APPENDIX L


Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES
BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY
AND GROWTH:

THAILAND CASE STUDY REPORT




A report prepared for th...
STUDY TEAM

Ruangrai Tokrisna
Ref: AGO213C/AoC/TOKRISNA




                                     L-2
SUMMARY

Thai government had included poverty eradication as one of the main nine national
policies. 13.47% of the 63.7 pe...
ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS

OTOP     One Tambon (village) One Product
SML      Small Medium Large
SPV      Special Purpose...
CONTENTS


                                                PAGE
1. BACKGROUND                                          6
 ...
LIST OF TABLES
                                                                           PAGE
Gross Domestic Product at C...
L-7
1. BACKGROUND

1.1. History, structure and nature of government and national politics


                                  ...
Majesty the King’s concept of a Sufficiency Economy. These efforts will lead
Thailand to become a country with balanced, p...
the Southern provinces. Reasons for immigration into the coastal Southern Region
were following the family to settle down ...
Indicators of national characteristics and development status are given in Table 6 – 9
(political, social, economic, and h...
Headcount ratio in the South was 8.3 on the average, being 5.5 in urban area and 9.2
in rural area.

 Due to economic cris...
Lack of effective management on natural resources including
                       forest, land, water, coastal, and fishe...
Strengthening community capability via
                                 o Promotion       on    community organization    ...
Efficient resource utilization via
                          o Promotion on community role in natural resource and
       ...
Gross Domestic Product at Current Market Prices by Economic Activities, 1995 - 2002 (bill. baht)
                         ...
Annual GDP Growth rate, 1996 - 2002 (%)
      Item                               1996 1997 1998 1999              2000 200...
Item                      1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000         2001     2002 Ave rage
Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry  ...
GDP composition at constant 1988 price (billion baht)


  $,     .
  #,"    .
  #,     .
   ,"    .
   ,     .
   ,"    .
...
Export and Import (billions of US$)

        .
        .
        .
        .
      $ .
        .
        .
               ...
Balance of payments (billions of US$)

     .
     .
     .
    $.
     .
     .
   - .
                  #

             ...
)*            & 13 (
                                         ' 24


  " .
  $".
  $ .
  #".
  # .
   ".
    .
   ".
    ....
being 10.50% annually, from a share of 3.93% in 1981 to 12.58% in 2000. Fresh
water culture share increased at 6.44% annua...
Main contribution to Thai fishing sector was shrimp culture, with a rapid growth
since late 1980s. The development was ind...
In 1983 total catch was the first time greater that two million ton. Trash fish share
decreased to 39.07%, food fish accou...
In 2000, 74.76 % of total marine catches were from the Gulf of Thailand, the rest
were from Andaman Sea. Gulf of Thailand ...
of longer than 25 m long. 19 -25 m vessels share was largest in term of gross ton
(56.75%). Tables 20 – 21)

More than one...
Beside the above, there were fishery employee households, 29,122 in Year 2000 a
decrease of -0.6% from 1995 due to decreas...
sauce (partly exported), steaming, smoking, dried and salted, fish ball, shrimp
cracker, and fish meal. Export processing ...
members engaged in fishing. By type of gears, push netter earned highest net return.
Net returns form shrimp gill net, cra...
than the maximum target production as set by Department of Fisheries. Compare to
the reported catches, the fishery resourc...
was established and had been working effectively in participation on policy and
planning, for coastal poor.
              ...
-   Promotion on value added and upgrading labor skill and
                    technology activities
                - Pro...
Overall NESDB evaluations on poverty eradication were as follows:
        - Headcount ratio decreased from 14.2% to 10.3% ...
from their fishing. They were considered better off compared to landless farmers in
the Northeastern Region.

Nevertheless...
regime. There was still some disagreement from stakeholders who had a potential
loss from this management regime.21 Local ...
There were a number of socio-economic studies on small scale fisheries undertaken
by NGOS. For examples the study on adver...
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study

1,482 views

Published on

A report prepared for the
Department for international development (DFID)
Project: “the role of fisheries in poverty alleviation and growth: past, present and future” 2005

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,482
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
28
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: Thailand Case Study

  1. 1. APPENDIX L Thailand Case Study
  2. 2. INVESTIGATING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN FISHERIES, POVERTY AND GROWTH: THAILAND CASE STUDY REPORT A report prepared for the Department for international development (DFID) Project: “the role of fisheries in poverty alleviation and growth: past, present and future” 23 May 2005
  3. 3. STUDY TEAM Ruangrai Tokrisna Ref: AGO213C/AoC/TOKRISNA L-2
  4. 4. SUMMARY Thai government had included poverty eradication as one of the main nine national policies. 13.47% of the 63.7 people lived in the Southern Region where there were long coastlines where mainly dwelled by Thai fishermen. Recent population growth was 0.66% a year. 1.75% of the total GDP (US$151.3 billion) came from fishing sector, with a decreasing trend through the years. “Poor people” were those below poverty line of US$31.4/month. There were 0.7 million poor people in the South, with a headcount ration of 8.3. Factors affecting poverty were divided into two groups, per individual and per structure. Per individual included lack of agricultural land and capital asset, indebtedness, low education, lack of occupational skill, lack of information on occupation, materialism preference, large family relatively to income earning capacity, and health problem. Pre structure included lack of effective natural resource management, inequitable development in favor for manufacturing sector, negative impact from open economy, legislative system, lack of effective collaboration among government agencies and in spatial development, and lack of effective budget allocation for poverty eradication. Government strategies on poverty eradication were potential development for urban and rural poor, social protection and safety net, macroeconomic policies, natural resource management and legislative reform, and streamlining public administration for poverty eradication. Government objectives were to increase the opportunity, generate income, and reduce non-productive consumption expenditure among the poor. Fishery abundance in Thai waters had been degraded. Marine capture growth was slower down. Important increase in fishing sector came mainly from development in shrimp culture, a main source of foreign exchange earning. Trawlers were the main fishing gears while main catches from trawls were trash fish for fish meal. Small scale fishermen accounted for about 80% of total fishing population while their catch contributed around 20%. Main fishing gear for small scale fishermen were drift gill nets. Net return for an average small scale fishing family of five persons was US$1,827/hh/yr. There were over fishing in Thai waters. Nevertheless limited effort had been on controlling fishing effort. Ineffective control was due to limited capacity on effective monitoring and enforcement. This over fishing was burden on small scale coastal fishermen. Attempts had been on development of community-based fisheries management and co-management. There were needs for legislation in support and capable community organization for this management regime. For poverty eradication, too little attention had been on the coastal poor. Future poverty eradication policy in fishing sector could be capacity strengthening in fisheries management, post harvest handling, value added processing, and marketing on the basis of pro-poor development strategies. Constraints on lack of coordination among relevant agencies, budget, human resource capacity, and marketing skill should be alleviated. L-3
  5. 5. ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS OTOP One Tambon (village) One Product SML Small Medium Large SPV Special Purpose Vehicles GDP Gross Domestic Product NESDB National Social and Economic Development Board GNP Gross National Product kg kilogram hh household R&D Research and Development CBFM Community-based Fishery Management NGO Non Government Organization COD Community Organization Development DANCED Danish Consortium on Environment and Development L-4
  6. 6. CONTENTS PAGE 1. BACKGROUND 6 1.1 HISTORY, STRUCTURE AND NATURE OF 6 GOVERNMENT AND NATIONAL POLITICS 1.2 POPULATION 7 1.3 ECONOMIC STRUCTURE 8 1.4 INDICATORS OF NATIONAL CHARACTEISTICS 9 2. POVERTY 9 2.1 DEFINITION OF POVERTY IN THAILAND 9 2.2 FACTORS AFFECTING POVERTY 10 2.3 POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGIES 11 3. ECONOMIC GROWTH 14 3.1 GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT 14 3.2 FISHING SECTOR 21 4. FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT 23 4.1 FISHERIES EXPLOITATION 23 4.2 WEALTH-RELATED BENEFITS 29 5. POLICY MAKING 30 5.1 POVERTY ISSUES 30 5.2 POVERTY AND THE FISHING SECTOR 33 REFERENCES 36 TABLES 38-73 L-5
  7. 7. LIST OF TABLES PAGE Gross Domestic Product at Current Market Prices by Economic Activities, 14 1995 - 2002 Share of Economic Sector in GDP at current market prices, 1995 - 2002 15 Annual GDP Growth rate, 1996 - 2002 (%) 15 GDP at Current Market Price by Economic Activities 1995 - 2002 16 Table 1 Thai Population, 1980 - 2003 38 Table 2 Population Migration in Thailand, 2003 40 Table 3 Thailand’s Key Economic Indicators 41 Table 4 Gross Domestic product by Sector, Thailand 2000 - 2003 42 Table 5 Growth Rate of GDP by Sector, Thailand 2000 - 2003 43 Table 6 Thailand Political Development Indicators 44 Table 7 Thailand Social Development Indicators 46 Table 8 Thailand Economic Development Indicators 48 Table 9 Thailand Human Development Indicators 49 Table 10 Poverty line, Thailand by Region and Area 1996 - 2004 58 Table 11 People in Poverty, Thailand by Region and Area 1996 - 2004 58 Table 12 Head-count Ratio, Thailand by Region and Area 1996 - 2004 59 Table 13 Thai Export Volume and Value, 2001 - 2004 60 Table 14 Share and Growth Rate of Thai Export, 2001 - 2004 61 Table 15 Quantity and value of Production from Fishing Sector by Type of 62 Production, 1981 - 2000 Table 16 Share of Fisheries Production, 1981 - 2000 63 Table 17 Marine Capture by Type of Operation, 1981 - 2000 64 Table 18 Marine Catches by Species and Fishing Ground, 2000 65 Table 19 Marine Catches by Type of Fishing Gear and Fishing Ground, 66 2000 Table 20 Number of Registered Fishing Vessels by Size and Type of Gear 67 Table 21 Share of Registered Fishing Vessels by Size and Type of Gear 68 Table 22 Marine Fishery Households by Type of Operation, 1995 and 2000 69 Table 23 Marine Fishery Households by Type of Operation, 1995 and 2000 69 Table 24 Number of Fishermen in Peal Season by Area aand Origin of 70 Fishermen, 2000 Table 25 Wage rate in Fishing Sector, 1996 - 2003 71 Table 26 Fish Processing Plants by type of Processing and Region 71 Table 27 Utilization of Marine Catches by Type of Processing 72 Table 28 Cost and Returns from Small Scale fisheries 72 Table 29 Source of Income of Small Scale Fisheries 73 L-6
  8. 8. L-7
  9. 9. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1. History, structure and nature of government and national politics Thailand is located in the central on Southeast Asia, bordered by Laos to the northeast, Cambodia to the southeast, Malaysia to the south, and Myanmar to the northwest. There were long coastlines along the lower eastern region and the southeast, surrounded by the Gulf of Thailand. On the southwest, there is Andaman Sea. Totally, coastlines were 2,624 km. long. in total. Coastal fishing villages are located along these coastlines. Recently the coastal development in the East (Laem Chabang, Si Racha and Sattahip) and the South (Phuket, Surat Thani, Songkhla, Pattani) has turned parts of these coastal areas to industrial areas (Figure 1). Figure 1 Map of Thailand Source: http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/THA/profile.htm Thai Kingdom was established in the mid-14th century, governed by absolute monarchy until 1932 when turned into constitutional monarchy. His Majesty King Bhumibhol is the Head of the State. The official state administration rests on the government headed by the Prime Minister. There is the Parliament and bureaucratic system from the capital city down to the village level. Legislative power is vested with the Parliament, through the elected House of Representatives and the elected Senate. The parliament approves all legislative matters, to be signed by the King before becoming the Thai Law. Thai Rak Thai Party, led by Thanksin Shinawatra, won the election in February 2005. Thanksin Shinawatra became the Prime Minister for the second time. In delivering the national policy to the Parliament in March, he stated that “…The next four years will be four years that transform Thailand into a secure and sustainable nation in every respect. The Government will provide the opportunities for the future and lay solid foundations for the economy, society and politics by focusing on strengthening the local people, replenishing the fertility of soil and water resources and restoring the power of decision to the community. The Government will also emphasize the restructuring of the economy and society to become more balanced, immunizing the economic system and reforming the education system with the aim of developing Thailand as a society with knowledge-based economy according to His L-8
  10. 10. Majesty the King’s concept of a Sufficiency Economy. These efforts will lead Thailand to become a country with balanced, prosperous, secure and sustainable structures. ..”. To achieve such statement goal, there are nine main policies covering 1) poverty eradication, 2) human development and quality of life, 3) economic restructuring to create equilibrium and competitiveness, 4) natural resources and environment, 5) foreign policy and international economics, 6) development of the legal system and good governance, 7) democracy and civil society process promotion, 8) national security, and 9) directive principles of fundamental state policies. For poverty eradication, at the grass root level asset capitalization is the mean for capital access. Cooperative systems are to be promoted. The government will provide mobile units “Poverty Eradication Caravan” giving advices and services for professional development and training. At the community level local community will be strengthened. Agricultural infrastructure will be developed. Marketing system for the “One Tambon (village) One Product (OTOP)” will be improved. Budget will be allocated under “Small Medium Large (SML) Scheme to enable the community in alleviating their poverty problems. At the national level the government will facilitate sufficient land ownership and increase efficiency in water resource management. “Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV)” will be established for production, processing, marketing, and access to capital funds in order to reduce farmers’ risk. The emphasis is on farming sector. 1.2. Population Thai population was 63.7 million in 2003, 49.08% male and 50.92% female. Average annual growth rate during 1980 – 2003 was 1.28%. The growth rate was higher in the earlier years and decreased to be more stable recently. In 1980s the growth rate was 1.97% and decreased to 1.03% in 1990s. Recently during 2000 - 2003 population growth rate was 0.66% a year (Table 1). Average population density was 123 persons/sq km. Of this total population, 9.27% lived in Bangkok. 34.34% lived in the Northeastern Region, 23.76% in the Central, 19.16% in the Northern, while only 13.47% lived in the South. Coastal provinces are mostly located in the South along the Gulf of Thailand on the east and the Andaman Sea on the west. Among the four Regions, area of the Southern is the smallest (70,715 sq km). In term of population density, population was crowded in, the capital city, Bangkok (3,734 persons/sq km) followed by the Central Region (146 persons/sq km) and the Northeastern (128 persons/sq km). Population density in the Southern Region came in the third, 120 persons/sq km. The lowest density was the mountainous Northern Region (71 persons/sq km). Immigration in to the coastal Southern Region was 0.68% of total population, lower than the immigration in the Northeastern (2.70%), Central (1.43%), and the Northern (1.18%). The immigration was least in Bangkok (0.46%). Immigration in the Southern Region was mostly among southern provinces (0.53%), the rest were from Bangkok, Central Region, Northeastern, Northern, and foreign countries accordingly. Out migration from the south was 0.81%, thus there were more people moving out of L-9
  11. 11. the Southern provinces. Reasons for immigration into the coastal Southern Region were following the family to settle down there (0.25%), moving back to hometown (0.10%), settling down (0.07%), looking for new occupation (0.06%), studying (0.05%), being assigned to work there (0.05%), changing occupation (0.02%), getting higher income (0.02%), working for family business (0.02%), taking care of or being taken care of (0.02%), getting medical care (0.01%), and other reasons (0.02%) . (Table 2) Coastal area in Thailand was divided into five zones. Zone I is located along the coastlines in the East (Trat, Chantaburi and Rayong), Zone 2 covers the coastlines along the inner Gulf of Thailand (Chonburi, Chacheongsao, Samutprakarn, Samutsakorn, Samutsongkhram, and Petchburi), Zone 3 covers the Gulf coastlines in the upper South (Prachuapkhirikhan, Chumporn and Suratthani), Zone 4 covers the Gulf coastlines in the lower South (Nakhonsithammarat, Songkhla, Pattani and Naratiwat), and Zone 5 covers coastlines along Andaman Sea (Ranong, Phangnga, Phuket, Krabi, Trang and Satun). Large coastal cites with population of over a million are Nakhonsithammarat, Songkhla, Chonburi and Samutprakarn. 1.3. Economic Structure GDP in 2003 was 5,930.4 billion baht (= US$ 151.3 billion) of which 10.03% was from agriculture, other 89.97% was from non-agricultural sector, mainly manufacturing (34.74%) and wholesale and retail trade including repair of vehicles and household goods (15.42%). Fishing sector shared only 1.75% of the GDP, with a decreasing share through the years while other agriculture share still increased being 8.28% of the GDP in 2003 (Tables 3 and 4) GDP growth rate was as high as 6.16% in 2000, decreased to 4.28% in 2001 and increased again to be 6.09% in 2002 and to 8.89% in 2003. GDP growth rate in agricultural sector increased rapidly from 2.00% in 2000 to be 15.96% in 2003. Nevertheless these increases were from the non-fishing sector. For fishery, the GDP growth rate which was 13.82% in 2000 decreased to be -5.86% in 2001, -4.42% in 2002, and -1.89% in 2003. Non-agriculture GDP growth was lower than agriculture GDP growth rate since 2001 being 4.16%, 5.75%, and 8.16% accordingly.(Table 5) Unemployment rate in 1999 was 5.2% in February, 5.3% in May, 3.0% in August, and 3.3% in November and tended to decrease in 2000 to be 4.3%, 4.1%, 2.4% and 3.7% accordingly.1 Balance of payments was surplus being US$5.7 billions in 2003, It was preliminary estimated to be the so in 20042. Trade balance had a surplus of US$1.7 billions being lower than in 2000 – 2003. (Details are in Table 3.) 1.4. Indicators of National Characteristics 1 Labor Force Survey 1999 – 2000 Labor Force Survey 1999 – 2000, National Statistical Office. 2 Bank of Thailand L-10
  12. 12. Indicators of national characteristics and development status are given in Table 6 – 9 (political, social, economic, and human development indicators). 2. POVERTY 2.1. Definition of Poverty in Thailand “Poor people” are those below the poverty line. The poverty line was constructed on the basis of food and minimum basic consumption requirements of each family member. Such requirements are varied by age, sex, and spatial price difference. Thus the “poor” means one with insufficient income to pay for these minimum requirements. On the average the poverty line as estimated by the National Social and Economic Development Board (NESDB) was 1,230 baht/person/month (approximately US$31.4 at the exchange rate 39.2 baht/US$) in 2004, an increasing trend from 953 baht/person/month in 1996. There were 7.5 million poor people whose incomes were below this poverty line, a decreasing from 9.8 million in 1996. The head-count ratio decreased from 17.0 in 1996 to 12.0 in 2004. (Table 10 – 12) The poverty line was higher in urban area. Urban poverty line in 2004 was 1,466 baht/person/month (US$37.4) while it was 1,119 baht/person/month (US$28.5) in rural area. In urban area there were 1.0 million poor people while the other 6.5 million lived in rural area. Head-count ratios were 4.8 in urban area and 13.4 in rural area. By region, there was only in the Central Region, not including Bangkok the capital city, which the poverty line was above the country average (1,305 baht/person/month compared to 1,230). Number of poor people was highest in the Northeast (3.8 million, 45.33% of the total poor). Most of these were those in the rural Northeast (3.4 million). Low income from agricultural sector was the reason for being poor. The Northeast region has been considered a least fertile region with lowest agricultural yield due to relatively low soil fertility, drought, and lack of effective irrigation system. Nevertheless the head-count ratio in the Northeast (17.9) was second to the North (18.5). 3 The poverty line in the South, the coastal areas where most of the fishing villages were located, was 1,190 baht/person/month, higher than in the Northeast (1,071 baht/person/month) Thailand and slightly higher than the North (1,148 baht/person/month) but lower than the Central and the country average. There were 0.7 million poor people (9.33% of the total poor) in the South of which 0.1 million lived in urban area and the other 0.6 million in rural area. Compared to the other region, not including Bangkok, number of the poor was least in the South. 3 NESDB reported that the differences were greater at the provincial level. In the South where by region, the poverty seemed relatively less serious, there were still two provinces on the Malaysia border, Yala and Narathiwas that the poverty was considered severe. L-11
  13. 13. Headcount ratio in the South was 8.3 on the average, being 5.5 in urban area and 9.2 in rural area. Due to economic crisis in 19974, the poverty in Thailand tended to increase; nevertheless the reduction was slower in the rural areas indicating that economic development had not reached the entire sector equitably. Farmers in the Northeast left their farms seeking for employment in Bangkok and peripheries. Before the crisis such migration was a factor of decrease in poverty in the Northeast. Nevertheless the economic crisis led to increase in poverty. Head –count ration increased from 17.0 in 1996 to 18.8 in 1998 and even higher to 21.3 in 2001. Nevertheless after the recovery, the ration decreased to 15.0 in 2003 and recently to 12.0 in 2004. 2.2. Factors Affecting Poverty NESDB divided main factors of poverty into two groups: per individual and per structure. The factors were as follows. Per individual Lack of capital asset Lack of agricultural land Indebtedness Low education Lack of occupational skill Lack of information on occupation Materialism preference Large family relatively to income earning capacity Health problem Poor people in Thailand were mostly in agricultural sector. Coastal artisanal fishermen were also considered “poor”. Lack of agricultural land and capital asset constrained investment capacity for production efficiency and better income. Farmers had to borrow for farm investment as well as to make their livings, thus a chronic indebtedness, mainly with their traders. Low education, lack of occupational skill and lack of information on occupation limited their job opportunities. Development led to their materialism preference. Examples were the preferences on television, motorcycle, and mobile phone. In rural sector, working age people usually left home to find jobs in the cities. Children might be sent back to hometown during their school age since cost of living in the cities was expensive. Thus in rural sector, there were families with the old and the young, few working age thus low capacity in earning income for the non-working members. Health was also considered a problem among these poor. Per structure 4 In 1980s and early 1990s, economic growth in Thailand was two digits. The high income was considered “bubble economy”. Real estate prices were unusually high resulting from the speculation. High interest rate induced foreign capital inflow. Investors in Thailand sought low interest loans from abroad. Financial liberalization eased the capital inflow and investment in Thai stack market. Thai baht value was too high, leading to increasing imports and speculation on real estates. There was influx of foreign loans and investment. The too strong baht value led to speculation in foreign currency. When foreign capital was withdrawn, baht was devalued. This devaluation led to inability in payment on foreign loan. Businesses had to be sold to foreign investors. Many were out of business leading to decrease in income during the late 1990s. Employees were laid off. L-12
  14. 14. Lack of effective management on natural resources including forest, land, water, coastal, and fishery resources and environment which led to overexploitation by commercial sector, thus fewer resources for the poor. Inequitable development in favor of manufacturing sector. Open economy leading negative impact and higher risk for the poor who were mainly in agricultural sector. Legislation system which led to greater social inequity. Lack of effective collaboration among government agencies concerning poverty eradication. Lack of collaboration in spatial development. Lack of effective government budget allocation on poverty eradication. Thailand has been one of the natural resource abundant countries. Nevertheless the lack of effective resource management and rapid economic development had led to resource degradation. Less benefit from resource exploitation had been share by the poor. Open economy also led to resource overexploitation, mainly in manufacturing sector. Without effective natural resource management, rapid development led to resource degradation. Open economy without protection on small scale farmers increase the poverty in this sector. Still the current legislations were in favor for the development and higher income group, thus led to greater social inequality. While there were government concerns in poverty eradication, there were lack of effective coordination among relevant government agencies and lack of spatial development collaboration in achieving this goal. Finally government budget allocation was considered not adequately allocated for this goal. 2.3 Poverty Reduction Strategies Government strategies in poverty eradication, according to NESDB, can be grouped in to three missions as follows. 1. Develop the potential of urban and rural poor: Urban poor, support on job security via o Establishing occupation group and community business. o Provision of low interest credit. o Turning slum into community production area, as well as uplifting living condition and environment. o Provision of necessary social services. Rural poor, support on occupation potential via o Support on sustainable agriculture and self- sufficient domestic consumption. o Promotion on strengthening community economy. o Promotion on occupation group. o Raising community saving. o Connection between community economy and private company. o Better education for better alternatives and improved life quality. L-13
  15. 15. Strengthening community capability via o Promotion on community organization and networking. o Development on community organization, to be core unit in local development and collaboration with other relevant agencies. o Promotion on community participation in public sector decision making process. Examples of action plan being undertaken include debt moratorium for small farmers, village fund, One-Tambon5-One –Product (OTOP), long term credit facilities, refinance informal loans, turning asset of the poor to capital investment. 2. Develop social protection and safety net: Develop health service system and training for the poor o Fair health service o Accelerate health insurance program at the nationwide o Provide education and training for the disable ones o Skill development for the poor for capital credit access Provide social welfare o Develop information system data base o Improve existing revolving fund o Promotion on community welfare fund o Accelerate the establishment of unemployment insurance fund Examples of action plans are cash transfer to indigent elderly and disable persons, universal health insurance program, provision on housing and shelter, and drinking water, local authorities in education and life long learning opportunity for the poor, and school bicycle. 3. Structural poverty eradication: Promotion on macroeconomic policy in favor of poverty eradication o Increasing public conscious on self-sufficiency o Develop capacity in economic, politic, social and cultural self-reliance o Promotion on equitable economic development o Low inflation targeting o Least tax burden on the poor o Least adverse impact from free trade regime o Increasing equity in access to information system technology for alleviating problem and increasing opportunity for better life quality among the poor. 4. Natural resource management administration and legislative reform for poverty eradication: 5 Tambon is a Thai word for sub-district. L-14
  16. 16. Efficient resource utilization via o Promotion on community role in natural resource and environmental management o Acceleration on provision of agricultural land for poor farmers o Promotion on natural resource utilization zoning o Promotion on urban planning o Acceleration on water source and irrigation development o Support on establishing natural resource and environment conservation and monitoring fund o Increasing public sector natural resources and environment concern on natural resource and environmental impact o Improve legislations concerning natural resources and environment The emphases are on natural resource management, land settlement, and land reform. 5. Streamlining public administration for poverty eradication Division of the government agencies involving poverty eradication by their mission: o Planning o Overall action o Area action o Supporting agencies Decentralization on budget allocation Public hearing The focuses are on devolution of public resource management and responsibility and community action plan for poverty reduction. 3. ECONOMIC GROWTH 3.1 Gross Domestic Product In 2003, Bank of Thailand reported that the preliminary GDP at current market prices was 5, 930 billion baht (= US$143 billion at 41.5 baht/US$). GDP in 2002 was 5,452 billion baht (=US$127 billion at 43.0 baht/US$). Average growth rate during 1995 -2002 was 2.98%. Fishing sector growth rate was 3.86%, higher than those in non-agriculture (3.06%) and other agriculture sector (1.82%). Growth rate in agricultural sector (2.29%) was low than the total average. L-15
  17. 17. Gross Domestic Product at Current Market Prices by Economic Activities, 1995 - 2002 (bill. baht) Growth 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 rate Agriculture 398 438 447 499 436 444 468 511 2.29 Agriculture, Hunting and 314 350 352 391 332 326 357 407 1.82 Forestry Fishing 84 88 95 108 103 118 111 104 3.86 Non-Agriculture 3,788 4,173 4,285 4,128 4,202 4,479 4,665 4,941 3.06 Gross Domestic Product 4,186 4,611 4,733 4,626 4,637 4,923 5,134 5,452 2.98 Source: Calculated from Data of National Social and Economic Development Board http://www.nesdb.go.th/econSocial/macro/nad.htm On the average, non-agricultural sector had the main share in GDP, 90.48%, while agricultural share was only 9.52%. During the economic crisis in 1998 share of agricultural sector slightly increased due to the decrease in contribution from non- agricultural sector. Fishing sector shared only 2.12%, with a tendency to decrease recently. Share of Economic Sector in GDP at current market prices, 1995 - 2002 (%) Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Average Agriculture 9.51 9.50 9.45 10.78 9.39 9.02 9.12 9.37 9.52 Agriculture, Hunting and 7.49 7.59 7.44 8.44 7.16 6.63 6.96 7.46 Forestry 7.40 Fishing 2.01 1.91 2.01 2.33 2.23 2.39 2.16 1.91 2.12 Non-Agriculture 90.49 90.50 90.55 89.22 90.61 90.98 90.88 90.63 90.48 Gross Domestic Product 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source: Calculated from Data of National Social and Economic Development Board http://www.nesdb.go.th/econSocial/macro/nad.htm Until 2000, annual growth in fishing sector was the higher. The exception was the negative growth in 1999, which could be the impact of economic crisis. Nevertheless growth rate in fishing sector increased again in 2000, and became negative afterward. Annual GDP growth rate - . . . - . - . ! Source: Calculated from Data of National Social and Economic Development Board http://www.nesdb.go.th/econSocial/macro/nad.htm L-16
  18. 18. Annual GDP Growth rate, 1996 - 2002 (%) Item 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1995-2002 Agriculture 10.10 2.07 11.50 -12.65 1.98 5.47 9.06 2.29 Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry 11.61 0.51 10.98 -14.99 -1.72 9.50 13.87 1.82 Fishing 4.47 8.25 13.43 -4.19 13.85 -5.69 -6.44 3.86 Non-Agriculture 10.15 2.70 -3.68 1.79 6.61 4.16 5.91 3.06 Gross Domestic Product 10.15 2.64 -2.24 0.23 6.17 4.28 6.19 2.98 Source: Calculated from Data of National Social and Economic Development Board http://www.nesdb.go.th/econSocial/macro/nad.htm By economic activities, most contribution was from manufacturing sector (31.78%), followed by wholesale, retail trade and repairing services (16.84%), and transport, storage and communication (7.87%). Following these three was agriculture, hunting and forestry (7.40%) and hotel and restaurants (5.41%). Contributions from other activities were less than five percent. GDP at Current Market Price by Economic Activities 1995 - 2002 (bill. baht) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry 314 350 352 391 332 326 357 407 Fishing 84 88 95 108 103 118 111 104 Mining and Quarrying 50 63 82 84 87 117 126 136 Manufacturing 1,252 1,370 1,428 1,428 1,514 1,653 1,715 1,848 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 101 107 119 142 130 146 167 176 Construction 303 342 272 179 166 150 154 166 Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repairing Service 709 763 812 786 801 848 857 867 Hotels and Restaurants 220 249 246 231 256 275 289 310 Transport, Storage and Communications 303 341 370 361 376 397 429 444 Financial Intermediation 297 328 309 235 156 146 151 166 Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities 143 155 157 153 157 161 164 172 Public Administration 158 171 181 195 204 211 222 245 Education 137 149 163 182 187 197 202 212 Health and Social Work 61 69 76 83 91 97 104 107 Other Service Activities 49 59 63 61 68 74 77 84 Private Households with Employed Persons 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Source: Calculated from Data of National Social and Economic Development Board http://www.nesdb.go.th/econSocial/macro/nad.htm L-17
  19. 19. Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Ave rage Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry 7.49 7.59 7.44 8.44 7.16 6.63 6.96 7.46 7.40 Fishing 2.01 1.91 2.01 2.33 2.23 2.39 2.16 1.91 2.12 Mining and Quarrying 1.20 1.38 1.74 1.82 1.88 2.37 2.46 2.50 1.92 Manufacturing 29.90 29.72 30.17 30.87 32.65 33.58 33.41 33.90 31.78 Electricity, Gas and W ater Supply 2.42 2.32 2.51 3.08 2.81 2.97 3.25 3.22 2.82 Construction 7.23 7.41 5.74 3.86 3.59 3.05 3.00 3.04 4.62 Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repairing Service 16.95 16.55 17.16 16.99 17.28 17.23 16.69 15.91 16.84 Hotels and Restaurants 5.25 5.40 5.20 4.99 5.52 5.59 5.63 5.68 5.41 Transport, Storage and Communications 7.24 7.40 7.82 7.80 8.11 8.07 8.35 8.15 7.87 Financial Intermediation 7.08 7.12 6.53 5.09 3.37 2.96 2.94 3.04 4.77 Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities 3.41 3.37 3.32 3.32 3.39 3.28 3.20 3.16 3.30 Public Administration 3.76 3.72 3.83 4.22 4.40 4.29 4.32 4.49 4.13 Education 3.28 3.24 3.45 3.93 4.03 3.99 3.94 3.88 3.72 Health and Social Work 1.46 1.49 1.61 1.80 1.96 1.96 2.03 1.97 1.79 Other Service Activities 1.17 1.28 1.33 1.31 1.47 1.50 1.50 1.55 1.39 Private Households with Employed Persons 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Source: Calculated from Data of National Social and Economic Development Board http://www.nesdb.go.th/econSocial/macro/nad.htm During 1979 – 1985 GDP at constant price increased at an annual average of 5.47% and even higher to 9.41% during 1986-1995. Nevertheless the economic crisis in the later half of 1990s reduced the growth rate. GDP decreased at an annual average of 6.24% during 1996 – 1998, and then recovered in 1999. During 1999 – 2003, the average annual growth was 4.60% GDP at constant 1988 price (billion baht) $, . #," . #, . ," . , . ," . , . " . . # " # " # Source: http://www.bot.or.th/bothomepage/databank/EconData/Thai_Key/Thai_KeyE.asp High increase in GDP in late 1980s and early 1990s was the contribution from non- agricultural sector, mainly manufacturing. During the crisis GDP from non- agriculture sector decreased while agricultural sector increased slightly, leading to decreases in GDP during 1996 – 1998. Later recovering was mainly due to the non- agricultural sector. Share of agricultural sector, including fishing sector was limited (less than 10% while fishing sector contribution was around 2%, with recent decreasing trend). L-18
  20. 20. GDP composition at constant 1988 price (billion baht) $, . #," . #, . ," . , . ," . , . " . . # " # " # Source: http://www.bot.or.th/bothomepage/databank/EconData/Thai_Key/Thai_KeyE.asp Per capita GNP followed the same pattern as GDP being 91,420 baht/year in 2003 (=US$2,203 at 41.4 baht/US$). !% % & ( ' , , , , , " , $ , # , , , # " # " # Source: http://www.bot.or.th/bothomepage/databank/EconData/Thai_Key/Thai_KeyE.asp Export earning has been important source of income for Thailand. Nevertheless it was not until after the economic crisis, in 1999 the trade balance was positive. Current account balance was negative before 1999. Positive net capital movement resulted in gain in balance of payment until 1997. Since the crisis there have been net capital outflow, which led to loss in balance of payment in 1998 and 2001. Total debt outstanding was US$50.7 billion in 2003, of which the public debt was US$11.3 billion. The exchange rate was around 20 baht/US$ during 1879-1985, increased to around 25 baht/US$ during 1986 – 1996. During the economic crisis exchange rate increased sharply to 31.4 baht/US$ in 1997 and reached the peak 41.5 baht/US$ in 2001. In 2005, it was preliminary estimated to be 38.8 baht/US$. L-19
  21. 21. Export and Import (billions of US$) . . . . $ . . . # " # " # )% * +% Source: http://www.bot.or.th/bothomepage/databank/EconData/Thai_Key/Thai_KeyE.asp Current account balance and net capital movement (billions of US$) # . . . . - . # " # " # - . , ' % - Source: http://www.bot.or.th/bothomepage/databank/EconData/Thai_Key/Thai_KeyE.asp L-20
  22. 22. Balance of payments (billions of US$) . . . $. . . - . # " # " # -$. - . - . - . - . Source: http://www.bot.or.th/bothomepage/databank/EconData/Thai_Key/Thai_KeyE.asp Composition of net capital movement (billions of US$) # . . . . # " # " # - . - . !- !' . 0 / Total debt outstanding and public debt (billions of US$) . . . . $ . . . # " # " # 0 ' !' ' L-21
  23. 23. )* & 13 ( ' 24 " . $". $ . #". # . ". . ". . ". . # " # " # / P " Source: http://www.bot.or.th/bothomepage/databank/EconData/Thai_Key/Thai_KeyE.asp 3.2. Fishing Sector Fishing sector shared around two percent in GDP, with a recent declining trend due to fishery resource degradation in Thai waters. In term of export, details are in Tables 13 and 14. In 2004 of total US$97.7 billion export value, fishery export was US$3.9 billion; US$1.8 billion from primary fishery products and the other US$2.1 billion from processed seafood. Half of the primary fishery export values were frozen shrimp, mainly from culture. Fish and squid shared were about the same, being about one-fourth of the primary fishery export. Fish export value had been a little higher than squid. Processed fishery exports were in various forms of value-added products and had a higher share in exports of manufactured fishery exports. In 2004, value of manufactured fishery export was US$2.1 billion of which US$1.3 was from processed seafood (mainly shrimp) and US$0.8 billion from canned seafood (mainly canned tuna). Shrimp had been the main source of foreign exchange earning from fishery exports. Nevertheless these shrimp exports were mainly from culture not capture. In term of production through 1981 – 2000, total fisheries production increased at an average annual growth rate of 3.40% from 1.989 million ton in 1981 to 3.713 million ton in 2000. Nevertheless, the growth rates were greater in culture (14.11% for coastal culture, mainly shrimp and 9.85% for freshwater culture). Growth rate was the least for marine capture (2.08%) while inland capture grew at 5.08% annually. Details are in Table 15. In term of production share marine capture share decreased at 1.13% annually, from 88.33% in 1981 to 74.70% in 2000. Coastal culture share increased most rapidly L-22
  24. 24. being 10.50% annually, from a share of 3.93% in 1981 to 12.58% in 2000. Fresh water culture share increased at 6.44% annually while inland capture share increased only 1.68%. (Table 16) Fishery abundance in Thai waters had been degraded. Marine capture growth was slowed down. Important increase in fishing sector came mainly from development in shrimp culture. In term of value the increase in total production was 12.97% annually, much higher than the volume growth rate. From 17.13 billion baht, the value increased to 157.46 billion baht in 2000. The highest growth rate was from coastal culture (27.12%), greater than twice the second highest – freshwater culture (12.12%). The rapid increase in share of coastal culture reduced the share from the other fishing sector. In term of value, share of other sector decreased while the share of coastal culture increased from 5.12% in 1981 to 58.81% in 2000, higher than the share of marine capture (31.37%). (Table 15) $5 #5 " #5 5 " 5 5 " 5 5 " 5 # " # " 6 % + % , 7 Source: Fisheries Statistics of Thailand http://www.fisheries.go.th/it/stat/t71.htm Value of Fish Production 1981 - 2000 (billion baht) 180.00 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Marine capture Inland capture Coastal culture Freshwater culture Source: Fisheries Statistics of Thailand http://www.fisheries.go.th/it/stat/t72.htm L-23
  25. 25. Main contribution to Thai fishing sector was shrimp culture, with a rapid growth since late 1980s. The development was induced good price in the international market and coastal abundance in Thailand. For marine capture, most of the catches were from trawlers. Main catches from trawlers were trash fish for feed mill. Rapid increase in number of trawlers had rapidly depleted fishery resource abundance in the Gulf of Thailand. Coastal fishermen, with limited alternatives on job opportunity due to lack of skill and investment funds had been mostly affected from this resource degradation. The rapid increase in trawlers was resulted by the development of otterboard trawlers from Germany. Before trawlers main fishing gears were purse seines aimed for pelagic fish. Due to fishery resource abundance, when otterboard trawl was introduced, catches were high targeting on demersal resources. High earnings from this fishing gear led to rapid increase in number of trawlers. Commercial fishermen gained from this resource exploitation. Later there was overcapacity, thus over fishing and fishery resource degradation. Such resource degradation had a negative impact on coastal small scale fishermen who mainly relied on coastal fishery resources. There had not been government subsidy on this fishing gear. Nevertheless lack of effective control on number of trawlers was one of the cause of fishery resource degradation in the Gulf of Thailand. 4. FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT 4.1. Fisheries Exploitation After development in trawl fishery, main catches were demersal fish, of which a large portion was caught as trash fish for fish meal industry. These trash fish were low quality fish, caught mainly by trawlers, and were used for animal feed. Trawl had been considered a destructive fishing gear. Young juvenile economic fish were also caught as trash fish, by trawls. Fishery resource abundance in Thai waters was rapidly depleted by trawling. There is a regulation on banning trawl within 3 kilometers from shoreline. Nevertheless due to long coastlines and limited budget and personnel on monitoring and enforcement, this regulation had not been effectively pursued its objective. Catch per unit effort reduced by ten times after the boom in trawlers. Recently due to resource degradation in Thai waters, large trawlers had to fish outside Thai waters. There were a number of Thai trawlers fishing in neighboring country waters, including Indonesia, Myanmar, Malaysia, Cambodia and Vietnam. Large Thai trawls had already been fishing in Indian Ocean, as well as in African country waters. Fishery resource degradation in Thai waters, especially in the Gulf of Thailand was burdened mostly on small scale fishermen, with small fishing vessels thus could not fish far from home. These small scale artisanal fishermen relied on their daily catches for home consumption as well as source of income. In 1981 total marine capture was 1.757 million ton of which almost half (45.36%) was trash fish. Food fish accounted for 32.84%, shrimp 7.91%, and shellfish 5.75%. L-24
  26. 26. In 1983 total catch was the first time greater that two million ton. Trash fish share decreased to 39.07%, food fish accounted for 32.85%. After 1983, total marine catches fell below two thousand and picked up again in 1986 to 2.310 million ton. Share of trash fish was 42.25%. In 1097, trash fish catch reached its peak 1.106 million ton. Total catch increased to 2.540 million ton and fell again until picked up in 1991 reaching 2.827 million ton in 1995. In 2000, marine catch was 2.774 million ton, 27.94% was trash fish while 51.95% was food fish. (Table 17) Recently, resource degradation drove a number of trawls, especially the larger ones outside Thai waters. A number of small trawlers which could not go fishing outside Thai waters converted their fishing gear, mainly turning into anchovy purse seine. Share of food fish increased.6 Marine Capture by Type of Catches, - (mill.ton) #, ," , ," , " # " # " 8 0 8 3 % , ' 6 3 8 / Source: Fisheries Statistics of Thailand http://www.fisheries.go.th/it/stat/t11.htm Marine catch composition, - % % % $ % % % # " # " 8 0 8 3 % , ' 6 3 8 / Source: Fisheries Statistics of Thailand http://www.fisheries.go.th/it/stat/t11.htm 6 Recently it had been estimated that about 30% of the catches were from non-Thai fishing ground. L-25
  27. 27. In 2000, 74.76 % of total marine catches were from the Gulf of Thailand, the rest were from Andaman Sea. Gulf of Thailand has been the main fishing ground while the share from Andaman Sea has recently been due to fishery resource degradation in the Gulf. Nevertheless catches from Andaman Sea received a better price7, thus in term of value the share of the Gulf was 70.31%, lower than the volume share. Fish was the main catches (79.88%), of which 30.32% was pelagic fish, 27.94% was trash fish and the rest was demersal fish. Cephalopods shared 9.81%, crustaceans 5.26%, and the rest 5.05% (mainly jelly fish). (Table 18) Five top pelagic catches were sardines (for canning), Indo-Pacific mackerel (for domestic consumption), anchovies (for dried/boiled dried for exports), scads (for domestic consumption), and longtail-tuna (for canning). Demersal catches were various. Top demersal catches included treadfin breams, big-eyes, and lizard fish. Food demersal fish were for domestic consumption as well as export as frozen fish. Trash fish which was about one-third of the total catches was mainly for animal feed and fish meal. For crustaceans 3.17% were shrimp and 2.09% were crabs. Shrimps were mainly frozen for export as well as domestic consumption. Small shrimps could be canned or processed as dried and shrimp paste8 Crabs were for canning, as well as for domestic consumption. Squid and cuttlefish were frozen for export and domestic fresh consumption. Molluscs could be exported as canned and frozen as well as sold for domestic consumption. Jellyfish were processed for export and for domestic consumption. Main fishing gear in Thai fisheries were trawls. More than half of the marine catches were from trawls (58.43%). These trawls were mainly fished in the Gulf of Thailand. Otter board trawl was the main gear. 48.41% of the total marine catches were from this gear. Other trawls included pair trawl (large commercial scale fishery) and beam trawl (small scale fishery). Purse seine contributed 25.70%. Anchovy purse seine was specific gear using fine mesh size, thus was separated from the usual purse seine. Catches from anchovy purse seine was 4.87%. Gill nets were various and shared 4.13% of total marine catches. Important gill net included crab gill net and shrimp gill net, the main fishing gears among coastal small scale fishing households. Shrimp caught from these gill nets could get high price due to better quality. Nevertheless there was conflict between these gill net fishermen and trawlers as well as push netters. Indo-Pacific mackerel gill net had been long important fishing gear in this country. Other fishing gears included mobile net (1.40%), light luring gears mainly for squids and anchovies (0.66%), hook (0.24%), stationary gears mainly traps (0.97%), and others mainly jellyfish fishing and shell fish collecting(8.48%). (Table 19) Total number of registered fishing vessels in 2000 was 17,295.9 About half (49.37%) were vessels of less than 14 m long, with an average 7 – 8 gross ton. Other about one-fourth each were those 14 – 18 m and 19 – 25 m. Only 1.20% was vessels 7 Due to different topography, Gulf of Thailand was shallow whether Andaman Sea was deep. Catches from Gulf of Thailand consisted mainly of lower value demersal species including trash fish. Catches from Andaman Sea were relatively more of higher value pelagic species. 8 Popular ingredient for many Thai dishes. 9 Nevertheless Mr. Wicharn Sirichaiekawat, President of Sirichai Fishing Group estimated that there were over 35,963 fishing vessels, in total. Thus the registered fishing vessels were less than half of total. L-26
  28. 28. of longer than 25 m long. 19 -25 m vessels share was largest in term of gross ton (56.75%). Tables 20 – 21) More than one-third of registered fishing vessels (35.58%) were otter board trawls. There were 11.44% less than 14 m long, 11.84% 14 – 18 m and 11.48% 19 – 25 m. Those longer than 25 m long shared 0.83%. Other important gear among the registered vessels were squid falling net (12.12%), various gill nets (8.01%), pair trawl (9.73%) shrimp trammel net (6.16%), surrounding net (5.72%), crab gill net (4.98%), anchovy falling net (4.76%), push net (3.69%), anchovy surrounding net (2.97%) and lift nets (2.00%). Fishing gears were various, Thai fisheries were multi-gear and multi-species. The main fishing gear, otter board trawl was non-selective gear. Catches were multi- species. Other demersal fishing gears, including push net, were also non-selective. Some coastal fishing vessels used different fishing gears in different season depending on available resources. The underreported number of fishing vessels and fishing gears led to problems in effective fishery management. In 1995 there were 53,112 marine fishing households. 89.7% were small scale and other 10.3% were commercial scale. Most of the fishermen were small scale while most of the catches were from commercial scale. Number of fishing household increased 8.8% in 2000. Nevertheless while there were more small scale fishing households (increased by 12%), number of commercial scales households decreased by 18.8%.Share of small scale increased to 92.7% in 2000, while total fishing households was 57,801. Most of the fishing households were in Coastal Zone 4 and 5 in Southern Region. (Table 22) Of 57,801 marine fishing households 1,820 also practiced coastal culture (mainly shrimp). Investment in shrimp farming was relatively high10 and was difficult to be affordable by small scale fishermen11. Usually fishermen who also kept aquaculture were successful fishermen with access to capital investment. Including coastal culture household, number of fishery households was 93,512 in Year 2000, an increase of 15.9% compared to Year 1995. Increase in marine fishing household was 11.6%, lower than the increase in coastal aquaculture (29.4%). There was a decrease in households which kept both practices, This could be explained by the more difficult capture fisheries and higher risk in coastal culture due to degraded coastal environment. (Table 23) 10 Require not less than US$25,000 to start a small shrimp farm. 11 Small scale fishermen were those artisanal coastal fishermen with fishing vessels of 5 ton gross or lower. Most of them used outboard engine fishing vessels. Some used non-engined vessels or without any vessel. These fishermen could not go fishing far away from the coastlines. Usually their fishing grounds were about 5 kilometres from shoreline. Their fishing trips were daily. Their main fishing gears were drift gill net, traps, hook and lines. Commercial fishermen used larger engined vessels. Main gear was trawl. Their fishing trips were not daily but longer depending on size of the vessel. Trawls and engined push net, of those commercial fishermen were banned within three kilometres from shoreline. Nevertheless the enforcement was not effective. There had been conflicts between the commercial and small scale fishermen in coastal areas. For aquaculture operators, sizes were varied by type of operation. For example for shrimp farms, those with less than 5 hectares could be considered small scale. L-27
  29. 29. Beside the above, there were fishery employee households, 29,122 in Year 2000 a decrease of -0.6% from 1995 due to decrease in coastal aquaculture employee households. There had been a downfall in coastal aquaculture since early 2000s. In Year 2000, number of fishermen in peak season was 168,140. Almost half (48.09%) were family member, the rest were employees (51.91%). Most of the employees were local residents (19.11%). Nevertheless 17.38% were foreign labor, mainly from Myanmar. There were also some Cambodians. 11.06% were employees from the Northeastern Region, with a decreasing trend since they could get non- fishing jobs due to the coastal zone development. Employees from the other areas were only 4.20%. More than half of these employees worked in the Southern Region in Coastal 5 (28.27%), Coastal Zone 4(26.90%), and Coastal Zone 2 (23.66%). (Table 24) Wage rate of employees in fishing sector was a little lower than the average rate of the country, but still higher than the wage rate in non-fishing agriculture sector. The National Statistical Office conducted two labor force surveys in 2003, in February and August. The wage rates in fishing sector were 4,346 and 4,492 baht/month accordingly. The country average wage rates were 5,533 and 5,842 baht/month. Fishing employees earned almost twice of the employees in other agricultural sector (2,452 and 2,345 baht/month). They were better paid than the private household employees, being the third lowest wage paid. The highest wage rate was in financial sector (15,757 and 16,642 baht/month). Ratio of woman employees in fishing sector was around 40%, mostly in processing which could bet a better wage.12 (Table 26) Wage Rate in Fishing Sector - (baht/mth.) , ", , ", # # g, b. g. b. g. b. g. b. b. g. b. g. b. g. b. g. Au Au Au Au Au Au Au Au Fe Fe Fe Fe Fe Fe Fe Fe 0 - / Source: Labor Force Survey, National Statistical Office Related fishing activities, beside coastal aquaculture as aforementioned, could include processing and trading. Processing could be household processing and commercial processing. Household processing was simple and sold for domestic market, mostly shrimp paste and salted and dried fish. Commercial processing could be for domestic consumption and for export. Domestic processing included fish 12 Wage rate in manufacturing sector was about 6,000 baht/month. L-28
  30. 30. sauce (partly exported), steaming, smoking, dried and salted, fish ball, shrimp cracker, and fish meal. Export processing included freezing (mainly shrimp) and canning (mainly tuna, fish shrimp, and crab). In 2000, there were 142 freezing/cold storage plants. Most of them were located in Coastal Zone 2 along the coast of the inner Gulf of Thailand and scatter along the coast of the Southern Region. There were 40 canneries, mostly in Coastal Zone 2 and 3 (the lower south along the coastlines of the Gulf of Thailand). Fish sauce plants were 86, could be found most in Coastal Zone 2 as well as 1 (coastlines in the Eastern Region). Budu fish sauce plants were 123 and were located only in coastal Zone 3. The budu is special fish sauce for southern dishes. There were 80 steaming plants (mainly for Indo-Pacific mackerel and similar fish) and 17 smoking plants. Number of dried/salted plants were numerous (665 fish, 124 shrimp, 381 squid, and 160 mollusc) since most were small scale processing. There were 82 fish ball processing plants. Fish ball was important ingredient for noodle dish. Shrimp cracker processing plants were 148, mainly in Coastal Zone 3. Fish meal plants, utilizing trash fish, were 94. (Table 26) In term of utilization, food fish was mainly frozen (30.8%), canned (30.0%) and consumed fresh (22.8%). All trash fish was for fish meal processing. Shrimp was mostly frozen (49.7%), mainly for export. It was also canned (29.0%) for export. Fresh shrimp for domestic consumption was 17.1%. 4.2% was dried, also for domestic consumption. Sergistid shrimp was totally for shrimp paste processing. Crab was mostly consumed fresh (52.4%). 35.8% was canned and 11.8% was frozen for export. Shellfish was also mainly for domestic consumption, 60.9% fresh. 23.3% was canned and 3.1% was frozen, for export. Squid was mostly frozen (64.9%) for export. 18.3% was consumed fresh, domestically. 10.0% was dried. High quality dried squid was exported (mainly to Japan). 6.8% was canned, for export. Jellyfish was mostly dried (99.8%, both for domestic consumption and export. (Table 27) It was estimated that fish processing employees were around two hundred thousand, mainly women. Average fish consumption was 22 kg/person/year, 28% of animal protein consumption. In the former days fish was the main dish in every meal. There was a saying “there was rice in paddy fields and fish in water sources” reflecting food abundance in Thailand. Nevertheless the fish in this saying rather meant for freshwater fish in traditional consumption. For marine fish, Indo-Pacific mackerel had been popular, not only for the southern residents but overall country as well. Recently marine fish at the size of serving plate has been more acceptable among the urban households. Convenient cooking service provided by supermarket helped increase this consumption. Costs and returns of small scale fisheries are given in Table 28. In Year 2000, overall the value of sold catches was 125.083 baht/hh/yr. Part of the catches was for home consumption. Cost of fishing was 52,012 baht, leaving a net return of 73,072 baht.13 Main cost of fishing was fuel cost which was 40.7%. The costs as recorded did not take into account family labor cost. Usually for small scale fisheries 1-2 family 13 Average family size was 5 persons per household. L-29
  31. 31. members engaged in fishing. By type of gears, push netter earned highest net return. Net returns form shrimp gill net, crab gill net, mullet gill net were similar. The conflicts in fishery resource utilization between push netters and gill netters were observed. Push net was considered a destructive fishing gear, while push netter complaint that gill net obstruct their sailing. Small scale fishermen could earn income from other sources besides fishing. Fishing income, on the average, was 81.5% of total income. They could also earn 2.3% from related activities including coastal culture and processing. They could earn 16.2% from on-fishing sector. Total income was 89.684 baht/household/yr, lower in Coastal Zone 5 and 4 due to smaller size of operation while the dependency on non-fishing sector was a little higher (16.9% and 18.6% accordingly). (Table 29) 4.2 Wealth-Related Benefits Before the bureaucratic reform in October 2002, Department of Fisheries was the sole Fishery Management Unit. Relevant agencies in marine fishery management were Division of Marine Fishery and the Local Fisheries Office in each province, in collaboration with Legislation Unit in Office of Department Secretariat. There had been problems on inadequate personnel and budget for effective fisheries management. Fishery law and regulation were not up to date, based on the 1947 Royal Decree on Fisheries which was basically designed for freshwater fisheries. After the reform the responsibility on marine resources has been divided between Department of Fisheries under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and Office of Marine and Coastal Resources under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. In Department of Fisheries, relevant agencies include Office of Fisheries Management Administration and Office of Marine Fisheries Research and Development. Their responsibilities are on legislative matters, monitoring, control and enforcement as well as R&D on marine fisheries resources. Provincial Fisheries Office acting as the coordinating unit between the Central Department of Fisheries and the Provincial Office. In the existing bureaucratic system the governor acts as chief executive officers. Local government agencies have to collaborate in making plans, determine the missions and implement. Department of Fisheries is the main fishery management unit, in collaboration with the relevant agencies. Office of Marine and Coastal Resources was responsible for resource rehabilitation and conservation. So far, Department of Fisheries has set the target in marine fishery management, focusing on the production target. It was stated that the production in Thai waters should not less be than 1.7 million ton per year and uneconomic exploitation (mainly trash fish) should be reduced not less than 100,000 ton per year. Unlike the usual fisheries management plan, the fishery policy has been targeted at the production, not management for optimum sustainable yield. Panayoutou and Jetanavanich (1987) referred to South China Sea (1976 and 1987), Menasveta et al.(1973 and Bahtia et al. (1983) estimated that the maximum sustainable yield for demersal fish resources in the Gulf of Thailand was 0.768 million ton and 0.200 million ton in Andaman Sea, for pelagic fish resources they were 0.365 and 0.071 million ton accordingly.; a total of 1.404 million ton. lower L-30
  32. 32. than the maximum target production as set by Department of Fisheries. Compare to the reported catches, the fishery resources has already been overexploited. Panayoutou and Jetanavanich (1987) applied bio-economic fixed price model for fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand. Their findings indicated that at maximum sustainable economic yield, the effort should be 61.46 % of the actual effort in 1982. At this optimum control there would be an economic rent of 14.173 billion baht. The catch from the Gulf of Thailand would be 0.9 million ton, slightly less than the maximum sustainable yield. Nevertheless action had not been taken to effectively reduce the fishing effort. Fishing vessels were required to register the vessel with Department of Harbor, Ministry of Communication; and register the fishing gear with Department of Fisheries which they would be charged for fishing licenses. Charge rate was very low, reflecting only the registration fee, not for the economic rent in fishing. Nevertheless less than 70% of the total vessels in Thai waters registered with Department of Harbor. Less than 30% registered their fishing gears. There were 30% of the vessels which did not registered at any department.14 Thus there was a problem in effective control on fishing effort in Thai waters. Without proper licensing system, it was difficult to effectively control fishing effort. The excessive fishing effort which led to overfishing and fishery resource degradation could not be effectively reduced. The buy back scheme was proposed but had never been undertaken due to budget constraint as well as difficulty in effective control on number of fishing vessels. There were more than three hundred landing points for marine captures along the long coastlines, thus difficult to be controlled. Limited fishing access via quota regime was considered difficult and would not be efficient for multi-gear/multi- species fisheries in Thailand, especially for scattered small scale fisheries.15 Thus fisheries management schemes were more oriented on resource renewal like closed-area and closed-season. Once resources were renewed it would attract more fishing effort and finally resource degradation. The lack of effort control and over fishing was burden on small scale fisheries. Resource rent, before being dissipated, was enjoyed by capable fishermen, mainly commercial fishermen. Those fishermen with access to the rent, afforded investment in more profitable non-fishing sector as well as building up their capacity to fish outside Thai waters. It had been small scale fishermen, without alternative non- fishing earning, who suffered from fisheries resource degradation in Thai waters. Attempts had been on development of community-based fisheries management (CBFM) and co-management. Still, there were need for legislation in support for this regime and need for capable community organization for fisheries management. Recently, various NGOs had been working in support for strengthening community organization for coastal fisheries management. Federation of Southern Fishermen 14 Based on the estimation by Mr.Wicharn Siorichaiekawat, President of Sirichai Fisheries Group. 15 Large commercial fisheries could run their own landing places. Department of Fisheries might not be capable in effective quota control. L-31
  33. 33. was established and had been working effectively in participation on policy and planning, for coastal poor. 5. POLICY MAKING 5.1. Poverty Issue Poverty reduction/eradication has been one of the important national agenda. Number of the poor had been decreasing through the years. Before economic crisis, Thai economic growth rate had been recorded high probably the highest among the highest among Southeast Asian countries. Nevertheless, income disparity was still the problem. Income gap was considered higher than neighboring countries. There were regional and sectoral inequalities, in favor for the metropolitan areas and manufacturing sector. Poverty has been concentrated in Northeast, North and South regions. The poor mainly lived in the villages and engaged in farming, with limited land holding. Inadequate education and skill limited job opportunity among the poor. Government had put effort in poverty reduction through various community development schemes including strengthening their capacity and providing sources of investment fund. Priority has been given on human resource development to reduce income disparities since the 8th National Economic and Social Development Plan (1997 – 2001), with emphases on decentralization, enhancing community roles, and rehabilitating natural resource and environment. Rapid economic development, especially before the economic crisis, had put the priority on industrial development which relied on imported raw material and technology while being less aware of the loss of the society and natural resource endowments. Export oriented production had adversely affected the poor. Infrastructure development concentrated in large cities leaving behind the rural sector, leading to greater disparity. Limited access to capital investment fund among the poor even greater limited their opportunity to share the economic growth. Government of Thailand pro-poor macroeconomic policies put the emphases on the followings.16 - Rational exploitation on natural resources and environment - Growth in the sector which the poor relied on, to provide job and income for poverty reduction - Mild inflation to lessen price instability - Rational exchange to reduce price instability and increase competitiveness - Maintaining interest rate to induce investment in technology and equipment for effective input utilization - Low interest rate credit on capital investment for the poor - Increase government budget for poverty eradication 16 Details are available from NESDB (2003), NESDB (2004), NESDB (2005) and http://www.worldbank.org/eapsocial/countries/thai/pov.htm. L-32
  34. 34. - Promotion on value added and upgrading labor skill and technology activities - Pro-poor safety net against trade liberalization Policies for poverty eradication included 1) Macroeconomic policy in support for safety net for the poor e.g. investment in agriculture and agro-industry, value added for agricultural products, targeting inflation management to lessen negative impact on the poor, improve tax collection in favor for the poor, provision on access to information system and technology, and provision to protect adverse impact from trade liberalization regime; 2) Promotion on basic social services and infrastructure e.g. provision on social welfare, health insurance, and social security; 3) Promotion on collaboration among relevant agencies and policies in poverty eradication; 4) Efficient management administration system covering self-sufficiency policy, development on poverty indicators, improved legislation in favor of better opportunity for the poor, and improved laws and regulations on natural resources and environment to increase local participation in resource management. Government objectives were 1) increasing opportunity 2) income generation and 3) reducing non-productive consumption expenditure. Investment funds were provided to increase opportunity for the poor through village fund, people bank, and small- medium enterprise bank. Programs for these strategies included small-scale low interest loans for poor households, cash transfer for elderly and the poor, and in kind transfer (medical services and school lunch program). Attempts were on rural development through the support on local productive capacity, infrastructure development, job creation, and provision on basic social services. After the economic crisis, through the international support, investment funds were made available for the poor.17 Better education was provided through access to education, curriculum reform, and skill improvement. Compulsory education was extended from 9 to 12 years. Action plan in poverty eradiation were dived into 1) macroeconomic policy with the emphases on turning assets in to capital investment fund and tax policy in favor for the poor; 2) Increasing capacity of the poor with the emphases on community planning, village fund, debt moratorium, and people’s bank; 3) Natural resource management with the emphases on land use planning, agricultural economic zoning, and water resource and forestry management; 4) social safety net with the emphases on health insurance and social services to the poor; and 5) public management administration system with the emphases on budget revision18 and role of the Committee on Regional and Local Growth Distribution Policy. According to the National Social and Economic Development Board (NESDB), three main objective for poverty eradication included 1) Reducing poverty and income disparities via indigenous knowledge and community organization; 2) Increasing competitiveness via increasing domestic productivity and export; and 3) Sustainable development via human resource development, management administration, people participation and natural resource conservation and development. 17 Examples were Social Investment Project (SIP) supported by the World Bank, Asian development Bank, and Japan; Social Sector Program Loan (SSPL) supported by Asian Development Bank, and Economic Recovery Social Sector Program Loan (ERSSPL) supported by Japan. 18 About 13% of the government budget has been allocated for poverty eradication, with an increasing share through the years. L-33
  35. 35. Overall NESDB evaluations on poverty eradication were as follows: - Headcount ratio decreased from 14.2% to 10.3% in 2002 - Income gap between the richest and poorest reduced from 14.8% in 2000 to 13.7% in 2002 - Agricultural household income increased 14.3% in 2002 - Unemployment decreased from 3.59% in 2000 to 2.24% in 2002. The core government agency in responsible for the design of poverty eradication policies was the National Social and Economic Development Board (NESDB). Implementing agencies would collaborate in undertaking the action plan. Under the umbrella of NESDB there was an NGO “Thai Bhattana Foundation” working closely with NESDB on self sufficiency economic regime and civil society. Recently NESDB put the priority on strengthening community organization for poverty eradication. During the 8Th Plan Committee on Regional and Local Growth Distribution Policy was established. Subcommittee on Action Plan for Poverty Eradication Strategies was set up to coordinate the action plan among Committee on Regional and Local Growth Distribution Policy, National Committee on Urban Development, and National Committee on Social Policy. Experts and representatives from civil society were included in this subcommittee. The tasks in action plans would be assigned to relevant agencies, in collaboration with community organizations and NGOs, under supervision of the Committee on Regional and Local Growth Distribution Policy. Poverty eradication plan, holistic government budget plan, community planning project, and community networking were undertaken. Still there were problems on ineffective management administration (lack of integration, limited participation of relevant agencies, focus on public role, limited participation from the poor, coordination between public sector and the community); limited pro-poor structural adjustment for natural resource management and legislation ; and lack of supportive plans (reducing rural poor expenditure, market promotion, agricultural land for poor farmers). 5.2 Poverty and The Fishing Sector The poorest in Thailand were rural dwellers that relied mainly on agriculture, in the Northeaster Region. 19.6% of the poor lived in the rural Northeastern Region while there was only 9.2% in rural Southern Region, mostly coastal areas. On the average fishermen were not considered poor. NESDB (2001) reported that the “poor” villages in the Southern Region accounted for 1.72% of the total country poor villages. The main reason for being poor was lack of agricultural land, thus could not grow paddy for domestic rice19 consumption. Poverty eradication was focused on non-fishing agricultural sector. Nevertheless, duality existed in Thai fishing sector. There were large commercial sector that had been benefited from the resource rent when fishery resources were still abundance, and small scale artisanal sector who suffered from resource degradation. Small scale fishing household, on the average, could earned net income 19 Rice is the staple food for the Thais. L-34
  36. 36. from their fishing. They were considered better off compared to landless farmers in the Northeastern Region. Nevertheless negative impact from fishery resource degradation had been aware. In poverty eradication scheme, fishing sector was mentioned in the part of improvement on natural resources and environmental management. Fishery resource abundance, especially in the Gulf of Thailand, had evidently been degraded. The need for Thai water rehabilitation was realized both in public and private sector. Attempts on natural resource, including fishery resource, management in poverty reduction scheme were to revise the rules and regulation and increase the role of local community in natural resource management. While water resources and forestry resources20 had the priority in poverty reduction scheme, community- based/co-management had been developed in coastal fisheries. Collaborations were found among relevant government agencies (both central and local), NGOs, and the coastal communities. Department of Fisheries put effort on uplifting living condition for coastal poor through extension on non-destructive fishing gear and fish processing and provision on revolving fund. Fishing sector has been one important source of foreign exchange earning for Thailand. Thus the poor fishing sector might have not been a clear picture. During the years of abundant resources, government policies for the fishing sector were increasing productivity oriented, from capture as well as culture. The priority had not been given on rational resource exploitation, thus Thai fisheries were soon degraded. First to suffer from the degradation were coastal small scale fishermen. In collaboration with NGOs, the fishermen established the Federation of Artisanal Fishermen. The NGOs in the Southern Thailand were actively involved in the activities in lack of government support, playing significant development role in poor fishing villages. Success of the Federation was due to strong community organization, partially supported by the NGOs. Partnership among the fishermen and various NGOS were developed. Among Thai Muslim fishing village, rural microfinance was developed, leading to investment fund and employment generation for the coastal poor. One of the keys of success in involving local community in fishery resources management is the capability of local community organization. There had been a number of successful community-based fishery management in Southern Thailand, with support from NGOs. Strong leadership, good governance and transparency could be the basis for developing capable community organization for fishery resource management. Besides human factor, geographical boundary was another key. A “close” (or semi- close) boundary of the fishing ground could ease the monitoring, thus more effectively regulated. Legislation on community-based/co-management was another requirement. Department of Fisheries had put effort in drafting legislation for this 20 Efficient water resource management was essential in increasing farming productivity. Forestry resource management was essential for reducing soil erosion, increasing soil fertility, lessening drought and flood; thus better faming productivity. Poor villagers living along the buffer zone depended on forest products for their living as well as income generation. L-35
  37. 37. regime. There was still some disagreement from stakeholders who had a potential loss from this management regime.21 Local coastal community, at present could monitor but once there was any intrusion or illegal fishing in their waters22, they did not have the right to enforce. Effective collaboration from the public sector was required for the enforcement. Socio-economic studies in small scale fishing sector were undertaken in late 1970s under the Small Scale Fisheries Development supported by International Development Research Centre. The project covered a number of Asian countries, including Thailand. Nevertheless the results were not implemented in policy term, in Thailand. In mid 1980s, Panayotou conducted several studies on small scale Thai fisheries. Panayotou and Jetanavanich (1985) gave empirical evidence that the Gulf of Thailand had been over fishing. They recommended an immediate halt in construction of new trawlers, licensing to control existing vessels, artificial reef to enhance resource abundance for coastal fisheries, and community fishing right. The first two had never been effectively undertaken. Through the FAO advice, Department of Fisheries agreed on artificial reef. In late 1980s more intention was on development community-based fishery management.23 Loss of juvenile economic species caught as trash fish was one of the problems in development of Thai fisheries. Suteemechaikul (1992) estimated an economic loss of juvenile catches as trash fish by push net and small trawl in Ban Don Bay (in the upper south, Gulf of Thailand) to be 82 – 302 million baht, varied by type of gear and size of vessel. The Bay had been over fished. Economic rent varied by type of gear and size of fishing being 27 million baht/year for 14-18 m pair trawl to 890 million baht/year for push net. Dejboon (1998) applied the same estimation procedure for large push net in lower Gulf of Thailand. Loss of juvenile economic species was 0.46 million baht/yr/vessel while the net return, on the average, was less than ten thousand baht not accounting for the juvenile loss. These two studies provided empirical evidence on the loss from trawls and push net. Nevertheless the aforementioned studies were based on single species fixed price bio-economic model which might not be suitable for multi-species trawl and push net fisheries in Thailand. Once the fishery resources were degraded, large trawl left the Gulf of Thailand for new fishing grounds. Small trawls were adjusted for anchovy fishing, using fine mesh size. Anchovy light luring fisheries were considered destructive and had adverse impact on coastal fisheries. In 1999 Federation of Artisanal Fishermen requested the government to control such fishing gears. Research team from academic institutes was assigned to conduct studies for policy making. Study results indicated that coastal fisheries were adversely impact and there should be control on anchovy light luring fishing effort.24 21 Trawler that fished in coastal waters could disagree since they might not be able to continue their fishing. Nevertheless through the negotiation, plausibility could be granting tradable fishing right to the coastal community. Similar regime had been conducted in coastal Japanese Fisheries. 22 Examples were trawl and motorized push net within three kilometers from the shoreline. 23 Thailand National Policies can be found at http://www.fisheries.go.th/english/index.html 24 Details in Tokrisna (2000). L-36
  38. 38. There were a number of socio-economic studies on small scale fisheries undertaken by NGOS. For examples the study on adverse impact of push net by Southern Coastal Resource Management Project and Federation of Southern Artisanal Fishermen (2000), trawl and Thai sea crisis by Southern Coastal Resource Management Project (2001), Songkhla Lake fisheries by Southern Coastal Resource Management Project (2002 and 2003), and community based natural resource management by Project of Coastal Zone management through Community Organization and Networks in Southern Thailand: Thai NGO-COD and DANCED partnership (2002). These studies focused on the problems of artisanal fisheries in southern Thailand. Participation of poor people in economic growth activities, policymaking and implement had been encouraged through NGO support on strengthening capacity and networking fishing community organization. Academicians could provide the support on technical studies, being information for policy makers. There had been effort on social and economic studies. Nevertheless efficient coastal fishery management, beside indigenous knowledge, required technical information on management scheme. Limited effort had been on biological and bio-economic studies. For poverty eradication, too little attention had been on the coastal poor. There should be studies on poverty status, cause and reduction in uplifting living conditions for coastal poor. Important areas for future policy development, a linkage between fisheries, economic growth and poverty reduction could be capacity strengthening in fishery resource management, post harvesting handling, value added processing, marketing of fishery products on the basis of pro-poor development strategies. Constraints on artisanal pro-poor fisheries development could be the lack of co- ordination of among relevant agencies, the budget, capacity of human resources, and marketing skill. REFERENCES AND ADDITIONAL READING Dejboon, W. (1998). Economics of Large Scale Push Net fisheries Management in Lower South, the Gulf of Thailand; A Case Study of Changwat Pattani, Graduate School, Kasetsart University, Bangkok. (In Thai). Fisheries Statistical Research and Statistical Group. (2000). Fisheries Statistics of Thailand 2000, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok National Social Economic Development Board. (2003). Factor Analysis of Rural Poverty and Development Problems, Mimeo., In Thai. L-37

×