Back to main page
|
|
Meeting documents |
|
Back to main page
|
|
Meeting documents |
GENERAL FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN
REPORT OF THE
SECOND SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE
Rome, Italy, 13-16 June 2000FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Rome, 2000
PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
The present text is the final version of the report adopted on 16 June 2000 by the participants in the Second Session of the Committee on Aquaculture of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM).
Distribution:
Participants
European Community
GFCM Mailing List
FAO Fisheries Department
FAO Regional and Sub-Regional Fisheries Officers
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean/Commission générale des pêches pour la Méditerranée.
Report of the second session of the Committee on Aquaculture. Rome, Italy, 13-16 June 2000.
Rapport de la deuxième session du Comité pour l'aquaculture. Rome, Italie, 13-16 juin 2000.
FAO Fisheries Report/FAO Rapport sur les pêches. No. 626. Rome, FAO. 2000. 27p.SUMMARY
The second session of the Committee on Aquaculture was held in Rome, Italy from 13 to 16 June 2000. The session reviewed the status of aquaculture in the region and the activities of the four networks linked to the Committee. However, the main focus of attention centered on the results of the Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO CCRF in the Mediterranean Region, and on its Action Plan, which was endorsed by the Committee. Other items discussed were the proposed programme 2000-2002, also linked to the adoption of the GFCM autonomous budget. The Committee requested to increase attention in support of the programmes of this Committee.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON
PROGRESS OF MEDITERRANEAN AQUACULTURE SINCE THE FIRST SESSION OF THE GFCM COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE
PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF WORK 2000-2002
AUTONOMOUS BUDGET OF GFCM AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE
SUPPORT TO PROGRAMMES OF THE GFCM COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE
DATE AND PLACE OF THE THIRD SESSION
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
1. The Second Session of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ) was held in Rome from 13 to 16 June 2000. The Session was attended by 14 members of the Commission and by observers from an FAO Member Nation and an intergovernmental organization. The list of participants is attached as Appendix B to this report.
2. The Session was opened by Mr S. Cataudella (Italy), Chairperson of the First Session. The Chairperson welcomed the participants before giving the floor to Mr Z. Karnicki, Director, Fishery Policy and Planning Division, who, on behalf of the Assistant Director-General, Fisheries Department, addressed the participants. He thanked the Italian Government for its support to GFCM aquaculture activities and funding this Second Session of the Committee.
3. Mr Karnicki underlined the fast-growing nature of the aquaculture industry and the substantial increase in the production of this sector. He expressed his satisfaction that cooperation with the International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM) was extremely positive and that substantial progress had been achieved by the Information System for Promotion of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (SIPAM) in the expansion and implementation of its activities. He referred to the Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) in the Mediterranean Region, financed by the Italian authorities and organized by the Secretariat during the intersessional period. He considered that the ambitious and comprehensive Action Plan resulting from the Consultation might serve as a basis for further work on sustainable development of Mediterranean aquaculture. Furthermore, he stressed that unless a GFCM autonomous budget was adopted by the Commission and became operational, financial difficulties would constitute major constraints to the development of the CAQ networks. Finally, he informed the Committee that FAO would continue to provide its support to the GFCM Secretariat but that such a large programme of activities would require additional funding from extra-budgetary sources.
4. Several delegates proposed to discuss under Item 11 Any other matters, the issue of using the Arabic language in the meetings of the Committee. The Agenda as adopted by the Committee is attached as Appendix A to the present report. The documents before the Committee are listed in Appendix C.
ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON
5. Mr Cataudella from Italy and Mr A. Orbi from Morocco were elected Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson respectively of the Committee.
6. The Technical Secretary presented document GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.3 on the major recommendations of the last three Sessions of GFCM which have taken place since the First Session of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture. The report reflected the transitional situation of the Commission, which was in the process of completing its reform, including the adoption of an autonomous budget.
7. During the Twenty-second Session (Rome, Italy, October 1997) the statements of the Commission in relation to its work on aquaculture through the Committee and associated networks, concerned the need for FAO to extend its support to this work through its Regular Programme. At the Twenty-third Session of the Commission (Rome, Italy, July 1998), the work progress of the networks was appraised and the organization of a Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean Region endorsed. A proposal for a GFCM autonomous budget, including a proposal for funding aquaculture activities of the Committee was discussed, but no agreement could be reached. Therefore, in the absence of a clear position on funding for the intersessional period, priority was given by the Commission to the statutory meetings and to meetings for which extra-budgetary funding had been secured, such as the Consultation mentioned above.
8. At the Twenty-fourth Session of GFCM (Alicante, Spain, July 1999), the activities of the three networks were reviewed and accepted. A new budget proposal was tabled, including a budget for aquaculture, but again no agreement could be reached. It was thus requested that extra-budgetary funds should be sought for the implementation of a priority aquaculture programme determined by the Commission.
PROGRESS OF MEDITERRANEAN AQUACULTURE SINCE THE FIRST SESSION OF THE GFCM COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE
9. The Technical Secretary presented document GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.7 on the progress of Mediterranean aquaculture since the First Session of the Committee on Aquaculture. The paper centered on the analysis of the statistical data available in the FAO database. It analyzed both the data of the countries, including the freshwater production and the production of the Atlantic coast of France and Spain, and separately the data on marine and brackishwater aquaculture originating in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. The reason for the first choice was that products from the Atlantic entered the same national and regional markets and could not be differentiated.
10. It was pointed out that the fast growth of the sector in the region was still dominated by production from France, Italy and Spain, but with faster growth rates in countries like Egypt, Greece and Turkey. Production in the GFCM countries (excluding Japan) reached 1 145 670 t in 1998, which was 38.6 percent more than the 1994 figure. In the case of the Mediterranean and Black Sea, the increase in production over 1994 (excluding the freshwater production) was 95 000 t which brought the total for 1998 to 329 266 t of production. The total value of aquaculture production also increased considerably reaching US$ 2 430 million in 1998, which is US$ 702 million over the 1994 values. In terms of economic contribution, marine finfish became the most important group with US$ 837 million, while in 1994 was only third with US$ 336 million.
11. It was highlighted that while some countries have experienced a negative growth, in particular countries with economies in transition, which were experiencing serious difficulties to re-launch the sector, some others, such as Cyprus, Lebanon, Malta and Syria have shown rapid development in the four years under examination. In terms of species contribution, marine and brackishwater species molluscs seemed to have experienced a good recovery in these four years, although some statistical data needed confirmation. However, the fastest increase, both in terms of production and economic value, corresponded to gilthead seabream and seabass which grew (in volume) at 26-27 percent per year. Noticeable was also the increase in production of mullet but this was limited mainly to Egypt. Efforts to diversify finfish production had not yet given the results expected, and the contribution of the new candidate species for aquaculture remained marginal.
12. In the discussion that followed the presentation on production statistics, the need for a clear analysis of the interaction between capture fisheries and aquaculture was raised. It was also indicated that problems emerged in terms of impacts on different subjects like genetic contamination of stocks, markets and price structure and that a system analysis to study the relationship between sectors under local conditions was required. The discussion focused also on the need for diversification of production, which was interpreted not only as species diversification but also as diversification of product processing and technologies of production, which could address different local requirements. The EC delegation highlighted its political priorities on aquaculture: avoidance of excess production, quality control of aquaculture products for protection of consumers and minimization of environmental impact of production.
13. The smooth transition to aquaculture products in the Tunisian market was noted, where people inland were starting to appreciate and consume fish through extensive aquaculture production in reservoirs was highlighted. Also the impact that aquaculture was making in fish supply in countries like Cyprus, which has limited fishery resources, and where 40 percent of the local fish supply is provided by aquaculture, was noted.
14. Document GFCM:CAQ/2000/2 on activities of the networks associated with the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture, was introduced by the Technical Secretary who explained the modalities of operation of the three networks operational under the aegis of the Committee on Aquaculture.
15. The Regional Coordinator of the SIPAM network presented the activities of the network starting with an explanation of the way in which the work of SIPAM is organized through meetings of National Coordinators and a Steering Committee. He thanked Italy for the support provided through ICRAM, in organizing the meetings of the National Coordinators over the past years. SIPAM's programme of work includes training in the new versions of the software and initial training and organization of the new national centres joining the network. Regarding software development, the improvements of the last version permitted the linkage of up to nine sub-national centres to the national focal point allowing for easy flow of information as well as cross checking the accuracy of the information entered into the system increasing as well the dissemination of regional data. A CD ROM containing the last release of the regional database, the brochure of the system in four languages prepared with the support of Portugal and reports of recent work carried out by the Regional Coordinator was distributed.
16. The nature, contents and problems experienced with the thirteen operative databases of the system were presented. The problems encountered for the establishment of the pathology database to liaise with the FAO AAPQUIS database being prepared for Asia, were noted. The Committee was informed that on the marketing database, collaboration with CIHEAM and the European Federation of Aquaculture Producers (FEAP) had been sought and the programme for development of this database was still ongoing. The presentation concluded with a listing of the legal aspects still pending resolution and mentioned the increasing difficulties to find funding for the network activities at regional level.
17. In the discussion that followed, questions were raised about the language coverage, in particular the use of Arabic, and it was agreed that a more balanced use of languages was required . The need to ensure quality control of the data entered into the system as a matter of priority. The system, with the internal national network, will be in a better position to serve as a control for data was emphasized. The need to ensure liaison with other networks being established was raised and in this respect it was mentioned that SIPAM had already participated in a meeting organized for this purpose at the recent Nice 2000 Conference by the European Aquaculture Society (EAS).
18. Regarding the Technology and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (TECAM) and the Socio-Economic and Legal Aspects of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (SELAM) networks, the representative of CIHEAM presented the work carried out in the intersessional period starting with the mechanism which had been utilized so far, in collaboration with FAO, for the preparation of the single activities and for the programme in general. The programme related to the two networks had included five courses, five seminars and workshops and three surveys plus seven publications. The number of participants in the various events had reached 750 from most of the GFCM countries, whether members or not of CIHEAM, although participation from EC member countries was predominant. Several countries expressed their satisfaction with the work carried out so far, and for the impact of work of the networks, in spite of the mounting financial difficulties experienced both by CIHEAM and FAO. Questions were raised about the inclusion of environment-related activities which were to be carried out under the EAM, such as problems of genetic pollution, fish escapes, effects of introduced species, etc.
19. The Committee was informed that TECAM, with its Seminar on Environmental Impact Assessment held in January 2000, had included this subject in its agenda. The need to work on aspects of environmental policy and environmental strategies for decision-making was pointed out by the Chairperson as a suggestion for future work.
20. The Technical Secretary presented document GFCM:CAQ/2000/3, Summary of the Report of the Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean Region, which was held in Rome in July 1999. He thanked the Italian Government for proposing and funding the Consultation which represented the first attempt to operationalize the principles of the Code in the Region (full report of the Consultation GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.8). The Consultation indicated that GFCM was the proper body, through its Committee on Aquaculture and associated networks to continue the work initiated in the Consultation. The Committee was requested to discuss the methodology employed and the results of the Consultation.
21. The Committee thanked the Italian Government for its vision and for having made possible what was perceived as an important step in the right direction of emphasizing sustainable development of aquaculture in the region. The participants expressed appreciation for the work carried out by the Technical Secretary in the organization of the meeting.
22. The Committee agreed with the conclusions of the Consultation and in general terms with the Action Plan proposed. The EC delegation indicated that the Action Plan resulting from the Consultation was in line with its strategy for sustainable development of the entire fisheries sector. In their strategy, sustainability implied respect for the environment, balance between production and market demand and respect for the final consumers through quality assurance. The importance of social aspects in the context of aquaculture development in the Mediterranean was also highlighted. The delegate from Cyprus indicated that, as a result of the Consultation, steps have already been taken to include elements of the Action Plan into the regulatory framework of the sector in her country. Similar work is being carried out by Tunisia for what relates to harmonization of quality criteria.
23. The delegate from Morocco indicated the need to translate the results of the Consultation into simple documentation to be used at national and regional levels and highlighted that, in relation to environmental aspects, the Consultation did not consider environmental issues as a limitation for the development of aquaculture, but rather as a resource to be managed for sustainable development. It was requested that EC regulations on environmental aspects be introduced into the SIPAM system as a matter of information for the rest of the countries, although it was pointed out that GFCM should further elaborate them as an important regional activity.
PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF WORK 2000-2002
24. The discussion of the Proposed Programme of Work 2000-2002 was based on document GFCM:CAQ/2000/4.
25. The SIPAM Regional Coordinator presented a proposal for a more elaborated system for further strengthening the present system. The programme emphasized the need for better liaison between national and regional centres, through the meeting of the national coordinators and that of the steering committee as well as visits to the countries to promote the organization of the national networks. The increase of visibility of SIPAM through a web site in which the various reports analysing the data contained in the database would be included, was also proposed. The need to resolve the question of the legal agreements of the network on country participation and copyrights was also noted.
26. In the discussion of the SIPAM programme, the EC delegation noted that the programme appeared to be balanced but that priorities had to be established for all the networks according to availability of funding. Several delegates highlighted, as a main priority, the liaison with the national coordinators and with other aquaculture information systems.
27. The participation of Portugal in the activities of the SIPAM network, and extension in the activities of the Committee on Aquaculture, was discussed. The Committee agreed that Portugal should be a member of SIPAM as it had been a member of the MEDRAP II project and has actively participated for several years in SIPAM. The observer from Portugal thanked the Committee and indicated that she would inform the national authorities in order to examine the participation of her country. The presence of an observer from Portugal at the next meeting of the Commission to clarify the mechanism to be followed to determine the contribution to the autonomous budget was recommended.
28. The delegate from Cyprus raised the point of the need to elaborate a clear strategic plan for the further development of SIPAM to make it more responsive to the needs of the end users, as well as to optimize the comparative advantage of SIPAM, which is the availability of a wide range of data in various fields. Along these lines the SIPAM system designer, Mr R. Coppola, indicated that the programme proposed covered only the basic needs and that a review of the system in terms of studying the possible evolution of the present platform was urgent. Resources would then be required to carry out such actions. Concern was expressed about the increasing scarcity of resources made available by FAO for the regional operation of this network. As a closing remark the Chairperson indicated that the SIPAM mission was important as it assisted the sector towards joining the information society. This mission remained valid and priorities for work have to be established. Having a clear strategy for the future to maintain the systems updated appeared to be a high priority and was recommended.
29. The observer from CIHEAM presented a proposal regarding the TECAM and SELAM networks as a result of discussions at the last TECAM/SELAM Coordinating Committee and recommendations from previous meetings of the various groups. He indicated that some activities were in the early stages of preparation.
30. The discussion highlighted the need to give an order of priority to activities, taking into account the scarcity of funds, and the new orientation of the work of the Committee as recommended by the Consultation on Article 9. Several delegations noted that the proposed programme appeared fragmented and mainly concentrated on specific aspects. This would lose sight of the need to approach the work in the networks in a more integrated way reflecting the inter-disciplinary approach required in a system analysis. Examples were given in respect of the interactions between fisheries and aquaculture in tuna farming and fisheries in the Mediterranean, and in the utilization of the coastal lagoon ecosystem for responsible forms of aquaculture, fisheries and other uses.
31. The Committee recommended to include in the programme, as a matter of priority, interdisciplinary activities using a system analysis approach. This would balance the proposed programme and would also carry forward the message of the Consultation on Article 9 aiming at modifying the approach to development work in aquaculture in the Mediterranean. The Committee further indicated that activities on specific subjects were useful and that these should also be part of the programme, but assuring that the principles which had emerged from the discussions at the Consultation would be included in the detailed agendas of the activities. As an example, the training workshop on establishment of selective breeding programmes in Mediterranean hatcheries should also deal with the impact of bad practices on biodiversity and possible contamination of genetic resources at population level. Reference to legal aspects and regulatory frameworks should also be part of these activities. The Committee highlighted the need to consider the analysis of topics, such as interactions between fisheries and aquaculture as components of a single system.
32. In terms of priority, the Committee recommended that activities of high regional relevance in line with the results of the Consultation on Article 9 should receive priority in the elaboration of future programmes of the networks. The observer from CIHEAM indicated that there was room for modification of part of the programme and for reorientation of activities during the preparation of the detailed programme of work. In this context the planning of a seminar on Mediterranean mollusc production could be an opportunity to introduce the concepts arising from the Consultation on Article 9. This group of species would be the case study through which an analysis of the system, including environmental, social, planning and technical considerations is made to derive policy orientation for the countries. In the same context it was proposed to introduce in the programme a specific seminar/workshop on the integration of fisheries and aquaculture as a priority subject.
33. Another activity considered to be of high interest by the Committee and to be included in future programmes were those related to marketing of aquaculture products, support to the analysis of product flow in the countries, prices, and methodologies for seafood market studies for introduction of new aquaculture products.
34. An offer to host the course on offshore farming was made by Cyprus.
35. The ADRIAMED Project Coordinator indicated that the last Coordination Committee of the project decided on the inclusion of aquaculture aspects in project activities and along these lines an expert consultation on the relationship between aquaculture and fisheries was planned. Cooperation with the work of the networks of the Committee on Aquaculture would be possible as is the case with the Scientific Advisory Committee, and contacts will be established for the organization of this Expert Consultation. Cooperation with other fora in the area of aquaculture information systems, in order to avoid overlapping and save funds available, was recommended by the EC delegation.
AUTONOMOUS BUDGET OF GFCM AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE
36. The Technical Secretary presented document GFCM:CAQ/2000/5 on the autonomous budget of GFCM and its implications on the activities of the Committee on Aquaculture. He highlighted the fact that the delays in reaching an agreement in GFCM on the levels of budget and on the acceptance of the new agreement by member countries had hampered considerably the work of the Committee. He referred to the differences in operation between the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) and CAQ and mentioned the fact that the proposal made by the Secretariat to GFCM on the budget for CAQ did not require additional personnel as was the case for SAC. He informed the Committee of the budgetary lines proposed by the Secretariat to GFCM, namely the meetings of the Committee on a biennial basis in four languages and the activities associated with the operation of the SIPAM, TECAM and SELAM networks. He pointed out that extra-budgetary support was received from Tunisia for the operation of the Regional Center in Tunis and that CIHEAM was contributing, in addition to staff, about US$ 50 000 per year for the operation of TECAM and SELAM. An annual requirement of US$ 180 000 to maintain the present level of operation was proposed as a minimum.
37. The SIPAM Regional Coordinator pointed out that the budget proposal was too low to ensure proper contact with the National Coordinators and that a provision for this activity should be made in consideration of the priority given to this task. Several delegations expressed concern regarding the resources available for the operation of the SIPAM network, in a situation in which an additional effort to evolve the system would be required.
38. In reviewing the discussions on budget allocation for aquaculture at the last two Sessions of GFCM, it was pointed out by several delegations that the relative weight of the sector and future growth prospects were more than the 10 percent financial resources allocated by the last Session of GFCM. The EC indicated that, subject to a possible revision of this position by GFCM at its next Session, the indicative figure of about US$ 80 000 indicated in the last Session's report should be used as a basis for planning and prioritizing activities, although extra-budgetary funds could also be sought to complement the funding. The EC also indicated that the highest priority should be to hold a session of the Committee once in each biennium. The Committee agreed that, at this stage, the best way to proceed would be to work to promote the political weight of the sector at national level in preparation for the next GFCM session in order to increase the recognition of the importance of the sector. It was agreed that the attention of GFCM should be brought to the fact that the fisheries sector should be treated as a whole, including the two components of capture fisheries and aquaculture. Aspects of sustainability for the fisheries sector in the Mediterranean included equity, intended as recognition of the correct weight, present and future, of the individual components of the fisheries system, and solidarity, and that this should be reflected in the apportioning of resources to the Committees.
SUPPORT TO PROGRAMMES OF THE GFCM COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE
39. The Technical Secretary presented document GFCM:CAQ/2000/6 on Support to Programmes of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture. This part of the agenda was intended mainly as support to the follow-up of the Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO Code of Conduct on Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean Region, and to discuss extra-budgetary support to activities listed in the proposed programme of the three networks.
40. Concerning the follow-up to the Consultation on Article 9, the Secretariat presented an advance project idea for implementation of the regional priorities listed by the Consultation for the five elements composing the Action Plan. It was mentioned that it was not a final project document as the advice of the Committee was required before its finalization. In the discussion that followed the delegation of France indicated that priority should be given to elements that were more regional than national in nature. The delegation of Morocco pointed out that an important activity to link the national teams working on the national follow-up to the Consultation with the regional project was missing from the document, and that this should be added to the outline of the project. Several delegations indicated that, given the considerable task presented by the follow-up to the Consultation, one or more projects using different funding sources or from different donors may be necessary. The possibility was mentioned of requesting funds through a regional TCP project, as well as through the FAO programme in support of the implementation of the Code (which, for the moment, has no funds for aquaculture). The Committee indicated, however, that it was crucial to follow the path indicated by the Consultation to guarantee the future sustainability of the sector in the Mediterranean.
41. The Committee agreed that as the order of priority of the activities under the various elements had been the result of a long process of analysis by experts from various countries and by FAO, changing this order was not necessary. It was considered essential to present the results of the Consultation and the general and immediate objectives of the project to the next session of GFCM. The Chairperson pointed out that the Consultation had been an effective tool to change the approach to aquaculture analysis and development in the region and the Committee recommended that this information be presented to the next COFI session directly and through the next issue of the State of Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA), because of the innovative character of the Consultation. The fact that it was being used as a methodological model by FAO for other regions was highlighted.
42. Regarding support to the planned activities of the networks, the Italian delegation indicated that they would explore the possibility to assist some of the planned activities. An additional activity that could also be explored for funding by Italy was a meeting on sustainability indicators for aquaculture, which had been recommended by the Consultation. The delegate of Cyprus offered to host the course on Mediterranean offshore mariculture, included in the TECAM proposed programme, and the delegate of Morocco offered to host the seminar on Mediterranean mollusc production also included in the TECAM and SELAM programmes. The Secretariat requested the participants to explore with their governments the possibility to assist in the implementation of the proposed programme, taking into account the priorities established.
43. Under this item, the use by the Committee of the four official languages (Arabic, English, French and Spanish) was discussed. Referring to the pertinent decisions of the FAO Council and Conference on this issue and to the agreement by the Twenty-fourth Session of GFCM on the necessity to hold the Committee meeting in four languages, the Committee agreed to recommend to the next GFCM Session to make provisions to secure the use of the four official languages for the next Committee meetings.
44. The Committee in discussing the role of aquaculture in the entire capture fisheries and aquaculture sector of the Mediterranean, noted that in its approach to the work of the subsidiary bodies the Commission had dealt in a totally separate manner with the two sub-sectors. The Committee recommended that they be integrated as the two sub-sectors are part of a single system for provision of fisheries products to the member countries. It further noted that it would be necessary to take into consideration the interactions of the two sectors that generate issues of political relevance at ecological, economical and social levels, that need to be resolved in a concerted way. This new vision of the interaction of the two sub-sectors, highlighted by the Code and recently reinforced at Mediterranean level by the Consultation on Article 9, gives a new task to the Commission. The Committee therefore recommended that adequate importance be given by the Commission at the time of deciding on programmes and budgets to the work necessary in the context of the Committee on Aquaculture and for the integration of the two sub-sectors.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE THIRD SESSION
45. The date and venue of the Third Session will be identified at a later stage, through contacts by the Secretariat with potential hosting/funding countries
46. The report of the Second Session of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture was adopted on 16 June 2000.
Appendix A
Agenda
1.
Opening of the Session
2.
Adoption of the Agenda and Arrangements for the Session: for decision (GFCM:CAQ/2000/1)
3.
Election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson: for decision
4.
Review of the major recommendations of the Twenty-second, Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Sessions of GFCM concerning aquaculture: for information (GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.3, 4, 5 and 6)
5.
Progress of Mediterranean Aquaculture since the First Session of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture: for information (GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.7)
6.
Activities of the networks linked to the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture in the intersessional period 1996-2000 (GFCM:CAQ/2000/2)
- Report on the SIPAM Network: for discussion
- Report on the TECAM and SELAM Networks: for discussion
7.
Report of the Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean Region: for information and discussion (GFCM:CAQ/2000/3; GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.8)
8.
Proposed programme of work 2000-2002: for discussion and decision (GFCM:CAQ/2000/4)
- Regular meetings of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture
- Programme for SIPAM
- Programme for TECAM and SELAM
- External collaboration with other groups
9.
Autonomous budget of GFCM and its implications on the activities of the Committee on Aquaculture: for discussion and decision (GFCM:CAQ/2000/5)
10.
Support to programmes of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture (GFCM:CAQ/2000/6)
- Presentation on project document for the follow-up to the Consultation on Article 9 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries: for discussion and decision.
- Other initiatives and discussion regarding on-going programmes that could lead to a reinforcement of proposed activities.
11.
Any other matters
12.
Date and place of the Third Session
13.
Adoption of the report
Appendix B
List of Participants
MEMBERS OF GFCM
ALBANIA/ALBANIE
ALGERIA/ALGÉRIE
Ahmed HACHEMI
Représentation permanente de la République algérienne démocratique et populaire auprès la FAO
Ambassade de la République algérienne démocratique et populaire
Via Barnaba Oriani 26
00197 Rome
Italie
Tel: (+39) 068084141BULGARIA/BULGARIE
CROATIA/CROATIE
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Daphne STEPHANOU (Ms)
Department of Fisheries
13 Aeolou Str.
1416 Nicosia
Tel: (+357-2) 807862
Fax: (+357-2) 775955
E-mail: [email protected]Andreas ROUSHIAS
Permanent Representation of the Republic of Cyprus to FAO
Piazza Farnese 44
00186 Rome
Italy
Tel: (+39) 066865758
E-mail: [email protected]EGYPT/ÉGYPTE
Mohamed KHALIFA
Permanent Representation of the Arab Republic of Egypt to FAO
Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt
Via Salaria 267 (Villa Savoia)
00199 Rome
Italy
Tel: (+39) 068548956
E-mail: [email protected]EUROPEAN COMMUNITY � MEMBER ORGANIZATION/COMMUNAUTÉ EUROPÉENNE � ORGANISATION MEMBRE
Constantin VAMVAKAS
Commission Européenne
Direction générale de la pêche
J-II 99, 4/81
200, rue de la Loi
B-1049 Bruxelles
Belgique
Tel: (+32-2) 2955784
Fax: (+32-2) 2951940
E-mail: [email protected]Alessandro PICCIOLI
Commission Européenne
Direction générale de la pêche
Unité D.4
Rue Joseph II 99
B-1049 Bruxelles
Belgique
Tel: (+32-2) 2959324
Fax: (+32-2) 2951940
E-mail: [email protected]FRANCE
Pierre-Yves BELLOT
Direction des pêches maritimes et de l'aquaculture
Ministère de l'agriculture et de la pêche
7, place Fontenay
75007 Paris
Tel: (+33-1) 49558261
Fax: (+33-1) 49558200
E-mail: [email protected]Michel THIBIER
Représentation permanente de la France auprès de l'OAA
Corso del Rinascimento 52
00186 Rome
Italie
Tel: (+39) 066865305Yves HARACHE
IFREMER
BP 21105
44311 Nantes Cedex 3
Tel: (+33-2) 40374045
Fax: (+33-2) 40374084
E-mail: [email protected]GREECE/GRÈCE
Vassilis BORNOVAS
Permanent Representation of Greece to FAO
Embassy of Greece
Via Saverio Mercadante 36
00198 Rome
Tel: (+39) 068416873
E-mail: [email protected]Konstantinos LOLIDIS
Ministry of Agriculture
Aquaculture and Inland Waters Directorate
381, Acharnon Street
11143 Athens
Tel: (+30-1) 2020122Spyros KLAOUDATOS
Institute of Marine Biological Resources
National Center for Marine Research (NCMR)
Agios Kosmas
166 04 Athens
Tel: (+30-1) 9822557
Fax: (+30-1) 8991738
E-mail: [email protected]ISRAEL/ISRAËL
ITALY/ITALIE
Stefano CATAUDELLA
University of Tor Vergata
Via Orazio Raimondo, 8
00173 Rome
Tel: (+39) 0672595954
Fax: (+39) 062026189
E-mail: [email protected]Giovanni DELLA SETA
Ministero per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali
Direzione Generale della Pesca e dell�Acquacoltura
Viale dell'Arte 16
00144 Roma
Tel: (+39) 0659084746
Fax: (+39) 0659084176
E-mail: [email protected]Mauro BERTELLETTI
Ministero per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali
Direzione Generale della Pesca e dell�Acquacoltura
Viale dell'Arte 16
00144 Roma
Tel: (+39) 0659084746
Fax: (+39) 0659084176
E-mail: [email protected]Pier SALVADOR
Associazione Piscicoltori Italiani
Via del Perlar 37/A
37135 Verona
Tel: (+39) 045580978
Fax: (+39) 045582741Antonio TRINCANATO
Associazione Piscicoltori Italiani
Via del Perlar 37/A
37135 Verona
Tel: (+39) 045580978
Fax: (+39) 045582741Massimo RAMPACCI
A.G.C.I. Pesca
Via A. Bargoni, 78
00153 Rome
Tel: (+39) 06583281
E-mail: [email protected]Francesca OTTOLENGHI (Ms)
Lega Pesca
Via Nazionale 243
00184 Rome
Tel: (+39) 0647825249
Fax: (+39) 0647883063
E-mail: [email protected]Alessia CHINELLATO (Ms)
FEDERPESCA
Via E. de Cavalieri, 7
00198 Rome
Tel: (+39) 068554198
E-mail: [email protected]JAPAN/JAPON
LEBANON/LIBAN
Samir MAJDALANI
Ministère de l�Agriculture
Boulevard Camille Chamoun
Carrefour Galerie Semaan
Beyrouth
Tel: (+961) 3384421
E-mail: [email protected]LIBYA/LIBYE
Issam ZAWIA
Permanent Representation of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to FAO
Via Nomentana 365
00162 Rome
Italy
Tel: (+39) 068603880MALTA/MALTE
Joseph TANTI
Ministry of Food and Agriculture
Department of Aquaculture and Fisheries
National Aquaculture Centre
Fort San Lucjan
Marsaxlokk
Tel: (+356) 685525/658863
Fax: (+356) 688380
E-mail: [email protected]MONACO
MOROCCO/MAROC
Abdellatif ORBI
INRH
2, rue Tiznit
Casablanca
Tel: (+212-2) 298534
E-mail: [email protected]Khadija YETTEFTI (Ms)
Ministère des pêches maritimes
BP 476
Haut Agdal, Rabat
Tel: (+212-7) 688234
Fax: (+212-7) 688213
E-mail: [email protected]Jamila ALAOUI (Ms)
Représentation permanente du Royaume du Maroc auprès la FAO
Ambassade du Royaume du Maroc
Via Lazzaro Spallanzani 8-10
00161 Rome
Tel: (+39) 064402524ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Teresa RODRIGUEZ-TRENCHS (Ms)
Secretaría General de Pesca Marítima
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación
C/José Ortega y Gasset 57
28006 MadridJavier PIERNAVIEJA NIEMBRO
Representación Permanente de España ante la FAO
Embajada de España
Largo dei Lombardi 21
00186 Roma
Tel: (+39) 066869539
E-mail: [email protected]SYRIA/SYRIE
TUNISIA/TUNISIE
Mohamed HAJ ALI SALEM
SIPAM Regional Coordinator
c/o Ministère de l'Agriculture
32, rue Alain Savary
1002 Tunis
Tel: (+216-1) 790119/784979
Fax: (+216-1) 793962
E-mail: [email protected]TURKEY/TURQUIE
Sel�uk ERBAŞ
E-mail: [email protected]
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Milli M�dafa Cad. No.20
Kizilay, Ankara
Tel: (+90-312) 41 78716
Ahmet SAYLAM
Permanent Representation of the Republic of Turkey to FAO
Via F. Denza 27, Int.16
00197 Rome
Italy
Tel: (+39) 0680690562
E-mail: [email protected]YUGOSLAVIA/YOUGOSLAVIE
OBSERVER FROM FAO MEMBER NATIONS/OBSERVATEUR D�ÉTATS MEMBRES DE LA FAO
PORTUGAL
Maria Elisa VASCONCELOS (Ms)
Ministério da Agricultura do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas
Direcção-Geral das Pescas e Aquicultura
Edificio Vasco da Gama
Alcantara Mar
1399-005 Lisboa
Tel: (+351-21) 3914265
Fax: (+351-21) 3979790
E-mail: [email protected]
OBSERVERS FROM INTER-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ OBSERVATEURS D'ORGANISATIONS INTERGOUVERNEMENTALES
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR ADVANCED MEDITERRANEAN AGRONOMIC STUDIES/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL DES HAUTES ÉTUDES AGRONOMIQUES MÉDITERRANÉENNES (CIHEAM)
Bernardo BASURCO
Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Zaragoza
Apartado 202
50080 Zaragoza
Spain
Tel: (+34-976) 716000
E-mail: [email protected]FAO
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 RomeADRIAMED Project
Fabio MASSA
Corso Umberto 30
Termoli (CB)
Italy
Tel: (+39 08) 75708252
Fax: (+39 08) 75708252
E-mail: [email protected]GFCM Secretariat/
Secrétariat de la CGPMZbigniew KARNICKI
Fishery Policy and Planning Division/ Division des politiques et de la planification de la pêche
Tel: (+39) 0657054138
Fax: (+39) 0657056500
E-mail: [email protected]Habib BEN ALAYA
GFCM Secretary/Secrétaire de la CGPM
International Institutions and Liaison Service/ Service des institutions internationales et de liaison
Tel: (+39) 0657056435
Fax: (+39) 0657056500
E-mail: [email protected]Mario PEDINI
Fishery Resources Division/
Division des ressources halieutiques
Tel: (+39) 0657056279
Fax: (+39) 0657053020
E-mail: [email protected]Rino COPPOLA
Fishery Resources Division/
Division des ressources halieutiques
Tel: (+39) 0657056279
Fax: (+39) 0657053020
E-mail: [email protected]Janet C. WEBB (Ms)
International Institutions and Liaison Service/ Service des institutions internationales et de liaison
Tel: (+39) 0657056721
Fax: (+39) 0657056500
E-mail: [email protected]Rine SOLA (Ms)
Fishery Resources Division/
Division des ressources halieutiques
Tel: (+39) 0657056299
Fax: (+39) 0657053020
E-mail: [email protected]
GFCM:CAQ/2000/1 Rev.
Provisional Agenda and Timetable
GFCM:CAQ/2000/2
Activities of the networks linked to the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture in the intersessional period 1996-2000
GFCM:CAQ/2000/3
Summary of the Report of the Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean Region
GFCM:CAQ/2000/4
Proposed programme of work 2000-2002
GFCM:CAQ/2000/5
Autonomous budget of GFCM and its implications on the activities of the Committee on Aquaculture
GFCM:CAQ/2000/6
Support to programmes of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture
GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.1
Provisional List of Documents
GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.2
Provisional List of Participants
GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.3
Review of the major recommendations of the Twenty-second, Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Sessions of GFCM concerning aquaculture
GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.4
Report of the Twenty-second Session of GFCM
GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.5
Report of the Twenty-third Session of GFCM
GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.6
Report of the Twenty-fourth Session of GFCM
GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.7
Progress of Mediterranean Aquaculture since the First Session of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture
GFCM:CAQ/2000/Inf.8
Report of the Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean Region