Proceedings of the International Cyanide Detection Testing Workshop

estimated at roughly 3 to 5 days. However, in some locations roving fi shermen may embark
on collecting trips that last for up to 2 weeks before fi sh are fi nally landed in a local village. At
holding facilities, aquarium fi sh are typically quarantined for 1 to 4 days before they are sold
to a middleman or exporter. For live reef food fi sh, the time between collection and export
can be even longer: collectors may hold fi sh in fl oating cages for several weeks before they
are purchased by a middleman or exporter. Trade routes can also be quite complex, and may
include transport via boat, road, local fl ights and international fl ights. Marine aquarium fi sh are
also typically held by the exporter for an additional period of 2 to 5 days before shipping.
Optimal targets for cyanide testing
Identifying the most effective target points for cyanide testing is a priority. Participants thought
the easiest location to test for the presence of cyanide was points of export at international
airports, since the majority of fi sh are sent abroad by air. Cyanide detection testing (CDT)
laboratories should be established close to major regional airports, including:
• Indonesia — Bali, Jakarta, Sulawesi, Ujung Pandang, Manado, Surabaya
• Vietnam — Saigon, Hanoi, Da Nang
• Philippines — Manila, Cebu
Also needed is development of a fi eld test that could be implemented by enforcement offi cers
at landing areas. As reef fi sh may be transported by land and boat (e.g., live reef food fi sh),
random testing would ideally be done in every village with a landing area This raises the issue
of choosing the most appropriate methods for sampling. An effective cyanide testing regime
must address who would be impartial samplers, how often to sample, what size sample to take,
and whether to include targeted samples as well as random ones.
Obstacles limiting testing
Assuming the Ion Selective Electrode (ISE) cyanide test proves valid, additional obstacles
to using the test centered on funding, geographic barriers and distance, and potential social
backlash. Testing at fi eld sites and airport points cover both ends of the export chain, and is
therefore ideal. However, lack of funding might constrain this possibility. Funding for testing
would initially rely largely on government support, possibly supplemented by international
donors and importing countries. Longer-term fi nancing may require inspection fees that are
covered by the exporter as well as taxing particular industry components; this may subsequently
be passed on to the importer and ultimately the consumer. Funding for testing schemes should
be self-sustaining, and needs further consideration on how to structure and implement such a
system on the export side.
Enforcement considerations
The process of accountability is a challenge. On one side is the issue of test verifi cation, and
on the other is the issue of prosecution. Creating a system for trustworthy, reliable testing
must be airtight in order to stand up to exporters who challenge it, especially if it becomes a
requirement. There must also be incontestable consistency, so that testing at two separate sites
does not return differing results. Holding someone accountable would have to lie with the
government, and depends heavily on where along the export chain you wish to target. There
27