24. When introducing this item, the Secretariat made reference to Document No. 3, containing the proposal resulting from the FAO study and explained that the objective of the workshop was to analyse the technical and economic feasibility of establishing a new regional cooperation network for the development of aquaculture in Latin America and the Caribbean. The findings of the workshop should validate or clarify a series of key issues if its conclusions and recommendations were to be objective. The topics to be discussed included the justification of a new network and its implications for the countries of the region; the incentives, motivation and interest of countries in establishing the network; the structure and operating modalities that it would need to adopt; its geographical scope and the implications of participation of countries or institutions from outside the region; its organizational aspects and its forms and sources of funding. Discussion of these topics would permit clear recommendations for the creation of a new network.
25. With regard to the desirable characteristics of the new aquaculture network, reference was made to the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA) and its strong impact on the development of aquaculture in that region. It was therefore considered important to take into account the characteristics of NACA when examining the creation of a similar mechanism for Latin America and the Caribbean. There was also a need to take into account the socio-economic and cultural similarities and differences between these regions, as well as similarities and differences in their aquaculture development and funding opportunities.
26. The network model consisting of selected centres of excellence located in few countries of the region would not seem to be suitable for Latin America and the Caribbean, where the intention was not just to develop culture technologies but also to resolve technical and economic problems deriving from intensive production and to support the development of aquaculture with a social dimension, in accordance to national priorities. A number of previously consulted officials from government institutions had indicated that they would prefer an intergovernmental cooperation mechanism comprised of national subnetworks that grouped and coordinated respective national (state, private, research, educational, production and trade association) institutions that wanted to join the regional network.
Potential key issues to be addressed by the network
27. The Secretariat pointed out that although each country had its own specific aquaculture situation, it could be assumed that many were affected by similar problems and that regional cooperation could resolve many common problems, including those arising from economic adjustment in their aquaculture and fisheries sectors, with restricted resources and weakened institutions as governments faced up to their commitments. The issues that were to be addressed by the network would be defined by the countries, according to shared priorities and producer needs.
28. Tentatively, many issues requiring network attention would concern scientific research (disease, genetics, feed and nutrition of cultured organisms); training and development of human resources at different levels; technical assistance for specific problems; dissemination and exchange of technical information; marketing of aquaculture products; development of rural aquaculture and the issue of gender in aquaculture.
A possible alternative for the network structure
29. The Secretariat reported that the FAO study suggested the network structure could consist of a regional body and national subnetworks acting as country representatives before the regional body.
30. The regional network would have a Council made up of the National Directors of Aquaculture of the member countries and a representative of FAO. It would be supervised a General Coordinator and assisted by National Coordinators of each member country.
31. The General Coordinator would be responsible for directing the regional network in conformity with established regulations and for preparing activity and budgetary programmes for priority issues placed before it.
32. Besides representing their respective countries in the regional network, the National Coordinators of the subnetworks would be charged with identifying public, private and social institutions interested in adhering to the network; coordinating the work of these institutions once they became members; channeling proposals from national institutions to the General Coordinator; and identifying specific thematic topics to receive the attention of the national subnetworks, according to the aquaculture priorities of each country. The National Coordinators should be officials from public administration nominated by the member countries of the network.
Funding of the network
33. Two distinct costs need to be differentiated for the administrative functioning and the operation of the network: i) intrinsic operational cost and; ii) economic assistance projects to be executed by the member institutions.
34. The intrinsic functioning cost would be the cost of general coordination and coordinating the national subnetworks. These costs would have to be assumed by the member countries. The cost of economic assistance projects or activities granted to member institutions under network programmes would have to be sourced externally. Private sector entities belonging to and benefiting from the network should be asked to contribute in the form of an "aquaculture or fisheries promotion fee".
35. Contacts with international organizations indicated that the Ibero-American Science and Technology Development Programme (CYTED) and the Centre for Marketing Information and Advisory Services for Fishery Products in Latin America and the Caribbean (INFOPESCA) were interested in participating in the creation of the network and in hosting its headquarters. CYTED expressed an interest in providing funding for the creation of the network and INFOPESCA was interested in the possibility of having the network share its headquarters in Montevideo, Uruguay.
36. The results of the debate that followed the introduction of this item are summarized in paragraphs 42 to 51 under "Conclusions and Recommendations of the Workshop".
