Big Data Platform for Smart Aquaculture
Step 2: Stakeholder mapping
Before any technical work begins, stakeholders who contribute to or depend on aquaculture data must be identified and mapped. This includes farmers, processors, government agencies, diagnostic laboratories, technology providers, financial institutions, and civil society. Understanding their data needs, digital literacy, and potential roles in the platform informs all subsequent design decisions and helps build the trust needed for sustained data sharing.
A critical outcome of this step is the selection of an institutional home for the platform. The institutional home significantly affects long-term sustainability, data governance, and perceived legitimacy.
The following considerations should guide the selection:
- Mandate and authority. The host institution should have a clear mandate for aquaculture data management, biosecurity, or fisheries statistics. Candidates include national aquaculture development authorities, fisheries ministries, and national research institutes with aquaculture responsibilities.
- Technical capacity. The institution should have or be able to develop the IT infrastructure, data management skills, and analytical capabilities needed to operate the platform.
- Trust and neutrality. Farmers and industry will only share data with an institution they trust to use it appropriately. Government agencies with a regulatory function may face resistance; co-location with a research or development agency may be preferable in some contexts. Trust comes with transparency and useful services to farmers as prime data collectors; the Platform should offer data services that are useful for and used by farmers.
- Multi-stakeholder governance. The host institution should be willing to establish a governance committee with representation from farmers, industry, government, and civil society.
- Financial sustainability. The institution should have access to sustained funding, either through government budget lines, development project support, or fee-for-service arrangements with commercial users.
A capacity self-assessment should also be conducted at this stage to understand what infrastructure and systems already exist.
- Early Warning Systems (EWS). Does a national EWS exist for aquaculture-relevant events (floods, storm surges, disease outbreaks)? Can it be integrated with the platform? What communication channels reach farmers at the last mile?
- Biosecurity information systems. Are disease surveillance data currently collected in a structured digital format? Is there a national disease reporting system that could be linked to the platform? Are diagnostic laboratory results accessible electronically?
- Sensor infrastructure. What sensors are currently deployed at farm level? What is the current connectivity situation in major farming areas? Is there existing national meteorological or environmental sensor infrastructure that could be integrated?
- Data governance. Does national legislation address data privacy, ownership, and sharing for aquaculture? Are there existing data-sharing agreements between aquaculture institutions?
- Human resources. What digital literacy exists among farmers, extension agents, and institutional staff? Are there data scientists, IT professionals, or GIS specialists available within aquaculture institutions?
- Financial sustainability. What funding mechanisms exist for platform operation and maintenance? Are there cost-recovery models (e.g. value-added services to commercial farms)?
Use the checklist below to verify that all key elements of this step have been addressed or refer to the overall checklist to ensure all recommended actions are planned or completed: