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/Page2

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 results Side/Page

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

Side/Page 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 good Side/Page

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

Side/Page 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 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 POLICY COHERENCE AND ALIGNMENT PARTNER 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