AGENDA ITEM 1: Opening Session
1. The Fifth MEDRAP Steering Committee meeting was opened by Mr. H. Kouyoumjian (Lebanon), chairman of the previous session who welcomed all the participants and thanked the Turkish authorities and the organisers of the meeting for their hospitality and assistance.
2. The National Coordinators of the following countries were present: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Portugal, Syria and Turkey. Additionally, the FAO Representative in Turkey also representing UNDP attended./ Other FAO Officials (FIDO, FIRM, FIRI), the representatives of the Network Coordinating Institutions (CIHEAM and MAP-PAP/RAC) were also present. Annex 1 gives the list of participants.
3. Mr. Ali Uslanmaz, the Governor of kale welcomed the participants on behalf of the local authorities. He wished them a fruitful deliberation and invited the participants to benefit from their presence here to see some of the sites in the town.
4. Mr. Tugrul Balikcioglu, Vice-Director General of the Agricultural Production and Development Directorate at the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, after welcoming all the participants informed the meeting of the interest of the Turkish authorities in MEDRAP and considered this a good opportunity to inform about their recent activities in this field. He gave all relevant information about the Beymelek Lagoon Aquaculture Project.
5. The Project Coordinator of MEDRAP II, MR. Hassen Akrout
thanked the Turkish Authorities for hosting the meeting in
an Institute that was initiated through MEDRAP.
He thanked the Network (SIPAM, TECAM, SELAM and EAM)
coordinators, UNDP and FAO/GFCM for their efforts.
Appreciation was also expressed to the FAO Representative
in Ankara for the assistance the assistance he provided to this meeting.
6. On behalf of UNDP and FAO, Mr. J. Doorenbos, FAO
Representative in Turkey, warmly welcomed the participants
to the Beymelek meeting.
He extended the gratitude to the Government of the Republic
of Turkey and in particular the Directorate General of the
Ministry of Agriculture, for the hospitality and the
excellent managements. Turkey is proud of its
accomplishment in aquaculture and is ready to share its
knowledge and experience with other countries of the
Mediterranean Region. The Beymelek project could serve as
a Research and Development Center, meeting various demands
for collaboration. Mr. Doorenbos briefly reviewed the
presentations of MEDRAP. He pointed out the importance of
the post-MEDRAP period, carrying on the future functions,
Several political initiatives are presently taken,
including the renewed emphasis of the southern members of
the European Union. Appropriate linkages should be
considered with the Mediterranean Action Plan, including
the various sources of funding.
7. The preliminary agenda was adopted with minor modifications (Annex 2).
8. The meeting elected the following officials:
| Chairman: | Mr. Altan Aacara (Turkey) |
| Vice-Chairman: | Mr. Philippe Ferlin (France) |
| Rapporteur: | Mr. Hratch Kouyoumjian (Lebanon) |
| Vice-Rapporteur | Mrs. Daphne Stephanou (Cyprus) |
9. Mr. H. Kouyoumjian thanked the Coordinator, the Secretariat, the National Coordinators, FAO and UNDP, CIHEAM and PAP/RAC and all the countries and the institutions hosting activities for all the support they gave to MEDRAP in the past year and formally passed on the presidency to the new Chairman.
AGENDA ITEM 2: 1994 MEDRAP II Activities
10. The Project Coordinator presented MDERAP II 1994 Activity Report (Annex 3). He briefly presented the activities of the four Networks and said that the continuity and the viability of the Networks generated by MEDRAP II will not only depend on financial resources but more importantly on its relevance to the region and the commitment of the countries. In this respect, he mentioned all the organisations and the countries that played an active role in hosting and organising the various activities described.
11. Mr. R. Ziesler, FAO/FIDO, gave a brief account on the budget contributions from the UNDP regional offices (RAB and RER), as contributes to the overall project's budget, pointing out the relative imbalance between RAB/89/005 and the RER/87/009 contributions. He mentioned that the actual budget situation would be dealt with in detail when discussing the activities for 1995.
12. Mr. M. Pedini,. FAO/FIR, stressed the need that the Networks generate project ideas for submission to potential donors. It was also mentioned that in order to attract the attention of the potential donors, the contribution of countries to the activities proposed should be clearly identifiable to show the real commitment to the project.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Network Progress Reports
13. TECAM-SELAM: Mr. D. Gabina, representing CIHEAM, transmitted the apologies of the Director of the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Saragossa for not attending the meeting due to professional reasons. He reiterated the enthusiastic support of TECAM and SELAM Networks whose coordination is going to be passed on to CIHEAM. To this end, following an agreement signed in 1993 between MEDRAP and CIHEAM, two meetings were held in Saragossa (June 1994) and Rome (November 1994) to planify and formalise future activities.
14. EAM: Mr. I. Katavic, EAM Network Coordinator, introduced
the scope and concept, of EAM Network. He mentioned that
the initial phase of the Network in 1994–95 is based
primarily on the implementation of the four-pre-determined
activities selected in previous MEDRAP-MAP-PAP/RAC
seminars. In accordance with the 1994 workplan, four
activities were implemented, PAP related part of EAM
programmed was: (1) a workshop on integrated management of
shellfish culture and monitoring (Dubrovnik, July 19–22);
and (2) an expert group meeting on the selection and
protection of sites suitable for aquaculture (Split,
October 24–27). MEDRAP II was also entrusted with two
activities : (1) a workshop on the intensive, farming
outfalls on the ecosystem (Djerba, April 12–14); and (2) a
working group meeting on lagoon management (Nador, July 5–7).
He mentioned the IFREMER contribution to the EAM Network in
1994, and the contacts made with the Greek Institute of
Marine Biology of Crete to host the 1995 workshop on
selection and protection of sites suitable for aquaculture.
He concluded by saying that the activities take into
account ongoing national projects thus mobilising national
capabilities in view of establishing powerful regional
initiatives that are expected to have better chances of
success.
15. SIPAM: Mr. S. Coppola (FAO/FIR SIPAM System Designer)
reported on the progress of the development of SIPAM
Project and in particular on the outcome of the seminar
organised in Nantes (France) at the beginning of December
where the prototype was collegially evaluated and
technically articised by all the participants, and a final
version outlined and approved.
He said that finally SIPAM managed to put together a
regional team of 8 countries who now have the necessary
know-how which is expected to produce a positive effect in
the respective countries. He also gave additional
information on action as regards Aquaculture Planning
Simulator (APS). SIPAM is expected to interface with other
similar systems (such as SIPAL) (Annex 4.).
15a In the discussions that followed, Mr. M. Pedini (FAO/FIRI)
commented that Aquaculture Planning Simulator -APS/SIPAM is
not just a retrieval tool but also permits direct analysis
of information which has a direct bearing on technical and
financial considerations, thus boosting the potential of
the system. It was highlighted that APS had been conceived
to permit a level of technical analysis of project by
comparing the technical data proposed with the values
contained in its data entry for other similar farms.
Furthermore, the inclusion of financial analysis
capabilities would also allow to judge the financial
viability, and the economic risks of projects.
This new module could attract potential investors, banks
and governmental institutions willing to verify the
adequacy and comparative advantage of the models in
development plans.
15b Mr. D. Lacroix (SIPAM Data Manager) mentioned that the SIPAM software has already been tested by 8 countries with different populations and aquaculture production. This has resulted in over 100 improvements that have been discussed and integrated into the system. This demonstrated that the SIPAM software has the capacity to collect and organise data from various sources and that it answers to the demands of many countries. He expected the Network to be fully operational in 1995 and welcomed new countries to join it.
15c Mr. Ph. Ferlin (France) said that the SIPAM has eventually to be auto-financed and that a major strategy to this end was the consideration of the requirements of the major endusers i.e. the producers. In this context, he proposed to introduce very soon a module on marketing in SIPAM. He also proposed to develop closer links between SIPAM and SELAM for the improvement of APS.
16. The participants all agreed on these suggestions and considered these as recommendations for future actions by all concerned.
AGENDA ITEM 4: National Reports
17. Albania: Mr. A. Flloko, National Coordinator, said that the
actual and future development the implementation of a set
of projects and studies is important, and that several
projects have already started and others are in the pipeline.
Within this framework, it is their intention to provide the
Fishery Department, and therefore the country with a
National Data Center for fishery and associated disciplines
to be initiated and developed parallel with other
activities such as monitoring, control and surveillance in
sea, coastal lagoons (connected with EAM) or economic
aspects and marketing (with SELAM).
This Center is to be financed by shifting some resources,
by reallocating national personnel and by seeking technical
assistance from FAO Department of Fisheries.
As far as aquaculture is concerned and in relation to
MEDRAP follow-up, National Data Center will be responsible
for domestic data/information as well as SIPAM interphase
vis-a-vis the region.
18. Bulgaria: Mrs. S. Zlatanova, National Coordinator, gave a brief review of aquaculture in her country. She mentioned that the issues of legislation and privatisation are currently being looked into. Bulgaria is ready to share her experience with other interested countries and wishes to participate in all the activities of the four Networks.
19. Croatia: Mr. I. Katavic, National Coordinator, talked about the important aspects of aquaculture in Croatia, and referred to the limitations in regards the future expansion of the industry as a result of privatisation methods and marketing situation. He mentioned their involvement and their support to the Networks particularly to EAM and SIPAM.
20. Cyprus: Mrs. D. Stephanou, representing the National Coordinator of Cyprus reviewed the status of aquaculture in the Island and made an assessment of the impact of MEDRAP II activities on its development. She stressed the opportunities offered by MEDRAP II in establishing personal links leading to closer cooperation. The impact of MEDRAP II on member countries depended also on the national ability to mobilise the opportunities offered by MEDRAP II as well as the relevant national policy, infrastructure, human and natural resources and the private sector initiatives. She reviewed the Cypriot contribution to MEDRAP II activities and expressed her country's support to SIPAM and TECAM, particularly as regards diversification of aquaculture production. She stated that her country is ready to contribute to the Networks with its rather limited means on topics presenting national interest. Finally, she thanked the MEDRAP II Coordinator, Mr. H. Akrout, and his team for their efforts and cooperation; as well as FAO, UNDP and IFREMER and France for their support to this Project.
21. Egypt: Mr. A. El Shenawy. National coordinator, thanked
MEDRAP Coordinator and the secretariat and expressed their
willingness to participate in all the Networks,
particularly SIPAM.
He also gave an overview of current activities in Egypt
both by the public and private sectors, mentioning that the
emphasis is to cover both fresh water and mariculture.
22. France: Mr. Ph. Ferlin, National Coordinator, said that France spared no effort in soliciting support and in collaborating with the Networks. IFRAMER in particular has played and continuous to play an important catalytic role in this regard, and that they are trying to bring in other EU countries into the Networks.
23. Lebanon: Mr. H. Kouyoumjian, National Coordinator, said that mariculture is relatively a new activity in Lebanon, and that initial steps have now been taken with seed money from UNDP and assistance from IFREMER to finalise the construction documents of a pilot/demonstration station. He said MEDRAP has been a moving force both as a source of information and expertise; and as an umbrella for regional collaboration. He said that the Networks are very important for the region, both for the public and the private sectors. Their active input into the Networks, however, will be a function of the development of the sector locally.
24. Morocco: Mr. A. Berraho, National Coordinator, described activities in morocco and the projected targets of production. He thanked MEDRAP and the secretariat for their efforts. He also mentioned some environmental problems they are facing particularly in mollusc culture. Referring to the workshop held in Nador on lagoon management, he expressed his satisfaction as regards results obtained and follow up action. He regretted the absence of the GFCM Secretary General from the meeting.
25. Portugal: Mr. Menezes, National Coordinator, mentioned that even though the direct impact of MEDRAP II was not very significant, its indirect impact was considerable, particularly in bringing scientists and administrators together. As regards to production and producers they are becoming gradually active and involved as a result of the problems they face particularly in the fields of management and commercialisation. In this regard, the indirect impact of SIPAM in data organisation has been felt.
26. Syria: Mr. Award Shbat, National Coordinator, reviewed the fresh water aquaculture in Syria since the mariculture sector is not existent. He said that particular care must be taken in order to preserve fish and water resources in his country. He hoped that MEDRAP and the Networks will assist countries in improving their production and resources.
27. Turkey: Mr. Musa Bayrak, National Coordinator, mentioned
the importance the Turkish authorities attach to fresh
water and mariculture.
In this respect, 1990 was a landmark as regards major
accomplishments including legislation. Concerning post-MEDRAP
phase, they consider the Networks very relevant and
complementary to their national activities. He
particularly emphasised the establishment of data banks in
the individual participating countries as a necessary
formula for the success of SIPAM through the Scientific and
Technical Research council of Turkey.
28. In the general discussions that followed, several participants mentioned the need for a clearer and a better defined expectations of the participating countries in the Networks. There was general agreement on the need to integrate the below mentioned in future activities both at national and Network levels:
AGENDA ITEM 5: Organisational structure and coordinating mechanism
29. The Project Coordinator gave the background of the Rome Coordinating Meeting (November 16th) in which the status and the activities of the Networks were discussed (Annex. 5)
30. Mr. R. Ziesler read the minutes of the above mentioned meeting to which in addition to the Project Coordinator, Mr. M. Valls (Director of the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Saragossa and Coordinator of TECAM and SELAM Networks), Mr. P. Plaza (Deputy Director), Mr. I. Katavic (Coordinator of EAM Network), Mr. S. Hadj Ali (on behalf of the Tunisian Ministry of Agriculture) and the FAO Rome staff participated.
31. In the discussions that followed the following points were raised:
The meeting regretted the absence of the GFCM Secretary, Mr. H. Ben Aleya and the fact that the detailed information which was requested by GFCM to the prepared for Consideration of the establishment of the proposed Aquaculture Sub-Committee has not been submitted to the attention of this meeting for its consideration. The meeting also recommended that adequate financial resources be made available for the proper functioning of the Aquaculture Sub-Committee when established by GFCM.
It was also regretted the absence of the Tunisian National coordinator, Mr. S. Hadj Ali, which would have been useful to clarify the final position of Tunisia, vis-a-vis hosting SITPAM Regional Center. The meeting secretariat he expressed his apologies for not attending due to professional reasons and reiterated the willingness of the Tunisian Government to host the SIPAM in accordance with the conclusions of ROME meeting (November 16th).
The draft letter prepared by FAO in accordance with Rome Meeting (November 16th, 1994) to be sent to the Tunisian Government including their expected obligations for hosting the SIPAM Regional Center was presented by the Coordinator and additional information was given by Mr. Pedini.
The following recommendation was approved after a lengthy discussion:
“The Steering Committee request FAO to send the modified version of the draft letter referred to in item 3 to the Tunisian Authorities as soon as possible asking them to confirm their commitment in hosting the SIPAM Regional Center and undertaking all the financial obligations indicated in the above mentioned letter. The reply of the Tunisian Authorities should be sent back to FAO before end of February 1995 in order to allow enough time for its final submission for endorsement by GFCM Council at its next meeting”.
As regards the above mentioned letter, the relevant modifications should be introduced particularly as regards the variable costs which should be indicated as one figure, giving however the activities. Additionally, the letter should reflect the need for special consideration as regards the question of the immediate availability of competent personnel.
32. In the discussion that followed many participants expressed concern as regards the effective continuation of the Networks particularly SIPAM as a result of the delays in formalising the relevant agreements.
Others voiced concern about the survival of SIPAM and mentioned the possibility of alternative solutions. The representative of Turkey mentioned that his Authorities might be interested in hosting this activity should the need arise.
33. Mr. D. Gabina gave relevant information on organisational and personnel matters at IAMZ CIHEAM which will coordinate TECAM and SELAM activities. He said an Aquaculturist has already joined the team. As regards the coordinating committee, it comprises:
- The Director of the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Saragossa (IAMZ/CIHEAM)
- The two coordinators of SELAM and TECAM Networks
- Two experts from each Network to be selected by rotation every 2 years
- A representative of FAO/GFCM.
34. The EAM Network Coordinator, Mr. I. Katavic said that the Network is aimed at a self-sufficient mechanism to complement national programmes. It is expected to mobilise national capabilities in view of building up initial activities. He added that the Marine Biology Institute of Crete will join the Network in 1995.
The host country, Croatia and the Mediterranean Action Plan-Priority Actions Programme/Regional Activity Center (MAP/PAP/RAC) will provide the running cost including personnel. It will also cover document production and dissemination costs and travel expenses of participants from the less-developed countries. He mentioned however that financial limitations might be an obstacle in the future and solicited the support of the participating institutions.
As regards the Network Coordinating team, it will comprise;
- The Network Coordinator
- Two experts (one each from the south and the north) to be also selected by rotation every 2 years
- A Representative of FAO/GFCM.
34a The amendment proposed to the SIPAM Network Document (see Annex 6) was adopted by the meeting.
34b The meeting suggested that, as far as possible, the experts participating in the Coordinating committees of each Network should be selected among the Network Contact Persons for effective and continuous operations.
AGENDA ITEM 6: 1995 Network Activities, budget and financial implications
35. Mr. S. Coppola reported on the future activities of SIPAM, specifically on the second phase. The second phase will characterised by five independent and parallel activities which in the end should originate a single product. These are:
- Finalise the prototype in line with national needs developed in DOS, and distribute to all countries who will request it during the meeting in April which should take place in Portugal. This prototype will be used for massive data entry.
- The redesign of the system for Windows platform with provision for on-line data communication beginning with the structure of the prototype.
- Installation and configuration in all participating countries of INTERNET both for E-mail facilities and for FTP (File Transfer Protocol) procedures.
- Assemble all the procedures developed for the advanced system Windows, download all the data, test the system and repropose it to the countries as the new advanced system.
- Organisation and participation of three meetings; a) Participation of the SIPAM Coordinator at the GFCM Board of Directors Meeting. b) Organisation and conduct of an annual meeting of aquaculture and information experts for a constant monitoring of the development of SIPAM. c) Organisation and conduct of an annual seminar-type meeting for end conduct of potential end users, donors, etc. for training, promotion, discussions, etc.. Details will be annexed to this document (Annex 7).
36. Besides the expenses related to the activities of TECAM and SELAM Network, CIHEAM will cover infrastructure and communication costs, the meetings of the Coordinating committee and the salary and expenses of the Aquaculturist recruited for the coordination of both Networks on a fulltime basis. (see Annex 8)
37. The EAM activities were introduced by the Coordinator, Mr. I. Katavic (see Annex 9).
In the discussions that followed, Morocco inquired about programmed follow-up activities to the Nador workshop on the lagoon management.
It was decided to organise the lagoon management workshop in June rather than March 1995, provided all background data are available and utilisable within this time period (end of March). As the preparatory work for the workshop on farming outfalls initially planned for 1995 has not yet taken place, it was decided to postpone this activity for 1996 while initiating the preparatory work in 1995.
38 It was stressed that a proper understanding of the roles of
the concerned parties be assured to have a smooth future
operation.
In 1995 and onwards, the Coordinating Institutions (GFCM,
CIHEAM and MAP-PAP/RAC) will be full responsible for the
implementation of the respective Networks activities.
They will be assisted by the selected National Institutions
acting as Focal Points for the prioritised activities (such
as lagoon management, diversification, pathology,
aquaculture and environment, nutrition, etc..).
The Contact Persons within each Member will be in charge of
the implementation of the Networks' activities in their
respective countries and will contribute, in concert with
the Focal Points, to the organisation and the
implementation of the prioritised activities.
39. The provisional 1994–1995 budget was presented by the Coordinator, Mr. H. Akrout and Mr. R. Ziesler (FAO/FIDO) (Annex 10). The financial contributions from the MEDRAP budget to the 1995 activities will be as follows:
| - SIPAM | : USD 28,000 |
| - TECAM and SELAM | : USD 43,000 |
| - EAM | : USD 29,000 |
It was decided to utilise any remaining sums from the various budget lines to support the Network activities after having settled all outstanding commitments.
France/IFREMER is contribution with USD 230,000 to SIPAM.
40. Various participants had inquired about several of the budget lines such as Sundry and Reporting Costs. The relevant satisfactory explanations were provided by the Coordinator
AGENDA ITEM 7: MEDRAP II Closure
41. MEDRAP II is expected to last until July 1995 to complete its activities. In the meantime, the Coordinator is expected to continue liaising with all the Networks Coordinators and ensure a smooth transfer of responsibilities.
42. The question of the mandatory retirement of the Coordinator, Mr. H. Akrout, on March 1995, was raised. In order to complete the project activities for the remaining few months in a smooth and orderly fashion, the meeting unanimously recommended the representatives of FAO to submit a request to FAO Director General to extend the Coordinator's contract to the end of July 1995.
43. As regards the publication of the overall proceedings and
reports of MEDRAP in French, English and Arabic. This was
considered to be relevant and important and the meeting
asks the Coordinator to take necessary action in this
direction.
It was also suggested to associate all National
Coordinators on the editorial board of the ensuring
publications as recognition of their individual efforts and
those of their respective countries.
AGENDA ITEM 8: Others
44. Mr. J. Menezes mentioned that in the final report on the “Activities Proposals on Pathology and on Nutrition for TECAM 1995”, there was a erroneous representation as regards Portugal in the table of contents page. It was recommended and agreed that this page be suppressed and be revised accordingly.
45. Mr. D. Lacroix, SIPAM, distributed a sample of what could be a newsletter for the four Networks.
In the discussions that followed, there were some objections as to legal implications, form and content and resource requirements financial and human). The proposal to publish a Newsletter was considered relevant. The meeting asked the Project coordinator to get in touch with the Agencies and the Institutions involved in the four Networks and submit his assessment with a feasibility study to the SIPAM Coordinator for consideration at the next Coordintion Committee Meeting for possible follow-up and action.
46. - The Fifth Steering Committee Meeting expressed its gratitude to the Tunisian Government for their past enthusiastic support. Their expected future support to the Networks is greatly appreciated.
- The Meeting also expressed its appreciation to the two other Institutions (CIHEAM and MAP-PAP/RAC) that are hosting the Networks.
- The Meeting thanked the relevant Un Organisations, particularly UNDP for the quality of support they gave to MEDRAP; and FAO Fisheries Department, especially for the direct involvement of his staff in the development of the concept, design and implementation of the SIPAM Network. The Meeting also thanked France and IFREMER for their support to MEDRAP and the Networks.
- The Meeting also recognised with satisfaction the help given to MEDRAP by all countries and institutions who hosted the various activities.
- The Meeting expressed particular appreciation and thanks to the efforts of the Coordinator, Mr. H. Akrout and to all the Members of his team for their effective contributions to the Project.
47. The Coordinator said it was his duty to thank all the National and Sub-Regional Coordinators for their valuable support during the period of his teniour. He expressed particular thanks to his staff in the Secretariat and the FAO teams who were always there for advice, support and encouragements.
Finally he thanked the UNDP both Regional Arab and European Offices for financing MEDRAP II over these five years (1990 – 1995).
48. The draft Network Steering Committee Meeting report together with the introduced changes were unanimously adopted.
49. After the official courtesies by the Coordinator, Chairman, Rapporteurs and other officials and National Coordinators, to the Turkish Government and the host Institution, the Chairman closed the meeting on 17 December 1994, 13:10 p.m.
