The Strategy on International Fishery Research (SIFR) was promoted by the international community of bilateral and multilateral donors. Its main objective is to improve fisheries development in the short and medium terms through focussed research programmes. This requires, in the first place, the identification of research needs and priorities on which research action plans, involving national institutions, would be designed. The assistance of the international donor community would be required to prepare the action plans and implement them by collaborating with strengthened national institutions.
The Strategy on International Fisheries Research was preceded by a Study on International Fisheries research, funded by the same group of agencies. The Study lasted from 1989 till 1991. In this context, a preliminary analysis on the role of the scientific sector in the formulation of national development plans in several Latin American countries was carried out through a series of missions. In the Latin American region, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay were selected, being representative for their fisheries and — in the case of Ecuador and Chile — also for their aquaculture production12. At the Second Fisheries Donors Consultation (Paris, October 1991), the agencies acknowledged the need for more direct participation from the beneficiary countries in identifying the priority research areas that should receive international assistance for preparation of the Action Plan and indicated the need to improve substantially the design of the Action Plan. Therefore, the Steering Committee, in which FAO participates, was requested to divulge information about SIFR and organize activities with the countries concerned aiming at defining the support required for fisheries and aquaculture research, oriented towards short- and medium-term development. The FAO Regional Project AQUILA II was requested by FAO Headquarters to support this strategy for the Latin-American countries.
Using as a starting point the conclusions of the SIFR technical missions, AQUILA II reached an agreement with the countries to update the aquaculture sector studies conducted in 1989 during the first phase of the regional project13 and giving special emphasis to the role of research and to its immediate contribution to development. Special guidelines were prepared by the project in order to have country reports which could be analysed in a comparative way to extract the common needs and priorities on which to base the design of the Action Plan required by SIFR.
The countries were thus requested to carry out an analysis with the following sequence:
the institutional framework for aquaculture research;
the research sector, in order to identify the main actors, their research objectives and the resources available;
the collaboration between research and production.
The present report includes the synthesis of the twenty national reports which were prepared, the common needs and priorities and identifies the main components of the Action Plan for development-oriented research in aquaculture. It was discussed and approved by the countries concerned at a special meeting in the framework of the Inland Fisheries Commission for Latin America (COPESCAL), held in Cartagena, Colombia from 12 to 16 June 1993.
A first observation that can be made from the twenty studies examined is that only four countries (Chile, Colombia, Cuba and Mexico) have a National Plan for aquaculture development clearly different from the usual, simply orientative statements normally found in fisheries policy papers (cfr. Table 1). This implies that clear regulations for this sector are not available for the majority of the countries in the Region. It must also be stressed that national directives are commonly designed — with few exceptions (Chile and Cuba) — to regulate production activities by merely setting up administrative procedures which do not contemplate the involvement of the research sector.
Aquaculture research is conducted mainly according to two institutional models: (i) directly by the public institutions in charge of aquaculture development, in their own research stations and laboratories, and/or (ii) by the academic sector. Both models are found in almost all countries. Research is also carried out to a lesser extent under the auspices of local administrative bodies (regional, provincial, etc...), while the private production sector plays almost no part and usually restricts itself to finding immediate solutions to technical problems affecting production. The exception to this general pattern is the shrimp industry in Ecuador where, as a consequence of the sector's high degree of development, several companies own research and development units with proper staff and resources. Generally speaking, the infrastructure and human resources available are to a certain extent adequate — in some cases even in excess in relation to the activities programmed; as a consequence, they are often underutilized.
Table 2 summarizes the orientation of research objectives as defined by the various parties involved in the countries. The main concern of the Governing Authority is to exploit the productive aquaculture potential by providing “technology packages” to the private sector in order to encourage investments. Biotechnological aspects in the study of species that are already being farmed or are suitable for farming commonly dominate university research which, therefore — even in areas of immediate interest to producers, such as nutrition, reproduction, pathology etc… — centers on basic issues, with results that can only be applied in the medium and long terms. In addition, the objectives of this type of research are normally established on the basis of directives issued by the institution itself and/or often of the researcher's own wishes and the availability of resources. In the absence of coordination among institutions, this inevitably entails overlapping and duplication of programmes. The private sector, interested in immediate production objectives, seldom contacts universities and is generally skeptical about “public research”. Local authorities may represent an exception, since in this case the public-private relationship is usually more personalized. Biotechnical aspects of production thus prevail. A lack of broad vision regarding sector needs limits the impact of research on aquaculture development.
The data analysed confirm the lack of:
economic studies, be they at sectoral level or for individual production models (with the exception of Cuba and Chile and, in the case of shrimps, also Mexico and Ecuador) indispensable for a better evaluation of the aquaculture potential and for formulating a proper credit policy for the sector based on precise estimates of investments required;
market surveys—especially in the case of the growing domestic demand — in connection with research on processing aimed at increasing the value of the products;
social studies, to give a clear picture of the benefits obtainable and an understanding of the value represented by attainable output (extensive aquaculture, restocking, artisanal activity) with low initial investment and simple technology.
environmental studies, which are necessary for aquaculture to be grouped in the production activities that affect territorial management, assessing its impact on the environment and its compatibility with the increasingly evident need to promote forms of sustainable development.
As has already become evident in the technical missions conducted earlier within the framework of the first phase of SIFR, production will have to be fostered by linking the technical knowledge acquired with a proper analysis of economic, social and environmental issues that justify the participation of aquaculture in development.
With very few exceptions, the countries report that the main cause for research inefficiency lies in the shortage of funds available. Some remarks on this subject follow.
The low budget allocated/obtained by the public institutions in charge of aquaculture development is in itself proof of the low strategic value put on research into the sector's development and, in most cases, of the low strategic value given to aquaculture as a whole in any particular country's overall development. This problem is partly compensated by the contribution of national agricultural research funds and national councils for scientific and technological research.
The funds available to research could be increased by encouraging the private sector to take part. This would imply demonstrating that research activities are well coordinated and are geared toward the promotion, organization and standardization of production. An analysis of the data received reveals that the contrary is true and that, with a few exceptions, research depends mainly on government funding.
Funds from external sources for technical cooperation are often badly used, frequently without a definition of the priorities to be addressed, and with agreements stipulated between donors and research institutions, both public or private, without a proper orientation of the public institution in charge of aquaculture development.
Administrative inefficiency of institutions and research centers is reflected in the distribution of their costs: 70–80% of funds go toward salaries and maintenance costs.
Finally, it seems clear that the lack of coordination in defining objectives, combined with limited monitoring and result assessment, aggravates the problem of scarce funds that are divided among an excessive number of programmes and fields of study.
In general, communication between research and production is not well developed. Producers are not informed about scientific advances which, when published, appear in scientific journals that are not easily available to them. Exceptions are the countries or states where interaction between research and production is on an institutional basis (e.g. Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Brazil-Santa Catarina).
Information transfer is also inefficient in the case of the extension activities required at the development stage. The funds available for this purpose are minimal in most countries that can count on neither the necessary public organization nor private-sector participation. At the same time, the deficient service provided by research institutions with their insufficient funds discourages the interest of producers. It is evident that this difficulty would only be overcome with effective aid to the production sector, taking into account that only if this is provided with the support of the public structure will it be possible to promote production while respecting the limits imposed by the welfare of the community.
Table 3 summarizes the priorities determined by the countries for research, together with those for the development of the aquaculture sector.
An examination of strategic sectoral features shows that many countries express the need for better identification of the potential that aquaculture represents in the context of national development, which necessarily means strengthening its institutional identity. This concern has been demonstrated either by giving priority to the evaluation of the production potential and to production organization or else as a requirement for strengthening institutional organization and coordination and the creation of a legal framework for the sector. It is interesting to note that this priority is common to countries which already have major aquaculture production and others which are still in the initial phase. In short, it could be said that in the Region the limit imposed on the sector's overall development strategy by the lack of national plans to guide and coordinate it — identified since the First Technical Meeting on Aquaculture Planning — is becoming more evident.
In relation to the above, research still seems to respond inadequately. The almost exclusively biotechnical approach in support of production development limits the use of funds to analyse economic aspects (markets, value added to the product by processing and preserving, economic evaluation of the technology selected), social aspects (organization of small- and medium-sized business), and environmental aspects (sustainable development, integrated area management) that would help to locate production in the context of national development and would thus demonstrate its true potential.
In addition to the priority for better national plans, the effort of the research sector to understand the problems affecting the productive sector and contribute to their solution is obviously due to its biotechnical nature. The promotion, adaptation and improvement of farming techniques, leading to the formulation of technology packages, are priorities recognized by all countries. Priorities such as solving pathology problems (especially in the case of shrimp culture) and nutrition (aimed at the local production of feeds for farmed species to bring down import costs) are mentioned in 50% of the national studies. However, as has been seen earlier, the lack of centralized coordination for this technical and scientific support for production limits its efficiency. The contact between producers and researchers is usually only sporadic and comes about through the initiative of a few institutions and/or sometimes through the researcher's own interest. In most cases it is the result of the interest of each company and/or producer in isolation from the national context.
The analysis of the priorities mentioned makes another important point clear, that is a concern common to both academic spheres and the sector's administration. Most countries consider diversification of aquaculture production to be a priority. This is explained by several factors:
the risk of monocultures, represented essentially by having shrimp culture as the almost only species of interest due to its high export value. Even taking into account its importance, the need to find other options, due to the increase of competition in the international shrimp markets, appears to be an urgent matter;
the success that some countries of the region have had in farming new species (Chile with seaweeds, molluscs and salmon, Colombia, Cuba and Mexico with production in inland waters);
the dispersion of research activities which, though frequently in a disorganized way, has permitted to demonstrate the technical feasibility of alternative forms of cultivation;
the understanding that aquaculture can be used as an optimum production technique in some ecosystems such as coastal lagoons and reservoirs (priorities mentioned by different countries);
the understanding of the social and economic benefits to be derived from simple forms of farming that need low initial investment (seaweed, molluscs, some types of fish farming in inland waters) once these are seen as economically self-sustaining sectors (small and medium-sized business);
the fisheries sector crisis and the need to preserve natural resources, which go in favour of farmed products.
An analysis of the national studies shows there is an increasing demand for technology for the production of both freshwater and marine fish, as well as for molluscs. However, it can also be inferred that priorities of the research sector are centered largely on biological aspects, with long-term objectives (biology of the species, reproduction, nutrition, genetics), while the administrative sector concerns are directed to market promotion, product processing, the sector's economy as well as availability of inputs and specialized personnel, in order to promote the development and strengthening of production. Integration of the two focuses and inter-institutional cooperation is still infrequent (at least on the basis of the selection of priorities) but is essential in stimulating the interest of producers.
In the development prospects of the sector, aspects related to marketing and product development become progressively more important. Besides shrimps, the main export product, priority is given to market analysis of other potentially important products such as fresh and processed molluscs, crab meat, fish fillets, marine finfish species. Currently, interest is growing in internal markets, whose potential however still remains largely unknown in the region. Some countries have shown the need to organize and strengthen the marketing of local products such as fish from inland waters (Mexico, Colombia) or to promote the growth of domestic and/or regional markets (molluscs in Chile and Brazil). Research has been involved very little in this process although it could play an important role, not only in locating, classifying and quantifying demand, but also in the sanitary control of production and, by analysing food habits, help to create products that are more acceptable to consumers.
National studies have been launched in the different countries through their respective Governing Authorities with the specific request to report on the opinions shared by the different actors taking part in the development of the aquaculture sector (see guidelines). Unfortunately, this has been done in only a few cases. The analysis of the relationship between research and production through the administration has generally been made only from the viewpoint of the latter. Thus training, for example, which is normally promoted and financed by public-sector institutions, is a priority area in most of the strategies identified for the sector's development. On the other hand, extension activities and information, which are important strategic keys in the interchange of ideas between research and production, are mentioned very little. Moreover, training is seen as a generic means of development, without distinction between manual labor, technicians and specialists, which of course does neither correspond to the productive sector's needs nor to the possible contribution/orientation of the research sector.
Finally, it can be noted that the needs highlighted by the identification of priorities — although sometimes very specific — can be grouped according to the different approaches of the productive sector and correspond to proven capabilities and/or established realities. Examples of the former are stock enhancement through aquaculture, where priority is given to harvesting techniques, population dynamics and mass production of fry, or else intensive industrial aquaculture, which needs selected reproductive stock (genetics), highly efficient control of pathogens (prevention, diagnosis), culture-medium quality (water chemistry, depuration) and feed quality (formulation, stability, etc…). This requires a regional cooperation policy — which is still poor and ranked low — that would make it possible to unite efforts by simplifying the range of the objectives identified.
The information provided by the different countries shows the disparate nature of aquaculture in the Region, whose development is in response to widely differing stimuli — commercial, social, scientific — and to varying environmental conditions. The conclusions that can be drawn from an analysis of this information inevitably refer to the situation in general, and each country has to have the critical capacity to interpret them in relation to its own productive and organizational situation.
Basically, it can be said that the contribution of the research sector to aquaculture development has been inferior to what could be expected. This statement — shared by most compilers of national reports — confirms the fact that research is under-utilized as a tool for development. An understanding of the factors causing this is the basis for proposing effective alternatives, and this is why the analysis of the priorities cited was preceded by an evaluation of “who, how and why” to help give a proper orientation to research.
Most countries in the region have made it clear that the low degree of the scientific sector's integration in development programmes can be attributed to a lack of guidance from the Governing Authority. This should be in a position to pinpoint technical, economic and social problems in production and guide research toward solving them. Though proposing different forms, countries have remarked on the need to establish National Sectoral Plans, or at least clear and detailed guidelines. Without these, research will continue to intervene on a “on-off” basis, which is useful for solving immediate problems but is often contradictory and disparate, if seen in terms of medium and long-term development. Greater coordination between the agencies administering the sector would make it possible to:
reconcile research findings with production needs to accurately define development policies;
use the feedback from aquaculture development to direct research toward clearing the bottlenecks that stall the progress of production.
The relationship between research and production in the region is frequently established without a central control by the administration, and often through personal contacts and/or agreements between companies and public and private institutions. This is probably one of the causes of the almost exclusively biotechnical orientation of research programme, whose objectives are targeted for the resolution of practical and immediate production problems. This has also been a cause of failures, having supported forms of production not taking into account the limits set by logistic, social and environmental conditions. Therefore, the need becomes apparent for research to be situated in the context of the sector's overall development by stimulating interdisciplinary and inter-institutional programmes that will allow each participant to see and fully understand the role of research. This could well be the conceptual framework needed to accelerate and balance aquaculture development.
In addition to the permanent interest in shrimp farming, in the region there is an obvious trend toward diversification, which is indicated as a priority by most countries. The aim is to take full advantage of the social and economic potential of aquaculture and avoid the risks involved in concentrating on a single species (e.g. shrimp) or a single objective (e.g. export). Interest in seaweed, molluscs and marine fish is increasing, while farming in inland waters has concentrated exclusively on fish. According to the above analyses, it would be a good idea to carry through programmes embracing all aspects linked to the development of the cultivation of a specific species that could assess the potential. In this context, biotechnical information would have to be accompanied by economic information (feasibility studies, markets), social information (identification of potential producers and production organization) and environmental information (resource utilization, area management).
Among the priorities stressed by the countries of the region, there is a marked interest in extensive aquaculture. This is gaining weight as a way to achieve a major increase in production, with projects that require low initial investment. The principal models, aquaculture for restocking and management of coastal lagoons are attracting more and more attention from the administrative sector because of their economic potential, low environmental impact and possible social benefits. However, the region has already found out that these features in themselves are not a guarantee of success. Together with a thorough knowledge of the species farmed and the appropriate techniques to be employed, there must be proper management of the ecosystem and an understanding of the social and economic aspects typical of this type of aquaculture. The contribution of the research sector is important in this case — where the use of common resources for differing and even conflicting purposes is implied —takes into account the constant intervention of public administration. Research institutions should not only be involved in the programming and implementation phases of projects but also in the monitoring of the effects produced, providing the feedback necessary for any subsequent redirection. This focus is particularly applicable in achieving the integration of aquaculture projects with area development plans and guaranteeing their self-sustainability.
Pathology and feed are the most frequently mentioned technical priorities. Intensive research into pathology has been directed mainly to shrimp farming where viral and bacterial infections have caused widespread damage in recent years. The region has some specialized centres in this field (Ecuador, Cuba, Panama), and therefore cooperation programmes should be promoted among producing countries. A major reinforcement of feed production for aquaculture is justified mainly by the need to curb imports, which represent extremely high costs to producers, and to improve their quality in relation to local farming conditions.
A priority consideration for farming already established on an industrial scale (shrimp and salmon) is the optimization of production technology. This means dedicating efforts to basic scientific research (inter alia: immuno-diagnostic research, quantitative genetics, genetic transformation, enzyme and endocrine processes, substitution of synthetic inputs, etc…) that will help to maintain the comparative advantage and competitiveness of the activity.
Creating interdisciplinary programmes will obviously mean more productive utilization of research, with the optimization of both human and financial resources. Proper coordination of these programmes will help to decentralize research, without the risk of duplicated efforts and in support of the analysis of local conditions. Furthermore, regionalization of programmes (as regional or sub-regional programmes) will allow for better employment of the resources and experience available. Also, with the cooperation of countries with different degrees of sectoral development, it will make the support of international cooperation more efficient.
Finally, as regards the problem of transfer of information, which at present is a serious limit to the exchange of ideas between research and production, certain points should be noted:
Despite the fact that courses on aquaculture are held widely, the region has no training courses for extentionists. Information is not shared professionally but rather on the basis of the individual's capacity.
Industrial aquaculture needs to strengthen the mechanisms of technical assistance to the productive sector. This can be achieved by the institutionalization of specialized services on the part of research centres.
Information sharing by means of publications should be diversified according to the needs of users and include topics of interest to researchers, producers and administrators with different centres for diffusion (scientific institutes, public administration departments, private organizations). In addition, the use of national and regional information systems must be encouraged, including SIPAL14, which is at present being promoted in its initial phase in Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Cuba and Trinidad and Tobago by the FAO-AQUILA II Regional Project and whose rapid expansion to other countries is planned. These systems must provide concrete assistance for production in order to justify their financing, in the short term, by the users themselves.
Countries must promote the creation at the national level of Technical Task Forces (which group aquaculturists together on the basis of species farmed or by region, etc…). These, in cooperation with National Science Councils and Aquaculture Departments will facilitate contact between scientists and producers by spreading information more widely.
This last point is extremely important for strengthening cooperation in decision-making among the three sectors involved in developing aquaculture: research, administration and production.
The main objective of the SIFR is to increase the participation of fisheries and aquaculture research in development processes. Taking this basic approach into account, the Plan of Action to be formulated to make the best possible use of international assistance must identify the factors that limit the contribution of research and point to a strategy to strengthen the links between institutions involved in fisheries and aquaculture development. The aim of this is to step up the support that this sector gives to the social and economic development of each country and the entire region.
National studies have identified the lack of coordination in the programmes as one of the weaknesses of the research sector. As has been stressed several times, the main difficulty is the general absence of clear sectoral policies to guide the development of aquaculture and establish its priorities. This contributes to the image of aquaculture as the “younger brother” of fisheries, without a clearly defined institutional or strategic identity. This situation confuses the research sector and, consequently, it ends up pursuing objectives that are sometimes defined by government departments or else by scientific institutions, by researchers and also by producers themselves, who try to find solutions to their problems through direct personal contact with academic circles (often outside the region).
As a result, a first important step is for the Governing Authorities of aquaculture in the countries of the region to fulfil their function as activity coordinators, not simply by encouraging improved communication among the productive, administrative and research sectors, but rather by orienting it. The first positive effect of this coordinated interchange will be to give to the Governing Authorities a comprehensive view of the sector, enabling them to decide on priority actions within the framework of the general lines of national development (economic, social, environmental). A second advantage that will be derived from this constant contact among producers, researchers and administrators will be the possibility of defining shared lines of action where responsibilities and the specific inputs that are necessary will be more clearly defined. This last point will show up the objectives and limitations of each participant and help in ranking priorities in terms of resources available, at the same time preventing the planning of wider, but theoretical, programmes that, when not carried through, affect adversely the sector as a whole.
Some countries are already making an effort to reinforce the exchange of ideas among the different parts of the aquaculture sector through several institutional means under the auspices of government departments and/or by the creation of foundations, corporations and associations. However, this does not always lead to a good level of coordination and, particularly with regard to the aim of the SIFR, does not necessarily mean that research takes a more active part. At the same time, some of these bodies focus on creating Task Forces to solve problems, demonstrating a possible strategy for the institutional strengthening of aquaculture. In fact, centralizing coordination of activities in a Governing Authority belonging to the public sector will help to strengthen the institutional recognition of the Task Forces. At the same time, the Task Forces themselves will provide the Governing Authority with the essential feedback needed for it to guide its coordinating activities in the right direction. This pattern could prove useful for expanding the role that research plays in development by increasing the coordination of its activity (Figure 1).
The characteristics of these two entities — Governing Authority and Task Forces — would obviously be different, as would the terms of reference for their functions. Nevertheless, maximum integration would be sought in the aim to develop aquaculture. The Task Forces must be temporary, in accordance with the problem to be solved and, as far as possible, specific, i.e. selected on the basis of the species farmed, regions, or subjects (pathology, markets, genetics, etc…) and the needs identified. Each Task Force should include representatives from the different sectors, especially production and research, with a nationally recognized level of expertise, representatives from the public-sector institutions involved in the aspects to be discussed (environmental, legal, commercial, etc…), and, of course, also from the Governing Authority. The duty of these Task Forces will be to examine matters from a technical point of view and identify concrete lines of action for development, thus simplifying decision-making for public institutions. The Governing Authority, which will have taken an active part in defining activities, will be responsible for coordinating them by means of constant monitoring and progress evaluation. In this way, with the creation of technical groups for specific purposes, it will be possible to ascertain the economic, social and environmental feasibility of aquaculture programmes.
Numerous advantages will be obtained from this coordination of activities:
contact between producers and research institutes will be institutionalized by the Task Forces;
the temporary and specific nature of the Task Forces will make it possible to employ the experts most highly qualified in the different fields for each case;
the need to make detailed evaluations of action programmes and the institutional nature of the Task Forces would force research, now dominated by the technical aspects of production, to become interdisciplinary;
an all-encompassing view of the sector and the efficient selection of priority areas would help the Governing Authority to concentrate and properly channel funds earmarked for research; administration would finally accept it as an important instrument for procuring information and a useful analytical tool for defining efficient sectoral policies that, in turn, would orientate research priorities.
Definition of priorities is a sequential process which, to be functional, must respect hierarchies:
The first step will be the definition, when this does not exist, of the trend of the sector: intensive or extensive, for local consumption or export, mariculture or inland aquaculture, social or industrial, etc… Obviously, several of these models may coexist and be prioritized at the same time, depending on resources and on degree of awareness.
The second important step will be to select the priorities that help the development of the two basic types of research: adaptive, to solve “bottlenecks” that put limits on productive activity and therefore to consolidate models already existing, and innovative, which is geared toward introducing new species and techniques to increase overall production. It is interesting to note that this is an approach that already exists in the region, according to the priorities identified in national reports.
Finally, producers and administrators should be invited to take part in the selection of the specific techniques that research should investigate. These, as the principal makers of sectorial policy, are the people who can best assess the obstacles that need to be eliminated and the advantages offered by new technical solutions. In this context, research will have the key task of determining pilot designs to lead to the identification of technical solutions, making existing information available and at the same time providing warnings against hasty decisions. The Task Forces suggested earlier will mean that the selection and planning of priority projects has considerably improved.
The different viewpoints of the participants in a Task Force responsible for finding solutions to reinforce the sector's development will come together positively in:
situating objectives in the wider context of national development, taking into account the social and environmental aspects involved in increased aquaculture production;
showing up the economic links of production, which make clear that there is an urgent need for studies aimed at improving corporate operations in cultures, market evaluation and promotion, product processing, etc…;
broadening inter-institutional cooperation to meet problems on a comprehensive scale through the participation of experts in various fields;
accepting the limits inherent in the research sector, which is responsible for the accuracy of information and so has to make exhaustive studies, being often compelled to conduct basic research that, although not directly applicable, is essential for understanding the problems to be solved;
sharing the financial responsibility for promoting the activity by guiding the private capital participating into intensive, industrial schemes, and reserving public intervention for wider development models on a national scale, such as rural aquaculture or aquaculture for restocking.
The basic thrust of SIFR objectives is to identify regional and/or subregional priorities into which the support provided by international cooperation should be channelled. The regionalization of investigation does in fact bring numerous benefits, especially in a region like Latin America, where the academic sector generally has a well-grounded tradition, infrastructure and specialized human resources. A similar consideration that requires cooperation among institutions on a nationwide level is valid for encouraging cooperation among the institutions of the different countries of the region. In fact, this improves the effectiveness of the analyses carried out on different issues by making selective use of the human and technical resources of each country. At the same time, duplication of efforts is avoided and information sharing reinforced. In addition, true horizontal cooperation will obviously make the very fact of international cooperation more effective with broader and faster diffusion of results.
Regionalization should be encouraged on the basis of topics that are as specific as possible, such as shrimp pathology, tilapia genetics or, as an example of subregional priority, salmonid farming. This would help toward the formation of specialized research cores so as to use the region's resources in the most efficient way and funnel foreign cooperation into selected projects that are on-off but important for the progress of the sector. Obviously, having established Task Forces for selected topics on a nationwide scale will help the interchange of ideas within the region. They will also contribute substantially toward the formation of regional groups (networks) whose prime usefulness will be in dealing with highly specific subjects at the institutional level. As a result, it will also be possible to make a selection of key centres in the region that can be centres of excellence for the countries in specific areas of research.
