Preparation of this document

Szarvas, December 2004

This is the final report of the First Meeting of Directors of the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Central-Eastern Europe (NACEE), held in Szarvas, Hungary, from 21 to 24 November 2004.

The report of this meeting was revised, discussed and adopted by the participants on 24 November 2004.

The report of the meeting was finalized by L. Varadi, P. Lengyel, M. Szakács, I. Csavas from the Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI) as well as U. Barg and A.R. Colagrossi from the FAO Fisheries Department.

HAKI staff provided translation of this report into Russian.

Distribution

Member Institutes of NACEE
Participants at the Meeting
EIFAC mailing list
EIFAC Officers
EIFAC National Correspondents

1. The Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI) as coordinating institution of the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Central-Eastern Europe (NACEE) hosted the First Meeting of NACEE Directors in Szarvas, Hungary, from 21 to 24 November 2004. The meeting was co-organized by the Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service, FAO, Rome and the FAO Subregional Office in Budapest, Hungary. The organization was also supported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Hungary. The detailed programme and prospectus of the meeting are included in Annex 1.

2. The meeting was attended by 45 participants representing 22 institutions from 12 countries as well as the representatives of the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FVM), FAO Fisheries Department and Subregional Office of FAO (FAO SEUR) in Budapest (Annex 2 contains the list of participants).

3. The meeting was opened by Mr János Gábor (FVM). In his opening address, he emphasized the importance of the bottom-up initiatives in the European Union (EU). Ms Kadlecikova (FAO SEUR) welcomed the participants emphasizing the importance of aquaculture in Central and Eastern Europe for food and human nutrition.

Keynote presentations

4. Four keynote presentations were given. Mr Jia (FAO) presented current efforts of FAO on the promotion and possible establishment of regional aquaculture networks in Africa and the Americas (Annex 3 provides two background papers on these efforts in these two regions). Mr Jia emphasized that the FAO efforts in the Americas, Africa as well as in Central and Eastern Europe follow the recommendations of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) Sub-Committee on Aquaculture which called for support for the establishment and promotion of regional aquaculture networks. The paper on the networking experience of the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA) was submitted by Mr Bueno (Director-General of NACA) and was presented by Mr Barg (FAO) (Annex 4). Mr Demes (FAO SEUR) presented the internet-based AgroWeb information network and possible application in aquaculture (Annex 5).

5. Mr Váradi (HAKI) gave an overview of the main milestones of the development of NACEE and drew the attention of participants to the expectations from the First Meeting of Directors including the determination of objectives of NACEE, structure and function, networking mechanism, organizational framework, workplan and roadmap for the future (Annex 6). Mr Váradi emphasized that creation of NACEE was "a small step in the right direction" of integrating Central-Eastern European aquaculture institutions into the European Research Area.

Short presentation of member institutions

6. Twenty-one institutions from 12 countries introduced their structure and activities, using a standard format distributed beforehand. Summaries of information provided are available in Annex 7. Based on the information presented, the following overall trends could be established:

• The region, covered by NACEE, represents a very diversified area concerning availability of aquatic resources, production practices and related research and development activities.

• Huge intellectual potential exists in the member institutions.

• It was realized that the aquaculture sector was facing similar challenges in different member countries passing through the same post-socialist transition period. Lessons learned by members can be shared.

• Many NACEE member institutions are state-financed enterprises (at the level of 30-80 percent of their budget). The institutes themselves are also facing challenges of changing professional requirements, staff composition, budgetary problems, etc.

• Beside the bi- and multilateral cooperations, there is a need for coordinated networking arrangements among the institutes of the region.

• Large unutilized potential exists for the development of aquaculture in Central-Eastern Europe.

Session on structure and function of NACEE

7. The structure and function of the Network were discussed on the basis and following the structure of the previously distributed discussion paper (Annex 8). The meeting participants discussed the objectives of NACEE. The goals as agreed and approved for the Network are the following:

• Exchange of information among members (within the region).

• Facilitate the transfer of information relevant to aquaculture development of the region.

• Exchange of scientists with special regard to young ones.

• Initiate joint research, education and training programmes.

• Facilitate efforts aiming at the better involvement of Central-Eastern European institutions in European level aquaculture development programmes.

• Assist the organization of regional aquaculture meetings and conferences.

• Facilitate the improvement of partnership between science and practice, with special regard to small and medium enterprises' and producers' associations.

• Enhance the capacity of Central-Eastern European institutions to be able to initiate and run regional aquaculture research and development projects supported by the EU, FAO and other international organizations.

• Development of collaboration between the Network and other regional networks/organizations with special regard to NACA.

8. As agreed in the Founding Document (Annex 9) the mission statement for NACEE is to Facilitate the R&D sphere in Central-Eastern Europe to be an integral part of the European Research Area. It was discussed and agreed that high education in living aquatic resources and aquaculture is also of prime interest to NACEE.

9. The participants extensively discussed the expectations from the Network. In particular they stressed the importance of the following: exchange of relevant information, active collaboration between the members, joint R&D programmes, standardization and introduction of modern methods of water body research related to rational use of living aquatic resources and aquaculture. The opportunities for the possible cooperation and exchange of experiences with the International Council for Scientific-Technological Cooperation in Research on Living Aquatic Resources and Aquaculture were recognised. The representatives of higher education institutions earmarked the importance of the Bologna Convention, with special regard to the harmonization and standardization of the different levels of higher education, integrated training and curricula in Europe.

10. The existing structure of the Network (Board of Directors, Coordinating Institution and Member Institutions) was approved.

11. The following tasks and responsibilities of the Board of Directors were confirmed: (i) admitting new members; (ii) decisions concerning all the Network (financial issues, structure etc.); (iii) control of the implementation of the decisions of the board; and (iv) initiation of common R&D projects. It was agreed that the decisions will be made by open vote and simple majority. The Board of Directors will have its regular meetings every year. It was decided that a by-law and supporting rules of procedure will be drafted and circulated among the directors for comments and suggestions before its finalization.

12. It was agreed that the functions of HAKI, as coordinating institution, include: (i) the organization of regular meetings; (ii) watching for calls for proposals; (iii) facilitating the preparation of common R&D projects; (iv) maintaining the necessary infrastructure/personnel for the operation of the Network; (v) collecting and dissemination of information; and (vi) coordinating the dates of conferences and symposia. In order to address specific thematic areas or tasks, HAKI, as the coordinating institution, will identify and nominate technical focal points (e.g. crayfish culture, mariculture, sturgeon culture, etc.).

13. The participants agreed that member institutions should contribute by: (i) assigning a liaison officer; (ii) providing information; (iii) initiating of regional projects; and (iv) paying membership fee. Five participants volunteered to join a drafting group to work on a proposal on detailed arrangements for the payment and amount of membership fees. The members of the drafting group are: L. Vasil'eva, J. Kouril, E. Zubcov, M. Grinzhevskiy, L. Váradi.

14. The experts identified e-mail as the prioritized ways of communication and stressed the importance of creating a NACEE webpage for information dissemination. Recognizing the importance of personal contacts, it was agreed that members will try, if possible, to attend the conferences organized by each other.

15. Participants agreed that NACEE should be an open organization and therefore there should be no limitations as for the number of possible member institutions. Membership of producers and producer associations is welcome.

16. Participants agreed that all possible sources of financing the Network activities should be pursued including: (i) international financial sources (projects, international donor support, etc.), (ii) national funding possibilities (research projects, network building, etc.), (iii) private enterprises, in addition to (iv) membership fees.

17. The participants briefly discussed the wide range of possible thematic areas for joint research and collaboration.

18. The participants reiterated the importance of promoting collaboration on: (i) elaboration of project proposals, (ii) exchange of scientists, (iii) joint organization of meetings, (iv) coordinated attendance on international conferences, and (v) preparation of methodological and educational literature in accordance with the Bologna Convention.

19. The directors accepted the English acronym of the Network (NACEE) and agreed that the same acronym should be used in the Russian documentation as well. Some proposals for the logo will be prepared later and circulated among the members for discussion and approval.

20. The possibility for NACEE of evolving into an intergovernmental organization was not ruled out definitively. Governments should be informed about the NACEE initiative and this issue could be discussed at a later stage of development of the Network.

Workplan for the future

21. The meeting participants decided on the following activities:

1. Preparation and publication of the report of the First Meeting of NACEE Directors. This report also should be distributed to governments and other interested organizations.

2. Elaboration of the draft by-law of NACEE. This by-law, supported by rules of procedures, should not be too complex and should be circulated among members for review and approval.

3. Collection and dissemination of information.

4. Upcoming meetings and conferences (2005-2006):

• CSN-INTRAN, New challenges in pond aquaculture, Èeské Budìjovice, Czech Republic, 26-28 April 2005

• WAS 2005, Bali, Indonesia, 9-13 May 2005

• EAS 2005, Trondheim, Norway, 5-9 August 2005

• Annual meeting of the International Council for Scientific Technological Cooperation in Research on Living Aquatic Resources and Aquaculture, Astrakhan, Russian Federation, August 2005.

• Present problems of aquaculture and rational use of living aquatic resources, Kiev, Ukraine, 26-30 September 2005

• New aspects in aquaculture, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 10-13 October 2005

• Domestication and development of strains in aquaculture, Moscow, Russian Federation, second half of 2006

22. Mr Jia (FAO) informed the meeting participants that FAO is undertaking global and regional reviews of aquaculture development for presentation at the third session of the COFI Sub-Committee on Aquaculture. He suggested that the next NACEE meeting could be held in conjunction with the envisaged expert meeting on the regional review of Central and Eastern European aquaculture development, preferably in September 2005. Ms Vasil'eva suggested that the Scientific and Production Centre of Sturgeon Culture "BIOS" would host the next NACEE meeting in Astrakhan. This would also provide an opportunity to enhance the collaboration with the International Council for Scientific-Technological Cooperation in Research on Living Aquatic Resources and Aquaculture which will have its annual meeting at the same venue. The participants accepted the proposal and agreed upon the following tentative dates:

• 5-7 September for Expert Meeting on the Regional Review of Central and Eastern European Aquaculture Development (FAO)

• 8-9 September for the second meeting of NACEE Directors

5. Training courses in 2005

• AQUALABS Course on Environment-Friendly and Safe Aquaculture Systems, Szarvas, Hungary, 22-28 August 2005

• CSN-INTRAN Course on Aquaculture and Environment, Szarvas, Hungary, 26-30 September 2005

6. Development of NACEE website

23. Information on NACEE will be temporarily hosted on HAKI's website until a permanent webpage is created. Cooperation and assistance has been offered by FAO-SEUR in particular in conjunction with the AgroWeb information system.

7. National Aquaculture Sector Overviews (NASO) and regional reviews

24. Mr Barg introduced the initiative of FAO on the development of NASOs^[1] and participants were invited to contribute to this process through provision of information on aquaculture in their country. In conjunction with the Regional Review meeting on Central and Eastern European aquaculture development, participants were informed of the regional reviews of aquaculture development in Europe and the former USSR, which had been prepared by HAKI in 1999^[2] for the purposes of the FAO/NACA Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium held in 2000.^[3] Participating experts will be expected to produce country reviews on their aquaculture sector as contribution to the regional review. The standardized format for the preparation of such country reviews will be communicated later by HAKI.

8. International cooperations

25. NACEE and its Coordinating Institution will enhance collaboration with:

• FAO Fisheries Department

• FAO European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC)

• FAO Sub-regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe (SEUR)

• EU Directorate General Fisheries, Aquaculture Unit

• Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA)

• EUROFISH

• European Aquaculture Society (EAS)

• AKVAFORSK Company, Norway

9. National cooperation

26. NACEE members will endeavour to enhance collaboration with their government authorities, producer associations and other organizations.

Discussion and signing of NACEE Founding Document

27. The draft of the Founding Document was circulated and reviewed by the participants. The final version of the Founding Document (Annex 9) was approved and signed by the directors and official representatives of NACEE member institutions. Two institutions that could not attend the meeting (Department of Fisheries, Beekeeping and Special Zoology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia and Department of Fish Farming, Estonian Agricultural University, Tartu, Estonia) expressed their strong intention to be members of NACEE, therefore they are also considered founding members.

28. The report of this meeting was revised, discussed and adopted by the participants on 24 November 2004. The final version of the report together with its Annexes will be circulated by HAKI among all interested parties by the end of January.

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1.1
Programme

21 November, Sunday

22 November, Monday

Keynote presentations (Chairperson: Maria Kadleèikova, FAO-SEUR)

23 November, Tuesday

24 November 2004, Wednesday

25 November 2004, Thursday

Leaving of participants

Transfer to Budapest/Szolnok
Participants may stay for a longer period upon request, however they have to cover all incurred costs.

Venue: Conference center of HAKI

ANNEX 1.2
Prospectus

The Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI) as coordinating institution of the Network of Aquaculture Centers in Central-Eastern Europe will hold the first meeting of NACEE Directors in Szarvas, Hungary between 22-25 November 2004. The meeting is co-organized by the Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service, FAO Rome and the FAO Sub-Regional Office Budapest, Hungary. The organisation is also supported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Hungary.

The main objectives of the meeting is to assist the formalisation of the network operation and to identify areas of future actions.

Background and Rationale

Central Eastern Europe is an emerging region of Europe, where aquaculture plays important role in rural development. Tremendous knowledge and experience is available in various aquaculture research institutions in the region, however there are serious constraints in the R&D field, which hamper the utilisation of research results and the transfer of technologies in the region, with special regard to the less developed areas. These constraints include financial, infrastructural and language factors. The R&D sector in this region is still very far from being integral part of the European Research Area. This is indicated well with the low number of publications in the Aquaculture Magazine (1% between 1991-1996) and the low participation in EAS conferences (about 4% between 1996-2002). There have been efforts to stimulate the better integration of Central-Eastern European institutions and scientists into European level research programs (e.g. EU 5 and 6 Framework Programs), however there is still a long way to go in order to bridge the gap and to eliminate the existing disparities between the R&D spheres in Western and Central-Eastern Europe. The idea of the establishment of a Network of Aquaculture Centers in Central-Eastern Europe (NACEE), expected to contribute to this process, has been developed during the activity of the Central-Eastern European Committee of European Aquaculture Society (EAS), which has recently been established by the Society.

The Network was established in 2003, when so-called "Letters of intent" were signed by the directors of 20 aquaculture centers from 13 Central-Eastern European countries. The coordinating institution of NACEE is the Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI) in Hungary. As a result of the operation of the Network, member institutions informed each other about events, which counted for the interest of other members, the coordinator institution disseminated major information from European organisations and institutions (EU, FAO, EAS, FEAP), which may be relevant for members of the "Network", and the participation of representatives of NACEE member institutions was also facilitated on various European-level meetings e.g. FEAP PROFET Workshop in Budapest, Hungary and EIFAC Symposium in Wierzba, Poland.

Aims of the meeting

The aims of the meeting will be:

Participation and contributions

The Meeting will be attended by directors of NACEE member institutions; leading experts of some of the institutions; representatives of FAO Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service, FAO Rome; FAO Sub-Regional Office Budapest, Hungary; European Commission, Aquaculture Unit; NACA and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Budapest, Hungary.

Member institutions of NACEE will comment and give recommendations on the objectives, structure and function of the Network and will also propose specific thematic areas for expanding cooperation between NACEE members and relevant international organisations and networks. Priority scientific areas will be determined for joint research and exchange programmes and possibilities of funding of NACEE will be discussed.

ANNEX 2
List of participants

BELARUS, Republic of

Viktor KONCHITS
Institute of Fisheries of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus
22 Stebenev St.
220024 Minsk, Republic of Belarus
Tel.: +375-17-275-3646
Tel./fax: +375-17-275-3660
E-mail: [email protected]

Aliaksandr SLUKVIN
Institute of Genetics and Cytology of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus
27 Akademicheskaya St.
220072 Minsk, Republic of Belarus
Tel.: +375-17-873-494
Fax: +375-17-284-1917
E-mail: [email protected]

BULGARIA

Liliana HADJINIKOLOVA (Ms)
Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture
Varna - Branch of Freshwater Fisheries
Plovdiv, 248 V. Levski Str.
4003 - Plovdiv, Bulgaria
Tel.: +359-32-956-033
Fax: +359-32-953-924
E-mail: [email protected]

CROATIA

Branko GLAMUZINA
Department for Aquaculture
University of Dubrovnik
Cira Carica 4
20000 Dubrovnik, Croatia
Tel.: +385-20-445-700
Fax: +385-20-435-590
E-mail: [email protected]

CZECH REPUBLIC

Zdenek ADÁMEK
University of South Bohemia
Research Institute of Fish Culture and Hydrobiology
Laboratory Pohorelice
Vídeòska 717
69123 Pohoøelice, Czech Republic
Tel.: +420-519-424-372-3
Fax: +420-519-424-243
E-mail: [email protected]

Jan KOURIL
University of South Bohemia
Research Institute of Fish Culture and Hydrobiology
Zátiší 728/II
389 25 Vodnany, Czech Republic
Tel.: +420-383-382-402
Fax: +420-383-382-396
E-mail: [email protected]

HUNGARY

Emese BÉKEFI
Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation
H-5541 Szarvas
P. O. Box 47, Hungary
Tel.: +36-66-515-322
Fax: +36-66-312-142
E-mail: [email protected]

Imre CSAVAS
H-2310 Szigetszentmiklos
Kolozsvari ut 78, Hungary
Tel. +36-24-516-866
Fax: +36-24-516-865

János GÁBOR
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
H-1860 Budapest 55
P.O. Box 1, Hungary
Tel.: +36-1-301-4000
Fax: +36-1-302-0408

Galina JENEY (Ms)
Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation
H-5541 Szarvas
P.O. Box 47, Hungary
Tel.: +36-66-515-322
Fax: +36-66-312-317
E-mail: [email protected]

Zsigmond JENEY
Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation
H-5541 Szarvas
P.O. Box 47, Hungary
Tel.: +36-66-515-314
Fax: +36-66-312-142
E-mail: [email protected]

Péter LENGYEL
Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation
H-5541 Szarvas
P.O. Box 47, Hungary
Tel.: +36-66-515-312
Fax: +36-66-312-142
E-mail: [email protected]

Ferenc PEKÁR
Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation
H-5541 Szarvas
P.O. Box 47, Hungary
Tel.: +36-66-515-308
Fax: +36-66-312-142
E-mail: [email protected]

András RÓNYAI
Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation
H-5541 Szarvas
P.O. Box 47, Hungary
Tel.: +36-66-515-320
Fax: +36-66-312-142
E-mail: [email protected]

Mónika SZAKÁCS (Ms)
Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation
H-5541 Szarvas
P.O. Box 47, Hungary
Tel.: +36-66-515-303
Fax: +36-66-312-142
E-mail: [email protected]

Ágnes VÁRADI (Ms)
Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation
H-5541 Szarvas
P.O. Box 47, Hungary
Tel.: +36-66-515-309
Fax: +36-66-312-142
E-mail: [email protected]

László VÁRADI
Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation
H-5541 Szarvas
P.O. Box 47, Hungary
Tel.: +36-66-515-301
Fax: +36-66-312-142
E-mail: [email protected]

LATVIA

Augusts ARENS
Latvian Crayfish and Fish Farmers' Association
7-6 Alberta St., Riga
LV-1010, Latvia
Tel./fax: +371-7-336-005
E-mail: [email protected]

LITHUANIA

Povilas KINDURYS
Lithuanian State Pisciculture and Fisheries Research Centre
23A Konstitucijos pr.
LT-2004 Vilnius, Lithuania
Tel.: +370-5-272-7916
Fax: +370-5-272-2146
E-mail: [email protected]

Vytautas VAITIEKUNAS
Lithuanian State Pisciculture and Fisheries Research Centre
23A Konstitucijos pr.
LT-2004 Vilnius, Lithuania

MOLDOVA

Elena ZUBCOV (Ms)
Institute of Zoology of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova
1 Academiei
MD-2028 Chisinau, Moldova
Tel.: +373-22-739-809
Fax: +373-22-731-255
E-mail: [email protected]
and/or [email protected]

POLAND

Ilgiz IRNAZAROW
Institute of Ichthyobiology and Aquaculture
Polish Academy of Sciences
Golysz, 43-520 Chybie, Poland
Tel.: +48-33-856-1551;
Fax: + 48-33-858-9292;
E-mail: [email protected]

Ryszard KOLMAN
The Stanislaw Sakowicz Inland Fisheries Institute
10 Oczapowskiego
10-719 Olsztyn-Kortowo, Poland
Tel.: +48-89-524-0171
Fax: +48-89-524-0505

Andrzej PILARCZYK
Institute of Ichthyobiology and Aquaculture
Polish Academy of Sciences
Golysz, 43-520 Chybie, Poland
Tel.: +48-33-856-1551
Fax: + 48-33-858-9292
E-mail: [email protected]

Zdzislaw ZAKES
The Stanislaw Sakowicz Inland
Fisheries Institute
10 Oczapowskiego
10-719 Olsztyn-Kortowo, Poland
Tel.: +48-89-524-0171
Fax: +48-89-524-0505
E-mail: [email protected]

ROMANIA

Marian BURA
Department of Fish Farming, Aquaculture and Fish Processing
Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences
119 Calea Aradului
1900 Timisoara, Romania
Tel.: (40)741-127-825/256-442-821/
256-212-581
Fax: (40)256-200-296
E-mail: [email protected]

Victor CRISTEA
Department of Aquaculture and Fishing
"Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati
47 Domneasca Street
8800 Galati, Romania
Tel.: +40-236-415-641
Fax: +40-236-461-353
E-mail: [email protected]

Nicolae DIMULESCU
Institute of Research and Development for Aquatic Ecology, Fishing and Aquaculture
2-4 Portului Street
800032 Galati, Romania
Tel.: +40-236-416-914/236-465-117
Fax: +40-236-414-270
E-mail: [email protected]

Adrian GROZEA
Department of Fish Farming
Aquaculture and Fish Processing
Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences
119 Calea Aradului
1900 Timisoara, Romania
Tel.: +40-741-127-825/256-442-821/
256-212-581
Fax: +40-256-200-296
E-mail: [email protected]

Dorel LAZU
Department of Fish Farming, Aquaculture and Fish Processing
Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences
119 Calea Aradului
1900 Timisoara, Romania
Tel.: +40-741-127-825/256-442-821/
256-212-581
Fax: +40-256-200-296
E-mail: [email protected]

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Andrey BOGERUK
Pedigree Fish Breeding Centre
18a Ermolaevskiy per.
103001 Moscow, Russian Federation
Tel./fax: +7-095-976-1475/095-976-2954
E-mail: [email protected]

Evgeniy GAMYGIN
All-Russian Research Institute of Freshwater Fish Farming
141821 Rybnoe
Dmitrov Region
Moscow Province, Russian Federation
Tel.: +7-095-993-8198/095-587-2713
Fax: +7-095-993-8198/095-587-2703
E-mail: [email protected]

Viktor GOLOD
Federal Centre for Fish Genetics and Selection
188514 Ropsha, Lomonosov Region
Leningrad Province, Russian Federation
Tel./fax: +7-812-422-7995
E-mail: [email protected]

Dmitriy IVANOV
State Research Institute on Lake and River Fisheries
26 Makarov enb.
199055 St-Petersburg, Russian Federation
Tel.: +7-812-323-7724
Fax: +7-812-328-0742/812-323-6051
E-mail: [email protected]

Valeriy KRUPKIN
Federal Centre for Fish Genetics and Selection
188514 Ropsha, Lomonosov Region
Leningrad Province, Russian Federation
Tel./fax: +7-812-422-7995
E-mail: [email protected]

Lidiya VASIL'EVA (Ms)
Scientific and Production Centre of Sturgeon Culture "BIOS"
14a Volodarsky St.
414000 Astrakhan, Russian Federation
Tel.: +7-8512-390-511/8512-391-126
Fax: +7-8512-391-129
E-mail: [email protected]

UKRAINE

Vitaliy BEKH
Institute for Fisheries of the Ucrainian Academy of Agricultural Sciences
135 Obukhovskaya Str.
03164 Kiev, Ukraine
Tel.: +380-44-423-7461
Fax: +380-44-423-7458
E-mail: [email protected]

Nikolay GRINZHEVSKIY
Research and Design Technological Center "Tekhrybvod"
135 Obukhovskaya Str.
03164 Kiev, Ukraine
Tel.: +380-44-423-7467
Fax: +380-44-423-7467
E-mail: [email protected]

Yuriy PILIPENKO
Faculty of Hydrobiological Resources and Aquaculture
Kherson State Agrarian University
23 R. Luxemburg St.
73006 Kherson, Ukraine
Tel.: +380-552-429-451
Fax: +380-552-429-289
E-mail: [email protected]

Isaak SHERMAN
Faculty of Hydrobiological Resources and Aquaculture
Kherson State Agrarian University
23 R. Luxemburg St.
73006 Kherson, Ukraine
Tel.: +380-552-429-451
Fax: +380-552-429-289
E-mail: [email protected]

Oleksandr TRETYAK
Institute for Fisheries of the Ucrainian Academy of Agricultural Sciences
135 Obukhovskaya Str.
03164 Kiev, Ukraine
Tel.: +380-44-423-7461
Fax: +380-44-423-7458
E-mail: [email protected]

Viktoriya TSEDIK (Ms)
Department of General Zoology and Ichthyology
National Agricultural University
15 Geroev Oborony St.
Kiev, Ukraine
Tel.: +380-44-267-8918
E-mail: [email protected]

FAO FISHERIES DEPARTMENT

Uwe BARG
Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome, Italy
Tel.: +39-06-570-53454
Fax: +39-06-570-53020
E-mail: [email protected]

Jiansan JIA
Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome, Italy
Tel.: +39-06-570-55007
Fax: +39-06-570-53020
E-mail: [email protected]

FAO-SEUR

Michal DEMES
FAO Sub-Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe
Benczúr utca 34
H-1068 Budapest, Hungary
Tel.: +36-1-461-2026
Fax: +36-1-351-7029
E-mail: [email protected]

Maria KADLECIKOVA
FAO Sub-Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe
Benczúr utca 34
H-1068 Budapest, Hungary
Tel.: +36-1-461-2000
Fax: +36-1-351-7029
E-mail: [email protected]

ANNEX 3.1
Opportunities for and requirements of a NACA-like mechanism in Africa

THIRTEENTH SESSION OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR INLAND FISHERIES OF AFRICA^[4]

Entebbe, Uganda, 27-30 October 2004

INTRODUCTION

1. The 1999 Africa Regional Aquaculture Review (CIFA/OP24) evaluated 30 years of aquaculture developments efforts, using lessons learnt from these experiences to outline the key elements of a general aquaculture development strategy and to establish the foundation for a network of practitioners to facilitate information exchange. The Review concluded that there was a strong need for the support of information exchanges throughout the Region in research, development, training and extension. As part of the "way forward", the Review recommended that collaboration, coordination and information exchange be prompted between national and regional aquaculture agencies and institutions.

2. The Second Session of the COFI Sub-Committee on Aquaculture (Trondheim, Norway, 7-11 August 2003) recommended that priority be given to, among others, the development of regional networking (FAO Fisheries Report No. 716, para 14). The Sub-Committee recognized the importance of the initiative to establish a NACA^[5]-type organization in the Americas and that this could provide a model for increased uptake and cooperation in other regions (para 18). In this light, one of the top priority areas of work identified by the Sub-Committee was the promotion of regional network and cooperation (e.g., through NACA-like organizations).

3. In December, 2003, FAO sponsored a Mission to prepare a Report on Africa Intergovernmental Aquaculture Networking Opportunities and Options. The Mission visited Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Kenya and Zambia to assess networking needs and opportunities. The summary of the Mission Report is presented in Annex I.

I. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MISSION

4. The Mission concluded:

• Aquaculture is recognised as promising means of increasing fish production to meet the fish consumption demand of the increasing population and reducing the pressure on capture fisheries, the majority of which are currently either exploited to the maximum or over-fished. Other benefits of aquaculture include: reducing poverty by providing employment, improving household income and rural livelihoods, enhancing food and nutritional security, providing sources of protein, fatty acids and micronutrients, as well as generating foreign exchange earnings through export of high value farmed fish.

• The potential for aquaculture development exists in a variety of environments including rivers, lakes, dams and other water reservoirs, swamps and wetlands.

• The principal constraints to aquaculture development which have been noted by previous workers include: lack of quality seed, in quantity and constantly available to contribute to making aquaculture a profitable enterprise; lack of feed in quality and quantity; weak extension service and the very limited transfer of research results and technological innovation to fish farmers; lack of regular availability of relevant aquaculture information; lack of institutional arrangement in countries to foster national direction in fish culture development; lack of clear-cut aquaculture legislation and framework on which strategic aquaculture development plans can periodically be formulated.

• To a greater or lesser degree, the principal constraints listed above can all cost effectively be addressed through regional collaboration and networking in Africa as NACA has done for Asian countries.

• In contrasting African and Asian aquaculture, the main observations are that in Asia there is a long aquaculture tradition/history going back 2000 years; whereas in Africa aquaculture practice is not more than 50 years old, aquaculture is not widely spread, farmers are still in the process of accepting fish as a farm crop and they have very limited skills in aquaculture.

• The principal lessons from Asia for Africa in establishing an African Intergovernmental Aquaculture Network Organisation, similar to NACA include that regional collaboration and networking will:

i) Eliminate duplication of efforts;

ii) Facilitate technical information generation, packaging and dissemination together with technology transfer;

iii) Pool together national resources and strengthen national systems.

iv) Hasten widespread and coordinated aquaculture development;

v) Ensure effective use of scarce resources and the sharing of benefits between members;

vi) Better attract funding from development partners.

vii) Maximise utilisation of all resources especially available training/research facilities and human expertise to achieve faster aquaculture growth;

viii) Promote Technical Cooperation Among Developing Countries (TCDC).

• There is an overwhelming support from within the Region for the concept of establishing a Regional Intergovernmental Aquaculture Network Organization for Africa similar to NACA to facilitate and hasten aquaculture development. The aquaculture network is viewed as an effective vehicle for coordinating aquaculture technical information exchange, technology transfer, training and collaborative research in agreed priority aquaculture areas. Consequently the mission concluded that there is a need for initiatives to establish an African Regional Aquaculture Development Network.

5. The Mission recommended:

• While in the long term it is desired to have a single Intergovernmental Aquaculture Network Organization for the whole of Africa similar to NACA, this should be developed gradually. The process of developing the single network should start with an interim network option. The proposed interim network options include:

(i) Establishing a CIFA Subcommittee for Aquaculture with the FAO Regional Office for Africa providing the Secretariat. Membership would be open to all CIFA members. Funding would come from extra budgetary funds including member country or donor contributions.

(ii) Formation of a Committee for the Development of a Regional Aquaculture Network Organisation for Africa. Membership will be open to the first ten or more member countries, which sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish the Committee. Initially the development of the MOU could be coordinated by the CIFA Secretariat. After the MOU is signed member countries would have to agree on a host country and a Secretariat. Funding of the Secretariat should come from extrabudgetary funds including member country or donor contributions.

(iii) Establishment of Aquaculture units (Secretariat) within the existing sub regional Organisations. The proposal is to sensitise member countries of CIFA who are also members of existing sub regional Organisations like COMESA, ECOWAS, UEMOA, SADC to request their Organisations to establish aquaculture network units (Secretariats). Funding for such units will be provided in the budget of the sub-regional organisations. The sub-regional aquaculture units will collaborate with CIFA and the single Intergovernmental Organisation once finally established.

• The proposed Intergovernmental Aquaculture Organization for Africa (IGO) is for the whole of Africa and is to consist of a Secretariat and network centres to be selected from member countries. The IGO Secretariat will act as a clearinghouse for information collection and exchange and coordinate the network centres' agreed priority activities. The detailed functions will be contained in the constitution establishing the IGO once adopted by member countries.

6. In line with recommendations of the Mission, FAO distributed a survey to CIFA Member Countries to solicit their views on the establishment of an African Aquaculture Network. The replies of twelve Member Countries (approximately 30% of CIFA membership) are presented in Annex II.

II. ASSESSMENT OF THE NEED FOR AN AFRICAN AQUACULTURE NETWORK

7. In March, 2004, FAO and ICLARM organised a regional aquaculture workshop in Limbé, Cameroon. During this workshop, African participants discussed the way forward for aquaculture development in the Region and drafted the Limbé Declaration (Annex III). The group envisaged that aquaculture would "grow into an important pillar of development in many areas in the region." However, they further recognised that, "to achieve this vision, the countries in the region need to work together to increase their knowledge base, exchange best practice experiences and speak with one voice in the global marketplace." This "working together" is accomplished through networking.

8. Reviewing the survey results presented in Annex II, although aquaculture's component of total fish production was extremely modest, generally less than one percent, all countries stated that they possessed a higher aquaculture potential and that this level of contribution could be increased. In citing the top five constraints to achieving increased aquaculture production, 70% of respondents indicated inadequate extension, education and technology adoption were important limitations. Sixty percent of countries also included that information and data availability combined with accompanying weak research were other restraints.

9. Referring again to Annex II, all respondents supported the establishment of a regional network. In addition to endorsing the concept of an aquaculture network, 100% of the respondents felt that a major role of this network should be in facilitating the sharing of aquaculture-related information; 60% of countries declaring that access to information would be the greatest advantage of a network. Eighty percent of those replying also felt the proposed network should play an important part in assisting with technology transfer. Furthermore, 70% indicated that a network should aid in linking aquaculture institution in the Region and 60% saw a role for networking as assisting in collaborative research.

10. While there is considerable support expressed for an African Aquaculture Network, and there is certainly a corresponding understanding that such a network would have cost implications, only 60% of countries replying to the survey indicated they would be able to second staff to such a network and only 50% stipulated they would be able to provide some financial support. The difficulties in supporting networking are perhaps reflected by the fact that only approximately one-third of countries had some form of national aquaculture networking in place.

11. The promotion of regional networking is not new. In 1993, the Second Session of the CIFA Working Party on Aquaculture (CIFA Technical Paper 23) stressed the need for "direct access to past and up-to-date information". The Working Party recommended regional centers for efficiently collecting, storing and disseminating information on regional and continental bases.

12. One output of the 1993 Working Party was the identification of regional themes which could serve as the nuclei of networks. One such theme was Integrated Irrigation/Aquaculture. In 1999, FAO organized a workshop to elaborate a Proposal for an African Network on Integrated Irrigation and Aquaculture. Although this proposal was prepared, including a list of participating national and international institutions (FAO, 2001), to date, resources have not been secured to be able to operationalise the network.

13. Growing acknowledgement of the importance of aquaculture in the Region offers opportunities to mobilize human and financial resources to redefine developmental approaches to the sub-sector, relying on lessons learnt from the past three decades to orient our future action. Networking should be a part of these new approaches, not only for the reasons of collaboration and exchange, but also because the economies of scale for some key activities are such that a regional approach is more efficient. Yet, establishing a network requires commitment and resources.

III. PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE NETWORK

14. The Mission evaluating networking proposed the framework within which such a network should take place. While specific Terms of Reference cannot be elaborated until such a time as the structure of the network is identified, the Mission's proposals can be considered as the general context within which a network should be developed. The Mission suggested that the essential elements for a successful Aquaculture Intergovernmental Organisation for Africa include:

(i) Political will and commitment of member countries to support the Network Organisation through sustainable core funding, secondment of staff/experts to the Secretariat of the Network Organisation and sensitising national institutions to participate in activities of the Network Organisation.

(ii) Clear strategic objectives with realistic targets acceptable to all members.

(iii) External support for start up and systematic/phased formation and execution of the network activities.

(iv) Overcoming language and communication/infrastructure barriers between countries around the continent to achieve faster interaction and networking.

(v) Sustainable national funding for aquaculture development.

(vi) Balanced membership. No member should be seen to dominate. There has to be fairness in allocating responsibilities and resources to members.

(vii) Availability of adequate and sustainable financial resources;

(viii) Accrued benefits to members like development of skills through specific network organised training or other outputs of the intergovernmental organisation.

(ix) Motivation of members through regular transfer of technology, exchange of information and regular communication.

(x) Appropriateness and readiness to facilitate transfer of established technologies from outside.

(xi) The coordinating Secretariat has to be small and efficient.

(xii) There has to be transparency in its functions

(xiii) Use of existing Institutions would enable networking to start immediately based on their experience and available communication facilities and infrastructure

IV. FINANCIAL AND BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS

15. The establishment of an Aquaculture Intergovernmental Organisation for Africa has administrative and financial implications for the Secretariat and for the governments participating in the work of such a structure.

16. For the Secretariat, the convening and servicing of sessions, as well as the preparation, processing and distribution of documentation and follow-up work, will involve staff time, travel costs and possible contractual services. In assumption of CIFA Sub-Committee to be established would serve as the ad interim Secretariat before the formation of an inter-governmental regional aquaculture network organisation for Africa, depending on the specific activities undertaken, it is estimated that approximately three person/months per year of professional staff time and an equal amount of general service staff time would be required.

17. Moreover, the direct costs for meeting sessions of the proposed CIFA Sub-Committee or an inter-governmental regional aquaculture network organisation for Africa include documentation, translation, and interpretation. Indicative costs for simultaneous interpretation and document translation into two languages are approximately US$ 35,000. If documents are available for translation well in advance of the required date, translation fees can be substantially reduced. Costs of meeting facilities and staff time are omitted from these considerations as they will change depending on venue.

18. For participating governments and observers the additional financial obligations consist mainly of provision of information, and direct participation in meetings.

V. SUGGESTED ACTION BY THE COMMITTEE

19. The Committee is invited to advise on the establishment of an Aquaculture Intergovernmental Organisation; supporting or rejecting the conclusions and recommendations of the Mission Report.

20. In the event that the Committee endorses the establishment of a network, it is also invited to take note of the options for an Aquaculture Intergovernmental Organisation as proposed by the Mission and recommend the structure most suitable to fulfil the Committee's requirements.

21. Finally, the Committee is invited to make recommendations as to how to support such a network in financial and human terms.

Annex I

SUMMARY OF MISSION REPORT

1.1 The report is an output of an FAO Aquaculture Mission to Burkina FASO (West Africa); Cameroon (Central Africa); Kenya (East Africa) and Zambia (Southern Africa) to assess the status of aquaculture development networking; the principal constraints; constraints which can be resolved with cost effectiveness through regional networking arrangements; contrasting Asian and African aquaculture development experience and providing options for establishing an Intergovernmental Aquaculture Organisation for Africa similar to the Networking of Aquaculture centres for Asia and the Pacific (NACA). The Executive Summary provides the main highlights in the report.

1.2 Aquaculture is recognised as a more assured means of increasing fish production to meet the fish consumption demand of the increasing population and reducing the pressure on capture fisheries, the majority of which are currently either exploited to the maximum or over-fished. The other benefits of aquaculture include: reducing poverty by providing employment, improving household income and rural livelihoods, enhancing food and nutritional security, providing sources of protein, and generating foreign exchange earnings through export of high value farm fish.

1.3 The potential for aquaculture development exists in the form of the systems of many rivers, lakes, dams and other water reservoirs, swamps and wetlands. Tilapia is the main culture fish species. The fish is mainly cultured in small ponds, which are poorly managed and have very low productivity.

1.4 The Governments recognise the socio-economic importance of aquaculture, initiating measures to develop and adopt aquaculture policies, strategic plans as well as enabling legislation and environments to ensure application of responsible aquaculture practices.

1.5 The Principal constraints to aquaculture development which have been noted by previous workers include:

• Lack of quality fingerlings for farmers, in quantity and constantly available to contribute to making fish culture an enterprise;

• Lack of feed in quality and quantity;

• Weak extension service and the very limited transfer of research results and technological innovation to fish farmers.

• Limited number of fish species for regular culture;

• Lack of regular availability of relevant aquaculture information;

• Lack of institutional arrangement in countries to foster national direction in fish culture development;

• Lack of clear-cut aquaculture legislation and framework on which strategic aquaculture development plans can periodically be formulated.

1.6 To a greater or lesser degree, the principal constraints listed above can all cost effectively be addressed through regional collaboration and networking in Africa as NACA has done for Asian countries.

1.7 In contrasting African and Asian aquaculture, the main observations are: that in Asia there is a long aquaculture tradition/history going back 2000 years; aquaculture is widely accepted; there are several approaches to aquaculture; there are several indigenous fish species for aquaculture and the farmers have very high skills in aquaculture. In Africa: aquaculture practice is not more than 50 years old; aquaculture is not widely spread; only pond fish culture is practiced; few fish species are cultured; farmers are still in the process of accepting fish as a farm crop and they have very limited skills in aquaculture.

1.8 It is worthy noting that the major advances which have made Asia alone the producer of over 90 per cent of the world's aquaculture current production occurred within the past 20 years. This is the period the countries have been collaborating and networking through NACA.

1.9 The principal lessons from Asia for Africa in establishing an African Intergovernmental Aquaculture Network Organisation, similar to NACA include the situations that regional collaboration and networking will:

1.10 While Asia as a whole provides the above lessons Bangladesh and China have skills, experiences which are relevant and can be borrowed immediately to promote and develop aquaculture in Africa.

1.11 There is an overwhelming support for the concept of establishing a Regional Intergovernmental Aquaculture Network Organization for Africa similar to NACA to facilitate and hasten aquaculture development. The aquaculture network is viewed as an effective vehicle for coordinating aquaculture technical information exchange, technology transfer, training and collaborative research in agreed priority aquaculture areas. Consequently the mission submits that initiatives to establish an African Region aquaculture development network be made.

1.12 Finally the mission is of the view that while in the long term it is desired to have a single Intergovernmental Aquaculture Network Organization for the whole of Africa similar to NACA, this should be developed gradually. The process of developing the single network should start with an interim network option. The proposed interim network options include:

1.13 The proposed Intergovernmental Aquaculture Organization for Africa (IGO) is for the whole of Africa and is to consist of a Secretariat and network centres to be selected from member countries of the IGO. The IGO Secretariat will act as a clearinghouse for information collection and exchange and coordinate the network centres' agreed priority activities. The detailed functions will be contained in the constitution establishing the IGO once adopted by member countries.

Annex II

SURVEY RESULTS

Annex III

LIMBÉ DECLARATION

A consensus statement by delegates to the FAO/WorldFish Workshop on Small-scale Aquaculture, 23-26 March 2004, Limbe, Cameroon

Aquaculture development in sub-Saharan Africa is at a crossroads. Burgeoning population growth and declining natural sources of fish make it imperative that aquaculture make as substantial contribution to continental fish supply as possible. The region is the only one in the world where per capita fish consumption is declining and is projected to decline further. Reasons for this situation include: civil conflict, weak management structures, low levels of investment in rural economies, and lack of economic growth. At the same time, however, new opportunities exist that brighten the prospects for aquaculture development.

In many countries, policies of privatisation and decentralization provide incentives for increased investments in the sector from private and public sources as domestic markets, especially in urban areas, become more accessible and trade expands. At the global level, the ever-growing demand for fish has created opportunities for export-oriented aquaculture production. The challenge today is to make use of these opportunities for the sustainable development of aquaculture in the region. There is a need for a type of development that contributes to national food security and poverty reduction objectives and pays attention to the scope for expansion that the nature resource base allows.

Sub-Saharan Africa must, therefore, make a choice, either for "business as usual" and things continue as they are, and people live with the dire consequences, or it is "time to make hard choices", institute relevant policies and strategies, bring aquaculture into the formal cash economy and stem the tide that is undermining aquaculture's future. To this effect, many governments, cooperating partners as well as bilateral and multilateral development agencies are developing a new strategy for aquaculture development in sub-Saharan Africa.

The meeting recognized a number of constraints to the development of aquaculture, which include seed and feed production, as well as inefficient extension and outreach. The delegates to the workshop further acknowledge that:

• Support to a knowledge development and delivery structure to provide essential assistance for aquaculture from government and those providing external aide requires convincing demonstrations of impact on national development priorities such as poverty reduction, food security, nutrition, HIV/AIDS and sustainable environmental management;

• Institutional stability and durability will be achieved through structures that rely first and foremost on private sector investments as well as on output-orientated and accountable use of public revenue which aims at enhancing sustainable development of aquaculture; and

• Public/private partnerships between investors and knowledge delivery structures can facilitate sectoral growth by making available to farmers the highest quality technological, managerial and marketing information while public/civil society connections in such structures can help ensure the optimisation of public goods from the perspective of producers at all levels.

While appreciating the need to address the three major constraints identified (seed, feed, extension), the meeting called upon the governments and cooperating partners as well as research agencies to focus on the likely development impact of investment in these areas. In order to ensure optimum impact of the three development axes, there is a need to examine other areas, such as market development, access to capital and other policy issues that might be deemed relevant and equally important.

Furthermore, participants propose that SSA governments should seek to develop public/private partnerships within the growing number of aquaculture enterprises, by creating cost-effective financial and institutional arrangements that can compliment government and donor resources to deliver a limited number of critical research, advisory and technological services to high potential farmers.

Participants further pronounced that the approach to national aquaculture development, based upon the Cameroonian Strategic Framework for Aquaculture Development addresses the major constraints to expansion of the sub-sector in the region, facilitates the necessary public/private and public/civil society linkages as well as proposes mechanisms to maximize returns to the investment of both public and private sector resources.

While endorsing this approach as an appropriate tool to foster aquaculture development, participants noted that such strategic approaches can only achieve their expected goals when efforts make use of existing national strategies, master plans and investment plans for aquaculture development in order to harmonize, building synergies and eliminating redundancies. These efforts involve national partners and stakeholders, but also aquaculture producers, support services, local authorities and investors from the public and civil society sectors, cooperating partners (donors), international and multilateral organizations.

The meeting envisages that aquaculture in SSA will grow into an important pillar of development in many areas in the region. It will be able to provide high quality food for rural and urban consumers, generate employment and general commercial activities in otherwise impoverished local economies, and contribute to national wealth through increased revenue from markets and trade. In order to achieve this vision, the countries in the region need to work together to increase their knowledge base, exchange best practice experiences and speak with one voice in the global marketplace.

ANNEX 3.2
Creation of the Network of Aquaculture for Latin America and the Caribbean - A Feasibility Study

By: Pedro Noriega Curtis (FAO Aquaculture Consultant)^[6]
November 2004

Introduction

The NACA/FAO conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium held in Bangkok, Thailand, recommended strengthening of regional and inter-regional co-operation as imperative to support the responsible development and management of aquaculture beyond 2000.

The Ninth Session of the Latin American Inland Fisheries Commission (COPESCAL) held at El Salvador in January 2003, recommended the establishment of a network which would include aquaculture centres of the American continent, and the formulation of a project to be submitted to APEC for the funding of a study on regional cooperation mechanisms.

The Twenty-fifth Session of the Committee of Fisheries (COFI) recognized the importance of aquaculture as a means to increase fishery production, to generate income and foreign exchange, to help restore and relieve pressure on wild populations, to alleviate poverty, to increase food security and to provide for diversification of employment. As the Committee noted the work of the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia and the Pacific (NACA), several Members expressed their interest in the establishment of similar mechanisms in the Americas and request the relevant support of FAO for this purpose.

Promotion of aquaculture and inland fisheries to increase their contribution to food security was identified as one of the priority areas for the FAO Fisheries Department. The "post mortem" document that was written after COFI, lists "Support to NACA type arrangement in the Americas and Pacific Islands" as one of the matters requiring attention or close monitoring by the Fisheries Department.

As a result of the above, the FAO Fisheries Department decided to undertake a feasibility study to analyse the mechanisms and potential alternatives that could lead to the establishment of a Network of Aquaculture in the Americas.

Objectives of the study

The present study aims at determining the technical, institutional, political and financial feasibility of establishing a network of aquaculture centres in the Latin America. The geographical scope of the network should be kept flexible enough to accommodate other countries and organizations that may express their wish to participate in its activities. In compliance with the Terms of Reference of the Consultant, the envisaged activities of the study include the preparation of a document summarizing the main findings related to the following:

• A review of the literature available on previous attempts on the establishment of a NACA-type arrangement in the Americas

• The identification of the driving engine or main issues (i.e. cooperation, trade, marketing, etc.) to be addressed for the creation of the network.

• The identification and review of problems encountered in the past for the creation of the network and the provision of potential alternatives and mechanisms for solving these problems, including proposals for funding and collaboration.

• The appraisal of NACA's experience and the lessons learnt that could help construct the NACA-type arrangement in the Americas

• The perception, observations and recommendations emanated from the liaison, meetings, interviews and discussions with relevant organizations and delegates from key countries in the region

• Identification and documentation of potential sources of funds for the creation and maintenance of the network.

The Report of the study will serve as the basis for discussions of the Consultation Meeting to be held for the purpose of analysing the feasibility of the establishment of a Regional Aquaculture Cooperation Network for Latin America and the Caribbean, at Panama City on 5-8 December 2004.

Background on aquaculture cooperation networks in Latin America and the Caribbean

A compilation on former and present aquaculture cooperation networking efforts conducted in Latin America is hereby presented (i.e. Latin American Regional Aquaculture Centre (CERLA-Brazil); AQUILA; FAO's Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Cooperation Network; Regional Network of Aquaculture Institutions and Centres; COPESCAL; OLDEPESCA; Latin American Fisheries Women Network; Latin American Aquaculture Association (ALA); INFOPESCA; CYTED; Virtual Networks; FODEPAL; REDCAPA; ISTEC; Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). A brief review of their background, results and conclusions of each network as it pertains to the present initiative is summarized in order to identify not only their valuable legacy and contribution towards aquaculture development within the Region, but also to attempt to understand the causes of their plausible failures and shortcomings that prevented their prevalence and sustainabilty

Contributions of the NACA experience to the establishment of the aquaculture network in Latin America

The impact and influence of NACA (Network of Aquaculture Centres of Asia-Pacific) in the expansion and development of aquaculture in the Asia-Pacific Region has been widely acknowledged. Due to the proposed NACA-type mechanism for the Latin American Aquaculture Network, it is relevant to analyse and review, both the structure and characteristics of NACA's operation, taking into consideration the similarities and differences between Asia and Latin America with respect to the economic conditions and the state of aquaculture development, the financing opportunities, the socio-economic situation and other cultural aspects of the producers under which NACA was formed and has continued to operate in order to determine if such model is currently appropriate for its adoption by the Latin American Network.

The background on the establishment of NACA, its integration and the selection of the Regional Leading Centres, their operational and organizational scheme, were analysed. A revision was made of its main activities and the attainments in the fields of research and development of aquaculture technologies, on education and training, technical assistance and the exchange of information. Consideration was given to the attainments related to the integration and horizontal cooperation between regional countries, as well as to their inter-institutional relationships with the aquaculture "stakeholders".

Interest and motivation on the creation of the aquaculture network

In order to understand the underlying motivation on the creation of the Aquaculture Network, a brief revision on the status of aquaculture development in Latin America becomes relevant, taking into consideration not only the volumes and values of the production of the main cultured species, but also the technologies and the conditions that prevail.

However, the identification of the expectations and requirements in relation to the Network was realized through the interviews, dialogues and exchanges of opinions with the most diverse and representative stakeholders of aquaculture.

As a complement to the above, and to synthesize the pertaining information for each country, a questionnaire prepared by the Regional Fisheries Officer was sent to the Aquaculture Division/Directorate of 21 countries of the Region (see Appendix). The 16 submitted questionnaires were summarized in a Table to document the various issues dealing with the purpose of the present Study.

Conclusions

The concept of the establishment of an aquaculture network is based on the optimization of the available resources and in the avoidance of duplication of efforts for a cost effective attainment of aquaculture development. Through the creation of the Network of Aquaculture for Latin America and the Caribbean (RedLAC), such mechanisms would have a multiplying effect on the common benefits for the Region as a whole.

The collaboration with other institutions and organizations in the achievement of common goals is another basic principle of the Network in the implementation of its operation. RedLAC should therefore accept and collaborate with the initiatives of the governments of member countries related to the inclusion of bilateral and multilateral organizations and donor agencies with the purpose of promoting aquaculture development throughout the Region.

The present study revealed that political, administrative, economic, social, production and marketing prevailing conditions related to aquaculture throughout the Region, are not only favourable, but in fact the main stakeholders are urgently requesting that the FAO proposed Network be constituted and established as the RedLAC.

Construed on the lessons derived from the experience of NACA, it is feasible to assert that a similar mechanism may be implemented for the Latin American Region though adapted to the specific conditions of this Region.

The definition of the expectations and requirements related to the creation of the Network, the priority subjects to be addressed and the recommendations for its structure and organization, are the result of both, the Consultant's perception of the current situation of aquaculture in Latin America as well as of the interviews, dialogues and exchanges of opinions with the most diverse and representative stakeholders of aquaculture.

One of the main reasons why country and institution representatives are interested in the creation of the Network is that it would enable governments and institutions alike to share resources and responsibilities since this mechanism constitutes an effective and practical means of identifying and solving problems being faced in their attempts to contribute to aquaculture development.

The aquaculture administrative entities also consider that the Network would help rationalize and balance the development of small scale rural/coastal aquaculture and the growing industrial aquaculture sector thus contributing to the integral attainment of the social and economic development goals of the countries of the Region.

The widespread consensus amongst the aquaculture sector authorities and the institutions interested in participating in the Network, is that it should comprise a wide range of institutions representing all stakeholders concerned (administrative entities, research and production centres, associations and chambers, etc.), under the coordination of a Network Representative who in turn would act as the Coordinator of the National Sub-Network.

The suggested structure of RedLAC includes a Council, a General Coordination (staffed by a General Coordinator and 2 Expert Assistants), and a National Sub-Network Coordination for each member country. An outline of their main duties and responsibilities is included.

The intrinsic operating costs of RedLAC (General Coordination and National Sub-Network Coordination) will necessarily have to be assumed by the member countries, whilst the economic assistance granted to member institutions to conduct Network activities shall be provided by external sources and/or donor agencies. In both cases, an estimated budget is presented in order to assess the financial requirements of the Network.

Of the various external assistance organizations approached by the Consultant to assess the possibility of financial aid, the two institutions that have expressed their willingness and interest in participating in the creation and maintenance of RedLAC are CYTED and INFOPESCA. In both cases, the formulation of an official proposal - specific for each institution - is required in order to apply for their assistance.

Recommendations

It is hereby recommended that in order to advance and materialize the start of the procedures for the establishment of RedLAC, a request be formulated and presented to the FAO Regional Office and/or the Technical Secretary of COPESCAL for the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding stating the objectives and outline for the creation of RedLAC proposed in this study. Thereafter, such institutions should proceed to convoke all interested countries to analyse, and eventually to sign, the above referred MOU by which the respective countries commit themselves to support all actions pertaining to the creation of RedLAC, as well as to their eventually contributing with the pre-established financial resources, whenever the Network is formally constituted.

In order to follow up the favourable responses by CYTED and INFOPESCA, it would be necessary that the Expert Meeting to be held in Panama on 6-8 December, designate a Delegate to whom the appropriate authority and attributions be conferred to enable him to initiate and undertake the application and necessary negotiations to obtain the required funding for the establishment and maintenance of the RedLAC offered by both institutions.

In relation to the proposal for the creation of the Network of Aquaculture Centres for the Americas being put forward by APEC, the Expert Meeting above mentioned ought to discuss and identify the required mechanisms that may render compatible, and if agreed upon, to merge or coalesce both initiatives. This could eventually reinforce efforts made to date, and from whose synergy the establishment of the Network could materialize.

ANNEX 4.1
Lessons learned from the establishment and operation of the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA)^[7]

Pedro B. Bueno
Director-General, NACA, Bangkok
www.enaca.org

I. INTRODUCTION

NACA is an intergovernmental organization^[8] and NACEE is a network of institutions. Fundamentally both network organizations would still comprise national institutions, centers, and people. Cooperation among members underpins their operation. Such cooperation would facilitate the exchange of known technology, exchange of scientific findings, dissemination of new knowledge and information, and exchange of expertise. Networking makes the above activities economical and very effective: there is no duplication because of lack of communications, participating institutions and experts build on and add value to each others' work, they can work together to solve a common problem, and the strengths of each and every institution are brought to bear on addressing common issues. Just as important, such cooperative work will also contribute to strengthening the capacities of every participant, and therefore of the whole network. The new information and communications technology (ICT) would greatly facilitate networking although it may not necessarily enhance cooperation.

II. LESSONS

To go straight to the point of this paper, this section describes a number of useful lessons from NACA, as a networking arrangement:

1. Technical cooperation works

Sharing resources and responsibilities among institutions (and countries) through networking is probably the only practical and cost-effective means available for solving the diverse problems faced by aquaculture due to the diversity of species, farming systems, and environments, and varying levels of development among countries. The networking (and sharing) approach is also in line with governments' objectives of regional self-reliance through technical cooperation.

Cooperation becomes more compelling in the face of limited resources of governments and donors, and the need to best utilize internal resources and external support. The complex and many challenges faced in the development of aquaculture, a relatively new economic activity, also argue for a collaborative approach to make efficient use of resources to solve problems

Adding a very important dimension to cooperation, the NACA members have committed to the principle that the stronger members shall assist the others.

2. Ownership and continuity of initiatives

Programs and projects are developed so that they address the priority issues and needs expressed by members (governments). These expressed needs and priorities are translated and formulated into a regional action plan (by the Technical Advisory Committee of NACA), which is adopted into the regional Work Program - a rolling Five-Year Plan - by the Governing Council. Three attributes of the NACA work program emerge from this arrangement; the program is: (i) owned by members; (ii) a product of consultations among the various stakeholders, and (iii) implemented by the members themselves in a cooperative and coordinated way that builds on the capacities in the countries and complement those of the regional institutions.

These attributes make two important conditions happen: (i) governments commit resources to implement the programs, and (ii) governments and interested institutions in the respective countries take up the results in their policy and programs. As such activities of finite projects are taken up in NACA's work program, assuring continuity of the various initiatives, rather then being terminated when the project ends.

Another significant point is that the regional program is based on common needs and priorities of the members, not on the overriding interests of one or two.

3. Strategy for capacity building of the Network

When NACA evolved from a UNDP/FAO Project to an independent inter-governmental body (in 1990 after 9 years as a regional project), it adopted a major change in operational strategy. It had to: (i) become self-sustaining in order to finance core activities (such as technical advice, information exchange, and overall network activities coordination and secretariat administration), (ii) generate revenues by provision of services against payments, (iii) develop programs and projects for collaborative assistance of donors and development agencies, and (iv) enter into partnerships with other institutions and work with them on areas of common interests.

These made it possible for NACA to continue as a focal point for the implementation of multilaterally and bilaterally funded regional and national projects.

Partnership and collaboration becomes a mutually beneficial arrangement if the independence of the Organization is maintained. In practical terms, its programs should be developed and owned by the members and not imposed or influenced by external agencies; it has the basic organizational capacity and resources to operate the programs; and the interest of donors should match the priorities of the organization, not the other way around.

4. Demonstrating results

The overall strategy in project implementation emphasized four priority thrusts: (i) increase aquaculture production through effective transfer of proven technologies in the region; (ii) train senior personnel in the planning and management of aquaculture development and production projects; (iii) help justify government financial support to national aquaculture projects; and (iv) take on only relevant adaptive research that facilitates increasing production, leaving basic research though complementary activities from academic institutions.

Priority was thus given to producing early visible and measureable results for increasing aquaculture production in the region. This was aimed to assert the economic and social importance of aquaculture for the attention of development policy planners in governments. This was achieved by effective transfer of established viable, commercial technologies and techniques through applied and adaptive research in both host and recipient countries. The trials of established aquaculture production systems adapted them to local conditions. Through the cooperation among the centers, technical and managerial details of established aquaculture production practices were systematically transferred by way of training courses, workshops and seminars, as well as specialized technical assistance (i.e. expert exchange) and via information dissemination.

5. Providing the science to traditional production practices

In Asia established aquaculture production technologies have a long history of existence. They were evolved through traditional trial-and-error practices. Research were then disciplinary or very specific-problem- focused rather than systems-oriented. NACA thus emphasized research that would promote scientific understanding of vital interrelationships of salient dependent and independent variables for the improvement of production systems of importance to the region. As an example, the age-old highly productive integrated fish farming systems in China - evolved through many centuries into an art by Chinese farmers - were studied and given scientific basis. As such, the technology was provided scientific explanation and therefore transferred more easily throughout the region through workshops, training, information and extension. It then also became susceptible to further scientific improvement.

III. THE NACA WORK PROGRAM: HOW IT IS DEVELOPED AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS

It might also be instructive to NACEE to note how the regional aquaculture development work program is developed and its important characteristics. The present 5-year work program is for the period 2001-2005. It is the third, since NACA became independent in 1990. The work program is actually a rolling plan, in that activities are "rolled into" the next program other than having finite life spans during the 5 year period.

NACA's Secretariat in Bangkok coordinates the implementation and monitoring of the work program. In program formulation the Secretariat provides the information and resources needed by the Technical Advisory Committee to review the status of the program.

The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is composed of national (member country) technical experts and joined by representatives of industry, academic institutions, farmer groups and NGOs. It meets every 2 years to (i) review the progress of the implementation of the programme, (ii) develop a 2.5 plan of work to implement the work program, and (iii) recommend future activities to the Governing Council. TAC meetings are conducted in a workshop mode, rather than in a conference mode. The basic government membership imbues ownership of the technical program and the co-opting of other participants representing the primary stakeholders of aquaculture development ensures that the technical program benefits from excellent intellectual inputs and informed by a broad range of stakeholders' views.

The Governing Council decides on policy matters. It formulates the work program based on the recommendations of the TAC. Participation in the Governing Council includes member governments, associate members, FAO, and representatives of donor agencies and collaborating institutions. In practical terms, this wide range of participation translates into a broad ownership of the program.

Elements of the Work Program

Over the years, there have been changes in regional priorities and therefore the elements of the work program have also been changing to reflect and address these priorities. The present work program consists of six major elements:

• Support to Regional Aquatic Resources Management or STREAM

• Capacity Building through educational and training programmes

• Effective R & D by collaborative networking among centres

• Information and communication

• Policy guidelines and support to policies and institutional capacities

• Aquatic animal health management

Added during the program period were Trade and Market Access and Farmer and Industry Affairs.

Characteristics of the Work Progam

Conclusions

From the above discussions, we can draw three major conclusions on the benefits from a regional networking arrangement of institutions (or governments):

Note: An excerpt of the evaluation report of FAO on the NACA Project is available on the Internet^[9] It gives a history of how NACA developed from a project to an independent organization and the strategies that it adopted to develop its capability, successfully implement the research, training and information activities, and - overall - achieve its purposes.

ANNEX 4.2
Operational structure of NACA

ANNEX 5
AgroWeb Network

Michal Demes
FAO Subregional Office for Central and Eastern Europe, Budapest, Hungary

AgroWeb international network has been established by organizations and individuals involved in agricultural and rural development in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Participants started to develop a collaborative network, in view of the lack of information on the Internet about agricultural topics in the region in 1998. The AgroWeb Network was established and is maintained by representatives of participating countries, and facilitated by the regional chapter of International Association of Agricultural Information Specialists (IAALD) and by FAO.

Twenty-two countries from the CEE region, Balkan countries, New Independent States, Baltic states, Caucasus region and Central Asia are participating in the network at this time. Main objectives, main tasks, new technological standards, possibilities of the network for the forthcoming years will be most important questions to be discussed during the workshop.

National web pages have been established as portals for the countries in the region, which provide access to information in a standard format and structure about agriculture-related institutions - ministries, libraries, information centres, universities, research centres -, NGOs, agro-marketing organizations and organizations involved in the European integration process. The AgroWeb national portals provide Internet links, if available, to these national institutions and to other relevant national web sites.

In addition to the national portal pages, cross-cutting subject areas have been identified and a growing number of thematic sectors of the network are being coordinated by regional focal points. Examples of such sectoral portals currently active are:

• Library and Information Centres - coordinated by Mr Tomaz Bartol, Agricultural Faculty, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

• Veterinary Medicine - coordinated by Professor Karel Hruska, Veterinary Research Institute, Brno, Czech Republic in close cooperation with the Centaur Network - http://centaur.vri.cz/default.asp

• Animal Genetic resources - coordinated by Arunas Svitojus, Baltic Genofond, Vilnius, Lithuania

• Food and Nutrition programme - coordinated by Dr Mirjana Pavlovic, public health institute, Subotica, Serbia

• Forestry program - coordinated by Mr Volker Sase, Forestry officer, FAO SEUR. Budapest

• NGOs and CSOs - coordinated by Mr Michal Demes, Information Management Specialist, FAO

• FarmNet - coordinated by Mr Stjepan Tannic, Farming System Development Officer, FAO

• Education in Agriculture - coordinated by Mr Cosmin Salasan, USAMVB Timisoara, Romania

The national AgroWeb portals are published in English and national languages to help the web-based communication within and among the participating countries and worldwide. The content and services published in the national languages also differ significantly, due to the differences in capabilities and resources between countries, and the institutional background of the AgroWeb authors.

Most of the software tools and applications used in the AgroWeb have been customized by the members of the network. Content elements are stored in common formats, increasing cross-compatibility of the same type of information between countries.

AgroWeb also exploits its personal, professional and institutional capacities to organize professional events, such as the "Roundtable of CEE Agricultural Information Specialists". The 9th IAALD CEE Roundtable will run parallel with our workshop in Nitra, Slovakia, in cooperation with the Nitra University of Agriculture and FAO.

Access points paths:

• http://www.agrowebcee.net

• http://www.iaaldcee.hu/index.asp?page=awnt

• http://www.agrowebcac.org

• http://www.fao.org/Regional/SEUR

Objectives

i. Collect and provide information from of the agricultural sector:

• monitor information and related links of agricultural institutions, important agriculture, food and nutrition, veterinary, fishery and other related subjects and information resources;

• monitor and promote national and international events related to the objectives of AgroWeb.

ii. Capacity building and inter-institutional cooperation

• to build capacities and inter-institutional cooperation:

• development of communication and cooperation amongst the countries in the region, and with international organizations such as FAO;

• development and promoting common standards and guidelines for information management.

Organization and management

The national portal sites are managed by the hosting organizations which bear full responsibility for the contents of their countries' AgroWeb portals. Hosting organizations provide space on their servers to publish the national AgroWeb portals.

The relationships of the hosting institutions to the Ministries of Agriculture vary, in some cases the AW national portal is an official site of the Ministry (e.g Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine), in all the others the Ministry simply supports the development of the site in an informal way. This support may take the form of training courses, workshops, or the participation of the AW team members in regional or international events.

Updating and maintenance of the AgroWeb portal pages are managed by national working groups, that consist of the national coordinators and AgroWeb authors on the country level. All national AgroWeb sites are created and updated by local experts, who are known as the AgroWeb authors. The authors' work is supported by the IT Working Group of AW CEE, which also ensures the quick and efficient updates for all portals within the AW Network. Many of the inputs from the AgroWeb authors are on a voluntary basis.

FAO's role is to facilitate AgroWeb's development by providing advice and support to the national working groups, assisting in the improvement of services in the most important subjects, and working closely with national coordinators and the web editors. The AgroWeb network is also used as a communication platform between the participating countries FAO, IAALD and other international organizations. Special sites have been established for the "National FAO Committee" under the guidance of the National FAO Committees, and linked to the AgroWeb pages.

The costs associated with the participating countries' contributions to the AgroWeb network are borne entirely by the participating countries', projects and on a voluntary basis of participating institutions and experts.

Future steps

• Capacity building and inter-institutional cooperation among fishery and aquaculture related institution in the CEE region in the collaboration with HAKI, Szarvas, Hungary

• Fishery and aquaculture subportal development

• Fishery and Aquaculture CEE network creation

ANNEX 6
Overview of the development of the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Central-Eastern Europe (NACEE) and expectations from its First Meeting of Directors

László Váradi
Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation, Szarvas, Hungary

Introduction

Central-Eastern Europe (CEE) is an emerging geopolitical region, which constitutes 63% of the territory and 36% of the population of Europe. Traditionally, the following nineteen states are considered CEE countries:

Albania, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine.

The region is characterized by a high diversity in terms of different economic parameters (including ones related to aquaculture). The per capita GDP of the individual countries range from only USD 1 800 to USD 15 700, with the lowest values observed in some former Soviet states and the highest ones in the new EU members^[10]. However, even in the most wealthy country of the region, the Czech Republic, the per capita GDP is only about half of the EU-15 average (USD 28 487), while the overall regional average (USD 9 385) is only its third.

There are similarly great differences between the countries of the region in parameters like aquaculture production^[11] or apparent per capita fish product consumption^[12]. The range of aquaculture production is extremely wide, 257 to 101 483 metric tons, which is obviously due not only to differences in aquaculture traditions, but also, to a great extent, the size of different countries. The apparent per capita fish consumption ranges from a low of 2.6 kg to a high of 40.5 kg. However, if compared again to the corresponding EU-15 values, we find that the total production of the region (226 794 metric tons) strongly lags behind the EU-15 total (1 196 430 metric tons), which is mostly due to the traditionally extensive fish production practices of Central and Eastern Europe. Similarly, the average per capita fish consumption in CEE (12.0 kg) is only about half of the EU-15 average (26.7 kg). These data show that there is a great potential for the development of aquaculture and marketing in the region.

However, in spite of the diversity among the countries of the region, there are also great similarities. All countries have gone/are going through a difficult transition from centrally planned to market economy, which process has a great influence on the development of aquaculture and related R&D activities. Pond culture of cyprinids is a dominant form of freshwater aquaculture in this region, which has a great potential in sustainable aquaculture development. Central-Eastern Europe is the second region after Asia, where integrated freshwater fishpond technologies are commonly applied. Tremendous intellectual values, knowledge and experience have been accumulated in various aquaculture institutions of the region, however there are serious constraints in the R&D field, which hamper the utilisation of research results and the transfer of technologies in the region, with special regard to the less developed areas. These constraints include financial, infrastructural and language factors.

The R&D sector in this region is still very far from being integral part of the European Research Area. This is indicated well with the low number of publications in the Aquaculture Magazine (1% between 1991-1996) and the low participation in EAS conferences (about 4% between 1996-2002). There have been efforts to stimulate the better integration of Central-Eastern European institutions and scientists into European level research programs (e.g. EU 5 and 6 Framework Programs), however there is still a long way to go in order to bridge the gap and to eliminate the existing disparities between the R&D spheres in Western and Central-Eastern Europe. Initiatives toward the achievement of this goal have been made by several organizations, including the EU, FAO EIFAC or EAS.

Development of the NACEE initiative

The idea of the establishment of a Network of Aquaculture Centres in Central-Eastern Europe emerged during the activity of the recently established Central-Eastern European Committee of the European Aquaculture Society (EAS) in early 2003. The main mandate of the envisaged network was to facilitate that the R&D sphere in Central-Eastern Europe be an integral part of the European Research Area.

After initial evaluation of the needs and possibilities, the idea of NACEE was publicly announced during the International Symposium "Coldwater Aquaculture: Start in the 21^st Century", in St-Petersburg, Russia, on 7-15 September 2003. Aquaculture institutions of five CEE countries (Belarus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Russia and Ukraine) joined the initiative during the conference. This is considered to be the date of launching of NACEE.

In the same period, starting from October 2003, the known aquaculture-related institutions of the region were informed on NACEE. In one year, by November 2004, twenty-three institutions and organisations have returned the signed "Letters of intent", expressing their wish to join the Network.

Even though the Network existed only informally at the time, it started one of its main activities, collecting and dissemination of aquaculture-related information to members as early as in January 2004. Members were informed about and encouraged to take part in the FEAP PROFET Workshop on Inland Fisheries and Freshwater Aquaculture^[13] (Budapest, Hungary, 20-21 February 2004). This event provided an opportunity to establish cooperation between Russia and AquaTT. NACEE assisted FAO in collection and translation of national aquaculture development strategies of three CEE countries, Croatia, Hungary and Ukraine, in February-May 2004. The Network made it possible to collect information on aquaculture producer associations in CEE, which was presented at the FAO EIFAC Symposium on Aquaculture Development "Partnership between Science and Producer Associations" (Wierzba, Poland, 26 May-2 June 2004) and subsequently published in FAO Aquaculture Newsletter^[14]. During the EIFAC Symposium, participation from NACEE member institutions was so significant that it allowed organizing the first ad-hoc Meeting of NACEE.

Simultaneously, international acknowledgement and support of NACEE was also growing. Information on the Network was published in several journals, including World Aquaculture Magazine and Eurofish Magazine. Relevant international organizations (EU, FAO, EAS, FEAP, NACA) were informed on the Network and expressed their strong support for the initiative. Representatives of FAO, EAS, NACA and IUCN attended the ad-hoc meeting of NACEE in Wierzba and helped in developing priorities and strategies of NACEE using the experience of other similar networking arrangements. NACEE was asked to sponsor the AQUA 2006 Conference and Exhibition and to hold its next meeting in conjunction with this event. The Network was also accepted as a member of the ASEM Aquaculture Platform and invited to its Workshop on Aquaculture Animal Health Improvement (Barcelona, Spain, 24-26 October 2004).

Proposed objectives of NACEE

To achieve its strategic objective of facilitating that the R&D sphere in Central-Eastern Europe be an integral part of the European Research Area, NACEE has determined the following concrete tasks and objectives:

- exchanging information among members (within the region);

- facilitating the transfer of information relevant to aquaculture development of the region;

- exchange of scientists, with special regard to young ones;

- initiating joint research and training programmes;

- facilitating the efforts aiming at the better involvement of CEE institutions in European-level aquaculture development programs;

- assisting the organisation of regional aquaculture meetings and conferences;

- facilitating the improvement of partnership between science and practice, with special regard to SMEs and Producers Associations;

- enhancing the capacity of CEE institutions to be able to initiate and run regional aquaculture development projects supported by the EU, FAO and other international organisations;

- developing the collaboration between the Network and other regional networks/organisations with special regard to NACA (Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-Pacific).

This list can be further modified and expanded by the NACEE Directors during their annual meetings.

Proposed structure and function of NACEE

NACEE is a voluntary association of Central and Eastern European aquaculture institutions, in which all members maintain their full independence. All institutions and organizations, which are involved in aquaculture research and development could be members regardless of their main mandate (education, research or development) and their size. Activities are coordinated by the Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI) in Hungary. All member institutions assign a liaison officer (ideally, speaking both English and Russian) who is in regular contact with the coordinating institution. The main communication means among members are e-mail and fax. The language of the communication is English and Russian, which means that members can use either English or Russian and relevant documents are translated to both languages. Members inform the coordinator about all events that may count for the interest of other members. The coordinator then distributes the information among NACEE members. The coordinator also disseminates major information from European organisations and institutions (EU, FAO, EAS, FEAP), which may be relevant for members of the Network. The directors of NACEE meet once a year in different countries. In the initial stage of the operation of the Network, there is no membership fee, however member institutions are expected to cover all the costs closely related to their participation. HAKI will cover the costs emerging in relation to coordinating activities. The structure and function of NACEE will further be defined and regulated upon the decision of the directors of the member institutions. After the formal establishment of the Network by the founding members, new members can join NACEE upon the consensus of the directors of member institutions.

Expectations from the First Meeting of Directors

The aims of the meeting are:

Representatives of the member institutions of NACEE are expected to comment and give recommendations on the objectives, structure and function of the Network and to propose specific thematic areas for expanding cooperation between NACEE members and relevant international organisations and networks. Priority scientific areas are to be determined for joint research and exchange programmes and possibilities of funding of NACEE need to be discussed.