Many Asian countries look to the aquaculture sector to supplement the gap between the demand and supply in domestic fish consumption and earn more foreign exchange, and thus have intensified their efforts to increase aquaculture production. As part of the overall effort to facilitate increased contribution of research to sustainable aquaculture development and management, a study was initiated by FAO and NACA aimed at identifying research opportunities that address common concerns of countries in Asia.

The analysis of the national reports and survey responses led to the following observations:

• The main objectives of aquaculture development of the countries are to increase aquaculture production to meet demands for fish products for domestic consumption and export, and to generate income and employment opportunities. Strategies used to achieve the objectives of the aquaculture development included application of improved culture systems and technologies; supply of quality inputs, i.e., seed and feed; development of culture facilities and infrastructure; management of fish health and the environment; socio-economic assessment and interventions, identification and expansion of culture sites, intensive use of inland waters and stock enhancement, improvement and enforcement of aquaculture legislation and regulations, diversfication of culture species.

• Generally, consultative and participatory processes are followed in formulating national aquaculture development and research plans, involving government agencies at all levels, research organizations, fishfarming communities, private sector, and professional and trade organizations. Most commonly used criteria in planning are national development priorities; needs of fishfarming communities and private sector; local and provincial development needs; availability of funds, land and water resources, expertise and manpower. Although academic research institutions actively participate in the planning processes, there was no indication that the planning processes facilitate or promote participation of non-fisheries or non-aquaculture agencies and organizations, e.g., agencies and organizations in environment and industry.

• The common constraints and issues affecting aquaculture development and the priority areas in aquaculture development research of the countries are summarized in the following table.

• The aquaculture development research priorities of most countries are heavily oriented towards solving technical difficulties and/or introducing technological innovations in aquaculture production. Only a few countries give priority to research on aquaculture legislation, regulations and policies; postharvest handling; product development; socio-economic aspects of aquaculture; aquaculture engineering (e.g., design of pond, cage, pens, water recycling/circulation systems, etc.); and identification and selection, as well as expansion, of culture sites.

• In spite of expressed common issues and constraints related to institutional linkages and coordination, technology transfer, human resource development, and socio-economic assessment and interventions, the aquaculture research sector gives little attention to research on mobilization of available human and financial resources for sound aquaculture development and research; investigation of methods and mechanisms for improved technology transfer and information exchange; social and economic impacts of aquaculture policies; policy framework and management instruments for social equity; and research on strategies and policy requirements for improved institutional and interagency linkages and coordination.

• The research areas recommended by recent regional and international meetings and studies appear to be in line with the issues and constraints in aquaculture development reported by the survey. However, it was difficult to assess the extent to which these recommendations were used as an input in the formulation of national research programmes as countries did not indicate whether or not the recommendations of regional and international studies or meetings were considered in setting research priorities.

• A considerable number of research organizations exists in the countries, with competence to undertake research in various aspects of aquaculture, particularly in culture systems and technologies; breeding; genetic improvement; nutrition and feed formulation; and health and environmental management. The capacity to undertake research in socio-economic, policy and management aspects, postharvest handling and product development has not been clearly indicated in survey responses or national reports.

• Similarly, significant aquaculture development and research efforts are on-going in the countries, focused mainly on biological and technology oriented research. Few on-going projects (less than 3%) are concerned with socio-economic, policy, planning and management aspects. The thrusts of aquaculture research projects funded by donor agencies showed similar patterns i.e., the majority support technology oriented research.

• The countries also have a large number of research personnel. However, the majority specialize in biological sciences; few are in engineering and physical sciences, and fewer still in legal, management, monitoring and enforcement, policy, development, planning and socio-economics. This imbalance, and the reported weak institutional linkage and coordination, could explain the concentration of research priorities and efforts on technological innovation based on biological sciences and the lack of integrated approaches needed to respond to the socio-economic and environmental concerns of the sector.

• The tendency to encourage technological solutions as the means of promoting aquaculture development has overlooked the need for research on the economics, management and social dimensions of production systems and the effects of technological approaches on development.

• The private sector participates in formulating aquaculture development and research plans, but has no significant role in conducting and supporting research. The private sector derives significant benefits from technological innovation in culture technology and systems, e.g., genetic improvement, development of hatchery technologies, feeds, drugs and new products, improved packaging and handling, etc., and should be encouraged to undertake and support research with appropriate policies and incentives.

• Although consultative and participatory processes are reported to be practiced in setting research priorities, targeted or coordinated research planning, and intersectoral and multidisciplinary approaches in research and management are generally lacking in many countries. It is important to bear in mind that insufficient communication between the research community and the production sector weakens demands for and use of aquaculture research. Existing efforts in disseminating research outputs and technology transfer do not appear to be sufficient or effective in facilitating and promoting the use of technological innovation.

• Aquaculture research suffers from absence of long-term planning and inadequate funding. This does not appear to be consistent with the increasing importance given to its role in national food security and generation of income and employment opportunities in coastal and rural communities. It appears that the need for and the contribution of research to aquaculture development is not well understood by the policy makers and public.

• Aquaculture policies and regulations seem to have lagged behind technological advancement. In some instances, this has resulted in environmental and social problems and has not encouraged environmentally sound and socially responsible aquaculture. Furthermore, institutional arrangements and capacity do not appear to have adjusted to meet the requirements of the fast growing sector. The management approach is often reactive rather than proactive.

The above observations are disconcertingly similar to the findings of previous studies. For example, the shortcomings mentioned in the SIFR studies include resources spread across too many institutions; inappropriate resource allocation; poorly integrated strategies and coordination mechanisms; lack of multidisciplinary staff resource; lack of long-term funding support; low motivation; quality and relevance of training; communication gap between public sector institutes, universities and production sector; inappropriate dissemination mechanisms; top-down approaches and unrealistic demonstrations in technology transfer; and relevance and effectiveness of research outputs. The present study shows that little change in the sector management has occurred since late 1980’s, except increased awareness of shortcomings and needed changes, and reactions to such external pressures as environmental degradation, social and resource (i.e., land and water) use conflicts, and stringent quality control for consumer safety.

Indicative opportunities for regional research cooperation were identified mainly on the basis of the objectives of aquaculture development and the key common constraints that emerged from the survey and national reports. Special attention was given to the need to strengthen the enabling environment, e.g., institutional arrangement and policies that foster sound aquaculture development research, assisting aquaculture managers, planners and other concerned parties in making decisions. Contrary to the general view that economic, social, legislation, policy and management issues are outside the aquaculture research programmes, or "non-researchable", it is necessary to complement research on technology with research on socio-economics. This is because technology application must take into account environmental and socio-economic implications. More importantly, appropriate policies and institutional arrangements must be in place to facilitate technology development and use.

Recognizing the existing research efforts on production technology, the available capacities for research on various technical aspects, and the knowledge gaps in addressing the common concerns in aquaculture development and management, the following areas were identified as priority research opportunities for regional collaboration:

• Policies and strategies for improved participatory planning, interagency linkages and institutional arrangement for improved intersectoral and multidisciplinary coordination and collaboration
• Strategies for targeted, field-oriented and policy-relevant research
• Methods and mechanisms for improved technology transfer and information dissemination and sharing, including analysis of functional relationships between related institutions/units
• Assessment of human resource requirements and strategies for training
• Strategies for mobilizing human and financial resources for aquaculture development and research

• Methodologies for environmental impact assessment (EIA) of coastal aquaculture
• Siting protocols and guidelines for aquaculture zoning
• Environmental standards for aquaculture effluents and water quality
• Codes of practice for aquafarm management

• Methodologies and guidelines for social impact analysis
• Cost benefits of aquaculture systems
• Impacts of aquaculture development policies on food security, income and employment generation, livelihood of small-scale and subsistence fishfarmers, gender and equity
• Macro- and micro-economic policy requirements for sustainable aquaculture
• Strategies for improved postharvest handling and product development, including distribution, marketing and consumption, and relationships between producers, middlemen and consumers

• Guidelines for application of existing laws to aquaculture
• Guidelines and strategies for formulating aquaculture legislation

• Disease diagnosis and control methods
• Strategies for disease control and prevention
• Epidemiological assessment

• Formulation of low cost and farm-made feeds
• Feeding optimization

• Culture species diversification
• Broodstock improvement

The outcome of this study does not reveal new information on aquaculture development research needs. However, it underscores the need for concerted action to strengthen management and planning capacities of the aquaculture sector and improve the enabling environment. In this context, regional collaboration would support and supplement national efforts, and help to muster the political will that institutions, acting alone, would not be able to inspire.

Action plans for regional cooperative research should be formulated and implemented on the basis of the interests and commitment expressed by the countries in the suggested themes. An incremental or step-by-step approach could be taken in the development and implementation of the regional activities. Formulation of action plans and project proposals should give particular attention to the needs for field-oriented, problem-solving and policy-relevant research, and encourage active participation of the private sector, local and fishfarming communities, and policy-planners.

Success of regional collaboration depends on the commitment of the participating countries. They must be prepared to play the central role in implementing and managing the collaborative regional research. To be sustainable, regional collaboration must be based on on-going or planned national development research programmes rather than the presence or absence of external support. External assistance should be sought as a means to strengthen regional cooperation and efforts. Therefore, the role of the regional and international organizations, including funding agencies, should be as a catalyst and facilitator.

Aquaculture in many parts of Asia is a traditional practice and has been an integral part of rural life. In recent years the world has witnessed a decline in the abundance of natural fish stocks. Many Asian countries regard aquaculture as the sector that must fill the gap between demand and supply in domestic fish consumption as well as a means to increase foreign exchange earnings. Thus, they have intensified their efforts to increase aquaculture production. The actions of recent years have helped to achieve the short-term goal of increased fishery production. However, the rapid expansion and what has been widely perceived as uncoordinated development of aquaculture have resulted, in some instances, in a variety of problems relating to environmentally sound and socially responsible aquaculture development and management, particularly in coastal areas.

In the post-UNCED and post-GATT world, the issues and challenges faced by the aquaculture sector have become more numerous and complex. The aquaculture sector must address the task of increasing production while dealing with a variety of issues such as intensive competition for resources i.e. land and water; increasing cost of inputs; consumer demands for food safety and high quality products, food security; social equity; and environmental soundness. The management and development of the aquaculture sector require interdisciplinary, multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional approaches. However, much of the basic knowledge required to understand these issues and take appropriate management action is lacking, and must be generated through well formulated research.

In February 1994, FAO organized a roundtable discussion among the regional fisheries bodies, i.e., FAO/RAPA, AIT, AFS, NACA and SEAFDEC, for the purpose of initiating the preparation of a study to determine aquaculture research priorities and an action plan within the framework of the Strategy for International Fisheries Research (SIFR). The objectives of the study were to assist in maximizing the contribution of research to aquaculture development; promoting regional collaboration in aquaculture research; and focusing the attention of donors and development agencies on regional research needs and opportunities for collaboration. The roundtable discussion noted gaps in existing information, particularly at national level on aquaculture development and research priorities, and the need for active national participation in the study.

In following up the recommendations of the roundtable meeting, FAO and NACA agreed to implement the current study, with the following specific objectives:

• Collect and analyze published information on development constraints and priorities, development oriented research needs and priorities and research capacities in Asia
• Assess the extent of follow-up on current research priorities identified in various fora/bodies, and the constraints to research implementation, if any
• Identify research needs and opportunities of common concern for sustainable aquaculture, as potential focal points for co-operation at the regional and sub-regional levels
• Document existing capacities for applied research on aquaculture and suggest potential networks for the execution of identified regional and sub-regional research priorities, with supporting project concepts
• Prepare a report compiling the results of the survey, analysis and conclusions.

The study followed the methodological guidelines agreed to by FAO and NACA, which comprised the following basic steps:

• Questionnaire survey to collect information on national aquaculture development priorities and actions; development research priorities; processes and criteria used in setting development and research priorities; issues and constraints in planning and managing aquaculture development and development research; and aquaculture development research capacities and programmes/projects.
• National report on aquaculture development research priorities and capacities prepared by the countries. The information gathered through the survey would be used as a basis for the national report.
• Regional synthesis of the survey responses and national reports, including identification of regional collaborative research opportunities on common concerns.
• Regional workshop to verify the synthesis of the regional survey, identify the countries that are interested in participating in regional collaborative research and to evolve an action plan for implementation of regional collaborative research.

In February 1996, a three-section-questionnaire was prepared (Annex 1) and sent to twenty-two countries (through the offices of the NACA Council members or the offices that are responsible for cooperation with NACA) in March 1996. Fourteen countries responded by nominating National Coordinators for the Study (NCARSs) who facilitated the in-country surveys and preparation of the national reports (Appendix 2, List of NCARSs). The participating countries/region were Bangladesh, China, Hong Kong China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Korea DPR, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.

At the national level, the NCARSs distributed the survey forms, accomplished some of the forms themselves and forwarded the completed survey forms to NACA. To facilitate the survey, the NACA Information Specialist who was the coordinator for the study, explained the purposes of the study and the specifics of the questionnaires at the 4^th NACA Technical Advisory Committee meeting held in Islamabad in May 1996. Additionally, the NACA professional staff assisted the NCARSs during their missions to six countries, i.e., Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and Vietnam.

Regional and international organizations or national institutions with regional programmes, i.e., AAHRI, AIT, Bay of Bengal Programme, FAO/RAP, ICLARM, Mekong River Commission, NACA and SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department, were requested to provide information on their programmes, capacities, and on-going activities in aquaculture, as well as issues and constraints in formulating and implementing their programmes. Three organizations responded to the request, but only one fully. Therefore, additional information on the programmes of the regional organizations was gathered from the published literature.

The survey returns that were received by the end of August 1996, were summarized for each country and the summaries sent to the countries for their review and validation in September 1996 (see Section 2. Summary of the Survey Returns). At the same time, the countries were requested to prepare a national report on aquaculture development research priorities and capacities, interpreting information presented in the summary of the survey returns. An outline for national reports (Annex 3) was provided to the countries to ensure use of common format and consistency in contents. The countries were also offered assistance in preparing national report.

By the end of December 1996, nine country reports were received, four of which were incomplete. In view of the time constraint and the need to prepare a background paper for the Regional Workshop scheduled for May 1997, a regional synthesis was prepared on the basis of available information.

The regional synthesis ( i.e. Part II of this report) summarized the priorities, capacities, on-going efforts, issues and constraints in aquaculture development and development research that were articulated in the survey responses and national reports, observed gaps in research efforts in addressing issues and constraints in aquaculture planning and management, and identified opportunities for regional collaborative research on common concerns.

For the purpose of identifying gaps and concentration in research efforts, the aquaculture development priorities and actions and aquaculture research priorities and efforts were grouped by using common broad thematic headings. The research priorities and efforts were then compared with the development priorities and actions, and issues and constraints in aquaculture planning and management.

In a number of cases, survey responses were incomplete or too general, or no information was provided (Table 1). Therefore, survey responses were supplemented with information from other sources such as national reports, papers presented at recent national or regional meetings, and NACA Secretariat staff. The sources of information are indicated in footnotes in the Summary of the Survey Returns.

Some survey responses seemed inconsistent. For example, although most countries indicated existence of a number of research institutions that conduct substantial research in various aspects of aquaculture, it appears that the capacities of these research institutions were not always taken into consideration in assessing adequacy of national research capacity to meet development needs.

Note: * no returns or incomplete returns (no response to more than one question).

In some cases, the responses were not appropriate (e.g., cumbersome credit systems, lack of high quality feed or fish disease as the constraints in planning and managing aquaculture development research programmes) and had to be excluded from the analysis or moved to appropriate sections.

The identification of regional collaborative research opportunities took into account such factors as issues and constraints in planning and managing aquaculture development and development research; on-going efforts addressing the issues and constraints; available capacities and expertise to address the issues and constraints; importance to the sector management; and existing regional and international initiatives.

The draft regional synthesis was distributed to the countries for review and validation in March 1997, and used as a discussion paper at the Regional Workshop on Survey and Analysis of Aquaculture Development Research Priorities and Capacities, held in Bangkok on 21-23 Many 1997. The report presented here incorporates additional information received since December 1996.

Three basic shortcomings arose from the responses, namely, (i) the survey returns were not comprehensive or complete in terms of their coverage of institutions concerned with aquaculture research, (ii) the survey responses were often too general or partially answered and (iii) not all countries replied to every survey question.

The responses seemed to indicate that the respondents considered aquaculture along the traditional zoology-based disciplines, and strictly within the programmes of their own institutions or units. Although some academic research institutions participated in the survey, it is difficult to assess the coverage of relevant research activities and programmes carried out by the institutions outside the national fisheries and aquaculture agencies.

There were considerable differences in response styles among the countries, e.g., articulation and level of details. The countries where English is commonly used tend to be more descriptive. It also appeared that different countries used somewhat different criteria to describe such aspects as key constraints, research capacities or research organizations with major aquaculture research programmes.

The difficulties and delays encountered in the survey and preparation of national reports, as well as incomplete responses or data compilation, may be symptomatic of the situation that the aquaculture sector encounters in planning and managing its research programmes. Formulation and implementation of responsive research programmes require coordination and collaboration with related institutions and programmes and an efficient flow of reliable and relevant information for management and planning decisions. If this observation is proven to be valid, the aquaculture sector will need to give immediate attention to improve accessibility and availability of information for planning and management, and coordination among related institutions and programmes.

Notwithstanding the limitations, the usefulness of the information presented in this report is to serve as an indicator rather than full description of the situation in national aquaculture sectors. It identifies some of the more critical issues and significant constraints that may be the subject of a detailed assessment. The issues and constraints can serve as the focus of collaborative research in the region.

Asia is home of over half of the world population. It is also the major fish consuming region of the world. The survey responses and national reports highlighted that the contribution of aquaculture to fishery production, food security, employment, nutrition particularly in rural and coastal communities, and national economy is significant and steadily increasing.

Asian aquaculture has a long history and is generally considered as most developed, compared to other developing regions of the world. According to the FAO statistics aquaculture production has increased significantly over the past 12 years, from 10.5 million metric toones (mt) in 1984 to 27.8 million mt in 1995, of which 13.7 million mt (after gutting and shelling) were fish and shellfish for direct human consumption. In 1995, Asia contributed to 90% of total world aquaculture production.

Nine of eleven major aquaculture producing countries/regions are in Asia, i.e., China, Taiwan China, India, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Korea Rep, and Bangladesh. In these countries, aquaculture contributed from 13-60% of national fish production in 1995. Although it is difficult to obtain accurate statistics on employment, largely due to the integral or part-time nature of the work, the aquaculture sector is known to play an important role in generating employment opportunities, particularly in rural communities.

Asia is a major importer and exporter of fishery products, and does influence the global balance between supply and demand. FAO statistics place Asia’s 1995 share of world trade of fishery products at approximately US$ 24.7 billion for imports and US$ 18.3 billion for exports.

A large number of aquatic species are being cultured in the Asian countries, using a variety of culture systems. Main aquaculture systems used in inland aquaculture are pond, pen, cage, tank systems as well as culture-based fisheries in open water bodies. Coastal aquaculture is dominated by pond, cage and pen systems, and such methods as floating, hanging, broadcast, long-line, pole, mudflat, and bottom culture of mollusc and seaweeds. Integrated farming systems; i.e. agriculture/livestock/fish, is popular in several countries such as Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.

Tables 2, 3 and 4 show selected aquaculture and fisheries statistics of the countries in the region.

.

The countries/region in the shaded area participated in this study.

The national aquaculture development plan is generally formulated within the overall framework of the fisheries development plan which is a component of the national agricultural development plan and, ultimately, the national economic development plan. Every country has a central agency, under the ministry of agriculture or fisheries, that is responsible for development and implementation of the aquaculture development plan.

The central aquaculture development agency assesses development needs through analysis of available data and consultations with key stakeholders, e.g., fisheries and related agencies both at national, provincial and local levels, national policy planning agencies, academic and research organizations, private sector, including investment organizations such as banks, and fishfarmers. The survey responses indicated that the consultation process encourages active participation of fisheries agencies and provincial and local government agencies, and the involvement of the agricultural sector (mainly because fisheries is often under the ministry of agriculture). The responses did not indicate the extent of the consultation with related sectors such as industry and environment.

Formulation of the national aquaculture development plan is reported to generally follow a consultative process, utilizing reports, workshops and meetings at national and local levels. Two approaches, bottom-up and top-down, are followed in formulating aquaculture development plans. The bottom-up approach begins with the issues and needs identified at local and field levels, while top-down approach which most of the responding countries use begins with the needs and issues identified by the central planning agencies. The priority needs are determined through consultation, taking into account the needs and interests of the various parties.

The key factors considered are the priority needs identified in the national development plan, needs of local communities and fishfarmers, opportunities for employment and income generation, gaps between demand and supply of food fish, potentials of aquaculture resource bases (e.g., land and water), availability of aquaculture inputs (e.g., seeds and feeds), and availability of financial and human resources to support aquaculture development.

3.2 Aquaculture Development Objectives and Priorities

The survey responses indicated that the aquaculture development objectives of the participating countries basically center around increased productivity and aquaculture production; employment generation and fish for domestic consumption. As shown in Table 6, most countries (12 of 14) indicated increased productivity and aquaculture production as their first priority, and two countries indicated supply of quality fish food for domestic needs as the first priority.

While physical space, i.e., land and water, available for aquaculture development is limited, the countries reported that the potentials for increased aquaculture production and increased productivity are high. Basic strategies to be used in achieving aquaculture development objectives include optimum and intensive use of water bodies, expansion of culture in underutilized areas, refinement and innovations in culture systems and technologies through research, improvement of management techniques, upgrading of farmer capabilities, and implementation of policies and regulations that facilitate availability of quality inputs, private sector participation and efficiency in resource use.

The priority actions in the national aquaculture development plan are summarized in Table 7. It is not surprising to see that the national aquaculture development plans give priority to those activities concerned with reliable supply of quality inputs, e.g., seed and feed; sustainable use of resource bases, e.g., water and land; and environmental and health management.

However, it is interesting to observe that the aquaculture development plans of many countries pay considerable attention to technology transfer and farmers’ skill development; development of infrastructure and supporting facilities, socio-economic assessment and interventions; and improvement and enforcement of aquaculture legislation, regulations and policies.

* Although target species vary, all countries indicated that culture and increased production are one of the main priorities in national aquaculture development plans. Most of the countries also indicated specific aspects of culture systems and technologies, e.g., breeding & seed production, disease control, etc., that were given priority considerations in the national plan. All activities that were expressed in the survey and national reports were recorded in summarizing the survey returns. See Annex 4 for details, including target species.

Although there exist some variation in key cultured species, all countries are concerned with expansion and promotion of culture of high value species such as prawn & shrimp, grouper, seabass, snapper, oyster, crab, etc. for the export market. For domestic and rural consumption, carp, milkfish, catfish, tilapia and other low value or inland species are promoted for culture.

It was reported that the main beneficiaries of development projects/programmes are fishfarmers, hatchery operators and aquaculturists. Some actions are directed to improve capacities of the government agencies so that they can better assist their clients, e.g., fishfarming communities, private entrepreneurs, etc.

The countries have made significant progress in aquaculture development, particularly increased production, through improved technology, intensification of culture system and expansion of production areas. However, the agencies that are responsible for national aquaculture development reported a number of constraints and issues that impede formulation and implementation of national aquaculture development plans and programmes (Table 8).

It is important to note that some of the most common constraints in aquaculture development of the countries are of an institutional nature and relate to development planning and management and to utilization of technology and information. Weak institutional linkages and coordination in sector planing and management, combined with overlapping jurisdiction, lack of aquaculture legislation, regulations and policies, and inefficient exchange and use of information, suggest that aquaculture development is very much affected by non-technical impediments.

Issues relating to human resources were mentioned by 93% of the countries as a major constraint, with lack of skilled technical personnel as a key problem in 71 % of the countries. However, in spite of the most common constraints noted above, i.e., issues relating to management, legislation, effective utilization of technology and information, no country indicated lack of expertise in management, planning, development and legislation as a hindrance. Similarly, no mention was made of the lack of expertise in information management or development communication, or absence of policy framework required for balanced and effective human resource development.

As to technical and physical constraints, 71 % of the countries reported pollution and environmental factors as key environmental constraints. Reliable supply of quality seed and feed, and management and control of fish health and environment were reported as key technical constraints by 50% and 58% of the countries, respectively. It is interesting to note that 36% of the countries mentioned that lack of infrastructures and supporting facilities as constraints, but only one country reported inadequate aquaculture enclosures and engineering as constraints. Inadequate postharvest handling and product development was mentioned by only 29% of the countries.

Meanwhile, the countries reported various socio-economic factors as constraints in aquaculture development, particularly inadequate marketing (43%) and issues relating to loans and credits to fishfarmers (43%). Three countries (21%) reported low price or demand for inland fish as a key constraint.

Note: * Specific culture systems or technologies were not indicated.

The research sector supports national aquaculture development with improved and applicable aquaculture policies, technologies, and management methods and tools for environmentally sound and socially responsible aquaculture.

All countries have a national agency, under the ministry of agriculture, fisheries or science & technology, that plans and coordinates the national aquaculture research agenda and programmes. As the summary Table 9 showes, the responsible agencies working closely with the agencies in charge of overall development of national aquaculture, determine research priorities and formulate national aquaculture research programmes.

Research priority setting is reported to follow consultative and/or participatory processes, using both top-down and bottom-up approaches that are similar to the processes used in formulating national aquaculture development plans. The survey indicated that research organizations and the research community as a whole have close linkages with the research planning agencies and play an important role in formulating aquaculture development research programmes and plans. The survey also indicated that the agencies that administer national research grants, e.g., LIPI in Indonesia, Agro-industrial Panel in Malaysia and PCAMRD in Philippines, have influence over aquaculture research directions as they determine the research projects that will receive research grants.

Seven of 14 countries indicated that fishfarmers, fishfarming communities, industry and private sector also participate in the research priority setting exercise. However, as with the process followed in aquaculture development plans, the survey responses did not show the extent to which the agencies and research organizations in the related sectors such as industry and environment, participate or collaborate in setting priorities.

Of the many factors considered in setting aquaculture research priorities, the most common criteria used are national development plans and priorities; field problems & fishfarmers’ needs; availability of funds, land, water, expertise and manpower; and local and provincial development needs. Few countries reported giving attention to such criteria as potential benefits to the poor; contribution to national food security (e.g., availability of fish for domestic consumption; contribution to management of fisheries and aquatic resources); or potential impacts on the development of the sector. In spite of the fact that one of the aquaculture development objectives is generation of employment and income generating opportunities (see Table 6), only three countries mentioned this as one of the key criteria used in setting research priorities in aquaculture.

Table 10. Criteria used in setting development research priorities

Note: No information was provided by China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

4.2 Aquaculture Research Priorities

The survey responses indicate that national aquaculture research priorities correspond to the priorities of national aquaculture development plans (Table 11). That is, technology development for breeding, seed production, feed production, health and environmental management, and genetic improvement dominates aquaculture development research priorities.

Note: * - See Annex 5 for detailed summary.

All countries reported to give a priority to the refinement and development of culture systems and technologies. Research on semi-intensification or intensification, and integrated farming systems as priority were specifically mentioned by several countries. In spite of global concerns for sustainable aquaculture and food security, development of technologies for low-input and low-cost aquaculture systems, except integrated fishfarming with agriculture, were not specifically highlighted.

It is important to note that (a) only a few countries give priorities to research on the identification of potential culture areas; study on aquaculture legislation, regulation and policies; research on postharvest handling and product development; and research on socio-economic aspects of aquaculture, and that (b) the countries give no priority to research on markets and marketing; study on strategies, methods and mechanisms for improved technology transfer and extension, and study on requirements and strategies for human resource development and development of infrastructure and supporting facilities.

Recently, a number of regional and international studies and meetings have considered ways to respond to various constraints in aquaculture development, including adverse effects resulting from the rapid growth and unplanned development and expansion of aquaculture. Of the 19 regional and international studies and meetings reviewed, 12 addressed specific issues such as environment, women, shrimp, diseases, chemicals, etc. and 7 examined the general aspect of aquaculture. The studies and meetings recognized that research is required to better understand causes of adverse effects, and to find measures to deal with the challenges facing the aquaculture sector, and recommended priority research areas.

Note: See references for sources. The number in parenthesis corresponds to reference number.

Shrimp-96 (1); Commercial/shrimp-96 (2); Chemical-96 (3); Legal-96 (4); Women-96 (5); BOBP-96 (6); Kyoto-95 (7); Sustainability-95 (8); Environment-94 (9); Women-95 (10); Seaweed-95 (11); IPFC/Experts-94 (12); ASEAN-94 (13); ADSEA-94 (14); Experts/Rome-94 (15); Socioeconomics-94 (16); Postharvest-94 (17); Disease-93 (18); NACA/TAC-92 (19)

The international and regional studies and meetings gave considerable attention to research on socio-economic aspects, policy, and legal and regulatory issues that were not emphasized in the responses to the current study (Table 12). Furthermore, the research areas recommended by the regional and international studies and meetings appear to be more closely related to the issues and constraints in aquaculture development noted earlier (see Table 8). There is a need to examine the processes and criteria used in identifying aquaculture development research needs and priorities at all levels, particularly in view of the fact that the recommendations of the international and regional studies and meetings were formulated and adopted by the representatives of the participating countries.

The countries have a significant number of aquaculture research organizations (Table 13). All main aquaculture research organizations are affiliated either with government agencies (mainly with the ministry of agriculture, fisheries, education, or science and technology) or with academic institutions. No country listed private sector research organizations.

The programmes and competence of the main research organizations cover a broad spectrum of disciplines, emphasizing fish breeding and seed production, genetics, fish health, feed and nutrition, culture technologies and systems, conservation and enhancement of aquaculture environment, effluents, and soil and water management.

Significantly, there is no mention of competence or programmes in aquaculture management, planning, economics and marketing, social sciences, legal and policy studies, and postharvest handling and product development.

The survey also revealed that the countries have a considerable number of research personnel (Table 14). The majority (75%) specialize in biological sciences, and only a few specialize in such areas as physical and engineering sciences (6%), social sciences (3%), economics (2%), policies and legal studies (0.3%). It is understood that specialists affiliated with non-aquaculture organizations and agencies could effectively participate in aquaculture research through cooperative and collaborative programmes and arrangement. However, the survey responses did not indicate the nature and extent of participation of research personnel from non-aquaculture or non-fisheries organizations. There was no clear indication that multidisciplinary or intersectoral approaches are encouraged in formulating aquaculture development plans and research programmes.

# - Number of research organizations that provided data.

1 - Specialization of personnel was not indicated.

2 - Percentage was calculated by excluding Indonesia and Nepal

3 - specialization was not specified.

4 - 1-environmetal science; 2-chemistry/biochemistry; 7-fisheries; 8-others

5 - Agricultural specialists, e.g., biology, soil, etc.

n - no information

In addition to the national aquaculture research organizations, several regional and international organizations located in Asia support research activities to promote aquaculture development in the region. For example, the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) and Aquaculture Department of Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre (SEAFDEC/AQD) are known for their expertise in a broad range of aquaculture, from breeding, genetics, environmental and health mangement to postharvest handling; and the Aquatic Animal Health Research Institute (AAHRI), Department of Fisheries, Thailand for its expertise in all aspects of fish health management. They have been making an important contribution to regional human resource development and aquaculture research. ICLARM, FAO/RAP, INFOFISH, MRC, NACA and SEAFDEC/AQD have been supporting and promoting aquaculture development by initiating and implementing various regional cooperative actions in development, research, institutional capacity building and human resource development, as well as facilitating information exchange and dissemination.

Professional organizations and research networks such as the Asian Fisheries Society (AFS), Network of Tropical Aquaculture Scientists (NTAS), and Aquaculture Genetics Network of Asia (AGNA), facilitate regional cooperation in aquaculture research and information exchange. The programmes of these regional and international organizations support the national efforts and complement national research capacities.

The survey suggested that considerable research efforts are on-going in the countries; 330 aquaculture development and research projects were reported by twelve countries (note: no specific information on on-going projects was provided by Korea DPR and Iran).

Review of the main thrusts of the projects showed that technology development dominates existing research efforts. Approximately 22 % (71) of the on-going projects are concerned with improvement of culture systems and technologies; 12 % (41) with health management; 12 % (40) with breeding and seed production; 12 % (38) with genetic improvement; 10 % (32) with species diversification; 9 % (32) with environmental mangement; and 9 % (28) with fish nutrition and feed development (Table 15).

While overall, there are more studies geared to improving culture systems and technologies than to other areas, China, Indonesia and the Philippines have more projects on health management. Together, health and environmental management comprise about 20% of the reported projects. Two of the main inputs to aquaculture, i.e., seeds and feeds, are the subject of 68 (20%) projects.

Research on policy, legislation, socio-economics, and postharvest were least mentioned. However, a fair amount of effort is being made in extension and training; i.e., about 5 % of the reported projects.

In terms of target beneficiaries, it was reported that approximately 76 % of the projects were for fisharmers and fishfarming communities; about 11% for extension or government technical officers; 5% for planners or managers; 4 % for industries; and 3 % for rural or coastal communities.

To obtain an indication of the thrusts of aquaculture projects funded by donors, aquaculture projects listed in the FIPIS (Fisheries Projects Information System) database that is maintained by FAO were examined (Table 16). The summary presented below seems to indicate that (a) donors support mainly activities such as research, aquaculture production, institutional support and training/extension and (b) there is a general trend for reduced donor support for aquaculture, particularly for research activity in Asia. This report does not examine the reasons for the reduced number of donor-supported projects.

Examination of 58 aquaculture research projects supported since 1990 revealed that approximately 28% of the projects were concerned with fish health; 12% with culture systems and technologies; 12% with fish nutrition and feed development; 12% with environmental management; 10 % with research infrastructure & institution building; 10% with genetics; and 9% with breeding and rearing. In common with the projects reported by the countries, few donor-funded projects were concerned with studies and investigation of socio-economic aspects (1 project), institutional arrangements, utilization of research outputs (2 projects), and legal or policy issues relating to aquaculture development and management (1 project).

The aquaculture research organizations that responded to this survey indicated that the main users of their research outputs are extension specialists, fishfarmers and fishfarming communities, followed by administrators and managers in fisheries/aquaculture agencies, industries, research community and policy planners. Booklets, demonstrations and training are the frequently used media for disseminating research findings to extension and fishfarming communities, while reports, seminars and workshops are used to communicate with administrators and policy planners. Journals, books, conference proceedings and reports are the media used for scientific community. Occasionally, mass media such as newspapers, radio and television are used to disseminate research findings of importance to the public.

*Note: Not all donors report their project information to FIPIS. What is shown here is an indication. Additionally, FIPIS information for 1995 is incomplete.

In spite of the existence of a large number of research organizations and personnel, and the established mechanisms and processes for formulating and implementing aquaculture research programmes, the survey indicated that the countries are faced with a variety of constraints and issues in planning and implementing aquaculture research programmes (Table 17). The most common of these relate to ineffective dissemination and exchange of information (93% of the countries), weak interagency linkages and inter-institutional coordination (86%), insufficient skilled personnel (86%), inadequate research facilities (86%), low level of research funding and support (71%), insufficient technology transfer (64%), lack of training opportunities (57%), and inadequate consultation and communication with users of research outputs (57%).

In spite of the reported existence of a significant number of research organizations and personnel in the countries, lack of skilled technical or research personnel emerged as the most common constraint in planning and managing aquaculture research. At the same time, the survey revealed such related issues as lack of incentives and motivation, uncoordinated training programmes, and lack of information on human resource requirements. This suggests that existing personnel may not be fully utilized or skills may not match needs. It does appear that the issues in human resources are more complex than merely lack of skilled technical personnel.

The aquaculture research sector seems adversely affected by inadequate research support such as poor research facilities and information services, which is closely linked to poor funding. Three countries reported lack of information for planning and management as key constraints.

Weak interagency linkages and lack of coordination in formulating and implementing aquaculture research programmes and projects was reported in several different ways, both under the general headings of the Administrative & Institutional Aspects and Research Environment; e.g., the lack of participation or consultation with planners, fishfarmers or private sector in planning and formulating research projects and programmes. It is interesting to note that several countries reported that lack of information sharing results in duplicated research efforts.

Significantly, a good number of countries reported the lack of or limited experience and expertise in planning and management of research programmes (43% of the countries) and inefficient administration as key constraints (43% of the countries). The survey responses suggest that the aquaculture research sector suffers from lack of continuity in planning and funding. Although mentioned by fewer countries, some of the more critical issues include the frequent changes in research directions; lack of long-term research efforts; and lack of sound research plans and policies. The causes were not well explained, but annual budgeting process; i.e., annual approval of research projects and budgets, was reported as one of the reasons for lack of continuity.

Issues such as lack of field/problem-oriented research and farmer participation; over-emphasis on certain species/topics; lack of understanding on impacts of aquaculture policies; lack of interdisciplinary research; and difficulties in balancing direct (or short-term) economic benefits and long-term social impacts, were reported by few countries. However, these issues deserve more attention as they are closely related to the central functions of aquaculture development research. Furthermore, they may be causes of lack of support for aquaculture research and funding. There appears to be a need to strengthen national capabilities for aquaculture research management and planning, in order to enhance the contribution of research to the development and management of the aquaculture sector.

Aquaculture plays an important role in the livelihood of people and in the national economy of countries in Asia. It produces food fish which is an important component of the diet of the people; it provides income and employment opportunities for many coastal and rural people; and it helps earn foreign exchange. Thus, the objectives of national aquaculture development are to increase aquaculture production to meet demands for fish products for domestic consumption and export market, and to generate income and employment opportunities.

The basic strategies used to achieve objectives of national aquaculture development plans include application of improved culture technologies and systems; supply of quality inputs, i.e., seed and feed; development of culture facilities and infrastructure; management of fish health and the culture environment; and improvement of postharvest handling and product development. This indicates that the countries have place a priority on technological solutions as the means for promoting aquaculture development and deriving economic benefits.

The countries formulate national aquaculture development and research plans through consultative and/or participatory processes, involving government agencies at all levels, research organizations, fishfarming communities, private sector, professional and trade organizations, and other interest groups such as environmental NGOs and funding or donor agencies. However, the planning processes do not appear to facilitate or promote the participation of non-fisheries or non-aquaculture agencies and organizations.

National aquaculture research priorities are determined by using a variety of criteria. The most common are national development priorities; needs of fishfarming communities and the private sector; local and provincial development needs; and availability of funds, land and water resources, expertise and manpower.

The aquaculture sector has made significant progress in recent years, but a variety of issues and constraints threaten further development. The common constraints and issues are weak institutional linkages; lack of coordinated planning and programming; lack of skilled human resources; ineffective technology transfer and underutilization of information; pollution of aquatic environment; low support and funding for aquaculture research; lack of inputs and appropriate technologies for environmental and health management; and inadequate aquaculture legislation, regulations and policies.

Research is considered to be critical to support national aquaculture development since the management and removal of key constraints require application of scientific, technical and socio-economic knowledge and understanding. The national aquaculture research sector has given priority to developing and refining culture systems and technologies in support of increased production, particularly technologies for seed and feed production, genetic improvement and management of fish health, effluent and water.

To illustrate the current status of aquaculture development research, information presented in the previous sections is reiterated in Table 18, summarizing the survey responses, the priority research topics recommended by regional and international studies and meetings, and the research areas of the regional and international organizations by broad aquaculture activities or topics.

National aquaculture research priorities do not appear to give adequate attention to development issues and constraints related to socio-economics and planning and management aspects of the sector, despite the fact that weak interagency linkage, lack of coordinated planning, insufficient consultation with planners, extension specialists and fishfarmers, and lack of socio-economic assessment and interventions were cited as some of key constraints in planning and managing national aquaculture development and research.

Significantly, although one of the main aquaculture development objectives is concerned with the social and economic well-being, the stated research priorities and efforts give little attention to generating better understanding of social and economic impacts of aquaculture policies and socio-economic issues, and to finding alternative management strategies, instruments and interventions.

The research priorities recommended by recent regional and international meetings and studies seem to underscore the need to undertake research and generate new knowledge in various non-technical aspects of aquaculture, including policy, legislation, regulations, institutional and organizational arrangements, as well as culture systems and technologies. These recommended research areas correspond more consistently with the issues and constraints in aquaculture development reported by the countries in this survey. However, it is difficult to asses the extent to which the recommendations relating to non-technical areas were used or translated into the formulation of national aquaculture research programmes. According to the criteria reported by the countries, recommendations of regional and international meetings and studies were not mentoned as having been considered in the formulation of national aquaculture development and research programmes and priorities.

Although most countries consider their research facilities inadequate and in need of upgrading, it appears that the countries collectively have a considerable number of research organizations that are capable of undertaking research in various aspects of aquaculture, particularly in culture systems and technologies, breeding, genetic improvement, nutrition and feed formulation; and health and environmental management. The capacity to undertake research in socio-economic aspects, postharvest handling and product development was not clearly indicated.

In addition to the national aquaculture research organizations, the region has well established regional aquaculture research institutions and programmes, e.g., AAHRI, AIT and SEAFDEC/AQD, and several regional and international organizations that facilitate and promote aquaculture development and research. These regional organizations and programmes support and supplement the national efforts and make critical contributions to human resource and capacity development.

The survey indicated that the countries have a considerable number of research personnel. However, a good majority of research personnel in aquaculture specialize in biological sciences. The aquaculture research organizations reported having few or no specialists in non-biological and non-physical sciences or little access to them. This imbalance in specialization of research personnel may have been one of the main reasons for the concentration of research priorities and efforts on technological innovation based on biological sciences and lack of integrated research programmes/projects that respond to the socio-economic and environmental concerns confronting the sector. It is necessary for the aquaculture sector to give more attention to balanced human resource development and utilization.

Significant aquaculture development and research efforts are on-going in the countries, reflecting national aquaculture development and research priorities. Over 80 % of the 330 aquaculture projects reported are concerned with development and research on aquaculture technologies and systems; health and environmental management; production of seed and feed; genetic improvement and species diversification. Few on-going projects (less than 3%) are concerned with socio-economic and management aspects.

The thrusts of the aquaculture research projects funded by donor agencies show similar patterns as the national efforts, showing a good majority supporting technology oriented research.

The important contribution that research has made to the development of aquaculture, particularly the biological basis for cultivation of commercially important species, is well recognized. However, the constraints and issues in aquaculture development seem to indicate that the countries are not able to optimally utilize human and physical resources and fully benefit from available technologies because of weak management policies, institutional arrangement and coordination.

The survey responses indicated participation of private sector in formulating aquaculture development and research plans, but no significant role in conducting and supporting research. It is generally known that the private sector carries out significant research that results in commercial gain, e.g., development of drugs and feeds. Lack of information on private sector research capacity and research supported by private sector could be attributed to the proprietary nature of private sector research.

The private sector derives significant benefits from technological innovation in culture technology and systems, e.g., development of hatchery technologies, feeds, drugs, new products, packaging and handling, and should be encouraged to undertake and support research through appropriate policies and incentives. Furthermore, it would be useful to establish a policy that outlines the roles of the public and the private sectors in conducting and supporting research. For example, the public sector could give priority to research on development, policy, socio-economic and management related areas, and the private sector to research on market-led and commercially important areas, e.g., drugs, chemicals, feeds, seed production, posthavest handling, and product development.

The issues and constraints seem to suggest that consultative and/or participatory processes in setting research priorities are not effective, and existing efforts in disseminating research outputs and technology transfer are insufficient and/or ineffective, indicating underutilization of technological innovation. There is need to investigate causes for the ineffectiveness of existing processes and to facilitate active participation of fishfarmers and policy planners in identifying and formulating research projects and programmes, thus making research more relevant to user needs. Furthermore, there is need to better understand conditions and processes of assimilation, and identify the inhibiting factors in technology adaptation and utilization, so that effective and efficient utilization of research findings can be facilitated.

It appears that the aquaculture research sector suffers from lack of long-term planning and funding. Low level of support given to aquaculture research has been identified as one of the key constraints. This does not appear to be consistent with the increasing importance given to role of aquaculture in national food security and generation of income and employment opportunities in coastal and rural communities. To increase political support, it may be necessary for the sector to raise awareness of the public and policy makers of the benefits of aquaculture and aquaculture research. Further attention to problem-solving and policy-relevant research could help in securing and increasing support for aquaculture research.

Aquaculture has been said to be a victim of its own success; i.e., many of problems confronting aquaculture development have resulted from its rapid but unplanned growth. It appears that the sector has not had time to accumulate adequate information and knowledge bases that are required to support management actions. The policies and regulations often arrive late, and do not guide and encourage environmentally sound and socially responsible aquaculture. Institutional arrangements and capacity do not appear to have adjusted to meet the requirements of the fast growing sector. Management approach is often reactive rather than proactive.

Management of aquaculture has became a complex task, involving all levels of governments and many disciplines. Additionally, aquaculture is affected by and affects the actions of other sectors that utilize the same resources, i.e., land and water. A concerted effort is required to build up tools and knowledge base that will enable the sector to address economic, development, environmental, legal and social issues as well as technical issues. There is a need to further emphasize intersectoral, multidisciplinary and precautionary approach to the management and development of aquaculture.

It appears that the tendency to emphasize technological solutions as the means of promoting aquaculture development and deriving economic benefits, has overlooked the need to study economic and social dimensions of intensified production systems and the effects of technological approaches on development. It has been reported that one of the primary goals of aquaculture development is to contribute to social and economic well-being. It is important to have better understanding of impacts of the aquaculture development policies on availability of affordable fish food for local and domestic consumption, creating income and employment opportunities for rural communities, women and small scale fishfarmers, and use the findings as inputs to future policy and program planning.

Contrary to the general view that the issues relating to economic, social, legal, policy and management fall outside the aquaculture research programmes or are non-researchable, it is necessary to complement research on technology with research on socio-economics. This is because application of technological innovations must take into account environmental and socio-economic impacts and implications. More importantly, appropriate policies and institutional arrangement must be in place to facilitate development and application of technological innovations.

issues & constraints, research programmes and on-going projects

(Table continues)

In this connection, it would be useful to recall the shortcomings in aquaculture research strategies and capacities that were highlighted by the SIFR evaluation exercise in the late 1980s. The SIFR studies expressed concerns over the institutional organization of the research system; the nature and appropriateness of the science activities being carried out; and the effectiveness in delivering research outputs and communicating with end-users concerned. Specific shortcomings mentioned in the SIFR studies include resources spread across too many institutions; inappropriate resource allocation; poor integrated strategies and coordination mechanisms; lack of multidisciplinary staff resource; lack of long-term funding support; low motivation; quality and relevance of training; communication gap between public sector institutes, universities and production sector; inappropriate dissemination mechanisms; top-down approaches and unrealistic demonstrations in technology transfer; and relevance and effectiveness of research outputs.

Many issues and constraints revealed in this study are disconcertingly similar to the weaknesses pointed out by the SIFR studies, suggesting that little change in the sector management has been made since late 1980’s, except increased awareness of shortcomings and needed changes, and reactions to urgent external pressures such as environmental degradation, social and resource (i.e., land and water) use conflicts, strict quality control for consumer safety.

The objectives of national aquaculture development and the issues and constraints in aquaculture development suggest a number of researchable areas suited for regional cooperation (Table 19).

In order to ensure relevance of research to sustainable aquaculture development, the process of identifying research opportunities of common concerns was guided mainly by the objectives of aquaculture development and common key constraints that emerged from the survey. Additionally, consideration was given to the need for an enabling environment, e.g., institutional arrangements and policy frameworks that foster sound aquaculture development research and provide guidance to aquaculture managers, planners and other concerned parties in making decisions.

Many of the current problems in aquaculture are of managerial and socio-economic nature, and solutions to some of the major problems in aquaculture may have to be found outside the traditional aquaculture disciplines through multidisciplinary and intersectoral research.

The aquaculture sector, which has often been said to lie in a grey area between agriculture and fisheries, does not seem to have had time to accumulate appropriate tools and adequate knowledge base for policy planning and management decisions. Furthermore, due to weak interagency linkages and the lack of appropriate policies and organizational frameworks, the countries are not able to optimally utilize human, financial and physical resources, and benefit fully from technological innovations.

The region collectively has a significant number of organizations and personnel that can undertake research on technical aspects, although they are not evenly distributed. Research on various technical areas and production systems could effectively be supported through the existing national and regional research programmes. For instance, since many diseases are closely linked to deteriorating environmental conditions, prevention of diseases through management of the aquatic environment, in the context of a systems approach, rather than treatment by drugs, should be the main approach in disease control and health management. Additionally, the private sector could realistically conduct and support research on market-led and commercially important areas such as development and production of aquaculture equipment, vaccines, drugs, chemicals, feeds, seeds and new value-added consumer products.

Thus, the following seven areas (three in the areas of institutional and socio-economic aspects and four in technical aspects) have been identified, for consideration by the countries, as priority research opportunities for regional collaboration:

Planning and management of aquaculture development and research

• Policies and strategies for improved participatory planning, interagency linkages and institutional arrangement for improved intersectoral and multidisciplinary coordination and collaboration
• Strategies for targeted, field- and policy-oriented research
• Study on methods and mechanisms for improved technology transfer and information dissemination and sharing
• Assessment of human resource requirements and strategies for human resource development
• Strategies for mobilizing human and financial resources for aquaculture development and research

Social and economic assessment of aquaculture

• Methodologies and guidelines for social impact analysis
• Cost benefits of aquaculture systems
• Impacts of aquaculture development policies, on food security, income and employment generation, livelihood of small-scale and/or subsistence fishfarmers, gender and equity
• Macro- and micro-economic policy requirements for sustainable aquaculture
• Strategies for improved postharvest handling and product development, including distribution, marketing and relationships between fishfarmers and middlemen

Legislative framework for aquaculture

• Guidelines for application of existing laws to aquaculture
• Guidelines and strategies for formulating aquaculture legislation

Environmental management of in aquaculture

• Methodologies for environmental impact assessment (EIA) of coastal aquaculture
• Siting protocols and guidelines for aquaculture zoning
• Environmental standards for aquaculture effluents and water quality
• Codes of practice for farm management

• Disease diagnosis and control methods
• Strategies for disease control and prevention
• Epidemiological assessment

FISH nutrition and feed development

• Formulation of low cost and farm-made feeds
• Feeding optimization

Breeding & broodstock management

• Culture species diversification
• Broodstock improvement

The survey revealed common concerns in aquaculture development and research of the fourteen Asian countries and provided a basis for identifying regional/sub-regional research opportunities. The survey responses did not reveal new information, rather it confirmed the weaknesses and needs identified by previous studies, emphasizing the need for collective actions in support of management and development of environmentally sound and socially equitable aquaculture.

Although not evenly distributed, the countries collectively have considerable aquaculture research capacities and resources that a regional cooperative activity could utilize. Furthermore, the needs and stages of aquaculture development vary among the countries. An incremental or step-by-step approach could be taken in development and implementation of the regional actions, so that these need not be contingent on participation of all countries or availability of external funding support.

Regional cooperative action plans should be formulated and implemented on the basis of the interests and commitment expressed by the countries. NACA and FAO, in collaboration with other relevant regional and international bodies, could facilitate the regional consultation processes in formulating action plans. It should be borne in mind that regional actions do not replace or duplicate the national actions and efforts, rather they support and complement national actions under a regional scheme.

It has been noted that some countries are reluctant to disclose the details of their aquaculture research programmes, perhaps due to some economic interests at stake and the market competition with others. To ensure formulation of action plans that are truly cooperative and beneficial to all participating countries, it is necessary for the countries to address this issue, and define the nature and types of regional collaborative and cooperative research that they would support and participate in.

Formulation of action plans and project proposals should take into account the needs of field-oriented, problem-solving and policy-relevant research, and should involve the active participation of the private sector, local and fishfarming communities, policy-planners and implementors.

Finally, it should be kept in mind that success of regional collaborative research depends on the commitment of the participating countries. The countries must be prepared to play a central role in determining the research activities and methodologies, as well as the implementation and management of regional collaborative research. The role of the regional and international bodies, including funding agencies, should be that of a catalyst and facilitator.

1. ACIAR/DOF/NACA. 1996. Report of the workshop on "Key Researchable Issues in Sustainable Coastal Aquaculture in Thailand", Songkhla, Thailand, 28-31 October 1996. (Unpublished).
2. ADB/NACA. 1996. Aquaculture Sustainability Action Plan. Regional Study and Workshop on Aquaculture Sustainability and the Environment (RETA 5534). Asian Development Bank and the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. 21p.
3. AFS/FHS. 1993. Report of the workshop on "Priorities for Disease Research: Towards Minimizing Losses from Disease in Asian Aquaculture," The Session on SIFR and the Need for Demand-Led Research, held at the Second Symposium on Diseases in Asian Aquaculture: Aquatic Animal Health and the Environment, Phuket, Thailand, 25-29 October 1993. (Unpublished).
4. ASEAN. 1994. Report of the Conference on Fisheries Management and Development Strategies for the ASEAN Region for the Year 2000, Bangkok, Thailand, 26-29 1994. ASEAN.
5. Barraclough, S. and Andrea Finger-Stich. 1996. Some Ecological and Social Implications of Commercial Shrimp Farming in Asia. UNRISD DP 74. UNRISD. 62p.
6. BOBP. 1996. Towards Sustainability: Needs and Constraints of and Project Ideas to Facilitate Sustainable Management of Aquatic Resources and Fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Region: a report submitted to the IOFC Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Bay of Bengal (BOBC). BOBP, Madras, India.
7. Charles, A. T.; T. R. Brainerd; M. A. Bermudez; H. M. Montalvo; R. S. Pomeroy. 1994. Fisheries Socio-economic in the Developing World: Regional Assessments and an Annotated Bibliography. IDRC, Canada. 163 p.
8. FAO. 1996. Regional Review of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Situation and Outlook in South and Southeast Asia. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 904. FAO, Rome. 45p.
9. FAO. 1996a. Production. Vol. 49. FAO Statistics Series No. 130, 1995. Rome, FAO.
10. FAO. 1996b. Fishery statistics: catches and landings, 1995. Vol. 80. FAO Fisheries Series No. 48, FAO Statistics Series No. 134. Rome, FAO. 713p.
11. FAO. 1996c. Aquaculture production Statistics, 1986-1995. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 815 (Rev. 9). Rome, FAO. 195p.
12. FAO. 1996d. Fish and fishery products - apparent annual consumption statistics based on food balance sheets (1961-1993). FAO Fisheries Circular No. 821 (Rev. 3). Rome, FAO. 235p.
13. FAO. 1996e. Fishery statistics - commodities. Vol.81. FAO Fisheries Series No. 45; FAO Statistical series No. 124. Rome, FAO. 183p.
14. FAO/Govt. Japan. 1996. Kyoto Declaration. International Conference on the Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security, Kyoto, Japan, 4 to 9 December 1995. 22p.
15. FAO/SEAFDEC AQD. 1996. Report of the International Expert Meeting on the Use of Chemicals in Aquaculture, Iloilo, Philippines, 20-22 May 1996. (In press).
16. FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome. 41p.
17. FAO. 1994. Expert Consultation on Fishery Research, Rome, 12-15 April 1994. (Unpublished)
18. FAO/NACA. 1995. Regional Study and Workshop on Environmental Assessment and Management of Aquaculture Development (TCP/RAS/2253). NACA Environment and Aquaculture Development Series No. 1. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. 492p.
19. FAO/RAP. 1994. Report of the Eighth Session of the IPFC Working Party of Experts on Aquaculture, 24-25 Oct. 1994. (Unpublished).
20. Insull, D. and Z. Shehadeh. 1996. Policy directions for sustainable aquaculture development. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter. No. 13: 3-8.
21. International Law Institute/NACA. 1996. Report of the Workshop on Legal and Regulatory Aspects of Aquaculture in India and Southeast Asian Countries, Bangkok, 10 to 13 March 1996. (Unpublished).
22. NACA. 1995. Regional Study and Workshop on the Taxonomy, Ecology and Processing of Economically Important Red Seaweeds., Bangkok, 24-27 January 1995.
23. NACA. 1992-1996. Reports of the Meetings of the NACA Technical Advisory Committee, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996.
24. PADEK. 1996. Report of the Seminar on the Role of Women in Fisheries in Indo-China Countries, Phnom Penh, 6 to 8 March 1996. (unpublished).
25. SEAFDEC/JICA/CIDA. 1995. Towards Sustainable Aquaculture in Southeast Asia and Japan. Proceedings of the Seminar-Workshop on Aquaculture Development in Southeast Asia, held in Iloilo, Philippines, from 26 to 28 July 1994. SEAFDEC, Philippines. 254p.
26. SIFR. 1994. A Strategy for Post Harvest Fisheries Research in Asia. SIFR, Canada
27. UNDP/Government of the Philippines. 1995. Regional Workshop on the Role of Women in Fisheries Development, Iloilo City, Philippines, 17-21 July 1995.
28. World Bank/UNDP/CEC/FAO. 1992. A study of International Fisheries Research. Policy and Research Series No. 19. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 103p.
29. World Bank/UNDP/CEC/FAO. 1991. Tropical Aquaculture Development: Research Needs. World Bank Technical Paper No. 151. Fisheries Series. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 52p.
30. World Bank/UNDP/CEC/FAO. 1991. Fisheries and Aquaculture Research Capacities and Needs in Asia: Studies of India, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and the ASEAN Region. World Bank Technical Paper No, 147. Fisheries Series. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 70p.