Báo cáo khoa học nông nghiệp " A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF BETTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE CATFISH FARMING INDUSTRY IN THE MEKONG DELTA, VIETNAM " ppt

1
A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ADOPTION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF BETTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE
CATFISH FARMING INDUSTRY IN THE MEKONG DELTA, VIETNAM
CARD Project 001/07/VIE
August 2010

1. Background
Aquaculture is a rapidly expanding global industry, which has the potential to
improve the livelihoods of many people in the developing world. Aquaculture
may provide a means of income to the rural poor and support the availability of
an affordable protein source, and contribute to food security. To achieve this
potential, significant improvements must be made in current production
systems, particularly from an environmental and resource usage view points.
Despite evidence of profitability in many sectors, some systems are still
performing sub-optimally and/or causing negative impacts on the social and
environmental landscape. There is a pressing need for the aquaculture industry
as a whole to become ecologically sustainable to realize its full potential and be
viable well into the future.
1.1. Sustainable Aquaculture and Better Management Practices
The concept of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) is complex. The
multidisciplinary nature of ESD, including social, environmental and economic
dimensions, must be acknowledged at the planning stage of new and emerging
industries in order to facilitate enduring and optimal performance. Such factors
make creating ESD-based industry development a complex process that must
consider the needs of all stakeholders.
Better Management Practices (BMPs) have been proposed as one method to
address sustainability issues in aquaculture. BMPs are a set of management
guidelines, which are relatively easy to achieve without substantial increases in
costs. They are designed to standardize and optimize ‘through chain’ industry

management practices within the constraints of the existing system. They
facilitate the means for continuous improvement in producers to meet market
needs and expectations around product quantity and quality, and provide a
framework for addressing ESD at an industry scale. To do this, BMPs must be
context specific, subject to the geo-political region, industry sector and species of
interest, socio-economic circumstances of key stakeholders and the needs and
expectations of the post-harvest sector, including processors and consumers.

2
1.2. Catfish Farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam
BMPs are presently being developed within the catfish-farming sector located in
the Mekong Delta of southern Vietnam. This sector has seen rapid expansion
over the last decade, with current production in excess of one million tones per
annum, worth over US$1 billion in export value. Such expansion has highlighted
a number of social and environmental issues, which challenge the long-term
sustainability of the industry. The widespread adoption of BMPs is seen as a key
strategy to secure a sustainable future.
A project funded by the AusAID Capacity for Rural Development (CARD)
program, designed to facilitate the development and implementation of BMPs in
the catfish farming industry in the Mekong Delta, is presently in progress. This
project is lead by the Victorian Department of Primary industries (Fisheries
Victoria) in collaboration with the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-
Pacific (NACA), Research Institute for Aquaculture #2 (RIA2), Vietnam, and Can
Tho University, Vietnam.
The CARD project is based in four provinces of the Mekong Delta, South Vietnam,
and is primarily targeting the role of smallholders at the production end of the
market chain (i.e. hatchery, nursery and grow out stages). It is expected that
BMPs will provide more security for smallholder farmers, particularly where
such farmers organize themselves into cooperative associations (also referred to
as ‘aqua clubs’).

The project has a requirement to evaluate the impact of BMPs under pilot, farm-
scale demonstration conditions, including the role of farmer associations in
facilitating effective BMP adoption and implementation. To date, draft BMPs
have been developed and are being demonstrated as part of formal trials by a
selection of farmers and farmer associations for a full (six month) production
cycle commencing in early 2010 (see Appendix 1).
1.3. Social and environmental impacts
Several studies have documented the social and environmental issues facing the
industry (Phuong & Oanh, 2010; Bush et al., 2009). Some examples include
depleting wild fish stocks used for feed, a lack of effluent management and the
unregulated use of chemicals. While these broad issues have been discussed, few
studies have assessed the effectiveness of particular management strategies in
addressing these issues. Further, Phan et al. (2009) also found there was a lack of
guidelines surrounding farm management, and little communication between
neighboring farmers on environmental issues. Consequently, there is a pressing
need for research to explore whether specific management strategies such as
BMPs address key social and environmental issues and improve farm
management performance.
The draft BMPs developed by the CARD project cover a number of farming
activities and associated economic, social and environmental issues relevant to

3
the long term sustainability of the industry (AusAID (CARD) 2009). In summary
these include:
• Addressing key market issues: ensuring small scale producers have a
stronger standing in the industry as well as helping producers meet
increasingly stringent food safety and production standards.
• Addressing environmental concerns at the farm level, such as minimizing
the risk of disease, efficient water exchange rates and appropriate
stocking density.

• The BMPs will also address social issues relating to community
expectations, including the likely role of farmer associations (also
referred to as ‘aqua clubs’).
2. The Present Study
The present study comprises a discrete component of the larger CARD Catfish
BMP project, and contributes to the broader CARD project evaluation, with
specific emphasis on environmental and social impacts of the BMP
demonstration trials as determined primarily by participating farmers.
The present study examines whether smallholder catfish farmers believe BMPs
can address key social and environmental issues on their farms in the Mekong
Delta, South Vietnam. In this sense, the study contributes new knowledge at the
local, farmer level, with specific emphasis on impacts of BMPs on the social and
environmental issues facing the industry. With this knowledge, the study will
guide future BMP extension strategies and help in the planning of government
policies and industry (including farmer and NGO-based) support programs.
For the purposes of this study, the focus was on smallholder rural farmers at the
production end of the market chain (hatchery, nursery and grow out). They are
the key drivers of the intensive, pond-based production system for which BMPs
are expected to provide tangible benefits. These farms are typically family
owned and operated (also referred to as ‘household scale’). Recently, some of
these farms have been taken over by larger farmers and/or processors (as part
of expansion of ‘industrial scale’ farming) due to market pressures, such as
increasing cost of inputs and declining fish price, and other farms have simply
closed down for economic reasons.
2.1. Objectives
The overall aim of the present study is to undertakes a preliminary evaluation of
the BMP demonstration trials as part of the CARD project. The purpose is to
contribute valuable new knowledge which will facilitate a viable future for the
smallholder farmers in the catfish aquaculture industry, as they are integral to
the future viability and sustainability of the industry as a whole. Specifically,

three key objectives are addressed:

4
1. To identify key social and environmental issues relevant to
demonstration of BMPs
2. To examine the reactions of farmers to the BMP demonstration trials in
light of these issues, and
3. To assess the role of farmer associations (aqua clubs) in facilitating the
adoption and implementation of BMPs at an industry-wide scale.
2.2. Materials and Methods
The study undertakes a two-step approach:
• Firstly, the study analyses and reviews existing data on socio-economic
and environmental issues, industry problems and farmer attitudes to
BMPs generated by the CARD baseline survey (Phan et al., 2009). This
survey involved structured interviews with representative farmers in all
four catfish producing regions; An Giang, Dong Thap, Can Tho, and Vinh
Long. Farms were randomly selected from a list provided by respective
administrations and involved farmers planning to be involved in the BMP
project as well as farmers not involved in the project (Phan et al., 2009).
Responses to the key questions from the structured interviews relevant
to objectives of the present evaluation study were summarized and
reviewed to generate preliminary understanding of social and
environmental issues at the stage prior to the implementation of the
CARD Catfish BMP project. This activity is particularly directed to
answering the first research objective of the present study.
• A second, fieldwork component of the present study addresses objectives
two and three, and focuses on the CARD Project implementation of the
BMP demonstration trials. This work was conducted from the 13
TH
June

to the 30
th
June 2010. It involved surveys of catfish farmers involved in
the BMP demonstration trials primarily from two (Can Tho and An Giang)
of the four major catfish farming provinces in the Mekong Delta, but also
included surveys of other BMP farmers and some non BMP farmers in the
other major provinces of the Delta.
The fieldwork component used a semi structured approach, involving use of
standardized questionnaires (see Attachment 2) to conduct in-depth interviews
with participants at their farms. The semi-structured approach was chosen as it
describes and measure impacts of BMPs and associated attitudes of farmers in a
way that allows scope for farmers to express in their own words their concerns,
ideas and aspirations surrounding BMPs and the industry’s longer term
sustainability. The interview questions were therefore designed in a
consequential, conversational way to allow key themes to emerge. Data was
then subject to qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis as appropriate. This
approach complements the intricate and unique nature of each farmer’s reaction,
and allows for further probing when required.
Where possible, the present study also involved semi structured ‘focus group’
interviews at farmer association (aqua club) meetings using similar questions as

5
for the individual interviews. The purpose was to give the fieldwork component
a more comprehensive picture of farmer reactions to BMPs by drawing on two
levels of analysis. Themes identified during individual farmer interviews were
also discussed with the associations/aqua clubs as a validation and verification
step.
Interviews were carried out in Vietnamese with the assistance of a translator
from the Vietnamese CARD project team. Project team members know many of
the farmers well and have been working with them for several years. By being

connected with this trustworthy team, farmers felt at ease during the interview
process and gave greater insights into their experiences.
The questions (Attachment 2) are based on the outcome of the survey
undertaken by Phan et al. (2009) and Tam et al. (2010), as well as additional
questions required to answer the key objectives. The survey data are expected to
identify key elements of farmer knowledge, aspirations, skills and attitudes
(KASA) relevant to BMPs. A summary of the theory of action for the present
study based on the completed evaluation was prepared based on an established
evaluation-planning framework template (DPI 2009).

The design of this study considers a matrix of ‘context’ scenarios to assist data
analysis (see below). The use of two studies at different times, one pre and one
post BMP implementation, is designed to give a greater diversity of responses.
Within each study there are further sources of variation for a more detailed
analysis to measure impact. The Phan et al. (2009) study considered both
farmers planning on being involved in the BMP project as well as other catfish
farmers. The new survey in the present study considers primarily the response
of farmers involved in the BMP demonstration trials.

Sources of variation Pre-existing data (Phan
et al 2009)
Evaluation Fieldwork
Component

Time period Pre BMP implementation Post BMP
implementation
Sample size of farmers Large Small
Type of farmers All scales of production Primarily household-
scale BMP farmers (and
variation with level of

BMP implementation on
each farm, pond basis or
entire farm)
Location of farmers Four provinces- An
Giang, Can Tho, Dong
Thap and Vinh Long
All provinces with
emphasis on An Giang
and Can Tho
Survey respondents Individual Individual and group
Focus of study Broader understanding;
quantitative and
qualitative aqnalysis.
Deeper understanding
(of each farmer’s
reactions; more probing)
and qualitative analysis.

6

Qualitative analysis of survey results for BMP demonstration trials
A three-phase qualitative analysis approach was utilized, guided by the
conceptual framework and research objectives of Miles and Huberman (1994)
and Kitchin and Tate (2000). The process was concurrent, iterative and reflexive
in nature.
The first phase involved identifying key themes in the interview transcripts. The
original interview transcripts were segregated into separate files based on the
identified key descriptive categories or themes, while ensuring data was not
stripped from the context it occurred in (e.g. farmer characteristics). This
approach reduced the data into a more analytical and readable format and a new

way of thinking about the data. The new transcripts were then interrogated for
patterns such as common issues, differences, and changes over time, space and
society.
Following this, a second phase of analysis broke down the new thematic
transcripts into further, analytical categories that had emerged during the first
phase. The new transcripts were again searched for commonalities, differences
and changes over time. The process finished when there were no more emerging
categories or ideas.
The third phase of data analysis then involved piecing the categories back
together in a holistic and integrative way that provided an explanatory
framework or coding structure according to Hay (2005). This coding structure
(or framework) allows data to be organized in way that patterns commonalities,
and relationships, correspondences and even disjuncture are identified and
brought out for scrutiny. Categories that were explored by the largest amount of
data (i.e. across a number of farmers) and responded most directly to the
research objectives of the study provided a basis for the conceptual, thematic
framework, and categories were grouped together under each theme based on
similarities between categories, substantive relationships and conceptual links (s
& c). Other, more marginal categories were then also incorporated into the
framework as appropriate.
2.3. Results
Semi structured interviews were conducted with 23 different farmers, laborers,
technicians or managers, depending on who was available at the time of the
interview, and five informal discussions were held with other key farmer
stakeholders. In total, this consisted of nine BMP farmers and 14 non-BMP
farmers located in 5 different provinces of the Mekong Delta, Can Tho, Dong
Thap, Vinh Long, An Giang and one farm in Hau Giang province. BMP farmers had
been selected prior to the study (see Phan et al., 2009 for methodological
process) and non-BMP farmers were identified through random, opportunistic
sampling within the logistical limitations of the study.

7
2.3.1. Existing Survey Data
Existing survey data from Phan et al. (2009) and associated qualitative analysis
is summarized and described in Attachment 3).
2.3.2. BMP Demonstration Evaluation & Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework for analysis of the BMP demonstration evaluation
survey data identified three key overarching themes that had become apparent
both through the data collection and analysis phases. Data categories were
subsequently assembled and interpreted under the three themes and together
this produced a holistic representation of the survey data.
The three overarching themes are as follows;
1. The diversity and complexity of the industry,
2. The constant process of change in farming practices,
3. The relationships and connections farmers hold both between each
other and others in the community.
1. The diversity and complexity of the catfish farming industry
Broadly speaking there are three categories of different farmers represented in
the survey sample, which in simplistic terms effectively reflects the overall
organizational structure of the ‘producer’ component of the industry in the
Mekong Delta. Indeed the analysis revealed that farm size, production output
(tonnes/yr) and investment strategies became important determinants and
working definitions of which category a farm would fall into for the present
study(see Table 1). It is however, noted that these are preliminary classifications
based on a relatively small sample size. It is very difficult at times to accurately
define farms, as producers engage in complex farm and business enterprise
arrangements at any given time. On the basis of these classifications and in
consideration of the broader survey and CARD project results to date, a
simplified schematic summary of the existing catfish market chain is provided in
Attachment 4, showing differing levels of vertical and horizontal integration

between catfish farming and processing sectors.

8

Table 1 - Preliminary classifications of surveyed growout farmers and broader
industry structure:
Small
Household-scale
Large
Household-scale
Industrial scale
No. of farms 9 8 6 (incl. 1 farm as
part of processing
company).
Farm size (ha) Less than 2ha Greater than 2ha,
less than 15ha.
Greater than 15ha
Total production
(tonnes/yr)
Less than 500T at
present (although
with potential to
produce more if
markets are
favourable)
Production
greater than 500T,
less than 2 000T
at present
(although with

potential to
produce more if
markets are
favourable)
More than 2 000T
Investment
strategies
May also farm rice
or fruit on
adjacent land, or
periodically farm
other fish species
in ponds.

Generally only
produce striped
catfish on the
farm, although
may also have
other ‘non/off-
farm’ enterprise
as additional
income
May have multiple
culture areas, and
/or are involved
in other sectors of
the industry (e.g.
processing, feed
manufacturing)

Through segregating farmers into these classifications it became clear there
were a general downgrading and/or diversifying trend within the household-
scale farmers. This was evident in the language used to talk about current and
future farming practices and aspirations. In contrast there was a certain sense of
optimism expressed by industrial-scale farmers (Table 2). The downgrading and
diversifying trend of small-scale farmers was also supported by the comments
made by several extension officers and research assistants. For example, one
research assistant said, “ it is becoming increasingly difficult to culture catfish,
investment costs keep increasing, which means the industry is out of the
everyday farmer’s reach.” He further said, “catfish culture belongs to processors,
and that 40% of small scale farmers will leave.” The industrial scale farmers also
all expressed awareness about the need to certify their farms for access to
international markets. Two farms were beginning to change practices in the
future anticipation of receiving GlobalGAP certification. In contrast, a number of
household-scale farmers had limited or no awareness of such market schemes,
despite risks to maintaining ongoing market access and associated impacts on
market demand from processors and other buyers.

9
Table 2: Summary of statements from survey respondents providing general
perspective on production practices and current/future industry
status/potential.
Producer classification Quote (general perspective on
production practices and
current/future industry
status/potential)
small household-scale “I love to culture catfish, however am
loosing money so will maybe change to
another species, like snakehead or
lotus” (future)

large household-scale “I would look younger but catfish
farming makes me older” (current)
large household-scale “I have worked for ten years in catfish
culture, feed, growout and share in
processing company, yet I still don’t
see a future of this catfish company.”
(Past)
industrial scale “Expects things to improve (in future),
but short term is a problem.”
industrial scale “ Just invested US 500 000 in own feed
mill, and wants to lease processing
plant and then be fully self-contained
to export directly. “ (Future)
Complexity of the economic concerns of different farmers
Another key difference observed between surveyed farms is the complexity of
economic concerns that exist presently. Although the low market price situation
(effectively at or less than production cost presently) was a key general concern
across all farmers, there seems to be more to this arrangement than a simple low
price problem. In particular, the need to having a ‘social’ connection to facilitate a
contract with a processing company seems to be an ad hoc/opportunistic but
otherwise crucial determinant of economic success for some of the household-
scale farmers surveyed. From the field data, four types of farmer:processor
relationships exist which seem to be linked with the productive potential of the
farms.
1. Farmers that have no relationship with a processor: Only small household-
scale farmers depicted this situation (7 farmers). They sell their fish at the
last minute, which puts the farmer in a low bargaining position and leads
to difficulties obtaining a reasonable price for their fish. These farmers
also expressed concerns about processors not giving their payments in
sufficient time. One farmer commenting he had to wait up to one year to

receive the full payment for his harvest. This creates further financial
difficulties for farmers who said they often have an outstanding debt with
a bank or other informal credit arrangements that charge high interest
rates.

10
2. Farmers that have a personal connection and/or contract with processors
(sometimes also involving an arrangement with a feed company as well):
5 household-scale farmers (4 small, 1 large) had this relationship. They
said it was a key advantage for them and reported more positive
economic outlooks than farmers with no relationship or contract. For
example an employee on one farm said the “owner of this farm can
survive, (even though small-scale) because he has a personal connection
with a processing plant and feed mill.” While an employee from a different
farm said this farm “has advantage from a good relationship with
processing company ”.
3. Farmer’s who don’t have a relationship with a processor but are
experienced negotiators: Two farmers (one industrial and one large
household-scale), who didn’t report the same problems as the small
household-scale farmers in selling their fish. They said they could
negotiate with 2 to 3 processors and choose which one gave the best price
for their fish. One farmer said he had a quite good relationship with 2
main processors because his farm produced a large volume of high quality
fish, which gave him good bargaining power.

4. Farmers connected to processors directly: Five farms (4 industrial, 1 large
household-scale) either own or have shares in a processing plant, so
reported no problems selling their fish, however the low price was still a
problem affecting overall profitability if not overall economic viability.

In summary, farmers with Type 2, 3 & 4 relationships with buyers seem to
have the market for their product, but the problem at present is the general
price low, whereas farmers with Type 1 relationships seem to have market
and price problems.

2. Process of change
Historical dimension to process of change
Throughout discussions with different farmers and through the data analysis
process it became clear the historical aspect or dimension of different farms
provided valuable contextual information about the current diversity in farming
practices. For example, one industrial-scale farmer started with one cage of
catfish culture in 1974 and gradually built up the business whereby today he is a
major producer, with five farm areas, one processing plant and a second plus a
feed mill on the way. In contrast, several household-scale farmers used to be rice
farmers and have converted parts or all of their land to catfish farming within
the last 10 years. In contrast another large-scale farm used to be a fruit farmer
but converted to catfish culture 5-6 yrs ago. This diversity of different historical
dimensiosn has implications for how farmers perceive their farming and future
farming practices and strategies, in particular their investment and degree of
engagement and commitment to the industry.
Current strategies as part of process of change

11
An emerging issue is the way all farmers are constantly trialing and testing
different strategies to optimize financial returns. There is significant diversity
and variation in these practices, which is mainly based on the different scales of
production and financial capacity of farmers, as well as to some extent their
knowledge about the industry and social/business connections they may also
possess. For example, one industrial-scale farmer has five farms and is investing
in a feed mill and wants to lease a processing plant. This company is also

horizontally integrated by growing red tilapia in cages along the Mekong River,
and has diversified interests in a ceramics business. The farm also has good
connections with key R & D agencies and is involved in several projects including
the CARD BMP project, an eel farming trial, a ‘clean aquaculture’ project, and a
feed trial with support from the provincial government. As another example,
another large household-scale farmer started as a grow-out farmer but has since
added vertically integrated nursery and feed milling and owns 10% of a
processing company, in attempts to boost overall profitability. This farmer has
also now started red tilapia production in cages along the riverfront and has
started growing climbing perch in attempts to offset recent financial losses from
catfish culture. One large-scale hatchery farmer with tertiary training
qualifications has a good relationship with researchers and regularly undertakes
on-farm R&D trials.
On a different level, several small household-scale farmers are trialing different
strategies and techniques to optimise profit. For example, one farmer only has
one pond but also manages an aquaculture cooperative of 36 farmers. The
cooperative helps to reduce production costs as they buy feed and chemicals in
bulk, collectively, and at the same time produce uniform products in large
quantity that help to improve the negotiating power with processors and reduce
transportation costs. In contrast, another small household-scale farmer has
recently stopped producing catfish because of financial losses due to low market
prices. This farmer tried nursery catfish culture before but now switching to an
alternative species with higher market price (climbing perch), but hopes to
return to catfish farming when he has accumulated enough money for
reinvestment when market prices improve. Other small household-scale farmers
also said they produced fruit, rice and lotus plant on their farms for
supplementary income and grew other low-value fish for own consumption. One
such farmer has multiple business enterprises, including acting as a market chain
middleman, and has a fish feeding business. These examples highlight not only
the complexity and diversity of farmers in the industry but also the capacity of

farmers to diversify and adopt multiple strategies or perhaps coping on fallback
mechanisms, and otherwise highlights a strong degree of resilience held by small
household-scale farmers.
Another point of difference between survey respondents is how producers
acquire knowledge and used that information. In particular, 3 industrial-scale
farmers seem to be receiving effective extension from government sources. In
contrast many household-scale farmers said there was very little government
support. For example,“this is the cradle of catfish culture yet no support from
government, ….even made a complaint to provincial government, no response
however”. Another farmer said he has attended workshops run by the

12
government and universities but didn’t find them helpful, “too much theory and
not enough practice, ate cake and drank tea, given money, talk too much, no
hands on practice”. Several farmers mentioned the role of chemical and medical
companies in helping them to generate new knowledge. As a pertinent example
one large scale farmer said he gets “new knowledge from medical manufacturers,
(who) advertise their product, although product has good qualities, price is very
high”. other responses include: “has discussions on price with feed seller,
chemical sellers… Medical seller has also shown how to take care of the fish and
treat the water environment”,. Such anecdotes highlight the continued influence
of chemical and medical manufacturers and retailers have in the catfish farming
industry.
BMPs as current process of change
Within the context of the present study and the associated CARD project, the
development and demonstration of BMPs exemplifies the way farmers’ trial
different strategies, and demonstrates the differential effects BMPs have on the
diversity of producers.
Positive effects from BMPs:
There were some notable farm level achievements from the BMP program in

relation to catfish farming practices. Several farmers said BMPs were producing
good farm guidelines and management strategies that they didn’t have before. In
particular, a key result of the BMPs was the “courage” as one farmer put it to not
use chemicals, “BMPs are an eye opening for people using too many chemicals,
antibiotics and other products such as probiotics. With disease, BMPs give
courage to not apply chemicals/antibiotics but trying to improve water quality
instead. We save lots of money from not using probiotics and chemicals”.
Another farmer said, “before BMPs I was using more chemicals, now no longer
uses so many chemicals ”. Another farmer said a positive from the BMP program
was that he was now recycling sludge more thoroughly and understood why it is
important to do so. This farmer also said he was getting a better price for his
BMP larvae compared to non-BMP larvae, noting that disease is less and survival
is higher under the BMP program. Another key result was how BMPs helped
farmers improve feeding practices e.g. “I was too stupid before, putting too
much feed in ponds”. By applying alternative feeding schedule, this farmer was
able to save up to ~US$20,000.00 per ha per crop. Overall FCR was reduced from
1.6 to 1.5. In addition, number of disease occurrence was also much less, reduced
from 6-7 times to 3-4 times per cycle. Furthermore, fish cultured using this
method was much preferred by the processors as less fat was observed and fillet
rate was much higher (from 1:3 to 1:2.5). The practical results of the BMPs in
producing good farm level guidelines are readily apparent and a good
achievement for many framers.
The industrial-scale farms also mentioned positive benefits from BMPs, however
responses were more geared towards general management level improvements
rather than the improvements and changes in specific farm practices mentioned
by small-scale farmers. Interestingly, 4 of the industrial-scale farms also said

13
they saw BMPs as an important avenue towards certification. Responses
included:

• The farmer’s processor liked the BMPs, as they were keen for the farmer
to progress to GlobalGAP certification. Another responded by saying they
planned to continue BMPs on their hatchery to assist GlobalGAP
accreditation, which the provincial government was going to provide a
grant to obtain.
• A farmer said he saw BMPs as a bottom-up first approach for farmers,
whereas GlobalGAP is a top down commercial approach that is a lot
stricter; either pass or fail and BMPS should be the way to go at farm level
These results show the value of BMPs providing support to farmers. On a more
specific level, several farmers suggested improvements to the current BMP
program. For example one farmer would like more specific guidelines on feed
management, and another farmer suggested there needs to be a dead fish count
in the BMP manual. These are valuable and practical suggestions directly from
farmers and should be taken into consideration into the next phase of the BMP
program, including future drafts of the BMPs themselves. They also demonstrate
farmers understanding and active engagement with project.
Limitations of the BMPs
There are several issues in the catfish industry that were identified for the BMP
program to address. Of prime importance is the need to create better linkages in
the process of progressing from BMPs to certification, as certification is now a
commercial reality in the industry. The need for certified catfish products is an
increasingly important aspect of catfish farming in the Delta so it is important
that the BMPs provide a tangible framework for achieving certification standards
for farmers to maintain market access. Relevant responses included:
• At one farm, employees said they think other farmers would be more
interested in the BMP program if it were to provide a certificate of
achievement, further noting, “processing plants demand certification
before exporting. We have to have certification before exporting”.
• A key component of certification and this process, as one farmer noted is
the need to create an improved traceability element in the BMP program,

which he said it was starting to do with the recording diary but that he
wanted to see more traceability elements in the BMP program.
Further, if other farmers are going to adopt BMPs there is a critical need to link
BMPs with the market place in order to create a tangible price incentive for
farmer’s to adopt BMPs. Although a positive response was that one farmer had
told other catfish farmers nearby about the benefits of BMPs and they were
informally trialing the program, he also said there was a general skepticism
towards the (benefits of) BMPs and that is why these farmers were only testing
the BMPs informally at this stage. Similarly, several non-BMP farmers said they

14
wanted guarantees that BMPs will link with the market and that they can get
better financial returns from BMPs before they try them. For example:
• “ in future I think will apply BMPs but want assurance from manager of
program that they will be able to find a stable market.”
• While two other farmers said they wanted to see BMPs getting a higher
price before applying.
This general skepticism may be a result of the proliferation of standards and
certification arrangements in the industry that are overwhelming farmers. Also,
previous certification schemes such as SQF 1000 and VietGAP, a government
initiative have largely failed in the past as they are expensive to implement and
there was no price incentive for farmers to apply (see Bush 2010). As one farmer
noted, “processing plant is making easy money from SQF, not the farmer”.

Other important BMP perspectives of farmers include:
• the “most important change is I no longer use chemicals. However because the
feed price has increased there has been no profit change”, and “BMPs work,
price is the problem”
It is apparent to farmers that there is a need for programs such as BMPs that
help farmers to sell their product at an enhanced price. BMP implementation

strategies need to therefore consider price negotiations and relationships of
particularly small household-scale farmers with processors.
Having said that, it is also clear that BMPs in themselves are primarily simple on-
farm guidelines for farmers which have obvious and reasonable limitations in
terms of addressing all attendant market-related problems within the existing
catfish sector in Vietnam. Accordingly, BMPs cannot be seen as a panacea for the
industry’s problems, and therefore multiple, targeted strategies, incorporating
BMPs and other industry development and marketing elements will be required to
address the different issues that are plaguing the industry at present. Such
strategies would need to take into account the range of different farming and
production practices that occur at a range of scales.
Future strategies as element of process of change
There was a striking distinction in the outlook different farmers expressed about
their future farming practices. Notably, all industrial-scale farmers said the
future would be relatively positive or stable, with two farmers planning to
significantly expand production in the future. This contrasts with a number of
household-scale farmers who suggested the future would be more difficult for
their farms and they were considering other investment options. In particular,
several farmers said they were thinking of diversifying practices and/or have
already significantly downgraded production due to reduced profitability.
Responses included:

15
• one small household-scale said the future was difficult and he may change
to growing snakehead or lotus plant as he is loosing too much money.
• another small household-scale farmer said the future would be difficult as
there would be more standards to meet and pressures to restructure
farms. He gave the example of GlobalGAP certification, which will be
required to access all EU markets by 2011.
• Another farmer said he is an experienced aquaculturist and would like to

stay in the industry, however if doesn’t get some support from the
government he will have to stop producing. He used to farm rice when he
was younger and learnt the techniques from his father. Therefore he will
probably return to this occupation and use the ponds for trash fish for
eating.
• In contrast, the only household-scale farmers that expressed a positive
future outlook were those farms with a personal connection to a
processor. For example one farmer said he thinks “in the future the farm
will develop as the owner has advantage with a good relationship with a
processing company.”
The emerging picture of the increasing rationalisation and consolidation of the
industry towards larger industrial-scale farms is also supported by
conversations during the survey with provincial extension officers and
researchers who have observed that the industry is increasingly controlled by
large corporations, and that it is too difficult for the small-scale farmer to
practice as high investment costs mainly driven by high feed prices make it
specifically difficult for small-scale farmers to survive”. Bush et al. (2009)
suggests the role for small-scale farmers is mainly in ‘boom’ crop times only, as
an additional supply of product when demand is large, rather than as a stable
source of product for processors at every harvest.
Such a trend raises a number of issues about the extent to which the industry
will continue to support local livelihoods of household-scale farmers, and in
particular what is the role of BMPs to facilitate long term viability and how best
BMPs should be adopted and implemented at an industry-wide scale.
3. Network relationships and connections
Relationships between catfish farmers
Informal cooperative arrangements between catfish farmers suffuse the industry
and highlight the implicit and explicit roles of farmer associations in accessing
and sharing information (and therefore likely role in BMP adoption and
implementation going forward). It seems that these relationships, usually

involving informal conversations about sharing information on price and disease
and often based around existing social networks, are particularly important for
small-scale farmers. For example:

16
• one small household-scale farmer, who doesn’t have a connection with a
processor, calls another farmer who does have a contract arrangement
with a processor to get information about price just before harvest
• one small household-scale farmer calls another to get information about
the market demand 4-5months in advance so that he can adjust his
production practices. This farmer also has an informal group of 9 other
household farmers who work together if a company orders a large
volume of fish.
There are also a few notable cases of more formalized cooperative arrangements
between catfish farmers. For example, a hatchery cooperative in Dong Thap,
which has 27 members and 90 ha total farm area share production together.
Different farmers work at different stages of the fish life cycle; one farmer
produces the embryo, then another farmer cultures the larvae, another the fry
and finally another farmer produces the fingerling. They do this to improve the
traceability and ensure a higher quality product. Significantly the farmers
organized this cooperative themselves without any governmental support. This
shows the innate capacity of the farmers to network and work together.
Another example of farmer networking is an existing grow-out cooperative in
which farmers contribute a fee to culture their fish under a single cooperative
(‘brand’) name. There are 36 members with approximately 30 ha of grow-out
ponds in total. One farmer thinks this cooperative is working as it gets the
farmers together to reduce costs for bulk-buying of feed and chemicals, however
they have not been able to change the low selling price situation. Another farmer
member thinks they “need to have a bigger organisation to….talk the farmer’s
voice… and help to bring the producers and buyers together which is currently

lacking”.
In contrast to these arrangements three of the industrial-scale farms expressed a
sense of reluctance to engage in cooperative arrangements. For example, an
employee from one such farm said the farm had “no other connections with fish
farmers, as they need to separate from other farmers. Management is difficult
with others and exchanging information because the farm is also a processor.”
While an employee from another industrial-scale farm said there were two key
reasons why the farm didn’t cooperate, because it is a bigger farm and therefore
more isolated, and it is in competition with other farms. Particularly he said
“…there is a bad culture in Vietnam that if you are successful others don’t like
you”.
Relationships between catfish farmers and other resource users
The results of the present study suggest that farm location and surrounding
environment also play an active role in influencing the ability of farmers to
cooperate. For example, the manager of one industrial-scale farm said problems
with disease meant he didn’t want to cooperate with others such as rice farmers
as this would spread the disease risk. While three other farmers said it was
difficult to cooperate as their farms are located in a predominately fruit and/or
rice producing region, which means there are few other catfish farmers nearby.

17
One farmer aptly commented on this, “cooperation with other resource users
depends on location.”
Another key finding of this survey is the way in which a significant number of
farmers are also involved in informal cooperative arrangements with other
resource users. For example, several farmers share their sludge with
neighboring farmers for use on fruit and rice crops as it acts as a very good
fertilizer due to the high nutrient content from production of catfish waste. Some
farmers also engage in arrangements where they release their wastewater to
neighboring rice fields, again because it provides a very good fertilizer source,

thereby reducing the need and costs associated with applying artificial
fertilizers. Such arrangements are valuable as they show a sense of how catfish
farming may be integrated within broader agricultural landscapes to the benefit
of local communities and the broader environment.
Formal cooperative arrangements within the industry
As previously stated, some farmers are already involved in formal cooperatives
and associations at a local level (e.g. Can Tho Fisheries Association), and in
industry representative bodies at a national level (e.g. VASEP) but there was
little evidence from survey respondents that these formal arrangements were
helpful to their farm. Relevant comments included that they either do not
support farmers or they have stopped working for one reason or another. For
example, one farmer said he has attended VASEP meetings and is angry that it
supports processors only and not producers. One industrial-scale farmer also
said VASEP was good for the processing component of its company to get
information from companies wanting to buy its product, but it doesn’t support
the production aspect of its company.
Several farmers said they have been a part of local associations in the past but
they have stopped working because many of the members have stopped
culturing catfish. For example, Can Tho Fisheries Association is now considered
‘dead or defunct’ as according to one farmer “it has stopped working, not
effective, even leader cannot sell own product”. While another farmer said he is
part of an association of small household-scale operators (even though he is an
industrial-scale farmer), however 50% of the members closed this year due to
low market price, and therefore the cooperative has gone into recess. A
provincial extension officer advised that in every district there is a formal
cooperative for each of fish, rice and fruit farmers. These cooperatives have rules
and an entry fee, and there are arrangements where farmers can gather to share
information. He said they are mostly effective only work if farmers are
successful, and that competition between farmers is a bad habit in Vietnam and
the desire to work individually, especially between larger producers, is a key

problem with promoting cooperative arrangements.
There seems to be some very clear limitations with the current cooperative
arrangements within the catfish industry, particularly formal representative
bodies, as they are not perceived by many farmers to empower them or
otherwise advocate on their behalf. As one farmer said “there needs to be (an
association) capable of carrying the voice of farmers to meet exporters

18
demands”, and.“we need to have an association speaking the farmers voice”. A
number of farmers expressed the need for cooperative arrangements to support
farmers, but a key concern of household-scale farmers is that their opinion and
voice is not being heard in the industry. They think cooperatives can potentially
help to harmonise price, support projects like BMPs and provide market
information and links with exporters. For example, one farmer said “there needs
to be an organisation to provide capital and to help them culture and buy
products. The organisation should help farmers connect with buyers, culturing
catfish without market and price information is very difficult”. In particular one
farmer aptly summed up the future association role….“there needs to be an
association to help farmers and solve problems with processors, demands of
exporters and help with inputs”. The recent introduction of a new cooperative
law (see Bush 2010) that gives legal status and thus power to cooperatives in
Vietnam would be a key new benefit to such arrangements.
Despite the desire of many surveyed farmers for putting in place cooperative
arrangements between farmers and processors, there seems to be some inherent
barriers that are preventing such an outcome. In an informal meeting with
several different catfish farmers, all were saying they wanted a cooperative to
help them with their farming practices, and yet it was not immediately apparent
to them that the discussion at the time was a working example of ‘cooperation
and information sharing’. As one farmer commented, “we have no association,
…there are talks with others to get information on price, but it is not official, just

people gathering together”. In short, in some cases they seem to lack direction
and support to productively utilize existing social networks and/or are
otherwise reluctant to mobilize such informal arrangements without third-party
assistance.
Either way, there are salient lessons here for consideration of the role of existing
and new farmer associations for facilitating adoption and implementation of
BMPs, and there is a real need to provide farmers with support that mobilizes
and strengthens the current informal arrangements.
2.4. Conclusions
Three key overarching themes emerged through the fieldwork and data analysis
process in the present study that have been used to summarize and explain
farmers concerns. These are the 1) diversity and complexity of the industry, 2)
the inherent, constant process of change, and 3) the network relationships and
connections that exist between different actors in the industry. These three
themes combine to provide some preliminary insights on the socio-economic
and environmental circumstances catfish farmers in Vietnam are confronted
with broadly in the context of industry development and, more specifically in
relation to BMP adoption and implementation going forward. Such complex
issues need to be considered in any management approaches designed to
address the problems facing producers, such as BMPs. In particular, the existing
general downgrading trend small and several large household-scale producers
are facing due to low market prices, difficult relationships with processes and
the need for more functional and relevant cooperative arrangements between

19
farmers are key future challenges that the industry is facing. Accordingly, BMPs
will need to be not only technically informative, but they will need to be more
directly communicated to farmers, processors and the broader market place.
This will require multi faceted implementation and communication strategies
customized for different scale producers who may have very different economies

of scale, needs and expectations, resources and capabilities.
The outcomes of the present study are considered both immediate-short (< 6-9
months & within the term of the present study) and medium term (< 12-18
months after completion of the present study & within the term of the CARD
project), and are linked to stated objectives of the present study, as follows:

2.4.1. Short term (direct via this study)
• Understanding by CARD project team of impacts of BMP development and
likely efficacy of proposed implementation strategy
• Recognition by demonstration farmers of the benefits of BMP adoption
and the associated role of farmer associations
Enhanced insight by industry and government stakeholders into the impacts
of BMPs on addressing selected social and environmental issues relating to
catfish farming in the Mekong Delta
2.4.2. Medium term (indirect via contribution of this study to CARD Project)
• More efficient and effective industry-wide adoption and implementation
of BMPs within the catfish farming sector in the Mekong Delta
• Improved performance of BMPs in addressing social and environmental
issues and overall sustainability of the catfish farming sector in the
Mekong Delta
On the basis of this study and the key findings and conclusions, a draft evaluation
plan is proposed (Attachment 5) designed to facilitate the industry-wide
adoption and ongoing implementation of BMPs for catfish farmers in the Mekong
Delta, Vietnam. This evaluation plan is intended to be a guide only for future
consideration of risks and opportunities related to BMPs and the associated role
of farmer associations, and are intended to be reviewed and amended
periodically as circumstances change. It is also intended to be considered as part
of a yet to be developed industry development strategy for catfish farming in
Vietnam, complete with performance and compliance monitoring, risk
management and communication plans; all requisite components of sustainable

industry growth and development going forward.


20
Key References

AusAID (CARD) Project Partners, 2009 ‘Better Management Practices (BMPs)
for striped catfish (tra catfish) farming practices in the Mekong Delta,
Vietnam,’ Second Draft, Version 2., viewed 2
nd
February from,
<
Bui, Tam M., Phan, Lam T., Ingram, B.A., Nguyen, Thuy T.T., Gooley, G. J.,
Nguyen, Hao V., Nguyen Phuong V., De Silva,
,
S. S., 2010. Seed production
practices of striped catfish, Pangasianodon hypophthalmus in the Mekong
Delta region, Vietnam. Aquaculture, 306, 92–100
Bush, SR Khiem, NT S, LX 2009 ‘Governing the environmental and social
dimensions of Pangasius production in Vietnam: A Review,’ Aquaculture
Economics and Management, vol. 13, is. 4, pp.271-293.
Clay, JW 2008 ‘The role of better management practices in environmental
management,’ Tucker, CS, Hargraves, JA Environmental Best Management
Practices for Aquaculture, Blackwell Publishing, Iowa, USA, pp. 55-72.
Hay, I. (Ed.) 2005. Qualitative research methods in human geography. 2
nd

Edition. Oxford University Press, New York.
Kitchin, R. and Tate, N. 2000. Conducting research into human geography,
theory, methodology and practice. Prentice Hall Publishing, Singapore.

Loc, V.T.T., Bush, S.R., Sinh, L.X. and Khiem, N.T. 2010. High and low value fish
chains in the Mekong delta: challenges for Livelihoods and governance.
Environment, Development and Sustainability, Springerlink.com, 29 Jan. 2010.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded
sourcebook. SAGE Publications, London.
Phan, LT Bui, TM Nguyen, TTT Gooley, GJ Ingram, BA Nguyen, HV Nguyen, PT
De Silva, SS 2009 ‘Current status of farming practices of striped catfish,
Pangasianodon hypophthalmus in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam,’ Aquaculture,
vol. 296, pp.227-236.
Phuong, NT Oanh, DTH 2010 ‘Striped catfish aquaculture in Vietnam: a
decade of unprecedented development,’ in De Silva, SS Davy, FB (eds) Success
Stories in Asian Aquaculture, Springer, Ottowa, Canada Pp. 131-146.
Townsley, P 1996, ‘Rapid rural appraisal, participatory rural appraisal and
aquaculture,’ FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 358, FAO, Rome, p. 109- 130
viewed 20
th
January 2010, from,
<

21
Wilkinson, S 2008 ‘Better management practices for Vietnamese catfish,’
Aquaculture Asia Magazine, April-June, pp. 8-11.
Young, JA Brugere C & Muir, JF 1999 ‘Green grow the fishes-Oh?
Environmental attributes in marketing aquaculture products,’ Aquaculture
Economics and Management, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 7-17.




Appendix 1

BMP Demonstration Trials

Introduction
Draft BMPs are to be demonstrated and evaluated as part of pilot-scale
commercial trials on existing farms in several provinces of the Mekong Delta
during the first half of 2010. The trials are being coordinated, supervised and
monitored by the CARD project team, in association with the Provincial Fishery
Sub-Departments of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Objectives
The specific objective of the demonstration trials is to:
• Demonstrate practical adoption of draft BMPs at pilot, commercial farm-
scale in the hatchery, nursery and growout sectors of the catfish
aquaculture industry in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam
• Monitor and evaluate implementation and performance of draft BMPs,
and
• Facilitate cluster approach to development and implementation of BMPs.

Outputs
The results of the trials will be summarised and reported to the proposed
national BMP workshop scheduled for the latter half of 2010, along with a
revised (Final) version of the BMPs for the CARD project. A strategy for
industry-wide implementation of the Final BMPs will also be provided by the
CARD project at the national workshop.

Outcomes
The primary outcomes of the demonstration trials are:
• Improved, more effective BMPs enhanced by applied, on-ground
experience

• Greater awareness of BMPs by industry at large, and by key market chain
stakeholders including processors and relevant government agencies.

Methods
The demonstration trials are to be undertaken on a pilot-scale, but otherwise
under commercial conditions in all other respects. The trials are to commence
asap in early 2010 and continue for a full production season (min. six months).
Participating farmers represent all three key sectors (hatchery, nursery and
growout) and are based in the CARD project study area of An Giang, Can Tho,
Vinh Long and Dong Thap Provinces. Selection criteria were established and
industry participants were identified during the recently completed provincial
BMP workshops.

Key Selection Criteria
The key selection criteria for participation in the trials are:
• Commitment from farmers to adopt and implement relevant draft BMPs
for one full production cycle, as part of normal operation of existing
farming enterprise
• Farmers are to be part of (or prepared to join/commence for purpose of
trials) a farmer cluster or association, with an emphasis on facilitating
BMP cooperation, communication, training and extension between
farmers. These clusters preferably will have an existing, or at least
proposed, business association with one or more processors in which
BMPs are recognised as a key market chain feature.
• Farmers are to prepare and implement a BMP crop plan (see Appendix 3)
for a full production cycle for the trial period, and to keep prescribed BMP
records (as determined by CARD project team), including weekly water
quality testing, based on standardised data sheets.

• In association with the CARD project team and relevant cluster(s),
farmers are to participate in organised BMP farm ‘open day(s)’ to
facilitate BMP extension and communication during the trials and to
contribute feedback for presentation of demonstration trial results at the
proposed national workshop.
A summary of industry participants for the proposed trials is provided in Tables
A2.1 and A2.2.



For governance purposes, all participating farmers must be appropriately
registered with the Provincial Fisheries Sub-Department at the District level, and
be prepared to sign a formalised written agreement with the CARD project team.
All participating farmers who successfully complete the trials will be issued with
a certificate of BMP compliance by the CARD project team at the end of the trials.

Technical Support & Training
BMP training and technical support for the trials will be provided collectively by
the CARD project team from CTU and RIA2, with further on-ground assistance
provided by the Provincial Fisheries Sub-Departments.
This support will include:
• Pre-trial, on-site induction and training for BMPs, including requirements
for data collection and recording
• Regular monitoring of the trials via (min.) monthly on-site visits to
inspect BMP activities, provide technical advice, and to collect records
and additional data
• Testing for diseases in seed, quality of feed and disease sample analysis
during growout
• Collation and reporting of all BMP monitoring and compliance data
• Liaison and coordination with and between various services and support

from provincial and central government agencies.
For purposes of routine, on-site data collection, BMP brochures and water
quality test kits (for water temperature, pH, ammonia etc) and data sheets (see
attached Appendix 4) will be provided by the CARD project team as part of the
pre-trial induction and training.
During the trials, all participating farmers will be required to be involved in
District level ‘open farm’ field days, to enable neighbouring farmers and farmer
clusters/associations to inspect BMP trials and discuss interim findings with
participating farmers, CARD project team members and provincial government
officers.

BMP Brochures and Records/Data Sheets
BMP brochures and standardised data sheets for keeping records of BMP
compliance and performance monitoring have been developed by the CARD
project team. The BMP brochures are based on the draft BMP guidelines
prepared prior to and revised following the recent (October “09) BMP
workshops in Dong Thap and Can Tho Provinces. Copies of the draft BMP


brochures and associated BMP promotional posters are attached (Appendix 4).
The data sheets and record keeping forms are based on the BMP records
provided by Indian Shrimp farmers for NACSA, and are attached (Appendix 5).

Post-Trial Impact Evaluation
A qualitative evaluation survey of post-BMP trial impact will be completed by the
CARD project team. The results will be presented at the national workshop and
used to review and revise the draft BMPs and post CARD project BMP
implementation plan, as appropriate.
The evaluation survey will be based on key evaluation objectives, with an
emphasis on social, economic and environmental issues, designed to measure

farmer perceptions of BMP benefits, risks, likely level of update and associated
practice change in the future. In turn, such measures will facilitate design of
suitable strategies to increase rate and effectiveness of BMP uptake by farmers.