Page 9 - FAO Aquaculture News, May 2021 - No. 63

too short to complete the assigned tasks; and it was difficult
FIGURE 1 – The four priority areas of the Global Plan of
Action for Aquatic Genetic Resources. to be flexible with groups who wanted to extend discussions
given that the programme required delegates to return to the
main room at a set time. As the workshops were regional,
National, regional interpretation was only required for a maximum of one
and global Appropriate
characterization, development of language. In these cases, the interpretation was manageable
monitoring and AqGR for within the Zoom format although, for the working group
information aquaculture sessions, we were required to group non-English speakers
Global Aquaculture Updates
systems for AqGR
together given that interpretation was not available in the
break-out room environment.
Policies,
Sustainable use institutions and The upside and the downside
and conservation capacity building
of AqGR for AqGR Overall, we believe that we successfully adapted the virtual
management format to the target objectives and are comfortable that
these workshops achieved their objectives, and this was
confirmed by the delegates in the post-workshop survey.

The format had its upsides and downsides but, in closing,
We set out with the goal of trying to replicate the experience we wish to highlight one of the major advantages and the
and achieve the same objectives as we had expected to major drawback that we recognized with the virtual format.
achieve in a “standard” regional workshop format in which The opportunity presented by the switch to a virtual format
we met, or would have met, with the delegates combining was that we could extend the reach of the activity given
presentations, plenary discussion sessions, and break-out that we were no longer limited by the budget available for
working group sessions over a three-day period. The first the workshop organization and, in particular, the travel and
decision was that these semi-formal meetings, involving subsistence costs for the participants. We were thus able to
delegates (primarily national focal points appointed as expand the invitations and participation to a broader list of
country representatives, but also some other relevant stakeholders and a wider scope of expertise. We achieved
stakeholders) spanning multiple time zones, could not this by permitting national focal points (the formal national
practically be run successively over three full days, as it is representatives) to invite up to five additional stakeholders
difficult to maintain an adequate attention span in a virtual to support them in the workshops. Overall, the attendance
environment, especially if it was expected that delegates at these workshops was at least double what would have
in some time zones would have to work outside normal been possible in a face-to-face workshop (although, unlike
working hours. We settled on a format of 90–120 minute in a face-to-face workshop, the participants and national
sessions over five days, combining short presentations with representation often changed from one day to the next), but
discussion sessions. We held a sixth session a week after the despite this the overall costs of the workshops were reduced
final workshop session to discuss and adopt the workshop compared to the cost of running face-to-face workshops.
report. With the overall reduction in contact hours, it was
necessary for delegates to prepare for the workshop sessions Although we were able to generate strong interest in follow-
by reviewing pre-session reading material, which most up activities from some participants, a major downside of
delegates did. Online quizzes were provided as follow-up the virtual format was in the relative absence of relationship
exercises to allow delegates to evaluate their comprehension building through the workshop. In the African regional
of these reading materials. If sessions ran over 90 minutes, workshop in Ethiopia, delegates built relationships with each
we learned that delegates preferred to have a short five- other and with the organizers, made plans for cooperation,
minute break in the middle of the session. and were able to discuss the workshop contents and
other issues outside of the immediate environment of the
For the most part, FAO staff did not know the delegates workshop. These interactions often occurred over lunches,
and the delegates did not know each other, but the format coffees, dinners or walks outside the workshop venue.
did not really permit time for personal introductions, which These interactions do not occur in the virtual format, and
were instead done within the chat box. Without these within the confines of the format we developed, we were
introductions and without ice-breaking activities (difficult not able to find a solution to this dilemma. While we felt
in a virtual format), it was challenging in the early sessions that we got to know some of our national focal points and
to generate good constructive dialogue, although this would other delegates a little over the five days of the virtual
generally improve over time. However, this phenomenon is workshop, this was far inferior to the level of familiarity we
not unique and can also happen in face-to-face workshops. would be able to achieve in a face-to-face environment. For
It was certainly considered desirable for delegates to use this latter reason, while virtual workshops will have their
video, especially when speaking, but bandwidth issues place in the “new normal” and will be more commonplace
made this difficult for many delegates. (especially among groups who already know each other),
even when the COVID-19 pandemic (hopefully) fades to
The Zoom feature of break-out rooms was used for the a painful memory, we do not believe that virtual workshops
working group sessions, with delegates breaking out to the can ultimately replace the traditional face-to-face workshop
rooms for 50-minute discussion sessions, which were often in many circumstances.

8 FAO AQUACULTURE NEWS – Nº. 63 ■ MAY 2021