Latin America regional synthesis: information for status and trends reporting on aquaculture^[103]

1 INTRODUCTION

The present review is the result of the integration of the National Reviews of Information for Status and Trends Reporting (NatRISTA) from Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador and Mexico.

The main objective of the present document is to describe the legal structure for aquaculture development and monitoring in these countries, as well as the overall strategy employed by their national aquaculture authorities for collection, processing and distribution of aquaculture statistics.

The information provided in this document derives from a series of revisions and analyses of aquaculture statistical reports and direct interviews with fisheries and aquaculture statistics personnel of national offices, compiled by the authors of the National Reviews.

It highlights the main problems associated with the collection of high quality, wide spectrum aquaculture information for policy and decision-making processes, and identifies the needs and opportunities for improving current information on the status and trends in the aforementioned countries which represent the most important aquaculture-producing nations of Latin America.

2 SUMMARY AND TRENDS FROM THE NATIONAL REVIEWS

2.1 The Setting

2.1.1 What is the national practice used to identify aquaculture separately from fisheries?

Although the NatRISTA of some of the countries included in this review do not incorporate a legal or technical definition for aquaculture or fisheries, it is possible to deduct from these documents that there are some common "key" words in defining aquaculture practices among these countries. Nonetheless, in the case of Cuba, there seems to be no clear distinction between aquaculture and fisheries, at least not in the legal statement regarding aquaculture practices.

Countries like Ecuador and Mexico have distinct legal frameworks for fisheries and aquaculture, which separates aquaculture legally and in practice from fisheries.

TABLE 1.
Summary of official and/or practical means of identifying aquaculture practices in Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador and Mexico.

NS = Not specified.
Note that in the case of Ecuador, the aquaculture definition provided in the NatRISTA stresses that seed stems from the wild, which can be misleading or restrictive

2.1.2 Is there an administrative structure responsible for aquaculture development, monitoring and management?

The administrative structure responsible for aquaculture activities varies between countries in Latin America. Chile and Ecuador have a specific Under-secretary for fisheries; the former is dependent of the Ministry of the Economy, while the Ecuadorian entity is part of the Ministry of Foreign Trade.

In Mexico, the recently created (2000) National Commission of Fisheries and Aquaculture (CONAPESCA), is the entity responsible for aquaculture regulation and promotion. It also has a hierarchical level that equals an under-secretariat, which is subordinated to the Secretary of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA).

The Ministry of Fisheries (MIP) is the official entity responsible for coordinating and regulating the use of fishery and aquaculture resources in Cuba, through two state-owned enterprises: INDIPES, focused on inland aquaculture, and GEDECAM, specifically oriented to shrimp farming.

Brazil has recently created (2002) a Special Secretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture (SEAP). This could well be the highest ranked official entity for aquaculture among all Latin American countries, since it falls directly under the responsibility of the President of the Republic.

Besides the main structures presented above, there are countries with confederated states, such as Brazil and Mexico, which also have strong provincial (state) aquaculture authorities whose main objectives are to foster local/state aquaculture development. Such state authorities function under the national (federal) framework for aquaculture. Moreover, they are supposed to work in close coordination with national aquaculture authorities in planning and monitoring aquaculture in their corresponding regions.

Of the reviewed countries, only two (Cuba and Ecuador) have different authorities for marine and inland aquaculture. In Cuba, the state-owned company INDIPES, is responsible for inland/freshwater aquaculture, including subsistence (rural) aquaculture, whilst coastal aquaculture (mainly shrimp farming) is managed exclusively through another state-owned enterprise, called GEDECAM.

In Ecuador, coastal aquaculture (which is by far the most important of the country by value and volume), is regulated by the Under-secretary of Fishery Resources, while freshwater aquaculture at all levels, is regulated by a multi-sectoral entity, the Environmental Management Commission, which is constituted by a number of government offices and resource users (i.e. farmers associations).

TABLE 2.
Summary of the administrative structures responsible for aquaculture development in Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador and Mexico.

2.1.3 Is there a separate legal framework for aquaculture or is aquaculture included under a fishery law and does the law stipulate reporting responsibilities?

All of the countries reviewed possess general Fisheries Laws and regulations separate from their agricultural legal framework. All of these Fisheries Laws include specific chapters and regulations on aquaculture. The only country that explicitly includes aquaculture in the actual title of fisheries act is Chile, with its "General Law of Fisheries and Aquaculture". Table 3 summarizes the main Constitutional Laws and Decrees that regulate aquaculture in the countries subject of the present document.

TABLE 3.
Summary of the legal frameworks for aquaculture in the countries subject of the present review.

NS = Not specified.

Chile, Ecuador and Mexico report having specific legal instruments allowing enforcement of the provision of aquaculture statistics by farmers or the facilitation of regular official inspection with such a purpose.

2.1.4 Is there linkage and coordination between entities responsible for monitoring, planning and management?

Brazil

The provision of aquaculture statistics in Brazil is not mandatory for farmers, and it is not clearly and legally defined which of the two aquaculture-regulating governmental entities (the Special Secretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Natural Resources) is responsible for the collection of aquaculture statistics. This makes linkage and coordination between monitoring and planning/management almost impossible.

The recently created SEAP is responsible for policy-making and planning of aquaculture in the country, and appears to have taken over the task of collecting some aquaculture statistics although not in a systematic and continuous manner. This entity is supposed to plan and promote aquaculture in coordination with the states' fisheries and aquaculture authorities. However, it is likely that planning takes place at a state level, through an effective coordination between regional farmers associations and the state authorities, with little influence from the central government.

Brazilian aquaculture farmers associations are generally well organized, have an important political weight, and there has traditionally been strong links between these organizations and state planning and management authorities.

Chile

Monitoring of aquaculture statistics in Chile is an official task of the National Fisheries Service (SNP), and planning and management is carried out by the Under-secretariat of Fisheries. Both entities work closely together, meet periodically and the aquaculture data are analyzed jointly.

Farmers associations play an important role in data collection and also participate in planning and policy-making processes.

Cuba

Planning at a national level is carried out by the Ministry of Fisheries of this country. Nonetheless, the organizational structure of the aquaculture sector, allows for local planning and management through Provincial and Basic Production Units (BPU's) which are ultimately responsible for data collection, data analysis and planning at the local level.

Coordination between the two state-owned companies responsible for aquaculture production INDIPES and GEDECAM seems to be insignificant, as they operate as completely separate enterprises.

Ecuador

Planning of aquaculture development in Ecuador is performed by the National Council for Fisheries Development (CNDP). This multi-sectoral entity includes staff of the Under-secretary of Fisheries, the Minister of the Environment, the Coastal Management Secretary, the Minister of Agriculture, a representative of the Navy and three representatives of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors: on from the Sea Fishermen Association, one from the Aquaculture Producers Association and one more from the Artisanal Fisherfolk Association.

Aquaculture data collection is carried out by both the CNDP and the Under-secretariat of Fisheries, through direct inspection visits to farmers on a regular basis. Since these two entities are also responsible for planning and management of aquaculture in the country, there is an effective link and coordination between monitoring and planning/management. Moreover, there seems to be a continuous information exchange between farmers and authorities through the CNDP which allows for participatory decision-making and planning.

Mexico

There is an official operational link between the statistics office and the aquaculture planning entity of the National Commission for Fisheries and Aquaculture of Mexico (CONAPESCA), given that the former is an administratively subordinated office of this planning office. However, the collected low-quality information is hardly used for planning and decision-making purposes.

Effective coordination between monitoring and planning entities is currently only evident in the most important aquaculture sub-sector of the country, the shrimp farming sector. Strict, systematic follow-up programs, especially those related to health and sanitation issues, are a continuous source of information for short-term decision-making and planning by CONAPESCA.

Mid to long-term, comprehensive, national aquaculture planning is conducted every six years, as a step in the process to elaborate the National and Regional Development Plans. Planning is a result of direct consultation and exchange of information between the newly-elected national and states governments, and key stakeholders of the national aquaculture industry (e.g. the National Chamber of Fisheries and Aquaculture Industry and the National Confederation of Fishermen Cooperatives).

The National Fisheries Institute of Mexico, is another official entity that participates in the planning, policy and decision-making processes made by CONAPESCA and ultimately by the Secretary of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food. This research institution is responsible for carrying out scientific research on fishery and aquaculture resources, although that does not include aquaculture monitoring.

2.1.5 Are reports on status and trends of aquaculture routinely prepared for management purposes?

Apart from Cuba, where routinely aquaculture trends reports are issued for management purposes, no other country in this review does similarly.

There have been status and trends reports for specific aquaculture species in Brazil, although they have been the result of the initiative of either the academic or the private sector. These have included a ten-year national aquaculture status and trends report, carried out by aquaculture researchers and sponsored by the National Council for Research. Also, a number of status and trends reports for specific sub-sectors such as shrimp, trout and frog farming, have been sponsored by regional farmers associations and issued almost for their own member's exclusive use.

The aquaculture authorities of Chile, Ecuador and Mexico have assigned ad hoc status and trends reports on economically important aquaculture species (i.e. shrimp farming in Ecuador and Mexico, and Salmon and clam production in Chile) over time. These have been used directly for management purposes. Routine trend reporting is lacking, but under environmental or social pressure initiatives are employed on this issue.

2.1.6 What are the main aquaculture species produced and culture methods used?

Aquaculture has become, as in the rest of the world, the fastest growing food production sector in Latin America. Even though the overall production of aquaculture products of Latin America contributes less than 2 percent to the world's total aquaculture production (FAO, 2000^[104]), the economic importance of this sector to the countries included in this review is paramount.

Despite the wide spectrum of species cultured in these countries, Penaeid shrimps and tilapia dominate by volume and value, the aquaculture sector in Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador and Mexico. Salmonids are the most important cultured species of Chile. Table 4 presents the species cultured in the countries reviewed.

Most of the production is sold in international markets (e.g. shrimp, tilapia and salmon for the United States market). A wide range of other fish species are produced in small-scale farms and household ponds for household consumption and domestic market purposes (i.e. carps, largemouth bass and catfish in Cuba, Brazil and Mexico).

Culture methods and types of infrastructure are very diverse within and among countries. There are, however, some standardized culture techniques generally employed in all producing countries of the region, such as those used for marine shrimp, oysters, abalone tilapia and salmon. Annex 1 presents a summary of standard methods and types of facilities used for the cultivation of the main aquaculture species of the region. It is worth mentioning that a considerable amount of fish (tilapia, catfish bass) is produced under natural conditions in small dams and reservoirs. Hatchery-reared fingerlings are stocked in these water bodies and then harvested once they reach market size. This ranching practice is most likely reported as aquaculture production.

TABLE 4. Main aquaculture species of the countries included in the review.

+ = Few farms, small production (includes ranching); ++ = Medium-scale sub-sector, considerable production; +++ = Large scale, leading sector, very large production.

2.2 Current status of national aquaculture data collection and compilation of statistics

2.2.1 Are aquaculture production data currently collected?

Three administrative data collection schemes are identified in the countries reviewed: 1) farmers are obliged to produce statistical (e.g. production and harvest value) information to aquaculture authorities using officially distributed printed forms. This is the case of Mexico and Chile; 2) Data are collected through direct inspection by both aquaculture and environmental authorities, as in Ecuador; and 3) In Cuba basic aquaculture units (farms) are responsible for the collection of data, which are then transferred to state-owned aquaculture enterprises for management purposes. Collection of aquaculture statistics seems not to be mandatory or systematic in Brazil. Mexico and Chile have a specific office devoted to structuring, storing and distributing aquaculture statistics within the Aquaculture authority structure.

2.2.2 How often are data collected and on what time basis?

The frequency of collection of aquaculture statistics varies among the reviewed countries.

TABLE 5.
Administrative structure and frequency of collection of aquaculture statistics in countries of the region.

2.2.3 What is the average time between data collection and data availability?

The timeframe between data collection and data availability varies from country to country. While Cuba reports to have an almost real-time, accurate database for internal management purposes, there are countries like Mexico where the time period from collection to the actual publication of the information can be as long as two years.

FIGURE 1.
Timeline between data acquisition and public availability of aquaculture statistics in the countries reviewed.

FIGURE 2.
Modified version of the registration form for the National Fisheries Database of Mexico.

NATIONAL FISHERIES DATABASE (RNP)
AQUACULTURE

NUMBER: ______________________

1. REGIONAL FISHERIES OFFICE AT _________________ 2. DATE: ____________________

CODE

I. IDENTIFICATION _______________ No. RNP-01 ______________________

3. NAME OF FARM _________________________________________

4. EXACT LOCATION OF FARM __________________________________________________

II. INFRASTRUCTURE

5. INTENSIVE _________ SEMI-INTENSIVE: ________ 6. ENVIRONMENTAL ______________

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: ______________________

7. FISH: _________ 8. CRUSTACEANS: _______ 9. MOLLUSCS: ________ 1C. OTHERS (DESCRIBE): __________________________________________________________________

11. EXTENSIVE ____________ 12. WATER BODY (NAME/LOCATION): ___________________ 13. SURFACE AREA: ______ Ha.

14. OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE (DESCRIBE): _______________________________________

III. PRODUCTION CAPACITY

2.2.4 What parameters are collected as part of the aquaculture statistics?

Two types of information are collected in the countries reviewed: a) general technical legal and socio-economic information regarding individual farms, collected as a part of their licensing process, and b) production (e.g. species, harvest weight and value) and market parameters collected in most cases with a pre-determined frequency for aquaculture statistics purposes.

Figure 2 shows a modified version of the registration form that all new aquaculture farmers are legally obliged to fill and submit to the aquaculture authorities in Mexico. The data obtained are incorporated into the National Fisheries Database. It illustrates the type of general information collected at the start of a new operation.

TABLE 6.
Summary of the most commonly collected parameters for aquaculture statistics purposes in Latin American countries.

Ecuador reports the collection of a number of other parameters from shrimp farms, which can be useful to construct competitiveness indicators (e.g. unit production costs, feed conversion ratios, survival rates, etc).

The actual terminology and estimation methods employed in the region regarding yields, surface areas and level of intensification (e.g. extensive, semi-intensive and intensive) is similar in the reviewed countries. This also applies to general aquaculture terminology (i.e. farm, pond, tank, cage culture, etc).

2.2.5 Who are the users of aquaculture statistics information?

With the apparent exception of Cuba, where detailed aquaculture statistics are used internally by the official aquaculture enterprises for management purposes and production figures are transferred to the Ministry of Fisheries for statistical records, all other countries in this review compile and make available the information to the general public.

The NatRISTAs of Chile and Mexico explicitly state the availability of open access web sites and electronic and printed reports, therefore targeting a wide spectrum of users. Nonetheless, farmers and other sectoral stakeholders are the primary users of this information.

2.2.6 What methodology is used for aquaculture data collection?

Most NatRISTAs lack detailed information on the actual methods for data collection. Generally speaking, the main sources of aquaculture statistics are the farmers themselves through official forms provided by the aquaculture authorities, as previously mentioned. Such is the case of Chile and Mexico, which could be taken as monthly censuses.

In Cuba, there seems to be a more accurate approach, since routine samplings in farms, especially those devoted to shrimp farming, are a regular source of information for weekly and monthly reports.

In other cases, the indirect and infrequent nature of data collection, like in the case of Brazil, does not allow for any standardization. Here, farmers associations compile the information provided by their members, who provide the data directly from their harvest reports.

TABLE 7.
Summary of aquaculture data collection methodology and sources of aquaculture statistics information in countries of the region.

2.3 DATA QUALITY, PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS

2.3.1 What are the key problems in collecting high quality statistical data on aquaculture?

A number of common problems are identified regarding the collection of high quality statistical data on aquaculture in the region. Difficulty in reaching remote areas and farms seems to be the common denominator for voids in the monthly reports of all countries.

The lack of an effective on-site data validation mechanism in Brazil, Chile and Mexico, as well as the lack of a legal framework and definition of data collection duties within the federal government of Brazil, makes the quality of the data unreliable in most cases.

Strong economic aquaculture sub-sectors such as the shrimp farming sector of Ecuador, Mexico and Brazil, and the salmon farming sector of Chile, are backed by well organized farmers associations whose members are more aware of the importance of trends monitoring, thus devoting efforts and financial resources to such a purpose. Some of these farmers' organizations possess more detailed, up-to-date, high quality statistics, particularly of their corresponding sub-sector, than governmental offices.

Apart from Cuba, where target users of aquaculture statistics are the aquaculture companies themselves, (and data collection is thus a routine management procedure), the allocated budget of reviewed countries for data collection is generally too low. This only allows for low quality, often imprecise or biased information provided by farmers, accentuated by the inability of the aquaculture authorities to corroborate it through physical inspection. In this regard, only Ecuador reports that it is mandatory for farmers to allow cyclical (annual) inspections and revision of their log books by the national aquaculture authorities. The frequency of inspections, however, may limit the scope of trends analysis.

In Chile, a cross-checking of information between farm harvests reports and input/output reports from processing plants is carried out. This allows for some sort of validation of the accuracy of the information provided by the farmers.

TABLE 8.
Summary of the reported problems in collecting aquaculture statistics in the region.

2.3.2 Processing, storage, compilation and distribution of statistical data - is it distributed to the users identified in the previous section, how and in what form?

Brazil

Aquaculture statistics in Brazil have traditionally been compiled on an annual basis by the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Natural Resources (IBAMA). However, the recently created Special Secretary of Fisheries and Aquaculture, has taken over this task. Gross statistics of production (species, harvest weight and value) are obtained mostly from regional (state) farmers associations, which send them once in a while to IBAMA. Data processing only includes sorting by species and region. Sorted data are stored electronically although no specific data base seems to be available. Data are tabulated and presented annually in the Annual Fisheries Bulletin, which until recently was also published by IBAMA.

Chile

Farmers are obliged to collect the official statistics forms provided by the National Fisheries Service through their regional offices. Forms have to be filled and handed to the nearest NFS regional office within the first five days of each month. Recently an electronic form has been made available to farmers for them to report directly. The data collected are brought together by the Department of Fisheries Statistics of the National Fisheries Service, who is responsible for sorting, tabulating and publishing the data. There is a new, parallel publication that also uses the data collected officially by the NFS, as well as other useful data regarding culture surface area licensed, number of new permits issued, quantity and species exported, etc. This is published by the Department of Fisheries Management of the NFS, through the bulletin Aquaculture in Numbers, which is issued every six months.

Cuba

There is a two-way path in the process of transferring the information to target users. Both start with the collection of data directly by the farms through their routine sampling and censuses. The first path includes the concentration of statistical information by the Provincial Aquaculture Company, which manages a number of farms in each region of the country. Each Provincial Company transfers the statistical information to the National headquarters of INDIPES or GEDECAM, depending on whether it cultures fish or shrimp. Finally the information is transferred to the Director of Planning and Finances of the Ministry of the Economy. Processing includes structuring by species, farm, region, overall production weight (if it corresponds to grow-out facilities), and number of allevins or post-larvae produced (in the case of hatcheries). The second path involves statistical information (e.g. production weight by species) generated by farms and sent through a series of administrative offices to the National Statistics Office (Figure 3).

FIGURE 3.
Aquaculture statistics pathways in Cuba

Ecuador

Aquaculture statistics collected by staff of both the Under-secretariat of Fisheries and the Regional Under-secretariat of Environment are distributed to the government and producers associations that constitute the National Council for Fisheries Development. Each member of this Council uses the information for their own purposes, therefore data processing and storing is carried out in different ways by each user, including farmers associations.

Mexico

All fisherfolks and aquaculturists in Mexico are legally obliged to register at the National Fisheries Database (RNP), as a condition to obtain their operation permits (Figure 4). The RNP is a centralized database which collects information of two types:

a) Technical information (type and dimensions of the infrastructure of the farm).
b) Basic economic and legal information of the permit holder (i.e. company, public institution or cooperative).

This information, as well as the monthly reports of harvests and larval production from each farm, are sent via e-mail (no intranet), to be introduced in the Integrated Fisheries and Aquaculture Operations Database (SIROPA), managed by the office of the Director of Fisheries Statistics, in the city of Mazatlan, Sinaloa, headquarters of CONAPESCA. This database is not accessible to public users, although specific information can be obtained through online request.

All ponds/tanks/cages, etc harvested in one day, are reported in a single form (harvest or production form). Farmers have a legal obligation to submit all forms of the monthly period on the last day of each month. Forms are directly taken by farmers to any regional fisheries offices, coordinated by the fisheries deputy delegate of the corresponding state.

Staff of the regional fisheries offices concentrates the information in two reports:

• The monthly production report, where all harvest volumes are added up and labeled as "culture", as opposed to "capture".

• DROP30 form, which basically provides the aquaculture statistics by species, presentation and farm.

Information is passed-on to the Aquaculture Department of the corresponding state Fisheries Deputy Delegate's Office. Both the monthly production and the DROP30 forms, are also sent via e-mail to the Director of Fisheries Statistics Office of CONAPESCA in Mazatlan, Sinaloa. All technical, legal and economic information of newly opened farms is added to the SIROPA database. Production statistics from all states of the country (Monthly Production Reports), as well as regional DROP30 reports are processed through two simple steps: i) separation of production and harvest value by individual farm through its RNP registration number, and ii) structuring production statistics by species, state, and by purpose of production (i.e. commercial or household consumption).

Once processed, the information is also stored in the Integrated Fisheries and Aquaculture Operations Database (SIROPA) of CONAPESCA.

Aquaculture statistics are tabulated and sent to three government entities:

a) The National System for Agricultural and Fish Food Statistics of SAGARPA.
b) The Economic Statistics Office of the Central Bank of Mexico.
c) The National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics.

FIGURE 4.
Aquaculture statistics and related information pathway in Mexico

2.4 NON-STATISTICAL INFORMATION

2.4.1 Is non-statistical information used to supplement the statistical data for status and trends reporting?

Even though non-statistical information seems to be gradually increasing in aquaculture statistics reports of the region, there is not a structured, systematic and coordinated program for direct collection of this information within the aquaculture sector of the countries reviewed.

Non-statistical information is only used to complement aquaculture information in ad hoc trends and sectors analysis are usually carried out by the academic institutions.

The sources of non-statistical information are also diverse, although most information comes from government offices such as General Statistics entities, central banks offices at Ministerial level, universities and research centers.

In order to illustrate the type and sources of non-statistical information used or with potentially useful information for analysis and trends monitoring of aquaculture sectors in the region, a list of Mexican entities whose databases contain relevant information.

TABLE 9.
Mexican non-statistical information/data Bases hat ontain useful information for aquaculture trends analysis.

2.5 DATA NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING INFORMATION ON STATUS AND TRENDS

2.5.1 What are the perceived national priority needs in terms of aquaculture information and why are they needed?

There is much to be improved as far as the quantity, type and quality of the information needed for adequate status and trends analysis in Latin America.

2.5.2 Are there additional information requirements? If yes, which ones?

The number of key variables collected from individual farms should be expanded in order to create indicators to evaluate the competitiveness between individual farms, regions or countries. Also, the relative competitiveness of a nation's aquaculture sector (i.e. shrimp farming) in relation to the world industry, could be monitored through such indicators.

Technical variables including fish growth, survival, food consumption and stocking densities, can and should be collected and reported on a routine basis, either using farmers' culture log books, or directly through on-pond population samplings, or a combination of both. Assisting those farmers that do not have the knowledge/capacity to do so, this would allow for better inter-farm comparison of performance, thus generating regional and national reference values.

Other farm-generated information relevant to management purposes, include energy consumption and environment related variables such as water volume/exchange and chemical characteristics of wastewater.

Relevant supplementary information for planning and management in the aquaculture sector should include the following variables:

i) Price fluctuations of cultured species in regional, national and international markets.
ii) Supply and demand trends,
iii) General and specific market forecasts.
iv) Consumer preferences and new products (i.e. commodity presentations),
v) Trends and price forecasts of production inputs (i.e. feeds, fertilizers, seed, energy),
vi) Technological progresses in aquaculture, especially low environmental impact culture techniques.
vii) Local and national environmental regulations.
viii) International trade and sanitary regulations to aquaculture products,
ix) Socially equitable aquaculture production schemes,
x) Impact of aquaculture on rural livelihoods,
xi) Compatibility of aquaculture with other economic sector.

2.5.3 What are opportunities for improving the quality aspects of the information (statistical and non-statistical)?

The following is a list of opportunities for improvement which certainly would strengthen the ability to assess, analyze, plan and make decisions for a more sustainable aquaculture sector in each country of the region:

Opportunities for improvement:

• It is important to stress that aquaculture monitoring programs have to be given a certain level of priority, and consequently budget should be allocated, if they are to provide sufficient, useful, high quality information for management and decision-making processes.

• Increasing the number of trained staff in regional aquaculture offices would expand geographical coverage, thus reaching all farms including those that are operating unregistered.

• Improving computer-based connectivity throughout all steps of the information path, would allow for frequent, even real time reporting.

• The use of participatory approaches for data collection and monitoring, can be of great value. Farmers should be consulted in relation to frequency, parameters and even methods for data collection, since it is them, together with the planning authorities that are the ultimate users of the information.

• Continuous training on statistical methods, sampling design and informatics and permanent interaction between all the sources of statistical and non-statistical information should both be prioritized.

2.6 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS OF INFORMATION ON STATUS AND TRENDS

2.6.1 What are the specific plans and actions if any to improve current information?

There seems to be an overall regional awareness of the relevance of improving the quality and the quantity of aquaculture statistics for status and trends analyses. Consequently a series of plans seems to be underway.

Brazil's newly created Special Secretary of Fisheries and Aquaculture has expressed intentions to implement a more robust and systematic structure for regular high quality data collection.

Chile's Fisheries Authorities have announced plans for improving the computer-based information systems, as well as to improve information exchange between different sources.

Mexico's CONAPESCA is planning to implement an intranet and expand the geographical coverage of computer-based connectivity, which will allow fore more timely transference of aquaculture statistics as well as to update other farm-related technical information in the national databases.

It seems, however, that such awareness and plans stem directly from the entities responsible for data collection and distribution, that is, if these offices do not manage to convince decision makers at the top level to allocate the appropriate funding, the viability of these plans may be at risk.

2.7 FAO AQUACULTURE QUESTIONNAIRE (FISHSTAT AQ)

2.7.1 Are there specific problems in providing to FAO the information requested in the questionnaire, and any reasons for these problems?

There are no major problems reported in relation to the clarity and adequacy of the questionnaire and its information sheet.

2.7.2 Are there suggestions for solving any problems in relation to the FISHSTAT AQ?

One suggestion is to develop an electronic version of the questionnaire, to facilitate filling it in and to shorten the response-time.

Annex 1

SUMMARY OF STANDARD CULTURE METHODS AND FACILITIES EMPLOYED IN THE REGION

Annex 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Summary and excerpts from the Africa regional synthesis: information for status and trends reporting on aquaculture^[105]

1 INTRODUCTION

For this review, national information was collected using a survey instrument that was either self-administered or was filled out during an interview with FAO-RAF staff. Surveys were completed by representatives of the following countries: Cameroon, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia.

2 AQUACULTURE DATA COLLECTION

In all of the countries surveyed there was a clear definition of aquaculture separating it from fisheries. Most countries reported a designated aquaculture service - usually as part of the Department of Fisheries. Some countries had development plans in place but reported poor linkage between monitoring activities and planning and management activities.

Currently, statistical data for aquaculture are collected by Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda. Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of Congo do not and Zambia did not respond.

Generally, collection of aquaculture statistical information starts at the producer level through censuses, sampling surveys, and administration of questionnaires by field staff, farmers, and extension agents. The information is passed on to districts, sub-national and national levels through designated committees on fisheries, fisheries producers associations, and fisheries officers at the district level. Then the information is submitted to the national levels to fisheries statisticians, development planning committees, and finally to Directors of Fisheries/Aquaculture and to government ministers. In most cases, the time needed to complete the cycle of data collection, collation, and dissemination is about a year. The majority of nations produce annual reports.

All countries reported that they do not have different methods of estimation from different production systems, with the exception of Madagascar, which has a separate method for estimating shrimp production. None of the countries described data collection methodologies for the specific production systems.

From the table below, note that most countries rank the quality of statistics currently produced for aquaculture to be poor, especially with regard to issues of comparability and consistency.

3 SELF-ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY OF STATISTICAL DATA COLLECTED BY THE COUNTRIES:

Numbers indicate the number of countries responding under each category.

4 CONSTRAINTS

The most cited problems hindering reliable data collections for aquaculture were:

• poor logistical support
• inadequate financial and human resources
• inadequate training of data collectors or data reporters (e.g. within producer organizations)
• lack of a clearly defined agency responsible for data collection
• lack of rational aquaculture development plans and lack of national aquaculture databases
• poor maintenance of accurate records
• no collection of socio-economic data, environmental data, and utilization.

• aquaculture is not a priority in most of these countries

5 PERCEIVED INFORMATION NEEDS

At the national level, the priority data needs for aquaculture were perceived to be:

• environmental data
• stocking data
• economic data
• market data
• metadata

• utilization data

There is the need to increase the awareness both of public institutions and of the general public concerning aquaculture and its similarities with agriculture. This could be achieved by collaborative efforts between aquaculturists, authorities, media, and non-governmental initiatives.

At the regional level, several needs have been identified:

• Informative guidelines or manuals needed to collect data should be produced. These should be harmonious with the countries in the region.

• Regional databases for aquaculture statistics should be established.

• There should be greater exchange of information and experience on development of rural aquaculture (including development of associated statistical systems), through regional and inter-regional networks and collaboration between countries. Exchange of socio-economic and environmental data, especially between countries which share water bodies, is particularly vital.

At the international level, FAO plays a unique role in global aquaculture statistics and the preparation of information on the global trends of the aquaculture sector. Such reports are important in alerting regional organizations, national policy makers and advisors, industry, NGOs, and the general public to the global aquaculture situation and to global issues than can have effects at the regional and national levels.

FAO should work to develop unified standards and guidelines for data collection. There is a need to identify and elaborate the most appropriate methodologies for each type of production system. FAO can help train farmers, extension workers, and technical staff in data storage, data collection, and data analysis. The quality of FAO aquaculture statistics is affected by incomplete and sub-standard reporting.

6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS

Recommendations that seek to address these issues are:

• improving methodologies and procedures for statistical data collection, processing, analysis, storage, and dissemination;
• removing constraints to accurate and timely information;
• improving coordination with national sources;
• integrating information sources;
• improving how information is used in management of the sector; and

• striving to meet specific national needs in terms of aquaculture information.

Europe and Near East regional synthesis: information for status and trends reporting on aquaculture^[106]

1 THE SETTING

1.1 National practice used to identify aquaculture separately from fisheries

Fisheries legislation framework makes a distinction between fisheries and aquaculture. There are different legal framework regard fisheries and aquaculture. In the relevant authority of the state administration within the directorate of fisheries there are usually separate subdepartments for the two sectors.

1.2 Administrative structure

The head of the administrative structure is the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (exact names: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry - Croatia; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development - Hungary; Royal Ministry of Fisheries - Norway; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food - Spain; Ministry of Agriculture - Greece). A special department within the ministry is responsible for the aquaculture development, monitoring and management except Spain, where the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has only general functions of coordination and representation at international organisations and where the Autonomous Regions keep the jurisdiction in the management of aquaculture. The ministry has local offices in the administrative units of the country (autonomous regions, county offices etc.) where the local officers perform the administrative and controlling duties of aquaculture administration.

Aquaculture is regulated at national level by different acts (Marine Fisheries Act, Freshwater Fisheries Act - Croatia; Act on Fishing and Angling - Hungary; Aquaculture Act - Norway; Act of Coast, Act of Marine Cultures - Spain) and in Croatia and Hungary the acts stipulate reporting responsibilities. In Spain there is a difference between the legislation at national and autonomic level and in Croatia the control of activities within the sector of fisheries is within the scope of activities of the State Inspectorate and Maritime Police. The state inspectorate's duty is to control the implementation of the law and regulations. At present, there is no legal framework which imposes the collection of statistical data for Aquaculture at a national level in Greece.

The General Authority for Fish Resources Development (GAFRD) has the overall responsibility for development and conservation of fishery resources (except those in Lake Nasser), and is in charge of the main administrative services dealing with fisheries and aquaculture (Egypt). Enforcement of regulations, collection of data, training and extension are also among the responsibilities of the authority. Constructing aquaculture enterprises is strictly forbidden until a licence from the Ministry of Agriculture is obtained. Furthermore, permission must be obtained from the Ministry of Public Work and Water Resources denoting the source and quantity of water used and importation of fish from other countries. The GAFRD issues a statistical yearbook which includes information on: the trend of aquaculture production, the cultivated area by the governorates, species, location, public and private sector farms and farming systems used. Such information can used to prepare reports for management purposes.

The Israel Department of Fisheries, a part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, has separated the growing or production of aquatic organisms into two branches - Aquaculture (freshwater organisms) and Mariculture (salt or brackish water organisms). The Aquaculture section or branch of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture is ultimately responsible for the monitoring and management of freshwater or inland culturing of fish and other aquatic life (i.e. shrimps, shellfish, and macro-flora). The Mariculture branch is responsible for the monitoring and management of brackish water and marine culturing. For purposes of this report both mariculture and aquaculture will be placed under the heading of Aquaculture (Israel).

1.3 Aquaculture practice and purpose

Different culture methods and systems are used depending on the fish species and aquatic environment. The principal purpose of aquaculture is commercial but it also aims at restocking of natural waters in some countries.

2 CURRENT STATUS OF NATIONAL AQUACULTURE DATA COLLECTION AND COMPILATION OF STATISTICS

Statistical data are regularly collected, and the time basis of the aquaculture statistics is the calendar year. The only exception is Croatia where in freshwater aquaculture the producers have to fill in a questionnaire twice a year, for the periods from the 1^st of January to the 30^th of June and for the whole calendar year. The data are collected from the end of January till March and after processing and completion of database it is ready for use by the end of April in Croatia, Hungary and Spain, and by the end of September in Greece. However in Norway there are five steps of quality checks and reminders to non-received questionnaires and the final figures are ready only in October-November.

In Egypt, statistics of aquaculture production are collected annually. A statistical form is used to collect these data and published within a maximum period of six months. This form includes the following parameters: fish farming area, Type of aquaculture (extension, intensive and semi-intensive), species production, number of captured or produced fingerlings or fry per species, quantity of used fertilizers and its price per ton, quantity of fish feed used and the ratio of protein concentration and the price per ton, source of fry and fingerlings (GAFRD or the Private Sector) and average of production per species in tons, marketing system. Furthermore information about the number of hatcheries, their production and their location are included in the statistical yearbook. However, the number of people employed is not included in the statistics.

GAFRD collects data by only one means, and does not use different methods for data collection from different types of fish farms. Data is collected in licensed fish farms by using census-type-data collection system, while a sampling program is applied for unlicensed ones.

In Israel, several parameters are used: number of farms, pond area, yield (by species and area), gross value (both local and dollar), fry production, and consumer prices. Comparisons and trend graphics show differences and changes in growth of aquaculture, land and water use, new species. Statistics concerning the ornamental fish branch are published as fry numbers and their value. The Department of Fisheries uses the data collected to publish an annual journal, "The Fisheries and Aquaculture of Israel". This journal is available on line (at the Fisheries web site-www.mop-zafon.org.il/fish) on CD-ROM and as a published pamphlet to all interested parties (scientists, fish growers, and the governmental statistic office).

There are four different questionnaires in Norway: (1) production of salmon and rainbow trout (seawater production), (2) production of salmon and rainbow trout (freshwater production) and production of roe and juveniles, (3a) production of other species than salmon and trout and (3b) production of other species than salmon and trout (hatcheries), and (4) production of shellfish (seawater). In Spain information are gathered about the species, way of culture and production volume.

2.1 Data clients

Data clients are the producers and companies who give statistical data on aquaculture production and the main target users are the ministry and its departments, research and information institutes, planners, other authorities, scientists and fish farmers. A part of data is also available for other data users like students, potential investors etc.

2.2 Data collection authorities and methods

The responsibility for data collection is not uniform. There are different methods of estimation for different production systems. Data are collected separately between marine and inland aquaculture in Croatia, Norway and Spain. In Hungary, where only freshwater aquaculture exists, there are separate databases for ponds and intensive systems. Data from marine and inland aquaculture are shown in different tables, numerical and graphical information.

The methodology for data collection is very similar in all countries. The organization that is responsible for data collection provides a questionnaire that has to be filled in by all the producers and licence holders not regarding to the type of production systems. If a company has several licences in different regions the company should report a questionnaire for each region (Croatia, Hungary, Norway).

In Greece, the questionnaires are examined at the regional office of fisheries for the completeness and accuracy of the stated data and signed both by the producer and the fishery inspector. The questionnaires are then forwarded to the Ministry of Agriculture (Directorate of Aquaculture and Inland Waters), where they are collected and stored. There, the data are analyzed and summarized per Prefecture, per Culture method, per species and per employment. Some of the results of the data analysis are available on the Internet. More detailed results can also be obtained from the Service following a specific request. It is important to mention that primary data are confidential.

2.3 Definitions used for data collection

Definitions used in the data collection are some what similar and appears to be compatible with FAO definitions.

Data quality, processing and analysis

Problems may occur in collecting high quality statistical data in every country according to the followings:

There are difficulties in obtaining data from the data suppliers (Norway, Spain);

The information is incomplete in many cases;

The data clients' number is low thus individual inaccuracies may have significant effect on the overall database. The appropriateness of data should be often clarified (Hungary);

The analysis and the quality control of data are carried out by different organizations therefore some inconsistencies may occur (Croatia).

Statistical data are collected and published on a yearly basis, and it provides the comparability over time. Data are also comparable between administrative units (regions, counties etc.) and between production systems because data are collected and analysed on these categories. The databases are complete and the definitions and classifications are consistent (Hungary, Norway) but the comparability with related data sets does not always work (Hungary). In the background there can be legislative problems or the fact that separate databases handled by different organizations are not always compatible.

The processing of the statistical data is the duty of institutions of the agricultural and fisheries ministry or the ministry itself. By name: JACUMAR (Spain), Research and Information Institute for Agricultural Economics (Hungary), Directorate of Fisheries of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Croatia) and Statistics Norway/Directorate of Fisheries (Norway). After getting data from the responsible organization of the administrative unit and processing them, the organization distributes the data to various users. Almost every organization that process data has an own website so one way of the distribution is the Internet. One of the major problems in some countries is the low number of Internet access (Hungary, Spain), so besides the Internet the statistical data are published in statistical yearbooks, yearly reports, professional journals, scientific and expert magazines or trade bulletins that contain tables with summarized data. In Norway one can register to a subscription list and can get the statistical report automatically by mail and the fish farmers also get these reports automatically, free of charge. The responsible institutions not only process but also store the statistical data. As far as the method of the storage is concerned, there is no available information from Croatia and Spain, but in Hungary and Norway data are stored both traditional (paper) and electronic form.

In Hungary data also analysed with the participation of the ministry's department in charge of aquaculture. If the information is collected till the end of January it is analysed and ready for use in April (except Norway as it was mentioned before). In Spain, a new system is being implemented; "Information System of Input, Control and Analysis of Aquaculture data" in all Prefectures (regional offices of fisheries) and the Directorate of Aquaculture and Inland Waters of the Ministry of Agriculture.

In Egypt, receiving high quality data is problematic due the number of fish farms scattered among vast areas in the Delta Region as well as in the desert. A significant number of these desert farms are not licensed. Feed, fertilizers and stocking species norms vary from one farm to another making it difficult to obtain proper quality of data. The statistical data is comparable between regions (Governorates), time and shows the trend of aquaculture production. There is a shortage in some parameters such as man power data and the initial price of the fish production. GAFRD is the main and sole authority for collecting these data. The Statistical yearbook illustrates bare data and has no statistical analysis or diagnostic measures such as the arithmetic mean, standard deviation... etc. The statistical data are not analyzed nor packaged to provide information for management purposes which can be used by managers and policymakers. There are no data available, such as methodological notes, other sources of data, data collection manuals and catalogue of commercially important species.

In Israel, the Department of Fisheries cooperates closely with the Fish Growers Union (an organization mostly made up of cooperative villages - kibbutzim). This includes quality data collection. The FGU provides natural disaster insurance for its member farms, In order to provide complete coverage; the union requires accurate monthly information on stock size, production of each farm, fry production, the number of active farms on a monthly basis. Since the members include up to 90 percent of all the fish farms in Israel, this supplies statistically significant data. A telephone survey of non-member farms completes the data collection. Statistical analysis includes: time series of yields, value per ton, dollar value, pond areas, farm number, yield per area, by species, and prices per kilogram per person. Statistics are illustrated graphically and by tables.

3 NON-STATISTICAL INFORMATION

Some countries use some non-statistical information to supplement statistical data. Though this chapter in the national reviews is incomplete, the authors of the regional review know of some non-statistical information which have not been mentioned, e.g. Aquaculture in Norway published by the Norwegian Fish Farmers' Association; "White Book" published by the Hungarian Fish Farmers' Association. Some non-statistical information is accessible through different channels like the Internet, e-mails, periodic bulletins or professional journals of the industry. Information sometimes is also available via newspapers, CD-ROMs or broadcasted by radio programmes. Usually the website of the ministry and the statistical office provide access to several aquaculture sites. The main sources of non-statistical information are the ministries and the institutions of the ministry, national or international organizations or other statistical institutes. It has been reported from Spain that the information disseminated by the Internet is frequently updated.

Although some problems are mentioned regarding non-statistical information, in some cases these are also relevant to statistical information. The long time from information supply to final dissemination and the slow update of the information are one of the key problems. Besides this Croatia mentioned that the collection is not regulated by any legal obligations, and according to Spain publishing is often restrained and gives only general information because of confidentiality of statistical data.

No non-Statistical information is used in Egypt and Israel. Not much of these information are available, however the individual research stations do publish yearly reports which present research plans, expansion needs, and new species investigations. The Fish Growers Union does publish its own publication.

3.1 Data needs and opportunities for improving current information on status and trends

The national priority in terms of aquaculture statistics is to supply accurate information about the trends of aquaculture development and that information supply should be user-friendly. There are many strengths and weaknesses in this process. They are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Strengths and weaknesses of the present methodology of collecting, processing and disseminating the statistical data

3.2 Planned improvements of information on status and trends

Each country mentioned certain level of development in the national reviews e.g. to establish new statistical databases (Croatia); to improve the accuracy of data management, and to make the connection or the integration of the relevant databases so as to get more complex information (Hungary); to make electronic report system (Norway). In Spain the JACUMAR has recently begun to develop a shellfish statistic and designed the "aquabarometer" that represents different studies referred to the aquaculture sector. Another way of to improve the accessibility of the information is to organise seminars, workshops and training courses. In Greece new data collection system is being established which hopefully will improve the status and trends data.

Egypt is planning to introduce ARTFISH Statistical Software which is developed by FAO. An FAO TCP project has been proposed for this objective.

In Israel, several ideas have been proposed which could improve data collection. Direct data links between fish farms and the FGU and/or the Department of Fisheries would significantly improve data collection. The future might bring an increase in non member (FGU) farms in more remote areas of Israel. Direct data links would eliminate time consuming surveys. Reward incentives, such as low cost loans, grants could significantly improve data availability by increasing competition between farms to "volunteer" information.

4 THE FAO AQUACULTURE QUESTIONNAIRE, FISHSTAT AQ

Regarding data supply to FAO there is a difference in the EU member and the other countries. In the EU member countries since 1996 the statistical service of the ministry provides all the statistical data to Eurostat that send the information to FAO. Concerning the other countries they give their statistical report directly to FAO. There have been two comments on FISHSTAT AQ from Hungary and Norway. Hungary suggested that it should be clarified in the instruction sheet which price to use (price with or without VAT) when filling the questionnaire. Norway would prefer to have a later deadline for reporting to FAO, because the final report of aquaculture statistics is ready only in October.

In Greece, the system of data collection makes data available in September each year. In Greece, statistical data on Aquaculture are collected by the Ministry of Agriculture as described above. The National Statistical Service also collects data on Aquaculture using different sources. It is understood that FAO, for some reasons, publishes the data obtained by the National Statistical Office of Greece and not the data submitted by the Ministry. Unfortunately, in some cases the data of the two Services deviate from each other.

FISHSTAT AQ is not applied in Egypt to some unknown reasons. The major national constraint in obtaining information would appear to be the large number of farms (many of them non-licensed) spread over large areas in the desert and the Nile Delta. Solving this basic problem would dramatically improve data collection. While the future might bring about increased use of direct data links, perhaps a more immediate solution would be to make data transfer a more attractive and profitable task to the individual farm. Trade offs such as low cost loans or grants in exchange for data might increase information availability.

Israel continiues to provide information to FAO as requested. However in many cases, cooperation could influenced by what some might perceive as a complicated form. Perhaps simplifying and shortening the form, without losing information would be possible. Maybe in a more peaceful future, a triangle of direct data links between the FAO and the member countries and the fish farms themselves could be established. International and regional constraints would be alleviated by increasing international cooperation within organizations such as FAO and COPEMED.

As non members (Fish Growers Union), fish farms increase and their production increases, the national aquaculture statistics will decrease in accuracy. More effort must be made in increase and improve data collection to take them (the non union farms) into account. As mentioned previously (Egypt), making information sharing a profitable venture, would increase data collection. Regional efforts for data collection and sharing remain in limbo and probably will stay that way as long as the political situation in the Middle East remains in flux. International cooperation is dependant upon organizations, such as FAO and probably will continue to be in the near future.

4.1 Constraints

Due to unknown circumstances, FISHSTAT AQ is not being used in Egypt, according to the Egyptian country review. Therefore before any difficulties are encountered it is imperative to send the form to the proper authorities. While there have no difficulties in providing information for FISHSTAT AQ by Israel, delays in filing the questionnaire have occurred. The very nature of data acquisition is probably responsible for them (delays). The use of a middleman, in this case the Fish Growers Union, inserts another bureaucratic step in the information ladder. The best solution would have the farms send their information directly to the Department of Fisheries.

5 CONCLUSIONS

It can be concluded that, in several countries relatively well-developed systems are available for the collection, processing and analyses of aquaculture data. Although the collection of statistical data and other information on aquaculture is a relatively new activity in many countries, the national reviews indicate that good progress has been made towards the establishment of reliable database on aquaculture.

However, the use of data and other available information has not been fully exploited during the formulation of policies and development plans in aquaculture and the current activities on data collection and processing focus on "status" rather then "trends".

Databases contain mainly basic information on production of various species in different systems and environment. The databases should be completed with relevant socio-economic data.

There is uncertainty concerning, what databases are intended to be provided to specific target groups such as policy makers, aquaculture producers, service providers and consumers. The collection of non-statistical information, the processing, analysis and dissemination of such information is less developed. There is also a need to establish databases which are comparable and/or compatible with other databases (e.g. on fisheries, water resources, production of non-fish food commodities).

Aquaculture includes the use of various types of systems, which operate at different management level in different environments. Aquaculture data however, do not reflect the diversity of aquaculture, and sometimes only summarise the data available for products, which are originated from very different sources. This is a major constraint if data to be used for detailed analysis of status and trends.

There have been good initiatives, for example the separation of databases for extensive pond systems and intensive tank systems, however this is a very recent and rather rear event.

Definitions for the classification of terms used for data collection should also be clarified and unified. Some definitions may be unambiguous and well applicable within a country; however, they may be confusing in international context. This problem perhaps derived from inaccurate translation from local language to English.

There appears to be a commitment and there are initiatives to improve current national reporting on aquaculture. This process should be encouraged and promoted. National aquaculture institutions with expertise in data collection and analysis may also be involved in the reporting on aquaculture status and trends on national level.

Producer's Associations should also play role in the improvement of aquaculture statistical systems and procedures by educating members and emphasising the benefits of better reporting on aquaculture.

In EU member countries, EUROSTAT provides a good framework for such improvement; however non-EU countries may need external assistance. Specific symposiums and training courses, written and electronic materials can also contribute to the improvement of collection, processing and analysis of aquaculture data. It seems that a multi-language dictionary (written and electronic) of major aquaculture terms used for statistical reports in aquaculture would be a useful tool to improve reporting on aquaculture on international level.

There were two comments in the national reviews regarding FAO questionnaire FISHSTAT AQ; (a) need for clarification if price includes VAT, and (b) request for a later deadline for the completion of the questionnaire in order to provide more complete data.

The separation of categories; "ponds" and "tanks" in FISHSTAT AQ Form should be considered.

Besides having the national reports as major source of data for "FISHSTAT", and making efforts to complete and verify information using other sources, it would also be useful to identify focal points (e.g. competent institutions) in countries with major aquaculture industry in order to check and verify data, and collaborate with FAO on a regular basis.