APPENDIXES/ANNEXES

A. Agenda/Ordre du jour

Agenda

1. Opening of the meeting

2. Adoption of the agenda and arrangements

3. CAQ major achievements

4. CAQ strengths and weaknesses

5. Options for improvements

6. Any other matters

Ordre du jour

1. Ouverture de la réunion

2. Adoption de l’ordre du jour et organisation de la réunion

3. Principales réalisations du Comité de l’aquaculture

4. Points forts et faiblesses du processus actuel du Comité de l’aquaculture

5. Possibilités d’amélioration

6. Autres questions

B. List of participants/Liste des participants

EXPERTS

FRANCE

Jean-Paul BLANCHETON
Laboratoire de recherche piscicole de Méditerranée
Station expérimentale de l’IFREMER
Chemin de Maguelone
F-34250 Palavas-les-Flots
Tel: (+33 467) 504112
Fax: (+33 467) 682885
Email: [email protected]

SPAIN/ESPAGNE

Bernardo BASURCO
Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of
Zaragoza (IAMZ)
Avda. De Montañana
1005-50059 Zaragoza
Tel: (+34 976) 716000
Fax: (+34 976) 716001
Email: [email protected]

ITALY/ITALIE

Stefano CATAUDELLA
Dipartimento di Biologia
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Via della Ricerca Scientifica
I-00133 Rome
Tel: (+39 06) 2026187
Fax: (+39 06) 2026189
Email: [email protected]

Riccardo RIGILLO
General Directorate for Fisheries and Aquaculture
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Policies
Via dell’Arte 16
I-00144 Rome
Tel: (+39 06) 59084746
Fax: (+39 06) 59084050
Email: [email protected]

CROATIA/CROATIE

Ivan KATAVIÆ
Directorate of Fisheries
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Water Management
Ulica I, Luèiæa 8
HR-10000 Zagreb
Tel: (+385 1) 4596236
Fax: (+385 1) 6346257
Email: [email protected]

TUNISIA/TUNISIE

Mohamed Salem HADJ ALI
SIPAM Regional Centre
30 Rue Alain Savary
1002 Tunis
Tel: (+216 71) 784979
Fax: (+216 71) 793962
Email: [email protected]

CYPRUS/CHYPRE

Daphne STEPHANOU (Ms/Mme)
Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment
Loukis Akritas Ave.
CY-1411 Nicosia
Tel: (+357 2) 2408329
Fax: (+357 2) 2781156
Email: [email protected]

GFCM SECRETARIAT/SECRÉTARIAT DE LA CGPM

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
Fisheries Department/Département de pêches
00100 Rome
Italy/Italie

Alain BONZON
GFCM Secretary/Secrétaire de la CGPM
Senior Fishery Liaison Officer/
Fonctionnaire principal de liaison (pêches)
International Institutions and Liaison
Service/Service des institutions internationales et de liaison
Fishery Policy and Planning Division/
Division des politiques halieutiques et de la planification
Tel: (+39 06) 57056441
Fax: (+39 06) 57056500
Email: [email protected]

Alessandro LOVATELLI
CAQ Technical Secretary/Secrétaire technique du CAQ
Fisheries Resources Officer (Aquaculture)/
Spécialiste des ressources halieutiques (aquaculture)
Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture
Service/Service des ressources des eaux intérieures et de l’aquaculture
Fishery Resources Division/Division des ressources halieutiques
Tel: (+39 06) 57056448
Fax: (+39 06) 57053020
Email: [email protected]

Rino COPPOLA
Senior Fishery Resources Officer/
Fonctionnaire principal (ressources halieutiques)
Marine Resources Service/Service des
Ressources marines
Fishery Resources Division/Division des ressources halieutiques
Tel: (+39 06) 57056279
Fax: (+39 06) 57053020
Email: [email protected]

Valerio CRESPI
Fishery Resources Officer/Spécialiste des ressources halieutiques
Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture
Service/Service des ressources des eaux intérieures et de l’aquaculture
Fishery Resources Division/Division des ressources halieutiques
Tel: (+39 06) 57055617
Fax: (+39 06) 57053020
Email: [email protected]

CONSULTANT

Michael NEW
Consultant
Wroxton Lodge, Institute Road
Marlow, Bucks SL7 1BJ
United Kingdom
Tel: (+44 1628) 485631
Fax: (+44 1628) 485631
Email: [email protected]

C. EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF AQUACULTURE (CAQ) OF THE GENERAL FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN (GFCM) (in English only/en anglais seulement)

Prepared by
Michael New
Wroxton Lodge, Institute Road
Marlow, Bucks SL7 1BJ, United Kingdom
[email protected]

PREFACE

This document presents the results of an external appraisal of the achievements of the Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ), which was agreed during the twenty-eight Session of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM 2003). Terms of reference were prepared by the GFCM Secretariat (Annex 1) and the evaluation was conducted during a consultancy that took place between December 2003 and February 2004. The report also includes the results of a fuller and more specific examination of one of the CAQ networks, SIPAM^[15], for which separate terms of reference were set (Annex 2, Appendix 1).

The work of the consultant on the overall CAQ evaluation was conducted through a desk study of relevant documents, discussions with FAO staff from the GFCM Secretariat in Rome, and correspondence with the SELAM/TECAM Coordinator. In accordance with the wishes of the GFCM (GFCM 2003), his report on the evaluation of the other current CAQ aquaculture network, SIPAM, which involved personal discussions with the SIPAM Coordinator and the National Coordinators of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, has been merged into this appraisal as Annex 2.

This report commences with a brief introduction to the initiation, objectives, and modus operandi of CAQ. Comments on its activities and achievements are followed by a discussion of the current weaknesses and constraints that have been observed. Finally, a series of recommendations are provided in this report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Separate external appraisals of CAQ and of one of its networks (SIPAM) were conducted between December 2003 and February 2004. Full details of the more extensive evaluation of SIPAM are contained in Annex 2 of this report. The results of both evaluations are summarized below.

In relation to the overall structure and operation of CAQ, and its relationship with the parent body (GFCM), the consultant finds that:

• CAQ has held 3 formal meetings since 1996 and has had two chairpersons, one of which held office for six years. The number of countries sending representatives to its meetings rose from 11 in 1996 to 14 in 2000 but fell back to only 10 in 2002. CAQ is supported by the GFCM Secretariat and has its own Technical Secretary.

• SAC, which was set up in 1999, has a remit that excludes aquaculture.

• During the GFCM session in 1999 there was a call for a significant proportion of the autonomous budget to be allocated to aquaculture; in the 2002 session there was a call for its share to be enhanced. There is no evidence that this has been actioned; in any case, delays in reaching an agreement within GFCM on the levels of the autonomous budget and the new GFCM agreement have seriously hampered the activities of CAQ. The activities of all of its networks have been enabled only because of generous contributions by and through FAO, by CIHAEM/IAMZ and by the Tunisian Government.

• The complementarity of the three remaining networks has been stressed on a number of occasions; however, liaison and collaboration have not been adequate.

• In 2000 CAQ endorsed the recommendations of the Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean region and developed a Plan of Action. However, its project idea failed to find funding. In 2002 it noted that the Plan of Action appeared to be in line with the EC strategy related to aquaculture within the CWP and called for a new draft to be prepared. This will be considered during the 4^th CAQ session in 2004.

• CAQ played a significant role in the first international symposium on the domestication of bluefin tuna and in the work of the SAC/CAQ/ICCAT Ad Hoc Working Group on Sustainable Bluefin Tuna Farming Practices in the Mediterranean.

Concerning TECAM/SELAM/EAM the consultant specifically finds that:

• The activities of its TECAM and SELAM networks have been extensive and have almost certainly had a significant impact of the nature of aquaculture development in the region. However, unlike SIPAM, they do not operate as true (permanent) individual or institutional networks; the activities of TECAM and SELAM are mainly concentrated on training activities.

• By 1996, when CAQ was established, EAM effectively ceased to exist since no budget for its operations was available; since then its duties have been absorbed into the other aquaculture networks. Its Coordination Committee met only once, in 1995. Bearing in mind the regional importance of environmental matters, means should have been found to continue EAM as a separate entity.

• Since 1995 TECAM and SELAM have been coordinated by CIHEAM-IAMZ, which has provided substantial human and financial resources to these networks. Its Coordination Committee has met three times.

• Over one thousand participants have attended TECAM and SELAM courses, seminars and workshops and nearly sixty have joined its postgraduate courses.

• The work of TECAM and SELAM has been diffused through fourteen issues of the CIHEAM journal and, to a more limited extent, through SIPAM.

• It is an undoubted fact that the TECAM and SELAM networks have played a significant but unquantifiable role in the development of aquaculture in the region.

• TECAM and SELAM have also conducted a number of regional surveys which have provided opportunities for collaboration with SIPAM that have not yet been completely followed up.

• The TECAM and SELAM networks have relied heavily on the voluntary participation of individuals from other institutions and organizations.

• The activities of TECAM and SELAM have been mainly financed by CIHEAM-IAMZ, with support from FAO. These two organizations have been totally responsible for the organization of these networks. Without their continued support it is doubtful if they could survive at all.

When considering SIPAM the consultant specifically finds that:

• CAQ has a most useful information network that holds latent promise. However, some urgent decisions need to be taken (see below) if SIPAM is to fulfil its potential and develop its credibility. Continuing SIPAM at the present level of national commitment and financial support is not an acceptable option.

• SIPAM has been coordinated since its inception by a Regional Office hosted and supported by the Government of Tunisia. It has held seven Annual Meetings of its National Coordinators. Its Coordination Committee has also met seven times.

• The original concept of SIPAM was sound and it remains an extremely valuable tool to assist the further development and management of aquaculture in the Mediterranean basin and the Black Sea.

• A significant group of information gatherers (the ‘human network’) has been constructed, encouraged, trained and supported. This was a significant achievement in a period when computers have metamorphosed from ‘magic’ to accepted components of everyday life.

• At first, before the internet, improvised datacom packages were employed; SIPAM was a pioneer in many fields (including information technology, computer knowledge and usage, data manipulation, decentralised data verification and data dissemination) in the region. All this was done in a group of countries where eight or nine national languages were spoken. This established the basis for the ‘data network’.

• However, despite overcoming many problems and difficulties, the opportunities which the SIPAM concept provided (the ‘information network’) have not yet been fully exploited, even though SIPAM has been running for eight years post-MEDRAP.

• Progress has been slow for a variety of inter-related reasons, which include the absence of any mandate at the country level (and thus no direct control over national SIPAM networks), slow progress towards a GFCM autonomous budget; a long external management chain, with SIPAM reporting through CAQ (which does not meet annually) to the GFCM; a vague internal management structure for SIPAM, with no clear terms of reference for the regional or national staff involved; inadequate commitment by member countries during what has proved to be an eight-year “consolidation phase”; late, incomplete and unvalidated submission of information from the member countries; several fundamental software changes that, though resulting in the excellent potential of its current website, have taken too long to implement; and a decline in staff enthusiasm because of funding difficulties and the consequential failure, after many years, of SIPAM to fulfil its potential.

• Many of these deficiencies have long been recognised within SIPAM and the GFCM Secretariat (particularly during the annual SIPAM meetings) in an informal ‘auto-evaluation’ process. However, neither body has the power to control the external factors that have inhibited the rate of development of SIPAM.

• The new SIPAM website, though emphasising the potential strength of SIPAM, exposes its current weaknesses to the world; this makes urgent remedial action essential to avoid long-term damage to its credibility.

In relation to its overall function, the consultant recommends that CAQ should:

• Urge GFCM to recognise the increasing importance of aquaculture in the region and to give it a similar level of attention to that provided to capture fisheries.

• Urge GFCM to devote an amount from its autonomous budget for its aquaculture activities that is proportionate to its current and future regional importance.

• In the interest of integrating aquaculture and capture fisheries within a single system (as already called for by GFCM) suggest that GFCM enhances the mandate of SAC to include aquaculture. Alternatively, if SAC is to continue to be confined to capture fisheries matters, it is suggested that its name be altered to reflect this (e.g. ‘scientific advisory committee for capture fisheries’).

• Ensure (whether as a committee or a sub-committee) that CAQ is properly represented by its chairperson and technical secretary, or their deputies, at GFCM meetings.

• Monitor the activities of all its networks more closely and strengthen their coordination and synergy. The latter would be facilitated if the Regional Coordinator of SIPAM attended the meetings of the TECAM/SELAM Coordination Committee and the TECAM/SELAM Coordinator attended the SIPAM National Coordinators meetings (previously the latter have been annual events; elsewhere in this report it is recommended that they become biennial).

• Bearing in mind that only SIPAM is currently a true network, rename the three currently operating ‘networks’ as CAQ sub-committees for technical matters, socio-economic and legal matters, and information, respectively. A sub-committee for environmental matters should also be established.

• In its formal meetings (whether separately, or as part of SAC), concentrate on strategic issues of regional importance to aquaculture rather than simply receiving reports of network activities and approving their future programmes. Preservation of the status quo is not enough; CAQ should be ready to propose other initiatives.

• Through GFCM, urge member countries to make their SIPAM National Coordinators additionally responsible for making their official aquaculture statistical returns to the FAO Fisheries Information and Data Service.

In relation to the specific duties of its TECAM, SELAM and EAM networks, the consultant recommends that CAQ should:

• Urge, through GFCM, member governments to enhance their support to the aquaculture networks by providing sufficient resources by requesting the aquaculture institutions and organizations within their countries to offer further support to the activities of TECAM and SELAM.

• In view of the regional importance of environmental matters, re-establish EAM as a separate sub-committee for environmental matters.

• Broaden the terms of reference of TECAM and SELAM, which are currently mainly concerned with training.

• Make no other changes in the current work of TECAM and SELAM, which are satisfactory.

• Make long-term contingency plans to cover the eventuality that CIHEAM and/or FAO may not be able to continue their significant support for TECAM and SELAM indefinitely.

The consultant also recommends that CAQ should take the following actions that are specific to the SIPAM network:

• Ask GFCM to provide the utmost support for SIPAM because it is a significant asset that will enhance the future development and management of responsible aquaculture management in the Mediterranean; this implies strong commitment by member countries and the provision of financial support on a regional and national basis.

• However, if a much higher level of national support cannot be urgently agreed, suggest that GFCM should terminate SIPAM activities as soon as possible rather than continue an activity which shows promise but fails to deliver. This action should be regarded as a last resort^[16].

• Request GFCM to express its sincere thanks to the Tunisian government for its substantial support for SIPAM to date but, noting that different skills are now necessary to bring SIPAM into the “age of information” and that care needs to be taken not to duplicate efforts and waste valuable staff and financial resources, should re-locate the Regional Centre within the GFCM Secretariat (i.e. within FAO, where it can take advantage of in-house website developmental and operational facilities and efficiently coordinate SIPAM activities with those of the many other fisheries and aquaculture information networks based in Rome).

• Request GFCM, in addition to providing financial support from its own autonomous budget, to authorise the SIPAM Regional Centre to solicit private funding for its activities.

• Prepare written terms of reference for the Regional and National Coordinators and establish a clear operational structure for SIPAM^[17].

• Abolish the SIPAM Coordination Committee should be abolished and ask the SIPAM Regional Centre to assume its functions.

• Through GFCM, ask member countries to nominate National Coordinators that are committed to the objectives of SIPAM.

• Through GFCM, ask each member country to set up an efficient national SIPAM network and provide their National Coordinators with an adequate budget that covers both national duties and travel to regional SIPAM meetings.

• Ask the SIPAM Regional Centre to assist SIPAM National Coordinators in developing clear terms of reference and operational guidelines for the National Networks.

• Ask National Coordinators to supply information on a more frequent basis and seek national government support to do so.

• Reduce the frequency of the meetings of SIPAM National Coordinators so that they become biennial events.

• Ask the SIPAM Regional Centre to concentrate on completing and refining information from fully cooperating members rather than trying to add further member countries.

INTRODUCTION

Historical

In 1993, the General Fisheries Council^[18] for the Mediterranean (GFCM) entrusted itself through its Executive Committee with the coordination of the four networks created by the UNDP/FAO Regional Aquaculture Project, MEDRAP (1990-1995). These four networks covered various aspects of aquaculture activities (GFCM 1996a):

a) Information aspects for promotion of aquaculture in the Mediterranean (SIPAM).

b) Technical aspects for promotion of aquaculture in the Mediterranean (TECAM).

c) Economic and legal aspects for promotion of aquaculture in the Mediterranean (SELAM).

d) Environmental aspects of aquaculture in the Mediterranean (EAM).

Following a proposal at its meeting in 1994 to institutionalise the MEDRAP networks and to establish a mechanism to discuss aquaculture issues in the Mediterranean, the GFCM established the Committee on Aquaculture in replacement of its Working Group on Artificial Reefs and Mariculture in 1995.

CAQ held its 1^st session in Rome in 1996 (FAO 1996). A session was scheduled for 1998 (GFCM 1997), but extra-budgetary funds were not located, so the Committee did not next meet until 2000. The 2^nd and 3^rd sessions were held in Rome in 2000 (FAO 2000) and in Zaragoza in 2002 (FAO 2002a). The 4^th meeting is scheduled to take place in Alexandria in June 2004.

Objectives

The objectives of CAQ were defined in 1995 (FAO 1996):

• To provide a forum for the exchange of information related to the networks (TECAM; SELAM; EAM; SIPAM).

• To provide coordination in dealing with the broader aspects of aquaculture in a more integrated manner using the networks as tools for this purpose and as a starting point.

Originally, it was intended that detailed terms of reference should be prepared by the Secretariat for submission at the next meeting of the GFCM Executive Committee but, since this meeting did not materialize, they were in fact submitted to the 1^st session of the CAQ in 1996 (FAO 1996), which reviewed and adopted them (Annex 3).

Structure

CAQ is managed through formal biennial sessions and originally comprised four networks (see above). However, the activities of the network on environment and aquaculture in the Mediterranean (EAM) have been absorbed into those of the other three networks since 1996.

Procedures and participation

In 1996 CAQ decided to hold its formal sessions every two years, but there was no meeting in 1998. To date, CAQ has had only two chairpersons, one of which held office for six years. The chairpersons and their vice-chairpersons are listed in Table 1:

Table 1. CAQ Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons.

The participation in CAQ meetings is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Participation in CAQ sessions.

* By the date of the second CAQ session, the EC had become a GFCM Member.

CAQ is supported by the GFCM Secretariat, which is based in FAO Rome, and has its own Technical Secretary. The original Technical Secretary, Mario Pedini, was replaced by Alessandro Lovatelli in 2002, when the former moved to the FAO Investment Centre.

Since 1995, the TECAM and SELAM networks have been coordinated by the International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM), through the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Zaragoza (IAMZ). The two networks are coordinated by a Coordination Committee composed of a representative from CIHEAM-IAMZ, another from the GFCM Secretariat, and two experts from each network on a rotational basis. The TECAM/SELAM Coordination Committee has met three times, in 1995, 1997 and 2002. An Assistant Coordinator from each of the two networks collaborates.

The SIPAM network has a Regional Office in Tunis, hosted by the Tunisian Government and holds regular meetings of its National Coordinators^[19] and has a separate Coordination Committee comprising of representatives from the Regional Office and the GFCM Secretariat and two of its National Coordinators. So far there have been a total of fourteen meetings of the National Coordinators and the Coordination Committee.

The EAM network was coordinated by Mr Ivan Kataviæ (Consultant to PAP/RAC). The only meeting of the EAM Coordinating Committee was held in April 1995 (MAP-PAP/RAC 1995a; FAO 1996) and was attended by its Coordinator and representatives from France, Lebanon and FAO. A number of new activities were proposed during this committee meeting, at a total cost of US$ 245 000 (excluding the cost of an activity on lagoon management). However, in the absence of clear budgetary allocations, the committee could not plan any clear follow-up actions. Finally, since sufficient financial support for the separate existence of EAM did not become available, the environmental aspects of Mediterranean aquaculture became a facet of TECAM and SELAM activities.

ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS

Highlights from the three formal CAQ sessions held in 1996, 2000 and 2002 are presented here, followed by a summary of the achievements of the various networks.

FORMAL CAQ ACTIVITIES

Three formal sessions of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ) have been held, in September 1996, June 2000, and September 2002. Each session was based on a similar agenda, which included (inter alia) consideration of the major recommendations from the most recent GFCM sessions; a review of the current status of Mediterranean aquaculture; the reports of intersessional network activities; and programmes of work for the next period. In 2000, CAQ additionally discussed the report of the consultation on the application of Article 9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) in the Mediterranean.

1996 Session

During its first session (FAO 1996), having adopted its terms of reference, CAQ began by discussing a review paper prepared by the Secretariat on the status of Mediterranean aquaculture; this was followed by a series of national reports on the evolution and actual trends of the aquaculture sub-sector. The regional review presented at its first meeting formed a benchmark against which progress, based on information papers also prepared by the Secretariat, was assessed in each of the two subsequent meetings (FAO 2000; 2002a). The Technical Secretary noted that consolidation of the various networks was a major concern to GFCM and FAO and required political willingness on the part of member countries, which would have to finance both the participation of their national staff and (ultimately) specific actions and meetings, while FAO continued to seek financial resources for the work programmes of the networks (for example, several activities in support of CAQ networks were included in FAO’s Regular Programme plans for the biennium under way. The strategy proposed by the Secretariat, which emphasised the complementarity of the networks, with SIPAM as a tool to enhance the work of the others, was accepted. The Secretariat was recognised as the overall Coordinator. The Committee recommended that delegates from the private sector should attend the next session.

2000 session

The report of the 2^nd CAQ session (FAO 2000) included an account of the Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean region, which was proposed and funded by the Italian government. The Committee accepted its conclusions and agreed in general terms with the Action Plan that was proposed by the Consultation. An advance project idea was presented by the Secretariat for implementing the regional priorities identified by the Consultation. The Committee recommended that the results of the Consultation and the general and immediate objectives of the project should be presented at the next COFI session and through the next issue of the State of Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA), because of its innovative character.

In this 2^nd session CAQ noted the need to give its work an order of priorities, taking into account the scarcity of funds, and the new orientation of the work of the Committee as recommended by the Consultation, was accepted. A greater need to integrate the work of the networks was voiced, reflecting the inter-disciplinary approach required in systems analysis. Special attention should be paid to the interactions between fisheries and aquaculture as components of a single system. In this context it was noted that the ADRIAMED project intended to mount an expert consultation on this topic and that cooperation with the work of the GFCM Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) and CAQ was needed. Delays in reaching an agreement within GFCM on the levels of the autonomous budget and the new GFCM agreement were reported by the Technical Secretary to be considerably hampering the activities of CAQ. For the activities proposed (which, unlike those proposed for SAC, did not require additional personnel), which included biennial CAQ sessions in four languages and the network activities, would (taking into account the hosting of the Regional SIPAM office by the Tunisian government and the significant level of support that was being provided by CIHEAM for the TECAM and SELAM networks) require a minimum of US$ 180 000 per annum (Table 3) to maintain the current level of activities. The Committee asked that its view that the fisheries sector should be treated as a whole, including the two components of fisheries and aquaculture, should be brought to the attention of the GFCM. The Committee noted that the GFCM had dealt in a totally separate manner with the two sub-sectors and recommended that they be integrated as part of a single system for the provision of fisheries products to the member countries. The new vision of the interactions between the two sub-sectors, as highlighted by the CCRF and, more recently, by the Consultation on the Application of its Article 9 in the Mediterranean, was thought to give a new task to the GFCM. A request to the Commission for adequate importance be given to its (aquaculture-related) programmes and budgets in the context of CAQ and for the integration of the two sub-sectors.

Table 3. Budget for the basic activities of CAQ (GFCM 2000b).

Note: This budget seems to be over-estimated, in that CAQ sessions are biennial; thus, though US$ 180 000 would be required in the years when there is a formal CAQ session, US$ 130 000 would suffice in alternate years.

2002 session

The report of the 3^rd CAQ session (FAO 2002a) noted that the GFCM had endorsed the recommendations made by CAQ at its 2^nd session, including a Plan of Action on Article 9 of the CCRF, called for better integration of capture fisheries and aquaculture as part of a single system, and asked for additional resources in support of SIPAM; in this context it noted that the GFCM had acknowledged the work of CAQ within its limited financial resources. Efforts were made to lower the costs of CAQ sessions, especially while in the transitional phase before the autonomous GFCM budget had been finalised, by reducing interpretation costs; however, decreasing the number of languages (4) was not agreed.

Until the autonomous budget was agreed by GFCM, CAQ would have to continue operating in a transitional manner, with its programme of work being funded through direct contributions from countries, partner organizations and the FAO. The Committee reiterated that the estimated funds (US$ 140 000 for the inter session) were insufficient if CAQ was to implement its mandate properly. In addition, the forecasts for expenditure within the autonomous budget would need to be revised and increased; meanwhile, the Committee called upon FAO to continue providing funding.

CAQ noted that one of its networks (EAM) had become inactive but believed that, in view of the financial constraints, thoughts of its reactivation were premature. For the moment, it considered that TECAM should pursue activities related to environmental issues.

Several delegates at the 3^rd session noted that the strategy outlined by the EC within the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) related to aquaculture appeared to be in line with many of the provisions of the CAQ Plan of Action (PoA). However, funds for the implementation of the PoA had not been secured. Noting this fact, the Committee decided that it was necessary to update the document in order to prioritise short- and medium-term activities and to target major issues of regional concern better. A new draft has been prepared for the Secretariat and will be discussed during the 4^th CAQ session in 2004, following which a draft project document will be prepared.

The close collaboration between CIHEAM and the FAO Fisheries Department in the work of TECAM and SELAM, and the fact that over 800^[20] professionals, mostly from GFCM countries, had participated in the activities of these networks was noted with satisfaction. In addition, their efforts to obtain financial support to cover the expenses of participants from non-EU countries were welcomed. The resources available from CIHEAM and FAO for the activities of SELAM and TECAM were, however, limited and the need to involve additional relevant national or international institutions and associations was stressed by the Coordinator of those networks.

During the 3rd session of CAQ, the observer from the European Aquaculture Society suggested that joint CAQ-EAS workshops could be organised, and that CAQ might consider holding its meetings in parallel with EAS conferences (the next two being in Mediterranean countries - Spain in 2004 and Italy in 2006); discussions on this possibility are on-going.

In discussing the interactions between fisheries and aquaculture, the Committee was informed about the outputs of the First International Symposium on the Domestication of the Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus thynnus (DOTT), held in early 2002, as well as the recommendation made by SAC to the GFCM for the establishment of a joint GFCM/ICCAT Ad Hoc Working Group on Sustainable Bluefin Tuna Farming Practices in the Mediterranean. The Committee endorsed the Terms of Reference proposed by the SAC for this working group, proposed that experts from its networks should be involved, and stressed that liaison with the DOTT project supported by the 5^th RTD Framework Programme of the EC was essential.

The work of TECAM and SELAM

These two networks, though separate, are coordinated by the same organization (CIHEAM-IAMZ) and have a joint Coordination Committee; for these reasons, their activities are considered together in this report. The early work of these networks was described in a progress report dated 1996 (GFCM 1996b), while their activities since then were reviewed in a report to the TECAM/SELAM Coordination Committee in March 2002 (TECAM/SELAM 2002). The activities of TECAM since 1996 are summarized in Annex 5, while those of SELAM are given in Annex 6. Other activities related to TECAM and SELAM are listed in Annex 7.

The TECAM and SELAM networks have contributed significantly to the development of Mediterranean aquaculture by facilitating the exchange of information and ideas on the various technical (TECAM) and socio-economic (SELAM) aspects of aquaculture. While SIPAM assembles and distributes regional information on aquaculture (initially through its National Coordinators and more recently through its website), the work of TECAM and SELAM has consisted of training (postgraduate studies leading to a diploma of postgraduate specialisation, plus research studies leading to the award of a Master of Science degree, and short advanced courses), seminars and workshops (organised by CIHEAM-IAMZ alone or in collaboration with other regional or national institutions) designed to encourage participatory interaction on state of the art topics leading to future collaboration, and regional surveys on various topics. So far, the work of the two networks has also been diffused through 14 aquaculture issues of the CIHEAM-IAMZ journal Options Méditerranéennes; four more publications are in preparation. In addition, these two networks have been involved in activities related to tuna fattening in the Mediterranean (e.g. the symposium on the domestication of bluefin tuna held in 2002).

So far a total of 1 026 individuals have participated in the courses, seminars and workshops organised by TECAM (731) and SELAM (295), and another 57 in postgraduate courses. This is a very significant achievement, which must have far-reaching impact on the future of aquaculture in the region. An average of 12 countries were represented in TECAM and SELAM course, seminars, and workshops (Annexes 5 and 6). In general, participation in workshops and seminars is greater from northern Mediterranean countries; on the other hand, training courses are particularly popular with participants from southern Mediterranean countries. Courses have been popular; for example, 97 individuals from 16 countries applied for the 1996 TECAM advanced course on the food and feeding of farmed fish and shrimp. Some courses have been so popular that they have been repeated.

The technical surveys conducted by TECAM and SELAM provide opportunities for collaboration with SIPAM, for example in the provision of lists of aquaculture experts and projects. Another potential opportunity has, as yet, remained unexploited: the disease diagnostic directory, despite having been promised on many occasions, appears to have been delayed so that it could be published in Options Méditerranéennes first. This is the only example identified by the consultant where the priorities of CAQ and CIHEAM-IAMZ have appeared to be in conflict so far. However, the future of the TECAM and SELAM networks is vulnerable if priorities and staff within any of the organizations concerned were to alter. Several TECAM/SELAM activities have facilitated research contacts that have led to collaboration, for example in species diversification studies and in the organisation of the first bluefin tuna symposium (DOTT). A SELAM activity on the legal aspects of aquaculture development was agreed as part of the work programme for 1996-1997 but does not appear to have been held (Annex 6).

The TECAM and SELAM networks have relied heavily on the voluntary participation of individuals from other institutions and organizations. National institutes and other organizations (for example in Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Morocco, and Spain, as well as the EU Concerted Action MASMANAP) have also collaborated. However, the activities of the networks have been mainly financed by CIHEAM-IAMZ, with support from FAO. These latter two bodies have also been totally responsible for the organisation of the training, meeting and survey activities of the networks. While the results attained through limited resources have been outstanding, greater achievements would have been possible if further resources from Mediterranean national institutions and organizations could have been offered and mobilised.

The work of EAM

Several EAM activities during 1994-1995 were reported at the 1^st session of CAQ (FAO 1996). These comprised three workshops (on impacts of intensive farming outfalls on the coastal ecosystem, environmental aspects of shellfish culture with special reference to monitoring, and selection and protection of sites suitable for aquaculture, which were held in Tunisia, Croatia, and Greece respectively) and three meetings of a working group on lagoon management, that were held in Morocco, France and Greece (MAP-PAP/RAC 1995b). These activities included a number of other organizations and projects: MAP-PAP/RAC, MEDRAP II, INSTOP of Tunisia; ISPM of Morocco, IOF of Croatia, University of Montpellier, IMBC of Greece, IFREMER and FAO. However, no activities were planned for 1996, partly due to the lack of funds at MAP-PAP/RAC that resulted from delayed contributions by some countries supporting the Mediterranean Action Plan. Several proposals for EAM activities in 1996-1997 were proposed by its Coordinator during the 1996 CAQ session. While delegates discussed the relative priorities of these and other topics, they recognised that the funds available were far below the requirements; additional financial resources were seen to be needed.

The work of SIPAM

The activities of SIPAM have been the subject of a separate in-depth evaluation. The detailed results are contained in Annex 2, while the recommendations that were generated by the appraisal are contained in the body of this (CAQ evaluation) report.

WEAKNESSES AND CONSTRAINTS

Several weaknesses and constraints were identified that related specifically to the TECAM and SELAM networks. The first was that there seems to be limited coordination between the activities of these networks and SIPAM. There is an impression that SIPAM and TECAM/SELAM are working almost as rivals within CAQ rather than as cooperating networks in the same team. This observation became evident in discussions with the respective Coordinators and during the 3^rd CAQ session, which the consultant attended as an observer. A much closer working and personal relationship needs to be established between the Coordinators. Failure to ensure this would mean that the potential synergy between the availability of regional information, the provision of training, and the discussion and solution of problems of importance of aquaculture in the region will not be achieved.

The second weakness of the TECAM/SELAM networks is that their survival depends entirely on the prolongation of the close working relationship that has been built up over many years between CIHEAM and the FAO Fisheries Department. Should the priorities of CIHEAM change, the future of both networks could be in jeopardy. The effect of conflicting priorities has been observed in the delayed release of the disease diagnostic directory; CIHEAM wanted it to appear in their in-house publication before it was released through the SIPAM network (this may also be a symptom of the rivalry noted earlier). Another problem would arise if FAO were no longer able to provide the support to TECAM and SELAM that has been made available to date; a change in priorities and/or available resources could also affect the future TECAM/SELAM programme of activities. CAQ should make some contingency plans to anticipate these potential future problems.

A third constraint, which affects the efficiency of the TECAM/SELAM networks, is the limited involvement of the many other bodies dealing with aquaculture in the region. Even though results have been outstanding, even greater achievements would have been possible if further resources from Mediterranean national institutions and organizations could have been offered and mobilised.

Several specific problems were identified in relation to the SIPAM network; these have been reported in detail within Annex 2, and addressed in the recommendations section of this report.

A number of general weaknesses and constraints that affect the overall role, operation and efficiency of CAQ (and therefore of all its activities, including its networks) have been identified during this evaluation and are discussed below.

Firstly, as a preliminary to discussing the general weaknesses and constraints that CAQ faces, the importance of aquaculture in the region is briefly reviewed.

Aquaculture in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea

Aquaculture is of considerable, and increasing, importance within the region. Figure 1 shows that foodfish production from marine capture fisheries by GFCM countries in the Mediterranean and Black Sea is relatively static and in the order of 1.5 million mt/yr. While production of foodfish by aquaculture in marine and brackishwater areas by GFCM countries is still less than from capture fisheries, it shows an increasing trend. By 2001 it had reached over 600 000 mt/yr, more than three times its output in 1992. Overall foodfish production through aquaculture (including freshwater) in GFCM countries had reached almost 900 000 mt/yr by 2001.

Figure 1. Relative volume of foodfish production through aquaculture and capture fisheries in GFCM countries^[21].

AQUACULTURE WITHIN THE GFCM

One of the functions of the GFCM is to promote the sustainable development of aquaculture in the Region and, during the implementation of its mandate, to promote programmes for marine and brackish water aquaculture and coastal fisheries enhancement (Article III of the GFCM revised agreement and rules of procedure). However, the attention paid to aquaculture within its formal sessions has not matched the relative importance of aquaculture in the region, as illustrated by the content of the reports of GFCM sessions from 1997 to date, summarized in Annex 4. The level of discussion and the record of those discussions seem more influenced by the presence and enthusiasm of the current CAQ chairman and on the composition, orientation and literary style of the members of the report drafting committee, than by the real importance of aquaculture in the Mediterranean.

While the volume of discussion of aquaculture issues increased to a peak during the years 2000-2002 (25^th-27^th sessions), the picture was very different in 2003 (28^th session). Neither the CAQ Chairperson nor either of the two Vice-Chairpersons was present in the 28th session; in addition, neither the GFCM Technical Secretary for Aquaculture nor the Observer from CIHEAM (which coordinates the TECAM and SELAM networks) were able to be there. Apart from other members of the GFCM Secretariat, the only person able to speak on behalf of the activities of CAQ at this session was the SIPAM Regional Coordinator. Although there undoubtedly were extenuating circumstances for the absence of all of the individuals mentioned above, the absence of so many important players did nothing for the image of the relative importance of aquaculture within the GFCM. Strenuous efforts should be made to see that this problem does not reoccur.

The GFCM is insufficiently critical of the programmes of work presented by CAQ, which tend to extend and develop existing (network) activities, rather than addressing other issues of regional importance (see below). In addition, in common with a weakness of the current SAC process, which was identified during an appraisal of its achievements (FAO 2003), the GFCM seems to rubberstamp CAQ programmes of work without securing sufficient financial support.

THE MANDATE OF CAQ AND ITS ROLE AND STATUS WITHIN GFCM

CAQ was set up by the GFCM in 1995, in replacement of its Working Group on Artificial Reefs and Mariculture. It was given two objectives. The first was to coordinate the aquaculture networks that the GFCM had ‘inherited’ from MEDRAP (namely EAM, SIPAM, TECAM and SELAM). By and large this part of its mandate has been fulfilled.

However, its second objective, namely ‘to provide coordination in dealing with the broader aspects of aquaculture in a more integrated manner using the networks as tools for this purpose and as a starting point’ was rather vague and has not been fully achieved. As mentioned above, CAQ has perpetuated and, in some cases, enhanced the network activities established during the days of MEDRAP but has not taken on a role within Mediterranean aquaculture similar to that achieved by the SAC in relation to capture fisheries. Perhaps it was never the intention of GFCM that it should do so, in which case (in retrospect) it might have been better to retain the status of the original Working Group and simply change its name and objectives. Having already established CAQ, giving SAC and CAQ equivalent stature (and the formality and cost of its sessions would indicate that this indeed was the intention) required the GFCM to give CAQ a clearer and more comprehensive, yet specific set of objectives.

There is a curious anomaly that is reflected in the titles and functions of SAC and CAQ. The title of SAC (Scientific Advisory Committee) correctly denotes its function as a body which has been set up to give advice on questions put to it by the Commission. Furthermore, when it was set up the Commission proposed several SAC sub-committees to consider specific topics and gave it clear terms of reference (GFCM 1998). On the other hand, the title of CAQ (Committee on Aquaculture) and the objectives that it was set were vague. Having established a scientific advisory committee, it would have been expected that this committee would advise the Commission on all aspects of fisheries and aquaculture matters, since Article III of the GFCM agreement states that one of its purposes is to promote the development of sustainable aquaculture. However, aquaculture was specifically excluded from the work of SAC when it was set up in 1997, according to the recent independent review of the achievements of SAC (FAO 2003). SAC first convened in 1999, three years after the 1^st CAQ session. Aquaculture was presumably excluded from its work because CAQ already existed. Since its formation, SAC has met annually, holding its sixth session in 2003, whereas CAQ has only met twice more since 1996 and expects to hold its 4^th session in 2004.

Whereas the Commission, at each of its session, gives specific tasks to the SAC and spends a considerable amount of time discussing the advice that it receives and to setting it further tasks, its attention to CAQ is confined to receiving activity reports and agreeing future programmes of work that perpetuate existing activities. This rather passive attitude towards CAQ (and aquacultural matters) is the legacy of poor initiation and subsequent direction by the Commission but is also due to the lack of initiative shown by CAQ.

The overall effect is that whereas SAC bears every sign of an active, dynamic and useful GFCM body which has achieved ‘an impressive amount of work though it has some weaknesses that need addressing’ (FAO 2003), CAQ retains only its original characteristics - a means of perpetuating useful activities set up by the regional project MEDRAP - and has not evolved into a regional committee of stature. In addition, the result of earlier decisions by the Commission is that two formal committees are running in parallel, with SAC meeting every year and CAQ biennially. Since each type of meeting generates a lot of work for the GFCM Secretariat (both in preparation and in reporting), is very expensive to convene (especially in four languages), and requires the presence and time of representatives of each member country and others involved and interested organizations, this seems a rather wasteful use of limited resources.

In hindsight, it was a pity that the Commission did not put its aquaculture networks under the supervision of an aquaculture working group in 1995, instead of setting up a formal committee. Then, when it set up its scientific advisory committee in 1997, the working group on aquaculture could have been absorbed as a sub-committee of SAC. It is not too late to redress this situation. To suggest that aquaculture considerations should be given sub-committee status is not intended to downgrade their importance but to emphasise the obvious fact that a Scientific Advisory Committee should be able to advise the Commission on all aspects of fisheries and aquaculture, not just the capture fisheries sub-sector. Is aquaculture regarded as ‘less scientific’ than capture fisheries? If not, it should be within the remit of the SAC. In its 2^nd session (2000), CAQ itself noted that the GFCM had dealt in a totally separate manner with the two sub-sectors and recommended that they be integrated as part of a single system. Now is the chance for the GFCM to provide an example by uniting the sector within its own house under one committee (SAC).

The quirk of fate and history that resulted in the terms of reference of SAC (FAO 1998) illogically excluding aquaculture has resulted in the existence of two formal bodies and a too many formal meetings. Savings could be achieved by combining the meetings of SAC and CAQ. However, in the consultants view, the GFCM should take a more radical step by abolishing CAQ, creating a separate Sub-Committee on Aquaculture (which would inter alia absorb the activities of TECAM and SELAM) and absorbing the work of SIPAM into its existing Sub-Committee on Fisheries Statistics and Information (renaming this the Sub-Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics and Information). If the latter suggestion was accepted, it would facilitate the coordination of all GFCM information activities and enable closer collaboration with FAO fisheries and aquaculture information activities.

DELIBERATIONS OF CAQ SESSIONS

The reports of the sessions of the parent body, GFCM, indicate that references to aquaculture, apart from tuna fattening issues (which are linked to capture fisheries matters), are confined to receiving reports of past CAQ activities, congratulating the networks for their work, complimenting those that have supported it (notably FAO, CIHEAM, and the Tunisian government), and agreeing to future programmes of work.

These restrictions may be caused by the nature of the aquaculture matters brought to the attention of the GFCM by CAQ and member countries. In addition, GFCM delegates tend to have a capture fishery background, which may inhibit discussions on aquaculture. The choice of delegates is, of course, a prerogative of member governments but, recognising that capture fisheries matters may otherwise dominate deliberations during GFCM session, those involved in aquaculture within member governments should ensure that their delegates are adequately briefed, so that matters of regional importance to aquaculture can be tabled.

So far, with the exception of the joint GFCM/ICCAT working group on sustainable bluefin tuna farming, GFCM sub-committees or working groups to consider matters of regional aquaculture importance do not exist. Perhaps this is because the programmes of work proposed by CAQ have tended to be confined to an extension and development of current network activities (SIPAM, TECAM, SELAM) - the preservation of the status quo. Relevant regional issues are covered in the workshops of SELAM and TECAM but few, if any, specific matters are brought to the attention of CAQ as outputs, let alone brought to light during GFCM deliberations.

The CAQ should be making recommendations to GFCM for the establishment of working groups (not just discussions in workshops) to consider proposals for regional actions on matters of common importance to member countries (e.g. pollution; marketing of selected farmed products, regional control and enabling legislation; promoting the image of coastal aquaculture; the regional direction of aquaculture research; etc.)

Funding difficulties

There have been frequent appeals to FAO to continue providing financial support, both for specific CAQ activities and for meetings of network coordinators and coordinating committees. Total reliance has been placed on the continued support, not only of FAO but also of CIHEAM and the Tunisian government; it is clear that without any one of the legs of this three-legged stool the work of CAQ would have collapsed long ago. The provision of funding by FAO has been essential during the ‘transitional phase’ but the transition process has been very slow (and, at the time of writing) still incomplete.

A ‘model budget’ for the GFCM totalling US$ 756 000 was reproduced in the report of the 24^th GFCM session (GFCM 1999). 67% of this total was for the operation of the Secretariat. It is difficult to pinpoint the actual allotment for aquaculture within that budget but it was presumably based on the member contribution of the indicative autonomous annual budget proposed by FAO during the extraordinary session of GFCM in 1999 (FAO 1999), which totalled US$ 741 860. In the budget proposed by FAO, an estimate of US$ 55 000 for biennial CAQ sessions and US$ 140 000 for network activities was included. However, the figure inserted into the indicative budget (GFCM 1999) for CAQ meetings was US$ 25 000/yr. Funding for aquaculture network activities was included in two other budget lines, namely ‘other meetings (includes SIPAM): US$ 47 000’ and ‘support to intersessional activities (includes aquaculture networks activities): US$ 57 000’. The proportion of these two budget lines allotted to aquaculture is not specified but the total is clearly much less than the US$ 140 000 in the proposals introduced by FAO in the extraordinary GFCM session (FAO 1999).

Requests that a significant proportion of the autonomous budget be allocated to aquaculture have been made by some GFCM members (GFCM 1999) and, in 2002, the Commission agreed that, ‘whenever timely’, the share of the autonomous budget dedicated to aquaculture should be enhanced in order to enable the CAQ to carry out its mandate. TECAM and SELAM activities are generally co-funded by CIHEAM and FAO (FIRI). It seems clear that the operation of the aquaculture networks will still need to depend on the sourcing and provision of significant external (non-GFCM) support in the future. One such source, so far unexplored, is the private sector; private funding for SIPAM has been recommended in the evaluation of that network (Annex 2).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the general evaluation of CAQ and the more detailed appraisal of one of its networks, SIPAM (Annex 2), a number of specific recommendations are made below.

It is recommended that CAQ should:

(i) Be properly represented at all GFCM sessions, either by its chairperson or his/her deputy and the Technical Secretary or a deputy, in order to ensure that aquaculture issues are given adequate consideration.

(ii) Remind the GFCM that it had called for (capture) fisheries and aquaculture be integrated as part of a single system.

(iii) Request the GFCM to change the status of CAQ from a formal committee to become a sub-committee of SAC, within which relevant working groups would be established, not only to supervise the activities of the TECAM and SELAM networks and to initiate the Action Plan but also to develop future initiatives to assist the development of sustainable aquaculture in the region.

(iv) Request the GFCM to absorb SIPAM into the SAC Sub-Committee on Fisheries Statistics and Information (renaming the latter as the Sub-Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics and Information).

(v) Make contingency plans to cover the possibility that CIHEAM may not always be able to support TECAM and SELAM in the way it has done until now.

(vi) Improve the synergy between the networks by ensuring that the SIPAM Coordinator or his/her deputy attends the meetings of the TECAM/SELAM Coordination Committee and that the TECAM/SELAM Coordinator or his/her deputy attends the meetings of the SIPAM National Coordinators.

(vii) Urge the GFCM to provide the utmost support for SIPAM as an asset that will enhance the future development of responsible aquaculture management in the Mediterranean, including its interactions with capture fisheries; this implies the provision of financial, as well as moral support.

(viii) Reiterate that GFCM should recognise that continuing SIPAM at the present level of national and financial support is not an acceptable option.

(ix) Suggest that if a proper level of support for SIPAM cannot be urgently agreed it would be better to terminate SIPAM activities as soon as possible, rather than continue an activity which shows promise but fails to deliver^[22].

(x) Recognising that the current Regional Centre has, with the assistance of FAO, worked hard under less than ideal conditions to set up a framework for SIPAM, CAQ should ask GFCM to express its sincere thanks to the Tunisian government and FAO for their support.

(xi) Noting that different skills are now necessary to bring SIPAM into the ‘age of information’ and that care needs to be taken not to duplicate efforts and waste valuable staff and financial resources, recommend that the Regional Centre be relocated within the GFCM Secretariat (i.e. within FAO, where it can take advantage of in-house website developmental and operational facilities and efficiently coordinate SIPAM activities with those of the many other fisheries and aquaculture information networks based in Rome).

(xii) Appreciating that the network cannot be fully funded by the GFCM (for regional activities) and member countries (for national networks), ask GFCM to authorise the solicitation of private funding for SIPAM, for example through website advertisements.

(xiii) Prepare written terms of reference for the Regional and National Coordinators^[23] and establish a clear operational structure for SIPAM.

(xiv) Abolish the SIPAM Coordination Committee (sometime previous referred to as the Steering Committee), transferring its functions to the staff of the Regional Centre.

(xv) Ask SIPAM member countries to nominate National Coordinators that are committed to the ideals of SIPAM.

(xvi) Ask SIPAM member countries to support SIPAM with a significantly enhanced level of commitment, recognising the immense potential of SIPAM to create tools to assist in the management and further development of responsible Mediterranean aquaculture.

(xvii) Ask SIPAM member countries to provide their National Coordinators with an adequate budget that includes a commitment for adequate staff time and for national and international travel (SIPAM annual meetings).

(xviii) Advise SIPAM member countries that they should set up an efficient national SIPAM network for collecting data, with adequate staff and financial allotment.

(xix) Develop clear terms of reference and operational guidelines for the SIPAM National Networks, for application by member countries.

(xx) Ask SIPAM member countries to instruct their National Coordinators to supply information on a more frequent basis. Delaying the updating of other databases until new annual statistics become available is not satisfactory. Many databases (and the news section) need frequent input but this implies enhanced support within national budgets. Returning information to the Regional Centre should not be regarded as an annual chore.

(xxi) Limit the frequency of SIPAM Annual Meetings to biennial and request them to concentrate on future planning, with less emphasis on the past and less discussion of detailed software problems.

(xxii) Recognising that some countries are fully cooperating with SIPAM, while others are committed only in word, ask the Regional Centre to concentrate on completing and refining information from fully cooperating members rather than trying to add further member countries. This would significantly enhance the quality of the information available on the SIPAM website, which is necessary to ensure satisfied and loyal users. It would also encourage other GFCM countries to fully cooperate in the work of SIPAM. Once the value of the network is demonstrable, it should no longer be necessary for regional staff to travel the Mediterranean in (sometimes unsuccessful) attempts to persuade new countries to join and existing members to submit their national returns^[24].

(xxiii) Monitor and evaluate the specific activities of all three networks regularly.

(xxiv) Ask FAO and other collectors of global, regional and national aquaculture statistics to strive hard to coordinate the way in which national returns are submitted. This would obviate the submission of multiple returns to different agencies, each with their own questionnaires and formats.

(xxv) Based on its consideration of the recommendations made above, urgently recommend to the GFCM that SIPAM should either be continued, through a significantly enhanced commitment on the part of its member countries and a relocation of its Regional Centre, or terminated forthwith. In making this decision, the CAQ should take into consideration the opinion expressed in this evaluation that SIPAM has considerable potential value in the further development of aquaculture in the Mediterranean. It would be shame to terminate it but this would be preferable to allowing it to limp along as at present.

(xxvi) Whatever its final recommendations are, ask the GFCM to take urgent decisions on this matter. Failure to do so would result in the continuation of a potentially useful but frustratingly inadequate information service to Mediterranean aquaculture.