Báo cáo khoa học nông nghiệp " Development of Better Management Practices for Catfish Aquaculture in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam " pptx

Development of Better Management Practices for Catfish Aquaculture in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam RISK ASSESSMENT August, 2009 Introduction For purposes of meeting medium-long term industry sustainability imperatives, the development of Better Management Practices (BMPs) is considered a priority for the catfish farming sector in the Mekong Delta of south Vietnam. To this end, the following project entitled,: Development of Better Management Practices for Catfish Aquaculture ibn the Mekong Delta, Vietnam has been funded by AusAid as part of the Collaboration for Agricultural Rural Development (CARD 001/07/VIE). As part of this project it is a requirement to undertake a formal risk assessment of the industry to identify information gaps and key risks to be addressed by the proposed BMPs. This report is a summary of the key findings and recommendations of this assessment. Methods This risk assessment is based on a modified combination of methods from the National ESD Framework for aquaculture(Fletcher et al. 2004), Finfish Aquaculture in Western Australia: Final ESD Risk Assessment Report for Sea-cage and Land- based Finfish Aquaculture (Vom Berg 2008) and Risk Management Planning for DPI Projects (Halligan and Linehan 2008). The process for undertaking the risk assessment is as follows: 1. Compile initial Risk Register (list of key risks) categorised according to generic BMP framework 2. Review score key risks in terms of ‘likelihood’ and ‘consequence’ of risks occurring to provide Risk Ratings 3. Risk Ratings are ranked (= sum of likelihood + consequence scores) to provide the Risk Ranking 4. Risk Ranking determines appropriate level of management response according to Risk Ranking Matrix and associated BMP outcome. The Risk Register (Attachment 1) was initially compiled by the CARD project team, following a process of industry consultation, project planning workshops and associated stakeholder needs analysis, field investigations in the Mekong Delta during 2008/09, and consideration of interim results for the recently completed socio- economic survey of the catfish aquaculture industry in the Mekong Delta. The generic framework used to summarise the risks is based on the key categories (Table 1) used for many Better Management Practice (BMP) guidelines in the aquaculture industry (Boyd 2003; Tucker 2003; De Silva et al. 2006; World Bank 2006; ADB/ACIAR/AwF/BRR/DKP/FAO/GTZ/IFC/MMAF/NACA/WWF 2007; Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2007; Tucker and Hargreaves 2008), supplemented by categories of more contemporary and/or localised relevance. These categories will subsequently form the basis of the draft Catfish Aquaculture BMP for the Mekong Delta, according to the customised schematic logframe (Attachment 2). The main aim of the risk assessment is to determine if current management is sufficient and to consider risks on a prioritised basis to be used in the development of a BMP for catfish farming. The original key categories included a category for “Records”. This was combined into the “Markets, Regulation & Finance” category as the specific risks identified under the Records category were implicit in the Markets, Regulation & Finance category. The risk ranking is determined using the risk analysis tool outlined in the Risk Management Planning for DPI Projects, which was based on the Australian Standard for Risk Management (Standards Australia 2004a,b). To assign a level of risk (= risk ranking score) to an issue, two factors must be determined: • the likelihood of a particular activity/event/circumstance occurring, and • the consequence of this particular activity/event/circumstance, should it occur. • Table 1. BMP Key Categories Site Selection & Farm Design Culture System Preparation Farm Management Hatchery Management Nursery Management Seedstock Supply & Stocking Feed Management Water Management Waste Management Climate Change Fish Health Management & Biosecurity Post-Harvest Markets, Regulation & Finance Communications & Training The format for the scoring of Risk Ratings is provided in Attachment 3, with descriptions of scores and associated values summarised in Tables A3.1 & A3.2 (Attachment 3). Risk ratings are assigned a level of consequence (from ‘insignificant’ to ‘catastrophic’) and likelihood (from ‘rare’ to ‘almost certain’). This stage was undertaken using an expert-panel consisting of the CARD project team, nominated experts and key stakeholders associated with the catfish aquaculture sector in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Seven risk assessments were completed; five by individual experts (two individuals from Fisheries Victoria (Department of Primary Industries), one from NACA, one from RIA2 and one from an industry consultant) and two by groups of experts from CTU (group of four) and RIA2 (group of four). Each of the seven risk assessments was assigned equal weight in consolidating and averaging the scores for analysis. The combination of consequence and likelihood produces (as a summation of risk rating scores) an estimate of the associated risk (= Risk Ranking score). The Risk Ranking scores are then reconciled against the Risk Ranking Matrix (Table 2) to identify the relative Risk Ranking Profile (Table 3) and appropriate BMP response as a new and/or additional Control measure (Attachment 2). Table 2. Risk Ranking Matrix Consequence Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic Likelihood 1 2 3 4 5 Almost Certain 5 6 7 8 9 10 Likely 4 5 6 7 8 9 Possible 3 4 5 6 7 8 Unlikely 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rare 1 2 3 4 5 6 Table 3. Risk Ranking Profile BMP Response 8-10 High Risk Mandatory 7 Significant Risk Recommended 5-6 Moderate Risk Optional <5 Low Risk Not required Results and Discussion Complete results for risk assessment are provided in appendix 1. A summary of the number of identified high, significant and moderate risks is summarised by BMP category in table 4. Table 4. Summary of risk levels by BMP Category BMP Category High Risk Significant Risk Moderate Risk Site Selection & Farm Design 0 2 5 Culture System Preparation 0 1 1 Farm Management 0 5 6 Hatchery Management 0 2 4 Nursery Management 0 1 1 Seedstock Supply & Stocking 0 1 2 Feed Management 0 0 6 Water Management 2 3 1 Waste Management 0 1 2 Climate Change 0 2 2 Fish Health Management & Biosecurity 1 4 1 Post-Harvest 0 1 1 Markets, Regulation & Finance 1 6 3 Communications & Training 0 1 2 These findings will provide a key checklist against which draft BMPs will be prepared for Project no. CARD 001/07/VIE, with specific emphasis on ensuring all high, significant and moderate risks (Table 4) are appropriately addressed within each of the designated BMP categories. Acknowledgements The following personnel contributed to this risk assessment: College of Aquaculture and Fisheries, Can Tho University, Can Tho City, Vn Dr Nguyen Thanh Phuong, Mr Bui Minh Tam, Mr Pham Thanh Liem and Mr Duong Nhut Long Research Institute for Aquaculture #2, Ho Chi Minh City, Vn Dr Nguyen Van Hao, Mr Phan Lam, Mr. Tran Quoc Chuong, Mr.Doan Van Bay, Mr.Ha Tan and Ms.Nguyen Thi Hoai An (Inland Fisheries Resources and Capture Division) Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific Prof. Sena De Silva, Dr Thuy Nguyen and Mr Bryan Davy (consultant) Fisheries Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, Australia Dr Brett Ingram Mr Geoff Gooley References ADB/ACIAR/AwF/BRR/DKP/FAO/GTZ/IFC/MMAF/NACA/WWF (2007). Better management practices for tambak farming in Aceh. Asian Development Bank ETESP, Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group, Banda Aceh. Boyd, C. E. (2003). Guidelines for aquaculture effluent management at the farm-level. Aquaculture 226, 101-112. De Silva, S. S., Amarasinghe, U. S., and Nguyen, T. T. T. (2006). Better-practice approaches for culture-based fisheries development in Asia. ACIAR, ACIAR Monograph No. 120. Fletcher, W. J., Chesson, J., Fisher, M., Sainsbury, K. J., and Hundloe, T. J. (2004). National ESD Reporting Framework: The 'How To' Guide for Aquaculture. Version 1.1. FRDC, Canberra, Australia. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2007). Aquaculture Best Management Practices Manual - January 2007. Division of Aquaculture, Tallahassee, Florida. Halligan, S., and Linehan, C. (2008). Risk Management Planning for DPI Projects. Practice Change Capacity Development Booklet No. 6. Standards Australia (2004a). AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk Management. Standards Australia (2004b). HB 436:2004 Risk Management Guidelines - Companion to AS/NZS 4360:2004. Tucker, C. (2003). Best Management Practices for Flow-Through, Net-Pen, Recirculating, and Pond Aquaculture Systems. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Vom Berg, F. (2008). Finfish Aquaculture in Western Australia: Final ESD Risk Assessment Report for Sea-cage and Land-based Finfish Aquaculture. Government of Western Australia - Department of Fisheries. World Bank (2006). Guidelines for Environmental Management of Aquaculture Investments in Vietnam. Institute of Fisheries Management Research Institute for Aquaculture Number 1, Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, Can Tho University and World Wide Fund for Nature. Appendix 1. Complete Risk Assessment Results BMP Category Specific Risk Mean Risk Score Risk Ranking Profile BMP Response Site Selection & Farm Design Increased disease/pathogen issues and environmental degradation 7 Significant Risk Recommended Site Selection & Farm Design Poor/unsustainable water abstraction practices from river/stream/channels degrades environment and/or impacts public amenity 7 Significant Risk Recommended Site Selection & Farm Design Poor/unsustainable land use practices degrade the environment and/or impact public amenity 6 Moderate Risk Optional Site Selection & Farm Design Sewage from farm/surrounding area discharged into culture area 6 Moderate Risk Optional Site Selection & Farm Design Poor/unsustainable water use from surrounding farms negatively effects your farm 6 Moderate Risk Optional Site Selection & Farm Design Poor farm design limits ability to farm fish successfully 6 Moderate Risk Optional Site Selection & Farm Design Poor farm productivity 5 Moderate Risk Optional Site Selection & Farm Design Farm is vulnerable to extreme tides, rain, weather 4 Low Risk Not required Site Selection & Farm Design Theft/vandalism 4 Low Risk Not required Culture System Preparation Ponds/equipment are not properly disinfected between use 7 Significant Risk Recommended Culture System Preparation Ponds are not adequately de-sludged and/or pond banks not maintained 6 Moderate Risk Optional Farm Management Reduced market price/demand 7 Significant Risk Recommended Farm Management Poor quality effluent can negatively affect the downstream environment 7 Significant Risk Recommended Farm Management Increased incidence of disease related losses 7 Significant Risk Recommended Farm Management Poor husbandry practices can lead to breaches of biosecurity 7 Significant Risk Recommended Farm Management Excessive production costs 7 Significant Risk Recommended Farm Management Data is collected but not communicated and/or utilised 6 Moderate Risk Optional Farm Management Poor husbandry practices 6 Moderate Risk Optional Farm Management Insufficient skills/personnel 5 Moderate Risk Optional Farm Management Insufficient/outdated/dysfunctional infrastructure limit farm productivity 5 Moderate Risk Optional Farm Management Increase incidence of OH&S issues for employees 5 Moderate Risk Optional Farm Management Loss of livelihood for local communities 5 Moderate Risk Optional Hatchery Management Poor broodstock selection causing genetic inbreeding can lead to reduced quality of seedstock and overall productivity 7 Significant Risk Recommended Hatchery Management Hatchery quarantine systems not in place or otherwise ineffective 7 Significant Risk Recommended Hatchery Management Poor broodstock conditioning leads to lower fecundity and/or poor quality eggs/larvae 6 Moderate Risk Optional Hatchery Management Poor water quality and/or unsuitable temperature can lead to reduced to reduced survival of eggs/larvae 6 Moderate Risk Optional Hatchery Management Incorrect type/size/quantity of food and/or poor water quality for first feeding larvae leads to reduced survival 6 Moderate Risk Optional Hatchery Management Inefficient breeding techniques lead to poor quality and/or reduced offspring 6 Moderate Risk Optional Nursery Management Nursery quarantine systems not in place or otherwise ineffective 7 Significant Risk Recommended Nursery Management Inadequate supply of larvae 5 Moderate Risk Optional Seedstock Supply & Stocking Poor quality seedstock can lead to poor performance/high mortality 7 Significant Risk Recommended Seedstock Supply & Stocking Too many fish stocked and carrying capacity is exceeded 6 Moderate Risk Optional Seedstock Supply & Stocking Lack of sufficient number of seedstock at appropriate time 5 Moderate Risk Optional Seedstock Supply & Stocking Seedstock are not stocked at appropriate time of year, time of day (temperature) 4 Low Risk Not required Seedstock Supply & Stocking Seedstock are too expensive 4 Low Risk Not required Feed Management Poor quality of feed ingredients 6 Moderate Risk Optional Feed Management Excessive cost of feed ingredients 6 Moderate Risk Optional Feed Management Lack of availability of feed ingredients 6 Moderate Risk Optional Feed Management Feed ingredients are sourced by unsustainable means (e.g. trash fish, fish meal) 6 Moderate Risk Optional Feed Management Incorrectly stored feed leads to reduced performance/profitability 6 Moderate Risk Optional Feed Management Inefficient feed delivery methods/frequency leads to wasted feed, poor water quality and productivity 5 Moderate Risk Optional Feed Management Incorrect food type/size fed to different size class fish 4 Low Risk Not required Water Management Untreated water is discharged back into the aquatic environment 8 High Risk Mandatory Water Management Settlement ponds absent or not properly designed or operated 8 High Risk Mandatory Water Management Incomplete/inadequate monitoring fails to identify water quality problems 7 Significant Risk Recommended Water Management Intake water is not filtered for unwanted organisms/pathogens 7 Significant Risk Recommended Water Management Insufficient water exchange results in poor pond water quality 7 Significant Risk Recommended Water Management Lack of supplementary aeration leads to dissolved oxygen problems 5 Moderate Risk Optional Waste Management Reuse of the processing waste as a feed ingredient creates health problems 7 Significant Risk Recommended Waste Management Poor disposal of mortalities creates productivity, health, environmental & social problems 6 Moderate Risk Optional Waste Management non-biodegradable waste is not properly disposed of 5 Moderate Risk Optional Climate Change Land salinization and loss of sites from rising sea level 7 Significant Risk Recommended Climate Change Climate change driven increase in production costs 7 Significant Risk Recommended Climate Change New diseases and exotic organisms impact productivity 6 Moderate Risk Optional Climate Change Inundation/damage leading to loss of suitable sites 6 Moderate Risk Optional Fish Health Management & Biosecurity Disease/pathogen occurrence resulting from inadequate monitoring, management and treatment reduces productivity 8 High Risk Mandatory Fish Health Management & Biosecurity Disease/pathogen occurrence in effluent can affect other farms/general environment 7 Significant Risk Recommended Fish Health Management & Biosecurity Introduction of disease/pathogen from water supply 7 Significant Risk Recommended Fish Health Management & Biosecurity Improper chemical/pesticide use affects health of fish 7 Significant Risk Recommended Fish Health Management & Biosecurity Introduction of disease/pathogens from incoming seedstock/broodstock/trash fish and/or human activity 7 Significant Risk Recommended Fish Health Management & Biosecurity Escaped fish alter genetics in natural populations 5 Moderate Risk Optional Fish Health Management & Biosecurity Exotic species will be introduced to the farm and affect productivity 4 Low Risk Not required Fish Health Management & Biosecurity Competition for food with wild stock due to farm escapees 4 Low Risk Not required Post-harvest Ad hoc use of antibiotics and other banned chemicals compromises food safety 7 Significant Risk Recommended Post-harvest Consumer expectations not being met for taste, appearance, nutritional value (credence values) 5 Moderate Risk Optional Markets, Regulation & Finance Inability to comply with export market standards (lack of or inappropriate standards/certification/traceability systems) 8 High Risk Mandatory Markets, Regulation & Finance Ineffective marketing of product and/or promotion of industry credibility 7 Significant Risk Recommended Markets, Regulation & Finance Ineffective strategic development of new & existing markets 7 Significant Risk Recommended Markets, Regulation & Finance Market chain lacks orderly structure & functionality 7 Significant Risk Recommended Markets, Regulation & Finance Negative press from competitors 7 Significant Risk Recommended Markets, Regulation & Finance Inaccurate or absent data fails to inform industry/government on performance measures 7 Significant Risk Recommended Markets, Regulation & Finance Lack of industry compliance leads to poor performance 7 Significant Risk Recommended Markets, Regulation & Finance Bureaucratic constraints from regulatory processes 6 Moderate Risk Optional Markets, Regulation & Finance Inability to fund investment/operating costs/expansion 6 Moderate Risk Optional Markets, Regulation & Finance Increased competition from new/existing players 6 Moderate Risk Optional Communication & Training Poor information exchange on price/quality/demand 7 Significant Risk Recommended Communication & Training Lack of skills and/or people 6 Moderate Risk Optional Communication & Training Ineffective communication/networking between government, technical experts, and farmers prevents implementation of BMP 6 Moderate Risk Optional . Development of Better Management Practices for Catfish Aquaculture in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam RISK ASSESSMENT August, 2009 Introduction For purposes of meeting medium-long term industry. sustainability imperatives, the development of Better Management Practices (BMPs) is considered a priority for the catfish farming sector in the Mekong Delta of south Vietnam. To this end, the. following project entitled,: Development of Better Management Practices for Catfish Aquaculture ibn the Mekong Delta, Vietnam has been funded by AusAid as part of the Collaboration for Agricultural