Aquaculture sector.
Established with moderate to high potential for future growth
Overview.
Aquaculture (freshwater, brackish and marine) supports food systems, exports, and rural livelihoods across Southeast Asia, supplying key species for domestic consumption and international markets while underpinning economic activity in coastal and inland communities. The sector remains vital to regional food security but faces mounting pressures from environmental impacts, disease risks, biosecurity challenges, spatial competition, and uneven institutional capacity at national and subnational levels. Rapid growth and intensification have increased production but also amplified exposure to ecosystem degradation, market volatility, and climate‑related shocks that threaten long‑term stability.
Across the region, aquaculture systems and market orientations differ widely, with shrimp, pangasius, tilapia, seaweed, and shellfish dominating production and export profiles in many ASEAN member states. While species diversification and value‑added products continue to expand, major constraints persist, including reliance on wild seed in some areas, gaps in hatchery and sanitary capacity, and vulnerabilities to disease outbreaks and water‑quality pressures. Regional trade remains strong, with Southeast Asian producers supplying major import markets and contributing significantly to global supply chains, yet uneven regulation, fragmented governance, and differing levels of technical and institutional readiness continue to limit the sector’s resilience and ability to scale sustainably.
Within this wider sustainability and governance landscape, aquaculture intersects with coastal communities, conservation, water‑quality management, tourism, and broader coastal‑zone planning because production systems share marine and freshwater space, draw on common ecological resources, and generate impacts that influence neighbouring sectors and environments. These cross‑sector dynamics shape ecosystem health, social outcomes, and market performance while supporting circular‑economy opportunities through nutrient recycling, integrated multi‑trophic systems, reduced waste, and the cultivation of low‑impact species such as seaweed that contribute to climate‑positive pathways and strengthen resilience across interconnected coastal landscapes.
Explore how Aquaculture is positioned for each of the
Blue Economy Capitals.
Financial Capital.
Financial Capital.
Fish production in ASEAN is projected to grow, reaching nearly 25% of global output by 2030 and maintaining this share through 2050. Aquaculture is expected to supply over half of regional fish consumption in the next decade, with pangasius, catfish, carp, and tilapia as key species (Chan et al., 2017). Sustainable growth depends on policies promoting aquaculture expansion and strong fisheries management. Within the global top tier of aquaculture producers, Indonesia, Viet Nam, the Philippines, Thailand, and Myanmar consistently rank among Asia’s leaders, underpinning Southeast Asia’s share of world output (FAO, 2024; World Bank/FAO, 2025).
ASEAN’s farmed mix is anchored by shrimp (whiteleg L. vannamei, black tiger P. monodon) concentrated in Viet Nam, Indonesia and Thailand, typically in intensive/semi‑intensive systems geared to exports (FAO, 2025; OECD‑FAO, 2025). Pangasius (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) remains Viet Nam’s signature whitefish; 2024 exports were on track for about USD 2 billion, buoyed by the US and CPTPP markets (VASEP, 2024; Vietfish Magazine, 2024). Tilapia is robust in Indonesia and the Philippines, and FAO notes Indonesia’s ascent as a competitor to China amid moderate global growth in 2024–2025 (FAO, 2024; MMAF-RI, 2023).
Seaweed (Kappaphycus/Eucheuma, Gracilaria) is dominated by Indonesia and the Philippines, supplying carrageenan and agar chains and drawing new investment interest in biomaterials and ecosystem services (UNCTAD, 2024; World Bank, 2023). Shellfish, including oysters, mussels, and cockles, are vital to domestic food systems, particularly in the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia. However, many production areas still rely on wild seed and artisanal operations, highlighting the need for improved hatchery capacity and upgraded sanitary standards (Lebata‑Ramos, 2023; DOF Malaysia, 2024). The shrimp trade and production cycles in Southeast Asia are regularly monitored through GLOBEFISH market analyses (FAO, n.d.). These analyses indicate that Viet Nam, Indonesia, and Thailand rank among the leading shrimp exporters, with respective export volumes of 144.61, 112.97, and 59.83 thousand tonnes during the period from January to June 2025 (FAO, 2025; Global Seafood Alliance, 2023). Southeast Asian producers supply major import markets (U.S., EU, China) with frozen and value‑added products, especially shrimp and pangasius, while maintaining strong domestic consumption of versatile species such as tilapia (FAO, 2025; VASEP, 2025).
Aquaculture financing in Southeast Asia draws on a mix of public budgets, development bank lending, public-private partnerships, and private capital expenditure to scale up genetics and hatcheries, upgrade farms, and expand cold chain infrastructure. These investments are supported by growth trends highlighted in FAO’s 2024 State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) and its Asia Pacific regional update (FAO 2024a, 2024b). Regionally, blue finance and MDB lending are crowding in private capital: the ADB–Thai Union USD 150 million blue loan mobilises syndicated banks for sustainable shrimp, funding procurement/processing working capital and farmer services; and the World Bank–backed FishCoRe (USD 209 million) is modernising aquaculture infrastructure and enterprises in the Philippines (ADB, 2025; Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources [BFAR], 2023).
Nationally, Indonesia blends People’s Business Credit (or Kredit Usaha Rakyat [KUR]) low interest MSME credit for fisheries/aquaculture (technical rules in Minister Regulation No. 46/2023) with LPMUKP revolving funds and downstream tax/investment allowances, while business forums pipeline deals across shrimp, seaweed and tilapia (MMAF-RI, 2023 ; LPMUKP, 2025 ; Listiyarini, 2024 ). With the ADB‑backed Infrastructure Improvement for Shrimp Aquaculture Project (IISAP) and parallel MMAF-RI investments, Indonesia adds modern shrimp pond estates and shared utilities, with budgets cited at IDR 7.8 trillion for Waingapu and ~IDR 1.3 trillion across 11 sites (Aqua Culture Asia Pacific, 2023; ADB, 2022a, 2022b). The Philippines pairs DBP’s ACPC funded Aquaculture Value Chain Financing (~2% p.a. term loans; seaweed eligible) with Landbank’s Aqua (production, fixed assets, on lending; BFAR guarantees/insurance enhancers), while programmatic funds like FishCoRe provide public capex and TA (Development Bank of the Philippines, 2024 ; Landbank Aqua, 2025; FishCoRe, 2023).
Malaysia’s Agrobank, a key agricultural development finance institution, reported record disbursements of RM 10.44 billion in 2024 (approximately USD 2.6 billion), with a strong focus on agricultural small and medium enterprises and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. Thailand’s Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives continues to play a central role in supporting smallholders, with policy work recommending the development of digital and fisheries-appropriate financial products. In Viet Nam, Agribank expanded preferential credit for agriculture, forestry, and fisheries to VND 20 trillion (approximately USD 770 million), offering interest rate discounts of 1 to 2 percentage points in line with green lending objectives and sector-specific initiatives (Agrobank, 2024; FAO, 2025; Agribank, 2025). While funding in Viet Nam is increasingly directed toward modernisation, smallholder access to credit remains constrained by collateral limitations and risk pricing, underscoring the need for blended finance, credit guarantees, and performance-based support linked to biosecurity and sustainability outcomes (Vietfish Magazine, 2025; INVE Aquaculture, 2023).
Physical Capital.
Physical Capital.
Southeast Asia’s aquaculture infrastructure spans Specific Pathogen Free (SPF) broodstock and hatcheries, intensive/super‑intensive ponds and sea‑based systems (including Recirculating Aquaculture Systems [RAS]), plus rapidly expanding cold chains. Indonesia is scaling integrated modern shrimp estates and upgrading smallholder ponds (liners, aeration, effluent treatment) (Aqua Culture Asia Pacific, 2023; ADB, n.d.). Viet Nam is experiencing strong growth in private and foreign investment in seafood logistics, with cold storage capacity increasing by approximately 45 percent between 2020 and 2023 and additional projects planned through 2028.
Investment is also rising in processor capital expenditure for value added pangasius products. However, farmer access to credit remains constrained, prompting calls for improved and more inclusive financing models (VASEP, 2024). Thailand’s financing momentum is centred on private genetics and hatchery infrastructure (e.g., CP Group’s biosecure broodstock complex) and regional broodstock supply expansions/M&A, signalling sustained capital flows into upstream resilience (CP Broodstock, n.d.; Shrimp Insights, 2025).
The Philippines leverages domestic development finance through the Development Bank of the Philippines Sustainable Mariculture Investment Program (SMIP), which includes published evaluation standards to support mariculture park bankability and guide shared infrastructure planning (SEAFDEC/AQD, 2013; DA‑NFRDI, n.d.). Singapore combines public support and regulatory enablement through the Singapore Aquaculture Plan (SAP), including shared utilities, hatchery/broodstock initiatives and market access tools, while private capital scales sea‑based closed systems like Eco‑Ark (Singapore Food Agency, 2024; Singapore Management University, 2024). Modernisation is accelerating across the bloc, but biosecurity, smallholder finance and waste management remain key constraints, making disease control and restorative practices pivotal for sustainable growth (INVE Aquaculture, 2023; Ludher, 2023).
Human Capital.
Human Capital.
Myanmar counted 63,664 aquaculture workers (7.7% of 830,173 fishers), Malaysia 21,868 (14.7% of 149,165), and smaller cohorts in Brunei Darussalam (512) and Singapore (732), while Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam did not provide figures; Cambodia recorded 1,962,526 fishers but did not disaggregate aquaculture, with most work occasional (57.9%) versus 29.9% part‑time and 12.2% full‑time. Overall, the available data point to a predominantly small‑scale, mixed‑status aquaculture workforce in reporting countries and highlight the need to strengthen regular censuses/surveys to capture fish farmers and small‑scale operations more reliably.
ASEAN aquaculture workforce development is constrained by a skills gap and weak labour intelligence. Despite heavy government investment in aquaculture facilities and strong private sector demand, the lack of skilled technical manpower has left many hatcheries idle, a gap that SEAFDEC AQD addresses through intensive hands-on training that successfully produces and deploys competent aquaculture technicians to operate newly established facilities (SEAFDEC, n.d.). Thailand equips farmers with skills and certification pathways (national GAP/CoC and TAS 7401 standards aligned to FAO guidelines) to meet international requirements and expand market access, supported by pilots and uptake of ASC shrimp certification (WWF, 2016; Aquaculture Stewardship Council, 2021; National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards, 2019). Scaling applied training, certification‑ready farm management, and better workforce data can close capability gaps, activate idle infrastructure, and unlock higher‑value export markets across the region.
Social Capital.
Social Capital.
Similar to the fisheries sector, aquaculture management within ASEAN operates under a structured institutional framework. This framework is primarily facilitated by three key bodies: the ASEAN Ministers on Agriculture and Forestry (AMAF), which provides high-level policy direction; the Senior Officials Meeting of AMAF (SOM-AMAF), which ensures coordination and implementation of these policies; and the ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Fisheries (ASWGFi), which focuses on technical cooperation and harmonisation of standards among member states. SEAFDEC also plays an important role by providing technical expertise, research, and training to promote sustainable fisheries and aquaculture development in the region.
SEAFDEC/AQD (Aquaculture Department), established in 1973, advances sustainable aquaculture in Southeast Asia through science‑based research, training, information dissemination, and technology verification/commercialisation, supported by the Philippines with strong local and international linkages (SEAFDEC/AQD, n.d.)
ASEAN has established Good Aquaculture Practices (GAqP) for Food Fish (ASEAN, 2025) alongside a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries to serve as foundational guidelines for member states. These frameworks are intended to guide the development of national standards, ensuring consistency in quality, safety, and sustainability across the region. They provide reference points for setting priorities in aquaculture and fisheries management, including environmental stewardship, animal health, and food safety protocols (ASEAN, 2023). Complementing these efforts, ASEAN has also introduced the Regional Guidelines on Traceability System for Aquaculture Products in the ASEAN Region, which provide a roadmap for developing and implementing traceability information systems across the aquaculture supply chain (ASEAN, 2017). This initiative ensures transparency and accountability from production to market, enhancing consumer confidence and facilitating export opportunities. Other guidelines and action plan on aquaculture include: ASEAN Good Aquaculture Practices for Food Fish: Trainers’ Guide; Regional Guideline on Performing Risk Analysis for Antimicrobial Resistance Arising from the Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Aquaculture; ASEAN Guidelines for the Prudent Use of Antimicrobials in Aquaculture; Plan of Action (POA) for the ASEAN Cooperation in Combatting AMR in Aquaculture Sector (2021–2025); Guideline on Techniques for Veterinary Drug Residue Detection in Aquaculture Products; and Plan of Action for the ASEAN Cooperation on Good Aquaculture Practices (2021-2025). Together, these frameworks promote best practices, foster regional collaboration, and support the long-term sustainability and economic resilience of fisheries and aquaculture in ASEAN.
Natural Capital.
Natural Capital.
Aquaculture is currently concentrated in a small group of countries. Ten countries (China, Indonesia, India, Viet Nam, Bangladesh, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Norway, Egypt, and Chile) account for over 89.8% of global production. Notably, three of these (Indonesia, Viet Nam, and the Philippines) are ASEAN members, underscoring the region’s pivotal role in shaping global aquaculture.
Aquaculture in Southeast Asia accounted for ~54% of total production volume and 47% of value in 2022, following a mixed five‑year trend (up 0.9% in 2019, down 1.3% in 2020, and up 3.0% from 2021–2022) (SEAFDEC, 2025). Indonesia led output, driven by Eucheuma seaweeds (52.7% of volume; 18% of aquaculture value) alongside Gracilaria (9.8%), Nile tilapia (8.6%), and Clarias catfish (7.5%); Viet Nam ranked second with striped catfish (33%), freshwater fishes (16.6%), whiteleg shrimp (15.5%), and cyprinids (9.8%); the Philippines was third, dominated by Kappaphycus (62.8%) and milkfish (16.5%); Myanmar centred on rohu (59.7%), while Thailand’s portfolio was led by whiteleg shrimp (36.9%) and tilapia (26.9%). By environment, mariculture contributed 40% of volume but only 11% of value, brackish water 23% of volume and 51% of value, and freshwater 37% of volume and 38% of value; growth from 2021–2022 was strongest in brackishwater (+8.5%) and freshwater (+2.9%), boosted by Viet Nam’s whiteleg shrimp and striped catfish.
Value per tonne varied widely across countries. Brunei Darussalam at approximately USD 7,088 per metric tonne and Singapore at around USD 6,740 per metric tonne recorded the highest values, while Indonesia posted the lowest at about USD 926 per metric tonne. Performance is strongly influenced by species mix and culture environment. Greater emphasis on brackish water systems and higher value species can improve returns, while high volume producers such as seaweeds, catfish, and shrimp continue to underpin regional food security.
In 2022, marine mariculture supplied the largest share of volume (~40%) yet the smallest share of value (~11%) because output is dominated by low‑price seaweeds (Eucheuma, Kappaphycus) led by Indonesia and the Philippines; brackish water systems delivered a smaller volume (~23%) but the majority of value (~51%), driven by high‑value crustaceans (whiteleg shrimp and giant tiger prawn) mainly in Viet Nam, Indonesia, and Thailand; and freshwater culture contributed ~37% of volume and ~38% of value, anchored by Indonesia and Viet Nam with Nile tilapia and striped catfish, while unit values peak in giant river prawn and snakehead and freshwater value rose ~7.6% year‑on‑year. Overall, value concentrates in brackish shrimp/prawn, volume in marine seaweeds, and food‑fish tonnage in freshwater catfish/tilapia.
Sustainability and food security have become priority and concern for aquaculture development worldwide and especially in ASEAN region. After detecting cesium‑137 (Cs‑137) a frozen‑shrimp shipment from PT Bahari Makmur Sejati (BMS Foods) of Indonesia, the United States Food & Drug Administration (U.S. FDA) issued an advisory urging consumers, retailers, and food‑service operators not to eat, sell, or serve the specified products, despite the measured level being below the agency’s intervention threshold (U.S. FDA, 2025). Additionally, disease remains the dominant operational risk (shrimp farms grapple with a range of infections, while tilapia systems manage Streptococcus and TiLV) calling for stronger biosecurity, SPF/SPT seed, and water quality automation guided by FAO’s Progressive Management Pathways (Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, 2024; Zaheer, 2024). Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a strategic constraint: cross country legal reviews and technical assessments show many jurisdictions still permit critically important antimicrobials, underscoring the need for One Health stewardship and alternatives such as vaccines, probiotics and bacteriophages (Luthman et al., 2024; Milijašević et al., 2024). In ASEAN, Thailand’s ShrimpGuard project (2024–2026) is piloting phage based control of Vibrio to reduce antibiotic use in hatcheries and farms (BIOTEC/NSTDA, 2024; Zaheer, 2024).
Producers are increasingly intensifying operations through stronger biosecurity and data driven management, ranging from pond lining and recirculating aquaculture systems to the use of IoT sensors and AIoT platforms that optimise feeding efficiency and water quality management (Hafiz, 2025; Huang & Khabusi, 2025). Systematic reviews of digital technologies in aquaculture supply chains show growing applications in traceability, early disease detection, and precision feeding, with adoption moderated by cost and connectivity constraints (Adebayo et al., 2025; Huang, 2025). Disease risks (e.g., EHP/HPM in shrimp) and volatile input costs are persistent pressures, particularly for smallholders. Indonesian farm surveys show disease as a primary concern and margins squeezed by feed/energy prices (Aqua Culture Asia Pacific, 2025; AquaFeed, 2025). Besides, climate change compounds risks (such as through heat, floods, saline intrusion, and storm surges) necessitating adaptation frameworks for aquaculture resilience (Sriskanthan & Simon Funge-Smith, 2011; FAO, 2025; Met Office-UK, 2024). Therefore, uptake of ASC and BAP certifications supports access to retail channels that demand traceability and environmental/social assurances; implementation pathways increasingly include Aquaculture Improvement Programs (AIPs) for smallholders (ASC, n.d.; Best Aquaculture Practices, 2025; Manila Standard, 2025). Certification is also evolving upstream (ASC Feed Standard) to strengthen sourcing and risk management across the value chain (SCS Global Services, n.d.; Easyfish, n.d.).
Assessment of Capacity for Growth
Assessment of Capacity for Growth
MODERATE TO HIGH
(moderate to high growth potential)
Growth is underpinned by government policies and regional standards that support sustainability, competitiveness, and market access. Given aquaculture’s sustained growth (≈5% annually since 2000) and Asia’s structural dominance, Southeast Asia is positioned to continue expanding output and value over the next decade, contingent on effective disease control, climate resilience, and certification‑led market access (FAO, 2024). In ASEAN context, higher value brackish crustaceans (i.e. vannamei/monodon) could lift export revenues while scaling seaweeds and freshwater staples (tilapia, pangasius) to secure volume and affordability.
To lock in premiums and reduce risk, digital traceability and certification could be embedded across value chains and blended finance used to support upgrades in line with EU 2026 rules and US Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP). This also allows producers to leverage Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) programs and access capital from Asian Development Bank (ADB) blue loans and national micro-, small-, and medium‑enterprise (MSME) financing facilities such as the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) – Agricultural Credit Policy Council (ACPC) program and Indonesia’s Kredit Usaha Rakyat (KUR) scheme. . International collaboration can further accelerate the adoption of green technologies and inclusive governance—for example, the seaBLUE initiative led by Indonesia’s Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and Japan, which aligns with Indonesia’s Blue Economy Roadmap (UNDP Indonesia, 2025). (UNDP Indonesia, 2025). On trade, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) framework is expected to ease non‑tariff barriers—such as rules of origin and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures—although tariff concessions remain uneven (Xue et al., 2024; Chen & Xue, 2023).
