Territories of state-led aquaculture risk management: Thailand’s Plang Yai program

Abstract

The Thai aquaculture sector faces a range of production, market and financial risks that extend beyond the private space of farms to include public spaces and shared resources. The Thai state has attempted to manage these shared risks through its Plang Yai (or ‘Big Area’) agricultural extension program. Using the lens of territorialization, this paper investigates how, through the Plang Yai program, risk management is institutionalized through spatially explicit forms of collaboration amongst farmers and between farmers and (non-)state actors. We focus on how four key policy instruments brought together under Plang Yai delimited multiple territories of risk management over shrimp and tilapia production in Chantaburi and Chonburi provinces. Our findings demonstrate how these policy instruments address risks through dissimilar but overlapping territories that are selectively biased toward facilitating the individual management of production risks, whilst enabling both the individual and collective management of market and financial risks. This raises questions about the suitability of addressing aquaculture risks by controlling farmer behavior through state-led designation of singular, spatially explicit areas. The findings also indicate the multiple roles of the state in territorializing risk management, providing a high degree of flexibility, which is especially valuable in landscapes shared by many users, connected to (global) value chains and facing diverse risks. In doing so we demonstrate that understanding the territorialization of production landscapes in a globalizing world requires a dynamic approach recognizing the multiplicity of territories that emerge in risk management processes.

Increasing livelihood vulnerabilities to coastal erosion and wastewater intrusion: The political ecology of Thai aquaculture in peri‐urban Bangkok

“…To reduce wastewater intrusion, national and local organisations need to fine those who illegally dump wastewater, enact wastewater fees for all households, and ensure that low‐income households can access sewage facilities. Beyond these solutions, needed are the institutionalisation of risk management between farmers and state actors (Bottema et al, 2021) and a revitalisation of peripheral areas, improving transportation linkages, quality of education, and creating effective social safety nets and subsidisation of inputs. Such solutions would help smallholder farmers in BKT and beyond escape marginalisation.…”