THAILAND IS ERADICATING INVASIVE TILAPIA SPECIES

THAILAND IS ERADICATING INVASIVE TILAPIA SPECIES

While we are still arguing whether or not to eradicate invasive tilapia species, Thailand has already gone ahead and done it. That makes me wonder: what does Thailand know that we do not know? And what does Thailand have that we do not have?

Their dilemma is not very different from ours. On one hand, many people in Thailand—and here in the Philippines—rely on tilapia farming for their livelihood. On the other hand, tilapia are notorious for destroying biodiversity, devouring the eggs and fingerlings of native or endemic species. The conflict between ecological protection and economic necessity makes this a political issue as much as it is an environmental one.

In Thailand’s case, they are dealing specifically with the blackfin tilapia (Sarotherodon melanotheron), a species native to West Africa that was discovered in Thai waters only in 2010 but has since spread to 19 provinces. Scientists there say that a single female can produce up to 500 fry at a time—imagine that level of reproduction in an open river system! Since 2018, the species has rapidly multiplied, threatening not only natural ecosystems but also Thailand’s own aquaculture industry.

Instead of endless debates, Thailand chose action. Their government launched a massive campaign to eradicate the invasive fish—through the simplest and most practical method of all: eat them. They pay 15 baht per kilogram (around ₱24) for every blackfin tilapia caught, and since February 2024, more than 1.3 million kilograms have been collected. To make this possible, they opened 75 marketplaces nationwide where people can sell the caught fish. Restaurants have even started adding “invasive tilapia” dishes to their menus.

That’s what I call turning a crisis into an opportunity.

They are also using biological control, introducing predatory fish that can help naturally reduce the tilapia population. In the longer term, Thai scientists are developing genetically modified strains that will produce sterile offspring—a high-tech solution that we could learn from.

But make no mistake: the problem has been costly. The invasion has caused an estimated 10 billion baht (about ₱16.3 billion) in damage to Thailand’s fisheries and ecosystems. In fact, a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Charoen Pokphand Foods, one of Thailand’s largest agribusiness firms, alleging that its operations contributed to the spread of the invasive species. That case alone should serve as a warning to us about corporate accountability in environmental management.

Here in the Philippines, tilapia (especially Oreochromis niloticus, or Nile tilapia) has long been one of our top aquaculture products. BFAR reports show that we produce over 300,000 metric tons annually—feeding millions and sustaining thousands of small farmers. Tilapia is cheap, fast-growing, and resilient. But therein lies the danger: what happens when those very traits turn destructive in the wild?

I am not taking sides in this issue. I am simply calling upon our government to conduct serious, science-based studies on whether to ban or regulate invasive species. We need to know the ecological and economic consequences of both actions. And if we decide to keep farming tilapia, we must ensure that they do not escape into rivers, lakes, and estuaries where they can outcompete native species.

In the meantime, I would advocate for growing native and endemic fish such as bangus (milkfish) and maliputo. These are part of our natural aquatic heritage and should be promoted both for conservation and commerce.

At the same time, I strongly suggest we already ban invasive species that have no economic value, such as janitor fish and knife fish, which have infested the Pasig River and Laguna de Bay. These species offer no benefit to our fisheries and only worsen ecological imbalance.

I know that BFAR is doing something about invasive species management, but it would help if the bureau were more transparent and proactive in reporting its accomplishments. The public deserves to know what progress is being made.

We should also close our borders to the importation of fingerlings and breeder stocks of invasive species—before another “tilapia problem” happens again. And while we’re at it, I’d like to ask: do we even have the technology to distinguish between our native hito (catfish) and the African catfish? If we don’t, then we may end up banning our own native species by mistake.

And what about cream dory or pangasius? This species from the Mekong River has become a popular local product, and many Filipino farmers are earning well from it. But has anyone studied its long-term effect on our biodiversity?

Perhaps the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) could take the lead in addressing these questions. But if we expect them to do more, we should also give them more funding. After all, the price of ecological ignorance is far greater than the cost of research.

Thailand’s example teaches us that decisive, science-based action can make a difference. They are not waiting for consensus—they are protecting their ecosystems before it’s too late. The Philippines, with its rich aquatic diversity, cannot afford to lag behind.

The question now is: do we have the political will to act—or will we keep debating while our rivers slowly lose their native life?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

02-24-2026