Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 - TERMS OF REFERENCE: CAQ EXTERNAL EVALUATOR

Background

During the 28th Session of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) held in Tangiers, Morocco, from 14 to 17 October 2003, the Secretariat was requested to conduct a full external appraisal of the achievements of the GFCM-Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ), in addition to SIPAM.

Activity

Under the overall supervision of the Mr Jia Jiansan, Chief FIRI, and the direct supervision of Mr Alessandro Lovatelli (FIRI), and in close collaboration with other concerned FAO technical officers, Mr Michael New will:

ANNEX 2 - RESULTS OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF SIPAM

This annex reproduces the results of a separate and extensive evaluation of the SIPAM network that was carried out by the same consultant (Michael New) during December 2003 and January 2004.

PREFACE

This document presents the results of an evaluation of the SIPAM network that was recommended during the 3rd meeting of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ) and endorsed at the 27th GFCM (General Fisheries Commission of the Mediterranean) meeting. Terms of reference were prepared by the GFCM Secretariat (Annex 2 Appendix 1) and the evaluation was conducted during a consultancy that took place between December 2003 and January 2004.

The work was conducted through an examination of relevant documents and the new SIPAM website in Rome, supported by interviews with SIPAM staff in the regional office in Tunis, FAO staff from the GFCM Secretariat in Rome, the SIPAM national coordinators of Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Tunisia and Turkey, and representatives of the private sector in Greece and Turkey.

This document commences with a brief introduction to the initiation, objectives, and current mode of operation of SIPAM. Detailed comments on its strengths follow, together with an analysis of the opportunities that exist for SIPAM in the Mediterranean. The current weaknesses and constraints of this information network are also discussed in detail. Currently, the weaknesses and constraints heavily outweigh the strengths; however, this fact does not negate the opportunities that SIPAM represents for the region. A series of recommendations have been provided, which are included in the text of the overall CAQ evaluation report. The executive summary that originally formed part of the SIPAM evaluation report (this annex) has also been transferred to the CAQ evaluation report.

INTRODUCTION

Initiation

SIPAM (Information System for the Promotion of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean), was originally conceived in 1992. In 1995, however, when the FAO-executed Mediterranean Regional Aquaculture Project (MEDRAP II) came to an end, it was noted that an effective information system for aquaculture development in the Mediterranean would not exist in the participating or observer countries. SIPAM was therefore established as an entity by the General Commission on Fisheries in the Mediterranean in order to contribute to aquaculture development through improving the flow of aquaculture information among the participating countries in the Mediterranean Basin and Black Sea.

Objectives

SIPAM was designed to support and link the work of the other specialized research and development networks[25] that were set up within the Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ) of the General Commission on Fisheries in the Mediterranean (GFCM), namely:

The linkage between SIPAM and the other networks was intended to ensure a more multidisciplinary approach in the treatment and use of specialized information and to avoid the compartmentalization which would occur if independent information networks were put in place for each research network.

The approach selected for SIPAM was to develop national information systems with a similar structure, which would communicate through a regional centre. It was generally agreed that these information systems could serve as a tool for planning purposes within each member country and that they would also provide information and other services to the aquaculture industry. The sharing of non-confidential national information through the SIPAM regional centre was intended to allow participating countries to access information from other countries and thus to keep abreast of developments at a regional level. This would help each country to be better equipped to deal with and respond to changes, emerging challenges, and new technologies in the sector.

The SIPAM network started in 1992, during the life of the MEDRAP project, with five participating countries collecting and disseminating data using DOS. At present (late 2003), fifteen Mediterranean and Black Sea countries (Albania, Algeria, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Morocco, Romania, Tunisia, and Turkey[26]), together with Portugal, are members of SIPAM. The network is coordinated through a regional centre hosted by Tunisia within the framework of an agreement signed in early 1996 between the Tunisian Government and FAO. Support is also provided through the GFCM Secretariat in Rome. Since being established by the GFCM, its Regional Coordinator has been Mr Hadj Ali Salem.

Historical perspective

The evaluation which this report covers in confined to the years 1996-2003. This is the period that SIPAM has been operating outside its original context of MEDRAP, from whose remaining funds it was initiated. For this reason, the hard and dedicated work that went into its conceptual design is not mentioned in subsequent portions of this report. However, the consultant wishes to congratulate the originators of the concept for their foresight. Since its inception the concept and design of the network has been developed with the active participation of the SIPAM member countries and their synergy with enthusiastic representatives of the GFCM Secretariat. Its design was participatory and decentralised; it was not a ‘top-down’ idea imposed by FAO but a coordinated response to a need felt by all the countries in the region. The selection of the SIPAM databases (in the original DOS and Access versions, and of the fields to be included was carried out by a nucleus of countries with the guidance of FAO. These facts explain the initial enthusiasm demonstrated by the National Coordinators and the feeling of ownership which characterized the early years of its operation.

An annotated historical perspective of the development of SIPAM since 1996 is provided in Annex 2 Appendix 2. The influence of the GFCM and its Committee on Aquaculture and the continuing role of the National Coordinators is clear in the documents studied. The special enthusiasm shown by Tunisia in hosting the SIPAM Regional Centre during these years was certainly invaluable. The extensive support and detailed technical guidance and training[27] that SIPAM regional staff and National Coordinators have received from the GFCM Secretariat, both in terms of technical know-how and fund sourcing, is also recognised.

In making this evaluation, the effects of the relatively slow diffusion of the internet in some of the GFCM countries, which forced the simpler choice of a DOS system and later an Access-based system in order to enable full regional coverage, have been taken into account.

Current mode of operation

Currently, SIPAM is operated through national coordinators that collate information and transfer it to a regional office in Tunis for validation and publication. National coordinators are appointed by the respective governments. Each national coordinator is expected to collate information from a number of appropriate locations, including government departments and institutes, universities and the private sector, into the SIPAM database, an MS-Access platform.

At first, regionally collated information was provided by the regional office to the national coordinators, whose responsibility was to make it available nationally; now it is available to all on the dedicated SIPAM website (www.faosipam.org). A brief analysis of the current website is provided in Annex 2 Appendix 3.

STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Potential value

The countries of the Mediterranean basin and the Black Sea share special characteristics that make the exchange of information on aquaculture valuable - including common resources, common markets, similar farmed species (especially in brackish and marine waters), shared effects and impacts through introductions and pollution, etc. Such similarities are obvious and the need for information exchange was recognised more than ten years ago; this need remains valid. The information gathering network that was originally set up, namely the establishment of national networks that include public, institutional and private “locations” that collect and submit information to National Coordinators (NCs) who, in turn, provide this information to a Regional Centre (RC), was, in the opinion of the consultant, sound. Perhaps this is why SIPAM has survived, despite many vicissitudes, where other regional information networks have failed.

Even the necessarily cursory glance at the new SIPAM web page that was possible in an evaluation such as this reveals the enormous potential that the SIPAM network has as a Mediterranean information tool, for both private and public sectors (some examples are given later in this report). The current content of the web site is briefly reviewed in Annex 2 Appendix 3. Providing that its information is comprehensive, complete, accurate, and up to date, SIPAM would be the first point of call for anyone needing to know the detailed characteristics of the Mediterranean aquaculture sector, not only in his/her own country but also in other countries in the region. However, even though SIPAM will soon become a teenager, its potential has neither been realised nor adequately demonstrated or publicised. Its current problems will be discussed later. The real (or potential) strength that SIPAM has is the unique data that it contains; this is original information, most of which cannot be obtained elsewhere.

A recent feature is the news items that have been added to the new web site by GFCM Secretariat staff (just to demonstrate this new facility). The provision of news items should now be solicited and coordinated by the RC. This section should contain “first hand” information, not merely “cuttings” from other information sources; if not, this feature may just be regarded as a “frill” to attract new web site viewers. If NCs can be motivated to provide unique news (not previously published elsewhere), and the RC can extract such original information from the NC reports that it receives, this service could add to the uniqueness of SIPAM.

Accessibility

Until recently the accessibility of the information contained in the SIPAM system has been very passive. Information collated by the RC in Tunis from the returns submitted by the various NCs on the SIPAM database has been returned in regional format to the NCs. Here, in many cases, it has gathered dust. Like so many other organizations, SIPAM has collected information but has been rather puzzled on how to utilise it. Many NCs have not made the existence of this body of information public. Access up to now has generally been very passive; information has only been provided on demand. In some countries (e.g. Morocco and Turkey) the SIPAM National Coordinators are well-known as “Mr or Ms SIPAM” and people have asked them for information; in others, the existence of SIPAM, especially in the private sector, is virtually unknown, even after more than ten years of life[28].

Since September 2003, a well-designed and easy to use web site has been available, and access to SIPAM is potentially and freely available to all who know its web address or who use an on-line search engine and enter the words “aquaculture”, “information” and “Mediterranean”. In most of the locations visited during this evaluation, the existence of SIPAM on the web was unknown; its demonstration caused great excitement, with some viewers seeing (perhaps for the first time) the real potential that the SIPAM network now has.

While the easy availability of its information on the web is a great leap forward for SIPAM this not only exposes its considerable potential but also its many deficiencies. There is a danger that those who consult its web site before these deficiencies are addressed may not return to the site again. This would be most unfortunate; a good reputation may take years to achieve but is easy to destroy. If the GFCM is determined to provide this remarkable aquaculture information tool, it must take important decisions and rapidly implement them in order to solve the various problems that are identified in this evaluation, before the credibility of SIPAM is destroyed.

Data verification

The potential for verifying data is one of the strengths of SIPAM. Validating data is difficult at a central, global level. For example, verifying the statistical information on aquaculture (and capture fisheries) that is provided by Member States to the FAO Fisheries Department has posed many problems that have not yet been surmounted. FIGIS (Fisheries Global Information System) may encounter similar difficulties. On the other hand, SIPAM has the possibility of decentralising validation (quality control) to the national level. Providing statistics to FIDI, for example, may be seen as a “duty” - merely a chore that is extra to providing similar information to national statistical bodies. However, if the GFCM countries that own SIPAM can be induced to be proud of the accuracy of the data that they have collected within its national networks and coordination offices, SIPAM could become an internationally recognised source of complete, accurate, and up to date information on the aquaculture sector in the Mediterranean. This would be a GFCM achievement that would not only assist its own region but also be a model for the development of responsible aquaculture practices on a regional level, something that other regions would seek to emulate.

Linkages

SIPAM has a significant opportunity, through its existing relationships with the FAO Fisheries Department (which could be enhanced if the recommendations provided in this evaluation are accepted) to strengthen existing and adopt future linkages with other information networks operated by FAO and/or the projects that it is involved in. Annex 2, Annex 2 Table 1 lists a selection of these opportunities. The linkage of SIPAM with FIGIS (as an associated network), is of particular mutual benefit and is becoming active. The position of SIPAM within MedFisis is something for future discussion within GFCM.

Annex 2, Table 1. Existing and potential information linkages for SIPAM.

ACRONYM

SCOPE

WEB ADDRESS

FAO LEX

National laws and regulations on food, agriculture and renewable natural resources

http://faolex.fao.org

FIGIS

Integrated fisheries information. [includes aquaculture glossary, National Aquaculture Sector Overviews, database on introductions, aquaculture photo gallery, fact sheets on cultured species, etc., that are in preparation]

www.fao.org/figis

AAPQIS

Aquatic animal pathogen and quarantine information

www.aapqis.org

COPEMED

Support to fisheries management in the Mediterranean

www.faocopemed.org

ADRIAMED

Promotion of fisheries management in the Adriatic Sea

www.faoadriamed.org

EASTMED

Similar to COPEMED and ADRIAMED (in formation)


MedSudMed

Assessment and monitoring of fisheries and ecosystems in the Straits of Sicily

www.faomedsudmed.org

MedFisis

Fishery statistics and information in the Mediterranean


WEAKNESSES AND CONSTRAINTS

Overall, despite the strong personal commitment of several of the people involved, both at a national level and within FAO, SIPAM exhibits the profile of an amateur information network to which its member countries are not sufficiently committed.

Visibility and publicity

As noted earlier, the visibility of SIPAM has until now been poor but, with the new website, it would be easy to enhance it. The existence of SIPAM, and the cache of information that it contains, needs publicity within national government organizations and universities, through national and regional producers and suppliers organizations, within investment banks, and through the media. However, such publicity should not be sought until the SIPAM databanks are more complete and up to date and have been validated in collaboration with FAO. The usefulness of the data presented should also be improved by regular analysis.

Commitment

So far, fifteen Mediterranean governments and Portugal have signed up to belong to SIPAM; the inclusion of more countries is being actively sought by the RC. However, signing up has not equated to commitment. So far, the fact that SIPAM has survived at all is due to the personal commitment of individual members of staff in certain member countries and in FAO, and their ability to motivate national data collectors and obtain FAO and external funding for SIPAM to operate. However, real commitment and support on a governmental level, with two or three notable exceptions, has been minimal; in many cases support has been given by word in various GFCM meetings but not followed up by deed.

Some countries have joined SIPAM relatively recently and it is therefore understandable that they have had insufficient time to establish national SIPAM networks and local recognition of the opportunities that the data that it contains provide. However, some of the original member countries, where the recognition of SIPAM and the use of its data should have become established long ago, are also failing. As mentioned earlier in this report, the National Coordinators in Morocco and Turkey are well-recognised nationally as sources of information. This is not currently so in other countries, including France (even though it was a pioneer and practical supporter of the concept in the days of MEDRAP), Italy (this country, as acknowledged elsewhere, has provided tremendous financial and other support to SIPAM regionally but could further enhance its national visibility of SIPAM as a source of relevant Mediterranean aquaculture information) and Greece and Spain (which are currently inactive).

The duties entailed in being a National Coordinator have simply been added to those of existing staff members of governmental organizations. No true commitment of staff time or funding has been made; in addition, no clear terms of reference for NCs appear to exist. The result has been that those individuals that have recognised the potential of SIPAM and have been willing to commit their own personal time to its development have injected enthusiasm into the network (though signs of weariness, when they observe that others do not share their burden, are emerging). Where the potential has not been recognised, or where the individual appointed as the NC has been unable or unwilling to devote the time and effort necessary to make it a success, the supply of national information has wilted and, in some cases, died.

Apart from the continued support for the RC by the Tunisian government, Member States have relied on FAO and its close contacts with various donors (particularly in Italy) to supply operational funds for SIPAM. Few governments have even found funds for their own NC to attend its annual meetings. The funds that have been sourced have been quite small and it seems at first surprising that SIPAM has achieved so much on such limited resources. One of the reasons for this is because its funds have not had to be spent on staff costs[29]; while recognising this fact, it does not become a valid argument for continuing this situation. If making SIPAM into a truly effective modern information network needs special skills within a new regional office (as will be recommended later), as well as closer coordination with other global and GFCM information initiatives, then staff expenditure will be essential. Naturally this means increasing total costs but a means of generating revenue will also be suggested.

However, it would have been more beneficial if more of the limited resources could have been spent in building up efficient national information networks than on holding so many meetings. While SIPAM does not have a mandate to establish and control the national networks, it could have provided support. SIPAM has held seven meeting of National Coordinators and another seven meetings of its Coordination Committee (CC) since 1996.

In common with the other components of SIPAM management, no clear terms of reference exist for the CC; in their absence, its function is unclear, and its work could be undertaken within the RC or combined with SIPAM annual meetings. Some attempts have been made to combine SIPAM CC meetings with other regional meetings (including two SIPAM Annual meetings) to minimise costs; however, CC meetings could be discontinued without any deleterious effect on the effectiveness of SIPAM.

SIPAM annual meetings cost US$ 20-25 000 each[30]. These meetings have generally been supported through the FAO regular programme, often through external funding, but FAO has said many times that this cannot continue, especially now that the GFCM is becoming autonomous. The value of having face to face meetings for NCs is considerable; in particular they provide a chance to share experience and to discuss important issues concerning the further development of SIPAM. However, the minutes of these meetings show that much of the time has been spent in discussing day to day operational software difficulties, matters that should have been resolved directly with the RC. Now that the GFCM will be providing core funding for SIPAM within its autonomous budget it may be advisable to hold SIPAM annual meetings every second year, rather than annually.

The GFCM needs to establish a feeling of ownership over SIPAM, now that it is to enhance its functional autonomy. However, it is clear that a much higher level of national government commitment than has been evident so far is required if SIPAM is to flourish. More commitment to SIPAM at the EU level would also be desirable. If regional governments and the GFCM itself cannot see the value of SIPAM it would be better to terminate it off now rather than allow it to fade away through lack of support and waning personal enthusiasm - a minor but unnecessary scandal.

The development of SIPAM-on-the-web and database completeness

SIPAM was first developed in DOS (Dbase IV, compiled in Clipper) because this was the programming language best known by the FAO programmer. This was a strategic decision that enables the network to be set up very quickly and allowed the rapid briefing of National Coordinators. This version was used for immediate data entry, while another team (in Tunisia and Greece) started the development of the new version in Windows (MS-Access).

FAO has made a very significant contribution to database management and web development; this function should continue, since it is unlikely that any other location in the Mediterranean could have the access to expertise in this area that FAO has. This should be a function of the GFCM Secretariat.

The content of the SIPAM web site is briefly reviewed in Annex 2 Appendix 3. Some directories, sections and datasets provide considerable information, notably those containing country reports and aquaculture production statistics; some are in the process of development (e.g. links to the private sector); some remain empty (e.g. pathology) or only provide links to other websites (e.g. laws and regulations, which may require a lawyer to interpret). This is unfortunate, because clear information on fish health and the regulations that apply to aquaculture is of paramount importance regionally, especially for the existing private sector and for future investors.

At its inception, a decision was taken to include information on all types of aquaculture within Mediterranean countries. Thus, the data collected is not confined to activities that take place in the brackish water or marine zones of the region but includes inland aquaculture as well. The data therefore represent a total picture of aquaculture activities in all the countries with a Mediterranean border, plus Portugal. A certain level of confusion exists because some countries have other coastlines besides those in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (notably France, Morocco and Spain, with Atlantic coastlines, Egypt and Israel with Red Sea coastlines, and Portugal, with no Mediterranean coastline at all). One result of this, for example, is that the mollusc production of Spain and France appears in SIPAM data for these countries; the uninitiated may not at first realise that its origin is their Atlantic coastlines. This needs clarification and preferably separation in the database. Since the GFCM also covers the Black Sea, this type of problem may also apply to other potential members of SIPAM and GFCM.

Detailed examination reveals that even those databases that appear to be complete are not. Just a few examples:

Comments have been made that the aquaculture statistics provided by SIPAM do not always agree with those circulated by FAO in its annual statistical yearbooks. This is because data is often collected from different national sources (Annex 2 Appendix 4). While this discrepancy may be confusing (and can only be corrected by coordinated action by FAO and GFCM Member States) it could be said that SIPAM has some potential advantages over FIDI (see below). However, ideally, the sources of information for SIPAM and FIDI should be the same. Member States should consider making the same unit responsible for completing the FAO statistical questionnaires and for being the SIPAM National Coordination Office.

While it would be inappropriate for a NC to report statistical data that differ from those submitted by their government to FIDI, the publication time lag can be shorter (e.g. examination of the SIPAM website shows a considerable amount of statistical data for 2002 exists; such data will not be published by FIDI until later in 2004). In addition, since much of the information generated by the NCs for SIPAM is based on personal contacts with the private sector, it is possible for the national annual reports to contain information that differs from that published by FAO. The SIPAM-gathered information is considered to consist of “real”, rather than “official” data, since a level of local interpretation is applied[31]. Thus, while the data in the statistics database ought to agree with the figures published by FAO, the annual reports allow for a closer examination of reality. Another advantage of SIPAM data is that it is much more comprehensive than that currently published in the FAO yearbooks (e.g. numbers of farms, numbers of fingerlings produced, etc.).

The analytical potential of SIPAM has not yet been exploited. Collecting data per se has a value, especially if that information is unavailable anywhere else; however, its value can be enormously enhanced by analysis. The failure to utilise the bank of information already contained within the SIPAM network is perhaps a legacy from the FAO Fisheries Department of a decade or more ago. Until the past decade FAO had seen others initiate the use of FAO’s huge bank of statistics to produce papers on the status and future potential of global aquaculture development (e.g. New 1991). More recently, it has used its data to generate its own analyses of this type (e.g. FAO 1997; Pedini 2000; FAO 2002b), which are frequently cited by the international aquaculture media. This use of “in-house” information has not yet extended to SIPAM; this deficiency needs addressing before SIPAM can demonstrate its true value to the region.

In general, the content of the SIPAM website is not satisfactory. Those who enter the website are likely to be initially excited by the potential but disappointed by the reality. The SIPAM website must (rapidly) be completed, and be constantly updated and checked for accuracy. This implies a much higher level of commitment by all the parties involved. Failure to correct these deficiencies will seriously damage the future of SIPAM.

National coordinating offices and national networks

Limited access (Tunisia; Turkey) to national network staff was possible during this evaluation but the impression gained from discussions and from reading the various reports was that the national networks are extremely variable in efficiency. The level of efficiency currently depends almost entirely on the personal commitment of each National Coordinator. Where the NC is keen, the national network is good, and vice versa.

Some of the people working in national SIPAM “locations” expressed frustration that they were asked to provide the same information to several different entities in different formats (e.g. to their national statistical office; to FAO for global aquaculture statistics; to Eurostat; to SIPAM; etc.). This attitude is understandable and the problem needs to be addressed.

The amount of time involved in supporting SIPAM has not fully been recognised by governments signing up to belong to SIPAM[32]. Since SIPAM is normally an “extra” task for over-stretched staff, the work can only be done through unpaid overtime; thus the level of personal commitment needs to be high or the work will not be done properly. A potential “motivation” (other than payment) that was frequently mentioned was travel (e.g. to conferences, workshops, SIPAM meetings, etc.). However, such events should not be the reward for doing one’s job. Working on SIPAM should be part of each individual’s job (i.e. included in his/her job description) and the receipt of salary should be sufficient incentive. It is only because SIPAM duties are not regarded as part of the individual’s job but as an extra unpaid duty, for which no space within normal working hours is allowed by the employer, that extra “perks” are expected.

Some countries (e.g. Croatia, Egypt, Italy, and Turkey) have a demonstrable commitment to SIPAM. Personal commitment features highly. The NC is not an office, but a person; thus, if the person changes, the level of commitment is similarly altered. Other countries (or the individuals chosen to be their NCs) currently demonstrate little enthusiasm. Active participation in the network by France, except in SIPAM Annual meetings, seems to have declined, perhaps partly because its delegate’s recommendation to the first CAQ meeting in 1996 (that it was necessary to initiate the setting up of a permanent financing fund for the operation of the SIPAM Regional Centre) was not accepted (see Annex 2 Appendix 2). Information from other major aquaculture producing countries in the region (e.g. Greece, Portugal, Spain) is either not being received at all, or is markedly out of date; in the case of Greece and Spain this is said to be caused by a change in the location of the NC office. However, SIPAM software was installed in the new office in Greece in January 2003 but, by December 2003, data entry had not yet commenced; the person responsible was not appointed until the evaluation meeting. The current lack of involvement of Spain may be exacerbated by the existence of an excellent national aquaculture information base (www.mispeces.com) that, although commercially run, could be a model for SIPAM. Information from some other countries is absent because they are (relatively) recent entrants to the system. Expanding SIPAM to new countries before existing members had satisfactorily completed their inputs was, in my opinion, a mistake.

When the provision of information to SIPAM is not granted clear national priority or support, personal commitment (this time at a local level) again takes on paramount importance. Even in Tunisia, which (as the host country of the RC), one would expect to be the most committed of all countries, the NC is only able to place SIPAM work at the bottom of the priority list. Efforts should be made to simplify and coordinate the way in which information is gathered, at national, regional, and international levels. Generally, governments originally appointed senior staff members to be their National Coordinators but some of these individuals, having had their main duties increased and/or their seniority enhanced, have delegated the actual work to more junior staff. Since the other duties of these staff are not decreased and they may not get the personal regional visibility that travelling to SIPAM annual meetings brings, and they are not paid extra for accepting the national responsibility of SIPAM, motivation is poor. This problem needs to be addressed.

Huge language difficulties for SIPAM exist in some countries; translation of SIPAM information (for example into Arabic and Turkish) may be necessary in some countries before “locations” can operate effectively and the full potential of SIPAM can be exploited.

The submission of information by NCs to the RC would be facilitated by a number of improvements, for example:

Stage of development

In its eight years of post-MEDRAP life, SIPAM has only begun to scratch the surface of the facilities that it could provide for the management and further development of aquaculture in the Mediterranean region. It is therefore still in its infancy.

Several opportunities for further development have been identified by the Secretariat, including:

By developing such facilities SIPAM could provide tremendously effective decision support systems. In addition to facilitating the future development of responsible aquaculture in the Mediterranean, it could assist in the harmonisation of aquaculture-related legislation; perhaps even a common regional legislation could be a target. On a more immediate level SIPAM should strengthen its links with the other CAQ networks, as well as generating topics for future TECAM/SELAM workshops.

Regional coordination

The SIPAM Regional Office was located in Tunis for historical reasons; this is where the network originated, under the MEDRAP-II project. It has remained there since 1996, partly through the generosity of the Tunisian government (which has supplied office premises and facilities, staff, and an annual grant currently set at approximately US$ 20 000) and partly through the support (e.g. non-expendable equipment; technical backstopping) provided from FAO through its regular programme and/or its access to external funds, mainly from Italy. This arrangement established a structure for the operations of SIPAM during its (rather long) gestation.

Strenuous efforts (which have generally involved considerable travel) have been made by the Regional Coordinator to increase the number of GFCM countries participating in SIPAM. In hindsight, it would have been better to concentrate on improving the effectiveness of the NCs in a core of really enthusiastic and compliant countries, rather than adding flags for the sake of demonstrating regional cover. Having every country involved has little value if some are members of SIPAM in name but not in substance.

Efforts have also been made to convince NCs to provide the data requested fully, and on time; however, in the absence of full commitment by the countries involved, this has often been unsuccessful. The flow of information from the NCs to the RC is neither regular throughout the year, nor voluntary. The impression is that NCs do not submit data until they are requested by the RC to provide it prior to SIPAM annual meetings; indeed it was claimed that this is one of the justifications for holding these meetings! Depending on the time of the year selected for each NC meeting, some countries say that they are unable to provide the most recent annual figures. However, the provision of inputs to SIPAM should not be seen as a purely annual commitment, but a regular process that continues throughout each year.

Contacts between the RC and the NCs do not seem to be good. RC staff complained that some NCs do not reply to messages from the RC, even after several months. On the other hand, one NC complained that his most recent data submission had been supplied three times, after the RC had said that it was not receiving them; his level of frustration was such that he was threatening not to send any more information at all! In addition, some of the NCs met during the evaluation commented on the lack of feedback from the RC - no analysis of the information received, no newsletter, no real feeling of being part of the same team.

Clearly communications between the RC and the NCs in both directions are generally poor. This situation might have been better if adequate ToRs for the regional and national coordinators had been established; draft ToRs are suggested in Annex 2 Appendix 5. Adequate contacts between the RC and the NCs at a level below that of Regional Coordinator have, until recently, been hampered by the existence of only one internet connection within the RC. Potentially, this situation has now improved, following the provision of new computers from FAO funds; personal internet access for the data manager and the programmer was being installed in December 2003.

Relationships between SIPAM and the GFCM Secretariat and other FAO staff have been excellent. One gets the impression that SIPAM would have died long ago if it had not been for the continuing enthusiasm and support of the FAO staff that initiated it, now enhanced by relatively recent additions to the staff of the FAO Fisheries Department who provide technical support.

The Data Manager, recruited from the Tunisian private sector, seems meticulous in processing and validating the data received; however, the opportunities for analysing the data received have not been exploited[34]. His current work seems confined to mechanical data processing, although he, and sometimes the Programmer are given the opportunity to demonstrate details of the system to National Coordinators. The Programmer has received some training in Rome but both she and the Data Manager had some criticisms of the value of the training received and said that they require more to undertake their duties efficiently[35]. It is not clear whether these deficiencies were noted during the training sessions or whether they formed part of any back to office reports.

Little or no attempt seems to have been made to measure the usage and value of the information generated by SIPAM. Without such measures it is difficult to prove the merits of SIPAM’s existence. This deficiency may be because of a lack of direction; when this need was mentioned to the Database Manager he said that this was a duty of the Regional Coordinator, or of the FAO Secretariat, not his. Without clear ToRs, such important functions fall between many stools. Now that SIPAM is available on the internet such evaluation is quite easy to perform. It should be a regular activity of the Regional Centre and should also be conducted at a national level. In particular, the value of existing databases could be measured by examining the number of “hits”, the time each person remains linked to the website, and the number of times he/she returns to the site. Detailed analyses of each enquiry would also provide useful indicators of the value of the information collated to the various types of individuals and organizations logging on; in turn this would help the decision-making process in selecting further development of the site.

Although part of the function of SIPAM is to provide data of use to the other aquaculture networks of the GFCM (and part of the function of TECAM and SELAM is to stimulate the work of SIPAM), there is no evidence that such cross-fertilisation is occurring. A close relationship between the SIPAM Coordinator and the CIHEAM Coordinator of TECAM and SELAM should exist; instead there were some indications of rivalry between the two Coordinators, with each criticising the other. Close coordination and collaboration between the various CAQ networks is essential for efficiency. This area needs substantial improvement.

Overall, the leadership provided to the SIPAM network by the RC lacks the dynamism necessary to bring its potential into fruition. Following discussions with the various personnel met, this evaluation has been unable to identify a strong case for the RC to remain in Tunis. However, to suggest moving it to another GFCM Member State might cause unnecessary offence or “political rivalry”. A more important consideration is that the RC should be based where the skills necessary to bring it into the “information age” exist, and where coordination with other information networks can be most efficiently performed.

It is therefore recommended that the RC office be relocated within the GFCM Secretariat[36] where it would be independent, have ready access to the latest website developments, and be able to link and coordinate the SIPAM system effectively with the many other information networks that exist (or are being developed) within other FAO and GFCM projects (Annex 2 Table 1). Continuing and expanding the link between SIPAM and FAO also has at least one other important advantage: the sharing of SIPAM information, though acceptable under the FAO aegis, might fall foul of national privacy laws if any individual country attempted to distribute it. At present, some data that is available to the NCs is not shared regionally, because it is deemed to have national or commercial proprietary value.

FUNDING

To date, the funding for SIPAM has been insufficient for its full development. Reliance has almost totally been placed on the Tunisian government to support the RC, and on FAO to supply funds (or locate external support, principally from Italy) for equipment, travel, training, database and web site development, and to provide general technical backstopping, as well as fulfilling its duties within the GFCM Secretariat. The delays in endorsing the new GFCM agreement, and in defining its autonomous budget and the level of national contributions, have hampered the development of SIPAM throughout the eight years since the CAQ was established.

Funds have not only been limited but those that have been available have not always been put to best use. A considerable proportion has been associated with travel for the visits of RC staff to existing and potential member countries and to support frequent NC and SC meetings. More efficient use of these funds could have included courses in database management for NC staff (in the RC or in Rome). The trainees and those that attend SIPAM annual meetings should be those who actually collect, collate and send information to the RC[37], not those nominally responsible for this task.

The current level of support from the Tunisian government cannot be relied upon ad infinitum, and there have been many warnings from the Secretariat that funds for SIPAM activities will not continue to be available from the FAO regular programme; neither can FAO guarantee to source external funds. Clearly, SIPAM needs funds for its survival and expansion. Some will be allocated from the autonomous GFCM budget but, in the opinion of the consultant, they will not be sufficient for SIPAM to operate effectively. The rest could, in the consultant’s view, be generated from private sources by including links to commercial websites within the SIPAM website[38]. While private funding might have been difficult to countenance before, there should be no objection once the GFCM has activated its autonomous budget.

An idea of the scale of expenditure that is believed to be necessary for the operation of SIPAM, based on the assumption that the various recommendations made in this evaluation will be accepted, has been developed during this evaluation (Annex 2 Appendix 6). It has been estimated that the annual cost of regionally coordinating SIPAM and providing honoraria for each National Coordination Office would be US$ 297 000. This substantially exceeds current annual costs but it is envisaged that only part of the necessary funding would need to be provided from the autonomous GFCM budget, as indicated in the previous paragraph of this report. This information is provided to set the scene for budgetary and funding discussions during the 4th CAQ session in June 2004.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of this evaluation, a number of specific recommendations for SIPAM have been made. These are recorded below and have also been copied within to the main text of the CAQ evaluation. It is recommended that CAQ:

ANNEX 2, APPENDIX 1 - Terms of Reference for the SIPAM External Evaluator

BACKGROUND

The aim of the external evaluation of the GFCM-CAQ SIPAM Network (Information System for the Promotion of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean), recommended at the 27th GFCM Session in Rome, Italy (19-22 November 2002), is to evaluate the SIPAM Network as a whole from when it was first established until now, including an examination of its current structure and mode of operation as well as the functionalities of the system (i.e. whether it meets the objectives of the original plan).

The outcome of the external evaluation will focus on issues related to the functionality of the Network, including the drawbacks and difficulties experienced at national (i.e. in the participating member countries) and regional levels (i.e. the SIPAM Regional Centre in Tunis), and on the likely future development of the system. The evaluation will include recommendations to be delivered and discussed during the next session of the GFCM.

ACTIVITY

Under the overall supervision of the Mr Jia Jiansan, Chief FIRI, and the direct supervision of Mr Alessandro Lovatelli (FIRI), and in close collaboration with other concerned FAO technical officers, Mr Michael New will:

A request for the consultant to provide draft ToRs for the Regional and National Coordinators was subsequently added.

ANNEX 2, APPENDIX 2 - SIPAM - An Annotated Historical Perspective

Software and web development

A contract between GTI and the SIPAM Regional Centre to finalise and develop the SIPAM software in DOS was signed in February 1996. The last DOS version (release 4) was prepared in July 1996 and delivered to the member countries after testing by the Regional Centre in September 1996. SIPAM for Windows was prepared from the DOS version in 1997 by the IMBC (Crete, Greece); tested by the Regional Centre in 1998 and first released to member countries in 1999. A second release of SIPAMWIN to the member countries occurred in 2000, which marked the start-up phase of SIPAM on the internet. The first release of the SIPAM Web page occurred in 2002. Finally a new release of SIPAM on the web took place in September 2003. Since then, SIPAM information has become freely available to all (www.faosipam.org) and its full potential as an information tool has become much more visible (Note: though this is an important step forward, development is too slow; this perhaps reflects partly on the inexperience in this topic in the Regional Centre and on the many other non-SIPAM duties of those that have worked on it in FAO).

Selected information from the National Coordinators and Coordinating Committee meetings

Since 1996, a total of seven meetings of the SIPAM Coordinating Committee[41] (CC) and seven SIPAM Annual Meetings have been held[42] (Annex 2 Table 2). On three occasions, in 1997, 1998, and 2000, the two types of meetings were combined. On average, attendance at SIPAM annual meetings has been 22; at CC meetings it has been 7.

Annex 2, Table 2. SIPAM meetings.

COORDINATING COMMITTEE

ANNUAL MEETINGS

Location

Date

Number attending*

Location

Date

Number attending*

1. Tunis

Jan 96

9



1. Bari

Mar 97

19

2. Salerno

Oct 97

6

2. Salerno

Oct/Nov 97

16

3. Olhao

Sep 98

6**

3. Olhao

Sep 98

19


4. Malta

Nov 99

20

4. Tunis

Feb 00

7


5. Istanbul

Nov 00

6

5. Istanbul

Nov 00

23

6. Rome

May 01

8



6. Italy

Jan 02

31

7. Rome

Jun 02

10



7. Morocco

Sep 03

29

TOTALS

7

52

TOTALS

7

157

* Including observers and invitees.
** Assumed; not stated in report.

The following chronological notes have been derived from the minutes of the fourteen SIPAM meetings that have been held since 1996, together with the reports of the three meetings of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture and the seven regular and one extraordinary GFCM meetings that were held between 1997 and 2003. Matters of particular importance have been italicised and comments underlined.

GENERAL

The activities of SIPAM are very briefly reviewed during annual meetings of the GFCM (since its formation, within the context of the Committee on Aquaculture - CAQ). The support of the Tunisian government to the Regional Centre and of the Italian government/ICRAM and FAO in facilitating meetings of the National Coordinators and developing the website were acknowledged on a number of occasions (e.g. GFCM 1998, 1999, 2000); however, further support was felt to be necessary if the system was to be developed properly (GFCM 2000a). Despite this shortage of resources, the GFCM twice stated that the work of SIPAM had been satisfactory (GFCM 2000a, 2001).

1996

The first meeting of the SIPAM Coordinating Committee (CC) that was held in 1996 was the first SIPAM meeting after the termination of the MEDRAP-II project (SIPAM 1996); during this meeting a draft report on “SIPAM Development Status and Policy, and proposed Programme of Work for 1996” was discussed. Earlier information about SIPAM, which is contained in the annals of the MEDRAP project, has not been studied during this evaluation. However, from the minutes of this first post-MEDRAP project it is clear that SIPAM activities had been on-going for several years under that programme (since 1992). At this meeting, the support of the Tunisian government and the inheritance of equipment from the MEDRAP-II project were recognised. Setting a precedent for future reports of both the Coordinating Committee and National Coordinators’ meetings, it was noted that “in general, there had been little progress with national data banks”. A budget was presented at this CC meeting (Annex 2 Table 3).

Annex 2, Table 3. SIPAM budget 1996-1997.

ITEM

COST (US$)

Adventitious labour, including complementary operating costs

12 000

Operating costs: staff time

20 000

Operating costs: contract for improvement of software)

10 000

Equipment: computer standardization

8 000

Training of personnel in Tunis

1 000

Training of personnel in Malta & Morocco

6 000

Working group meeting on Window version

20 000

CAQ meeting costs

4 000

Sundry (5%)

3 000

TOTAL

84 000

Support for this budget was envisaged from a Tunisian contribution to cover operational costs, agreed at US$ 40 000 for the first year (not including staff costs and rental of offices), funds made available from the regional project GCP/REM/055/FRA (which, in addition to the Data Manager, would provide US$ 40 000, according to a revision submitted to the French government for approval[43]), and a contribution from FAO of approximately US$ 27 000, mainly through the TCDC scheme.

(Note: the interface between SIPAM and the other networks (SELAM and TECAM) established during the MEDRAP project seems to have been much closer at that time (SIPAM 1996) than has been the case more recently. There is an impression that SIPAM (based in Tunis) and TECAM/SELAM (based in Zaragoza) now operate rather independently, with little contact except during the meetings of the CAQ. Whereas the work of TECAM and SELAM has been quite visible regionally (many people have participated in its workshops and many publications issued), the work of SIPAM has been neither adequately publicised nor recognised in the region. From an external viewpoint there seems to be an element of jealousy from one side and criticism from the other. Although understandable, both reactions may be unfair because the level of support from Mediterranean countries to the two types of activities has not been equal.)

It is interesting to note that, at the first CAQ meeting (FAO 1996), the delegate from France recommended that it was necessary to initiate the setting up of a permanent financing fund for the operation of the SIPAM Regional Centre but other delegates thought that this was premature until a consolidation phase had demonstrated that the system was useful. The delegate from France also drew attention to the danger of using the GFCM account set up by FAO in Rome (to receive donations from countries for specific activities additional to the minimum programme of work) to request funds for activities with partner organizations which were already funded by his Government, as this could result in refusal. The technical secretary of CAQ informed the committee that such consolidation required political willingness on the side of member countries, which would have to finance the participation of their national staff in the activities of the network(s), and eventually the financing of specific actions and meetings should be envisaged (Note: now, eight years on, member governments are still failing to properly staff and finance their National Coordinators offices, let alone finance other activities). Thus the potential of SIPAM has not been adequately demonstrated and the failure of member countries to support it wholeheartedly in this long consolidation phase has damaged its credibility and caused a loss of enthusiasm amongst those that were enthusiastic at the beginning. At this first CAQ meeting, FAO said that it would continue to devote time and effort, seeking (other) financial resources for the work programmes of the network(s) (Note: that promise has been fulfilled; without this fundamental support, SIPAM would have died long ago). CAQ recognised the complementarity of the (four) networks with SIPAM as a tool to enhance the work of the others. It also recognised the responsibility of the Secretariat as overall coordinator for CAQ.

1997

The first NC meeting noted that French support (through the regional project GCP/REM/055/FRA) towards the establishment of SIPAM had terminated at the end of 1996. Despite this, it noted that the main recommendations of the first meeting of the CAQ in 1996 included accelerating the preparation of the regional data base, as a matter of urgency, requiring the participation of the national centres (SIPAM 1997a). At that time, twelve countries were participating - Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Morocco, Portugal, Tunisia and Turkey - and the NC meeting was already noting that more efforts had to be made by the NCs to consolidate data collection and to enter it into the data bases, especially in regard to those for legislation, pathology, bibliography, and import statistics. In the report of the second CC meeting, which followed the NC meeting in 1997, it was said that the two types of gatherings would normally occur back to back[44]. In this 2nd CC meeting (SIPAM 1997c) it was noted that “it was decided to adopt the 1998 programme of work and budget as agreed by the National Coordinators meeting” (Note: this implies that the CC felt that it had some decision-making power, or was able to approve or alter decisions taken by the NCs in their meetings; whether it did have this power or not is unclear, because the CC had no terms of reference or clear status in the management structure of SIPAM).

In the second NC meeting (two were held in 1997) FAO reiterated that the SIPAM network must become more active (SIPAM 1997b); at this time the IMBC undertook to solve some of the problems being experienced with the Windows version. The Regional Coordinator reported that the database for pathology remained empty and that the databases for import/export statistics, research and development, laws and regulations, and bibliography had only partially been filled by the NCs. At this stage the experimental phase of SIPAM was deemed to be completed (Note: adequate consolidation had not in fact taken place; nor did it occur within the next seven years) and the NCs were asked to ensure that good quality timely data of acceptable volume would be generated. It was noted that the credibility of the system and its interest to end users would depend on the reliability of the data. A web site was envisaged at this time; it was proposed that there would be two versions, one of which would be limited and free and the second more complete and requiring payment for access; however, the policy on charging was referred to the GFCM CAQ. It was agreed that a financing system (and financial sources obtained) needed to be set up amongst the participating countries; contributions were to be based on GNP and the importance of aquaculture within each country; the funding of SIPAM was expected to be discussed at the 1998 GFCM session.

In 1997 the GFCM recommended that SIPAM (inter alia) be consolidated and strengthened (GFCM 1997).

1998

Difficulties in recruiting a programmer in Tunisia were noted during the third NC meeting in 1998 (SIPAM 1998a); at this time considerable support was being provided by IMBC. Concerning entries for the legislation and regulation database it was reiterated that these should remain in the original languages but that a title and abstract should be provided in English. Comments were again made about the incompleteness of the records being entered into the databases; those for pathology, legislation and import/export were practically empty; some of the difficulties of accessing import/export data, particularly concerning the EU countries were discussed (Note: five years on, the picture has not significantly changed). A small group was established to develop a standard format for the national reports. The 1998 NC meeting was followed by the 3rd CC meeting (SIPAM 1998b). Its topics mainly concerned data management but its report included a budget for the 1999 programme of work that totalled US$ 95 000. Of this total, the FAO Regular Programme (with support from Italian funds) would cover a total of US$ 35 000 for software development, marketing and pathology meetings, travel connected with the expansion of SIPAM to new countries, and liaison activities; US$ 10 000 for training in the use of SIPAM software through TCDC funds; US$ 20 000 from the Tunisian government for the Regional Centre; and US$ 30 000 for SIPAM NC and CC meetings (no source identified).

Although some activities of SIPAM were reported during the 23rd GFCM meeting (GFCM 1998) it received no specific reference in discussions about the GFCM programme of work and budget, either for 1998-99 or for the medium- or long-term.

1999

At an extraordinary session of the GFCM in 1999 (GFCM 1999), a draft autonomous budget and a scale of contributions were presented by the Secretariat. The FAO proposal was for a total of US$ 1 029 240 (US$ 287 380 originating from FAO for the provision of the Secretariat and for technical backstopping from the Fisheries Department; the rest being provided by Member country contributions). However, the EC proposed a total budget of only US$ 750 000. A single proposal was to be derived from these drafts for presentation to the 24th GFCM session; this totalled US$ 756 000. The 24th GFCM meeting, though agreeing on the substance of the scale of contributions, was only able to pave the way for its adoption at a later stage, once the amendments to the GFCM agreement had been accepted by two-thirds of its Members (GFCM 1999). This annual budget allowed US$ 25 000 for a biennial meeting of the CAQ, US$ 47 000 for “other meetings (including SIPAM)”, and US$ 57 000 for “support to intersessional activities (includes aquaculture networks activities)”.

The shortage of funds was again mentioned in the fourth NC meeting in 1999 (SIPAM 1999) and it was recognised that SIPAM needed promotion as it was not well known (Note: this is still true in 2004). Decisions to become an ASFA partner, and that completion of the import/export database would not be compulsory for EU members were taken in 1999. It was also decided not to further develop the pathology database because “SIPAM was waiting for the new structure being developed by the AAPQIS and, although promised never released” (Note: again, the situation has not markedly changed, four years later); it was decided that if the structure had not been provided by the end of 1999, the further development of this database or complete exclusion would be discussed by the CC. The same deadline (and procedure) was to be applied to the marketing data expected to be supplied by SELAM. The original homepage was demonstrated by FAO. It was noted that Spain was absent from the meeting for the second time and that it had neither been supplying input nor distributing information nationally (Note: a clear sign that member countries that had been initially keen on SIPAM were losing interest).

The (proposed) addition of a pathology database to SIPAM was noted by the GFCM in 1999 (GFCM 1999).

2000

In the fourth meeting of the Coordinating Committee in 2000 (SIPAM 2000a) it was noted that SIPAM would be providing inputs to ASFA for countries in the region that were not yet members of ASFA. No progress on AAPQIS was reported; the visit of the programmer to Rome was reported to be “entirely unsuccessful as she was not shown the programme notes on the AAPQIS software”. Similarly, no progress had been made with the exchange of (trade) data with FEAP following an agreement with the FEAP secretary. An important point was made at this committee meeting, namely that the SIPAM annual meetings should discuss strategic issues relating to the work of SIPAM, not details of and changes in software (Note: this point seems to have been often ignored in subsequent meetings). The proliferation of information networks, such as MARAQUA, AQUAFLOW, and AquaTT, was noted. The provision of almost US$ 19 000 from FAO sources for 2000 was acknowledged.

During the second session of the CAQ (FAO 2000), the EC delegation noted that priorities had to be established for the networks according to the availability of funding. Several delegates highlighted the need for the NCs to liaise with other aquaculture information systems. SIPAM was regarded as only covering basic information needs and required urgent evolution to optimise its comparative advantage, namely the availability of a wide range of data in various (aquaculture) fields. A clear strategy for the development of SIPAM to make sure that the systems that had been established were updated appeared to the CAQ Chairperson to have a high priority. Extreme concern at the level of funding available for SIPAM was expressed by several delegates.

In the fifth NC meeting in 2000 (SIPAM 2000b), it was noted that few requests for information were received by NCs (it could have been added that few attempts to disburse available information were made by the NCs; this poor flow of information nationally has generally continued to be the case, but the availability of the website will change the situation) and it was suggested that NCs should record how many times and by whom they had had requests for SIPAM data, in an attempt to provide evaluation. It is not clear if such records were actually kept or reported in the future. Only Turkey and Morocco reported that SIPAM had fundamental importance in their countries (Note: the NC from Morocco is known as “Mr. SIPAM”; it seems likely that the promotion of SIPAM and its national value is very much a function of the personal commitment of the national coordinator selected by the government). It was recorded that the few national “locations” for data collection existed to date, partly due to the lack of time for NCs to train the operators. Again, it was reported that there were difficulties in developing the AAPQIS database; nevertheless the decision was taken to adopt it for later implementation. The use of Globefish records for establishing a provisional marketing database was agreed. It had not been possible to complete the laws and regulations database because this would require specialised lawyers. Noting that SIPAM had been presented at the NACA 2000 millennium meeting in Bangkok and at the WAS/EAS meeting “Aqua 2000” in Nice and that it had powerful potential, FAO said that SIPAM’s capacity had been under-exploited to date. In this year it was reported that a budget for SIPAM was expected by 2002 and that Italy and Portugal were expected to support it during the transitional year (2001), while Tunisia continued to support the Regional Centre. A proposed programme of work for 2001 was discussed during the fifth meeting of the Coordinating Committee (SIPAM 2000c), which was held during the fifth NC meeting.

In 2000 the GFCM noted that SIPAM became an input centre for ASFA (GFCM 2000a).

2001

In 2001, at the sixth meeting of the Coordinating Committee (SIPAM 2001) it was reported that the survey on pathology capabilities by TECAM would be published by CIHEAM within a few months (i.e. within 2001) and that the adaptation of the AAPQIS system to the Mediterranean would be completed within 2001 (Note: two years later, neither task had been completed). Slow progress on completing the missing fields in the regional database was noted and problems were particularly noted in Greece and Spain. The proposed linkage with FIGIS was agreed, subject to SIPAM retaining its autonomy. FIRI agreed to bridge the (financial) gap until the autonomous GFCM budget will be approved.

Problems in the establishment of the SIPAM pathology database were noted by the GFCM in 2001 (GFCM 2001). Difficulties in obtaining market information were also noted at this time but the distribution of selected monthly information from Globefish in 2001 was welcomed. In this year, the GFCM also noted that SIPAM had become a partner organisation of ASFA (GFCM 2001). In addition, the development of a new web page through the support of the FAO regular programme and its linkage to FIGIS was recorded (GFCM 2001).

2002

The arrival of Alessandro Lovatelli to replace Mario Pedini as the Technical Secretary of the GFCM CAQ was noted in the sixth NC meeting in 2002 (SIPAM 2002b). It was reported that monthly GLOBEFISH data was being distributed to the NCs. The possibility of obtaining information by searching for data from the Mercaberba/Merca (Madrid) and Rungis (Paris) web sites was being explored by the RC. It was agreed that the pathology database would initially consist of information generated by the TECAM Diagnostic Directory and noted that the adaptation of the AAPQIS to the Mediterranean was not finalised even though it had been initiated in 1999 and should have been completed in 2001. It was reported that practically no information for the bibliography database had been provided by the NCs; meanwhile information on certain MEDRAP project documents and selected TECAM and SELAM work was being entered. Again it was recorded that countries were either supplying no new information (France; Greece) or very incomplete data (Note: this reflects on the poor level of interest and priority being given to SIPAM by some member countries; two years later, this situation has not perceptibly changed). NCs for some countries (Greece; Spain) were being changed (Note: two years later, although new NCs have been chosen, no information has yet been received). France and Spain noted that data from their Atlantic coasts should be separated from their Mediterranean production (Note: this has still not been done and, in some cases, results in very misleading information). Legal data remained sparse, except from Italy and it was decided to establish a link with FAO LEX; however, this implied that NCs would become one of the sources of legal information for the FAO LEX database; it did not “let them off the hook” as far as legal matters were concerned. At this year’s NC meeting it was reported that the last SIPAM CC meeting had decided to get SIPAM onto the web as a matter of urgency. It was noted that the visibility of SIPAM was still very low (10 years after inception) with little information being disseminated beyond the “SIPAM Club”; the move towards SIPAM on the web should change this. At this point, according to a consultant’s report, the possibility of paid advertisements was raised for the first time but discussion was postponed until the first draft of the SIPAM portal was completed and viewed. The expansion of FIGIS into aquaculture in September 2001 was noted and it was decided to establish a link between FIGIS and SIPAM. One of the pioneers of SIPAM, Mario Pedini, was asked (and accepted) to be an adviser to SIPAM despite his move to the Investment Centre.

During the most recent (seventh) meeting of the Coordinating Committee in 2002 it was reported that the diagnostic directory had been completed and was undergoing a final revision by CIHEAM-IAMZ and FIRI (SIPAM 2002a); however, the survey analytical reports were still under preparation and needed to be finalised. The complete report was to be put onto the SIPAM portal by September 2002 (in January 2004 this was still missing). A similar report was given about the relationship with AAPQIS. A crucially important point was made during this meeting: it was stated that unless the SIPAM web site contained adequately up-dated and dynamic records and information it would be difficult to retain first-time users; in addition, they would not spread the news about the existence of the web site to others. In this report, an account of the Tunisian support to SIPAM was provided (Annex 2 Table 4).

Annex 2, Table 4. Tunisian support to SIPAM.

ITEM

LINE ALLOCATION (US$)

Temporary assistance

3 000

Operating expenses

4 000

Travel

8 500

Non-expendable equipment

2 890

Expendable equipment

1 000

TOTAL

19 390

Funding for other items of expenditure was being sought (Annex 2 Table 5).

Annex 2, Table 5. Other budgetary requirements of SIPAM.

ITEM

BUDGET (US$)

Temporary assistance

1 600

Sundry travel

5 700

Communications

2 660

Expendable equipment

1 000

Non-expendable equipment (3 PCs and a photocopier/scanner; later supplied by FAO)

9 000

It was stressed that the establishment of dedicated technical and country fora would enhance the visibility of SIPAM was stressed and it was agreed to launch the “SIPAM National Coordinators’ Forum” with Mr Hadj Ali as the Moderator; this forum would be operational by July 2002. Two technical fora, on “health” and “marketing and trade” would be opened, with FIRI identifying suitable moderators. A third technical forum on “laws and regulations” would be established once the first two were up and running. The prerogative of the Regional Coordinator to close all fora that would not generate discussion and traffic was agreed (Note: currently, no fora are active).

At the third session of the CAQ (FAO 2002a) the Regional Coordinator expressed his concern over the limited financial support that SIPAM was receiving and the irregularity of the data furnished by some countries. The committee suggested that the Secretariat investigate the possibility of securing financial incentives for the SIPAM National Coordinators, in order to ensure a better and regular provision of data (Note: this request appears to imply that their services are not regarded by their countries as part of their normal duties; “incentives” should not be necessary unless, as is patently the case with those NCs that are providing adequate and timely data, they are working for SIPAM in their own time because of a personal belief in the value of the network). During this meeting the French delegate noted that the provision of information by SIPAM through the internet required member countries to increase their efforts to supply the information in a timely manner (Note: however, France itself has not updated its country report since 1999). The Regional Coordinator suggested that the services of a communication expert would be beneficial (Note: since this time a P2 position has been established within FIRI, partly to service this need). It was agreed that full integration of the pathology database with AAPQIS should be finalised as soon as possible.

In 2002 the GFCM noted that the development of a new web page needed further financial support because the RC lacked the necessary technical skills (GFCM 2002). At that time, all GFCM countries were also urged to provide adequate resources to National SIPAM centres and to support the attendance of their NCs in the SIPAM annual meetings (GFCM 2002). It was reported that the SIPAM network was in full operation, with 16 participating countries (GFCM 2002). An independent audit of SIPAM was requested at this time (GFCM 2002).

2003

The development of on-line submission forms for four databases (experts, suppliers, production centres and research institutions) was agreed in the most recent (seventh) NC meeting in 2003 (SIPAM 2003) (Note: these databases undoubtedly enhance the value of the website but makes the completeness, accuracy and “topicality” of the main databases - statistics; country reports - of paramount importance. A news file was also added at this moment; however, to date - January 2004 - the only items of news posted have come through the input of the Secretariat). The need for the GFCM to be adequately informed about SIPAM in order to increase visibility and to ensure proper financial support from the GFCM for its development was essential. The GFCM decision to conduct an external evaluation was noted; FAO funds were only available for the consultant to visit Italy and Tunisia and one other country, rather than all participating countries (Note: the third country selected was Turkey and a short stop-over in Greece became feasible). Following previous “warnings”, it was noted that, in the absence of an autonomous budget, participation in future SIPAM meetings would have to be covered by participating countries; it might no longer be possible for this to be funded by the FAO Regular Programme budget (often with externally generated funds). In any event, it was decided not to convene another NC meeting until considerable progress had been made in the SIPAM network and in SIPAM-on-the-Web (Note: a sound decision).

In 2003 the GFCM noted that the MedFisis project will include the incorporation of SIPAM as well as other sources of data while establishing the GFCM Information system (GFCM 2003). An independent audit of SIPAM was again supported by the GFCM in 2003 (GFCM 2003), within the framework of an evaluation of the whole of the work of CAQ.

ANNEX 2, APPENDIX 3 - Comments on the Current SIPAM Website

The following databases are currently included in the SIPAM website:

There is also provision for news, links (member countries, Mediterranean, international and private sector), a forum for discussion, and virtual and photo libraries.

The current status of the databases and other sections of the website is summarised below:

Annual country reports:

Annex 2 Table 6 shows that there is considerable inconsistency in the frequency and reliability of country returns. Only three countries have provided 2002 data so far (by December 2003). Several countries are many years out of date, including some major Mediterranean producers.

Annex 2, Table 6. Frequency and reliability of the national returns to SIPAM as at December 2003.

COUNTRY

REPORTS AVAILABLE

COMMENT

Algeria

1998; 2001

intermittent; 2002 delayed

Croatia

1994; 1996-2002

1995 missing

Cyprus

1992-2001

2002 delayed

Egypt

1995-2001

2002 delayed

France

1996-1999

nothing since 1999

Greece

1995-1998

nothing since 1998; new NC appointed 2003

Italy

2002

nothing before 2002

Lebanon

2002

recent participant

Libya

1999

nothing since 1999

Malta

1994-2002

complete

Morocco

1994-2000

nothing since 2000

Portugal

1996-1999

nothing since 1999

Spain

-

currently inactive

Tunisia

1993;1996;1999; 2000; 2000

not annual

Turkey

1996-2000; 2002

2001 missing

ANNUAL AQUACULTURE STATISTICS

This database is frustratingly incomplete in all sub-directories, caused by incomplete, missing or late country data. The “year of maximum production” is particularly misleading because this usually only identifies the most recent year in which data was available from the maximum number of countries. There is also missing data in some earlier years. These specific problems could be alleviated if the letters “n.a.” (not available) were entered in the boxes where no information has been supplied. Inserting a “-” implies that there was no production in that location in that year, which is not necessarily the case.

EXPERT DIRECTORY

457 experts listed. The list is (inevitably!) incomplete; for example, it does not include several names well-known within CAQ circles.

PRODUCTION CENTRE DIRECTORY

2,415 centres listed; completeness unknown.

SUPPLIERS’ DIRECTORY

421 suppliers listed; completeness unknown. The exhibitors’ lists in international aquaculture exhibitions (such as AquaNor and the World Aquaculture Society) would be useful to enhance this directory.

RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS DIRECTORY

222 institutions listed; completeness unknown.

LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Linked to FAO LEX database.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES

258 programmes listed; completeness unknown.

PATHOLOGY

Empty database, since decision was taken to abandon dedicated SIPAM pathology database. Link to AAPQIS proposed but not activated. Input from TECAM awaited. While diagnostic and treatment information could be obtained nationally and would be valuable, there is a (natural) resistance in the private sector to reporting actual disease outbreaks to SIPAM.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

804 items listed. Database linked to ASFA, with which SIPAM has an agreement. The information is visibly incomplete and out of date (e.g. only 65 items in all languages of relevance to nutrition in the region between 1920 and 2002; a total of 4 items under marketing; only three items on cooperation and external relations, all in the 1980s).

FORUM

A discussion on tuna farming was entered in September 2003 but there have been no takers; however, this is not surprising because few people know of the existence of the SIPAM website to date. Discussion groups need dynamic leadership and careful management.

MARKETING INFORMATION

This does not exist at present, although the RC does send monthly Globefish data to the NCs. A closer link with Globefish would be advantageous, so that this information, preferably more frequently supplied than monthly, would be available directly on the SIPAM web.

NEWS ITEMS

This section is under development. So far, only about 80 items have been entered since June 2003. Inputting draft information is easy; however, until now (January 2004), the only news items being posted have originated from GFCM Secretariat staff. News should originate from the NCs and be checked by the RC before being posted. Till now information has been checked by FIRI staff before entry onto the web page.

LINKS

This section is clearly in the early stages of development. International links comprise only ASFA, EAS, FIGIS and the EU Fisheries Directorate. The Mediterranean links are mainly with GFCM activities. Country links are incomplete, but there is sufficient information to indicate the potential value of this facility. As yet, linkages to the private sector are unavailable. Linkage to the other GFCM CAQ networks (SELAM, TECAM) is missing. A linkage with the FEAP/AquaMedia website would also be useful.

VIRTUAL AND PHOTO LIBRARIES

So far, only 14 publications have been cleared for the virtual library. It is sure that more will be submitted for approval once this facility is publicised. To date, less than 50 photos exist in the photo library but this could be a most useful facility when fully developed.

WEBSITE CLARITY AND ACCESSIBILITY

In general, the website is easy to navigate. One small but irritating problem, however, is that if you click the “down” arrow on the right-hand side of the page you are immediately taken to the end of the last entry page, instead of (as normal) being able to move sequentially downwards through every page. Another is the lack of standardisation in the presentation of numerical information. Numerical data should ideally be presented with commas (e.g. 201 235 mt), or perhaps in the normal FAO format (201 235 mt), but definitely not with periods (201 235 mt).

Not all potential users of SIPAM information have access to the internet, although this situation is rapidly improving. However, while many users do not have broadband access the insertion of graphic images into the website, though visually attractive, may cause delays in downloading so severe as to inhibit access to the databanks.

ANNEX 2, APPENDIX 4 - Statistical Difficulties in SIPAM

Differences between FIDI and SIPAM statistical information on aquaculture production have been detected. According to a study conducted by Alan Lowther in November 2003 on the 14 countries with active National Coordinating Offices showed that in only one case (Italy) was the same person responsible for providing statistical information both for SIPAM and the official FAO aquaculture statistics collected by FIDI (FishStat Plus) (Annex 2 Table 7).

Annex 2, Table 7. Information sources for FAQ* and SAQ** aquaculture production data in SIPAM countries.

FAQ returned by same person as SAQ

FAQ returned by same office as SAQ but by a different person

2 FAQs sent out, one of which is returned by the same office as SAQ

2 FAQs sent out, neither of which is returned by the same office as the SAQ

FAQ returned by different person in a different office of the same Ministry as the SAQ

FAQ and SAQ returned by totally different offices (Ministries)

Italy

Albania
Cyprus
Tunisia***

Libya
Malta

Morocco

Lebanon

Algeria
Croatia
Egypt
France
Romania
Turkey

* FAQ = FIDI questionnaire.
** SAQ = SIPAM questionnaire.
*** However, in the case of Tunisia, the FIDI contact is actually responsible for one of the SIPAM national location centres.

This situation obviously needs resolution; ideally the SIPAM NC offices should be the national entities nominated by their respective governments to provide data to FIDI as well. More detailed (and, in some cases, more up to date) information is published on the SIPAM website than in FishStat Plus (but, as noted elsewhere, some countries are not supplying their returns on time.

ANNEX 2, APPENDIX 5 - Draft Terms of Reference for SIPAM Leaders

SIPAM Regional Coordinator

Recognising that for full development, SIPAM requires journalistic as well as coordination skills, the duties of the SIPAM Regional Coordinator, who shall be responsible to the CAQ, shall include (but not be confined to):

1. Coordinating the work of the whole SIPAM information network.

2. Managing the work of the SIPAM Regional Centre.

3. Promoting SIPAM to every potential user through every form of media.

4. Organising and chairing biennial meetings of the National Coordinators.

5. Preparing annual activity and progress reports for the CAQ.

6. Drafting annual work programmes and budgets for CAQ/GFCM approval.

7. Soliciting external funding for the work of SIPAM, specifically from the private sector.

8. With the assistance of the data programmer, collating information in all databases on a regional basis, preparing analyses, and disseminating the results through the SIPAM website and other publications means.

9. With the assistance of the data programmer, maintaining and improving SIPAM software.

10. Initiating and moderating discussion fora on topics of importance to Mediterranean aquaculture, and synthesising and publishing the results.

11. Under the guidance of the CAQ, initiating new databases and services[45].

12. Soliciting, editing and publishing up to date news items on the SIPAM website and in other publications.

13. Preparing articles on the activities of SIPAM and the information that it generates.

14. Assisting National Coordinators in preparing annual SIPAM work programmes that provides clear staff time allotment for all current SIPAM activities, for approval by their governments.

15. Assisting National Coordinators in preparing annual draft budgets for all national SIPAM activities, including essential national and international travel, for submission for national government funding.

16. Conduct continuous internal evaluation of the efficacy of information dispersal by SIPAM on a regional and global level[46] in order to improve future services.

SIPAM National Coordinators

Recognising each government’s commitment to SIPAM within the aegis of the GFCM, and the full support of his/her supervisors, the duties of SIPAM National Coordinator[47] shall include (but not be confined to):

1. Establishing and leading a central SIPAM national office for the purpose of collecting national data, information and news on all aspects of aquaculture.

2. Establishing and coordinating a series of SIPAM sub-offices at suitable locations[48] to collect appropriate information for transfer to the SIPAM national office.

3. In conjunction with the SIPAM Regional Centre, preparing annual SIPAM work programmes that provides clear staff time allotment for all current SIPAM activities, for approval by his/her government.

4. Preparing annual draft budgets for all national SIPAM activities, including essential national and international travel, for submission for government funding.

5. Collecting, verifying/validating, collating and analysing the information from the SIPAM sub-offices and transferring it, on a monthly basis, to the SIPAM Regional Centre.

6. Generating, without prompting from the SIPAM Regional Centre, original news items about the current activities and future prospects of the national aquaculture sector.

7. With the approval of his/her supervisor, attending such regional meetings as shall be agreed with the Regional Centre.

8. Assisting the Regional Centre in identifying and soliciting potential non-governmental and private sources of funding to support the SIPAM network.

9. Fully publicising the existence and value of the information contained in the SIPAM web site to the private sector and within his/her government, as well as in relevant institutions such as universities and provide guidance in the use of the SIPAM website.

10. On a continuing basis, suggesting ways in which SIPAM can be improved.

11. Conduct continuous internal evaluation of the efficacy of information dispersal by SIPAM on a national level[49] in order to improve future services.

12. Assisting the promotion and success of SIPAM in any other way as shall be requested, from time to time, by the SIPAM Regional Coordinator.

ANNEX 2, APPENDIX 6 - Draft Operational Budget for SIPAM

The following indicative regional budget is suggested, in order for SIPAM to function effectively (Annex 2 Table 8). It assumes that:

Annex 2, Table 8. Indicative regional budget for SIPAM.

REGIONAL SIPAM COORDINATION

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST (US$)

Regional Coordinator (P3-V)1

102 000

Data Manager (P2-III)2**

80 000

Secretary/Typist (G4)

50 000

Travel3

15 000

Website development and maintenance5

20 000

Provision of training for national staff

15 000

Printing

5 000

Miscellaneous

10 000

TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET

297 000

1 See Annex 2 Appendix 5.

2 Statistical, analytical and programming work.

3 Cost of regional coordination travel as well as attendance at SIPAM annual meetings (50%, as they are to be biennial) and CAQ meetings.

4 Based on US$ 5 000 per year to 18 National Coordinators.

5 Could be less after the first year; perhaps US$ 5 000 for maintenance.


[25] TECAM and SELAM are coordinated by the “Centre International des Hautes Etudes Agronomique de Meditérrannée (CIHEAM); the activities originally under EAM were subsequently absorbed into TECAM and SELAM.
[26] Slovenia and Bulgaria are expected to join later.
[27] SIPAM Regional staff and National Coordinators have received in-depth training on the software utilized in the network; training sessions were included in the first three or four SIPAM Annual Meetings.
[28] For example, the General Manager of the Federation of Greek Maricultures had, until this evaluation visited Greece in December 2003, never heard of SIPAM.
[29] However, it cannot be assumed that the Tunisian government will assume these costs ad infinitum.
[30] E.g. the budget for the NC meeting during the inter sessional period 2000 was US$ 23 000 (GFCM 1999).
[31] For example, a farm may under-declare its production for national (and therefore international) statistical purposes because, instead of exporting it all, as its permit allows, it sells some locally at a more favourable price.
[32] For example, the Mugla “location” in Turkey spends 20 people-days to enter the information each year.
[33] This uses confidential information from real commercial farms, rather than simulation, to construct models of good practice, which can be used to evaluate applications for permits to start new projects or farms or to expand existing farms.
[34] Some years ago, the Data Manager made some attempts to analyse the information received (which would have created added value, rather than merely collating the information received and distributing it) but this was continued; it is not clear whether this type of work was encouraged or stifled.
[35] It is not clear whether, as is often required at the end of a training course, they were asked to provide a personal evaluation of the training received, so that any real deficiencies could have been addressed.
[36] For the purposes of this evaluation, it has been assumed that the GFCM Secretariat will remain located in the FAO Headquarters in Rome.
[37] This evaluation was informed in Tunis that the last NC course was held in 1999; one year later 30% of the trainees were no longer NCs.
[38] For an example of the way in which such funds have been generated in a national aquaculture information network, see www.mispeces.com.
[39] The other recommendations relating to SIPAM that are made in this document assume that the GFCM and its Member States will decide to strengthen their support for SIPAM, to allow it finally and rapidly to achieve its goals.
[40] Drafted in Annex 2 Appendix 5.
[41] Sometimes referred to as the SIPAM Steering Committee.
[42] Meetings of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ) were held in September 1996, June 2000, and September 2002. GFCM meetings are held annually.
[43] However, support from this project terminated at the end of 1996, as noted during the first NC meeting.
[44] However, this only happened twice more (four of the seven CC meetings were held separately, presumably taking advantage of other meetings in the region that brought the participants together).
[45] Such as (for example) maps of existing and potential aquaculture production sites, the application of APS (aquaculture project simulator) software, and farm directories.
[46] For example by measuring number of website “hits”, time per visit, type and location of information user, frequency of return, etc.
[47] It is assumed that these posts will be part-time (50%).
[48] For example, in local government offices, in universities and other institutes dealing with aquaculture, within national aquaculture producers associations, etc.
[49] For example by measuring number of website “hits”, time per visit, type and location of information user, frequency of return, etc.
[50] Estimated cost of attendance at biennial SIPAM annual meetings: US$ 1 500 per participant.

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page