Although these thematic areas concerned, respectively, Biotechnology and Genetics in Aquaculture and Nutrition and Feeding, matters raised in the panel discussions did not stick rigidly to the topics presented but referred back to previous topics and this is reflected in the summary points. The following summary presents discussion points made in a coherent overall framework, based on the priorities selected in Day I Panel Discussions.
Further contributions to the discussion (not included here for the sake of brevity) can be viewed here.

Aquaculture challenges in Asia

Europe and Asia can achieve concrete and realistic responses to the challenges set by the Bangkok Declaration on Sustainable Aquaculture by establishing cooperative actions and networking.

Bi-Regional scientific and societal cooperation that supports the transition towards sustainable aquaculture must recognise the differences between Europe and Asia, culturally and economically, socially and practically, in order to realise its ambitions.

Nevertheless, there are key issues that are developing in both Regions which directly concern the consumer and these are:

1. Food safety
2. Food quality
3. Environmental effects of aquaculture

The very perception of aquaculture by the consumer is directly influenced by these issues, irrespective of the location, the means of production, or the product.

The ASEM should develop a constant and reliable platform for effective cooperation and networking on sustainable aquaculture. Networking objectives should be long term, avoiding the "quick solution" and be based on full stakeholder involvement and using vertical and horizontal integration measures for complete and effective cooperation.

The driving forces for this course of action are:

1. Trade
   1. Trade opportunities (products, equipment, services…..)
   2. Consumer perception of seafood products
   3. Traceability
   4. Food safety and quality

2. Sustainability
   1. Environmental issues
   2. Technical and biological issues
      1. Husbandry
      2. Grow-out systems
      3. Fish health
      4. Feeds and feed components
      5. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
   3. Social
      1. Equity
      2. Food security
      3. Consumer nutrition
   4. Financial
      1. Maintenance/establishment of markets
      2. Market stability
      3. Reducing investment risk

3. Social Equity
   1. Provision of platform for sustainable development of aquaculture
   2. Support for smallholder production and market access
   3. Identification of environmental/management options
   4. Recognition of role of women in aquaculture (gender issues)
   5. Identification of generic solutions

These core areas also include the following principal themes that direct scientific aquaculture research priorities:

• Environmentally responsible grow-out systems
• Integrated management systems, incorporating ecosystem health and biodiversity considerations
• Nutrition and feeding strategies that account for sustainability and consumer concerns
• Adaptive and appropriate use of biotechnology and genetics
• Appreciation of global economics, supply and demand, marketing and distribution
• Development and application of GMPs, Codes and appropriate self-regulatory mechanisms.

The opportunities presented by the ASEM process are multiple but clear and realistic actions for effective progress need to be identified. New partnerships involving societal stakeholders, public and private bodies and representatives of civil society, are required and these must be supported by transparent scientific knowledge.

The bi-regional approach to sustainable aquaculture must be based on an integrated approach which will:

• Combine the environmental, socio-cultural and economic dimensions
• Construct inter-disciplinary networking around the principal themes involved
• Build bridges between the different types of partnerships involved

The extension and expansion of existing Regional research, knowledge and learning networks will be particularly effective in stimulating the dynamic multiplier effects required for the achievement of sustainable aquaculture.

Capacity building should be encouraged in all areas of the food supply chain and associated sectoral inputs. Encouragement for self-governance, through the development of specific Codes of Conduct and Practice, must be accompanied by a reinforcement of Associative structures for aquaculture production.
Such strengthening would lead to small-scale producers raising their potential for participation in the decision-making process. Carrying these actions through to the Regional level would provide coherent partners for governments and create a stronger position for facilitating the sustainable development of Asian aquaculture.

The building and mobilisation of research capacity in both Regions, taking advantage of synergistic actions within other programmes, will provide a framework that will underpin policy decisions, public/private partnerships and local and Regional initiatives for the implementation of a sustainable aquaculture strategy.

The achievement of the cooperative and networking actions required should be through the creation of an ASEM Aquaculture Platform that would provide the focal point for ASEM partners to mobilise their strengths and to facilitate the actions required to achieve the goals identified.

Biotechnology discussion points

1. Improvement of aquaculture stocks
   • there is a lack of broad support for GMOs (strong opposition from EU industry, reflecting negative public perception)
   • acknowledgement of need for further research, but after discussion with other interested groups on areas to investigate (lack of trust in science, need for 'education')
   • need to clarify rationale for GMOs (more food? Improved growth? Other concepts?)
2. Molecular tools
   • diagnostic/analytical - but need to match the hardware with expertise development
   • capacity building: structure of breeding programme requires political action
   • new techniques will be affected by scale (structure of organization, Intellectual Property/ownership issues, etc; need to clarify best way forward(licences at no cost to developing communities? Free in country of origin? Sharing of IPR rewards?)
3. Quality of food
   • need for agreed standards (CODEX)
   • change (EU) from end product standards to process control
   • recognition (earlier regional meetings/programmes) of positive outcomes of training at farm level in Asia
4. Fish health
   • widespread support for progress from cure (antibiotics) to prevention via vaccines (NB, new compounds unlikely due to cost of development/authorization)
   • potential for bioremediation from probiotics and fungi)
   • practical difficulties (China, Asia) from farmers' reliance on established methods over animal welfare issues/animal integrity
5. Preservation of Genetic Resource
   • limited support for precautionary establishment of sperm/embryo bank (genetic variation remains extant in wild populations, with exception of particular freshwater stocks)
   • possible contribution of habitat conservation/protection to support wild stock/genetic diversity
   • recognition of significance of stable/profitable market to support industry of many participants (cf, concentration) which is associated with genetic variation (cf, poultry industry where there are very few remaining species worldwide)
6. Microbial/microalgae
   • well-established in principle, but need for more information/data on pond dynamics
7. Cross-cutting themes
   • networking, within and between regions, between research and industrial communities (BUT networking will not help small farmer with no access to expensive techniques)
   • dialogue with other interest groups(consumers, NGOs, etc)
   • education and training, from government to farmer
   • contribution to government policies