U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2012–1246

Report from a workshop held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012 

Prepared in cooperation with FISHBIO

The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the 

People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin To Share 

Information and Conduct Standardized Fisheries Monitoring
Cover:

Background, Fishers haul in a dai net on the Tonle Sap River in Cambodia on February 11, 2012. 

Photograph by U.S. Geological Survey. 

Left, Fisher attends to lii traps near Khone Falls, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, in June 2012. 

Photograph by FISHBIO. 

Right, Fishers attend to lii traps near Khone Falls, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, in June 2012. 

Photograph by FISHBIO. 
The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the 

Capacity of the People and Institutions 

of the Mekong River Basin To Share 

Information and Conduct Standardized 

Fisheries Monitoring

By Harmony C. Patricio, Shaara M. Ainsley, Matthew E. Andersen, 

John W. Beeman, and David A. Hewitt

Report from a workshop held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012 

Prepared in cooperation with FISHBIO

Open-File Report 2012–1246

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

This and other USGS information products are available at http://store.usgs.gov/

U.S. Geological Survey

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

To learn about the USGS and its information products visit http://www.usgs.gov/

1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Patricio, H.C., Ainsley, S.M., Andersen, M.E., Beeman, J.W., and Hewitt, D.A., 2012, The Mekong Fish Network—

Expanding the capacity of the people and institutions of the Mekong River Basin to share information and conduct 

standardized fisheries monitoring: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1246, 36 p.
iii

Acknowledgments

The Mekong Fish Network Workshop was made possible with generous funding from 

the U.S. Department of State and was supported by contributions from FISHBIO and the U.S. 

Geological Survey. The authors thank all of the regional participants for taking time away from 

their duties to share their expertise.

v

Contents

Acknowledgments .iii

Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction and Background .....................................................................................................................1

Regional Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................1

Historical Fish Studies .........................................................................................................................2

Mekong Fish Network Workshop ...............................................................................................................4

Workshop Format ................................................................................................................................5

Goals and Summaries of Introductory Presentations ...................................................................5

Participants ...........................................................................................................................................7

Recent and Current Mekong River Fish Studies ......................................................................................7

Summary of Presentations on Current Fisheries Monitoring Activities in the Lower 

Mekong River Basin ..............................................................................................................7

General Fisheries Landing Data ...............................................................................................7

Taxonomic Biodiversity Assessments and Specimen Collection .......................................8

Larval Fish Sampling ...................................................................................................................8

Community-Based Fish Catch Monitoring ..............................................................................9

Fish Market Surveys ...................................................................................................................9

Household Interview Socioeconomic Surveys ......................................................................9

Planned and Desired Fisheries Studies in the Basin ..........................................................10

Additional Questions of Interest .............................................................................................11

Technical Challenges: Results of Small and Large Group Discussions .............................................11

Session 1 .............................................................................................................................................11

Session 2 .............................................................................................................................................14

Session 3 .............................................................................................................................................15

Session 4 ............................................................................................................................................17

Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................18

Future Actions .............................................................................................................................................19

Pilot Monitoring Project for Standardized Fish Sampling ...........................................................19

Database Design and Development ...............................................................................................19

Seeking Additional Support To Expand Work and Address Scientific Questions ...................19

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................19

Appendixes

1. Agenda and Presenter Guidelines for the Mekong Fish Network Workshop, 

Phnom Penh, Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012 .....................................................................25

2. Workshop Participants and Attendees ..................................................................................29

3. Monitoring Efforts Described by Workshop Participants in Presentations 

on Day 1 .......................................................................................................................................30

4. Example Mekong River Basin Fish-Sampling Methods ......................................................34

5. Questions Posed During the Small Group Sessions at the Mekong Fish 

Network Workshop, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012 .................................35
vi

Figures

1. Photograph showing fishers hauling in a dai net on the Tonle Sap River in 

Cambodia on February 11, 2012 .................................................................................................3

2. Photographs showing fishers attending to lii traps near Khone Falls, Lao 

People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), in June 2012 .......................................................5

3. Photographs showing some of the fish listed as important Mekong River 

species during Small Group Session 1 ...................................................................................13

Tables

1. Institutions represented at the Mekong Fish Network Workshop, Phnom Penh, 

Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012 .................................................................................................7

2. Lists of important Mekong River fish species developed during Small Group 

Session 1 of the Mekong Fish Network Workshop, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 

February 9–10, 2012 ...................................................................................................................12

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

Mass

pound (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg)

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 metric ton

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)
The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the 

People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin 

To Share Information and Conduct Standardized 

Fisheries Monitoring

Report from a workshop held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012

By Harmony C. Patricio,1,2 Shaara M. Ainsley,1

 Matthew E. Andersen,3 John W. Beeman,3 and David A. Hewitt3

Abstract

The Mekong River is one of the most biologically 

diverse rivers in the world, and it supports the most productive 

freshwater fisheries in the world. Millions of people in the 

Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB) countries of the Union 

of Myanmar (Burma), Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 

the Kingdom of Thailand, the Kingdom of Cambodia, and 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam rely on the fisheries of 

the basin to provide a source of protein. The Mekong Fish 

Network Workshop was convened in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 

in February 2012 to discuss the potential for coordinating 

fisheries monitoring among nations and the utility of 

establishing standard methods for short- and long-term 

monitoring and data sharing throughout the LMB. The concept 

for this network developed out of a frequently cited need for 

fisheries researchers in the LMB to share their knowledge with 

other scientists and decisionmakers. A fish monitoring network 

could be a valuable forum for researchers to exchange ideas, 

store data, or access general information regarding fisheries 

studies in the LMB region. At the workshop, representatives 

from governments, nongovernmental organizations, and 

universities, as well as participating foreign technical experts, 

cited a great need for more international cooperation and 

technical support among them. Given the limited staff and 

resources of many institutions in the LMB, the success of the 

proposed network would depend on whether it could offer 

tools that would provide benefits to network participants. A 

potential tool discussed at the workshop was a user-friendly, 

Web-accessible portal and database that could help streamline 

data entry and storage at the institutional level, as well as 

facilitate communication and data sharing among institutions. 

The workshop provided a consensus to establish pilot 

standardized data collection and database efforts that will 

be further reviewed by the workshop participants. Overall, 

workshop participants agreed that this is the type of support 

that is greatly needed to answer their most pressing questions 

and to enable local researchers and resource managers to 

monitor and sustain the valuable and diverse aquatic life of the 

Mekong River. 

Introduction and Background

Great biological diversity is present in the Mekong River 

Basin. This great diversity supports the natural production of 

protein for tens of millions of people. Study of this complex, 

rich system has accelerated over the last 20 years. The 

environmental context is summarized below. 

Regional Environmental Setting

The Lower Mekong River runs through the Union of 

Myanmar (Burma), Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao 

PDR), the Kingdom of Thailand, the Kingdom of Cambodia, 

and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and supports the most 

productive freshwater fisheries in the world, boasting annual 

catches of more than 2.6 million metric tons with an economic 

value between 2.2 and 7.8 billion U.S. dollars (USD) (Hortle, 

2009). More than 60 million people from nearly 100 distinct 

ethnic groups in the Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB) 

depend on the fisheries for subsistence and livelihoods (Asian 

Development Bank, 2007; Hortle, 2009). One of the most 

1

FISHBIO, Oakdale, Calif., USA.

2

FISHBIO, Vientiane, Vientiane Prefecture, Lao People’s Democratic 

Republic.

3

U.S. Geological Survey.
2 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

biologically rich river basins in the world (Campbell, 2009; 

Woodruff, 2010), the LMB is home to between 850 and 1,200 

fish species (Rainboth, 1996; Hortle, 2009; Dudgeon, 2011). 

Rare aquatic life includes the endangered giant freshwater 

stingray Himantura chaophraya that reaches about 2.5 

meters in diameter, the Mekong giant catfish Pangasianodon 

gigas that grows to weigh more than 340 kilograms, and 

the freshwater Irrawaddy dolphin Orcaella brevirostris, the 

dolphin without a snout whose population numbers in the 

Mekong River may have dropped below 10 individuals. The 

Mekong River is one of the most hydrologically dynamic 

rivers in the world, exhibiting large annual discharge variation 

(Adamson, P.T., and others, 2009).

Many people in the LMB obtain the bulk of their protein 

from its wild fish and other aquatic animals and depend on 

its waters for farming, drinking, bathing, transportation, 

and sanitation. The fishing methods used in the LMB are 

as diverse as the ecosystems and the people. A wide range 

of capture techniques are used, ranging from subsistence to 

commercial scales, including various traps, hand-held dip nets, 

gill nets, and large dai bag nets (Sverdrup-Jensen, 2002).

In the LMB the impacts of population growth, pollution, 

climate change, overfishing, groundwater withdrawal, 

and irrigation and hydropower development have become 

increasingly apparent (Kirby and others, 2010; Dudgeon, 

2011; Dapice and Vo, 2012). These stressors may act 

separately or synergistically to affect water use, food security, 

and the ecosystem of the basin. How human engineered and 

naturally occurring stressors will influence this dynamic 

system can be predicted to some degree, but the ability to 

accurately assess the impacts on the fisheries and food security 

of the region is hampered by the lack of critically important 

information on the distribution, abundance, migrations, and 

ecology of the fishes in this species-rich system (Barlow and 

others, 2008; Baran and Myschowoda, 2009; International 

Centre for Environmental Management, 2010).

Countries in the LMB have approved investigations by 

local and international companies to prepare for investigation 

or construction of 12 main-stream hydropower dams (Stone, 

2011), and many dams are also under construction on or are 

proposed for the major tributaries of the Mekong River (Baran 

and Myschowoda, 2009). Hydropower generated by large 

dams could provide much-needed income and electricity for 

developing nations in the LMB, where many people live on 

less than 1 USD per day and the annual average per capita 

income is between 830 and 1,168 USD in Cambodia, Lao 

PDR, and Vietnam (U.S. Department of State, 2011, 2012a, 

2012b). Large dams could also, however, alter the hydrology 

and ecology of the system by blocking movements of aquatic 

species (Baird and Beasley, 2005; Dugan and others, 2010; 

Baird, 2011; Dudgeon, 2011; Ziv and others, 2012), changing 

flow regimes (Asian Development Bank, 1999), and altering 

sediment transport (Asian Development Bank, 1999; Hirsch 

and Wyatt, 2004). Because the magnitude of annual variation 

in flow between the wet (May to October) and dry (November 

to April) seasons is the highest in the world (Adamson, P.T., 

and others, 2009), constraints on this flow variation may 

impact the productivity of the region. Proposed hydropower 

developments are likely to influence some fish and other 

aquatic species, particularly those that make long-distance 

migrations. Impacts may vary considerably depending on 

various construction scenarios (Sodhi and others, 2004; 

Ferguson and others, 2011; Ziv and others, 2012).

Climate change may have considerable effects on the 

hydrology of the Mekong River. Climate change projections 

for the LMB are uncertain because of the complexity of the 

predictions of intrabasin changes in the timing and volume 

of precipitation, evaporation, snow storage, and snow melt 

and, thus, are greatly dependent on the general circulation 

model (GCM) selected (Kingston and others, 2011). The Japan 

Meteorological Agency GCM indicates that there will likely 

be an increase in the frequency of what is currently considered 

an extremely high discharge event, but at a lower maximum 

flood magnitude (that is, more frequent but less extreme 

flooding), and a decrease in the likelihood of extremely 

low discharge events (for example, drought periods) (Kiem 

and others, 2008). Notably, most GCMs indicate that the 

predicted warmer temperatures would result in projections of 

earlier snowmelt in the Upper Mekong River Basin in China 

(Kingston and others, 2011), indicating a potential shift in 

the timing of runoff in the upper basin. Temperatures 

throughout both the Upper and Lower Mekong River Basins 

are generally predicted to increase (Kiem and others, 2008; 

Kingston and others, 2011). Changes in the water temperature 

could lead to shifts in the geographic distributions of fish 

with narrow thermal tolerances (Dudgeon, 2011). Changes 

in precipitation and river discharge, however, show a nonlinear 

response to increasing temperatures and are complicated 

by seasonal and spatial variability (Kingston and others, 

2011). The dynamism of the entire Mekong River likely 

influences the uniquely high productivity of this system 

(Welcomme and Halls, 2003; Baird, 2006; Hai Yen and 

others, 2008; Baran and Myschowoda, 2009). Given the 

complexity of GCM projections for the entire Mekong Basin 

and potential effects relative to both magnitude and direction 

of change (Kirby and others, 2010; Kingston and others, 

2011), a better understanding of fish populations is necessary 

to make projections of climate change impacts on fisheries of 

the LMB. 

Historical Fish Studies

A large number of Mekong fishes (>100 species; Poulsen 

and Valbo-Jørgensen, 2000; Poulsen and others, 2002; Ziv and 

others, 2012) undertake long-distance migrations upstream 

from the Mekong River Delta in Vietnam and the Tonle 

Sap Great Lake of Cambodia, with some species reportedly 

reaching as far north as the Yunnan Province of China 

(Poulsen and others, 2004; Barlow and others, 2008; Dugan, 

2008; Mollot, 2008; Halls and Kshatriya, 2009; Dudgeon, 

2011). Because of the complexities involved in studying 

such a species-rich system, fish species are often separated 
Introduction and Background 3

into general categories defined by movement: “white fish” 

are highly migratory species, “black fish” are resident 

species that make little or no migrations, and “grey fish” are 

lateral migrants that make short migrations between habitat 

types (Hortle, 2009). The colorful adjectives describing the 

migratory habits of Mekong fish originally came from a rough 

approximation of the colors of the fishes, associated with 

their assumed migratory strategies, but as more information is 

gathered the exceptions to the generalizations are mounting, 

reducing the accuracy and value of these descriptions, though 

they are still commonly used in the area. White fish may 

constitute 40–70 percent of the catch (Barlow and others, 

2008), and because of their diverse habitat requirements, they 

may be exposed to a greater variety of stressors than are other 

fish species. 

Despite the transboundary migrations of some white fish, 

for species such as the Siamese mud carp Henicorhynchus 

siamensis (synonym, Cirrhinus siamensis), genetic data 

show that some populations may retain spatial structuring; 

that is, some species may exhibit genetically distinguishable 

subpopulations that can be segregated on the basis of 

distribution. To preserve this genetic diversity, management 

strategies will need to preserve the habitats and conditions 

that support the population structuring (Adamson and others, 

2009). Because of the importance of aquatic resources to 

the people of the LMB for food security and maintenance 

of biodiversity, and because of the increasing stresses on 

the ecosystem, fish population monitoring is imperative to 

understanding the potential impacts of various stressors (Kirby 

and others, 2010).

One example of current fisheries monitoring in the 

LMB is the commercial dai fishery in Cambodia. This is a 

large, highly specialized fishery that takes advantage of the 

substantial migrations of fish in the Tonle Sap and Mekong 

Rivers. A dai is a bag net with a small mesh size (less than 

25 millimeters [mm]) (Sverdrup-Jensen, 2002). Several dai 

nets are arranged in a series across the width of the river; 

the fish are retrieved from the cod end by boat and then are 

deposited onto an associated barge (fig. 1). During the peak 

season, a single net can haul up to 0.5 metric tons of fish every 

Figure 1. Fishers haul in a dai net on the Tonle Sap River in Cambodia on February 11, 2012. Photograph by U.S. Geological Survey. 
4 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

15 minutes (Sverdrup-Jensen, 2002). The Inland Fisheries 

Research and Development Institute (IFReDI; www.ifredi.org) 

of Cambodia, established in 2002, has assembled dai fishery 

data from the Tonle Sap River from the past 17 years (1995–

present), including sampling data they currently collect during 

routine monitoring. IFReDI samples a total of 64 dai in two 

provinces between October and March and records data such 

as fish species, catch composition, length and weight, and 

water depth. 

A second example of current fisheries monitoring is the 

lii trap fishery at Khone Falls in the south of Lao PDR (fig. 2). 

Lii (wing) traps are large immovable traps with long lateral 

extensions, or wings (from 6 to 10 m, depending on the width 

of the channel), that are set in the river rapids (Roberts and 

Baird, 1995). The Living Aquatic Resources Research Center 

(LARReC) of Lao PDR has been monitoring as many as 21 lii 

traps annually for more than 10 years. Sampling is conducted 

May through September at Hoo Som Yai Channel. Fishers 

come to the landing site, and LARReC records the weight of 

the catch, fish species, and associated aquatic environment 

data, such as water level and velocity. 

In both examples described above, the monitoring 

has been conducted for more than a decade. These time 

series are valuable data for Cambodia and Lao PDR. Not 

all fisheries, however, are subject to such intensive monitoring. 

While a substantial volume of LMB fisheries research has 

been completed by various institutions, the diversity of the 

system and limited coordination among nations have made 

it difficult to capture the information that is needed to make 

accurate analyses of development and climate change impacts 

or to assess long-term trends in fish populations (Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and others, 

2003). As the governments of the LMB nations continue 

to develop economically and endeavor to reduce poverty, 

they will face many challenging decisions. The region is 

developing quickly; the limited amount of comprehensive 

data on the value of fisheries impairs the ability of 

decisionmakers to account for this resource in long-term plans 

being prepared now. 

Mekong Fish Network Workshop

The Mekong Fish Network (Network) Workshop was 

held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, on February 9–10, 2012, with 

the objectives of determining if the proposed network was 

of interest and value to LMB nations, determining if future 

fisheries monitoring could be used to collect comparable data 

within each nation, and establishing methods for working 

together on future monitoring and research. The concept for 

this network developed out of a frequently cited need for 

researchers in the LMB to share their knowledge of Mekong 

River fish with other scientists and decisionmakers. A more 

accessible collection of fish data would also support analyses 

at a broader scale. A network of researchers collecting 

comparable data would provide a better understanding of how 

LMB fish populations may respond to future environmental 

changes and increase the scientific capacity of local 

researchers and institutions to assess resources for themselves. 

This network could be a valuable forum for researchers to 

exchange ideas, store data, or access general information 

regarding fisheries studies in the LMB.

The transboundary migrations of important LMB 

fish species create many complex challenges that require 

coordination among researchers, institutions, and development 

sectors from different regions of the basin (Grumbine and 

others, 2012). Even within national boundaries it is difficult 

to estimate the catch of subsistence fishers who are spread 

throughout urban and rural areas. Furthermore, biological and 

physical data are collected specifically for various projects, 

thereby making regional and comprehensive assessments 

difficult or impossible (Baran and Myschowoda, 2009). For 

example, researchers examining the potential hydrological 

changes due to climate change have been limited by the 

inconsistent meteorological station data for the Mekong River 

Basin; most stations are located in the upper basin or Thailand 

(Kite, 2001; Kingston and others, 2011). Ferguson and others 

(2011) attempted comparisons among the Fraser and Columbia 

Rivers in North America and the Mekong River, especially 

regarding impacts to fish by dams and fish passage structures, 

but the lack of data (fish, hydrology, water quality, sediment, 

land cover) and ecological knowledge limited their ability 

to draw definitive conclusions. To assess the sustainability 

of fish populations, researchers will need to overcome 

these data-related challenges to provide managers with a 

better understanding of important metrics such as species 

composition of catch, age structure of populations, extent 

of spawning migrations, segregation of subpopulations, and 

relative abundance of species in different regions. Researchers 

must also be able to collate these data across the LMB and 

through time.

Limited local technical capacity and funding have 

presented challenges to the establishment of standardized, 

long-term fish monitoring in the LMB. Many national 

governments currently depend on international aid or 

nongovernmental organization (NGO) support for research 

or fisheries agency funding. Funding is often provided 

on a project-by-project basis, resulting in a great deal of 

institutional knowledge, data, and expertise being lost in the 

turnover between projects. The Mekong River Commission 

(MRC) has provided substantial support to manage at a 

basin level and has plans to increase standardization in data 

collection among nations (Mekong River Commission, 2011). 

By building on past efforts and coordinating the work of the 

many institutions collecting data on fisheries of the LMB, it 

may be possible to develop standard monitoring methods that 

can be applied to support informed decisionmaking.
Mekong Fish Network Workshop 5

Figure 2. Fishers attend to lii traps near Khone Falls, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), in June 2012. Photographs by 

FISHBIO.

Representatives from governments, universities, NGOs, 

and the MRC were convened to discuss the proposed Network, 

which could address the need to collect, store, and analyze 

fisheries data with a consistent approach. The initial goals of 

the Network were as follows: 

1. Increase knowledge of the Mekong River fish assemblage 

to support understanding of how fish will respond to 

environmental changes.

2. Increase the capacity of local people and institutions to 

study the Mekong River fishes.

3. Provide opportunities to people collecting Mekong 

River fish data to share their knowledge with scientists 

and decisionmakers.

4. Identify harmonious management options that will help 

protect Mekong River fish and their habitats for the 

benefit of current and future generations.

5. Provide a forum for developing scientific peer-reviewed 

publishing opportunities regarding Mekong River fishes.

6. Establish standardized monitoring methods that can be 

applied throughout the LMB.

The formation of the Network could provide a 

framework to achieve such goals. Implementation and 

standardization of fish monitoring methods and coordination 

of the resulting data in a manner that allows for analysis 

of data from larger geographic areas will aid in answering 

the questions most relevant to national governments and to 

sustained food security.

Workshop Format 

The workshop began with an introduction followed by 

presentations that demonstrated examples of Web-accessible 

shared databases, methods, strategies for data collection 

and analysis, and data visualizations that could be selected 

to support the proposed monitoring network (see app. 1 for 

workshop agenda). Representatives from government fisheries 

agencies, universities, the MRC, and NGOs from each 

country were next on the program (app. 1); they described 

current and future monitoring and research activities. For 

the remainder of the 2-day workshop, the group was divided 

into smaller groups to discuss specific questions germane to 

fisheries monitoring. Following each small group session, 

the participants were reconvened to share their responses and 

conclusions with the larger group. The initial group session 

topics were broad but became progressively more specific, 

with the final discussion addressing the logistical aspects of 

operating the network. These presentations and subsequent 

group discussions will help to shape and inform the design of 

the Network. 

Goals and Summaries of Introductory 

Presentations

The goals of the workshop were generally to determine 

if the proposed network, the initial network goals (listed 

previously), and the associated databases were of interest 

and value to stakeholder LMB nations; to determine if future 

fisheries monitoring could be used to collect comparable 

data within each nation; and to establish methods and an 

organizational structure for working together on future 

monitoring and research.

More specifically, the overall workshop goals were to 

accomplish the following:

1. Determine if the fish monitoring network and associated 

databases proposed at this meeting were of interest and 

value to LMB nations.

2. Determine types of future Mekong River fish 

monitoring that could be used to collect data to populate 

the databases.

3. Establish methods and organizational structure for 

working together in the future on Mekong River fish 

monitoring and research.
6 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

Furthermore, the workshop specific objectives were to 

accomplish the following: 

1. Discuss current monitoring and research activities and 

plans for future monitoring and research.

2. Discuss data sources currently available in LMB 

institutions. What LMB fish data exist? 

a. Determine if institutions would be interested in 

sharing data via an Internet database in the future.

b. Demonstrate Internet databases and visualizations 

for consideration.

3. Identify key indicators for monitoring long-term trends 

in fish populations and measuring impacts of changes in 

the system.

a. Demonstrate how data could be analyzed once 

sufficient data were collected.

b. Demonstrate how data could be presented via 

the Internet.

c. Discuss what data will be needed for analyses.

4. Determine if consistent fish data collection standards can 

be agreed upon among LMB nations.

a. Select shared methods and parameters for sampling 

fishes throughout the LMB.

5. If parties agree to work together, nominate Network 

representatives for each nation.

To facilitate these goals and objectives, the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) scientists presented brief examples 

of tools that could be used with data collected collaboratively. 

They described the advantages of shared collection methods, 

such as relational databases in which the data are linked but 

sharing is not required. A few examples of geographically 

displayed data, such as a map of nuisance aquatic species 

based on data from an invasive species database, were shown. 

In some cases these maps can be interactive, and if a user 

clicks on the data point, a pop-up window can be programmed 

to display associated data or metadata. An example of a habitat 

suitability index database was used to demonstrate how users 

can establish certain decision rules that describe the habitat of 

a species (for example, vegetation, water temperature, salinity) 

and the associated map data layers are modified to display 

habitat suitability changes over time. 

Three examples were presented that may be useful 

models for the proposed network. The first was the Fish 

Barcode of Life Initiative (FISH-BOL; http://www.fishbol.

org/), a database that has user-selected sharing criteria that 

allows the users to either share or not share their data (that is, 

choose to share data or to use the database only to store data 

for personal access). Even if a user employs the database for 

only personal use, FISH-BOL provides a standard format for 

data entry, freeing the user from database development. Also, 

if a member of FISH-BOL has a question or concern regarding 

data posted by another member, there is a standard procedure 

for communication between the members. In contrast, the 

second example, the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring 

Partnership (PNAMP; http://www.pnamp.org/), has no 

common database; rather, the network was established as a 

forum to foster discussions about methods currently 

being used and the development of standardized methods. 

The third example was a passive integrated transponder (PIT) 

Tag Information System (PTAGIS; http://www.ptagis.org/), 

which supports a centralized database with Web-based data 

entry and storage. Unlike PNAMP, PTAGIS offers limited 

support for methods but provides users with metadata on 

tagging methods, site locations, and tag codes for various 

regional studies using passive integrated transponder (PIT) 

tags. In general, there are many options for sharing data 

(databases may be programmed to not share, limit sharing, 

or fully share all data with the public, depending on the 

alternatives selected) and for providing a Web-based database 

or just a forum for discussion and sharing of methods. One 

of the main goals of the workshop was to determine whether 

a network with any of the resources above would be a useful 

and desirable tool for researchers in the LMB. Participants 

expressed strong agreement that some mode of information 

sharing is urgently needed.

Some potential goals for the network were discussed; 

these potential goals related to archiving and analyzing data, 

with particular emphasis on the role of standardized collection 

and reporting. Ideally, the network would provide valueadded support for data derived from both past projects and 

future monitoring efforts. With regard to future monitoring, 

the primary benefit of standardized data collection would 

be the ability to conduct joint analyses and make broader 

comparisons and inferences across the entire LMB. Common 

fisheries metrics to include in monitoring efforts were 

suggested, including catch in numbers or biomass, effort, 

size composition (length or weight), and maturity stage. 

Particular challenges to standardization on a large scale were 

also discussed, including species identification/taxonomic 

resolution and comparing or standardizing effort among gear 

types (for example, changing gear selectivity as a function 

of depth and habitat type). With support to overcome such 

challenges, data collected in a standard way by a network of 

researchers could be used to evaluate distribution and habitat 

selection for particular species (even with simple presenceabsence data) and to assess spatial and temporal trends in 

relative abundance. Once a network was established, there 

would also be potential for more sophisticated projects such as 

age composition based on samples of hard parts (for example, 

otoliths) or tagging/telemetry studies for movement or growth.
Recent and Current Mekong River Fish Studies 7

Participants

Workshop participants included representatives from 

governments and universities of member nations of the MRC 

(Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand, and Vietnam), NGOs from 

multiple nations, and MRC staff. The workshop was jointly 

facilitated by the USGS and FISHBIO. The institutions 

represented are listed alphabetically in table 1, and the names 

of the participants are listed in appendix 2.

Recent and Current Mekong River 

Fish Studies

Before addressing the goals of the workshop, some 

participants from government agencies, universities, and 

the MRC were invited to briefly present their institution’s 

current and planned monitoring and research activities. These 

presentations were intended to assess the scope of existing 

fisheries research in the LMB and to provide the participants 

from various institutions a context for the workshop 

discussions. The presenters were presented with a list of 

questions in advance for consideration (see app. 1) and were 

requested to address as many of the questions as they were 

able or wished to address. 

Summary of Presentations on Current Fisheries 

Monitoring Activities in the Lower Mekong 

River Basin 

A wide range of monitoring programs and data collection 

efforts occur or have occurred throughout the LMB, varying 

from small, short-term studies to larger, long-term monitoring 

efforts. Workshop participants described some of these efforts 

in their presentations on Day 1 and more detailed discussions 

of these efforts were held during Small Group Session 2. 

There were common elements that the existing monitoring 

programs in all four LMB countries shared. Rather than 

list in this report each project by institution as they were 

presented at the meeting, the projects have been grouped by 

similarity of type of data to enable a more holistic perspective 

of the current research in the LMB. The monitoring projects 

described by the participants are also summarized in tables in 

appendixes 3 and 4. The projects listed below are not intended 

to be an exhaustive list of current fisheries monitoring in the 

LMB; rather, they provide examples presented by workshop 

participants of projects conducted throughout the LMB that 

share similar objectives or methodologies. These examples 

could be used to identify strategies that may be of basinwide 

interest and therefore can provide examples to inform 

standardization of efforts. 

General Fisheries Landing Data

General fisheries landing data are collected by 

various national government agencies at the provincial and 

national levels. 

• Cambodia – Inland Fisheries Research and 

Development Institute (IFReDI): Monitors the 

dai bag net fishery in the Tonle Sap River October 

through March (fig. 1) by collecting data on fish 

species, catch composition, fish length, fish weight, 

and water depth. 

• Lao PDR – Living Aquatic Resources Research 

Centre (LARReC): Monitors the lii traps (fig. 2) at 

Hoo Som Yai channel near Khone Falls from May to 

September (wet season).

• Lao PDR – Department of Livestock and Fisheries 

(DoLF): Collects data on commercial landings at 

regular intervals. Data are collected at the district 

and provincial levels and are sent to DoLF (national 

level), where the data from all provinces are 

aggregated.

Table 1. Institutions represented at the Mekong Fish Network 

Workshop, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012.

[Institution names are listed in alphabetical order. Lao PDR, Lao People’s 

Democratic Republic]

Institutions represented at the Mekong Fish Network Workshop

Cambodian Molecular Genetics Group

Cantho University – Vietnam

Conservation International

Department of Fisheries – Thailand

Department of Livestock and Fisheries – Lao PDR

FISHBIO

Fisheries Action Coalition Team – Cambodia

Fisheries Administration – Cambodia

Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute – Cambodia

International Union for Conservation of Nature – Cambodia

Living Aquatic Resources Research Center – Lao PDR

Mekong River Commission

National University of Laos

Royal University of Agriculture – Cambodia

Scientific Capacity Development Initiative – Cambodia

Ubon Ratchathani University – Thailand

U.S. Geological Survey 

Vietnam Institute of Fisheries Economics and Planning 

Wildlife Conservation Society

World Wildlife Fund
8 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

• Vietnam Institute of Fisheries Economics and 

Planning: Collects data on landings at regular 

intervals. Similar to efforts in Lao PDR, data are 

collected at the provincial level and reported to the 

national level.

• Thailand – Department of Fisheries (DoF): Conducts 

stock and catch assessments. Catch from landing sites 

is recorded by the provincial fisheries offices and 

aggregated by the Fisheries Information Center of DoF. 

Since 2002, they have also been monitoring the catchper-unit-effort (CPUE) in reservoirs that are stocked 

with various aquatic organisms for put-grow-and-take 

fishing. Six different mesh sizes of gill nets were used 

to assess CPUE in two water bodies per province 

between 5 and 500 hectares before stocking, 2 months 

after stocking, and 4 months after stocking. Data 

collected include catch by species and by mesh size, 

water depth, and other water quality parameters.

Taxonomic Biodiversity Assessments and 

Specimen Collection

The Mekong River Basin is known for its high 

diversity of fish species which is supported by diverse 

habitats. The fisheries researchers in the basin are working 

to record the distribution and diversity of the fishes through 

surveys specifically aimed at documenting the biodiversity of 

the region. 

• Cambodia – IFReDI: Currently sampling fish at 

about 200 stations in inland water habitats throughout 

Cambodia at all times of the year. They house more 

than 25,000 specimens from more than 300 species, 

including previously undocumented species. Data 

collection includes species name, local name, and 

fish length and weight. Additionally, IFReDI 

conducts annual fish abundance and diversity 

surveys in five major rivers in Cambodia between 

January and February. 

• Lao PDR – LARReC: Collaborated on a fish taxonomy 

survey with W.J. Rainboth (University of Wisconsin, 

Oshkosh) in 1998 that has not yet been published. 

Additionally, they are conducting fish biodiversity 

monitoring in the upper LMB (from the Chinese 

border to Vientiane, Lao PDR), in which they 

collect data on fish species, catch, and habitat during 

periods of the wet season (September) and the dry 

season (February).

• Lao PDR – National University of Laos: Conducted 

a species diversity and distribution survey in several 

regions throughout Lao PDR (that is, the provinces 

of Luang Prabang, Vientiane, Savannakket, and 

Bolikhamxay). Fish were collected every 2 months 

from different habitats by using different gear 

types, with each survey lasting 2 weeks. Data 

collected include fish size, local name, locality, 

habitat type, latitude and longitude, water depth, and 

collection method. 

• Vietnam – Cantho University: Currently conducting 

surveys of the fish diversity in Hau River, a 

distributary of the Mekong River in the delta, 

1 day per month throughout the year. Data collected 

include species composition, length, and weight 

of individuals. 

• Thailand – DoF: Currently conducting fish abundance 

and species diversity monitoring projects that survey 

large reservoirs throughout Thailand. There are 

seasonal changes in the gear type used, associated with 

the hydrological regime, but the most commonly used 

fishing gear is the gill net.

Larval Fish Sampling

Sampling of abundance and species composition of larval 

fish is conducted in all four LMB countries. 

• Cambodia – IFReDI: Monitors fish larvae biannually 

in Tonle Sap and Mekong Rivers around April and 

September (transitional months in the wet and dry 

seasons) from 2003 to present. Bongo nets are used 

to sample drifting fish larvae, and data recorded 

include species, fish length, and water depth of capture. 

In the 8 years of study, they have found more than 

200 species.

• Lao PDR – LARReC: Conducted larval sampling 

at three sites in two provinces (Luang Prabang and 

Champasack) in 2009. Additionally, in 2010 four sites 

were sampled in Xayabouri Province.

• Vietnam – Cantho University: Conducts seasonal 

larval fish sampling in the Hau River. 

• Thailand – Ubon Ratchathani University: Records 

the species composition of larval fishes and the water 

quality parameters associated with the site of capture.

• Mekong River Commission (MRC): Conducts larval 

sampling and records information such as site, date, 

and flow velocity.
Recent and Current Mekong River Fish Studies 9

Community-Based Fish Catch Monitoring

Several institutions in the LMB are working with local 

villagers to record valuable fisheries catch data. This can 

be a cost-effective method because it requires less time 

from professional staff while concurrently building interest 

and capacity within local communities. Community-based 

monitoring surveys can be conducted in at least two forms: 

(1) the local fishermen are asked to keep a record of their 

catch in a log book, or (2) local villagers are trained in 

specific data collection techniques and work with fishers to 

collect data according to set schedules and protocols. The 

current monitoring efforts using these methods, including the 

available gear specificity, are summarized below.

• Cambodia – Conservation International: Works with 

local villages to monitor fish and wildlife as part of 

a biodiversity conservation project in the Tonle Sap 

Great Lake.

• Cambodia – International Union for Conservation 

of Nature (IUCN): Has been conducting a local 

knowledge study as part of their Sala Phoum research 

project since 2005. It is a study site in the international 

Ramsar wetlands study program. The objective 

is to monitor changes in natural resources while 

empowering villagers to conduct their own research. 

Villagers are trained in research teams to compile 

and document local knowledge by using five 

research assistants to help coordinate and document 

the process.

• Lao PDR – LARReC: Participates in the MRC fish 

abundance and diversity monitoring program, which 

is also conducted throughout Cambodia and Vietnam. 

Fishers at six different sites use log books to record 

fish catch data. Data recorded include date, effort, gear 

type and dimension, habitat, start and end time, total 

time fishing, and species caught.

• Lao PDR – FISHBIO: Local villagers who reside in 

the Nam Kading River Basin were trained to collect 

catch information to establish baseline data for wild 

fisheries and other aquatic animals. Data collected 

include species composition, individual lengths and 

weights, total biomass of harvests, and CPUE. 

• Cambodia – Fisheries Administration/World Wildlife 

Fund (WWF): Has been significantly expanding their 

network of community-based fish catch monitoring 

sites in the Kratie/Stung Treng region. 

• Thailand – Ubon Ratchathani University: Has 

two projects collecting fisheries data through the 

participation of local fishers. 

Fish Market Surveys

Some workshop participants conduct surveys of fish 

markets to either (1) assess the market value of fisheries 

resources or (2) record the distribution and presence or 

absence of species. 

• Cambodia, Thailand, Lao PDR, and Vietnam – 

WorldFish Center: Has begun a new project to 

assess the market value of fish, as well as to 

assess the value of the fisheries to the welfare 

of different social groups. The research will be 

conducted by a network of students at four 

universities in the region: Royal University of 

Agriculture in Cambodia, Ubon Ratchathani University 

in Thailand, National University of Laos, and Cantho 

University in Vietnam. 

• Lao PDR – FISHBIO: Collected aquatic resources 

market value data from two village surveys. Each 

survey determined the average monthly income for 

villagers and the proportion of fisher income that 

was derived from fish sales. Data collected included 

sale price, fish mass, species, and sources of fish sold 

at markets. 

• Lao PDR – LARReC: Conducts fish market 

surveys in three provinces (Oudomxay, Luang 

Prabang, and Champasack) and collects data on 

the quantity of fish, price, and species to evaluate 

trends in the markets. 

Household Interview Socioeconomic Surveys

Household interview surveys were directly mentioned in 

only two workshop presentations; however, these interviews 

have often been used in LMB countries to assess the value 

of fisheries (Sverdrup-Jensen, 2002; Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations and others, 2003). 

Villagers are interviewed regarding their fish consumption 

(that is, “How much fish do you eat?” “What types of fish do 

you eat?” “When do you eat the most fish?”) and the value 

of the fish consumed. In some cases, technicians also directly 

measure food consumption.

• Lao PDR – LARReC: Conducted a socioeconomic 

survey of 500 households in 27 villages of the Luang 

Prabang Province in 1999. A similar survey was 

conducted of 200 households in 20 villages of the 

Champasack Province in 2002.

• Lao PDR – FISHBIO: Has quantified the contribution 

of wild fisheries to the diets of village households 

by training local villagers to visit randomly selected 

households and directly collect data on consumption 

of fish per household (by weight) and the proportion of 

the diet consisting of fish. 
10 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

Some fishing methods utilized in specific, localized 

regions of the LMB are important components of the 

commercial or subsistence fisheries. These specialized 

fisheries may already be associated with long-term monitoring 

programs and are examples of data that would differ among 

countries or institutions. Two examples of specialized fisheries 

discussed by experts at the workshop were (1) the dai bag net 

fishery of Cambodia and (2) the lii trap fishery of Lao PDR, 

both of which were described previously. 

Planned and Desired Fisheries Studies in 

the Basin

In addition to presenting the current monitoring activities, 

several participants offered information on planned fisheries 

studies, some of which will require building capacity in 

specific scientific fields, such as genetics, geographic 

information systems (GIS), and population modeling. 

Although these types of activities are beyond the initial scope 

of the Network, they indicate the kinds of information that 

are of interest, and they suggest some of the capacity needed. 

Planned fisheries studies include the following:

• Cambodia – IFReDI: 

• Modeling population dynamics of commercially 

important fish species

• Genetic barcoding (that is, identifying unique 

genetic sequences, called “DNA barcodes,” that 

can be used to identify an individual to species) 

of commercially important species to facilitate the 

future use of fin clips for identification

• Building a systematic monitoring strategy for the 

Mekong River in Cambodia through collaboration 

and consultations

• Monitoring fish diversity, catch, and stocks in 

Tonle Sap Great Lake, including eight fish 

sanctuaries (in collaboration with Conservation 

International)

• Developing standardized methods for gill net and 

seine net fish monitoring. These two types of nets 

target different ecological groups; seine nets target 

black fish or grey fish (resident species or lateral 

migrants), while gill nets target highly migratory 

white fish 

• Database management: priorities related to quality 

assurance checks of existing databases before 

sharing with others

• Cambodia – Conservation International: 

• Developing methods to monitor fish stocks and 

species composition in the Tonle Sap Great Lake (in 

collaboration with IFReDI)

• Vietnam – Cantho University :

• Investigating species composition of fishes in 

different habitats, especially the habitats impacted 

by human activities, such as agriculture and 

industrial pollution

• Identifying breeding seasons and breeding 

grounds for important fish species to inform 

management strategies

• Identifying genetic diversity within and among 

species. Some fish species are very difficult to 

identify on the basis of morphology alone, and 

genetic identification would be a useful tool

• Applying GIS to fisheries monitoring and 

management

• Identifying the relations between fish and human 

health in terms of nutrition and also the impact of 

pollution accumulation in fish on human health

• Thailand – Department of Fisheries : 

• Utilizing participatory research based on scientific 

measurement and local knowledge to monitor 

change in physical, ecological, biological, and 

socioeconomic aspects

• Conducting a more thorough assessment of the 

value of fisheries resources and the impacts of 

development on those resources to inform the 

decisionmaking process

• Conducting research on impacts of change on 

livelihoods and how livelihoods shift 

with development

• Basinwide – MRC: 

• Has a basinwide strategic plan for fiscal years 

2011–15 that includes 4 outcomes, 11 outputs, 

25 activities, and more than 100 tasks. These 

outcomes include gaining a wider audience for 

publications and improving basinwide monitoring. 

Some of the key, relevant goals for the MRC’s 

Fisheries Programme are to establish standard 

sampling methods that can be applied throughout the 

basin and to develop data to support development 

assessments (Mekong River Commission, 2011).
Technical Challenges: Results of Small and Large Group Discussions 11

Additional Questions of Interest

Some participants offered examples of topics of interest 

to their institutions. Examples of specific topics mentioned 

during the presentations included the following: 

• Cambodia – WWF and Fisheries Administration: 

Interested in monitoring threatened species for 

conservation purposes and in the migration of fish 

species in and out of various conservation zones

• Lao PDR – LARReC: Interested in assessing the 

nationwide fish catch for Lao PDR in both the Mekong 

River main stream and tributaries, gathering more 

detailed fish and aquatic animal consumption surveys, 

and learning more about the general biology and 

ecology of the most nutritionally and economically 

important fish species, aquatic plants, and other aquatic 

organisms such as frogs, crabs, and shrimp.

• Thailand – Department of Fisheries: Interested in 

better assessing the overall size of the fishery in terms 

of basinwide consumption surveys, yield per unit 

area, habitat area, and locations of yield (catch or 

production) and modeling flood dynamics using GIS.

At the conclusion of the presentation section of the 

workshop, participants were asked to provide feedback on 

whether they felt that a fisheries network would be was useful 

and what the network could provide. The most common 

comment among the participants was that a networking 

program for the four countries of the LMB would be very 

useful but that it would be important to discuss the mechanism 

for operating such a network and for maintaining the 

network. Some suggested that a network of fish data could 

be established by building upon existing networks, such as 

the MRC or a fisheries network created by the Nagao Natural 

Environment Foundation. The sustainability of a network was 

of primary concern, and participants opined that the long-term 

maintenance of a network would likely depend on its ability to 

build capacity within the member institutions. 

Technical Challenges: Results of Small 

and Large Group Discussions

The second part of the workshop was designed to 

facilitate discussions among participants from various 

countries and institutions on topics related to fisheries 

monitoring. The overall objectives of these small group 

discussions were to determine whether the proposed Network 

would be a useful tool for fisheries researchers in the LMB 

and to determine more specifically what kinds of monitoring 

activities and support would be most valuable. Four small 

group sessions were held, and the composition of the groups 

changed for each session to encourage the sharing of ideas 

and diverse perspectives. The participants were provided a 

few questions to stimulate discussion in each session (app. 5). 

At the end of each small group session, a representative 

from each group presented the results, and a large group 

session discussion was held. Each of these group sessions are 

described in sequence below. 

Session 1

The objective of the first question in Small Group 

Session 1 was to determine which of the hundreds of fish 

species in the Mekong River were of specific interest for 

fisheries monitoring. Participants were provided with a basic 

list, based on expert consultation, as an example of some 

species for consideration. The participants were divided into 

two smaller groups, where both questions were considered. 

This session also focused on taxonomic clarity with the aim 

of discussing the challenges of taxonomic identification in 

the region: 

Question 1: What fish species are most important to monitor 

or study? 

Question 2: Do you use local names, and do you feel that 

those names need to be validated as unique species?

Initially, participants agreed that the answer to the 

question of what species were important to monitor was 

dependent on the objective of the monitoring itself. Therefore, 

each of the two small groups independently formed categories 

that they thought represented various objectives 

for monitoring, including food security, conservation, 

economic importance, invasive species, and basinwide 

distribution (table 2). These categories were then further 

refined because participants agreed that categories such as 

“ecologically important” were too broad. Group 1 defined 

economically important fish as those species that have a 

“high market value.” Both groups agreed that it was important 

to monitor introduced species such as tilapia Oreochromis

spp. The “basinwide” category was added to describe fish 

that occur in all four countries, for example Silver barb 

Barbonymus gonionotus (fig. 3), tilapia, snakeheads 

Channa spp. (fig. 3), catfishes Pangasius spp. (fig. 3), and 

H. siamensis. Because of their broad distribution, such species 

may be useful as focal species. Fish species that could fall 

under multiple categories were sometimes placed in one or 

the other on the basis of the opinion of the fishery experts 

participating. Group 1 further separated their categories into 

white fish, black fish and grey fish. Additionally, participants 

suggested that monitoring should not be specifically confined 

to fish species because all aquatic organisms (for example, 

crustaceans, mollusks, frogs, and insects) are considered 

part of the capture fisheries in the LMB. It was clear from 

discussions that participants could agree on some key species 

that are important throughout the LMB but that the list of 

important focal species for monitoring may also depend on the 

objectives of the monitoring.
12 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

Table 2. Lists of important Mekong River fish species developed during Small Group Session 1 of the Mekong Fish Network Workshop, 

Phnom Penh, Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012. 

[The two groups in Small Group Session 1 created different categories to define important fish species. Lao PDR, Lao People’s Democratic Republic; 

spp., species]

Group 11 Group 2

Food security Food

Henicorhynchus siamensis2

White fish 

Anabas spp.,2 Barbonymus gonionotus2

Trey Riel (common name for a group that includes 

Henicorhynchus siamensis, Henicorhynchus lobatus, and 

Lobocheilos cryptopogon2

)

Henicorhynchus siamensis and Henicorhynchus lobatus2

Channa striata and Channa micropeltes2

Paralaubuca typus

Mastacembelus

Macrognathus spp. (Lao PDR)

Ecological Conservation/rare

Henicorhynchus siamensis and Henicorhynchus lobatus2 Arowanas Osteoglossidae spp.

White fish Mekongina spp.

Trey Riel (common name for a group that includes 

Henicorhynchus siamensis, Henicorhynchus lobatus, and 

Lobocheilos cryptopogon2

)

Economic Economic

Labeo chrysophekadion All Pangasius spp.2

Cyclocheilichthys enoplos2

White fish

Pangasianodon hypophthalmus

All Wallago spp.

All Channa spp.2

Cyclocheilichthys enoplos2

Invasive species Basinwide importance

Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)2 Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)2

Carp spp. Anabas spp.,2 Barbonymus gonionotus2

All Channa spp.2

Henicorhynchus siamensis2

Additional aquatic organisms

Freshwater prawns, mollusks

1

Pangasius larnaudii was also mentioned by Group 1, but the relevant category of importance was not clear from participant discussion.

2

Species that were most frequently mentioned during the small group discussion.
Figure 3. Some of the fish listed as important Mekong River species during Small Group Session 1. A, Barbonymus gonionotus. B, Labeo chrysophek

D, Pangasius macronema. E, Mastacembelus armatus. F, Wallago attu. Photographs by FISHBIO. 

A BC DE F
14 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

In general, participants agreed that confusion regarding 

local names and species taxonomy is an issue within the region 

since some local names can refer to more than one species 

within a genus and since the systematics of some species is not 

well defined. To address this in Cambodia, IFReDI recently 

created a list of official local common names for all known 

fish species in Cambodia. Concern over the topic of taxonomic 

clarity was expressed earlier in the workshop, which prompted 

some of the institutions to list genetic barcoding and taxonomy 

as future planned projects. The MRC’s Mekong Fish Database 

(MFD; Mekong River Commission, 2003) provides a large 

volume of descriptive, taxonomic, life history, habitat use, 

and distribution information for fish of the LMB. It provides 

information for many species and subspecies. Because of 

the current level of taxonomic work being conducted in the 

region, the systematics of LMB fishes continues to evolve, 

and so some information in the MFD is outdated and needs to 

be updated.

Session 2

The objective of the questions for Small Group Session 2 

was to discuss the current approaches to monitoring in the 

LMB. Much of the relevant information for each institution 

was provided during the presentations on Day 1 and therefore 

will not be presented in this section. Furthermore, discussions 

in Session 2 turned to what approaches may be ideal or 

desirable in terms of fisheries monitoring in the LMB, which 

was the topic of Session 3; therefore, many of those comments 

are addressed in the section on Session 3. Participants 

were provided three questions regarding their current 

monitoring programs: 

Question 1: What data parameters are currently recorded?

Question 2: What sampling methods are currently used?

Question 3: Is there a standardized way in which you currently 

manage data?

The small discussion groups agreed that generally all 

of the data on the example list for Question 1 (app. 5) are 

collected, with the exception of catch age composition data. 

Additional parameters collected by the participants that were 

not on the example list included landing site, time of day, lunar 

and tidal cycles, weather conditions, local names, distance 

traveled to fishing area, and catch per fisher. Some studies 

collect data on reproductive parameters, examine the gonadal 

development, and process tissues for histology, though these 

types of sampling seemed limited to universities. Additionally, 

water quality data (for example, nitrogen, phosphorus, and 

conductivity) were mentioned as types of information that 

were not usually collected but that would be valuable to 

collect along with the biological sampling.

Dialogues regarding Question 2 indicated that the most 

common fisheries monitoring techniques include community 

interview surveys, direct sampling of fish catch by researchers 

or trained fishers, commercial harvest sampling, and 

market surveys. Additionally, various fisheries-independent 

sampling is conducted by researchers using fishing gear 

(for example, seine, gill net, traps) or specialized research 

sampling techniques usually requiring permits (for example, 

electrofishing, poisoning). There was discussion over 

the utility of household interview surveys, which are a 

common method of gathering basic fisheries data in the 

region (Sverdrup-Jensen, 2002; Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations and others, 2003). 

Participants concluded that the surveys are useful but need 

to be validated because the interviewees may have difficulty 

answering the questions accurately and because responses 

vary depending on which household member is interviewed. 

Responses may change whether the most senior male, most 

senior female, or the children of the household are interviewed 

(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and 

others, 2003).

When discussing community-based monitoring surveys, 

the participants of the workshop generally agreed that the first 

method (that is, local fishers are asked to keep records 

of their catches in log books) lacks scientific rigor and that 

the second method (that is, local villagers are trained in 

specific data collection techniques and collect data according 

to set schedules and protocols) can be a cost-effective 

approach to fisheries monitoring when funding and staff 

are limited. Participants suggested that researchers could 

conduct standardized sampling to validate the data collected 

by nonscientists.

Data management in the region appears largely to be on 

a project-by-project basis, with the exception of the MRC, 

which has been gathering and merging regional datasets. 

The workshop participants agreed during the small group 

discussions that most LMB fisheries data are stored and 

managed by using the software program Excel (Microsoft®, 

Redmond, Wash., USA) since it is widely accessible and 

relatively easy to use. Additionally, some organizations, 

including IFReDI (Cambodia), the Royal University of 

Agriculture (Cambodia), FISHBIO (Lao PDR), National 

University of Lao, and the MRC are currently using Access 

(Microsoft®, Redmond, Wash., USA) to manage some or all 

of their data. 

A large fraction of the full group discussion was 

devoted to the topic of data storage and management. 

Although Excel is an easy software for LMB researchers 

to use, MRC representatives expressed concerns regarding 

the high error rate of data entered into Excel in comparison to 

other programs such as Access, which can be structured 

to reduce errors that occur during data entry. The MRC 

uses relational databases and has strict data management 

protocols. Because of their experience in reviewing datasets 

from around the region, the MRC representatives are 

concerned about the level of quality assurance and quality 

control (QA/QC) in the LMB. Over the past two or three 

decades there has been an increasing effort to collect raw 
Technical Challenges: Results of Small and Large Group Discussions 15

data in the field; however, they felt that these data need 

to be managed with more stringent QA/QC methods in 

order to reduce errors. At this point, the MRC does not 

use a standardized software system; this approach allows 

receipt of data in various formats (for example, Excel, 

Access).

Participants agreed that some fisheries institutions in 

the LMB are currently limited by their capacity to enter, 

manage, and analyze data. In some cases institutions have 

a database, but they may not have the resources, staff, or 

capacity to continue to maintain the database. The type of 

information technology (IT) skills required to create and 

maintain a database are in demand, and trained IT staff may be 

lost to higher paying jobs in the private sector. Therefore, the 

institutions are frequently training new IT personnel in order 

to maintain capacity, while at the same time also desiring 

to increase this capacity to meet additional challenges. The 

physical capacity to manage data (that is, software, computers, 

and servers) and to afford the latest version of software may 

be limited at LMB institutions. If the institution does not have 

robust, up-to-date antivirus software, then databases and host 

computers may be compromised. 

Regardless of the software used and the development 

of capacity to manage the data, the importance of QA/QC 

should not be overlooked. Participants emphasized that before 

sharing or combining data, strict QA/QC protocols will need 

to be established that include entering metadata to document 

how the raw data were collected and what level of QA/QC 

was performed. The MRC has long-term plans to help develop 

national data QA/QC systems and to transfer the data QA/QC 

and management systems to each representative country. Some 

participants felt that the MRC QA/QC program is too complex 

and time consuming and consequently would be difficult to 

implement at the national level. Therefore, there was interest 

in both developing a protocol that was more simplified and 

approachable and developing the capacity within each country 

to implement these protocols. 

Session 3

Before designing an LMB fish monitoring network, it is 

important to understand the basic fisheries questions that are 

of interest to the LMB nations. The participants were asked to 

discuss this topic in Small Group Session 3, which involved 

a more detailed conversation about the important fisheries 

questions. Four questions were posed to the participants 

divided into three groups: 

Question 1: What are the important fisheries questions that 

you are trying to answer or hoping to answer?

Question 2: What fish data parameters are most important for 

indicating change? 

Question 3: How would you prioritize data parameters given 

limited resources? (Take the list you created above and 

number them by priority.)

Question 4: Which sampling methodologies would be the 

most useful to obtain fish data parameters given the priorities 

above and your resources?

In general, it seemed that the research topics suggested by 

participants in response to Question 1 arose from the general 

issue of sustaining fisheries in the LMB. These questions 

included the following: 

• What are the status and trends of the fisheries?

• What is the species composition of the catch? Is the 

species diversity changing over time?

• What is the size composition for a given species?

• What are the long-term maximum sustainable yields 

for stocks?

• What is the intensity (for example, length of time the 

gear is set) of fisheries at specific locations? 

• What is the yield by habitat type (for example, 

flooded forest, main stream, flood plain)?

• What is the ecosystem productivity (for example, 

zooplankton, phytoplankton, fish)? 

An additional subset of important monitoring questions, 

which were economic and societal in nature, was suggested 

independently in each group. Participants were interested 

in the economic (for example, food security) and societal 

(for example, nutrition, health, user fishing rights) values 

of the fisheries in the LMB and pointed out that there are 

different metrics with which to measure the value of a fishery. 

The potential effects of various hydrological changes were 

highlighted as important factors within the LMB nations 

because the fisheries are highly dependent on the hydrologic 

regime. Questions were posed regarding the ecology of 

important fish species (including white fish, black fish, and 

grey fish) with a specific interest in the timing and location of 

spawning migrations and recruitment. Many participants were 

interested in determining the length and duration of spawning 

runs and identifying critical spawning and dry season habitats.

Questions 2 and 3 asked participants to consider what 

fish data parameters are most important for indicating change 

in the system and how they would prioritize collection of 

these parameters considering limited resources. Participants 

were provided with a list of example parameters to initiate the 

discussion (app. 5). 

The length and weight of individual fish were key 

parameters included in all three small group responses. 

Although length-weight curves are available in the literature 

and on FishBase (http://www.fishbase.org/) for some of the 

important species, they may not be available for all species, or 

the relations may vary by region. The participants generally 

agreed that both length and weight for individual fish were 

important parameters to collect in order to support continued 

development and refinement of length-weight curves.
16 Report Title The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

Measuring relative abundance, as with CPUE, is 

considered essential, as it was discussed in detail by all 

three small groups. Participants established that CPUE is 

problematic to measure because of the diversity of fish 

species and gear types used in the region. This parameter 

would ideally be measured for each important species by 

gear type and by habitat type. The challenge posed by CPUE 

was apparent in the rankings; because of the importance of 

the parameter, Group 1 prioritized it first, but in contrast, 

because of the difficulty of measuring it, Group 3 prioritized 

it last.

Although not discussed in detail during the large group 

discussions, Group 3 considered the overall total biomass 

of fish catch to be the most important parameter to measure 

because it is the single parameter that contributes the most to 

scientific understanding, as well as being relatively easy to 

measure. If possible, biomass of catch by species or for focal 

species would also be an important parameter to measure. 

These biomass data may be used to assess CPUE if a standard 

measure of effort is developed. 

Physical, chemical, and hydrological parameters, such 

as water depth, water velocity, water temperature, turbidity, 

and nutrient concentrations, were brought up and discussed 

independently within each small group. The parameters were 

not prioritized because the question specifically asked about 

fish parameters; however, participants agreed that water 

quality and sedimentation can play a vital role in ecosystem 

productivity, and therefore it would be useful to monitor these 

parameters within a fish monitoring network. A representative 

for the MRC pointed out that many water quality measures 

are monitored in various locations around the LMB for human 

health and welfare studies, but these data have not been 

collected in conjunction with fisheries data. The MRC has 

recently begun trying to synchronize sediment, water quality, 

and biological data collected around the basin during various 

projects. 

To identify what types of sampling may be most 

beneficial to standardize in a fish monitoring network, 

participants were asked in Question 4 to identify which 

sampling methods would be most useful to obtain fish data 

parameters considering their previously listed priorities and 

their available resources. A list of example methodologies 

was provided to stimulate discussion, but participants initially 

expressed confusion over the terms used to define the example 

methodologies (app. 5). To clarify, participants decided 

that “community fisher surveys” refers to surveys that are 

conducted by fishers or villagers who have been trained by 

technical experts to collect specific data, whereas “creel 

or commercial harvest surveys” refers surveys in which 

technical experts directly collect data on a fisher’s catch. 

The term “community interview surveys” refers to surveys 

similar to household surveys, where technical experts ask 

fishers questions about their catch, but the experts do not 

directly measure the catch. Additionally, there are fisheryindependent surveys conducted by research groups on 

various topics such as studies of gonad development, fish 

movement, or fish behavior, which were called “independent 

biodiversity surveys.”

The participants generally rated fishery-independent 

surveys, where limited resources are expended to collect the 

most accurate data, as the primary sampling methodology 

that would be most useful to obtain the desired fish data 

parameters. Because these surveys are designed and 

conducted exclusively by technical experts, this indicates a 

high priority placed on utilizing limited resources to collect 

the most accurate data. Secondarily, participants preferred 

creel or commercial harvest surveys conducted by technical 

experts, a preference that emphasizes the importance of 

data collected with greater accuracy. Community fisher 

surveys were considered the third most useful survey type, 

and community interview surveys and market surveys were 

generally placed last. 

The conversations in the small groups regarding relative 

value of data resulted in higher value being assigned to 

methodologies leading to accurate data collected in the most 

efficient manner possible, which thereby recognized that 

the most accurate data are likely collected by professionals. 

Surveys conducted directly by trained experts would 

utilize more resources and would be limited spatially and 

temporally; however, the data gathered could be expected 

to be the most accurate. In contrast, local villagers could 

be trained by technical experts to be citizen scientists and 

could collect greater quantities of data because of the greater 

number of surveyors. These data may be less accurate, but 

the coverage of the study (spatially and temporally) could be 

broader. Many participants were supportive of the concept 

of training local villagers to collect the data, recognizing that 

because of limited staff capacity they would not be able to 

accomplish as much on their own. Also, it was noted during 

a discussion earlier in the workshop that technical experts 

could be used to test and calibrate the accuracy of these data 

collected by villagers. 

During the discussion regarding monitoring 

methodologies in Small Group Sessions 2 and 3, participants 

consistently brought up the topic of directing certain 

monitoring activities towards different habitat types. They 

recommended that sampling methods should take into 

consideration the locations, habitat types, and gear types 

(especially with reference to seines for shallow water and 

gill nets for deeper water). One group recommended that the 

monitoring network use standard gear for specific habitat 

types and locations. For example, IFReDI in Cambodia uses 

two standard gear types depending on the sampling: seine 

nets are used to target black fish, whereas gill nets are used to 

target white fish. 
Technical Challenges: Results of Small and Large Group Discussions 17

Session 4 

During the workshop the participants were asked to 

identify what would be important to take into account when 

planning a fish monitoring network that would allow their 

agencies or organizations to participate. The specific questions 

were as follows: 

Question 1: What would be the most important considerations 

to take into account that would allow your agency or 

organization to participate in a fish monitoring network? 

Question 2: What resource needs do you recognize in terms of 

equipment, personnel, and training? 

The discussion tended to address both Questions 1 and 2 

simultaneously since identifying considerations corresponded 

with recognizing the technical capacity and resource needs of 

the institutions. Therefore, the two discussions are presented 

here together. 

Above all other concerns, participants voiced a great 

need for technical and financial support, such as training in 

the use of various software and dedicated IT staff to help 

manage databases. There were discussions regarding training 

needs at all levels. Some discussed the importance of building 

technical capacity at the district or provincial level because 

most fisheries landing data are collected at that level and 

passed up to the central government. Building district- or 

provincial-level capacity would improve the skills of the 

people already in positions to be involved in the network 

and also relay to local officials the importance of collecting 

thorough and accurate data. On the other hand, participants 

also discussed the importance of training students in standard 

sampling, taxonomic, and statistical procedures and providing 

additional financial support to students in biology and fisheries 

departments of regional universities. This emphasis on student 

support provides for the training of the next generation of 

local fishery experts, thereby building local capacity. Some 

participants suggested that the Network itself could arrange 

regular trainings for university students and government staff 

within the Network (that is, involving all levels of expertise), 

which would also provide an opportunity to exchange and 

share knowledge with students in other countries.

A consideration discussed in the larger group and in 

the smaller groups was the significance of the language 

barrier in the development of the databases and in network 

communications. One approach mentioned to address the 

language issue would be to develop separate databases, 

which would be bilingual (using both the national language 

and English), for each nation. The national databases would 

be relational and could be joined when researchers from 

different countries were interested in collaborating. To 

facilitate communication among network participants, it may 

be necessary to translate all network-related materials into 

all languages, which could be a costly and time-consuming 

task. Participants also suggested that the network could help 

to translate some of the important literature resources from 

the various member countries, which are currently only in 

the local language and therefore possibly inaccessible to 

researchers in other countries. Additionally, many institutions 

do not currently have the time and funding to upload 

unpublished reports and publications. In general, researchers 

agreed that a repository of unpublished reports that are not 

currently available on the Internet would be a very useful tool 

for the network.

Participants also raised concerns regarding specific 

resource needs relevant to a fish monitoring network, 

including a need for additional computers, improved servers, 

additional facilities, and additional monitoring equipment, 

especially water quality measuring equipment. Participants 

suggested that having standardized sampling equipment, such 

as seines and gill nets, would improve efforts to standardize 

data collection and would also provide much needed 

resources. 

In addition to the need for more technical capacity and 

resources, the participants discussed what type of coordination 

would be necessary to allow their agencies or organizations 

to participate in a fish monitoring network. Participants from 

government agencies requested more information regarding 

their roles in the network, the potential benefits to their 

agencies, and how they can contribute their time and efforts. 

There was considerable agreement on the need for national 

coordinators, or “point persons,” who could provide assistance 

and stimulate collaboration. Furthermore, participants 

agreed that there should be one person or institution that is 

responsible for coordination of the network at the level of the 

entire LMB. The national coordinators could then report to 

this central person. Participants suggested regular meetings 

during which members of the network could develop and 

discuss an annual action plan.

Although the participants recognized the importance 

of coordination, they were also concerned with the potential 

time commitment this coordination may require. There was 

considerable discussion about whether the network would 

be too much of a time commitment for its members. Several 

participants gave examples of networking efforts in the region 

that had not succeeded because researchers lacked time and 

an incentive to participate. If they were expected to contribute 

extra time and effort, then how they (or their agencies or 

organizations) would be compensated was unknown. Because 

of funding shortages, many government employees may not 

be allowed to participate if it takes them away from their 

other tasks. Some participants expressed the concern that they 

would need both technical reasons and financial support to 

warrant participation in the Network. 

Representatives of the different nations discussed the 

importance of data sharing agreements and the option of 

providing general information on research activities rather 

than making raw data accessible to any member of the 

network. The MRC and IFReDI representatives mentioned 

that the MRC has a system of permissions for sharing data, 

which could be used as a model for data sharing within the 
18 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

network. Different institutions face different barriers regarding 

the sharing of data. While data sharing will vary by institution, 

university participants generally agreed that they are more 

able to share data, whereas government officials may need to 

obtain official permission and agreements from the appropriate 

ministries. 

Conclusions

During the workshop, there was consensus among 

participants that some form of a fish monitoring network 

and the collection of comparable data throughout the LMB 

region would be highly valuable. It was also clear that there 

are numerous interests and priorities that could potentially 

be addressed within the context of a network. The workshop 

provided an opportunity to discuss some of these interests 

and priorities, and some conclusions can be drawn from those 

dialogues. The diversity of interests and topics discussed, 

however, necessitates the development of more detailed 

network goals and objectives before specific sampling designs 

and support tools can be developed.

While the potential metrics and collection methods 

discussed in the small group sessions were similar among 

the three small groups, the resulting prioritizations of 

metrics differed considerably, indicating that further 

conversations regarding the importance of various metrics 

and methodologies may be necessary during the development 

of the network. There currently appears to be a preference 

for studies conducted directly by technical experts, although 

interest was also expressed in training local villagers to collect 

some data. The groups emphasized that, at least initially, 

greater accuracy in data collection should be emphasized 

over greater quantities of data. The participants were asked 

to prioritize the collection methods, however, and were not 

asked to consider a combination of various methods. During 

the small group discussions, participants perceived different 

methods as having different values. Some assigned different 

values to different methods; therefore, some combination of 

studies by technical experts and by trained local people may 

be of interest to maximize both coverage and accuracy. 

If the network conducted standardized monitoring using 

technical experts in the field, then starting with a small number 

of common gear types, such as gill nets and seines, might be 

convenient for the majority of participants. These gear types 

could be used to target different habitat types, as suggested 

by participants. A standardized study design conducted in 

different regions of the LMB by using nets with the same 

specifications and effort could be one aspect of monitoring 

conducted by technical researchers in the network.

The importance of and level of interest in taxonomic 

clarity to a monitoring network is likely to depend on the 

objective of the monitoring. If the objective of a monitoring 

program is conservation, then taxonomy may be more 

important than if the objective is food security. In some cases, 

it may be sufficient to pool species into general categories. 

Overall, it became apparent that there are a few species/

genera that are considered important for multiple objectives 

and were mentioned independently by both groups, such as H. 

siamensis, H. lobatus, Channa spp., all Pangasius spp., tilapia

Oreochromis spp., C. enoplos, Lobocheilos cryptopogon, and 

B. gonionotus. Depending on the sampling design and the 

objectives of the monitoring, these species could be targeted 

for more specific data collection. 

Early in the workshop, participants expressed strong 

agreement that some mode of information sharing is urgently 

needed. After the small group discussions, however, the 

general consensus was that most fisheries institutions in the 

LMB are currently limited by their capacity to enter, manage, 

and analyze data. A well-developed, centralized, relational 

database for each country, introduced with the proper level of 

hands-on training, could address this limitation. For example, 

relational databases could be developed separately for the 

dai fishery in Cambodia and for the lii trap fishery in Lao 

PDR and could be linked by taxonomy. Consequently, the 

monitoring methodology itself would not be comparable, but 

the species composition data (presence/absence of species) or 

the timing of occurrence in the catch for various species could 

be compared. The USGS and FISHBIO described some of 

their relevant experience developing and managing databases 

in their opening presentations and offered their expertise. The 

MRC representatives confirmed that database development 

could be coordinated with the MRC and their IT staff. 

The network could build on efforts similar to the 

MRC’s MFD (2003) by developing an interface that is easily 

accessible via the Internet. Participants generally agreed that, 

while the MFD is a valuable resource, it is in need of updating 

because the entries are beginning to no longer reflect current 

fish taxonomy of the region. Limited access to the MFD was 

also cited as a concern. Building a database that is accessible 

through the Internet would allow network members to suggest 

corrections and updates to the taxonomy used in the database, 

as well as increase communication among researchers 

active in different portions of the LMB. The FISH-BOL 

initiative was used as an example of a database that facilitated 

communication among members regarding various data, 

including species identifications. It was also suggested that 

the network databases could be linked with FishBase, which 

could provide updates on taxonomy and species-specific 

information for species collected during monitoring efforts. 

Formal Terms of Reference or Memoranda of Understanding 

are means by which some data sharing agreements have been 

developed, and the Network could build from such approaches 

to facilitate variable levels of data sharing.
References Cited 19

Future Actions

The workshop brought together diverse scientists and 

managers, who provided consensus about the following 

activities to pursue.

Pilot Monitoring Project for Standardized 

Fish Sampling

The USGS and FISHBIO are coordinating a pilot study 

to test standardized methods that may be applied throughout 

the LMB. Initially data would be collected in Lao PDR and 

Vietnam, with plans for future expansion into Cambodia and 

Thailand. Support for providing training in these methods is 

being sought. The sampling would include a combination of 

more frequent supervised surveys by trained villagers (that 

is, community-based surveys) and less frequent fisheryindependent surveys by technical experts. Standard gear 

would be utilized in all locations, and timing of sampling 

would be coordinated so that data could be comparable 

across sampling sites. Experience gained from the pilot 

study could be used to establish a sampling design with the 

objective of collecting discharge, water quality, and biological 

data simultaneously. This is the type of experience that could 

be used to gain government support and funding for the 

proposed Network. 

Database Design and Development

A preliminary online network portal will be designed by 

the USGS to provide a forum for the network and to host the 

database and other network content. The portal would contain 

a database with a design based on data collected during the 

pilot study and in coordination with FISHBIO and the MRC. 

The portal Web site could have a simple template datasheet 

to provide information on the preferred format for data. Data 

could be submitted to the database in various ways. The user 

could send a data file as an email attachment, upload the file in 

a standard format, or enter the data directly into the template 

online. There could be information provided on the preferred 

methods or protocols for data collection and a short list of 

gear types and key data to collect for each gear. Depending 

on the sharing settings, available outputs could be password 

protected. Outputs could include locations of projects in the 

database (shown on a map, for example, Google Maps©), as 

well as the status of the work and data (for example, project 

descriptions and metadata, data uploaded, data QA/QC 

complete, data shared/not shared). Additionally, the portal 

could provide a library of relevant documents (or a link to a 

similar, established archive such as the Aquatic Commons, 

http://aquaticcommons.org/) and a page of links to pertinent 

information. Cooperators in the monitoring network will 

continue to discuss possible database approaches and content. 

Seeking Additional Support To Expand Work 

and Address Scientific Questions

Because of the concerns expressed at the workshop 

regarding the capacity and funding that would be required 

to implement the network, the success of the network will 

likely depend on whether it can offer one or more tools 

that provide clear benefits to researchers in the LMB. As 

an initial step, participants recommended the development 

of a proposal for the network with well-defined goals and 

objectives that they could submit to funding sources and 

to relevant national agencies. In general, governments will 

require a document for review in order for national scientists 

to obtain approval and support. Some participants indicated 

that including funds in the proposal to hire dedicated staff to 

facilitate active coordination within the network, and to assist 

with data uploads or document translations, would improve 

the likelihood that network members could be involved with 

minimal additional time commitments. 

Eventually, with the development of a strong network 

of researchers and dedicated funding, the Network could 

facilitate the coordination of more advanced research to 

provide quantitative data on fish migrations (for example, 

telemetry), status of populations, species composition and 

landings at specific habitat types, effects of environmental 

change on fisheries, estimates of sustainable harvest levels, 

or genetic studies. Overall, workshop participants agreed that 

the establishment of a structure such as the Network is the 

type of support that is greatly needed to answer their most 

pressing questions and to enable local researchers and resource 

managers to monitor and sustain the valuable and diverse 

aquatic life of the Mekong River. 

References Cited

Adamson, E.A.S., Hurwood, D.A., Baker, A.M., and Mather, 

P.B., 2009, Population subdivision in Siamese mud carp 

Henicorhynchus siamensis in the Mekong River Basin—

Implications for management: Journal of Fish Biology, 

v. 75, no. 6, p. 1371–1392.

Adamson, P.T., Rutherfurd, I.D., Peel, M.C., and Conlan, I.A., 

2009, The hydrology of the Mekong River, in Campbell, 

I.C., ed., The Mekong—Biophysical Environment of an 

International River Basin: New York, Elsevier, p. 53–76.

Asian Development Bank, 1999, Se Kong—Se San and Nam 

Theun River Basins Hydropower Study: Final Report, 

Technical Report, Volume 2, Halcrow Water, Burderop Park 

Swindon Wittshire.

Asian Development Bank, 2007, Status of ethnic minorities 

in the Mekong region: Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Tonle Sap 

Basin, Project No. 37250 (TA4283).
20 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

Baird, I.G., 2006, Strength in diversity—Fish sanctuaries and 

deep-water pools in Lao PDR: Fisheries Management and 

Ecology, v. 13, p. 1–8. 

Baird, I.G., 2011, The Don Sahong dam: Critical Asian 

Studies, v. 43, no. 2, p. 211–235.

Baird, I.G., and Beasley, I.L., 2005, Irrawady dolphin Orcaella 

brevirostris in the Cambodian Mekong River—An initial 

survey: Oryx, v. 39, p. 301–310.

Baran, E., and Myschowoda, C., 2009, Dams and fisheries 

in the Mekong Basin: Aquatic Ecosystem Health & 

Management, v. 12, no. 3, p. 227–234.

Barlow, Chris, Baran, Eric, Halls, Ashley, and Kshatriya, 

Mrigesh, 2008, How much of the Mekong fish catch is at 

risk from upstream dam development?: Catch and Culture, 

v. 14, p. 16–21.

Campbell, I.C., 2009, The Mekong—Biophysical environment 

of an International River Basin: New York, Elsevier, 435 p. 

Dapice, David, and Vo, T.X., 2012, The Mekong Delta—Rural 

development meets the environment-systemic challenges 

and possible solutions: Journal of Macromarketing, v. 31, 

no. 1, p. 147–151.

Dudgeon, D., 2011, Asian river fishes in the Anthropocene—

Threats and conservation challenges in an era of rapid 

environmental change: Journal of Fish Biology, v. 79, no. 6, 

p. 1487–1524.

Dugan, P., 2008, Mainstream dams as barriers to fish 

migrations—International learning and implications for the 

Mekong: Catch and Culture, v. 14, no. 3, p. 9–15.

Dugan, P.J., Barlow, Chris, Agostinho, A.A., Baran, Eric, 

Cada, G.F., Chen, D.Q., Cowx, I.G., Ferguson, J.W., 

Jutagate, Tuantong, Mallen-Cooper, Martin, Marmulla, 

Gerd, Nestler, John, Petrere, Miguel, Welcomme, R.L., and 

Winemiller, K.O., 2010, Fish migration, dams, and loss of 

ecosystem services in the Mekong Basin: Ambio, v. 39, 

no. 4, p. 344–348.

Ferguson, J.W., Healey, Michael, Dugan, Patrick, and Barlow, 

Chris, 2011, Potential effects of dams on migratory fish in 

the Mekong River—Lessons from the salmon in the Fraser 

and Columbia Rivers: Environmental Management, v. 47, p. 

141–159.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

Mekong River Commission, Government of Thailand, and 

Government of the Netherlands, 2003, New approaches for 

the improvement of inland capture fishery statistics in the 

Mekong Basin—Ad-hoc expert consultation: Udon Thani, 

Thailand, Charoen Sri Grand Royal Hotel, September 

2–5, 2002, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAP) 

Publication 2003/01, 145 p. 

Grumbine, R.E., Dore, John, and Xu, Jianchu, 2012, 

Mekong hydropower—Drivers of change and governance 

challenges: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 

v. 10, no. 2, p. 91–98.

Hai Yen, N.T., Suanada, Kengo, Oishi, Satoru, and Ikejima, 

Kou, 2008, Tonle Sap Ecosystem Fish Species Biological 

Groups and Hydroecological Index: International Journal 

of Ecological Economics and Statistics, v. 12, no. F08, 

p. 66–81.

Halls, A.S., and Kshatriya, M., 2009, Modelling the 

cumulative barrier and passage effects of mainstream 

hydropower dams on migratory fish populations in the 

Lower Mekong Basin: Vientiane, Lao PDR, Mekong River 

Commission, MRC Technical Paper No. 25, 104 p. 

Hirsch, Philip, and Wyatt, Andrew, 2004, Negotiating local 

livelihoods—Scales of conflict in the Se San River Basin: 

Asia Pacific Viewpoint, v. 45, p. 51–68.

Hortle, K.G., 2009, Fisheries of the Mekong River Basin, 

in Campbell, I.C., ed., The Mekong—Biophysical 

environment of a transboundary river: New York, Elsevier, 

p. 197–249.

International Centre for Environmental Management, 2010, 

MRC Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of 

hydropower on the Mekong mainstream: Hanoi, Vietnam, 

198 p.

Kiem, A.S., Ishidaira, Hiroshi, Hapuarachchi, H.P., Zhou, 

M.C., Hirabayashi, Yukiko, and Takeuchi, Kuniyoshi, 

2008, Future hydroclimatology of the Mekong River Basin 

simulated using the high-resolution Japan Meteorological 

Agency (JMA) AGCM: Hydrological Processes, v. 22, 

no. 9, p. 1382–1394.

Kingston, D.G., Thompson, J.R., and Kite, Geoff, 2011, 

Uncertainty in climate change projections of discharge for 

the Mekong River Basin: Hydrology and Earth System 

Sciences, v. 15, no. 5, p. 1459–1471.

Kirby, Mac, Krittasudthacheewa, Chayanis, Mainuddin, 

Mohammed, Kemp-Benedict, Eric, Swartz, Chris, and Rosa, 

Elnora de la, 2010, The Mekong—A diverse basin facing 

the tensions of development: Water International, v. 35, 

no. 5, p. 573–593.

Kite, Geoff, 2001, Modelling the Mekong—Hydrological 

simulation for environmental impact studies: Journal of 

Hydrology, v. 253, p. 1–13.

Mekong River Commission, 2003, Mekong Fish Database—A 

taxonomic fish database for the Mekong Basin: Vientiane, 

Lao People’s Democratic Republic.

Mekong River Commission, 2011, Strategic Plan 2011–2015: 

Mekong River Commission For Sustainable Development, 

108 p.
References Cited 21

Mollot, Roger, 2008, Wild population of Mekong giant catfish 

faces new challenge: Catch and Culture, v. 14, no. 3, 

p. 22–24. 

Poulsen, A.F., Hortle, K.G., Valbo-Jørgensen, John, Chan, 

S., Chhuon, C.K., Viravong, S., Bouakhamvongsa, K., 

Suntornratana, U., Yoorong, N., Nguyen, T.T., and Tran, 

B.Q., 2004, Distribution and ecology of some important 

riverine fish species of the Mekong River Basin: Mekong 

River Commission Technical Paper, no. 10, 116 p.

Poulsen, A.F., Poeu, Ouch, Viravong, Sintavong, 

Suntornratana, Ubolratana, and Tung, N.T., 2002, 

Fish migrations of the Lower Mekong River Basin—

Implications for development, planning and environmental 

management: Mekong River Commission Technical Paper, 

no. 8, 62 p.

Poulsen, A.F., and Valbo-Jørgensen, John, eds., 2000, 

Fish migrations and spawning habits in the Mekong 

Mainstream—A survey using local knowledge: AMFC 

Technical Report, Mekong River Commission, 149 p.

Rainboth, W.J., 1996, Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong: 

Rome, Italy, FAO, 265 p.

Roberts, T.R., and Baird, I.G., 1995, Traditional fisheries and 

fish ecology on the Mekong River at Khone waterfalls in 

southern Laos: The Natural History Bulletin of the Siam 

Society, v. 43, p. 219–262.

Sodhi, N.S., Koh, L.P., Brook, B.W., and Ng, P.K.L., 2004, 

Southeast Asian biodiversity—An impending disaster: 

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, v.19, p. 654–660.

Stone, Richard, 2011, Mayhem on the Mekong: Science, 

v. 333, p. 814–818.

Sverdrup-Jensen, S., 2002, Fisheries in the Lower Mekong 

Basin—Status and perspectives: Mekong River Commission 

Technical Report, no. 6, 103 p.

U.S. Department of State, 2011, U.S. relations with Cambodia: 

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, accessed March 

14, 2012, at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2732.htm.

U.S. Department of State, 2012a, U.S. relations with Laos: 

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, accessed March 

14, 2012, at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2770.htm.

U.S. Department of State, 2012b, U.S. relations with Vietnam: 

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, accessed March 

14, 2012, at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4130.htm.

Welcomme, R.I., and Halls, A., 2003, Dependence of tropical 

river fisheries on flow, in Welcomme, R.I., and Petr, T., 

eds., Proceedings of the second international symposium 

on the management of large rivers for fisheries—Volume 

II, Sustaining livelihoods and biodiversity in the new 

millennium: Bangkok, Thailand, FAO Regional Office for 

Asia and the Pacific, RAP Publication 2004/17, p. 267–283.

Woodruff, D.S., 2010, Biogeography and conservation 

in Southeast Asia—How 2.7 million years of repeated 

environmental fluctuations affect today’s patterns and 

the future of the remaining refugial-phase biodiversity: 

Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 19, p. 919–941.

Ziv, Guy, Baran, Eric, Nam, So, Rodríguez-Iturbe, Ignacio, 

and Levin, S.A., 2012, Trading-off fish biodiversity, food 

security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin: 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America, v. 109, n. 15, p. 5609–5614.

Appendixes

Appendix 1 25

Appendix 1. Agenda and Presenter

Guidelines for the Mekong Fish 

Network Workshop, Phnom Penh, 

Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012 

Proposed Mekong Fish Network Goals

1. Increase our knowledge of the Mekong River fish 

community to support understanding of how fish will 

respond to environmental changes.

2. Increase the capacity of local people and institutions to 

study the Mekong River fishes.

3. Provide opportunities to people collecting Mekong River 

fish data to share their knowledge with scientists and 

decisionmakers.

4. Identify harmonious management options that will help 

protect Mekong River fish and their habitats for the 

benefit of future generations of people.

5. Provide a forum and exchange opportunity for developing 

scientific peer-reviewed publishing opportunities 

regarding Mekong River fishes.

Workshop Goals

1. Determine if the fish monitoring network and associated 

databases proposed at this meeting are of interest and 

value to Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB) nations.

2. Determine types of future Mekong River fish monitoring 

that could be used to collect data to populate the 

databases.

3. Establish methods and organizational structure for 

working together in the future on Mekong River fish 

monitoring and research.

Workshop Objectives

1. Discuss current monitoring and research activities and 

plans for future monitoring and research.

2. Discuss data sources currently available in LMB 

institutions. What LMB fish data exist? 

a. Determine if institutions would be interested in 

sharing data via an Internet database in the future.

b. Demonstrate Internet databases and visualizations 

for consideration.

3. Identify key indicators for monitoring long-term trends in 

fish populations and measuring impacts of changes in the 

system.

a. Demonstrate how data could be analyzed once 

sufficient data were collected.

b. Demonstrate how data could be presented via the 

Internet.

c. Discuss what data will be needed for analyses.

4. Determine if consistent fish data collection standards can 

be agreed upon among LMB nations.

a. Select shared methods and parameters for sampling 

fishes throughout the LMB.

5. If parties agree to work together, nominate Network 

representatives for each nation.

Advanced Questions for Consideration by 

Presenters:1

Please address as many of these as you are able and wish 

to address in the short time available. We will also discuss 

aspects of these questions in small groups.

1. What reaches of the Mekong and large tributary rivers 

provide the most food fish for people?

2. What is the scope of your existing fish monitoring, and 

what capacity do you have to continue this work in the 

future? In other words, approximately how many people 

are studying fish, what kind of work are they doing, where 

are they working, are fish being collected, are the data 

being analyzed, and so on? What fish capture gears are 

you currently using?

3. Would you consider sharing Mekong River fish data with 

other partners in the network? Would you need assistance 

(for example, personnel or training) in order to participate 

in data sharing?

4. What fish data are most important for indicating changes 

in fish diversity, abundance, availability, and habitat 

suitability? Which of these types of indicators is your 

organization interested in (for example, number or 

biomass captured, catch per unit effort, habitat use)? What 

kind of data would be needed to create these indicators?

5. What types of data would you like to collect in the future, 

and would you need assistance? If so, what kind of 

assistance is most needed?

1

Presenters will be contacted separately and informed of their roles. 

Attendees from other institutions will have an opportunity to contribute short 

comments or to provide their opinions in the small group discussions.

Appendix 1
26 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

6. If you know of historical data on Mekong River fishes, 

can you briefly explain what type of data it is and whether 

it could be shared with other partners in the network? For 

example, does the historical data contain one or more of 

the following?

a. Species captured

b. Number of individuals captured

c. Size information for captured fish, for example, 

length or weight

d. Habitat information, for example, water quality 

(including temperature), substrate, depth, turbidity, 

shoreline habitat
Appendix 1 27

Table 1–1. Agenda for the Mekong Fish Network Workshop, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012, hosted by FISHBIO and the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

[The workshop was held at the Hotel Cambodiana, Tonle Sap Room, second floor. NGOs, nongovernmental organizations; Lao PDR, Lao People’s Democratic 

Republic; min, minute; h, hour]

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Time Agenda item

8:00–8:30 Registration

8:30–8:45 Welcome and Introduction Proposal: Mekong Fish Network. We think such a network helps achieve the Network Goals 

outlined above. This meeting is organized to make some suggestions about the Network for your consideration.

8:45–8:55 Welcome and develop consensus around ground rules/code of meeting conduct

8:55–9:15 Demonstrations of data representation tools and using data/decision rules 

9:15–9:30 Advantages of shared collection methods, data sharing examples

9:30–9:45 Summary statistics and analysis methods

9:45–10:05 Presentation: Cambodian Fisheries – Government activities

Address advance questions (see end of this agenda)

10:05–10:25 Presentation: Cambodian Fisheries – NGOs, University, other researchers

Address advance questions (see end of this agenda)

10:25–10:40 Coffee/tea break

10:40–11:00 Presentation: Lao PDR Fisheries – Government activities

Address advance questions (see end of this agenda)

11:00–11:20 Presentation: Lao PDR Fisheries – NGOs, University, other researchers

Address advance questions (see end of this agenda)

11:20–11:40 Presentation: Vietnam Fisheries – Government activities

Address advance questions (see end of this agenda)

11:40–12:00 Presentation: Vietnam Fisheries – NGOs, University, other researchers

Address advance questions (see end of this agenda)

12:00–13:30 Lunch

13:30–13:50 Presentation: Thailand Fisheries – Government activities

Address advance questions (see end of this agenda)

13:50–14:10 Presentation: Thailand Fisheries – NGOs, University, other researchers

Address advance questions (see end of this agenda)

14:10–14:30 Presentation: MRC Fisheries 

Address advance questions (see end of this agenda)

14:30–15:00 Review of fish monitoring network concept

Do workshop participants wish to voice concerns?

Consensus that we proceed with discussion in small and large groups? 

15:00–15:15 Coffee/tea break

15:15–15:30 Introduce Small Groups. Address specific questions, develop answers to share with entire group, identify a recorder 

(FISHBIO/USGS) and a reporter in each group.

15:30–16:15 Small Group Session 1 (45 min):

What fish species are most important to monitor or study? 

Do you use local names, and do you feel those names need to be validated as unique species? 

16:15–16:45 Large Group Session 1 (30 min): 

Present outcomes of small group session

Compare species lists

16:45–17:00 Wrap-up

Review progress of first day and summarize goals for tomorrow

Questions

18:30 Group dinner at Romdeng – Meet in the Hotel Cambodiana lobby at 18:30
28 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

Table 1–1. Agenda for the Mekong Fish Network Workshop, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012, hosted by FISHBIO and the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).—Continued 

[The workshop was held at the Hotel Cambodiana, Tonle Sap Room, second floor. NGOs, nongovernmental organizations; Lao PDR, Lao People’s Democratic 

Republic; min, minute; h, hour]

Friday, February 10, 2012

Time Agenda item

8:00–8:15 Review first day

Overview of agenda

Questions and concerns

Review ground rules

8:15–9:00 Small Group Session 2 (45 min):

What data parameters are currently recorded?

What sampling methods are currently used?

Is there a standardized way in which you currently manage data?

9:00–10:00 Large Group Session 2 (1 h):

Present outcomes of small group session.

10:00–10:30 Coffee/tea break

10:30–11:30 Small Group Session 3 (1 h):

What are the important fisheries questions that you are trying to answer or hoping to answer? 

What fish data parameters are most important for indicating change? 

How would you prioritize data parameters given limited resources?

Which sampling methodologies would be the most useful to obtain fish data parameters given the priorities above and 

your resources?

11:30–12:30 Large Group Session 3 (1 h):

Present outcomes of small group session

12:30–13:45 Lunch

13:45–14:45 Small Group Session 4 (1 h): 

What would be the most important considerations to take into account that would allow your agency or organization to 

participate in a fish monitoring network? 

What resource needs do you recognize in terms of equipment, personnel, and training? 

14:45–15:45 Large Group Session 4 (1 h):

Present outcomes of small group session

15:45–16:15 Coffee/tea break

16:15–17:00 Review the workshop conclusions and next steps, including how FISHBIO and the USGS can support a Mekong Fish 

Monitoring Network
Appendix 2 29

Appendix 2. Workshop Participants and Attendees

Table 2–1. Participants and attendees of the Mekong Fish Network Workshop, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012, hosted by 

FISHBIO and the U.S. Geological Survey.

[Names are listed in alphabetical order by surname; affiliations and home countries are also listed. Lao PDR, Lao People’s Democratic Republic]

Shaara Ainsley, FISHBIO, United States

Matthew Andersen, U.S. Geological Survey, United States

Eric Baran, WorldFish Center, Cambodia

John Beeman, U.S. Geological Survey, United States

Chouk Borin, Faculty of Fisheries, Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia

Doug Demko, FISHBIO, United States

Vittoria Elliott, Cambodian Molecular Genetics Group and Scientific Capacity Development Initiative, Cambodia

Pelle Gatke, Fisheries Action Coalition Team, Cambodia

Taber Hand, Conservation International and Wetlands Work!, Cambodia

Sokrith Heng, Conservation International, Cambodia

David Hewitt, U.S. Geological Survey, United States

Kent Hortle, Private Consultant, Australia

Erland Jensen, Mekong River Commission, Lao PDR 

Tuantong Jutagate, Fisheries Program, Faculty of Agriculture, Ubon Ratchathani University, Thailand

Kaing Khim, Fisheries Administration, Cambodia

Malasri Khumsri, Department of Fisheries, Thailand

Chamnan Kim, Conservation International, Cambodia

Kong Kimsreng, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Cambodia

Simon Mahood, Wildlife Conservation Society, Cambodia

Bunnara Min, Conservation International, Cambodia

So Nam, Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute, Cambodia

Nguyen Bach Loan, Cantho University, Vietnam

Sinsamout Ounboundisane, FISHBIO, Lao PDR

Harmony Patricio, FISHBIO, Lao PDR

Nor Pengbun, Mekong River Commission, Cambodia 

Somany Phay, World Wildlife Fund Freshwater Programme, Fisheries Administration, Cambodia

Koneouma Phongsa, National University of Laos–Dong Dok Campus, Lao PDR

Cao Le Quyen, Vietnam Institute of Fisheries Economics and Planning, Vietnam

Dongdavanh Sibounthong, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Livestock and Fisheries, Lao PDR

Douangkham Singhanouvong, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, 

Living Aquatic Resources Research Center, Lao PDR

Rick Switzer, U.S. Department of State, Regional Environment, Science, Technology and Health (ESTH) Hub Chief for East 

and Southeast Asia, U.S. Embassy, Thailand

Vu Ngoc Ut, Cantho University, Vietnam

Appendix 2
30 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

Table 3–1. Monitoring efforts described by workshop participants in presentations on day 1. The projects listed below are not 

intended to be an exhaustive list of the current fisheries monitoring in the LMB, rather they provide examples of similar projects being 

conducted throughout the basin.—Continued

[The projects listed below are not intended to be an exhaustive list of the current fisheries monitoring in the Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB); rather, they 

provide examples of similar projects being conducted throughout the basin. IFReDI, Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute; LARReC, Living 

Aquatic Resources Research Centre; Lao PDR, Lao People’s Democratic Republic; DoLF, Department of Livestock and Fisheries; DoF, Department of 

Fisheries; WWF, World Wildlife Fund ; MRC, Mekong River Commission; IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature; CPUE, catch-per-unit-effort]

Monitoring activity

Agency, 

university, or 

organization

Location Season Data collected

Assessing catch 

of the bag net 

(dai) fishery

IFReDI 

(Cambodia)

Tonle Sap River (Kandal 

and Phnom Penh)

Late wet to early dry (October 

through March, four lunar 

phases each month, 7 days/

phase)

Fish species, catch composition, 

length, weight, and water depth

Assessing catch of the 

wing (lii) traps

 LARReC (Lao 

PDR)

Hoo Som Yai channel 

near Khone Falls

Wet (May to September) Sample from up to 21 wing (lii) traps

Landings data DoLF (Lao PDR) In each Province Every year: 6 month, 3 month, 

and few weeks

Catch from various landing sites is 

recorded for each province and is 

aggregated by the department

Landings data Vietnam Institute 

of Fisheries 

Economics and 

Planning

In each Province Every year: 6 months and 3 

months

Catch from various landing sites is 

recorded for each province and is 

aggregated by the department

Stock and catch 

assessments

DoF (Thailand) In each Province, in 

large reservoirs

Over 10 years of data Catch from various landing sites 

is recorded by each provincial 

fisheries office and aggregated by 

the Fisheries Information Center 

(of DoF)

Fish species 

identification 

and specimen 

collection and 

preservation surveys

IFReDI 

(Cambodia)

Over 200 stations in 

inland water habitats 

throughout Cambodia

Wet and dry Fish species, length, weight, and 

local names (January–December, all times 

of year)

Fish abundance and 

diversity surveys

IFReDI 

(Cambodia)

Tonle Sap River, 

Mekong River in 

Kratie and Stung 

Treng, Sekong River, 

Sesam River, and 

Srepok River

Dry (January–February) Fish species, catch composition, 

length, weight, and water depth

Fish biodiversity 

monitoring 

LARReC (Lao 

PDR)

From the Lao-Chinese 

border to Vientiane, 

Laos

Wet - September and dry - 

February (first phase in 

2003–5; second phase in 

2011–12)

Fish species, catch, and habitat

Fish taxonomy survey LARReC (Lao 

PDR) with 

Rainboth 

(University of 

Wisconsin)

1998 Survey is complete but has not yet 

been published. Rainboth has 

specimens in USA 

Appendix 3. Monitoring Efforts Described by Workshop Participants in 

Presentations on Day 1

Table 3–1. Monitoring efforts described by workshop participants in presentations on day 1. The projects listed below are not intended 

to be an exhaustive list of the current fisheries monitoring in the LMB, rather they provide examples of similar projects being conducted 

throughout the basin.

[The projects listed below are not intended to be an exhaustive list of the current fisheries monitoring in the Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB); rather, they 

provide examples of similar projects being conducted throughout the basin. IFReDI, Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute; LARReC, Living 

Aquatic Resources Research Centre; Lao PDR, Lao People’s Democratic Republic; DoLF, Department of Livestock and Fisheries; DoF, Department of 

Fisheries; WWF, World Wildlife Fund ; MRC, Mekong River Commission; IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature; CPUE, catch-per-unit-effort]
Appendix 3 31

Table 3–1. Monitoring efforts described by workshop participants in presentations on day 1. The projects listed below are not 

intended to be an exhaustive list of the current fisheries monitoring in the LMB, rather they provide examples of similar projects being 

conducted throughout the basin.—Continued

[The projects listed below are not intended to be an exhaustive list of the current fisheries monitoring in the Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB); rather, they 

provide examples of similar projects being conducted throughout the basin. IFReDI, Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute; LARReC, Living 

Aquatic Resources Research Centre; Lao PDR, Lao People’s Democratic Republic; DoLF, Department of Livestock and Fisheries; DoF, Department of 

Fisheries; WWF, World Wildlife Fund ; MRC, Mekong River Commission; IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature; CPUE, catch-per-unit-effort]

Monitoring activity

Agency, 

university, or 

organization

Location Season Data collected

Fish species diversity 

and distribution 

survey 

National 

University of 

Lao

Several reaches 

of the Mekong 

River, including 

Luang Prabang 

Province, Vientiane, 

Savannakket, 

Bolikhamxay

Terminal project, sampled every 

2 months using different gear 

types in different habitats

Size, Lao name, species name, 

locality, habitat, latitude and 

longitude, depth, date, hour, 

economic value, and collection 

method

Fish diversity surveys Cantho 

University 

(Vietnam)

Throughout the Hau 

River

Year-round, 1 day per month 

(always on the same date)

Species composition, number of 

individuals, length and weight of 

individuals, species caught by gear 

type, water quality (temperature, 

flow, and turbidity)

Fish diversity surveys Ubon Ratchathani 

University 

(Thailand)

Mountainous area, north 

of Thailand

Species composition, count and 

weights of fishes, as well as 

the associated water quality 

parameters.

Fish abundance 

and fish diversity 

surveys 

DoF (Thailand) Large reservoirs 

throughout Thailand

The project examines seasonal 

changes in hydrological regime 

and associated catch

Biodiversity surveys 

of the Mekong 

River 

WWF, Fisheries 

Administration 

and Forestry 

Administration 

(Cambodia)

Between Kratie and 

Stung Treng towns, 

northeast Cambodia

Three seasonal periods: the early 

dry season (receding water 

levels, November 2006), the 

mid-dry season (low water 

levels, March–April 2007) and 

the wet season (high water 

levels, July-August 2007)

Data were collected on all wildlife 

and plants, not just fishes. 

Surveys inventoried all fish taxa 

encountered in the study area, 

with opportunistic collection of 

shellfish and aquatic crustaceans. 

Surveys comprised sampling 

within the Mekong River channel 

and visits to large urban markets, 

villages and fish traders

Fish larvae drift IFReDI 

(Cambodia)

Tonle Sap and Mekong 

Rivers in Phnom Penh

Late dry to wet (April–

September)

Fish species, catch composition, 

length, and water depth

Larval fish sampling LARReC (Lao 

PDR)

Three sites in two 

provinces: Luang 

Prabang, Champasack 

Province in 2009; four 

sites were sampled in 

Xayabouri Province 

in 2010

Larval fish sampling Cantho 

University 

(Vietnam)

Hau River Seasonal

Larval fish sampling Ubon Ratchathani 

University 

(Thailand)

Opportunistic projectbased sampling during 

other studies

Species composition of larval fishes, 

as well as the associated water 

quality parameters

Appendix 3
32 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

Table 3–1. Monitoring efforts described by workshop participants in presentations on day 1. The projects listed below are not 

intended to be an exhaustive list of the current fisheries monitoring in the LMB, rather they provide examples of similar projects being 

conducted throughout the basin.—Continued

[The projects listed below are not intended to be an exhaustive list of the current fisheries monitoring in the Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB); rather, they 

provide examples of similar projects being conducted throughout the basin. IFReDI, Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute; LARReC, Living 

Aquatic Resources Research Centre; Lao PDR, Lao People’s Democratic Republic; DoLF, Department of Livestock and Fisheries; DoF, Department of 

Fisheries; WWF, World Wildlife Fund ; MRC, Mekong River Commission; IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature; CPUE, catch-per-unit-effort]

Monitoring activity

Agency, 

university, or 

organization

Location Season Data collected

Conducts larval 

sampling

MRC Data collected in addition to larval 

samples includes site, date, 

volumetric flux, velocity

Community-based fish 

catch monitoring 

Conservation 

International 

(Cambodia)

Tonle Sap Lake Works with local villages to monitor 

fish and wildlife 

Community-based fish 

catch monitoring

IUCN 

(Cambodia)

Sala Phoum Ramsar Site The objective is empowering 

villagers through conducting their 

own research. Villagers are trained 

in research teams to monitor 

changes in natural resources and 

document local knowledge

Community-based 

fish abundance and 

diversity monitoring 

LARReC 

(Lao PDR) 

participates 

in this MRC 

program. 

This is also 

conducted 

throughout 

Cambodia and 

Vietnam

Fishers at 6 different 

sites (18 fishers total) 

use log books to 

record fish catch data

Date, effort, gear, habitat, 

dimensions of gear, start and 

end time, total time fishing, and 

species caught

Luang Prabang 

Province; Vientiane 

Capital; Bolikhamxay 

Province; Champasack 

Province

Community-based 

fish abundance and 

diversity monitoring

FISHBIO (Lao 

PDR)

Nam Kading River, 

and confluence 

with Mekong, 

Bolikhamxay 

Province, Lao PDR

Wet and dry (June 2010 to 

January 2012)

Species composition and total 

biomass of harvests, relative 

abundance by species and 

CPUE, daily consumption of 

fish per family (in kilograms), and 

the proportion of diet consisting 

of fish

Additionally, the 

study quantified 

the contribution of 

wild fisheries to the 

diet of households 

through surveys

Community-based fish 

catch monitoring

Fisheries 

Administration 

and WWF 

(Cambodia)

Four selected villages 

along the Srepok

River (Koh Myeul 

Leu, Koh Myeul 

Krom, Chi Met and 

Nong Bor); the 10 

trained community 

representatives

Will be trained by 

WWF staff in order to 

analyze, utilize, and 

manage data, records, 

and information 

collected in the four 

villages
Appendix 3 33

Table 3–1. Monitoring efforts described by workshop participants in presentations on day 1. The projects listed below are not 

intended to be an exhaustive list of the current fisheries monitoring in the LMB, rather they provide examples of similar projects being 

conducted throughout the basin.—Continued

[The projects listed below are not intended to be an exhaustive list of the current fisheries monitoring in the Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB); rather, they 

provide examples of similar projects being conducted throughout the basin. IFReDI, Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute; LARReC, Living 

Aquatic Resources Research Centre; Lao PDR, Lao People’s Democratic Republic; DoLF, Department of Livestock and Fisheries; DoF, Department of 

Fisheries; WWF, World Wildlife Fund ; MRC, Mekong River Commission; IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature; CPUE, catch-per-unit-effort]

Monitoring activity

Agency, 

university, or 

organization

Location Season Data collected

Community-based fish 

catch monitoring

Ubon Ratchathani 

University 

(Thailand)

Two projects collecting fisheries data 

through the participation of local 

fishers: (1) Study on the aquatic 

fauna and flora and conservation 

activities participated in by local 

residents and (2) community 

participatory and geographic 

information system for deep 

pool fisheries management (with 

National University of Singapore)

Market value of 

fisheries resources 

WorldFish Center Projects will occur 

in all four LMB 

countries (Thailand, 

Laos, Cambodia and 

Vietnam)

Assessing economic and welfare 

values of fish in the LMB

Market value of 

fisheries resources 

FISHBIO (Lao 

PDR)

Nam Kading and 

confluence 

with Mekong, 

Bolikhamxay 

Province, Lao PDR

Wet and Dry (June 2010 to 

January 2012)

Surveys in village markets for 

species, total biomass, origin of 

fish, price per kilogram, total sales 

per vendor (kilograms sold and 

money earned per species per day)

Assessments of the 

household interview 

socioeconomic 

surveys 

LARReC (Lao 

PDR)

Luang Prabang Province 

(1999), 27 villages, 

500 households

Champasack Province 

(2002), 20 villages, 

200 households

Market surveys LARReC (Lao 

PDR)

Oudomxay Province; 

Luang Prabang 

Province; Champasack 

Province 

Market surveys Cantho 

University 

(Vietnam)

Deep Pool Fish 

Monitoring

LARReC (Lao 

PDR)

Six deep pools in four 

provinces: Bokeo 

Province; Luang 

Prabang Province; 

Xayabouli Province; 

Champasack Province

Dry (March 2008–9) Six deep pools surveyed

Fishway Sampling 

Project

LARReC (Lao 

PDR)

Fish species, catch, and fish passage 

scope
34 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

Appendix 4. Example Mekong River Basin Fish-Sampling Methods

Table 4–1. Some examples of common fish-sampling methods used by participants of the Mekong Fish Network Workshop, Phnom 

Penh, Cambodia, February 9–10, 2012, hosted by FISHBIO and the U.S. Geological Survey. 

[If methods are used by fishers throughout the Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB), they are listed as “regional.” DoF, Department of Fisheries; Lao PDR, Lao 

People’s Democratic Republic; cm, centimeter]

Gear type Country Habitat type Season

Bag net Cambodia (Dai) Mekong River October to March

Thailand–DoF Large-scale fishers, reservoirs

Bamboo trap Regional Stream Year-round

River

Flooded areas

Cast net Lao PDR–National University, 

fishers

Stream Full year, every 2 months 

River (University)

Thailand–DoF Small-scale fishers, reservoirs

Electrofishing Thailand–Ubon Ratchathani 

University

Gill net Cambodia Mekong River

Thailand–DoF (size: 3–9 cm) Small-scale fishers, reservoirs

Regional Stream Year-round except in high flows

River

Hook and line (with and 

without rod)

Regional Stream Year-round

River

Flooded areas

Lift net Regional Stream Year-round

River

Flooded areas

Lii (wing) trap Lao PDR Mekong River, Si Phan Don Wet season (May to October)

Long line Thailand–DoF Small-scale fishers, reservoirs

Poison Thailand–Ubon Ratchathani 

University

Push net Thailand–DoF Large-scale fishers, reservoirs

Scoop net Lao PDR–National University, 

fishers

Shallow water Full year, every 2 months 

Channel (University)

Swamp

Rocky

Seine net Cambodia Mekong River

Shallow water

 Lao PDR–National University, 

fishers

Stream Full year, every 2 months 

(University)

River

Thailand–DoF Large-scale fishers, reservoirs

Vietnam–Cantho University Stream Year-round

River

Shallow water

Spear Lao PDR–National University, 

fishers

Deep water Full year, every 2 months 

(University)

Trawl Cambodia Mekong River

Vietnam–Cantho University Deep river Year-round

Appendix 4
Appendix 5 35

Appendix 5. Questions Posed

During the Small Group Sessions at 

the Mekong Fish Network Workshop, 

Phnom Penh, Cambodia, February 9–10, 

2012

Small Group Session 1

Q1: What fish species are most important to monitor or study?

Q2: Do you use local names, and do you feel those names 

need to be validated as unique species?

Small Group Session 2

Q1: What data parameters are recorded? 

For example: 

• Individual lengths (total, standard, fork)

• Individual weights 

• Length-weight relations 

• Biomass of each haul/catch

• Biomass of each haul/catch by species

• Gear type for each haul/catch

• Gear size for each haul/catch

• Effort for each haul/catch 

• Catch-per-unit-effort for each fishery and gear type

• Species presence/absence

• Species composition/richness 

• Species abundance 

• Age composition 

• Size composition 

Q2: What sampling methods are currently used? 

For example: 

• Community fisher surveys

• Creel surveys

• Community interview surveys

• Commercial harvest surveys

• Total catch biomass surveys 

• Independent biodiversity survey

Q3: Is there a standardized way in which you currently 

manage data?

For example: 

• Hardcopies

• Excel® spreadsheet

• Access® database

Small Group Session 3

Q1: What are the important fisheries questions that you are 

trying to answer or hoping to answer?

Q2: What fish data parameters are most important for 

indicating change? 

For example: 

• Individual lengths (total, standard, fork)

• Individual weights 

• Length-weight relations 

• Biomass of each haul/catch

• Biomass of each haul/catch by species

• Gear type for each haul/catch

• Effort for each haul/catch 

• Catch-per-unit-effort for each fishery and gear type

• Species presence/absence

• Species composition/richness 

• Species abundance 

• Age composition 

• Size composition 

Q3: How would you prioritize data parameters given limited 

resources?

(Take the list you created above and number them by priority.) 

Q4: Which sampling methodologies would be the most useful 

to obtain fish data parameters given the priorities above and 

your resources?

For example: 

• Community fisher surveys

• Creel surveys

• Community interview surveys

• Commercial harvest surveys

• Total catch biomass surveys 

• Independent biodiversity surveys

Appendix 5
36 The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin

Small Group Session 4

Q1: What would be the most important considerations to take 

into account that would allow your agency or organization to 

participate in a fish monitoring network? 

Q2: What resources needs do you recognize in terms of 

equipment, personnel, and training?

Publishing support provided by

Lafayette Publishing Service Center
 
Patricio and others—The Mekong Fish Network: Expanding the Capacity of the People and Institutions of the Mekong River Basin—OF 2012–1246