In Thailand, households that once had access to a diverse and nutritious diet have become increasingly dependent on purchased food, following the loss of local food systems. The report Industrial Aquaculture: Better Production, Better Nutrition, Better Environment, and Better Life? [1], recently published by the World Forum of Fisher Peoples [2], highlights the case of the Ban Pred Nai community, where the conversion of rice fields and mangroves into shrimp ponds has deprived communities of important food sources. “The community’s food bank and livelihoods were destroyed by the expansion of shrimp farms”, states the report, which was supported by Friends of the Earth International [3], among other allies such as La Vía Campesina [4] and the World March of Women. [5]
Ahead of the 37th Session of the Committee on Fisheries (COFI 37) of the FAO, fishing communities, Indigenous Peoples, governments and civil society met in Rome, Italy, from 4 to 6 September 2026, for the Small-Scale Fisheries Summit [6]. They gathered to call on governments and global actors to protect fishing communities [7] and ensure their meaningful participation in decision-making processes [8]. During these events, Real World Radio interviewed Ravadee Prasertcharoensuk, Director of the Sustainable Development Foundation, an organisation that works on the advancement of the human rights of small-scale fishers, gender mainstreaming, ecosystem management, community-led sustainable fisheries, and the management of natural and marine coastal resources in Thailand.
Why is industrial aquaculture a False Solution to hunger and the food crisis?
It has been evident in my country, even before industrial aquaculture arrived, from the national aquaculture that was promoted, that they start with small-scale fishers, with small homes, who got access to a piece of coastal resources to conduct aquaculture. But then, after two, three, four, five years, that piece of land has gradually come to belong to a well-off family or to the private sector, people who are not even from that community.
Small-scale fishers need to have production every day. They need money every day. They need food. For them to have the money to buy feed for aquaculture is difficult because of the deterioration of marine coastal resources and the loss of biodiversity in coastal areas. There is real evidence of the disappearance of the abundance of fish on the coast itself. And this is without counting the deterioration of the mangrove forests, which have also been used for aquaculture.
Also, the quality of the food is very dangerous to eat. Consumers do not know about this, and it continues to affect people’s nutrition widely, not only the fishers themselves.
With the degradation of the ecosystem and the biodiversity of the coastal resources, and the loss of fish, in the end people spend a lot more time going out fishing but get very little. That contributes to insecurity not only in their livelihoods, but also in terms of social welfare.
And the women, who in the past have not really had the opportunity to be trained in other kinds of skills or knowledge, end up having to do everything. Because of social norms, she has to do the housework; she has to care for the elders; she has to look after the kids. And now she also has to look after the income of the family. That is why the unjust inequality between women and men in fisherfolk families has widened. It also leaves them with no time to participate in whatever policy is being made related to their livelihoods and their resources, and it makes women disappear, become invisible. So we haven’t seen anything really positive so far.
The small-scale fishers in Thailand, the Indigenous fisherfolk, each family has a small plot for aquaculture. Their way of doing aquaculture is different from what has been introduced, and it does benefit them. So we support the community or family way of doing aquaculture. But allocating very large areas and promoting industrial aquaculture has become problematic in terms of environmental issues, people’s issues, and economic issues, and it increases poverty in coastal communities. That is why we do not think it is worth continuing to promote it.
What is the impact on mangroves and biodiversity?
In the case studies we conducted, we found there are many different types of aquaculture in our country. One of the models being promoted uses the mangrove forest, promoting aquaculture inside the mangroves. That means a very good mangrove, with many trees, is cut down and the forest is turned into aquaculture.
Maybe at the beginning people get a good income. But there are many other aspects. In order to raise aquaculture, you have to use medicines, and you have to do the feeding. You have to select certain species, and they can be alien species that are not originally from that area.
So in the end, many, many mangrove forests have disappeared. And that also means a loss of biodiversity. It affects other aspects too; we are not only taking fish. We have crab, we have shrimp, those kinds of things. We have evidence of what happens when aquaculture comes into an area. A good example is the area where we work, Phraek Nam: we used to have more than 40,000 kilos of crab a year. After aquaculture, the number of crabs available in that area was reduced to 300 or 400 kilos per year. And it is the women who go and collect the crab and sell it. So you can see directly how the economy and the income of the family have been affected. They are losing those things.
This is the reason why we do not think industrial aquaculture should be the answer to food security and the existence of small-scale fishers.
Who benefits from industrial aquaculture?
Those who are not fishers but who are in the position of policymakers; there is a kind of exchange of benefits. The politicians and parts of the private sector: the private sector can sell their products, the feed for aquaculture. They also take juvenile species and turn them into feed for the fish on the aquaculture farms. But they don’t understand. They don’t understand the situation and the lives of the majority of the people. For example, in my country, more than 75% are small-scale fishers. And this is without counting women, who have been invisibilised, who have not been counted.
You are in Rome now. What are your expectations and demands for this session?
My demand, and it has been a very long effort by myself, by my movement and by the network, is that small-scale fishers be recognised. Formally recognised.
Women fishers need to be visible, and they should be included in the data system. They should not only be beneficiaries, but rights holders, part of any programme or activity related to natural resources and fisheries. They should be part of decision-making, not only voice out. Because they have demonstrated over many hundreds of thousands of years that their way of capture looks after the resources, while taking some for their day-to-day survival and for the life of the community.
Developing a National Plan of Action does not mean that the rights of small-scale holders have been recognised, endorsed, and given legal support through rules and regulations. They just verbally say, okay, endorsed. So that is one thing we advocate for. It has to be formal; it has to have a legal aspect. They have to have measures, rules and regulations to really recognise the rights of small-scale fishers. They have to recognise women fishers. They also need to ensure governance in management, with meaningful participation of small-scale fishers and women fishers, and to prepare the younger generation to continue looking after the resources.
In order to address the human rights of small-scale fishers, National Plans of Action are only one of the tools to develop enabling policy, support the existence of small-scale fishers, support women in achieving self-determination, and recognise their role in fisheries and natural resource management.
This is not an issue where we advocate for the government to look after us and for us to become only beneficiaries. No, it is not that. One very clear message is that we advocate for the development of the National Plan of Action, and we are doing it ourselves. We demonstrate it in action. It is really a people’s agenda.
We now have a framework among the people’s movement, and we also have academics, researchers, civil society, and government officials taking part. I hope it becomes an enabling forum to move forward, to continue working among ourselves at the community level, while advocating for public understanding and influencing governments to develop National Plans of Action.
This morning the Director-General of the FAO came and gave his speech, and the core message was very much about promoting industrial aquaculture. And all of us here are small-scale fishers. But the message of his speech was: “Stop capture fisheries, go for aquaculture, go for investment, promote aquaculture. That is better; you don’t have to spend so much time, you can save your money, you earn more”, those kinds of things.
So it really brought out our collective unity. We have just finished the forum, and everyone expressed the opinion that this is not something we can accept.
And we already have a very clear message now: industrial aquaculture should be removed from the policy of the FAO.
We have to exercise and assert our rights by being very clear about who we are as small-scale fishers, how important we are for food security, for looking after the resources, for sustainable development and for future generations.