Member profile Browse all members Ms. Shanali Pethiyagoda Member since 2020 Organization: FAO Country: Italy Field(s) of expertise: Economic development
Ms. Shanali Pethiyagoda
As our work focuses on supporting countries in developing and implementing agriculture sector National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), we think our recommendations would in general be well-suited to monitoring of activities implemented under the “disaster risks and climate change” thematic area of the SSF Guidelines.
Defining progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries
We would like to point you to our upcoming knowledge product – “Addressing Fisheries in NAPs - Supplementary Guidelines to the UNFCCC NAP Technical Guidelines”. This is to be published in the following months, and includes a chapter on the fourth and final Element D of the National Adaptation Planning process which is “Reporting, monitoring and review”. This chapter provides guidance on how the fisheries sector could formulate a specific plan for monitoring and evaluating sector activities targeted by the NAP which enable greater adaptation outcomes for the systems and people of the fisheries and aquaculture sector. It also highlights principals for choosing M&E indicators for implementation of any sectoral NAP. We would be glad to share this publication with you once it is finalized.
Meaningful and feasible indicators: How can we measure progress?
Once again, under the disaster risks and climate change theme, we would suggest the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction Indicator C-2 on reducing direct agricultural loss attributed to disasters (https://www.preventionweb.net/files/55594_session4faomarkovaandkhim.pdf). It assesses the damage and loss in agriculture by agriculture subsector, including fisheries. There are two subcomponents worth highlighting here;
The “production loss” subcomponent captures the decline in production of each subsector that is irreversibly lost due to disaster. In the case of production loss in aquaculture and fisheries, indicators include the difference between expected and actual value of fisheries/aquaculture capture in disaster year. In the case of aquaculture the pre-disaster value of production lost in fully damaged aquaculture areas can be a useful indicator.
The “asset damage” sub-component measures disaster impact on facilities, machinery, tools, and key infrastructure related to agricultural production. Fisheries assets include ponds, hatcheries, freezers and storage buildings, engines and boats, fisheries equipment; forestry assets include, among others, standing timber, firebreaks and watch towers, forestry equipment and machinery, fire management equipment. The monetary value of (fully or partially) damaged assets is calculated using the replacement or repair/rehabilitation cost, and accounted under damage.
Furthermore, on the question of any monitoring and evaluation frameworks and data sources that we are aware of that could be drawn upon, we suggest the Uganda Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for National Adaptation Plan for Agriculture and the performance indicators for the Fishery component (document attached).
Participatory monitoring: Key elements and experiences
The work is in progress in some NAP-Ag countries, so experiences will be shareable in the future.