By Mr. Mario PEDINI
A. Introduction.
1. The forms of aquaculture regional networks which at different periods in time have been put in operation by the FAO are varied. Collaborative work for aquaculture development through some form of networks has been carried out mainly through the work of:
commissions like the European Inland Fisheries advisory Commission (EIFAC), the General Fisheries Council For the Mediterranean (GFCM), the Indo Pacific Fisheries Commission (IPFC), which at some stages have established Cooperative Programmes for Research in Aquaculture (COPRAQ), or working groups on aquaculture as was the case of the Comision de Pesca Continental para America Latina (COPESCAL)
projects, of which the more representative is the Network of aquaculture Centres in Asia (NACA). More recently, also the Aquaculture in Latin America project (AQUILA) is involved in the organization of networks.
2. My short presentation is not trying to cover all the cases in the story of FAO Fisheries Department concerned with networks of various forms and nature which had been organized by the FAO in its long experience but, will deal mainly with the organizational aspects and advantages and limitations of some of the various FAO aquaculture network systems. Although project experience will be also discussed, it will center mainly on the experience of the commissions (with particular emphasis on the EIFAC) as in the future they are perhaps the more likely intergovernmental organization pattern for MEDRAP. The AQUILA project which has established some interesting network mechanisms will be presented by Mr A. Freddi, Senior Mariculture Expert of that project, and a former staff member of the Italian funded Project for Assistance to Development of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean which was attached to the previous phase of the UNDP funded MEDRAP.
B. The experience of the Commissions.
3. Due to the limited time available for this presentation I will concentrate in explaining the experience of the EIFAC, the more successful and more productive one in the FAO setup and the closer to an independent regional organization such as was is intended for the next phase of MEDRAP.
4. In the other Councils and Commissions, the GFCM COPRAQ and the IPEC COPRAQ have not been as fruitful as EIFAC in terms of substantial activities or production of documentation in the period in which they were operational. It has to be mentioned, however, that these COPRAQS were to some extent useful mechanisms insofar as regional projects were not operational in the respective areas. After the establishment of Mediterranean, Asian and Latin American regional aquaculture development projects the attention of the governments tended to concentrate in the regional projects as they benefited from external funding, mainly from UNDP but also from other donors.
5. The assistance given by the FAO to the various commissions or councils consist generally in:
However, not all the commissions or councils have the same structure and this has motivated also differences in the performance of the various working groups or COPRAQs.
6. In the case of COPESCAL or IPFC, funds for travel had to be provided by the FAO which seriously limited the number of participants to meetings and did not permit an effective work in the intersessional periods.
7. The COPRAQs of both GFCM and IPFC have had relatively little impact in the development of aquaculture in the region. They lacked a continuity of action and a clear identification of a long term work programmes and could not implement real cooperation between the participating institutions apart from the periodic exchange of information which was mainly concentrated to the session meetings. The different level of interest in the research matters selected and the lack of uniformity in the status of aquaculture development in the participating countries of the COPRAQs motivated a lack of effective cooperation through a network which existed mainly on paper. Moreover, the situation drifted to having meatings which were rather mini-symposiums in which the various authors submitted research papers on various subjects, very few of which were coauthored by scientist working in more than one institution of the COPRAQ.
8. In these two commissions as well as in the COPESCAL most of the organizative aspects were left to the FAO Secretariat and to the Technical officer in charge of the geographic area, who carried the main weight for the organization of the meetings. This resulted in meetings not sufficiently well prepared and in a discontinous functioning of the COPRAQs due to the workload of the FAO staff. Although in several cases the work of these COPRAQs was useful to identify subject matters for research in aquaculture, the follow up was in most cases taken care only when regional projects existed in the area.
9. It could be said that the effectiveness of these COPRAQs has been mainly limited by the lack of funds to permit the exchange of scientist and the funding of collaborative research projects which would have been the more desirable situation. It that possibility existed then a different type of organizative setup for the servicing of the COPRAQs would have been required in the FAO Fisheries Department.
10. In case of the EIFAC subcommissions which dealt with aquaculture related matters the effectiveness has been considerable, as they had an organizational setup which favoured autonomous work. FAO was seen as the organization to provide a reference framework and to provide political weight to the decisions reached by the EIFAC bodies. The Commission has not really produced much work in terms of collaborative research but has a very good network of specialist in various disciplines located in many European institutions (usually well equipped) and provided a good forum for discussion of important topics for aquaculture development.
11. The EIFAC mainly reviewed the status of various disciplines, also providing an analysis of the situation and recommending follow-up work, through the holding of several symposia (nutrition and feed technology, heated effluents and recirculation technologies, genetics, etc), and it also led to the establishment and adoption of water quality criteria which were important both for fish farming and for inland fisheries development and regulation. It also provided the initial forum which favoured contacts amongst specialist and contributed to the establishment of an European Association of Ichthyopathologists. As a difference with some of the other FAO networks the EIFAC had a much more active intersessional periods and also got involved in broad subject matters like the revision of water quality criteria which were analyzed systematically rather than in a single event like it usually happenned in other groups, resulting in a more through work which led to the production of reference documentation.
12. The organization of this Commission was consolidated in the three first Sessions (1960–64). Its origins, however date back to the early 1950s when several scientists discussed the posibility of having an European body which would take care of the inland waters in a similar way as the ICES was dealing with the seas. A meeting organized in Helsinki in 1956 agreed on the need for international collaboration and requested the FAO Director General to establish an advisory body for Europe. This body was subsequently accepted by the FAO Council and was established in 1957. At that point the Oraganization was responsible for the provision of funds and for setting up a Secretariat.
13. The first meeting of the Commission took place in Dublin, Ireland in 1960. The objectives and purposes of the commission were; to advise on the formulation and implementation of policy and to coordinate the implementation of this policy. Its functions at present are:
These functions can generally be achieved by regular meetings of the Commission and of its subsidiary bodies, the Secretariat being responsible for management of its affairs between sessions. The cost of participation are borne by the Member Governments, but the Secretariat is provided by the FAO. (Holden, 1981).
14. In the course of the first session the Executive Committee (chairman and Vice-chairman) was established. Its duty was to direct and conduct the affairs of EIFAC between sessions. The second session recommended the appointment of a national correspondant and of an alternate to keep the Secretariat informed of changes in the administrations and programmes within each country. This had little succes in the following years. To follow the work recommendations of the session it was decided that the secretariat should not be involved and it was required that working parties be established to meet between sessions. FAO was asked to make financial assistance available for the intersessional meetings and for interim meetins of the chairman and vice-chairmans.
15. At the third session, held in 1964 in Austria, the question of financial support to working groups, expert meetings and technical symposia was discussed. At the end of the discussions a crucial resolution was pased by participating governments which indicated that “when the Commission creates a Subcommission…… the Director General should inform the Governments which the officers nominated to the Subcommission or working group serve, requesting ……officers to be facilitated in serving for such time as needed and that their necessary expenses be defrayed by the Governments concerned….”. The acceptance of this reasoning by the participating Governments has facilitated enormously the work of the Commission and in a way has made it more independent from the availability of funds of the organization. In addition it was accepted that funding in support of activities could be obtained even from the private sector.
16. The major achievements of the Commission have been primarily due to the work of the three subcommissions (Fisheries Biology and Management, Fish Culture and Diseases, and Fish and polluted Water), through their working parties, ad hoc groups and symposia on topics of major concern. A COPRAQ was also established following the model of the GFCM in 1974–5 promoting research collaboration on selected topics and recommending a support to research n the area of fish diseases. In this speciality the EIFAC jointly with the International Office of Epizootics held a symposium on the Major Communicable Diseases and their control in 1972 which led to a major convention for the control of the Spread of Major Communicable Fish Diseases which in turn led to an amendement of the Zoo-sanitary code of OIE.
17. Possibly one of the major successes of this Commission has been the production of a series of reports on water quality criteria which were generated by its third subcommission. They contain critical reviews of the literature and have been accepted by several countries as a basis on which water quality standards can be set within a regulatory framework. The reports have been produced by the working party on water quality criteria established in 1962. Most of the work has been carried by correspondance with the assistance of two conveners since its establishment. Current emphasis for the work of the Commission has been directed towards environmental aspects of aquaculture.
18. In spite of the fact that the member countries of EIFAC are considered rich, the commission experienced difficulties in obtaining sufficient funding for its expanding activities from 1966. Furthermore, the Commission required the services of high level experts to provide advice but the countries to which they belonged were sometimes reluctant to release their services for the time required. Finally, in 1974 a crucial step was taken when EIFAC become a Convention based, self financed Commission. The experience gained in the establishment of EIFAC and its achievements could certainly be a useful element of experience for the MEDRAP to consider in the discussion of its future phase as an independent intergovernmental body.
C. The Experience with the Projects.
19. I will limit my intervention to the work of NACA, the Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia. This project financed by UNDP was created in 1980 as an outcome of the recommendations of the Kyoto Technical Conference held in 1976 by the FAO. This project was designed to operate within the framework of Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (TCDC), under which members pooled resources and collaborated in developing aquaculture in the region. The project initially included 12 countries. A network of four leading centers (in China, India, the Philippines and Thailand) was created to implement the activities of the project which had to center on:
20. As requested by UNDP, measures were taken to convert NACA in an independent body at the end of 8 years of direct support from FAO/UNDP and, after lengthy and not always easy negotiations, an intergovernmental organization was created in 1990 which is supposed to continue the work, although initially at reduced scale, through a network system.
21. The main success of this NACA network has been in training activities which resulted in the training of 140 senior officers which now occupy important positions in the governments they serve. In addition to those senior officers the project trained another 286 technicians through different activities (by 1989). These activities have earned recognition to this project by the participating countries, especially by those not so advanced in aquaculture. Through the project, these countries had the possibility to rapidly train their senior officers with a very comprehensive and articulated multidisciplinary programme, which involved stages in each of the four training centers. However the long term training programme was expensive and has proven difficult to maintain in the new autonomous phase of NACA, which initially is forced to concentrate in short term training hoping to obtain external financial reosurces from donor countries to restart the long term training programme.
22. The research part of the project did not have as much success as the training component. Each of the Lead Centers was supposed to focus its research activities on selected aquaculture systems of importance to the host country and to the region, and they should have established links with the national institutions of their own subregions dealing with research on aquaculture. In this context, the Chinese center, located in Wuxi had to focus in the integrated practices (crop-livestock-fish farming systems), The Indian center located in Dhauli had to work on monoculture and polyculture of carps in ponds, undrainable ponds and reservoirs. The Philippines center based at the Aquaculture Department of the South East Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) in Iloilo, was supposed to conduct research on shrimp, milkfish and other brackishwater species. The research programme at the last Lead Center, located in Thailand at the National Inland Fiaheries Institute concerned air breathing catfishes, south Asian carps, freshwater prawns and other species of the subregion.
23. In practice the research programme did not become a truly regional activity although it was important in itself. The inputs of the project were limited ant the centers continued with what from the very beginning were their national programme activities. Linkages with other national centers were limited and, up to today, where the activities have continued through the regional Seafarming Programme in a similar way, the countries not having a Lead Center complain about the lack of participation in the research carried out by the Lead Centers and by the lack of guidance of the scientist involved in the Lead Centers in similar research to that undertaken by their national centers. What it would seem from this experience is that unless a concerted programme with distribution of task is put in practice, effective networking research becomes very difficult to implement with a system of Lead Centers.
24. The third major component of this project was information dissemination. This had to be accomplished by;
diffusing the results of the research carried out at the Lead Centers and by publishing course materials, and
by establishing a new computerized system for information collection which was part of a global Aquaculture Information System (AQUIS) developed by the Aquaculture Development and Coordination Programme (ADCP). The AQUIS was based at the four Lead Centers and special software had been developed for it by the ADCP.
25. While the first task was performed without major difficulties, the computerized system, (which called for establishing a new system in the region), with complicated software and requiring highly specialized staff to input analysed data, proved to be a total failure and was abandoned by NACA.
26. In short, these are the experiences of the NACA which is now moving its first steps as an independent intergovermental organization. It could be interesting for the Member countries of MEDRAP to follow the development of this new intergovernmental NACA, which precedes the experience MEDRAP is supposed to pass at the end of the second phase now starting. Many interesting things could be learnt from the troubles experienced by NACA in becoming a fully independent organization withough the support of the UNDP or of the FAO but this are issues which could be better discussed in another meeting when the process of creation of an autonomous MEDRAP would have been initiated. At that stage the presence of NACA staff in the discussions would be certainly useful. Thank you very much for you attention.
By Mr. Mario PEDINI
This presentation, after Mr. Akrout introduction, will try to create a framework for our discussion in the following two days.
At the last meeting of the MEDRAP II steering Committee it was recommended to establish an ad-hoc committee to assist in preparing the documentation necessary to discuss the future of cooperation in aquaculture in the Mediterranean.
As not all of you may be aware of it, the UNDP in the project document of the MEDRAP II requested the project and the executing agency, FAO, to consider the continuity of the activities started with their assistance. We are here to explore the ways in which this assistance to aquaculture development could be provided and to indicate to the project which additional work should be carried out with the assistance of consultants to prepare the documentation necessary for the next steering Committee, when this issue will be rediscussed by the National Coordinators.
- The important points we have to consider to provide elements to the project, which will elaborate on them and produce documentation for the participating countries are:
- what are the activities of MEDRAP It which should be continued after the closure of the present MEDRAP 2? Which national partners could be involved in the various follow-up activities?
- How these activities should be continued? And, which would be the costs incurred to continue those selected? which ones of them should have priority in a possible financial squeeze?
- which are the institutional frameworks under which we could place all or some of the activities we would like to continue? We could think about existing ones or new ones to be established.
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of these institutional solutions?
- Does the project have the necessary information to convey to the countries so that the National Coordinators could discuss with their governments and have an opinion in time for the next steering Committee? what is necessary to prepare?
- The activities we have to consider are represented by the various project subnetworks, not all of them equally operational. We could think of adding additional activities if the committee finds that importants aspects of regional aquaculture development. which are not contemplated in the present phase of MEDRAP and which could not be covered by other existing institutions should be introduced in the follow-up phase.
- So far no cost targets have been put in any of the
activities of the subnetworks for a sufficiently
long programme. For example, in research, a number
of items has been selected creating in Cyprus a list
of priority subnetwork, but no detailed and
consolidated operational design has been made
available as yet.
The Committee should consider that the present level
of funding requirements of the project is not
indicative for future activities as it is intended
for a preliminary phase in which the networks are
mounted and not for their operation. The project
document prepared by UNDP envisages mainly
activities for information exchange and training.
Therefore it has to be borne in mind that the actual
operation for specific activities will be more
expensive that the present phase.
Alternatives exist to get some cooperation from the
associated countries and donor agencies but the
levels and subjects of such assistance cannot be
given for granted. The stability of the system would
only be assured by a commitmnent of the countries to
certain programmes still to be established.
- Solutions of the type “minimal budget not to
stress the governments wallet and then let's see
what happens” generally result in serious problems
to maintain a decent level of operation and rapidly
lose their original identify to become eventually
small development agencies competing for some ground
and having difficulties to survive as they do not
have a clear role. The need to get external funds to
ensure some form of operations makes them extremely
project dependant and jeopardizes the continuity of
the work which is essential. In our experience it is
essential to have a serious commitment (not only
political but also financial) on the part of the
governments wishing to participate in the follow-up
of the operation in order to ensure the proper
continuation of the activities.
This has also been highlighted by the ISNAR
representative at the meeting on networking held
last year by MEDRAP.
The past experiences have indicated clearly that
proposals without adequate funding are not
sustainable. It would be better to agree on a level
of operation which ensures a reduced but continuous
level rather than to opt for creating a structure
which has no means to continue the activities
started by a project which usually enjoys a level of
funding adequate for its objectives.
In the past, the FAO has been confronted with similar or same situations, and in the context of aquaculture we can remember two different and nearly opposite cases:
- the programme for voluntary cooperation in research such as the GFCM COPARQ which was active for more than a decade in the seventies and,
- the creation of a new intergovernmental organization such as NACA born from the work of a UNDP/FAO project of similar characteristics to MEDRAP II
In the course of the meeting on Networking which was organized by MEDRAP in connecting with the first Steering Committee I gave a presentation of the FAO experience with the establishment of networks in aquaculture. It is not a question to repeat now what was said at that instance but it could be interesting to remember the more salient points of that occasion especially for those which could not participate in the earlier discussions. Copies of that presentation are available.
The GFCM COPRAQ was conceived as a cooperative research programme on voluntary basis in which the technical secretariat (FAO) coordinated the more or less biannual meeting in which research items of different nature were discussed. The COPRAQ had no other funds than those necessary to hold the meetings and to print the proceedings in the GFCM series. It allowed, with a minimum expenditure, a periodic gathering of researchers but it was not effective in promoting real collaboration in research neither through an exchange of scientist nor through the organization of experiments linking laboratories in the two shores of the Mediterranean. It ceased to operate when the first phase of the MEDRAP project was started. Funds availability were the real limitation of the COPRAQ.
On the other extreme we have an intergovernmental organisation, the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia which was spawned by a long term project which organised a network for research, training and information exchange. In the project the training component worked rather effectively, as it could be under total control of the central coordination unit and so did the information exchange component. This was also favoured by the abundance of institutions and persons involved in aquaculture research and development in Asia. The research part did not work well as it was based on the concept of leading centres which should liaise with other institutes in countries with less developed aquaculture sectors and which should have reinforced their capacity for research. In practice, since there were little additional funds for activities which could be generated by the exchange of scientist and by the organization of collaborative research programmes, the main centres carried on with their national programmes and there was little or no research in common. The benefit the less developed institutions derived was only through the channelling of the information produced in the leading centers.
In the new phase as an intergovermental only the NACA selected the option of a minimum contribution from the participating countries to maintain a coordinator and to pay for the meetings of the Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Committee. Very little additional money was foreseen for specific training or research or information exchange activities. Therefore the coordinating unit of the NACA has been obliged to start competing for projects to operate something, distorting the pattern of operation for which they were created and not being able to fulfil entirely the functions of the NACA agreement. At present the risk is that they will become again a project dependent structure with the dangers which this implies for the continuity of the operation.
We must now consider all the possibilities open to the future of MADRAP and assist the Regional Project Coordination Unit in presenting a well analized set of solutions to the national Coordinators. We must bear in mind that the decision on what the MEDRAP should become belong to the countries and not to the executing agency or to the project coordination unit or even to this committee. We should represent only an alement of advise to the project to prepare the documentation necessary for the next Steering Committee.
By Mr. Philippe FERLIN
La coopération méditerranéenne en aquaculture s'est développée au cours des 2 phases du projet MEDRAP, et a maintenant besoin de trouver une structuration viable pour les prochaines années, car le projet MEDRAP devrait voir le soutien financier du PNUD se terminer à la fin de 1993.
Deux approches sont possibles :
- la création d'un structure spécialisée, sous la forme d'un accord intergouvernemental : cette solution est peu réaliste pour 3 raisons : le délai trés long de mise en place, l'inadapatation d'une telle structure pour un secteur économique qui, bien qu'en croissance constante, demeure encore limité, et la présence en Méditerranée de nombreuses structures ou Institutions déjà agréées.
- le rattachement des activités estimées par membres de MEDRAP comme devant faire l'objet d'une coopération future à des dispositifs déjà existant et le choix d'un mécanisme de coordination.
Avant de présenter une voie de solution envisageable, il est donc nécessaire de faire l'inventaire des mécanismes existants, puis des actvités jugées pour l'avenir et enfin d'examiner les possibilités de répartition de ces activité et de coordination.
I - STRUCTURES INTERGOUVERNEMENTALES EN MEDITERRANEE
La Méditerranée est l'objet de divers accords intergouvernementaux, de structures de coopération non formelles ou de programmes régionaux à durée déterminée, qui concernent les problèmes marins.
- CIESM
Le plus ancien des accords existant est celui instituant le CIESM (Commission Internationale pour l'Exploration Scientifique de la Méditerranée), signé en 1910 et regroupant actuellement 17 pays dont 2 extraméditerranéens (Suisse et Allemagne) Cet organisme basé à Monaco fut actif durant les premières années de son existence, puis tomba en sommeil pendant une dizaine d'années et fut remis en service en 1949, à la suite de la création du CGPM (voir ci-dessous). Son objet concernait la recherche de base en biologie et océanographie marine, les aspects plus halieutiques étant traités par le CGPM, et sa principale action s'effectuait à travers l'organisation de colloques ou séminaires scientifiques. Depuis 2 ans la CIESM essaye de se présenter comme structure Equivalente au CIEM de collecte de données sur les ressources et l'exploitation halieutiques pour la Méditerranée. face au CGPM. Les ambitions politiques et les implications financières qu'elles impliquent ne sont cependant pas partagées par l'ensemble des pays membres.
- CGPM
Le CGPM (Conseil Général des Pêches en Méditerranée) a été créé en 1949. sous forme d'un accord intergouvernemental qui regroupe actuellement 21 pays, à savoir tous ceux de la Méditerranée, avec en plus la Bulgarie, la Roumanie et le Portugal. Cet accord recouvre tous les problèmes liés à l'exploitation et la préservation des ressources vivantes, et constitue le mécanisme le plus actif dans ce domaine en Méditerranée. Depuis les années 60 le secrétariat du CGPM est assuré par la FAO qui fournit également un budget annuel de base. de l'ordre de 100 000 $, pour son fonctionnement. Son action se manifeste par l'animation de groupes de travail, de comités (Aménagement des pêches), et par son assemblée générale convoquée tous les 2 ans. Le CGPM peut créer en son sein des comités spécialisés, tel que celui de l'Aménagement des Pêches, et donc établir un “Comité de l'Aquaculture” par exemple.
- PAM
Le PAM (Plan d'Action pour la Méditerranée) a été Institué par la Convention de Barcelone de 1976, accord intergouvernemental signé sous l'égide du PNUE ((Programme des Nations-Unies pour l'Environnement) destiné à mettre en oeuvre une politique commune de protection de l'Environnement Méditerranéen, et se doter d'instruments communs pour des actions régionales. Ces Instruments qui concernent tout le domaine marin, même si certains débordent aussi sur les aspects terrestres, sont actuellement au nombre de 5:
- le programme MEDPOL, réseau de surveillance de la qualité des eaux marines, principalement orienté vers la physico-chimie, et en particulier les polluants d'origine tellurique; le programme MEDPOL est coordonné depuis l'unité de base du PAM à Athènes.
- le REMPEC (Centre Régional de Lutte contre les Pollutions Marines Accidentelles) basé à Malte, dont l'objet est un peu Equivalent à celui du CEDRE : inventaire des risques et des moyens, formation des personnels des pays membres, coordination des interventions, information.
- le PAP/RAC (Plan d'Actions Prioritaires/Centre Régional d'Activités) basé à Split, dont l'objet est de mener des études et des actions de formation dans des domaines très variés (protection contre les risques sismiques, protection des sites historiques et paysagers, etc.) et qui inclue par exemple le développement de l'aquaculture. considéré comme un moyen de protéger les zones propices contre des pollutions ou dégradations.
- le PAP/SPA (Programme d'Actions Prioritaires/ Aires Spécialement Protégées) basé à Tunis, qui a pour objet d'aider les pays membres à mettre en place une politique de réserves, parcs nationaux ou régionaux, en assurant soit des études méthodologiques, soit des échanges d'information sur les politiques et activités menées dans chaque pays.
- le Plan Bleu, basé à Sophia-Antipolis, tourné vers les aspects socio-économiques et l'évolution à moyen et long terme de la Méditerranée.
L'ensemble du ce programme est financé par des contributions des Etats signataires et est géré par une Unité de coordination d'une vingtaine de personnes basées àAthènes.
- “GROUPE DES 10”
Cette structure est une association pour le moment plus politique qu'opérationnelle, basée sur un accord non “formel”, entre les pays de la CEE du Nord du bassin méditerranéen (France, Italie, Espagne et Portugal). les membres de l'UMA (Union du Maghreb Arabe : Mauritanie, Maroc, Algérie, Tunisie et Libye) et Malte qui a rejoint dernièrement le groupe des 9, L'objet de ce Groupe est de favoriser une coopération Nord-Sud dans le bassin de la Méditerranée Occidentale, afin d'éviter un déséquilibre trop important entre les pays de la CEE et ceux du Sud.
Jusqu'à présent, cette structure s'est beaucoup plus orientée vers des actions politiques que des activités communes, bien qu'il apparaisse un désir de favoriser quelques actions de coopération dans des domaines scientifiques d'intérêt commun. Des propositions en matière d'aménagement lagunaire ont été faites récemment, mais aucun engagement financier n'a pu encore être pris.
- CIHEAM
Le CIHEAM (Centre International des Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes), est basé sur un accord intergouvernemental regroupant 14 pays, et a pour objet le développement à l'échelle régionale de la formation et de la recherche agronomique. Cette activité se développe à partir de 4 Instituts (Sarragosse, Montpellier. Bari et Chenia) assurant chacun un domaine de formation supérieure, et 25 réseaux de recherche dans divers domaine. Les premiers contacts pris avec le CIHEMA à l'occasion des séminaires de Montpelleir et de Chypre ont permis de noter l'intérêt de cette organisation pour l'aquaculture et son désir d'apporter sa compétence en matière de formation et de gestion de réseaux au futur mécanisme régional de coopération en aquaculture.
- Autres mécanismes
Il existe d'autres mécanismes de coopération régionale, soit liés à des structures politiques (Ligue Arabe, Commission Economique pour l'Afrique), soit plus techniques (INFOSAMAK) et dont l'objet déborde largement celui de l'aquaculture.
Il faut cependant constater que leur action reste relativement limitée, bien que grâce à une coopération entre la FAO et la CEA, il soit en train de se monter une première opération commune sur les pays de l'Afrique du Nord, d'évaluation des priorités de recherche en matière d'aquaculture, à partir des programmes de développement actuellement en cours. Ces organismes peuvent donc être un soutien à une action régionale, mais n'ont pas de vocation particulière pour l'aquaculture.
II - ACTIVTES PRIORITAIRES
Le groupe ad hoc a estimé que 4 types d'activités devaient être poursuivis aprés l'achèvement de la phase 2 de MEDRAP.
- formation de haut niveau
- réseau de recherche
- système d'information régional
- planification et coordination des politiques nationales
a) Formation
Lors des réunions de Mèze, il apparaisait utile de conserver une action régionale pour 2 types de formation:
- formation spécialisée de haut niveau sous forme de sessions de courte durée pour des scienitifiques, des ingénieurs ou des administratifs
- formation de cadres aquacoles au niveau de “graduates”
Le projet MEDRAP s'est surtout attaché au premier type de formation, tandis que le second est mis en oeuvre par quelques centres spécialisés tel que celui de Mèze en France. Il est apparu nécessaire d'une part de poursuivre les actions de type MEDRAP, et d'autre part de relier les centres de formation de cadres aquacoles dans un réseau permettant de favoriser les échanges de méthodes, d'enseignants ou d'étudiants.
b) Recherche
Il est difficile de promouvoir un projet de centre régional de recherche aquacole. En revanche, il est nécessaire de développer un échange entre les centres de recherche nationaux existant, en vue d'une part d'aider au développement des équipes des pays les moins favorisés, d'autre part d'assurer un meilleur suivi de problèmes rencontrés à l'égionale, tels que ceux liés à la pathologie, aux biotoxines, à la gestion des lagunes, etc.
Pour cela, le projet MEDRAP avait proposé la création de 6 réseaux de recherche ; il est vraisemblable que ce nombre est trop élevé, pour trouver le soutien nécessaire au niveau des structures et du financement. La réduction à 2 réseaux, couvrant l'un les recherches menées au niveau même de la production (biologie, technologie, économie) et l'autre les problèmes d'aquaculture et de milieu.
c) Information
Cet aspect est jugé prioritaire par tous les pays membres, aussi bien pour soutenir les activités précédentes que surtout pour répondre aux besoins des producteurs et des décideurs. La mise en service d'un système d'information régionale doit donc être soutenue, mais il est nécessaire de trouver dés le début une structure capable d'en assurer le suivi et le financement, lorsque celui de démarrage sera terminé.
d) Planification et coordination des politiques nationales
Ce dernier aspect est aussi jugéessentiel au niveau régional, afin d'éviter des distorsions trop fortes entre les politiques de développement des divers pays et de favotiser les échanges, par des législations les plus proches possibles au niveau de la mise sur marché: ce point peut être par des réunions ou des séminaires sur un thème donné.
III SCHEMA PROPOSE
II est proposé d'utiliser les compétences et les structures de 3 institutions régionales, qui sont toutes les 3 régies par un accord intergouvernemental:
- le CGPM pour assurer une coordination d'ensemble, collecter les financements nécessaires pour certaines actions, et organiser une partie d'entre elles.
- le CIHEAM pour des actvités de formation et d'animation de la recherche, et en assurer le financement en mobilisant des fonds nationaux ou multilatéraux.
- le PAM, à travers le PAP/RACanimer les recherches matière d'aquaculture et d'environnement.
Le schéma est donné en annexe; il suppose l'accord des diverses parties et la création au sein du CGPM d'un Comité permanent pour l'aquaculture, incluant des représentants des états, du PAM et du CIHEAM. Le financement des activités peut être affecté directement pour certaines au CIHEAM et au PAM, et pour d'autres (en particulier pour le SIPAM) être mobilisé et mis en oeuvre par le CGPM.
| UMA = Union du Maghreb Arabe | MCMN = Marché commun de la mer Noire |
By Mr. Habib BEN ALEYA
ROLE DU CONSEIL GENERAL DES PECHES POUR LA MEDITERANEE (CGPM)
DANS LA CONSERVATION ET L'AMENAGEMENT
DES RESSOURCES HALIEUTIQUES
par
H. Ben Alaya
Secrétaire du CGPM
Création du CGPM
Faisant suite à une recommandation de la Quatrième Conférence générale de la FAO tenue à Washington en 1948, sept pays: France, Grèce, Italie, Liban, Turquie, Royaume-uni et Yougoslavie ont été invités par le Directeur général de la FAO à se réunir à Rome en septembre 1948 pour rédiger un accord en vue de la création d'un Conseil général des pêches pour la Méditerranée. L'accord fut approuvé par la Cinquième conférence de la FAO en novembre 1949.
A cette époque, la CIESM avait interrompu ses activités depuis plus de dix ans. Gràce à une initiative du Gouvernement français, la CIESM a pu être réactivée et le CGPM, dès sa première session a décidé de coopétroitement avec la Commission. Un Comité de liaison a été créé à cet effet. Un accord fut conclu entre les deux organismes afin de mieux préciser leurs responsabilités respectives. Cet accord précise que les activités de la CIESM sont orientées vers des problèmes d'océanographie générale sans relation directe avec des applications économiques et que le CGPM s'intéresse en premier lieu aux résultats de recherches biologiques et physiographiques ayant une application directe à la pêche.
Compétence géographique
La compétence géographique du CGPM telle qu'elle a été établie par les différents amendements à l'Accord Constitutif et en dernier lieu par celui celui apporté en 1976 assigna au Conseil une compétence “dans la mer Méditerranée, la mer Noire et les eaux intermédiaires.
Statut du CGPM vis-à-vis de la FAO
En tant qu'organisme créé par un accord international propre, le CGPM constitue une entité distincte de la FAO. Toutefois, cet accord ayant été conclus au titre de l'Article XIV de l'Acte Constitutif de la FAO, le Conseil a des liens organiques avec l'Organisation.
Entre autres, c'est Directeur général de la FAO qui désigne le Secrétaire du Conseil. C'est á lui que le Conseil transment un rapport biennal d'activités. Les activités du CGPM sont, en pratique, largement financées par le budget régulier de la FAO.
Composition
Vingt pays sont membres du CGPM avec l'Albanie qui a rejoint le Conseil en 1991. L'Ex URSS et par conséquent les pays côtiers de la mer Noire de l'ancienne Union: Ukraine, Bellorussie, et Fédération de Russie ne sont pas membres du CGPM mais seront invités aux réunions techniques concernant la mer Noire en tant qu'observateurs comme ce fut le cas pour l'Ex-URSS.
Fonctions du CGPM
Les fonctions du CGPM sont très vastes; elles portent sur les aspects biologiques, scientifiques, économiques et techniques des problèmes d'aménagement et de développement des Ressources marines vivantes.
Pouvoirs
Le CGPM A un rôle essentiellement consultatif. II peut formuler, à l'intention de ses Etats membres ou de la FAO, des recommandations d'ordre général. Depuis 1976, les “pouvoirs” du CGPM ont été sensiblement renforcés; le Conseil pourrait adopter, à une majorité des deux tiers, des recommandations sur les problèmes de conservation et d'aménagement rationnel des ressources, qui ont un caractère obligatoire. Sous réserve d'objection de la part d'un pays membre dans un délai de 120 jours après notification de la dé décision, les Etats membres ont l'obligation de les appliquer. II faut noter que cette procédure n'a jamais été utiliseée.
Financement
Le CGPM est un organisme financé par la FAO mais qui peut en outre entreprendre des projets coopératif financés par ses membres. Le Conseil reçoit également une contribution annuelle de Monaco de l'ordre de l'ordre de 2000 dollars E.U. versée une fois jusqu'à présent, Monaco étant membre du CGPM mais non de la FAO.
Activités récentes
En matière d'évaluation des stocks, le CGPM a organisé depuis 1979 jusqu'à nos jours, dixsept consultations techniques couvrant les cinq sous-régions de sa zone de sa zone de compétence: Baléares et golfe du Lion (6), Méditerrané Centrale (2), Adriatique et mer Ionienne (5), Méditerrané orientale (3), mer Noire (2), p lus une prévue pour octobre cette année.
En matière d'aménagement des pêcheries, une dizaine de consultations techniques et de réunions d'experts ont été organisées, couvrant des sujets aussi divers que, l'effort de pêche au chalut, le corail rouge, les lagunes côtières, la conchyliculture en mer et les récifs artificiels, l'utilisation des petits pélagiques, la lecture de l'âge des poissons, les aspects socio-économiques de la pêche, les statistiques et l'économie des pêches.
Le CGPM a également entâmé une coopération avec la Commission internationale pour la conservation des thonidés de l'atlantique (la CICTA) en organisant une consultation technique sur les stocks de grands pélagiques en Méditerranée (Bari, Italie, juin 1990), une deuxième consultation est prévue pour septembre cette année Crète, Grèce.
