengarah menyatakan bahawa sungai Linggi akan menjadi cetek akibat
pasir-pasir yang ditolak oleh kapal-kapal besar. Selain itu, kawasan persisiran pantai
juga akan terhakis akibat arus kuat daripada kapal-kapal besar ini.
10. Ahli Lembaga Pengarah mempersoalkan adakah projek pelabuhan ini akan menutup
laluan nelayan dari sungai Kuala Linggi ke laut.
1. Jumlah pampasan yang dicadangkan adalah sebanyak RM250,000 untuk setiap nelayan.
2. Persatuan nelayan yang akan menentukan nelayan sepenuh masa tidak berlesen yang
layak untuk mendapat pampasan (sekiranya ada).
3. Sekiranya sesi Public Dialog diadakan, cadangan untuk menjemput agensi-agensi ini
untuk turut serta di dalam sesi tersebut:
 Lembaga Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia (LKIM)
 Jabatan Perikanan
 Jabatan Laut
 Maritim
 UPEN
 Persatuan Nelayan Negeri
 Pejabat Tanah & Galian
 EXCO Pelancongan
 Majlis Perbandaran Port Dickson
Isu-isu yang dibangkitkan tetapi tidak berkaitan dengan projek:
1. Projek panggar kupang dan rekreasi oleh Persatuan Nelayan yang telah diluluskan dan
akan dijalankan di Tanjung Selamat pada tahun ini dengan kos sebanyak RM 200,000
akan terjejas sekiranya projek pelabuhan ini dijalankan.
2. Projek chalet oleh Persatuan Nelayan yang akan dijalankan di Kampung Telok dengan
kos sebanyak RM 5 juta juga akan turut terjejas.
PE Research
102
2.) FGD bersama Ketua Kampung Negeri Sembilan
Tarikh
: 11 Mac 2016 (Jumaat)
Masa
: 3.00 petang
Tempat : Rumah Ketua Kampung, Kampung Tanjung Agas
Senarai Kehadiran:
Bil
Nama
Jawatan
Agensi/Kampung
1.
Abd. Ghani bin Puteh
Pengerusi JKKK
Kampung Tanjung Agas
2.
Ahamad b. Jaamat
Pengerusi JKKK
Kampung Bukit Tembok
3.
Mehat b. Abdullah
Pengerusi JKKK
Kampung Telok
4.
Abdul Jalil Hasan b. Abdullah
Pengerusi JKKK
Kampung Sungai Raya
5.
Junaina bt. Abu Kassim
Setiausaha JKKK
Kampung Tanjung Agas
6.
Sukri b. Ab. Rahman
Pemuda
Kampung Telok
7.
Muhammad Salman bin Shuib
Pegawai Penyelidik
PE Research Sdn Bhd
8.
Hamka bin Mohd Noor
Pegawai Penyelidik
PE Research Sdn Bhd
1. Pengenalan oleh pihak PE dan penerangan mengenai projek KLIP.
2. Pengerusi JKKK menyatakan bahawa projek pelabuhan ini tidak akan memanfaatkan
penduduk kampung berdasarkan pengalaman mereka dengan projek-projek lain
sebelum ini.
Bil
1
2
Isu-isu yang dibangkitkan
Pengerusi JKKK menyatakan bahawa semasa
proses pembinaan pelabuhan ini, kampungkampung ini akan menjadi laluan utama lori
tanah/pasir (sekiranya melalui kampungkampung ini) ke tapak pelabuhan:
 Kampung Tanjung Agas
 Kampung Sungai Raya
 Kampung Bukit Tembok
Cadangan yang diberikan
Impak kepada kampung-kampung ini daripada 1. Memastikan lori-lori ini sentiasa
segi trafik:
membawa air untuk disembur
1. Pencemaran udara (habuk daripada loriuntuk mengelak habuk terbang
lori yang membawa tanah/pasir). Ini akan
(walaupun telah disembur, selepas
menjejaskan kesihatan penduduk
ianya kering, ia akan menjadi debu
kampung. Selain itu, ia juga akan
semula).
menjejaskan peniaga-peniaga di tepi jalan.
2. Sekiranya jalan rosak/berlubang
PE Research
103
2. Pencemaran bunyi dan gegaran daripada
lori-lori ini
3. Kondisi jalan raya yang mungkin rosak
atau berlubang
4. Keselamatan penduduk kampung. Antara
yang menjadi kebimbangan adalah:
 Kekerapan lori-lori ini melalui
kampung-kampung ini. Ini akan
menjadi ketidakselesaan kepada
penduduk kampung
 Kemalangan jalan raya yang mungkin
berlaku
3
4
akibat lori-lori ini, jalan yang rosak
harus diturap/dibaiki oleh pihak
pemaju projek
3. Lori-lori ini mestilah selalu dipantau
supaya tidak melebihi had kelajuan
di kawasan kampung
4. Sekiranya isu trafik ini tidak dapat
diselesaikan, cadangan adalah
untuk mewujudkan sistem yang
baru iaitu:


Pampasan
Insurans
Pengerusi JKKK mempersoalkan bahawa
daripada mana pasir/tanah/batu diambil
untuk tujuan penambakan
Impak kepada penduduk kampung daripada
segi sara hidup:
1. Baik kepada para peniaga kerana lebih
ramai orang yang akan bermastautin ke
negeri ini
2. Tidak baik kepada penduduk kampung
kerana harga barang dan juga rumah akan
meningkat
PE Research
104
F. Public Meeting
1. Mesyuarat Awam Kuala Linggi
Tarikh
: 12 Mac 2016 (Sabtu)
Masa
: 3.00 petang
Tempat : RTC Kuala Linggi
Senarai Kehadiran:
Bil
Nama
1. YB Ar Ismail
2. Wakil Linggi Base Sdn Bhd
3. Wakil DHI
4. Wakil PE Research SDN BHD
5. Muhammad bin Musa
6. Raikhushairee bin Mohamad
7. Mohd Hidayat Borhan
8. Ibrahim Sumar
9. Osman bin Abdullah
10. Abdullah Jenal
11. Alias Musa
12. Muhammad Norshahidin Bin Tahir
13. Md Derus Sirun
14. Md Indera b Bohan
15. Kamarudin Yusof
16. Muhammad Nor bin Majo
17. Berohan bin Yusop
18. Borhan bin Ahmad
19. Jaafar yusuf
20. Mustapah yusuf
21. Budi Yaroto bin Mamat
22. Ibrahim, bin Alias
23. Ishak bin Haron
24. Zainal bin Hashim
25. Sehat bin Said
26. Mat zin bin Leper
27. Latif bin Gadik
28. Harun bin Saat
29. Kassim bin Adi
30. Mat bin Jalil
31. Azlan bin Mat Ramli
32. Suhaimi Salleh
33. Azman Md Nasi
34. Mohammad Said Saat
35. Zahari bin Yunus
36. Mohamad Azmi bin ARahman
PE Research
Jawatan/Ahli
Exco Perumahan, Kerajaan Tempatan
Dan Alam Sekitar
Linggi Base Sdn Bhd
DHI
PE Research SDN BHD
Ketua Kampung Kuala Linggi
Nelayan Kuala Linggi
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
105
37. Razali bin Md Zin
38. Mohd Razaka Mohd Saleh
39. Fadzil bin Salleh
40. Mohd Azizul bin Mat Sari
41. Saad Bin Johan
42. Norisan bin Abu Bakar
43. Sabri Ahmad
44. Mat Sali Jali
45. Noordin Ambon
46. Mores Arshad
47. Abd Kadir Abas
48. Hj Abu bin Jamil
49. Abdul Rashid Jolin
50. Hj Tambi Chek Jalil
51. Hj Alwi Omar
52. Mohd Azri bin Mes
53. Azmi bin Buyauna
54. Abd wahab
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
Nelayan Tg Dahan
1. Pada tahun 2006 telah diwartakan kawasan RTC Kuala Linggi sebagai kawasan
perlabuhan. Cadangan projek perlabuhan yang terdiri daripada kargo cecair dan gas.
80% kawasan cadangan projek adalah termasuk dalam warta 2006.Projek ini adalah
projek hijau yang menjaga alam sekitar.
2. DHI-mengikut akta Alam sekitar. Dokumen akan dipamerkan di RTC Kuala Linggi bagi
kajian yang telah dijalankan.
3. Bentuk dan keluasan serta jarak cadangan projek ini adalah masih diperingkat kajian
dan akan berubah jika hasil kajian berlainan. Plan cadangan projek ini telah
dipersetujui oleh kerajaan persekutuan. Tanah kerajaan –industri kecil dan sederhanafasiliti sokongan kepada industry dan aktiviti perlabuhan.
4. Kajian EIA- untuk mengkaji kesan terhadap alam sekitar, negative ataupun positif.
Aktiviti nelayan, udara, air dan bunyi, biologi ekologi, kajian di kawasan laut dan darat,
kajian sosio-ekonomi
5. Linggi Base- Peluang pekerjaan sebanyak 6000 akan dibuka.
6. YB menyatakan jika peluang dibuka ini seharusnya diberi keutamaan kepada anak-anak
tempatan bagi mengisi kekosongan dan menambah naik ekonomi disini. Kebajikkan
kepada nelayan haruslah diberikan semasa dan selepas projek ini dijalankan. Semasa
projek dijalankan, wang pampasan kerana kawasan sumber mereka mencari rezeki
akan terhapus sama sekali, Selepas projek ini, sagu hati kepada para nelayan
7. Suhaimi Salleh-JPN K.Linggi menyatakan bahawa beliau tidak bersetuju dengan projek
ini ,jika projek ini tidak dibatalkan pihak nelayan mengharapakan pampasan yang
setimpal diberikan dalam bentuk wang serta warehouse/kantin atau bangunan untuk
kemajuan dan kebajikkan nelayan.
8. Md Zin –JPN Tg Dahan menyatakan bahawa beliau tidak bersetuju dengan projek ini.
Cadangan projek ini teletak di kawasan karang
PE Research
106
9. Tambi Check menyatakan peluang pekerjaan pula dipilih mengikut umur, jika orang
seperti kami ini pasti tidak mahu diambil (berumur) /dilayan seperti pekerja. Batu
karang akan tertimbus. Berapakah kedalaman pesisiran pantai jika cadangan projek ini
dilaksanakan, ruangnya pula sempit. Adakah akan ada kargo-kargo berlabuh,
Pengangkutan pasir dari mana. STS (8 kapal) dan RTC sebelum ini juga telah
mengakibatkan pengurangan sumber.
10. Kedalaman dan keluasan kawasan sekitar Penambakkan.
11. YB menyatakan bahawa beliau telah memberikan syarat bahawa tembok-tembok
mesti didirikan sebelum pernambakkan dibuat bagi menghalang hakisan dan angin
kuat. Seharusnya dibina Jetty untuk nelayan berlabuh dan menyelamatkan mereka
ketika ribut melanda.
12. Isu Pampasan
i.)
Laluan nelayan (traffic laut)
ii.)
Imbuhan harus diberikan bagi menjamin kehidupan nelayan
iii.)
Penambakkan seharusnya dipantau kedalaman sekelilingnya
iv.)
Kemudahan untuk asyarakat harus dipertingkatkan
v.)
Semestinya diperhalusi semua tindakkan
13. En Jaafar telah mencadangkan untuk dipertubuhkan satu jawatankuasa bagi
memudahkan nelayan-nelayan dan orang kampung memberi usul-usul mengenai
cadangan projek ini untuk mempercepatkan dan memberi penjelasan kepada orang
ramai
PE Research
107
2. Mesyuarat Awam Kuala Linggi
Tarikh : 14 Jun 2016 (Selasa)
Masa
: 5.00 petang
Tempat : RTC Kuala Linggi
Senarai Kehadiran:
No
Name
Jawatan/ Wakil/ Organisasi
1
YB Datuk Ar Hj Ismail Bin Hj Othman
Adun Kuala Linggi
2
Datuk Tuan Haji Murad bin Haji Husin
YDP Majlis Perbandaran Alor Gajah
3
Nurul Adawaty Ismail
Jab. Perancang MPAG
4
Abdul Rahman Nordin
MPAG
5
Sugiman Johari
MPAG
6
Haslan
MPAG
7
Amran Othman
Ketua Daerah Perikanan A. Gajah
8
Abd. Rahim Ali
Jabatan Perikanan Melaka
9
En Jamil Abdullah
LKIM Melaka
10
Hasni Bin Hj Hassan
Majlis Perbandaran Port Dickson
11
Nawar A. Karim
Jabatan Perikanan Negeri Sembilan
12
Muhammad Hassim Bin Jahaya
LKIM Negeri Sembilan
13
YBHG Datuk Wira Noormustafa Kamal Yahya
Linggi Base Sdn Bhd
14
YM Raja Datuk Malik Saripulazan
Linggi Base Sdn Bhd
15
Wakil-wakil Linggi Base
Linggi Base Sdn Bhd
16
Wakil-wakil DHI
DHI
17
Waki-wakil PE Research
PE Research Sdn Bhd
18
Tuan Hj Md Sabri
Penghulu Dun Kuala Linggi
19
Encik Muhammad bin Musa
Pengerusi JKKK Kg Kuala Linggi
20
Encik Hasni bin Yang Ghazali
Pengerusi JKKK Kg Tanjong Dahan
21
Haji Suhaimi
Ketua Nelayan Kuala Linggi
22
Md Zin bin Leper & Hj Tambi Chk
Ketua Nelayan Tg Dahan
23
En Hj Kamaludin Bin Hj Ali
Pengusaha KM Chalet
24
En. Shariffudin
Pengusaha Kembang Sejati Chalet
25
En Aziz
Pengusaha Lagenda Putri Chalet
26
En. Mazlan
Pengusaha Rizalan Chalet
27
Mazli Ghani
Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan
28
Samsudin Said
Nelayan Tg. Dahan
29
Noraini A. Rahman
Kuala Linggi
30
Mohd Azmi B. Wahid
ALP PNKMB
31
Mohd Faudzi Mohamed Zakaria
PNK Melaka Barat
32
Ab. Jabbar Che Noh
JKKK K. Linggi
PE Research
108
33 Ishak Harun
Nelayan K. Linggi
34
Setiausaha Nelayan
Azmi Bin Buyaman
35 Ardam Bin Ramli
Nelayan
36
Nelayan
Anas bin Musa
37 Chin Choon Voon
Nelayan
38
Nelayan
Kadir Bin Abas
39 Mohd Saad Bin Arshad
Nelayan
40
Nelayan
Mores Bin Arshad
41 Mat Sali Jali
Nelayan
42 Sarif Bin Idris
Nelayan
43 Abd. Ghani bin Puteh
Ketua Kampung Tanjung Agas
44 Abdul Jalil Hasan b. Abdullah
Ketua Kampung Sungai Raya
45 Mehat bin Abdullah
Ketua Kampung Telok
46 Md Isa b. Johar
Ketua Nelayan PNK Telok Kemang (Ahli
Lembaga Pengarah)
47 Ramli Bin Puteh
Pengusaha Ikan Sangkar Tg Agas
48 Abidin Bin Awang
Pengusaha Pangar Kupang
49 Aznam B. Ali
Pengurus Besar, Persatuan Nelayan
Kawasan Teluk Kemang
50 Amran Othman
Pegawai Perikanan A. Gajah
51 Mazli Ghani
Persatuan Nelayan
52 Ahamat B Jamat
Pengerusi JKKK Bukit Tembok
53 Abu Bakar Dawam
PNK Telok Kemang
1. Komuniti menyoal apakah faedah kepada komuniti setempat sebelum, semasa dan
selepas cadangan projek ini. Komuniti dan nelayan telah banyak berkorban untuk
pembangunan-pembangunan lepas.
2. Nelayan menyuarakan bahawa pendapatan mereka akan terjejas disebabkan oleh
pembangunan projek
3. Soal pampasan/ imbuhan juga dikeutarakan terutamanya oleh para nelayan.
4. Pihak perikanan dari Negeri Sembilan menpersoalkan sempadan Negeri Sembilan –
Melaka kerana sempadan yang ditunjukkan dalam slides. Sempadan dalam slides
menunjukkan bahawa kawasan perikanan untuk Negeri Sembilan adalah lebih kecil
daripada yang disangka dan mereka tidak pernah melihat sempadan tersebut
5. Komuniti juga bertanyakan kemajuan laporan EIA
6. Penggerak projek mencadangkan untuk menaiktarafkan infrastruktur nelayan seperti
jeti. Tabung nelayan juga dicadangkan untuk mengurangkan beban nelayan .
7. Pembersihan dan pendalaman muara sungai juga akan dijalankan.
PE Research
109
8. Penggereak projek juga akan berusaha untuk mengenal pasti kawasan yang sesuai
untuk meletakkan tukun-tukun bagi mengganti tukun-tukun yang berada di dalam
kawasan projek.
9. Selain itu, kerja-kerja rehabilitasi pantai juga akan dilaksanakan untuk mengekal dan
mencantikkan kawasan pantai agar perniagaan chalet tidak terjejas
10. Pengerak projek menasihati komunitit agar tidak jualkan tanah-tanah mereka untuk
mengaut keuntungan singkat. Haruslah berkerjasama dengan pemaju dengan cara
pembangunan bersama supaya mendapat faedah dalam jangka masa panjang.
11. Tapak projek telah menyediakan kawasan untuk pembangunan institusi pembelajaran.
Anak-anak muda boleh mendapatkan pendidikan dan latihan vokasional untuk
menceburkan diri dalam industri perkapalan/ pelabuhan.
12. Soal pampasan merupakan bidang kuasa kerajaan negeri. Pengerak projek telah
membayar kerajaan negeri segala yang patut mengikut undang-undang. Nilai
pampasan/. Imbuhan akan ditentukan oleh kerajaan negeri melalui UPEN.
13. Sempadan Negeri Sembilan – Melaka adalah mengikut pemetaan PG56 daripada
kerajaan persekutuan. Peta dan surat mengenai sempadan telah ditunjukkan kepada
para hadirin.
14. Perunding menjelaskan bahawa EIA adalah dalam peringkat kajian dan belum
mendapat kelulusan daripada Jabatan Alam Sekitar.Selain itu, perjumpaan ini
merupakan salah satu syarat kelulusan
15. EIA. Jenis kajian yang dijalankan telah dimaklumkan kepada para hadirin. Para hadirin
juga boleh mendapatkan laporan EIA yang lengkap di lokasi-lokasi tertentu yang
ditetapkan oleh Jabatan Alam Sekitar semasa proses maklumbalas awam dijalankan.
PE Research
110
ANNEX 6: REFFERENCES








Department of Satistic Malaysia, Population Distribution and Basic
Demographic Characteristics (Census 2010)
Department of Satistic Malaysia, Characteristics of Living Quarters (Census
2010)
Majlis Perbandaran Alor Gajah, Rancangan Tempatan Daerah Alor Gajah
2020
Majlis Perbandaran Port Dickson, Rancangan Tempatan Daerah Port
Dickson 2020
Boubee, J. A., Dean, T. L., West, D. W. & Barrier, R. F. G. 1997. Avoidance
of suspended sediment by the juvenile migratory stage of six New Zealand
native fish species. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research 31 (1).
Weilgart, L.S. 2008. The Impact of Ocean Noise Pollution on Marine
Biodiversity. Department of Biology Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada. 6p.
Hatch, L., Clark, C., Merrick, R. Parijs, S. V., Ponirakis, D., Schwehr, K.,
Thompson, M. & Wiley, D. 2008. Characterizing the relative contributions of
large vessels to total ocean noise fields: A case study using the Gerry E.
Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Environmental
Management 42(5):735-752
i
Boubee, J. A., Dean, T. L., West, D. W. & Barrier, R. F. G. 1997. Avoidance
of suspended sediment by the juvenile migratory stage of six New Zealand
native fish species. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research 31 (1).
ii
Weilgart, L.S. 2008. The Impact of Ocean Noise Pollution on Marine
Biodiversity. Department of Biology Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova
Scotia Canada. 6p.
iii
Hatch, L., Clark, C., Merrick, R. Parijs, S. V., Ponirakis, D., Schwehr, K.,
Thompson, M. & Wiley, D. 2008. Characterizing the relative contributions of
large vessels to total ocean noise fields: A case study using the Gerry E.
Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Environmental
Management 42(5):735-752
Annex 7: DOF Letters (Negeri Sembilan and Malacca)
PE Research
111

Laporan EIA - EKAS - Jabatan Alam Sekitar

Transcription

Similar documents

Pejabat Ketua Pengarah Kesihatan Malaysia KENYATAAN AKHBAR

09 CSPM`sia Biblio.indd

1119-21-Social

Jawatankuasa QA/Q1 HOSPITAL KUALA LUMPUR Pengerusi

clicca qui per visualizzare la nostra brochure

merentas desa terbuka powp kl / milo yang ke 28

View/Open - Universitas Hasanuddin

Charles Town Pike (Route 9) Traffic Calming

Jtl{}tuL^S - PPD Kuala Kangsar

Geological Society of Malaysia