82. The Committee had lengthy discussion on the proposed future activities of NACA presented by the NACA Coordinator and National Directors of Lead Centres.
83. The Committee noted that all the lead centres will continue to expand the implementation of NACA activities in training, research and information. RLCC will concentrate its effort to establish a better understanding of the biological processes of integrated fish farms and to collect data for modelling studies of different integrated fish farming systems as practised in China. RLCI will intensify its multidisciplinary research activities in refining the technology for culture of carps in undrainable ponds while disciplinary research on fish nutrition, fish diseases and genetic improvement will be continued. The use of unconventional sources of energy such as solar pump and wind mill to replenish pond water during the dry season will also be further investigated. The research activities on shrimp culture at RLCP will be further intensified towards developing technology packaging by next year. Adaptive research on sea bass culture will be initiated for technology transfer to fish farmers. RLCT will continue its efforts on technology refinement and packaging of the culture systems for catfish, Macrobrachium, Pangasius and gouramy.
84. The two training activities of NACA have been routinised and will be implemented by RLCC and RLCP in collaboration with RLCT and RLCI.
85. Information activities covering the AQUIS programme will be a major area of emphasis.
86. The desire for short-term training courses has been expressed by Sri Lanka and IDRC and the need to train trainers was also discussed at length. The Committee noted that while short-term training courses are important for training specialised personnel, it can only be conducted within the available resources of the project.
87. The Director of RLCP informed the Meeting that the Centre will also be involved in the collaborative activities with the Philippine National Aquaculture Centre at Pagbilao, in accordance with a memorandum of understanding prepared by NACA, SEAFDEC AQD and the Philippine Government. The participation of SEAFDEC AQD in the said collaborative activities is awaiting approval of the SEAFDEC Council.
88. The representative from Nepal proposed its National Aquaculture Centre for Training and Research at Janakpurdham, presently under construction, to be linked with NACA as a national aquaculture centre of the Network. He then submitted a project document for follow-up action by the Coordinator.
89. In regard to the establishment of national aquaculture centres, the Committee felt that NACA should assist in the formulation of project documents for financial assistance through bilateral or multilateral agencies.
90. A member of the Committee suggested that participation in the NACA training programme by candidates nominated by the governments from the private sector is important, as the sector plays a significant role in aquaculture development.
91. The Committee discussed at length future funding of NACA in the light of the work so far accomplished and those that have yet to be completed. The Committee expressed satisfaction and appreciation over the overall performance of NACA and the achievements attained so far, especially noting the rapid progress made within the short period of time of its operation and the shortage of project staff. There was general appreciation of the usefulness and the high quality of NACA training programmes at RLCC and RLCP. The Committee also noted the need to have a longer time frame for research and information activities to attain the required results, and expressed concern on the funding constraints of NACA in implementing its activities. It stressed that the NACA's concept in aquaculture development through networking arrangement is not only new in the region but also its activities are such that it requires a longer time frame to yield results for systematic development of aquaculture.
92. Many members of the Committee reported that efforts have been made to obtain contribution from their respective governments for the operational budget of NACA. The representative of Bangladesh expressed his Government's satisfaction over the activities of NACA and recommended that the UNDP should continue with its funding support for the operation of the Network. With respect to the proposed contribution towards the operational cost of NACA through the UNDP country IPF he informed the Meeting that the matter was under active consideration of the Bangladesh Government.
93. China announced its contribution of $55,000 for the training course at RLCC and a token sum of $5,000 for the NACA operational budget. The total contribution of $60,000 will be made available under TCDC arrangement. Indonesia and Sri Lanka are awaiting approval from relevant authorities while Thailand will continue to provide in-kind contribution to the operation of the Thailand Lead Centre and the NACA Head Office, as well as cash contribution for specific activities. The statement from Thailand appears in Annex XII.
94. The Coordinator informed the Committee that it would be difficult for the concerned department in Singapore to justify contribution to the NACA budget partly because of the relative insignificant contribution of fisheries to its GNP and partly because of its very small country IPF. He also indicated that the Hong Kong authority is considering its contribution to the NACA budget from its country IPF, and that both Singapore and Hong Kong will continue to participate in the NACA activities, especially in the computerised information activity.
95. The Committee was of the opinion that the uncertainty of NACA's extension and funding beyond 1983 made it difficult for many governments to plan ahead in contributing to the project. Extension of the project on a year-to-year basis is unsettling and does not instil confidence for long-term planning.
96. The Committee noted the importance and need for a self-supporting mechanism for the project to continue on a long-term basis. However, the participating countries would require a reasonable period of time along with progressive outputs to enable each country to secure funding support from its government treasury.
97. The Committee also noted with interest and appreciation the collaboration and contribution of other agencies such as IDRC, SEAFDEC and the British Commonwealth Secretariat, as well as ACTIM's interest. The representative from IDRC informed the Committee of IDRC's intention to increase collaboration with NACA in its training, research and information programmes. He indicated that IDRC is willing to fund some trainees for the integrated fish farming training course at RLCC and for the RLCP-based training course. The Commonwealth Secretariat has also indicated favourable consideration of requests for fellowship support from Commonwealth Countries for the one-year senior aquaculturists training course.
98. The Committee took note of Dr. Pillay's report on FAO's effort in generating financial support from donor agencies. Dr. Pillay informed the Committee that UNDP support for the project is expected to be extended up to the end of 1984, and further funding will depend on project review. In an effort to find financial support for the global network of aquaculture centres, he indicated that NORAD, SIDA, CIDA, the Governments of the Netherlands, Canada and Germany, World Bank and the Inter-American Bank have been approached. A donor meeting is being planned in mid 1984 with the objective of establishing a consortium of donors who would be requested to fund the project on a long-term basis. With respect to fellowship for training, the Committee agreed that Governments should be encouraged to provide financial support for their own nationals.
99. The representative of UNDP, Mr. de San, informed the Meeting that UNDP was impressed with the progress of the NACA project and assured the Committee that UNDP would be with NACA in 1984. However, he explained that UNDP was required to support those intercountry projects identified as having priority demand upon the reduced financial resources now available to the organization. These priorities were considered and approved by the meetings of Government Aid Coordinators which also influence the principles generally applied to intercountry project activities. These principles limit the extent and period of UNDP support directed to institutional activities of a more general nature, thus releasing funds for operational programme-related activities.
100. He further informed the Committee that the Government Aid Coordinators will meet in early 1984 to review progress of the intercountry programme and recommend projects and activities expected to utilize resources available for the remainder of the current 1982–86 programme cycle. The resulting proposals will be submitted to UNDP Governing Council for final approval.
101. For this reason the prospect of continued support from UNDP beyond the end of 1984 is unpredictable. In any case future UNDP support is likely to be conditional upon series of visible progress indicating the prospects of NACA initiating actions which may be expected to result in a self-reliant and self-sustaining secretariat or control body which would be amenable to multilateral or bilateral support of a programme-oriented nature.
102. In the light of the statement made by the UNDP representative, and recognising the need to continue NACA activities for a longer duration even after the termination of UNDP funding, the Committee recommended that:
A self-supporting mechanism be established as soon as possible to enable the continued operation of NACA
Governments should be invited to the 4th meeting to indicate in concrete terms how the project be progressively funded in order to attract funding support from donor agencies
All possible funding support for training activities by donor agencies should be mobilised
Assistance be provided in formulating projects for seeking bilateral or multilateral assistance, where needed, for the establishment of national aquaculture centres.
