The session on national planning for aquaculture started with a presentation of Dr. Ackefors (Sweden).
The present state of aquaculture in Sweden was described, and a precise explanation given about plans to promote the development of this activity in order to assure the production of fish and shellfish to reduce imports. Sweden is the largest per capita importer of fishery products.
The multidisciplinary approach includes studies related to factors and subjects of economy, technology and biology of importance for the implementation of aquaculture as well as the social and economic impact of the industry. Production and marketing as well as the legal and environmental constraints are being elucidated.
The promotion of aquaculture needs administration support, state financed loans, breeding stations, research, training, etc. The reports include a lot of proposals that are grouped under four headings:
Dr. Fujiya (Japan) then talked on national planning in Japan for the development of the coastal fisheries, including aquaculture. He stated that the Japanese have a long tradition of intensive aquaculture. Because of this, emphasis is now being given to development of extensive systems.
Different systems or culture techniques were explained putting special emphasis on the development of fish farming and ocean ranching supported by research projects. The ultimate goal of the Japanese government is to put into operation a comprehensive coastal development plan to obtain a stable production and nearly 42 000 000 000 yen ($200 000 000) have been allocated for this purpose in 1982.
The third presentation was given by Mr. Wijkstrom, ADCP. He explained how an ADCP aquaculture policy formulation exercise was conducted in Jamaica. For this particular case a census of aquaculturists was made, as well as of the aquacultural facilities available. The culture potential of species was analysed and a market study concluded. Specific working groups to deal with availability of fertilizers, feed, etc., were formed. As part of the policy formulation, typical production units were identified and a description for each was undertaken including micro-economic analyses. Government development costs and possible magnitudes of future aquaculture production were estimated as were the likely effects of typical aquaculture production units on employment, foreign exchange availability, and food supply.
The government policies that should be adopted to ensure aquaculture growth were analysed and defined. With regard to policy implementation, the roles of the different institutions were defined such as the universities, fisheries offices, and national planning offices.
After the presentations, the discussion brought out a lack of support of aquaculture development plans at higher levels of governments. In some cases development plans for aquaculture are not even included in the general development plans. Indeed, in many countries there are no national aquaculture plans. In other cases, such as in Hawaii, there was political backing at the highest level for the formulation of policy and development of an aquaculture plan.
Other problems, such as constant changes in personnel at the planning and executing stages in developing countries, were mentioned. It was the general feeling that at the next World Fisheries Conference, ministers should be informed about these problems.
The basic difference between formulation of policies and planning was emphasized. Planning is more specific, setting out activities to be undertaken and a time schedule for doing them. In the case of Jamaica, general policies were established along with short-term plans specifying a variety of specific activities. The Swedish case described to the Working Party, as another example, should be considered preparatory to a policy making exercise.
It was agreed that a policy and planning manual would be helpful. Many countries lack well conceived policies. The manual should touch all phases of policy formulation and planning.
A crucial problem is often that of passing from general policies to the identification and selection of specific activities. Aquaculture, in this case, should learn from better established activities like capture fisheries and agriculture.
Subsequent implementation of the plan is generally a further problem. The decision-making framework has to be fully understood. Aquaculture specialists and administrations should carry out data collecting and analysis, bringing the results to the attention of policy makers. Public support must be sought. If obtained it should be brought to the attention of policy makers, including the relevant planning authorities.
It was emphasized that a selection among priorities for a particular country should not be attempted by foreign experts. Nevertheless, governments need guidance as to whether they should or should not go into aquaculture development. The Philippine case was explained where aquaculture development has, in some cases, been detrimental to capture fisheries as a result of the destruction of mangroves for pond development and by extensive pen construction in lakes. It is thus important that ecological aspects be taken into consideration. Multi-discipliary teams including sociologists and environmental scientists are needed to ensure that such results as occurred in the Philippines are avoided. Too often consultants are not familiar with social, economic and political aspects of a given country. Cases were cited where plans developed for one country were used for others without considering the differences between countries.
Three different levels of planning and policy development were identified: politicians, planning officers, and technical officers. In order to obtain harmonious development, feedback among all the different levels is necessary. FAO's role should be to help countries clarify the processes by which such feedback is maintained, help to formulate the plans, as well as to assist the countries in formulating investment activities. The latter is often carried out too quickly without sufficient investigation of the local situation. It was also pointed out that very little assistance is given to the training of technical planners for aquaculture, except that given at the Regional Centres. It was noted that, so far, the governments to which ADCP has given help in establishing policy are those that have already made a commitment to aquaculture development. A United Nations' team, such as ADCP, has a certain advantage in maintaining objectivity. But it is important that such teams should work with local full-time counterparts from the technical level and planning office who know the local problems and who then can maintain the process after the team leaves.
Within countries, regional differences can be very important. In Brazil fish from the sea is very expensive because of high energy costs. In some areas, aquaculture would help lower the price of fish, but that the possibilities for aquaculture vary considerably among the three major regions of the country.
Technical assistance in aquaculture policy formulation should be multidisciplinary, including social and environmental aspects as well as technological and economic, and should be matched by local participation. It should be of such magnitude and duration as to permit review of proposed policies with government planners and decision makers and the private sector. It should ensure that institutional arrangements exist which facilitate the timely up-dating and implementation of policy.
FAO should produce a manual on policy formulation and planning in aquaculture as a guide for governments anxious to develop or improve the aquaculture sector. The manual should guide planners in consideration of environmental and social factors, and should exemplify institutional arrangements needed to ensure updating and implementation of policy.
The need for high-level policy formulation and planning in aquaculture, especially in countries where aquaculture is not already well established, should be highlighted at the World Conference on Fisheries Management (Policy Phase).
In addition to the technical courses being provided in aquaculture, short courses should be made available to aquaculturists in policy development and planning, and to planners in aquaculture and its significance as an economic activity and supply of protein.
