91. The evaluation of the training programmes of the Project was discussed. The Coordinator informed the PGC that NACA has been monitoring activities of the graduates of the training courses, through direct communication with the graduates and through contacts made with the staff of the Lead Centres or relevant projects/organizations. It was found that many NACA graduates now hold responsible positions in their countries and are involved in planning and implementing development projects in aquaculture. The need for a proper evaluation, however, was recognized. FAO Rome said that ADCP intended to assist NACA in training evaluation as it had done in the other regions. ADCP had not been able to undertake the evaluation in 1987, as intended, because of serious funding constraints; it was programmed for 1988, however.
92. The satisfactory progress of most of the information components was noted, covering the publication of technical information, audio-visuals, and newsletters. However, the AQUIS programme was noted as lagging because of the lack of technical backstopping from ADCP Rome and pending the latter's final decision on evaluating the AQUIS programme. It was explained that a review of the programme could not be done by ADCP in the past year because of its own financial problems and the uncertainties in its own extension, which had been resolved. Mr. New promised to ascertain if and when ADCP leadership intended to carry out the AQUIS evaluation, and to communicate the result to NACA. The Council was informed by the Coordinator that a project proposal on the establishment of a regional aquaculture information system (RAIN) has been prepared by NACA for possible funding support.
93. While reviewing the research activity, a suggestion was made to include more marine species such as seabass, groupers and snappers for priority research and development. These species, it was clarified, are already being studied at RLCP and in Hongkong, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia.
94. Clarification was sought by Indonesia as to whether NACA could fund activities at National Centres. It was indicated that Governments fund the activities of the Lead Centres and the linkage between the Lead Centres and the National Centres is under the TCDC concept. Experts from Lead Centres have been assisting in the training courses conducted at the National Centres under the mechanism for the exchange of national experts.
95. The Council noted with satisfaction the progress made in the implementation of project activities and endorsed the future directions of NACA along with the Reports of the Coordinator and the Lead Centre Directors.
96. Referring to the announcement by UNDP that it would not be providing the extra $250,000 for the fish disease work and for which activities had already been started, the Member Governments voiced their serious concern. The PGC requested UNDP to reconsider its decision, particularly in view of the serious repercussions which the disease problem will have on the future development of aquaculture in the region.
97. Dr. T.V.R. Pillay remarked on what he felt were the main concerns of the Council. With NACA becoming an inter-governmental organization, there was a need to place it on a permanent and sound financial footing. Various possible approaches of generating funding support for NACA were indicated. Before NACA became operational as an independent body, it would be essential for it to identify its long-term and short-term activities to fulfill the objectives as detailed in the NACA Agreement, and to formulate a plan of action and appropriate strategies for the implementation of the required activities and programme of work, along with a detailed budget, for generating funding support.
98. The acting chairman invited comments from the Member Governments and Observer Governments on the issue raised by Dr. Pillay.
99. The representative from UNDP said that UNDP gives high priority to the aquaculture sector. In line with this, he stated that UNDP had given a total of $6.6 million for Phases I, II and III during the period 1980–1989. It had also provided $800,000 for the seafarming project presently being executed under the NACA umbrella. However, the total of $7.4 million had already exceeded the amount that it had intended to give by $400,000. Nonetheless, UNDP did not close its doors to new projects which shall be considered on the basis of their individual merits. On making the new NACA viable, he encouraged Member Governments to give extra inputs, since UNDP could not grant institutional support.
100. The representative from FAO Rome said that Member Governments' contributions were not increasing as suggested by the Legal and Financial Working Group; some members were pledging but not paying and other not contributing at all. He stressed that it was essential that PGC members must “sell” NACA to their Governments and, through them, to donor agencies. Donor agencies needed to know that Governments valued the work of NACA. He also made a plea to PGC members not to leave all the fund raising to the Coordinator.
101. Bangladesh stated that his country looked forward to the future activities but that the contributions from Member Governments would not be enough for the operations and activities of NACA.
102. The delegate from China stated that his Government will continue to support NACA strongly. While China has invested a large amount on RLCC, the delegate added that his Government would wish UNDP to continue its support.
103. The RLCI Director cited that in fact, governments are contributing to the NACA by hosting Lead Centres and through considerable outlays from national budgets. However, UNDP funding would further accelerate the strengthening of NACA through relevant project proposals.
104. The delegate from Indonesia said that besides the contributions from the Member Governments, other donors were still required to ensure the implementation of NACA activities.
105. Malaysia indicated that, for the continued existence and further growth of NACA, support from UNDP and other funding agencies was still necessary.
106. While needing UNDP support, the delegate from the Philippines called for a prioritization in the NACA programmes and activities.
107. The delegate from Sri Lanka commented that he was in basic agreement with the view of the former ADCP Programme leader, Mr. Pillay. He recalled that in previous meetings, it had been agreed that it was essential that funds for the core activities of NACA be provided by the Member Governments, and that UNDP support for project activities would be obtainable.
108. Sri Lanka further added that if NACA is to become self-reliant, it is essential that Member Governments generate funding support both from national sources and through international agencies. They can also persuade international agencies to fund specific projects under the NACA umbrella. While new memberships should be encouraged, it will also be necessary to increase Member Governments' contributions commensurate to the work activities.
109. The delegate from Thailand thanked UNDP for its contributions to NACA, and said that on its part, Thailand had given contributions in cash and in kind. However, further funding assistance is essential.
110. The delegate from DPRK remarked that as far as funding is concerned, each country should make contributions to NACA and other assistance should also be obtained from sources such as UNDP.
111. The observer from Bhutan said that support from other agencies is needed.
112. The observer from ROK informed the body that his country is seriously considering participation in the NACA, and added that strong support from UNDP and eventually from the participating countries should continue.
113. The delegate from Nepal said that while his country had pledged only a small token contribution in 1987 to be derived from the national IPF, this had not been approved by the UNDP office in Nepal. However, a mechanism of providing regular contribution, including the token contribution, was being worked out.
114. The UNDP representative responded to these comments/suggestions by expressing his appreciation of the Governments' support to NACA. However, he pointed out that he could not commit anything at the moment, but said that further UNDP support could be considered in the future, for projects which merited funding, in consonance with normal practice.
115. The delegate from Sri Lanka suggested that a small working party be appointed to develop a work plan and a financial scheme for NACA. It would involve drawing up a programme of action on the funding required, together with other relevant matters.
116. It was unanimously agreed that the Working Group be composed of three members: Mr. Wijeratna Banda of Sri Lanka; Mrs. Bung-orn Saisithi of Thailand; and Mr. Christopher Lee of Hongkong. Mr. T.V.R. Pillay was also requested to act as an adviser to the Group, to which he agreed. The Terms of Reference of the Working Group appear as Annex XXIII. For carrying out its tasks, the Working Group is empowered to co-opt additional members, as required, to assist in the specific aspects of its Terms of Reference.
