ABSTRACT: The resources available for designing and implementing aquaculture development projects are no more immune from the current down-sizing trends than are those of most other publicly funded development initiatives. There is also an increasing onus on recipients to demonstrate greater accountability for their wise use. The aquaculture sector must now move towards development strategies which favour greater cooperation in collectively addressing the issues important to achieving sustainable development, not just in developing countries, but in all regions of the globe where aquatic animals and plants are farmed. To achieve a level of cooperation which emphasizes complementarity rather than duplication and competition, improved processes need to be identified to partition responsibilities fairly and equitably amongst existing agencies.
Cooperation first requires a focal point to give it life, and then a strategy to sustain it. It is suggested that the most effective focal points for regional development are the Regional Indigenous Organizations (RIOs). They are seen to be particularly important in taking the lead in regional development, since they have been established to serve their constituent member states, and thus have a strong sense of ownership, commitment and responsibility for development in their respective regions. Moreover, they already have a government-mandated framework upon which to structure programmes and projects. They can, therefore, be viewed as being the logical lead agencies around which sustainable development can be pursued. Accordingly then, as the focal point for functional cooperation, they can also be considered for taking on the coordinating role for regional programme participants, which may include: regional intra-governmental representation, universities and research institutes, private-sector interests, industry associations, regional chambers of commerce, nongovernmental organzations (NGOs) and others who have interests in aquaculture development. These same arguments hold true when considering inter-regional cooperation. There is much to be gained through inter-regional cooperation. Specific climatic, cultural or other features usually prevent wholesale transplantation of development programmes from one region to another. There are tremendous benefits to be derived from the greater understanding and cooperation made possible by expanding the development process to consider the inter-regional level.
KEY WORDS: Aquaculture, Development, Regional Cooperation, Inter-regional Cooperation
29
|
IntroductionOn a global scale, the resources available for designing and implementing aquaculture development projects are no more immune from the current down-sizing trends than are those of most other publicly funded development initiatives. This, despite the fact that aquaculture is being increasingly looked to by nations of the world to replace the declining resources of our oceans and inland waters. The impacts are being felt at all levels; donor and recipient governments alike are being told to do more with less. So too are intergovernmental organizations, such as specialized agencies within the United Nations (UN) system, intergovernmental organizations outside the UN system, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), financial institutions, the private sector and others who have traditionally contributed to development of the aquaculture sector. While it is not the message one wants to hear, it is nevertheless the operating principle that is likely to be with us for several years to come. The message also has a corollary: not only are the resources shrinking in magnitude, but when and where they are made available, there is an increasing onus on recipients to demonstrate greater accountability for their wise use. For the aquaculture sector, at least, we have come face-to-face with the reality that the narrow view is no longer acceptable, and that we must now move towards development strategies which favour greater cooperation in collectively addressing the issues important to achieving sustainable development, not just in developing countries, but in all regions of the globe where aquatic animals and plants are farmed. For years, decades even, we have spoken about a regional programming focus. While there are vivid examples of how regional programming can be effective, there is still a reluctance on the part of many nations to move from the more familiar and comfortable bilateral project perspective. Nevertheless, there is increasing pressure to do so and we must, therefore, respond. This paper considers some of the elements important in achieving strong regional and inter-regional cooperation in aquaculture development. It reviews some features of existing regional approaches, offers suggestions for new approaches, and will hopefully provoke Conference participants to consider how they can promote and achieve greater cooperation within their own particular spheres of influence. |
Elements of cooperationEstablishing Development PrioritiesOne of the key elements in measuring how effective we are at achieving cooperation relates to the process of how we go about setting priorities for development. This holds true at all levels: locally, nationally, and both intra-regionally and inter-regionally. With diminished resources available to us, the process through which development priorities are established must necessarily be rigorous and easily defendable from technical and economic, as well as political perspectives. As such, governments and agencies involved in aquaculture development initiatives are being increasingly vigilant to ensure that their decision-making processes satisfy these criteria. Inevitably, the numbers of worthy projects far outweigh the resources to support them. Clearly, stronger debate and greater wisdom are required to ensure that resources are not applied too thinly nor ineffectively in the hopes of broadening coverage, instead of allocating them to key constraints to development. Long-term vs. short-term goal settingWhere the process of debate may have once focused on the short-term benefits to be achieved from development projects, in particular tangible assets such as new equipment, buildings and overseas visits to gather information - in effect the narrow view - this track is no longer in keeping with achieving the goals of sustainable development. In seeking to address the longer-term view, attention needs to be diverted from the more immediate tangible benefits to those achievable within a broader view. This requires a higher level of cooperative thinking and decision making, to ensure that the longer-term goals remain clearly in focus and that scarce internal resources are not side-tracked into achieving short-term objectives which, though they may momentarily appear attractive, are in reality, inconsistent with achieving the major goals. Internal vs. external priority settingFurther, in formulating aquaculture development programmes, greater recognition needs to be given to the importance of ensuring that those priorities which are established are internally driven, and not ones that serve some external agencys agenda, especially if that agenda is not consistent with the recipients established priorities for development. |
30 |
This, in itself, is often difficult, since no
one wishes to turn down assistance; however, if over the longer term, it
means a delay in addressing the important priorities, great care needs to
be exercized in proceeding along this path.
Development agencies - the UN systemOn the regional scene, there are a number of levels of cooperation to consider. In Asia for example, there are the various specialized agencies of the UN system which have involvement, at some level, in aquaculture (including inland fisheries) development. These include the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (FAO/APFIC), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Sub-Commission for the Western Pacific (IOC/SC-WESTPAC), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and others. Regional indigenous agencies (RIOs)There are the regional indigenous organizations (RIOs), such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA), the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) and the South Pacific Forum (SPF), which are funded by their member states and, as well, attract programme and project funds from external sources. Included in the equation are the various country dialogue partners, who provide funding to bilateral and regional development projects; the regional financial institutions; education, training and research institutions; and private-sector interests, all of which are involved in development processes. Complementing vs. competingDuring the evolution of development agencies in Asia, or in any region, it is to be expected that, amongst them, there are some over-lapping, perhaps even competing interests. To achieve a level of cooperation which emphasizes complementarity rather than duplication and competition in positioning activities on their respective priority agendas, improved processes need to be identified to partition responsibilities fairly and equitably amongst existing agencies. |
Areas for cooperation in aquaculture developmentWhen considering topical areas for cooperation in aquaculture development, the following come to mind:
|
31
|
|
Inter-regional cooperationIt is now also clear from previous gatherings, such as the 1997 CIDA Regional Oceans Programmes Workshop (Hinds, 1998), that there is much to be gained through inter-regional cooperation. Specific climatic, cultural or other features usually prevent wholesale transplantation of development programmes from one region to another. However, it is acknowledged that there are tremendous benefits to be derived from the greater understanding and cooperation made possible by expanding the development process to consider the inter-regional level. While geographic distances remain considerable, the advent of the World Wide Web has done much to shrink distances virtually and permit opportunity for south-south sharing of knowledge, relative to the opportunities and constraints facing people and organizations engaged in aquaculture development in all regions of the globe. While this particular workshop focused on seven regional projects not specifically devoted to aquaculture, the aim was to arrive at some generic lessons learned in regional programme development, and then to examine how these could be applied to the development of subsequent regional projects. This was the first time in which participants from five of CIDAs regional projects were gathered together to formally present their experiences with their projects and how, from a recipients perspective, the process could be improved. There were 160 participants from over 40 countries - over one-third of whom were women - representing a considerable range of experiences, ideas and approaches. The five projects represented West Africa (Dioh, 1998), the Caribbean (Saul, 1998), Southeast Asia (Tan, 1998; Jusoh, 1998) and the South Pacific (Maiava, 1998). In addition to the project participants themselves, there were representatives of multilateral and bilateral donor agencies, agencies of the UN, NGOs, the private sector and the universities.
|
32 |
Coming out of this forum was a fresh view of
the importance of establishing a strong understanding of how partners develop
synergy through cooperation in project design, implementation and measuring
progress. The bringing together of the delegates was viewed as the beginning
of a process of advancing communications and understanding of how to improve
the cooperation required to achieve better designed and delivered projects.
|
|
33
|
These same arguments hold true when considering inter-regional
cooperation. While it is acknowledged that some RIOs are more developed
than others, this only emphasizes the need to include greater inter-RIO
dialogue when considering the strategy for achieving sustainability.
|
As a strategy for sustainable capacity building, institutional strengthening requires advisors and counterparts to prepare a comprehensive action plan that is specifically targeted at the resolution of important aquaculture development constraints, or at taking advantage of development opportunities. This process can be considered in two phases:
|
34 |
A rigorous approach to institutional strengthening is a prerequisite to preventing so called strategic drift, i.e. fading of original clear-cut objectives and dissipation of targeted resources over a broader range of activities. Successful implementation of strategy requires that the long-term project objectives are kept in view, activities and outputs are linked to expected outcomes and that frequent journeys down side-tracks without clear objectives, priorities or endpoints are avoided (Watson 1998). Framework to support technical activitiesIn terms of the technical imperatives, sustainability, in itself, can be viewed from at least three perspectives:
Linkage - environmental sustainability and sustainable aquaculture developmentInexorably, sustainability in aquaculture development is linked to environmental sustainability. Much has been studied and written about the need for more vigilance in maintaining an equilibrium between the needs of the shrimp growers and the need to protect coastal mangrove areas as critical nursery habitat for marine species and as an important ecological buffer between tropical marine and terrestrial ecosystems. |
This issue, together with others relating to environmental
degradation linked directly to aquaculture development, has gained considerable
profile and is thus well placed on priority agendas for consideration.
Policy and legislation support technical initiativesA second aspect of sustainability relates to the policies and legislation that are created to support scientific and technical developments. The establishment of regional environmental, aquatic animal health, transportation and other criteria for aquaculture operations is only truly useful if they are given some effect in law. In formulating sustainable aquaculture strategies, it is important to recognize the downstream legislative process as an integral, though perhaps subsequent, component of the process. The argument can be made that the technical developments may be the easier of the two to accomplish, since legislative development is likely to have many external competing factors that could delay promulgation. This, then, makes a strong case for the focus on RIOs, since they can provide a responsible forum for building credible regional development strategies to promote and protect aquaculture development. RIOs can serve as effective vehicles for consensus building that includes bottom-up input at the national level, integrated with an effective top-down management function when extended to the regional level. Sustainability and international profileThe third aspect of sustainability relates to its international profile. As indicated earlier, development funds are limited, and competition for them is vigorous. Most nations within a region share similar problems and opportunities in aquaculture development. The bilateral approach is now viewed as economically inefficient, as well as being too time-consuming if one considers sequential nation-by-nation, project-by-project aquaculture development. Accordingly, cogent arguments can be made for focusing on RIOs which have been assigned strong mandates from their member nations for aquaculture development, and which have equitable arrangements for division of responsibilities among themselves and individual member states, as well as amongst other RIOs within the same region that may have overlapping interests. |
35
|
As a regional instrument of a group of cooperating governments, a RIO projects a strong image which is the summation of all its member states. Enabled by their charters, RIOs can serve as effective focal points for the development and implementation of regional policy and regulation to support a coordinated approach to sustainable aquaculture development. In doing so, they can also develop, project and sustain a strong regional image of aquaculture as a responsible activity with demonstrated commitment to achieving best practices, even when some member states, which may be less well developed, are having difficulty in attaining regional performance targets. With the encouragement and support of other members of the RIO, less well-developed states have a greater chance of achieving sustainable development than if they were left to do so on their own.
|
Participants were from government depart-ments, a university and a research institute representing the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and Brunei Darussalam. Project outputs included:
One of the key features of this project, which has particular relevance to sustainable aquaculture development, concerns the management strategy for the project. Specifically, the Canadian Executing Agency (CEA) adopted an advisory role to the Project Steering Committee and Technical Working Groups. |
36 |
The CEA, working in a consultative manner, administered
funds on behalf of CIDA, sourced technical specialists to be made available
to the project, maintained overall project momentum, and provided an assistant
project coordinator to help in managing and administering the many project
activities occurring in the region from the Project Execution Centre located
within the Department of Fisheries, Government of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
However, the Project Coordinator was selected by ASEAN, and the direction of the project and the forces impacting on its focus were very definitely ASEAN. This was in keeping with the project design philosophy of having ASEAN assume the lead role when it came to responsibility for the conduct of the project. This approach was possible because ASEAN, as a well-structured RIO, has the strength needed to assume this level of responsibility. As it turns out, this approach was successful. Moreover, when analysing the inputs to human resource development and physical resources dedicated to the project, it was evident that for every two dollars Canada contributed to the project, ASEAN contributed three dollars.
|
In Asia, there are currently three RIOs (NACA,
SEAFDEC, ASEAN) with strong ties to aquaculture development. Of these, NACA
with its regional network of centres, is seen as being the focal point for
a strong regional approach to aquaculture development. There are several
reasons to support this suggestion, including NACAs:
It makes sense then, that with this profile and level of regional representation, favourable consideration needs to be given to NACA as a lead agency. However, consideration needs also be given to the other two RIOs. SEAFDEC has a well-developed aquaculture programme and a strong history of institutional strengthening in partnership with the governments of its member states. Moreover, SEAFDEC also has considerable experience in technology transfer initiatives. Specifically, many of SEAFDECs pilot-scale projects have involved bridging the gap between the R&D institution laboratory bench level, and commercialization through an industry partner. As a facilitator of aquaculture industrial development, SEAFDEC too, clearly has an important role to play as a lead agency for development. ASEAN is a formal political organization representing governments of seven countries, has close ties with other countries in the region, and has well-established connections to multilateral and other development organizations. As such, ASEAN will be important in providing the political leadership to keep aquaculture development high on the priority agenda. To subsequently enable specific development initiatives, ASEAN will also be important in ensuring that funds are sourced, either internally or in partnership with other NACA members, or in broader partnerships involving bilateral and multilateral development agencies. |
37
|
It is concluded then, that while all three RIOs are currently
pursuing aquaculture development in Asia, that a more synergistic approach
focused on complementing each others strengths could be achieved through
a partnership involving the technical and institutional strengths of NACA
and SEAFDEC, combined with the political expertise resident within ASEAN.
One could envisage the aquaculture development initiatives undertaken by
these three organizations being integrated and consolidated in a manner
which would give a more effective regional voice to sustainable aquaculture
development issues.
It is suggested that initially there needs to be a forum in which senior representatives of NACA, SEAFDEC and ASEAN can meet to explore possibilities and hopefully develop a common front on approaches to sustainable aquaculture development in Asia. Also included in the forum could be traditional dialogue partners, FAO and other specialized agencies who would be viewed as critical to the process of establishing the priority agendas for regional development. Such a high profile forum, aimed at consolidating regional efforts in aquaculture development, should also emit positive signals to attract regional and global support for initiatives emanating from this cooperative approach. Assuming that an agreement can be reached, the next step could be a five-year pilot programme designed to permit the integration and consolidation process to proceed on an experimental basis. This would provide an adequate timeframe in which to work through the various issues associated with the move in this direction. The intention here is that NACA, SEAFDEC and ASEAN would carry on their normal work programmes, but would also focus on determining how they can optimize combined expertise to accelerate development, as well as reorganize activities amongst themselves to avoid duplication of effort. For example, there could be trade-offs in the form of one agency taking the lead for a specific technical initiative, with others adopting support roles. This would not only reduce duplication in the system, but could enhance complementary activities, in place of competition. Setting priority agendasPlacing aquaculture high on the priority list of regional development initiatives will be a rigorous exercise in consensus building. Nevertheless, the proposed NACA/SEAFDEC partnership with support from ASEAN would have considerable experience and expertise in this regard. |
The principal task will be designing and implementing the process by which development initiatives can be moved from scientific and technical design, through the bureaucratic level, to the political level where they can garner greater profile and compete more effectively with other issues on the political agenda. This proposed strategy, which also provides for appropriate monitoring and evaluation, is illustrated in Figure 1. It is envisaged that the chain of events in the process may resemble the following: The private sector identifies the need for a particular research and development initiative, which has generic implications for the industry as a whole, or for some subsector of it. For example, a particular disease issue in a farmed species may require better diagnostic and treatment strategies, or some other issue that, when addressed adequately, can improve the standard of aquaculture in general. The need is communicated to the RIOs.
|
38 |
39
|
In moving the priority through the system in this manner, there is good opportunity for integrating the bottom-up concerns, prominent at the local and national levels, with a more benevolent top-down management approach necessary for a successful regional approach to cooperation. Institutional strengthening and capacity buildingAs indicated earlier in this paper, successful programmes have focused on these elements as a means of ensuring sustainability. While most human resource development has focused on providing graduate and postgraduate training to incumbents in specific programmes, consideration should also be given to more formal university and technical institutional curricula focusing on aquaculture development. If there is stronger formalized grounding provided in the fundamentals of aquaculture development, counterparts would be better prepared, and existing operations would be better able to absorb new project activities into their line operations. While there is a need to continue to develop the academic ranks of aquaculture specialists who will undertake R&D projects in universities, research institutes and government laboratories, there is also a need to focus on the training required for aquaculturists whose career path will be towards operations and management of commercial ventures. Accordingly, while their curriculum will include many of the same subjects as those of the scientific and technical specialists, they would also focus attention on the practical aspects of aquaculture operations, including resource engineering, geotechnical topics, environmental sciences, aquatic animal health and nutrition management, husbandry, and especially business management. |
The latter is to ensure that they develop the
capacity to evaluate and integrate attractive technical innovations into
a companys operations, within the limits allowed by the companys
financial strength.
Extending the model regionally and inter-regionallyNACAs member and participating states include several nations outside Southeast Asia. Thus, while the first step in building a stronger regional approach to sustainable aquaculture development may be on the sub-region of Southeast Asia, the ultimate intent is that the structural elements of the new partnership can be extended to other states in the region, through NACAs central coordinating role. Following the development of this Asia model, it is conceivable that a forum could be held in which RIOs from other areas of the globe would gather to consider how this particular model could be shaped to address other regions needs for sustainable aquaculture development. Here, it is envisaged that the process utilized is as important as the results achieved. Specifically, assuming that such a model comes to life, it would be particularly useful for other RIOs to be able to share the experiences encountered as it develops. This would allow them to develop some context of how analogous models could be developed in their own regions. Even better than waiting for successful development of the currently proposed model, would be to share the experiences inter-regionally, as they are encountered. This would provide for more inter-regional dialogue, more rapid dissemination of useful information, and serve as a catalyst for the overall thrust of greater inter-regional cooperation in aquaculture development. Ultimately, a more efficient and productive approach to cooperation in sustainable aquaculture development will translate into visibly positive actions with respect to addressing the existing global protein deficit problem. |
40 |
ReferencesDioh, B.C. 1998. Support Programme for fisheries management in West Africa (AGREH). Mar. Pol. 22: 455-467. Hinds, L.O. ed. 1998. CIDAs Regional Oceans Programmes Workshop,
Mar. Pol. 22: 437-543. Jusoh, M.M.1998. ASEAN-Canada Cooperative Programme on Marine Science - Phase II. Mar. Pol. 22: 493-503. Maiava, I. 1998. Canada-South Pacific Ocean Development Programme(C-SPODP). Mar. Pol. 22: 455-467. Saul, H. 1998. CARICOM Fisheries Resource Assessment and Management Programme (CFRAMP). Mar. Pol. 22: 477-491. Tan, S.M. 1998. ASEAN-Canada Fisheries Post-Harvest Technology Project - Phase II. Mar. Pol. 22: 469-476. Watson, D. 1998. Evaluating institutional strengthening in ASEAN environmental management. In ASEAN Marine Environmental Management - Towards Sustainable Development and Integrated Management of the Marine Environment in ASEAN. In Watson et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Technical Conference of Phase II of the ASEAN-Canada Cooperative Programme on Marine Science (CPMS-II), Langkawi, Malaysia, October. pp. 15-22. Vigers, G.A. 1995. ASEAN-Canada Cooperative Programme on Marine Science: a review. Oral Presentation of the Joint IOC/CIDA Workshop, Victoria, B.C., Canada, September. Cited in text as Vigers personal comment. |
|
________
1 The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and
do not reflect those of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).
2 [email protected]
3 [email protected]
41
|