Stay updated with Phuket News. Follow us on Facebook

Thai court orders blackchin tilapia controls within 180 days

Thailand’s Central Administrative Court has ordered government agencies to strengthen measures against blackchin tilapia, while dismissing a compensation request against CPF on legal-standing grounds.

Thai court orders blackchin tilapia controls within 180 days

Thailand’s Central Administrative Court has ordered government agencies to control the spread of blackchin tilapia within 180 days, while dismissing a request for Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Company Limited (CPF) and other parties to compensate the state.

The ruling, delivered on September 8, 2026, followed a case brought by 54 plaintiffs against the Department of Fisheries and 17 other respondents. The court found that the department had neglected its duties to prevent and control alien aquatic species under the Fisheries Act 1947, which applied at the relevant time.

The department and other relevant agencies were ordered to control, prevent, address and suppress the reproduction and spread of blackchin tilapia in affected areas. They must implement the 2024–2027 action plan on the outbreak and introduce any additional measures needed.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives was ordered to oversee implementation and provide resources to ensure the measures produce results within 180 days.

The court also ordered the interior minister to consider instructing the governor of Samut Songkhram to consider designating affected areas in Amphawa, Mueang Samut Songkhram and Bang Khonthi districts as emergency disaster assistance zones. The process must be completed within 90 days after the ruling becomes final.

The plaintiffs had sought compensation from CPF under Section 97 of the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act 1992. CPF participated in the proceedings as an intervener.

The court dismissed that part of the case because the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek compensation for the state. It said the requested action would not remedy the hardship or damage they had personally suffered. The dismissal did not determine whether CPF was liable for the damage.