A. Objectives and expected outcome of the expert consultation
1. The main objective of the workshop organized by FAO is to determine the technical, institutional, political and financial feasibility of establishing a regional cooperation network for aquaculture in Latin America and the Caribbean. The findings of the workshop should validate and/or clarify the following points:
a. The objectives and justification for creating the proposed network.
b. The implications that the network will have on the countries of the region.
c. The incentives, motivation and interest of countries in establishing the network (i.e. cooperation, training, research, trade, marketing).
d. The network's structure and operating mechanisms.
e. The network's geographical scope and the implications of countries and institutions from outside the region participating.
f. Description of the network: project, intergovernmental or interinstitutional organization, legal regime, headquarters/facilities, etc.
g. Access to sources of financing.
h. Coordination, collaboration, merger, etc. with other initiatives to set up regional networks (APEC, OLDEPESCA, etc.)
i. Immediate actions needed to establish the network in the light of the above.
B. Feasibility of establishing a cooperation network for aquaculture in Latin America and the Caribbean: preliminary conclusions.
Introduction and mandate
2. The concept of a network of aquaculture centres or a network for cooperation and exchange of information on technical and commercial aspects and for the general development of aquaculture in Latin America and the Caribbean was a matter widely dealt with by the AQUILA Regional Project from 1986 and 1994. This same subject has been examined at all COPESCAL meetings of the past decade. The Commission was in fact involved in the establishment of an electronic network for the exchange of information on rural aquaculture, which has not received official support from the countries of the region. A lack of funds and country commitment has blocked the establishment of a network able to connect the region's aquaculture development centres for ongoing collaboration.
3. The ninth session of the Commission for Inland Fisheries of Latin America (COPESCAL) held in San Salvador, in January 2003, recommended the conduct of a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a network of aquaculture centres on the American continent, similar to the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA) sponsored by FAO for the Asian continent. The twenty-fifth session of FAO's Committee on Fisheries (COFI) held in Rome in February 2003 examined the work of NACA and several member countries expressed their interest in the establishment of similar mechanisms in the Americas and the Pacific islands, and requested FAO support for this proposal. This document looks at preliminary conclusions on the technical, institutional, political and financial feasibility of establishing a network of aquaculture centres in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Potential key characteristics for a network of aquaculture centres in Latin America and the Caribbean
4. The strong impact and influence of NACA on the expansion and development of aquaculture in the Asia-Pacific region has been widely recognized. It is therefore essential to analyse and review both the structure and the operating characteristics of NACA, given the current proposal to establish an aquaculture network for the Latin American region as a means of consolidating the expansion and development of this primary activity. It is important to note similarities and differences in economic conditions, level of aquaculture development, financing opportunity, socio-economic status of producers and other cultural aspects under which NACA was established and has functioned in order to determine if such a model is appropriate or needs adjusting to the conditions and characteristics of the region. Consideration will also have to be given to lessons learned from experiences of past mechanisms installed in the region.
5. A NACA-type network would not prosper in Latin America because of the specific nature of the countries of the region and because of the present state of evolution of aquaculture as a whole, where the challenge is not so much to develop culture techniques but rather to resolve problems arising from a more or less intensive production system. An FAO survey among government aquaculture officials revealed that the majority believed their countries would not be interested in joining the network, let alone contributing economically to its upkeep and operation, unless their own national institution was included as a member. This means that the idea of selecting four to six research centres of "excellence" as "lead centres", as with NACA, appears to be unacceptable and should probably be discarded.
6. It is also worth noting that the research centres of "excellence" (considered as such from an academic standing) are not necessarily oriented towards developing aquaculture in line with national priorities as defined by the responsible national institution.
7. The conclusion therefore was that countries seemed to prefer a network that was intergovernmental in nature and made up of national networks rather than "centres" or institutions. The aquaculture network for Latin America would constitute a network of national subnetworks. In order for a country to belong to the network, the government institution responsible for aquaculture would first have to commit to supporting the operation of a subnetwork, grouping and properly coordinating all institutions freely wishing to adhere, without prejudice to its institutional status within the national legislative framework.
Potential key issues to be addressed by the network
8. Although each country has its specific aquaculture situation, it may be assumed that all face more or less similar difficulties affecting them to different degrees, and that greater cooperation and exchange of experiences between member institutions of the network could help improve the situation resulting from economic adjustment in the aquaculture and fisheries sector. One of the reasons countries are interested in establishing a network is to have institutions and countries share resources and responsibilities and to have a highly effective and practical mechanism for identifying and resolving their aquaculture problems.
9. Public aquaculture institutions have become too debilitated to guide development of the sector and believe that a network could mitigate their inadequacies, at least partially. The network would presumably provide external complementary support as it coordinated the development of aquaculture in the areas of research, training, technical assistance and information exchange.
10. The FAO study elicited consensus on the network's main activity areas:
a. Provision of production options to countries for their development strategies and to producers in the light of pathological, genetic, economic, commercial and environmental problems. Such options should include the diversification of cultured species, using both introduced and native commercial species ("commodities").
b. Promotion of small-scale rural/coastal aquaculture. This is a priority means of generating employment and income for marginal communities (including coastal artisanal fishing communities).
c. Applied biotechnology (genetics, pathology, nutrition, feeding, etc.) to help producers deal with the ever increasing serious problems that obstruct their development and their economic and financial viability.
d. Training and human resource development. There was also consensus among the aquaculture institutions and the production sector on the need for the network to help strengthen capacity to train personnel at all levels, but especially field and mid-level technicians, and for the specialization of professionals.
e. Marketing, which should be given priority to develop a future programme of work aimed at developing the sale of the region's aquaculture products.
f. Transfer, exchange and publication of information. This is another area in which the network will have to play a very important role in fostering these fundamental activities for the rational development of aquaculture in the region.
g. Promotion of the role of women in aquaculture. The network should aim to provide for women's needs and their development, and to promote greater regional interlinkage to update information on the issue of gender in aquaculture.
A possible alternative for the network structure
11. There is consensus among aquaculture authorities and institutions on the network being made up of research centres, administrative bodies and assorted aquaculture institutions and stakeholders, under the coordination of a network representative who will also act as coordinator of the national subnetwork. The conclusions of the FAO study suggest the following possible organizational structure and operating mechanism.
a. Council
12. The Council would comprise the National Director/Manager of Aquaculture (or equivalent) of each member country in addition to a representative of FAO, who would hold the casting vote in the event of a tied ballot.
b. General Coordinator
13. The duties and functions of the General Coordinator of the network would be: to see that the network functions properly and in conformity with its rules and regulations; to draw up its annual programme of work, annual coordination budget and operating budget (projects) and; to identify specific thematic areas requiring network support in accordance with the aquaculture development priorities of the region agreed with the National Subnetwork Coordinators and in the light of proposals made directly by network member institutions to the Office of General Coordination. The General Coordinator would have to find a proper balance between research, training, technical assistance/extension and the transfer, exchange and publication of information, according to the network's mandated activity areas.
c. National Subnetwork Coordinators
14. The Subnetwork Coordinators would be central to the success of the network and to the effectiveness of the subnetwork in harnessing the expected benefits arising from the constitution and operation of the regional network. Their duties and functions would be to identify public, private and social institutions potentially interested in adhering to the network and to coordinate them should they be accepted by the Council, in accordance with the network's rules and regulations; to channel all proposals from member institutions to the Office of General Coordination; to identify specific topics for subnetwork support in line with a country's aquaculture development priorities, taking into account the proposals made directly by the network member institutions of to the Office of General Coordination.
15. The Subnetwork Coordinators -who should preferably be professionals in government service- should be commissioned to the network because of their involvement in the planning of national aquaculture development and because of the governments' budgetary contribution in kind to the network.
Sources of financing
16. The network's administrative and operating costs would need to be differentiated between: i) intrinsic operating costs and; ii) economic assistance granted member institutions to finance activities undertaken within the framework of the network.
17. The intrinsic operating costs (general coordination and coordination of National Subnetworks) would have to be assumed directly by the member countries, while the cost of economic assistance granted member institutions to finance activities undertaken under the network would have to be covered by external sources of funding.
18. Direct beneficiary entities in the private sector interested in adhering to the network would have to make a direct contribution to the network under a format that some countries have already defined and/or institutionalized as "aquaculture or fisheries promotion fee" (equivalent to that applied in several countries in the crop or livestock sector, e.g. tobacco, coffee, sugar, soybean, poultry and shrimp). National Subnetwork Coordinators should seek to maximize such contributions and will have to define mechanisms for their collection on the basis of the structure of the production sector, the species cultivated and production capacity and volumes.
19. A number of institutions directly or indirectly involved in aquaculture development in Latin America either financially or through research and technical assistance have been identified as potential sources of funding for network activity and technical assistance to projects.
20. The two external assistance institutions (CYTED and INFOPESCA) have expressed an interest and willingness to help create, host and support the network. An official proposal would have to be prepared and presented to each for access their assistance.
21. The Technical Director of CYTED has already indicated that it is interested in the proposed network and could make available the funds needed for its creation under its subprogrammes (thematic networks), whose objectives, purpose and mode of operation largely coincide with the proposed configuration of the Aquaculture Network for Latin America and the Caribbean.
22. For its part, INFOPESCA also sees the situation as promising and is interested in participating in the creation and hosting of the proposed network. The results of this study will be discussed at the workshop convened by FAO in early December and INFOPESCA's General Assembly will meet in March, which means there is little but still sufficient time to determine any possible involvement of INFOPESCA in the creation and operation of the Aquaculture Network for Latin America and the Caribbean.
C. Alternative initiatives for establishing a network
APEC
23. The Puerto Vallarta Plan of Action (APEC FWG 03/2000) concluded that the development of aquaculture in the Americas would benefit from the establishment of a NACA-like organization. FAO, NACA and APEC held an informal meeting to discuss the establishment of an aquaculture network in the Americas at the time of the Second Training Workshop (APEC FWG 01/2002) held in August 2002 in Mazatlán. The outcome was a recommendation that a feasibility study be conducted to determine how an intergovernmental aquaculture network mechanism could be established in the Americas.
24. The objective would be to determine if and how to develop an intergovernmental mechanism for the development and management of an aquaculture network that would also facilitate trade in aquaculture products in the Americas and in other parts of the APEC region. Such a mechanism is expected to make aquaculture more economically efficient through the exchange of information and policy coordination.
25. APEC is conducting a feasibility study on the establishment of an intergovernmental mechanism for the development and management of an Aquaculture Network in the Americas (ANA). Its objectives are to conduct a diagnosis of the present regional situation, to determine and propose the best institutional structure and organizational arrangement and ANA requisites, and to hold a regional workshop to present, discuss and validate the ANA proposal with all stakeholders.
26. Even though the scope of the ANA feasibility study includes are all countries/economies of the Americas (North, Central and South America), emphasis will be given to the APEC economies (Canada, USA, Mexico, Peru and Chile) plus Ecuador and Brazil. Analysis of the other countries/economies of the region will be gradually incorporated as time, funds and secondary data and information become available.
27. This project, which will have a total duration of 14 months, started in early March 2004 and is scheduled to end on 30 April 2005. It will be implemented through five actions: (i) preparation and coordination, (ii) regional diagnosis, (iii) network proposal, (iv) presentation and validation workshop, and (v) project conclusion.
28. The three main outputs expected from this project are: (i) a regional diagnosis document, (ii) a technical report containing the ANA proposal and its configuration, and (iii) a regional workshop to present, discuss and validate the ANA proposal and generate regional recommendations for implementation of the ANA.
OLDEPESCA
29. OLDEPESCA has proposed a feasibility study on the creation of an aquaculture network in Latin America with general objectives similar to those of the present study, i.e. to foster the sustainable development of aquaculture through horizontal cooperation that will promote the exchange of knowledge, experiences and technologies among the countries of the region.
30. The specific objectives of the proposed study are to design, introduce and activate a network for the exchange of technical and scientific information among the countries of the region, and to promote the application of specific programmes and projects for the development of sanitary and quality control technologies.
31. Although the proposal for the creation of the network was already approved at the XVI Conference of Ministers held in Lima on 26 and 27 August 2004, through Resolution N° 195-CM-03 which calls for the Executive Directorate to collaborate with APEC's proposed network project, no actual implementation mechanism has so far been defined. Through its Executive Director, OLDEPESCA has however expressed its willingness to support efforts to establish the network, under whatever modality agreed by the promoting institutions and/or countries that may eventually adhere. Finally, the Government of Mexico presented an initiative during the Conference to host the network proposed by APEC.
