Fisherfolk in Thailand’s Rayong province are currently facing multiple impacts from industrial expansion in the region – in particular, the construction of a MapTaPhut Phase 3 port and the development of large-scale investment projects including liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, including LNG terminal and regasification facilities. The expansion of LNG projects in the eastern provinces, part of Thailand’s plan to position itself as a regional LNG hub, has disturbed and now threatens to destroy the coastal fisheries resources that communities have long relied on.

“We used to fish regularly, and we are at ease earning money from fishing,” one fisherman in the Klonglawon community of Rayong province told researchers in 2025.

“Now the seas are changing tremendously due to industrialization and its expansion, with seas filling and other so-called ‘development’ projects. Fish are reducing, and our livelihoods are at the front lines. It will never be the same without rehabilitation.”

Fisherfolk in Rayong are now demanding compensation for the loss of fisheries and livelihoods. The injustice associated with LNG development is not limited to environmental impacts but is fundamentally tied to unequal power structures in which affected communities have little influence over decisions that shape their future.

Thailand is heavily reliant on fossil fuels, and particularly natural gas, to drive the country’s economic growth and industrialization. According to data from Thailand’s Energy Regulatory Commission, natural gas accounts for 58 percent of Thailand’s power generation mix, followed by electricity imports from Laos (14 percent), coal (13 percent), and renewables (12 percent). Natural gas remains the backbone of power generation, sourced from both the Gulf of Thailand and LNG imported from abroad.

Last year, reliance on costly LNG imports was the primary driver of rising electricity bills, and the government has been forced to increase its reliance on LNG imports to ensure energy security. However, we ask who bears the cost of this increase in LNG development and how injustice plays out from the perspective of a just energy transition.

The Thai government has set ambitious targets to reduce its reliance on gas from the Gulf of Thailand to 28 percent by 2037 and to cut gas imports from Myanmar to just 4 percent, filling this gap with imports of LNG. However, as long as Thailand’s dependence on LNG persists, it will continue to significantly affect the country’s electricity prices. In 2024, the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) recommended a plan to reduce reliance on imported gas and LNG and to accelerate the use of clean, renewable energy such as solar.

LNG facilities, such as terminals and regasification facilities, harm coastal ecosystems in many ways. Dredging, deepening navigation channels, and construction of terminals and  regasification facilities, all contribute to ecological damage to the ocean and coastal ecosystems. These processes destroy marine ecosystems, fish habitats, marine resources, and wetlands, all of which are important to fisheries. Rehabilitating this loss cannot happen overnight because marine ecosystems are complex and interconnected.

Once operational, LNG terminal projects have been criticized for methane emissions, destruction of coastal and marine environments, and the collapse of coastal communities’ livelihoods. Other environmental damage includes the use of water to cool industrial processes and the release of that water back into the ocean, which harms marine resources. One example is the Freeport LNG project in Texas, United States, which conservation groups criticized for destroying coastal areas and fisheries and for posing health risks to the population.

LNG should not only be seen as just an energy issue; it also has impacts on community rights, the right to nature, and issues of ecological justice. The community’s rights to marine resources are violated because they can no longer fish and earn income from their profession.

In September 2025, Rayong fisherfolk submitted a complaint to the Chairperson of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights during her visit to Thailand, ahead of the U.N. Responsible Business and Human Rights Forum in Bangkok. The submission highlighted the issue of LNG expansion in Thailand, including in Rayong province. Due to the concerns about the expansion of the LNG projects and how it harms the environment and marine resources, the complaint highlighted the campaign across Thailand against the expansion of the LNG projects and investments.

Concerns raised include ecological and livelihood impacts and, more importantly, human rights violations, as the community and fisherfolk were excluded from the Environmental and Health Impact Assessment (EHIA) process and from decision-making on the LNG projects.

Based on a legal analysis of the EHIA report conducted in late 2024, the EHIA for the first LNG project in Rayong contained limited information about the environmental, health, and economic impacts on Rayong fisherfolk, as well as the potential collapse of Rayong fisheries.

The affected fishermen worry about the project’s impacts (at both the construction and operation stages) on fisheries. They must spend more time fishing and travel farther from their original fishing areas. The EHIA report lacks information on compensation or remedies, as well as on inclusive participation by fisherfolk in any compensation-related discussions. The community’s rights to public participation have been violated.

LNG is widely seen as a “transitional fuel” for the energy transition. This narrative has boosted investment in LNG across the region and in Thailand. This shift to transitional fuels such as LNG ignores the ecological and health impacts that have already been experienced by communities in Rayong. However, the principles of the “just transition” to renewable energy demand that we ask who benefits from this transition and who bears the cost.

The environmental burdens from LNG projects are largely concentrated in marginalized or heavily industrialized regions, while economic and energy gains are felt elsewhere. These disparities underscore essential concerns about whether impacted communities participate meaningfully in the project’s decision-making processes, who bears the environmental and health burdens, and who receives the benefits, and whether the community’s rights and the livelihood of local fisherfolk have been asserted and respected.

These concerns are particularly relevant in coastal industrial zones such as Map Ta Phut, where cumulative impacts from petrochemical industries, ports, and LNG infrastructure intersect with community health and fisheries. Communities share with us that the rapid development of the coast has led to what could be the “last breath of Rayong sea.”

Kanikar Raksawong, a fisherman from Ban Kon Peuk, said, “We urge the authorities to stop the expansion of the industries in Rayong, which is impacting the community’s livelihoods, way of life, and coastal fisheries and natural resources. It is time to stop, as Rayong is heavily polluted. Enough is enough.”

I would like to dedicate all the efforts of working with the communities to document their struggle and stories to Uncle Noi, our legendary activist, for his tireless efforts and bravery. Rest in Peace. His legacy remains in our hearts, and we will continue to follow in his footsteps as a role model for the fight against injustice caused by unjust development projects and industrialization.