The meeting started with presentations on:
Scope of the Ad Hoc Committee (Mr. H. Akrout), Framework for the discussion and a brief consideration of FAO experiences (Mr. M. Pedini), existing institutional frameworks which could be useful to ensure future activities (Mr. Ph. Ferlin), role of the GFCM and characteristics of this council (Mr. Ben Aleya), and the possible inter-governmental organisation which could follow the second phase of MEDRAP (Mr. Stein). The relevant documents distributed are attached as annexes.
In these presentations, it was highlighted the need to ensure the continuity of the activities of the various Sub-networks of MEDRAP II to which a central coordination activity should be added. It was deemed necessary for the Project to rely on the advice of an Ad Hoc Committee to channel information to the National Coordinators meeting at the next Steering Committee. They should provide indications to which direction should be followed in order to ensure the continuity of the work already started. A number of questions had to be addressed by the Committee in order to identify possible scenarious for the future. Issues, such as what activities should be continued, which costs his continuation would entail for the countries and which existing mechanisms and institutions could be addressed to carry out the work started, were considered important. Finally, a decision on which information should be conveyed to the countries had to be taken and mechanism to prepare it had to be identified.
Four Inter-governmental Organizations were retained:
the General Fisheries Council of the Mediterranean (GFCM), supported by the FAO for nearly 40 years, covering the Mediterranean and the Black Seas, which is an independant forum and could coodinate specific activites:
the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) established in 1975 which considers aquaculture to be among its priorities. This Organisation has previous experience in dealing with MEDRAP activities and is oriented towards aquaculture/environmental analysis;
the “Centre International des Hautes Etudes Agronomiques pour la Méditerrannée” (CIHEAM), founded in the 60's and covers 14 countries. It is involved with training and research Networks of which 22 have been established. It has been involved in contacts with MEDRAP II:
the “Conseil Intergouvernemental des Etudes Scientifiques pour la Méditerrannée” (CIESM), a more scientific Organization oriented towards basic research and of limited interest for the future operation
An additional Organization was considered to be of interest, INFOSAMAK, for information exchange on economic aspects and covering Northern Africa and the Middle East.
The presentation of the role of the GFCM highlighted its potential position as a coordination mechanism but also pointed out its difficulties to operate in view of its limited budgets that are at its disposition.
A draft proposal for new inter-governmental Organization, designed following the example of the Network of aquaculture centres in Asia was presented as an example of an inter-governmental instrument.
It was indicated that alternative forms of agreement could be envisaged; for example : agreement between National Centres, memorandum of understanding between Ministries. In addition, the creation of an Organization like INFOSAMAK, incorporated under national law could be considered an additional possibility.
In the discussion that followed, four main activities were considered for the future of MEDRAP; Research, Training, Information exchange, Assistance to planning.
The first 3 have been started by MEDRAP II and are at different stages of advancement. An activity of assistance to planning which was emphasised within the seminar on planification for the development of aquaculture (Algiers, June 92) was considered necessary to support both the public administration and the incorporation of economic analysis into the future activities of MEDRAP.
It was concluded that the alternatives of liaison with the various Sub-networks had to be explored in greater detail because of their uneven progress.
The linkage between research and training activities with existing Organisations outside MEDRAP was more evident than for information or for assistance for planning. The GFCM was considered an interesting option, to continue the coordination activities of the various Sub-networks and, eventually, to take care of activities related to assistance to planning.
It was pointed out that the Agreement establishing the Council provide that it may promote and undertake R & D, cooperative project in the area of fisheries (including aquaculture). The internal establishment of working parties or special committees which could have a temporary or permanent character is also possible.
The CIHEAM was indicated as a structure which could be involved with specialized of high-level training, and the PAP RAC or MAP was indicated for research activities on aquaculture and environment-related topics and on coastal lagoons which are part of the MEDRAP Sub-networks.
An institutional framework for the SIPAM activities has yet to be identified.
The consensus of the Ad Hoc Committee was that it would be an opportunity to carry out MEDRAP activities through existing Organizations rather than to envisage the creation of a new inter-governmental body.
A number of financing alternatives for assuring the perennity of MEDRAP was discussed, notably in respect of national and international contributions (UNDP, EEC, UMA, FAO, Government and Institutions, etc,…).
However, it is recognised that it is difficult to identify a mode of financing in the absence of defined programmes and associate budgets.
It was recognised that a minimum core-funding should be allocated by the participating Governments in order to preserve the coordination activities and, particularly, the SIPAM system.
This situation led the Committee to recommend that a consultant should be appointed by MEDRAP II in order to:
- propose the programmes considered essential for the medium-term future of MEDRAP;
- explore the various mechanisms which could be established for the implementation of the activities within the above-mentioned programmes and including an analysis of the capacities of the institutions which could be involved:
- and, to prepare cost estimates and to suggest financing mechanisms. The consultant should submit his study one month in advance of the holding of the third MEDRAP Steering Committee.
