Báo cáo khoa học nông nghiệp: Development of Better Management Practices for Catfish Aquaculture in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam - RISK ASSESSMENT

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 Likelihood Almost Certain 5 Likely 4 Possible 3 Unlikely 2 Rare 1 Insignificant 1 6 5 4 3 2 Minor Moderate Major 2 3 4 7 8 9 6 7 8 5 6 7 4 5 6 3 4 5 Catastrophic 5 10 9 8 7 6 Table 3. Risk Ranking Profile 8-10 High Risk 7 Significant Risk 5-6 Moderate Risk <5 Low Risk BMP Response Mandatory Recommended Optional 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 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 High Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 Significant Risk 2 1 5 2 1 1 0 3 1 2 4 1 6 1 Moderate Risk 5 1 6 4 1 2 6 1 2 2 1 1 3 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. ... - tailieumienphi.vn