Mr. S. EL ZARKA, Consultant introduced this point, mentioning the difficulties he encountered in tabulating the data sent by the countries. Some countries did not reply to the questionnaires, such as Albania and Bulgaria which were not present at the sub-regional Meeting. Others sent incomplete data and some did not answer according to the form proposed. The countries were requested to send their answers as soon as possible because of the very high importance of this data in implementing the different activities of the Project. Mr. EL ZARKA also mentioned that some countries submitted their data during the meeting while others made some remarks regarding the tabulated data: they suggested that the summary of the capabilities and of the present situation of the participating countries will be presented taking into consideration all the comments and information submitted by the participants.
The National Coordinator of FRANCE, proposed the constitution of a data base for the purpose which was accepted.
The principle of a regular updating of the available information in order to assist member countries was adopted.
Some participants explained that the reason for not sending their information in time was due to the difficulties of communication and to the short time available to them.
The tabulated data as modified appear in Annex I.
After discussion it was agreed that:
- Networking.
- Hatchery.
- Pathology.
- Miscellaneous.
The schedule adopted appears in Annex V.
As for the activities planned in the associated countries, not present in the meeting, it was decided that the Project Coordinator would explore with these countries the possibility of hosting the planned activities.
Mr. M. BOULAARES, from UNDP, raised the question of financial implication of the planned activities and mentioned that the implementation of the work plan is subject to the budgetary considerations which have to be examined by UNDP and the executing agency.
As an answer to some participants' preoccupations, he asked to bear in mind, in the programming of activities, that the funding which is available for the European countries is limited in comparison with the work plan proposed. Nevertheless European countries can contribute to a larger extent with their technical and know how possibilities in compensation for RAB financial input for their delegates. He added that the member countries have to be aware that the allocation of financial resources is constrained by the decision of the UNDP Governing Council to reduce the resources available for the regional programmes during the next “fifth programming cycle” which implies a larger and larger contribution for these programmes from the participating countries.
Mr. M.BOULAARES also highlighted:
He also mentioned that it is desirable, in view of limited funds, to concentrate on marine aquaculture as a first priority.
For the same reason he proposed giving priority to local Consultants whenever it is possible.
The National Coordinator of FRANCE, the only associated country present at the meeting, mentioned that Western European countries are the largest producers and consumers of aquaculture products and that within the EEC, Networks existing in the field of aquaculture concern health control, research market survey, production, etc…
He also mentioned that FRANCE was soon going to sign an agreement with FAO which includes provisions for support aquaculture developments in MEDRAP II.
As for the activities planned in FRANCE, MR. FERLIN expressed the consentment of his country to:
host the training sub-network meeting planned in 1991. FRANCE will cover the local costs of the participants;
host and support the full cost (including travel fare) of the activities planned in 1992:
study tour.
provide a Consultant for the Project for a period of 7 to 8 man-months.
In order to investigate the possible participation of the EEC in the programme of activities as donors, Mr. FERLIN expressed his country's disposition to take part in negociations with the EEC together with the Project Coordinator and one of the delegates of any other associated countries (ITALY for example).
The Project Coordinator introduced the subject of networks which had been discussed during the previous days and asked for the participants' views about the recommendations of the seminar.
After discussion of all the items, the five recommendations were adopted as they appear in Annex III.
