Type of coordination. The Consultation identified various types of coordination; amongst scientists and amongst donors; at the national, regional and global level.
It was felt that the often observed lack of coordination amongst governmental organizations involved in aquacultural research and development, both in donor countries and in recipient countries, made the task of international coordination all the more difficult. However, the Consultation recognized that coordination within nations was not an issue that it ought to discuss.
The ensuing discussion indicated that the coordination between scientists/research managers and donor representatives, on the one hand, and the coordination amongst donor representatives, on the other, were issues which the Consultation could usefully address.
Benefits of improved coordination. It was pointed out by more than one speaker that overlap in research may not be great and may even increase the speed with which scientific progress is made.
It was recognized that overlap in donor support to aquacultural research is likely to diminish in a world where resources placed at the disposal of development aid are limited. It also became evident in the discussion that, because of the different emphases of different donors, their support of aquacultural research has on the whole been complementary rather than overlapping.
It was strongly emphasized that the much greater benefits from coordination may be achieved if donors and research managers succeed in identifying (and subsequently closing) major research gaps. Those with experience warned that this is far from an easy task.
The experience today seemed to show that fish disease laboratories are effective on a regional basis and it was concluded that coordination of their services might be useful.
There was a concensus that it may be useful to coordinate effort amongst institutions in the field of preparation of handbooks or manuals on aquacultural practices and research methods, at the same time as the Consultation agreed that handbooks would be most useful if they attempted to describe practice of a certain kind at a certain place and not attempt to be global and eternal in scope.
Ways of coordination. It was recognized that some mechanism ought to be set up to improve upon the sharing of information amongst donors. However, it did not seem feasible to insist on complete release of information on proposed projects, especially while negotiations between governments and donors on these projects are underway.
Several suggestions were made on the ways and means of improving the flow of information concerning research priorities from scientists and research managers to donor representatives. Suggestions included repeating the Kyoto Conference after a suitable interval and the establishment of an International Board of Aquaculture Research. There was strong support for the establishment of the International Federation of Aquaculture Societies recently proposed by members of the World Mariculture Society.
In order to improve coordination amongst donors in the field the Consultation agreed that donors should make it clear to recipients that they would welcome cooperation with other donors in their respective aquacultural research projects.
Institutional gaps. The Consultation noted that there are several gaps in the facilities available for research to both national and regional research organizations presently engaged in aquacultural research. For instance, a majority of them do not have a large enough number of ponds, or other grow-out facilities, to permit statistically significant testing.
The review of research programmes and research needs indicated considerable deficiencies and gaps in the research capacities in the third world with respect to tropical aquaculture.
The group met three times. During its first meeting the group agreed on two gaps: one concerning sharing of aquacultural research information and one concerning research capabilities.
The first gap is that which separates donors and aquacultural researchers, both scientists and research managers. The group felt it to be essential that a specific effort be made to keep donor agencies informed about long term aquacultural research activities and needs of a global nature, and considered it necessary that institutional mechanism be developed to take care of this need.
In its second meeting the group considered alternatives for how this might be achieved and agreed that the Aquaculture Advisory Panel of the ACMRR would be an appropriate body to be charged with the task of periodically identifying national, regional and global needs for research and development in aquaculture. The Aquaculture Advisory Panel thus would enable donors - while discussing their ongoing activities - to consider their ability to respond to the global needs thus identified. The group noted the kind offer of Dr. Johnston of the Rockefeller Foundation that the Aquaculture Advisory Panel meet at the Bellagio Centre and recommended that:
about May/June 1981 the Aquaculture Advisory Panel meet for three days (plus one day travel to and one day travel from the meeting) in Bellagio to re-assess world-wide/global aquacultural research needs in view of recent activities;
that such a meeting be immediately followed by a two-day meeting of donors at Bellagio.
The donors would be briefed by spokesmen of the Aquaculture Advisory Panel on their conclusions and recommendations (if any). Donors would also exchange information on planned and ongoing aquacultural development projects.
The group thought it reasonable to assume that the Aquaculture Advisory Panel would number about 10 to 12, and that there would be about the same number of donor representatives. While the Rockefeller Foundation would pay for board and lodging, and ACMRR would pay for travel of scientists of the Aquaculture Advisory Panel, donors representatives would have to pay for their travel to and from Bellagio.
The second gap identified in the first group meeting is that which today exists between needs and capabilities for research on the culture of priority species groups (tilapia, mullet, milkfish, carps, catfishes, molluscs, crustacea). The group felt that this gap will only be overcome if donor support is such that it can be long term and continuing. In such circumstances experienced scientists will be able to produce research methodologies and technology packages which, when fed into institutions conducting applied aquacultural research and extension work ultimately would contribute to the desired increase in aquacultural production.
During its second meeting the group concluded that TAC should advise CGIAR to channel resources into establishing one global centre. Such a centre should concentrate on continuing research to develop improved technology capable of supporting significant increases in production. The global centre should provide services (delivery of technologies) to regional and national research and development organizations, and should train aquacultural scientists. It was also the opinion of the group that it may be efficient to establish the global centre by expanding or improving upon an existing research centre.
The group examined the general site requirements of the global centre, and provided criteria which should be considered along with programme requirements, when a decision is made to go ahead (see Appendix 5).
Further, the group felt that careful consideration should be given to the utilization of existing facilities such as may now be found in several locations in the tropics.
Recognizing that it may be beyond present financial and manpower resources to satisfy, within a period of ten to fifteen years, all of the research needs identified by the Consultation, the sub-group felt that the research of the proposed centre should give priority to tilapia, mullet and milkfish, without, however, excluding other groups from consideration.
