6. Conclusion

The main lessons learned from the Expert Consultation can be summarised as follows:

Understanding the context - of poor people's livelihoods, as well as institutional and policy making processes is essential
Targeting - in an inclusive manner - is essential to ensure that benefits reach poor people, and that strategies are appropriate to poor people's circumstances
Effective participation of poor people and project partners is essential, both as a means to an end, as an end in itself
Aquaculture and aquatic resource management strategies may not in themselves be sufficient to address all the needs of poor people, but can be important components of wider, cross-sectoral interventions
This requires more effective co-ordination, with innovative partnerships
Supporting poor people to organise effectively to exert influence on development planning and policy making processes, to secure rights of access to and control over aquatic resources, and to share and learn from each other's experience
Supporting institutions to be more responsive to the needs of poor people is essential in order to ensure that the deep-rooted causes of poverty are addressed, and that strategies adopted are sustainable

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