During the discussion on 28 November, the participants were presented with a list of points and issues arising from the previous days presentations. These were further discussed and expanded upon. For the purpose of this report they have been grouped under various thematic headings.
Policy implications
Awareness of policy-makers
It was suggested that Ministries of Agriculture often downplay or are unaware of the role that Aquatic Resource Management (ARM), aquaculture and inland fisheries play with other parts of the agricultural sector and the national economy. Since donors are increasingly using country strategy papers for directing ODA and national development priorities, it is crucial that the importance of the aquaculture and inland fisheries sectors be recognized.
Participants believed that marine fisheries interventions are focussed on issues related to coastal fisheries and are reasonably well covered, however, inland fisheries are rarely considered. It was thought there was a need for policy frameworks at country level that nurture or facilitate sustainable management of aquatic resources, however, linkages and channels for cooperation may not necessarily always involve the participation of the Departments or Ministries of Fisheries.
Country strategy papers and poverty reduction strategy papers (CSPs and PRSPs)
A pressing need was identified for aquatic resource management and aquaculture to 'gain access to' the global discussions relating to poverty alleviation and to effectively demonstrate that they can and do play a role. This was considered particularly important with respect to appropriate inclusion in Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). The lack of sensitization of policy-makers to the role and opportunities of aquatic resource management and aquaculture is not necessarily a result of inadequate information but rather inadequate channelling of the information to the right decision-makers, in a form that is useful to them. Sometimes lack of attention is because the issues relate to a group in a politically weak sector in contrast to the high-value, export-oriented forms of aquaculture, which enjoys excellent political and financial support. One suggestion to address this issue was to make better use of the media to raise the profile of the aquatic resources (small-scale as well as subsistence) aquaculture sectors.
Cross-cutting nature of fisheries
Several participants described fisheries and aquaculture as cross-cutting a number of sectors including business, health, poverty alleviation and the environment. Whilst these areas may not all be a traditional focus for the aquaculture aquatic resources, they are priority areas that donors are addressing and the integration of the fisheries sector into this is important.
The participants discussed a number of governance issues related to inland fisheries and access to water resources including the tendency for support to aquaculture and ARM to be incorporated into initiatives that address environmental issues. Others included a focus on health and education, fish health, nutrition and safety.
Financial support and investment
It was suggested that limited business skills and enterprise development within target groups is often a constraint. Aquaculture is typically a 'for profit' activity but potential adopters do not have the necessary financial skills or access to the financial infrastructure to make this successful. Access to rural credit and the interest rates typically available limit the viability of borrowing for aquaculture.
Diversification of rural livelihoods and rural safety nets
Urban drift versus return to rural areas in times of economic crisis was discussed in some detail. A focus on opportunities to support these people through diversifying their activities and offering opportunities for income generation was considered important. Such support might not necessarily be through development projects, but would involve direct support to institutions, possibility by the placement of advisers and facilitators to support national institutions and to assist in programme development, which could then attract funding.
Inter-regional trade and health and safety of products
Many participants identified that improving the quality of aquaculture products will require additional resources to change or modify production practices. However, adding more stringent SPS requirements will disadvantage poorer farmers. Therefore innovative mechanisms and investment are needed to encourage small farmers to be able to achieve these higher standards or better practices, which included their relation to international trade and exports as well as opportunities for value adding and the integration of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) into processing. It was thought that there existed an opportunity for aquaculture to control the quality of its product.
Information and statistics in support of effective decision-making
A common theme expressed was the need for accurate and timely statistics to adequately reflect trends in aquaculture production, employment etc. as the lack of such information limits effective policy-making. It was suggested that systems for collecting these statistics are resource limited.
While it was believed a large body of information is currently available on fisheries [but more opportunities for dissemination were needed], there are still requirements for research and there is a potential for linkages to European universities. Several participants said research cooperation should be 'development oriented' as this is an increasing requirement for funding. It was also said there remained a need for continued capacity building in research (R&D) for some countries.
It was stated that there is a shift from technology transfer towards the use of aquaculture in support of development (through resource use, environmental and social issues).
Mechanisms and strategies for expanding awareness
It was asked if the Asia Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) could be used as a vehicle for transmitting development priorities for research. APAARI is a research-focused forum with reasonably broad participation and covers Asia, however, the fishery sector is poorly represented at their meetings. It was noted that ADSEA (Aquaculture Development in Southeast Asia) of SEAFDEC is already a vehicle for this type of research consultation but requires funding support. ADSEA is currently focussed on aquaculture but could be expanded to include inland fisheries.
The meeting suggested that senior government officials could be invited to the annual NACA Governing Council meeting. This was considered an opportunity for sharing information between donors and senior government officials
It was stated that the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) covers some aspects related to aquaculture (e.g. trade, food safety, product quality). ESCAP could be approached by member countries and then channelled through the United Nations system.
The FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) and COFI Sub-committee on Aquaculture are channels that can be used to transmit regional priorities and issues; however, inland fisheries are not well represented, as they are often not a high priority area for all member countries, although may well be important for some groups or regions. It was agreed there are advantages in having joint positions and statements.
It was suggested that ASEAN (as a regional organization) can approach countries (e.g. Germany) for assistance and SEAFDEC as the fisheries advisory body [to ASEAN] would be the competent agency through which to channel support.
It was asked where inland fisheries are really represented. Most participants spoke of a need for continued efforts to establish a presence for inland fisheries in international fora and mainstream policies. This is an objective of STREAM, an FAO Regional Office priority and also a priority for NACA and SEAFDEC. There is a need to ensure that these issues are brought up at the respective council meetings. It was further asked, "At the national level, who should be speaking on behalf of aquatic resources?" One answer was [by both donors and regional institutions] to more effectively use national and regional media in transmitting issues and results to a wider non-technical audience.
It was noted that STREAM communications hubs are intended to promote advocacy, on behalf of and by the poor, of aquatic resources issues and opportunities to channel in national strategies. Inland fisheries are reflected in their policies.
The group concurred that it was not possible to 'retro-fit' a regional policy into a development programme once it has been initiated. Therefore the requirement is to 'fit' aquaculture and ARM into the country strategy. An important proviso is there must be prioritization by the country itself.
Indications of future focus
It was suggested that when Country Strategy Papers or Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers are formulated there should be inputs from various institutions and a joint position from a consortium of SEAFDEC, NACA, WorldFish, MRC and FAO would be a powerful voice in advocating recommendations for the sector.
It was discussed that if decisions are made at country level, there are simple issues of perception by non-fisheries decision-makers that need to be addressed and that regional institutions should work toward modifying these perceptions. A review of some country strategies papers and offering advice and recommendations may be one way to accomplish this. [A suggestion was that over a 12-month period an analysis of country strategies by the regional organizations could be undertaken that would include some of the national stakeholders]. It was decided there is a need for clear recommendations that can be transmitted to donors.
It was related to the meeting that the European Union was currently working to produce a regional strategy paper and this process would also include a strategy paper for each country.
It was asked if the regional institutions should look at individual country strategies or as a first step look at the regional strategies? It was decided that most likely country strategies are easier to obtain and regional strategies could emerge from this.
What can regional institutions do in support of donor priorities?
Influencing policy
Donors spoke of being constrained by their own national policies and the policies and priorities of those countries with which they wish to engage. It was also stated that donors often talk to national planners and staff at the various Ministries of Agriculture, which may not always be aware of the importance of the fisheries sector. To assist in raising the profile and ensuring appropriate integration of the aquatic resource and aquaculture sectors, regional institutions offered to analyse the range of sectoral strategy papers the various donors are using (trends on development support, inclusion of current issues) drawn into a common document that would be provided to donors. This would include recommendations regarding adaptation and/or revision to current regional and national needs. Additionally, the regional institutions could assess project impact against selected poverty indicators, possibly in a manner of an overall review.
A common theme was the need to emphasize coherence between different parts of national policy and where the responsibility lies in highlighting inconsistency or lack of coherence. It was suggested that better communication of experiences and best practice as well as more effective transmission of this information to donors was required.
Looking at "trade versus aid" it was thought there was a need for further analysis of this area and communication to donor countries.
It was asked, "Were there to be a forum that attempted to address this, would donors be supportive and want to participate in the dialogue?" It was agreed that for future consultations, the invitation of relevant government representatives (also including both fisheries and trade) would be appropriate.
NGOs as channels for intervention in the fisheries sectors
A wide-ranging discussion ensued on interventions as many work through NGOs, small organizations and local government. It was asked, "How can we deliver services (information etc) to these organizations?" and "How can they find us or how can we access them?" The participants felt the provision of technical information services to non-specialist organizations is a joint responsibility (delivery versus access).
The delivery of assistance through NGOs is a response to the perception that in certain circumstances they are better able to deliver services at the local level or when state-to-state initiatives cannot be undertaken. There is now a greater reliance on the NGO sector in informing governments of gaps, problems and needs related to development assistance. Opportunities for institutions to work collaboratively with the NGO sector should be embraced. A sectoral institution can benefit from the broader-based, less technical and more people-oriented competence of NGOs.
ARM as an entry point
There were several participants that believed regional institutions could use aquatic resources management interventions as a means for teasing out the governance and participation issues in the development of poverty alleviation and reduction strategies. That is, the lack of reflection of ARM and aquaculture issues is a result of the current state of consultation - therefore supporting the consultation process appropriately should see the ARM and aquaculture importance emerging naturally.
Other ideas included organizing producers through the NACA network in order that they can be represented in international fora. Fish farmer associations (grassroots) are an important mechanism for effective lobbying and the integration of such associations and organizations into the larger agricultural lobby was considered important. Most participants concurred that there needs to be a dialogue among exporters, between regions and exchange of experience between government and the private sector and private sector with private sector. Exporters may be able to lobby effectively; small-producers may not unless exporters lobby in their behalf (e.g. feed industry, processors and exporters).
Funding suggestions
It was suggested there might be support (including financial support) for studies of the type mentioned above. The process might take six months and would require the donor strategies to be reviewed and analysed by NACA/SEAFDEC/WorldFish Center/MRC/FAO etc. 'Support of International Fisheries Policies' would benefit from this type of study.
It was noted that AusAID has a 5-year country programme strategy starting next year. It is sectoral and will include environment, rural incomes, health and education. This type of forum [the Manila Consultation] is an important input towards developing country programme strategies (country specific but broadly synchronized) although there are overall guiding frameworks for AusAID to consider.
In this region, DGCI has four partner countries (Bangladesh, Viet Nam, Lao PDR, Cambodia) and the co-operation office is responsible for the discussion of country specific strategy [see DGCI presentation]. A strategic paper on the environment is complete (with respect to fisheries sector) and includes protection of mangroves as well as protection of coastal and marine environments.
It was felt there might be possibilities for FAO to approach donors for trust fund type projects (e.g. Participatory Natural Resource Management Projects) and also possibilities through linkages to scientific institutes.
In Cambodia the [GTZ] focus is rural development and on coastal development Viet Nam. Bilateral requests covering aquaculture can be made through the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) systems. SEAFDEC has potential through ASEAN.
It was emphasized the need for direction must come from countries as a part of the country strategy processes for national assistance.
Some participants believed time frames for assistance are often rather short and longer term; strategic activities (including research) suffer as a result. This is in part a result of similar short-term focuses for government and private sector support. It was suggested that research co-operations are probably the most appropriate channels to solve this problem. (e.g. GTZ have an 8-year programme).
Are there mechanisms for the extension of the benefit of bilateral projects to other countries that may not have such projects?
It was stated that regional guidelines on the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) case studies on the success and impact of the fisheries enforcement (Bantay dagat) will be used for wider dissemination to other programmes. It was felt the 'Fisherfolk Symposium' in the region as part of an initiative to transfer learning and experience from Philippines local management of coastal and fisheries resources was a positive step.
It was felt that UNDP could assist in bringing the issues covered in this Consultation to regional forums such as 'Regional Sustainable Development of the Seas of SE Asia'.
A participant suggested that research cooperation through the Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development (PCAMRD) as a channel specific to the Philippines.
What opportunities exist for accessing private sector support or assistance from foundations?
Some participants suggested this might be more of a question for the various to Ministries of Trade. It was not understood that there are many current links between scientific institutions [in Asia] and the private sector (Europe) but there are expected to be a number of opportunities for this, particularly in the technical areas, which are no longer donor priorities.
What mechanisms could be used to ensure donor agencies could be better appraised on a regular basis of the current issues in aquaculture and ARM?
The meeting agreed that follow-up consultations would be fruitful if held periodically (e.g. every 2 years).
