Proceedings of the International Cyanide Detection Testing Workshop

and Central Vietnam it was revealed that
deterrents to using illegal destructive fi shing
methods where insuffi cient due to:
1. The fi nes being so low that even if the
equipment was confi scated it was still
profi table for the fi shers to buy new
equipment and continue fi shing.
2. Enforcement patrols where very rare.
During 1998-2001, the National Directorate
of Aquatic Resources Exploitation and
Protection (NADAREP) dealt with 355
cases of blast fi shing, 106 cases of chemical
fi shing and confi scated 846 liters of chemical
solution (Vu Huy Thu, 2001). Particularly in 2007,
dynamite fi shing reduced, but still occurred in
some areas. In 2007, 53 cases were fi ned and
treated (19 cases: dynamite fi shing, 34: storing,
sale/trade dynamite), keep 361 fuse, 258.2 kg
dynamite, 137.8 m slow fi red wire. Electro
fi shing still occurred in some places, fi ne 991
cases, treat 510 cases, keep 555 battery, 1017
electrify set and 226 illegal tools, fi ne over 627
million VND (40,000 USD).
Conclusions and practical steps for a way
forward
This report highlights the current lack of
information on the extent and impact of
destructive fi shing practises in Vietnam, in
particular the use of cyanide. This information
could be made available through more
dedicated monitoring and research efforts
of the government, fi sheries managers and
research institutes.
As one village leader for central Vietnam
was quoted as saying “illegal fishing only
benefi ts one family but destroys the living
of 10 others”. Understanding of the extent
and impact of destructive fi shing practices
is critically needed as the basis for issuing
legislation to control the situation as well as
for complying with and enforcing the rules.
In addition, it also enables the fi shers to make
127
sensible choice and trade-off amongst the
fi shing practices.
The report also confi rms that the Government
of Vietnam is clearly committed to eliminating
the use of destructive fi shing methods with
a clear domestic legal mechanism as well as
commitments in various international fora.
Besides, it draws the attention that low
compliance and week enforcement are the key
challenges in management of the destructive
fi sheries. Although it has been almost 20
years since destructive fi shing methods where
fi rst made illegal their use is still wide spread.
It suggests the key to the success of these
commitments will be an effective compliance
and enforcement mechanism. The immediate
need now is to build capacity and enabling
regulations and policies to ensure effective
implementation of these national policies and
legislation.
It is also implied from the facts provided in the
report that the legislative controlling efforts
from the government could not be successful
if the issue of sustainable livelihoods for
fishers who exercise illegal fishing is not
effectively handled. Lack of awareness of the
long term implications of destructive fi shing,
lack of knowledge of actual damage caused by
cyanide in particular, and no alternative fi shing
methods or enabling policy for it, are among
the problems that need to be addressed.
Having highlighted the above, in this report,
key issues and recommendations are also
provided (see table 2) focusing on assessing
the status of the use of cyanide, evaluating
the impact of harvesting and developing and
implementing sustainable management. Such
issue and recommendations mainly target
the attention of the government authorities,
where the Centre of Marinelife Conservation
and Community Development as the hosting