Appraisals – Fish farming projects

- Management- Development

Kirsten Bjøru

Senior Adviser

Norad

Initial Assessment

• Assessment of Partners’ planning process, enough information, relevant institutions involved etc

• Assessment of project/programme design, main issue to be addressed, design elements

• Assessment of Donor coordination, overlap or coordination, alignment. Re OECD DACs guidelines on harmonising donors

Side/Page 2

Appraisal I, Sustainability and risks - Policy and framework conditions (incl. corruption)- Economic, incl. alternative use of funding/labour/land

etc., upstream, downstream, markets- Financial viability, beneficiaries’ capacity to continue

without external support; present and future funding level by financing institution (often government), credit availability

- Environment- Socio-cultural and gender aspects- Institutional and organizational aspects, capacities- Any other significant risks that may prevent

achievement of resultsSide/Page 319.04.23

Appraisal II - Technical assessments

• Seed – availability, quality, import?, use of wild fish, production private /public

• Feed – availability, quality• Land – availability, access • Water – availability, access and quality• Location, site, environmental aspects

– Present use of water, land,location – potential conflicts with other users, role of women, indigenous peoples use, HR aspects

Side/Page 419.04.23

Side/Page 519.04.23

Appraisal III - Technical and Technological sustainability

• Technology level in terms of physical entities: boats, processing, aquaculture technology, training centers...

• Relevant technology, thoroughly tested/used, service available

• Need for upstream inputs (e.g. electricity, retailers, research, veterinary services) and downstream (roads, infrastructure) services

• Transfer of knowledge / Exchange of knowledge. Lesson learnt: From “transfer of technology” to ”institutional development”

Environment assessments, consequences of aquaculture development and for aquaculture development

• Has environmental factors, including, been assessed in the request ?

• Assess environmental aspects of all inputs, upstream

• EIA of the project, and monitoring• If environmental costs not included, economic

viability may not be goodSide/Page 619.04.23

Appraisal IV – Institutional assessment – Policies, context, where interventions are targeted

– Management of development and environment, legislation, research, extension. Re Art. 9, Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, FAO 1995, Technical guidelines 2011

– Capacities of public, research, private

– Markets, local/regional/international

– Infrastructure, transport and communication

– Credit availability, financial services, risks

– Socioeconomic factors, land/water ownership, resilience, adaptation to other sectors

Side/Page 719.04.23

Side/Page 819.04.23

Socio-Culture/Gender• Know the social, cultural and gender context well

• Use socio-economic knowledge, integrate the knowledge in project design, implementation, monitoring and redesign

• If relevant, define the beneficiaries and target groups. In line with Norwegian policies?

• Consider relevance, risk and uncertainty in socio-economic terms – event. consequences for groups

• Stakeholders’ participation: Public, private, users/users’ associations, civil society

• ‘Culture’ – husbandry or hunting/gathering, social organisations

Side/Page 919.04.23

Norwegian competence relevant ?

• How to cooperate technically, knowledge cooperation/transfer/twinning?

• Generic knowledge areas– Biology in general, location, environment, management

and legislation, policy

• Specific technical knowledge areas– Start feeding, fish health, selective breeding, marine

farming

• Look, listen and learn! – and then give advice

Side/Page 1019.04.23

POLICY COHERENCE AND ALIGNMENTPARTNER RESPONSIBILITY / NATIONAL OWNERSHIP

Paris, Accra declarations on aid effectiveness:

• National ownership and alignment: Recipient responsibility – fundamental concepts - introduced by Norway more than 20 years ago. National partner makes policy, has ownership and takes decisions. There must be policy coherence between national priorities and directions of development intervention.

• Mutual accountability: Shared vision and common goals – different roles and responsibilities

• Donors’ harmonisation.

• Focus on results