In a compelling drama unfolding within Thailand’s legislative circles, a controversial amendment to the Royal Ordinance on Fisheries is poised to reshape the country’s fishing landscape, sparking heated debates among environmental advocates, lawmakers, and industry insiders. The proposed changes, currently debated in the Senate, echo a precarious past when Thailand faced potential sanctions from the European Union (EU) for unsustainable fishing practices.
The original 2015 Royal Ordinance was introduced under the governance of Prayut Chan-o-cha to curb destructive fishing practices and combat human trafficking. The ordinance drastically reduced the number of trawlers, promoted seafaring workers’ welfare, and banned fishing nets with mesh sizes under 2.5 centimeters. This decisive action led the EU to lift its “yellow card” warning against Thailand in 2019, praising the nation’s progress against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU).
Fast forward to today, and the Thai Sea Watch Association’s chairman, Wichoksak Ronnarongpairee, voices adamant opposition to the proposed amendment, especially a contentious revision of Section 69. The new legislation would permit nighttime fishing beyond 12 nautical miles from shore using nets with mesh sizes smaller than 2.5 centimeters. Wichoksak warns that this threatens to gobble up vast swathes of marine life, including valuable larvae, and revives fears of returning to the eco-destructive habits of the past that could prompt another EU yellow card.
These concerns are not unfounded. In 2015, facing threats of an EU seafood import ban and a downgrade by the U.S. Department of State to the lowest tier in its Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report, Thailand was compelled to revamp its fisheries legislation. The goal was clear: eradicate IUU fishing, preserve marine resources as sustainable food sources, and safeguard workers against forced labor in the fisheries sector.
The current campaign to adjust the ordinance originates from the defunct Move Forward Party, now the People’s Party (PP), with a renewed push by PP list MP Woraphop Viriyaroj. While the Lower House has approved the bill, the Senate hasn’t overlooked the potential consequences. A special committee, led by Tawat Suraban, is scrutinizing the amendment, aware that the EU is closely watching Thailand’s every move regarding these new fishing regulations.
The Department of Fisheries, however, supports the amendment, asserting it as a step towards modernizing outdated regulations and eliminating overlaps with other laws. Bancha Sukkaew, the department’s director-general, argues that the changes would bolster Thailand’s annual fish catch by enabling a more significant harvest of stolephorus anchovies, commonly utilized in animal feed and fish sauce. Citing the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), he mentions that the country’s current understated catch represents an economic loss, given that the anchovies’ life span barely stretches a year.
The department insists that rigorous conditions accompany the relaxation of net size rules. Licensed trawlers, for instance, would be required to install vessel monitoring systems that dispatch location updates every 15 minutes. Further, limitations on the power of fishing lights are intended to mitigate ecological impacts during specified seasons in the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman Sea.
Yet, critics, including Wichoksak, remain firm in their stand. They worry that the indiscriminate use of smaller mesh nets could decimate fish populations indiscriminately, impacting future catches and disregarding Thailand’s obligations under the Sustainable Development Goals. He likens the push for economic gain from cheap anchovies to a pyrrhic victory, asserting that while anchovies fetch low market prices, the broader ecological damage would transcend generations.
Adding to this concern is the Federation of Thai Fisherfolk Association, led by President Piya Tetyam, who warns of dire repercussions from the prospective amendment. The federation predicts the depletion of marine resources due to increased catches of juvenile fish, warning of devastating impacts on both the environment and the livelihoods of local fishermen. Piya underscores that while a small business sector stands to benefit, the potential devastation could ripple throughout the nation, jeopardizing the industry’s sustainability and stability.
The unfolding narrative remains fraught, with mounting pressure on lawmakers to balance economic interests with the imperative to safeguard marine biodiversity for posterity. As debates rage on, the world’s eyes are firmly set on Thailand, waiting to see which path the nation will ultimately tread.
I can’t believe they’re even considering this amendment. It’s like a step backward after all the progress Thailand made since 2015!
But modernizing some regulations might actually help. Not all changes are bad, right?
Sure, modernization is good, but not at the cost of wiping out fish populations. What’s the point of short-term gain if it destroys the future?
Exactly, Joe! These changes could totally lead to the same disastrous fishing practices that created issues before.
Honestly, it sounds like everyone’s forgetting about the little guys here. What about the everyday fishermen who rely on sustainable practices?
I wonder how this will affect the local ecosystem. Anchovies may have a short lifespan, but they’re pretty crucial to marine biodiversity.
That’s a great point. The anchovies could be just one cog in the bigger ecological system.
I don’t think the EU will take this lightly if Thailand starts using undersized nets again. They’re watching closely.
True, but isn’t it more about showing they have control over their laws without outside interference?
This fight is more about the balance of power and who gets to decide — the government or the people who live by the sea.
Right, it’s about communities impacted the most being able to voice their concerns. Not every ‘modern’ solution considers these voices.
From a purely economic perspective, increasing fish catches seems beneficial. But isn’t there always more economic loss due to ecological harm?
I think the crux of the issue is whether Thailand can achieve both modernized regulations and conservation. It’s a classic developmental dilemma.
Spot on. Sustainable development should be at the heart of any policy change.
Totally agree. It’s easy to say, but often, compromises lead to ecological neglect.
I feel like this is also about protecting Thailand’s autonomy against interventionist positions by organizations like the EU.
It’s not just about autonomy when the environment is at stake. Every global entity has a right to speak for ecological issues.
True, but sometimes these entities bring more pressure than support.
I find it hard to support any change that could lead to bad press with the EU again. Thailand can’t afford that.
I heard that regulations like vessel monitoring systems are intended safeguards. Could they help compromise here?
They could be, but it depends on how strictly they’re implemented and monitored.
People are so focused on the potential bad outcomes that they forget positive possibilities. Maybe a controlled approach could work.
Thailand has such amazing marine life. Compromising it for short-term economic benefits feels like a huge mistake.
It’s always a tricky balance, though. Perhaps creative solutions can emerge that protect profits AND ecosystems.