SEMINAR REPORT

1) The above seminar was held in accordance with the recommendations of the third session of the Steering Committee (Tirana, December 1992) Annex I, with the objective to discuss the constitution of the Technology of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean Network (TECAM) and the Socio-Economic and Legal Aspects of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean Network (SELAM).

2) The seminar was attended by representative from MEDRAP II member countries: Algeria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon, Lybia, Malta, Morocco, Portugal, Tunisia and Turkey and from the Associated Countries: Greece as well as representatives of FAO, CIHEAM. The list of participants is added in annex.

3) The session was opened by His Excellency, Mr. Mongi Safra, the Secretary of State, who welcomed all present and emphasised the need to cooperate to preserve the resources in the Mediterranean Region through the promotion of Aquaculture. He added that this seminar which deals with all the aspects regarding the development of aquaculture will help cement the constitution of TECAM and SELAM Networks. He wished the meeting much success.

Earlier Mr. Tritar, Tunisian National Coordinator, Mr. H. Akrout, MEDRAP II Project Coordinator, FAO Permanent Representative in Tunisia, Mr. Amouri, and the UNDP Res. Rep. Mr. C.H. Larsimont welcomed all participants and invited all countries to cooperate on a self-reliance basis.

4) The meeting elected:

5) The proposed agenda was adopted.

6) Mr. Valls, Director of CIHEAM, Saragoza, Spoke on the experience of CIHEAM in networking research and training at regional scale giving explanations on the structure and functionning mechanisms of the organisation. Mr. Lasram, explained the position and the possible role of CIHEAM in the implementation of the networks.

7) During the discussion which followed, a point was raised on the participation in the Network of countries not members of CIHEAM. It was stressed that there is no restriction on countries which are members of the TECAM and SELAM but not members of CIHEAM. The CIHEAM organisation already has relations with institutes in non-member countries. It was emphasised that all members of TECAM and SELAM will be equally treated and the whole system in any case will be under the GFCM Coordination, to which all MEDRAP Countries are also members. It was added that the Networks will deal directly with the institutions and scientists and/or researcher and the Management Board will designate the national institution to be the vis-a-vis. However, this will not limit the activities of other institutions in the same country to be involved in the Networks.

8) In introducing the working document prepared by MEDRAP II to facilitate the discussion and to provide a framework for the constitution of the Networks, Mr. O. Ledoux highlighted the main outlines of TECAM and SELAM, explaining the general organisation and the operating mecanisms of the Networks proposed. The presentation was generally accepted by the meeting and during the discussion which followed. Several changes and suggestions were introduced to these items. The Meeting recognised that the formal establishment of the two Networks will require the approval of the Governing Bodies of the interested parties. During the meeting of these bodies additional changes may be made. It was also accepted by the meeting that there will be a single Management Board for both Networks.

9) Mr. A. Muller-Feuga initiating the discussion on TECAM, spoke on the Technology of Aquaculture and emphasized that one of the limiting factors of aquaculture development is the lack of adapted tools. He explained the procedure followed by his institution in approaching the technological developments in aquaculture. He recommended a) to identify and classify the needs, b) evaluate technical and economical feasibility c) choose industrial partners, d) look for financial sources and e) contribute to promotion. During the discussion, it was agreed that the TECAM and SELAM shall utilise the existing technologies after identifying and classifying the needs in the meeting of their Management Board.

10) In discussing the TECAM objectives, outputs and activities included in this working document, which had been generated from previous documentation of the MEDRAP project, the meeting noted that they could be grouped into three major categories. The three categories identified are:

- Production bottlenecks

- Optimisation of production

- Activities for a sustainable development in the future.

The meeting further noted that a hierarchy of priority areas had also been suggested in past documents pointing out diversification as the highest priority followed by pathology and nutrition. These views led to a new text of the document and are reflected in the enclosed final version. The activities included under the five adopted objectives of the Network were considered not exhaustive but a general framework open to future additions and changes.
Due to the extensive list of activities, the implementation of which will require considerable resources, it was accepted that for the preparation of annual workplans, a selection will be made from this list by expert working groups for consideration and approval by the Management Board of the Networks.

11) Mr. J. young initiated the discussions on SELAM Network, by a presentation on Socio-economic and Legal Aspects of Aquaculture. He emphasised the recent and growing importance of this subject area within aquaculture. Dealing firstly with the legal aspects of aquaculture, he stressed that the legal frameworks for aquaculture vary between countries. The key points to be considered are; the basic legal needs of aquaculture development; legal aspects of land use; legal aspects of water use and environmental considerations.

In respect of the socio-economic aspects of aquaculture parallels were drawn with agriculture and capture fisheries. Objectives for aquaculture were considered and the socio-economic implications of the development and adoption of aquaculture were appraised.

Subsequently, factors pertaining to sustaining aquaculture were identified to include small-scale characteristics, marketing phenomena and environmental issues.

12) Discussions followed on the document provided by MEDRAP on SELAM objectives. It was noted that the SELAM programme would tend to reflect the diverse circumstances of individual countries. A number of points were discussed; the submitted objectives were modified, agreed and priority, as shown in Annex I. The first priority should be the economic framework for management and marketing in aquaculture; secondly, the strategy for the integration of aquaculture, and lastly the legal framework and regulation of aquaculture.

In respect of the first Objective, it was determined that the marketing function should become more pro-active. This would be facilitated by the incorporation of marketing information systems. the second objective should evaluate and determine project and training programme needs. The third objective demanded comparative assessment of the legal frameworks in member countries.

It was concluded that a programme of training and research projects should be established with regard to the interaction and interdependence of socio-economic phenomena.

13) In discussing in the prerequisites for the establishment of the Networks, the meeting requested the inclusion of the establishment of the GFCM Sub-Committee on Aquaculture in addition to those indicated in the Working Document.
In relation to the inputs to be provided by the various institutions it was requested that FAO allocates funds to allow a proper functioning of the GFCM Aquaculture Sub-Committee and to participate in activities related to the work of the Management Board. It was also highlighted that in addition to facilities and personnel, the institutions participating in the Networks should also provide the necessary information and financing for jointly agreed activities.

Taking into consideration that the first phase of the Network will conclude at the end of 1993, the meeting suggested that a joint evaluation report, prepared by MEDRAP II, CIHEAM and FAO be prepared at the end of Phase II, coinciding with the termination of MEDRAP II. The meeting also decided that activities related to the Networks, and accepted by the last Steering Committee, would be implemented by MEDRAP II during 1993, representing the Phase I of the Networks.

Due to the uncertainty in predicting funding available for Phase III (after the closure of MEDRAP II) the meeting decided to include an indicative figure of what it would cost to maintain the same number of activities as foreseen for the MEDRAP contribution to Phase II.

The indicative budgets discussed for Phase I and II were accepted by the meeting as the contribution which could be allocated for TECAM and SELAM activities by MEDRAP II. It was understood that additional contribution from the participating institutions, CIHEAM and donors could be added at a later stage.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1) The role and the structure of the Management Board of the Network need further clarification.

2) To define the role of National Institutions and determine their involvement in the Networks's activities.

3) The role of Activity Coordinators should be clearly defined in the future.

MEDRAP II

NETWORKS DOCUMENT