PART I
The desk study (contd.)

Table 2.15 Educational attainment of fishery employees by coastal zone, 1985 and 1995

Sources: 1) For 1985: 1985 Marine Fishery Census of Thailand, p.290

2) For 1995: 1995 Marine Fishery Census, Coastal Zone 1,2,3,4 &5,p.76

1.3 Changes in the fishery and fishery employee households

While the previous chapter concentrated on the fishermen and the fishery employees, this chapter will examine the characteristics of their households. These will be considered in terms of change in size and sex composition, type of household, coastal aquaculture activities, level of economic dependence on fishery, debt and source of loan, and membership in formal organizations.

The definitions given in the 1995 marine fishery census (pp. 26–27) are:

• A fishery establishment is an economic unit engaged in marine capture fishery or coastal aquaculture or both during the last 12 months. These establishments are classified into operator households, joint management households and companies.

• A marine capture fishery establishment is an economic unit engaged exclusively in marine capture fishery or both marine capture fishery and coastal aquaculture during the last 12 months. Such establishments are classified in terms of availability or unavailability of boats, boat type (unpowered, outboard- or inboard-powered) and size of inboard-powered boat (gross tonnage).

• A coastal aquaculture establishment is an economic unit engaged exclusively in coastal aquaculture, or both in coastal aquaculture and marine capture fishery.

• An employee household is a household which does not engage in marine capture or coastal aquaculture as an operator's household or a joint management household, but has one or more of its members who were employed for marine capture or coastal aquaculture or both during the last 12 months.

In this report, households are tabulated into only two types, namely, marine capture fishery and coastal aquaculture households, because in the 1985 marine fishery census, households that engaged in both activities were included into one or the other type, depending on which activity provided the main income. If the main source of income was marine capture fishery, the household is included in the marine fishery sector. The same criterion is applied to the coastal aquaculture sector (1985 Marine Fishery Census of Thailand, p.34).

Number of fishery and fishery employee households

Table 3.1 and Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show that in 1985 there were 84,445 households engaged in fishery, 68 percent of which were fishery households - i.e. households of self-employed fisherfolk, as opposed to fishery employee households. By 1995, the total number of households increased by 30 percent to 109,868, roughly 73 percent of which were fishery households. In fact while the fishery households increased by 40 percent, the fishery employee households increased much more slowly, by only nine percent.

The number of fishery households increased from 57,551 to 80,566, a 40 percent increase over ten years for the whole country. The highest increase occurred in Zone IV (60 percent), followed by Zone V (45 percent) and Zone I (40 percent). The lowest increase occurred in Zone II (12.5 percent) and in Zone III (26.3 percent).

The increase in the number of fishery employee households is not very impressive. Countrywide, it rose from 26,904 to 29,302 households, an increase of 8.9 percent over ten years. Comparison by zone shows the highest increase in Zone I (28 percent) and Zone V (27.1 percent), followed by Zone III (14.3 percent) and Zone IV (14.8 percent). Only Zone II experienced a decline (-33.9 percent).

These data do not reveal anything of interest, as they roughly follow the changes in the number of fishermen and fishery employees. They only indicate that, as the growth of the fishing population was not as rapid as that of the households, the overall household size must have become smaller by 1995. This can be due to two factors: the overall trend toward nuclear families and a lower proportion of members engaged in fishing activities compared to total household members.

Changes in household size and sex composition

It is apparent from Table 3.2 that there were less female than male members in both fishery and fishery employee households. In 1985, women constituted 48.6 percent of all fishery household members in Thailand. In each zone, they also accounted for about the same percentage. By 1995, they accounted for 49.1 percent of all household members, with roughly the same percentages in each zone.

As for the fishery employee households, women accounted for 47.4 percent of total household members countrywide, both in 1985 and 1995. In both years, the variation by zone is negligible. What is worth exploring is whether fishery employees are very migratory, and if so whether they tend to leave their families behind, and what the impact of migration is on those who are left behind.

Table 3.3 shows that between 1985 and 1995, the average size of households engaged in fishing activities declined from 5.6 to 4.9 persons per household, that is to say, from about six persons to about five persons per household. The average household size of the fishery employee households has always been smaller than that of the fishery households. In 1985, there were about five persons per fishery employee household, and six persons per fishery household. In 1995, the comparable numbers were 4.6 and 5.2 persons. Two likely explanations are, first that a smaller proportion of the fishery employee household members were married, and second that they were migrant households some of whose members were left behind. The validity of these possibilities could be easily proved if the data on marital status and migration of both groups were available.

That the average size of households declined among both fishery and fishery employee households in Thailand between 1985 and 1995 was shown in Table 3.3. Further details from Table 3.4, which classifies households by size, show further that the decline in average household size was due to the decline in households with more than seven persons. Countrywide, households with nine persons or more declined by 31 percent, while those with seven or eight persons did so by 13 percent. On the other hand, households of less than seven persons increased: those with one or two persons increased by 83 percent, those with three or four persons increased by 67 percent and those with five or six persons increased by 29 percent. The pattern of increase and decline is similar when fishery and fishery employee households are compared.

Marine capture fishery and coastal aquaculture households

Table 3.4 also classifies fishery households by sector into marine capture fishery and coastal aquaculture households. As the table is rather detailed, it is simplified into Table 3.5, which compares the changes in the number and the proportion of fishery households by activity. Fishery employee households are not included, because the 1985 census did not tabulate them by activity.

Table 3.5 shows that for the whole country, coastal aquaculture households grew more rapidly than marine capture fishery households. They represented only 11 percent of all fishery households in 1985, but 35 percent by 1995. Comparison shows that Zone II had the greatest proportion of households engaged in coastal aquaculture both in 1985 and 1995, but the increase over the period was less rapid there than in the other zones. The two zones that experienced an exceptional increase, well above the national average of about 24 percent, were Zone I (35.7 percent) and Zone IV (33.4 percent). The zones that experienced some increase were Zone III (20 percent), Zone V (19 percent) and Zone II (15 percent).

The above pattern of change in the proportion of coastal aquaculture households was explained in terms of a “production crash” of shrimp farms in Zone II during 1989–1991 (TDRI, April 1988, p.43). As coastal aquaculture, especially shrimp farming, yields high returns, it is very likely that shrimp farming moved to Zone I and to the southern zones, especially Zone IV. This supposition is supported by the pattern of changes in areas under coastal aquaculture examined in the previous chapter. One implication is thus that shrimp farmers in Zone I and in the southern zones must learn from those in Zone II and avoid the same mistakes. The other implication is that information about shrimp culture in the zones must be made available, if effective monitoring and control are required to lessen negative environmental impact and land use conflicts.

The growth in households engaged in shrimp culture was high between 1985 and 1995, while the number of households engaged in other kinds of coastal aquaculture declined. In 1985, households engaged in shrimp farming accounted for roughly 69 percent of all aquaculture households; by 1995, they accounted for about 85 percent. Households engaged in mollusc culture accounted for 16.5 percent of all aquaculture households in 1985, but for only six percent by 1995. Households engaged in fish culture, which accounted for 13.5 percent in 1985, represented only six percent of the total coastal aquaculture households by 1995. As dependence mainly on shrimp culture, or on any single culture, is risky, it would be advisable to promote diversification in aquaculture activities.

So far, the data show that the proportion of marine capture fishery households declined in relation to aquaculture households. Additional information from Table 3.4 shows that, among marine capture fishery households, small-scale households comprised the majority and that there was a small tendency for them to increase (81 percent in 1985 and 84 percent in 1995).

It should be noted at this point that there is no standard definition of ‘small-scale’ and ‘large-scale’. In the marine fishery censuses, small-scale fishing operations use either no boat or outboard-powered fishing boats or boats of less than 10 GT. Ruangrai Tokrisna, a fishery expert at Kasertsart University, does not include inboard-powered fishing boats at all in her definition of small-scale. The Southeast Asia Fishery Development Centre provides a guideline that divides small-scale and large-scale fishery by type of fishing gear (SEAFDEC, 1997). Therefore, to facilitate comparison, attempts should be made to give realistic and standard definitions of what constitute small, medium-sized and large-scale fishermen and fishing operations.

Financial dependence on fishery

The marine fishery censuses define the level of financial dependence at three levels according to the source of income. Income from fishery is classified as “sole income source”. “main income source” and “minor income source”.

The level of dependence on fishery was high among both fishery and fishery employee households (Table 3.6). Roughly half of both kinds of households derived their income solely from fishing activities. Naturally, a higher proportion of employee households than of fishery households derived their income solely from fishing activities.

For the whole country, the level of dependence on fishery income increased a little between 1985 and 1995. Table 3.6 shows that in 1985, 50.8 percent of the households (both fishery and fishery employee households) depended on fishery as their sole income source. By 1995, the percentage increased by 3.9 percent to 54.7 percent. In 1985, 49 percent of the fishery households, compared to 54.5 percent of the employee households, depended on fishing activities as their only source of income. The corresponding percentages for 1995 were 52.7 percent and 60 percent.

The proportion of those households that derived their main income from fishing activities also increased by about 2.4 percent between 1985 and 1995. In 1985, about 30 percent of the fishery households and 27.5 percent of the fishery employee households derived their income mainly from fishery. In 1995, the corresponding percentages were 32 percent and 29 percent.

The proportion of households depending on fishing activities as their supplementary income source declined by about 3.4 percent between 1985 and 1995. While fishing activities provided minor income for 21 percent of the fishery households in 1985, they did so for 18 percent of the fishery employee households. By 1995, 15 percent of the fishery households and 10 percent of the fishery employee households derived minor income from fishing activities.

In summary, both the fishery and the fishery employee households became somewhat more dependent on income from fishing activities. The proportion of those households of both kinds that derived income solely or mainly from fishing activities increased between 1985 and 1995. The proportion of those households whose fishing activities represented only a minor source of income declined.

The fishery households will now be examined more closely. As previously mentioned, we classified marine capture fishery households into small-scale and medium- to large-scale. We found that a much smaller proportion of small-scale marine capture fishery households than of larger-scale households depended on fishing activities as their sole income source. In 1985, 44 percent of the small-scale households and 68 percent of the medium- to large-scale households derived their income solely from fishing activities. In 1995, the corresponding percentages were 53 percent and 74 percent, indicating in addition a small trend among small-scale households toward increased reliance on fishing activities as the only source of income. The high level of total reliance on fishing activities for income in the medium-to large-scale households indicates that they must find marine capture fishery very profitable.

Among fishery households in which fishing activities were the main source of income, the difference between the small-scale and medium- to large-scale households was hardly remarkable. In 1985, 31 percent of the small-scale and 28 percent of the medium- to large-scale households derived their main income from fishing activities. By 1995, the proportion had changed to 29.5 percent and 23 percent respectively.

The difference in the proportion of small-scale and medium- to large-scale households was great in terms of fishing activities as a minor source of income. In 1985, 25.5 percent of small-scale households, compared to 3.8 percent of the medium- to large-scale households, reported fishing activities as their minor source of income. By 1995, the percentage had changed to 17 percent and 3.3 percent respectively.

In summary, a smaller proportion of small-scale than of larger-scale marine capture fishery households became less dependent on fishing activities as their only source of income. Small-scale fishery households, over time, became rather more dependent on fishing activities as their sole source of income. And even though a higher proportion of medium- to large-scale than of small-scale households depended on fishing activities as their sole source of income in 1985, their dependence over time did not increase as rapidly as did that of the small-scale households. As coastal fishing became less profitable, due to the depletion of fishery resources, it is possible that small-scale fishermen and their close relatives had to engage increasingly in other income-earning activities. In fact, other economic activities should be promoted among small-scale households to ensure their economic survival.

Turning to coastal aquaculture households, the data pertaining to aquaculture as a whole indicate that, even though aquaculture used to provide the sole income of more than half of the households in 1985, there is a perceptible trend that it would turn into a main source of income only.

In shrimp culture, the proportion of households reporting their sole income from shrimp farming diminished between 1985 and 1995, whereas the number of those reporting shrimp farming as their main or supplementary source of income increased. In 1985, the distribution was 63 percent, 28 percent and 9 percent respectively. By 1995, this had changed to 46 percent, 40 percent and 14 percent respectively. This indicates that shrimp farming must have become less profitable and that the households must have other economic activities.

In mollusc culture, the changes in fishing activities as income source were the reverse of those in shrimp culture: a bigger proportion of households reported mollusc culture as their sole source of income. In 1985, the proportion of households engaged in this culture that reported it as their sole, main and subsidiary income source were 28 percent, 25 percent and 47 percent respectively. By 1995, this had changed to 46 percent, 27 percent and 27 percent.

In fish culture, the trend is similar to that in shrimp culture. That is, a smaller proportion of the households reported fish culture as their sole income source, but a higher proportion reported it as their main source of income.

Other kinds of culture were not included in the 1985 census, but were listed in the 1995 census, which showed that almost half of the households engaged in “other cultures” derived their sole income from them. It would be useful to specify them, as they indicate not only that there has been a diversification of aquaculture, but also that they may be profitable and perhaps environmentally less damaging, in which case they should be promoted.

In summary, among the coastal aquaculture households, the majority still derived their income solely from aquaculture, but less so by 1995. The change from high to lower reliance on coastal aquaculture as the sole source of income can be explained in terms of changes in financial reliance on each kind of aquaculture. A smaller proportion of households engaged in shrimp culture derived their income solely from it, though shrimp culture households represented the majority of aquaculture households. Although a higher proportion of households engaged in mollusc or crab culture reported that they derived their sole income from such activity, these households numbered much less than those involved in shrimp culture and, to a lesser extent, fish culture. There seems to be a diversification of aquaculture activities, which it might be useful to examine.

It is difficult to interpret the changes in the level of dependence of household income on coastal aquaculture. If a lower proportion of shrimp culture and fish culture households relied on each respective activity as their only source of income, is it possible that the remaining households of the same types engaged in other kinds of aquaculture or in marine capture fishery or both, or that there were more non-fishery income earners within the households? To support or reject the first possibility would require a more detailed classification of households than that tabulated in the 1985 census in order to compare it with the 1995 census. The latter provides another category of households, namely those engaged in both marine capture fishery and coastal aquaculture, with the corresponding income derived from each. To verify the second possibility, the marine fishery censuses need to provide the overall economic structure of the households, such as the total number of income earners, the type of economic activity and the income derived therefrom.

Dependence on income from fishing activities by zone

Table 3.6 shows that, for the whole country, the dependence on fishery as sole source of income both for marine capture fishery households and for aquaculture households changed between 1985 and 1995. The changes occurred in opposite directions. The proportion of marine capture fishery households relying on fishery as their sole source of income increased from 48 percent to 57 percent, while in the case of the aquaculture households, it declined from 54 percent to 46 percent for the same years.

Table 3.7 provides the same set of data by zone. Among marine capture fishery households, the increased reliance on fishing activities as sole income source differed by zone. It grew from 52 percent to 60 percent in Zone I, from 52 percent to 67 percent in Zone II, from 53 percent to 67 percent in Zones III, from 46 percent to 54 percent in Zone IV, and from 45 percent to 50 percent in Zone V. These represented increases of eight percent in Zone I, 15 percent in Zone II, 14 percent in Zone III, eight percent in Zone IV and 15 percent in Zone V. It is possible that there are higher proportions of large-scale rather than small-scale inboard-powered fishing boats in Zone II, III and V. This is supported by the data in Table 2.7 presented in the previous chapter. The table shows that, between 1985 and 1995, there was an increase in boats of 10–49 GT only in Zones II, III and V, and that the percentage increase in boats of 50 GT and over was higher in those three zones.

Coastal aquaculture households are overwhelmingly engaged in shrimp culture. Thus, the change in aquaculture as the sole income source would be due mainly to a change in the pattern of total dependence on shrimp culture. The change in the proportion of aquaculture households whose income depended solely on aquaculture differed by zone; Zones II and V showed a decline over the period under study, Zones III and I an increase. In Zone III, the increase was of 25 percent (from 36 to 61 percent), and of 20 percent in Zone I (from 28 to 48 percent). The decline in Zone II was of 17 percent (from 64 to 47 percent) and of 12 percent in Zone V (from 42 to 30 percent). The decline in Zone II may be due to the fact that shrimp farming was declining in profitability and household members also had many opportunities to engage in light-industry and service activities. In Zone V, it is likely that aquaculture was introduced only lately and thus coexisted with the longer established marine capture fishery. It is also likely that in Zone V, more members in aquacultural households earned extra income from tourism-related activities, due to the rapid growth of tourism in the zone. In Zone IV, there was no change in the proportion of households relying solely on aquaculture where there was no significant growth in industry or tourism, and it is only likely that aquaculture remained as profitable in 1995 as in 1985.

The changes in household dependence on fishing activities as sole source of income raise two important questions. First, is the increasing dependence good or bad for the fishermen and their families? Second, what are the implications of this tendency for integrated coastal zone management programmes in Thailand?

To discuss this, it must be reiterated that small-scale households comprise the great majority of all marine capture fishery households. Although their total reliance on fishing activities for income is not as high as that of the larger-scale households, the level of reliance is still quite high and shows a tendency to increase. This is not a good sign for small-scale households, even assuming that the proportion of income earners in the household is constant, because it means that the survival of the household depends on fishing activities income from which is unstable. Thus, the nature of income earning within the households should be studied, and diversification of economic activities within the households should be promoted to reduce the risks associated with relying solely on marine capture fishery.

One of the implications of the increasing dependence of small-scale marine capture fishery households is that it will make them more receptive to the need for integrated coastal zone management programmes and more willing to make a real effort to participate in them, especially in the management of marine resources.

Debt and source of loan

Interestingly, the examination of the state of indebtedness and sources of loan reveals that, among marine capture fishery households, a smaller proportion of small-scale households than of larger scale households were likely to be in debt. This finding is similar in both the 1985 and the 1995 censuses. A larger proportion of large-scale households were in debt by 1995, and more heavily so (Table 3.9). In 1985, 39 percent of the small-scale households, 73 percent of the medium-sized households and 77 percent of the large-scale households were in debt. By 1995, the corresponding percentages were 32 percent, 72 percent and 81 percent.

Regarding the sources of loan for each type of household, in 1985 the majority of small-scale households were in debt to middlemen (52 percent), to friends and relatives (16 percent), to moneylenders (11 percent) and to the Bank of Agriculture and Co-operatives (BAAC) (11 percent). The sources of loan for the medium-scale households were the middlemen (44 percent), the moneylenders (13 percent), BAAC and the commercial banks as well as relatives and friends (each accounting for about 12 percent). The main sources of loan for the large-scale households were the commercial banks (31 percent), BAAC (27 percent) and the middlemen (15 percent).

In summary, the majority of small-scale households borrowed from the middlemen. while the majority of the large-scale households borrowed from the commercial banks. The medium-sized households had the most varied sources of loan but the majority still borrowed from the moneylenders.

For 1995, the data are more difficult to interpret because one household may acquire loans from more than one source. However, the main sources of loan were still more or less the same as in 1985. The small-scale households borrowed mostly from the middlemen (39 percent), BAAC (19 percent), and friends and relatives (19 percent). Among the medium-scale households, the majority borrowed from the middlemen (32 percent), the commercial banks (23 percent) and friends and relatives (19 percent). As for the large-scale households, the majority borrowed from the commercial banks (46 percent), the middlemen (20 percent) and friends and relatives (15 percent).

The aquaculture households in 1985 borrowed from BAAC (29 percent), middlemen, and friends and relatives (each accounting for about 18 percent). In 1995 the three main sources of loan were BAAC (35 percent), the commercial bank (20 percent) and relatives and friends (21 percent).

It is notable that for the marine capture fishery households, BAAC was not the main source of borrowing for small-scale households. But the middlemen's role was most prominent among both small-scale and medium-scale households. Incidentally, it was the middlemen who acted as providers of loans and other facilities as well as buyers of the catches. Their high control over the small- and medium-scale households should be lessened somehow, and the role of BAAC further promoted. At present, the role of BAAC as provider of loans to aquaculture households is satisfactory, because coastal aquaculture involves a large proportion of investors.

Participation in formal organizations

Table 3.9 shows the size of household membership in various formal organizations. Membership in an organization is not exclusive: one household may belong to more than one organization.

In 1985, there were only four organizations: the Fishery Co-operative, the Fishermen's Group, the Fish Farmers' Group and the Fishery Association. By 1995, there were four additional organizations: the Fishery Operators' Group, the Aquaculture Co-operatives, the Aquaculture Association and the Aquaculture Operators' Group.

A comparison of the four organizations existing in 1985 shows that the Fishery Association had the largest number of members (2,247), followed by the Fishermen's Group (1,991), the Fishery Co-operatives (1,967) and the Fish Farmers' Group (913). By 1995, the ranking had changed, the Fishery Co-operatives having the largest number of members (2 608), followed by the Fishermen's Group (2,586), the Fishery Association (2,180) and the Fish Farmers' Group (1,492). In terms of percentage change, the Fishery Association was the only organization that registered a negative growth, of three percent, which means that it failed to meet the needs of its members.

The greatest growth in membership was in the Fish Farmers' Group - 63 percent for the whole country. This was due to the high growth in the membership of aquaculture households (105 percent), despite a decline in the membership of marine capture fishery households (-54 percent). The high increase is thus likely to be due to the common interest of aquaculture households in terms of seeds, feed, and disease control.

The membership of the Fishery Co-operatives grew by 33 percent between 1985 and 1995, within which the growth of the fishery households was 39 percent. The membership of marine capture fishery households increased by 34 percent, compared to about 46 percent for aquaculture households. The increased membership of the former was caused by an exceptional increase in membership of the small-scale households (109 percent), even though the membership of the larger-scale households declined by 19 percent. The increased membership of coastal aquaculture households was due to the 53-percent increase in the membership of shrimp culture households. As the organization is promoted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, it is likely that the promotion has focused mostly on the small-scale marine capture households.

Regarding the Fishermen's Group , membership grew by about 30 percent countrywide between 1985 and 1995. The pattern of increase and decline exactly follows that of the Fishery Co-operatives.

The pattern of membership change in the Fishery Association is interesting. Nation-wide, membership declined by three percent, due to a steep decline in the membership of employee households (-57 percent) and of marine capture fishery households (-3 percent). The decline of membership in both groups could not be offset by the exceptional increase in the membership of aquaculture households, as their number in 1985 was low.

The failure to meet the needs of members may be due to a diversity of interests on their part. It is possible that both marine capture fishery and coastal aquaculture households went over to new organizations that responded to their needs more efficiently than did the Fishery Association. For example, the marine capture fishery households may organize themselves into Fishing Operators' Groups, and coastal aquaculture households may prefer to belong to organizations focusing exclusively on aquaculture.

Of the four new organizations, it should be noted that their membership was very small in 1995. The Aquaculture Operators' Group had 584 members, the Fishing Operators' Group had 581 members, the Aquaculture Co-operatives 315 members and the Aquaculture Association only 163 members. The main objectives of the three new organizations concerned with aquaculture might be worth looking into, because if they are more or less similar, it might be worth merging them to achieve economy of scale.

So far, the data present only the size and rate of growth of the various organizations. In order to increase the ability of fishery and fishery employee households to or ganize so that they can further and defend their interests, it would be interesting to know what made some organizations grow more rapidly than others, and why some declined. If critical causative factors were known, it surely would be a start to promote sustainable organizations and sustainable fishing activities.

In the national seminar on the role of fishery co-operatives in the development of sustainable fishing activities in Thailand, which was held on 5–7 November 1997, seven prob lems were identified (Division of Co-operatives, auditing papepp. 9–10). These were:

1. the co-operatives are promoted by outsiders, not by the members themselves;
2. their size is generally small and cannot achieve economy of scale;
3. only a small part of the members' needs are met;
4. lack of fund and difficulties in obtaining loans;
5. lack of management ability of the working committee;
6. insufficient incentives to motivate administrative members; and
7. lack of awareness on the part of the majority of fisherfolk of the usefulness of joining the co-operatives.

It would be useful to check the validity of this list for every organization presented in Table 3.9.

Another useful research question would be the extent of involvement of members in the various organizations and why some members are more actively involved in their running than others. The factors accounting for active participation in organizations might be promoted to induce involvement in the management of coastal resources.

Summary and discussion

This chapter has examined fishery and fishery employee households in terms of numbers, household size and sex composition, type of fishery household, dependence on fishery as sole source of household income, and household participation in formal organizations.

The fishery households increased in number at a faster rate than the fishery employee households did. Women were slightly less numerous than men in both kinds of households. The average size of fishery households was higher than that of fishery employee households, the probable reason being the more migratory nature of the employees. The average household size declined for both types of households, but fishery households shrank somewhat faster (from six to five persons per household) than employee households (from 5.0 to 4.6). The decline in both cases was due to the decline in the number of households with more than seven persons.

Among fishery households (marine capture fishery and aquaculture), marine capture fishery households comprised the majority in both 1985 and 1995, but they had declined in proportion over the years, to the extent that by 1995, aquaculture households comprised a little over one third of all fishery households.

Among marine capture fishery households, roughly 80 percent were small-scale, and their proportion had increased a little by 1995. Coastal aquaculture households consisted almost exclusively of shrimp culture households in 1985, but their share declined due to the increase in the number of households engaged in other types of culture, especially mollusc culture.

In terms of dependence on income from fishing activities, a higher proportion of marine capture fishery households became dependent on fishery as their sole source of income during the ten-year period under review. Among the aquaculture households, a lower proportion reported that they derived their income solely from aquaculture. An examination by zone revealed that in Zones II, III and V, total reliance on income from fishing activities was related to the growth of medium- and large-scale inboard-powered vessels, signifying high profitability for large-scale fishing operations. Declining sole reliance on income from aquaculture in Zones II and V was probably due to the lower profitability of shrimp farming in Zone II, as well as to the greater participation of other household members in the light-industry and service sectors. The reduced proportion of households depending solely on aquaculture as their source of income may be due to its coexistence with small-scale marine capture fishery and to the likelihood that other household members became economically active in tourism-related activities. As for small-scale marine capture fishery households, their rather high and growing dependence on fishing activities as their sole source of income implies that their survival will be at greater risk as coastal fishery resources continue to deplete; their willingness to participate in integrated coastal zone management programmes may increase as a consequence.

Among marine capture fishery households, a smaller proportion of small-scale than of medium- and large-scale households were in debt in 1995, and we believe that a high proportion of larger-scale households obtained loans for further investment whereas small-scale households borrowed for their survival. The role of the middlemen was most prominent among the small-and medium-scale households. Their role should be lessened and that of BAAC promoted. Among the coastal aquaculture households, BAAC was the main source of loan, probably because aquaculture is more commercial than subsistence.

There were four organizations for which data were available both in 1985 and 1995. Among them, the one with the highest growth in membership was the Fish Farmers' Group, followed not so closely by the Fishery Co-operatives and the Fishermen's Group. Only the Fishery Association experienced a decline in membership. The four new organizations reported in the 1995 census were the Fishing Operators' Group, the Aquaculture Co-operatives, the Aquaculture Association and the Aquaculture Operators' Group. Their membership was notably small, and as the last three organizations were oriented toward aquaculture, it was suggested that to achieve economy of scale, they be merged if their main objectives are compatible. Two research issues of interest are the level of involvement of members, and the factors affecting the growth of the various organizations.

An important methodological issue is the standard definition of what constitutes small-scale and large-scale fishing activities in Thailand both in marine capture fishery and in coastal aquaculture. An important research question concerns the implications for integrated coastal zone management programmes of the changing level of dependence of the fisherfolk on income derived from fishing activities. Another line of research is the growth and decline of various formal organizations concerned with fishery and the level of participation of small-scale marine capture fishery households in these organizations.

Figure 3.1 Fisherman Households by Coastal Zone, 1985 and 1995

Source: Table 3.1

Figure 3.2 Fishery Employees Households by Coastal Zone, 1985 and 1995

Source: Table 3.1

Table 3.1 Fisherman households and fishery employee households by coastal zone, 1985 and 1995

Sources: 1) For 1985: 1985 Marine Fishery Census of Thailand

2) For 1995: 1995 Marine Fishery Census, Whole Country

Notes:     1) Fisherman households are households engaged exclusively in marine capture fishery or exclusively in coastal aquaculture or both.

2) Employee households include members that are employed exclusively either in marine capture fishery or coastal aquaculture, or in both activities.

Table 3.2 Change in the number of members in fisherman and fishery employee households by coastal zone and sex, 1985 and 1995

Sources: 1) For 1985: 1985 Marine Fishery Census of Thailand, p. 282

2) For 1995: 1995 Marine Fishery Census, Whole Country, p. 192

Table 3.3 Average size of fisherman and fishery employee household, 1985 and 1995

Source: Calculated from Tables 3.1 and 3.2