INCO Concerted Action
INCO Concerted Action
Artemia Biodiversity:
Current global resources and
their sustainable exploitation
Artemia Biodiversity:
Current global resources and
their sustainable exploitation
ICA4-CT-2001-10020
ICA4-CT-2001-10020
Summary of Final Report
Management Report
Period
1
January
2002-31
Period 1 January 2002-31 December 2004
1
December
2004
1. ORGANISATION OF THE COLLABORATION


Overall project management: performed by Project Coordinator (RUG)
Communication flow: all partners had easy access to email. With few exceptions, all partners met
at the occasion of the workshops, where planning is made. Moreover, there is regular
communication between several (groups of) partners in the framework of the thematic and regional
actions.

Communication through website:
All information, relevant to the Project, was offered online via a website, linked to and hosted by
the Coordinator’s website (see http://allserv.rug.ac.be/aquaculture/rend/inco.htm).This website
contains general project information (objectives; action plans and partnerships); information about
meetings (list of participants, presentations…), reports, and is to be used as a forum for
information exchange from the Coordinator to the members and between the respective members.
Originally worked out as a site with access restricted to INCO members (and associates), in 2004
access was made free for all information offered on the website, except for items under
construction (Artemia site database and Manual of Protocols). In 2004 an effort was made to
translate the website’s headlines and main information into Spanish.
Are equally offered online:
 Cyst bank: integrated cyst bank database of project partners
 ISA publications: The International Study on Artemia (ISA) is an informal working group
of Artemia experts worldwide, of whom several are members in the INCO consortium, and
who have published nearly 70 joint publications in peer-reviewed journals since the late
seventies. As these are often crucial information for Artemia experts worldwide, it was
decided to add the list of publications to the INCO website, and to provide for a
downloadable full-text version of as many publications as possible
Through http://www.nedstatbasic.net/ the number of visits to the INCO website was registered and
analysed. A summary of statistics is presented below:
Monthly pageviews
Monthly pageviews
160
120
100
80
60
40
20
2
ar
M
5
n/
0
ja
p
N
ov
Se
Ju
l
ay
M
ar
4
month/year
M
n/
0
ja
N
ov
p
Se
Ju
l
ay
M
ar
M
3
n/
0
ja
p
N
ov
Se
Ju
l
ay
M
ar
/0
2
0
M
number of pageviews
140
Geographical origin of pageviews
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Continent of origin
Europe
Asia
South America
Central America
North America
Africa
Australia
Unknown
Total
Europe
Asia
South America
Central America
North America
Africa
Unknown
Australia
number
1367
367
269
111
86
74
11
21
%
59.3
15.9
11.7
4.8
3.7
3.2
0.5
0.9
2306
100.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Country of origin
Belgium
Greece
Iran
Spain
Argentina
Mexico
Italy
Chile
India
USA
China
Tunisia
Vietnam
Brazil
France
Peru
Germany
Canada
UK
Denmark
Algeria
Japan
Australia
Thailand
Egypt
Unknown
Others
Total
Belgium
Greece
Iran
Spain
Argentina
Mexico
Italy
Chile
India
USA
others
3
number
850
192
136
122
114
111
76
71
71
68
61
47
46
37
35
31
27
18
12
11
11
11
10
10
9
21
98
%
36.9
8.3
5.9
5.3
4.9
4.8
3.3
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.6
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
4.2
2306
100.0
Grouped per year, the number of pageviews shows an increasing trend (2002: 438; 2003: 350; 2004:
1154; 2005 (4 first months): 364), which suggests that it has taken some time before the website was
accepted as a valuable source of information.
The geographical origin of the pageviews is distorted by the fact that also pageviews from Belgium
(maintenance and updating of website by Project Coordinator) are included in the statistics. The large
majority (84%) of pageviews originate from the countries of the Project members; 16 % of pageviews
from non-member countries, however, show that the website has acquired a certain amount of
relevance as source of information for project outsiders. Moreover, the statistics for providers/domains
through which the website is visited, show that in the 14 countries of the Project members, the site is
often consulted by non-members. This suggests that the website in the first place becomes a source of
information for those institutes-universities-companies which are in contact or familiar (in one way or
another) with the project members at the national level.

Joint consortium activities beyond project period:
In order to promote the visibility of the INCO Artemia Biodiversity Consortium as a group, and to
strengthen the links between Consortium Members beyond the project period, the Consortium
partners agreed to proceed to the realization of “Manual” of Artemia study: “Artemia Biodiversity:
Protocols and Guidelines for Study and Sustainability” and to continue with the integration of Cyst
Bank and Artemia Site databases. The Consortium considers this publication and databases to
represent a direct and essential contribution to the realization of the Project Objectives.
4
2. MEETINGS
PROJECT WORKSHOPS
2.1. Ghent Global Workshop (February 5-7, 2002)
Number of participants INCO partners: 17
Number of participans non-INCO partners: 8
Terms of reference: general topics of species description and species characterization, population
description, biodiversity, intercalibration of methodologies; planning of other workshops; planning of
training courses
Oral presentations:
a) INCO Members
Sorgeloos Patrick (RUG), Van Stappen Gilbert (RUG), Bossier Peter (CLO-DVZ), Abatzopoulos
Theodore (AUTH), Amat Francisco (CSIC), Nguyen Van Hoa (CTU), Romdhane Mohammed (INAT),
Kaiser Horst (RU), Xin Naihong (SRI), Agh Naser (UU), Castro Mejia Jorge (UMAX), Camara
Marcos (UFRN), Gajardo Gonzalo (ULL), Maryan Peter (IART)
b) Guest Speakers
Boyko Elena (Tyumen State Agricultural Academy - The Siberian Science-Research and ProjectConstruction Institute of Fishery Tyumen, Russia), Brendonck Luc (Laboratory Aquatic Ecology,
Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium), Clegg Jim (Bodega Marine Laboratory, Section of
Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Bodega Bay, USA), Criel Godelieve
(Department of Anatomy, Embryology and Histology, Ghent University, Belgium), De Meester Luc
(Laboratory Aquatic Ecology, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium), MacRae Tom (Department of
Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., Canada), Marden Brad (Research and Development,
Utah Strategic Alliance, Utah, USA)
Conclusions and Recommendations: Planning of Consortium Strategy
1. Involvement of ‘Associated’ INCO partners
2. Identification of ‘Action Plans’ and ‘Partnerships’: Database, Cyst bank, Publications, Reports,
Website, Code of Conduct for conservation of biodiversity and sustainable exploitation, Regional
partnerships (Africa, China, Iran, Mediterranean, Central Asia, Latin America, South Asia), Thematic
partnerships (Adaptation/Speciation, Diapause, Plasticity)
3. Planning of Workshops and Training (Study visits)
2.2. 1st Regional Workshop (Beijing, China, September 23-26, 2002)
Number of participants INCO partners: 24
Number of participans non-INCO partners: 17
Terms of reference: Artemia resources of China (coastal and inland); threats for local populations by
introduction of foreign species; initial evaluation of training courses
Oral presentations:
a) INCO Members
Li Shusheng (SRI), Sorgeloos Patrick (RUG), Van Stappen Gilbert (RUG), Bossier Peter (CLO-DVZ),
Abatzopoulos Theodore (AUTH), Amat Francisco (CSIC), Mura Graziella (La Sapienza), Rosa
Graciela Cohen de Sanchez (UBA): Van Hong Nguyen Thi (CTU), Kaiser Horst (RU), Sui Liying
(SRI), Yu Xiuling (SRI), Agh Naser (UU), Thalia Castro (UMAX), Camara Marcos (UFRN), Gajardo
Gonzalo (ULL), Maryan Peter (IART)
b) Guest Speakers
Chen Shao-zhong (Hangu Saltworks, Hangu, Tianjin), Jia Qinxian (Open Laboratory of Saline Lake
Resources and Environment, The Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing), Kong Fanjing
(Research & Development Center of Salt lake and Epithermal Deposits, Chinese Academy of
Geological Sciences, Beijing), Sun Jingxian (Dalian Fisheries University, Dalian), Zeng Hui (Life
Sciences College, Nankai University, Tianjin), Zhang Fu (Marine Science and Engineering College,
Tianjin Science and Technology University, Tanggu, Tianjin)
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Artemia resources of China (coastal and inland)
5
2. Threats for local populations by introduction of foreign species
2.3. 2nd Regional Workshop (Puerto Varas, Chile, November 16-20, 2003)
Number of participants INCO partners: 17
Number of participans non-INCO partners: 1
Terms of reference: Artemia resources of Latin America; Genetics and speciation; Intermediate
evaluation of training courses
Oral presentations:
a) INCO Members
Gajardo Gonzalo (ULL), Van Stappen Gilbert (RUG), Bossier Peter (CLO-DVZ), Abatzopoulos
Theodore (AUTH), Baxevanis Athanasios (AUTH), Amat Francisco (CSIC), Cohen Rosa Graciela
(UBA), Romdhane Mohammed S. (INAT), Kaiser Horst (RU), Xin Naihong (SRI), Agh Naser (UU),
Castro Thalía (UMAX), Camara Marcos (UFRN), Beristain Patricia (ULL), Peter Marian (IART)
b) Guest speaker
Guillermo Chong (Departamento de Ciencias Geológicas, Universidad Católica del Norte, Av.
Angamos 0610, Antofagasta, Chile)
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Genetic research in Latin America
2. Status of the genetic characterization of the New World Artemia species found in Latin American
countries: Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia
3. The Latin American samples in the context of global genetic Artemia (RFLP database) study
2.4. 3nd Regional Workshop (Urmia, Iran, September 21-25, 2004)
Number of participants INCO partners: 24
Number of participants non-INCO partners: 82
Terms of reference:Artemia resources of Central Asia; Sustainable exploitation; Final evaluation of
training courses and previous workshops
Oral presentations:
Abatzopoulos Theodore (AUTH), Amat Francisco (CSIC), Mura Graziella (La Sapienza), Castro
Barrera Thalia (UMAX), Gajardo Gonzalo (ULL), Kaiser Horst (RUG), Romdhane Mohammed S.
(INAT), Seddighi R. (Atomic Energy organization of Iran, Iran), Hafezieh M. (Iranian Fisheries
Research Organization, IFRO, Iran), Noori Farzaneh (UU), Tabiee O. (Azad University of Arsanjan,
Iran), Eimanifar A. (Iranian Fisheries Research Organization, IFRO, Iran), Nasiri S.K. (University of
Baghdad, Iraq), Marian Peter (IART), Sultana Razia (Food & Marine Resources Research Center,
Pakistan), Xin Naihong (SRI), Baxevanis Athanasios (AUTH), Bossier Peter (RUG), Van Stappen
Gilbert (RUG), Mirabdullayev Iskandar (Institute of Zoology, Uzbekistan), M.R. Camara (UFRN), H.
Nguyen Van (CTU), H. Negarestan (Iranian Fisheries Research Organization, IFRO, Iran), L.
Vdovchenko (Siberian Research and Design Institute of Fisheries, Russia), E. Boyko (Siberian
Research and Design Institute of Fisheries, Russia), A. Kurtulus (INVE, Kazakhstan), B. Marden
(Parliament Fisheries LCC, USA), Naser Agh (UU)
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. A. franciscana as invasive species: Bohai Bay area, China; Western Mediterranean; South
Asia: India and Sri Lanka
2. Artemia biodiversity in Africa
3. Artemia biodiversity in southern South America
4. Artemia biodiversity in continental Asia: Lake Urmia area, Iran; Aral Sea; PR China
5. Joint activities INCO Consortium beyond project period
6
3. EXCHANGES
OVERVIEW OF TRAININGS VISITING SCIENTISTS
VISITING SCIENTIST
COUNTRY
PARTNER
DURATION (MONTHS)
NO
Host institute: partners 1 and 2: ARC-CLO/DVZ
Visits of INCO partner staff on INCO budget
Mrs. Patricia Beristain
Chile
14
3
Mr. Naser Agh
Iran
11
1½+1½
Mrs. Farzaneh Noori
Iran
11
1½
Mr. Hachem Ben Naceur
Tunisia
8
¾
Dr. Wang Xiaomei
China
10
4¾
Mr. Ramin Manaffar
Iran
11
1¼
Visits of scientists belonging to “associated” INCO partners or funded by other projects
Mr. Naser Agh
Iran
11
3
Mrs. Farzaneh Noori
Iran
11
3
Dr. Gudraz Sadeghi
Iran
11
¼
Mrs. Sui Liying
China
10
2+1
Mrs. Yu Haiying
China
10
9½
Mr. Xin Naihong
China
10
¼
Dr. Nguyen Van Hoa
Vietnam
7
3+¼
Dr. Truong Trong Nghia
Vietnam
7
6½ +2½
Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong Van
Vietnam
7
3
Mr. Jerome Davis
South Africa
9
17
Prof. Gonzalo Gajardo
Chile
14
¼+¼
Prof. Th. Abatzopoulos
Greece
3
¼
Dr. Iskandar Mirabdullayev
Uzbekistan
¼
Host institute: partner 2: AUTH
Visits of INCO partner staff on INCO budget
Mr. Julio Crespo
Chile
14
2¼
Dr. Horst Kaiser
South Africa
9
3
Dr. Marcos Camara
Brazil
13
2¾
Mrs. T. Hong Van
Vietnam
7
2¾
Dr. Peter Marian
India
15
½
Dr. Alba Papeschi
Argentina
6
1
Dr. Graziella Mura
Italy
4
½
Dr. Gudraz Sadeghi
Iran
11
¼
Visits of scientists belonging to “associated” INCO partners or funded by other projects
Dr. N. Van Hoa
Vietnam
7
¾
Mrs. Yu Haying
China
10
1
Dr. Tom MacRae
Canada
½
Mrs. Olga Ruiz Perez
Spain
4
2
Host institute: partner 3: CSIC
Visits of INCO partner staff on INCO budget
Hachem Ben Naceur
Tunisia
8
2
Juliete Goenaga
Argentina
6
2
Peter Marian
India
15
½
Visits of scientists belonging to “associated” INCO partners or funded by other projects
Graziella Mura
Italy
4
¼
Salvatore Moscatello et al.
Italy
4
7
4. PROBLEMS, COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
No major problems were encountered in the scientific realization of this project.
Although invitees for training often originated from disciplines different to those of molecular genetics
and taxonomy, the problems anticipated during their adaptation were either minor or non-existent.
At the occasion of the 3rd Regional workshop, Consortium members evaluated the (almost) past
project. Generally all partners (especially non-EU) highly appreciated the opportunities offered by the
project, i.e. the integration into a worldwide network, the establishment of new links through the
project. This often acted as a catalyzer to establish new links outside the consortium, and as a leverage
and source of recognition and credit (non-financial ánd financial) for the participating laboratories.
Recommendations and thoughts were further formulated on a number of aspects. Basically these
comments are not intended as criticism towards the Consortium, the Coordinator nor the financing
organization. They are to be regarded as reflections on the occasional discrepancy between the
Project’s objectives and its conceptual and budgetary framework on one hand, and the socio-economic,
cultural and human context within which its members operate, on the other.
Overall coordination and interaction:
 The consortium grouped 15 partners of sometimes very diverging scientific, socio-economic and
cultural background. The heterogeneity of the partners in terms of scientific ‘performance’
(determined amongst others by number of staff employed, previous expertise of partner in projectrelated research items, attitude towards international collaboration, availability of funds to perform
research) may result in a different pace in generating ‘results’ (research findings, publications…),
and consequently a certain competition, among partners which may eventually lead to frustration.
Though generating research findings as such is strictly spoken not the objective of a Concerted
Action project, it was the Coordinator’s role to neutralize these dissimilarities and to maximally
promote the integration of all Consortium members to the best of his abilities.
 The Project has resulted in intensified North-North and North–South interactions. Within the
consortium, links existing from pre-Project times were generally considerably strengthened, and
numerous new North-South links were established. Though maximal integration of Consortium
members was one of the ultimate goals, it is impossible in a group of 15 for members to interact
with all other 14 partners at the same level. Hence intense cooperation within ‘clusters’ of partners
spontaneously occurs, which may result in fast progress and generation of results (e.g. group
working on Mediterranean Artemia biodiversity). Once again, it’s primarily the Coordinator’s role
to ensure that the global picture stays within view. Though new South-South interaction has been
triggered by the Project, this facet of concerted action has not primarily been in the focus of
attention of this Project, and possibly opportunities may have been under-utilized (cfr budget
limitations for this type of exchange, see further).
Timing:
 A project with a relatively large number of partners (many of which are new to each other) may
face a considerable ‘lag’ time before partners feel themselves as being ‘integrated’ into the group
and its activities. In spite of the kick-off meeting being organized in an early phase of the project
(Global Workshop Ghent, Belgium, February 2002), most partners recognized that it was only
after the Beijing workshop (September 2002) that they had a sense of belonging to the consortium,
with the obligations ánd opportunities this implied, and that they started to interrelate and interact
accordingly. The limited number of training stays in the first year (2002) illustrates this delayed
start. In practice, this means that many partners (especially those having limited experience in
international collaboration) did not optimally benefit from their first year participation to the
Consortium.
 Due to the rather limited period of stay for most trainings (generally 3 months or less), often the
invitee left the hosting institute at the moment when he/she was competent to produce scientific
results in an optimal and efficient way.
8
Finances:
 The efficiency of the training stays and of Project research in general was highly dependent on the
availability of non-INCO funds, to be used for consumables, which make up a substantial cost in
the use of e.g. molecular techniques. It is therefore obvious that the production of scientific results,
described in the scientific reports, has been accomplished using other, non-INCO funds of the
hosting and other laboratories. The same comment is valid for expenses needed for field sampling,
and for other intercalibration and multidisciplinary research that has been performed within the
framework of this INCO project, whenever a major financial input was required to cover costs for
consumables (e.g. SEM observations).
 Generally, the lack of budget for explicit South-South exchange (except for participation to
workshops) and training was experienced as a potential hindrance for non-EU partners to
maximally benefit from the realizations of the project.
 Insufficient knowledge of the budgetary limitations of an EU Concerted Action project (e.g. no
money for research (consumables, labour) as such) among partners, not familiar with this type of
projects, or with EU projects in general, could have been countered by a more thorough
information round at an initial stage of the project, and preferably even in the stage of proposal
writing. The same remark can be made for the financial management of this type of EU project (cfr
eligible costs; no advance payment by EU; downpayment a rato of expenses claimed etc.). Though
all necessary information was forwarded to Project members, non-experienced partners may face
problems in the actual application of this information and guidelines.
 For some countries (e.g. Iran, Chile, Argentina….), budgets allocated to members were subject to
considerable fluctuations in exchange rates of national currency to euro (read: depreciation of
national currency; inflation), aggravated by the need to apply (for the cost statements) the
exchange rates of the month of January following the year expenses have been made. For several
members this resulted in a considerable de facto reduction in working budget, compared to the
original budget provided for (for Argentina the problem was further worsened by the financial
crisis in the country during the project period, and consequently the need to manage the partner
budget through a US$ account, hence implying extra costs).
9