Proceedings of the International Cyanide Detection Testing Workshop

must also be some degree of coordination between export and import nations for a truly
successful testing system.
Monitoring fi sh at landing areas can also employ indirect evidence of cyanide use. For example,
if fi shers are catching more fi sh than would be expected under normal circumstances, they
might be using cyanide. Further, certain species are more often caught using cyanide than
others; therefore, monitors should be trained to know which species to look for.
Perhaps the most logical and proven method calls for placing the burden on exporters to clean
up the supply chain, but it is important to note the inherent challenges in this type of approach.
Testing only at points of export may be complicated, as the exporter may request cyanide-free
fi sh but be unable to verify this. Because exporters may purchase fi sh from middlemen, and
fi sh from multiple sources may be mixed within the export facility, it may be challenging to
demonstrate the connection between the exporter and the collector. Despite these concerns,
the participants agreed that initiating a cyanide detection testing scheme at export points
remains the most practical and manageable starting point.
Target points
In addition to some of the limitations described above, the group felt additional measures are
needed to tackle the actual root causes of the problem. Several participants felt that exporters
were the cause of the problem, as opposed to the actual fi shers. The exporters may supply
the cyanide in some cases, and they also provide few incentives to collectors who use nets
instead of cyanide. However, testing only at airports may be inadequate, as the volume of fi sh
exported on a daily basis may exceed the limits of testing, thereby allowing many cyanidecaught
fi sh to be exported. It is important to recognize that this oversight may occur even in
the best of schemes. However, if sampling is frequent enough and penalties high enough, it
should become more economical for exporters to invest in cleaning up the supply chain.
One other alternative could include spot checks at points of landing, solely to verify exposure
to cyanide, followed by more quantitative testing of fi sh at airports, with repeat offenders
losing their license (fi sh collectors) or being prosecuted (exporters). This would shift the
burden to the exporters, who ultimately make most of the profi t and has direct control over
what they purchase from fi shermen. In the past, the Philippines conducted monitoring at the
landing areas, and samples were then sent on for further testing at the airport lab.
In conjunction with testing, educating collectors has been pushed in the Philippines, while
Vietnam’s approach to the similar issue of dynamite fi shing has been to deputize villagers who
curtail nighttime use and enforce local fi sheries management regulations.
28