SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS ¹

¹ The conclusions summarized in this table are the result of the discussion on background and information papers presented at the Consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

IMPLICATIONS/SUGGESTIONS

Concerning objectives and how they are to be ascertained.

The farmers most likely to be early adopters of even relatively low input aquaculture technology are not going to be the poorest people in any community, unless they are specifically targeted for support.
Aquaculture may not be the most appropriate option for the poorest of the poor, for example the landless, sick or elderly.
While the need for 'target group' participation in the planning and implementation of rural aquaculture is recognized, there are potential problems in fitting such participatory approaches into existing organizational, administrative and planning structures.

Every effort should continue to be made to develop low-input, low-cost aquaculture accessible to poorer strata of the rural population.
A deliberate emphasis on the "poor" as a target group may not always be appropriate.
PRA and RRA should be regarded as options which can be combined with other approaches as appropriate.

Concerning aquaculture as an aspect of rural development.

Aquaculture should be seen as one aspect of rural development, not an isolated technology. It must be integrated into a holistic approach to development. This requires a wider use of interdisciplinary approaches to rural development which include aquaculture.
This is mainly relevant in two areas:
Þ the organization of and approach to extension.
Þ the internal functioning of the FAO in terms of communication, structures and procedures. The current organizational structure of the FAO does not encourage interdisciplinary work.

FAO could help with the incorporation of aquaculture information into the wider agricultural data collection process.
More information about the impact of small-scale aquaculture on the environment must be fed into the international agreement process.
There is a need for more participatory methods at all decision making levels in FAO.
This entails:
Þ attention to the effects of the structural divisions of the FAO;
Þ the promotion of contact between units;
Þ a review of internal funding arrangements;
Þ improved communication through Information Technology;
Þ joint field missions for planning;
Þ training of FAO staff in management of and participation in group activities.

Concerning the role of the state and the private sector.

The effects of changes in the macro-economic environment in many less-developed countries on the development of small-scale rural aquaculture is not clear and needs to be better understood.
Changes in the resources available to aquaculture development and extension programmes have resulted in a greater emphasis on private sector involvement in the sub-sector without any proper understanding of the full implications of this.

There is a need for investigation of the impact of the changing macro-economic environment on small-scale farmers.
There is a need for a review and analysis of the wide range of institutions with which the FAO will be working, directly and indirectly, including those within the private sector.
The FAO should support governments in the necessary restructuring of extension, credit and marketing.
The FAO should have a continuing role in the support of national and regional information systems and cross-sectoral activities, between and within governments.

Concerning the location of FAO activity and research-development linkages.

Research should be iterative and adaptive to local conditions in order to meet development needs but this may require important shifts in the structure and focus of many aquaculture research institutions.
Given the acute pressure on resources available to the FAO, there is debate regarding on which level its interventions should focus - the regional level through specifically established bodies, national governments to assist in planning and policy development, or at the local level.

The FAO has an important role to play in the coordination of research efforts and the collection and dissemination of information.
NARs/NGOs and universities should be the principal contact points. FAO may also assist governments in the decentralization of research activities.
Regional offices and programmes should be emphasized over activities directed by headquarters.
FAO should not withdraw from immediate contact with the users of the technology and locally based institutions.

CONCLUSIONS	IMPLICATIONS/SUGGESTIONS
Concerning objectives and how they are to be ascertained.
The farmers most likely to be early adopters of even relatively low input aquaculture technology are not going to be the poorest people in any community, unless they are specifically targeted for support. Aquaculture may not be the most appropriate option for the poorest of the poor, for example the landless, sick or elderly. While the need for 'target group' participation in the planning and implementation of rural aquaculture is recognized, there are potential problems in fitting such participatory approaches into existing organizational, administrative and planning structures.	Every effort should continue to be made to develop low-input, low-cost aquaculture accessible to poorer strata of the rural population. A deliberate emphasis on the "poor" as a target group may not always be appropriate. PRA and RRA should be regarded as options which can be combined with other approaches as appropriate.
Concerning aquaculture as an aspect of rural development.
Aquaculture should be seen as one aspect of rural development, not an isolated technology. It must be integrated into a holistic approach to development. This requires a wider use of interdisciplinary approaches to rural development which include aquaculture. This is mainly relevant in two areas: Þ the organization of and approach to extension. Þ the internal functioning of the FAO in terms of communication, structures and procedures. The current organizational structure of the FAO does not encourage interdisciplinary work.	FAO could help with the incorporation of aquaculture information into the wider agricultural data collection process. More information about the impact of small-scale aquaculture on the environment must be fed into the international agreement process. There is a need for more participatory methods at all decision making levels in FAO. This entails: Þ attention to the effects of the structural divisions of the FAO; Þ the promotion of contact between units; Þ a review of internal funding arrangements; Þ improved communication through Information Technology; Þ joint field missions for planning; Þ training of FAO staff in management of and participation in group activities.
Concerning the role of the state and the private sector.
The effects of changes in the macro-economic environment in many less-developed countries on the development of small-scale rural aquaculture is not clear and needs to be better understood. Changes in the resources available to aquaculture development and extension programmes have resulted in a greater emphasis on private sector involvement in the sub-sector without any proper understanding of the full implications of this.	There is a need for investigation of the impact of the changing macro-economic environment on small-scale farmers. There is a need for a review and analysis of the wide range of institutions with which the FAO will be working, directly and indirectly, including those within the private sector. The FAO should support governments in the necessary restructuring of extension, credit and marketing. The FAO should have a continuing role in the support of national and regional information systems and cross-sectoral activities, between and within governments.
Concerning the location of FAO activity and research-development linkages.
Research should be iterative and adaptive to local conditions in order to meet development needs but this may require important shifts in the structure and focus of many aquaculture research institutions. Given the acute pressure on resources available to the FAO, there is debate regarding on which level its interventions should focus - the regional level through specifically established bodies, national governments to assist in planning and policy development, or at the local level.	The FAO has an important role to play in the coordination of research efforts and the collection and dissemination of information. NARs/NGOs and universities should be the principal contact points. FAO may also assist governments in the decentralization of research activities. Regional offices and programmes should be emphasized over activities directed by headquarters. FAO should not withdraw from immediate contact with the users of the technology and locally based institutions.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS 1

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS ¹