82. Presenting the Report of the Evaluation Mission set up by UNDP and FAO to determine the degree to which the Project has fulfilled its objectives and also to determine its effectiveness in delivering the outputs in terms of improvement of culture technologies, manpower training and information network for the benefit of national development agencies and overall regional cooperation, Mr. David M. Thorup, said that based on its studies the Mission has concluded that the Project has not only fulfilled its original objectives, but has done so with outstanding success, contributing significantly to the development of a scientific network in the region, and has made an impact through the transfer of improved technologies.
83. He further mentioned that the Network was now at a critical stage in its development where timely inputs would be crucial for its survival and growth. These inputs include provision of funds by the participating Governments to give the Network a permanent existence including the functioning of a core secretariat.
84. Mr. Thorup pointed out that it was the policy of the UNDP Governing Council that it could not perpetuate its assistance to core institutions and therefore the sooner a self-supporting mechanism was developed the better it would be, though UNDP has also provisionally decided to extend its support on a steadily diminishing scale for two more years. He regretted that other donor agencies were not able to attend the present meeting of the Committee. The Network is, truly speaking, an intergovernmental organisation with or without the donor agencies. He, however, assured the Committee that UNDP's non-core support would continue.
85. Dr. Pillay mentioned that though the Network was sponsored by only eleven countries it was actually serving the whole region as other countries were participating in its training programme. It was actually envisaged to be a part of the global network which included the African and Latin American networks.
86. Dr. Pillay made certain observations on the problems in the implementation of the recommendations of the UNDP Evaluation Team :
Participation of candidates from other regions can be arranged for specialised short-term courses, such as integrated farming but the admission of candidates in the one-year training course in NACA could create problems as similar courses are organised in other regions also.
Socio-economic studies in most cases are site-specific and can best be carried out on a national basis. The regional project can provide, if necessary, assistance in designing such studies.
The proposed shifting of the Coordinating Unit will entail additional expenses. It is also not easy to find alternative location with necessary communication facilities.
The Evaluation Mission has suggested three models of funding for NACA without assigning any order of preference.
87. He pointed out the need for participating governments to start contributing to the NACA core-budget to enable mobilisation of additional support from other donors.
88. Mr. Csavas, Regional Aquaculture Officer of FAO informed the Committee that FAO Regional Office could help the Network in arranging consultancies, preparation of feasibility reports, etc but could not provide any funds directly. He preferred the headquarters of the Network to continue operating from Bangkok. The representatives from Malaysia, Nepal, Philippines and Thailand also suggested Bangkok to stay as the seat of the Network Headquarters.
89. The representative from Nepal informed the Committee that the Training and Allied Research Centre at Janakpur, which has now developed considerable facilities could be linked to NACA. He added that a provisional funding of $5,000 – 10,000 would be provided by His Majesty's Government to the NACA core programme, in addition to provision of funds for training in the Philippines and China centres. While appreciating the effort made by HMG of Nepal, the Committee agreed that the Janakpur Centre be given the status of a National Aquaculture Centre linked with NACA.
90. The representative from the Philippines, informed that despite economic crisis in the country, government authorities are considering a token contribution for the core programme of NACA.
91. The representative from Malaysia informed the Committee that his government is not in a position to contribute to the NACA core programme but acknowledged the role NACA has played in the development of aquaculture manpower in his country.
92. The representative from Indonesia informed the Committee of his country's desire to support NACA which the Government had already approved a contribution of $10,000 per year for 3 years effective from 1985. He stressed his government's desire that the fresh and brackishwater research centres in Sukabumi and Jepara be recognised as Indonesian National Aquaculture Centres linked with other NACA regional centres. In appreciating the positive response of the Government of Indonesia the Committee agreed to this request and asked the Coordinator to look into the question of strengthening the centres.
93. The representative from China outlined the role her country was playing in training and development of manpower, and assured that China would further strengthen and support NACA. Her country has already approved an amount of $125,000 under TCDC allocation for training in 1985 and 1986.
94. The representative from Sri Lanka was deeply appreciative of NACA's role in the region and his country's manpower development in particular. He mentioned that a National Centre was already coming up in his country for which funds to the tune of $2.5 million from ADB have been set aside. He also stated that he fully supported the retention of the NACA Headquarters in Bangkok, and that if for any reason that it has to be shifted, he would like Sri Lanka to be considered as a likely alternate site. He further requested UNDP to inform member countries and also their resident representatives that the IPF funds could be utilized for making contributions towards the up-keep of NACA core activities.
95. The Fisheries Development Commissioner, India, suggested that since NACA is involved exclusively in promoting and monitoring aquaculture development, NACA may be elevated to the status of Aquaculture Commission under the auspices of FAO and its activities may be organized on global level.
96. The Director of CIFRI, India, considered NACA an important mechanism for dissemination of technologies and information with a view to accelerating aquaculture development in the region. Since the operating cost of research is provided by the respective host institutions and governments, he suggested that the project funds should be used to support training, information dissemination and other TCDC activities related to transfer of technologies
97. The Director of CIFE, India, too considered technology transfer as the major objective of the NACA programme and suggested that the training facilities of each participating country should be utilised and more practical-oriented training organised. He also informed that a monthly marine shipping journal for papers on aquaculture research was now being published from Bombay, and NACA could published its research finding in it.
98. The National Director of RLCI, in outlining the objectives of NACA which ultimately aimed at achieving regional self-reliance in aquaculture development, pointed out that self-reliance also includes manpower development and strengthening of research capabilities of host institutions and the administration of the centres, in addition to the financing of NACA itself.
99. The Project Coordinator stressed that the establishment of NACA is based on the principle of TCDC. It is the pivotal point to which the implementation of NACA activities of research, training and information is directed. Technologies developed at the lead centres are tested and adapted at national centres for subsequent transfer at the national level. He said that while existing technologies could be immediately transferred within the region for immediate impact, the transfer of incomplete and untested technology could be disastrous. He indicated that priority will be given to the setting up of national centres from existing national institutions for linkage with lead centres for the purpose. Problems encountered in the testing of technology would be referred to the lead centre for solution. In addition, technology and information would also be transferred through exchange of experts and scientists, and through the secondment of young scientists to serve as members of lead centre research teams for in-service training. For these purposes, funds should be made available for travel and local expenses, so that such TCDC activities could be facilitated through the mechanism of NACA.
100. Dr. Pillay suggested that the recognition and selection of National Centres should be considered seriously. NACA and ADCP could, however, help in preparation of projects for external support if these centres need to be further strengthened. He suggested that information dissemination will have to be done on a voluntary and cooperative basis by the Institutions of the region since NACA has no staff to do this. He further mentioned that although the Evaluation Team was able to persuade the UNDP headquarters to continue support for NACA, this is on the understanding that through contributions from participating countries and other donors, the project can be maintained on a long term basis. The present UNDP allocation for 1985 and 1986 only serves to give a little more time to finalize necessary arrangements.
101. The Director of RLCC, informed that part of the amount of $125,000 (say $10,000 – 20,000) could be allocated for the core programme.
102. The representative of Thailand informed the Committee that action has been taken to allocate funds to the core programme, but approval by the Government could be effected possibly from 1986. Meanwhile, action has been taken to provide training expenses of the participants of the Senior Aquaculturists Training Course in Thailand in 1985.
103. The Fisheries Development Commissioner of India indicate that the Government of India is actively considering the provision of an amount of approximately $50,000 from IPF/TCDC pool because of constraints in UNDP funding for NACA.
104. The representative of Sri Lanka suggested that clarification be provided on the use of national IPFs to finance NACA activities, and Mr. Thorup assured him that a letter making clear the procedural aspects of this matter would be prepared.
105. Mr. Csavas said that while FAO has no funds to finance directly core activities of NACA, regular programme funds allocated for meetings and consultancies might be channelled to support the Network.
106. The representative of the Philippines reiterated that despite the economic crisis in the country, efforts are being made to secure government approval for a token contribution.
107. The representative of Indonesia reiterated that the Government of Indonesia had already approved a sum of $10,000 per annum for 3 years, and indicated that it could be more if the National Aquaculture Centres could be linked with the Regional Centres.
108. The representative of Nepal indicated that while Nepal is already supporting three of its nationals in the NACA training courses (two in China and one in the Philippines), it would make privision to support 16 of the 21 trainees from its own funds in the next 5-year plan. He reaffirmed that HMG of Nepal would contribute $5,000 – 10,000 to the NACA core programme.
109. The Chairman enquired whether funds were available for the development of National Centres. The Project Coordinator clarified that National Centres are existing aquaculture institutions linked to the NACA regional lead centres. They serve as nodal centres of the respective countries for testing and adapting technologies developed by the regional centres for subsequent transfer nationally. As such, it is expected that funds would be made available through the national budget. However, NACA could assist in the preparation of projects for external support in the strengthening of the National Centres. Assistance could also be made available through TCDC funds for technology testing and assessment of results, and the provision of expertise for planning of research and training programmes. National Centres are also required to assist in the collection of information for the lead centres to which they are linked.
110. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman opined that NACA is a regional activity of great importance and it should remain functional. As such the NACA core programme should be supported. He suggested that training programmes should also be developed by two other Lead Centres which have necessary expertise in their own fields and this would reduce expenditure on training costs. The process of information exchange should be strengthened. However, all this needs to be coordinated. He added that since other donor agencies are not involved in the management of NACA, the creation of Research and Development Council need not be considered at present. Congratulating and thanking the participating countries for indicating the financial support to NACA, he stressed that its activities cannot be phased out as all the participating countries have expressed a strong desire to keep it operative and functional.
