No abstract

This datasheet on Fisheries co-management - a new approach in some reservoirs in the central highlands of Vietnam covers Identity, Overview, Case Study, Environmental Requirements, Related Content, Further Information.

This datasheet on Trials of cage fish culture in Ea Soup Reservoir, Dak Lak Province, Central Highlands of Vietnam covers Identity, Overview, Associated Diseases, Pests or Pathogens, Case Study, Environmental Requirements, Growout Systems, Related Content, Further Information.

Reservoirs in the Central Highlands of Vietnam are numerous and growing in number. Most of these reservoirs were built mainly for irrigation, with flood control and occasionally, hydroelectricity as secondary functions. Ea Soup reservoir covers an estimated 240 ha at the upper storage level, and has a drawdown of only 2.5 m. Probably for this reason, there is an abundant supply of macrophytes in the reservoir. While a number of species have cage culture potential, grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) is particularly popular in many parts of Vietnam. The species feeds almost entirely on macrophytes, so cash requirements for feed are minimal. This is suitable for most poor farmers in the area. The market price, about VND 15,000 kg-1 (US $1=VND15,000 approximately) is higher than that for many species. In Ea Soup reservoir, cage culture of grass carp commenced in 1993, and rapidly expanded. By 1996, there were 152 cages. Stocks were hit by disease, and were decimated late in the year. These losses were a strong discouragement to continuation of the practice. Many owners suffered heavy financial losses. Pollution, poor circulation in the cages, high stocking density and overcrowding of cages may have contributed to the disease problem. From June 1998, the Project, jointly with three fishers has tested the culture of grass carp combined with small numbers of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio) in cages with new materials, somewhat larger mesh size, and lower stocking density. The economic viability of this modified technology will depend mainly on the lifetime of the cage. Nevertheless, fishers are continuing to culture at their own expense. This suggests that the technology has some sustainability in the reservoir. The extent to which cage culture can be practiced remains to be seen, but any expansion must be done with caution.

Natural resources co-management by local users, concerned local governments, and other stakeholders, with particular attention to the role of the users in resource management, has been strongly encouraged by many projects in Vietnam in recent years. There are many reasons for this. In general, though, various socioeconomic and environmental problems make the need for resource management clear, and management measures must be accepted by the users, if they are to have legitimacy and effectiveness. This paper focuses on the experiences of the Vietnam subcomponent of Management of Reservoir Fisheries, in order to make recommendations to decision-makers (a) on whether or not to promote fisheries co-management more systematically, and (b) how such promotion should be carried out. These recommendations are based on (a) an examination of the economics of co-management and other management systems at selected reservoirs, (b) other less measurable, but very important, costs and benefits, which enter comparative economics equations with difficulty, and (c) other lessons learned from efforts to establish co-management in six reservoirs in Dak Lak province in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. In general, participation of fishers in managing the resources on which they depend should be promoted. However, there is great local variation among fishery resources and fishing communities, and no single model will apply to all. Local, not just central, government support is needed for any co-management effort to succeed. Policy guidelines are needed to encourage local governments to support co-management. This should be combined with developing among local officials an increased awareness of the need for user participation. Finally, resource users have very little money and time. They usually cannot afford to invest the resources needed to achieve successful management, so modest compensation for their efforts should normally be part of the process of promoting their participation.