Aquaculture Network for Africa – ANAF

REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR A REGIONAL NETWORKDRAFT 02/08 / C. G. Nugent CIFAA Consultant

1. Background to ANAF proposalAn independent regional African network linking countries in the region in their efforts to develop the aquaculture sector has been proposed. Although it is not yet established as a definitive entity, the concept has already travelled a long journey of reflection and preparation (CIFA, 2007, CIFA/FAO, 2003, 2004, 2007, T.W. Maembe et al., 2004, J. Moehl et al., 2001, J Moehl et al., 2007). The current actions of the proponents of this new and exciting entity are focussed on the practical decisions to be taken to create an officially recognised organization and to decide on the initial activities to be given priority.

Many of these decisions will be taken by a Working Group, constituted by the 14th Session of the CIFAA, which is made of five voluntary members representing their countries, which are expected to be among the founder members of the Aquaculture Network for Africa (referred to hereafter as ANAF).

This document has been prepared for the Working Group and CIFAA, and is intended to lay out some of the options that are available to the Working Group in deciding on the institutional structure that will be adopted for ANAF.

In developing the ideas for ANAF, a mission organised by CIFAA identified some of the justifications for investing in the building of a network, after studying the impact of a similar organisation – NACA in Bangkok:

“The principal lessons from Asia for Africa in establishing an African Intergovernmental Aquaculture Network Organization, similar to NACA include the situations that regional collaboration and networking will:-

(i) Eliminate duplication of efforts;(ii) Facilitate technical information generation, packaging and dissemination

together with technology transfer;(iii) Pool together national resources and strengthen nation systems;(iv) Hasten wide spread and coordinated aquaculture development;(v) Ensure effective use of scarce resources and the sharing of benefits

between members; (vi) Better attract funding from development partners;(vii) Maximise utilisation of all resources especially available training/research

facilities and human expertise to achieve faster aquaculture growth;(viii) Promote technical cooperation among developing countries;”

Source: (T.W. Maembe, et al., 2004)

1

The inaugural meeting of the Working Group has already laid out in some detail the responsibilities that it is hoped the Network will assume in its catalysing role in developing aquaculture at all levels over the coming years. Although there will certainly be a phased progression in assuming these responsibilities, ultimately this organisation is expected to have a very wide networking remit.

Future responsibilities of the network (as established by the WG inaugural meeting)1. Regional Aquaculture Research and Development

a. Coordinate scientific and technical exchange, and collaborative research between participating agencies and resource persons that will address some of the identified impediments to aquaculture development in the region

b. Provide consultancy services using identified and participating agencies and persons to address aquaculture issues in the region

2. Capacity Building, Education and Traininga. Building of capacity of national aquaculture institutes through networkingb. Coordinate farmer and extension workers exchange visits in the region,

including attachment programmes at the participating lead agencies3. Information Exchange

a. Assess the information and training needs for aquaculture development in the member countries, and devise means of addressing such needs

b. Facilitate aquaculture information and technology exchange in Africa region4. Technical Assistance

a. Facilitate and coordinate technology transfer in the regionb. Coordinate and where possible facilitate the management of farmed fish

health at regional and sub-regional levels.5. Network coordination and management

a. Prepare annual workplans and budgets for the aquaculture network for approval by the management technical committee

b. Review and assess the identified Lead agencies and other existing resources at the regional, sub-regional, and national levels so as to document the available competencies and resources in the region available for aquaculture network activities

c. Collaborate with regional aquaculture non government organizations such as producer associations, service providers, funding agencies, farmed fish marketing cooperatives and trade groups

d. Develop strategies and long-term plans for the aquaculture networke. Explore and develop linkages to existing international, regional, and sub-

regional agenciesf. Organize and facilitate meetings of the network management and advisory

committeesg. Mobilize and source for funding to facilitate the agreed to network activities

and workplansh. Prepare reports for consideration at the CIFA sessions

2

2. Examples of similar networksIn searching for the appropriate institutional choices for ANAF, the Working Group (WG hereafter) can look to other aquaculture networks or even to other organisations facing similar challenges, in order to draw on their experiences and assess the lessons learned.One particular entity stands out as an inspiration in this, and that is NACA (Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific). This is a very successful Inter-Governmental Organisation (or IGO) that has pioneered cooperation and collaboration on aquaculture development among a growing number of countries in the Asia-Pacific region. This has inspired other initiatives including NACEE and RAIS as well new proposals for the ANAF and ANA1(J Aguilar-Manjarrez and D Soto, 2007, U Barg, 2007, FAO, 2005). Overall the three existing regional networks that have been set up for aquaculture with collaboration from FAO, although they share many broad objectives, provide the ANAF WG with examples of the three distinct principal options in terms of both their professional objectives and of the institutional structures they have adopted. INFOPECHE and LVFO (Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation) are two other inter-governmental institutions working in the sameprofessional sector.

General character of the existing regional aquaculture networks.Each of the three existing aquaculture networking institutions mentioned above is distinct in character to the others, and owes its uniqueness to the differences in the tasks that have been given to it as well as to the institutional environment in which it has been developed. However, the broad networking objectives remain very similar, with a varying emphasis on coordination, research or information exchange as well other activities such as training and technical cooperation. The objectives of the different networks mentioned below are summarised in Annex 1.

NACANACA2 has provided the inspiration and a number of lessons for these more recent Aquaculture Network proposals (P Bueno, 2007, NACA, 2008). It was initiated as a UN funded project in 1979 and over $7 million dollars were invested in the first 10 years in building up the network functions, including considerable investment in the R&D capacity of its Lead Centres (NACA, 1992). Since 1988, when NACA became the sole responsibility of its member governments, its brief appears to be much wider than its titular name implies (~ network of centres~). Rather than just providing a link between the Lead Centres of each country, NACA interacts with its member governments across the full spectrum of their concerns for aquaculture development (NACA, 2004). Going beyond the development of information and communication networks, NACA conducts development assistance projects throughout the region in partnership with governments,

1 ANAF – Aquaculture Network for AfricaANA – Aquaculture Network for the AmericasNACEE – Network of Aquaculture Centres in Central and Eastern EuropeRAIS – Regional Aquaculture Information Service (of RECOFI –Regional Commission for Fisheries – Arabian/Persian Gulf Region)2 NACA – Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific

3

donor foundations, development agencies, universities and a range of non-government organizations and farmers, as well as supporting institutional strengthening, technical exchange and the development of policies for sustainable aquaculture and aquatic resource management (NACA). This is comparable to the ultimate ambitions for ANAF described by the CIFAA WG.

In assessing the history of NACA as an institution it is necessary to ask the question whether its success has been dependant on the major investment that was made in the initial project phase (P Bueno, 2007). There is no definitive answer, but given the relative weakness of the African research aquaculture research centres compared to their Asian counterparts, we can assume it would be a priority for ANAF to attract investment into coordinated regional research programmes, working with partners such as CGIAR, FARA, LVFO etc… These will, alongside private sector developments, be the source of a body of aquaculture ‘knowledge’ fully adapted to African circumstances.

Nevertheless, a prime ingredient for NACA’s success has been repeatedly identified as the strong and sustained commitment of its member governments to support its work and to collaborate together in this sector, an attitude that future members of ANAF will need to build on.

NACEENACEE (Network of Aquaculture Centres in Eastern Europe) is different in character to NACA in that it presently has objectives strictly as described in the organisation’s title. It is a network of aquaculture centres, set up by the centres themselves to provide the links they require for collaboration between themselves, and to promote the work of their members on the wider European stage. Governments are not directly involved although they are supportive, and the policies and activities of NACEE are defined by the centres through the meetings of their Directors.

RAIS – RECOFIRAIS does not have such a wide remit as the other two networks, and at present is focussed on information provision and exchange. It is also dealing with a much smaller group of member countries – more comparable to one of Africa’s sub-regional groupings. However, it is an example of how a network might be implemented as an activity inside an existing entity such as CIFAA (equivalence to RECOFI). This requires no new initiatives to create a separate organisation. On the other hand, RECOFI do not have the same resource constraints that would be expected with CIFAA, and member(s) are able to fund the whole activity themselves.

Institutional status of existing aquaculture (and other) networks.

NACANACA is an IGO with 17 member governments who have signed up to an “Agreement” (NACA, 2003). A Governing Council composed of Government member representatives, FAO (as a non-voting member, as well as sitting on the technical committee), associate

4

members and invited agencies is the policy-making body; a Technical Advisory Committee whose membership is drawn from governments, private sector, NGOs, industry and farmer organizations, formulates – with assistance of the Secretariat – the program of NACA. Financial resources are provided by members and associate members as a contractual part of their membership, as are contributions ‘in kind’ through the support to the national sub-networks and work of the national lead centres. A separate agreement between NACA and the Thai government provides for hosting of the Secretariat.

NACEE NACEE is an NGO linking 38 institutions in 15 countries. The Network is a voluntary association of Central and Eastern European aquaculture institutions who signed a formal Founding Document and agreed on the structure and the operational framework of NACEE, in which all members maintain their full independence. Activities are coordinated by the Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation ( HAKI ) of Hungary. The institutions adopted the By-laws and Rules of Procedure of NACEE, thus laying down the operational framework of the Network. FAO have granted official ‘liaison status’ to NACEE (NACEE, 2004a, b, 2005b).

RAISRAIS is the creation of RECOFI (equivalent to CIFA) (RECOFI, 2007), on behalf of its 8 member countries. Financed by one of its members it is effectively an activity executed by RECOFI with the assistance of FAO, and as such has no special legal status beyond the agreements to implement programmes.

Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation LVFOLVFO is one of the longest established African regional organisations in the field of fisheries (and more recently in aquaculture). It is the creation of an IGO – The East African Community (EAC) – which has an even longer history of cooperation. LVFO is not itself an independent IGO, but is categorised as a specialised institution of the IGO EAC (LVFO). It was created by a ‘Convention’ signed by the 3 member countries of EAC – Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. It has a physical base on the lake shores, and collaborates with a number of institutions, such as FAO, and implements projects with various donors.

Forum for Agriculture Research in Africa FARAThe FARA is an example of an organisation with quite similar general objectives to aquaculture networks described above, although of course focussing on agriculture. It is an organisation with pan-African coverage, founded by 3 regional research networks. FARA is a non-profit public international institution in accordance with public international law, and possesses full legal personality, both under public international law and under the national laws of the country hosting FARA’s Headquarters (FARA, 2001). It is an NGO, without direct government involvement, aiming to link research activities to a range of institutions including donor and development partners, scientific partners, industrial and banking institutions, foundations, non-governmental organizations

5

(NGOs), farmers’ associations, producers, processors, consumers, and market agents, especially women’s groups.

Infopeche

3. Options for an institutional framework for ANAFA number of options for the final institutional/legal arrangements are potentially suitable for a regional network, and some of these have already been considered by the WG and CIFAA discussions. It seems that the three existing regional aquaculture networks described above are key to these deliberations as they conveniently provide examples of the three most obvious ‘candidate’ framework types:

1. Inter-Governmental Organisation (IGO). This would be a new organisation, created and governed by country members through some treaty or agreement. Commitments are made by governments, even though they will be represented by national institutions or delegated individuals. (NACA)

2. Association of technical structures, such as research centres. This is an association of institutions (state, public or private) who themselves constitute the members of the networks, represented by their directors – by definition this is an NGO even if some of the members are state supported institutions. (NACEE)

3. Introducing this as an additional activity of an existing institution, where there is no need to develop a new membership, the members of the initiating institution being already in place. (RAIS)

IGO or NGO or sub-activity of CIFAA?These are effectively the most likely options that the WG have promised to consider, although it is worth noting at this point that previous studies by FAO and CIFA have appeared to opt for the IGO as a preference, possibly inspired by the NACA experience.

How does the African context differ?It is worth considering briefly whether the situation in Africa is sufficiently identical to the regional contexts of any of the other networks in Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe and the Gulf Region to make a strong case for one or other of those frameworks to be adopted for ANAF.

A key difference is going to be one of scale, as the intention so far has been to create a pan-African solution. This means an organisation potentially covering 53 countries (3 times as many as NACA), and encompassing the five classic sub-regional groupings of North, West, Central, East and Southern Africa – each of which has its own political/economic organisations. The use of the word ‘regional’ needs to be qualified for these arguments; for Africa it is referring to the entire continent, whereas in the other existing networks the areas covered are very much ‘sub continental’ – and equivalent to one of the African sub-regional groupings. Networking is always going to be easier among a smaller more intimate group, than it is for a vast continent with all the

6

complications from distance and local variation that can be expected. Nevertheless, the problems are reasonably similar across these sub-regional groupings and there is a justification for a pan-African solution if this can be realistically achieved. Africa also has a history of dealing with issues on a continent-wide basis.

Another disadvantage derives from the fact that the African continent does not have the long aquaculture history of Asia – neither at farmer nor at scientific level (T.W. Maembe, et al., 2004), nor does it have many established centres of research or a well-resourced development capacity in aquaculture. In this respect the experience and detailed approach will have to differ somewhat to that taken by NACA. It also means that ANAF crucially needs to be a structure able from the start to contribute to capacity development and attracting investment into the sector and into ANAF’s programme will be crucial.

While these two points may appear to make establishing a functioning network in Africa more difficult, they also conversely provide stronger justification of the need for a far-reaching network which could be built as a cost-effective tool to link all these countries more effectively and increase the rate of dissemination of knowledge and development on the continent. (T.W. Maembe, et al., 2004).

The geographical and environmental realities of Africa provide further motivation for state cooperation and organised networking in aquatic matters as illustrated by the vast river basins (Nile, Congo, Zambezi, Niger, Volta etc…) shared by many countries or the great lakes and hydroelectric reservoirs. Already many of these are the focus of formal inter-governmental cooperation to better manage the resources (Lake Victoria, Kariba reservoir, Volta Basin to name just three).

There could also be a case for giving a clear role in ANAF to the sub-regions which share many problems and potential solutions, and already have structures in place to encourage cooperation.

It is also noteworthy that the majority of the 53 countries that make up the continent have some potential in aquaculture, and two thirds probably have excellent short and long –term prospects of making great strides in this sector; most share similar challenges in developing appropriate technologies for their physical and socio-economic situations.

Perceptions of ‘ownership’Given the nature of the tasks that the WG have described for ANAF, it is necessary to ensure one ingredient is fostered in the institution to be created. This is the perception of ‘ownership’ of the destiny and programmes of the organisation. This is not to suggest distancing outside partners who will undoubtedly be crucial to ANAF in terms of resources and expertise. “Ownership” describes a combination of factors – political will of member governments, guidance of the organisation by institutions and individuals ‘on the ground’, mechanisms to involve all kinds of local stakeholders, and most of all the application of all the vital energy and drive that effective networking will require from the individuals involved.

7

Summarised below are some of the relevant considerations that support or otherwise the case for the three principal institutional options as they might be applied to ANAF. The WG will be able to elaborate on these and add other potential pros or cons to the debate.

IGOThe option of an Inter-Governmental Organisation would involve governments officially linking themselves through a legal engagement such as treaty, agreement, memorandum of understanding etc… Each member state admitted to the organisation would have obligations and rights in relation to that organisation. It also should be noted here that this is a network, not a ‘government debating forum’, and the nature of networking as a continuous dynamic interaction of individuals/institutions must by clearly enshrined in the constitution and fully supported by the governing council of member governments.

Pros Brings a political commitment to the table – one aspect of the concept of

“ownership” Backed up by an obligation and commitment by members to pay dues to

sustain the organisation Can provide immediate ‘weight’ to the organisation in the wider context of

potential clients, partners or donors Most acceptable framework to undertake the fundamental coordination role

between other independent entities in the aquaculture sector Public sector institutions are important in the region and an IGO is a easier

framework within which to channel their resources and networking responsibilities

Familiar framework to most potential membersCons

The need to make material commitment to sharing in the costs of the organisation could be used as an excuse to not join

Could be cumbersome to set up and establish legal status Could fall foul of bureaucratic inertia when government actions are required. Potential confusion between the status of CIFAA and ANAF

NGONGO is a very broad umbrella term, and many institutional options could fall in this category. In this case, being a network independent from direct government intervention, an NGO would probably be based on an alliance of aquaculture related institutions – universities, research institutions, private sector. National representation would still be a factor as governments would presumably be keen for their principal public sector institutions to participate.

Pros Not necessarily tied to ‘official’ channels, and if well managed could be more

independent and responsive to producers needs Could attract greater involvement of the private sector, which might lead to a

greater degree of commitment from producers Easier to manage as a decentralised, ICT based, network More attractive partner for certain donors

8

Cons Most national aquaculture institutions still public sector, so would not have

true independence from state control Not obvious that institutions involved could commit sustainable resources to

underpin the organisation; would take time to establish own income from services provided etc…

Lack of official role in national policy and strategy decision making Less attractive partner for certain donors

Sub activity of CIFAAThis option would by-pass the need to create a totally new institution, and promote the ANAF network as a specialised activity sponsored by CIFAA. The members of the CIFAA committee, who are however not wholly independent in that they participate on the invitation of the Director-General of the FAO, would define the working structure of ANAF and provide a supervisory forum. It would also have to organise a sustainable system of resourcing the structure (in the example of RECOFI/RAIS at least one member was able to voluntarily commit the necessary finance to FAO for the activity). The case for close CIFAA involvement might be strengthened if the initial phase of ANAF was a UN managed project before metamorphosing into an IGO or NGO as in the case of NACA. A variation on this scenario would be to develop the ANAF as an activity within NEPAD, in a response to the aims of the Abuja declaration.

Pros No need for the creation of a new legal entity in the short term

Cons As an internal structure of the FAO this approach does not convey the same

message of ‘ownership’ by its members as would individual commitment to a separate structure

The degree of control by one external partner (FAO) might discourage cooperation of other external partners, making the coordination role more difficult

Level of sustained activity required of an effective ANAF quite different to the occasional commitment to periodic debate that is the role of the present CIFAA committee arrangements

No obvious source of financial resources, unless countries were able to make voluntary contributions

Not appropriate framework for some of the proposed options for ANAF, such as earning income from services provided

Role of FAOAs can be seen from the experiences of the existing networks, the FAO can remain as a committed partner while adapting to any of the cited organisational structures. However, there are advantages to seeing the FAO as just one potential partner among many others willing to contribute to the development of the network. In the meantime the role of FAO is likely to remain central to the implementation of the ANAF proposal, coming as it does from discussions promoted by the CIFAA. Already the FAO is playing an active role in

9

assisting the first steps towards the creation of the ANAF, but clearly the next WG meeting should be an important moment where the ‘baton is passed’ to the founder members to ‘take up the running’ in getting the institution ‘off the ground’.

Assessment of optionsAs previous authors have suggested (CIFA/FAO, 2007, T.W. Maembe, et al., 2004) the arguments for ANAF as an IGO seem to carry the most weight, and are the most widely accepted option among those consulted. The most likely alternative might be the ‘sub activity of CIFAA’; although this is not very attractive as a framework in the medium to long term, it might provided a short term compromise should FAO wish to provide resources in the absence of firm resourcing proposals from participating countries. Other elements of the options have been outlined above as a contribution to the debate by the WG.

Overall, it would seem that the IGO is likely to be a suitable option, provided that this legal status and an eventual ‘constitution’ are used to foster three key concepts:

‘ownership’ by the regional ‘actors’ or stakeholders sustained commitment of all members to a dynamic programme, fully

resourced recognition of the need for all to contribute to the networking dynamic

Probably it is necessary from the outset to recognise that this is an IGO that would not have to be in a hurry to become pan-African with all 53 members, but aims instead to be initially limited to a membership of fully committed countries. Demonstrating the ‘added value’ that can be obtained from membership of ANAF is one of the main aims of the organisation, and this would drive the progressive increase in membership. The founding members may be limited to the WG countries, but targets for growth could be made to aid planning – (say, 20 country members in 5 years, 40 members in 10 years, all 53 countries at least “observer status” in 15 years….).

All the options need to be seen by potential members as an investment in the future, and all will require substantial resources to be available over the long-term. The advantage, of course, is that the investment will be shared and so be relatively cost effective for each country member, and if this is maintained over the long-term the returns on the investment should be substantial.

4. Miscellaneous considerationsThere are further details that need to be taken into consideration in the debate on how to best establish an institutional structure for ANAF. Some of these are mentioned below, and although for the sake of brevity these tend to be expressed here in the context of an IGO, the general principles apply also to other options such as NGOs, unless otherwise stated.

It is important to note that the full implementation of ANAF will take some years, and that now and for some time to come it will be necessary to accept temporary and

10

incomplete solutions. The key will be to keep immediate objectives and priorities well within the realm of the ‘possible’, recognising constraints of capacity and resources. If the initial set-up is too ambitious, it increases the risk of failure and makes future development of a formal network more difficult to achieve.

Digital communications network or ‘bricks and mortar’?A very critical element in the ANAF must be the use of digital ICT (Information and Communication Technology), and unlike in the case of NACA this is available to ANAF from the outset. NACA have since made full use of these technologies and have an excellent website. However they do note an important point – that the new information and communications technology (ICT) greatly facilitates networking although it may not necessarily enhance cooperation (NACA, 2008). It is a tool, but the commitment to use it fully is still the responsibility of all the participants in the network.

From the outset, ANAF should be very explicit in integrating the use of these technologies, putting them at the forefront of policies, priorities, internal structures and assets of the institution. There is no doubt about the challenges facing African countries in providing good quality access to the so-called information ‘super-highway’, and that many countries do not have the capacity yet to provide answers to all these communication challenges. Nevertheless, there is also little doubt that even now these technologies are capable of providing the best solution to overcoming the traditional bottle-necks and difficulties that have dogged regional communication in the past.

To make it work it, the ICT including the Website, must be seen as bi-directional and not just as a vehicle for ANAF to distribute information. The same would apply for national networks which will act as components of the regional ANAF network. Every opportunity must be taken to design the systems to facilitate and encourage input of data from any source and made available across the network. ANAF must also plan to invest significant resources into creating/collecting the content to be used on the website and elsewhere; this will represent one of the essential sources of value (in ANAF) for the members who access it.

ICT resources should also be integrated as one of the expected contributions of members alongside finance and the normal ‘in kind’ contributions of work sites and personnel time.

This raises questions about the requirements for hosting ANAF. At least in the short to medium term, the importance of a physical ‘bricks and mortar’ base for the HQ might be lowered compared to the traditional approach to running a full-time IGO. Although ANAF will still need clearly identified leadership, and this will have to be hosted by one of the member states with adequate capacity, it would not have to accommodate many staff initially. A lot of day-to-day networking tasks can be run in a decentralised manner by number of national centres at the same time, making a reliance on a fixed HQ less essential; the HQ could even be moved quite easily between countries if that was considered useful.

11

MembershipAs an IGO, the membership is made up of countries of the region who decide to sign up to the ‘treaty’ document, and accept the conditions of membership with its rights and obligations. In the case of an NGO, this would apply to individual institutions.

As has been noted above and elsewhere, it is inevitable that membership of ANAF will start off numerically at a low level, with whichever founder members are prepared to take a lead. This is not a compromise, but should be interpreted as a virtue. ANAF would be constituted only of countries fully committed to the cause (as defined by the organisations governing body), and would expand to accommodate however many countries fit that profile. Of course, the door to join would be fully accessible and the benefits of membership permanently promoted to non-member states.

How would ANAF deal with the relationship with non-member countries from the region (who are not contributing resources or information to the network that is resourced by members)? The principle that this activity/service comes at a cost which must at least in part be borne by the members who perceive the value of that information to them, is a principle that is already acknowledged. It would seem reasonable and logical that ANAF would control access to some of the in-depth material that might be available through the website. Would there be a part of the website with limited password access to the ‘added value’ content? Gaining access to this content would then be part of the attraction of joining ANAF. These are decisions that would have to be taken by the WG and the eventual governing body. ANAF might, for instance, consider “observer” status for countries contemplating joining, and offer them 12 months of access, at the end of which they would be expected to join as members if they wished to continue as an integral part of the network.

Associate membershipThere are various types of entities that could and should be included as part of the African network. In the case of an IGO, full membership is open to sovereign countries, so other types of institution could be accommodated under a parallel arrangement, and the example of Associate Membership as introduced by NACA seems entirely suitable. This is a formal link, which as in the case of full membership, commits the associate member to contributing to the organisation, and of course permits them to access the benefits of the network. Associate members would be able to sit on the controlling bodies of ANAF as defined in an eventual constitution. Less formal links could be forged under other arrangements, as agreed by the parties. Private sector organisations should also be encouraged to join as associates, while special arrangements could be made for categories such as individual farmers who are expected to be the principal beneficiaries of the accelerated development that it is hoped ANAF will help to bring. Potentially beneficial linkages are suggested below.

LanguageLanguage is obviously a central issue for any kind of continental communication. The challenge is not a small one… At one level there are all the many languages spoken by the farmers themselves, some of which may have sub-regional significance (e.g. Swahili).

12

Then there are four main languages used in Africa at the level of Government, institutions and scientists – English, French, Arabic and Portuguese, and finally the role of English as a lingua franca particularly in relation to the internet and other ICT technologies.

The WG will have to debate this issue in relation to ANAF. The main objective is to find a practical approach to making sure that access to information is as effective and as ‘democratic’ as possible. Flexibility is going to be the ‘name of the game’ here. Obviously the formal commitment to producing all material and covering all communication in all (or even just 2) languages is not going to happen without enormous resources – ask FAO or any UN organisation. An early recognition of the use of English as a lingua franca would seem to be of great benefit. At the same time mechanisms to integrate information flow in/out of the other major languages on the basis of the importance of that information need to be put in place from the start. While a lot of the onus for this might rest with the Arabic, French and Portuguese speakers ‘clubbing’ together to provide that interface for their own languages, the English speakers should also see the benefits of making this work. Input of information from all sources is crucial, and of course it is in the interests of all, including the English speakers, that for instance the body of knowledge (in Arabic) on pond aquaculture in Egypt (by far the largest continental producer) should be accessible to all.

It is of interest to note here that NACEE, which also has a problem of multiple languages among the 15 countries represented, has adopted two official languages, Russian (spoken in Russia, the largest member) and English as a lingua franca. NACA communicates essentially in English. Interaction between ANAF and these other networks will be in English.

Network componentsIn the African context there are three main geographical components to an aquaculture network:

1. The pan-African ANAF network spreading its web as wide as possible across the whole continent.2. The National networks, set up by each member country, which in turn link to the wider ANAF network. These would be the local vehicles for the distribution of information from ANAF, and provide the rest of the ANAF network with a window on national activities.3. There is also a third component –sub-regional networking. This could be quite significant in Africa where there are already active sub-regional groupings- the RECs - (SADC, ECOWAS/CEAO/CEEAO, EAC, ECCAS/CEEAC, AMU etc…).

The RECs may be in a position to bring resources and support to the network (as sponsors or associate members). As subscribing Associate Members they could provide a mechanism to integrate a wider number of countries into participation in the network (e.g. countries that do not have the resources to participate on and individual basis). Lead centres, in particular, could be organised initially on a sub-regional basis – the most significant institutions in African fulfilling a role in ANAF at both national and sub-

13

regional levels. Some thought could go into whether bringing in the RECs at an early stage could be an opportunity to grow the network faster through mechanisms for sub-regional networking. It might be interpreted as a hierarchical relationship:

ANAF pan-African >>> Sub-regional >>> National

However, the addition of a sub-regional layer in the ANAF network presents a number of challenges, not least to ensuring universal access to all parts of the network. This would mostly likely work if the REC s were revealed to be the best source of resources for the operation of networking.

ResourcesThe overall resources needed for launching and operating ANAF will depend on a number of decisions to be made about the extent of its activities, as well as being to a degree dictated by the amount of investment that the member countries are willing or able to invest in the promotion of the aquaculture sector. Some of the costs may well be covered by outside sources seeking to assist this network. However, the WG will have to discuss with their governments the issue of core funding of ANAF.

The precedents set by NACA may provide some guidance. In this case, every member pays an annual contribution, which is fixed according to certain criteria by the organisation. Not all members pay the same amount. A number of factors are considered such as GDP, importance of fishery/aquaculture to the economy, and ability to pay. There is a floor amount of $10 000 and a maximum contribution of $60 000. Some countries voluntarily pay more than their fixed contribution. The country that hosts the secretariat also provides the HQ building and all services. The WG might consider a flexible system like this; an alternative would be a fixed contribution which is the same for all members, but this would probably be unrealistically low as it would have to accommodate the low interest of poorer countries with lower aquaculture potential.

5. Networking and links between ANAF and other entitiesA useful network is never going to be uniquely about the core members, and building links with all kinds of stakeholder, on the national, regional or global scale, is going to be essential to make ANAF relevant and interesting to its end-users.

Relationship with CIFAA/FAO and NEPAD/AUThese two entities are going to be present and closely linked to ANAF over the long-term. NEPAD have prepared the way in a political sense through the Abuja Declaration, where the AU members underlined their support for the value of networking to the development of aquaculture. CIFAA have been proponents of an African network for many years, and have sponsored the WG currently deliberating on the future of ANAF. Either could be considered as a possible ‘home’ for a regional network. However, the arguments presented above favour ANAF as an independent organisation. In this case, both AU/NEPAD and FAO/CIFAA should continue to have a special relationship with ANAF, and effectively act as their sponsors over the developing years; they might retain permanent seats on any governing body in a similar role that FAO plays at NACA.

14

Political and Professional links to be developedOther organisations and diverse partners in aquaculture should be sort out by ANAF to make the reach of the network as complete as possible, and to make ANAF’s role as coordinator programmes across Africa as meaningful as possible. Below is a brief summary of some of these, and a complete list of likely partners should be drawn up by the WG in its preparations to launch ANAF. The WG and ANAF should open negotiations with these stakeholders as soon as possible to gauge their interest, in particular those institutions that ANAF might welcome as Associate Members.

RECs – Regional Economic CommunitiesResearch Groupings (regional): CGIAR/WFC; SARNISSA; FARA; WIOMSA…Universities (regional): African Universities with aquaculture or fishery departments…International universities: such as Stirling, Auburn, China, Thailand, Bangladesh with specific interests in Africa or in technologies suitable for Africa…Training opportunities: universities, colleges, companies offering aquaculture training across the African region…Private sector associations: CAPA, CAFEN, GAPCM, AISA,…Resources and Finance: National Development Banks, international donorsWebsites: Regional information, international aquaculture,Bilateral/Multilateral Assistance: EU; GTZ; DFID; JICA; USAID;CIRAD …International Banks: African Development Bank, World Bank…International companies: feed producers, equipment suppliers, processors, markets, publishers…International aquaculture/fisheries organisations: INFOPECHE, CRSP, ASEM, IFREMER, .,.Individual farms and farmers: …

15

Figure 1: Relationship of ANAF/IGO to CIFAA, NEPAD and other partners

ANAF

Governing Body

(member govs.)

CIFAA FAO

AU NEPAD

Associate MembersRECs

Private sector Orgs.Farmer Associations

Donors

SECRETARIATTechnical Advisory

Committee

‘Global’ networking in aquacultureANAF will become one of the principal pieces of a global puzzle – a global aquaculture information network. Working linkages with other regional units – NACA, NACEE, RAIS – would seem an easy first step, as would continuing with a close relationship with FAO which maintains a globally important hub of aquaculture and fisheries information (V Crespi and J Aguilar-Manjarrez, 2007, FAO, 2004). Further linkages with information networks in the Americas and Europe will also be necessary to complete the flow of global information in/out of Africa.

6. Practical aspects of a transition from Working Group to new organisation (chapter to be developed by working group input)

Inevitably there will be a transition period, before ANAF can become a formal reality, over which the founder members will have to commit their energies into making the organisation work.

This transition could be more or less long depending on the resources available, the commitment of member governments to support ANAF and drive it forwards, and the voluntary engagement of affected individuals into the process of “networking”.

This may involve a planned institutional evolution, with pre-defined steps along the way to the final institutional structure (T.W. Maembe, et al., 2004), or it may be seen as preferable to go straight to the targeted institutional structure e.g. IGO immediately, and allow the responsibilities and programmes to grow to fill it.

Practical Steps to create the institution, and provide for its early operationsThe next major step will be to hold a WG meeting. It is important that participants come to this after prior consultations with appropriate national institutions to obtain (or not) support for proceeding with the creation of an IGO. Members should also try and come with some idea of scope for possible country commitment to resourcing, staffing, hosting aspects of ANAF.

Creating an organisation with several state signatories, with different internal approval procedures is clearly going to take some time, and a rough timeline could be laid out by the WG that takes into consideration the approach of each founder member country.

Progress should be anticipated in phases. A possible outline of these phases is proposed below, although eventual details to be defined by WG:

Phase One: Groundwork by WG to prepare for creation of IGO: Next meeting of WG to lay groundwork and prepare for creation of ANAF WG to draft a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by potential

founder members to undertake a programme over (12?) months to prepare for the launch of a full IGO. (founder-members of IGO would be at least the 5 WG

16

countries); this MOU would essentially govern the continuation of the work of the WG until the formal creation of ANAF;

MOU could be offered to a wider group of potentially interested countries (T.W. Maembe, et al., 2004), and certainly the continental leaders in aquaculture should be offered the chance to join the founding group – Egypt, Nigeria, Madagascar and South Africa?

MOU to include details of expected progress in creating national focal points, national networks, inputs to ANAF website, determining collaborations with national research centres and personnel;

MOU to define expectations of country contributions in cash or kind until creation of IGO, including for instance declaration of time (30%?, 50%?) that each focal point officer can apply to ANAF duties; commitment to provision of IT specialist for network operations; willingness to fund focal point participation in ANAF organisation both inside and outside the country;

WG to adopt v1 of website as a core priority (with resources and national focal point inputs); establish advertising revenue on website;

WG/ FAO/NEPAD to open negotiations with potential political, financial and technical partners for ANAF;

Open communications with other regional networks Prepare a draft of an “Agreement” or contractual document for membership of

the IGO ANAF to be submitted to the inaugural meeting of the governing council of ANAF for finalization;

This ANAF Agreement would need to formally define key positions and procedures on such matters as:

Objectives of ANAF Functions of ANAF Membership Rules Definition of Rights and Obligations of members Rules of Associate Membership Establishing of a Governing Body, its functions and procedures Use and role of observers Establishing operational structure, functions and membership of committees HQ arrangements for Secretariat, staffing Financing Legal status and related issues Procedures for cooperation with donor governments and with other organizations Legal issues of signature, settlement of disputes, amending the agreement, withdrawal from the organization…

Circulation of details of inaugural ANAF meeting with invitation to join being offered to members of CIFAA (or wider circulation to AU members through NEPAD)

17

Phase two: Creation of ANAF as an institution Inaugural meeting of ANAF governing council to be held for the adoption of

the ‘constitution’ of the IGO; Governing body would probably be the representatives from each participating

government (Ministers?), plus FAO/NEPAD – the procedures for participation of associate members being decided during the meeting;

Governing council to decide on subscription amount for ANAF members, and associate members;

Open contacts with potential donors for the development of ANAF; Define a progressive and prioritized programme of activities for the ANAF that

can be adapted to anticipated resource situations; Determine the staffing and hosting arrangements for a Secretariat;

Need for leadership in preparing the groundwork for ANAF:Given the range of activities in this first phase, and the likely time that it might take to carry them through satisfactorily, the WG and CIFAA might consider the advantages of giving a leadership and organisational role to someone in a temporary paid post (either part time or full time). This might be necessary up to, and including, the organisation of an augural meeting of the governing council. The staffing to continue after this meeting would be decided upon by the council.

This temporary leadership/organisational role could be organised in one of several ways, including:1. A full time temporary post of 12 months, based in one of the WG countries or in the FAO office Accra (financing of post to be determined);2. One part time post of 50% of time during 12 months, time based in one of the WG countries or FAO Accra, (finance to be determined or man-months provided by one of the WG countries);3. Five part time posts of ANAF – the current WG focal points – with 30% of time of each officer officially allocated to ANAF duties as would be stipulated in MOU mentioned above (one way of ensuring maximum focus on ANAF issues might be for each officer to spend one continuous month per quarter on these duties – either synchronous (all five operational in same months and working together) or sequentially so that there is continuous active leadership):

Option 1 (above) would be ideal, but is of course dependant on available resources. Option 3 would be the only possibility if additional funds are not sourced.

18

7. Annexes

Annex 1.

Declared objectives of Regional Aquaculture Networks and other organisations of interest to ANAF:

A. NACA

The purpose of the organisation is to “Assist member governments to improve opportunities for sustainable aquaculture development and contribute to social and economic development in the Asia-Pacific region.”

OBJECTIVES (NACA, 2003) 1. The objectives of the Organization shall be to assist the Members in their efforts to expand aquaculture development mainly for the purpose of:

(a) increasing production; (b) improving rural income and employment; (c) diversifying farm production; and (d) increasing foreign exchange earnings and savings.

2. In order to facilitate the achievement of the foregoing objectives, the Organization shall:

(a) consolidate the establishment of an expanded network of aquaculture centres to share the responsibility of research, training and information exchange essential to aquaculture development in the region; (b) strengthen institutional and personal links among national and regional centres through the exchange of technical personnel, technical know-how and information; (c) promote regional self-reliance in aquaculture development through Technical Co- operation among Developing Countries (TCDC); and(d) promote the role of women in aquaculture development.

B. NACEE

Mission Statement

To Facilitate the R&D sphere in Central-Eastern Europe to be an integral part of the European Research Area.

19

Goals (NACEE, 2005a) Exchange of information among members (within the region). Facilitate the transfer of information relevant to aquaculture development of the

region. Exchange of scientists with special regard to young ones. Initiate joint research and training programs. Facilitate efforts aiming at the better involvement of CEE institutions in

European-level aquaculture development programs. Assist the organization of regional aquaculture meetings and conferences. Facilitate the improvement of partnership between science and practice, with

special regard to SMEs and producers associations. Enhance the capacity of CEE institutions to be able to initiate and run regional

aquaculture development projects supported by the EU, FAO and other international organizations.

Development collaboration between the “Network” and other regional networks/organizations with special regard to NACA (Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-Pacific).

C. RAIS – RECOFI (RECOFI, 2007)

ObjectivesThe overall aim of RAIS is to facilitate networking and sharing of aquaculture information, responding to the specific information needs for development of sustainable aquaculture in the region. Particularly RAIS has been established mainly to respond to:

The increasing development of aquaculture in the region. The increasing need to develop a regional system facilitating the exchange of

aquaculture information. To assist the private and public sectors to have quick and easy access to

information required for decision making, both on specific technical matters and for the design and assessment of new aquaculture projects.

To respond at the increasing public demand for transparency and accountability of information concerning aquaculture at national and regional level.  

To secure a position in the international information scene giving more visibility to the regional aquaculture development and related activities.

D. Proposed ANA (Aquaculture Network of the Americas) (FAO, 2005)

The network’s main tasks should be to:

a. Propose productive options to countries and producers, oriented towards diversification of culture systems, species and scale of production. b. Promote small-scale rural aquaculture as a vehicle for the generation of employment and income, poverty alleviation and improved food security. c. Strengthen training and skills development, especially at field technician and

20

middle-ranking technical staff, and professional specialization. d. Support programmes and projects of interdisciplinary research (natural sciences, social sciences and humanities), development and transfer of technology applicable to aquaculture (e.g. genetics, health, disease, nutrition, feed, safety, biotechnology, traceability and culture techniques). e. Support and promote the conduct of studies and analyses to improve systems of marketing and distribution of aquaculture products in accordance with national and international market requirements. f. Support the transfer, exchange and dissemination of information. g. Promote the role of women role in aquaculture. h. Support a stronger institutional and regulatory framework for aquaculture in the network’s member countries.

E. LVFO – Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation (LVFO, 1998)

The objectives of the Organization shall be to foster cooperation among the Contracting Parties, harmonize national measures for the sustainable utilization of the living resources of the Lake and to develop and adopt conservation and management measures. To achieve these objectives, the Organization shall have the function and responsibility to: (a) promote the proper management and optimum utilization of the fisheries and other resources of the Lake; (b) enhance capacity building of existing institutions and develop additional institutions dedicated to, or likely to contribute to, the purposes of this Convention in cooperation with existing institutions established in or by the Contracting Parties and with such international, regional or non-governmental organizations as may be appropriate; (c) provide a forum for discussion of the impacts of initiatives dealing with the environment and water quality in the Lake.basin and maintain a strong liaison with the existing bodies and programs; (d) provide for the conduct of research concerning the waters of Lake Victoria, including without limitation the quality of such waters, in particular with respect to supporting the living resources of the Lake and the nature, extent and pathways of its pollution and other forms of environmental degradation; (e) encourage, recommend, co-ordinate and, as appropriate,

21

undertake training and extension activities in all aspects of fisheries; (f) consider and advise on the effects of the direct or indirect introduction of any non-indigenous aquatic animals or plants into the waters of Lake Victoria or its tributaries and to adopt measures regarding the introduction, monitoring, control or elimination of any such animals or plants; (g) serve as a clearing-house and data bank for information on Lake Victoria fisheries and promote the dissemination of information, without prejudice to industrial property rights, by any appropriate form of publication;

F. FARA – Forum for Agriculture Research in Africa (FARA, 2001)

Article 4 – The mission of FARA

The mission of FARA is to enhance and add value to the effectiveness and efficiency of agricultural research systems in sub-Saharan Africa in order to contribute to agricultural development and economic growth and sustainable use of the natural resource base.

F ARA will complement, at the pan-African level, the innovative activities of the national and sub-regional research institutions to deliver more responsive and effective services to their stakeholders. The stakeholders and partners of FARA include national agricultural research systems (NARSs), sub-regional organizations (SROs), farmers’ organizations, producers, processors, consumers, market agents, especially women’s groups, non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), private sector, donors, centers belonging to the consultative group on international agricultural research (CGIAR), universities and advanced research institutes (ARIs).

Aguilar-Manjarrez, J & Soto, D 2007. Aquaculture Networking in the Americas RedLAC/ANA. In FAO Aquaculture Newsletter No. 38. Rome. pp 29.

Barg, U 2007. Network of Aquaculture Centers in Central and Eastern Europe – NACEE. In FAO Aquaculture Newsletter No. 38. pp 28.

Bueno, P 2007. Asia-Pacific-NACA. Why and How does a “NACA” Work? In FAO Aquaculture Newsletter No. 38. Rome. pp 22-27.

CIFA 2007. Report Of The CIFA ad hoc Working Group For The Establishment Of An African Aquaculture Network (Draft). Accra, Ghana. 11p.

CIFA/FAO 2003. Report of the twelfth session of the Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa. Yaoundé, Cameroon, 2-5 December 2002. Rapport de la douzième session

22

du Comité des pêches continentals pour l’Afrique. Yaoundé, Cameroun, 2-5 décembre 2002 FAO Fisheries Report/FAO Rapport sur les pêches. FAO/CIFA. Accra. .

CIFA/FAO 2004. Opportunities for and requirements of a NACA-like mechanism in Africa. Report of Thirteenth Session of the Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa, Entebbe, Uganda 27-30 October 2004. FAO/CIFA. Rome. .

CIFA/FAO 2007. Report on the fourteenth session of the Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa. (Rapport sur la quatorzième session du Comité des pêches continentales pour l’Afrique.) Accra, Ghana, 22-24 November 2006. . FAO Fisheries Report/FAO Rapport sur les pêches No. 836. FAO. Rome. 46p.

Crespi, V & Aguilar-Manjarrez, J 2007. Aquaculture Information for Sector Development, Networking, and Decision-Making. In FAO Aquaculture Newsletter No. 38. Rome. pp 32-33.

FAO 2004. Report of and papers presented at the Regional Workshop on Networking for Improved Access to Fisheries and Aquaculture Information in Africa. Grahamstown, South Africa. (Rapport de et documents présentés à l’Atelier régional sur le renforcement du réseau pour l’accès à l’information sur la pêche et l'aquaculture en Afrique. Grahamstown, Afrique du Sud. 3-7 novembre 2003. FAO Fisheries Report/FAO Rapport sur les pêches No. 740. FAO. Rome. 232p.

FAO 2005. Informe del Taller sobre Factibilidad de Establecimiento de una Red de Cooperación en Acuicultura en América Latina y el Caribe. Panamá, República de Panamá, Report of the Workshop on the Feasibility of Establishing a Regional Cooperation Network for Aquaculture in Latin America and the Caribbean. Panama, Republic of Panama, 6-8 December 2004. FAO Informe de Pesca/FAO Fisheries Report No. 773. FAO. Rome. 43p.

FARA 2008. ABOUT FARA. http://www.fara-africa.org/about-us/.FARA 2001. Constitution of the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA).

FARA. 7p.LVFO 2008. ABOUT LVFO. http://www.lvfo.org/index.php?

option=displaypage&Itemid=135&op=page.LVFO 1998. The Convention for the Establishment of the LAKE VICTORIA FISHERIES

ORGANIZATION, as amended by the Council of Ministers at its Second Session, held in Nairobi, Kenya on 12 November 1998 LVFO. 40p.

Maembe, T.W., Abban, E.K. & Xiawei, Z. 2004. Report of FAO Aquaculture Mission to Burkina FASO (West Africa); Cameroon (Central Africa); Kenya (East Africa) and Zambia (Southern Africa) to assess the status of aquaculture development networking 3-24 December 2003. CIFA/FAO. Accra. 49p.

Moehl, J, Halwart, M & Kalende, M 2007. ANAF: the beginnings of an aquaculture network for Africa. In FAO Aquaculture Network No. 38. Rome. pp 30-31.

Moehl, J., Beerneats, I., Coche, A.G., Halwart, M & Sagua, V.O. 2001. Proposal for an African network on integrated irrigation and aquaculture. Proceedings of a workshop held in Accra, Ghana, 20-21 September 1999. FAO. Rome. 75p.

NACA 2008. ABOUT NACA. http://www.enaca.org/modules/tinyd1/.NACA 2008. Excerpt from the Terminal Report of the UNDP/FAO Project to Establish

the Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia- Pacific, FAO Fisheries Departmen.

23

http://www.enaca.org/modules/tinyd1/index.php?id=304 or http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/69925/V5673E00.htm.

NACA 2008. AGREEMENT ON THE NETWORK OF AQUACULTURE CENTRES IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC, Bangkok, 8 January 1988 (As amended by the Governing Council at its 14th Meeting, 28 March – 01 April 2003, Yangon, Myanmar). http://www.enaca.org/modules/wfdownloads/viewcat.php?cid=110.

NACA 2008. NACA’s role in aquaculture development in Asia-Pacific. http://www.enaca.org/modules/tinyd1/index.php?id=311.

NACA 2008. Lessons Learned from the Establishment and Operation of NACA. http://www.enaca.org/modules/tinyd1/print.php?id=308.

NACEE 2004a. Founding Document of the Network of Aquaculture Centers in Central Eastern Europe (NACEE). Accepted by the Directors of member institutions/organizations, Szarvas, Hungary, 23 November 2004. NACEE. 4p.

NACEE 2004b. Meeting Report: First Meeting of Directors of NACEE. NACEE. Szarvas, Hungary. 6p.

NACEE 2008. ABOUT NACEE. http://www.agrowebcee.net/subnetwork/nacee/index.php?page=about.

NACEE 2005b. Meeting Report of the Second Meeting of Directors of the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Central Eastern Europe. NACEE. Astrakhan, Russian Federation. 4p.

RECOFI 2008. ABOUT US (RAIS Regional Aquaculture Information System of RECOFI). http://www.rais...

24