The main lessons learned from the Expert Consultation can be summarised as follows:
The Expert consultation produced a summarized list of what it considered to be successful strategies for aquaculture development and the reasons behind this success, the results of which are presented in Box 16.
Box 16: The summary conclusions of what makes successful poverty focussed aquaculture interventions |
|
|
|
What works? |
Why does it work? |
|
|
· Process projects |
· Beneficiaries can set their own criteria and indicators of success · Allows for revision of targets goals, and adjustment of strategies and activities |
|
|
· Ensure ownership through participatory approaches |
· Answers local needs rather than externally driven solutions |
|
|
· Process of finding out what people need and want in relation to what projects can offer - based on immersion within the community and spending time with farmers |
· Automatically generates interest · Creates a more thorough understanding of development objectives and appropriate strategies |
|
|
· Starting small, with low levels of risk - mistakes have no big implication |
· Manageable for local groups - but needs to provide tangible livelihood benefits · Builds confidence and learn form experience |
|
|
· Participatory technology development, utilising local/indigenous knowledge |
· Using local knowledge and resources produces locally appropriate strategies, increases ownership of the results and often develops a long-term view |
|
|
· Demand-led, farmer first, people centred approaches |
· This develops strategies that are appropriate to local context and poor people's needs |
|
|
· Extension of appropriate technologies (for example, hapa spawning hapa nursing) |
· Low cost, low risk - very appropriate for poorer groups such as women |
|
|
· Low food chain, low cost and marketed at small size species |
· Consumed within the household (whereas high value species are more likely to be sold) |
|
|
· Breaking up the production cycle, deliberately identify opportunities for poor landless people to become involved in parts of this. |
· Creates opportunities for groups that would otherwise not be able to derive direct benefits form aquaculture |
|
|
· Transparency and involvement in decision making |
· Generates sense of ownership |
|
|
· Target all the household members |
· All have something to offer, and potential benefits to gain · Women and girl children may otherwise be denied access to benefits |
|
|
· Technologies have to be developed according to the local context |
· Integration of aquaculture and aquatic resource interventions for the poor where they are integrated with agriculture are better. i.e must be part of the larger livelihood system · Adoption is often quicker than if aquaculture is used as an individual intervention |
|
|
· Farmer field schools |
· Farmers given opportunity to discover and learn processes rather than be told facts · This enables them to make decisions from a position of knowledge |
|
|
· Networking /partnerships exposure trips |
· May be costly and difficult to establish, however there can be considerable benefits |
|
|
· Farmer to farmer visits |
· Relate well to each other · Use farmers to train other farmers |
|
|
· Projects endorsed by respected persons (royal project), but follows other preceding principles |
· Motivates people & ensures full effort from local people |
|
|
· Monitoring and evaluation should involve participatory process that can identify qualitative aspects - including local people's indicators of success |
· Ensures that projects meet the needs of intended beneficiaries · Allows poor people to critically assess strategies and outcomes |
|
|
· Good staff facilitators |
· Maximises communication, experience sharing group strengthening |
|
|
· Targeted, limited subsidies |
· Some form of subsidy may be appropriate, particularly for the poorer farmers, but there must be some form of contribution form the target beneficiary |
|
|
· Supporting local fry traders as extension workers |
· Fry traders and seed producers have the greatest incentives to transmit information and skills to their clients. |
Box 17: The summary conclusions of what makes unsuccessful poverty focussed aquaculture interventions |
|
|
|
What does not work? |
Why does it not work? |
|
|
· Inappropriate subsidies and training allowances |
· Subsidies can suppress farmer innovation, creating artificial environment for production, that may not be viable once subsidies are no longer available · If farmers are providing their own inputs they make more careful decisions. |
|
|
· Large centralised hatcheries |
· Do not reach remote areas too expensive and often fail after withdrawal of support. · Opportunities for poor people to become involved in hatchery production and trade are denied |
|
|
· Technology led interventions |
· Mostly technologies already developed were not targeted at the poor and adoption is low |
|
|
· Overseas training for extension staff |
· Poor design & inappropriate curricula · Not cost effective · Trained staff may leave the sector (although capacity developed may be useful in other aspects of work) |
|
|
· Top down management planning extension etc. |
· Out of touch with local circumstances and local needs |
|
|
· Targeting only the poorest |
· Leads to jealousy and problems with patron client relationships · Maybe we want to do this? Social capital and networking is damaged. · NGO in a series of villages and targeted only the poorest - when they left the poor who had been targeted had lost access to the patrons that they had previously relied upon |
|
|
· Projects themselves should not provide credit |
· Causes problems and is inefficient. The project should seek to work through existing finance structures. Project should facilitate access. · Might be possible provided there are distinct separations between the roles - i.e. a specific person for the credit - but there may still be some confusion. |
|
|
· Short term projects |
· Insufficient time for learning · Slow reaction time means results often only occur after project closure |