1

Contents
1. CRP narrative ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.0.1 Rationale and scope ............................................................................................................................................ 3
1.0.2 Goals, objectives, targets .................................................................................................................................... 7
1.0.3 Impact pathway and theory of change ............................................................................................................. 11
1.0.4 Gender ............................................................................................................................................................... 15
1.0.5 Youth ................................................................................................................................................................. 19
1.0.6 Program structure and flagship projects ........................................................................................................... 19
1.0.7 Cross CRP collaboration and site integration .................................................................................................... 22
1.0.8 Partnerships and comparative advantage ......................................................................................................... 22
1.0.9 Evidence of demand and stakeholder commitment ......................................................................................... 23
1.0.10 Capacity development ..................................................................................................................................... 24
1.0.11 Program management and governance .......................................................................................................... 26
1.0.12 Intellectual asset management ......................................................................................................................... 27
1.0.13 Open access management ................................................................................................................................ 27
1.0.14 Communication strategy ................................................................................................................................... 27
1.0.15 Risk management ............................................................................................................................................. 28
1.1 CRP Budget Narrative .............................................................................................................................................. 30
2. Flagship projects ............................................................................................................................................... 39
2.1 Flagship 1: Sustainable aquaculture ....................................................................................................................... 39
2.1.1 Flagship project narrative .................................................................................................................................. 39
2.1.2 Flagship budget narrative .................................................................................................................................. 58
2.1.3 Flagship Uplift Budget ....................................................................................................................................... 63
2.2 Flagship 2: Sustaining small-scale fisheries ..................................................................................................... 65
2.2.1 Flagship project narrative .................................................................................................................................. 65
2.2.2 Flagship budget narrative .................................................................................................................................. 84
2.2.3 Flagship Uplift Budget ....................................................................................................................................... 89
2.3 Flagship 3: Enhancing the contribution of fish for the nutrition and health of the poor ..................................... 90
2.3.1 Flagship project narrative .................................................................................................................................. 90
2.3.2 Flagship budget narrative ................................................................................................................................ 105
2.3.3 Flagship uplift budget ...................................................................................................................................... 110

2
1. CRP narrative

1.0.1 Rationale and scope

Fisheries and aquaculture contribute to livelihoods for 800 million people and provide 3.1 billion people with 20% of
their animal protein (FAO 2015), as well as micronutrients and essential fatty acids critical to cognitive and physical
development (HLPE 2014). Three-quarters of the countries where fish contributes more than one-third of animal
protein in the diet are low-income food-deficit countries (Kawarazuka and Béné 2011), where fish is often the cheapest
and most accessible animal-source food (Belton and Thilsted 2014). To meet future demand for fish, particularly in
developing countries, production will need to double by 2030 (FAO 2014). The scale of this challenge requires research
innovations across the whole spectrum of aquaculture and fisheries production systems and associated value chains.

Citing the crucial role of fisheries and aquaculture in global strategies to reduce poverty and improve food security and
nutrition, and noting the underinvestment in research and development (R&D), the United Nations (UN) Committee on
World Food Security's expert panel specifically calls on CGIAR to lead research that will enhance sustainability,
productivity and access to fish by those most in need (HLPE 2014). Responding to this need, the new CGIAR research
program (CRP) on fish agri-food systems (FISH) will focus on the three interlinked challenges of sustainable aquaculture,
small-scale fisheries (SSF), and enhancing the contribution of fish to nutrition and health of the poor in priority
geographies of Africa and Asia-Pacific.

Challenges

Aquaculture. The rapid growth of aquaculture has highlighted many challenges to sustainable development.
Aquaculture enterprises, particularly in developing countries, often have low production efficiency, experience episodic
production crashes due to fish diseases (Walker and Winton 2010), and contribute to pollution and the loss of
mangroves (Phillips et al. 1993; Naylor et al. 1998). Much aquaculture depends on wild stocks, precluding production
gains by selective breeding and increasing disease risk. Every year, 20–30 million metric tons of fish, one-third of the
global catch, are used to produce feeds for aquaculture. Moreover, gender inequities limit income generation and
asset-building for women—in particular poor women—who face multiple barriers, including limited access to
technology, infrastructure and credit. Efforts to sustain or accelerate aquaculture growth in developing countries must
address breed improvements, fish health, sustainable feeds and environmental management, together with the need
for gender- and socially equitable distribution of economic and nutritional benefits.

Small-scale fisheries. Capture fisheries are projected to be the dominant supply of fish for many least developed
countries for decades (World Bank 2013). However, most face severe pressure from overfishing, particularly SSF in
resource-poor regions where fish is an important source of food and income (FAO 2014). The most recent analysis of
global marine fisheries catches clearly demonstrates that the importance of small-scale fishing for the food security of
developing countries, particularly in the tropical Indo-Pacific, cannot be overemphasized (Pauly and Zellar 2016). SSF
operate in highly complex ecological, social and institutional environments (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009).
Productivity and sustainability are often undermined by underperforming governance, which also reinforces gender
and social inequities. Thus the central challenge is to improve SSF governance in ways that ensure ecological
sustainability, build the resilience of fishery-dependent communities, and improve equity in access rights and the flow
of benefits in ways that increase livelihood opportunities for poverty reduction and food security.

Nutrition. The lack of diversity in the cereal-based diets of the poor, particularly of women and children, has important
consequences for health and development. Despite being a major source of key nutrients, fish consumption has not
been fully integrated into strategies to combat undernutrition, nor are nutritional considerations well integrated into
aquaculture and fisheries strategies (Thilsted et al. 2016). Fish is also subject to considerable postharvest losses, with
27%–39% of all caught fish going to waste (FAO 2011). These losses disproportionately impact women because of
women’s concentration in postharvest parts of fish value chains. Poor storage, handling and processing also contribute
to lost value and pose a risk of foodborne infections and mycotoxins (Gram and Huss 1996). Key challenges are to (1)
enable fish production systems to reach their full potential to deliver nutrients and healthy foods; (2) reduce
inefficiencies in value chains, including waste, nutrient losses and restricted access of poor consumers, while protecting
or enhancing gender-equitable returns for poor women and men value chain actors; and (3) address barriers that divert
fish from the diets of mothers, infants and young children, where it can have the greatest impact.


3
Strategic and scientific rationale

FISH is a new, integrated, multidisciplinary research program addressing these challenges. Designed in collaboration
with beneficiaries, research partners and multiple stakeholders within and beyond CGIAR, the program will develop
and implement research innovations that optimize the individual and joint contributions of aquaculture and SSF to
reducing poverty, improving food and nutrition security for health, and sustaining the underlying natural resources
systems and ecosystems services on which both depend. In so doing, it will address critical gaps in research that need
to be addressed to build evidence on the most promising pathways to impact (Béné et al. 2016). The program design
benefits from constructive inputs from external reviewers and, as a component of the broader CGIAR portfolio,
responds explicitly to feedback of the Independent Science and Partnerships Council (ISPC, see Addenda 1 and 2).

For aquaculture, our focus is on enabling enterprises to progressively enhance production efficiency and sustainability
through the use of domesticated, selectively bred, high-health fish reared on sustainable feeds in gender-inclusive
production systems that have low carbon footprints with no adverse environmental impacts. Focus on these areas will
have the highest probability of achieving productivity gains while avoiding adverse economic, social or environmental
impacts (Hall et al. 2011).

For SSF, evidence shows that sustaining production through policy research and stakeholder engagement to enhance
governance arrangements can deliver greater, more inclusive economic benefits and improved safety nets for
marginalized groups and build resilience to external shocks (Gutiérrez et al. 2011; Allison et al. 2012; Ratner et al.
2014). Thus, our focus is on resilience-based analyses and multi-stakeholder interventions to support improved and
more inclusive governance and natural resource management. This focus will be augmented by analysis and synthesis
of national and regional SSF trends in the context of global food systems and work to give stakeholders a stronger voice
in contested landscapes where alternative uses of water, land and aquatic resources threaten production.

To address nutrition outcomes, we will analyze value chains, with a focus on market channels supplying poor
consumers to understand barriers that constrain access or lead to high prices. We will determine the extent of and
factors shaping postharvest losses, nutritional degradation, food safety hazards and risks, and gendered barriers and
opportunities in fish value chains. We will also explore the potential to sustainably and inclusively increase the
production of small indigenous fish to grow this source of nutrition for poor consumers. These analyses will inform
aquaculture and SSF strategies with better-integrated nutritional considerations and the development of scalable,
gender-responsive actions to address value chain bottlenecks, postharvest losses and food safety hazards, leading to an
increase in the supply of safe fish for consumers.

A core concept for FISH is that strengthening the integration between R&D activities in aquaculture, SSF, nutrition and
value chains will have multiple, synergistic impacts. For example, we will examine the co-existence of wild, highly
nutritious indigenous fish species with improved tilapia and carp strains in rice-fish ponds. We will build on work to
enhance the performance of these strains via selective breeding, disease control, improved aquafeeds, and
environmental management of the ponds and adjacent ecosystems, with priorities for technology development
designed to address the distinct needs of men and women producers where relevant. Research on value chain
innovations will then seek to translate the combined increases in productivity into gender-equitable livelihood and
nutritional gains.

The program also aims to capitalize on priority synergies across the broader CGIAR portfolio. In addition to
incorporating genetics and feeds research from the previous Livestock and Fish (L&F) CRP and market analyses from
the Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS) CRP, the FISH CRP establishes new collaborations with other agri-food system
CRPs and the four global integrating programs. As one example, in collaboration with the RICE CRP, we will introduce
new technology to enable the bioconversion of rice waste into bioactive fish feed ingredients and investigate the
potential of producing this feed as an area of women-led, green enterprise. Our work in rice-fish systems will be further
strengthened via efforts to improve the productivity of two of the most important food sources in the developing
world. (Cross-CRP linkages are detailed in Annex 3.7).

Geographic scope

Fish production and consumption are characterized by very significant regional disparities (Figure 1). In Southeast Asia,
while many countries have significant SSF, aquaculture is becoming increasingly important (Figure 1a). By contrast,
production in Africa from both SSF and aquaculture is relatively low, with the notable exceptions of Egypt and, to a

4
lesser degree, Nigeria. Over the past decade, per capita fish consumption has increased in most developing countries in
East and Southeast Asia, whereas in India and in most of Africa it has remained low (Figure 1b).

The program will pursue an integrated body of research in six focal countries. Three are in Asia (Bangladesh, Cambodia
and Myanmar) and three in Africa (Nigeria, Tanzania and Zambia). In these countries, we can most coherently integrate
our multidisciplinary strengths in sustainable aquaculture, SSF and enhancing the contribution of fish to the nutrition
and health of the poor. Two additional countries will constitute a focus for particular areas of research: Egypt as a
research hub and training center for our aquaculture capacity development in Africa, and Solomon Islands as a hub for
our learning networks on SSF governance in the Pacific.

Rationale for country selection. To select program focus and scaling countries, we applied a series of metrics tailored
to each of the three overarching challenges. In the aquaculture sector, we applied FAO projections to identify countries
with the largest shortfalls in fish supply (>100,000 metric tons) and where aquaculture is projected to grow at >5% per
annum. From these we selected countries with established partnerships and the ability to co-develop and deliver
research outputs and impacts that contribute to reducing the supply gap. We also identified countries where growth in
aquaculture production is projected to exceed 1 million metric tons per annum by 2030 and generate a significant
surplus of supply over domestic demand. In addition to the six focal countries, these criteria point to the inclusion of
Ghana, India, Indonesia and Vietnam as scaling countries. A final key factor in our selection was the strength of
research infrastructure in countries that have historically supported the development of genetically improved varieties
of the two highest-priority species, tilapia and carp.

In the SSF sector, we selected a small number of countries where the largest number of poor people depends on fish
sourced from SSF for food and nutrition security, which exemplify the range of key challenges facing the sector, and
where the enabling environment is strong enough for FISH to have impacts of national significance. For inland systems
in Asia, the focus is therefore on the mega-deltas of the Ganges/Brahmaputra (Bangladesh), Irrawaddy (Myanmar) and
Mekong (Cambodia). For coastal systems in Asia-Pacific, Solomon Islands was selected for its potential to yield lessons
of regional significance on resilience in the face of multiple drivers of change, including climate change. In Africa, we
will focus initially on inland fisheries, with Zambia as a case study of land-use and governance in inland fisheries, and at
the regional level on the small fish value chain in East Africa’s Great Lakes.

Country selection for research on enhancing fish value chains to improve nutrition and health was prioritized to realize
synergies with our aquaculture and SSF research, and to capitalize on particular opportunities to elucidate and address
nutrition-focused innovations. This underpins a focus on two value chains in Bangladesh, one from aquaculture and
one from fisheries, plus a dried fish value chain with high waste originating in Tanzania. Research to boost indigenous
fish production will complement research in the same locations on enhancing the production of tilapia and carp, and
will build on private sector and nongovernmental organization (NGO) partnerships to develop and disseminate locally
produced fish-based products to improve childhood nutrition in the first 1000 days of life.

Staging and scaling. With fish production and associated value chain development in sub-Saharan Africa markedly
lower than in Asia, we will progressively build multidisciplinary research activities, leveraging lessons from our focal
countries and taking into account the successes and challenges confronted during the much longer history of R&D
investment in Asia-Pacific. In Nigeria our initial focus will be on aquaculture, progressively expanding to include
freshwater SSF and enhancing the impact of fish for nutrition and health. In Zambia we will build on current activities
across all three research domains. In Tanzania our initial focus will be on the small fish value chain from Lake Victoria,
progressively expanding to include aquaculture and coastal SSF.

FISH breeding programs and improved strains of tilapia and carp complement the CGIAR-supported seedbanks in the
plant agri-business sector, in the sense that they both have important, ongoing roles for providing improved
germplasm to the developing world to enhance the livelihoods of poor women and men fish farmers (ADB 2005). Thus
a key scaling activity will be to continue engaging with countries where prior collaborations have established national
fish genetic improvement programs that disseminate improved strains and assess the genetic performance of stocks.
These are in India, Philippines, Vietnam, Ghana, Kenya and Malawi.

The geographic focus of FISH is based on several factors, notably (1) the current status and projected future potential
for aquaculture and SSF in developing countries, (2) the probability that the program and its partners can effectively
respond to demands for research and deliver impacts at scale, and (3) the need to strike a balance between the needs
of producers and consumers in regions where the poor already have good access to fish and regions where the
potential to increase supplies of fish and improve livelihoods has yet to be realized.
5


Figure 1. (a) Total fish production in selected developing countries from SSF and aquaculture in 2013 and (b)
estimated fish consumption per capita by region in 2010 (kg/year). North and South America not shown. Sources: (a)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Fisheries Global Information System. Only selected
developing countries shown for comparison. Data for small-scale marine capture fisheries estimated at 50% of total
reported catch; for inland capture fisheries, 100%. Data for aquaculture production excludes aquatic plants. (b) World
Bank (2014).



6


1.0.2 Goals, objectives, targets

The goal of FISH is to achieve sustainable increases in the gender- and socially inclusive production and equitable
distribution of nutritious fish to improve the livelihoods and nutrition of poor households in priority geographies. The
objectives of FISH are the following:

1. Enable sustainable increases in, and gender- and socially equitable livelihood returns from, aquaculture production
without creating adverse socio-economic or environmental impacts.
2. Secure and enhance the contribution of SSF to gender-equitable poverty reduction and food security in priority
geographies.
3. Increase the availability and consumption of safe and nutrient-dense fish, primarily for women of reproductive
age, infants and young children.

By 2022, FISH and its partners aim to contribute to seven system-level outcome (SLO) targets outlined in the CGIAR
Strategy and Results Framework (SRF), as summarized in Table 1. Contributions to these targets were calculated using
multiple inputs, including data from outcomes of prior aquaculture and SSF research in focal geographies, recent
WorldFish analyses of future aquaculture and SSF growth, other published studies, and the domain knowledge of FISH
researchers and partners in aquaculture, SSF and fish value chains.

SLO 1: Reduced poverty
Sustainable increases in fish production directly increase the income of small-scale producers, provide opportunities for
value chain innovations and reduce the cost of fish to consumers (Toufique et al. 2014). In the aquaculture sector, our
focus is on enabling farmers to improve their livelihoods via transformational gains in productivity and profitability in
farmed fish.

We will develop and implement new gender-responsive knowledge and technology in improved breeds, fish health,
aquafeeds and management practices, enabling both women and men farmers to boost the productivity of farmed fish,
with benefits to 3.9 million producer households by 2022 (SLO target 1.1). In combination with gender-inclusive and
women-targeted value chain innovations, this has significant potential to directly benefit livelihoods from the
consumption, processing and sale of farmed fish, assisting 2.3 million people, at least 50% of them women, to exit
poverty by 2022 (SLO target 1.2).

Genetic gains of 7%–10% growth per generation have been maintained for over two decades in WorldFish tilapia
programs (Gjedrem et al. 2012; Khaw 2015), with high adoption rates in several poor countries (ADB 2005). We anticipate
further genetic gains in growth rates of 5%–10% per generation over the next decade. By 2022, we aim to sustainably
double the production of safe, nutritious farmed fish in climate-resilient production systems in our selected countries. We
are confident the level of contributions the program will make to yield increases in these countries and the return on
investment in aquaculture enterprises will be as high as, or higher than, any other food sector.

In the SSF sector, FISH and partners’ innovations for more effective and inclusive governance and management will
catalyze improved fisheries and enhance equity and diversity of livelihood opportunities for fisheries-dependent
women, men and youth, with benefits to an additional 1 million producer households (SLO target 1.1) and assisting a
further 1.2 million people, at least 50% of them women, to exit poverty by 2022 (SLO target 1.2).

SLO 2: Improved food and nutrition security for health
The value of fish consumption for nutrition and health goes beyond basic dietary diversity. Fish is a vital, nutrient-dense
animal-source food for many nutritionally vulnerable people, including children and pregnant and lactating women.
Fish is one of the few animal-source foods with robust evidence of positive health benefits (Ezzati and Ribboli 2013;
Zhao et al. 2015). Fish-based diets reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases more than conventional diets (Tilman
and Clark 2014). Aquaculture has great potential to supply more fish to enhance nutrition and food security in
developing countries (World Bank 2013). Predicted growth rates for aquaculture are greater than for any land-based
animal food (FAOSTAT 2014).

We will specifically address the reduced micronutrient deficiency target (SLO 2.3) by increasing polyculture of
micronutrient-rich small indigenous fish species, using improved feeds to enhance the nutritional value of fish, and
increasing productivity and reducing waste and loss in fish value chains important to poor consumers. We aim to
7
reduce micronutrient deficiency in 2.4 million people, of which 50% women, by 2022 (SLO target 2.3). We will focus on
geographical areas in which fish is an important animal-source food and where opportunities exist to influence dietary
diversity through greater availability, lower prices and shifts in the distribution of fish consumption. The program target
is 4.7 million more women of reproductive age consuming an adequate number of food groups (SLO target 2.4).


SLO Contribution to SLO target by country
target (in millions)
FP1 FP2
FISH CRP R&D focus Scaling
R&D R&D
Bangladesh++

Solomon Is.
Tanzania++
Cambodia
Myanmar

Nigeria++

Zambia+

Totals
Africa
Egypt

Units
Asia
1.1 4.9 million producer households adopted improved breeds, aquafeeds, fish health, and House-
aquaculture and fisheries management practices holds
1.80 0.45 0.19 0.35 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.02 1.27 0.45 4.9
1.2 3.5 million people, of which at least 50% are women, assisted to exit poverty through People
livelihood improvements related to fisheries and aquaculture value chains
1.17 0.40 0.18 0.19 0.10 0.09 0.26 0.05 0.94 0.18 3.5
2.3 2.4 million people, of which 50% are women, without deficiencies of one or more of the People
following essential micronutrients: iron, zinc, iodine, vitamin A, folate and B12
0.90 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.13 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.73 0.13 2.4
2.4 4.7 million more women of reproductive age consuming adequate number of food groups People
1.96 0.35 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.34 0.02 1.07 0.53 4.7
3.1 & 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 10% increase in water- and nutrient-use Metric tons of
3.2 efficiency in 4.8 million metric tons of annual farmed fish production fish per
annum
1.65 0.34 0.15 0.20 0.04 0.05 0.30 0.00 1.56 0.47 4.8
3.3 3.3 million ha of ecosystems restored through more productive and equitable Ha. of restored
management of SSF resources and restoration of degraded aquaculture ponds ecosystems
1.07 0.47 0.37 0.11 0.01 0.26 0.11 0.25 0.55 0.13 3.3

Table 1 The contribution of FISH to SLO targets by country. Six countries are a focus for FISH R&D, linking the three
research domains. Two countries (Egypt and Solomon Islands) are a focus for a particular flagship project (FP). CGIAR
priority countries for site integration are indicated as high (+) and highest (++) priority.

SLO 3: Improved natural resource systems and ecosystem services
There are dramatic national and regional differences in environmental footprints of aquaculture for the same species
and production methods (Hall et al. 2011). Lifecycle assessment (LCA) to quantify the carbon footprint and other
environmental impacts of aquaculture production will be used to identify and promote the development of gender-
responsive aquaculture systems with low environmental impact. Contributing to climate resilience, we target a 20%
decrease in greenhouse gas emissions (SLO target 3.1) and 10% increase in water- and nutrient-use efficiency (SLO
target 3.2) compared to 2012 levels, for 4.8 million metric tons of farmed fish (10% of projected global aquaculture
production in 2022). Improved practices will also enable the restoration of 1.2 million hectares of degraded
aquaculture ponds and the landscapes in which they are embedded (SLO target 3.3).

The majority of SSF are collectively owned and operate within landscapes and coastal zones with complex layers of
tenure and jurisdiction, characterized by social inequities and unsustainable use. The millions of marginalized people
dependent on fish for income and food security (notably poor women and young adults) are often unable to fully
participate in the governance of their resources. FISH is uniquely placed to integrate local-scale action research on
tenure systems for SSF with analysis of broader institutions and policies for governance, contributing to equitable
resource use and restoration of 2.1 million ha of agro-ecosystems in both inland and coastal environments (SLO target
3.3).

8

A summary of FISH contributions to UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and CGIAR sub-Intermediate
Development Outcomes (IDOs) that support these goals is provided in Table 2. The program contributes directly to
SDGs 1 (no poverty) and 2 (zero hunger) by increasing productivity of fisheries and aquaculture to provide poor and
marginalized women, men and youth with more food, nutrition and income. The program also addresses a range of
related goals targeting improved human health, gender equality, sustainable ecosystems, reduced disease, reduced
food waste, climate adaptation, and effective institutions and development policies. Within the CGIAR portfolio, the
FISH CRP makes unique contributions to address SDGs on protecting and restoring water-related, marine and coastal
ecosystems (6.6, 14.2, 14.5) and encouraging economic growth of Small Island Developing States (8.1, 14.7). Flagship-
specific outcomes, including contributions to each of the SLO targets, are detailed for each flagship project in Section 2.
In Annex 3.6, outcome indicators and means of measurement are detailed as part of the program’s commitment to
results-based management.

9

SDGs SLO IDO Sub-IDOs FP1 FP2 FP3
1. Reduced 1.3 Increased 1.3.1 Diversified enterprise opportunities √
poverty incomes and 1.3.2 Increased livelihood opportunities √ √
employment
1.3.4 More efficient use of inputs √
1.4/2.1 Increased 1.4.1/2.1.1 Reduced pre- and postharvest losses, √
productivity including those caused by climate change
1.4.2/2.1.2 Closed yield gaps through improved √
agronomic and animal husbandry practices
1.4.3/2.1.3 Enhanced genetic gain √
1.4.5/2.1.5 Increased access to productive assets, √
including natural resources

2. 2.2 Improved diets 2.2.1 Increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich
Improved for poor and foods √
food and vulnerable people 2.2.2 Increased access to diversified √
nutrition nutrient-rich foods
security for 2.2.3 Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient- √
health rich food
2.3 Improved food 2.3.1 Reduced biological and chemical hazards in the √
safety food system
2.4 Improved human 2.4.2 Reduced livestock and fish disease risks √
and animal health associated with intensification and climate change
through better
agricultural practices
3. 3.2 Enhanced 3.2.1 More productive and equitable management √
Improved benefits from of natural resources
natural ecosystem goods
resource and services
systems 3.3 More sustainably 3.3.1 Increased resilience of agro-ecosystems and √
and managed agro- communities, especially those including
ecosystem ecosystems smallholders
services
3.3.3 Reduced net greenhouse gas emissions from √
agriculture, forests and other forms of land use

Cross Climate change XC 1.1.4 Enhanced capacity to deal with climatic √
cutting risks and extremes
Gender and youth XC 2.1.1 Gender-equitable control of productive √ √
assets and resources
XC 2.1.3 Improved capacity of women and young √ √
people to participate in decision-making
Policies and XC 3.1.1 Increased capacity of beneficiaries to adopt √
institutions research outputs

XC 3.1.3 Conducive agricultural policy environment √
XC 4.1.2 Enhanced capacity in partner research √
organizations through training and exchange

Table 2. Contributions of FISH flagships to SDGs and sub-IDOs. Note only primary sub-IDO contributions are shown.
Numbering follows the order presented in the CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework. XC is used to designate cross-
cutting sub-IDOs.

10
1.0.3 Impact pathway and theory of change

The FISH theory of change (ToC) centers on the role of multidisciplinary research addressing the challenges outlined for
the priority geographies. It is in response to clearly identified needs of poor producers and consumers of fish along with
those women and men whose livelihoods depend upon aquaculture and SSF value chains. Impact pathways for the
delivery of outcomes stem from research in three closely integrated flagships: (1) sustainable aquaculture, (2)
sustainable small-scale fisheries and (3) enhancing the contribution of fish to the nutrition and health of the poor.
Targeted, gender-responsive research in each of these domains aims to influence change through four mechanisms,
combining (a) the innovation and spread of technologies and management practices with supportive actions by the (b)
private sector, (c) public sector and (d) civil society and development agencies. The outcomes address gender and social
equity, climate resilience and institutional capacity, as well as policies and investment patterns. The outcomes target all
three of the SRF SLOs, with a focus on increased productivity, incomes and employment, improved diets for poor and
vulnerable people, and enhanced benefits from ecosystem goods and services. Figure 2 provides a summary view of the
CRP-level impact pathways and ToC.

The program research structure reflects the interlinked subsectors of fish production and the associated value chains,
which together impact food security and nutrition. Flagship 1 on sustainable aquaculture (FP1) develops and delivers
gender-responsive and inclusive innovations in aquaculture breeding and genetics, fish health and nutrition, aquafeeds,
and aquaculture systems. Whole-system analysis of aquaculture enterprises has shown that these areas will have the
highest probability of achieving productivity gains while avoiding adverse economic, social or environmental impacts
(Hall et al. 2011). We will ensure that breeding takes into account the nutritional needs of both fishers and consumers,
changes in aquafeeds, production environments and management practices, as well as options to maximize
contributions to livelihoods, including the capacities required. FP1 interacts with activities in the other two flagships via
the ecosystem interactions of aquaculture and fisheries in landscapes, technologies and management practices that
integrate aquaculture and wild capture systems, with joint attention on income and employment opportunities for
women and youth, and the contribution of aquaculture towards nutrition strategies.

For SSF, there is ample evidence that sustaining fisheries production through socially and gender-responsive and
inclusive policy research, stakeholder engagement, and capacity development to enhance governance arrangements
can deliver more equitable and increased economic benefits, improved safety nets for marginalized groups and
increased resilience to external shocks (Gutiérrez et al. 2011; Allison et al. 2012; Ratner et al. 2014). Flagship 2 on
sustaining SSF (FP2) pursues these innovations in inland fisheries, multifunctional landscapes (lake, river and mega-delta
systems) and coastal marine systems. Cross-flagship interactions include gender-integrated analysis and scenario
development of regional fish food systems that consider the role of trade and ecosystem change as drivers of change
affecting food security and nutrition goals, as well as the contribution of aquaculture to alternative livelihoods among
coastal fishing communities.

The program’s contributions to food security and nutrition rely on improving the productivity and sustainability of both
farmed and capture fish production. Thus, flagship 3 (FP3) helps improve nutrition by building on the outcomes of FP1
and FP2 through improving innovations in fish value chains, including gender-equitable and inclusive income generation,
employment and entrepreneurship, and reducing postharvest losses to improve access to affordable fish. FP3 research
also feeds back into priority-setting for FP1 and FP2, for example by studying nutritional outcomes to identify
opportunities to improve the nutritional value of farmed fish through changes in feed composition or species selection
in polyculture systems. Cross-cutting development outcomes identified in Figure 2 represent a summary of
development outcomes detailed in the ToC for each FP.

The ToC incorporates four change mechanisms, through which the program aims to realize progress from research
outputs to research outcomes, and ultimately to development impacts:

(a) Local adoption and dissemination of technologies and management practices comprises the initial application of
gender-responsive innovations and technologies, such as improved breeds, feeds and disease management practices in
aquaculture; equity- and effectiveness-enhancing governance innovations in fisheries management; and new processing
technologies to reduce postharvest waste and loss and produce fish-based products for women and children. These are
achieved through implementation partnerships and capacity development in selected sites within our focal geographies,
including government and NGO partnerships. The mechanism also includes the spread of these technologies and

11
practices through research innovation platforms at subnational or national levels, and their exchange through regional
networks.

(b) Private sector investment and replication of innovative and gender-inclusive business models include actions by
small- and medium-scale entrepreneurs, reached directly through our capacity development partnerships, as well as
large-scale aquaculture enterprises that we partner with to demonstrate the feasibility of a package of investments at
scale. It also includes subsequent scaling aided by robust evaluation of the financial returns and broader social,
economic and ecological sustainability of new business models, and communication of these through industry
associations and regional networks.

(c) Public sector policy improvement and institutional strengthening comprises improvements in the policy and
regulatory measures that affect the viability, scalability and equity implications of technologies, management practices
and organizational innovations. These include, for example, regulations addressing land use and agricultural
intensification, allocation of fishing rights and approval of new fish-based products by food and health regulatory
bodies. Recognizing that the design of appropriate policies does not in itself ensure effective implementation, this
mechanism takes into account the institutional capacity development that is often required for public sector agencies to
fulfill their roles in these technical domains.

(d) Influence on policies and priorities of civil society and development agencies includes actions such as NGO partners
incorporating gender-responsive and inclusive aquaculture technology packages, fisheries management and livelihood
development strategies, or behavioral change communication tools for early childhood nutrition as part of their broader
programming in our focal countries and beyond. It also includes influence on the priority-setting of bilateral and
multilateral development agencies operating in the fields of agricultural innovation, rural livelihoods and food security
in coastal and aquatic landscapes, reflected in higher levels of investment in the solutions validated by program
research.

These four overarching change mechanisms are interdependent, and a premise of the CRP-level ToC is that the
interaction of these mechanisms can contribute to the high-level outcomes in Figure 2. Achieving these outcomes will
require considerable sensitivity and adaptation during program implementation to enable these change mechanisms
and to navigate the associated risks and potential unintended consequences. These include risks such as the potential
for productivity-improving aquaculture technologies to be captured as increased profits for larger producers, rather
than increased production with intended benefits for fish affordability and consumption (FP1), the potential for
governance reforms to reinforce trends of elite capture rather than increase equity and resource sustainability (FP2),
and the potential for labor demands in homestead polyculture systems to exacerbate gender inequities (FP3). At the
CRP level, key risks and assumptions, as well as corresponding strategies and risk management actions, have been
incorporated into the program design (see Table 3).

12


Change Cross-cutting
Target SLOs
Research flagships and outputs mechanisms development
and IDOs
outcomes

FP1. SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE

Gender-equitable REDUCED
•  Improved and more resilient elite (a) Local adoption resource access, POVERTY
breeds of fish (tilapia and carp) and dissemination control of assets, •  Increased
•  Improved feeds, disease screening of technologies and and participation in productivity
and management practices for fish management decision-making •  Increased
health practices
•  Improved fish farming practices and incomes and
farming systems; business and employment
enterprise models for smallholders
and value chain actors Improved climate
resilience in
aquaculture IMPROVED
(b) Private sector production systems FOOD AND
FP2. SUSTAINABLE SMALL-SCALE investment and and fisheries NUTRITION
FISHERIES replication of livelihoods SECURITY
innovative business FOR HEALTH
•  Localized coastal fisheries models in fish
management and broader-scale •  Improved
production, diets for
governance improvements processing and Enhanced
•  Adaptation and mitigation actions to poor and
trade institutional capacity
minimize and reverse ecological vulnerable
in public sector and
impacts and negotiate tradeoffs people
partner research
between fish production and organizations
alternative landscape uses
•  Analysis and scenario development
(c) Public sector IMPROVED
at regional scales to accelerate NATURAL
policy improvement
adoption of appropriate policy and RESOURCE
institutional innovations and institutional Improved enabling
strengthening environment for SYSTEMS
efficient value chains AND
and equitable ECOSYSTEM
livelihoods SERVICES
FP3. ENHANCING CONTRIBUTION OF •  Enhanced
FISH TO NUTRITION AND HEALTH OF benefits from
THE POOR ecosystem
•  Nutrition-sensitive aquaculture goods and
(d) Influence on Shifts in investment services
production innovations policies and patterns to enable
•  Interventions to reduce postharvest priorities of civil fish-based
waste and loss in fish value chains society and development
•  Improvements in nutrition education development solutions
and behavioral change agencies
communication to increase fish
consumption by infants, young
children and reproductive-age
women
CRP-level learning processes

Foresight analysis addressing global, Outcome evaluation to Impact assessment

regional and national policy and consolidate program-level addressing progress in
economic drivers; climate learning on impact pathways program-level contributions to
change; priorities and opportunities for and refine theories of change SLOs and IDOs at scale
technology and institutional innovations

Figure 2. CRP-level impact pathways and theory of change overview.

13

Change mechanism Key assumptions and risks associated with change Corresponding strategies and risk management
mechanisms: actions:

National extension agencies, private sector, and Apply foresight analysis and ex ante
a
NGO partners ready and able to incorporate participatory assessment to aid identification of
improved technologies and management practices best-bet technologies and practices appropriate
Local adoption and into their programs. (Risk: poor rates of adoption.) for scaling in different environments.
dissemination of Adoption of improved technologies and practices Undertake regular assessments of capacity
technologies and alleviates rather than reinforces gender and social development needs and adapt program
management inequities. (Risk: increased inequities.) implementation to support these.
practices
Integrate gender and social equity
considerations thoroughly in the design and
development of technology and institutional
research.

Private enterprises and industry associations engage Partner with national and regional bodies to
b
actively at multiple scales. (Risk: inadequate create effective convening platforms for public-

Private sector investment to support scaling.) private partnerships.
investment and Private sector partnerships support goals of Use communication and dialogue activities to
replication of expanding youth employment, strengthening local raise awareness of private sector operators on
innovative business livelihoods, and improving environmental investment opportunities.
models in fish performance. (Risk: industry growth undermines Screen private sector partnerships considering
production, program goals.) social, economic, environmental criteria and
processing, and
scaling potential.
trade

Public sector partnerships help to catalyze changes Prioritize focal countries and subnational
c
at national and regional scales. (Risk: policy and geographies considering policy environment,
regulatory obstacles that hinder scaling.) government commitment, and scaling potential.
Public sector policy Public agencies acknowledge and prepare to invest Co-develop research agenda and adapt research
improvement and in addressing capacity gaps. (Risk: ineffective or priorities in dialogue with national partners in
institutional inefficient support to scale innovations.) focal countries.
strengthening
Align program M&E activities to contribute to
and draw upon national monitoring of SDG and
other targets.
Undertake regular assessments of capacity
development needs and adapt program
implementation to support these.

Civil society and development partners sustain and Implement quality multi-stakeholder dialogue
d
increase commitment to addressing development processes to assess development options and
goals through fisheries and aquaculture. (Risk: target research interventions.
Influence on policies inadequate integration of fisheries and aquaculture Implement rigorous impact assessment to
and priorities of civil solutions within broader civil society change document successes and failures, and to
society and agendas and development programming.) identify the underlying factors.
development Effective advocacy of social equity, nutrition, and Assess and communicate the contributions of
agencies environmental sustainability dimensions of fisheries fisheries and aquaculture transformations to
and aquaculture development. (Risk: unbalanced social equity, environmental sustainability, and
focus on risks detracts from development nutrition goals, within the context of broader
investment in the sector.) national and regional development agendas.

Table 3. CRP-level change mechanisms.

14
Combinations of these mechanisms are also required to realize program objectives within individual clusters of activity.
In section 2, these mechanisms and their interactions are detailed for each flagship, including risks and assumptions for
each change mechanism and corresponding strategies and risk management actions. In some cases, these actions
require monitoring and addressing potential trade-offs and unanticipated consequences.

Foresight analysis is embedded across the whole program, testing assumptions and providing guidance about the future
risks and opportunities within and across the key impact pathways. This includes mapping fish production and consumption
patterns under future climatic conditions, specifying efficiency gaps and production limitations, and the potential impacts of
targeted aquaculture, fisheries and value chains, as well as nutrition innovations. Combined with multi-stakeholder
dialogue, this analysis is used to evaluate the feasibility, costs, benefits and risks associated with different innovations. For
each flagship, we have identified potential barriers and hypotheses concerning impact pathways through consultation with
multiple stakeholders, combined with analysis of previous research and the probability of success for specific research
innovations. On this basis, we have chosen to pursue research under each flagship in locations where the need is high,
where the barriers are amenable to applied research solutions, where the enabling policy environment is judged to be
favorable, and where there is potential to generate international public goods (IPGs) that can achieve outcomes at
significant scale.

Outcome evaluation and impact assessment will be pursued in an integrated fashion to test and improve our ability to
achieve results at both the CRP and flagship levels. Outcome evaluation will track our assumptions and risks regarding
mechanisms of change and our effectiveness in addressing them. We will use this learning to continuously refine the
targeting and design of research interventions, capacity development, partnerships and communication activities. Impact
assessment will measure quantitative progress towards achievement of our SLO and flagship outcome targets,
disaggregated to track benefits for men, women and youth. Outcome evaluation and impact assessment will drive program-
level learning and adaptation, and we will periodically adjust investment in our research areas and geographies as we
gather evidence on results.

We test the assumption that careful selection of partners in target countries and collaboration with policy stakeholders and
regional institutions will influence favorable policy and institutional changes to promote adoption of innovations at scale.
The ToC also assumes synergies realized with other elements of the overall CGIAR portfolio through site integration and
joint research on cross-cutting challenges, such as natural resource governance (PIM), climate change impacts (CCAFS), food
and nutrition strategies (A4NH) and landscape-level resource competition (WLE).

Just as at the CRP level, flagship-level theories of change are used to define the priority research areas by geography and
domain, key risks and measures to address these, and flagship-level monitoring and evaluation (M&E) strategies. This
includes quantitative analyses of the probability of success in achieving the impact targets and consideration of the
counterfactuals. Program- and flagship-level impact pathways and theories of change will be regularly assessed in program
performance management and learning activities and commissioned external reviews.

1.0.4 Gender

FISH is committed to effective, outcome-oriented gender mainstreaming throughout the CRP. Gender research—applied
from design through implementation and evaluation—will be central to enabling the FISH CRP to reach its aims and targets.
It will leverage these outcomes by effectively identifying and addressing the gender dimensions of barriers, opportunities
and mechanisms of change identified in the program’s ToC. In this way, the program will both redress identified gender
inequalities in fisheries and aquaculture systems and associated value chains and increase development impacts of its
research. Specifically, combining research with capacity development and scaling through targeted partnerships, the FISH
gender strategy will contribute to gender inclusion, equity and equality in critical innovation and development processes.
This will enable lasting shifts towards reducing poverty, increasing food and nutritional security, and safeguarding fish
resources with and for women, men, girls and boys in target countries.

The gender strategy builds on learning from the L&F and AAS gender strategies and analysis of findings from gender
research in those programs, and integrates lessons from other CRPs and beyond (See Annex 3.4). This gender analysis has
informed the CRP-level outcome targets and ToC, and the associated flagship objectives, theories of change, and derived
research questions and activities. The subsection below identifies the priority gender outcomes, key issues and barriers, and
strategic research questions. It highlights the gender research focus of each flagship and the cross-cutting flagship issues,
elaborates the pathways to achieving gender outcomes within the ToC and specifies how gender will be monitored in FISH.

15
Annex 3.4 presents a synthesis of the analysis that helped identify the program’s gender priorities and the
operationalization of gender research in the program.

Key outcomes, issues and research questions
FISH has targeted contributions to two gender-related sub-IDOs under the inclusion and equity achieved IDO: gender-
equitable control of productive assets and resources (XC 2.1.1) and improved capacity of women and young people to
participate in decision-making (XC 2.1.3). Additionally, through its research on aquaculture technologies and fish processing,
the program will contribute to the sub-IDO technologies that reduce women’s labor and energy expenditure. Gender equity
and equality in these areas are central to achieving other key program outcomes, in particular increased productivity,
incomes and employment, improved diets for poor and vulnerable people, more sustainably managed agro-ecosystems, and
enhanced benefits from ecosystem goods and services. As noted by the CGIAR Gender Network (2016), closing the gender
gap is good for women and for agriculture. Our gender strategy aims to realize these dual gains in fish agri-food systems.

The key outcomes of the program’s gender research will be the following:
• Fish breeding and feed development programs and enterprises more effectively address and respond to women’s
needs in their technology development processes.
• Aquaculture extension applies innovations and capacity development that address barriers preventing women’s
equitable engagement.
• SSF management and governance policies, processes and capacities better address barriers to and enable women’s
effective participation and equitable benefits.
• Investment in and extension of nutrition-sensitive aquaculture and integrated fish-agriculture systems reflect and
respond to women’s needs in terms of technologies and practices, including innovations that can reduce their
workloads.
• Government, private sector and development organizations’ engagement in fish value chains is informed by gendered
insights and prioritizes strategies that protect and expand women’s safe and just engagement, enabling them to build
assets and generate more substantial returns.
• Nutrition programming increases equity in intra-household food sharing and expands women’s empowerment through
integrated strategies.
• Researchers and government, civil and private partners have strengthened commitment and enhanced capacity to
address gender inequities in these domains.

To achieve these outcomes, the program must address key gendered barriers and opportunities in aquaculture and fisheries
(identified through analysis presented in Annex 3.4). These include the following:
• constraining and enabling factors to enhance women’s access to and control over productive assets and natural
resources;
• barriers to and opportunities for women’s successful wealth generation through entrepreneurship and employment in
fish value chains;
• factors in, and strategies to enhance, women’s equitable participation in household and community decisions about
SSF and food distribution;
• fit of aquaculture technologies with women’s needs and preferences;
• strategies to influence the formal and informal gender rules, norms and behaviors that shape all the above towards
gender equality, including the effective engagement of men and boys together with women and girls in gender-
transformative strategies.

Gender research in FISH addresses these priorities through strategic research questions that are integrated within flagship
research and also enable cross-flagship synthesis of lessons (see Annex 3.4).

Gender research in the FISH ToC
Gender research in FISH seeks to overcome identified gendered barriers limiting women’s access to and control over key
assets and resources, effective participation in decisions, and equitable and substantive wealth generation and livelihood
benefits from fish value chains. The program addresses gender and these barriers and associated opportunities as
intersectional—i.e. they interact with cross-cutting factors such as age, wealth, ethnicity and caste.

16
 Priority areas Research questions
Cross-cutting How and for whom do formal and informal gender rules, norms and practices shape development
processes and outcomes in aquaculture and fisheries? What factors, strategies and tools can enable
constructive shifts in these so that they catalyze greater gender equality and equity?

What are the implications for how R&D interventions can most effectively engage women, men, girls
and boys?

Access to and control Aquaculture

over productive 1. What factors underlie gender imbalances in control of key assets (land, ponds, credit, inputs,
assets and resources technologies and income)? What strategies enable the equitable engagement of poor women in
small-scale aquaculture production? With what effects on income, food security and women’s
empowerment?

Small-scale fisheries
2. Which assets and resources most benefit fisheries-dependent women? What factors underlie their
gender-imbalanced access and control, and what strategies protect or enable greater gender equality
in assets? With what effects on income, food security and women’s empowerment?

Opportunities for Aquaculture

enhancing women’s 3. What are the most significant differences between women’s and men’s aspirations in aquaculture
wealth generation value chains? What are the enabling and constraining factors and most significant strategies to
through income, enhance women’s wealth generation through fish-based entrepreneurial or employment
employment and opportunities? With what effects on income, food security and women’s empowerment?
entrepreneurship
Small-scale fisheries
4. What are the enabling factors and strategies for women to enhance their livelihoods in fisheries-
dependent communities, and can any of these be win-win in terms of returns for women and
sustaining ecological integrity in coastal and inland fisheries? With what effects on income, food
security and women’s empowerment?
Participation in Community scale
household and 5. Which scalable gender-transformative governance strategies enhance effective participation of
community decisions women in natural resource and fisheries management and governance? To what extent for different
women and how? What are the effects of gender equality in SSF decisions on environmental and
social priorities, and on income, food security and women’s empowerment?

Household scale
6. What scalable strategies constructively shift both gender norms and intra-household food
distribution towards gender equity? How and with what effects on women’s empowerment and
household nutrition?
Fit of innovations Fish breeds, feeds and health innovations
with women’s needs 7. How do women’s and men’s preferences, needs and experiences with improved carp and tilapia
and preferences; strains differ? How do their needs and capacities in relation to fish nutrition and disease prevention
women’s labor and differ? What are the implications for effective priority setting in breeding programs and fish feed and
time burdens disease and innovation development?

Nutrition-sensitive innovations and fish in multifunctional landscapes
8. How do women’s and men’s needs, preferences, capacities and experiences differ in terms of
technological and practical innovations in nutrient-rich, polyculture fish production systems, and
what are the implications for research and extension? How can these innovations positively influence
women’s nutrition and time and labor expenditure?
Table 4. Strategic gender research questions.

17
Embedded within the FISH ToC, our overarching theory of how gender-related change will occur recognizes that to
successfully address these barriers and leverage these opportunities, there is a need for evidence-based, gender-focused
innovations and interventions. To be effectively focused and to have impact at scale, these must be undertaken through
strategic collaborations among research, government, civil society and development agencies, and other actors—and most
importantly, with women, men, girls and boys themselves (see Achieving gender impact at scale, below). Within these
multidisciplinary innovations and interventions, both formal and informal barriers need to be addressed to effect lasting
change. Such interventions range from gender-responsive aquaculture technologies and innovation processes to women-
targeted opportunities and gender-transformative strategies embedded in aquaculture extension, fisheries governance,
nutrition programming and research and partner capacity development programming. We hypothesize that together this
will lead to increases in women’s empowerment, as well as a more level “playing field” in aquaculture and fisheries systems.
This will contribute to greater gender equality in access to, control over and benefit from aquaculture and fisheries assets
and resources; effective participation of women in fisheries resource management and governance; and more successful
and lucrative engagement in fish value chains, including in arenas from which they were previously marginalized. As well as
improving women’s income and livelihood opportunities, these outcomes will enhance benefits from ecosystems and
positively influence fish production and equitable distribution, leading to reduced poverty and enhanced food and nutrition
security for women, men and children.

Programmatic integration of gender in FISH
Gender will be mainstreamed in FISH from design through to research implementation and analysis, as well as to M&E.
Based on learning from L&F and AAS, this will be through a combination and integration of gender-integrated research,
strategic gender research and gender-transformative research. The first involves effective consideration of gender in
technical research (such as incorporating understanding of gendered preferences of small farmers into tilapia breeding
research design), while gender strategic research has gender as the subject (such as research into gendered control over
assets in aquaculture production systems and value chains). Gender-transformative research involves the development and
integration into research of strategies to not only understand, but effect locally appropriate shifts in gender norms,
attitudes and behaviors towards gender equality. All three FISH flagships will aspire to be effectively and appropriately
gender-integrated in their research, as well as undertake key gender strategic and transformative research, as identified
through the gender analysis leading up to FISH. The flagships will do so through empirical quantitative and qualitative
studies, including systematic pre- and post-assessments and action research. (See Table 4 for strategic research questions,
and Annex 3.4 for details of specific research focus, hypotheses to be tested, and background analysis.) The findings from all
forms of gender research will be synthesized into technical, organizational and policy recommendations, and will be scaled
through proactive partnerships and capacity development activities, as outlined in the section below. M&E for and of
gender research is highlighted in Annex 3.6.

Achieving gender impact at scale
While effective and gender-inclusive local engagement and collaborations will set the course for context-specific responses,
gender research in FISH will be translated into impact at scale through three main interconnected avenues. Crosscutting and
feeding into each of these will be the production not only of context-specific insights, high quality journal articles and
audience-tailored products, but also of scalable (transferable) methods, strategies, models, guidelines and
recommendations.

First, FISH pursues gender impact at scale through its contributions to closing global gender data gaps. This involves two
integrated facets: each flagship building rigorous gender-integrated and sex-disaggregated evidence in aquaculture and
fisheries to address the identified significant gaps in data and knowledge (see Annex 3.4); and, in association with this, the
use of, and contributions to, shared gender methods and frameworks. Specifically, in terms of the latter, FISH envisions that
gender research that applies shared methods and frameworks across flagships and CRPs, and between CRPs and other
actors, can effectively contribute to impact at scale by closing global gender data gaps in a systematic way. FISH will
contribute to this systematic addressing of gaps through the following mechanisms: the use of a priority set of shared
methods across flagships and sites, including those to assess gender norms and measure women’s empowerment; its
contributions to, and use of shared methods from, the cross-CRP global comparative research initiative GENNOVATE
initiative and the adaptation and application of the globally recognized and applied quantitative WEAI methodology1 as a
means of closing gender data gaps in fisheries and aquaculture contexts.

1
The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) was developed by IFPRI, the Oxford Poverty and Human Development
Initiative, and USAID’s Feed the Future in 2012. It continues to evolve and be increasingly widely applied by CRPs and a range of
development actors as a comprehensive and standardized measure to assess women’s empowerment and inclusion in agriculture.
18
Second, FISH will achieve gender impact at scale through capacity development around gender for researchers and
partners. It focuses on building researchers’ and research and development partners’ individual and collective
awareness and understanding of the effects of gender equality—and inequalities—on fisheries, aquaculture, and
development; and building capacities to effectively undertake gender research and to integrate its findings into policy
and development interventions at a range of scales. This capacity-development will draw on both in-house expertise
and strategic partnerships. The latter are being developed based on their proven track record. Promundo, for example,
is a world leader in engaging men and boys—along with women and girls—in gender awareness and gender-
transformative capacity development, including engaging men and boys for sustainable outcomes. Johns Hopkins
University (CPP) and KIT will bring gender research expertise in their respective fields. In combination with partnerships,
as noted in Annex 3.4, gender capacity development will combine ongoing mentoring, and organizing and participating
in capacity development workshops and trainings.

The final avenue—and the foundation for impact—comprises strategic partnerships and collaboration. These
connections form the foundation for impact at scale through their central contributions to gender research relevance,
quality, and wider use and application of the scalable findings and outputs, such as for gender-inclusive SSF governance
approaches or women-targeted financing and enterprise models for fish value chains. These will build on a strong track
record of gender partnerships in AAS and L&F. Potential contributors to and users of the research—ranging from global
leaders in gender, to international funding organizations, to national NGOs and gender coalitions, along with
implementing partners such as national departments of fisheries and departments of gender—will be engaged in
collaborative planning for research and scaling, in critical dialogues and in ongoing sharing of learning at the district,
national, regional and international scales. While doing so, FISH will also proactively respond to emerging partner needs
for specific policy and program inputs around gender throughout the CRP phases. Additionally, FISH will contribute to
gender impacts through bringing together national and international gender partners to form new alliances, such as the
highly effective team-up of the University of Dhaka Center for Gender Studies with Promundo in Bangladesh during AAS.

1.0.5 Youth

The FISH CRP adopts a youth-responsive research agenda that targets young men and women, focused on two key
aspects. First, we seek to promote and increase opportunities for socially just, safe and rewarding youth employment
and entrepreneurship in aquaculture and SSF value chains, particularly through FP1 and FP2 in the FISH focal countries.
This includes proof of concept for approaches that enable youth to develop technical and organizational capacities in
aquaculture production and input supply, as well as processing and trade within various elements of the aquaculture
and capture fisheries value chains.

Second, research on governance, management and technological innovations will purposefully engage young people
and determine the factors and processes that enable or hinder youth participation and representation in decision-
making, as well as access to training, credit and other enablers of employment and entrepreneurship. This will enable us
to better determine the most appropriate entry points and opportunities to pursue with regard to youth in aquaculture
and SSF under FP1 and FP2. In FP3, adolescents will be key in influencing behavioral change through school curricula and
other channels to raise awareness on the importance of fish to improve nutrition for pregnant and lactating women and
for infants and young children.

Through earlier experiences, we have found that where youth have been involved in research and management of
research initiatives, there has been greater success; for example, through higher quality and sustainability of resource
monitoring. We will engage more fully in understanding youth aspirations and support them to have a voice in program-
related decisions, particularly in on-site research interventions.

The program strategy for delivering benefits to youth is detailed in Annex 3.5.

1.0.6 Program structure and flagship projects

The overarching research question for the program is: How can we optimize the joint contributions of aquaculture,
small-scale fisheries and fish value chains in select geographies to reduce poverty and improve food and nutrition
security, while enhancing environmental sustainability? A simplified illustration of some of the main linkages among
flagships and clusters is provided in Figure 3.

19

Figure 3. FISH program internal linkages: Integrated research on fish agri-food systems. Selected linkages shown for
illustrative purposes only. Linkages among flagships and clusters are detailed in section 2.

Flagship 1: Sustainable aquaculture
FP1 focuses on the key research question: How can productivity-improving technologies and management practices
enable aquaculture to achieve its fullest contribution to equitable livelihoods and food and nutrition security while
delivering environmental benefits?

Cluster 1: Fish breeds and genetics. Building on prior selective breeding of Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT),
cluster 1 will develop and apply advanced molecular genetics and genetic tools in collaboration with the CGIAR
Excellence in Breeding Platform and others. The outputs will be delivered through existing and new breeding programs
in South Asia and Africa. It will provide a baseline for assessing new traits, including increased resilience to pathogens
and production environments, immune competence, reproduction, metabolic efficiency and nutrient composition.

Cluster 2: Feeds, fish nutrition and health. This cluster will initiate new fish health research and partnerships with
government agencies and companies specializing in disease diagnosis and prevention. We will build capacity to detect
disease at breeding nuclei, multiplication centers, hatcheries and farms, and then develop disease prevention and
control strategies, including breeding for disease resistance (with cluster 1). A key research focus is improving our
understanding of fish nutritional requirements and developing sustainable aquafeeds with ingredients that provide cost-
effective and socially acceptable alternatives to wild-harvest fishmeal, while also increasing nutritional benefits to
consumers (with FP3). Partners will provide access to novel technology, including the use of microbial processes to
bioconvert plant discards such as rice and cassava waste into bioactive aquafeed ingredients.

Cluster 3: Aquaculture systems. Fish farmers’ ability to benefit from improved seedstock (cluster 1) and enhanced fish
health and sustainable feeds (cluster 2) is influenced by gendered barriers and variations in farm management practices.
Cluster 3 will assess different models for integrating improved breeds, health and feeds for gender-responsive

20
sustainable intensification. Lifecycle analysis and foresight modeling will provide insights into the social and
environmental implications of aquaculture growth. For farm-scale enterprises we will prioritize innovations that create
new engagement, employment and enterprise opportunities for youth and women. These include novel aquafeed
production systems next to production ponds and new ways to recapture otherwise wasted fish pond nutrients.

Flagship 2: Sustaining small-scale fisheries. FP2 focuses on the key research question: What are the most effective
routes to improve governance of SSF amid social, economic and ecological change, in ways that sustain and increase
contributions to food and nutrition security and livelihoods of the poor?

Cluster 1: Resilient coastal fisheries. This cluster focuses on sustaining production from small-scale coastal fisheries,
along with gender- and socially equitable access to resources and benefit streams. Research will be conducted in
partnership with fishing communities, NGOs, and provincial, national and regional agencies addressing fisheries and
food security. This research will link localized fisheries management innovations to broader-scale governance
improvements through policy analysis and institutional strengthening.

Cluster 2: Fish in multifunctional landscapes. This cluster addresses how inland fisheries production can be sustained in
multifunctional landscapes, where major threats include land-use changes, hydropower development and climate
change. Many SSF in the focal geographies are closely interlinked with aquaculture and crops, as in the case of rice field
fisheries. Rice-fish systems are often based on recruitment of wild seedstock supplemented with hatchery-reared
seedstock. In close alignment with FP1, research innovations aim to improve overall productivity, along with adaptation
and mitigation to minimize and reverse ecological impacts through improved water management, based on an
understanding of rural livelihoods and coping strategies.

Cluster 3: Fish in regional food systems. This cluster integrates place-based research on SSF and their drivers of change
with the evolving role of fish in regional food security. Analyses and scenario development will focus on the East Africa
and Pacific coastal systems, African Great Lakes, and Asian mega-deltas, with particular focus on the dynamics of
intraregional fish trade. These analyses will underpin multi-stakeholder dialogue to identify and implement
improvements in policies and institutions that incentivize sustainable management while delivering food security and
wealth generation benefits for the poor.

Flagship 3: Enhancing the contribution of fish to nutrition and health of the poor
FP3 addresses the key research question: How can we best leverage innovations in fish production and value chains to
increase the consumption of safe, nutritious fish by poor consumers, especially women and young children?

Cluster 1: Nutrition-sensitive fish production. This cluster seeks to overcome technological barriers to maximizing the
production of fish in pond polyculture systems and rice field fisheries that are widespread throughout South and
Southeast Asia. For example, in Bangladesh, research will focus on testing approaches to increasing productivity of
mola, a nutritious small indigenous fish species, through breeding, increasing stocking density, pond management and
harvesting frequency, linking to parallel research on tilapia and carp in FP1. To address the low participation of women
in small-fish harvesting, we will assess women’s specific needs regarding harvesting technologies and develop and test
women-targeted technologies, alongside strategies for enabling youth employment.

Cluster 2: Reducing waste and loss in fish value chains. This cluster seeks to overcome processing and marketing
obstacles that reduce the availability and affordability of fish to poor consumers. We will test gender-inclusive
technological, market and institutional approaches to reducing waste in the small fish value chain from the Great Lakes
to much of eastern and southern Africa. In South Asia, we will focus on the dried fish value chain in northeastern
Bangladesh and the aquaculture value chain from southwest Bangladesh. This research links to the outputs of FP1 and
FP2, aiming to identify inefficiencies and hotspots of losses, including gender barriers, and then design and test gender-
inclusive solutions, such as improved processing, handling and storage technologies, as well as institutional innovations
that reduce barriers to trade.

Cluster 3: Fish for nutrition and health of women and children. This cluster focuses on research to increase
consumption of fish in the first 1000 days of life. Despite its rich nutritional value, fish is seldom fed to infants aged 6–12
months in low-income countries. This nutritional loss is compounded by gendered intra-household norms leading to low
levels of fish consumption by women, even when pregnant and lactating. We will conduct research to understand,
develop and test approaches to overcome these barriers, including gender-transformative behavior change
communication. Based on promising early innovations, we hypothesize that these tools can lead to both significant
21
increases in the fish consumption of these nutritionally vulnerable groups and increased gender equality in household
decision-making.

1.0.7 Cross CRP collaboration and site integration

As part of an integrated portfolio of CGIAR research programs, FISH has been designed to leverage high-priority
synergies that contribute directly to delivering research outputs and realizing development outcomes in line with the
program TOC.

The program will collaborate with four global integrative CRPs:
• Policies, Institutions and Markets (PIM). Making smart choices among various agricultural technologies and
investment options requires a comparative perspective across food production sectors; therefore, we will continue
analysis of aquaculture technology options as part of global foresight modeling led by PIM. Additional linkages with
PIM focus on opportunities to jointly develop and leverage comparative lessons and tools—notably for value chain
assessment, gender-equitable livelihoods development, and policies to improve natural resource governance.
• Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). To identify adaptation options most appropriate to
expected future climate regimes, we will partner with CCAFS to analyze the impacts of climate change on fish
production and associated livelihoods in our target geographies. As part of our scaling strategy to aid in influencing
policies and investments targeting future climate-smart agriculture, we will work with CCAFS to communicate
evidence on climate-smart aquaculture options (such as water-use efficiency, disease management and responses
to salinization in coastal deltas), as well as adaptation responses in floodplain and reef fisheries.
• Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH). Fish provide exceptional nutritional benefits but remain poorly
represented in nutrition strategies of national governments and development agencies. Our partnership with A4NH
will address this gap by strengthening the evidence on nutritional outcomes and disseminating cost-effective
solutions for nutrition-sensitive fish production, processing and behavioral change benefiting women and children.
We will also partner on risk assessment and mitigation for fish food safety.
• Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). The productivity and sustainability of inland fisheries depend critically on
changes in the broader landscape, notably water resource infrastructure and land-use change. Our partnership
with WLE seeks to ensure that deliberations over basin and watershed-scale resource competition and
development scenarios address fisheries outcomes. At more local landscape scales, we will partner to optimize
water management in crop and fish production, and to manage water quality and pollution risks associated with
aquaculture intensification.

Additional, targeted linkages include those between the aquaculture breeds research and CGIAR platforms on
Excellence in Breeding, and Big Data. Particular site integration activities also include links with RICE on integrated rice-
fish systems; Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB) on cassava waste inputs to novel aquafeeds; and Livestock on animal
health and feeds. An overview of cross-CRP integration is provided in Annex 3.7.

Primary countries for site integration are Bangladesh, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zambia, where we will seek to partner with
PIM, A4NH and CCAFS on analyses of opportunities to integrate fish-based solutions in support of national policies on food
security, nutrition and climate change adaptation. Site-specific integration will also be pursued in these countries, as well
as in Cambodia and Myanmar. Details of cross-CRP research as part of site integration plans are provided in Annex 3.7,
Table 2a, along with the status of country and partner engagements to advance this site integration in Table 2b.

1.0.8 Partnerships and comparative advantage

The FISH CRP brings together a unique set of multi-stakeholder partnerships to harness emerging science in aquaculture
and fisheries to deliver improved development outcomes at scale. We will exploit three elements of comparative
advantage: (1) a globally unique research capability from within CGIAR and our research partners targeted at the
specific objectives of each flagship; (2) unique resources maintained by FISH partners that cannot be readily replicated
by other research providers, including (in aquaculture) GIFT and other farmed fish stocks developed by WorldFish, and
(in fisheries) the ReefBase and Coral Triangle Atlas databases; and (3) a unique track record in convening dialogue and
mutually beneficial collaborations in countries where we work. The partnership brought together through FISH is further
distinguished by our emphasis on generating IPGs that would not be delivered by national research partners, NGOs and
other development actors or the private sector.

22
FISH will be led by WorldFish, together with the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and three advanced
research institutes: the Aquaculture and Fisheries Group at Wageningen University (WUR), the Australian Research
Council Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University (JCU), and the Natural Resources Institute at
University of Greenwich (NRI). This partnership leverages the close alignment between the program’s strategic goals
and the mandate of WorldFish; the expertise and networks of IWMI in water management, governance and resilience;
and science capacity from beyond CGIAR essential to address the specific hurdles identified in the program’s theories of
change. WUR will bring leading-edge science capacity in fish nutrition, health and aquaculture feeds development in
FP1; JCU will bring a network of leading research institutions focusing on coral reef ecosystem goods and services in FP2;
and NRI brings expertise in fisheries postharvest technology and food safety. Each managing partner will lead a cluster
of activity in its respective flagship.

The program will complement the research capability of WorldFish and the managing partners through partnerships
with a range of advanced research institutes, and at national level through the National Agricultural Research and
Extension Systems (NARES) in the countries where we will work. For example, in FP1, the University of Stirling (UoS) and
the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) will provide expertise in aquafeeds and fish
health, and the Bangladesh Agricultural University and Khulna University will lead specific areas of research on fish
nutrition. Similarly, in FP3, the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health will bring expertise to the design of
randomized control trials testing the impact of consumption of fish and fish-based products on health, pregnancy and
child development.

The program builds on strong development partnerships established through earlier research of program partners,
including AAS and L&F. These include close collaboration with national government agencies, NGOs and the private
sector in the prioritization and design of research and scaling activities. For example, in Bangladesh, FISH flagships
address priorities of the Country Investment Plan and, through FP1, the National Aquaculture Development Strategy
and Action Plan (2013–2020). At the regional level, we draw on strong partnerships to identify and scale research
priorities. For example, in Africa, the program reflects the regional priorities of the African Union (AU)’s newly
developed Africa Aquaculture Action Plan. We will pursue national priorities under this framework and strengthen our
existing partnership with the Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) and New Partnership for Africa's
Development (AU-NEPAD) to achieve scale.

Details of the program partnership strategy are provided in Annex 3.2.

1.0.9 Evidence of demand and stakeholder commitment

The FISH CRP responds to the priority given to fisheries and aquaculture by national governments in Africa, Asia and the
Pacific. In 2014, the Joint Conference of African Ministers of Agriculture, Rural Development, Fisheries and Aquaculture
highlighted the role of fisheries in achieving the 6% annual agricultural growth envisaged by the Comprehensive African
Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), and called for development of “fisheries and aquaculture as an integral
component of sustaining the CAADP results framework” (AU 2014). In support of this policy focus, the AU-NEPAD and
AU-IBAR have identified intra-African fisheries trade and aquaculture development as key priorities for investment. At
the national level, 30 of the 40 countries that have signed CAADP compacts have identified fisheries and aquaculture as
one of the key drivers of agriculture sector growth. Similarly, while fisheries and aquaculture have long been policy
priorities in Asia, recent analyses have shown the need to double regional fish supply from aquaculture by 2030 (World
Bank 2013). In response, improving the sustainability of capture fisheries and the sustainable development of
aquaculture are receiving renewed priority within national and regional policies and plans, including those of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). In
the Pacific, fish is the most important natural resource for the majority of countries and plays a central role in regional
development, as recognized in regional policies such as the Vava’u Declaration (Vava’u 2007), the Apia Policy (Apia
2008) and the regional policy, The Future of Fisheries (Gillett and Cartwright 2010).

In response to this strategic demand, we are targeting critical barriers that prevent aquaculture and fisheries from realizing
their full potential to help meet the SDGs. To do so, our specific research priorities have been identified in close
collaboration with regional, national and local partners. For example, in Africa, we address priorities identified within the
AU’s Pan-African Plan of Action for sustainable aquaculture development, developed by AU-IBAR with the assistance of
WorldFish. Similarly, in the Pacific, WorldFish has worked closely with the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) to

23
convene a series of policy dialogues to establish a research and policy agenda that integrates fisheries and aquaculture
considerations into policies to combat climate change and improve diets; we will help address these priorities.

At the national level, FISH has been designed in partnership with national and local stakeholders to reflect their priorities.
For example, in Bangladesh, the program responds to the fisheries and aquaculture priorities of the Country Investment
Plan. The specific barriers to aquaculture development on which we focus have been identified through extensive
consultation with women and men farmers, national research institutions, and development partners. Similarly, in the
Pacific, we build on the policy partnership with SPC to pursue priorities agreed upon with national governments, including
in Solomon Islands, for example, where the national fisheries strategy emphasizes the importance of resilient inshore
fisheries for national food security and wellbeing, and looks to CGIAR as an important international partner providing
science in support of this priority. In Africa, the specific aquaculture research priorities for FISH have been informed by the
longstanding partnerships with key stakeholders in the aquaculture sector. For example, we focus on improved feeds and
fish health to overcome the specific challenges being encountered by farmers as aquaculture has grown in importance,
and recognition of barriers to sustainability has risen.

1.0.10 Capacity development

Capacity development role in impact pathway
As a strategic enabler of impact, capacity development is important in all four change mechanisms of the FISH ToC and
is required to support movement from research outputs of the three flagships to research outcomes and ultimately to
development outcomes. For each change mechanism of the ToC, capacities of key stakeholders along the pathway are
identified. These include the capacity of aquaculture farmers to assess technology needs and apply improved practices,
and of fishing communities to implement co-management (change mechanism a); capacity of private investors to
identify appropriate opportunities and enterprises to adopt innovative business models (change mechanism b); public
sector capacity to design and implement policy and regulatory measures that affect the viability of scalable
technologies, management practices and organizational innovations (change mechanism c); and civil society capacity
to promote solutions drawing on research evidence, as well as the capacity of development agencies to integrate these
into their programming and investment priorities (change mechanism d). In sum, capacity development implemented
along FISH impact pathways will contribute to the following cross-cutting sub-IDOs at the CRP level: enhanced
institutional capacity in public sector and private research organizations and improved capacity of women and youth to
participate in decision-making. Further, each flagship has identified cross-cutting capacity sub-IDOs within its theories
of change guiding strategic capacity development actions.
Strategic capacity development actions (see CapDev Framework) Indicators—from the CapDev Indicators
document or other—that could be used to
Intensity of implementation of How chosen elements will be track progress and contribution to CapDev sub-
chosen elements implemented IDOs

Capacity needs High All flagships will invest in (Adapted) needs assessment methodologies
assessment and detailed capacity needs available in published form; proportion of
intervention strategy assessments and intervention capacity development budget allocated to
design strategy design at the start of interventions consistent with capacity needs
the CRP2 cycle and revisit assessment recommendations (disaggregated
throughout through after- by implementing organization and flagship)
action reviews (part of
program M&E for learning).
Design and delivery of High All flagships will use a systems Proportion of learning materials developed for
innovative learning approach with blended external audiences piloted with representative
materials and learning methodology, build audiences; participant evaluation of training
approaches on existing quality materials and workshops to assess increase in knowledge
and develop new tailored and skills; number of people trained
materials as required. (disaggregated by gender, job or role, location,
and literacy)

24
 Develop CRP and Medium Flagships will identify gaps and Biannual survey of partner satisfaction
centers’ partnering interventions to increase the
capacities capacity of scientists to
partner to achieve target
outcomes.
Develop future Low FP1 and FP3 will support
research leaders internships and postgraduate
through fellowships students with research
partners and tertiary
education institutes.
Apply gender- High In partnership with the gender Proportion of capacity needs assessments that
sensitive approaches teams and youth experts, proactively target women and youth; number of
throughout capacity gender and youth dimensions capacity development activities focusing on
development are incorporated into capacity gender approaches and toolkits initiated
development activities (disaggregated by type)
throughout the flagships.
Institutional High All flagships will support the Number of institutional assessments conducted
strengthening outcome of public sector with national agricultural research systems
capacity to design and (NARS); number of policy decisions informed by
implement policy and engagement and information provided by FISH;
regulatory measures that outcome evaluation citing improved
affect the viability of scalable institutional capacity in achievement of other
technologies, management FISH outcomes
practices and organizational
innovations for aquaculture,
fisheries and nutrition
outcomes through specific
strategies designed as part of
their engagement agenda.
Monitoring and Medium As part of the program’s M&E Budget (including staff time) allocated to M&E
evaluation (M&E) of system, capacity development of capacity development activities; treatment of
capacity development indicators will be monitored to capacity development within program M&E and
support adaptive management impact assessment reports, including Center
and measures’ contribution to Commissioned External Reviews
cross-cutting sub-IDOs.
Organizational Low Organizational development
development will be pursued as appropriate
within the work on
institutional strengthening.
Research on capacity Low Research on capacity
development development will be
implemented through flagship
research.
Capacity to innovate Low Capacity to innovate will be
addressed within research
promoting aquaculture
innovation platforms (FP1) and
capacity for social-ecological
resilience (FP2).

25
1.0.11 Program management and governance

FISH is a new CRP and, as such, a new governance, leadership and management structure will be established. An
Independent Steering Committee (ISC) of six to eight members will be appointed, with a majority from outside CGIAR.
The membership will represent a balance of disciplinary expertise (aquaculture, SSF, value chains, gender and youth), as
well as gender and national diversity, with representatives from focal continents (one from Africa and one from Asia),
representatives from end-user bodies (aquaculture and SSF), one seat for WorldFish as the lead center (normally the
Director General or Board Chair), and one from the co-managing CGIAR center (IWMI). The chair will serve for three
years, renewable for a further three years. Members will normally be appointed for three years, but terms of two to
four years will be used in the first instance to establish a staggered turnover in membership. Members may be renewed
once, based on a recommendation from the chair of the ISC. The ISC will meet twice per year with additional virtual
meetings as required. As lead center, the WorldFish Board of Trustees (BoT) will be the accountable governance body
for FISH. As recommended in the final report of the CRP governance and management review (2014), the ISC is a single
balanced governing body that reports directly to the WorldFish BoT on the performance of the program. The reporting
and advice of the ISC includes matters of science content, quality and delivery, risk management, budget allocations
within the CRP, bilateral resource mobilization and alignment, and financial accounting and auditing. This provides the
WorldFish BoT with an independent mechanism for assuring program performance, maintains their accountability
function in program agreements, eliminates duplicative structures and contributes to more efficient decision-making.

The CRP director will be a full-time position appointed by WorldFish upon the recommendation of the ISC, selected
through international recruitment on the basis of proven scientific and program leadership skills. The CRP director will
report programmatically to the ISC and administratively to the Director General of WorldFish. The director will have
overall accountability for program delivery. A management committee (MC) will be established to support the CRP
director in achieving timely and effective implementation, budgeting and reporting. The MC will consist of
representatives of managing partners (IWMI, WUR, JCU, NRI), together with flagship leaders, the program’s gender
research leader, and the M&E leader. The MC will be chaired by the CRP director.

Flagship leaders will
• provide overall strategic leadership for flagship research;
• work with cluster leaders, scientists and other flagship leaders to develop and oversee execution of the research
agenda for the flagship;
• lead identification and negotiation of significant strategic science partnerships to strengthen links between the
flagship science team and leaders in the appropriate body of science.

Cluster leaders will
• provide overall strategic leadership for cluster research;
• work with contributing scientists to develop and oversee execution of the research agenda for the cluster;
• lead identification and negotiation of significant strategic science partnerships for the cluster.

In alignment with WorldFish responsibilities, the CRP director will be responsible for ensuring adherence to the CRP risk
management strategy, including regular review of key risks and response actions with the ISC. The CRP director will lead
the implementation of the program results-based management system (Annex 3.6), reporting on a twice-yearly basis to
the ISC, in addition to CGIAR reporting requirements. The CRP director will also be responsible for ensuring effective
communication with the CRP focal countries and research, government and NGO partnership and practitioner networks,
including effective cross-CRP collaboration and site integration. Further, the CRP director will oversee implementation of
the CRP capacity development agenda and uphold commitments regarding intellectual asset management, open access
and communications.

For efficiency, rather than establish a separate program support unit, administrative support to the CRP director and MC
will be provided by the research support, finance, communications and administration functions of WorldFish, with clear
specification of the services provided through allocation of program budget, and semi-annual review of those services
for quality and cost-effectiveness. These services will include support to activity planning and output monitoring, budget
planning and financial management, research ethics review, research data management, publications, and internal and
external program communications. However, the roles of the CRP director and MC will be clearly distinguished from the
hierarchy and reporting lines of WorldFish management. The CRP director will have the authority and independence to
manage for results.

26
A summary of program staffing, including CVs of key science positions, is provided in Annex 3.8.

1.0.12 Intellectual asset management

WorldFish, as the lead center, will oversee compliance with the CGIAR Intellectual Asset Principles and the subsidiary CGIAR
Open Access and Data Management Policy, which have been adopted by the WorldFish Board. This policy framework
requires that all CGIAR information products be open access, including peer-reviewed journal articles; reports and other
papers; books and book chapters; data and databases; data collection and analysis tools; video, audio and images;
computer software; web services; and metadata. Key exceptions include information that is sensitive due to privacy
concerns, political sensitivity or adverse effects on farmers’ rights and confidential information associated with permitted
restrictions or subject to limited delays to seek intellectual property (IP) rights.

Information products produced by implementing centers and partners are subject to these policies. Mechanisms to ensure
compliance include intellectual asset obligations in staff contracts and partner agreements, a tracking system of databases
and publications in progress, checking that partners follow prior informed consent and confidentiality principles in data
collection and storage, and centralized data management protocols.

WorldFish bases its data preservation strategy on the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) reference model (ISO
14721:2012); the repository system will provide long-term access to submitted works along with associated metadata. Files
will be backed up in a secure and redundant manner, periodically refreshing the storage media, and migrating obsolete
formats to recommended open file formats.

Capabilities to support implementation are centered in a WorldFish research support hub, including a research data
management support specialist, database specialist, and administrative staff dedicated to publications tracking and
management, along with a grants and contracts unit and legal advisory services.

An explanation of the objectives of the CRP for IP is in Annex 3.10.

1.0.13 Open access management

For FISH peer-reviewed research publications, FISH scientists will be encouraged to publish in open access journals. In those
instances where publishing in fee-paying journals is preferred, the program will purchase open access privileges. To ensure
proper deposit of journal articles, a pipeline tracking system will be implemented to ensure the program has a clear view of
the journal articles and other external publications (e.g. book chapters) to be produced each year, and to ensure that fees
for open access are included in the communications budget. The program will use Creative Commons licensing on its self-
published information products.

Where access to patented technology is required, such as the CSIRO aquafeed technology, we will negotiate the terms and
conditions of the FISH CRP license to operate. We will adopt this same approach for other patented technologies, including
disease screening and prevention technologies.

Open access database products produced and maintained by the program will include geo-tagged data on the genetic
characteristics of farmed fish species, comparative data on implementing fisheries management regimes, and estimates on
fish postharvest waste and losses in different locations (see flagship descriptions for additional detail). Where appropriate
global database projects exist, data collection and storage protocols will be designed to contribute to these. Completed
databases will be shared through the Dataverse platform. The program will track and assess the impact of open access and
open data, and will coordinate with the CGIAR Open Access Implementation Working Group to design and implement
measures of success. A detailed explanation of the objectives of the CRP for data management is included in Annex 3.9.

1.0.14 Communication strategy

Effective communications are essential to achieving impact through the four change mechanisms detailed in our ToC. We
will focus on the following:

27
• Practitioner guidance to enable adoption of technologies and management practices, for example on improved fish
feeds or measures to reduce fish loss and waste in the value chain. Draws on applied innovation research, including
multi-stakeholder innovation platforms, focuses on capacity development, and supports change mechanisms a and b.

• Evidence, learning and exchange on technologies and innovations shared via peer-reviewed literature, outcome
stories and evidence-based narratives focused on FISH-generated science. Draws on outcome evaluation and
impact assessment and supports change mechanisms b, c and d.

• Policy dialogue demonstrating the value of fisheries and aquaculture as a means to address national and regional food
and nutrition security and poverty reduction goals, and evidence to support the analysis of policy alternatives,
including foresight and scenario analysis. Supports change mechanisms c and d.

FISH communications capacity will support a comprehensive and proactive media outreach approach; dedicated and active
support for online resources, such as a dedicated website and building communities via social media and print
publications; and development, coordination and participation in strategic events and policy initiatives. The program
will embrace a culture of knowledge sharing and learning that sustains productive relationships, partnerships and networks,
including linkages across CRPs. Flagship teams will be supported to integrate communications activities into their research
and scaling plans, taking into account the abilities of different communities to access information. We will also provide
publicly accessible reporting on progress towards outcomes, demonstrating accountability towards funders, partners and
local stakeholders.

1.0.15 Risk management

Risk management is an integral part of FISH design and implementation. The program and flagship level impact pathways
and theories of change specify risks and assumptions, and corresponding risk management actions. At an institutional level
WorldFish is the lead center for the program, and so FISH will comply with the WorldFish risk management standards, codes
of practice and policy. Within this broader framework, we will focus on five programmatic risks that we judge to be of
particular significance.

Loss of strategic focus. External review of the pre-proposal highlighted the importance of aligning the program’s research
strategy with clear impact pathways and associated theories of change, and using these to develop and maintain a sharp
focus for the program’s research. This concern has been addressed in the full proposal by focusing the program’s research
on key barriers along the impact pathways identified for each flagship, and the mechanisms of change required to address
these. During implementation, program management and the ISC will continue to use the impact pathways and theories of
change as an organizing framework to track progress and maintain this strategic focus, informed by the results-based
management system (Annex 3.6).

Ineffective partnerships. The proposal highlights the pervasive importance of effective partnerships for successful program
implementation. If our partnerships do not meet this standard, the program will not succeed. We will manage this risk by a
sustained focus on implementing the program’s partnership strategy (Annex 3.2), including emphasis on clarifying the roles
and responsibilities of program partners and ensuring that these are mutually understood, strengthening the capacity of
staff to work effectively in partnership, and reviewing performance of partnerships on an annual basis as part of the
program’s results-based management system.

Inability to achieve systemic change. The program will only achieve outcomes at scale by delivering research results that
lead to systemic change. If our results are only of value in very limited geographies, the program will be unsuccessful. We
have addressed this risk in program design by identifying barriers and mechanisms of change that existing evidence suggests
are widely applicable in multiple geographies. As the program is implemented, we will test the scalability of our results
explicitly. For those mechanisms requiring policy change, we will work through the national and regional policy partnerships
as described in section 2 for each flagship, which have been developed explicitly to pursue systemic change.

Inadequate attention to gender. The proposal highlights the strongly gendered nature of fisheries and aquaculture systems
and the importance of placing gender at the center of the program to achieve our objectives. This, in turn, requires not only
that the program makes a sustained investment in gender research (Annex 3.4) but also that we secure and retain the staff
capacity required. To address this risk, the program proposes a budget provision of 12% for gender, and we will build on the

28
strong track record of WorldFish and IWMI to attract the additional staff required to deliver on the program commitment to
gender and social equity.

Funding uncertainty. Lack of certainty about the likely scale of funding is a key risk to effective planning and
implementation of FISH. To mitigate this risk, WorldFish has engaged to secure bilateral funding with partners that will
complement W1-2 funding. Current projections are reflected in the program budget, and we will build on this as the
program is implemented. However, the comparative flexibility of W1-2 funding is a critical asset for FISH and other CRPs,
and it is likely that a reduction in W1-2 funding will diminish the strategic effectiveness of the program.

29
1.1 CRP Budget Narrative
1.1.1 General information

CRP Name FISH

CRP Lead Center WORLDFISH

1.1.2 Summary

Flagship Name Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total
FP1-Sustainable Aquaculture 11,007,690 11,641,962 12,413,507 13,254,652 14,170,913 15,139,248 77,627,972
FP2-Sustaining small-scale fisheries 8,824,418 9,331,062 9,713,465 10,205,412 10,633,800 11,166,468 59,874,625
FP3-Enhancing the impact of fish for
nutrition and health of the poor 5,266,069 5,681,052 5,935,437 5,920,091 5,241,983 5,195,936 33,240,568
Management & Support Cost 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 7,700,000
Strategic Competitive Research Grant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26,198,177 27,854,076 29,262,408 30,680,155 31,446,697 33,001,652 178,443,164

Narrative: The primary opportunity to increase fish production lies in aquaculture, the fastest-growing food sector in
the world, with significant opportunities for R&D to boost productivity. Flagship 1 focuses on research to address the
challenge of sustainably intensifying aquaculture production, and accounts for the largest share of planned FISH
contributions to targets on productivity improvement and poverty reduction (SLO 1) and food and nutrition security
(SLO 2). It therefore also has the largest budget allocation, at 43.5%. However small-scale fisheries still provide the
sector’s largest contribution to livelihoods and also remain the primary source of fish for food and nutritional security
for poor consumers in most countries. Sustaining these fisheries requires significant improvements in ecosystem
management (SLO 3) and Flagship 2 receives 33.5% of budget allocation to invest in this research. Flagship 3 is designed
to complement Flagships 1 and 2 with a focus on achieving the maximum gains in nutrition outcomes. It has a smaller
geographic focus in this phase, to demonstrate and test new approaches that can be scaled. Its budget allocation is
18.6%. The preponderance of the flagship budgets will be spent to directly support country level activities.

FISH will benefit from a lower management and support cost as a result of utilizing existing administrative infrastructure
and financial support processes of WorldFish to support program leadership. The budget allocation for management
and support is 4.4%.

We envisage that FISH will pursue research activities in Nigeria and Tanzania, locations where WorldFish does not have
an existing administrative infrastructure or legal standing. While both are priority countries targeted for intensive site
integration, this remains as a start-up risk that may delay program spending if not mitigated. This risk will need to be
carefully managed through collaboration with partners and due diligence aimed at ensuring the most efficient and
effective processes are in place to support operations. Finally, leadership is always a critical factor in a successful
program launch and ensuring the program implements according to plan. Recruiting and hiring a well-qualified CRP
Director for the program will be the first priority to ensure that research delivery and spending remains on schedule.

30
1.1.3 CRP funding plan

Funding Needed Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total
W1+W2 8,661,033 9,052,022 9,410,828 9,944,295 10,470,532 11,015,424 58,554,136
W3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilateral 17,537,143 18,802,052 19,851,580 20,735,860 20,976,163 21,986,227 119,889,027
Other Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26,198,176 27,854,074 29,262,408 30,680,155 31,446,695 33,001,651 178,443,159

Funding Secured Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

W1+W2(Assumed Secured) 8,661,033 9,052,022 9,410,828 9,944,295 10,470,532 11,015,424 58,554,136
W3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilateral 9,307,870 6,076,371 3,796,982 2,254,408 1,001,797 289,933 22,727,363
Other Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17,968,903 15,128,393 13,207,810 12,198,703 11,472,329 11,305,357 81,281,495

Funding Gap Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total
W1+W2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilateral -8,229,272 -12,725,680 -16,054,597 -18,481,452 -19,974,366 -21,696,294 -97,161,664
Other Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-8,229,272 -12,725,680 -16,054,597 -18,481,452 -19,974,366 -21,696,294 -97,161,661

Narrative: Due to the limitations of the online submission form, the funding figures presented herein have combined all
bilateral and Window 3 (W3) funds into the bilateral fields row. Despite this presentation constraint, it is our full
expectation that there will be a mix of both bilateral and Window 3 funds contributing to FISH. As of March 2016, 53%
of the needed bilateral/W3 funding for 2017 is already fully secured. The current pipeline of bilateral proposals that are
in negotiation with identified donors provides us with high confidence that the 2017 and 2018 funding gaps will be
eliminated prior
to the end of 2017.

Funding risks increase beyond 2018 as the pipeline becomes more uncertain. The greatest risk mitigation strategy is to
deliver strong outcomes in the first 18 months of FISH and promote that progress through a diverse array of channels to
provide bilateral donors with the compelling case they need to invest. WorldFish will continue to engage in flagship and
CRP level initiatives for business development, including communication and dialogue with donors from the public and
private sectors, scanning of investment opportunities and development of proposals to increase the pipeline of bilateral
funds available.

Annual funding certainty of W1/W2 funds will be a critical enabler to ensure the CRP achieves its objectives on time and
on target. The traditional funding dynamic that does not allow for any funding certainty until after the year is over will
create delays in implementation if it is not adjusted.

WorldFish will dedicate additional organizational resources to securing the bilateral funding targets identified in the
proposal; however, W1 and W2 funds will need to be secured and received in order to leverage the bilateral
opportunities and commence investment in program activities. Delays in receiving W1 and W2 funds will have a knock-
on effect on implementation and execution as WorldFish will not be in a position to pre-finance Program activities that
are designated to be funded from W1 and W2 sources.

1.1.4 CRP management and support costs

The critical function of establishing and managing the direction, coherence, and transparent governance of the CRP is
expected to be funded from W1/2. The CRP will be charged these actual costs incurred on a direct charge basis. The
budget for this has been developed on a detailed basis considering the specific dedicated capacities and level of effort
that will be required to fulfill these services for the CRP. As a starting point, great care was taken to identify cost-
efficiencies through leveraging of existing and planned shared processes and systems. After realizing those efficiencies
while ensuring sufficient dedicated resources are in place to support the CRP, the final management and support cost

31
budget is 4.4% of the overall CRP budget. This includes management and governance at 62% and 38% respectively. All
costs are inclusive of applicable overhead costs.

Personnel costs represent the single largest component of management costs and relate to the cost of a dedicated CRP
Director with additional specified support from finance and human resources staff. The level of effort for shared staff
was estimated on a number of day’s basis. All related costs (travel, operating, workshops/meetings, ICT) of the CRP
Director were included in the respective lines under management.

The most significant cost for governance relates specifically to consultancies required to carry out internal audits,
internal reviews and CRP Commissioned Eternal Evaluations (CCEE’s) as well as flagship level impact assessments, which
will be conducted on a rotating annual basis. The full cost of the Independent Steering Committee (ISC), including the
travel, meeting and operating costs of the ISC, has also been included.

1.1.5 CRP financial management principles

Allocation process of the CRP budget to flagships for Windows 1 and 2:
The total proportion of requested Windows 1 and 2 (W1/W2) funds for the program is 32.8%. This was derived from the
indicative budget amounts provided in the 2017-2022 CGIAR Research Program Portfolio (CRP2) Final Guidance for Full
Proposals. After applying inflation and timing based assumptions to the base-year budget, this translates into $58.6M of
cumulative W1/W2 requested for the entirety of the program.

As stated in section 3, a keystone budget assumption used in developing the budget allocations is that management and
support costs are funded by Windows 1 and 2. Adjusting for management and support costs, the remaining Windows 1
and 2 funds were distributed to the flagships at a rate approximating the proportionate amount of the total budget
reserved for each flagship and outlined in section 1, above.

Budget Accountabilities
Each flagship leader will be fully authorized to manage the budgets for their respective flagship. Budgetary
responsibilities of the flagship leaders include monitoring performance to budget spending, monitoring impact of
foreign exchange fluctuations on availability of funding and program
outputs, monitoring progress against bilateral fundraising targets and adjusting projections and budgets accordingly as
circumstances change.

The financial services department of WorldFish will support the flagship leaders by providing all of the necessary
financial reports (performance to budget at cluster and by donor, forward looking projections, funds availability
analysis, foreign exchange impact analysis, etc.) on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis as necessary. The flagship
leader will be empowered to use this information to engage directly with partners, implementing country offices,
cluster leaders and activity leaders to hold them accountable for performance gaps relating to spending/
implementation or funding/resource acquisition. The only exception to this accountability framework will be with
respect to receiving Window 1 and 2 funds. Managing this critical funding stream is beyond the scope of accountability
for the flagship leaders.

Financial Guidelines
Subject to rules that may be established in the future by the new System governance structure, the working expectation
is that it will be permissible to carry forward unspent funds from one period to a future period as long as the overall
program is still deemed on course and the cumulative allocated
funds are spent by the end of the six years.

In cases where funds are expected to be overspent in a particular natural classification category, there will be a
requirement for the budget to be revised in advance. The expectation is that the budget revision will provide narrative
rationalization for the shift in spending plan and must show
which expense classification category will be commensurately reduced to offset the planned increase. All budget
revisions will require approval of the CRP Director. If greater than 10%, then this will also require approval of the
Independent Steering Committee, and of the System Office as per the Final Guidance for Full Proposals.

32
Annual spending variances of up to 10% for individual activies and line items funded by W1/2 will be allowed for partner
and flagship budgets.

W3/bilateral expenditures are subject to their own contractual requirements which will be followed.
Spending and programmatic progress of partners will be monitored on a continual basis with advances being restricted
pending thorough review and approval of spending to date. Performance criteria will be included in the partner
contracts and linked to the program’s results based management system to empower the flagship leader to hold
partners accountable. Leveraging the capacity of cloud-based shared financial management and enterprise resource
planning (ERP) system, financial reports to donors and the System Office will be prepared on the basis that they can be
viewed in detail by ‘drilling down’ from the flagship level to the individual funding agreements. All financial accounting
will be conducted in line with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Financial reports will need to be
approved by flagship leaders and the CRP Director prior to submission.

Capital Investments
The only capital investments exceeding $25,000 are as follows (please refer to detailed budget worksheets for more
information):

Genomic data handling software ($168,666) – consists of original outlay of $25K for software plus annual renewal and
licensing costs over the lifetime of the program.

Results Based Management system for tracking & consolidation of genetic improvement ($25,000).

1.1.6 Budgeted costs for certain key activities

Estimate annual average cost

(USD)
Gender 3,608,378
Youth (only for those who have relevant
set of activities in this area) 861,939
Capacity development 2,973,091
Impact assessment 1,172,024
Intellectual asset management 85,102
Open access and data management 455,568
Communication 1,366,464


Gender
Investment of $21.7M over the 6 years, representing 12.1% of the overall CRP budget, will support the integration of
gender analysis into all CRP and flagship activities and the delivery of outcomes related to gender equity and inclusion.
This includes global and national scientists, specialist consultancy, partners, workshops and training of research teams
and development partners and operating expenses for field research in focal countries and cross-country synthesis.
Research will focus on:
• Gender-integrated fish breeding programs, women-led enterprises in fish feed value chains and most viable models
and entry points for women entrepreneurs in aquaculture (flagship 1).
• Gender-equitable control of assets and participation in decision making as a contribution to building more resilient
fishing communities and households and on increasing the value women derive from value chains through improved
governance and policy (flagship 2).
• Gender-equitable resource control of assets and participation in decision-making as a contribution to increasing the
availability and consumption of nutrient-dense fish. This will be done by:
• addressing the need for harvesting technologies that meet women’s specific needs and preferences, including
time and labor, including the testing of women-targeted technologies for fish harvesting in pond polyculture
systems (flagship 1)
• identifying and testing approaches that enhance women’s access to and control over key assets and their ability
to take advantage of opportunities in fish value chains (flagship 2)

33
 • researching gender issues at the household-level, in particular decision-making about intra-household
distribution of food and child-feeding practices. The cluster will test scalable gender-transformative behavioral
change mechanisms (flagship 3)

Early program investments during 2017-18 will focus on participatory assessments and formative research, and from
2018-2022 increasingly towards action research and implementation of best bets arising from the assessments.
WorldFish and IWMI will continue to recruit and train people in our
own organizations so we are fit-for-purpose in engaging with the ambitious FISH gender research agenda. Funds are also
invested in contributions of key international partners and national partners for research and scaling activities.

Youth
Investment of $5.2M over the 6 years representing 2.9% of the overall CRP budget which will support the integration of
youth into all CRP and flagship activities.

Early program investments during 2017-18 are oriented towards assessments of youth and addressing the dearth of
knowledge about the roles of youth in pond polyculture systems, rice field fisheries and fish value chains. As the CRP
progresses the investments will increasingly go towards developing and testing youth-responsive technologies for all
parts of the value chain and from 2018-2022 increasingly towards engaging youth in action research and catalytic
support to scaling of promising youth interventions in aquaculture production, fisheries governance and value chains in
focal countries.

Global and national scientists are funded, including a part-time young scientist as coordinator of flagship 1 youth
research, together with a specialist consultancy for national studies, partnerships, workshops and training of research
teams and development partners and operating expenses for field research in focal countries and cross-country
synthesis. Funds are also allocated for youth internships and mentoring across the flagship, enabling us to capitalize on
activities for engaging youth in program activities and supporting youth-oriented capacity building.

Capacity development
Investment of $17.8M over the 6 years representing 10% of the overall CRP budget which will support the integration of
capacity development into flagship research activities and support achievement of outcomes in line with the program
theory of change. Early program investments will include needs assessments, multi-stakeholder approaches,
development of new learning materials where required, the development of capacity for the testing of gender-inclusive
technologies and market and institutional approaches to reducing fish waste and economic and nutrient losses, and
enhancing the quality of fish.

This will be followed by targeted capacity building investments including specialist training consultancy, internships for
young scientists within the program research activities, implementation of regular Africa regional aquaculture training
courses in the Abbassa research and training center in
Egypt, investment in national partners through collaboration in research activities, and student fellowships.

Funds are also allocated to global and national scientists to conduct training activities for researchers and development
partners. A dedicated coordinator for aquaculture capacity building in Africa is proposed to be based at the Abbassa
center, to facilitate transfer of our core aquaculture research learning in Egypt more widely in support of scaling across
the region. Investments are also made in staff to support capacity building across our Asian focal and scaling countries.

Impact assessment
Investment of US$7.0M over the 6 years represents 3.9% of the overall CRP budget. This investment will support staff
time and tools for data collection, consolidation and analysis related to indicators of relevance across the CRP including
changes in fish consumption, reduced waste and loss, nutrient analysis of fish content of different species and across
the value chain, estimating and validating dissemination of improved fish strains, on-farm assessments of productivity,
income, fish disease control/feed technology adoption, and fish price monitoring.

Additional investment in annual after-action assessments and learning events with partners to capture lessons learned,
document outcomes and evaluate uptake of research technologies by partners and policy-related outcomes.

34
Intellectual asset management
Investment of US$511K over the 6 years represents 0.3% of the overall CRP budget. This investment is allocated for
assessment, protection and ensuring suitable arrangements with partners in ownership of intellectual property, lawyer’s
fees and meeting the requirements of the Nagoya protocol.

Open access and data management
Investment of US$2.7M over the 6 years represents 1.5% of the overall CRP budget and supports publication of research
data and papers (including OA publication costs), ensuring materials are available for dissemination through the CRP
website, investments in data management, professional training and external legal support and appropriate
documentation to make datasets publicly available through open access depositories, and purchasing of open access
privileges for publication in non-open access journals where needed.

Communications
Investment of US$8.2M over the 6 years represents 4.6% of the overall CRP budget. This investment supports
publication of research papers, and communication activities (policy briefs, manuals, technical reports, outcome stories)
that will support the communication of research to end users with and through partners, including farming communities
in focal countries (costs of pamphlets, manuals), policy makers (policy briefs) and NGO or government partners
(extension manuals). Investment in mobile technology approaches to communication to end-users will be assessed
through a study planned for 2017. Communications will also be resourced through partners and their institutional
investments in communications, particularly, for example, JCU which has developed a highly effective communications
and media program. Similarly, we will seek synergies with collaborating CRPs.

1.1.7 Other

Strategic Reliance on W1/W2 Funding
Achieving the impacts outlined in this program proposal requires mobilizing approximately $120 million in bilateral and
Window 3 over the life of the program. This calls for flexibility to address the priorities of funders in terms of country
focus and thematic interest.

Window 1 and 2 funds at the CRP level are used primarily to support fundamental elements of the program, including
funding of managing partners to enable their participation in coordination, planning and implementing strategic
research that can yield impact at scale when combined with activities funded with bilateral investments. Given the
breadth of the FISH program and the interdependent funding model, funds from different sources will be integrated in
support of tasks that have been determined to fit within the scope and priorities of the Program.

As noted in section 3, it is expected that Window 1 and 2 funds will also be used to fund the annual management and
support costs of the program.

Uplift Budget
This Uplift budget has been prepared based on the scenario whereby the aggregate portfolio of funding increases by
50% from the $900M indicative budget. Under an uplift budget scenario, should additional funding be available to invest
in the program, allocations will be made according to an ex ante analysis of probability of success and scale of impact,
informed by results of outcome monitoring and impact assessment. (See Results Based Management Annex for a
description of the program’s approach to outcome evaluation and impact assessment.) Particular priority under an uplift
budget will be given to increasing the level of investment and pace of scaling impact in Sub-Saharan Africa. The
following additional activities have been identified for priority investment within the CRP:

Aquaculture in Africa. Sustainable aquaculture growth is needed to increase fish supply and consumption in Africa. This
investment will enable FISH to expand its aquaculture research activities with partners in three key research areas: (i)
Sustainable fish feeds for tilapia and catfish in Africa, to expand collaboration with the AFS CRPs on utilization of AFS
crops and waste streams to develop sustainable fish feeds (collaboration with RTB and RICE, and new collaboration with
CRP DCL on sorghum in Kenya, responding to the ISPC recommendation for more collaboration with crop CRPs); (ii)
aquaculture and fish supply and demand in Africa: modeling of fish supply and demand scenario analysis, value chain
analysis and fish foresight analysis guiding aquaculture policy and investment planning in CRP focal countries Egypt,
Nigeria, Tanzania, and scaling countries Ghana, Kenya, and Tanzania. (iii) development of nutrition-sensitive aquaculture
systems for Africa, building on Asian experience from Bangladesh and Cambodia to the inclusion of micronutrient-rich

35
small fish in aquaculture and aquatic agricultural food systems in Africa. These three research topics will complement
existing research investments in Africa on tilapia genetic improvement. Pathways for impact will be largely through
partners engaged with the USD$24 million aquaculture component of the African Development Bank "Technologies for
African Agriculture Transformation (TAAT)," which targets self-sufficiency and an additional 2 million tonnes of fish
production, as well as employment for men, women and youth.

Rice-fish production systems in Asia. These systems offer the opportunity to impact the livelihoods and diets of
millions of people, especially the poor. Building on the research to be carried out in Bangladesh and Cambodia on
increasing the production of nutrient-rich small fish in pond polyculture and rice field fisheries, additional investment
will be used for research on improving the quality and benefits of diverse production systems and for scaling. We will
conduct research on a continuum of production systems, for example, concurrent and alternate rice-fish production
systems, enhanced stocking of nutrient-rich small indigenous fish and farmed fish species in inundated rice fields and
community fish refuges, and aquaculture ponds connected to rice fields. In partnership with RICE, we will conduct
research on the combined benefits on fish and rice in rice-fish production systems, and in particular, with zinc-rich rice
varieties which are being scaled up across Asia in A4NH Flagship 2 (Biofortification).

Global agenda setting to better profile fish in development. We will strategically invest in integrative global and
regional analyses that identify risks and policy pathways to better leverage the contributions of fish to development
goals. Fish is by far the fastest-growing animal-source food, and is a critical contributor to global food and nutrition
security. Despite this, advocates for fisheries and aquaculture often struggle to bring appropriate attention to the
sectors so they can be fully incorporated into global development debates and prioritized in national policy. Global and
regional analyses of fish value chains and the role of fish in transforming public health profiles will be included. The FISH
CRP will work with existing partners, and engage with other global actors to increase its influence in the global
development agenda.

Accelerating fisheries management innovations in key geographies. Despite the growth of aquaculture, capture
fisheries will continue to supply most of the fish consumed in much of the developing world in the coming decades. The
great majority of these fisheries are small-scale, operating in rivers, lakes and wetlands and in coral reefs and estuaries
in coastal seas. Sustaining and increasing the contribution of SSF to poverty reduction and food security is a profound
challenge that requires sustained investment in addition to shorter-term bilateral investment. Given the central place of
fisheries in FISH, we will augment W1/2 funding in focal countries to ensure the systemic engagement in governance
required for impact. Beel fisheries in southern Bangladesh will be a particular focus, along with coastal systems in
Tanzania and Nigeria.

Climate change in fisheries and aquaculture. Research that addresses the grand challenge of climate change is one of
several important cross cutting issues in the CRP, particularly as fisheries and aquaculture production adapts to
changing ecological challenges and opportunities. The additional funding will enable FISH to better collaborate with
CCAFS and other partners in: (1) testing and scaling up climate-smart aquaculture technologies and production systems
to build adaptive capacity and resilience (with CCAFS Flagship 2), (ii) addressing mitigation and adaptation by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from fish farming (with CCAFS Flagship 3), (iii) climate change adaptation in Pacific food
systems, building on work in 2015 (with CCAFS Flagship 1).

Improving diets and human nutrition and health through harnessing the nutritional value of fish from fisheries and
aquaculture. A recently published paper in Nature projected that 845 million people, or 11% of the global population,
are at risk of deficiencies of zinc, iron or vitamin A, due to declines in fish consumption, if current trends in the decline of
fisheries continue. Increased investment will enable the program to increase focus on nutritional considerations as an
important factor in determining fisheries and aquaculture policies. WorldFish and partners have recently completed a
database on the nutrient composition of over 400 marine finfish species. We will expand this database, globally,
focusing on our focal and scaling countries, and include inland fish and farmed fish species, other aquatic animals and
fish products. In addition, we will conduct further analyses of fish samples to enable us to explore the determinants of
nutrient variation in different fish categories, in order to identify nutrient-rich species. By combining data on nutrient
composition of different fish species with that of fish availability under different management and production scenarios,
we can better characterize the supply of different essential nutrients from fish and how these scenarios can fill the
nutrient gaps of different populations. This activity will expand partnerships with Johns Hopkins University, University of
Copenhagen, and Harvard University, through the project THETIS (Tracking Health and Ecosystem Transformation in the
Seas) and the Global Expanded Nutrient Supply (GENuS) Model, as well as Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future,
Cornell University.
36

Integrated assessment of pathways for fisheries and aquaculture development in Tanzania. Fish is an important
component of the Tanzanian diet, and inland and marine fisheries have traditionally made critical contributions to
nutrition and employment, as well as economic development. The country faces significant shortfalls in fish supply in
future, with many fisheries under various pressures, while presidential policy is emphasizing growth of aquaculture to
meet the growing demand, and to make substantive contributions to poverty reduction and employment. The
investment would increase our research on sustainable aquaculture, small-scale fisheries and nutrition and value chains
in Tanzania, providing a foundation for policy development, and well targeted investment into sustainable development
of the countries aquaculture and fisheries sectors.

Enhancing fish supply and consumption for human nutrition in Timor Leste. Timor Leste has some of the lowest
nutrition indicators globally, with very high rates of stunting and undernutrition among children. The Government's
national nutrition policy seeks to address this challenge, and donors are increasing investment into nutritional
improvements. WorldFish partnerships in Timor Leste have stimulated creation of a tilapia aquaculture industry, based
on introduction of GIFT, while improvements in fisheries management also provide opportunities for enhancing the
supply of fish to coastal and inland communities. This new FISH investment would assess the role of the new
aquaculture industry and growing fish supply on human nutrition within the country, with an emphasis on women and
children. Research will aim to influence investments into the fisheries and aquaculture sectors in ways that maximize
nutritional outcomes. This would be a unique opportunity to build evidence of how targeted fish investments can
address undernutrition, with wider applicability.

Improving fish processing technologies and development of fish-based products for Sub-Saharan Africa. This activity
offers the opportunity to increase the quantity and quality of fish consumed by many poor Africans, thereby improving
dietary diversity and contributing to healthier diets, while supporting value chain actors to increase incomes through
reduction in fish loss and benefit from improved working conditions. Building on the research on improving fish
processing in Tanzania and further development and use of fish-based products in Bangladesh, the additional
investment will enable the program to extend activities to Zambia, in order to develop appropriate approaches for
scaling to multiple Sub-Saharan countries. We will focus on fish drying, and test the efficiency and evaluate the
economic viability of innovative new processing technologies, conduct participatory research with fish value chain
actors, especially women, at different nodes and demonstrate the impact on improved drying practices on their
livelihoods. With respect to development and use of fish-based products, we will partner with “The first 1000 most
critical days programme” (MCDP), under Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN); National Food and Nutrition Commission; and the
NGO, Self Help Africa to include fish-based products in interventions and policies, as a means of contributing to reducing
the very high rates of child stunting and malnutrition in Zambia. The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development
Programme (CAADP), under The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), which already has a strong
partnership with A4NH, offers an excellent channel for regional scaling.

Aquaculture, capture fisheries and fish trade interdependencies in the Mekong Delta. Building on research to identify
impacts of changing patterns of fish production and fish trade in the Mekong Delta, additional investment will allow a
context-specific focus on the feed and seed inputs supplied from capture fisheries in Cambodia to the aquaculture
sector in Vietnam, the single largest producer of catfish, aimed at export markets in USA and EU, and recently with
expansion in China. This research will entail a comprehensive value chain analysis: assessing the benefits and losses with
respect to livelihoods, income, poverty, and food and nutrition security of different population groups, including
fisherfolk, value chain actors, producers, exporters and consumers as well as environmental factors, in both countries. It
is commonly considered that feed and seed to Vietnam from Cambodia are in direct competition with fish as food for
humans, especially for the poor, and that fish from aquaculture in Vietnam does not directly benefit consumption by the
poor. Collaborations are proposed with research institutes in Vietnam (RIA2, SIWRP, Can Tho University), and in
Cambodia (Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute, Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries).

37






Amount W1 + W2 Bilateral Other

Outcome Description Needed (%) W3 (%) (%) (%)

1.1 - 4.9 million producer households

adopted improved breeds, aquafeeds,
fish health and aquaculture and
fisheries management practices 28,954,667 32% 0 68% 0
1.2 - 3.5 million people, of which at
least 50% are women, assisted to exit
poverty through livelihood
improvements related to fisheries and
aquaculture value chains 24,430,500 32% 0 68% 0
2.3 - 2.4 million people, of which 50%
are women, without deficiencies of
one or more of the following essential
micronutrients: iron, zinc, iodine,
vitamin A, folate & B12 15,534,667 32% 0 68% 0
2.4 - 4.7 million more women of
reproductive age consuming adequate
number of food groups 15,534,667 32% 0 68% 0
3.3 - 3.3 million ha of ecosystems
restored through more productive and
equitable management of small-scale
fishery resources and degraded
aquaculture ponds restored 3,690,500 32% 0 68% 0

38
2. Flagship projects

2.1 Flagship 1: Sustainable aquaculture
2.1.1 Flagship project narrative

2.1.1.1 Rationale, scope

Background analysis. Aquaculture currently supplies around half of the fish consumed globally (FAO 2014) and is
projected to grow from 66.6 million metric tons in 2012 to 93.2 by 2030 (World Bank 2013). However, significant
improvements in aquaculture technologies, farming systems and value chains are needed to achieve this increase in
production—and in ways that are socially and environmentally responsible. This will require intensification and
expansion into new sites together with research on improving aquaculture breeds, seedstock, feeds, health, nutritional
quality, production systems, environmental management and value chains. Flagship 1 (FP1) responds to these needs
through an integrated program of research that aims to grow aquaculture sustainably while enabling poor men and
women fish farmers and value chain actors to achieve their full potential to create wealth, alleviate poverty and
improve nutrition and food security.

Problem statements. Aquaculture enterprises, particularly those in developing countries, typically have low production
efficiency, experience episodic mass mortalities of stocks (World Bank 2013), and have contributed to the loss of
mangroves and the pollution of waterways (Phillips et al. 1993; Naylor et al. 1998; Hamilton 2013; Ahmed and Glaser
2016). Many aquaculture sectors depend on wild or unselected stocks, precluding the possibility of production gains by
selective breeding and increasing the risk of introducing disease. Every year 20–30 million metric tons of fish, one-third
of the global fish catch, are used to produce fishmeal for aquafeeds (Waite et al. 2014), highlighting the need to develop
cost-effective alternatives. The need for socially and environmentally sustainable pathways for growth is widely
acknowledged (FAO 2016).

In response to these challenges, FP1 will develop new knowledge and technologies to help aquaculture industries in the
developing world use domesticated, high-health genotypes reared on sustainable aquafeeds in production systems that
have low carbon footprints with limited adverse environmental impacts. We focus on (1) developing and applying
genetic technologies, (2) developing cost-effective alternatives to wild-harvest fishmeal in aquafeeds, (3) improving
disease detection and control, and (4) optimizing production system efficiency without impairing the health and genetic
performance of aquaculture species or the health of adjacent or proximate ecosystems. We also address the need for
equity in sustainable intensification to ensure that poor farmers, their families and communities receive direct
nutritional and economic benefits from increased aquaculture production. The focus is on tilapia and carp, the world’s
top two farmed fish species groups, which are in high demand in the developing world and will continue to play
dominant roles in future aquaculture production (World Bank 2013; OECD/FAO 2016).

Scope and approach. Our research will build on previous international public goods developed by WorldFish and
partners, including improved breeds of tilapia in Asia (GIFT strains), Egypt (Abbassa strain), Ghana (Akosombo strain)
and Malawi (Oreochromis shiranus strain), and of Rohu carp in Bangladesh and India. We will continue to develop and
disseminate faster growing strains and develop understanding of barriers to adoption of genetically improved seed, but
the scope of our collaborative research will be broadened via multidisciplinary integration of selective breeding, fish
health, aquafeeds and environmental management. Research on genomics and resilience characteristics is intended to
prepare fish farmers for the future. The impending pressure from climate change and increasing evidence of disease
risks, such as the Tilapia Lake Virus (TILV) that threatens tilapia stocks globally (Bacharach et al, 2016), make it
imperative that research is conducted on integrating disease and other resilient traits into farmer strains, in addition to
characteristics such as fast growth. We will focus on countries with low and medium Human Development Indicators
and high dependence on fish for food, where (1) aquaculture is in early stages of development but needs accelerated
growth to fill projected 2030 fish shortfalls, or (2) aquaculture is already established but opportunities exist to
sustainably intensify to the supply levels required. As the fastest-growing food production sector in the world,
aquaculture is creating new engagement, employment and enterprise opportunities for youth and women. Developing
these opportunities is a core component of our research strategy. In parallel with technical research innovations, the
flagship will provide inputs to the enabling policies and institutional environments to ensure farmers have secure access
to production sites, knowledge and inputs necessary to create impacts at scale.

39
Grand challenges and Sustainable Development Goals. FP1 aims to contribute to several Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), but primarily to goals 1 (no poverty), 2 (end hunger) and 14 (sustainably use oceans). Through research to
develop aquaculture in an environmentally and socially responsible way, aquaculture has the potential to produce the
fish needed to meet the demand for safe and highly nutritious food by a growing population (FAO 2016). The flagship
addresses several grand challenges, including unsustainable harvests of fish and other aquatic products and climate
change. We will develop and deliver domesticated, high-health aquaculture genotypes reared on sustainable aquafeeds
to help reduce pressure on wild capture fisheries. The flagship will reduce the already low carbon footprint of fish by
enhancing water-use and nutrient efficiency and developing fish genotypes suited to production environments
impacted by climate change. Enhancing the efficiency of land use for fish production will address competition for land,
and we will focus on new entrepreneurial and job opportunities for youth and women by supporting growth of the
aquaculture sector. Finally, increasing the productivity of aquaculture will contribute to building nutritious and diverse
agri-food systems and diets.

2.1.1.2 Objectives and targets

The objective of FP1 is to secure environmentally sustainable increases in farmed fish supply and enhance the
contribution of aquaculture to poverty reduction and food security in priority geographies.

The flagship delivers research outputs and outcomes that support system-level outcome (SLO) 1 (reduced poverty) and
SLO 2 (improved food and nutrition security for health). Our research on environmentally sustainable production
systems will also contribute to SLO 3 (improved natural resource management) through mitigating greenhouse gas
emissions and enhancing the capacity of vulnerable men and women fish farmers to adapt to climate change risks and
extreme weather.

Multiple sub-IDOs are addressed through the flagship, with the most important being enhanced genetic gain (sub-IDO
1.4.3/2.1.3); closed yield gaps through improved agronomic and animal husbandry practices (sub-IDO 1.4.2/2.1.1); reduced
livestock and fish disease risk associated with intensification and climate change (sub-IDO 2.4.2); more efficient use of
inputs (sub-IDO 1.3.4); diversified enterprise opportunities (sub-IDO 1.3.1); and improved livelihood opportunities (sub-IDO
1.3.2).

FP1 also contributes to cross-cutting sub-IDOs related to climate change (reduced net greenhouse gas emissions and
enhanced capacity to deal with climate risks and extremes); gender and youth (gender-equitable control of assets and
resources); policies and institutions (enhanced individual capacity in partner research organizations through training and
exchange) and capacity development (increased capacity of beneficiaries to adopt research outputs).

There are four primary flagship-specific targets related to (1) fish farm households using genetically improved fish seed; (2)
increasing adoption of improved fish health, feed and aquaculture management practices; (3) enhancing the supply of
sustainably farmed fish; and (4) improving livelihood opportunities for poor men, women and youth from increased farmed
fish supply and value chain development. The contribution of these outcome targets to SLO targets and sub-IDOs is
summarized in Table 5.

Our assessment of target numbers across these four domains draws on analysis and WorldFish experience of the
aquaculture sector within focal and scaling countries. This includes L&F research in Bangladesh on aquaculture
productivity and employment (Belton et al. 2011); recent impact assessments of L&F interventions in aquaculture value
chains in Egypt (Dickson et al. 2016); recent and ongoing national-level supply-demand modeling in Bangladesh, Zambia
and Cambodia, (WorldFish 2011) as well as Indonesia; and global studies (FAO 2014; OECD/FAO 2016) and national
datasets of aquaculture employment compiled by FAO. The target estimates have been further informed by WorldFish,
AAS and L&F experiences in aquaculture technology delivery and dissemination of improved fish seed in Egypt (Dickson
et al. 2016), Bangladesh (Karim et al. 2016), as well as two decades of research with GIFT, which has achieved
widespread uptake in Asia as confirmed by independent impact studies (ADB 2005; Spielman 2009). Potential
environmental gains are assessed based on L&F research in Egypt (Henrikson et al, 2016). Further details of the
assumptions made and previous sector experiences are provided in a Addendum 1.

40
 Flagship-specific outcome targets by 2022 Target
PRIMARY (annual milestones included in PIM Table D) geographies
1.5 million farm households have access to and are using our selectively improved, faster growing All clusters
and more resilient strains of tilapia and carp seed
Addresses SLO target 1.1 and sub-IDO: Focal countries:
Enhanced genetic gain Bangladesh,
2.5 million farm households have adopted disease detection and control strategies, cost-effective Cambodia, Egypt,
and sustainable aquafeeds, and/or improved aquaculture management practices Myanmar,
Addresses SLO target 1.1 and sub-IDOs: Nigeria, Tanzania
Reduced livestock and fish disease risk associated with intensification and climate change and Zambia
Closed yield gaps through improved agronomic and animal husbandry practices
More efficient use of inputs Scaling countries:
Enhanced capacity to deal with climate change risks and extremes Africa: Ghana,
4.8 million metric tons of annual farmed fish production with reduced environmental impact and Kenya, Malawi
2

increased resource-use efficiency (measured by 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and Asia: India
10% increase in water and nutrient-use efficiency) Indonesia,
Addresses SLO targets 3.1 and 3.2 and sub-IDOs: Philippines,
Vietnam
Reduced net greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, forests and other forms of land use

Enhanced capacity to deal with climate change risks and extremes
2.3 million poor men, women and youth access improved livelihood opportunities resulting from
increased aquaculture production and associated value chains and enterprise development
Addresses SLO target 1.2 and sub-IDOs:
Closed yield gaps through improved agronomic and animal husbandry
More efficient use of inputs
Diversified enterprise opportunities
Increased livelihood opportunities
Flagship-specific outcome targets by 2022
SECONDARY (progress measured through CRP-level M&E)
0.7 million people, of which 50% are women, without micronutrient deficiencies as a result of
increased consumption of farmed fish
Addresses SLO target 2.3 and sub-IDOs:
Increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich food
Increased access to diversified nutrient-rich food
1.8 million more women of reproductive age consuming an adequate number of food groups as a
result of increased aquaculture production
Addresses SLO target 2.4 and sub-IDOs:
Increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich food
Increased access to diversified nutrient-rich food
1.25 million ha of ecosystems restored through more productive and equitable management of
aquaculture ponds
Addresses SLO target 3.3 and sub-IDOs:
Enhanced adaptive capacity to climate change risks
Increased resilience of agro-ecosystems and communities, especially those including
smallholders
Table 5. FP1 outcome targets by 2022.

2
Represents an improvement in annual fish production (i.e., tons/year); all other targets are cumulative over the period of the
CRP, from 2017-2022.
41
FP1 will pursue an integrated program of aquaculture research for development under three research clusters in Egypt, Nigeria,
Tanzania, Zambia (in Africa) and Bangladesh, Cambodia and Myanmar (in Asia). In Egypt and Bangladesh, we will build on a
foundation of L&F research on dissemination of improved tilapia strains; in Cambodia and Myanmar we will establish new
programs following requests for GIFT introduction; in Kenya and Zambia, we will build on existing WorldFish collaboration with
nascent tilapia improvement programs; and in Nigeria and Tanzania we will assist with decision making and/or establishment of
selective breeding programs for tilapia.

These focal countries were selected on the basis of potential for an integrated aquaculture research program to contribute to
CGIAR SLO targets, support from public and private partners, donor interest and in some countries a history of country
engagement, including under AAS and L&F. The potential for impact through an aquaculture research program in each country
is guided by our analysis of anticipated future shortfalls in fish supply versus demand, strong reliance on fish as a key animal-
source food, and opportunities for sustainable intensification and/or expansion of aquaculture to deliver impacts on income,
employment and nutrition for poor men, women and youth. We also anticipate research scaling to countries where public and
private sector partners have expressed strong interest in engagement with FISH, and where the market, policy and regulatory
context is favorable to scaling FP1 innovations.

Key assumptions relating to scaling and impact underpin the outcome targets provided in Table 5. These include the following: (1)
prior engagement of our fish genetics research programs in FISH focal and scaling countries in Africa and Asia represents an
opportunity to reach large numbers of farmers with improved fish strains; (2) public-private sector partnerships and networks
established within some focal countries provide an opportunity for improved management practices; (3) experiences from L&F fish
value chain assessments can be used to assess entry points for early development in Nigeria and Tanzania; (4) profitable or near-
profitable value chains can be identified that can be nurtured to achieve their growth potential and stimulate private sector
investment; and (5) investment trends indicate that further public and private sector resources can be mobilized for scaling.

FP1 will adopt a staged approach to scaling, with an initial focus on research experiments in Egypt and Bangladesh, extending
research findings from these core research platforms to integrated research for development programs in the other focal
countries. Priority countries in which to establish integrated aquaculture research programs within the first three years are
Nigeria and Zambia in Africa and Cambodia and Myanmar in Asia. Extension of the integrated aquaculture research program in
Tanzania will be subject to more detailed assessments, partnership development and bilateral resource mobilization. The staged
approach to FP1 growth is reflected in outcome milestones provided in the Performance Indicator Matrix, and the program
approach to outcome monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment is addressed in Annex 3.6.

FP1 investments for each sub-IDO are summarized in Table 6.
Sub-IDO name Total amount W1+W2 (%) W3/Bilateral (%)
SLO related
1.4.3 Enhanced genetic gains $18.00M $5.22M (29%) $12.78M (71%)
1.4.2 Closed yield gaps through improved agronomic and animal
$14.00M $4.06M (29%) $9.94M (71%)
husbandry practices
1.3.4 More efficient use of inputs $6.00M $1.74M (29%) $4.26M (71%)
2.4.3 Reduced livestock and fish diseases $6.00M $1.74M (29%) $4.26M (71%)
1.3.1 Diversified enterprise opportunities $3.55M $1.03M (29%) $2.52M (71%)
1.3.2 Increased livelihood opportunities $6.55M $1.90M (29%) $4.65M (71%)
Cross cutting (XC)
XC 1.1.4 Enhanced capacity to deal with climate risks and extremes $2.60M $0.75M (29%) $1.85M (71%)
XC 1.1.1 Reduced net greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, $2.50M $0.73M (29%) $1.77M (71%)
forests and other forms of land use
XC 2.1.1 Gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources $9.60M $2.78M (29%) $6.82M (71%)
XC 3.1.1 Increased capacity of beneficiaries to adopt research outputs $4.40M $1.28M (29%) $3.12M (71%)
XC 4.1.2 Enhanced individual capacity in partner research $4.40M $1.28M (29%) $3.12M (71%)
organizations through training and exchange
Total (USD) $77.60M $22.50M (29%) $55.10M (71%)
Table 6. Investments by sub-IDO for FP1 for 2017–2022. Note that only the most relevant sub-IDOs are listed—a wider
set of sub-IDOs is addressed in collaboration with other flagships.

42
2.1.1.3 Impact pathway and theory of change

FP1 aims to overcome barriers to achieving environmentally sustainable increases in fish supply through aquaculture.
Research focuses on three barriers: (1) the very limited occurrence of improved fish breeds suitable for use in the
aquaculture systems of significance in Africa and Asia; (2) the health risks and nutritional constraints that limit the ability of
fish to realize their full genetic potential in diverse fish farming environments; and (3) variations in farm management
practices and technology delivery systems that constrain the ability of fish farmers to benefit from healthy, improved seed
and sustainable feeds. Addressing these barriers requires research in the development of fish genetics and improved
feeds; in fish health, nutrition and feeds; and in aquaculture systems, combined with efforts to improve the enabling
environment through shifts in policies, implementation capacities in governments and investment by private and public
sector development actors. Research outcomes and development outcomes are achieved both directly from research
products developed within each cluster (i.e. dissemination of improved fish breeds) and through products developed
through integration of research across key disciplines and clusters (i.e. integrated breed, feeds, health packages).

FP1 focuses on two fish species groups that are of critical importance for food security: tilapias in Africa and Asia and
carps in Asia. These two species groups (along with catfishes) are projected to account for most of the increase and 60%
of global aquaculture production in 2025 (FAO, 2016). No sustainable carp genetic improvement program has been
established in south Asia and the continued heavy reliance on wild stock for this species group represents a major
vulnerability to sustainable development of aquaculture within Bangladesh and the South Asian region.

Cluster 1 will continue dissemination of improved tilapia strains and research to deliver cumulative, permanent genetic
gains in tilapias and carps. By conducting research in our focal countries in Africa and Asia, we seek to develop and
disseminate improved breeds of fish that can be used in these countries and benefit large numbers of people there,
while transferring technologies and breeds, where possible, to partners regionally. Impacts throughout the duration of
the CRP will largely derive from an accelerated dissemination of improved tilapia breeds already developed by
WorldFish, combined with newer generations and strains during the latter part of the CRP. In all locations we posit that
providing improved breeds will establish a foundation of genetic gain in fish upon which other improvements in fish
feeds, health and management improvements can build and lead to significant increases in productivity and economic
return for farmers. We hypothesize that strong private-public partnerships provide an essential enabling environment
for delivery of these technology improvements. We will therefore support and test the efficacy of national breeding
programs, assess models for private and public sector investments in sustainable breeding programs and enable local
entrepreneurs to develop multiplication hatcheries for improved seed. We will also enable capacity for broader
community engagement, including of women and youth, in assessing on-farm performance of improved fish stocks, and
ensure the preferences of poor women and men farmers inform fish breeding and dissemination investments.

Cluster 2 will conduct research to reduce the risk that disease will diminish the performance of improved breeds of tilapia
and carp and in the worst cases lead to catastrophic failure of fish farming enterprises and loss of broodstock. We will
combine this work with research to overcome the key nutritional hurdles limiting fish performance and efforts to expand
aquaculture. This will include research to improve understanding of fish nutritional requirements and develop sustainable
aquafeed ingredients that provide cost-effective and socially acceptable alternatives to wild-harvest fishmeal and
agricultural products used for human consumption. We hypothesize that the production of sustainable, cost-effective and
nutritious aquafeeds, using locally available resources, is an emerging opportunity for profitable small-scale enterprises,
especially for youth and women or cooperatives. We will encourage and facilitate the development of such enterprises by
providing knowledge, technology and training in partnership with the private sector, government agencies and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Cluster 3 will assess on-farm performance under a diversity of farming practices for genetically improved fish seed, and
different technology combinations and environments that can deliver improved performance from healthy, improved seed
and sustainable feeds. A major emphasis will be on assessing performance from wide dissemination of existing improved
tilapia strains (e.g. in Egypt and Bangladesh and through new introductions in Cambodia and Myanmar), enabling
understanding of the multiple barriers to impact at scale of genetically improved fish. We will take a gendered approach to
this analysis and seek opportunities for poor women and youth. Obstacles to the dissemination and adoption of improved
fish farming technologies at scale will be assessed and options for improvements in institutional, policy and regulatory
frameworks identified. We hypothesize that careful identification of best farming practices combined with appropriate
investments in capacity development can stimulate rapid and sustainable integration of aquaculture enterprises in
locations where market environments and other enabling conditions are supportive. This will provide opportunities for

43
poor women, men and youth to increase livelihood opportunities and income through sustainable intensification and
expansion of aquaculture.

Delivery of sustained gains at scale through improved fish breeds, health and feeds, together with improved management
systems, requires navigating a range of risks. To meet this challenge, we will (1) co-develop the technologies in partnership
with farmers and other value chain actors, including using influential farmers to pilot new technologies; (2) analyze
potential negative tradeoffs for youth and women, including by designing specific woman- and youth-friendly pond
management and harvesting technologies; (3) work with private sector actors who have proved their commitment to
engaging with research and testing outputs; (4) enable national-level innovation platforms and networking to encourage
use of research findings; and (5) support extensive capacity building of key actors for technology dissemination.

44
 Change Research Change
Change Development Sub-
Research outputs IDOs
mechanism outcomes mechanism
mechanism outcomes IDOs

•  Government, private Enhanced gene0c

Cluster 1. Fish breeds and
sector, NGOs and donors gain
genetics 1a 1a Increasing
•  Faster-growing and resilient inves0ng in improved fish penetra0on of
0lapia and carp strains breeding programs fish seed markets Reduced livestock
•  New produc0vity and •  Public policies promo0ng by gene0cally and fish diseases
resilience traits iden0fied responsible development improved 0lapia
1b and use of improved fish 1b
and incorporated into fish and carp strains
breeding programs strains Closed yield gaps
•  Knowledge on genomic •  Fish breeding programs Fish farm through improved
tools and methods to influenced by preferences households have agronomic and
1c of poor men and women 1c animal husbandry
accelerate gene0c gain and access to and are
end users prac0ces
incorporate new traits in using faster-
fish breeding programs •  Researchers and business growing and
•  Knowledge on end-user sector using genomic resilient 0lapia Enhanced individual
preferences of poor men 1d tools to accelerate gene0c 1d and carp strains capacity in partner
gains and sustainability research
and women for improved
improvements in organiza0ons
fish Fish farming
aquaculture households have
increased fish More Increased
yields and income efficient use productivity
Cluster 2. Fish health, •  Fish farmers and private from adop0on of of inputs
nutrition and feeds sector inves0ng in fish improved fish
2a 2a
•  Fish disease surveillance disease diagnos0c tools, breeds, feeds, fish
and diagnos0c tools health and Gender-equitable
and fish feed and
•  Sustainable fish feed aquaculture control of
nutri0on improvements produc0ve assets
resources •  Public and private combina0ons
•  Integrated fish feed and 2b 2b and resources
agencies and NGOs
health management incorpora0ng fish health Poor men,
packages for improved fish Enhanced capacity
and feed management women and youth
strains of beneficiaries to
improvements into have access to
•  Knowledge on fish 2c 2c adopt research
extension ac0vi0es new livelihood output
nutri0on, health and •  Researchers in ARIs, NARS opportuni0es
gene0c interac0ons to and private sector using from increased
inform future fish breeding research to develop new 2d farmed fish Diversified Increased
programs 2d enterprise incomes and
aquaculture feed and produc0on and
associated value opportuni0es employment
health innova0ons
chain and
enterprise
development Increased
livelihood
Cluster 3. Aquaculture
Sustainable opportuni0es
systems
•  Scalable aquaculture intensifica0on of Improved
system models, technology •  Public and private sector, 0lapia and carp diets for
NGOs, and donors farming systems poor and
packages and best prac0ces 3a 3a
incorpora0ng validated delivers fish with vulnerable
for sustainable
technologies and best reduced people
intensifica0on and
prac0ces into aquaculture greenhouse gas
enhanced adap0ve capacity
to climate risk extension and emissions and
development programs improved water-
•  Inclusive, gender-sensi0ve Reduced
and sustainable approaches
3b •  Preferences of poor men 3b and nutrient-use net
and women farmers have efficiency per unit
to delivery and use of greenhouse
informed extension produc0on gas
improved fish seed, health, More
system and aquaculture
feeds and aquaculture emissions sustainably
development program Fish farming
technology packages managed
3c investments 3c households have
•  Inclusive and gender- Enhanced agro-
•  Public and private sector access to
sensi0ve business and adap0ve ecosystems
policies and investments aquaculture
entrepreneurial models for capacity to
smallholder farmers and suppor0ng commercial technologies and climate risk
scaling of validated systems that
poor value chain actors
3d smallholder business and 3d enable adapta0on
•  Tools, models, data and
entrepreneurial models to climate change
analy0cal capacity to assess
sustainable performance risks and
and adop0on of extremes
aquaculture technology
innova0ons

Figure 4. FP1 impact pathways.

45
 Change Key assump0ons and risks associated with change Corresponding strategies and risk management ac0ons
mechanism mechanisms

Research outputs to research outcomes Research outputs to research outcomes

1a – 3a Na0onal extension agencies, private sector and 1a – 3a Use par0cipatory approaches adapted to local condi0ons, such
NGO development partners incorporate improved fish as farmer field schools and cluster management, in partnerships and
strains, fish health and feed best prac0ces and farming communica0ons between researchers and development partners;
a
system designs into extension ac0vi0es and development provide science-based evidence of on-farm performance of improved
investments. (Risk: poor integra0on) fish strains and aquaculture technologies in user-friendly formats.
Local adop0on 1a – 3a Industry associa0ons and research ins0tu0ons 1a – 3a Ensure plaWorms and networks provide ownership among
and mo0vated to share aquaculture knowledge and gender- enablers of change; provide training programs for na0onal extension
dissemina0on of sensi0ve approaches to extension. (Risk: limited sharing) agencies, private sector and NGO development partners in (i)
technologies facilita0ng change; and (ii) maintenance, dissemina0on and use of
and Research outcomes to development outcomes gene0cally improved fish strains for farmers, extension agencies and
management 1a Na0onal government, donors and private investors researchers, fish feeds and disease control measures, and sustainable
prac0ces provide sustained funding for fish breeding, gene0c aquaculture systems.
improvement and dissemina0on programs. (Risk:
inadequate investment) Research outcomes to development outcomes
1a – 3a Na0onal government and donors have sufficient 1a – 3a Use effec0ve development communica0on on performance of
capacity to extend research results to small-scale improved strains among farming communi0es; encourage rela0onship
farmers. (Risk: inadequate capacity) building, feedback and co-ownership of research in na0onal and local
research and innova0on plaWorms;.

Research outputs to research outcomes Research outputs to research outcomes

1b – 3b Business case and investment environment is 1b – 3b Collaborate with private sector partners in designing and
b suitable for private sector investment in gene0c tes0ng technologies; enable na0onal-level innova0on plaWorms and
improvement, breeding and dissemina0on programs, networking that encourage par0cipa0on of private sector in research
improved feeding, disease control and farming systems. ac0vi0es
Private sector (Risk: inadequate investment) 1b Develop business models for gene0c improvement, breeding and
investment and dissemina0on that are sustainable and appropriate to country contexts
replica0on of Research outcomes to development outcomes and investments available.
innova0ve 1b – 3b Smallholders have ready access to technologies 1b – 3b Use communica0on ac0vi0es, advocacy and other interac0ons
business models developed by private sector. (Risk: barriers to access) with private sector to raise awareness of investment opportuni0es and
in fish 1a – 3a Na0onal regula0ons and market requirements engage in scaling of research.
produc0on, create demand for private sector investment and
processing and adop0on. (Risk: inadequate investment) Research outcomes to development outcomes
trade 1b – 3b Business models adopted by private sector are 1b – 3b Iden0fy and advocate models that can be scaled through
inclusive (Risk: limited livelihood opportuni0es for poor; private sector and conduct business incuba0on type ac0vi0es and
increased inequi0es) networking with development partners.

Research outputs to research outcomes Research outputs to research outcomes

1c – 3c Na0onal policy and regula0ons conducive to 1c – 3c Undertake training needs assessments and training of na0onal
dissemina0on of improved fish strains and adop0on of extension agencies to support key areas of interven0on; iden0fy
c new technologies, such as vaccines and novel feed specific and generic barriers to adop0on from ins0tu0onal and
ingredients. (Risk: policy barriers) regulatory framework dimension; support policy reform.

Public sector Research outcomes to development outcomes Research outcomes to development outcomes
policy 1c – 3c Na0onal policies conducive to public-private 1c – 3c Implement communica0on ac0vi0es to raise awareness of
improvement partnerships for scaling and dissemina0on of improved public benefits from investments in aquaculture, with special emphasis
and ins0tu0onal fish seed and improved aquaculture technologies and on those “hard to reach,” such as smallholder farmers.
strengthening prac0ces. (Risk: policy barriers) 1c – 3c Ensure ownership of outcomes rests with na0onal agencies,
1c – 3c Ins0tu0onal capacity sufficient to support scaling building commitment to adapt policies and invest in ins0tu0onal
of aquaculture technologies among small-scale farmers, capaci0es in a 0mely manner to accomplish development outcomes.
with sufficient gender equity. (Risk: inadequate capacity)

Research outputs to research outcomes Research outputs to research outcomes

1d – 3d Civil society and development agencies raise 1d – 3d Invest in dialogue and communica0ons between researchers
awareness and co-ownership of research outputs. (Risk: and civil society organiza0ons and development agencies; provide
d
poor integra0on) rigorous evidence and “package” evidence in user-friendly ways
1d – 3d Development partners willing to invest in 1d – 3d Use communica0ons and awareness-raising events to provide
Influence on technologies with key countries. (Risk: inadequate evidence on the benefits of aquaculture for development agency
policies and investment) investment at na0onal, regional and interna0onal levels
priori0es of civil
society and Research outcomes to development outcomes Research outcomes to development outcomes
development 1d – 3d Civil society organiza0ons and development 1d – 3d Increase networking and communica0on ac0vi0es with civil
agencies agencies direct sufficient investment into aquaculture to society to provide evidence of the benefits of aquaculture and ways of
support na0onal adop0on of research results; inves0ng in aquaculture for achieving development goals; use training
investments in “fish” are cost-effec0ve compared to tools and guidelines that support key areas of interven0on.
compe0ng interven0ons (Risk: limited scaling)

Table 7. FP1 change mechanisms.

46
2.1.1.4 Science quality

FP1 convenes recognized leaders in fish genetics, health, nutrition, aquaculture systems and sustainable intensification,
with strong commitment to science delivery and quality. The flagship will assure science quality through (1) well-defined
research questions and experiments; (2) the latest tools, theory and technologies; and (3) engagement with expert
partners who can provide access to new intellectual developments in genetics, nutrition and health within and beyond
the fish domain. The flagship will engage with communities of practice at the forefront of particular research topics,
within and outside CGIAR, to ensure efficiencies and access to relevant knowledge and experiences. This engagement
includes the CGIAR Excellence in Breeding platform and gender and capacity development groups, as well as external
peer networks and platforms such as the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET).

The flagship’s novelty lies in the integration of research across key disciplines. Each cluster includes specific elements of
science and research innovation.

Cluster 1: Fish breeds and genetics will embark on research that is new for fish, particularly the species of focus for
WorldFish—tilapia and carp. These species are key commodities in developing country aquaculture production, and
innovative research has a high likelihood of new scientific discovery and impact. Existing collaborations with
Wageningen University (WUR) and the Scottish cluster of Roslin, the University of Stirling (UoS) and Scotland’s Rural
College (SRUC) and James Cook University on quantitative genetics and molecular tool development will be expanded to
include the Genome Analysis Centre (TGAC) at the University of Norwich and University of Bangor in Wales with
experience of tilapia genomics and biodiversity, and Norwegian researchers at Nofima and the Norwegian University of
Life Sciences (NMBU) with experience in developing salmon genomic tools. This team will bring together key groups
working on tilapia, together with those central to developing genomic selection theory and its application to fish. They,
together with collaborators at University College Cork (UCC) in Ireland, also have skills in fish and human microbiome
analysis that will permit development of biomarkers that reflect the integrated effects of environment, feed and
disease. Under WorldFish leadership, this group will develop a consortium, including the private sector, initially to
develop a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chip as an approach to the rapid genotyping required in the flagship,
drawing on recent experiences with Atlantic salmon (Houston et al. 2014). Close collaboration with these experts in
genomics and microbiome analysis (Roslin, TAGC, SRUC, UCC) and those developing tools to increase genetic resilience
in fish breeding (SRUC, NMBU, WUR, UoS) will enable interaction on the latest developments and their practical
application to fish. Collaborative research on natural biodiversity and tools to investigate the interaction of native and
cultured stocks (TGAC, Bangor, UoS) will enable effective risk assessment and impact of fish transfers. Working with
skilled groups will permit the identification and incorporation of resilience traits into breeding programs and provide a
platform for biotechnology discovery to enable more rapid additional technology developments in fish feeds and health
and provide for greater quality control. These processes will be further strengthened through interaction with the CGIAR
Excellence in Breeding platform and the broader community of practice, specifically in assisting the development of
genomic breeding strategies, accessing the latest molecular and bioinformatics tools to apply to fish and contributing to
a consolidated approach to reporting of genetic gain by CGIAR.

Cluster 2: Fish health, nutrition and feeds will use robust epidemiological and molecular tools to contribute new
knowledge to emerging yield-limiting diseases in genetically improved tilapia strains and develop early warning systems
and farmer-friendly health management packages. Health profiling (disease susceptibility and resistance) of improved
tilapia and comparisons with other improved and commercial strains through epidemiological and molecular tools are
novel. Research partnerships with the University of Exeter; Center for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
(CEFAS); and University of Liverpool bring leading epidemiological skills to the flagship. We will use metagenomics and
environmental DNA (eDNA) methods to identify biomarkers for fish health status and disease and contribute to
mitigating the impact of yield-limiting diseases on genetically improved tilapia strains. Research findings will explore the
genetic basis for fish disease control and health management in genetically improved tilapia strains. Ongoing
collaboration with leading researchers at WUR, Royal Veterinary College London (RVCL), MSD Animal Health and the
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) will continue to be strengthened, ensuring science quality and delivery
of IPGs.

Research on fish nutrition and feeds will build on an existing collaboration with WUR and be expanded with researchers
at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) experienced in developing novel feed
ingredients for replacement of fishmeal in shrimp and fish diets and in developing feeding concepts whereby the role of

47
natural food is enhanced. Collaboration with the RICE and RTB CRPs will involve research on the utilization of
agricultural crop wastes and residues, such as cassava peels (ILRI 2015), to develop novel ingredients for fish feeds.
Research on the “nutritious pond” concept is very new and builds on the idea that feeding systems should be based on
the entire system’s requirements. Research on applying genomic selection and the incorporation of microbiome
analyses to improve feed efficiencies of fish being raised in different environments and production conditions also
represents a new frontier for tilapia and carp genetics research, with high potential for scientific discovery and
significant impact.

Cluster 3: Aquaculture systems will assess dissemination systems and outcomes from dissemination of improved tilapia
breeds, contributing to new knowledge on yield gaps and factors constraining access, adoption and on-farm
performance of improved fish breeds. This knowledge will contribute to the development of innovative sustainable
aquaculture system models, systems and approaches to technological application within the context of sustainable
intensification as well as creating opportunities for women, young people and marginalized groups in growing national
aquaculture sectors. Gender-responsive research that helps determine and calibrate how to deliver sustainable
intensification of aquaculture systems and enhance resilience to climate change at household and landscape levels will
fill a significant gap in literature and implementation understanding on the practical application of such concepts to
aquatic systems (Attwood et al. 2016a). This research will draw on a systematic review of applying sustainable
intensification management actions from other production domains (e.g. terrestrial cropping, livestock) to priority
sustainability issues in aquaculture (Waite et al. 2014; Attwood et al. 2016b). Bio-economic modeling, gendered
livelihoods analysis, resilience frameworks and lifecycle analysis (LCA) tools will allow us to characterize aquaculture
systems and identify new system designs, management practices, investments and policy interventions for sustainable
aquaculture intensification and expansion. New interdisciplinary approaches will enable identifying and managing
synergies and tradeoffs among economic, environmental, production and social objectives in sustainable intensification.
Applying gender-transformative research within those intervention strategies is novel, as is the specific orientation
towards the design of gender-equitable and inclusive growth strategies in the aquaculture sector for poor women and
youth. Cross-disciplinary partnerships with researchers in aquaculture systems at the UoS and Auburn University,
resilience and LCA at the Stockholm Resilience Center (SRC), and gender at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
will strengthen research quality, as will links with sustainable intensification researchers at Bioversity International.

48
2.1.1.5 Lessons learnt and unintended consequences

FP1 builds on substantial research on technological innovation and delivery done under L&F and AAS, as well as earlier
WorldFish investment. Cluster 1 leverages research on improved tilapia strains—notably GIFT in Southeast Asia and
Bangladesh and Abbassa in Egypt—conducted over the past two decades by WorldFish and partners, with significant
impact documented by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (Spielman 2009). As part of L&F and AAS,
WorldFish developed a model for the dissemination of genetically improved tilapia in Bangladesh and its upscaling
throughout the country. The 2015 L&F Independent External Evaluation visit to Bangladesh concluded that there is
proof of concept for the approach to tilapia genetic improvement and dissemination, and found that aquaculture value
chain research is having a positive impact on gender inequity and is increasing the income of poor families.

The flagship addresses gaps and new challenges identified by prior research. Cluster 2 ramps up investment in novel
feeds, learning from global research with ILRI and partners under L&F, which focused on identifying and improving the
quality and use of existing feed resources. This cluster will continue recent L&F research on emerging tilapia disease
challenges in Bangladesh and Egypt. We will research options to address previously identified gender inequities,
assessing barriers to poor women’s employment and entrepreneurship in feed supply chains (cluster 2) and
opportunities for youth employment in aquaculture systems (cluster 3). The latter will build on WorldFish’s business
incubator experiences in Southeast Asia, as well as efforts in Bangladesh and Egypt, where scaling has begun.

Cluster 3 is also designed to probe and respond to unintended consequences identified in recent research. As part of
L&F, a 2015 impact assessment (Dickson et al. 2016) led to the reexamination of the relationship between aquaculture
productivity improvement and employment generation. The study found that fish farmers trained in better
management practices and supplied with the Abbassa strain focused on improving their efficiency—resulting in
significantly increased profits—rather than increased production or employment. Fish farmers who stocked the Abbassa
strain used the faster growth to achieve the targeted harvest weight slightly earlier, but as they only stock once per
season this did not result in higher production. Cluster 3 will build upon this assessment to better understand fish
farmer decisions and identify factors to more quickly translate productivity gains into increased production,
employment and fish consumption among the poor.

With aquaculture technology development initiatives typically focused on productivity gains, there is a risk that human
nutrition, gender, and social and environmental concerns are poorly integrated (Waite et al. 2014). FP1 addresses these
concerns through interdisciplinary research design and implementation, e.g. by integrating gender analysis into basic
technology design and prioritization and implementing new research on the implications of fish feeding practices for
human nutrition. The risks, challenges and opportunities for poor men, women and youth to benefit from commercial
aquaculture enterprise growth will also receive special attention in cluster 3. Analysis of potential impacts on women’s
workloads and time burdens will identify gender equity risks and aid in development of gender-transformative
strategies to proactively mitigate these. Environmental impacts of aquaculture will be researched and mitigated through
LCA (Henrikson et al. 2015). We will also address environmental concerns on the dissemination of genetically improved
fish strains with research on environmental and pathogen risk analysis (Lind et al. 2015), including the genetics of
domesticated-wild tilapia interactions, generating science-based policy guidance for national and regional government
agencies.

2.1.1.6 Clusters of activity

Leading-edge science will be applied across the flagship through three interconnected research clusters. Cluster 1 aims
to accelerate genetic gains in fish to respond to user demand for new and improved fish breeds that are adapted to
diverse fish farming systems across Africa and Asia. Cluster 2 aims to provide new disease control measures and
affordable and environmentally sustainable fish feeds by which fish farmers can improve farming efficiencies and
capture the productive potentials of improved fish breeds. Cluster 3 will assess technologies emerging from clusters 1
and 2 and design profitable and environmentally sustainable fish production systems and value chain interventions that
increase employment and income opportunities for poor women, men and youth. Integration between the clusters will
be achieved through co-development of experiments over the life of the program, testing the performance of fish
breeds in relation to key disease, feed and environmental variables. This approach will achieve efficient use of research
resources and maximize synergies across research teams and the effective development of integrated technologies
relevant to end users.

49
Cluster 1: Fish breeds and genetics
Cluster 1 builds on and extends WorldFish’s track record in fish breeding and genetics to deliver cumulative, permanent
genetic gains in fish farmed widely in Africa and Asia. Two major research activities will be conducted: first, active
dissemination of recent generations of improved breeds from our long-established tilapia pedigreed breeding programs;
and, secondly, an expansion of our genetics research to incorporate resilience traits through the use of genomic tools
started in L&F. Strong genetic gains of 7%–10% growth per generation have been maintained for over two decades in
WorldFish tilapia programs (Gjedrem et al. 2012; Khaw 2015), and these improved strains are now being used in at least
11 countries in Asia, though only three in Africa. We will pursue similar productivity increases through further
improvements in tilapia strains and similar selective breeding in carps. We will pursue this research through our
integrated flagship approach in our four focal countries in Africa (Egypt, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zambia) and three in Asia
(Bangladesh, Cambodia and Myanmar). Outputs from this research will include (1) faster-growing and more resilient
tilapia and carp strains; (2) new productivity and resilience traits identified and incorporated into fish breeding
programs, based on gender-responsive analysis of user needs; and (3) knowledge of genomic tools and methods to
accelerate genetic gain and incorporate new traits in fish breeding programs; and (4) knowledge on end-user
preferences of poor men and women for improved fish.

Research on dissemination in cluster 1, in collaboration with cluster 2, will enable us to understand the multiple barriers
to impact at scale of genetically improved fish. Research will be informed by rigorous on-station and gender-integrated
on-farm field assessments of genetic gain. We will use feedback from surveys of the on-farm performance of the
Abbassa (Egypt) and GIFT (Bangladesh) strains released in L&F, combined with new introductions in Cambodia and
Myanmar, to investigate yield gaps and conduct expanded assessments of performance, including environmental
stressors, disease and management practice. The surveys will include the use of molecular markers to assess adoption
and provide molecular characterization for input to the genomic selection program. We will combine this with strategic
experiments in our field stations in Egypt, Bangladesh and at WorldFish headquarters in Malaysia, in collaboration with
the other FP1 clusters, to test combinations of technologies, such as fish feeds that optimize new breed performance
using more cost-effective feed ingredients aimed at reducing yield gaps. We will use SNP markers, under development
in L&F, to create fine-scale maps, develop and test genomic selection strategies to increase efficiency of selection, and
assess and utilize additional traits to increase genetic gain. The results from this genomic analysis will be combined with
data from on-farm performance and from market and gender-based assessments under cluster 3 to determine new
traits to be included in breeding programs.

Our genomic selection will focus first on the tilapia programs, given their relatively advanced development in release
and on-farm performance assessment. The need for feed efficiencies and resilience is clearer for tilapia and likely to
yield results within the next six years. Our carp research will collect tissue samples to enable genomics research in the
next stage of the program, utilizing lessons learned from tilapia genomics research. In pursuing our genomics research,
we will work with the CGIAR Excellence in Breeding initiative and select a broader range of traits, including disease
tolerance, feed efficiencies and other resilience traits. New strategic gender research will inform the breeding program
in terms of women’s and men’s distinct needs and preferences. Molecular genomic tools will be used as a practical
means to select for such characteristics and develop a gene discovery platform to identify other nutritional or disease
management solutions to production or sustainability issues.

Assessments of on-farm performance will include strategic gender research with smallholder women and men farmers,
providing feedback into selection programs. The use of information communication technology (tablet and cellphone-
based applications) for collecting information about on-farm performance and dissemination, developed and tested in
Egypt and Bangladesh in L&F, will be expanded during FISH to allow geographical expansion and efficient performance
assessments across more countries, creating increased knowledge on genetic gains from FISH investments.

Cluster 2: Fish health, nutrition and feeds
Improved fish breeds need to be healthy and have the right feeds and environmental conditions to achieve their full
productive potential. Cluster 2 aims to capture this opportunity by developing fish disease and health management
measures, sustainable fish feed ingredients and feeding systems that will enable women and men farmers to harness
the productive potential of improved fish breeds. By targeting our health and nutrition research at enhancing the
performance of genetically improved strains, our research in cluster 2 will enable new efficiency and health traits to be
incorporated into the fish genetic improvement programs of cluster 1. This will contribute to further improvements in
the productivity, efficiency and resilience of tilapia and carp production systems. Outputs from the cluster include (1)
fish disease surveillance and diagnostic tools, (2) sustainable fish feed resources, (3) integrated fish feed and health

50
management packages for improved fish strains, based on gender-responsive needs analysis, and (4) knowledge on fish
nutrition, environment, health and genetic interactions to inform future fish breeding programs.

Our fish disease research will involve population-based studies to assess farm performance and disease susceptibility
(including risk factors) of improved tilapia strains in different agro-climatic conditions. We will pursue this discovery
research at facilities in two focal countries (Bangladesh and Egypt) and also at WorldFish and Department of Fisheries
facilities in Malaysia. This will involve the development of eDNA technology to characterize fish and pond microbiomes,
and assess their role in growth and development and in disease susceptibility and resistance. Gender-responsive on-
farm research, including farmer needs assessment, will enable practical tools to be developed to tackle production
losses due to fish disease, including early warning systems, rapid pondside diagnostics and prophylactic and therapeutic
strategies.

Our fish feeds research will focus on the priorities of improving feed ingredients, feed intake and efficiency in use of
ingredients, plus horizon-scanning research on interactions between fish feeding and human nutrition. Although tilapia
needs comparatively less fishmeal than many other farmed species, further reductions are required to reduce
dependence on expensive and unsustainably caught wild fish supply (Phillips et al. 2015). Cluster 2 therefore aims to
develop cost-effective and nutritious aquafeeds in which fishmeal and other ingredients are replaced with alternative
protein and lipid sources. We will seize opportunities to incorporate local raw materials and agricultural byproducts into
fish feeds, where there is little conflict with human food uses. This will include technological, enzymatic and microbial
enhancement of crop wastes, the use of algal and microbial protein and lipids, insect-based feeds, and alternative
processing practices for conventional plant raw materials (Glencross et al. 2014). Research collaboration with RICE, RTB
and Grains, Legumes and Dryland Cereals (GLDC) will be pursued to explore the bioconversion of different forms of rice,
cassava and sorghum waste. WLE and PIM collaboration will also be pursued to explore land use interactions associated
with enhanced demand for agricultural crops and their byproducts for aquaculture (Annex 3.7).

Research will build on the potential fish feed ingredients identified in Bangladesh and Egypt through L&F, where a broad
range of crop residues and wastes were sourced, analyzed and evaluated, taking into account variability of ingredient
quality, possible contaminants and anti-nutritional factors. The nutritional value of the various ingredients and the
nutrient requirements of fish in specific production systems will be evaluated, both on-station and through gender-
integrated on-farm analysis, along with the use of a range of ingredient and feed processing technologies. Our research
on feed efficiency builds on evidence from L&F showing that major efficiency gains can be achieved by optimizing
feeding and aquaculture system management practices. Research will focus on gender-integrated testing of improved
feeding systems, documenting and understanding the scaling process during their adoption by women and men
farmers, and assessing impacts in terms of farm economics and on the environment.

The nutritional content and value of farmed fish can be influenced by the rearing system used and/or the nutrient
content of the feeds. WorldFish and WUR are currently working with partners to test the impacts of green-pond
systems on the levels of omega-3 fatty acids and other micronutrients in farmed fish. We will build on this research to
test the use of supplemented feeds to supply these essential nutrients.

Cluster 3: Aquaculture systems
Cluster 3 will conduct systematic, comparative assessments of different models for integrating improvements in fish
breeds, health and feed technologies into farming system design and delivery systems that achieve sustainable
intensification and resilience in ways that benefit poor women, men and youth. Research will also assess barriers to
private and public investments in sustainable selective breeding and adoption of genetically improve seed. Outputs
from cluster 3 research will be (1) scalable aquaculture system models, technology packages and best-practice
interventions for sustainable intensification and enhanced adaptive capacity to climate risk; (2) inclusive, gender-
sensitive and sustainable approaches to delivery and use of improved fish seed, health, feeds and aquaculture
technology packages; (3) inclusive and gender-sensitive and women-targeted business and entrepreneurial models for
scaling aquaculture technologies in ways that generate wealth and benefits for smallholder farmers and poor value
chain actors; and (4) tools, models, data and analytical capacity to assess sustainable performance and adoption of
aquaculture technology innovations.

We will use tools for gender-integrated systems analysis to understand, communicate and manage tradeoffs and
synergies of aquaculture systems (e.g. household labor), identify efficiencies and constraints, and compare existing
practices and strategies. Bio-economic modeling, livelihoods analysis and LCA will allow characterization of aquaculture
systems, explain how they function, evaluate their environmental impacts and identify and propose effective
51
management strategies to prevent or mitigate any unintended consequences. We will build upon a systematic review of
sustainable intensification of management actions (Attwood et al. 2016b) to conduct on-station assessments in
Bangladesh and Egypt and on-farm assessments there and in other focal countries. This will include collaboration with
flagship 3 to identify which aquaculture systems and technology approaches are best suited to deliver nutritional gains
for poor households, including behavior change communication in scaling investments to ensure fish gets to the people
who need it most.

LCA and inventories developed in L&F (Phillips et al. 2015) will be used to assess resource use and environmental
impacts with the aim of improving management and technology combinations, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
freshwater consumption, energy use and land requirements. We will compare monoculture and polyculture systems,
water and nutrient recycling, and novel solar power technologies to identify options that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by >20% from current levels. Bangladesh and Egypt, where the intensification of aquaculture is challenged by
water, land and energy constraints, will be initial sites of focus for this research.

Research on delivery and use systems will involve country-level assessments and field activities in all focal countries in
Asia and Africa to better demonstrate how aquaculture technology research from clusters 1 and 2 can be relevant,
gender-responsive, applicable and accessible to smallholder farmers, operating within a variety of agro-ecological,
economic and social contexts. This includes engaging in participatory research with national partners to address local
challenges, such as market access, seed and input availability, integration with rice and other key agricultural farming
systems and cross-cutting issues such as gender and climate change, to understand barriers to accessing improved
technologies for women and youth and opportunities to overcome those barriers. Research and development partners
with experience in inclusive business will assist in the development of inclusive, gender-sensitive and women-targeted
business, finance and entrepreneurial models and institutional and policy interventions to support sustainability and
scaling of promising technologies and smallholder enterprise models that create income and employment for
smallholder women, men and youth. Gender-inclusive awareness raising and training on the delivery and use of
improved strains and technology packages, accompanying guidelines and manuals, and potential for wider use of mobile
applications, building on L&F learning with mobile technologies in Bangladesh, will be tested and developed for scaling.
These will be adapted to additional languages and training on their use in additional countries.

The cluster will also conduct foresight research to place technology and systems research within the context of
scenarios for future market drivers and growth, including assessments of climate change vulnerabilities and adaptation
strategies. This will enable the design of aquaculture systems and approaches to technology dissemination that respond
efficiently to climate change and other future trends and drivers at micro (farm and community) and macro (national
and international) levels, differentiated by women and men in anticipation of need.

2.1.1.7 Partnerships

The multi-stakeholder partnership brought together through FP1 provides a globally unique capability to harness
cutting-edge aquaculture science targeted at the development and delivery of IPG research designed to increase the
sector’s contribution to achieving SDG targets. We will build upon the extensive national, regional and global
partnerships developed by WorldFish over the past 25 years. Key elements of these partnerships are summarized
below, and Table 8 details the role of partners across flagship clusters and along the impact pathway.

Advanced research institutes. FP1 will work with advanced research institutes to draw effectively on recent advances
in key areas of science. For example, we will partner with the network of the Roslin Institute at the University of
Edinburgh, UoS, SRUC, TGAC and Bangor University, together with JCU, Nofima, the Norwegian University of Life
Sciences and the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD) to apply recent advances
in molecular genetics to further enhance the rate of genetic gain and respond to growing demand for high-quality fish
seedstock.

Cluster 2 on fish health, nutrition and feeds will be led by the Aquaculture and Fisheries Group at WUR. They bring to
this role leading-edge science capacity in fish nutrition, health and aquaculture feeds development, as well as access to
a wider range of animal science skills within the university, specifically the Animal Breeding and Genetics Group for
genetic and environment interactions. We will also partner with CSIRO in the development of bioactive compounds as
fishmeal replacements, and the University of Exeter, UoS and CEFAS to develop fish disease diagnostic tools. Our
aquaculture systems research will be pursued in collaboration with Auburn University, SRC and UoS with enterprise

52
development in partnership with the BoP Innovation Center and gender researchers at the Institute of Development
Studies.

NARES. In all focal countries, FP1 will work through national research partners. Breeding programs are already being
conducted with national aquaculture research institutions in Bangladesh (Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute
[BFRI]), Egypt (Agricultural Research Center [ARC]) and Ghana (Water Research Institute [WRI]), and this work will be
extended to other focal countries through FISH. Similarly, FP1 will work with university research teams to bring
together relevant skills and build research capacity, such as with the Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU) and
Egypt’s Kafr El Sheikh University for fish health research.

Private sector. FP1 will seek to strengthen collaboration with private sector partners for successful scaling of the
technologies and business models being developed through FP1. At the global level we are partnering with Skretting
through a new research facility at the WorldFish Abbassa facility for raw material evaluations and fish feed
developments, Aquaspark on development and testing of models for financing of emergent aquaculture enterprises,
and Merck/MSD on the development of new treatments for emerging tilapia diseases.

Discovery Proof of concept Scaling
FP1 Cluster 1: Fish breeds and genetics
Roslin Institute – Egypt: Ain Shams University in Egypt Egypt: Private sector associations, hatcheries
University of Edinburgh; (field research on gene-environment and farms (hatchery investments, broodstock
UoS; SRUC; JCU; Nofima interactions of Abbassa tilapia strain) management and dissemination of improved
Norwegian University of tilapia breeds)
Life Sciences (consortium Nigeria: University of Ibadan Nigeria: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and
developing genomic tools (management of tilapia breeding Rural Development (policy and capacity
for identification and program) development initiatives); private sector
incorporation of resilience associations, hatcheries and farms (hatchery
traits/efficiencies in fish investments and dissemination of improved
improvement programs). tilapia breeds)
Zambia: Department of Fisheries Zambia: Department of Fisheries (policy and
The Genomic Analysis (management of facilities for tilapia capacity development initiatives for
Centre, University of breeding program and strain aquaculture); private sector (hatchery
Norwich; Bangor comparisons) investments and dissemination of improved
University (methods for tilapia breeds)
genomic analysis of tilapia Bangladesh: BAU and Department of Bangladesh: Department of Fisheries and
genetic diversity and Fisheries (management of carp BRAC (investments in tilapia and carp breeding
domesticated-wild tilapia genetics and breeding programs) programs and dissemination of improved
interactions). tilapia and carp); private sector (investments
for tilapia breeding satellites and
Wageningen University; dissemination of improved seed)
CIRAD (research on fish Myanmar: Department of Fisheries Myanmar: Department of Fisheries (fish seed
genetic- environment, (management of rohu carp and policy) and Myanmar Fisheries Federation
yield gaps and feed tilapia breeding programs) (dissemination of private sector models);
efficiencies). private sector (hatchery investments and
dissemination of improved tilapia breeds)

53
 FP1 Cluster 2: Fish health, nutrition and feeds
Health: CEFAS; University Egypt: ARC-Central Laboratory for Egypt: Fish farmers and hatchery associations,
of Exeter; UoS; Aquaculture Research (CLAR), Kafr El General Authority for Fisheries Resources
Wageningen University Sheikh University, Suez Canal Development (GAFRD) (investments in scaling
(characterization of pond University (field testing of diagnostic application of better health management
microbiomes, tools, health management packages, practices); private sector (investments for
development of pondside novel prophylactics for tilapia) processing of raw materials for new feeds and
diagnostics and early feeding systems)
warning tools, novel ARC-CLAR, Kafr El Sheikh University,
alternative prophylactic Alexandria University, Skretting (field
products) testing of novel tilapia feeds)

Feed: Wageningen
University and CSIRO
(novel technologies,
including the use of Nigeria: University of Ibadan, Federal Nigeria: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and
microbial processes to University of Technology in Akure Rural Development (policy and capacity
bio-convert plant wastes and Skretting (field testing of novel development initiatives); private sector
into bioactive aquafeed tilapia feeds) associations, hatcheries and farms
ingredients) (investments in use and dissemination of
improved feeds)
Tanzania: Institute of Marine Tanzania: Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries
Sciences, University of Dar es Salaam Development (policy and capacity
(testing applicability of bioactive development initiatives)
aquafeeds)
Myanmar: Department of Fisheries, Myanmar: Department of Fisheries (policy and
universities and NGOs through the capacity development initiatives in support of
Fisheries Research and Development feed fed aquaculture systems); Myanmar
Network (FRDN) (research on Fisheries Federation and fish farmers
improved feeds and health cooperatives (dissemination of better health
management) and feed management practices for improved
tilapia and carp)
Cambodia: Fisheries Administration, Cambodia: Fisheries Administration (policy
Department of Aquaculture and and capacity development initiatives in
private sector (co-development of support of feed fed aquaculture systems);
profitable feed fed aquaculture private sector (investments in feed
systems adapted for Cambodia) formulation and dissemination of improved
fish feeds)

54
 FP1 Cluster 3: Aquaculture systems
Stockholm Resilience Egypt: Kafr El Sheikh University and Egypt: Skretting, GAFRD, governorate-level fish
Center (design of research CLAR (farm trials and verification of farmers associations (dissemination of improved
using resilience aquaculture systems research) technologies and private fish farms for adoption
frameworks and LCA) of newly developed farming systems [e.g. in-
pond raceways] and implementation of BMPs);
CARE and World Food Program (testing scaling
Wageningen University and
of small-scale homestead aquaculture system
Auburn University (design
packages in Upper Egypt)
of social aquaculture

system research and
development of tools and Tanzania: Institute of Marine Tanzania: NGOs and private sector
models) Sciences, University of Dar es Salaam (incorporating validated aquaculture systems in
(verification and adaptation of coastal investment priorities and disseminating

integrated aquaculture system validated and improved technologies and
Institute of Development research) gender-sensitive business models)
Studies and BoP Innovation Zambia: Department of Fisheries and Zambia: Department of Fisheries (policy and
Center (support to gender Indaba Agricultural Policy Research capacity development initiatives); private sector
analysis and gender- Institute (verification and adaptation (scaling validated technologies and business
sensitive and inclusive of integrated aquaculture systems models); Copperbelt University, Natural
business models) research) Resources Development College (NRDC) and
Kasaka Fisheries Training Institute (KFTI)
UoS (methodological (research and development [R&D] capacity
guidance on integrated building)
farm assessments) Bangladesh: BAU, Bangladesh Bangladesh: Department of Fisheries, BRAC and
Institute of Development Studies private sector (dissemination of integrated
(verification and adaptation of packages of improved tilapia and carp
Australian National
aquaculture systems research; gender- technologies)
University (supply and
sensitive value chain
demand modeling for
Cambodia: Fisheries Administration Cambodia: Fisheries Administration (policy and
aquaculture)
(testing and monitoring new capacity development initiatives in support of

production systems); Helen Keller improved production systems); private sector
International (verification and (adoption of improved production systems);
adaptation of small-scale aquaculture NGOs (deployment of aquaculture systems
system research) within livelihood programs)
Table 8. Selected non-CGIAR partners at discovery, proof of concept and scaling stages of the impact pathway.

Development organizations. FP1 research priorities have been identified in collaboration with development partners at
regional and national levels, and research will be undertaken in collaboration with local partners. For example, in Africa, FP1
responds to the AU’s newly developed Africa Aquaculture Action Plan and national priorities such as improved seed, feed
and fish health. In Egypt we will pursue these priorities by working with the Ministry of Agriculture, NGOs such as CARE, and
private sector partners. In Bangladesh, FP1 addresses priorities of the Country Investment Plan and National Aquaculture
Development Strategy and Action Plan for Bangladesh (2013–2020), and we will work with the Department of Fisheries,
BFRI, national and international NGOs, and the private sector to pursue these.

2.1.1.8 Climate change

FP1 research contributes aquaculture technologies and husbandry systems that respond to climate change, in close
collaboration with CCAFS flagships and the associated cross-CRP Learning Platforms.

Firstly, our research will develop, test and scale up climate-smart aquaculture technologies and production systems to build
adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change for farmers and stakeholders in aquaculture value chains, contributing to
CCAFS Flagship 2, Climate Smart Technologies and Practices. By introducing new traits for climate resilience in tilapia, such
as temperature or salinity tolerance, or reducing production time via faster growing fish, we will empower fish farmers
affected by salinization and changing rainfall patterns. Further, brackish- and high temperature-tolerant tilapia with

55
excellent growth efficiency will enable farmers to maintain food production in times of climatic instability. This research
builds on work by WorldFish and CCAFS in Bangladesh and Vietnam on climate-smart agriculture.

Secondly, our research contributes to climate change mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fish farming,
contributing to CCAFS Flagship 3, Low Emissions Development. Recent L&F research on Egyptian tilapia production systems
using LCA tools (Henrikson et al. 2016) indicates that greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by ~20% per unit of
production by improving pond management and reducing fish feed wastage. Building on this research, we will identify
deeper reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from aquaculture through better pond management, reducing reliance on
fossil fuels, identifying cost-effective alternatives to wild-harvest fishmeal in aquafeeds and siting aquaculture facilities away
from areas with sequestered carbon.

Collaboration with CCAFS Flagship 1, Priorities and Policies for Climate Smart Agriculture, will enable us to draw on analyses
of future climate scenario projections, early warning systems of monsoon shifts, and saline incursions, feeding into the
design of climate-smart aquaculture systems for wider scaling. A collaboration between FAO and WorldFish to analyze
aquaculture vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Africa will be completed in mid 2016, providing a foundation
for future research on development of climate-smart approaches to aquaculture in Africa, which are urgently needed.

2.1.1.9 Gender

An estimated 76 million new jobs will be created globally by the growth of aquaculture between 2010 and 2050, with most
in developing countries (Waite et al. 2014). FP1 gender research will focus on how opportunities arising from the growth of
aquaculture can be gender- and socially inclusive and equitable. This will inform FP1 innovations to leverage equal
opportunities for women to generate wealth through aquaculture production and value chain employment and
entrepreneurship.

Cluster 1 generates new knowledge about the gendered needs and preferences of women and men in relation to improved
tilapia and carp strains in different countries and contexts. It analyzes gendered experiences of the benefits and drawbacks
from the production and release of improved fish seed, including labor demands, to better integrate gender into fish
breeding R&D.

Cluster 2 identifies previously unassessed differences and commonalities in women’s and men’s priorities, needs and
knowledge on fish feeds and health, to generate new gendered insights to inform technology R&D. The cluster will identify
and test gender-responsive feed and husbandry innovations that can enhance women’s engagement in aquaculture
production while maintaining a manageable workload. Working with FP3, the cluster will investigate how feed quality
affects the nutritional content of fish, in particular for consumption by pregnant and lactating women, and young children.

Cluster 3 investigates which factors limit or enable women’s access to and control over aquaculture assets such as fish fry,
extension, finance and storage. The cluster will draw on this research to identify and test opportunities and strategies for
more gender-equitable engagement in and wealth generation from aquaculture value chains, through safe, dignified and
higher-return employment and entrepreneurship. This includes building on cluster 2 to identify and assess opportunities for
women-led fish feed formulation enterprises.

2.1.1.10 Capacity development

Capacity development is an enabler of all change mechanisms of the CRP-level theory of change. A tailored capacity
development program will be implemented through an iterative process starting with capacity needs assessments and
intervention strategies (CGIAR Capacity Development Framework element 1) to provide the foundation for operationalizing
the impact pathways. It will focus on capacity of smallholders to demand and adopt aquaculture technologies and use
improved management practices, as well as needs of service providers to supply inputs, knowledge and skills targeted at
men and women fish farmers. Resulting interventions will use innovative learning materials and approaches (element 2)
such as partnering with IT providers to pilot the use of mobile financial services in Bangladesh and training in aquaculture
technology and policy development and entrepreneurship for Africa. All materials and approaches will be gender and youth
sensitive (element 5) in line with our gender and youth strategies (see Annexes 3.4 and 3.5).

Aligning with the program’s partnerships strategy, our needs assessment will identify gaps and interventions to increase the
capacity of scientists to partner (element 3). We will develop future research leaders (element 4) through internships and

56
postgraduate programs, such as through partnerships with the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources
(LUANAR, an Africa Center of Excellence in Aquaculture and Fisheries for postgraduate training of aquaculture researchers),
and at the WorldFish aquaculture research and training center in Abbassa, Egypt. Monitoring and evaluation of capacity
development (element 7) will be integrated into program-level M&E (see Annex 3.3).

Institutional strengthening (element 6) will focus on strengthening public and private sector capacity in fish breeding and
dissemination of new technologies in extension and outreach programs. This will include multi-stakeholder dialogues to
inform improved policy and legal frameworks in the countries where we work.

2.1.1.11 Intellectual asset and open access management

FP1 will manage intellectual assets consistent with CGIAR, center and partner policies and procedures, as well as those of
our bilateral donors. The flagship will contribute to and take advantage of program-level mechanisms to ensure widespread
usage and analysis.

FP1 research outputs will be available through the CRP website, as well as those of our partners where appropriate. Prompt
and broad dissemination in appropriate formats will maximize the accessibility and impact of research outputs. Tools for
genomic analysis, feed ingredient assessments, aquaculture business planning, social and environmental impact
assessment, and other scientific and development applications will be placed online or in other open access media and
formats as appropriate. Genetically improved fish seed and preserved samples archived in our biorepository will be made
accessible to partners according to WorldFish policies, such as that related to the transfer of improved strains. WorldFish
will advise partners on responsible transfers and introductions and how to set up and maintain improved stock, as well as
how to multiply and disseminate it to farmers. Exceptions to open access may include information that is sensitive due to
privacy concerns, political sensitivity and adverse effects on farmers’ rights and confidential information associated with
permitted restrictions or subject to limited delays to seek intellectual property rights.

Datasets will be anonymized and made available as open access. They will be generated through each research cluster and
include genetic datasets, feed ingredients and nutritional quality data, and technology performance assessments. FP1 will
also contribute aquaculture species data to FishBase, the world’s leading open access database on fish biology. Science
outputs will, when appropriate, be published in open access journals, or the program will purchase open access privileges
for publication in non-open access journals.

2.1.1.12 FP management

The flagship will be led by WorldFish. The flagship leader, Dr. Michael Phillips, will (1) provide overall strategic leadership for
flagship research, (2) work with cluster leaders, scientists and other flagship leaders to develop and oversee execution of
the research agenda for the flagship, and (3) lead identification and negotiation of significant strategic science partnerships
that will strengthen links between the flagship science team and leaders in the appropriate body of science. A country
coordinator for FP1 will act as a focal point for the flagship’s engagement in each focal country.

Cluster 1: Fish breeds and genetics will be led by WorldFish in collaboration with key science partners at the Roslin
Institute, SRUC, TGAC, Bangor University, and Nofima and Norwegian Agricultural University for genetics research.

Cluster 2: Fish health, nutrition and feeds will be led by WUR in collaboration with key science partners at CSIRO on novel
fish feed ingredients and CEFAS, UoS and University of Exeter for fish health research.

Cluster 3: Aquaculture systems will be led by WorldFish in collaboration with key science partners at IDS, BoP Innovation
Center, Auburn University, UoS, and the Stockholm Resilience Center for systems research.

Each cluster will be planned and executed in close collaboration with key science partners. Cluster leaders will (1) provide
overall strategic leadership for cluster research, (2) work with contributing scientists to develop and oversee execution of
the research agenda for the cluster, and (3) lead identification and negotiation of significant strategic science partnerships
for the cluster.

CVs of flagship leads, cluster leads and other key scientists leading implementation of the flagship research are provided in
Annex 3.8.

57
2.1.2 Flagship budget narrative

2.1.2.1 General information

CRP Name FISH

CRP Lead Center WORLDFISH
Flagship Name FLAGSHIP 1: Sustainable Aquaculture
Center location of
Malaysia
Flagship Leader

2.1.2.2 Summary

Total Flagship budget summary by sources of funding (USD)

Funding Needed Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

W1+W2 3,343,862 3,471,252 3,643,642 3,831,351 4,039,804 4,245,203 22,575,114
W3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilateral 7,663,828 8,170,710 8,769,865 9,423,301 10,131,109 10,894,045 55,052,858
Other Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11,007,690 11,641,962 12,413,507 13,254,652 14,170,913 15,139,248 77,627,972

Funding Secured Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

W1+W2 (Assumed Secured) 3,343,862 3,471,252 3,643,642 3,831,351 4,039,804 4,245,203 22,575,114
W3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilateral 1,541,399 1,087,370 49,703 0 0 0 2,678,473
Other Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4,885,261 4,558,622 3,693,345 3,831,351 4,039,804 4,245,203 25,253,586


Funding Gap Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total
W1+W2 (Required from SO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W3 (Required from FC Members) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilateral (Fundraising) -6,122,428 -7,083,339 -8,720,161 -9,423,301 -10,131,109 -10,894,045 -52,374,385
Other Sources (Fundraising) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-6,122,429 -7,083,340 -8,720,161 -9,423,301 -10,131,109 -10,894,045 -52,374,385

Total Flagship budget by Natural Classifications (USD)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

Personnel 4,293,517 4,659,241 5,087,719 5,558,206 6,077,228 6,649,099 32,325,011
Travel 618,979 630,367 661,928 691,514 719,551 748,245 4,070,588
Capital Equipment 78,200 67,600 70,980 74,529 78,255 82,168 451,732
Other Supplies and Services 3,842,632 4,004,780 4,188,371 4,393,393 4,611,767 4,825,103 25,866,049
CGIAR collaborations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non CGIAR Collaborations 1,013,060 1,048,260 1,089,840 1,131,882 1,180,426 1,226,777 6,690,245
Indirect Cost 1,161,301 1,231,712 1,314,666 1,405,125 1,503,683 1,607,853 8,224,344
11,007,689 11,641,960 12,413,504 13,254,649 14,170,910 15,139,245 77,627,957

58
Total Flagship budget by participating partners (signed PPAs) (USD)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

WorldFish Center 10,758,832 11,411,158 12,179,682 13,017,732 13,930,820 14,895,903 76,194,129
UoW - Wageningen University 248,857 230,803 233,824 236,919 240,093 243,344 1,433,842
11,007,689 11,641,961 12,413,506 13,254,651 14,170,912 15,139,247 77,627,966


Explanations of these costs in relation to the planned 2022 outcomes:

Major cost drivers and how these relate to planned activities and target outcomes

Major cost drivers are scientific personnel, travel, consumables and capital equipment. Scientific personnel costs include
those of flagship and cluster leaders, principal investigators and cluster research teams, including those at WorldFish HQ
(Malaysia) and our key research hubs in the focal countries Bangladesh and Egypt. During the implementation of the
flagship we plan to increase allocation of funds to focal country programs in Africa (Nigeria, Tanzania, Zambia) and Asia
(Cambodia, Myanmar), while maintaining the core cluster investments in scientific personnel. Investments are also
made in personnel for leading/coordinating key cross-cutting dimensions of flagship activities, including gender, youth
and capacity development. We anticipate funding a coordinator for flagship 1 activities in each focal country where we
operate. Scaling to countries beyond the core program countries will be through bilateral funding. Travel includes
investments in field visits and assessments, planning and review meetings/workshops, partner consultations and
scientific supervision. Capital equipment includes items for the tilapia breeding program necessary to upgrade their
efficiency and to support experiments in Egypt (Abbassa), automated fish measuring systems for genetics research,
genomics analysis software and associated large data hardware (with M&E component of the CRP), and fish health and
feeds equipment for cluster 2 research in the Abbassa aquaculture research and training center in Egypt. Consumables
include the costs for molecular characterization of fish stocks and diseases, which are a fundamental part of the
research.

Risks and plans to mitigate risks
Major risks are associated with funding uncertainties across each cluster. Cluster 3 is sufficiently well funded by
current/pipeline bilaterals to proceed as planned until 2018, but cluster 1 and 2 need further investments to implement
the research agenda and achieve the development outcomes indicated. Funding risks increase beyond 2018 when the
funding pipeline becomes more uncertain. Risk mitigation measures will include implementation of systems of financial
planning in accordance with WorldFish procedures and more flagship-level initiatives for business development,
including communication/dialogue with donors from public and private sectors, scanning of investment opportunities
and development of proposals to increase the pipeline of bilateral funds available.

2.1.2.3 Additional explanations for certain accounting categories

Benefits: Personnel costs are based upon best estimates of the level of effort required by specific staff positions to
deliver upon the objectives of the Flagship.

This level of effort has been expressed as a number of days per period. The personnel costs have been determined via
the application of daily standard rates per position/staff member. In addition to the daily standard rates, the cost of
benefits have been calculated on an individual basis and expressed as a function of salary. The benefits included are
those that are applicable per the employing Center’s established policies and procedures.

The estimated cost of the allowances and benefits vary depending on the classification of the individual staff member as
well as the location in which they are working. WorldFish has three staff designations: Global (GRS), Home Country
International (HCI), and National (NRS). The following benefits are have been included in the budgeted salary costs:

Retirement contributions: WorldFish contributes the equivalent of 15% of base salary to a retirement fund for staff.
This is applicable to all designations of staff (GRS, HCI, NRS).
Insurance premiums: this includes medical (GRS, HCI & NRS), accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) (GRS & HCI),
long-term disability (LTD) (GRS & HCI), and life insurance (GRS, HCI, & NRS).

59
Annual medical examination costs: applicable to all staff designations (GRS, HCI, NRS), WorldFish encourages annual
medical examination for all staff and agrees to subsidize the costs thereof for all staff over the age of 40, up to $250USD
per annum.

Housing allowance: generally applicable for GRS staff only, WorldFish provides an allowance of up to 75% of the cost of
housing, subject to monthly maximums established by location.

Dependant Education Allowance: applicable for GRS staff only, WorldFish provides the cost of education (up to end of
secondary education) for dependant co-located children.

Home Leave: applicable for GRS staff only, WorldFish funds the cost of an annual trip to the staff members’ home
country for the staff member and dependants.

Relocation and Repatriation costs: applicable for GRS staff only, WorldFish covers the cost of relocating GRS staff from
their home location to their duty post. Once the staff member has completed at least 3 years of continuous service,
WorldFish will also cover the cost of repatriating the staff member to their home location upon termination of
employment.

Location specific benefits (i.e. hardship allowances), where applicable, have also been included in the cost as have the
cost of statutory employment related taxes applicable in certain operating locations.

As there is great range in the cost of benefits by location and by staff designation, we assigned a specific percentage (of
salaries) to each location/staff designation combination. The following provides the range of percentages that were
used by staff designation:

Range of Benefit %
High Low
HCI Zambia (63.56%) Philippines (21.6%)
GRS Zambia (129.03%) Egypt (36.59%)
NRS Solomon (62.15%) Zambia (21.64%)

Other supplies and services: Other supplies and services include: (i) specialist consulting services for support to
integrated farm assessments, country scaling plans, capacity assessments, data collection and other field studies; (ii)
support to operations and genetics, feed and health experiments at the three fish genetic improvement programs in
Bangladesh, Egypt (Abbassa) and Malaysia (WorldFish HQ), including aquarium equipment, fish-tagging, molecular
characterization, feeding, casual help, and facility maintenance; (iii) non-CGIAR partner costs, including contracts for
supporting national fish breeding programs, field assessments of improved strains, epidemiological studies, and feed
ingredient/value chain studies, as well as costs associated with participation in planning and design meetings at
global/national levels; and (iv) workshops for annual flagship and cluster planning, stakeholder consultations and
training, scaling activities and national research platforms.

2.1.2.4 Other sources of funding for this project

Should full funding not become available, we will reduce the scope of the activities across the flagship, which will have
knock on effects on the research and development outcomes that can be achieved. Research focus under a restricted
funding environment will be directed more towards tilapia, and potential investments in carp genomics and genetic
improvement will be postponed until later in the program or as funds become available. Hiring of key new
appointments, including bioinformatics, geneticists, fish disease and feeds will also be postponed until sufficient funds
are available. We will continue to seek bilateral donor funds to implement the research priorities identified in the
proposal, and have several bilateral projects in the pipeline or under development. Longer-term fish genomics and
genetic improvement programs, which require continued attention to the maintenance and management of live
animals, will be placed at risk through decline or uncertainty in W1/W2 funds, and will shift towards potentially
uncertain and/or shorter-term bilateral funding windows.

60
2.1.2.5 Budgeted costs for certain key activities

Estimate annual Please describe main key activities for the applicable categories
average cost (USD) below, as described in the guidance for full proposal

Gender 1,544,442 Gender investment of US$9.3M over the 6 years represents 11.9% of
the budget allocated to the flagship and supports integration of gender
into all flagship activities, as well as gender-focused research to increase
the impact of the research on development outcomes for women.
These include global and national scientists, specialist consultancy,
partners, workshops and training of research teams and development
partners and operating expenses for field research in focal countries
and cross-country synthesis. Investments are made across all research
clusters, including research on gender-integrated fish breeding
programs (cluster 1), women-led enterprises in fish feed value chains
(cluster 2) and most viable models and entry points for women
entrepreneurs in aquaculture (cluster 3). Early program investments
during 2017-18 are oriented towards participatory assessments, and
from 2018-2022 increasingly towards action research and
implementation of best bets arising from the assessments, followed by
scaling of research with national and international development
partners. Funds are also invested in contributions of key international
partners and national partners for research and scaling activities.

Youth (only for 375,661 Youth investment of US$2.3M over the 6 years represents 2.9% of the
those who have budget allocated to flagship 1 and supports integration of youth into all
relevant set of flagship activities. Global and national scientists are funded, including a
activities in this part-time young scientist as coordinator of flagship 1 youth research,
area) together with a specialist consultancy for national studies, partnerships,
workshops and training of research teams and development partners
and operating expenses for field research in focal countries and cross-
country synthesis. Funds are also allocated for youth internships and
mentoring across the flagship, enabling us to capitalize on activities for
engaging youth in program activities and supporting youth-oriented
capacity building. All research clusters receive investments, though
youth employment receives particular attention in cluster 3. Early
program investments during 2017-18 are oriented towards assessments
of youth, and from 2018-2022 increasingly towards engaging youth in
action research and catalytic support to scaling of promising youth
interventions in aquaculture production and value chains in focal
countries.

61
 Estimate annual Please describe main key activities for the applicable categories
average cost (USD) below, as described in the guidance for full proposal

Capacity 1,481,329 Capacity development investment of US$8.9M over the 6 years

development represents 11.4% of the budget allocated to flagship 1 and supports
integration of capacity development into all flagship activities, including
assessments during early stages of the program, followed by targeted
capacity building investments. Funds are allocated to global and
national scientists for conduct of training activities for researchers and
development partners, specialist training consultancy, internships for
young scientists within the program research activities, and
implementation of regular Africa regional aquaculture training courses
in the Abbassa research and training center in Egypt. A dedicated
coordinator for aquaculture capacity building in Africa is proposed for
funding, also to be based at the Abbassa center, to facilitate transfer of
our core aquaculture research learning in Egypt more widely in support
of scaling across the region. Investments are also made in staff to
support capacity building across our Asian focal and scaling countries.

Impact assessment 516,047 Impact assessment investment of US$3.1M over the 6 years represents
4% of Flagship 1 budget and supports staff time and tools for data
collection associated with documentation of research and development
outcomes including estimating and validating dissemination of
improved fish strains, on-farm assessments of productivity, income, fish
disease control/feed technology adoption, fish price monitoring, and
annual review/learning events with partners to capture lessons learned
and document research and development outcomes.

Intellectual asset 38,378 Intellectual asset management investment of US$230K over the 6 years
management is allocated for assessment, protection and suitable arrangements with
partners in ownership of intellectual property, lawyers fees, meeting
requirements of the Nagoya protocol and appropriate access to data.
The budget is largely comprised of external expert resources (legal,
training, contracting) and allocation of personnel time towards ensuring
capacity development of intellectual asset management best practices
throughout the Flagship operations.
Open access and 205,005 Open access and data management investment of US$1.2M over the 6
data management years is allocated for maintenance of databases, mainly for genetic data
collected through the cluster 1 research and supports publication of
research data and papers (including OA publication costs) and
management of OA databases, including collection and management of
the large amount of genomics and associated data being collected
through cluster 1. The budget also consists of external expert resources
(legal, training, contracting) and allocation of personnel time towards
ensuring capacity development of open access data management best
practices throughout the Flagship operations.

62
 Estimate annual Please describe main key activities for the applicable categories
average cost (USD) below, as described in the guidance for full proposal

Communication 452,826 Communication investment of US$2.7M over the 6 years supports

publication of research papers, and communication activities (policy
briefs, manuals, technical reports, outcome stories) that will support
the communication of research to end users with and through partners,
including farming communities in focal countries (costs of pamphlets,
manuals), policy makers (policy briefs) and NGO or government
partners (extension manuals). Investment in mobile technology
approaches to communication to end-users will be assessed through an
study planned for 2017.

2.1.2.6 Other

The level of ambition of the Sustainable Aquaculture flagship requires mobilization of approximately $55 million in
bilateral and Window 3 funds over the life of the program. This calls for flexibility to address the priorities of funders in
terms of country focus and thematic interest. Window 1 and 2 funds are used primarily to support core elements of
the program that can be widely applied when matched with bilateral funds. Given the breadth of the flagship and the
funding model, with dependence on all sources of funding, funds from different sources are often integrated in support
of tasks that have been determined to fit within the scope and priorities of the Program.

Annual funding certainty of W1 and W2 funds will be critical to ensure the flagship achieves it’s objectives on time and
on target. As a means of risk mitigation, WorldFish will dedicate organizational resources to securing the bilateral
funding targets identified in the proposal, however W1 and W2 funds will need to secured and received in order to
leverage the bilateral opportunities. Delays in receiving W1 and W2 funds will have a knock-on effect on
implementation and execution of the flagship as WorldFish will not be in a position to pre-finance Program activities
that are designated to be funded from W1 and W2 sources.

Due to the limitations of the online submission form, the funding figures presented herein have combined all bilateral
and Window 3 funds into the bilateral fields. It is our full expectation that there will be a mix of both bilateral and
Window 3 funds contributing to the flagship.

Indirect costs included in the budget have been set at 12%, which is consistent with existing audited indirect costs for
WorldFish, adjusting for information technology and facility costs which have been specifically included as direct costs in
the flagship budget.

2.1.3 Flagship Uplift Budget

This Uplift budget has been prepared based on the scenario whereby the aggregate portfolio of funding increases by
50% from the $900M indicative budget. The following additional activities would be prioritized within this Flagship.
Please refer to descriptions of these activities in the CRP Uplift Budget narrative, section (1.1.7):

o Aquaculture in Africa
o Rice-fish production systems in Asia
o Global agenda setting to better profile fish in development
o Climate change in fisheries and aquaculture
o Integrated assessment of sustainable/resilient pathways for fisheries and aquaculture development in
Tanzania
o Enhancing fish supply and consumption for human nutrition in Timor Leste
o Aquaculture, capture fisheries and fish trade interdependencies in the Mekong Delta

63

Amount W1 + W2 Bilateral Other
Outcome Description Needed (%) W3 (%) (%) (%)

1.1 - 4.9 million producer households
adopted improved breeds, aquafeeds,
fish health and aquaculture and
fisheries management practices 8,875,500 32% 0 68% 0
1.2 - 3.5 million people, of which at
least 50% are women, assisted to exit
poverty through livelihood
improvements related to fisheries and
aquaculture value chains 8,052,000 32% 0 68% 0
2.3 - 2.4 million people, of which 50%
are women, without deficiencies of
one or more of the following essential
micronutrients: iron, zinc, iodine,
vitamin A, folate & B12 6,374,500 32% 0 68% 0
2.4 - 4.7 million more women of
reproductive age consuming adequate
number of food groups 6,374,500 32% 0 68% 0
3.3 - 3.3 million ha of ecosystems
restored through more productive and
equitable management of small-scale
fishery resources and degraded
aquaculture ponds restored 884,500 32% 0 68% 0

64
2.2 Flagship 2: Sustaining small-scale fisheries
2.2.1 Flagship project narrative

2.2.1.1 Rationale, scope

Background analysis. Fish is by far the fastest-growing animal-source food, and is a critical contributor to global food
and nutrition security (Beveridge et al. 2013; Troell et al. 2014; Béné et al. 2015). Demand for fish is projected to
continue to rise, particularly in Asia (World Bank 2013; OECD-FAO 2015). Despite the growth of aquaculture, capture
fisheries will continue to supply most of the fish consumed in much of the developing world in the coming decades. The
great majority of these fisheries are small-scale, operating in rivers, lakes and wetlands and in coral reefs and estuaries
in coastal seas (World Bank/FAO/WorldFish 2012).

Small-scale fisheries (SSF) generate food and income, often where formal markets and supply chains function poorly.
However, the role SSF play in nutrition and livelihood security is poorly represented in global debates about food
security and development. Pressures from within and external to SSF threaten sustainability and the equitable
distribution of the benefits they provide. The complexity of fisheries, both in their ecology and the social and
institutional environments they operate in, has thwarted the search for universal solutions. Securing and rebuilding SSF
for the millions of people who depend on them is a significant and urgent problem, and is the central rationale for
flagship 2 (FP2).

Problem statement. Sustaining and increasing the contribution of SSF to poverty reduction and food security requires
addressing three interrelated problems. First, overharvesting caused by increased fishing to meet local and distant
demand, combined with insecure resource tenure and competition with other users, has degraded the resource base of
many SSF. Social and economic drivers outside the sector influence the availability of alternative livelihoods, while
ecological drivers undermine ecosystem functions, notably for coral reefs. Second, the sustainability of inland SSF is
threatened by changes in the broader landscape. These include infrastructure development (dams, irrigation systems,
roads) that disrupt ecological flows and connectivity, and agricultural intensification and land-use conversion that
reduce wild fisheries productivity in multiple-use systems such as rice field fisheries. Third, even where local innovations
address some combination of these threats in coastal or inland systems, there is inadequate policy recognition of the
importance of SSF and poor alignment of efforts among diverse stakeholders to drive solutions at higher scales.

Scope and approach. The objective of FP2 is to secure and enhance the contribution SSF make to poverty reduction and
food security by addressing these three barriers in select geographies. FP2 is motivated by the vision that strategic
investments in fisheries research, embedded in partnerships and networks, and building on the strengths of fishing
communities, will sustain and improve the contributions fisheries make to the wellbeing and social-ecological resilience
of fishery systems. We view SSF from a systems perspective (Sayer and Campbell 2004; Andrew et al. 2007; Pomeroy
and Andrew 2011) and pursue research through a combination of global and regional analysis and place-based research
in strategic coastal and inland geographies.

We will build on progress in decentralized fisheries governance, which has proven potential to address sustainability,
food security and poverty alleviation objectives (Evans et al. 2011; Cinner et al. 2012). Central issues include gender and
other social differentiation in the control of assets and in decision-making, increasing the profile of fish in policy
agendas, and fish trade in domestic and intra-regional food systems. We will develop and refine tools, engagement
processes, management models and supporting policies suited to the contrasting contexts (clusters 1 and 2). These
streams of research will be integrated with analyses of drivers of change affecting the future of SSF and their role in
regional food systems (cluster 3).

FP2 will focus on Africa and Asia-Pacific, where the largest numbers of poor people depend on fish for food and
nutrition security and where our research can have impact at scale. In Asia-Pacific, we will focus on inland and estuarine
fisheries in Bangladesh, Myanmar and Cambodia and coral reef fisheries in Solomon Islands. In Africa, we will continue
work on inland fisheries and the small fish that constitute the majority of catches. We will work in Zambia as a case
study on the complexities of land use and governance of fisheries. We will initially focus our scaling research on coastal
co-management in the Philippines and subsequently in Tanzania. Scenario and foresight development to engage with
policy stakeholders will focus on trade along complex value chains in the (1) African Great Lakes, (2) Mekong region, and
(3) Pacific food system.

65
Grand challenges and Sustainable Development Goals. FP2 focuses on the grand challenge of unsustainable harvest of
fish from the oceans and from aquatic systems (the only flagship in the CGIAR portfolio to do so). FP2 also contributes to
addressing the grand challenges of overdrawn and polluted water supplies, nutritious and diverse agri-food systems and
diets, and on climate change through analyses of vulnerability and adaptation and climate change implications of
alternative uses of land and other aquatic resources.

FP2 contributes to a number of SDGs, particularly SDG 14: Conserve and sustainably use the ocean, seas and marine
resources. FP2 also contributes to SDG 6.6 on protecting and restoring water-related ecosystems. Alongside investments
in ecological sustainability goals, the flagship examines how these translate to reducing poverty (SDG 1) and increasing
food security (SDG 2), gender equality (SDG 5), and sustainable livelihoods and economic growth (SDG 8). SDG 8
recognizes the importance of Small Island Developing States and the particular development challenges they face.

2.2.1.2 Objectives and targets

The objective of FP2 is to secure and enhance the contribution of SSF to poverty reduction and food security in priority
geographies. To achieve this, fisheries need to be ecologically sustainable and governed for objectives of food security
and resilience of fishery-dependent households.

FP2 will primarily deliver research outputs and outcomes in support of system-level outcome (SLO) 1 (reduced poverty)
and the enabling conditions provided by SLO 3 (improved natural resource systems and ecosystem services). Improved
fisheries governance will increase the productivity of fisheries and the yield from them; FP2 will therefore make
secondary contributions to SLO 2 (improved food and nutrition security for health).

The primary target beneficiaries of FP2 are the fishery-dependent households and communities in the places we work
and the traders and consumers of fish they produce. Many value chains are long and complex, creating wealth and
opportunity at multiple points. Contributions to SLO 1 targets therefore refer to people and households dependent on
fishing and associated processing and trade as significant contributors to their income and livelihood. Contributions to
SLO 2 targets similarly consider benefits for food security and nutrition realized by consumers at multiple scales, often
distant from the source fisheries. In the case of SLO 3, we measure the area of an inland water body, terrestrial agro-
ecosystem (such as rice field fisheries) or coastal fishery under improved management as a proxy for calculating
hectares of “degraded land area restored.”

Flagship-specific outcome targets and their contributions to SLO targets and sub-IDOs are summarized in Table 9.
FP2 seeks to reduce poverty of fishery-dependent households in focal countries and beyond. Initial investments in
2017–2018 will be in inland/estuarine fisheries in four countries (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Myanmar and Zambia) and two
coastal systems (Solomon Islands and Philippines). We will increase resources and investments in other African and
Asian countries (initially focusing on coastal fisheries in Tanzania and Vietnam) in 2018 and beyond, following targeted
and strategic fundraising after a period of consultations with national and regional partners. Improved fisheries
governance aims to deliver more food, more income, and greater social inclusion and distribution of benefits. Within
households we will disaggregate and track progress for young people and women.

In making contributions to SLO 2 (reduced poverty), we recognize the multidimensional nature of poverty and therefore
the interrelated nature of the IDOs and sub-IDOs as they measure outcomes. Our approach considers three primary
dimensions of poverty: (1) income and asset poverty, the condition in which individuals and households do not have
access to sufficient means to sustain a decent standard of living (addressed through sub-IDO 1.3.2); (2) vulnerability, the
result of people’s exposure to risks, the sensitivity of their livelihood systems to these risks, and their capacity to use
assets and capabilities to cope and adapt (1.1.1, 3.3.1 and XC 1.1.4); and (3) marginalization or social exclusion (XC 2.1.3,
XC 3.1.3). All three dimensions of poverty are strongly gendered, age-dependent and interactive. For example, people
who are socially excluded or marginalized may become income and asset poor, and asset poverty reduces the capacity
to adapt, making people more vulnerable to external shocks and adverse trends. Action research interventions aimed at
building wellbeing and resilience in communities dependent upon SSF aim to capture these multiple dimensions.

66
 Flagship-specific outcome targets by 2022
Target geographies
PRIMARY (annual milestones included in PIM Table D)
1 million fishery-dependent households have reduced poverty as a result of adopting Cluster 1
improved fisheries management Solomon Islands and
Addresses SLO target 1.1 and sub-IDOs: Tanzania (scaling
Increased capacity to cope with shocks investments in
Increased livelihood opportunities Philippines and
Enhanced capacity to deal with climatic risks and extremes Vietnam)
Improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decision-making
Gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources Cluster 2
Bangladesh, Cambodia,
1.2 million people, of which 50% are women, assisted to exit poverty through livelihood
Myanmar, Zambia
improvements

Addresses SLO target 1.2 and sub-IDOs:
Cluster 3
Increased capacity to deal with climatic risks and extremes
National and regional
Increased capacity to cope with shocks
foresight and intra-
Increased livelihood opportunities
regional trade analyses
2.1 million ha of aquatic and coastal marine habitat restored and under more productive and across all countries in
equitable management the Pacific region and
Addresses SLO target 3.3 and sub-IDOs: regional trade analyses
Enhanced conservation of habitats and resources in the African Great
Increased resilience of agro-ecosystems and communities, especially those including Lakes region and
smallholders Mekong Delta
Conducive agricultural policy environment
Flagship-specific outcome targets by 2022
SECONDARY (progress measured through CRP-level M&E)
0.3 million people, of which 50% are women, without micronutrient deficiencies as a result of
increased consumption of fish sourced from small-scale fisheries
Addresses SLO target 2.3
0.6 million more women of reproductive age consuming an adequate number of food groups
as a result of improvements in small-scale fisheries
Addresses SLO target 2.4
Table 9. FP2 outcome targets by 2022.

67
FP2 investments for each sub-IDO are summarized in Table 10.

Sub-IDO name Total amount W1+W2 (%) W3/Bilateral (%)

SLO-related

1.3.2 Increased livelihood opportunities $12.83M $3.85M (30%) $8.98M (70%)

3.3.1 Increased resilience of agro-ecosystems and
communities, especially those including smallholders $12.83M $3.85M (30%) $8.98M (70%)
(see also XC 1.1.5)
3.2.1 More productive and equitable management of $8.98M (70%)
$12.83M $3.85M (30%)
natural resources
Cross cutting
XC 1.1.4 Enhanced capacity to deal with climatic risks $3.75M (70%)
$5.35M $1.61M (30%)
and extremes (see also 1.1.1 and 3.3.2)
XC 2.1.1 Gender-equitable control of productive assets $3.75M (70%)
$5.35M $1.61M (30%)
and resources
XC 2.1.3 Improved capacity of women and young $3.75M (70%)
$5.35M $1.61M (30%)
people to participate in decision-making
XC 3.1.3 Conducive agricultural policy environment $5.35M $1.61M (30%) $3.75M (70%)

Total (USD) $59.89M $17.97M (30%) $41.92M (70%)

Table 10. Investments by sub-IDO for FP2 for 2017–2022. Note that only the most relevant sub-IDOs are listed—a wider
set of sub-IDOs is addressed in collaboration with other flagships.

The flagship will contribute to all four cross-cutting IDOs, in collaboration with other flagships within FISH and other
CRPs, particularly CCAFS, PIM and WLE. Specifically, we address enhanced capacity to deal with climatic risks and
extremes (XC 1.1.4; see also 1.1.1 and 3.3.2), gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources (XC 2.1.1),
improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decision-making (XC 2.1.3) and conducive agricultural
policy environment (XC 3.1.3). Integral to achieving each of the named sub-IDOs is also increased capacity for
innovations in partner development organizations and in poor and vulnerable communities (XC 4.1.4).

Within SLO 3 we focus on the sub-IDOs that track attributes and outcomes of improved fisheries governance: increased
resilience of agro-ecosystems and communities (3.3.1; see also XC 1.1.5), and more productive and equitable
management of natural resources (3.2.1). FP2 also contributes to other sub-IDOs, such as enhanced conservation of
habitats and resources (3.1.2) and increased capacity for innovation in partner development organizations and in poor
and vulnerable communities (XC 4.1.4), but these are secondary to the named sub-IDOs.

Outcome milestones are provided in the Performance Indicator Matrix, and the program approach to outcome
monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment is addressed in Annex 3.6.

2.2.1.3 Impact pathway and theory of change

Securing and increasing the contribution of fisheries to poverty reduction and food security depends on the ecological
sustainability of harvests. However, sustainability alone is not sufficient. To reduce poverty, access rights and benefits
need to be equitably distributed and fisheries need to be integrated with diverse livelihoods. While isolated knowledge
advances can lead to local outcomes, impactful research must be embedded in wider governance and political
processes, engaging diverse community, civil society and public sector partners at multiple scales. Lessons learned from
AAS have re-emphasized the importance of multiscale approaches to influencing change in these complex governance
landscapes. Building on AAS, FISH will invest in proven partnerships and networks that span communities to national
agencies and regional intergovernmental bodies.

The flagship theory of change (ToC) reflects this multi-scale approach (Figure 5) and incorporates fishery-specific
propositions (Table 11) relating to the CRP-level change mechanisms. These propositions will be tested in three
interlinked clusters. Clusters 1 and 2 address coastal and inland/estuarine fisheries, and the barriers to improved
68
productivity, including overfishing and landscape-scale resource competition and governance (e.g. infrastructure
development and other uses of land and water). Cluster 3 integrates the place-based clusters to address the role of
fisheries in poverty reduction at national and regional scales. By combining local innovations with those at higher scales,
the three clusters aim to contribute jointly to gender-equitable resource access, control of assets and distribution of
benefits for fisheries-dependent households, improved management, and sustained yields from marine and aquatic
environments, leading to increased incomes and livelihood resilience.

We make a very deliberate choice to develop, support and refine management approaches that have been shown to
serve the welfare of the many, rather than to manage to economic or ecological optima that have been shown to be
susceptible to the capture of a few (Béné 2003; Béné et al. 2010; Cunningham et al. 2009). These approaches focus on
processes sensitive to social differentiation to bring multiple stakeholders together to govern and to build capacity of
governors to adapt management as conditions change (Bene et al. 2011). Evidence suggests this approach can lead to
broader participation, greater compliance and improved social and ecological outcomes (Cinner et al. 2012; Evans et al.
2011), enhanced adaptive capacity, and resilience (see also Table 13 for selected references to this evidence-base and
the track record we build upon).

Cluster 1 will work on decentralized management and livelihoods in coastal fisheries in Solomon Islands and the
Philippines. These countries are highly dependent on coastal fisheries for rural livelihoods and food security, have a
supportive policy environment, and offer opportunities to influence regional policies and practices within the Asia-
Pacific region. Both countries have capacity deficiencies in delivering long-term co-management and livelihood solutions
that result in equitable impacts, challenges that are emblematic of many coastal nations. We will build on methods
piloted by WorldFish to refine community engagements that lead to increased ecological sustainability, enhanced
production for food security, and improved opportunities for men and women to generate income. These engagements
include (1) co-management to sustain fish stocks and ensure women’s and men’s access to and control over the
resource, and (2) measures to increase benefits by improving equitable market access and building alternative
livelihoods. To achieve impact at scale, we promote the spread of innovations through learning and governance
networks, ultimately embedding these in policies of governments and regional bodies, as well as within the priorities of
development agencies and civil society actors.

Cluster 2 focuses on SSF in multifunctional, estuarine and freshwater landscapes in Myanmar, Cambodia, Bangladesh
and Zambia, with an emphasis on managing competition and adapting to external drivers of change. In addition to their
high reliance on freshwater fisheries and relatively strong government commitment to the sector, these countries
exemplify the challenges of sustaining the livelihood and nutritional benefits of SSF amid intensifying competition over
water resources, related infrastructure development, conversion of key aquatic habitats and climate change. SSF-
dependent communities have struggled to achieve the visibility necessary to influence policy and regulatory
environments amid competition for water and landscapes. Activities will focus on drivers of change, tradeoffs and
governance mechanisms to sustain and increase the contributions of fisheries in the face of these challenges.

Cluster 3 is based on the proposition that policy will better sustain and transform the role of fisheries for poverty
reduction and food security if forward-looking scenario and foresight analysis is used in multi-stakeholder dialogue to
raise the profile of fish in regional food systems. In the African Great Lakes fish trade corridor and the Mekong Delta, we
will examine how domestic and intra-regional trade affects capture fisheries production, and how trade policy and other
measures can influence the livelihood and nutritional benefits of fish from these sources for the poor and marginalized.
In the Pacific islands food system, we will examine how the contribution of SSF evolves under a range of ecological and
social drivers, focusing on climate change. These three case studies provide a strong basis for generalizable lessons
about how fish in food systems at larger scales interface with the place-based value chain work of FP3.

The impact pathway diagram and ToC narrative outlined here simplify complex, interactive mechanisms linking research
to development outcomes. As detailed in Table 12, strategies to address risks include (1) capacity development in
gender-sensitive and transformative approaches, community livelihood and management interventions, and responsive
and accountable institutions; (2) outcome evaluation assessing progress in fostering governance networks; and (3)
building on established partnerships to maximize opportunities to apply research within policy design and
implementation.

69
 Addressed
Flagship-specific propositions
in Cluster
Co-management: Localized improvements to resource governance implemented with partners and 1, 2
fishing communities will improve sustainability and lead to equitable improvements in food security
(change mechanism a).
Livelihoods and markets: Localized improvements to livelihood alternatives and market access will 1
lead to reduction in poverty. Improved food security will result from governance and livelihood
interventions implemented in collaboration with partners and fishing communities (change
mechanism a).
Scaling through networks: Substantive, sustainable and equitable improvements in food security, 1, 2
poverty reduction and sustainability will result from mobilization of innovations through networks
and strategic investments in networks (change mechanisms a, c and d).

Governance landscapes: Local and cumulative impacts of localized interventions, and the ability of 1, 2, 3
SSF to sustain and improve the benefits they deliver, will be accelerated and enhanced by creating a
stronger enabling environment (change mechanisms c and d).

External drivers of change: Accounting for external drivers (e.g. trade, resource access/trade 2, 3
agreements, global environmental change) in local interventions and broad-scale policy will improve
SSF resilience (change mechanisms c and d).
Imagining alternative futures: Policy will better sustain and transform the role of fisheries for 3
poverty reduction and food security if forward-looking scenario and foresight analysis is used in
multi-stakeholder dialogue (change mechanisms c and d).

Capacity development: Investing in the capacity of CRP partners through gender-sensitive and 1, 2, 3
transformative approaches, learning and governance networking, community livelihood and
management interventions, and responsive and accountable institutions will accelerate and enhance
impact (change mechanisms c and d).

Gender, equity and youth: Improving equitable access to, and control of, assets and participation in 1, 2, 3
decision-making will accelerate poverty reduction and improvements in food security (change
mechanisms a, c and d).

Table 11. Flagship propositions. These propositions relate to and ground the CRP-level mechanisms described in Section
1: (a) local adoption and dissemination of technologies and management practices; (c) public sector policy improvement
and institutional strengthening; and (d) influence on policies and priorities of civil society and development agencies.
FP2 does not emphasize research on change mechanism (b) private sector investment and replication of innovative
business models.

70
 Change Research Change
Change Development Sub-
Research outputs IDOs
mechanism outcomes mechanism
mechanism outcomes IDOs

Cluster 1. Resilient Increased

coastal fisheries •  Women, youth and men livelihood
1a engaged in co- 1a opportunities
•  Co-management models
tested and refined for management
inclusive governance, •  Tradeoffs between
food security and multiple objectives
sustainability accounted for in co- Increased access
management models to productive
•  Tradeoffs between
•  Men and women assets, including
sustainability, resilience, Management
engaged in alternative natural resources
food security and measures promote
livelihood strategies
wellbeing assessed gender-equitable
•  Innovations promoted,
•  Alternative livelihood 1c spread by NGOs and 1c resource access, Gender-equitable
strategies assessed public sector control of assets control of
•  Catalysts to spread •  Increased capacity of and benefits for productive assets
innovations identified national and regional fishery-dependent and resources
institutions to implement households
•  Cross-scale governance
mechanisms identified 1d SSF-supportive policies 1d
that support the viability of Increased
innovations incomes and
Policies and employment
programs better
Cluster 2. Fish in •  Increased household aligned to support
multifunctional and community capacity improved livelihood
landscapes 2a to adapt to hydrological 2a opportunities, Increased
•  Assess and refine variability increased incomes resilience of agro-
governance and •  Governance and and adaptive ecosystems and
production models for production models for capacity communities
integrated aquaculture integrated aquaculture
and agriculture and agriculture applied
widely, and productivity Improved food
•  Cross-scale governance
and nutrition
mechanisms tested and increased
•  National and regional security for
refined to account for Marine and aquatic health
impacts of external drivers water management, environments
and competition on SSF 2c infrastructure and land- 3c produce higher
•  Tradeoffs between SSF, use policies account for yields, contributing
SSF rights and access More productive
infrastructure and land to livelihoods
and equitable
use understood •  Visibility of SSF
functions raised in cross- management of
•  SSF functions for food
natural resources
security and poverty sectoral NGOs and
alleviation, and threats, 2d public sector policies 2d
assessed Increased social- More
ecological sustainably
resilience of managed
productive systems agro-
Cluster 3. Fish in under better ecosystems
regional food systems •  Profile of SSF raised in management
•  Regional and global inter-sectoral 3a
3a agricultural, health, trade
analysis of the current Conducive
state and potential of and development policy agricultural policy
SSF for food security •  SSF functions better environment
and wellbeing accounted for in trade
policy
•  Impacts of intra-regional
•  Policies and practices of Enhanced capacity
and global trade patterns
NGOs and public sector to deal with climatic
and policies on the pro-
informed and responsive risks and extremes
poor functions of SSF 3c 3c
to future scenarios
assessed
•  Foresight analysis of
global environmental Enhanced capacity
change on SSF of youth and women
3d 3d
performance to engage in
decision-making

Figure 5. FP2 impact pathways.

71

Change Key assumptions and risks associated with Corresponding strategies and risk management actions
mechanism change mechanisms

Research outputs to research outcomes Research outputs to research outcomes

1a – 2a Communities willing to engage in co- 1a – 2a Identify communities on need and expressions of
management, alternative livelihoods and integrated interest; tailor activities to local demand; employ participatory
a agriculture/aquaculture, and sustain these efforts processes to establish co-management and livelihoods, with
post-engagement. (Risk: poor engagement) resilience an explicit objective.
1a – 2a NGOs, public sector and development 1a – 2a Co-develop innovations with partners; focus strategic
Local adoption agencies receptive to new innovations and policy research and engagements explicitly on dissemination via
and amendments, and able to play a dissemination role networks.
dissemination effectively. (Risk: limited sharing)
of technologies
and Research outcomes to development outcomes Research outcomes to development outcomes
management 1a – 2a Co-management, livelihood strategies and 1a Implement participatory action research with explicit
practices practices realize equitable outcomes, avoiding elite attention to gender and social differentiation in co-
capture. (Risk: increased inequities) management and alternative livelihoods.
1a – 2a Outcomes from new innovations persist 2a Explicitly engage with cross-sectoral and cross-scale
amidst external drivers of change. (Risk: low drivers and partners in research; build co-management and
sustainability) livelihood innovations into broader community-resilience-
1a – 2a Replicated forms of co-management, building approaches.
livelihood and integrated farming innovations still 1a – 2a Co-develop co-management and livelihood
deliver equitable and sustained improvements to innovations with NGOs and public sector; incorporate lessons
food security, production and incomes. (Risk: limited on challenges and tradeoffs in capacity building and
adoption) communication resources.

Research outputs to research outcomes Research outputs to research outcomes

1c Public sector and development agencies 1c – 2c Select countries where early policy change indicates
receptive to recognizing and disseminating new progress and support towards decentralization, yielding
innovations. (Risk: limited sharing) evidence on benefits of decentralized approaches.
1c – 2c Governments able to implement policy and 1c – 2c Co-develop innovations and cross-scale governance
c
practice changes with adequate budget and research with public sector; use profile-raising activities to
technical capacity. (Risk: inadequate capacity) support increased public and development investment, and
Public sector 2c – 3c Government actors across sectors governance networks to moderate capacity gaps.
policy receptive to longer-term concerns of food security 3c Communicate foresight analyses to raise the profile of
improvement and wellbeing, including tradeoffs with short-term current and future roles of SSF in food systems.
and institutional economic growth. (Risk: policy obstacles)
strengthening
Research outcomes to development outcomes Research outcomes to development outcomes
1c – 3c Government policy supports longer-term 1c – 2c Raise the profile among government and regional
perspectives on decentralization, welfare and agencies of the outcomes and potential of decentralized SSF
ecological sustainability objectives, vs. short-term governance and alignment to SDGs and other policy
economic growth. (Risk: policy obstacles) commitments; engage with civil society to ensure government
1c – 3c Government policy promotes poverty accountability to SDGs, human rights and SSF commitments,
alleviation and food security objectives, alongside as well as conservation commitments.
ecological conservation. (Risk: policy obstacles) 3c Integrate foresight analysis in existing and ongoing strategic
planning and commitment-reporting processes.

Research outputs to research outcomes Research outputs to research outcomes

1d NGOs and development agencies receptive and 1d – 2d Co-develop innovations with NGOs and public sector
able to promote improved forms of co-management. 1d – 2d Partner with cross-sectoral civil society and
(Risk: inadequate capacity) development agencies in analysis of the food security and
d 1d – 2d Health, development and environment- poverty reduction functions of SSF, and work with them to
focused agencies recognize SSF livelihoods communicate results.
Influence on alongside other conservation and development 3d Integrate foresight analysis into existing fora for strategic
policies and objectives in multifunctional landscapes. (Risk: planning and policy formation.
priorities of civil inadequate investment)
society and 3d Civil society and development agency policy and Research outcomes to development outcomes
development program decision-making responsive to foresight 1d – 3d Partner to recognize SSF explicitly in cross-sectoral
agencies analysis. (Risk: poor integration) and cross-scale governance arenas in which civil society and
development agencies are active; build accountability to
Research outcomes to development outcomes SDGs, human rights and SSF commitments into civil society
1d – 3d Civil society activities promote human capacity development work.
wellbeing and food security in SSF, not only
environmental conservation. (Risk: poor integration)

Table 12. FP2 change mechanisms.

72
2.2.1.4 Science quality

We strategically align our research priorities to those articulated by community and national stakeholders (e.g. SSF
guidelines, FAO 2015). These are summarized as flagship-specific propositions (Table 11) representing interrelated
dimensions of the SSF challenge and are set within different literatures and theoretical framings. The partners in the flagship
have made significant contributions to that literature (see Table 13 for examples).

Across all clusters, we consider SSF through an overarching lens of social-ecological resilience because they encapsulate
sustainability, poverty and food security; account for relationships between social and ecological systems and cross-scale
interactions; and explicitly account for feedback and shocks. While this focus is closely aligned with the objectives and
commitments laid out in the SSF guidelines (for example), efforts to apply resilience thinking in practice have struggled to
account for the human dimensions and objectives of social-ecological systems (Cote and Nightingale 2012; Brown 2014). We
will address this gap through our comparative advantage in social and interdisciplinary science in the SSF domain, and through
established and emerging policy networks in Asia, Africa and the Pacific. For example, within our efforts to improve livelihoods
and strengthen co-management, we will examine and test how resilience is defined locally, how it is built and the inevitable
tradeoffs that determine where improved resilience does, and does not, translate to improved wellbeing (Hicks et al. 2009; Mills
et al. 2011; Coulthard 2012; Cohen et al. 2013). We employ quantitative fisheries and demography research to examine changes
in productivity, ecological status, and incomes and nutritional status of men, women and children reliant on SSF.

We recognize the multidimensional nature of development and the inadequacy of framing poverty solely in economic terms
(Stiglitz et al. 2009). We will build on conceptual framing and measurement of human wellbeing to reconcile resilience
insights with poverty alleviation and ecological sustainability (Smith and Subandoro 2007; Ballard et al. 2011; OECD 2013;
McGregor et al. 2015). This will require methodological advances at the interface of research and development and policy
practice at local and national scales. At this interface, CGIAR and FP2 research partners enjoy comparative advantage and a
track record.

Research within clusters 1 and 2 will examine governance and social and ecological outcomes among diverse fishery systems.
While we examine localized cases in depth, we will also use analytical frameworks to facilitate comparative, cross-case
analyses (e.g. Ratner et al. 2013). Employing such frameworks strengthens our analytical power to draw generalizable lessons
for different governance arrangements in different contexts. While there is a great deal of advocacy around co-management
approaches, there is also a paucity of systematic comparison of outcomes, particularly for the social and equity dimensions
(Selig et al. in press). By addressing this gap, we can provide robust guidance for policies and practice to achieve impact at
scale. This research extends beyond the application of existing frameworks and uses applied insights to further refine and
operationalize them. Both the use and refinement of frameworks will be subject to peer review.

In clusters 1 and 2, our work on local impacts and engagement with fishing communities and policy forums aligns with
established and peer-reviewed frameworks that guide implementation and subsequent analyses of implementation and
governance processes (e.g. Andrew et al. 2007; Ratner et al. 2013; Stockholm Resilience Center 2015). Our research will be
co-generated with fishing communities and government, non-government and research agencies, using participatory action
research principles that have been shown to promote both local innovation and multi-stakeholder dialogue that can
influence policy and institutional change (Reason and Bradbury 2008; Ratner et al. 2014). Our emphasis on knowledge co-
production from on-the-ground engagements sets us apart from traditional research organizations and gives our research
greater responsiveness to stakeholder needs and increased credibility to influence practice and policy.

A critical element of our science quality is to understand how locally generated insights and lessons are considered within a
systems perspective, and the potential and limitations of scaling. For example, investments in co-management and livelihoods
can bring about improvements to sustainability and human wellbeing, but structural dynamics (e.g. international trade, global
environmental change) can affect sustainability and human wellbeing to even greater degrees. Much existing research focuses
on one scale or the other; we have a strong comparative advantage for linking actors in meaningful, evidence-based dialogue
about options to address SSF challenges through networks bridging local, national and regional scales.

To ensure the quality of our science remains high, FP2 will maintain and strengthen the engagement of its implementing
partners in international communities of practice to ensure we are at the leading edge of research for development (R4D) in
fisheries governance. This includes networks that facilitate exchange of methods and approaches across resource systems,
such as the CGIAR Systemwide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi), sustained through PIM FP5 and the
CGIAR Gender Platform (PIM FP6). It also includes sector-specific research networks such as Too Big To Ignore, a global
network established to elevate the profile of SSF.
73
 Flagship Conceptual frameworks and theories Selected evidence of track record on which
proposition we build
Co-management Fisheries and ecological sustainability examined Cohen and Alexander 2013; Cohen and
from the perspective of sustainable fisheries Foale 2013; Cohen et al. 2014; Dewan et al.
resources (Dugan et al. 2010). Linkages between 2014; Evans et al. 2011; Mapedza et al.
sustainability resilience and adaptive capacity 2012; McClanahan et al. 2011; Schwarz et
(Gallopin et al. 2006). Governance understood al. 2011
locally (e.g. Ostrom 1990; Ratner et al. 2013) and
from multiscale governance perspective (Bavinck et
al. 2013).
Livelihoods and Research structured around the resilience of Albert et al. 2014; Cinner and Bodin 2010;
markets social-ecological systems (Folke 2006), linkages Cinner et al. 2013; Schwarz et al. 2011; Sulu
between resilience and adaptive capacity (Gallopin et al. 2015
et al. 2006), improved nutritional security and the
role of aquaculture for the poor (Troell et al. 2014;
Powell et al. 2015). Research guided by seminal
approaches to livelihoods by Allison and Ellis (2001).
Scaling through Social network theory (Bodin and Crona 2009; Abernethy et al. 2014; Cohen et al. 2012
partnerships and Borgatti 2009), diffusion of innovation theory
networks (Rogers 2003) and institutional analysis.
Governance Interactive Governance Framework (Bavinck Abernethy et al. 2014; Andrew et al. 2007;
landscapes et al. 2013) and Ratner et al. (2013) framework for Foale et al. 2013; Ratner and Allison 2012
analyzing governance. Analyzing policy and practice
against SDG policy and human rights approaches
(e.g. Allison et al. 2012).
External drivers Research builds on ideas of globalization of social- Albert et al. 2014; Allison et al. 2009; Baran
of change ecological systems (Young et al. 2006). Explicit focus
et al. 2015; Eriksson and Clarke 2015;
on global trade and climate change. Eriksson et al. 2015; Hecht and Lacombe
2014; Hoanh et al. 2010; Kam et al. 2016;
Kura et al. 2014; Lacombe et al. 2014; Phong
et al. 2016; Winemiller et al. 2016
Imagining Participatory scenario development and related Dey et al. 2005; Evans et al. 2013;
alternative techniques (Vervoot et al. 2014); foresight modeling Secretariat of the Pacific Community 2015
futures using IMPACT fish supply modeling (World Bank
2013; Kobayashi et al. 2015) and WorldFish Fish
Supply Model (previously AsiaFish model, Dey et al.
2005).
Capacity Systems approaches to capacity development at Apgar et al. 2015; Leuwis et al. 2014;
development individual, institutional and organizational levels Sarapura et al. 2014
(Morgan 2006; Ortiz and Taylor 2008) and
understanding of capacity development as a process
(OECD 2008).
Gender, equity Ratner et al. (2013) framework to examine Allison et al. 2012; Cohen and Steenbergen
and youth gendered and socially differentiated representation 2015; Cole et al. 2015; Kantor et al. 2015;
and power in SSF governance. Application of Morgan et al. 2016; Ratner et al. 2013;
wellbeing (Weeratunge et al. 2014) and rights- Weeratunge et al. 2014
based (Allison et al. 2012) framings.
Table 13. Propositions addressed in FP2 ToC, their relationship to science literatures and theories, and our track
record in contributing to those fields of enquiry. These relationships and contributions are critical to situating our
research in the literature and as evidence of our capacity to produce IPGs. See Table 11 for summaries of the
propositions and their relationship to change mechanisms.

In addition, we will develop two communities of practice for FP2 that leverage existing investments in science quality,
including research design. For coastal fisheries (clusters 1 and 3) we will use the Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies
Scientific Management Committee as a review panel for the design of research. To review our research on the interactions of
inland fisheries with broader trends in landscape-level change (clusters 2 and 3), we will draw on relevant expertise through
74
our engagement with the Ramsar Convention’s Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) where the International Water
Management Institute (IWMI) is an International Organization Partner, and the Ecosystem Services Partnership, coordinated
by the Environmental Systems Analysis Group at WUR.

Research will also be published in regionally appropriate, peer-reviewed venues to ensure that it is not only academically
robust, but withstands review from practitioners and policymakers. In addition, all the partner research organizations have
internal peer-review processes that require sign-off from experts with domain knowledge.

2.2.1.5 Lessons learnt and unintended consequences

FP2 has been shaped by lessons drawn from AAS as well as linkages with WLE (particularly in the Mekong and Ganges
regions). In Zambia, for example, the proposed work under cluster 2 builds on the experiences and research in the Barotse
Floodplain under AAS where geographic information system (GIS) and remote sensing were key methods to better
understand the natural resource status and trajectory of change over time, important particularly in the context of a trade-
off analysis for potential wetland use options. The remote sensing and GIS was complemented with the local knowledge
system to help inform realistic decision-making process as part of research in development in wetland areas (Xueliang et
al. in review). In regard to the work proposed for Cambodia, adapting local institutional models (developed under the
earlier phase of the USAID investment within AAS) through participatory community dialogues, will expand the scope of
fish refuge management committees to adopt a more multi-user orientation critical for balancing often competing uses.

Learning from AAS on local political economies linked to resource capture has presented critical understanding for
designing approaches to building institutions that support decision-making processes that result in both sustainable and
equitable resource use (Agpar et al. In review). Learning from Kulna in Bangladesh, through AAS and the WLE Ganges
focal region work on improved community water and land management practices at the microscale within the polders,
has contributed to the creation of innovative water resource governance mechanisms to reduce conflict associated with
water management among community members (Dewan et al. 2014; Kenia and Buisson 2015) and has informed what is
proposed in Bangladesh under cluster 2.

Through our linkages with WLE, particularly flagship 4 (FP4) on managing resource variability, risk and competing uses
for increased resilience (VCR), we will together be exploring and testing innovative solutions for sustaining fisheries and
livelihood adaptations in man-made water bodies such as reservoirs constructed for hydropower and irrigation. We will
also be together ensuring the optimization of water management in integrated fish and crop production systems.
Further, we expect to develop complementary research in integrated sites – such as in Bangladesh, Cambodia and
Myanmar. Ultimately as indicated in Annex 3.7, our partnership with WLE seeks to make certain that deliberations over
basin and watershed-scale resource competition and development scenarios take into consideration fisheries outcomes.
Reviews by the World Bank and African Development Bank on fisheries sector investments consistently point to
governance as the key enabling factor in securing the sustainability of capture fisheries and their economic and social
benefits. The design and approach of FP2 responds to global experience on the pathways and pitfalls to achieving
progress towards this goal.

Our science outputs will also undergo rigorous review. The majority of our research has and will continue to be
published in peer-reviewed literature (see named CVs for recent articles in leading journals). The peer review
mechanism provided by leading journals will remain the benchmark for ensuring science quality in the flagship. Our

We have learned that co-management carries risks, particularly when issues surrounding accountability and
representation are not addressed. This creates opportunities for elite capture (Béné et al. 2009; Evans et al. 2011;
Cinner et al. 2012; Cohen and Steenbergen 2015). Our research will pay particular attention to power imbalances and
other social differentiation that interventions may cause or exacerbate.

Fisheries reforms at local, national and regional scales commonly fail because of problems of implementation and
external drivers such as natural, political or economic shocks; internal social relations and leadership issues; and
competition for resources with other sectors (Andrew et al. 2007). More successful reforms anticipate a wide range of
economic, social, political, institutional or environmental risks and opportunities, and build in mechanisms to adapt
(Armitage et al. 2009; Gelcich et al. 2010). Recognizing that social and ecological shocks are inevitable, we focus on
building resilience and adaptive capacity through the design of our engagements. Further, our use of foresight analysis

75
and multi-stakeholder dialogue on future scenarios, as well as related capacity development efforts, aim to embed such
resilience principles in policy and institutional reform decisions.

Without adequate attention to linkages across sectors and scales, institution-strengthening investments in the sector
also frequently fail to yield the intended results. An African Development Bank review (2008) of fisheries projects found
that “the lack of adequate analysis of the institutional framework is undermining the establishment of mechanisms to
support public, private or civil society organizations.” Similarly, a key lesson of AAS is that strengthening community-
level institutions needs to be complemented by a greater focus on governance across scales and on the external drivers
of change. FP2 uses this learning, notably in cluster 2 where tradeoffs among land and water usage and the ecosystem
services they provide are a focus of research. This can help mitigate risks associated with the potential negative impacts
on fisheries from intensification of agriculture production, for example.

We also recognize risks inherent in action research that aims to influence change in governance, particularly in areas
under collective or contested tenure. We have learned that the process of clarifying tenure, deemed necessary for
resource management and development efforts, can precipitate contestation or dispute (McDougall 2005). Mechanisms
to manage competing perspectives and integrate an awareness of gender and social equity are critical to avoid
aggravating conflicts or unintentionally enabling elite capture. FP2 incorporates lessons from WorldFish’s long history in
community engagement and community-based fisheries management, including from phase 1 CRPs (Douthwaite et al.
2015; Apgar et al. in press). Collaborating for Resilience, co-developed under AAS and PIM in phase 1, will also be used,
along with locally contextualized tools to provide tested approaches to address this challenge through multi-stakeholder
dialogue (e.g. Schwarz et al. 2014) and mediation and conflict resolution between resource users in multifunctional
landscapes (e.g. scenario development and decision support tools developed with WLE).

2.2.1.6 Clusters of activity

FP2 will pursue a combination of place-based field research in strategic geographies, comparative analysis and cross-
cutting learning, and analyses of fish in regional food systems. Research in cluster 1 focuses on the challenge of
sustaining production from and equitable access to small-scale coastal fisheries. Cluster 2 focuses on sustaining fisheries
production in multifunctional landscapes in which land-use changes, hydropower development and climate change
present major challenges. Estuarine fisheries at the mouths of rivers are included in cluster 2. Cluster 3 focuses on the
role of SSF in regional food systems, analyzing the drivers of change and routes to improve contributions to food
security, equitable asset building and wealth creation. This integrated set of clusters is designed to address the eight
propositions outlined in the flagship ToC (Table 11).

Cluster 1: Resilient coastal fisheries
Coastal SSF produce approximately half the fish consumed in the developing world and employ 47 million people, about
a third of whom are women (Mills et al. 2011). With appropriate governance, coastal SSF contribute to the wellbeing
and food security of millions of people who have few economic and nutritional alternatives (Béné et al. 2010). Research
in this cluster focuses on sustaining the food security and poverty alleviation functions of coastal SSF through four
streams of action research:

1. Strengthening co-management (change mechanism a)
2. Building alternative and improved livelihood strategies to reduce poverty and alleviate pressure on coastal fisheries
(change mechanism a)
3. Spreading co-management and livelihood innovations via novel, strategic networking (change mechanisms a and d)
4. Investing in the enabling environment via regional policy forums (change mechanisms c and d).

We will focus on Solomon Islands and later on Tanzania and Vietnam because of their high reliance on coastal fisheries
(Cinner et al. 2012a; Foale et al. 2013) and opportunities for regional influence. WorldFish and JCU have established
networks, partnerships and a track record in these countries and surrounding regions. In the first year of FISH, we will
build on JCU’s networks in Tanzania to leverage bilateral funding and expand our African engagement. We will develop
in Vietnam in response to national demand as funding is secured.

Country-specific and comparative analyses will address the following questions: (1) How can multi-scale governance be
improved to both increase ecological sustainability and promote gender-equitable flows of benefits from fisheries,
particularly to the poorest and most marginalized? (2) What are the tradeoffs between longer-term system

76
sustainability, resilience and food security, and more immediate improvements to wellbeing? (3) In what ways can
resilience be built into SSF at national, sub-national and local levels to account for external and local drivers of change?
While meta-analyses suggest co-management can contribute to each SLO, impacts are highly variable and socially
differentiated (Evans et al. 2011; Cinner et al. 2012a). This cluster aims to determine the local contexts, tradeoffs and
enabling structures that increase SSF sustainability and equity. We will engage locally and with partners to assess
options for and foster improvements to co-management in communities in Solomon Islands (in Malaita, Western
Province and Langalanga Lagoon).

We will employ data from gender-disaggregated catch surveys, interviews, focus groups and household surveys to test
gender-inclusive and women-targeted livelihood options and market opportunities in Solomon Islands (e.g. fish-
aggregating devices, communication technology for market connectivity). We will use gender-inclusive participatory
approaches to identify livelihood options prioritized by women, men and youth; how they can be introduced in an
equitable manner; and how costs and benefits differ by gender and social group. We will examine outcomes in terms of
poverty alleviation and interactions with SSF sustainability and resilience.

To realize impact at scale, we will strategically invest in partnerships and networks, such as governance and learning
networks in the Asia-Pacific region (e.g. the Locally Managed Marine Area network [LMMA]) and Solomon Islands (e.g.
National Coordinating Committee for the Coral Triangle Initiative). In the Philippines we will focus on scaling co-
management in governance networks (e.g. the Iligan Bay Alliance of Misamis Occidental, and the Regional Development
Council). We will measure impact on practice and policy of network members in terms of co-management practice,
livelihood strategies and gender equity. Using social network analysis, we will measure the institutional and social
accelerants and barriers to innovation spread and network functioning to amplify learning and governance outcomes.

We will synthesize policy lessons and support partners to engage effectively in regional networks, leveraging the
commitments made by countries towards global norms in SSF (e.g. FAO 2015) that reinforce human rights and gender
and social equity in governance. Cross-scale governance interactions are a particular focus. By engaging with policy
instruments and forums, we will influence environmental and development policies and support their implementation
to better protect SSF functions.

Cluster 2: Fish in multifunctional landscapes
Research in this cluster will address how fisheries in estuaries, rivers, wetlands, man-made water bodies and rice fields
can be sustained in landscapes where natural variability, land-use changes, hydropower development and climate
change are major challenges. Additional localized challenges include access rights, power dynamics and decision-
making, and distribution of benefits in terms of gender and social equity among poor and marginalized people. We will
take an interdisciplinary approach to interventions, combining ecological, hydrological and governance research and
providing an understanding of how poor women, men and youth manage risks and realize opportunities. Tools to
negotiate tradeoffs and synergies between fish production and alternative landscape uses will be considered. Research
will cut across scales, linking with and informing national as well as regional development and policy processes. Cluster 2
principally focuses on change mechanisms a and c.

Country-specific and comparative analyses will address the following three questions: (1) How do drivers of change
affect the hydrology, ecological character and fisheries livelihood opportunities in multifunctional landscapes? (2) How
can governance mechanisms be improved in these landscapes to support gender-equitable distribution of benefits from
fisheries, particularly to the poorest and most marginalized (including youth)? (3) What tradeoffs between fish
production and other uses within these landscapes need to be considered to optimize contributions to livelihoods, food
security and wellbeing while maintaining long-term ecological sustainability?

We will work in the Bangweulu wetland system in Zambia as a learning site on enhancing the contributions of inland SSF
to diversified livelihoods in southern and eastern Africa. Using remote sensing and GIS tools to do land-use classification
and change detection analyses, we will assess how temporal and spatial variability in the hydrological regime affects and
influences patterns of wetland utilization and fisheries livelihoods. We will link this with tradeoff analysis, including the
feasibility of integrating fish-rice production systems, in line with the Zambia Government’s strong support for fish
production.

Research in Myanmar’s Ayeyarwady Delta addresses opportunities for improved governance of integrated rice-fish
production systems (including water management) to ensure benefits such as better incomes, nutrition and health are
acquired in a gender-equitable manner by fishers and producers who depend on these systems. Similarly, in Cambodia
77
we will consider ways of optimizing integrated rice field fisheries production systems in Tonle Sap Lake by testing best
practices and models of water governance that adopt a multiple-use orientation in community fish refuges. In support
of the government’s policy objective to enhance natural productivity of rice field environments, including establishing
1200 fish refuges by 2019, research will help improve governance mechanisms to manage competing resource claims.
This research leverages a substantial USAID investment in rice field fisheries enhancement.

In Bangladesh, we will contribute to improving the governance of the Padma-Meghana river-estuarine system to ensure
socially equitable benefits for women, young people and the landless. In this multifunctional landscape, fisheries,
agriculture, aquaculture and ecosystem conservation can be complementary but also compete. We will analyze the
tradeoffs between SSF, increased productivity and equitable resource management with communities. This research
leverages a substantial USAID investment, which aims to improve community fisheries management and livelihood
resilience, in support of government policy goals for the sector. While these fisheries are multispecies, a focus in
freshwater is on hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha), the national fish of Bangladesh and an important food fish throughout South Asia.

Lastly, we will research sustaining fisheries and livelihood adaptations in man-made water bodies, focused on sites in the
Mekong and Ayeyarwady basins, where the number of reservoirs is rapidly increasing as a result of irrigation and
hydropower development. There is significant scope to improve management practices to minimize inter-annual variation
in fisheries production. Our research will focus on testing techniques and management frameworks aimed at increasing
natural fish production in these reservoirs without compromising other uses (e.g. ensuring connectivity with upstream
spawning grounds, conservation zones and artificial wetlands). Further, we will test and promote access strategies that
promote equitable benefits from these fisheries, in particular nutrition, for women and children.

Cluster 2 will link with WLE FP4 on managing resource variability and competing uses for resilience, including site
integration in Cambodia and Bangladesh, linking our fisheries-focused analysis with broader research on multiple uses of
water and land at landscape and river basin scales.

Cluster 3: Fish in regional food systems
Local research and development outcomes must be understood in the context of larger-scale dynamics and external
drivers such as trade, the rise of aquaculture, regional governance and global environmental change (e.g. Allison et al.
2009; Winemiller et al. 2016). These drivers will have profound impacts on fish supply and demand, and on the ways in
which the benefits of growing, catching and consuming fish are enhanced and multiplied by trade. This cluster augments
on-the-ground activities in clusters 1 and 2 to build the evidence base needed to influence policy that enables productive
and equitable SSF (principally through change mechanisms c and d). Activities focus on governance of fish food systems
and alternative future trajectories for selected systems and intraregional trade.

Country-specific and comparative analyses will address the following three questions: (1) How will supply and demand for
fish from SSF evolve in the face of market dynamics, competing claims on landscapes and coastal zones, and demographic
and environmental change? (2) How can policy and practices governing SSF be influenced to maximize their contribution
to poverty reduction and food security? (3) What policies and institutions affecting national and regional trade of fish are
needed to increase gender-equitable impact on food and nutrition security and livelihoods of the poor?

Recent reviews have contrasted projections of supply and demand and the role of fish in regional food systems (e.g. Bell
et al. 2015; Amos et al. 2016). Understanding the future of fish production, trade and consumption will be critical in the
evolution of regulations governing fish production, land use, coastal development, hydropower and food policy. We will
use foresight modeling and participatory scenario development to understand the dynamics of fish in two contrasting
food systems: The Pacific and the lower Mekong, as they evolve under a range of ecological and social drivers of change,
particularly climate change. By year four we will launch scenario analysis in East Africa as well.

In collaboration with PIM flagship 1, we will use the IMPACT model (Rosegrant et al. 2001) to explore global and large-
scale regional trends in fish supply and demand. We will focus on Africa and Asia as two regions where the emergence
of aquaculture offers contrasting projections for future supply. In addition, FP2 will collaborate with Australian National
University scholars to further develop the WorldFish Fish Sector Model (previously the AsiaFish model; Dey et al. 2005)
to downscale IMPACT projections to smaller regional and national scales. In these analyses we will focus on the Mekong
Delta, East Africa and the Pacific region to augment scenario development and research in FP1 and FP3.

In collaboration with CCAFS FP 1 we will continue scenario development (Vervoot et al. 2014; Amos et al. 2016) in the
Pacific region, where nutrition security is challenged by rapid population growth and urbanization; shortages of arable
78
land; and cheap, low-quality food imports from global trade. Many Pacific island countries are affected by the double
burden of malnutrition (undernutrition and obesity). We will extend these analyses to the Mekong Delta, where
infrastructure development such as reservoirs for hydropower and irrigation, dikes and sluices for flood protection, and
irrigation is considered key to sustaining economic growth. National agencies in Cambodia and Vietnam have sought
more in-depth studies to identify impacts of changing patterns of fish production as they evolve under broader
landscape development and climate change.

Our analyses of trade will focus on domestic and intraregional fish trade that, in contrast to North-South trade, remains
poorly understood and in which the contributions to poverty reduction remain contested (Béné et al. 2010; 2015; 2016;
HLPE 2014).

Two case studies of fish trade systems will highlight contrasting challenges to fish, delivering benefits to poor women,
men and youth in their roles as producers, processors, traders and consumers. The first, in collaboration with FP3,
addresses intraregional trade in the African Great Lakes fish trade corridor with a focus on small dried fish. The second
will focus on trade in fish in the Mekong Delta, particularly from Cambodia to Vietnam, to support the latter’s
burgeoning aquaculture industry and understand its emerging importance as a regional hub for seafood trade, including
as an entry point to Chinese markets.

In conducting value chain analysis, a particular focus will be on regulatory and institutional barriers that incentivize
unsustainable fisheries exploitation and reduce equitable access to livelihood opportunities, along with measures to
address these barriers through policy, capacity strengthening and development investment. Household survey data,
reviews of regulation and institutional performance, and participatory, qualitative case studies will be used to gather
evidence on the implications for different social groups, distinguishing by occupational group, gender and age. These
analyses will inform scenario research and will be used in structured multi-stakeholder dialogue, complemented by
institutional capacity development, to increase the profile of fish in a development priority setting, along with
coordinated actions and investments in governance solutions at national and regional levels.

2.2.1.7 Partnerships

The multi-stakeholder partnership brought together through FP2 provides a globally unique capability to directly impact
the lives of fishery-dependent people and to scale that impact beyond direct engagements. No other collaborative
partnership brings together place-based capability to directly improve coastal and inland SSF through an action research
agenda and produce IPGs to influence research and policy practice and scale outcomes nationally and regionally. While
other research groups make significant contributions to fisheries R4D, none has the breadth of thematic expertise in
SSF, geographic engagement or in-country presence to sustain relationships and drive the impact pathways we have
outlined. While several other groups do work on broader governance issues associated with oceanic fisheries, this is an
area where CGIAR has no comparative advantage, and it is not addressed by FISH.

An additional differentiator for FP2 is the relationships WorldFish and IWMI have formalized with national and regional
agencies that ensure commitment to national demands and priorities. Central to our ToC are the fishing communities
with whom we work—principally as discovery and proof of concept partners. Partners not only help shape the research
agenda and are active participants in research, testing new approaches to resource management, but they are essential
for impact at scale through appropriate changes in national policy and capacity development.

FP2 will work with a broad range of networks, individual academics and smaller NGOs on specific issues within the
impact pathway. We recognize that these partners have limited capacity to realize shared objectives alone. Below we
headline selected strategic partners and summarize the roles of non-CGIAR partners as discovery, proof of concept or
scaling partners in Table 14.

79
Discovery Proof of Concept Scaling
FP2 Cluster 1: Resilient Coastal Fisheries
James Cook Solomon Islands: Provincial Governments, Solomon Islands: Malaita Provincial Partnership
University Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, and for Development and Western Province
(design of Ministry Environment, Climate and Disaster Coalition of Development partners (scaling of
research Management (co-design of research agenda and learning through provincial development
agenda for coral enabling environment for interventions; policy initiatives)
reef fisheries) development)

Promundo
(guidance on
gender and
livelihoods)

Philippines National Fisheries Research and Philippines: Iligan Bay Alliance of Misamis
Development Institute; Bureau of Fisheries and Occidental and Protected Area Management
Aquatic Resources (BFAR) (co-design of research Bureau (scaling of learning through provincial
agenda and enabling environment for and national policy initiatives)
interventions; policy development); Palawan
State University and UP Marine Science Institute
(lead research on fisheries governance)

FP2 Cluster 2: Fish in multi-functional landscapes

Cornell Cambodia: IFReDI (lead rice-field fisheries Cambodia: Fisheries Administration and
University; research); Tonle Sap Authority (lead Department of Agriculture Extension (policy
USAID development and implementation of policy for and capacity development initiatives in
Innovation Lab Tonle Sap) support of SSF); NGOs – Conservation
(design of International and Forum Syd (inter-sectoral
research on coordination and scaling through networks)
fisheries ecology
Bangladesh: Dhaka University (lead research on Bangladesh: Department of Fisheries (policy
and tool
Governance); Sylhet Agricultural University (lead and capacity development initiatives in
development)
research on socio-economics of fishing support of SSF)

households); International Institute for
University of
Environment and Development (lead policy &
Rhode Island
incentives research)
(guidance on
Myanmar: Department of Fisheries Research Myanmar: Department of Fisheries (policy and
research
methods for Division, Universities of Yangon, Mandalay, and capacity development initiatives in support of
adaptive co- Yezin (field research on fisheries) SSF); National Water Resources Committee
management) (inter-sectoral coordination and scaling through
networks)
Zambia: University of Zambia (field research on Zambia: Ministries of Fisheries and Livestock,
fisheries ecology and community fisheries) and of Agriculture (policy and capacity
development initiatives in support of SSF)

80
 FP2 Cluster 3: Fish in regional and global food systems
James Cook Mekong Delta: Vietnam RIA2, SIWRP (foresight Mekong delta: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
University and trade analyses); Sustainable Mekong Development (Vietnam) and Ministry of
(design of Research Network; Can Tho University; IFReDI Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (Cambodia)
research (field research on fish trade) (policy and capacity development investments)
agenda for African Great lakes: Regional Economic African Great lakes: AU-IBAR; Lake Victoria
coral reef Communities (SADC, EAC, COMESA) and Fisheries Organization and Lake Tanganyika
fisheries) Regional Fisheries Bodies (LVFO, LTA) – Authority (scaling through policy forums and
integration of policy into regional agendas norms building on AU’s policy framework and
Australian reform strategy for fisheries)
National
University Pacific Food System: SPC member countries Pacific Food System: SPC (scaling through New
(adaptation of (provision of household data and analysis) Song policy initiative and intergovernmental
foresight forums)
modeling tools)
Table 14. Illustrative examples of non-CGIAR FP2 partners at discovery, proof of concept and scaling stages of the

impact pathway.

Strategic research partners. Cluster 1 on resilient coastal fisheries will be led by the Australian Research Council Centre
of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies at JCU. The center is an international collaboration of leading research institutions
providing scientific knowledge to help sustain the ecosystem goods and services of the world’s coral reefs. We will draw
upon this extended network, principally through the center’s program on People and Ecosystems.

Advanced research institutions. In addition to JCU, FP2 will continue to collaborate with researchers from a range of
advanced research institutions, often jointly with other CRPs and flagships. For example, we will partner with Stockholm
Resilience Center on social-ecological resilience and learning and governance networks, Michigan State University on land
and water governance and impacts on SSF in Myanmar, and the Australian National University on foresight modeling.

NARES. In all focal countries, FP2 will work through national research and development partners. For example, in
Cambodia the Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute (IFReDI) will lead research on rice field fisheries
ecology, value chains and trade, and in Bangladesh, Dhaka University will lead research on governance of the hilsa fishery.

Development organizations. At national scales, government agencies mandated to manage fish, water, rice and
environment are critical partners. FP2 will build on longstanding partnerships in all focal countries to identify priorities
and contribute research outputs and outcomes that can help guide national policy and practice. For example, in
Solomon Islands, FP2 will continue an existing partnership with the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR),
and Ministry of Environment, Climate and Disaster Management (MECDM) to target research on national policies and
inform national approaches for coastal management.

2.2.1.8 Climate change

FP2 addresses the grand challenge of climate change and the need to build resilience to risks associated with climate variability.
While fishers in floodplains and coastal areas are well adapted to seasonal variability in resource flow, climate change will affect
river flow regimes and associated flow velocity, river and sea water levels, sediment transport, water temperature and
associated dissolved oxygen content. This will impact fish population dynamics and breeding areas and habitats.

Cluster 2 will develop approaches for sustainable fisheries production that are resilient to natural variability and external
threats, including climate change. Cluster 3 will continue its collaboration with CCAFS to analyze alternative future trajectories
of fisheries and food security in the Asia-Pacific region. Both will include examination of possible climate change impacts on fish-
related livelihoods influencing seasonal and inter-annual dynamics of water availability, quality and productivity over the long
term. This will focus on water availability for capture fisheries and aquaculture, and the impact on fish habitat, fish populations
and access to fish by small-scale fishers.

Understanding trajectories of resource variability will inform decision-making from household to regional scales and build
capacities to cope and adapt. Foresight analyses enable development of models and scenarios of plausible futures to inform
intervention decisions and policy pathways that will ensure equitable development outcomes for the most vulnerable, including

81
women and youth. This flagship will build on tools generated by IWMI for assessing combined impacts of drivers of hydrological
changes on river flows (e.g. Lacombe et al. 2014) and multiple-use approaches for building resilience (Hills et al. 2015).

2.2.1.9 Gender

Women are consistently underrepresented in SSF policy and insufficiently engaged in decision-making in SSF governance and
management (e.g. Mills et al. 2011). This reduces the effectiveness of management actions and sustains inequities in the
distribution of benefits from SSF. FP2 will address these challenges through action research examining gender equity in resource
access under alternate tenure regimes, participation in decision-making, and benefit sharing. We will continue to develop and
implement socially and sex-disaggregated data collection and analysis methods to provide an evidence base testing pathways to
accelerate progress in these domains.

In collaboration with Promundo, FP2 will test strategies to enhance socially and gender-equitable participation in SSF
governance and associated livelihoods. Building on prior WorldFish research in focal countries (e.g. Cohen and Steenbergen
2015; Cole et al. 2015), we will use participatory action research to analyze gender and social differentiation through a
wellbeing lens (Weeratunge et al. 2014), human rights perspectives (Allison et al. 2012), and analyses of power, representation
and accountability (Ratner et al. 2013), as well as gender-transformative strategies and tools (McDougall et al. 2016; Promundo
2016). FP2 will apply participatory action research to identify and promote women-targeted livelihood options. Investments in
capacity development for both public agencies and civil society aim to improve consideration of gender in SSF governance
practice and in national and regional policy forums.

FP2 will collaborate with PIM FP5 and the CGIAR Gender Network to refine tools for assessing women’s empowerment in
fisheries contexts. Specifically, we will further adapt the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index to develop a fisheries-
specific index suitable for cross-regional comparisons.

We will scale gender impact through four main channels. The first will be through a strategic focus on gender as part of capacity
building (first examined and refined through a needs analysis) via “learning and governance networks” comprised of NGO and
government informal and formal partners. This work builds on research under AAS conducted in collaboration with Promundo.
Second, deliberate efforts will be made to draw together cases from across FP2, and indeed the whole CRP, to ensure that
generalizable lessons are crystalized. Third, with an explicit emphasis on gender, Cluster 3 examines how regional and national
policies impact the benefits men, women and other sectors of society receive from SSF (e.g. research question 1). Fourth, to
ensure impact among the research community our research will be disseminated to natural resources, fisheries and environmental
governance fields of scholarship (where gender and other forms of social differentiation are commonly overlooked).

2.2.1.10 Capacity development

Capacity development enables all change mechanisms in the CRP-level ToC. FP2 contributes to two cross-cutting
outcomes: enhanced capacity to deal with climatic risks and extremes, and improved capacity of women and young
people to participate in decision-making.

Capacity development will be implemented through an iterative process starting with needs assessments and
intervention strategies (element 1 of the CGIAR Capacity Development Framework) to specify needs of natural resource
management NGOs and government agencies, multi-stakeholder networks, regional and intergovernmental agencies,
and individual researchers within national research institutes in focal countries. We will assess the following four
capacity areas: (1) gender-sensitive and transformative approaches, (2) learning and governance networking, (3)
community livelihood and co-management interventions, and (4) responsive and accountable institutions. We will build
on experience of quality learning materials and approaches (element 2) such as community-based resource management
manuals and systems approaches to capacity development. All materials and approaches will be gender and youth sensitive
(element 5) in line with our gender and youth strategies (see Annexes 3.4 and 3.5). Monitoring and evaluation of capacity
development (element 7) will be integrated into program-level monitoring, evaluation and learning (see Annex 3.3).

Our work on institutional strengthening (element 6) has two modes: (1) developing the capacity of learning and governance
networks and platforms to realize collective impact, and (2) increasing the capacity of institution, including through policy
reform, to help secure the ecological sustainability, food security and poverty alleviation functions of SSF. Aligning with the
program’s partnerships strategy, our needs assessment and outcome evaluation work will also identify gaps and interventions
to increase the capacity of scientists to partner to achieve target outcomes (element 3).

82
One of the main modes of capacity development is via “learning and governance networks.” In many of the places we work,
networks of organizations form around particular themes. For example, the Malaita Provincial Partnership for Development is a
multi-stakeholder and sectoral network focused on sharing knowledge and collectively building capacity to govern the region of
Malaita. A further example is the Solomon Islands Locally Managed Marine Areas Network, which was specifically established to
build capacity of government, NGOs and community partners to govern via community-based co-management approaches.
These networks are natural, existing channels through which to provide further resources and technical expertise to realize
improvement in capacity.

2.2.1.11 Intellectual asset and open access management

FP2 will manage intellectual assets consistent with CGIAR, center and partner policies and procedures, as well as those of our
bilateral donors. FP2 will contribute to and take advantage of program-level mechanisms to ensure widespread use and analysis.

All outputs from the project will be published in the public domain with the exception of the individual resource management
plans of communities. Consistent with WorldFish’s policy of engagement with communities, management plans are owned by
them and will only be made publically available with their permission. Research in clusters 1 and 2 on livelihoods, household
dynamics and gender will pay particular attention to compliance with research ethics standards and the protection of
participants’ privacy and dignity.

FP2 will contribute to FishBase, the world’s leading open access database on fish biology. This database was developed by
ICLARM in the 1980s. WorldFish maintains ReefBase and the Coral Triangle Atlas and will continue contributing to them,
drawing on FP2 research in Tanzania, the Philippines and Solomon Islands.

2.2.1.12 FP management

FP2 will be led by WorldFish. The flagship leader, Dr. Neil Andrew, will (1) provide overall strategic leadership for flagship
research; (2) work with cluster leaders, scientists and other flagship leaders to develop and oversee execution of the research
agenda for the flagship; (3) lead identification and negotiation of significant strategic science partnerships that will strengthen
links between the flagship science team and leaders in the appropriate body of science; and (4) provide a focal point for
collaborations with other CRPs.

Cluster 1: Resilient coastal fisheries will be led by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies at
JCU, drawing on its networks and those of WorldFish in focal countries, in collaboration with national fisheries agencies and
regional bodies such as the SPC.

Cluster 2: Fish in multifunctional landscapes will be led by IWMI, bringing expertise and networks in water management,
governance, rural livelihoods and resilience, in collaboration with national fisheries, water and land management agencies and
national research centers such as Bangladesh Dhaka University.

Cluster 3: Fish in regional food systems will be led by WorldFish, in collaboration with the Stockholm Resilience Centre and
Australian National University, including research linkages to international bodies such as the FAO.

Cluster leaders will (1) provide overall strategic leadership for cluster research; (2) work with contributing scientists to develop
and oversee execution of the research agenda for the cluster; and (3) lead identification and negotiation of significant strategic
science partnerships for the cluster.

CVs of flagship leads, cluster leads and other key scientists leading implementation of the flagship research are provided in
Annex 3.8.

83
2.2.2 Flagship budget narrative

2.2.2.1 General information

CRP Name FISH
CRP Lead Center WORLDFISH
Flagship Name FLAGSHIP 2 – SUSTAINING SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES
Center location of
MALAYSIA
Flagship Leader

2.2.2.2 Summary

Total Flagship budget summary by sources of funding (USD)

Funding Needed Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

W1+W2 2,624,418 2,759,061 2,878,586 3,028,789 3,170,111 3,329,595 17,790,560
W3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilateral 6,200,000 6,572,001 6,834,879 7,176,623 7,463,689 7,836,873 42,084,065
Other Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8,824,418 9,331,062 9,713,465 10,205,412 10,633,800 11,166,468 59,874,625

Funding Secured Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

W1+W2 (Assumed Secured) 2,624,418 2,759,061 2,878,586 3,028,789 3,170,111 3,329,595 17,790,560
W3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilateral 4,093,156 2,502,740 1,803,892 0 0 0 8,399,788
Other Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6,717,574 5,261,801 4,682,478 3,028,789 3,170,111 3,329,595 26,190,348

Funding Gap Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total
W1+W2 (Required from SO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W3 (Required from FC Members) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilateral (Fundraising) -2,106,844 -4,069,261 -5,030,987 -7,176,623 -7,463,689 -7,836,873 -33,684,277
Other Sources (Fundraising) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-2,106,844 -4,069,261 -5,030,987 -7,176,623 -7,463,689 -7,836,873 -33,684,277

Total Flagship budget by Natural Classifications (USD)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

Personnel 2,680,395 2,864,603 2,986,473 3,174,509 3,542,741 3,881,073 19,129,798
Travel 485,055 611,589 705,362 874,203 998,217 1,010,737 4,685,164
Capital Equipment 10,500 0 0 0 0 0 10,500
Other Supplies and Services 3,273,746 3,371,865 3,531,349 3,829,038 3,449,227 3,567,318 21,022,545
CGIAR collaborations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non CGIAR Collaborations 1,403,624 1,456,104 1,421,315 1,204,571 1,473,423 1,478,532 8,437,571
Indirect Cost 971,096 1,026,899 1,068,963 1,123,089 1,170,190 1,228,805 6,589,044
8,824,416 9,331,060 9,713,462 10,205,410 10,633,798 11,166,465 59,874,611

84
Total Flagship budget by participating partners (signed PPAs) (USD)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

WorldFish 7,884,417 8,334,662 8,677,208 9,117,342 9,502,208 9,978,296 53,494,137
IWMI 620,000 657,199 683,488 717,662 746,369 783,687 4,208,407
James Cook University 319,999 339,199 352,767 370,406 385,223 404,482 2,172,079
8,824,416 9,331,060 9,713,463 10,205,410 10,633,799 11,166,465 59,874,613

Explanations of these costs in relation to the planned 2022 outcomes:

Major cost drivers and how these relate to planned activities and target outcomes
Major cost drivers are scientific personnel, travel and operating expenses. Scientific personnel costs include those of
principal investigators and cluster research teams, the vast majority of whom are located in the countries in which
fieldwork will be implemented. Many of these countries are
high-inflation economies and this is expected to be a major driver over the life of the CRP. Investments are also made in
personnel for leading/coordinating key crosscutting dimensions of flagship activities, including gender, youth and
capacity development. Travel includes investments in field visits and assessments, planning and review
meetings/workshops, partner consultations and scientific supervision. Given the nature of the research, no capital
equipment (>USD$25,000 per item) is expected to be purchased.

Risks and plans to mitigate risks
FP2 is heavily dependant on bilateral funding – the continuity of that funding is the major risk to achieving our ambitious
targets. Bilateral funding is secured for the majority of 2017 and there is a significant pipeline of projects already in the
pipeline to be confident for the first 18 months of the CRP.

Funding risks increase beyond 2018 when the funding pipeline becomes more uncertain. The greatest risk mitigation
strategy is to deliver strong outcomes in the first 18 months of the CRP and promote that progress through a diverse
array of channels to provide bilateral donors with the compelling case they need to invest. On an operational level,
implementation and fiduciary risks will be managed through CGIAR partner policies and processes.

2.2.2.3 Additional explanations for certain accounting categories

Benefits: Personnel costs are based upon best estimates of the level of effort required by specific staff positions to
deliver upon the objectives of the Flagship.

This level of effort has been expressed as a number of days per period. The personnel costs have been determined via
the application of daily standard rates per position/staff member. In addition to the daily standard rates, the cost of
benefits have been calculated on an individual basis and expressed as a function of salary. The benefits included are
those that are applicable per the employing Center’s established policies and procedures.

The estimated cost of the allowances and benefits vary depending on the classification of the individual staff member as
well as the location in which they are working. WorldFish has three staff designations: Global (GRS), Home Country
International (HCI), and National (NRS). The following
benefits are have been included in the budgeted salary costs:

Retirement contributions: WorldFish contributes the equivalent of 15% of base salary to a retirement fund for staff.
This is applicable to all designations of staff (GRS, HCI, NRS).

Insurance premiums: this includes medical (GRS, HCI & NRS), accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) (GRS & HCI),
long-term disability (LTD) (GRS & HCI), and life insurance (GRS, HCI, & NRS).

Annual medical examination costs: applicable to all staff designations (GRS, HCI, NRS), WorldFish encourages annual
medical examination for all staff and agrees to subsidize the costs thereof for all staff over the age of 40, up to $250USD
per annum.

85
Housing allowance: generally applicable for GRS staff only, WorldFish provides an allowance of up to 75% of the cost of
housing, subject to monthly maximums established by location.

Dependant Education Allowance: applicable for GRS staff only, WorldFish provides the cost of education (up to end of
secondary education) for dependant co-located children.

Home Leave: applicable for GRS staff only, WorldFish funds the cost of an annual trip to the staff members’ home
country for the staff member and dependants.

Relocation and Repatriation costs: applicable for GRS staff only, WorldFish covers the cost of relocating GRS staff from
their home location to their duty post. Once the staff member has completed at least 3 years of continuous service,
WorldFish will also cover the cost of repatriating the staff member to their home location upon termination of
employment.

Location specific benefits (i.e. hardship allowances), where applicable, have also been included in the cost as have the
cost of statutory employment related taxes applicable in certain operating locations.

As there is great range in the cost of benefits by location and by staff designation, we assigned a specific percentage (of
salaries) to each location/staff designation combination. The following provides the range of percentages that were
used by staff designation:

Range of Benefit %
High Low
HCI Zambia (63.56%) Philippines (21.6%)
GRS Zambia (129.03%) Egypt (36.59%)
NRS Solomon (62.15%) Zambia (21.64%)

Other supplies and services: Other supplies and services include (i) specialist contracts for international development
partners (e.g. Promundo), national and regional NGOs and network (e.g. LMMA) and field enumerators, and other field
costs, (ii) costs associated with participation in planning and design meetings, at global/national levels; and (iii)
workshops for annual flagship and cluster planning, stakeholder consultations and training, scaling activities and
national research platforms, (iv) National workshops/multistakeholder platforms: costs associated with the organization
of national / local level workshops and multi-stakeholder platforms; (v) Training events/student fellowships: this
includes costs for capacity development of local stakeholders, own staff, and fellowships for PhD and MSc students
integrated into the FP2 program. Given the participatory nature of FP2 and the need to engage with governance
networks and national processes as a central element of the impact pathway, this budget is estimated to be a significant
proportion of the flagship budget.

2.2.2.4 Other Sources of Funding for this Project

Should full funding not materialize FP2 will reduce its ambitions and implement this cut by reducing the number of
geographies we engage with in 2017 and the scope of the activities within those remaining. The outcomes we seek in
2017 through to 2022 will consequently be reduced. Hiring of key new appointments, including economists and fisheries
scientists will also be postponed until sufficient funds are available. We will continue to seek bilateral donor funds to
implement the research priorities identified in the proposal.

86
2.2.2.5 Budgeted costs for certain key activities

Estimate annual Please describe main key activities for the applicable categories
average cost below, as described in the guidance for full proposal
(USD)

Gender 1,343,563 Gender: investment of US$8.1M over the six years or 13.5% of the
budget will support integration of gender into all flagship activities as
well as focused research on gender to increase the impact of the
research on development outcomes for women. This includes global
and national scientists, specialist consultancy, partners, workshops and
training of research teams and development partners and operating
expenses for field research in focal countries and cross-country
synthesis. Research will focus on gender-equitable control of assets
and participation in decision making as a contribution to building more
resilient fishing communities and households (clusters 1 and 2) and on
increasing the value women derive from value chains through
improved governance and policy. WorldFish and IWMI will continue to
recruit and train people in our own organizations so we are fit-for-
purpose in engaging with the ambitious FISH gender research agenda.

Youth (only for those who 308,843 Youth: investment of $1.9M over the six years or 3.1% of the budget
have relevant set of will lay the foundation for a growing research agenda to increase
activities in this area) participation and benefit sharing among young people. Existing tools
and approaches to better engage young people will be further
developed. Cluster 3 research on alternative future for fish in food
systems and on trade will ensure young people have a ’voice’ in
imagining that future and policy concerning young people as labour in
value chains will be better informed. In the latter years of the CRP, and
as the evidence base grows, the research agenda will increasingly shift
to more direct engagement in youth as agents of change in fisheries
governance.

Capacity development 916,347 Capacity development: investment of US$5.5M over the 6 years
represents 9.2% of the budget allocated to FP2 and supports
integration of gender into all activities as well as focused research on
gender to increase the impact of the research on development
outcomes for women. Investment in national partners through
collaboration in research activities, training (spanning short courses to
post-graduate scholarships) is a significant enabling activity in the ToC.
Thematically our investments in building capacity range from
community leadership to national policy. We will continue to invest in
our own staff to build the capacity needed to remain at the leading
edge of fisheries R4D.

87
 Estimate annual Please describe main key activities for the applicable categories
average cost below, as described in the guidance for full proposal
(USD)

Impact assessment 409,455 Impact assessment investment of US$2.5M over the 6 years represents
4.1% of the flagship budget and supports household surveys,
consolidation and analysis of data, annual after-action meetings to
consolidate outcomes, GIS mapping of land use, and development of
tablet-based systems for data collection and consolidation and
development and updates of an outcome tracking database.

Intellectual asset 29,414 Intellectual asset management: investment of US$176K over the 6
management years is focused on maintenance of OA databases, including hosting
infrastructure costs and staff time. The budget is largely comprised of
external expert resources (legal, training, contracting) and allocation of
personnel time towards ensuring capacity development of intellectual
asset management best practices throughout the Flagship operations.

Open access and data 159,449 Investment of US$957K over the 6 years supports publication of
management research data and papers (including OA publication costs) and
management. This includes investments in ensuring materials are
disseminated through the CRP website, investments in data
management and appropriate documentation to make datasets
publicly available through open access depositories, and purchasing of
open access privileges for publication in non-open access journals
where needed. The budget also consists of external expert resources
(legal, training, contracting) and allocation of personnel time towards
ensuring capacity development of open access data management best
practices throughout the Flagship operations.

Communication 528,774 Communication: Investment of US$3.2M over the 6 years supports
publication of research papers, and communication activities (policy
briefs, manuals, technical reports, outcome stories) that will support
the communication of research to end users with and through
partners, including fishing communities in focal countries (costs of
pamphlets, manuals), policy makers (policy briefs) and NGO or
government partners (extension manuals). We will build on existing
investments in innovative channels to better engage youth through
theatre, social media and cartoons. Communications will also be
resourced through our partners and their institutional investments in
communications, particularly, for example, JCU which has developed a
highly effective communications and media program. Similarly, we will
seek synergies with collaborating CRPs.

2.2.2.6 Other

The level of ambition of Flagship 2 - Sustaining Small-Scale Fisheries requires mobilization of approximately $42 million
in bilateral and Window 3 funds over the life of the program. This calls for flexibility to address the priorities of funders
in terms of country focus and thematic interest. Window 1 and 2 funds are used primarily to support core elements of
the program that can be widely applied when matched with bilateral funds. Given the breadth of the flagship and the
funding model, with dependence on all sources of funding, funds from different sources are often integrated in support
of tasks that have been determined to fit within the scope and priorities of the Program.

Annual funding certainty of W1 and W2 funds will be critical to ensure the flagship achieves its objectives on time and
on target. As a means of risk mitigation, WorldFish will dedicate organizational resources to securing the bilateral

88
funding targets identified in the proposal, however W1 and W2 funds will need to be secured and received in order to
leverage the bilateral opportunities. Delays in receiving W1 and W2 funds will have a follow-on effect on
implementation and execution of the flagship as WorldFish will not be in a position to pre-finance Program activities
that are designated to be funded from W1 and W2 sources.

Due to the limitations of the online submission form, the funding figures presented herein have combined all bilateral
and Window 3 funds into the bilateral fields. It is our full expectation that there will be a mix of both bilateral and
Window 3 funds contributing to the flagship.

Indirect costs included in the budget have been set at 12%, which is consistent with existing audited indirect costs for
WorldFish, adjusting for information technology and facility costs which have been specifically included as direct costs in
the flagship budget.

2.2.3 Flagship Uplift Budget

This Uplift budget has been prepared based on the scenario whereby the aggregate portfolio of funding increases by
50% from the $900M indicative budget. The following additional activities would be prioritized within this Flagship.
Please refer to descriptions of these activities in the CRP Uplift Budget narrative, section (1.1.7):

• Rice-fish production systems in Asia
• Global agenda setting to better profile fish in development
• Accelerating fisheries management fisheries management work in key geographies
• Climate change in fisheries and aquaculture
• Integrated assessment of sustainable/resilient pathways for fisheries and aquaculture development in
Tanzania

Amount W1 + W2 Bilateral Other
Outcome Description Needed (%) W3 (%) (%) (%)

1.1 - 4.9 million producer households

adopted improved breeds, aquafeeds,
fish health and aquaculture and
fisheries management practices 13,847,000 32% 0 68% 0
1.2 - 3.5 million people, of which at
least 50% are women, assisted to exit
poverty through livelihood
improvements related to fisheries and
aquaculture value chains 12,444,000 32% 0 68% 0
2.3 - 2.4 million people, of which 50%
are women, without deficiencies of
one or more of the following essential
micronutrients: iron, zinc, iodine,
vitamin A, folate & B12 2,379,000 32% 0 68% 0
2.4 - 4.7 million more women of
reproductive age consuming adequate
number of food groups 2,379,000 32% 0 68% 0
3.3 - 3.3 million ha of ecosystems
restored through more productive and
equitable management of small-scale
fishery resources and degraded
aquaculture ponds restored 1,464,000 32% 0 68% 0

89
2.3 Flagship 3: Enhancing the contribution of fish to the nutrition and health of
the poor
2.3.1 Flagship project narrative

2.3.1.1 Rationale, scope

Background analysis. Deficiencies of micronutrients and essential fatty acids are widespread among people who obtain most of
their energy from staple foods such as wheat, maize and rice. When these deficiencies occur during the first 1000 days of life,
they heighten the risk of infant and child mortality in the short term and restrict the cognitive development, schooling and
earning potential of children in the long term when they become adults. Flagship 3 (FP3) aims to increase the contribution of
fish to reducing these deficiencies.

Certain species of fish are among the richest dietary sources of nutrients needed for healthy growth and brain development,
including iron, zinc, vitamin A, vitamin B12, calcium and essential fatty acids (Bogard et al. 2015a). However, fish is not
generally integrated into strategies to combat undernutrition, nor are nutritional considerations well integrated into
aquaculture or fisheries strategies (Thilsted et al. 2016). In response, FP3 focuses on research to overcome key barriers to
achieving this integration and increased consumption of nutritious fish by poor consumers.

Problem statement. Previous research and ex ante analysis have identified three significant but tractable hurdles that
constrain fish consumption by significant groups of poor consumers. First, technological and other barriers limit the supply of
nutrient-rich fish from pond aquaculture and rice field fisheries. Polyculture technologies that integrate the production of
small indigenous fish species with larger species in small ponds have great potential to enhance the year-round availability of
nutritious fish (Thilsted 2012). Use of this technology is limited, however, by the lack of well-managed and accessible
broodstocks, suboptimal strategies to disseminate technologies, uncertainties about optimal pond management practices,
and the lack of women’s participation in harvesting. Similarly, while rice fields cover extensive areas of South and Southeast
Asia, and many produce large quantities of fish, the opportunities for these systems to intensify the production of nutrient-
rich fish species have not been exploited.

Second, after harvest, inefficiencies in fish value chains constrain access to and delivery of affordable fish products with high
nutritional quality to poor consumers. These include high transaction costs, information and power asymmetries, imperfect
competition, and barriers to market entry (Barrett and Mutambatsere 2008), which constitute bottlenecks that contribute to
higher costs and lower fish quality. Postharvest losses are a particularly widespread challenge, with 27%–39% of fish caught
going to waste globally (FAO 2011). Even when physical waste is low, poor storage, handling and preservation contribute to
lost value and pose a risk through foodborne infections and contamination with mycotoxins (Gram and Huss 1996).

Third, despite the high nutritional value of fish, it is often withheld from the diets of infants and young children, the group that
most needs micronutrient-dense foods (Nguyen 2013; Thorne-Lyman et al. submitted). Pregnant and lactating women also
require extra nutrients, and there is evidence suggesting the benefits of fish consumption during pregnancy for maternal health
and child cognitive development. Yet gender norms and related inequitable intra-household sharing practices often mean that
women eat last and lack access to nutrient-rich foods to meet their heightened needs. This remains true even in countries
where fish is by far the most consumed animal-source food.

Scope and approach. FP3 focuses on research to overcome these challenges. We will concentrate our research in geographies
where the potential for direct impact is high and scalable international public goods (IPGs) can be generated. Our research in
polyculture systems will focus on Bangladesh, building on AAS and L&F research with small indigenous fish. We will also
research technologies to enhance the production of nutrient-rich fish from rice fields in Bangladesh and Cambodia, building on
research from AAS. We will complement these research directions with development and testing of novel approaches to enable
greater fish consumption by women and young children. This research will focus initially on Bangladesh, using fish-based
products developed under A4NH and AAS (Bogard 2015b), combined with behavior change communication (BCC)
(USAID/SPRING/GAIN 2014). For fish value chains, our research will focus on the dagaa fishery in Tanzania that is regionally
significant for poor consumers and has high waste, along with two value chains in Bangladesh, one from aquaculture and one
from fisheries.

90
Grand challenges and sustainable development goals. FP3 aims to contribute primarily to sustainable development goal
(SDG) 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. Through research to
improve availability and affordability of fish for low-income households, including interventions targeted at channeling fish to
women and children, FP3 addresses the grand challenge of preventing the insidious effects of malnutrition. Low fish
consumption is among the top five dietary risk factors for death and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost due to chronic
disease (Ezzati 2013), suggesting that our research is well positioned to also address the nutrition transition and reduce
chronic disease burdens. Because of its perishable nature, fish ranks among the top commodities subject to waste and loss.
Our efforts under cluster 2 to reduce postharvest losses and address food safety issues support CGIAR efforts to overcome
these grand challenges. Climate change is projected to create instability in fish value chains, influencing availability and raising
prices. By enhancing the capacity to safely dry, process and preserve fish, FP3 will help to ensure steady access to fish all year,
buffering against the effects of climate variability on the supply of fish for poor populations.

2.3.1.2 Objectives and targets

The objective of FP3 is to increase the availability and consumption of safe and nutrient-dense fish, primarily by women of
reproductive age, infants and young children. To achieve this, production systems need to be optimized, value chains need to
work efficiently and shifts are needed in infant and young child feeding practices and intra-household distribution of food.

The primary target beneficiaries of FP3 are the rural and urban consumers for whom consumption of fish can yield significant
impacts on nutrition and associated health benefits. We will engage in research to increase the production and availability of
nutritious and safe fish, as well as the availability and intra-household accessibility of fish for women and children.
Contributions to system-level outcome (SLO) targets therefore focus on benefits for poor people who are consumers of fish
produced in the fish food systems we target, with additional benefits realized for the people and households dependent on
fishing, aquaculture, and associated processing and trade in those systems (the value chain actors).

Flagship-specific outcome targets and their contributions to SLO targets and sub-IDOs are summarized in Table 15.

The targets outlined in Table 15 are based on an analysis of current and future planned research activities in focus
geographies. We will develop and test much of the research (particularly in clusters 1 and 3) in the context of large
programs involving multiple partners (including government agencies and large international NGOs), which provide a
platform to expand successful approaches. Our selection of target geographies for primary work also factored in the
nutrition policy environment as favorable to work on nutrition-agriculture linkages. In Bangladesh, for example,
current policies for nutrition and food security emphasize the importance of fish, and those for aquaculture and
fisheries specifically mention nutrient-rich fish. Our scaling approach involves the production of IPGs and research
outcomes from Bangladesh that are highly relevant for the seven sister states in India. Similarly, the technologies we
develop related to analysis of the value chain and reducing waste and loss in Tanzania have relevance throughout the
eastern fish trade corridor of Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Malawi). Work on the productivity of rice field fisheries
in Cambodia is highly generalizable across Southeast Asia, including Myanmar and Vietnam.

These targets incorporate certain assumptions regarding uptake and scaling. We assume that the perceived benefits of new
technologies by farmers (cluster 1) and value chain stakeholders (cluster 2) will be great enough for them to take on risks or
additional investments needed to participate in use of the technologies. While improving the quality and safety of fish in
value chains may increase its consumption by people (rather than livestock), there is also the possibility that it will increase
costs. We assume that a middle ground can be found that permits access by the poor to high-quality fish. While fish-based
products offer an intriguing locally developed nutritional proposition to fill nutrient gaps, their production may be more
expensive than importing other ready-made micronutrient-fortified processed foods. To convince public sector stakeholders
of their value, evidence of greater efficacy or economic benefits from production in our target geographies will be needed,
which we endeavor to build during the CRP. Our ability to impact SLO targets 2.3 and 2.4 is contingent on the micronutrient
value of fish and the ability of increased fish consumption to impact baseline dietary diversity and the existing prevalence of
micronutrient deficiencies. The evidence of the benefits of fish for nutrition and health, and fish being part of a healthy diet as
a valuable source of multiple essential nutrients, including essential fats, vitamins and minerals and animal protein is well
recognized and documented (Thilsted et al. 2016). Fish, particularly small indigenous fish, is one of the richest natural sources
of micronutrients and is known to enhance uptake of other dietary micronutrient sources when included in the diet, but more
work is needed to establish the relative efficacy of consumption on these targets in selected population groups in our focal
countries. FP3 partners will undertake this research to estimate with greater confidence the nutritional impact of FISH
interventions and to build the case for broader investment.

91
The flagship-specific outcome targets outlined in Table 15 reflect different dimensions of the interrelated research in FP3.

FP3 investments for each sub-IDO are summarized in Table 16.
Flagship-specific outcome targets by 2022 Target geographies
PRIMARY (annual milestones included in PIM Table D)
1.2 million households have greater productivity of nutrient-rich small fish from their own ponds
or rice field fisheries Cluster 1
Addresses SLO targets 1.1, 2.3 and 2.4 and sub-IDO:
Bangladesh,
Increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich food Cambodia (scaling
1 million low-income consumers consuming greater amounts of high-quality nutritious fish due to to India,
reductions in waste and loss, improvements in food safety, and more efficient value chains Myanmar)
Addresses SLO targets 1.1, 2.3 and 2.4 and sub-IDOs:
Reduced pre- and postharvest losses
Reduced biological and chemical hazards in the food system Cluster 2
Increased access to diversified nutrient-rich food Bangladesh,
Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient-rich foods Tanzania
Novel fish-based products designed to address nutrition gaps reach at least 100,000 lower- (scaling to
income women and child consumers Egypt, Kenya,
Addresses SLO targets 2.3 and 2.4 and sub-IDOs: Uganda,
Increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich food Malawi,
Increased access to diversified nutrient-rich food Zambia)
Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient-rich foods
30% increase in the proportion of mothers in target geographies who report feeding fish to their
children in the past week Cluster 3
Addresses SLO target 2.3 and sub-IDOs: Bangladesh,
Increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich food Cambodia,
Increased access to diversified nutrient-rich food Tanzania
Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient-rich foods (scaling to
Myanmar, India,
4 countries adopt policy measures or country investment plans addressing nutrition-sensitive
technologies or practices for fish production or value chains, including reduced waste and loss Egypt, Vietnam,
Addresses SLO targets 2.3 and 2.4 and sub-IDOs: Zambia, Kenya)
Increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich food
Reduced pre- and postharvest losses
Reduced biological and chemical hazards in the food system
Flagship-specific outcome targets by 2022
SECONDARY (progress measured through CRP-level M&E)
1.4 million people, of which at least 700,000 are female, with micronutrient deficiencies
alleviated
Addresses SLO target 2.3 and sub-IDOs:
Increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich food
Increased access to diversified nutrient-rich food
Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient-rich foods
2.2 million women consuming more food groups as a result of increased fish consumption
Addresses SLO target 2.4 and sub-IDOs:
Increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich food
Increased access to diversified nutrient-rich food
Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient-rich foods
200,000 people, of which at least 60% are women and youth, with improved livelihoods as a
result of nutrition-sensitive fish production, processing and trade activities
Addresses SLO target 1.2 and sub-IDO:
Increased livelihood opportunities
Table 15. FP3 outcome targets by 2022.

92
All five primary outcomes are expected to have direct impacts on both SLO 2.3 and 2.4 through different and
complementary pathways. Outcome 1 directly addresses the sub-IDO increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich
foods. Outcome 2 contributes to the sub-IDOs reduced pre- and postharvest losses and reduced biological
contamination in the food system. Outcomes 3 and 4 jointly target impact in the sub-IDO optimized consumption of
diverse nutrient-rich food. Outcome 5 addresses the enabling environment essential to all of the above.

Sub-IDO name Total W1+W2 (%) W3/Bilateral (%)
SLO related amount

2.2.1 Increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich food $6.70M $2.14M (32%) $4.56M (68%)
2.2.2 Increased access to diversified nutrient-rich food $4.30M $1.38M (32%) $2.92M (68%)
2.2.3 Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient-rich food $3.40M $1.09M (32%) $2.31M (68%)
2.1.1 Reduced biological and chemical hazards in the food system $2.00M $0.64M (32%) $1.36M (68%)
2.3.1 Reduced pre- and postharvest losses $2.00M $0.64M (32%) $1.36M (68%)
1.3.2 Increased livelihood opportunities $2.00M $0.64M (32%) $1.36M (68%)
Cross cutting
XC 2.1.3 Enhanced capacity of youth and women to engage in
$12.84M $4.11M (32%) $8.73M (68%)
decision making (all clusters)
Total (USD) $33.24M $10.64M $22.60M (68%)
(32%)
Table 16. Investments by sub-IDOs for FP3 for 2017–2022. Note that only the most relevant sub-IDOs are listed—a
wider set of sub-IDOs is addressed in collaboration with other flagships.

The flagship focuses on delivering research outputs and outcomes that support SLO 2 (improved food and nutrition
security for health). It addresses multiple sub-IDOs, with the most important being (1) increasing the availability of
nutrient-rich foods (sub-IDO 2.2.1); (2) increased access to diverse nutrient-rich foods by poor populations, women and
children (sub-IDO 2.2.2); (3) optimized consumption of nutrient-rich foods (sub-IDO 2.2.3); (4) reduced biological and
chemical hazards in the food system (sub-IDO 2.1.1); and (5) reducing pre- and postharvest losses (sub-IDO 2.3.1). We
also contribute to the SRF cross-cutting outcomes related to gender and youth, in particular the sub-IDO related to
enhanced capacity of youth and women to engage in decision-making. As an aspect of nutritious fish production and
value chain development, FP3 also contributes to increased livelihood opportunities (sub-IDO 1.3.2).

Outcome milestones are provided in the Performance Indicator Matrix, and the program approach to outcome
monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment is addressed in Annex 3.6.

2.3.1.3 Impact pathway and theory of change

FP3 seeks to overcome barriers to the consumption of nutritious fish by poor consumers. We focus on three barriers: (1)
limited production of highly nutritious fish; (2) market failures limiting the availability of nutritious and healthy fish; and
(3) limited consumption of fish at the household level by those who need it most, especially women and children.
Addressing these barriers requires technology research and development, market research, and social and behavioral
change communication research, combined with efforts to improve the enabling environment through shifts in policies,
implementation capacities in government and investments by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other
development actors (Figure 6).

93
 Change Research Change
Change Development Sub-
Research outputs IDOs
mechanism outcomes mechanism
mechanism outcomes IDOs

Cluster 1. Nutrition- •  Private sector and Women, children and

sensitive aquaculture community groups make youth have regular
production 1a use of new technologies, 1a access to nutrient-rich
•  Production technologies making mola broodstock small fish from their
widely accessible own ponds or rice field Increased
developed for mola and availability of
other nutrient-rich small •  Harves9ng technologies fisheries, allowing
facilitate greater access increased consump9on diverse
fish 1b 1b nutrient-rich
to fish for women and youth of fish by these target
•  Woman- and youth- foods
•  Public sector and groups
friendly harvesting
development agencies adopt
technologies
policies promo9ng
•  Fisheries models produc9on technologies
incorporating nutrient- 1c that include small fish 1c
rich fish and nutrient-rich •  Development partners are Reduced
crops using nutri9on-sensi9ve fish pre- and
produc9on models to postharvest
increase nutrient losses
1d produc9vity of fish systems

Improved
diets for poor
•  Value chain actors, Fish waste and losses, and
Cluster 2. Reducing
including community groups including nutri9onal vulnerable
waste and loss in fish
and private sector, increase losses, are reduced and people
value chains 2a 2a
•  Integrated value chain investment in new food safety is improved
assessments of fish processing technologies, and for low-income
flows and market adopt improved handling consumers Reduced
structure, waste, and storage methods and biological
physical and economic ins9tu9onal models Fish value chains bePer and chemical
2b 2b hazards in
loss, and tradeoffs for •  NARS and development meet the needs of poor
men, women and youth organiza9ons adopt and use consumers the food
•  Processing technologies innova9ve nutri9on-focused system
and products to reduce value chain methods to Low-income women
waste and loss, preserve 2c benefit poor consumers and men consumers
nutrients, and reduce •  Policymakers adopt are able to afford to
food safety hazards policies that improve fish buy more fish Increased
•  Improved handling and trade for poor access to
other innovations to consumers nutrient-rich
enhance value chain foods
efficiency and 2d
consumption by the poor

Optimized
Cluster 3. Fish for •  Public sector and NGOs Consumers, and in consumption
3a of diverse
nutrition and health of 3a integrate fish-related par9cular pregnant
women and children BCC components into women and young nutrient-rich
•  Tools and models for nutri9on programs children, have foods
effective BCC •  Public sector adopts equitable access to
approaches 3b fish-based products in 3b fish-based products
•  Efficacy studies of fish- feeding programs based on
based products in first evidence of benefit from Mothers demonstrate
1000 days of life efficacy trial(s) increased willingness Enhanced
•  Scalable models for the 3c •  Local NGOs and private 3c to provide fish and capacity of
production of fish-based sector are producing fish-based products youth and
products in Bangladesh fish-based products in to young children women to
•  Fish-based products Bangladesh engage in
developed in Tanzania 3d 3d decision-
and Cambodia making

Figure 6. FP3 impact pathways.

94
 Change Key assumptions and risks associated with change Corresponding strategies and risk management
mechanism mechanisms actions

Research outputs to research outcomes Research outputs to research outcomes

1a Farmers and communi9es willing to take on the risk and 1a – 3a Design woman- and youth-friendly harves9ng and pond
poten9al higher cost of trying new technologies. (Risk: limited management technologies to be as inexpensive as possible and
adop9on) pilot extensively; choose influen9al local farmers to pilot new
a
2a Local value chain actors convinced of sufficient benefit to technologies in each area, and align communica9ons materials
take on risk of new processing technologies. (Risk: inadequate with their priori9es (e.g. steady income, greater produc9vity,
Local adoption investment) reduced disease risk, improving diet of family); hire female
and 3a BCC tools mo9vate compelling increases in consump9on of extension workers and develop woman- and youth-friendly
dissemination fish by target groups. (Risk: limited behavioral change) manuals.
of technologies
and Research outcomes to development outcomes Research outcomes to development outcomes
management 1a Sufficient demand for mola to mo9vate private farmers 1a Couple technology dissemina9on under cluster 1 with
practices and community groups to produce broodstock. (Risk: nutri9on educa9on from cluster 3.
inadequate investment) 2a Carefully monitor effects of value chain interven9ons on fish
2a Reduc9ons in waste and losses due to poor processing prices and access by the poor.
lead to increased fish available for consump9on by the poor 3a Work with partner programs to test how the tools work in
at affordable prices. (Risk: weak market response) other geographies within country and region, and adapt
3a Partners are mo9vated to incorporate BCC tools into accordingly; assess and adapt BCC to address barriers to
exis9ng programs, including gender equity priori9es. (Risk: gender-equitable distribu9on.
poor integra9on)

Research outputs to research outcomes Research outputs to research outcomes

1b Private farmers and community groups see sufficient 1b – 3b Select private sector partners with which we have
demand poten9al to invest in mola broodstock. (Risk: established rela9onships, and screen for demand; assess and
inadequate investment) communicate the financial returns from pilo9ng of
b
2b Benefits of adop9ng new processing, transport and new technologies; iden9fy incen9ves that may spur private
storage technologies are compelling for the private sector. sector actors to invest (such as co-investment).
Private sector (Risk: inadequate investment)
investment and 3b Fish-based products are commercially viable for Research outcomes to development outcomes
replication of produc9on by the private sector, and demand is sufficient to 1b Start with regions with higher demand for nutrient-rich
innovative scale up produc9on. (Risk: inadequate investment) species, to give private pond owners greater mo9va9on to
business adopt; integrate produc9on and BCC ac9vi9es to increase
models in fish Research outcomes to development outcomes demand.
production, 1b, 3b Private sector partners and community groups have 3b Draw on learning from A4NH about how to reduce risks of
processing and sufficient incen9ve to develop capacity to manage broodstock foodborne infec9on during produc9on processes of fish-based
trade and safely produce fish-based products. (Risk: inadequate products.
capacity)

Research outputs to research outcomes Research outputs to research outcomes

1c, 2c Policymakers are convinced of the value in nutri9on- 1c, 2c Implement rigorous M&E of projects prior to scaling;
sensi9ve approaches to aquaculture and intra-regional fish engage officials early and align target research outcomes with
c trade, and adapt policies to achieve this. (Risk: policy na9onal priori9es.
obstacles) 3c Design efficacy studies rigorously with mul9ple outcomes of
Public sector 3c Efficacy tests show sufficient benefit rela9ve to cost to public interest (growth, health, cogni9ve development);
policy make public sector investment worthwhile. (Risk: inadequate op9mize nutri9onal value of the product.
improvement investment)
and institutional Research outcomes to development outcomes
strengthening Research outcomes to development outcomes 1c Target dissemina9on of research findings on the benefits of
1c Public agencies agree to disseminate technology related to nutrient-rich produc9on towards policymakers in fisheries and
op9mal harves9ng of mola; farmers mo9vated to try new aquaculture sector, involving them at all research stages;
technologies. (Risk: limited adop9on) partner in training of extension agencies.

Research outputs to research outcomes Research outputs to research outcomes

1d, 2d Development agencies are interested in promo9ng 1d Implement rigorous M&E of projects prior to scaling;
and inves9ng in expansion of nutri9on-sensi9ve aquaculture address specific donor priori9es related to na9onal SDG targets
d and fisheries technologies, and a value chain approach for 2d – 3d Engage civil society and development agencies early;
poor consumers. (Risk: inadequate investment) partner with influen9al NGOs to integrate research in their
3d BCC strategies are effec9ve; na9onal governments and programs; engage key na9onal plaborms (government, SUN) in
Influence on NGOs are recep9ve to evidence about the effec9veness of research plans and dissemina9on of BCC and for fish-based
policies and fish strategies; efficacy studies are sufficient to spur public products.
priorities of civil sector investment. (Risk: inadequate investment)
society and Research outcomes to development outcomes
development Research outcomes to development outcomes 2d Document rigorously what works; develop joint proposals
agencies 2d Donors invest in local capacity and startup costs for with local partners.
expansion of promising drying and preserva9on technologies. 3d Engage na9onal agencies, civil society, World Bank
(Risk: inadequate capacity) and A4NH to promote policy agenda.
3d Enabling regula9ons are updated in a 9mely manner. (Risk:
policy obstacles)

Table 17. FP3 change mechanisms.

95
Cluster 1 pursues research to understand and test approaches to overcoming technological barriers to maximize
the production of nutrient-rich fish in pond polyculture systems and rice field fisheries, which are widespread in
South and Southeast Asia. By conducting research in Bangladesh and Cambodia, where over 30 million people
depend on these systems, we seek to generate research that has direct impacts for large numbers of people and
can be transferred regionally through our partners. In both cases we posit that overcoming the identified barriers
will contribute to significant uptake of production technologies and in turn increase the availability of nutrient-rich
fish. For example, in Bangladesh, our research will focus on developing and managing a broodstock for mola, a
nutritious small indigenous fish species that previous CGIAR research has shown can be raised in polyculture
systems without reducing the productivity of other larger species. This research will target the critical barrier that
currently prevents large-scale use of this polyculture technology; namely, the lack of well-managed mola
broodstock that can be produced and disseminated by private pond owners and community groups. We will also
test approaches to increase the productivity of mola through increasing stocking density, pond management and
harvesting frequency. To address the low participation of women in small-fish harvesting, we will assess women’s
specific needs regarding harvesting technologies and develop and test women-targeted technologies. We
hypothesize that gender-responsive technologies will increase the regularity of harvesting and give women greater
control over the use of mola within the household, increasing the likelihood of direct consumption rather than sale.
Recognizing competing demands for women’s time and the dearth of knowledge about youth in these systems, we
will investigate the existing and potential roles of youth, and develop and test youth-responsive technologies as
appropriate, aiming to assess and minimize demands on women’s and youth’s time and labor requirements.

Cluster 2 focuses on research to overcome processing and marketing barriers that reduce the availability and
affordability of nutritious and safe fish to poor consumers. Fish value chains are characterized by significant
postharvest waste and losses, concerns over food safety, and significant market failures and gender imbalances that
lead to inefficiencies, lower quality and higher prices. By focusing on value chains impacting many millions of people
in East Africa and South Asia, we will generate research products that bring immediate benefits to the locations where
we work and can be scaled regionally. In East Africa, we will test gender-inclusive technologies and market and
institutional approaches to reducing waste in the small fish value chain from the Great Lakes system that provides
large quantities of fish for poor rural and urban consumers across much of eastern and southern Africa. We will focus
our research on Tanzania, given the size and regional importance of the fishery and high priority given to improved
nutrition in national policy. In South Asia, we will focus on the dried fish value chain originating in the Sylhet Division
in northeastern Bangladesh and the aquaculture value chain from southwest Bangladesh. Our research aims to
identify value chain inefficiencies and hotspots of losses, including gender barriers, and then design and test gender-
inclusive solutions, such as improved processing, handling and storage technologies, as well as institutional
innovations that reduce barriers to trade.

Cluster 3 focuses on research to increase the consumption of nutritious fish in the first 1000 days of life. In our target
geographies, fish and fish products can play a unique role in meeting the goals of the two global initiatives: Scaling up
Nutrition (SUN), and 1000 Days. Despite its rich nutritional value, fish is often withheld from the diets of infants and
young children in low-income countries, and this is compounded by gendered intra-household distributional norms
leading to low levels of fish consumption by women, even when pregnant and lactating. We will therefore conduct
research to understand and test novel approaches to overcoming these barriers to consumption, using the knowledge
to develop and test social and behavior change communication (BCC). We hypothesize that these tools can significantly
increase the amount of fish eaten by these nutritionally vulnerable groups and increase gender equality in household
decision-making.

Shifting fish production practices, reducing value chain inefficiencies, bringing new products to market and changing
norms of fish consumption require navigating a range of risks. To manage these we will (1) co-develop solutions in
collaboration with value chain actors, national research organizations and universities, policymakers and donors
through multi-stakeholder platforms; (2) analyze and counteract potential negative tradeoffs for value chain actors, in
particular for women; (3) build capacity of implementing agencies in the design and implementation of supporting
policies; and (4) integrate our applied research on BCC closely with partners such as Helen Keller International (HKI),
whose networks can help scale the impact of our research beyond our focal geographies.

96
2.3.1.4 Science quality

Researchers working with FISH are recognized leaders in their fields and bring together the unique combination of
research skills in fish biology, value chains, nutrition and gender required to address the issues addressed by FP3. The
flagship will assure the quality of science through (1) well-defined research questions and experiments, including
randomized control trials for selected elements of our work; (2) building upon a strong body of foundational research
and combining this with the latest tools, theory and technologies; and (3) engaging a coalition of partners that provides
skills from the fish domain in nutrition and health, research design and BCC. The flagship will engage with communities
of practice at the forefront of particular research topics, within and outside CGIAR, to ensure efficiencies and access to
relevant knowledge and experience. This engagement includes collaboration with A4NH on the flagship on food systems
for healthier diets, food safety and integration of fish in broad agriculture and nutrition policy, CGIAR gender and
capacity development networks, and external peer networks and platforms such as the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN)
network.

Building on our assessment of previous research by CGIAR and the published literature, the flagship’s novelty lies in
pursuing new and innovative approaches to addressing three critical barriers preventing poor consumers from obtaining
fuller nutritional benefits from fish.

Cluster 1. We will research the barriers inhibiting integration of nutrient-rich small indigenous species of fish in small
pond polyculture and constraining the scaling of locally developed technologies. We focus on Bangladesh and the small
indigenous fish species mola as a model, with the intent to scale learning in South and Southeast Asia, and more widely
where possible. The foundation for this work has been established through a research partnership with BAU studying
breeding and reproductive cycles of mola (Mondal 2016), and the effect on productivity and pond profitability of varying
mola stocking densities in polyculture systems. Cluster 1 will build upon this through research to develop innovative
technologies for production and dissemination of mola broodstock. This will include research to identify key factors
determining breeding cycles, growth and survival rates of mola, and to understand the impact of variation in pond
productivity, water quality, temperature, sunshine and shade on the productivity of mola in different polyculture
models. By developing and testing women-targeted small fish and polyculture technologies and practices, this novel
research will also address gaps identified in the gender analysis leading up to the CRP’s work in these areas.

Our research on rice field fisheries will build on a strong body of previous research highlighting the importance of rice
field fish production, but examining a new dimension in terms of its potential to increase the availability of certain
micronutrient-rich fish species. FP3 is innovative in moving beyond this to focus on developing options for increasing
production of nutrient-rich fish through specific approaches to management of these rice field systems and associated
wetlands. We will integrate this with research to identify the most effective options for harnessing improved production
in ways that increase availability, consumption and nutritional wellbeing for women and children. Through this
integrated program of biotechnical and social science research we aim to harness the biophysical potential of these
systems in ways that are new, socially relevant and achieve our nutrition goals.

Cluster 2. Value chain approaches are used widely as analytical tools and development approaches. Generally, they look at
outcomes for income and employment for value chain actors, most commonly focusing on the producer node and issues
of inclusion and (gender) equity (e.g. Bernet et al. 2006; KIT, Agri-ProFocus and IIRR 2012; Lundy et al. 2012). The
important novelty of the approach used in cluster 2 is that our research will analyze value chains from the perspective of
low-income consumers, with a focus on the consumption outcomes for this group. This has important consequences for
the selection of value chains, as well as the key indicators of analysis. While value chain upgrading will be a key focus, this
will be considered in a broader sense, not necessarily implying an increase in income or value added for value chain actors
(Ponte and Ewert 2009), but more effectively meeting consumer demand for basic products and positive outcomes for
poor consumers.

We will continue AAS and L&F research on general value chain approaches and the integration of gender (Farnworth et
al. 2015), value chain upgrading (Ponte et al. 2014) and low-income consumers as a consumer segment (Belton et al.
2014; Belton and Bush 2014; Toufique and Belton 2014; El Mahdi et al. 2015). Research will build on the framework and
results from A4NH’s phase 1 flagship on value chains for enhanced nutrition, which has started identifying entry points
to improve value chains to achieve nutrition outcomes (e.g. Gelli et al. 2015). In addition, research will draw on methods
used in market research; consumer preferences, acceptance and willingness to pay; and price and income elasticities of
demand (Dey et al. 2011).

97
Our research on waste and loss goes beyond traditional assessments focused on physical waste and economic loss to
analyze nutrient degradation. Many of the fish value chains of greatest importance to the poor involve processing using
poor techniques, storage under poor conditions, and long-distance transport in often humid and hot conditions, which
may subject the fish to significant nutrient loss and food safety hazards. By quantifying and pioneering technologies to
reduce the scale of nutrient loss, we will determine the extent to which significant nutritional gains for poor consumers
can be achieved by enhancing the quality of the fish they consume.

Cluster 3. FP3 research on nutrition and fish-based products builds on extensive work conducted during phase 1 of
A4NH and AAS to develop and field-test prototypes of fish-based products in Bangladesh. These products combine dried
small fish with multiple other CGIAR inputs, including zinc-enhanced rice and orange sweet potato in a recipe optimized
to meet the nutritional needs of young children (Hother et al. 2014; Bogard et al. 2015b). Cluster 3 extends this
groundbreaking research by focusing on research to overcome barriers to taking these prototypes to scale.

Our approach to development of fish-based products is supported by research in Cambodia suggesting that a locally made
complementary food incorporating dried small fish resulted in similar growth outcomes as SuperCereal-Plus, a fortified
blended food used in the World Food Program’s nutrition programs (Skau 2014). We hypothesize that these products will
be a commercially viable strategy for enhancing the consumption of fish by women and young children, leading to benefits
for health, growth and child development. Under AAS and A4NH, WorldFish developed prototypes of three fish-based
products: a fish chutney to be consumed by women during pregnancy and lactation, a complementary food for
consumption from six months onward, and a fish-based powder designed for older children that can be added to family
foods. However, given the comparably high cost of producing fish products versus other common plant-based products,
rigorous evaluation of the efficacy of these prototypes against other products is now needed, and cluster 3 will do this.
Evidence from this discovery phase of our research suggests that the chutney appears to circumvent many of the
entrenched rules about intra-household food allocation that inherently favor males over females, enabling women to
consume fish as part of the meal when they otherwise might not. Cluster 3 research aims to test this linkage robustly.

2.3.1.5 Lessons learnt and unintended consequences

AAS and L&F research has shown that the rapid rise of aquaculture in Bangladesh has had a positive impact on food
security (Toufique and Belton 2014) but that the replacement of capture fish species by farmed fish in diets has
resulted in lower intake of important micronutrients such as zinc and iron from fish. Further analysis suggests that
this trend could be reversed through dedicated efforts to cultivate fish of high nutritional value (Fiedler et al. 2016).

Assessment of the nutritional value of commonly consumed fish in Bangladesh shows that a number of small
indigenous fish species have a high micronutrient and fatty acid content (Bogard et al. 2015a). In addition, extensive
field trials throughout rural Bangladesh with the small fish mola (Amblypharyngodon mola) have demonstrated that
it can be grown in polyculture with commonly cultivated large fish species without adversely affecting total
productivity (Roos 2001). Mola and other small fish used in pond polyculture increase total production as well as
nutritional quality of the production (Thilsted, 2012). Ex ante analysis has shown that scaling up production of mola
in a national program could be a cost-effective nutritional intervention for reducing vitamin A deficiency (Fiedler et
al. 2016). Rice field fisheries offer good potential for increasing productivity of both fish and rice (Dey et al. 2012;
Joffre et al. 2012). A nutrition-sensitive approach, taking into consideration issues such as the connectivity of ponds
to rice fields, fish species diversity and composition, stocking of nutrient-rich fish and governance of common
resources can make large contributions to nutrient intakes.

Improving the availability of nutritious fish, however, does not necessarily lead to increased consumption by those
who can benefit most. In most low- and middle-income countries, the frequency and quantity of fish consumption
are lower among infants 6–24 months of age than older children (Thorne-Lyman et al. submitted). Focused
ethnographic research is needed to understand the challenges that shape this pattern (such as women’s time
constraints, cultural practices and perceptions—including caution regarding fish bones and food safety concerns) and
to find avenues to leverage behavior change (Pelto et al. 2013; Hotz et al. 2015). Previous research conducted by
WorldFish and others in the context of Bangladesh suggests that specific behavior change efforts, rooted in an
understanding of the barriers caretakers face in feeding fish to children, including food preparation issues, are
needed for behavior change to be successful (Thorne-Lyman et al. submitted). Social BCC based on solid formative
research is increasingly recognized as an effective strategy for improving infant and young child feeding (GAIN 2014).

98
Increasing evidence shows that the processing of fish into fish-based products is a feasible option to address
behaviors constraining consumption. Prototypes of fish-based products for use in the first 1000 days of life,
developed to meet the specific nutrient needs of each group, have had excellent acceptability in a small project
implemented in northeast Bangladesh. By processing dried whole small fish, the full nutritional value of the fish
(including calcium, zinc and nutrients found predominantly in bones) is retained in the product, and women do not
have to spend much time to prepare nutrient-rich foods from these ready-to-use products. However, these products
are yet to be taken to scale, and FP3 will investigate and test ways to overcome constraints.

Research on fish value chains in AAS and L&F has shown that what fish farmers produce and what poor consumers
require are not necessarily compatible (El Mahdi et al. 2015). This has led to a new area of fish value chain research,
focusing on poor consumers in Egypt and Bangladesh, which we will further develop in FP3. We recognize that work on
fish value chains to benefit the poor can have tradeoffs; e.g. improving the quality of fish may make it less affordable,
and improving processing methods may increase workload and shift jobs from women to men. We will undertake
research that analyzes these potential consequences and ways to minimize and mitigate them.

2.3.1.6 Clusters of activity

Our research to increase the availability and consumption of safe and nutrient-rich fish will be pursued through three
interrelated clusters. Cluster 1 aims to improve production of nutrient-rich fish in pond polyculture systems and rice
field fisheries. Cluster 2 seeks to improve availability and affordability of fish for poor consumers by overcoming
processing and marketing constraints. Cluster 3 aims to increase fish consumption in the first 1000 days of life.

Cluster 1: Nutrition-sensitive fish production
Cluster 1 aims to increase the availability of nutrient-rich fish and reduce the number of people with micronutrient
deficiencies. The focus of our research is on overcoming the technical and gendered barriers to production and
harvesting of nutrient-rich small fish in pond aquaculture and rice field fisheries. We will focus initially on Bangladesh
and Cambodia, where small indigenous fish species are already in demand and where clear opportunities exist to scale
technologies and innovations to other settings.

Our research on pond polyculture aims to identify technologies that increase the production of nutrient-rich fish in
pond polyculture systems, together with those that specifically increase women’s control over this production so as to
increase consumption by women and children. To do so, we will focus on research that will improve understanding of
how to (1) remove dependency on wild broodstock by developing and managing mola broodstock in ponds and
community waterbodies, and facilitate the access to and sale of mola by the owners and communities; (2) optimize
pond management and harvesting frequency to maximize productivity and production of mola and other small
nutritious fish; and (3) support women to partially harvest mola and other small indigenous fish on a regular basis to
promote household consumption without increasing workload.

In the case of rice field fisheries, we focus on the potential of the extensive rice field systems of East and Southeast Asia to
increase production of nutrient-rich fish species. Specifically, we aim to identify technologies that can support
management of rice field fisheries for production of nutrient-rich fish, together with those that increase women’s control
over this production. We will focus our research on how to improve production by (1) managing connections between rice
fields and stocks of nutrient-rich fish in associated canals, beels and ponds; (2) optimizing stocking approaches; and (3)
improving governance and community management of fish refuges. We will complement this work with research on
harvesting technologies that increase women’s control over production of nutrient-rich fish in these rice field systems.

Cluster 2: Reducing waste and loss in fish value chains
Cluster 2 aims to enhance the availability, affordability and quality of fish for poor consumers. We will do so by focusing
our research on overcoming value chain barriers that reduce the availability of nutritious and safe fish to poor consumers.
We will focus initially on value chains in Tanzania and Bangladesh, with a view to developing solutions that can be scaled
regionally. In Tanzania, we will study the dagaa fishery of Lake Victoria that supports trade of fish products in eastern and
southern Africa and is representative of the small fish value chains in Africa’s Great Lakes. In Bangladesh, we will study a
major dried fish value chain in the northwest (Sylhet) and an aquaculture value chain in the southwest.

In each of the three value chains studied, we will explore mechanisms to overcome barriers presently reducing
availability, nutritional quality and safety of fish for poor consumers. We will document the extent of quantitative and

99
qualitative postharvest losses, including nutritional loss, and food safety hazards and risks at different stages of the
target value chains. We will build on this to identify and test approaches to reducing these postharvest losses and
improving nutritional content and food safety, taking into account the gendered nature of fish value chain roles,
responsibilities and relations. Our focus on poor consumers will drive assessments of technological, institutional and
policy interventions that result in practices and products that better meet the needs of this consumer segment and are
both gender-inclusive and equitable. We also recognize the potential trade-offs between enhancing the quality of fish
and its affordability, and between enhancing affordability for consumers and the incomes of poor value chain actors.
We will therefore study how these can be managed, with a clear strategy that recommended approaches do not
exacerbate gender inequity or nutrition in value chain actors or poor consumers.

To pursue this research agenda, each value chain will be assessed using an integrated methodology that is nutrition-
sensitive, gender-integrated and focused on poor consumers. Each case study will have six main elements:
1. A value chain characterization to define the research area for the species selected and to understand the
distribution of fish to consumers, particularly the consumer group with the lowest incomes, as well as the roles
and power relations of women, men and youth along the value chain. This also involves assessment of the
inefficiencies and market failures along the chain, including gender barriers that lead to higher prices and/or less
availability of fish for target consumers. We will incorporate methods used in L&F and AAS, including those that
incorporate a gender-transformative approach into value chain analysis (Kantor et al. 2015; Kruijssen and Longley
2015).
2. A survey of physical and economic losses along and across the target value chains, using a combination of load
tracking and organoleptic scale methods. This builds on some preliminary research funded through PIM phase 1
on fish postharvest losses in Bangladesh.
3. Testing of nutritional content and food safety parameters at different stages of the value chain identified in the
first two phases.
4. Identifying and testing gender-inclusive and women-targeted methods, technologies, institutional options and
products for addressing postharvest loss challenges and other value chain issues. These will be identified through
multi-stakeholder processes and platforms equitably engaging poor women, men and youth from the value chain,
the private sector, national research institutes, development agencies and governments.
5. Assessing the impact on consumers as well as value chain actors, in particular poor women, men and youth, of
different upgrading strategies in the target value chain through tradeoff analysis tools, and the development of
approaches that prevent or manage those tradeoffs.
6. Developing policy recommendations for up- and out-scaling.

Cluster 3: Fish for nutrition and health of women and children
Cluster 3 will focus on research to overcome the barriers to consumption of fish by pregnant and lactating women, and
by infants and young children aged 6–24 months. We will focus on the development of two complementary solutions.
First, we will use focused ethnographic research methods (Pelto et al. 2013; Hotz et al. 2015), dietary recalls and trials
of improved practice to understand the obstacles that limit intake of nutrient-rich fish by women and children. This
work will inform social BCC interventions aimed at increasing the incorporation of fish into high-quality diets. We will
explore the potential synergies between this work and gender-transformative approaches as a strategy to increase the
equitability of intra-household decision-making and food allocation. We anticipate that this first step—developing a
deep understanding of the issues related to fish consumption by women and children using formative research—will
be needed in each setting, including scaling geographies where we intend to couple behavior change interventions
with fish production, because the specific nuances of fish have seldom been explored in prior work.

Second, we will test the scalability of prototypes of fish-based products developed through our previous research in
Bangladesh. Our research will test scalable production methods and work with both private sector and NGO partners to
test marketing approaches to increase the availability of such products, including through exploring the potential for
women-led entrepreneurship. Our food-based products are being considered for distribution through the USAID Food
for Peace, Development Food Aid Program (DFAP) in Bangladesh, by three implementing NG0s: HKI, World Vision and
CARE.

In addition, we will work with partners to undertake rigorous studies on the efficacy of the products for maternal health
and nutrition, child growth and micronutrient status, cognitive development and other health outcomes, drawing on
collaborations with leading universities. As the research evolves in Bangladesh, we will explore how to develop and

100
potentially test similar products in East Africa and in Cambodia, building on initial pilot work in process in Zambia.
The value chain development associated with fish products addresses the identified gender imbalances in value chains.
To address gendered barriers to women in higher-return nodes of fish value chains, we will investigate the potential for
fish products to be developed as niche women-led entrepreneurial opportunities and windows.

The fish products can also be used for improving diets of other population groups, not just in the first 1000 days of life.
In collaboration with A4NN and partners, we will explore possibilities for use in school feeding programs, especially of
adolescent girls, conditional transfer programs and emergency rations. This cluster will serve as the main link to A4NH’s
work on food systems for healthier diets, food safety and enabling country performance related to improving nutrition,
and will benefit from the broader policy convening on agriculture and nutrition strategies supported by A4NH (see
details in Annex 3.7).

2.3.1.7 Partnerships

FP3 builds on WorldFish’s role as convener of an emerging network of partners working in nutrition-sensitive
aquaculture and fisheries. The nascent nature of this cross-disciplinary field of research and development practice calls
for new partnerships in human nutrition and health as well as expanding present partnerships with leading universities
in the United States and Europe that complement existing strengths in aquaculture and fisheries. FP3 will work
through these, building on recent partnerships in L&F and AAS. Similarly, the novelty of the program’s engagement in
the trade and processing of small fish in eastern Africa requires new partnerships. These are being developed based on
existing research in fish trade in East Africa involving a network of African universities, AU-IBAR and NEPAD. Key
elements of these partnerships are summarized below, and Table 18 provides illustrative examples of non-CGIAR
partners across flagship clusters at discovery, proof of concept and scaling stages of the impact pathway.

Advanced research institutes. We will work with a network of advanced research institutes to strengthen key areas of
science. Cluster 2 will be led by the Natural Resources Institute (NRI), a global leader in the field of postharvest losses
research, including in the artisanal fisheries sector (Cheke and Ward 1998; Ward and Jeffries 2000). Working through the
Center for Postharvest Loss Reduction, NRI will design and lead implementation of waste and loss assessments in the
value chains being studied in Tanzania and Bangladesh, as well as innovative studies of nutrient loss. The Harvard T.H
Chan School Public Health (HSPH) will contribute expertise in nutrition-related clinical trials and build on current joint
research with WorldFish to support the design and conduct of research on fish-based foods in Tanzania. Similarly, Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (JHSPH), International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh
(icddr,b) and the University of Copenhagen will contribute expertise in formative research and randomized control trials
to test the impact of consumption of fish and fish-based products on health, pregnancy and child development
outcomes in Bangladesh. JHU’s Center for Development Communication also brings strong capability in the design of
BCC and will lead design of this research in Bangladesh. We will also work with KIT, a frontrunner in developing gender-
integrated value chain analysis methods (e.g. KIT, Agri-ProFocus and IIRR 2012).

NARES. In all focal countries, FP3 will work through national research partners. For example, in Bangladesh, national
agencies BFRI and BIDS will conduct value chain and fish waste and loss assessments, and in Tanzania, Sokoine
University of Agriculture will research value chains and fish-based foods. We anticipate that much of the formative
research under cluster 3 will be through joint research partnerships between graduate students from advanced
research institutes such as Johns Hopkins University and Harvard University and students from national universities.

Private sector. Effective private sector partnerships are essential for the successful development and extensive use of
the technologies being developed through FP3. For example, in Bangladesh, private sector companies have already
assisted in developing the fish chutney (Nicobena) and the fish-based complementary food (Mark Foods), and this
partnership will be strengthened through FISH.

Development institutions. FP3 priorities have been identified in partnership with national governments, and these
governments will play a key role as policy partners in implementation. We will also work closely with selected NGOs
that have a strong interest and capability in the issues being addressed by FP3. For example, in Bangladesh and
Cambodia, we will work with HKI, a leading development partner in the area of homestead food production, nutrition
and gender linkages. Similarly, in Tanzania, we will work with Farm Africa, which brings strong expertise in the
development of pro-poor fisheries and aquaculture value chains in East Africa.

101
 Discovery Proof of concept Scaling
FP3 Cluster 1: Nutrition-sensitive fish production
BAU (experimental trials Bangladesh: Local Government Bangladesh: Department of Fisheries
of fish species mix, pond Engineering Department (field trials on (policies to scale nutrition-sensitive
management, feeding and models for rice-fish culture, with technologies)
breeding in controlled enhanced stocking of nutrient-rich small
ponds) fish); Department of Fisheries, NGOs and
wetland user groups (field trials of
selected pond polyculture and rice field
technologies)

Cambodia: IFReDI (field trials on models Cambodia: Fisheries Administration (policies

for rice-fish culture, based on improved to scale nutrition-sensitive technologies)
management of community fish refuges);
NGOs (field trials of selected rice-field
technologies)
FP3 Cluster 2: Reducing waste and loss in fish value chains
NRI (ex ante analyses and Bangladesh: Bangladesh: Department of Fisheries
research design) Fisheries Research Forum (value chain (integrating learning into national fisheries
and waste and loss assessments); icddr,b policy interventions); private sector
KIT (assessment of gender (food safety analyses); Bangladesh (adoption of interventions, technologies,
in value chains) Institute of Development Studies processing methods); NGOs (dissemination
(consumption and consumer preference of successful interventions in other
surveys); BFRF (testing of value chain programs)
interventions)
Tanzania: Sokoine University (value chain Tanzania: Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock
analysis and testing of interventions); Development (integrating learning into
Farm Africa (testing of pro-poor value national fisheries policy initiatives); private
chain initiatives) sector (adoption of interventions,
technologies, processing methods); Farm
Africa (dissemination of successful
interventions in other programs)
FP3 Cluster 3: Fish for nutrition and health of women and children
University of Copenhagen; Bangladesh: JHU and icddr,b (formative Bangladesh: Government ministries (policy
Sokoine University research and trials on acceptability and initiatives in support of fish-based foods)
(development of fish- efficacy of fish-based products); NGOs
based products) (integration of BCC for increased fish
consumption and use of fish-based
JHU-CCP; HKI products in mother and child health and
(development of BCC nutrition projects)
tools and approaches) Tanzania: University of Copenhagen
University, Muhimbili University, Sokoine
University, Harvard School of Public
Health (formative research and trials on
acceptability and efficacy of fish-based
products)
Table 18. Selected non-CGIAR FP3 partners at discovery, proof of concept and scaling stages of the impact pathway.

102
2.3.1.8 Climate change

FP3 will contribute to addressing climate change by, where possible, taking opportunities to support adaptive capacity
through the technologies developed. For example, unpredictable weather events can have significant impacts on fish
processing, in particular the simple open-air drying methods used in many small-scale fisheries. As we test alternative
technologies, we will favor methods that dry fish rapidly to minimize exposure to the risk of wet weather. Similarly, a
related benefit of processing technologies that enhance the shelf life of fish and the development of fish-based products is
the increased availability of fish during seasons and weather conditions when fish would otherwise not be available.

2.3.1.9 Gender

FP3 leads research to achieve gender-equitable resource allocation, control of assets and participation in decision-
making to increase the availability and consumption of nutrient-dense fish. Cluster 1 will address the need for
harvesting technologies that meet women’s specific needs and preferences, including time and labor, by testing
women-targeted technologies for fish harvesting in pond polyculture systems. We hypothesize that these will enhance
poor women’s engagement in small-fish aquaculture systems and control over harvests, in turn increasing consumption
of small fish by poor women and children.

While women outnumber men in postharvest nodes of fish value chains, they face multiple gendered barriers. These
include lack of access to and control over high-quality inputs, credit, reliable information, technologies and storage, as
well as gender norm-based harassment and mobility constraints. These prevent women from equal returns from value
chains. Cluster 2 will therefore focus on identifying and testing approaches that enhance women’s access to and control
over key assets and their ability to take advantage of opportunities in fish value chains. In work on losses and enhancing
food quality, we will analyze gendered roles, responsibilities and relations in fish processing and handling, and identify
ways to lighten women’s workloads and improve their access to new technologies and practices.

At the consumption level, decisions about intra-household distribution of food and child-feeding practices are affected
by gender norms and attitudes and cultural perceptions. In response, cluster 3 will test scalable gender-transformative
behavioral change mechanisms. We hypothesize that fish consumption is increased by integrating nutrition information
with methods that constructively engage women and men in recognizing and changing underlying gender and social
norms that influence choices about who eats various types of fish, how much and how often.

2.3.1.10 Capacity development

Capacity development is an enabler of all change mechanisms in the CRP-level ToC. A tailored capacity development
program will be implemented for FP3 through an iterative process, starting with needs assessments and intervention
strategies (element 1 of the CGIAR Capacity Development Framework). For example, in Bangladesh, we will focus on
public and private sector capacity to manage mola broodstock and improve pond management and the capacity of
women to harvest small fish. With value chain actors, we will assess capacities to develop and test gender-inclusive
technologies and market and institutional approaches to reducing waste and nutrient losses and enhancing the quality
of fish. We will build on experience of learning materials and approaches (element 2) developed for fish value chains
through L&F. All materials and approaches will be gender- and youth-sensitive (element 5), in line with our gender and
youth strategies (see Annexes 3.4 and 3.5).

Institutional strengthening (element 6) will focus on supporting public and private sector partners to develop and use
technologies for production of nutrient-rich fish, and gender-inclusive methods and institutional options for addressing
postharvest loss, using multi-stakeholder platforms and learning alliances. We will also build the capacities of research
and development partners to use new consumer-focused value chain assessment methods and methods for the
assessment of nutrient losses along the chain. Capacity development of policymakers to use our research outputs is also
an important component.

We will develop future research leaders (element 4) by working with postgraduate students with tailored capacity-
strengthening plans to be delivered by our partners in tertiary education. For example, in developing and conducting
efficacy trials with fish-based products, postgraduate students, from national and lead universities, working towards
their research theses will be engaged. Aligning with the program’s partnership strategy, our needs assessment and
outcome evaluation work will also identify gaps and interventions to increase the capacity of scientists to partner to
achieve target outcomes (element 3).

103
2.3.1.11 Intellectual asset and open access management

FP3 will manage intellectual assets consistent with CGIAR, center and partner policies and procedures, as well as those
of our bilateral donors. FP3 will contribute to and take advantage of program-level mechanisms to ensure widespread
usage and analysis.

Research outputs will be disseminated through the CRP website, as well as those of our partners where appropriate.
Datasets will be anonymized and made available through open access depositories. Open access datasets will include
seasonal fish price data disaggregated by species for selected countries; nutritional values of 30 target species tested;
estimates on fish postharvest waste and losses in different locations; and surveys to measure consumption and impact
assessments of interventions. Tools for value chain development and assessing fish consumption and dietary impact, as
well as BCC, will also be placed on the Internet.

Science outputs will, when appropriate, be published in open access journals, or the program will purchase open access
privileges for publication in non-open access journals.

2.3.1.12 FP management

FP3 will be led by WorldFish. The flagship leader, Dr. Shakuntala Thilsted, will (1) provide overall strategic leadership for
flagship research; (2) work with cluster leaders, scientists and other flagship leaders to develop and oversee execution
of the research agenda for the flagship; and (3) lead identification and negotiation of strategic science partnerships that
will strengthen links between the flagship science team and leaders in the appropriate body of science. A country
coordinator for FP3 will act as a focal point for the flagship’s engagement in each focal country.

Cluster 1: Nutrition-sensitive fish production will be led by WorldFish in collaboration with science partners in
Cambodia and Bangladesh.

Cluster 2: Reducing waste and loss in fish value chains will be led by the NRI (UK) in collaboration with science partners
in Tanzania (Sokoine University on fish value chains in the Lake Victoria region), Bangladesh (Bangladesh Fisheries
Research Forum on dried fish value chains and icddr,b on food safety) and the Netherlands (KIT on gender and value
chains).

Cluster 3: Fish for nutrition and health of women and children will be led by WorldFish in collaboration with science
partners in the Department of Nutrition and the Center for Communication Programs at Johns Hopkins University
(USA), who will provide expertise on formative research and BCC. Partners in Paediatric and International Nutrition,
University of Copenhagen and HSPH will provide expertise on the development of fish-based products and human
efficacy trials.

Each cluster will be planned and executed in close collaboration with key science partners. Cluster leaders will (1)
provide overall strategic leadership for cluster research; (2) work with contributing scientists to develop and oversee
execution of the research agenda for the cluster; and (3) lead identification and negotiation of significant strategic
science partnerships for the cluster.

CVs of flagship leads, cluster leads and other key scientists leading and partnering on implementation of the flagship
research are provided in Annex 3.8.

104
2.3.2 Flagship budget narrative

2.3.2.1 General information

CRP Name FISH
CRP Lead Center WORLDFISH
Flagship Name FLAGSHIP 3 –Enhancing the contribution of fish to nutrition and health of the poor
Center location of
MALAYSIA
Flagship Leader

2.3.2.2 Summary

Total Flagship budget summary by sources of funding (USD)

Funding Needed Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

W1+W2 1,592,753 1,621,709 1,688,600 1,784,155 1,860,617 1,940,626 10,488,462
W3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilateral 3,673,315 4,059,341 4,246,836 4,135,936 3,381,365 3,255,309 22,752,104
Other Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5,266,068 5,681,050 5,935,436 5,920,091 5,241,982 5,195,935 33,240,562

Funding Secured Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

W1+W2 (Assumed Secured) 1,592,753 1,621,709 1,688,600 1,784,155 1,860,617 1,940,626 10,488,462
W3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilateral 3,673,315 2,486,261 1,943,387 2,254,408 1,001,797 289,933 11,649,102
Other Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5,266,068 4,107,970 3,631,987 4,038,563 2,862,414 2,230,559 22,137,561

Funding Gap Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total
W1+W2 (Required from SO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W3 (Required from FC Members) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilateral (Fundraising) 0 -1,573,080 -2,303,449 -1,881,528 -2,379,569 -2,965,376 -11,103,003
Other Sources (Fundraising) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 -1,573,080 -2,303,449 -1,881,528 -2,379,569 -2,965,376 -11,103,003

Total Flagship budget by Natural Classifications (USD)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

Personnel 2,271,410 2,461,842 2,563,283 2,698,084 2,468,804 2,660,063 15,123,488
Travel 372,744 405,840 426,105 448,755 373,119 384,577 2,411,143
Capital Equipment 91,300 81,000 42,050 43,152 40,310 37,526 335,340
Other Supplies and Services 1,127,873 1,251,684 1,247,618 1,265,360 1,236,749 1,121,000 7,250,288
CGIAR collaborations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non CGIAR Collaborations 864,415 905,515 1,045,950 850,080 578,831 453,555 4,698,346
Indirect Cost 538,325 575,168 610,428 614,658 544,168 539,211 3,421,960
5,266,067 5,681,049 5,935,434 5,920,089 5,241,981 5,195,932 33,240,552

105
Total Flagship budget by participating partners (signed PPAs) (USD)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total

WorldFish 4,987,294 5,328,625 5,655,294 5,694,477 5,041,429 4,995,505 31,702,626
NRI 278,774 352,425 280,142 225,613 200,554 200,430 1,537,940
5,266,068 5,681,050 5,935,436 5,920,090 5,241,982 5,195,935 33,240,561

Explanations of these costs in relation to the planned 2022 outcomes:

Major cost drivers and how these relate to planned activities and target outcomes
Major cost drivers include scientific personnel and travel. Scientific personnel costs include the flagship and cluster
leaders, principal investigators and research teams in headquarters of WorldFish, NRI, and each of the focal countries as
well as partners. We will initially dedicate our efforts in focus countries (Bangladesh and Cambodia in particular), as well
as an initial assessment in Tanzania, and will then expand into other scaling countries over time primarily through
bilateral funding. We will have a core scientific researcher serve as focal point in each of these countries to coordinate
our work on the ground and with partners. Travel costs will include field visits by researchers, planning and review
meetings and workshops including annual meetings to document outcomes. We have also allocated funding towards
analysis of fish samples for nutrient content and contamination and towards pond-based experiments.

Risks and plans to mitigate risks
Funding uncertainty is a major risk for all three clusters over the duration of the CRP as all three are highly dependent
on our ability to secure bilateral funding. Clusters 1 and 3 are strongly linked to current/bilateral pipelines in Bangladesh
and Cambodia, which will help to mitigate this risk. Greater
funding uncertainty exists for Tanzania, where WorldFish and partners have not worked extensively. We will mitigate
this risk through building on existing partnerships with local research institutions and staggering our activities to phase
in gradually over the course of the CRP. We anticipate that activities conducted during the first two years of the project
will provide an important foundation for developing funding proposals. The establishment within WorldFish of
structures to scan for investment opportunities will help mitigate this risk as will continuing to utilize our strong
networks in countries of interest. In some countries political instability is a risk to research activities.

2.3.2.3 Additional explanations for certain accounting categories

Personnel costs are based upon best estimates of the level of effort required by specific staff positions to deliver upon
the objectives of the Flagship.

This level of effort has been expressed as a number of days per period. The personnel costs have been determined via
the application of daily standard rates per position/staff member. In addition to the daily standard rates, the cost of
benefits have been calculated on an individual basis and expressed as a function of salary. The benefits included are
those that are applicable per the employing Center’s established policies and procedures.

The estimated cost of the allowances and benefits vary depending on the classification of the individual staff member as
well as the location in which they are working. WorldFish has three staff designations: Global (GRS), Home Country
International (HCI), and National (NRS). The following benefits are have been included in the budgeted salary costs:

Retirement contributions: WorldFish contributes the equivalent of 15% of base salary to a retirement fund for staff.
This is applicable to all designations of staff (GRS, HCI, NRS).

Insurance premiums: this includes medical (GRS, HCI & NRS), accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) (GRS &
HCI), long-term disability (LTD) (GRS & HCI), and life insurance (GRS, HCI, & NRS).

Annual medical examination costs: applicable to all staff designations (GRS, HCI, NRS), WorldFish encourages annual
medical examination for all
staff and agrees to subsidize the costs thereof for all staff over the age of 40, up to $250USD per annum.

106
Housing allowance: generally applicable for GRS staff only, WorldFish provides an allowance of up to 75% of the cost of
housing, subject to monthly maximums established by location.

Dependant Education Allowance: applicable for GRS staff only, WorldFish provides the cost of education (up to end of
secondary education) for dependant co-located children.

Home Leave: applicable for GRS staff only, WorldFish funds the cost of an annual trip to the staff members’ home
country for the staff member and dependants.

Relocation and Repatriation costs: applicable for GRS staff only, WorldFish covers the cost of relocating GRS staff from
their home location to their duty post. Once the staff member has completed at least 3 years of continuous service,
WorldFish will also cover the cost of repatriating the staff member to their home location upon termination of
employment.

Location specific benefits (i.e. hardship allowances), where applicable, have also been included in the cost as have the
cost of statutory employment related taxes applicable in certain operating locations.

As there is great range in the cost of benefits by location and by staff designation, we assigned a specific percentage (of
salaries) to each location/staff designation combination. The following provides the range of percentages that were
used by staff designation:

Range of Benefit %
High Low
HCI Zambia (63.56%) Philippines (21.6%)
GRS Zambia (129.03%) Egypt (36.59%)
NRS Solomon (62.15%) Zambia (21.64%)

Other supplies and services:

The supplies and services required are:

• Fieldwork and sample collection: this includes the polyculture and rice-field fishery research, the collection of data
through surveys, interviews and focus groups, and the collection of fish samples for nutrient content and
contaminant analysis. This may include costs of equipment and field costs.
• Lab analysis: the costs associated with the analysis of fish samples both at the local level (food safety aspects) and at
the NRI laboratory (for nutrient content).
• Behavioral change communication (BCC) materials: this is for the work under cluster 3 related to behavioral change
around the feeding of fish to young children. Materials may include videos, brochures and signboards, targeting
poor households in the focal countries.
• Publications editing and printing: costs associated with the editing of reports, policy briefs, open access journal
publications, press releases and support for larger media events.
• National workshops/multistakeholder platforms: costs associated with the organization of national/local-level
workshops and multi-stakeholder platforms. These are essential for the development of the fish value chain,
engagement of the private sector, co-development of approaches, and for capacity development.
• Training events/student fellowships: this includes costs for capacity development of local stakeholders, own staff,
and fellowships for PhD and MSc students integrated into the flagship’s work.
• Global workshops: the costs associated with flagship planning and science workshops.
• Consultancy: the hiring of consultants for pieces of species work that cannot be done by scientists directly
associated with the program. This may include small pieces.

2.3.2.4 Other sources of funding for this project

Efforts are already underway to raise bilateral funds for new areas of FP3 research and these will continue. The budget
for the flagship has been developed on the basis of a 24% W1/2 funding share. If sufficient bilateral or W1/2 funding
cannot be secured, we will reduce the number of countries where FP3 undertakes its research. Reducing the number of

107
countries and value chains the flagship works in significantly reduces the budget required, but also reduces the number
of people that can be reached with the intended impacts.

2.3.2.5 Budgeted costs for certain key activities

Estimate Please describe main key activities for the applicable

annual categories below, as described in the guidance for full
average proposal
cost (USD)
Gender 720,373 Gender investment of US$4.3M over the 6 years represents
12.1% of the budget allocated to the flagship and supports
integration of gender into all flagship activities, as well as
gender-focused research to increase the impact of the
research on development outcomes for women. These
include global and national scientists, specialist consultancy,
partners, workshops and training of research teams and
development partners and operating expenses for field
research in focal countries and cross-country synthesis.
Investments are made across all research clusters, focusing
on research on gender-equitable resource control of assets
and participation in decision-making as a contribution to
increasing the availability and consumption of nutrient-
dense fish. In cluster 1 this is done by addressing the need
for harvesting technologies that meet women’s specific
needs and preferences, including time and labor, including
the testing of women-targeted technologies for fish
harvesting in pond polyculture systems. Cluster 2 focuses
on identifying and testing approaches that enhance
women’s access to and control over key assets and their
ability to take advantage of opportunities in fish value
chains. Finally, cluster 3 will work on gender issues at the
household-level, in particular decision-making about intra-
household distribution of food and child-feeding practices.
The cluster will test scalable gender-transformative
behavioral change mechanisms. Initially the investments
made will focus on assessment and formative research,
while in later years the investments will focus on
developing approaches to overcome particular gendered
barriers, as well as gender capacity development. Funds are
also invested in contributions of key international partners
and national partners for research and scaling activities.

108
Youth (only for those who have relevant set 177,436 Youth investment of US$1.1M over the 6 years represents
of activities in this area) 3.2% of the budget allocated to the flagship and supports
integration of youth into all flagship activities. Initially
investments will focus on addressing the dearth of
knowledge about the roles of youth in pond polyculture
systems and rice field fisheries (cluster 1), as well as in fish
value chains (cluster 2). This means integrating youth
apsirations and opportunities into research methodologies
and the collection of age (and gender) disaggregated data.
As the CRP progresses the investments will increasingly go
towards developing and testing youth-responsive
technologies for all parts of the value chain. The cluster 3
investments for youth relate to influencing behavior change
in fish consumption, including through school curricula and
other channels to raise community awareness around the
importance of fish to improve nutrition for pregnant and
lactating women and for infants and young children. This
implies the development of specific behavioral change
communication materals for school children.

Capacity development 575,415 Capacity development investment of US$3.5M over the 6

years representing 10.4% of the budget allocated to the
flagship and supports needs assessments, multi-stakeholder
approaches, development of new learning materials where
required, the development of capacity for the testing of
gender-inclusive technologies and market and institutional
approaches to reducing fish waste and economic and
nutrient losses, and enhancing the quality of fish. It further
includes capacity development of policymakers to use our
research outputs. Finally, a key component of the
investments are student fellowships, for the development
of future research leaders.

Impact assessment 246,522 Impact assessment investment of US$1.5M over the 6 years
representing 4.4% of the flagship budget and supports
conducting data collection related to indicators of relevance
to all three flagship clusters including on changes in fish
consumption, reduced waste and loss, nutrient analysis of
fish content of different species and across the value chain,
and related to documenting outcomes related to the impact
of technologies on productivity of nutrient-rich fish.
Investment will also cover annual after-action assessments
and reviews to document uptake of research technologies
by partners and policy-related outcomes.

Intellectual asset management 17,311 Intellectual asset management investment of US$104K over
the 6 years and is used for maintenance of databases.
Open access and data management 91,114 Open access and data management investment of US$547K
over the 6 years supports publication of research data and
papers (including OA publication costs) and management.
This includes investments in ensuring materials are
disseminated through the CRP website, investments in data
management and appropriate documentation to make
datasets publicly available through open access
depositories, and purchasing of open access privileges for

109
 publication in non-open access journals where needed. The
budget also consists of external expert resources (legal,
training, contracting) and allocation of personnel time
towards ensuring capacity development of open access
data management best practices throughout the Flagship
operations.

Communication 384,863 Communication investment of US$2.3M over the 6 years
supports publication of research papers, and
communication activities (policy briefs, manuals, technical
reports, outcome stories) that will support the
communication of research to end users with and through
partners. A large component of this budget is also invested
in specific behavioral change communication materials for
cluster 3, aimed at increasing the fish fed to infants.

2.3.2.2 Other

The level of ambition of the Enhancing the impact of fish for nutrition and health of the poor flagship requires
mobilization of approximately $23 million in bilateral and Window 3 funds over the life of the program. This calls for
flexibility to address the priorities of funders in terms of country focus and thematic interest. Window 1 and 2 funds are
used primarily to support core elements of the program that can be widely applied when matched with bilateral funds.
Given the breadth of the flagship and the funding model, with dependence on all sources of funding, funds from
different sources are often integrated in support of tasks that have been determined to fit within the scope and
priorities of the Program.

Annual funding certainty of W1 and W2 funds will be critical to ensuring the flagship achieves its objectives on time and
on target. As a means of risk mitigation, WorldFish will dedicate organizational resources to securing the bilateral
funding targets identified in the proposal, however W1 and W2 funds will need to be secured and received in order to
leverage the bilateral opportunities. Delays in receiving W1 and W2 funds will have a follow-on effect on
implementation and execution of the flagship as WorldFish will not be in a position to pre-finance Program activities
that are designated to be funded from W1 and W2 sources.

Due to the limitations of the online submission form, the funding figures presented herein have combined all bilateral
and Window 3 funds into the bilateral fields. It is our full expectation that there will be a mix of both bilateral and
Window 3 funds contributing to the flagship Indirect costs included in the budget have been set at 12%, which is
consistent with existing audited indirect costs for WorldFish, adjusting for information technology and facility costs
which have been specifically included as direct costs in the flagship budget.

2.3.3 Flagship uplift budget

This Uplift budget has been prepared based on the scenario whereby the aggregate portfolio of funding increases by
50% from the $900M indicative budget. The following additional activities would be prioritized within this Flagship.
Please refer to descriptions of these activities in the CRP Uplift Budget narrative, section (1.1.7):

• Aquaculture in Africa
• Rice-fish production systems in Asia
• Global agenda setting to better profile fish in development
• Accelerating fisheries management innovations in key geographies
• Improving diets and human nutrition and health through harnessing the nutritional value of fish from
fisheries and aquaculture
• Enhancing fish supply and consumption for human nutrition in Timor Leste
• Improving fish processing technologies and development of fish-based products for Sub-Saharan Africa
• Aquaculture, capture fisheries and fish trade interdependencies in the Mekong Delta

110


Amount W1 + W2 Bilateral Other
Outcome Description Needed (%) W3 (%) (%) (%)

1.1 - 4.9 million producer households

adopted improved breeds, aquafeeds,
fish health and aquaculture and
fisheries management practices 6,232,167 32% 0 68% 0
1.2 - 3.5 million people, of which at
least 50% are women, assisted to exit
poverty through livelihood
improvements related to fisheries and
aquaculture value chains 3,934,500 32% 0 68% 0
2.3 - 2.4 million people, of which 50%
are women, without deficiencies of
one or more of the following essential
micronutrients: iron, zinc, iodine,
vitamin A, folate & B12 6,781,167 32% 0 68% 0
2.4 - 4.7 million more women of
reproductive age consuming adequate
number of food groups 6,781,167 32% 0 68% 0
3.3 - 3.3 million ha of ecosystems
restored through more productive and
equitable management of small-scale
fishery resources and degraded
aquaculture ponds restored 1,342,000 32% 0 68% 0

111
 112
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  (PIM)  Tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Contents  
Table  A-­‐  CRP  Level:  Contribution  to  2022  CGIAR  Targets  ................................................................................................................................................................  2  
Quantitative  contribution  to  countries  .......................................................................................................................................................................................  4  
FP1  -­‐  Sustainable  Aquaculture  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................  8  
PIM  Table  B:  Flagship  level:  outcomes  by  windows  of  funding  ...................................................................................................................................................  8  
PIM  Table  C:  Flagship  level:  investments  by  sub-­‐IDO’s  ...............................................................................................................................................................  9  
PIM  Table  D:  Flagship  level:  annual  milestones  table  ...............................................................................................................................................................  10  
FP2-­‐Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................  15  
PIM  Table  B:  Flagship  level:  outcomes  by  windows  of  funding  .................................................................................................................................................  15  
PIM  Table  C:  Flagship  level:  investments  by  sub-­‐IDO’s  .............................................................................................................................................................  16  
PIM  Table  D:  Flagship  level:  annual  milestones  table  ...............................................................................................................................................................  17  
FP3-­‐Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  for  nutrition  and  health  of  the  poor  ...............................................................................................................................  21  
PIM  Table  B:  Flagship  level:  outcomes  by  windows  of  funding  .................................................................................................................................................  21  
PIM  Table  C:  Flagship  level:  investments  by  sub-­‐IDO’s  .............................................................................................................................................................  22  
PIM  Table  D:  Flagship  level:  annual  milestones  table  ...............................................................................................................................................................  23  
 
 
   

1  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Table  A-­‐  CRP  Level:  Contribution  to  2022  CGIAR  Targets  

Synergies  with  other  CRP's/  
Target   Amount   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other  
CGIAR  Target   Unit  of  target   Platforms  (click  Ctrl  for  
contribution   Needed  ($)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (%)  
multiple  selection)  
100  million  more  farm  
households  have  adopted   Big  Data,  CCAFS,  Genetic  Gain  
million  farm  
improved  varieties,  breeds  or   4.9   27,567,440   29   0   71   0   platform,  Livestock,  PIM,  Rice,  
households  
trees,  and  /  or  improved   RTB,  WLE  
management  practices  
30  million  people,  of  which   Big  Data,  CCAFS,  Genetic  Gain  
50%  are  women,  assisted  to   3.5   million  people   21,452,620   29   0   71   0   platform,  Livestock,  PIM,  Rice,  
exit  poverty   RTB,  WLE  
150  million  more  people,  of  
which  50%  are  women,  
without  deficiencies  in  one  or  
A4NH,  Livestock,  PIM,  Rice,  
more  of  the  following   2.4   million  people   20,672,152   30   0   70   0  
WLE  
essential  micronutrients:  iron,  
zinc,  iodine,  vitamin  A,  folate  
and  vitamin  B12  
10%  reduction  in  women  of  
reproductive  age  who  are  
A4NH,  Livestock,  PIM,  Rice,  
consuming  less  than  the   15.3   %   19,651,893   30   0   70   0  
WLE  
adequate  number  of  food  
groups  
5%  increase  in  water  and  
nutrient  (inorganic,  biological)  
use  efficiency  in  agro-­‐ 10   %   1,273,640   29   0   71   0   CCAFS,  WLE  
ecosystems,  including  through  
recycling  and  reuse  

2  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Reduce  agriculturally-­‐related  
greenhouse  gas  emissions  by  
0.2  Gt  CO2-­‐e  yr-­‐1  (5%)   0.0053   Gt  CO2e/yr   1,273,640   29   0   71   0   CCAFS  
compared  with  business-­‐as-­‐
usual  scenario  in  2022  
55  million  hectares  (ha)  
3.3   millions  of  ha   17,939,198   30   0   70   0   CCAFS,  PIM,  WLE  
degraded  land  area  restored  
        Total   109,830,583                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

3  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Quantitative  contribution  to  countries  

 
CGIAR  Target:  100  million  more  farm  households  have  adopted  improved  
varieties,  breeds  or  trees,  and  /  or  improved  management  practices  
CGIAR  Target   Target  contribution  in  
Other  Country  
countries   country  
Bangladesh   _   1.8  
OTHER   Myanmar   0.45  
OTHER   Cambodia   0.19  
Nigeria   _   0.35  
Tanzania   _   0.11  
Zambia   _   0.12  
OTHER   Egypt,  Arab  Republic  of   0.1  
OTHER   Solomon  Islands   0.02  
REST  OF  THE  WORLD   _   1.72  
 
CGIAR  Target:  30  million  people,  of  which  50%  are  women,  assisted  to  exit  
poverty  
CGIAR  Target   Target  contribution  in  
Other  Country  
countries   country  
Bangladesh   _   1.17  
OTHER   Myanmar   0.4  
OTHER   Cambodia   0.18  
Nigeria   _   0.19  
Tanzania   _   0.1  
Zambia   _   0.09  
OTHER   Egypt,  Arab  Republic  of   0.26  
OTHER   Solomon  Islands   0.05  
REST  OF  THE  WORLD   _   1.12  

4  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

  more  people,  of  which  50%  are  women,  without  

CGIAR  Target:  150  million  
deficiencies  in  one  or  more  of  the  following  essential  micronutrients:  iron,  zinc,  
iodine,  vitamin  A,  folate  and  vitamin  B12  
CGIAR  Target   Target  contribution  in  
Other  Country  
countries   country  
Bangladesh   _   0.9  
OTHER   Myanmar   0.12  
OTHER   Cambodia   0.08  
Nigeria   _   0.12  
Tanzania   _   0.13  
Zambia   _   0.04  
OTHER   Egypt,  Arab  Republic  of   0.1  
OTHER   Solomon  Islands   0.08  
REST  OF  THE  WORLD   _   0.86  
 
CGIAR  Target:  10%  reduction  in  women  of  reproductive  age  who  are  consuming  
less  than  the  adequate  number  of  food  groups  
CGIAR  Target   Target  contribution  in  
Other  Country  
countries   country  
Bangladesh   _   27.1  
OTHER   Myanmar   9.2  
OTHER   Cambodia   32.3  
Nigeria   _   0.9  
Tanzania   _   2  
Zambia   _   5  
OTHER   Egypt,  Arab  Republic  of   0.8  
OTHER   Solomon  Islands   8  
REST  OF  THE  WORLD   _   12.7  

 
5  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

CGIAR  Target:  5%  increase  in  water  and  nutrient  (inorganic,  biological)  use  
efficiency  in  agro-­‐ecosystems,  including  through  recycling  and  reuse  
CGIAR  Target   Target  contribution  in  
Other  Country  
countries   country  
Bangladesh   _   10  
OTHER   Myanmar   10  
OTHER   Cambodia   10  
Nigeria   _   10  
Tanzania   _   10  
Zambia   _   10  
OTHER   Egypt,  Arab  Republic  of   10  
OTHER   Solomon  Islands   10  
REST  OF  THE  WORLD   _   10  

CGIAR  Target:  Reduce  agriculturally-­‐related  greenhouse  gas  emissions  by  0.2  Gt  
CO2-­‐e  yr-­‐1  (5%)  compared  with  business-­‐as-­‐usual  scenario  in  2022  
CGIAR  Target   Target  contribution  in  
Other  Country  
countries   country  
Bangladesh   _   0.0018  
OTHER   Myanmar   0.0004  
OTHER   Cambodia   0.0002  
Nigeria   _   0.0002  
Tanzania   _   0.00004  
Zambia   _   0.0001  
OTHER   Egypt,  Arab  Republic  of   0.0003  
OTHER   Solomon  Islands   0  
REST  OF  THE  WORLD   _   0.0022  

6  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

CGIAR  Target:  55  million  hectares  (ha)  degraded  land  area  restored  
CGIAR  Target   Target  contribution  in  
Other  Country  
countries   country  
Bangladesh   _   1.07  
OTHER   Myanmar   0.47  
OTHER   Cambodia   0.37  
Nigeria   _   0.11  
Tanzania   _   0.01  
Zambia   _   0.26  
OTHER   Egypt,  Arab  Republic  of   0.11  
OTHER   Solomon  Islands   0.25  
REST  OF  THE  WORLD   _   0.68  

   

7  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

FP1  -­‐  Sustainable  Aquaculture  

PIM  Table  B:  Flagship  level:  outcomes  by  windows  of  funding  
Amount   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other  
2022  outcome  description  
needed  ($)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (Amount)   (Amount)   (Amount)   (Amount)  
1.5  million  households  have  access  
to  and  are  using  our  selectively  
improved,  faster  growing  and  more  
resilient  strains  of  tilapia  and  carp  
seed   23,290,000   29   0   71   0   6,754,100   0   16,535,900   0  
2.5  million  households  have  adopted  
disease  detection  and  control  
strategies,  cost-­‐effective  and  
sustainable  aquafeeds  and  /or  
improved  aquaculture  management  
practices   23,290,000   29   0   71   0   6,754,100   0   16,535,900   0  

4.8  million  metric  tons  of  annual  

farmed  fish  production  with  reduced  
environmental  impact  and  increased  
resource-­‐use  efficiency  (measured  
by  20%  reduction  in  greenhouse  gas  
emissions  and  10%  increase  in  water  
and  nutrient-­‐use  efficiency)   3,880,000   29   0   71   0   1,125,200   0   2,754,800   0  

2.3  million  poor  men,  women  and  

youth  access  improved  livelihood  
opportunities  resulting  from  
increased  aquaculture  production  
and  associated  value  chains  and  
enterprise  development   27,167,972   29   0   71   0   7,878,712   0   19,289,260   0  
    77,627,972                   22,512,112   0   55,115,860   0  

8  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

 
 
PIM  Table  C:  Flagship  level:  investments  by  sub-­‐IDO’s  
Amount   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other  
Sub-­‐IDO  
needed  ($)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (Amount)   (Amount)   (Amount)   (Amount)  
Closed  yield  gaps  through  improved  
agronomic  and  animal  husbandry  
practices   14,000,000   29   0   71   0   4,060,000   0   9,940,000   0  
Enhanced  genetic  gains   18,027,972   29   0   71   0   5,228,112   0   12,799,860   0  
More  efficient  use  of  inputs   6,000,000   29   0   71   0   1,740,000   0   4,260,000   0  
Reduced  livestock  and  fish  disease  
risks  associated  with  intensification  
and  climate  change   6,000,000   29   0   71   0   1,740,000   0   4,260,000   0  
Diversified  enterprise  opportunities   3,550,000   29   0   71   0   1,029,500   0   2,520,500   0  
Increased  livelihood  opportunities   6,550,000   29   0   71   0   1,899,500   0   4,650,500   0  
Enhanced  capacity  to  deal  with  
climatic  risks  and  extremes   2,600,000   29   0   71   0   754,000   0   1,846,000   0  
Reduced  net  greenhouse  gas  emissions  
from  agriculture,  forests  and  other  
forms  of  land  use   2,500,000   29   0   71   0   725,000   0   1,775,000   0  
Gender-­‐equitable  control  of  
productive  assets  and  resources   9,600,000   29   0   71   0   2,784,000   0   6,816,000   0  
Increased  capacity  of  beneficiaries  to  
adopt  research  outputs   4,400,000   29   0   71   0   1,276,000   0   3,124,000   0  
Enhanced  individual  capacity  in  
partner  research  organizations  
through  training  and  exchange   4,400,000   29   0   71   0   1,276,000   0   3,124,000   0  
    77,627,972                   22,512,112   0   55,115,860   0  

9  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

PIM  Table  D:  Flagship  level:  annual  milestones  table  

Year   Milestone  description   Means  of  verifying   For  which  outcomes  
Public-­‐private  sector  partnerships  or  platforms   2.3  million  poor  men,  women  and  youth  access  
for  sustainable  aquaculture  R&D  convened   improved  livelihood  opportunities  resulting  
(and  led  by  national  partners)  in  2  focal   from  increased  aquaculture  production  and  
countries  in  Africa  [Egypt,  Nigeria]  and  2   Program  reports,  partner  contacts  from  annual   associated  value  chains  and  enterprise  
2017   countries  in  Asia  [Bangladesh,  Myanmar]   outcome  review   development  
Fish  genetics  research  platforms  operating  in  3  
countries:  [Bangladesh  (carps),  Egypt  (tilapia)  
and  WorldFish  HQ  in  Malaysia  (tilapia)].  New  
public/private  sector  funded  fish  genetic   1.5  million  households  have  access  to  and  are  
improvement/breeding  programs  initiated  in  2   using  our  selectively  improved,  faster  growing  
further  countries  [Nigeria  (tilapia)  and   and  more  resilient  strains  of  tilapia  and  carp  
2018   Myanmar  (carps  and  tilapias)].   Progress  reports,  partner  agreements   seed  
IT  based  impact  assessment  tools/packages   1.5  million  households  have  access  to  and  are  
designed  by  the  program  adopted  by  national   using  our  selectively  improved,  faster  growing  
partners  in  3  countries  [Bangladesh,  Egypt,   and  more  resilient  strains  of  tilapia  and  carp  
2018   Myanmar]   Progress  reports,  partner  agreements   seed  
National  agencies  in  2  countries  in  Africa  
[Egypt,  Nigeria]  and  2  in  Asia  [Bangladesh,   2.5  million  households  have  adopted  disease  
Myanmar]  validate  and  promote  improved  fish   detection  and  control  strategies,  cost-­‐effective  
health  and  feed  management  strategies  in   Progress  reports,  outcome  monitoring,   and  sustainable  aquafeeds  and  /or  improved  
2018   country  aquaculture  investments   publications,  public  sector  extension  materials   aquaculture  management  practices  
Public-­‐private  sector  partnerships  or  platforms  
for  sustainable  aquaculture  R&D  convened  
(and  led  by  national  partners)  in  2  focal   4.8  million  tonnes  of  annual  farmed  fish  
countries  in  Africa  [Egypt,  Nigeria]  and  2   Program  reports,  partner  contacts  from  annual   production  with  reduced  environmental  
2018   countries  in  Asia  [Bangladesh,  Myanmar]   outcome  review   impact  and  increased  resource  use  efficiency  

10  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Year   Milestone  description   Means  of  verifying   For  which  outcomes  

New  multi-­‐year  public  and/or  private  sector  
investment  programs  have  extended  improved   1.5  million  households  have  access  to  and  are  
tilapia  breeding  and  dissemination  programs  to   using  our  selectively  improved,  faster  growing  
FISH  focal  countries  in  Africa  [Tanzania,   and  more  resilient  strains  of  tilapia  and  carp  
2019   Zambia]  and  Asia  [Cambodia]   Investment  program  documents   seed  
Public-­‐private  sector  partnerships  or  platforms  
established  for  sustainable  aquaculture  in   4.8  million  tonnes  of  annual  farmed  fish  
remaining  focal  countries,  in  Africa  [Tanzania,   Program  reports,  partner  contacts  from  annual   production  with  reduced  environmental  
2019   Zambia]  and  in  Asia  [Cambodia]   outcome  review   impact  and  increased  resource  use  efficiency  
Improved  aquaculture  management  practices  
deliver  20%  reductions  in  GHG  emissions  and  
10%  improvement  in  water/nutrient   4.8  million  tonnes  of  annual  farmed  fish  
efficiencies  over  baselines  in  3  focal  countries   Sample  surveys,  on-­‐farm  assessments  using   production  with  reduced  environmental  
2019   [Egypt,  Bangladesh,  Myanmar]   LCA   impact  and  increased  resource  use  efficiency  
2.3  million  poor  men,  women  and  youth  access  
Public-­‐private  sector  partnerships  or  platforms   improved  livelihood  opportunities  resulting  
established  for  sustainable  aquaculture  in   from  increased  aquaculture  production  and  
remaining  focal  countries,  in  Africa  [Tanzania,   Program  reports,  partner  contacts  from  annual   associated  value  chains  and  enterprise  
2019   Zambia]  and  in  Asia  [Cambodia]   outcome  review   development  
Integrated  aquaculture  technologies  and   2.3  million  poor  men,  women  and  youth  access  
business  models  validated  by  public  and/or   improved  livelihood  opportunities  resulting  
private  partners  and  receiving  public  and/or   from  increased  aquaculture  production  and  
private  sector  investments  for  scaling  in  4  focal   Program  reports,  partner  contacts  from  annual   associated  value  chains  and  enterprise  
2019   countries   outcome  review   development  

Private  sector  investment  in  FISH  

business/enterprise  models  providing  evidence   2.5  million  households  have  adopted  disease  
of  improved  livelihoods  at  scale  for  poor  men,   detection  and  control  strategies,  cost-­‐effective  
women  and  youth  in  4  focal  countries  [Egypt,   Sample  surveys/program  reports,  partner   and  sustainable  aquafeeds  and  /or  improved  
2019   Nigeria,  Bangladesh,  Myanmar]   contacts  from  annual  outcome  review   aquaculture  management  practices  

11  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Year   Milestone  description   Means  of  verifying   For  which  outcomes  

2.5  million  households  have  adopted  disease  
At  least  one  private  company  investing  in   detection  and  control  strategies,  cost-­‐effective  
scaling  of  new  fish  feed  ingredients  and/or  fish   Program  reports,  outcome  monitoring.   and  sustainable  aquafeeds  and  /or  improved  
2020   disease  diagnostic  tools  within  focal  countries   Contacts  made  with  private  investors.   aquaculture  management  practices  
National  agencies  in  all  focal  countries  in  Africa  
[Egypt,  Nigeria,  Tanzania,  Zambia]  and  Asia  
[Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar]  validate   2.5  million  households  have  adopted  disease  
and  promote  improvements  in  fish  health  and   detection  and  control  strategies,  cost-­‐effective  
feed  management  within  country  aquaculture   Progress  reports,  outcome  monitoring,  public   and  sustainable  aquafeeds  and  /or  improved  
2020   investment  programs   sector  records/extension  materials   aquaculture  management  practices  
New  multi-­‐year  public  and/or  private  
investment  programs  have  extended  improved   1.5  million  households  have  access  to  and  are  
tilapia  breeding  programs  to  4  FISH  scaling   using  our  selectively  improved,  faster  growing  
countries  with  high  potential  for  impact  [2  in   Tracking  major  program  developments  in   and  more  resilient  strains  of  tilapia  and  carp  
2021   Africa  and  2  in  Asia]   countries  of  interest   seed  
1.5  million  households  have  access  to  and  are  
New  resilience  traits  incorporated  into  tilapia   using  our  selectively  improved,  faster  growing  
breeding  programs  in  3  countries  in  Asia   and  more  resilient  strains  of  tilapia  and  carp  
2021   [Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar]   Program  reports   seed  
Improved  health  and  feed  management   2.5  million  households  have  adopted  disease  
practices  deliver  15%  increased  yield  on-­‐farm   detection  and  control  strategies,  cost-­‐effective  
over  2016  baselines  from  tilapia  and/or  carp   Sample  surveys,  M&E  data,  national  fish   and  sustainable  aquafeeds  and  /or  improved  
2021   farming  in  4  focal  countries   production  data  reports   aquaculture  management  practices  
National  institutions  and  public  private  sector  
investments  support  scaling  of  FISH  integrated  
sustainable  aquaculture  technologies  in  7  focal   4.8  million  tonnes  of  annual  farmed  fish  
countries  and  4  scaling  countries  in  Africa  and   production  with  reduced  environmental  
2021   Asia   Outcome  tracking/sample  surveys   impact  and  increased  resource  use  efficiency  

12  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Year   Milestone  description   Means  of  verifying   For  which  outcomes  

National  institutions  and  policies  and  private   2.3  million  poor  men,  women  and  youth  access  
sector  investments  supporting  scaling  of  FISH   improved  livelihood  opportunities  resulting  
enterprise  models  for  poor  men,  women  and   from  increased  aquaculture  production  and  
youth  in  7  focal  and  4  scaling  countries  in  Africa   Program  reports,  partner  contacts  from  annual   associated  value  chains  and  enterprise  
2021   and  Asia   outcome  review   development  
1.5  million  households  have  access  to  and  are  
New  public  and  private  sector  investments   using  our  selectively  improved,  faster  growing  
have  extended  improved  tilapia  breeding   Partner  contacts  from  annual  outcome  review,   and  more  resilient  strains  of  tilapia  and  carp  
2022   programs  to  two  new  scaling  countries  in  Africa   progress  reports   seed  
1.5  million  households  have  access  to  and  are  
using  our  selectively  improved,  faster  growing  
Improved  rohu  carp  strains  released  to  farmers   Program  reports,  partner  contacts  from  annual   and  more  resilient  strains  of  tilapia  and  carp  
2022   in  Bangladesh   outcome  review   seed  
Genetically  improved  tilapia  and  carp  seed   1.5  million  households  have  access  to  and  are  
make  up  >20%  of  fish  seed  disseminated  to   using  our  selectively  improved,  faster  growing  
farmers  in  5  countries  [Bangladesh,  Egypt,   Sample  surveys,  project  reporting  and   and  more  resilient  strains  of  tilapia  and  carp  
2022   Myanmar,  Tanzania,  Nigeria]   coverage  estimates   seed  
1.5  million  households  have  access  to  and  are  
1.5  million  fish  farm  households  have  access  to   using  our  selectively  improved,  faster  growing  
and  are  using  faster  growing  and  more  resilient   Sample  surveys,  estimates  based  on  validated   and  more  resilient  strains  of  tilapia  and  carp  
2022   tilapia  and  carp  strains  in  Africa  and  Asia   broodstock  and  hatchery  data   seed  

National  institutions  and  policies  and  private   2.5  million  households  have  adopted  disease  
sector  investments  support  scaling  of  FISH   detection  and  control  strategies,  cost-­‐effective  
health  and  feed  packages  in  4  scaling  countries   and  sustainable  aquafeeds  and  /or  improved  
2022   in  Africa  and  Asia   Progress  reports,  outcome  monitoring   aquaculture  management  practices  
2.5  million  producer  households  benefiting   2.5  million  households  have  adopted  disease  
from  aquaculture  productivity  improvements   detection  and  control  strategies,  cost-­‐effective  
associated  with  improved  measures  of  disease   M&E  data,  sample  surveys,  project  reporting   and  sustainable  aquafeeds  and  /or  improved  
2022   control  and  feeds   and  coverage  estimates   aquaculture  management  practices  

13  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Year   Milestone  description   Means  of  verifying   For  which  outcomes  

4.8  million  tonnes  of  annual  farmed  fish   4.8  million  tonnes  of  annual  farmed  fish  
production  with  reduced  environmental  impact   Outcome  tracking/sample  surveys/national   production  with  reduced  environmental  
2022   and  increased  resource  use  efficiency   statistics   impact  and  increased  resource  use  efficiency  
2.3  million  poor  men,  women  and  youth  access   2.3  million  poor  men,  women  and  youth  access  
improved  livelihood  opportunities  resulting   improved  livelihood  opportunities  resulting  
from  increased  aquaculture  production,  and   from  increased  aquaculture  production  and  
associated  value  chains  and  enterprise   Outcome  tracking/sample  surveys/national   associated  value  chains  and  enterprise  
2022   development   statistics   development  
 
   

14  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

FP2-­‐Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries    

PIM  Table  B:  Flagship  level:  outcomes  by  windows  of  funding  
Amount   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other  
2022  outcome  description  
needed  ($)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (Amount)   (Amount)   (Amount)   (Amount)  

1  million  fishery-­‐dependent  households  

have  reduced  poverty  as  a  result  of  
adopting  improved  fisheries  management   14,962,313   30   0   70   0   4,488,694   0   10,473,619   0  
1.2  million  people,  of  which  50%  are  
women,  assisted  to  exit  poverty  through  
livelihood  improvements   14,962,312   30   0   70   0   4,488,694   0   10,473,618   0  

2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  

marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
productive  and  equitable  management   29,950,000   30   0   70   0   8,985,000   0   20,965,000   0  
    59,874,625                   17,962,388   0   41,912,238   0  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

15  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

PIM  Table  C:  Flagship  level:  investments  by  sub-­‐IDO’s  

Amount   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other  
Sub-­‐IDO  
needed  ($)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (Amount)   (Amount)   (Amount)   (Amount)  
Increased  livelihood  opportunities   12,830,000   30   0   70   0   3,849,000   0   8,981,000   0  
Increased  resilience  of  agro-­‐
ecosystems  and  communities,  
especially  those  including  smallholders   12,830,000   30   0   70   0   3,849,000   0   8,981,000   0  
More  productive  and  equitable  
management  of  natural  resources   12,814,625   30   0   70   0   3,844,388   0   8,970,238   0  
Enhanced  capacity  to  deal  with  climatic  
risks  and  extremes   5,350,000   30   0   70   0   1,605,000   0   3,745,000   0  
Gender-­‐equitable  control  of  productive  
assets  and  resources   5,350,000   30   0   70   0   1,605,000   0   3,745,000   0  
Improved  capacity  of  women  and  
young  people  to  participate  in  
decision-­‐making   5,350,000   30   0   70   0   1,605,000   0   3,745,000   0  
Conducive  agricultural  policy  
environment   5,350,000   30   0   70   0   1,605,000   0   3,745,000   0  
    59,874,625                   17,962,388   0   41,912,238   0  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

16  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

PIM  Table  D:  Flagship  level:  annual  milestones  table    

Year   Milestone  description   Means  of  verifying   For  which  outcomes  

Sustainable  and  adaptive  management  

practices  that  provide  food  security  and  
livelihood  benefits  adopted  in  4  countries   1  million  fishery-­‐dependent  households  have  
[Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar,  Solomon   Documentation  of  processes  for  management   reduced  poverty  as  a  result  of  adopting  
2017   Islands]   formation  and  review  of  management  plans   improved  fisheries  management  

Livelihood  opportunities  improved  alongside  

improvements  in  sustainable  and  adaptive  
management  practices  in  5  countries   1.2  million  people,  of  which  50%  are  women,  
[Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar,  Zambia,   Data  on  livelihood  diversity  and  household   assisted  to  exit  poverty  through  livelihood  
2017   Solomon  Islands]   income   improvements  
Key  national  and  sub-­‐national  partners  in  5  
countries  [Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar,  
Zambia  and  Solomon  Islands]  better  
understand  drivers  of  variability  and  land  and  
water  resource  trade-­‐offs  in  multi-­‐functional   2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  
landscapes,  and  recognize  their  policy  and   Outcomes  of  dialogues  with  partners  and  other   marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
2017   practical  implications   stakeholders  on  findings  and  their  implications   productive  and  equitable  management  
Partners  in  learning  and  governance  networks  
promote  gender  sensitive  and  transformative  
approaches  in  5  countries  [Bangladesh,   2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  
Cambodia,  Myanmar,  Zambia,  Solomon   Documentation  of  meetings,  interviews  with   marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
2018   Islands]   network  members   productive  and  equitable  management  
Local  institutional  models  for  sustainably  and  
equitably  managing  land  and  water  resources   2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  
tested  in  3  countries  [Bangladesh,  Cambodia,   Documentation  of  processes  for  local   marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
2018   Myanmar]   institutional  development  and  policy   productive  and  equitable  management  

17  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Year   Milestone  description   Means  of  verifying   For  which  outcomes  

Sustainable  and  adaptive  management  
practices  adopted  in  5  countries  [Bangladesh,  
Cambodia,  Myanmar,  Zambia  and  Solomon   Approved/adopted  management  plans,  and   2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  
Islands]  in  systems  that  provide  food  security   Participatory  action  research  groups  report   marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
2018   and  livelihood  benefits   improvements  in  management   productive  and  equitable  management  
1)  Documentation  of  processes  for  effective  
Outcomes  of  local  institutional  development   institutional  development,  2)  Resource  
documented  in  5  countries  [Bangladesh,   management  plans,  3)  Gender  disaggregated  
Cambodia,  Myanmar,  Zambia  and  Solomon   data  of  local  outcomes  of  institutional  
Islands]  and  key  national  and  sub-­‐national   development  4)  Outcomes  of  dialogues  with   2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  
partners  identify  specific  opportunities  for   partners  and  other  stakeholders  on  scaling   marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
2018   scaling  and  institutionalizing  the  models   successful  local  institutional  models   productive  and  equitable  management  
Civil  society  and  government  co-­‐management  
partners  adopt  gender  sensitive  and  
transformative  approaches  to  natural  resource   Pre  versus  post  capacity  assessment  of  civil  
management  and  development  in  5  focal   society  and  government  partners  capacity  to  
countries  [Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar,   consider  gender  in  their  management   2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  
Zambia  and  Solomon  Islands]  and  1  scaling   approaches.  Posthoc  review  of  implementation   marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
2019   [Philippines]   of  management  approaches  in  partner  sites   productive  and  equitable  management  
Improved  management  practices  are  promoted  
by  government  and  NGO  partners  in  5   2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  
countries  [Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar,   Diffusion  of  innovation  research,  reports  based   marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
2019   Zambia  and  Solomon  Islands]   on  partner  program  documentation   productive  and  equitable  management  
Adaptive  co-­‐management  approaches  
promoted  by  NGO  and  government  partners  
are  more  able  to  build  sustainability  and  
resilience  in  5  countries  [Bangladesh,   2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  
Cambodia,  Myanmar,  Zambia,  Solomon   Diffusion  of  innovation  research,  reports  based   marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
2019   Islands]  and  1  scaling  [Philippines]   on  partner  program  documentation   productive  and  equitable  management  

18  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Year   Milestone  description   Means  of  verifying   For  which  outcomes  

Government  and  civil  society  development  
organizations  in  5  countries  [Bangladesh,  
Cambodia,  Myanmar,  Zambia  and  Solomon  
Islands]  adopt  policies  and  land  and  water  
resource  governance  models  better  oriented  to   2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  
recognizing  multiple  values  of  these  resources   Analysis  of  policy  statements  and  policy  and   marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
2019   and  trade-­‐offs  amongst  them   program  content.   productive  and  equitable  management  
Increased  fishery  yields  and/or  increased  
retention  of  livelihood  benefits  for  poor  and  
marginalized  in  5  countries  [Bangladesh,   Fish  catch  data  from  direct  engagement  
Cambodia,  Myanmar,  Zambia  and  Solomon   indicates  improved  yields  and  household  data   2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  
Islands]  as  a  result  of  improved  management   indicates  improved  fisheries  contributions  to   marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
2020   practices  adopted   household  income   productive  and  equitable  management  

Reports  based  on  national  and  regional  policy  

documents  monitoring  of  policies  in  which  
research  outputs  and  recommendations  are  
Trade  and  economic  policies  better  support   integrated  monitoring  of  programs  where   1  million  fishery-­‐dependent  households  have  
and  protect  livelihoods  from  SSF  in  Africa  Great   policy  and  management  recommendations  are   reduced  poverty  as  a  result  of  adopting  
2020   Lakes,  Lower  Mekong  and  Pacific  regions   implemented   improved  fisheries  management  

0.6  million  households  in  5  countries   Reports  based  on  partner  program  
[Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar,  Zambia,   documentation  of  management  plans,  and   1  million  fishery-­‐dependent  households  have  
Solomon  Islands]  benefiting  from   reviews  of  co-­‐management  coverage  and   reduced  poverty  as  a  result  of  adopting  
2020   improvements  in  equitable  access  to  fisheries   performance   improved  fisheries  management  
Civil  society  and  government  co-­‐management   Pre  versus  post  capacity  assessment  of  civil  
partners  adopt  gender  sensitive  and   society  and  government  partners  capacity  to  
transformative  approaches  to  natural  resource   consider  gender  in  their  management   2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  
management  and  development  in  a  further  2   approaches.  Posthoc  review  of  implementation   marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
2021   scaling  countries  [Tanzania,  Vietnam]   of  management  approaches  in  partner  sites   productive  and  equitable  management  

19  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Year   Milestone  description   Means  of  verifying   For  which  outcomes  

Adaptive  co-­‐management  approaches  
promoted  by  NGO  and  government  partners  
are  more  able  to  build  sustainability  and   2.1  million  hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal  
resilience  in  additional  2  scaling  countries   Diffusion  of  innovation  research,  reports  based   marine  habitat  restored  and  under  more  
2021   [Tanzania,  Vietnam]   on  partner  program  documentation   productive  and  equitable  management  

1  million  households  in  8  countries  

(Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar,  Zambia,   Reports  based  on  partner  program  
Solomon  Islands,  Tanzania,  Philippines  and   documentation  of  management  plans,  and   1  million  fishery-­‐dependent  households  have  
Vietnam)  live  within  resilient  social-­‐ecological   reviews  of  co-­‐management  coverage  and   reduced  poverty  as  a  result  of  adopting  
2022   systems   performance   improved  fisheries  management  
1  million  households  in  8  countries  
[Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar,  Zambia,   Reports  based  on  partner  program  
Solomon  Islands,  Tanzania,  Philippines  and   documentation  of  management  plans,  and   1  million  fishery-­‐dependent  households  have  
Vietnam]  benefiting  from  improvements  in   reviews  of  co-­‐management  coverage  and   reduced  poverty  as  a  result  of  adopting  
2022   equitable  access  to  fisheries   performance   improved  fisheries  management  
 
   

20  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

FP3-­‐Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  for  nutrition  and  health  of  the  poor  

PIM  Table  B:  Flagship  level:  outcomes  by  windows  of  funding  
Amount   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other  
2022  outcome  description  
needed  ($)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (Amount)   (Amount)   (Amount)   (Amount)  
1.2  million  households  have  greater  
productivity  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  from  
their  own  ponds  or  rice  field  fisheries   6,650,000   32   0   68   0   2,128,000   0   4,522,000   0  

1  million  low-­‐income  consumers  consuming  

greater  amounts  of  high-­‐quality  nutritious  
fish  due  to  reductions  in  waste  and  loss,  
improvements  in  food  safety  and  more  
efficient  value  chains   6,650,000   32   0   68   0   2,128,000   0   4,522,000   0  

Novel  fish-­‐based  products  designed  to  

address  nutrition  gaps  reach  at  least  100,000  
low-­‐income  women  and  children   7,480,000   32   0   68   0   2,393,600   0   5,086,400   0  

30%  increase  in  the  proportion  of  mothers  in  

target  geographies  who  report  feeding  fish  to  
their  children  in  the  past  week   2,490,000   32   0   68   0   796,800   0   1,693,200   0  

4  countries  adopt  policy  measures  or  country  

investment  plans  addressing  nutrition-­‐
sensitive  technologies  or  practices  for  fish  
production  or  value  chains,  including  reduced  
waste  and  loss   9,970,568   32   0   68   0   3,190,582   0   6,779,986   0  
    33,240,568                   10,636,982   0   22,603,586   0  
 

21  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

PIM  Table  C:  Flagship  level:  investments  by  sub-­‐IDO’s  

Amount   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other   W1+W2   W3   Bilateral   Other  
Sub-­‐IDO  
needed  ($)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (%)   (Amount)   (Amount)   (Amount)   (Amount)  
Increased  availability  of  diverse  
nutrient-­‐rich  foods   6,700,000   32   0   68   0   2,144,000   0   4,556,000   0  
Increased  access  to  diverse  
nutrient-­‐rich  foods   4,300,000   32   0   68   0   1,376,000   0   2,924,000   0  
Optimized  consumption  of  
diverse  nutrient-­‐rich  foods   3,400,000   32   0   68   0   1,088,000   0   2,312,000   0  
Reduced  biological  and  chemical  
hazards  in  the  food  system   2,000,000   32   0   68   0   640,000   0   1,360,000   0  
Reduced  pre  and  post  harvest  
losses,  incl.  climate  change   2,000,000   32   0   68   0   640,000   0   1,360,000   0  
Increased  livelihood  
opportunities   2,000,000   32   0   68   0   640,000   0   1,360,000   0  
Improved  capacity  of  women  and  
young  people  to  participate  in  
decision-­‐making   12,840,568   32   0   68   0   4,108,982   0   8,731,586   0  
    33,240,568                   10,636,982   0   22,603,586   0  
 
   

22  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

PIM  Table  D:  Flagship  level:  annual  milestones  table  

 
Year   Milestone  description   Means  of  verifying   For  which  outcomes  
Community  groups,  NGOs  and  private  sector  
begin  to  adopt  nutrition-­‐sensitive  technologies   1.2  million  households  have  greater  
for  enhanced  production  of  mola/other  SIS  and   Partner  contacts  from  annual  outcome  review   productivity  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  from  
2018   harvesting  by  women  in  Bangladesh   identify  uptake  by  partners   their  own  ponds  or  rice  field  fisheries.  
Novel  fish-­‐based  products  designed  to  address  
Partners  have  started  to  produce  at  least  one   Partner  contacts  from  annual  outcome  review   nutrition  gaps  reaching  at  least  100,000  low-­‐
2018   fish  based  product  at  scale  in  Bangladesh   identify  uptake  by  partners   income  women  and  children.  
1  million  low  income  consumers  consuming  
Investment  by  at  least  two  value  chain  actors  in   greater  amounts  of  high  quality  nutritious  fish  
new  processing  technologies/adoption  of   due  to  reductions  in  waste  and  loss,  
improved  handling  and  storage  methods   Partner  contacts  from  annual  outcome  review   improvements  in  food  safety  and  more  
2019   [Bangladesh,  Tanzania]   identify  uptake  by  partners   efficient  value  chains.  
At  least  two  development  partners  adopt  
nutrition-­‐sensitive  technologies  for  enhanced   1.2  million  households  have  greater  
productivity  of  rice-­‐field  systems  at  scale   Partner  contacts  from  annual  outcome  review   productivity  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  from  
2019   [Bangladesh,  Cambodia]   identify  uptake  by  partners   their  own  ponds  or  rice  field  fisheries.  
300,000  households  have  greater  productivity  
of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  from  their  own  ponds   1.2  million  households  have  greater  
or  rice  field  fisheries  in  2  focal  countries   Sample  surveys,  project  reporting  and   productivity  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  from  
2019   [Bangladesh,  Cambodia]   coverage  estimates   their  own  ponds  or  rice  field  fisheries.  
Policy  statements  supporting  development  and  
dissemination  of  nutrition-­‐sensitive  
technologies  for  aquaculture  and/or  fisheries   4  countries  adopt  policy  measures  or  country  
adopted  in  country  investment  plans  for   investment  plans  addressing  nutrition-­‐sensitive  
agriculture  in  2  countries  [Bangladesh,   technologies  or  practices  for  fish  production  or  
2019   Cambodia]   Tracking  country  policies   value  chains,  including  reduced  waste  and  loss  
Fish  based  products  consumed  by  40,000   Novel  fish-­‐based  products  designed  to  address  
women/infants  [Bangladesh,  Cambodia,   nutrition  gaps  reaching  at  least  100,000  low-­‐
2019   Tanzania]   Outcome  tracking/sample  surveys   income  women  and  children.  

23  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Year   Milestone  description   Means  of  verifying   For  which  outcomes  

Partners  integrate  fish  in  diets  in  the  first  1,000   30%  increase  in  the  proportion  of  mothers  in  
days  into  their  BCC  programs  in  3  countries   target  geographies  Â  who  report  feeding  fish  
2019   [Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Tanzania]   Partner  surveillance   to  their  children  in  the  past  week  
Capacity  of  10  policy  makers  in  two  countries  
enhanced  to  understand  and  use  research   4  countries  adopt  policy  measures  or  country  
outcomes  related  to  fish  value  chains  for  poor   investment  plans  addressing  nutrition-­‐sensitive  
consumers  and  fish  waste  and  losses   technologies  or  practices  for  fish  production  or  
2020   [Bangladesh,  Tanzania]   Workshop  surveys   value  chains,  including  reduced  waste  and  loss  
1  million  low  income  consumers  consuming  
At  least  2  successful  small  fish  value  chain   greater  amounts  of  high  quality  nutritious  fish  
interventions  are  scaled  up  beyond  immediate   due  to  reductions  in  waste  and  loss,  
target  regions  (e.g.  Kenya,  Uganda  in  Lake   Tracking  major  project  developments  in   improvements  in  food  safety  and  more  
2020   Victoria  region  and  other  parts  of  Bangladesh)   countries  of  interest   efficient  value  chains.  
One  major  public  sector  program  adopts  fish-­‐ Novel  fish-­‐based  products  designed  to  address  
based  products  in  2  countries  [Bangladesh,   nutrition  gaps  reaching  at  least  100,000  low-­‐
2020   Cambodia]   Outcome  tracking   income  women  and  children.  
Investment  policies  in  2  additional  countries  
include  concrete  description  of  investments  in   4  countries  adopt  policy  measures  or  country  
nutrition-­‐sensitive  fisheries  and  aquaculture   investment  plans  addressing  nutrition-­‐sensitive  
technologies  or  value  chain  investments  [India,   technologies  or  practices  for  fish  production  or  
2021   Myanmar]   Tracking  country  policies   value  chains,  including  reduced  waste  and  loss  
Fish  based  products  consumed  by  80,000   Novel  fish-­‐based  products  designed  to  address  
women/infants  [Bangladesh,  Cambodia,   nutrition  gaps  reaching  at  least  100,000  low-­‐
2021   Myanmar,  Tanzania  and  Zambia]   Outcome  tracking/sample  surveys   income  women  and  children.  
Additional  500,000  households  have  greater  
productivity  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  from  
their  own  ponds  or  rice  field  fisheries  in  3  focal   1.2  million  households  have  greater  
countries  [Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar]   Sample  surveys,  project  reporting  and   productivity  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  from  
2021   and  one  scaling  country  [India]   coverage  estimates   their  own  ponds  or  rice  field  fisheries.  

24  |  P a g e  
 
 Performance  Indicator  Matrix  tables:  FISH  CRP  
 

Year   Milestone  description   Means  of  verifying   For  which  outcomes  

1.2  million  households  have  greater  
productivity  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  from   1.2  million  households  have  greater  
their  own  ponds  or  rice  field  fisheries   Sample  surveys,  project  reporting  and   productivity  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  from  
2022   [Bangladesh,  India,  Cambodia,  Myanmar]   coverage  estimates   their  own  ponds  or  rice  field  fisheries.  
Fish-­‐based  products  consumed  by  100,000   Novel  fish-­‐based  products  designed  to  address  
women/infants  [Bangladesh,  Cambodia,   nutrition  gaps  reaching  at  least  100,000  low-­‐
2022   Myanmar,  Tanzania,  Zambia]   Outcome  tracking,  production  figures   income  women  and  children.  
One  major  public  sector  program  adopts  fish-­‐ Novel  fish-­‐based  products  designed  to  address  
based  products  in  2  additional  countries   nutrition  gaps  reaching  at  least  100,000  low-­‐
2022   [Tanzania,  Myanmar]   Outcome  tracking   income  women  and  children.  
In  each  target  value  chain:  10%  reduction  in  
physical  quantity  lost  30%  reduction  in  
monetary  value  lost  30%  reduction  in  
nutritional  value  lost  20%  reduction  in   1  million  low  income  consumers  consuming  
occurrence  of  biological  and  heavy  metal   greater  amounts  of  high  quality  nutritious  fish  
contaminants  above  threshold  levels  hazardous   due  to  reductions  in  waste  and  loss,  
to  human  health  in  samples  [Tanzania,   Reports  from  lab  tests  and  estimates  from   improvements  in  food  safety  and  more  
2022   Bangladesh,  Kenya]   research   efficient  value  chains.  
30%  increase  in  the  proportion  of  mothers  in  
target  geographies  who  report  feeding  fish  to   30%  increase  in  the  proportion  of  mothers  in  
their  children  in  the  past  week  [Bangladesh,   target  geographies  Â  who  report  feeding  fish  
2022   Cambodia,  Tanzania]   Before/after  surveys  in  focus  geographies   to  their  children  in  the  past  week  
 

25  |  P a g e  
 
Section  3  Annexes  
 
List  of  Annexes  
Annex  3.1  List  of  acronyms  ...................................................................................................................................................  2  
Annex  3.2  Partnership  strategy  ............................................................................................................................................  5  
Annex  3.3  Capacity  development  strategy  ........................................................................................................................  15  
Annex  3.4  Gender    ..............................................................................................................................................................  23  
Annex  3.5  Youth  strategy  ...................................................................................................................................................  29  
Annex  3.6  Results-­‐based  management  ..............................................................................................................................  32  
Annex  3.7  Linkages  with  other  CRPs  and  site  integration  .................................................................................................  40  
Annex  3.8  Staffing  of  management  team  and  flagship  projects  .......................................................................................  51  
Annex  3.9  Open  access  (OA)  and  open  data  (OD)  management  .......................................................................................  97  
Annex  3.10  Intellectual  asset  management  .....................................................................................................................  100  
Annex  3.11    Explanatory  notes  regarding  SLO  outcome  targets,  assumptions,  and  supporting  evidence  ....................  104  
Annex  3.12  References  .....................................................................................................................................................  117  

   

  1
 
Annex  3.1  List  of  acronyms  
 
A4NH   Agriculture  for  Nutrition  and  Health  CRP  
AAS   Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems  CRP  
ADB   Asian  Development  Bank  
ARC   Agricultural  Research  Center  
ARIs   Advanced  Research  Institutes  
ASARECA   Association  for  Strengthening  Agricultural  Research  in  Eastern  and  Central  Africa  
AU   African  Union  
AU-­‐IBAR   Inter-­‐African  Bureau  for  Animal  Resources  
AU-­‐NEPAD   New  Partnership  for  Africa's  Development  
ASEAN   Association  of  Southeast  Asian  Nations  
BAR   Bureau  of  Agricultural  Research  
BAU   Bangladesh  Agricultural  University  
BCC   behavior  change  communication  
BFAR   Bureau  of  Fisheries  and  Aquatic  Resources  
BFRF   Bangladesh  Fisheries  Research  Forum  
BFRI   Bangladesh  Fisheries  Research  Institute  
BMP   best  management  practices  
BoT   Board  of  Trustees  
BRAC   Bangladesh  Rural  Advancement  Committee  
CAADP   Comprehensive  African  Agriculture  Development  Program  
CAPRi   Collective  Action  and  Property  Rights  initiative  
CARE   Cooperative  for  Assistance  and  Relief  Everywhere  
CCAFS   Climate  Change,  Agriculture  and  Food  Security  CRP  
CCARDESA   Centre  for  Coordination  of  Agricultural  Research  and  Development  for  Southern  Africa  
CEFAS   Center  for  Environment,  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Science  
CGIAR   Consultative  Group  for  International  Agricultural  Research  
CIRAD   French  Agricultural  Research  Centre  for  International  Development  
CODEC   Community  Development  Centre    
COMESA   Common  Market  for  Eastern  and  Southern  Africa  
CORAF   Conference  of  African  and  French  leaders  of  agricultural  research  institutes  
CSIRO   Commonwealth  Scientific  and  Industrial  Research  Organisation  
CLAR   ARC-­‐Central  Laboratory  for  Aquaculture  Research  
CNRS   Centre  for  Natural  Resource  Studies  
CRP   CGIAR  research  program  
CTI   Coral  Triangle  Initiative  
DAE   Department  of  Agriculture  Extension  
DALYs   disability-­‐adjusted  life  years  
EAC   East  African  Community  
eDNA   environmental  DNA  
FAO   Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations  
FARA   Forum  for  Agricultural  Research  in  Africa  
FETA   Fisheries  Education  and  Training  Agency  
FiA   Fisheries  Administration  (Cambodia)  
FISH   CGIAR  research  program  on  fish  agri-­‐food  systems  
FRDN   Fisheries  Research  and  Development  Network  
FP   flagship  project  
GAFRD   General  Authority  for  Fisheries  Resources  Development  
GIFT   Genetically  Improved  Farmed  Tilapia  
GIS   geographic  information  system  
GIZ   Deutsche  Gesellschaft  für  Internationale  Zusammenarbeit  
GLDC     Grains,  Legumes  and  Dryland  Cereals  
HIES   Household  Income  and  Expenditure  Survey  
HKI   Helen  Keller  International  
HSPH   Harvard  University  School  of  Public  Health  
icddr,b   International  Centre  for  Diarrhoeal  Disease  Research,  Bangladesh  

  2
 
IBAMO   Iligan  Bay  Alliance  of  Misamis  Occidental  
iDE   International  Development  Enterprise  
iiDE   International  Institute  for  Development  of  Environment  
IDOs   Intermediate  Development  Outcomes  
IFPRI   International  Food  Policy  Research  Institute  
IFReDI   Inland  Fisheries  Research  and  Development  Institute  
IIFET   International  Institute  of  Fisheries  Economics  and  Trade  
ILRI   International  Livestock  Research  Institute  
iNGO   International  Non-­‐Governmental  Organization  
IP   intellectual  property  
IPG   international  public  good  
IPGs   international  public  goods  
ISC   Independent  Steering  Committee  
ISPC   Independent  Science  and  Partnerships  Council  
IUCN   World  Conservation  Union  
IWMI   International  Water  Management  Institute  
JCU   James  Cook  University  
JHU   Johns  Hopkins  University  
JHU-­‐CCP   Johns  Hopkins  University  Center  for  Communication  Programs  
KIT   Royal  Tropical  Institute  (Netherlands)  
KFTI   Kasaka  Fisheries  Training  Institute  
L&F   Livestock  and  Fish  CRP  
LCA   lifecycle  assessment  
LGED   Local  Government  Engineering  Department  
LIFDC   Low-­‐income  Food-­‐Deficit  Countries  
LMMA   Locally  Managed  Marine  Area  network  
LUANAR   Lilongwe  University  of  Agriculture  and  Natural  Resources  
LVFO   Lake  Victoria  Fisheries  Organization  
M&E   monitoring  and  evaluation  
MC   anagement  committee  
MECDM   Ministry  of  Environment,  Climate  and  Disaster  Management  
MFMR   Ministry  of  Fisheries  and  Marine  Resources  
MRC   Mekong  River  Commission  
MSD   Merck  Sharp  &  Dohme  
MSU   Michigan  State  University  
NARS   National  Agricultural  Research  Systems  
NARES   National  Agricultural  Research  and  Extension  Systems  
NEPAD   New  Partnership  for  Africa’s  Development  
NGOs   nongovernmental  organizations  
NRI   Natural  Resources  Institute  
NRDC   Natural  Resources  Development  College  
NULS   Norwegian  University  of  Life  Sciences  
OAIS   Open  Archival  Information  System  
PAMB   Protected  Area  Management  Bureau  
PIM   Policies,  Institutions  and  Markets  CRP  
R&D   research  and  development  
RIA2   Research  Institute  for  Aquaculture  No.  2  (Vietnam)  
RICE   Rice  agri-­‐food  systems  CRP  
RTB   Roots,  Tubers  and  Bananas  CRP  
RVCL   Royal  Veterinary  College  London  
SAARC   South  Asian  Association  for  Regional  Cooperation  
SADC   Southern  Africa  Development  Community  
SDG   Sustainable  Development  Goal  
SDGs   Sustainable  Development  Goals  
SIWRP   Sub-­‐Institute  for  Water  Resources  Planning  (Vietnam)  
SLO   system-­‐level  outcome  
SNP   single  nucleotide  polymorphism  
SPC   Secretariat  of  the  Pacific  Community  

  3
 
SPIA   Standing  Panel  on  Impact  Assessment  (of  the  CGIAR)  
SSF   small-­‐scale  fisheries  
SRF   Strategy  and  Results  Framework  (of  the  CGIAR)  
SRUC   Scotland’s  Rural  College  
STRP   Scientific  and  Technical  Review  Panel  
SUA   Sokoine  University  of  Agriculture  
SUN   Scaling  Up  Nutrition  
SUZA   State  University  of  Zanzibar  
TGAC   the  Genome  Analysis  Centre  
ToC   theory  of  change  
TSA   Tonle  Sap  Authority  (Cambodia)  
UCC   University  College  Cork  
UN   United  Nations  
UoS   University  of  Stirling  
USAID   United  States  Agency  for  International  Development  
WLE   Water,  Land  and  Ecosystems  CRP  
WRI   World  Resources  Institute  
WUR   Wageningen  University    

  4
 
Annex  3.2  Partnership  strategy  
 
Introduction  
The  program  engages  a  network  of  multi-­‐stakeholder  partnerships  to  harness  emerging  science  in  aquaculture  and  
fisheries  and  channel  this  towards  achieving  improved  development  outcomes  at  scale.  These  partnerships  are  central  
to  the  impact  pathways  of  FISH  and  the  program’s  theories  of  change,  and  the  capacity  to  work  effectively  in  
partnerships  is  an  essential  requirement  for  staff  working  in  the  program.  The  present  partnership  strategy  summarizes  
key  elements  of  the  program’s  approach  to  identifying  and  working  through  these  partnerships,  including  providing  
examples  of  the  specific  contribution  made  by  partners  to  achieving  the  program’s  outcome  targets.  
 
Types  of  partners  
The  program  recognizes  five  broad  types  of  partners  working  along  the  pathway  from  discovery  to  proof  of  concept  and  
scaling.  We  recognize  that  many  partners  work  across  all  three  stages,  but  that  most  have  a  particularly  important  role  
to  play  in  one.  
 
CGIAR  centers  and  programs.  FISH  will  be  led  by  WorldFish,  leveraging  the  close  alignment  between  the  program’s  
strategic  goals  and  the  mandate  of  the  center.  IWMI  will  bring  important  expertise  and  networks  in  water  management,  
governance  and  resilience,  and  will  lead  the  fish  in  multifunctional  landscapes  cluster  of  FP2.  In  addition,  the  FISH  CRP  
will  partner  with  other  CRPs  on  specific  areas  where  there  are  strong  complementarities  between  the  programs.  
Similarly,  the  program  will  seek  to  work  closely  with  other  CRPs  in  each  of  the  focal  countries,  in  particular  the  countries  
identified  as  priorities  for  CGIAR  site  integration.  (See  details  on  CRP  linkages  and  site  integration  in  Annex  3.7).  
Individual  Centers  will  also  contribute  to  specific  research  topics  as  required,  such  as  Bioversity  on  sustainable  
intensification.  
 
Advanced  research  institutes  (ARIs).  A  central  premise  of  FISH  is  that  the  program  provides  an  opportunity  to  enhance  
CGIAR  capability  and  impact  by  building  strong  partnerships  with  ARIs.  The  program  delivers  on  this  commitment  by  
engaging  ARIs  in  the  discovery  and  proof  of  concept  stages  of  the  program’s  research.  This  includes,  in  particular,  ARI  
partners  who  not  only  complement  CGIAR  capacity  directly  with  their  skills  in  the  specific  areas  of  research  required  by  
the  program,  but  also  extend  the  program’s  networks  and  open  opportunities  for  capacity  development  and  scaling.  
Reflecting  this  approach,  three  ARIs  have  been  engaged  as  managing  partners  (see  modalities):  the  Aquatic  and  
Fisheries  Group  in  the  Animal  Sciences  Department  at  Wageningen  University,  which  brings  leading-­‐edge  science  
capacity  in  fish  nutrition,  health  and  aquaculture  feeds  development;  the  Australian  Research  Council  Centre  of  
Excellence  for  Coral  Reef  Studies  at  James  Cook  University  (JCU),  which  brings  together  leading  research  institutions  
focusing  on  ecosystem  goods  and  services  of  coral  reefs;  and  the  Natural  Resources  Institute  (NRI)  at  University  of  
Greenwich,  which  brings  expertise  in  fisheries  postharvest  technology  and  food  safety.  Each  of  these  ARIs  will  lead  a  
flagship  cluster  of  activity  and  serve  on  the  program’s  management  committee.  
 
A  broad  range  of  other  ARIs  will  provide  specific  contributions  at  the  discovery  and  proof  of  concept  stages  in  each  
flagship.  For  example,  a  coalition  of  ARIs  will  work  through  the  program  to  apply  recent  advances  in  molecular  genetics  
to  further  enhance  the  rate  of  genetic  gain  in  the  program’s  research  on  improved  breeds  of  tilapia  and  carp.  This  will  
involve  discovery  research,  including  development  of  a  single  nucleotide  polymorphism  chip  for  tilapia,  and  delivery  
research  through  support  to  national  breeding  programs  in  focal  countries  in  Africa  (Egypt,  Nigeria,  Tanzania,  Zambia)  
and  Asia  (Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar).  Similarly,  Johns  Hopkins  University  (JHU)’s  School  of  Public  Health  will  
contribute  expertise  in  designing  randomized  control  trials  to  test  the  impact  of  consumption  of  fish  and  fish-­‐based  
products  on  health,  pregnancy  and  child  development  outcomes  in  Bangladesh  (discovery  and  proof  of  concept).  JHU’s  
Center  for  Development  Communication  also  brings  strong  capability  in  the  design  of  behavior  change  communication  
(BCC)  and  will  lead  the  design  of  this  research  (proof  of  concept).  
 
National  Agricultural  Research  and  Extension  Systems  (NARES).  National  research  partners,  including  government  
research  institutions  and  universities,  are  central  to  the  program’s  research  in  all  focal  countries.  This  includes  both  
discovery  and  delivery  research,  and  many  of  these  institutions  also  play  key  roles  in  scaling  through  capacity  
development  and  policy  influence.  For  example,  the  Bangladesh  Agricultural  University  (BAU)  will  lead  experimental  
  5
 
trials  in  the  management  of  mola  broodstock  and  polyculture  systems  (discovery),  while  also  leading  research  on  the  
application  of  successful  approaches  within  household  farming  systems  in  Bangladesh  (proof  of  concept).  BAU  will  also  
work  with  the  Bangladesh  Fisheries  Research  Institute  in  conducting  trials  and  field  testing  of  diagnostic  tools,  best  
management  practices,  novel  prophylactics  and  vaccines  in  research  stations  and  farmers’  ponds  for  both  tilapia  and  
carp  (discovery  and  proof  of  concept).  Similarly,  in  Egypt,  Ain  Shams  University  will  lead  field  research  on  genotype-­‐
environment  interactions  of  the  Abbassa  tilapia  strain  (discovery),  and  Kafr  El  Sheikh  University  and  the  Central  
Laboratory  for  Aquaculture  Research  will  lead  farm  trials  and  verification  of  aquaculture  systems  research  (proof  of  
concept).  
 
Private  sector.  Effective  private  sector  partnerships  are  essential  for  successful  scaling  and  extensive  use  of  the  
technologies  developed  through  FISH,  in  particular  for  flagships  1  and  3.  As  a  result,  private  sector  engagement  is  being  
pursued  wherever  appropriate  at  all  stages  of  the  program’s  impact  pathways,  from  development  and  testing  of  
technologies  (discovery  and  proof  of  concept)  through  design  and  implementation  of  scaling  strategies.  For  example,  at  
the  global  level  we  are  partnering  in  FP1  with  Skretting  through  a  new  research  facility  at  the  WorldFish  Abbassa  facility  
for  raw  material  evaluations  and  fish  feed  developments  (discovery),  Merck/MSD  on  the  development  of  new  
treatments  for  emerging  tilapia  diseases  (discovery),  and  Aquaspark  in  development  and  testing  of  models  for  financing  
of  emergent  aquaculture  enterprises  (discovery-­‐scaling).  Similarly,  in  Bangladesh,  we  will  continue  existing  collaboration  
with  Nicobena  in  the  development  of  a  fish  chutney  (discovery-­‐scaling)  and  Mark  Foods  in  development  of  fish-­‐based  
complementary  foods  (discovery-­‐scaling).  
 
Development  institutions.  Many  different  types  of  development  institutions,  including  government  ministries  
responsible  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture,  food  security,  and  environment;  national  and  international  NGOs  working  at  
local  to  global  scales;  regional  and  global  development  agencies;  and  bilateral  and  multilateral  donors  play  critical  roles  
at  all  stages  in  the  program’s  impact  pathways.  In  Solomon  Islands,  for  example,  the  Governments  of  Malaita  and  
Western  Provinces,  the  Ministry  of  Fisheries  and  Marine  Resources,  and  the  Ministry  of  Environment,  Climate  and  
Disaster  Management  have  collaborated  in  designing  the  program’s  research  agenda.  This  has  not  only  helped  ensure  
that  the  program  addresses  provincial  and  national  priorities  but  also  helps  establish  the  enabling  environment  essential  
for  effective  interventions  and  national  and  regional  scaling  (proof  of  concept-­‐scaling).  Similarly,  the  Department  of  
Fisheries  Research  Division  has  co-­‐designed  the  program’s  research  agenda  in  Myanmar  and  will  help  foster  the  
necessary  enabling  environment  for  implementation.    
 
At  the  regional  level,  the  program  will  work  closely  with  the  Secretariat  of  the  Pacific  Community  (SPC)  to  align  research  
with  the  regional  initiative  on  coastal  fisheries  and  food  security.  The  Noumea  Strategy  has  universal  support  from  
political  leadership  in  the  region  to  chart  a  new  course  for  coastal  fisheries.  Through  ongoing  bilateral  projects  
WorldFish  is  already  closely  involved  in  the  network  of  national  agencies  seeking  to  ground  the  initiative  in  national  
fisheries  policy  agendas,  and  this  will  be  strengthened  through  the  FISH  program.    
 
Similarly  for  FP1  has  been  designed  to  align  explicitly  with  the  priorities  of  the  African  Union’s  Pan-­‐African  Plan  of  Action  
for  sustainable  aquaculture  development  and  national  priorities  such  as  improved  seed,  feed  and  fish  health  that  are  
being  pursued  under  this  framework.  By  working  closely  with  AU-­‐IBAR  and  NEPAD  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  
this  research  agenda,  and  in  the  dissemination  of  outputs  through  support  to  capacity  development  and  policy  
initiatives,  the  program  is  also  positioned  to  contribute  to  achieving  outcomes  at  wider  scale  as  an  increasing  number  of  
African  countries  expand  their  investment  in  aquaculture  development  under  their  CAADP  compacts  (scaling).    
 
At  global  and  regional  levels,  the  program  will  work  closely  with  a  number  of  international  development  agencies  to  
scale  innovations  and  influence  institutional  norms.    These  will  include  FAO  with  whom  WorldFish  already  works  closely,  
as  well  as  EC,  GIZ,  IFAD  USAID,  World  Bank  and  other  development  investors.  As  part  of  the  design  of  the  FISH  program,  
GIZ  convened  a  workshop  on  scaling  that  brought  together  development  partners  engaged  in  fisheries  and  aquaculture.    
Building  upon  this  workshop,  GIZ/CIM  will  provide  an  integrated  expert  to  support  scaling  activities  of  FISH.  
 
 

  6
 
Selection  of  partners  
To  identify  specific  partners  in  each  of  the  focal  countries  and  at  regional  and  global  levels,  the  program  has  considered  
the  mandate,  capacities  and  track  record  of  potential  partner  institutions.  In  some  cases,  these  institutions  self-­‐select  
given  their  unique  mandate  (for  example,  dedicated  government  agencies),  but  for  most  research  partners  and  many  
development  partners  there  are  many  potential  options.  In  these  situations  we  have  drawn  upon  documented  evidence  
of  comparative  advantage  and  track  record,  including  publication  record  and  annual  reports,  as  well  as  specific  CGIAR  
experience  of  working  with  these  institutions.    
 
Partnership  modalities  
The  program  recognizes  two  primary  levels  of  partnership  engagement  and  associated  modalities:  
• Managing  partners  lead  clusters  of  activity,  and  in  this  capacity  serve  on  the  program’s  management  
committee.  Managing  partners  are  WorldFish,  which  leads  the  program;  IWMI,  which  leads  the  cluster  on  fish  in  
multifunctional  landscapes  in  FP2;  the  Department  of  Aquaculture  and  Fisheries  at  Wageningen  University,  
which  leads  the  cluster  on  fish  health,  nutrition  and  feeds  in  FP1;  the  Australian  Research  Council  Centre  of  
Excellence  for  Coral  Reef  Studies  at  JCU,  which  leads  the  cluster  on  resilient  coastal  fisheries  in  FP2;  and  the  NRI  
at  University  of  Greenwich,  which  leads  the  cluster  on  fish  for  nutrition  and  health  of  women  and  children.  
Program  partnership  agreements  will  be  established  with  each  of  the  program’s  managing  partners.  
• Implementing  partners  engage  in  specific  aspects  of  the  program  along  the  pathway  from  discovery  to  delivery  
research  to  scaling.  A  range  of  modalities  are  used  to  govern  this  collaboration,  including  memoranda  of  
understanding  and  agreement  designed  to  align  activities  of  the  program  with  partners,  as  well  as  funding  
contracts  covering  specific  activities  undertaken  by  partners.  For  example,  WorldFish  has  longstanding  
agreements  with  governments  of  most  of  the  focal  countries  and  most  of  the  regional  partners  identified,  and  
these  will  be  developed  further  to  embrace  the  requirements  of  FISH.  Similarly,  WorldFish  and  IWMI  already  
work  in  existing  CRPs  and  bilateral  projects  through  funding  contracts  with  a  range  of  partners  that  will  play  key  
roles  in  FISH.  The  FISH  CRP  will  build  upon  these  and  develop  new  contracts  and  agreements  as  required.    
 
Strategic  partnerships  and  achievement  of  outcome  targets  
Many  of  the  program’s  partners  will  come  together  to  form  strategic  partnerships  focused  on  pursuing  components  of  
the  program  at  either  the  cluster  or  sub-­‐cluster  level.  A  selection  of  these  partnerships  is  summarized  in  Table  1.  Table  2  
complements  this  by  providing  examples  of  the  key  contributions  made  by  selected  groups  of  partners  to  achieving  the  
program’s  development  outcome  targets,  both  directly  in  the  locations  where  FISH  pursues  research  and  through  
scaling  to  other  locations  where  stakeholders  use  technologies  developed  through  FISH,  but  applying  these  without  the  
explicit  support  of  the  CRP.  Together  with  the  examples  of  non-­‐CGIAR  partners  at  discovery,  proof  of  concept  and  
scaling  stages  of  the  impact  pathways  (as  provided  in  Tables  7,  13  and  17  of  the  proposal)  these  analyses  show  how  the  
CRP  will  pursue  a  partnerships-­‐focused  implementation  strategy  that  harnesses  the  strengths  of  institutional  
comparative  advantage  and  is  guided  by  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  By  doing  so,  we  aim  to  focus  our  research  capacity  
on  the  issues  and  tasks  where  this  can  make  the  greatest  contribution  to  achieving  the  program’s  development  
outcomes  and  avoid  dissipation  of  this  capacity  in  development  activities.  
 
The  strategic  partnerships  outlined  in  Table  1  not  only  provide  a  key  mechanism  for  enhancing  the  quality  of  the  
program’s  science  across  multiple  geographies,  but  they  also  provide  a  platform  that  will  help  maximize  the  IPG  benefits  
of  the  program’s  research.  We  aim  to  do  so  by  engaging  partners  from  multiple  countries  in  the  work  of  these  
partnerships  and  through  this  help  disseminate,  adapt  and  further  improve  the  technologies  and  learning  generated  
through  the  program.  In  addition,  the  program  is  working  with  strategically  important  regional  and  global  partners  to  
scale  use  of  technologies  and  innovations.  Table  2  provides  an  example  of  this  approach  in  the  Pacific,  where  FISH  will  
build  on  longstanding  collaboration  between  WorldFish  and  the  Secretariat  of  the  Pacific  Community  to  disseminate  
improved  approaches  for  community-­‐based  fisheries  management.  Similar  examples  for  Africa  concern  scaling  use  of  
improved  tilapia  strains  and  other  aquaculture  technologies  through  the  program’s  partnership  with  AU-­‐IBAR  and  AU-­‐
NEPAD,  and  in  Asia  scaling  innovations  on  management  of  small-­‐scale  fisheries  in  multifunctional  landscapes  through  
the  program’s  partnership  with  the  Mekong  River  Commission.            
 

  7
 
 Example  1.  Tilapia  genomics  consortium  
Convener  of  the  partnership   WorldFish.  Convene  consortium  of  key  groups  working  on  tilapia  genomics,  together  
and  its  role   with  others  developing  genomic  selection  theory  and  its  application  to  fish.    
Specific  focus  and  objective   Use  of  advanced  genomic  techniques  to  accelerate  development  of  improved  tilapia  
breeds  and,  subsequently,  carp.  
Science  agenda   Development  of  a  single  nucleotide  polymorphism  chip  for  tilapia  as  an  approach  to  
the  rapid  genotyping  required,  drawing  on  recent  experiences  with  Atlantic  salmon;  
application  of  novel  methods  to  develop  biomarkers  that  reflect  the  integrated  effects  
of  environment,  feed  and  disease.    
Geographical  focus/location   Global  discovery  research  in  support  of  national  breeding  programs  in  focal  countries  
in  Africa  (Egypt,  Nigeria,  Tanzania,  Zambia)  and  Asia  (Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  
Myanmar).  
Role  of  the  CRP/FP  in  the   Convening  the  consortium  and  facilitating  its  focus  on  priority  traits  in  focal  countries.  
partnership  
Key  CGIAR  partner  and  its  role   WorldFish:  Convenes  the  consortium.  
Key  external  partners  and  their   Roslin  Institute  -­‐  University  of  Edinburgh;  University  of  Stirling;  Scotland’s  Rural  College  
roles   (SRUC);  James  Cook  University;  Nofima  (genomic  tools  for  identification  and  
incorporation  of  resilience  traits  and  efficiencies  in  fish  genetic  improvement  programs);  
The  Genomic  Analysis  Centre,  University  of  Norwich;  Bangor  University  (methods  for  
genomic  analysis  of  tilapia  genetic  diversity  and  domesticated-­‐wild  tilapia  interactions  in  
Africa);  Wageningen  University  and  CIRAD  (research  on  fish  genetics  environment,  yield  
gaps  and  feed  efficiencies).  
Contribution  to  ToC  and  impact   The  consortium  will  contribute  to  achieving  the  research  outputs  identified  under  cluster  1  
pathways   in  the  FP1  impact  pathway  and,  in  particular,  faster-­‐growing  and  resilient  tilapia  and  carp  
strains;  new  productivity  and  resilience  traits  identified  and  incorporated  into  fish  
breeding  programs;  and  knowledge  on  genomic  tools  and  methods  to  accelerate  genetic  
gain  and  incorporate  new  traits  into  fish  breeding  programs.  Through  the  program’s  wider  
partnerships  and  country-­‐level  research,  capacity  development  and  policy  activities,  these  
outputs  will  in  turn  contribute  to  the  development  outcomes  specified,  notably:  Fish  farm  
households  have  access  to  and  are  using  faster-­‐growing  and  resilient  tilapia  and  carp  
strains;  and  fish  farming  households  have  increased  fish  yield  and  income  from  adoption  
of  improved  fish  breeds.  
Example  2.  Fish  health  partnership  
Convener  of  the  partnership   Aquatic  and  Fisheries  Group  in  the  Animal  Sciences  Department,  Wageningen  
and  its  role   University.  Convene  partnership  of  leading  research  groups  addressing  fish  health  
issues  in  aquaculture  systems.    
Specific  focus  and  objective   Development  of  technologies  for  improved  fish  health  and  enhanced  performance  of  
genetically  improved  fish  breeds.  
Science  agenda   Population-­‐based  studies  to  assess  farm  performance  and  disease  susceptibility  of  
improved  tilapia  strains  in  different  agro-­‐climatic  conditions.  Development  of  
environmental  DNA  (eDNA)  technology  to  characterize  fish  and  pond  microbiomes,  
and  assess  their  role  in  growth  and  development  and  in  disease  susceptibility  and  
resistance.  
Geographical  focus/location   Global  discovery  research  in  support  of  national  breeding  programs  in  focal  countries  
in  Africa  (Egypt,  Nigeria,  Tanzania,  Zambia)  and  Asia  (Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  
Myanmar).  
Role  of  the  CRP/FP  in  the   Convening  the  consortium  and  facilitating  its  focus  on  priority  traits  in  focal  countries.  
partnership  
Key  CGIAR  partner  and  its  role   WorldFish:  On-­‐station  research  in  Egypt,  Bangladesh  and  Malaysia.  
Key  external  partners  and  their   Aquatic  and  Fisheries  Group  in  the  Animal  Sciences  Department,  Wageningen  
roles     University  (convenes  the  partnership);  CEFAS,  University  of  Exeter  and  University  of  
Stirling  (characterization  of  pond  microbiomes,  development  of  pond-­‐side  diagnostics  
and  early  warning  tools,  novel  alternative  prophylactic  products);  ARC-­‐CLAR,  Kafr  El  
Sheikh  University  and  Suez  Canal  University  (field  testing  of  diagnostic  tools,  fish  health  
management  packages,  novel  prophylactics  and  vaccines  in  research  stations  and  
farmer  ponds  for  tilapia);  BAU  and  BFRI  (trials  and  field  testing  of  diagnostic  tools,  fish  
health  management  packages,  novel  prophylactics  and  vaccines  in  research  stations  
  8
 
 and  farmer  ponds  for  tilapia  and  carp).  
Contribution  to  ToC  and  impact   The  partnership  will  contribute  to  achieving  the  research  outputs  identified  under  
pathways   cluster  2  in  the  FP1  impact  pathway  and  in  particular  fish  disease  surveillance  and  
diagnostic  tools;  integrated  fish  feed  and  health  management  packages  for  improved  
fish  strains;  and  knowledge  of  fish  nutrition,  health  and  genetic  interactions  to  inform  
future  fish  breeding  programs.  Through  the  program’s  wider  partnerships  and  country-­‐
level  research,  capacity  development  and  policy  activities,  these  outputs  will  in  turn  
contribute  to  the  development  outcomes  specified,  notably:  Fish  farmers  and  the  
private  sector  investing  in  fish  disease  diagnostic  tools;  and  public  and  private  agencies  
and  NGOs  incorporating  fish  health  improvements  into  aquaculture  extension  
activities.  
Example  3.  Partnership  for  resilient  coastal  fisheries  
Convener  of  the  partnership   The  Australian  Research  Council  Centre  of  Excellence  for  Coral  Reef  Studies  at  James  
and  its  role   Cook  University  (JCU).  Convene  consortium  of  key  groups  working  on  resilient  coastal  
fisheries.  
Specific  focus  and  objective   Using  research  to  improve  decentralized  management  and  livelihoods  in  coastal  
fisheries.  
Science  agenda   Analysis  of  the  contribution  of  multiscale  governance  to  increasing  ecological  
sustainability  and  gender-­‐equitable  benefit  flows  from  fisheries.  Tradeoffs  between  
longer-­‐term  systems  sustainability,  resilience  and  food  security,  and  more  immediate  
improvements  to  wellbeing.  How  to  build  resilience  in  SSF  at  national,  sub-­‐national  and  
local  levels  to  account  for  external  and  local  drivers  of  change.    
Geographical  focus/location   Global  discovery  analysis  in  support  of,  and  learning  from,  place-­‐based  research  in  
focal  countries  (Philippines,  Solomon  Islands,  Tanzania).  
Role  of  the  CRP/FP  in  the   Convening  the  partnership  and  facilitating  its  focus  on  priority  traits  in  focal  countries.  
partnership  
Key  CGIAR  partner  and  its  role   WorldFish:  Field  research  in  Philippines  and  Solomon  Islands.  
Key  external  partners  and  their   JCU  (design  of  research  agenda  for  coral  reef  fisheries);  Solomon  Islands:  Provincial  
roles     governments,  Ministry  of  Fisheries  and  Marine  Resources,  and  Ministry  of  
Environment,  Climate  and  Disaster  Management  (co-­‐design  of  research  agenda  and  
enabling  environment  for  interventions;  policy  development);  Philippines:  National  
Fisheries  Research  and  Development  Institute;  Bureau  of  Fisheries  and  Aquatic  
Resources  (BFAR)  (co-­‐design  of  research  agenda  and  enabling  environment  for  
interventions;  policy  development);  Palawan  State  University  and  UP  Marine  Science  
Institute  (lead  research  on  fisheries  governance);  Tanzania:  Ministry  of  Livestock  and  
Fisheries  (co-­‐design  of  research  agenda  and  provision  of  enabling  environment  for  
interventions;  policy  development);  University  of  Dar  es  Salaam  and  Tanzania  Fisheries  
Research  Institute  (research  on  community  fisheries);  Promundo  (guidance  on  gender  
and  livelihoods).  
Contribution  to  ToC  and  impact   The  partnership  will  contribute  to  achieving  the  research  outputs  identified  under  
pathways   cluster  1  in  the  FP2  impact  pathway  and,  in  particular,  co-­‐management  models  for  
inclusive  governance,  food  security  and  sustainability;  tradeoffs  assessed  between  
sustainability,  resilience,  food  security  and  wellbeing;  and  alternative  livelihood  
strategies  assessed.  Through  the  program’s  wider  partnerships  and  country-­‐level  
research,  capacity  development  and  policy  activities,  these  outputs  will  in  turn  
contribute  to  the  development  outcomes  specified,  notably:  Management  measures  
promoting  gender-­‐equitable  resource  access,  control  of  assets  and  benefits  for  fishery-­‐
dependent  households;  policies  and  programs  aligned  to  support  improved  livelihood  
opportunities,  increased  incomes  and  adaptive  capacity;  marine  environments  
producing  higher  yields,  contributing  to  livelihoods;  and  increased  socio-­‐ecological  
resilience  of  productive  systems  under  better  management.  
Example  4.  Partnership  for  resilient  small-­‐scale  fisheries  in  multifunctional  landscapes  
Convener  of  the  partnership   IWMI.  Convene  partners  across  all  stages  of  the  impact  pathway.  
and  their  role  
Specific  focus  and  objective   Using  research  to  improve  decentralized  management  and  livelihoods  in  inland  
fisheries  in  contested  landscapes.  
Science  agenda   Analysis  of  the  contribution  of  multiscale  governance  to  increasing  ecological  
  9
 
 sustainability  and  gender-­‐equitable  benefit  flows  from  fisheries.  Tradeoffs  among  
alternative  demands  on  landscapes  and  water,  resilience  and  food  security,  and  more  
immediate  improvements  to  wellbeing.  How  to  build  resilience  in  SSF  at  national,  sub-­‐
national  and  local  levels  to  account  for  external  and  local  drivers  of  change.  
Geographical  focus/location   Global  discovery  analysis  in  support  of,  and  learning  from,  place-­‐based  research  in  
focal  countries  (Bangladesh,  Myanmar,  Cambodia  and  Zambia).  
Role  of  the  CRP/FP  in  the   Convening  the  partnership  and  integrating  research  to  maximize  cross-­‐geographic  
partnership   lessons  and  the  production  of  IPGs.  
Key  CGIAR  partners  and  their   IWMI  (partnership  leadership  and  field  research)  and  WorldFish  (field  research  in  focal  
role   countries).  
Key  external  partners  and  their   Cambodia  Inland  Fisheries  Research  and  Development  Institute  (rice  field  fisheries  
roles     research);  Dhaka  University  (research  on  governance);  Sylhet  Agricultural  University  
(lead  research  on  socio-­‐economics  of  fishing  households);  Myanmar  Department  of  
Fisheries  Research  Division,  universities  of  Yangon,  Mandalay,  and  Yezin  (field  research  
on  fisheries);  University  of  Zambia  (field  research  on  fisheries  ecology  and  community  
fisheries).  
Contribution  to  ToC  and  impact   The  partnership  will  contribute  to  achieving  the  research  outputs  identified  under  
pathways   cluster  2  in  the  FP2  impact  pathway  and,  in  particular,  co-­‐management  models  for  
inclusive  governance,  food  security  and  sustainability;  tradeoffs  assessed  between  
sustainability,  resilience,  food  security  and  wellbeing;  and  alternative  livelihood  
strategies  assessed.  Through  the  program’s  wider  partnerships  and  country-­‐level  
research,  capacity  development  and  policy  activities,  this  research  will  contribute  
directly  to  research  outcomes  and  to  the  development  of  management  measures  
promoting  gender-­‐equitable  resource  access,  control  of  assets  and  benefits  for  fishery-­‐
dependent  households;  policies  and  programs  aligned  to  support  improved  livelihood  
opportunities,  increased  incomes  and  adaptive  capacity;  inland  fisheries  producing  
higher  yields,  contributing  to  livelihoods;  and  increased  socio-­‐ecological  resilience  of  
productive  systems  under  better  management.  
Example  5.  Research  partnership  on  farming  of  small  indigenous  fish  
Convener  of  the  partnership   WorldFish.  Convene  partners  working  at  discovery,  delivery  and  scaling  stages  of  the  
and  their  role   pathway  for  pond  polyculture  and  rice  field  fisheries.  
Specific  focus  and  objective   Development  of  technologies  for  increased  production  of  high  nutrient  content  small  
indigenous  species  of  fish  (SIS)  within  pond  polyculture  farming  systems  and  rice  field  
fisheries.  
Science  agenda   Overcoming  technical  and  gendered  barriers  to  production  and  harvesting  of  SIS  in  
pond  aquaculture  and  rice  field  fisheries.  Research  focus  in  polyculture  on  removing  
dependency  on  wild  broodstock  for  mola  and  subsequently  other  species  of  SIS;  
optimizing  pond  management  and  harvesting  frequency  to  maximize  productivity  and  
production  of  mola  and  other  SIS;  and  understanding  how  best  to  support  women  to  
partially  harvest  mola  and  other  SIS  on  a  regular  basis  to  promote  household  
consumption  without  increasing  workload.  Research  focus  in  rice  field  fisheries  on  how  
to  improve  production  by  (1)  managing  connections  between  rice  fields  and  stocks  of  
nutrient-­‐rich  fish  in  associated  canals,  beels  and  ponds;  (2)  optimizing  stocking  
approaches;  (3)  improving  governance  and  community  management  of  fish  refuges.  
Geographical  focus/location   Bangladesh  and  Cambodia  for  discovery  and  delivery  research,  followed  by  South  and  
Southeast  Asia  for  scaling.  
Role  of  the  CRP/FP  in  the   Convening  the  consortium  and  facilitating  its  focus  on  priority  traits  in  focal  countries.  
partnership  
Key  CGIAR  partner  and  its  role   WorldFish:  Convening  the  partnership.  
Key  external  partners  and  their   Bangladesh  Agricultural  University  (BAU)  (experimental  trials  of  fish  species  mix,  pond  
roles     management,  feeding  and  breeding  in  controlled  ponds);  IFreDI  (field  trials  on  models  
for  rice-­‐fish  culture,  based  on  improved  management  of  community  fish  refuges);  
LGED  (field  trials  on  models  for  rice-­‐fish  culture,  with  enhanced  stocking  of  nutrient-­‐
rich  small  fish);  Department  of  Fisheries  (Bangladesh)  and  Fisheries  Administration  
(Cambodia),  NGOs  and  wetland  user  groups  (field  trials  of  selected  pond  polyculture  
and  rice  field  technologies).    
Contribution  to  ToC  and  impact   The  partnership  will  contribute  to  achieving  the  research  outputs  identified  under  
  10
 
 pathways   cluster  1  in  the  FP3  impact  pathway,  and  in  particular  production  technologies  
developed  for  mola  and  other  SIS;  woman-­‐  and  youth-­‐friendly  harvesting  technologies;  
and  fisheries  models  incorporating  nutrient-­‐rich  fish  and  nutrient-­‐rich  crops.  Through  
the  program’s  wider  partnerships  and  country-­‐level  research,  capacity  development  
and  policy  activities,  these  outputs  will  in  turn  contribute  to  the  key  development  
outcomes  specified:  women,  children  and  youth  with  regular  access  to  nutrient-­‐rich  
small  fish  from  their  own  ponds  or  rice  field  fisheries,  allowing  consumption  of  fish  by  
these  target  groups.  
Example  6.  Partnership  for  fish  in  the  first  1000  days  
Convener  of  the  partnership   WorldFish.  Convene  partners  with  expertise  spanning  fish  production,  human  
and  its  role   nutrition,  behavioral  change  communication,  food  processing  and  marketing.  
Specific  focus  and  objective   Overcoming  barriers  to  consumption  of  fish  by  pregnant  and  lactating  women,  and  
infants  aged  6–24  months.  
Science  agenda   Ethnographic  research,  dietary  recalls  and  trials  of  improved  practice  to  understand  
the  obstacles  currently  limiting  intake  of  nutrient-­‐rich  fish  by  women  and  children.  
Design  and  testing  of  behavior  change  communication  interventions  aimed  at  
overcoming  behavioral  obstacles  and  increasing  the  incorporation  of  fish  into  high-­‐
quality  diets.  Testing  scalable  production  methods  and  marketing  approaches  for  fish-­‐
based  products.  Tests  of  the  efficacy  of  these  products  for  child  growth  and  health  
outcomes.    
Geographical  focus/location   Initial  focus  on  discovery  and  delivery  research  in  Bangladesh  and  Cambodia  followed  
by  delivery  research  in  Tanzania  and  scaling  in  East  Africa.  
Role  of  the  CRP/FP  in  the   Convening  the  partnership.  
partnership  
Key  CGIAR  partners  and  its  role   WorldFish:  Convening  the  partnership  and  field  research  in  Bangladesh  and  Cambodia.  
Key  external  partners  and  their   Bangladesh:  JHU-­‐CCP,  HKI  (development  of  behavior  change  communication  [BCC]  
roles     tools  and  approaches);  JHU  and  icddr,b  (formative  research  and  trials  on  acceptability  
and  use  of  fish-­‐based  products);  NGOs  (integration  of  BCC  for  increased  fish  
consumption  and  use  of  fish-­‐based  products  in  mother  and  child  health  and  nutrition  
projects);  Nicobena  and  Mark  Foods  in  the  development  of  fish-­‐based  complementary  
foods;  Tanzania:  University  of  Copenhagen,  Muhimbili  University,  Sokoine  University,  
Harvard  (development  of  fish-­‐based  products;  formative  research  and  trials  on  
acceptability  and  use  of  fish-­‐based  products).  
Contribution  to  ToC  and  impact   The  consortium  will  contribute  to  achieving  the  research  outputs  identified  under  
pathways   cluster  2  in  the  FP3  impact  pathway,  and  in  particular  tools  and  models  for  effective  
BCC;  efficacy  studies  of  fish-­‐based  products  in  first  1000  days  of  life;  scalable  models  
for  the  production  of  fish-­‐based  products  in  Bangladesh;  and  fish-­‐based  products  in  
Tanzania  and  Cambodia.  Through  the  program’s  wider  partnerships  and  country-­‐level  
research,  capacity  development  and  policy  activities,  these  outputs  will  in  turn  
contribute  to  the  key  development  outcomes  specified:  consumers,  and  in  particular  
pregnant  women  and  young  children,  have  equitable  access  to  fish-­‐based  products;  
and  mothers  demonstrate  increased  willingness  to  provide  fish  and  fish-­‐based  
products  to  young  children.  

Table  1.  Illustrative  examples  of  FISH  strategic  partnerships.  Two  examples  are  provided  for  each  FISH  flagship.  

  11
 
 FISH  activity   Main  Partners   Outcome  targets  
FP  1.  Improved  tilapia  strains  (Bangladesh)  
Direct  contribution:  the  results  we  expect  to  achieve  in  the  locations  where  FISH  pursues  research  together  with  
the  partners  listed  
Development  of  private   1. Private  sector  tilapia  breeding  nuclei   The  collective  outcome  targets  for  
sector  tilapia  breeding  nuclei   (TBN)  that  have  been  supplied  with   2022  that  will  be  realized  through  
(TBN)  to  maintain  and   improved  tilapia  strains  in  2015-­‐16.   these  partnerships  for  the  provision  
provide  a  sustained  source  of   Existing  TBN  partners  are  Nova  Hatchery,   of  improved  tilapia  strains  in  
improved  tilapia  strains.     Genetic  Hatchery,  Sonar  Bangla  Hatchery,   Bangladesh  are:  
Asha  Hatchery  and  R.  Rahman  Hatchery.   • million  HHs  adopt  improved  
FISH  will  work  directly  with  these  TBN  and   tilapia  (out  of  ~5  million  
up  to  3  others  to  (i)  provide  technical   household  ponds  in  Bangladesh,  
advice,  training  and  germplasm;  (ii)  assess   of  which  3  million  currently  
quality  and  performance  of  the  stock;  and   growing  tilapia)  
(iii)  facilitate  market  connectivity  of  TBN,   • 0.30  million  people  exit  poverty  
multiplier  hatcheries  and  fingerling   • 200,000  tonnes/yr  of  improved  
traders.   tilapia  production    
2. Private  sector  multiplier  hatcheries  that   • 20,000  ha  of  improved  
will  use  improved  tilapia  broodstock   aquaculture  ponds.  
provided  by  the  TBN.  Existing  private   We  estimate  that  50%  of  these  
sector  multiplier  hatchery  partners   targets  will  be  achieved  directly  
include  the  Bangladesh  Rural   through  the  partnership  activities  
Advancement  Committee  (BRAC),  Khan   described  here  and  that  50%  will  be  
Hatchery,  SuperThai  Tilapia  Hatchery,   achieved  through  the  scaling  
Shuvo  Hatchery,  United  Hatchery,  Bhola   partnerships  summarized  below.  
Hatchery.  FISH  will  support  these  
multiplier  hatcheries  through  provision  of  
training  in  maintenance  and  multiplication  
of  improved  tilapia  strains  for  
dissemination  to  fish  fry  traders  and  fish  
farmers  (see  Annex  3).    

   

  12
 
 Scaling:  the  additional  results  we  expect  to  achieve  in  other  locations  where  partners  and  farmers  use  improved  
tilapia  strains  developed  through  FISH,  but  without  any  explicit  support  from  the  CRP,  whether  in  the  form  of  
capacity  development  or  other  means.  
Further  dissemination  of   1. Other  private  sector  multiplier  hatcheries   We  estimate  that  50%  of  these  
improved  tilapia  strains  to   who  are  secondary  partners  of  TBN.     outcome  targets  will  be  achieved  
private  sector  multiplication   2. Department  of  Fisheries  who  will   through  these  scaling  partnerships.  
hatcheries  and  fish  farmers.   incorporate  use  of  improved  tilapia  
strains  into  extension  activities  related  to  
tilapia  breeding  and  farming    
3. Private  sector  associations  with  members  
pursuing  tilapia  breeding  and  hatchery  
production,  including  the  Bangladesh  Fish  
Hatchery  Association,  Tilapia  Hatchery  
Association  and  Tilapia  Foundation.  
4. NGOs  involved  with  
national/international  development  
programs  (World  Vision,  CODEC,  Sushilan,  
Winrock  International)  that  are  buying  
seed  from  TBN  and  supporting  poor  
homestead  farmers  to  buy  improved  
tilapia  from  TBN  and  multiplier  hatcheries  

FP2.  Community-­‐based  fisheries  management  (CBFM)  (Solomon  Islands  and  Pacific)  

Direct  contribution:  the  results  we  expect  to  achieve  in  the  locations  where  FISH  pursues  research  together  with  
the  partners  listed  
Development  of  CBFM  in   1. Ministry  of  Fisheries  and  Marine   The  collective  outcome  targets  that  
Solomon  Islands.   Resources,  Solomon  Island  Locally   will  be  achieved  directly  through  
Managed  Marine  Area  network   this  body  of  CBFM  research  are:    
(SILMMA),  Malaita  and  Western   • 0.02  M  households  adopting  
Provincial  Governments.  FISH  will  work   improved  fisheries  
through  these  partners  and  with   management  practices,  
participating  communities  to  refine,  test   resulting  in  0.05  M  people,  half  
and  scale  models  for  CBFM.     of  whom  are  women  assisted  
to  exit  poverty  through  
livelihood  improvements;  
• 0.25  M  ha  of  ecosystem  
restored  through  
establishment  of  local  tenure  
over  large  lagoon  and  estuary  
areas.  
 
We  estimate  that  20%  of  these  
targets  will  be  achieved  directly  
through  the  research  described  
here,  and  the  remainder  will  be  
achieved  through  scaling  
partnerships  summarized  below.  

   

  13
 
 Scaling:  the  additional  results  we  expect  to  achieve  in  other  locations  where  partners  and  communities  use  CBFM  
approaches  but  without  any  explicit  support  from  the  CRP,  whether  in  the  form  of  capacity  development  or  other  
means.  
Dissemination  of  CBFM  in   1. Solomon  Islands  Ministry  of   We  estimate  that  80%  of  the  
Solomon  Islands  and   Environment   collective  targets  will  be  achieved  
regionally   2. World  Vision   through  dissemination  of  CBFM  
3. SILMMA   achieve  through  the  work  of  these  
4. Provincial  governments  in  other   partners.  Through  SPC  in  particular  
Solomon  Island  provinces   we  aim  to  achieve  adoption  of  
5. Secretariat  of  the  Pacific  Community   CBFM  in  many  of  the  22  countries  
through  support  of  the  regional  CBFM   and  territories  in  the  region.  
scaling  initiative  the  New  Song:  
Pathways  for  Change  
6. National  agencies  in  other  Pacific  Island  
nations.  
FP3.  Consumption  of  fish-­‐based  products  in  the  first  1000  days  (Bangladesh)  
Direct  contribution:  the  results  we  expect  to  achieve  in  the  locations  where  WorldFish  pursues  our  research  
Development  and  production   1. Development  partners  incorporating  fish-­‐ The  collective  outcome  targets  for  
of  fish-­‐based  products  to   based  foods  into  field  trials  in  FISH   2022  that  will  be  realized  through  
improve  consumption  in  the   research  areas,  including  Helen  Keller   these  partnerships  for  production  
first  1000  days  of  life.     International  (HKI),  World  Vision  and   of  fish-­‐based  products  are:    
CARE.   • 100,000  women,  with  50%  
2. Private  sector  partners  including  Pran   reaching  sufficiency  in  one  or  
and  Marks  Foods  producing  and   more  micronutrients;  
distributing  fish-­‐based  products  in  FISH   • 12,000  infants,  with  75%  
research  areas.     reaching  sufficiency  in  one  or  
more  micronutrients.  
Indirect  scaling:  the  additional  results  we  expect  to  achieve  in  other  locations  where  partners  use  FISH  food  
technologies  but  without  any  explicit  support  from  the  CRP,  whether  in  the  form  of  capacity  development  or  other  
means.  
Further  production  and   1. Development  partners  using  fish-­‐based   We  have  not  yet  estimated  the  
distribution  of  fish-­‐based   products  at  scale  in  their  programs,   outcome  targets  that  can  be  
products.       including  HKI,  World  Vision,  CARE.   achieved  through  these  scaling  
2. World  Food  Program  through  inclusion  of   partnerships.    This  will  be  done  in  
fish  products  in  food  rations  distributed   2017.  
to  vulnerable  population  groups  and  in  
emergencies.  
3. Private  sector  partners  producing  and  
distributing  fish-­‐based  foods  at  scale  in  
the  other  parts  of  the  country.    

Table  2.  The  contribution  of  partnerships  to  achieving  outcome  targets    

  14
 
Annex  3.3  Capacity  development  strategy  
 
Role  of  capacity  development  in  the  FISH  theory  of  change  
As  a  strategic  enabler  of  impact,  capacity  development  is  important  in  all  four  change  mechanisms  of  the  FISH  theory  of  
change.  It  is  required  to  support  movement  from  the  research  output  of  the  three  flagships  to  research  outcomes  and  
ultimately  to  development  outcomes.  For  each  mechanism  of  the  theory  of  change,  capacities  of  key  stakeholders  along  
the  pathway  are  identified:    
• capacity  of  aquaculture  farmers  to  assess  technology  needs  and  apply  improved  practices  and  fishing  
communities  to  implement  co-­‐management  (change  mechanism  a);    
• capacity  of  private  investors  to  identify  appropriate  opportunities  and  enterprises  to  adopt  innovative  business  
models  (change  mechanism  b);    
• public  sector  capacity  to  design  and  implement  policy  and  regulatory  measures  that  affect  the  viability  of  
scalable  technologies,  management  practices  and  organizational  innovations  (change  mechanism  c);    
• civil  society  capacity  to  promote  solutions  drawing  on  research  evidence,  as  well  as  the  capacity  of  development  
agencies  to  integrate  these  into  their  programming  and  investment  priorities  (change  mechanism  d).    
 
Strengthened  policies  and  institutions  are  an  integral  part  of  the  scaling  strategy  to  reach  program-­‐level  outcome  
targets.  Consequently,  the  sub-­‐IDO  enhanced  institutional  capacity  in  public  sector  and  private  research  organizations  is  
identified  as  a  goal  at  CRP  level.  Further,  improved  capacity  of  women  and  youth  to  participate  in  decision-­‐making  will  
be  achieved  through  the  program’s  gender  and  governance  research.  Program  research  on  sustainable  aquaculture  
(FP1)  seeks  to  contribute  to  increased  capacity  of  beneficiaries  to  adopt  research  outputs  relating  to  aquaculture  
technologies  and  enhanced  individual  capacity  within  partner  research  organizations  to  conduct  aquaculture  technology  
research.  Research  on  sustainable  small-­‐scale  fisheries  (FP2)  seeks  to  contribute  to  enhanced  capacity  to  deal  with  
climate  risks  and  extremes  with  an  emphasis  on  poor  households  and  enhanced  capacity  of  women  and  youth  to  
participate  in  decision-­‐making  around  small-­‐scale  fisheries  management.  Research  on  fish  for  nutrition  and  health  (FP3)  
seeks  to  contribute  to  enhanced  capacity  of  women  and  youth  of  poor  households  to  engage  in  decision-­‐making  around  
production  and  consumption  of  fish  as  part  of  a  micronutrient-­‐rich  diet.  
 
In  pursuing  the  program’s  capacity  development  strategy  we  will  draw  upon  the  comparative  advantage  and  experience  
of  managing  partners  in  specific  areas  of  science  and  practice,  while  working  through  national  and  international  
partners  to  implement  specific  capacity  development  activities  (see  implementation  strategies  within  flagships  for  
further  explanation).  
 
Use  of  CGIAR  Capacity  Development  Framework  
The  CGIAR  Capacity  Development  Framework  identifies  nine  elements  to  help  organize,  plan  and  implement  capacity  
development  activities  using  a  systems  approach  (Figure  1,  below).  Our  strategy  identifies  how  each  of  the  elements  will  
be  pursued  to  develop  the  capacities  required  to  ensure  quality  implementation  and  support  movement  along  the  
impact  pathways  (see  next  section  for  specific  interventions  in  each  flagship).  
 
In  designing  and  implementing  the  FISH  capacity  development  strategy,  we  draw  upon  learning  from  the  L&F  and  AAS  
CRPs,  which  supported  development  of  the  CGIAR  framework,  as  well  as  our  work  through  bilateral  projects.  
Specifically,  the  strategy  will  use  a  systems  approach  to  capacity  development,  building  on  learning  from  the  AAS  CRP  
(Apgar  et  al.  2015)  and  associated  methodologies  that  include  working  across  individual,  institutional  and  organizational  
spheres,  which  have  been  used  successfully  to  develop  capacity  in  gender  research  and  practice  (Sarapura  et  al.  2015).  
We  will  build  on  capacity  development  within  fish  value  chains  in  Bangladesh  through  L&F  and  its  use  of  novel  training  
methods  and  strategies,  such  as  developing  husband-­‐wife  family  teams  and  career  progression  for  national  scientific  
staff.  We  will  use  the  high-­‐quality  learning  materials  developed  with  partners  through  bilateral  work  on  aquaculture  
technologies  in  Bangladesh,  and  build  on  the  strong  track  record  for  training  African  researchers  in  aquaculture  
technologies  at  the  Abbassa  aquaculture  research  and  training  center  in  Egypt.  To  build  capacity  around  small-­‐scale  
fisheries,  we  will  continue  to  use  training  materials  developed  through  work  on  community-­‐based  marine  resource  
management  in  the  Pacific  (WorldFish  2013).  
 
 

  15
 
  
Figure  1.  Elements  of  the  CGIAR  Capacity  Development  Framework.  
 
CRP-­‐level  coordination  and  cross-­‐cutting  areas  
At  the  program  level,  there  are  three  ways  in  which  capacity  development  will  involve  cross-­‐flagship  coordination:  (1)  
monitoring  and  evaluation  (M&E)  of  capacity  development  (element  7)  will  be  integrated  into  program  M&E  through  
identification  of  specific  capacity  indicators  and  tracking  for  learning  and  progress  as  theories  of  change  are  evaluated;  
(2)  development  of  FISH  and  managing  and  implementing  partners’  capacity  to  collaborate  (element  3)  will  support  the  
partnerships  strategy  (see  Annex  3.2);  and  (3)  geographic  and  thematic  coordination  of  capacity  development  activities  
across  flagships  will  be  managed  through  coordination  among  capacity  development  leads  in  each  flagship.  
 
Capacity  development  interventions  are  also  instrumental  to  the  FISH  program’s  gender  and  youth  strategies.  
Specifically,  capacity  development  will  enable  interventions  in  gender-­‐sensitive  technologies  and  innovation  processes,  
women-­‐targeted  opportunities,  and  gender-­‐transformative  strategies  contributing  to  gender  outcomes,  including  
improved  capacity  of  women  and  young  people  to  participate  in  decision-­‐making.  Further,  capacity  to  implement  
quality  gender  research  will  be  developed  through  work  with  the  cross-­‐flagship  gender  team.  FISH  will  promote  youth  
engagement  in  small-­‐scale  fisheries  and  aquaculture  by  using  age-­‐relevant  skills  training  methods  and  content,  including  
on  fingerling  production  and  distribution,  feed  and  handling  methods,  and  co-­‐management  and  youth  leadership.    
 
Strategic  capacity  development  actions  within  FISH  flagships  
Each  of  the  FISH  flagships  will  implement  a  program  of  capacity  development  activities  organized  around  the  nine  
elements  of  the  CGIAR  framework.  This  will  enable  quality  implementation  with  local  stakeholders  and  partners  and  
consequently  support  the  change  mechanisms  and  sub-­‐IDOs  identified  in  their  theories  of  change.  Table  1  provides  a  
summary  of  the  prioritization  of  the  nine  elements  for  each  flagship.  Criteria  used  to  prioritize  include  the  importance  of  
the  element  to  successful  implementation  of  research  activities  and  change  mechanisms  and  the  level  of  investment  
required.    
 
Flagship   Elements  of  the  CGIAR  Capacity  Development  Framework  (as  numbered  in  Figure  1)  
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  
FP1.  Sustainable  aquaculture   High   High   Medium   Medium   High   High   Medium   Low   Low  
FP2.  Sustaining  small-­‐scale   High   High   Medium   Low   High   High   Medium   Low   Low  
fisheries  
FP3.  Enhancing  the   High   High   Medium   Medium   High   High   Medium   Low   Low  
contribution  of  fish  to  
nutrition  and  health  of  the  
poor  
Table  1.  Summary  of  prioritized  elements  in  each  flagship.  
 
Four  elements  will  be  implemented  at  high  intensity  through  activities  in  all  flagships  (needs  assessments,  intervention  
strategies,  and  innovative  learning  materials  and  approaches  that  are  gender-­‐  and  youth-­‐sensitive,  and  work  on  institutional  

  16
 
strengthening),  while  two  will  be  implemented  with  medium  intensity  (developing  CRP  partnering  capacity  and  M&E  of  
capacity  development).  Relevant  indicators  to  monitor  capacity  development  progress  as  part  of  FISH  M&E  are  shown  in  
Table  2.  
 
Element   Indicators  
Capacity  needs  assessment   • (Adapted)  needs  assessment  methodologies  available  in  published  form    
and  intervention  strategy   • Proportion  of  CapDev  budget  allocated  to  interventions  consistent  with  capacity  
design   needs  assessment  recommendations  (disaggregated  by  implementing  organization  
and  flagship)  
Design  and  delivery  of   • Proportion  of  learning  materials  developed  for  external  audiences  piloted  with  
innovative  learning  materials   representative  audiences  
and  approaches   • Participant  evaluation  of  training  and  workshops  to  assess  increase  in  knowledge  
and  skills  
• Number  of  people  trained  (disaggregated  by  sex,  age,  job  or  role,  location  and  
literacy)  
Apply  gender-­‐sensitive   • Proportion  of  capacity  needs  assessments  that  proactively  target  women  and  youth  
approaches  throughout   • Number  of  capacity  development  activities  in  gender  approaches  and  toolkits  
capacity  development   initiated  (disaggregated  by  type)  
Institutional  strengthening   • Number  of  institutional  assessments  conducted  with  NARs    
• Number  of  policy  decisions  informed  by  engagement  and  information  provided  by  
FISH  
• Outcome  evaluation  citing  improved  institutional  capacity  in  achievement  of  other  
FISH  outcomes  

Table  2.  Indicators  for  M&E  of  capacity  development.  

 
Implementation  strategy  within  flagships  
The  implementation  strategy  has  four  parts,  as  outlined  below,  and  then  detailed  in  Table  3.    
 
(1)  Needs  assessment  and  intervention  strategy,  learning  material  and  approaches,  gender-­‐sensitive  approaches,  and  
M&E  (elements  1,  2,  5  &  7)  
These  four  elements  of  the  framework  are  understood  as  part  of  a  capacity  development  process  that  starts  with  
identifying  specific  capacity  needs  of  critical  stakeholders.  Each  flagship  has  already  broadly  identified  the  target  
stakeholders  and  thematic  areas  that  will  inform  more  detailed  capacity  needs  assessments  to  be  carried  out  at  the  
outset  where  necessary.  In  conducting  these  assessments,  and  designing  targeted  capacity  development  activities  in  
response,  each  flagship  will  give  careful  consideration  to  how  the  program  can  best  leverage  partnerships,  comparative  
advantage,  and  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  Our  working  assumption  is  that  the  managing  partners  will  draw  upon  their  
experience  and  comparative  advantage  to  design  the  program’s  approach  to  capacity  development,  but  that  wherever  
possible,  specific  training  activities  will  be  conducted  by  other  program  partners  at  national  and  local  levels.  The  
implications  of  this  approach  for  the  roles  of  different  partners  in  capacity  development  implementation  are  
summarized  in  Table  3.    
 
FP1  will  focus  on  the  capacity  needs  of  smallholders  to  effectively  demand  and  adopt  new  aquaculture  technologies  and  
apply  best  management  practices,  as  well  as  the  needs  of  service  providers  to  effectively  supply  inputs,  knowledge  and  
skills  targeted  at  men  and  women  fish  farmers.  In  Africa  and  Asia,  a  focus  on  enhanced  capacity  for  aquaculture  
technologies  research  in  partner  organizations  will  continue.  
 
FP2  will  focus  on  the  needs  of  natural  resource  management  NGOs  and  government  agencies,  multi-­‐stakeholder  
networks,  regional  and  intergovernmental  agencies,  and  individual  researchers  within  national  research  institutes  in  
focal  countries.  The  flagship  will  assess  the  following  capacity  areas:  gender-­‐sensitive  and  transformative  approaches,  
learning  and  governance  networking,  community  livelihood  and  co-­‐management  interventions,  and  responsive  and  
accountable  institutions.    
 
FP3  will  focus  on  the  capacity  needs  of  public  and  private  sector  actors  (such  as  hatcheries)  to  manage  a  central  mola  
broodstock  and  improve  pond  management,  and  of  women  farmers  to  harvest  small  fish.  For  work  with  fish  value  
  17
 
chains  in  Africa  and  South  Asia,  the  flagship  will  identify  needs  of  implementing  partners  and  value  chain  actors  to  
develop  and  test  appropriate  gender-­‐inclusive  technological,  market  and  institutional  approaches  to  reduce  waste  and  
achieve  improvements  in  fish  consumption  by  women  and  young  children.  
 
Across  all  interventions,  the  learning  methods  and  materials  used  will  be  gender-­‐  and  youth-­‐sensitive.  Implementation  
will  use  a  blended  learning  methodology  across  three  phases  of  learning:  learning  in,  from  and  for  action  (Garison  and  
Kanuka  2004;  Wilson  and  Biller  2012).  This  will  build  on  experience  of  developing  quality  materials  in  past  work.  M&E  
will  be  integrated  into  CRP-­‐level  learning  processes,  including  annual  reviews  within  flagships  to  revisit  capacity  needs  
and  inform  annual  planning  of  interventions  and  monitoring  of  capacity  development  indicators.  
 
(2)  Developing  CRPs’  and  Centers’  partnering  capacities  (element  3)  
Development  of  the  capacity  for  FISH,  participating  CGIAR  centers,  and  managing  and  implementing  partners  to  work  
together  will  be  implemented  within  each  flagship  by  working  with  multi-­‐stakeholder  partnerships  designed  to  harness  
emerging  science  in  aquaculture  and  fisheries  (see  Annex  3.2).  
 
(3)  Institutional  strengthening  (element  6)  
The  program  aims  to  develop  public  sector  capacity  to  design  and  implement  policy  and  regulatory  measures  that  affect  
the  viability  of  scalable  technologies,  management  practices  and  organizational  innovations  for  aquaculture,  fisheries  
and  nutrition  outcomes.  To  achieve  this,  each  of  the  flagships  will  focus  on  specific  interventions  with  associated  
institutions.  
 
FP1  will  focus  on  strengthening  public  institutions  and  private  sector  organizations,  such  as  farmer  associations,  to  
manage  fish  breeding  programs,  integrate  new  technologies  into  extension  and  outreach  programs,  and  achieve  
research  and  development  outcomes  at  scale.  Interventions  will  use  policy  dialogues  associated  with  multi-­‐stakeholder  
forums  and  innovation  platforms  (in  Egypt),  engaging  decision-­‐makers  through  the  research  process  (in  Bangladesh),  
and  conducting  participatory  action  research  with  partners  to  test  and  adapt  new  institutional  arrangements  (in  
Zambia).    
 
FP2  will  work  towards  institutional  strengthening  in  two  modes.  First,  it  will  develop  the  capacity  of  learning  and  
governance  networks  and  platforms  to  realize  impact  (i.e.  to  become  more  than  the  sum  of  their  parts)  through  multi-­‐
stakeholder  engagement.  Second,  it  will  increase  the  capacity  of  institutions  (national  public  institutions  and  regional  
intergovernmental  institutions)  to  help  secure  the  ecological  sustainability,  food  security  and  poverty  alleviation  
functions  of  small-­‐scale  fisheries  through  targeted  capacity  development,  multi-­‐stakeholder  dialogues  and  strategic  
planning  activities.  
 
FP3  will  focus  on  strengthening  public  and  private  partners  to  develop  and  use  technologies  for  production  of  nutrient-­‐
dense  fish.  It  will  test  gender-­‐inclusive  and  women-­‐targeted  methods,  technologies,  institutional  options  and  products  
for  addressing  postharvest  loss  challenges  and  other  value  chain  issues  identified  through  multi-­‐stakeholder  processes  
and  platforms  formed  as  learning  alliances—i.e.  ‘‘a  series  of  linked  platforms  existing  at  different  institutional  levels  (e.g.  
community,  district,  national,  regional,  global)  created  with  the  aim  of  bringing  together  a  range  of  stakeholders  
interested  in  innovation  and  the  creation/use  of  new  knowledge  in  an  area  of  common  interest”  (Moriarty  et  al.  2005).  
 
(4)  Develop  future  research  leaders  (element  4)  
FP1  will  develop  future  aquaculture  research  leaders  in  both  Africa  and  Asia  through  internships  and  masters  and  PhD  
programs  with  discovery  and  upstream  research  partners  to  accelerate  national  capacity  for  research  and  extension.  A  
new  partnership  with  the  University  of  Malawi,  as  a  NEPAD  African  center  of  excellence  for  aquaculture  research,  
provides  an  opportunity  to  enhance  postgraduate  training  of  aquaculture  researchers  within  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa.  
 
FP3  will  work  with  postgraduate  students  and  develop  individual  and  tailored  capacity-­‐strengthening  plans.  These  will  
be  delivered  by  our  partners  in  tertiary  education  and  supported  by  those  engaged  in  research.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  18
 
 Element  1,  2,  5  &  7.  Needs  assessment  and  intervention  strategy,  learning  material  and  approaches,  gender-­‐sensitive  
approaches,  and  M&E  
Flagship  1  
What  capacity?   For  whom?  
Demand  for  and  adoption  of  new  aquaculture   Smallholder  farmers  and  other  value  chain  actors.  
technologies  and  management  practices.  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
Needs  assessments  of  farmer  demand  and  intervention   International  and  national  NGOs,  private  sector  service  
strategies  will  be  conducted  by  trained  facilitators   providers;  intermediary  organizations  (e.g.  cooperatives)  
employed  by  FISH  and/or  partners  directly  engaging  with   and  public  extension  agencies  operating  in  program  and  
smallholders.     scaling  countries.  
   
Learning  materials  will  be  co-­‐developed  with  the  above   Regarding  mobile  and  tablet  technologies,  we  will  use  our  
partners,  field  tested  with  and  by  farmers,  and  materials   scientists  and  partners  in  Bangladesh  and  WorldFish  in  
widely  disseminated  for  use.  Conventional  extension  and   Penang  with  experience  in  this  technology  as  resource  
novel  approaches  (e.g.  mobile  phone  technologies)  will   persons  for  training  and  advising  development  of  
be  assessed  and  used  as  appropriate.     approaches  elsewhere  across  FISH  program/scaling  
Materials  developed  and  experiences  will  be  made   countries.  A  cross-­‐flagship/FISH  community  of  practice  will  
available  on  FISH  partner  websites,  and  through  various   also  be  used  as  a  platform  for  sharing  knowledge  and  
dissemination  channels  for  wider  use  (e.g.,  SARNISSA  in   experience  in  use  of  digital  technologies  for  capacity  
Africa).     building.    
   
Gender  sensitivity  will  be  integrated  by  ensuring  mixed   Regional  training  center  in  Africa  (Abbassa,  Egypt)  and  
assessment/facilitator  teams  involved  in  assessments,   university  partners  (LUANAR,  Malawi)  will  also  act  as  
and  development  of  extension  approaches  will   regional  resource  centers  in  Africa  to  provide  training  of  
specifically  address  needs/opportunities  for  engaging   facilitators  for  assessments  and  delivery  of  training  through  
with  women,  men  and  youth.     which  extension  capacity  can  be  strengthened  in  focal  and  
  scaling  countries  in  the  continent.  
M&E  will  be  conducted  according  to  the  FISH  framework    
for  results-­‐based  management.  
What  capacity?   For  whom?  
Supplying  inputs,  knowledge  and  skills.   Public  and  private  sector  service  input  providers.  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
Service  providers  represent  a  diverse  but  key   The  primary  actors  are  the  public  and  private  sector  
intermediary  group  of  actors  for  scaling  of  FP1   agencies  referred  to  above.  
technologies.  These  include  public  and  private  sector    
providers  of  knowledge,  skills  and  material  inputs  (e.g.  
fish  seed,  feed  traders,  health  service  providers).  Needs  
assessments  will  be  conducted  across  the  impact  
pathway  within  focus  and  scaling  countries  to  identify  key  
providers  and  develop  intervention  strategies.  Training  of  
service  providers  by  specialist  facilitators  will  be  
provided.    

Learning  materials  and  approaches  developed  for  service  

and  input  providers  will  be  made  widely  available  via  FISH  
partner  websites  and  learning  networks  as  noted  above.    

Gender  sensitivity  will  be  integrated  by  ensuring  mixed  

assessment/facilitator  teams  involved  in  assessments,  
and  development  of  extension  approaches  will  
specifically  address  needs/opportunities  for  engaging  
with  women,  men  and  youth.  
 
Monitoring  and  evaluation  will  be  conducted  by  FISH  and  
partners  to  assess  outcomes  from  investments  in  
capacity  building  of  service/input  providers.  
 

  19
 
 What  capacity?   For  whom?  
Aquaculture  technology  research,  covering  improved  fish   Research  partners.  
seed  (Cluster  1);  health  and  feeds  (Cluster  2);  and  
systems  (Cluster  3).  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
Assessments  of  national  research  partners  will  be   Managing  partners  (centers  +  ARIs)  will  lead  in  providing  
conducted  to  identify  capacity  building  needs  and   training  in  aquaculture  research.  
approaches  to  support.  Special  attention  will  be  given  to    
young  scientists  and  gender  balance  in  assessments  and   We  will  use  the  Abbassa  Aquaculture  Research  and  Training  
development  of  intervention  strategies.   Center  as  a  specialist  center  for  training  of  aquaculture  
  researchers  in  Africa,  and  a  collaboration  with  LUANAR  
Capacity  building  in  aquaculture  technology  research  will   (World  Bank  funded  ACE-­‐II  project)  will  also  enable  support  
be  through  engagement  of  national  scientists  within   for  Masters  and  PhD  training  of  African  aquaculture  
FP1/cluster  research  activities,  internships,  short-­‐term   researchers.    
training  in  specialist  subjects  (e.g.  genetics)  and  post-­‐
graduate  training  opportunities.    
 
We  specifically  address  gender  in  assessments  of  
aquaculture  research  capability  within  national  partners  
and  seek  to  ensure  gender  balance  in  all  capacity-­‐building  
opportunities  provided.  
 
Monitoring  and  evaluation  will  be  conducted  to  assess  
aquaculture  research  training  activities  and  outcomes  
from  support  provided.  

Flagship  2  
What  capacity?   For  whom?  
Gender-­‐sensitive  and  transformative  approaches,   Natural  resource  management  NGOs  and  government  
learning  and  governance  networking,  community   agencies,  multi-­‐stakeholder  networks,  regional  and  
livelihood  and  co-­‐management  interventions,  responsive   intergovernmental  agencies,  and  national  research  
and  accountable  institutions.   institutes.  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
Needs  assessments  of  partner  NGOs  and  national   WordFish,  IWMI  and  James  Cook  University  (cluster  2)  will  
agencies  will  be  completed  by  WorldFish  staff  in   lead  on  developing  science  skills  and  future  research  leaders  
collaboration  with  CGIAR  partners  and  national  agencies.   in  national  agencies  and  universities,  particularly  at  graduate  
and  postgraduate  levels.  WorldFish  will  collaborate  with  
Learning  materials  and  approaches  will  be  developed  for   Promundo  on  gender  and  community  engagement  expertise  
communities,  national  agencies  and  partner  NGOs   development,  building  in  part  on  AAS  techniques.  Other  
building  on  approaches  from  CRPs  AAS,  CCAFS  and  WLE.   partners,  particularly  those  headlined  in  Table  14  in  the  
James  Cook  University  (cluster  2  leader)  will  provide   proposal  will  build  capacity  in  project  implementation,  
tailored  graduate  training  for  national  partners.  Materials   community  engagement,  and  institutional  strengthening  
will  be  made  widely  available  via  FISH  and  partner   more  broadly.  
websites  and  learning  networks.      
 
Gendered  approaches  to  fisheries  governance  will  be  
central  to  FP2.  We  will  build  on  AAS-­‐developed  
approaches  to  gender  and  youth.    Partner  NGO  
Promundo  will  provide  expertise  to  augment  gender  staff  
from  WorldFish  and  IWMI.  The  capacity  of  CGIAR  staff  in  
focal  countries  and  those  of  partners  to  engage  in  gender  
research  will  require  continued  investment.  
 
Monitoring  and  Evaluation  will  be  conducted  according  to  
the  FISH  framework  for  results-­‐based  management  and  
be  integrated  into  the  CRP-­‐level  plan.  
 
 
  20
 
 Flagship  3  
What  capacity?   For  whom?  
Management  of  mola  broodstock.   Public  and  private  sector  actors.  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
Improved  methods  for  broodstock  management  will  be   The  PAR  will  be  designed  by  WorldFish  and  partners,  and  
developed  through  participatory  action  research  (PAR)   implemented  by  national  field-­‐based  NGOs  (BRAC,  Proshika).  
with  different  actors  in  private  and  community  and  
hatcheries,  public  waterbodies  and  ponds.  
What  capacity?   For  whom?  
Harvesting  small  fish.   Women  farmers.  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
PAR  methods  will  be  used  to  develop  and  test  methods   The  PAR  will  be  designed  by  WorldFish  and  partners,  and  
for  harvesting  in  household  ponds.   implemented  by  National  field-­‐based  NGOs.  
 
 
What  capacity?   For  whom?  
Development  and  testing  of  gender-­‐inclusive   Implementing  partners  and  value-­‐chain  actors,  including  
technological,  market  and  institutional  approaches  to   governments,  private  sector  actors  and  NGOs.  
reduce  waste  and  achieve  improvement  in  fish    
consumption  by  women  and  young  children.  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
PAR  will  be  used  to  field  evaluate  selected  approaches   NRI  plus  national  research  partners  such  as  Sokoine  
and  technologies,  together  with  implementing  partners   University  of  Agriculture,  and  other  international  partners  
and  value  -­‐chain  actors.   such  as  KIT  for  designing  and  testing  approaches  for  
reducing  fish  waste  and  loss,  improving  nutrition  quality  and  
food  safety,  and  setting  up  platforms  for  training  and  
knowledge  sharing.  
 
 
What  capacity?   For  whom?  
Development  and  use  of  fish-­‐based  products.   National  research  and  development  partners.  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
Building  skills  and  training  in  developing  recipes,   Private  sector  partners  including  Pran  Foods  and  Marks  
sampling  for  product  testing,  sensory  testing  and   Foods  in  Bangladesh,  universities  and  ARIs  such  as  the  
conducting  efficacy  trials.   University  of  Copenhagen,  Harvard  School  of  Public  Health,  
and  the  International  Centre  for  Diarrhoeal  Disease  
Research,  Bangladesh.  
 
 
What  capacity?   For  whom?  National  research  and  development  partners.  
Behavior  change  and  nutrition  education  for  increased  
fish  consumption  in  the  first  1000  days.  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
Training  in  use  of  methods,  tools  and  approaches  for   ARI  partners,  including  notably  Johns  Hopkins  University,  
behavior  change  and  nutrition  education,  including   national  partners  e.g.  BAU  and  Khulna  University  in  
setting  up  platforms  for  training  and  knowledge  sharing.   Bangladesh,  and  NGOs.  
 
 
Element  3.  Developing  CRPs’  and  Centers’  partnering  capacities  
Cross-­‐cutting  across  all  flagships  
What  capacity?  More  effective  partnering  skills.   For  whom?  
Participating  Centers  and  managing  and  implementing  
partners.  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
Regular  review  of  partnership  performance  and  coaching   External  consultants  
of  staff.  

  21
 
 Element  6.  Institutional  strengthening  
Flagship  1  
What  capacity?   For  whom?  
Management  of  fish  breeding  programs;  integration  of   Public  institutions  and  private  sector  actors.  
new  technologies  into  extension  and  outreach  programs.  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
Public  and  private  partners  in  program  and  scaling  countries   Specialized  genetics  training  will  be  provided  by  WorldFish,  
will  be  provided  with  training  in  management  of  improved   WUR  and  other  specialized  ARI  partners.  
fish  strains  and  maintenance  of  fish  breeding  programs    
  FISH  researchers  in  partnership  with  external  facilitators  and  
Various  other  forms  of  institutional  capacity  building  will   NGOs  specialized  in  participatory  action  research,  policy  
include  participatory  action  research  (PAR),  extension   dialogue/innovation  platforms  and  extension  will  support  
agency  training,  development  of  policy  dialogues  through   specialized  training  on  topics  such  as  PAR,  innovation  
multi-­‐stakeholder  forums  and  innovation  platforms;  and   systems,  farmer  field  schools  and  strengthening  of  extension  
engagement  of  decision-­‐makers  through  the  research   systems.  
process.  
Flagship  2  
What  capacity?   For  whom?  
Capacity  to  influence  policy  and  practice  and  to  achieve   Learning  and  governance  networks  and  platforms;  national  
ecological  sustainability,  food  security  and  poverty   public  institutions  and  regional  intergovernmental  bodies.  
alleviation  through  small-­‐scale  fisheries.  

How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  

Strengthened  national  and  local  institutions  are  critical  to   FISH  researchers  in  partnership  with  external  facilitators,  
the  FP2  ToC.  FP2  will  focus  this  dimension  of  capacity   NGOs  and  complementary  development  programs.  
development  on  national  agencies  as  key  partners  in  
scaling,  building  upon  partnerships  developed  through  
learning  and  governance  networks.  Partner  agencies  will  be  
strengthened  through  direct  engagement  and  shared  
learning,  and  also  through  collaboration  with  development  
programs  outside  FISH  that  directly  target  line  agencies  (e.g.  
a  New  Zealand-­‐funded  capacity  development  program  
embedded  in  the  Solomon  Islands  Ministry  of  Fisheries).  

Flagship  3  
What  capacity?   For  whom?  
Development  and  use  of  technologies  for  production  of   Public  institutions  and  private  sector  actors.  
nutrient-­‐dense  fish,  including  reducing  postharvest  
losses.  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
Various  forms  of  participation  including  participatory   FISH  researchers  in  partnership  with  development  partners  
action  research,  e.g.  policy  dialogues  through  multi-­‐ and  NGOs  specialized  in  policy  dialogue  and  extension  (e.g.  
stakeholder  forums  and  innovation  platforms,  and   Bangladesh  Institute  of  Development  Studies).  
engagement  of  decision-­‐makers  through  the  research  
process.  
Element  4.  Develop  future  research  leaders  
Cross-­‐cutting  across  all  flagships  
What  capacity?   For  whom?  
FISH  science.   Potential  future  research  leaders.  
How  will  it  be  developed?   By  whom  (primary  actors)?  
Postgraduate  training.   Partners  in  tertiary  education—notably  managing  partner  
universities  (i.e.  WUR,  JCU,  NRI,  and  other  ARIs)  in  
partnership  with  universities  in  focus  countries.  
Table  3.  Capacity  Development  Implementation  Strategy  –  roles  and  responsibilities    

  22
 
Annex  3.4  Gender    
 
Background  analysis  
 
This  section  presents  the  gender  analysis  that  informed  and  shaped  FISH  priority  setting  and  research  design.  It  draws  in  
particular  on  learning  from  L&F  and  AAS  CRPs  in  FISH  focal  and  scaling  countries.  
 
Sustainable  aquaculture  (FP1)  
Women’s  involvement  in  small-­‐scale  aquaculture  production  helps  increase  productivity  (Jahan  et  al.  2010)  and  fish  
consumption  within  the  household  (Heck  and  Béné  2007;  Jahan  et  al.  2010;  Kawarazuka  and  Béné  2010).  Yet  women’s  
participation  in  small-­‐scale  aquaculture  production  is  low  compared  to  men  (Jahan  et  al.  2015).  Lack  of  access  to  and  
control  over  key  assets  such  as  land  or  ponds  (Veliu  2009;  Ndanga  et  al.  2013),  capital,  skills,  technologies,  and  
extension  services  (Puskur  and  Pant  2015)  limit  women’s  engagement.  Moreover,  social  norms  and  power  relations  
shape—and  limit—women’s  adoption  and  use  of  aquaculture  knowledge,  technologies  and  practices  through  extension  
(Farnworth  2015;  Morgan  et  al.  2016).  Therefore,  the  program  will  identify  and  test  innovative  strategies  to  increase  
women’s  engagement  in  small-­‐scale  aquaculture  production  by  addressing  these  barriers.  
 
Women  receive  lower  returns  and  are  disproportionately  represented  in  less-­‐profitable  nodes  of  aquaculture  value  
chains  (Kruijssen  et  al.  2013).  Driving  factors  identified  to  date  include  the  following:  
• women’s  limited  access  to  credit  (Bene  and  Merten  2008;  Kruijssen  et  al.  2013;  Ndanga  et  al.  2013);  
• women’s  limited  aquaculture  skills,  land  and  technologies  (Veliu  2009;  Weeratunge  et  al.  2012;  Ndanga  et  al.  
2013);    
• harassment  in  the  marketplace  (Kantor  and  Kruijssen  2014);  
• mobility  restrictions  (Morgan  et  al.  2016);  
• time  and  labor  burdens  doing  unpaid  work  (Shirajee  et  al.  2010);  
• socialization  towards  income  generation  in  less-­‐profitable  activities  (Weeratunge  et  al.  2012).    
 
Women  also  display  lower  levels  of  entrepreneurship  than  men  and  more  frequently  abandon  entrepreneurial  ventures  
(Weeratunge  et  al.  2012).  Thus,  the  program  will  focus  on  refining  and  testing  factors,  models  and  strategies  by  which  
poor  women  can  equitably  participate  in  and  benefit  from  the  entrepreneurial  and  employment  opportunities  
presented  by  aquaculture.  
 
Finally,  program  scoping  has  identified  two  important  areas  not  addressed  in  L&F:  (1)  assessment  of  gendered  
preferences  and  needs,  and  (2)  gendered  impacts  of  genetically  improved  fish,  fish  feeds  and  disease  prevention  
practices.  Insights  in  these  areas  are  needed  so  that  fish  breeding,  feeds  and  disease  innovations  equitably  meet  the  
needs  of  both  women  and  men.  The  FISH  CRP  will  therefore  prioritize  these  areas  in  FP1.    
 
Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries  (FP2)  
Decision-­‐making  in  small-­‐scale  fisheries  governance  tends  to  be  widely  gender-­‐imbalanced  (Hilly  2012;  Schwarz  et  al.  
2014;  Cohen  and  Steenbergen  2015;  Cole  et  al.  2015;  Rajaratnam  et  al.  2015),  with  men  dominating  resource  decision-­‐
making  and  men’s  priorities  more  strongly  reflected  in  resource-­‐management  strategies  (Weeratunge  et  al.  2012;  
Kruijssen  et  al.  2013).  Gender  norms  and  power  relations  underpin  these  imbalances,  shaping  women’s  relatively  low  
agency  in  determining  their  time  spent  on  and  involvement  in  activities  inside  and  outside  their  homes  (Weeratunge  et  
al.  2012;  Cole  et  al.  2015;  Rajaratnam  et  al.  2015).  Without  fundamental  changes  to  norms  and  power  relations,  
improvements  in  governance  and  gender  mainstreaming  (Hilly  et  al.  2011)  are  unlikely  to  be  sustained  and  may  be  only  
partially  effective  in  addressing  gender  biases  in  representation  and  distribution  of  authority  in  decision-­‐making.  To  
combat  this  issue,  the  FISH  CRP  prioritizes  research  on  strategies  for  enhancing  effective  participation  of  women  in  
fisheries  and  natural  resources  management  and  governance,  including  identifying  and  testing  novel  ways  to  increase  
gender-­‐equitable  engagement  in  decision-­‐making.  This  ensures  that  both  visible  and  underlying  factors  shaping  
participation  are  addressed.  
 
There  are  substantial  gender  inequities  in  access  to  and  control  of  natural  resources,  including  land  and  many  aquatic  
resources  (Weeratunge  et  al.  2012;  Burnley  et  al.  2014;  Kwashimbisa  and  Puskur  2014;  Cole  et  al.  2015;  Rajaratnam  et  
al.  2015).  Addressing  these  inequities  requires  understanding  of  (1)  which  assets  are  most  beneficial  to  women  and  men  
to  support  their  individual  and  joint  livelihood  security;  and  (2)  why  gender  asset  gaps  exist  (Weeratunge  et  al.  2012).  
The  first  research  area  was  not  pursued  in  AAS  or  L&F  and  will  be  addressed  in  FISH.  Investigation  of  the  second  focal  
area  through  AAS  elucidated  the  potent  roles  of  gender  and  social  norms  in  shaping  access,  innovation  and  poverty  

  23
 
outcomes  (Cole  et  al.  2015;  Rajaratnam  et  al.  2015).  Furthermore,  gender  analysis  indicated  that  strengthening  fisheries  
conservation  risks  negatively  affecting  the  livelihoods  of  poor  women  most  dependent  on  these  resources  (Schwarz  et  
al.  2014).  In  response,  assessing  strategies  for  win-­‐win  scenarios  for  women’s  livelihoods  and  ecological  outcomes  will  
be  a  priority  for  FISH.  This  includes  testing  the  innovative,  gender-­‐transformative  approach  to  microfinance  piloted  in  
AAS  that  applies  gender-­‐transformative  strategies  to  overcome  barriers  to  women’s  control  over  savings  and  create  
potential  investment  for  alternative  livelihoods.    
 
Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  health  of  the  poor  (FP3)  
In  Bangladesh,  the  relatively  poor  fit  of  small  fish-­‐harvesting  technologies  with  women’s  needs  was  identified  as  an  
obstacle  to  women’s  involvement  in  homestead  fish  farming  (Morgan  et  al.  2015).  Early  findings  from  pre-­‐tests  of  
women-­‐targeted  technologies  indicate  that  they  warrant  full  investigation.  Moreover,  AAS  analysis  signaled  the  need  
for  research  to  address  women’s  time  and  labor  burdens  in  small-­‐scale  aquaculture  (Weeratunge  et  al.  2012).  In  
response,  FP3  will  focus  on  developing  and  testing  women-­‐targeted  technologies  and  test  labor-­‐  and  time-­‐effective  
strategies  to  enable  women  to  raise  and  harvest  small  fish.  
 
L&F  identified  significant  sex-­‐disaggregated  data  gaps  in  existing  fish  value  chain  literature,  including  the  extent  of  
participation  and  costs  and  benefits  of  engagement,  as  well  as  a  need  for  further  understanding  of  policy  and  informal  
factors  that  result  in  gendered  inclusions  or  exclusions.  L&F  found  that  women  were  concentrated  in  postharvest  
aspects  of  value  chains  (Macfadyen  et  al.  2011;  Weeratunge  et  al.  2012),  meaning  that  the  estimated  27%  of  
postharvest  losses  in  fisheries  (Kelleher  2005)  have  a  negative  effect  on  women’s  incomes.  Moreover,  preliminary  
action  research  signaled  that  when  a  postharvest  innovation  is  introduced  and  external  partnership  is  involved,  men’s  
interest  in  postharvest  roles  increases.  This  suggests  that  women’s  postharvest  roles  must  be  protected  for  innovations  
to  have  positive  gender  impacts.  The  FISH  CRP  will  generate  sex-­‐disaggregated  data  across  fish  value  chains  and  
evaluate  factors  that  result  in  gendered  exclusion  or  inclusion.  As  detailed  for  each  FP  in  section  2,  the  program  will  
identify  and  assess  opportunities  to  protect  and  expand  women’s  engagement  in  and  benefits  from  fish  value  chains,  
including  women-­‐targeted  processing  techniques  and  fish-­‐based  product  opportunities.    
 
The  global  recognition  of  the  importance  of  fish  in  nutrition  for  children  and  pregnant  and  lactating  women  has  not  
translated  into  increases  in  consumption  in  many  social  and  economic  contexts  (Thilsted  2012).  Preliminary  evidence  
from  both  Asia  and  Africa  indicates  that  withholding  animal-­‐source  foods  from  women  and  children  is  fairly  common  
(Gittelsohn  and  Vastine  2003;  Nguyen  et  al.  2013).  Fish  consumption  depends  on  household  decisions  about  child  
feeding  practices  and  intra-­‐household  distribution  of  food  (Puskur  and  Thilsted  2012),  which  are  influenced  by  norms,  
attitudes  and  perceptions  about  the  appropriateness  of  fish  for  particular  groups.  Improving  women’s  involvement  in  
household  decisions,  including  intra-­‐household  food  distribution,  can  result  in  higher  levels  of  empowerment  
(Weeratunge  et  al.  2012).  In  response,  the  FISH  CRP  will  undertake  novel  research  into  potential  for  scalable  gender-­‐
transformative  strategies  to  catalyze  integrated  behavior  shifts  in  gender  and  social  norms,  women’s  empowerment,  
and  intra-­‐household  food  distribution.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  24
 
Research  focus  and  hypotheses  to  be  tested  
 
The  distinct  research  focus  for  each  FISH  flagship,  and  the  corresponding  hypotheses  to  be  tested,  are  presented  below  
in  Table  1.  Cross-­‐cutting  areas  of  research  focus  and  corresponding  hypotheses  are  presented  in  Table  2.  
 
Flagship   Research  focus   Hypotheses  to  be  tested  
FP1   This  will  identify,  develop  and  test  strategies  and   We  hypothesize  that  more  gender-­‐sensitive  and  
models  to  overcome  the  constraints  that  limit   women-­‐targeted  breeding,  feed  and  disease  
poor  women’s  engagement  in  small-­‐scale   innovations  will  make  small-­‐scale  aquaculture  
aquaculture  production.  First,  it  will  address  the   production  more  accessible  to  women  and  enable  
identified  constraint  that  fish  breeding  and  feed   them  to  realize  productivity  and  livelihood  gains.  
innovations  do  not  reflect  or  respond  to  the    Based  on  preliminary  investigations  in  focal  countries  
needs  and  opportunities  of  women.  Second,  it   under  AAS,  we  further  hypothesize  that  integrating  
will  address  the  identified  constraints  of  gender-­‐ gender-­‐transformative  strategies  with  technical  
inequitable  norms  and  practices  that  limit   aquaculture  capacity  development  in  extension  
women’s  ability  to  engage  in  and  benefit  from   services  can  significantly  contribute  to  overcoming  
aquaculture  extension.   these  barriers  at  scale  and  thus  enable  women  to  
better  engage  in  and  contribute  to  fish  production.    
FP2   Gender  research  will  focus  on  overcoming   We  hypothesize  that  enhancing  women’s  engagement  
barriers  that  have  led  to  widespread   in  decision-­‐making  will  constructively  influence  both  
underrepresentation  of  women  in  decision-­‐ SSF  management  implementation  and  livelihood  
making  regarding  SSF  management.  The  research   outcomes  for  women  and  men.  Scaling  the  research  
will  identify  underlying  formal  and  informal   products  to  NGOs  and  government  through  
factors  including  gender  norms,  as  well  as   partnerships,  networks,  gender  capacity  development  
governance  and  management  models  and   processes,  and  policy  dialogues  and  input,  the  
strategies  to  address  the  barriers  and  build   research  will  enable  these  actors  to  catalyze,  support  
capacity  of  both  women  and  men  for  gender-­‐ and  engage  in  more  equitable  governance  and  
equitable  engagement  in  governance  and   management  processes    
management.    
FP3   This  will  address  factors  that  limit  women’s   We  hypothesize  that  better-­‐fit  harvesting  technologies  
opportunities  for  and  nutritional  benefits  from   and  associated  women-­‐targeted  strategies,  such  as  
small-­‐fish,  nutrition-­‐oriented  fish  production   pond  location  and  gender-­‐responsive  rice  field  system  
systems.  First,  it  will  address  the  identified  barrier   practices,  are  transferable  at  scale  through  extension  
that  existing  homestead  aquaculture  harvesting   services  and  will  give  women  greater  control  of  small-­‐
technologies  are  a  poor  fit  with  women’s  needs   fish  harvest,  leading  to  increases  in  availability  and  
and  other  factors  such  as  multiple  burdens  on   consumption  of  small,  nutritious  fish  in  poor  
women’s  time.  Second,  it  will  address  the   households.  
inequitable  gender  norms  identified  as      
contributing  to  intra-­‐household  food-­‐sharing   We  hypothesize  that  nutrition  programming  working  
patterns  that  prevent  women—particularly   at  scale  that  integrates  gender-­‐transformative  
pregnant  and  lactating  women—from  meeting   strategies  with  nutritional  messaging  around  fish  will  
their  nutritional  needs.   empower  women  to  improve  gender-­‐equitable  food  
allocation  within  households.    
 
Table  1.  Strategic  and  transformative  gender  research  within  FISH  Flagships  
   

  25
 
 Cross-­‐flagship  research  focus   Hypotheses  to  be  tested  
All  three  flagships  address  the  barriers  that  relegate  women  to  lower   Building  on  findings  from  AAS-­‐piloted  
returns  and  the  lower  value  nodes  of  fish  value  chains,  and  build  on   gender-­‐transformative  approaches  
enabling  factors  and  strategies  that  can  enhance  women’s   integrated  into  microcredit  and  L&F  
engagement  and  returns:   learning  regarding  collective  
i) Access  to  and  control  over  key  assets.  Gender-­‐inequitable  access   empowerment  of  women  retailers  to  
to  and/or  control  over  credit,  land,  storage  and  other  key  assets   challenge  gender  norms  and  power  
and  resources,  as  well  as  gender  barriers  such  as  women’s   imbalances,  we  hypothesize  that  
limited  mobility  and  bargaining  power,  constrain  women’s  share   increasing  gender-­‐equitable  control  over  
of  and  returns  from  value  chains.  Yet  there  is  a  need  for   assets  and  resources  will  require  the  
accurate,  context  specific  and  cross-­‐context  information   expansion  of  gendered  norms  (of  both  
regarding  which  the  most  significant  assets  underpinning  various   women  and  men)  as  well  as  women’s  
women’s  livelihoods  and  potential  for  successful  and  substantive   strategic  capabilities  shaped  by  those  
entrepreneurial  activities  from  aquaculture  and  fisheries,  and   norms,  including  mobility,  networks  and  
how  various  factors  limit  or  enable  women’s  access  to  and   social  organization.    
control  over  these  assets  (FP1  &  FP2).    In  response,  the  research   We  also  recognize  potential  risks  and  
will  identify  key  assets  for  different  women,  within  and  across   tradeoffs,  such  as  safeguarding  assets  and  
focal  countries,  and  identify  and  test  strategies  to  increase   resources  for  women  versus  protecting  
women’s  access  to  and  control  over  these  key  assets  and   fish  stocks  in  SSF  management  
resources.     interventions,  or  consumer-­‐oriented  value  
ii) Market,  social  and  gender  barriers.  These  barriers  limit  women   chain  interventions  to  lower  fish  prices,  
entering  higher-­‐return  value  chain  opportunities.  We   which  may  also  affect  incomes  of  women  
hypothesize  that,  in  conjunction  with  addressing  these  barriers,   producers  and  traders.  Hypothesizing  that  
the  identification  and  development  of  novel  entrepreneurial   win-­‐win  options  are  possible  and  feasible,  
entry  points  may  increase  accessibility  of  wealth-­‐generating   the  program  will  identify,  prioritize  and  
opportunities  and  leadership  roles  for  women,  rather  than   test  best-­‐bet  intervention  options.  
competing  for  existing  male-­‐dominated  nodes.  FP1  and  FP3  will    
identify  and  empirically  test  two  such  novel  areas:  locally  
sourced  fish  feed  development  and  sales  (FP1),  and  the  
production  and  retailing  of  fish  products,  including  for  infants  
and  children  (FP3).  
Table  2.  Strategic  and  transformative  gender  research  across  FISH  Flagships  
 
Operationalization  of  gender  in  FISH  
 
Gender  research  will  be  integrated  in  the  research  agenda  for  each  flagship,  supported  by  a  cross-­‐cutting  team  
coordinated  by  the  Gender  Research  Leader.  This  section  presents  the  aims,  organization,  operationalization  and  
indicators  for  M&E.  
 
Aims  
The  overall  aims  of  the  gender  research  team  in  the  program  are  to  do  the  following:  
• Apply  and  support  gender  analysis  to  shape  the  priorities,  agenda  and  design  of  the  CRP  and  each  of  the  three  
flagships.  
• As  a  part  of  each  flagship,  undertake  cutting-­‐edge  strategic  gender  research  leading  to  the  identified  products  and  
outcomes  in  each  of  the  three  flagships.  
• Support  all  FISH  research  so  that  it  is  effectively  gender-­‐inclusive  and  gender-­‐integrated,  including  through  sex-­‐
disaggregated,  intersectional  analysis,  as  appropriate.  
• Identify,  develop  and  empirically  test  needed  methods  for  gender  research,  in  particular  for  assessing  
transformative  change  and  women’s  empowerment.  
• Contribute  to  systemic  gender  changes  via  gender  capacity  building  for  and  with  researchers  and  local  to  
international  partners,  including  young  female  scientists.    
• Contribute  to  the  continued  development  of  gender  in  CGIAR  through  scientific  and  collaborative  engagement  in  
the  CGIAR  Collaborative  Platform  for  Gender  Research.  
 
Organization  and  staffing  
The  gender  team  will  be  comprised  of  the  Gender  Research  Leader  (Senior  Scientist  at  WorldFish),  a  team  of  gender  
researchers  covering  all  FP  countries,  and  a  wider  FISH  gender  community  of  practice  (CoP),  engaging  an  
interdisciplinary  group  of  scientists  and  partners.  In  terms  of  staffing,  FISH  will  act  on  the  learning  from  AAS  regarding  
  26
 
the  need  for  appropriate  gender  expertise  at  each  level.  Specifically,  while  AAS  recruited  junior  gender  analysts  into  key  
locations  to  support  needs  assessment,  FISH  is  taking  a  more  strategic,  outcomes-­‐based  approach.  The  gender  analysis  
and  planning  that  laid  the  foundation  for  the  FISH  proposal  has  enabled  the  identification  of  strategic  gender  research  
issues  and  intended  gender  outcomes  for  each  flagship.  Thus,  as  a  part  of  the  proposal  development  process,  each  
flagship  has—in  conjunction  with  the  Gender  Leader—assessed  what  level  and  type  of  gender  expertise  is  needed  in  
which  countries  for  each  cluster  to  carry  out  the  research  and  activities  leading  to  these  outcomes.  As  a  result,  each  
flagship  has  its  own  gender  staffing  plan,  by  cluster  and  country,  which  has  been  factored  into  the  budget  calculations.  
The  end  result  is  that  all  work  in  all  focal  countries  has  dedicated  gender  expertise  assigned  to  it,  ranging  from  national  
postdoctoral  fellows  to  international  scientist  positions,  depending  on  the  complexity  and  scope  of  work  as  well  as  
budget.  This  will  be  implemented  through  a  combination  of  existing  staff  (such  as  Dr.  S.  Cole,  gender  scientist,  Zambia),  
new  gender  positions  being  developed  in  each  focal  country  (including  two  new  CGIAR  gender  postdoctoral  fellows),  
gender  partnerships  (such  as  with  Promundo),  and,  in  some  cases,  gender  science  leadership  through  partners  (such  as  
KIT’s  leadership  of  gender  research  in  FP3,  cluster  2).  A  selection  of  these  roles  is  presented  in  Annex  3.8  (Staffing).  
Funding  has  been  allocated  for  gender  capacity  development  of  these  gender  team  members  and  other  FISH  research  
staff  and  partners.  This  includes  activities  to  enhance  gender  analysis  skills  (through  CGIAR  and  other  opportunities,  
such  as  Penn  State  or  UEA  gender  analysis  courses)  and  increase  gender  awareness  and  gender-­‐transformative  
capacities  among  staff  and  partners  (with  key  proven  gender  partner  Promundo).    
 
The  Gender  Research  Leader  will  engage  closely  with  the  FISH  Independent  Steering  Committee  to  ensure  science  
quality  and  depth  and  breadth  of  gender  in  FISH  research.  The  team  will  communicate  and  collaborate  with  gender  
researchers  in  other  CRPs  around  emerging  areas  of  interest,  in  particular  on  synergies  between  the  entrepreneurial  
work  in  livestock  on  animal  feeds  and  the  planned  work  in  FISH  on  aquafeeds.  It  will  contribute  to  and  benefit  from  
engagement  in  the  new  Gender  Platform,  including  around  methodological  development  and  strategies  for  effective  
gender  integration  in  CRPs.  Further,  it  will  contribute  to  and  benefit  from  the  CGIAR  investment  in  gender  through  the  
Consortium’s  Postdoctoral  Fellow  Program,  focusing  on  building  the  capacity  of  emerging  scientists  from  developing  
countries.  
 
Operationalization  
Building  on  the  success  of  the  gender  approach  in  L&F  and  AAS,  the  gender  team  will  be  organized  towards  the  
achievement  of  its  goals  by  developing  and  implementing  a  road  map  for  effective  integration  and  implementation  of  
gender  research  in  FISH.  The  road  map  will  be  based  on  a  collaborative  process  of  visioning,  goal-­‐setting  and  action  
planning  across  key  areas,  including  capacity  development,  research  quality,  outputs  and  M&E.  This  process  will  involve  
gender  team  and  CoP  researchers,  as  well  as  the  FISH  management  committee  and  partners.  The  road  map  will  be  
revisited  and  updated  each  year  as  part  of  ongoing  M&E,  catalyzing  learning  about  progress  and  strengths,  weaknesses  
or  gaps,  challenges  and  opportunities,  thus  enabling  iterative  improvement  in  the  planning  and  implementation  of  
gender  research  (see  also  Annex  3.6).    
 
As  part  of  research  activity  planning  in  FISH,  flagship  research  teams  will  involve  gender  researchers  to  consider  in  what  
way  and  to  what  extent  gender  is  relevant  to  their  research  and  integral  to  achieving  the  research  aims.  Researchers  will  
jointly  establish  how  the  research  will  be  gender-­‐integrated,  if  there  will  be  strategic  gender  research  and/or  if  gender-­‐
transformative  strategies  are  required  or  should  be  tested.  These  are  distinguished  as  follows:    
• Gender-­‐integrated  research  is  defined  by  CGIAR  as  research  that  integrates  consideration  of  gender  into  technical  
research  of  the  principal  topic  of  study;  for  example,  plant  breeding,  aquaculture,  postharvest  technology  
development  or  systems  intensification  (CGIAR  2015).  Note  that  the  FISH  CRP  will  aim  to  be  intersectional  in  its  
approach  to  gender;  i.e.  addressing  cross-­‐cutting  differences  such  as  age,  wealth,  livelihood  groups,  caste  or  
ethnicity,  rather  than  simply  distinguishing  men  versus  women.  
• Strategic  gender  research  is  defined  by  CGIAR  as  research  that  studies  gender  as  the  primary  topic  in  a  social  
analysis  designed  to  understand  what  the  implications  of  gender  are  for  agriculture;  for  example,  how  men  and  
women  allocate  labor  resources  in  intra-­‐household  decision-­‐making  about  farm  production  (CGIAR  2015).  
• A  gender-­‐transformative  approach  to  research  is  an  approach  that  “can  be  applied  within  research  to  examine,  
question  and,  most  fundamentally,  enable  changes  in  inequitable  gender  norms,  attitudes,  behaviors  and  practices  
and  the  related  imbalances  of  power  (IGWG  2010).  Through  encouraging  critical  awareness  among  men  and  
women  of  social  inequality  and  practices,  [gender-­‐transformative  approaches]  help  people  challenge  and  re-­‐shape  
distribution  of  and  control  over  resources,  allocation  of  duties  between  men  and  women,  and  access  to  and  
influence  in  decision  making  (Caro  2009).  They  also  enable  men  and  boys  to  question  the  effects  of  harmful  
masculinity,  not  only  on  women,  but  also  on  men  themselves”  (Meng  2015,  1  in  McDougall  et  al.  2015,  42).  
 

  27
 
In  terms  of  research  processes  and  methods,  all  types  of  FISH  research  will  be  gender-­‐inclusive  (i.e.  applying  tested  and  
innovative  strategies,  methods  and  tools  to  ensure  that  women  and  men  have  equitable  opportunity  for,  quality  of  
engagement  in,  and  returns  from  participation  in  FISH  research  processes).    
 
In  conjunction  with  the  above,  the  gender  team  will  organize  integration  and  collaboration  between  various  activities  
for  the  sake  of  coherence  and  synergies  and  spearhead  synthesis  of  gender  research  across  activities,  generating  
international  public  goods  as  a  result.  Moreover,  the  gender  team—together  with  the  FISH  flagships  and  management  
committee—will  work  with  research  teams  to  identify  and  address  gender-­‐related  capacity  development  processes  and  
initiatives.  These  will  include  in-­‐house  processes  such  as  iterative  reflection  processes  and  mentoring,  as  well  as  
externally  led  capacity  development  such  as  trainings  and  workshops.  This  will  dovetail  with  the  CGIAR  Gender  Platform  
capacity  development  agenda.  
 
Monitoring  and  evaluation  (M&E)  
Gender  M&E  work  will  include  three  aspects,  each  of  which  will  be  carried  out  in  connection  with  the  overall  program  
M&E  strategy  as  appropriate:  development  and  testing  of  methods,  tools  and  (survey)  instruments  for  assessing  gender-­‐
transformative  change  and  women’s  empowerment;  M&E  for  gender  learning  and  program  improvement;  and,  M&E  of  
gender  integration  and  outputs  in  FISH  research,  as  well  as  of  selected  research  and  development  outcomes.  As  noted  
above,  M&E  for  learning  in  relation  to  gender  takes  place  annually  through  a  systematic  review  based  on  the  gender  
road  map.  The  Gender  Research  Leader  will  partner  with  the  M&E  Leader  to  quantitatively  track  indicators  of  progress  
regarding  gender  integration,  outputs  and  select  outcomes.  The  proposed  M&E  framework  for  this  in  Table  3  below.  
These  indicators  focus  on  the  proportion  of  activities  that  are  gender-­‐integrated  and  gender-­‐strategic,  on  research  
products  that  reflect  gender  and  on  gender  capacity  development.  The  evaluation  of  gender-­‐related  development  
outcomes  is  addressed  as  part  of  the  broader  results-­‐based  management  approach  in  Annex  3.6.  
 
Focus  of  M&E   Indicators     Source     Timing  
Gender  integration   Percentage  of  activities  that  are  gender-­‐integrated,  i.e.  with   Activity  progress   Annual  
in  FISH  research  and   sex-­‐disaggregated  data  and  analysis   reports  
capacity  building     Percentage  of  activities  that  are  gender-­‐strategic,  i.e.   Activity  progress   Annual  
express  gender  within  problem  statement  and  research   reports  
design  and  include  gender-­‐focused  research  questions  or  
activities,  including  those  targeting  women  or  girls  
Number  of  female  and  male  staff,  partners  and  local  women   Activity  progress   Annual  
and  men  who  participated  in  trainings  focused  on  gender,   reports  
women  or  girls  
Extent  to  which  gender  plans  and  goals  for  gender   Participatory  review   Annual  
integration,  strategic  gender  research  and  gender-­‐ of  gender  road  map  
transformative  research,  as  expressed  in  gender  road  map  
are  implemented  and  met  
Extent  to  which  gender  plans  and  goals  for  capacity   Participatory  review   Annual  
development  expressed  in  gender  road  maps  are   of  gender  road  map  
implemented  and  met  
Research  products   Percentage  of  outputs  (peer-­‐reviewed  journal  articles  and   Activity  progress   Annual  
(outputs)   in-­‐house  publications)  presenting  gendered  analysis  (i.e.  sex-­‐ reports  
disaggregated  data  and  analysis)  
Research  outcomes   Application  of  FISH  gender  findings,  learning  and  insights  in   Partner  reports   3  
partner  programming   years  
Development   Reduction  in  gender  gap  in  control  over  productive  assets   Program  impact   5  
outcomes   and  resources  (Sub-­‐IDO  XC  2.1.1)   assessments  and   years  
evaluation  reports  
Improved  capacity  of  women  and  young  people  to   Program  impact   5  
participate  in  decision-­‐making  (Sub-­‐IDO  XC  2.1.3)   assessments  and   years  
evaluation  reports  
Table  3.  Indicators  for  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  FISH  gender  research  integration,  outputs  and  outcomes.  

  28
 
Annex  3.5  Youth  strategy  
 
The  FISH  CRP  adopts  a  youth-­‐responsive  research  agenda  to  engage  young  women  and  men  in  aquaculture  production,  
small-­‐scale  fisheries  and  fish  value  chains  that  are  socially  just  and  economically  and  ecologically  sustainable.  The  
program  seeks  to  increase  opportunities  for  safe  and  rewarding  youth  employment  and  entrepreneurship  in  
aquaculture  and  small-­‐scale  fisheries  value  chains  in  diverse  geographic  regions  and  socio-­‐economic  contexts.  Further,  
our  research  on  governance,  management  and  technological  innovations  will  deliberately  engage  youth  and  determine  
the  factors  and  processes  that  enable  or  hinder  youth  participation  and  representation.    
 
Challenges  and  opportunities  for  youth  in  small-­‐scale  fisheries  and  aquaculture  
In  2025,  the  youth  population  in  Asia  is  estimated  to  exceed  1  billion  (Ashford  et  al.  2006),  while  in  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa,  
17  million  young  people  enter  the  job  market  every  year  (Losch  2012).  Because  of  limited  employment  and  enterprise  
opportunities  for  youth  in  rural  areas,  rural  to  urban  migration  is  increasing,  leaving  a  large  aging  population  in  rural  
areas.  Barriers  to  youth  participating  and  investing  in  fisheries  and  aquaculture  production  and  value  chains  range  from  
limited  access  to  fishing  grounds  and  land,  capital,  inputs,  and  knowledge  and  training  on  fisheries  and  aquaculture  
management  and  markets,  to  youth  perceptions  of  the  sectors  as  undesirable  (White  2012;  van  Asseldonk  2015).    
 
To  unlock  the  potential  of  the  younger  generation  to  develop  entrepreneurial  capabilities  for  productive  livelihoods  
within  small-­‐scale  fisheries  and  aquaculture  value  chains,  youth  policies  have  to  be  examined  at  the  intersections  of  
gender  and  other  social  and  economic  divisions.  Any  innovations  that  target  youth  must  also  ensure  basic  norms  of  
safety  and  human  rights.  This  is  especially  important  given  that  in  both  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  subsectors  there  
are  documented  abuses  of  labor  standards,  including  the  use  of  child  labor.  According  to  the  International  Labor  
Organization  (ILO),  child  labor  is  “work  that  impairs  children’s  well-­‐being  or  hinders  their  education,  development  and  
future  livelihoods.”  In  the  case  of  the  capture  fisheries  and  aquaculture  subsectors,  children  have  been  found  to  engage  
in  a  wide  variety  of  activities,  both  in  the  harvesting  and  farming  of  fish  and  in  related  processing  and  marketing  
operations.  The  use  of  child  labor  appears  to  be  widespread  in  the  informal  small-­‐  and  medium-­‐scale  sectors;  a  
preliminary  study  by  the  FAO  and  ILO  notes  “the  total  number  of  child  laborers  in  fisheries  and  aquaculture  in  the  world  
is  likely  to  be  many  millions”  (FAO-­‐ILO  2011).  A  study  in  Cambodia  indicated  that  children  make  up  over  30%  of  fish-­‐
processing  workers  (Chhorviririth  et  al.  2005).  Efforts  to  improve  fisheries  governance  can  provide  a  vehicle  to  address  
such  abuses  (Ratner  et  al.  2014).    
 
With  a  lack  of  data  and  context-­‐specific  studies  indicating  the  relevance  of  and  opportunities  for  female  and  male  youth  
in  small-­‐scale  fisheries  and  aquaculture,  youth  are  often  neglected  as  a  specific  target  group  in  policies  and  as  relevant  
stakeholders  and  agents  of  change  within  these  landscapes.  Socio-­‐cultural  norms  and  practices  within  gerontocratic  
societies  also  limit  youth  decision-­‐making  abilities  and  access  to  resources.  Hence  social,  cultural,  institutional  and  
economic  barriers  and  opportunities  for  youth  to  engage  in  fish  value  chains  by  adopting  innovations  in  production,  
processing  and  trade  need  to  be  understood  and  targeted  to  promote  sustainable  youth  employment  and  
entrepreneurship.  Youth  engagement  has  trans-­‐generational  importance:  youth  are  gatekeepers  to  the  diffusion  of  
innovative  ideas  and  knowledge  within  households.  It  is  therefore  essential  to  target  them  in  efforts  to  promote  
adoption  of  novel  agricultural  technologies,  as  well  as  in  behavior  change  communication  interventions  on  nutrition  and  
health.  
 
Enabling  youth  engagement  and  livelihood  opportunities  through  FISH  
The  program  will  use  qualitative  studies  to  explore  and  investigate  the  perceptions  of  female  and  male  youth  on  their  
roles,  aspirations  and  needs  with  regard  to  livelihood  opportunities  in  small-­‐scale  fisheries  and  aquaculture  value  
chains.  Particular  capacity  development  needs  will  be  addressed  through  the  capacity  development  needs  assessment  
in  each  focal  country.  The  program  will  adopt  rights-­‐based  approaches  to  engage  with  youth,  to  help  create  socially  just  
and  safe,  youth-­‐friendly  livelihood  opportunities  and  positively  inform  fishery  reform  processes.  All  research  activities  
involving  youth  will  be  subject  to  the  research  ethics  review  and  child  safety  policies  of  the  lead  center,  WorldFish.  
 
The  FISH  CRP  will  use  research  to  build  on  and  align  with  national  and  international  efforts,  such  as  the  National  Youth  
Policy  of  Zambia  and  the  Pan-­‐African  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Policy  Framework  and  Reform  Strategy  on  youth.  These  
aim  at  increasing  economic  participation,  entrepreneurship  development  (including  aquaculture,  education  and  skills  
development)  and  health  for  youth  throughout  the  country.  We  will  also  work  with  other  agencies  with  greater  
outreach  to  youth.  As  needed,  the  program  will  access  technical  inputs  from  groups  experienced  in  capacity  
development  and  facilitating  networking,  meetings  and  workshops  for  youth,  such  as  KIT  and  AgroProFocus.  Other  

  29
 
potential  partners  are  the  NGOs  Concern  Worldwide,  Caritas  and  Self-­‐Help  Africa,  as  they  have  far-­‐reaching  
development  programs  for  youth.    
 
A  summary  of  key  youth-­‐focused  research  elements  is  provided  below  for  each  flagship.  
 
Flagship  1:  Sustainable  aquaculture  
As  the  fastest-­‐growing  food  production  sector  in  the  world,  aquaculture  is  well  placed  to  create  new  opportunities  for  
employment  and  entrepreneurship  among  young  people  in  Africa  and  Asia.  Integration  of  youth-­‐focused  research  in  FP1  
will  be  informed  by  an  assessment  in  the  focal  countries  of  Bangladesh,  Egypt  and  Myanmar  during  2017.  The  
assessment  will  elaborate  subsequent  research  priorities,  as  well  as  specific  processes  to  follow  during  research  
implementation.  FP1  will  also  designate  one  young  scientist  based  in  Myanmar  as  a  focal  point  for  youth  research,  with  
responsibilities  for  wider  coordination,  sharing  of  learning  and  cross-­‐country  synthesis  of  youth  research.      
 
Consultations  made  during  the  program  design  stage  indicate  a  number  of  key  areas  of  focus.  The  program  will  test  
approaches  that  enable  youth  to  use  (or  develop  capacities  to  use)  IT  within  various  elements  of  the  aquaculture  value  
chain;  for  example,  to  identify  suppliers  of  improved  fingerlings  or  fish  feed  or  to  contact  traders  to  buy  their  farmed  
fish.  In  Bangladesh,  there  are  emerging  opportunities  for  partnering  with  IT  service  providers  such  as  mSTAR  to  pilot  the  
use  of  mobile  services  and  organizations  such  as  Amar  Desh  Amar  to  test  the  potential  for  farmers  to  sell  aquaculture  
products,  where  young  people  can  play  key  roles  in  the  computer  center  and  selling  points.    
 
FP1  will  support  the  incubation  of  youth  aquaculture  businesses,  including  mentoring,  business  attachments  or  
competitions,  such  as  a  new  Aquaculture  Business  Incubator  proposed  in  Myanmar  in  collaboration  with  Project  Hub  
Yangon.  WorldFish  experience  with  an  ASEAN  youth  innovation  prize,  as  part  of  the  YSEALI  project,  will  also  inform  
approaches  to  be  adopted  in  FISH.  The  development  of  suitable  business  models  to  be  developed  and  tested  through  
FISH,  involving  young  people  and  the  use  of  IT  in  different  aspects  of  the  aquaculture  value  chain,  can  then  be  adapted  
to  the  scaling  countries  under  FP1  (Zambia,  India  and  Nigeria).  We  will  also  collaborate  in  Nigeria  and  Tanzania  with  the  
IITA  Youth  Agripreneurs  program,  where  there  are  emerging  opportunities  to  include  aquaculture.  
 
Providing  specialist  aquaculture  services  (e.g.  fish  harvesting  teams  or  pond  preparation  and  construction  teams  with  
better  equipment  than  individual  farms  can  afford)  is  another  opportunity  to  employ  youth  that  will  be  tested  in  Egypt  
under  FP1,  cluster  3.  As  50%  of  the  people  employed  in  aquaculture  in  Egypt  are  under  30  years  old,  there  is  huge  
potential  to  include  youth  in  such  enterprises.    
 
Young  people  have  proven  to  be  important  team  members  in  community-­‐managed  aquaculture  processes,  such  as  the  
monitoring  of  on-­‐farm  performance  of  fish  stocks.  Under  cluster  1,  young  people  can  therefore  be  considered  agents  of  
research  and  employed  in  teams  for  data  gathering  and  monitoring  processes,  as  in  the  case  of  fish  farming  in  
Bangladesh,  Myanmar  and  Egypt.  This  will  also  help  improve  their  technical  skills  and  organizational  capacity.    
 
Flagship  2:  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries  
FP2  will  engage  with  young  people  as  targets  for  research  and  policy  development,  as  co-­‐researchers,  and  as  agents  of  
change  in  fishery-­‐dependent  households  and  communities.  Youth  bring  a  unique  perspective  and  energy  to  collective  
action  problems  and  often  play  important  roles  in  catalyzing  change.  However,  in  many  social  and  economic  contexts  
youth  do  not  enjoy  the  opportunities,  empowerment  and  voice  of  other  members  of  society.    
 
In  fishery  co-­‐management  action  research  in  clusters  1  and  2,  we  will  continue  to  engage  with  youth  in  developing  
momentum  for  change  as  a  particular  constituency  in  decision-­‐making  and  implementing  resource  management  plans.  
Community  engagement  in  Myanmar,  Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Solomon  Islands  and  the  Philippines  will  target  youth  by  
providing  forums  for  youth  inclusion  and  participation  in  decision-­‐making.  While  we  have  experienced  greater  success  
where  youth  have  been  involved  in  management  and  research  (i.e.  higher  compliance  and  fit  of  fisheries  management,  
and  high  quality  and  sustainability  of  resource  monitoring),  in  our  future  research  we  will  more  fully  engage  with  youth  
aspirations  and  support  them  to  have  a  voice  in  program-­‐related  decisions.    
 
We  will  engage  with  young  people  as  opinion  makers  and  innovators  to  help  scale  successes  in  co-­‐management.  We  will  
exploit  a  range  of  media,  including  smartphone  apps,  theater,  comics  and  traditional  media  to  spread  awareness  of  co-­‐
management  innovations.  We  will  include  young  people  in  participatory  scenario  development  to  give  voice  to  a  distinct  
range  of  opinions,  including  those  of  male  and  female  youth,  about  the  future.  Where  applicable,  FP2  will  work  with  
national  agencies  for  education  and  youth  affairs  to  deepen  awareness  of  natural  resource  management  issues  among  
young  people  and  to  promote  next-­‐generation  research  leaders  and  policymakers.  

  30
 
In  cluster  3  we  explore  two  case  studies  of  intraregional  trade—in  the  Great  Lakes  fish  trade  corridor  in  Africa  (Uganda,  
Kenya  and  Tanzania)  and  the  Mekong  Delta  (Cambodia  and  Vietnam).  We  will  explore  opportunities  for  enhancing  the  
safety  of  and  improving  the  benefits  derived  by  male  and  female  youth  engaged  in  different  segments  of  these  fish  
value  chains.  We  will  also  investigate  what  structural  support  is  required,  such  as  inputs,  finance,  knowledge  and  skills,  
for  different  social  and  economic  groups  of  young  men  and  women.  In  terms  of  knowledge  and  skills,  we  will  place  
special  emphasis  on  better  understanding  the  role  that  IT  could  play  in  capture  fisheries  value  chains  and  how  young  
people  may  get  involved.    
 
Flagship  3:  Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  health  of  the  poor  
In  FP3,  we  will  assess  the  existing  and  potential  roles  of  youth  in  nutrition-­‐sensitive  aquaculture  production,  and  
develop  and  test  youth-­‐responsive  technologies  to  maximize  the  production  of  nutrient-­‐rich  fish  in  pond  polyculture  
systems  in  Bangladesh  (cluster  1).  The  technologies  we  test  and  promote  will  explore  ways  of  minimizing  the  time  
demands  on  women  in  particular,  including  young  women.  We  will  work  in  close  partnership  with  organizations  such  as  
Helen  Keller  International  and  Save  the  Children,  whose  networks  can  help  scale  the  impact  of  our  research  beyond  our  
focal  geographies.    
 
Under  cluster  3,  which  focuses  on  research  to  increase  consumption  of  nutritious  fish  in  the  first  1000  days  of  life,  we  
are  considering  targeting  schools  as  a  channel  to  drive  behavior  change.  Targeting  school  curricula  provides  an  
opportunity  to  raise  youth  awareness  on  the  importance  of  fish  for  pregnant  and  lactating  women  and  for  infants  and  
young  children.  Given  that  many  of  the  adverse  pregnancy  outcomes  that  contribute  to  maternal  mortality  worldwide  
occur  during  the  first  pregnancy  (such  as  pre-­‐eclampsia  and  early  preterm  delivery),  and  growing  evidence  that  the  
nutrients  in  fish  can  help  prevent  those  outcomes,  targeting  adolescents  with  those  messages  is  important.  We  will  also  
explore  collaborations  with  school  feeding  programs,  building  on  the  results  of  a  survey  by  the  Global  Nutrition  
Foundation  that  suggests  there  is  strong  demand  for  more  information  about  fish  and  animal-­‐source  foods  in  school  
feeding  programs  in  many  countries  throughout  the  world.      

  31
 
Annex  3.6  Results-­‐based  management  
 
Introduction  
FISH  will  implement  outcomes-­‐focused  results-­‐based  management  (RBM)  to  support  improved  program  performance.  
We  will  use  this  approach  to  improve  learning  and  accountability,  track  progress  towards  our  objectives,  and  provide  
quality  information  for  adaptive  program  management.  We  also  plan  that  the  RBM  system  will  include  systematic  and  
rigorous  evaluation  to  identify  effective  implementation  strategies  that  are  evidence-­‐based.    
 
Our  focus  on  results  measurement  is  embedded  in  the  program’s  overall  theory  of  change  (Section  1.0.3,  Figure  2),  
where  feedback  and  associated  learning  is  based  on  the  routine  monitoring  of  progress  towards  intermediate  
outcomes.  Information  generated  will  be  used  to  validate  the  theory  of  change,  to  understand  the  shifts  in  assumptions  
that  have  occurred,  guide  adaptive  management  as  needed  and  update  the  program  and  flagship  level  theories  of  
change.    
 
Framework  
RBM  starts  with  program  design  and  is  part  of  the  ongoing  cycle  of  program  planning,  implementation,  reporting  and  
evaluation.  It  also  supports  budgeting,  particularly  as  course  corrections  become  important  based  on  evidence  
produced.  Key  steps  in  this  cycle  include:  
• defining  clear  impact  pathways  and  their  theories  of  change  (including  assumptions  and  identifying  actors  and  the  
changes  expected  from  them  where  possible);  
• monitoring  of  outputs,  outcomes  and  impacts;  
• evaluation  and  impact  assessment;  
• learning  and  progressing  learning  agendas;  
• adaptive  management  and  budgeting.  
 
Each  of  these  steps  is  summarized  below  together  with  a  summary  of  implementation  plans  and  main  budget  elements.  
 
Impact  pathways  and  theories  of  change  
The  program’s  impact  pathways  and  theories  of  change  describe  how  we  envisage  the  program’s  research  leading  to  
outputs  and,  in  turn,  to  outcomes  and  impacts.  The  RBM  system  will  track  progress  along  these  pathways,  as  well  as  the  
validity  of  our  assumptions  and  approaches  to  managing  risk,  and  use  learning  and  feedback  loops  to  modify  design  and  
implementation  so  as  to  enhance  performance.  We  will  integrate  program  and  flagship  level  investment  in  RBM  with  
that  conducted  as  part  of  bilateral  projects.  Using  this  system,  we  will  keep  our  impact  pathways  and  theories  of  change  
under  regular  review  and  adapt  as  necessary.  
 
Monitoring    
The  RBM  system  depends  on  the  continuous  collection  and  analysis  of  data  on  outputs,  outcomes  and  impacts,  together  
with  information  on  our  key  assumptions  underpinning  our  theories  of  change  and  associated  risks.  We  will  use  these  
data  to  track  progress  against  a  set  of  program  milestones  (see  Performance  Indicators  Matrix)  as  part  of  annual  
assessments  of  progress.  Impacts  will  be  assessed  through  dedicated  and  discrete  impact  assessment  studies.  For  sub-­‐
IDOs,  we  will  use  a  suite  of  specific  indicators.  A  first  analysis  of  these  is  provided  in  Table  1,  and  a  refined  list  will  be  
developed  in  preparing  for  program  implementation.  We  will  complement  these  indicators  with  methods  to  estimate  
our  contribution  to  SLO  targets.  A  first  description  of  these  is  provided  in  Table  2,  and  these  will  also  be  developed  
further  in  preparing  for  program  implementation.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  32
 
  
Indicator   Sub-­‐IDOs   Method  of  measurement   Where   Frequency  
IDO:  Improved  diets  for  poor  and  vulnerable  people    
Women’s  average  fish   Increased  access  to   Surveys  using  locally  adapted   All  focal   Every  three  years  
consumption  per  day     diversified  nutrient-­‐ tools  or  extrapolation  from   countries  
  rich  food     secondary  data  (e.g.  HIES)  
Child’s  average  fish    
consumption  per  day  (6–24  
months  of  age)  
Women’s  minimum  dietary   Increased  access  to   Surveys  that  will  include   Bangladesh,   Every  three  years  
diversity  score  (WDDS)   diversified  nutrient-­‐ separate  disaggregation  of  the   Cambodia,  
rich  food     animal  source  foods  group  to   Tanzania  
capture  fish  specifically  
Child  minimum  dietary   Increased  access  to   Surveys,  as  well  as  secondary   Bangladesh,   Every  three  years  
diversity  score  (MDDS)   diversified  nutrient-­‐ data,  with  separate   Cambodia,  
rich  food     disaggregation  of  fish  as  noted   Tanzania  
above  
WFP  food  consumption   Increased  access  to   Surveys,  secondary  data   Bangladesh,   Every  three  years  
score   diversified  nutrient-­‐ Cambodia,  
rich  food   Tanzania  
%  of  youth  (young  men  and   Increased  access  to   Household  surveys,  surveys  in   FP3  areas     Every  three  years  
women)  with  increased   diversified  nutrient-­‐ targeted  schools  
awareness  of  the   rich  foods  
importance  of  fish  to  
improve  nutrition  of  
pregnant  and  lactating  
women,  and  infants  
(disaggregated  by  gender,  
age  and  wealth)  
IDO:  Improved  food  safety  
Percent  reduction  in   Reduced  biological   Sample  surveys   Bangladesh,   Every  three  years  
microbial  and/or  chemical   and  chemical   Tanzania  
contamination  of  fish     hazards  in  the  food  
system    
IDO:  Increased  productivity  
Average  production   Closed  yield  gaps   Logbooks,  sample  surveys,   FP1  focal   Annually  
(kg/ha/year)   through  improved   partner  reports   countries  
agronomic  and  
animal  husbandry  
practices  
 
Reduced  livestock  
and  fish  diseases  
Estimated  breeding  value   Enhanced  genetic   Routine  collection  through   FP1  focal   Per  generation  
gain/year  for  target  traits   gains   breeding  program   countries   (most  often  
(%)     annually)  
Percent  reduction  in   Reduced  pre-­‐  and   Sample  surveys,  value   Bangladesh,   Every  three  years  
postharvest  loss  (physical   postharvest  losses   estimation  along  the  value  chain   Tanzania    
and/or  nutritional)    
Feed  conversion  ratio   More  efficient  use   Sample  surveys,  logbooks   FP1  focal   Every  three  years  
  of  inputs     countries  
Water  use  efficiency      
(kg/fish/m3  water)    
(kg/fish/m3  nitrogen)  
(kg/fish/m3  phosphorus)  

  33
 
 •  Disease  prevalence  (%)   Reduced  livestock   Sample  surveys,  logbooks   FP1  focal   Continuous  
•  Loss  due  to  disease   and  fish  diseases   countries   monitoring  
(survival/stocking)     minimum  one  
compared  to  baseline   cropping  cycle      
IDO:  Increased  incomes  and  employment  
#  of  women  and  men  fish   Diversified   Sample  surveys   FP1  focal   Before/after  
farmers  and  fish  value  chain   enterprise   countries  
actors  with  increased   opportunities  
income  (disaggregated  by    
age  and  wealth  group)   Increased  
livelihood  
opportunities  
#  of  women  and  men   Increased   Household  surveys,  wellbeing   All  FP2  sites       Every  three  years  
assisted  to  exit  poverty   livelihood   indicators  from  OECD  (2013),  
through  livelihood   opportunities     Household  Income  and  
improvements     Expenditure  Surveys,  national  
  Increased  capacity   census  data  and  other  third  
to  cope  with  shocks   party  sources  (e.g.  development  
  partners)  
#  of  women  and  men   Increased   Government  employment   All  FP1  countries  Every  three  years  
employed  in  aquaculture   livelihood   reports;  Household  Income  and  
(disaggregated  by  age  and   opportunities   Expenditure/LSMS  surveys  
wealth  group)    
#  of  youth  (young  men  and   Increased   Surveys  and  extrapolation  from   FP1  cluster  3   Before  and  after  
women)  involved  in  socially   livelihood   government  employment   and  FP2  cluster   interventions  
just  and  safe  youth   opportunities   reports,  household  income  and   1  and  2  target  
employment  in  aquaculture   expenditure/LSMS  surveys   areas  
and  fisheries  value  chains  

IDO:  Enhanced  benefits  from  ecosystem  goods  and  services  

%  increase  in  yield  from   Increased  access  to   National  and  community  catch   All  focal   Every  three  years  
better  fisheries   productive  assets,   monitoring  programs  and  sample   countries  
management  practices     including  natural   surveys  of  fishery-­‐dependent  
  resources     men  and  women;  survey  tool  
  adapted  from  the  Women’s  
More  productive   Empowerment  in  Agriculture  
and  equitable   Index  (WEAI)  for  equitable  flow  
management  of   of  benefits  
natural  resources  

IDO:  Natural  capital  enhanced  and  protected,  especially  from  climate  change  
#  of  hectares  of  aquatic  and   Enhanced   Sample  surveys,  sub-­‐national   All  focal   Every  three  years  
coastal  marine  habitat   conservation  of   and  national  statistics,  public   countries  
restored  and  under  more   habitats  and   domain  databases  of  area  under  
productive  and  equitable   resources   management  maintained  by  
management     WorldFish  and  FISH  partners  
  Increased  resilience  
of  agro-­‐ecosystems  
and  communities,  
especially  those  
including  
smallholders    
 
Enhanced  adaptive  
capacity  to  climate  
risks  

  34
 
IDOs:  Cross  cutting  
#  of  households  with   Enhanced  capacity   Household  surveys,  wellbeing   All  focal   Every  three  years  
increased  capacity  to  deal   to  deal  with   indicators  from  OECD  (2013),   countries  
with  climate  risks  and   climatic  risks  and   Household  Income  and  
extremes     extremes     Expenditure  Surveys,  national  
  census  data  and  other  third  
party  sources  (e.g.  development  
partners)  
#  of  women  with  increased   Gender-­‐equitable   Survey  tool  adapted  from  WEAI   All  focal   Before  and  after  
control  of  productive  assets   control  of   countries   flagship  
and  resources   productive  assets   interventions      
(disaggregated  by  age  and   and  resources    
wealth)  
#  of  women  with  increased   Improved  capacity   Survey  tool  adapted  from  WEAI   All  focal   Before  and  after  
influence  in  community   of  women  and     countries   interventions      
fisheries-­‐related  decision-­‐ young  people  to  
making  (disaggregated  by   participate  in  
age  and  wealth)   decision-­‐making    
#  of  women  with  increased   Improved  capacity   Survey  tool  adapted  from  WEAI   FP3  focal   Before  and  after  
influence  in  intra-­‐household   of  women  and   countries   interventions  
decision-­‐making   young  people  to  
(disaggregated  by  age  and   participate  in  
wealth)   decision-­‐making    
#  of  youth  (young  men  and   Improved  capacity   Survey  tool  adapted  from  WEAI   In  FP1  cluster  3   Before  and  after  
women)  with  increased   of  women  and   and  FP2  cluster   interventions  
influence  in  decision-­‐making   young  people  to   1  and  2  target  
in  resource  management   participate  in   areas  
plans  for  small-­‐scale  fisheries   decision-­‐making  
and  aquaculture  
(disaggregated  by  gender,  
age  and  wealth)  
#  of  partner  staff  trained   Enhanced   Documentation  of  training   All  countries   Summarized  
(disaggregated  by  sex,   individual  capacity   activities   where  training  is   annually  
job/role,  location  and   in  partner  research     done  
literacy)   organizations   Participant  evaluations  of  
  through  training   training  activities  
Change  in  knowledge  and   and  exchange  
skills  of  training  participants  
#  of  youth  and  women   Enhanced  capacity   Documentation  of  decision-­‐ Target  Countries   Every  third  year  
participating  in  decision-­‐ of  youth  and   making  constituency    
making  for  a  change  in   women  to  engage  
attitudes  towards  youth   in  decision-­‐making    
and  women  participating  
Table  1.  Key  indicators  used  to  track  progress  towards  the  sub-­‐IDOs.    

  35
 
SLO  target  and  indicator   Contribution  by  Flagship   Method  to  estimate  contribution  
SLO  Target  1.1:  1.5  million  farm   FP1:  1.5  million   Tracking  of  improved  broodstock  dissemination  to  
households  have  access  to  and     hatcheries  in  all  countries  and  records  of  fingerling  
are  using  faster-­‐growing  and   dissemination  from  hatcheries  to  grow-­‐out  farmers.  
more  resilient  FISH  strains  of   Validation  of  this  approach  using  direct  sampling  is  currently  
tilapia  and  carp     being  undertaken  in  Bangladesh  for  GIFT  tilapia  using  
molecular  assay  and  will  selectively  be  undertaken  in  other  
countries  to  validate  the  approach  described  above.      
SLO  Target  1.1:  2.5  million  farm   FP1:  2.5  million   Sample  surveys,  coverage  estimates  based  on  analysis  of  
households  have  adopted   secondary  data  from  public  and  private  sector  partners  on  
disease  detection  and  control   sale  of  feed,  feed  use  surveys,  estimates  of  dissemination,  
strategies,  cost-­‐effective  and   use  of  data  from  government  monitoring  and  quality  control  
sustainable  aquafeeds  and/or   programs.  For  shrimp,  uptake  of  specific  pathogen  free  (SPF)  
improved  aquaculture   certified  seed  will  be  measured  directly.  In  countries  where  
management  practices   similar  certification  is  available  for  fish  seed  we  will  sample  
  hatcheries/multiplier  centers/farmers  to  estimate  adoption  
of  this  practice.    
SLO  Target  1.1:  1  million  fishery-­‐ FP2:  1  million   Household  surveys  in  places  where  FISH  works  directly,  
dependent  households  have   households   augmented  by  secondary  data  from  Household  Income  and  
improved  wellbeing  as  a  result   Expenditure  Surveys  (HIES),  national  census  data  and  other  
of  adopting  improved  fisheries   third-­‐party  data  to  extrapolate  to  national  and  regional  
management   scales.  Indicators  and  sampling  will  utilize  WorldFish  
  implementation  of  OECD  (2013)  wellbeing  indicators.  
SLO  Target  1.2:  1  million  people,   FP2:  1  million  people   Detailed  sample  surveys  in  places  where  FISH  works  
of  which  50%  are  women,  exit   directly  augmented  by  secondary  data  from  HIES,  census  
poverty  through  livelihood   data  and  other  third  party  data  to  extrapolate  to  national  
improvements     and  regional  scales.  
SLO  Target  3.3:  2.1  million   FP2:  2.1  million  ha   Sample  surveys,  sub-­‐national  and  national  statistics,  public  
hectares  of  aquatic  and  coastal   domain  databases  of  area  under  management  maintained  
marine  habitat  restored  and   by  WorldFish  and  FISH  partners.  
under  more  productive  and  
equitable  management  
SLO  Targets  3.1  and  3.2:  4.8   FP1:  4.8  million  MT   An  environmental  baseline  will  be  established  for  all  focal  
million  metric  tons  of  annual   countries  (already  done  for  Bangladesh  and  Egypt).  Sample  
farmed  fish  production  with   surveys  will  be  used  to  assess  adoption  of  best  practices  
reduced  environmental  impact   and  LCA  analysis  (building  on  LCA  L&F  research  on  tilapia  
and  increased  resource  use   value  chains  in  Egypt).  National  aquaculture  statistics  will  
efficiency  (measured  by  20%   provide  data  on  volumes.  Coverage  estimates  will  be  based  
reduction  in  greenhouse  gas   on  analysis  of  secondary  data  from  public  and  private  
emissions  and  10%  increase  in   sector  partners.  
water  and  nutrient-­‐use  
efficiency)1  
SLO  3.3:  3.3  million  ha  of   FP1:  1.25  million  ha   GIS  mapping  of  land  use  before  and  after  program  
ecosystems  restored  through   FP2:  2.1  million  ha   implementation,  complemented  by  surveys  of  ponds  under  
more  productive  and  equitable     better  environmental  management  practices  (FP  1),  and  
management     surveys,  sub-­‐national  and  national  statistics,  public  domain  
databases  (FP2).  

                                                                                                                       
1
  Note:  In  PIM  Table  A,  SLO  Target  3.2  is  expressed  as  Gt  reduction  in  greenhouse  gas  emissions.    To  make  this  conversion,  we  
tentatively  use  a  global  average  for  farmed  aquatic  animal  production.  One  million  tonnes  of  global  aquaculture  production  
(excluding  seaweeds)  releases  7.4  (Hall  et  al.  2011)  to  5.5  (Waite  et  al.  2014)  Mt  CO2  eq  per  million  metric  tons  of  aquaculture  
production  at  farm  gate  (per  year).  We  assume  the  lower  5.5  Mt  CO2  eq  per  million  metric  tons  for  this  calculation.  A  20%  
reduction  in  GHG  emissions  equals  1.1  Mt  CO2  eq.  for  every  million  metric  tons  of  fish  produced.  For  4.8  million  Mt  of  
aquaculture  production,  "business  as  usual"  GHG  is  26.4  Mt  CO2  eq/yr  (or  0.026  Gt  CO2  eq/yr).  A  20%  reduction  would  reduce  
from  26.4  to  21.1  Mt  CO2  eq/yr,  or  a  saving  of  5.3  Mt  CO2  eq./yr.  (0.005  Gt  CO2  eq./yr.).  
 
  36
 
SLO  2.3:  2.4  million  people,  of   FP1:  0.7  million   We  will  collect  information  through  baseline  and  follow-­‐up  
which  half  are  female,  with  one   FP2:  0.3  million   surveys  on  fish  consumption  (frequency,  amount,  and  
or  more  micronutrient   FP3:  1.4  million  people   species)  as  well  as  dietary  diversity  measures  (minimum  
deficiencies  eliminated.   dietary  diversity  for  women  (MDDW)  and  for  children  
SLO  2.4:  4.6  million  women  of   Secondary:   (MDDC)  and  the  WFP  Food  Consumption  Score  in  FISH  CRP  
reproductive  age  consuming   FP1:  1.8  million   Focus  countries  and  will  rely  on  secondary  information  to  
more  food  groups  as  a  result  of   FP2:  0.6  million   estimate  changes  in  fish  consumption  in  other  settings  
increased  fish  consumption2     FP3:  2.2  million     where  our  M&E  information  suggests  our  research  has  
  been  scaled.  In  our  ex  ante  estimation  of  the  contribution  
of  value  chain  interventions  to  these  SLO  targets  (FP3,  
Table  15),  we  have  used  first  estimates  of  the  volume  of  
fish  moving  through  the  value  chain  each  year,  waste  rates  
and  ability  of  the  interventions  to  improve  access,  and  used  
average  fish  consumption  figures  per  capita  to  estimate  the  
number  of  people  benefitting.  As  we  move  to  
implementation,  we  will  adjust  estimates  based  on  actual  
findings  of  the  baseline  assessment  and  tracking  of  true  
fish  volumes/reduced  rates  of  waste.  
Table  2.  Proposed  methods  for  measuring  CRP  contributions  to  SLO  targets.  
 
Evaluation  and  impact  assessment  
We  will  conduct  a  rolling  program  of  discrete,  well-­‐constructed  and  specific  evaluations  and  impact  assessments  to  
support  effective  decision-­‐making  and  systematic  learning.  Evaluation  activities  will  be  coordinated  by  the  Independent  
Steering  Committee  (ISC)  and  be  supported  by  internal  evaluation  resources  and  external  contractors.  We  see  internal  
resources  as  essential  for  effective  data  collection  and  to  ensure  evaluation  use;  external  contractors  are  essential  to  
guarantee  independence  and  methodological  rigor.  Internal  evaluation  responsibilities  will  be  integrated  into  the  research  
work  of  CRP  staff  but  coordinated  by  the  M&E  Leader,  other  program  staff  and  ad  hoc  external  advice.  
 
Evaluation  activities  will  draw  on  available  monitoring  data  and  seek  to  rigorously  test  the  theory  of  change.  They  will  
also  aim  to  establish  causal  links  between  CRP  actions  and  observed  outcomes  using  both  counterfactual  and  theory  
based  methodologies.  Some  controlled  interventions  and  comparative  data  will  be  generated,  thus  supporting  
experimental  and  quasi-­‐experimental  design  and  analysis.  However,  we  anticipate  that  much  of  the  data  available  will  
be  observational,  requiring  a  broader  range  of  methods  to  support  causal  claims.    
 
Particular  attention  will  be  paid  in  evaluations  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  strategies  to  identify  and  manage  risks  and  
unintended  consequences.  These  include  risks  such  as  the  potential  for  productivity-­‐improving  aquaculture  
technologies  to  be  captured  as  increased  profits  for  larger  producers,  rather  than  increased  production  with  intended  
benefits  for  fish  affordability  and  consumption  (FP1),  the  potential  for  governance  reforms  to  reinforce  trends  of  elite  
capture  rather  than  increase  equity  and  resource  sustainability  (FP2),  and  the  potential  for  labor  demands  in  homestead  
polyculture  systems  to  exacerbate  gender  inequities  (FP3).      
 
The  Independent  Steering  Committee  will  commission  a  common  evaluation  framework  (CEF)  from  a  suitable  
evaluation  contractor  that  will  guide  a  program  of  evaluative  activities.  The  CEF  will  identify  a  detailed  evaluation  time-­‐
plan;  high  level  questions  (HLQs)  to  guide  the  evaluation,  a  range  of  appropriate  methods  to  address  such  HLQs,  the  
kinds  of  quantitative  and  qualitative  data  that  will  be  needed,  how  this  data  will  be  collected,  and  outline  guidance  for  
data  analysis  and  synthesis.    
 
The  two  main  arms  of  the  evaluation  will  be  (1)  annual  evaluations  and  reviews  (AERs)  and  (2)  impact  assessments  (IAs).    
AERs  will  be  flagship  specific  and  where  possible  cross-­‐country  comparative,  and  will  complement  real-­‐time  and  routine  
monitoring  data.  Timing  of  IAs  will  be  aligned  with  expected  outputs—for  example,  whenever  particular  research  products  
or  significant  program  components  (thematic  or  geographical)  are  reaching  significant  milestones  such  as  completion  of  
bilateral  projects,  or  when  specific  research  products  are  approaching  their  anticipated  peak  level  of  adoption.  IAs  will  also  
                                                                                                                       
2
  Note:  In  PIM  Table  A,  SLO  target  2.4  is  expressed  as  %  reduction  in  women  of  reproductive  age  consuming  fewer  than  an  
adequate  number  of  food  groups.  To  convert  the  target  of  #  women  to  %  by  country  and  region,  we  have  relied  on  estimates  of  
#  poor  people  dependent  on  aquatic  agricultural  systems  (Béné  and  Teoh  2015)  or  number  of  poor  as  the  best  available  proxy  
for  the  target  group  (denominator).  Estimates  of  contributions  to  the  overall  %  target  will  be  revised  in  line  with  CGIAR  guidance  
once  this  is  available.  
  37
 
conduct  meta-­‐analyses  of  a  suite  of  projects  in  specific  countries  or  regions.  IAs  will  focus  on  estimating  the  realized  
economic,  social  and  environmental  benefits  of  FISH  research  outputs  the  contribution  and  value  added  of  CRP  
interventions,  and  contingent  and  contextual  factors  that  support  claims  for  CRP  effectiveness.  We  see  the  latter  as  an  
essential  foundation  for  future  up-­‐scaling.  Wherever  possible,  these  assessments  will  disaggregate  impacts  for  men,  
women  and  youth.  
 
AERs  will  be  undertaken  primarily  by  external  contractors,  although  working  collaboratively  with  internal  evaluation  
resources.  IAs  will  be  primarily  undertaken  by  internal  resources  but  with  methodological  support  from  external  
contractors  and  advisors.    
 
The  outputs  of  AERs  and  IAs  will  provide  systematic  insight  into  the  achievement  of  intended  outcomes,  and  guide  
allocation  of  resources  to  maximize  outcomes,  including  shifting  the  program’s  approach  as  required.  We  intend  to  
synchronize  our  in-­‐country  AERs  as  part  of  site  integration  in  Bangladesh,  and  other  feasible  CGIAR  integration  sites,  as  
we  expand  our  program  to  leverage  the  potential  resources  of  multiple  CRPs.  We  will  stagger  the  timing  of  AERs  as  
noted  in  Table  3  according  to  the  relative  progression  of  each  flagship.  The  timetable  for  IAs  will  be  finalized  by  the  
Independent  Steering  Committee  following  the  advice  of  the  contractor  preparing  the  Common  Evaluation  Framework.    
It  is  anticipated  that  a  single  integrated  IA  workstream  will  be  designed  linked  to  sub-­‐IDOs  and  SLO  targets  rather  than  
flagships  although  drawing  on  flagship  data.  IA  outputs  will  be  timed  to  link  with  key  CRP  decisions  and  review  points.    
 
It  is  anticipated  that  the  AER  for  each  flagship  as  well  as  the  synthesis  CRP  evaluation  will  conducted  as  Center-­‐
Commissioned  External  Evaluations  (CCEE).  The  IEA  commissioned  evaluation  that  will  be  conducted  once  during  the  
first  six  years  of  the  program  will  be  able  to  draw  on  the  outputs  of  the  planned  program  of  AERs  and  IAs.  If  timed  
correctly,  this  IEA  commissioned  evaluation  may  take  the  place  of  the  synthesis  CRP  evaluation.  
 
Year   Purpose   Geographies  
2017   Common  Evaluation  Framework   Global  
2018   Flagship  project  1   Global  with  focus  on  Bangladesh  and  Egypt  
2018-­‐ Impact  Evaluation  Workstream   Cross  Flagship  and  Global  
2020  
2019   Flagship  project  2   Global  with  focus  on  Bangladesh  and  Myanmar  
2020   Flagship  project  3   Global  with  focus  on  Bangladesh  Cambodia  and  Tanzania    
2021   Synthesis  CRP  evaluation   Global  
Table  3.  Initial  list  of  proposed  AERs  and  IAs.  
 
Learning    
FISH  will  gather  information  collected  through  the  program’s  monitoring,  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  
frameworks  to  support  learning  at  multiple  levels.  We  will  use  annual  reviews  in  each  focal  country  to  consolidate  
learning  from  implementation  across  cluster  research  activities,  with  a  focus  on  validating  or  revising  the  hypotheses  of  
our  impact  pathways  and  theories  of  change.  Similar  program  meetings  will  be  held  annually  with  cluster  and  flagship  
teams  comparing  learning  across  countries  to  feed  into  the  annual  planning  cycle,  providing  opportunities  for  corrective  
measures  to  be  taken.  
 
Adaptive  management  and  budgeting  
The  FISH  ISC  and  Management  Committee  will  use  the  systems  described  here  to  adjust  program  implementation  as  
required  to  improve  performance.  We  will  normally  do  so  on  an  annual  cycle  and  annual  budget  allocations  will  reflect  
documented  performance  against  milestones,  including  stopping  particular  lines  of  research  should  the  evidence  
support  this.  Particular  emphasis  will  be  given  to  acting  upon  the  conclusions  and  recommendations  of  external  
evaluations  as  agreed  with  the  ISC.    
 
Implementation  
The  RBM  system  will  be  managed  by  a  dedicated  M&E  team,  headed  by  the  M&E  Leader,  serving  on  the  program  
management  committee  and  reporting  to  the  program  director.  However,  we  recognize  that  sustaining  a  results-­‐culture  
that  measures  performance  by  achievement  of  the  outcomes  we  have  outlined  for  the  CRP  requires  senior-­‐level  
leadership  to  establish  and  reinforce  the  right  incentives  (Mayne  2007).  Our  approach  to  RBM  will  therefore  include  
investment  in  capacity  development  of  senior  science  staff  at  global  and  country  levels.  This  will  incorporate  specific  
training  on  managing  for  outcomes,  including  effective  engagement  with  partners  and  tracking  research  outcomes  
among  other  key  metrics  appropriate  to  the  specific  context.  

  38
 
Main  budget  elements:    
• 1  M&E  Leader,  also  actively  engaged  in  research  design  and  implementation  
• 1  full-­‐time,  central  international  scientist  position  focused  on  M&E  design  and  implementation  
• 1  central  international  program  coordination  position  overseeing  output  planning  and  monitoring  
• database  management  specialist  and  research  data  management  specialist  
• FP  leads  responsible  for  coordinating  with  these  above  roles  on  implementation  of  RBM  
• dedicated  staff  in  focal  countries  
• annual  workshops  to  document  qualitative  outcomes  and  learning  and  revisit  theories  of  change  

  39
 
Annex  3.7  Linkages  with  other  CRPs  and  site  integration  
 
Linkages  to  global  integrative  CRPs  and  cross-­‐cutting  platforms  
FISH  has  been  designed  in  collaboration  with  each  of  the  global  integrative  CRPs,  in  addition  to  the  cross-­‐cutting  
platforms.  The  rationale  for  these  links  is  summarized  here,  with  details  provided  in  Tables  1  and  2a.    
 
Policies,  Institutions  and  Markets  (PIM).  Making  smart  choices  among  various  agricultural  technologies  and  investment  
options  requires  a  comparative  perspective  across  food  production  sectors.  Therefore,  we  will  continue  to  collaborate  
with  PIM  to  develop  and  apply  foresight  modeling  tools  and  models  to  conduct  ex  ante  assessment  of  alternative  
aquaculture  technologies,  policies  and  investment  options  and  explore  future  fish  supply  and  demand  scenarios  at  
national,  regional  and  global  levels.  Impact  assessment  domains  will  include  fish  supply,  demand,  trade,  prices,  and  
implications  on  fish  food  security,  nutrition  and  health.  The  IMPACT  model  developed  by  IFPRI  and  the  fish  sector  model  
developed  by  WorldFish  (AsiaFish)  will  be  used  in  foresight  modeling  research.  Additional  linkages  with  PIM  focus  on  three  
opportunities  to  jointly  develop  and  leverage  comparative  lessons  and  tools:      
• Value  chain  assessment.  We  will  continue  to  collaborate  with  PIM  on  value  chain  tools  and  innovations,  including  
postharvest  loss  assessment  tools.  PIM  will  provide  general  methodologies,  which  we  will  adapt,  pilot  and  use  for  fish  
value  chains.  The  FISH  CRP  therefore  provides  PIM  with  a  context  to  test  the  suitability  of  tools  for  a  specific  
commodity.  Fish,  with  the  highest  trade  value  among  the  agri-­‐food  commodities,  has  many  unique  features  distinct  
from  agricultural  crops.  These  include  great  diversity  and  variation  in  the  species  and  products  being  traded;  the  
limited  correlation  of  price  trends  in  wild  and  farmed  species;  the  great  variation  in  income  and  price  elasticities  of  
demand  between  species,  regions  and  income  groups;  and  high  perishability.  Because  of  these  features,  fish  requires  
specific  attention.  The  FISH  CRP  will  also  link  into  the  broader  postharvest  waste  and  loss  platform  that  PIM  has  been  
setting  up  with  FAO.    
• Gender  equity.  The  FISH  program  will  be  an  active  player  in  and  contributor  to  the  CGIAR  Collaborative  Platform  for  
Gender  Research  (PIM  FP6).  We  will  contribute  to  gender  agenda  setting  and  increasing  the  visibility  of  gender  in  
CGIAR  through  active  engagement  in  the  platform  and  dissemination  of  quality  gender  outputs,  ranging  from  peer-­‐
reviewed  scientific  publications  to  popular  media.  We  will  apply  the  experience  from  L&F  and  AAS  to  support  the  
gender  methods  development  aims  of  the  platform,  including  refining  tools  for  assessing  women’s  empowerment  in  
fisheries  contexts.  Drawing  on  PIM  learning  regarding  the  Women’s  Empowerment  in  Agriculture  Index,  the  FISH  
program  will  contribute  by  refining  and  testing  ex  ante  and  ex  post  gender  assessments  and  the  adapted  tool  for  
fisheries  initiated  under  AAS:  the  Women’s  Empowerment  in  Agriculture  Index  for  fisheries.  Moreover,  while  
benefiting  from  the  platform’s  continued  development  of  sex-­‐disaggregated  standards  and  protocols,  the  FISH  CRP  
will  build  on  AAS  and  L&F  experience  in  the  area  of  gender-­‐transformative  strategies  by  further  developing  and  
sharing  empirically  tested  methods  and  tools  for  gender-­‐transformative  change.    
• Policies  and  institutions  for  inclusive  natural  resource  governance.  PIM  FP5  has  been  designed  to  develop  analytical  
tools,  synthesize  lessons,  and  strengthen  policies  and  institutions  aimed  at  securing  resource  tenure  for  poor  
producers  and  promoting  inclusive  governance  of  agro-­‐ecological  landscapes.  Fisheries  governance  is  a  priority  for  
comparative  analysis  alongside  forest,  pastureland  and  water  management  cases,  which  face  comparable  challenges  
of  gender  and  social  equity  in  stakeholder  representation,  participation  in  decision-­‐making,  and  public  and  private  
sector  accountability  towards  poor  resource  users.  Tools  such  as  the  Collaborating  for  Resilience  approach  aim  to  
promote  inclusive  multi-­‐stakeholder  deliberation  over  the  roots  of  resource  competition  and  strategies  to  address  
these.  PIM  FP5  will  enable  an  exchange  of  lessons  on  the  application  of  such  tools  across  countries  and  resource  
systems,  and  derive  policy  lessons  for  governments,  development  agencies  and  civil  society  networks.  The  FISH  CRP  
will  apply  these  in  its  work  on  small-­‐scale  fisheries  and  in  addressing  competition  over  water  and  land  as  an  aspect  of  
sustainable  intensification  of  aquaculture.  
 
Climate  Change,  Agriculture  and  Food  Security  (CCAFS).  To  identify  adaptation  options  most  appropriate  to  expected  
future  climate  regimes,  we  will  collaborate  with  CCAFS  Flagship  1  (Priorities  and  Policies  for  Climate  Smart  Agriculture)  
that  will  enable  us  to  draw  on  analyses  of  future  climate  scenario  projections,  early  warning  systems  of  monsoon  shifts,  
and  saline  incursions,  to  better  understand  where  our  aquaculture  technologies  can  contribute  most  effectively  to  
adaptation  to  climate  change  across  our  key  geographies.  We  will  continue  partnership  on  documenting  the  outcomes  of  
local  innovations  as  part  of  the  FISH  scaling  strategy  to  aid  in  influencing  policies  and  investments  targeting  future  climate-­‐
smart  agriculture.  In  Cambodia,  Lao  PDR  and  Vietnam,  we  and  other  CCAFS  partners  are  developing  a  process  in  which  
fishing  and  farming  communities  prioritize  and  test  a  suite  of  climate-­‐smart  agriculture  technologies  and  practices  suited  
to  the  local  context,  such  as  rice  field  fisheries  enhancement  and  dry  season  water  management  for  aquaculture.  This  
approach  will  be  refined  and  scaled  out  to  other  communities  through  action  research  and  peer  learning,  and  contribute  
  40
 
to  sub-­‐national  agriculture  planning  at  commune  and  district  levels.  In  the  Mekong  Delta  in  Vietnam  and  Cambodia,  FP2  
will  also  consider  the  inadvertent  risks  to  fisheries  brought  by  infrastructure-­‐based  strategies  favored  by  local  
governments  for  climate  adaptation,  such  as  construction  of  dikes  and  irrigation  schemes.  FP1  sustainable  aquaculture  
research  will  develop,  test  and  scale  climate-­‐smart  aquaculture,  building  on  work  by  WorldFish  and  CCAFS  in  Bangladesh  
and  Vietnam,  thus  contributing  to  CCAFS  Flagship  2  (Climate  Smart  Technologies  and  Practices).  FP1  research  on  
addressing  mitigation  through  development  of  aquaculture  systems  with  reduced  greenhouse  gas  emissions  will  further  
contribute  to  CCAFS  Flagship  3  (Low  Emissions  Development).  We  will  work  with  CCAFS  to  communicate  evidence  on  
climate-­‐smart  aquaculture  options,  such  as  water-­‐use  efficiency,  disease  management  and  responses  to  salinization  in  
coastal  deltas.  Research  on  climate-­‐smart  farming  systems,  involving  integration  of  fish  into  household  farming  systems,  
has  shown  promise  in  Bangladesh  and  Vietnam,  and  such  experiences  will  continue  to  be  explored,  increasingly  scaling  
from  both  countries  to  elsewhere  in  Asia  and  Africa.    
 
Agriculture  for  Nutrition  and  Health  (A4NH).  Fish  provide  exceptional  nutritional  benefits  but  remain  poorly  represented  
in  nutrition  strategies  of  national  governments  and  development  agencies.  Our  partnership  with  A4NH  will  address  this  
gap  by  strengthening  the  evidence  on  nutritional  outcomes  and  disseminating  cost-­‐effective  solutions  for  nutrition-­‐
sensitive  fish  production,  processing  to  address  nutritional  quality  and  food  safety,  and  behavioral  change  to  improve  fish  
consumption  by  women  and  children.  Our  research  results,  focused  on  production  and  consumption  of  nutrient-­‐rich  fish,  
will  feed  directly  into  A4NH  research  at  country  and  regional  levels  to  develop  and  promote  policies  that  enable  food  
system  innovation  and  scaling  for  improved  dietary  diversity  and  healthier  diets.  This  will  be  fostered  especially  through  
collaboration  with  A4NH  Flagship  1  (Food  systems  for  healthier  diets),  Flagship  3  (Food  safety),  and  Flagship  4  (Supporting  
Policies,  Programs  and  Enabling  Action  through  Research),  as  well  as  the  strong  partnerships  A4NH  has  developed  with  
international  and  regional  networks  such  as  Scaling  up  Nutrition  (SUN),  1,000  Days,  and  the  Comprehensive  African  
Agriculture  Development  Programme  (CAADP).  We  will  also  partner  on  risk  assessment  and  mitigation  for  fish  food  safety.  
Working  with  A4NH  FP3,  our  work  on  fish  value  chains  for  poor  consumers  will  benefit  from  A4NH  research  on  
technological  and  institutional  solutions  and  appropriate  policy  and  regulatory  options,  especially  for  perishable  foods  sold  
in  informal  markets,  where  the  majority  of  poor  people  buy  and  sell  fish.  
 
Water,  Land  and  Ecosystems  (WLE).  The  productivity  and  sustainability  of  inland  fisheries  depend  critically  on  changes  in  
the  broader  landscape,  notably  water  resource  infrastructure  and  land-­‐use  change.  Our  partnership  with  WLE  seeks  to  
ensure  that  deliberations  over  basin  and  watershed-­‐scale  resource  competition  and  development  scenarios  address  
fisheries  outcomes.  FISH  FP2  research  at  landscape  level  in  Cambodia  and  Vietnam  will  be  nested  within  the  basin-­‐scale  
analysis  in  the  Greater  Mekong  on  water  variability  and  inter-­‐sectoral  tradeoffs  across  the  water,  energy  and  food  sectors,  
initiated  under  WLE  Flaghship  4  on  managing  resource  variability  and  competing  uses  for  increased  resilience  (VCR).  This  is  
expected  to  identify  the  trade-­‐offs  associated  with  sustaining  fisheries  and  opportunities  for  increased  resource-­‐use  
efficiency  in  agri-­‐food  systems,  thereby  providing  a  route  to  promote  adaptation  within  a  broader  biophysical  and  socio-­‐
economic  context.  Similarly,  FP2  work  in  Bangladesh  will  contribute  to  and  benefit  from  the  basin-­‐scale  perspective  
offered  by  WLE  work  in  the  Ganges  basin.  At  more  local  landscape  scales,  we  will  partner  to  optimize  water  management  
in  crop  and  fish  production,  and  to  manage  water  quality  and  pollution  risks  associated  with  aquaculture  intensification.  
WLE  research  with  AAS  in  Bangladesh  has  shown  how  water  management  regimes  and  governance  remain  critical  to  
achieving  productivity  gains  for  farmers  from  improvements  in  integrated  rice  and  fish  farming  technologies,  and  these  
learnings  will  help  inform  research  proposed  in  both  Cambodia  and  Myanmar.  FISH  research  on  scaling  new  aquaculture  
technologies  will  benefit  from  ongoing  links  with  WLE  addressing  these  critical  dimensions  of  the  broader  landscape  
primarily  through  WLE  Flagship  4,  to  identify  solutions  for  managing  water  variability  and  competition  between  sectors.            
 
Excellence  in  Breeding  Platform.  FP1,  through  its  cluster  on  fish  breeds  and  genetic  improvement,  is  the  focus  for  links  
with  the  Excellence  in  Breeding  Platform.  The  platform  is  expected  to  provide  bioinformatics  tools  and  services,  
genotyping  and  sequencing  tools  and  services,  and  phenotyping  tools  and  services  to  support  the  improvement  of  fish  
(tilapia  and  carp)  breeding  programs  to  achieve  more  rapid  genetic  gains.  The  FISH  CRP  will  contribute  to  the  community  
of  practice  in  animal  breeding  and  provide  an  opportunity  for  the  platform  to  consolidate  learning  on  genetic  gains  in  fish,  
as  well  as  testing  tools  and  methodologies,  including  key  metrics  around  breeding  program  performance  (e.g.  rates  of  
genetic  gains,  delivery  to  farmers  and  use  of  varieties).    
 
Big  Data  Platform.  Investments  by  the  FISH  program  into  fish  genomics  open  new  opportunities  for  genetic  improvement  
of  fish  and  new  gene  discoveries.  Genomic  approaches  applied  in  the  CRP  will  generate  large  amounts  of  data,  and  new  
and  improved  data  management  and  analytical  approaches  are  required.  Collaboration  with  the  Big  Data  Platform  will  
allow  the  CRP  to  access  methods  and  approaches  to  managing  and  analyzing  larger  databases  through  consultations  and  
training.  The  platform  will  also  gain  access  to  large  datasets  of  fish  genetics  and  related  data,  helping  to  make  them  more  
widely  used  by  allied  research  programs  globally.  

  41
 
  
Linkages  to  other  agri-­‐food  system  CRPs  
Particular  site  integration  activities  also  include  links  with  the  following  AFS  CRPs:    
 
RICE  on  integrated  rice-­‐fish  systems.  Integrated  rice-­‐fish  systems  are  widely  practiced  in  Asia,  particularly  in  the  coastal  
deltas  of  South  and  Southeast  Asia,  where  the  addition  of  fish  to  rice  farming  systems  can  yield  significant  productivity,  
income  and  nutritional  gains  for  farm  households.  FISH  will  collaborate  with  RICE  to  identify  opportunities  for  further  
promotion  of  such  integrated  systems  through  site  integration  in  Asia  (Bangladesh,  Cambodia  and  Myanmar)  and  to  identify  
opportunities  for  scaling  such  systems  to  Africa.  In  addition,  a  research  partnership  between  CSIRO  and  FISH  provides  access  
to  technology  that  uses  microbial  processes  to  bio-­‐convert  plant  wastes,  such  as  rice  husks,  into  a  bioactive  product  
(Novacq™).  This  technology  enhances  the  growth  and  health  of  farmed  prawns  and  eliminates  the  need  for  wild-­‐harvest  
fishmeal  in  prawn  feeds,  a  world-­‐first  achievement  in  aquafeed  sustainability.  In  collaboration  with  RICE,  we  will  test  the  
bioconversion  efficiency  of  different  forms  of  rice  waste  (including  variations  in  pre-­‐processing  the  waste)  for  conversion  
into  bioactive  ingredients  for  fish  feeds,  then  test  the  effects  on  the  growth  of  tilapia  and  shrimp.  Proof-­‐of-­‐concept  trials  will  
be  done  in  the  Philippines  in  partnership  with  IRRI  and  national  partners  CLSU  and  BFAR.  Successful  proof  of  concept  would  
provide  a  sound  basis  for  subsequent  funding  support  for  scaling  up  the  technology  in  Asia  and  then  Africa,  enabling  local  
entrepreneurs  to  develop  aquafeed  enterprises,  a  focal  point  for  capacity  development  for  the  aquaculture  industry.  
 
Roots,  Tubers  and  Bananas  (RTB)  on  cassava  waste  inputs  to  novel  aquafeed.  In  collaboration  with  RTB  we  will  explore  use  
of  Novacq™  technology  to  test  the  bioconversion  efficiency  of  different  forms  of  cassava  waste  (including  variations  in  pre-­‐
processing  the  waste)  and  the  bioactive  effects  on  the  growth  of  crustaceans  (prawns  and  crabs)  and  fish  (tilapia  and  catfish).  
The  proof-­‐of-­‐concept  trials  will  be  done  in  Tanzania  in  partnership  with  IITA  postharvest  research  on  livelihood  
improvements  through  demand-­‐oriented  interventions  for  competitive  production  and  processing  of  cassava,  the  ENABLE  
Youth  Research  and  Training  Center,  and  the  Institute  of  Marine  Science  in  Zanzibar.  Successful  proof  of  concept  would  
enable  subsequent  funding  support  for  scaling  up  the  technology,  enabling  local  entrepreneurs  to  develop  aquafeed  
enterprises,  a  focal  point  for  capacity  development  for  the  emerging  aquaculture  industry  in  Africa.  
 
Grains,  Legumes  and  Dryland  Cereals  (GLDC)  on  use  of  sorghum  in  fish  feeds.  Collaborative  research  with  GLDC  will  assess  
the  potential  use  of  sorghum  protein  as  a  fish  feed  ingredient  for  tilapia  farming,  and  the  use  of  NovacqTM  technology  to  
convert  sorghum  waste  into  a  bioactive  aquaculture  feed  ingredient.  The  proof-­‐of-­‐concept  trials  will  be  done  in  Kenya,  in  
collaboration  with  ICRISAT.  Potential  scaling  into  fish  farms  in  Kenya  will  be  through  ongoing  ICRISAT  projects,  and  a  
partnership  between  WorldFish  and  Farm  Africa  for  development  of  aquaculture  in  Kenya.    
 
Livestock  on  animal  health,  feeds  and  human  nutrition.  Cross  CRP-­‐collaboration  will  be  achieved  by  strengthening  the  
already  established  research  partnerships  between  WorldFish  and  ILRI  under  L&F  flagships  on  livestock  animal  health,  feeds  
and  forages,  and  systems  analysis.  Systems  analysis  will  emphasize  value  chains,  environmental  assessment,  gender  and  
animal-­‐source  foods  for  human  nutrition.  We  will  continue  to  share  experiences  on  the  best  use  existing  ingredients  for  fish  
feeds  and  the  development  of  novel  ones,  making  extensive  use  of  ILRI  feed  ingredient  data  and  NIRS  capacity.  Tilapia  
disease  has  been  identified  as  a  topic  of  mutual  interest  for  joint  research  in  Egypt  under  the  animal  health  flagship  with  new  
investigations  into  unsolved  fish  disease  problems,  building  on  analysis  started  in  L&F.  We  will  explore  access  to  the  
Biosciences  eastern  and  central  Africa  (BecA)  hub  at  ILRI  with  scope  for  training  and  capacity  development  in  animal  health  
and  continue  sharing  analytical  methods  and  tools  between  the  animal  CRPs.  
 
Staging  and  prioritization  of  cross-­‐CRP  linkages  
Table  1,  below,  provides  a  high-­‐level  summary  of  these  linkages,  noting  the  particular  FISH  FP  that  provides  the  anchor  for  
each  point  of  integration.    Table  2a  provides  more  specificity  on  the  mode  of  partnership  for  each.  These  partnership  modes  
aim  to  distinguish  staging  (ongoing  vs.  new),  degree  of  integration  (co-­‐investment  vs.  parallel  investment)  and  prioritization  
in  terms  of  use  of  window  1-­‐2  vs.  bilateral  funds  (where  “joint  resource  mobilization”  indicates  activities  dependent  on  new  
sources  of  bilateral  funding,  and  are  only  intended  to  launch  once  those  sources  have  been  secured).    

  42
 
  
  FISH  CRP  
  FP1:  Sustainable  aquaculture   FP2:  Sustaining  small-­‐scale   FP3:  Enhancing  the  contribution  of  
fisheries   fish  to  nutrition  and  health  of  the  
poor  
PIM   FISH  provides:     FISH  provides:   FISH  provides:    
Analysis  of  aquaculture   Governance  analysis  of  floodplain   Co-­‐development  of  fish  value  chain  
technology  options  and  scenarios   and  coastal  fisheries  systems;   assessment  and  postharvest  loss  
for  integration  in  comparative   strategies  to  sustain  gender-­‐ assessment  tools  
foresight  modeling     equitable  access  for  marginalized   Receives:  
groups  
Receives:   Value  chain  methods  and  
Receives:   approaches;  results  from  broader  
Impact  assessment  methods  and  
Synthesis  of  learning  on  processes   trade  policy  research  in  target  
tools  for  technology  adoption  and  
of  multi-­‐stakeholder  dialogue  to   countries;  scaling  postharvest  fish  
scaling;  gender  analysis  and  
improve  natural  resource   value  chain  innovations  in  regional-­‐
outcome  evaluation  tools  
governance   level  interventions    
A4NH    -­‐      -­‐     FISH  provides:    
Research  on  the  role  of  fish  in  
meeting  nutrition  and  health  goals;  
integration  into  agricultural  
development  and  nutrition  
strategies;  risk  assessment  and  
mitigation  on  fish  food  safety  
Receives:    
Ex  ante,  ex  post  evaluation  regarding  
progress  against  nutrition  targets;  
support  to  analyze  food  safety  
strategies  
CCAFS   FISH  provides:     FISH  provides:      -­‐    
Climate-­‐smart  aquaculture   Analysis  of  climate  resilience  in  
options  (including  water-­‐use   small-­‐scale  fisheries;  links  
efficiency,  low-­‐emission   between  climate  change  and  
production,  adaptation  responses   nutrition  (e.g.  coral  reef  fisheries  
to  salinization  in  coastal  deltas)   productivity)  
Receives:   Receives:  
Integration  of  aquaculture  in   Integration  of  fisheries  in  policy  
policy  engagement  on  climate   engagement  on  climate  
adaptation  and  mitigation   adaptation  
WLE   FISH  provides:     FISH  provides:      -­‐  
Water-­‐use  efficiency  for   Research  on  connectivity  of  
aquaculture  productivity  in   natural  systems  for  aquatic  
multifunctional  aquatic   biodiversity  and  fisheries  
landscapes;  management  of  water   productivity    
quality  and  pollution  risks  with   Receives:  
aquaculture  intensification  
Policy  convening  on  water  
Receives:   governance  in  focal  basins,  
Analysis  of  aquaculture  in  mosaic   including  tradeoffs  related  to  
of  land  uses  and  food  production   water  infrastructure  (dams,  
in  peri-­‐urban  and  nearby  rural   irrigation  systems,  etc.)  and  
areas   fisheries  productivity  

  43
 
 Livestock   FISH  provides:   -­‐   FISH  provides:    
Expertise  in  aquatic  epidemiology       Joint  research  on  strategies  to  
and  aquatic  animal  diseases;   incorporate  animal-­‐source  foods  into  
information  on  aquaculture  feeds   diets  of  infants  and  young  children;  
and  feed  ingredients   development  of  measurement  tools  
Receives:   and  approaches  to  enhance  the  
availability,  affordability  and  
Expertise  in  bacterial  disease  
consumption  of  animal-­‐source  foods  
diagnostics,  molecular  biology  
and  livestock  vaccines;   Receives:  
information  on  feed  quality  of   Methods  for  value  chain  assessment  
aquaculture  feed  and  feed   applicable  to  perishable  products;  
ingredients;  aquafeed  ingredients   methods  for  assessing  contribution  
for  testing  in  aquaculture  diets     of  animal-­‐source  foods  in  human  
nutrition  
RICE   FISH  provides:     FISH  provides:      -­‐    
Research  on  productivity   Productivity  improvements  for  
improvements  in  rice-­‐fish  farming   wild-­‐capture  fisheries  in  rice  field  
systems  and  technology  for   systems  
research  on  production  of  novel   Receives:  
bioactive  ingredients  for  fish  feed  
Scaling  opportunities  through  
from  rice  wastes  
integration  of  rice-­‐fish  
Receives:   innovations  in  broader  rice  
Rice  productivity  management   system  productivity  improvement  
practices  integrating  aquaculture   programs  
in  target  geographies;  research  on  
rice  byproducts  
RTB   FISH  provides:     -­‐   -­‐  
Technology  to  bio-­‐convert  
cassava  waste  into  bioactive  
ingredients  in  fish  feeds  and  
testing  in  fish  feed  trials  
Receives:    
Postharvest  research  on  demand-­‐
oriented  interventions  for  
competitive  production  and  
processing  of  cassava;  research  
on  women  and  youth  
employment  in  cassava  value  
chains  
GLDC   FISH  provides:      -­‐    -­‐  
Technology  for  fish  feed  
formulation  and  bio-­‐conversion  of  
sorghum  waste  into  bioactive  
ingredients  in  fish  feeds  and  
testing  in  fish  feed  trials  

Receives:    
Research  on  sorghum  strains,  
value  chains  and  access  to  field  
sites  for  on-­‐farm  pilot  testing.  
Access  to  partners  in  Kenya  for  
sorghum  processing  waste.  

  44
 
 Excellence   FISH  provides:      -­‐      -­‐    
in  Breeding   Fish  breeding  programs  as  a  core  
Platform   resource  for  genomic  analysis;  
technology  for  rapid  genomic  
assessment  of  tilapia  and  data  
from  breeding  programs      
Receives:  
Genomic  tools  to  accelerate  the  
speed  of  genetic  gain  in  fish;  
access  to  shared  genotyping  
platforms;  assistance  in  data  
analysis  methodologies  and  
breeding  program  management  
Big  Data   FISH  provides:   -­‐   -­‐  
platform   Access  to  fish  genetics  and  
related  data    
Receives:  
Approaches  and  training  in  the  
analysis  of  large  datasets  
Table  1.  Overview  of  inter-­‐CRP  collaboration:  What  the  FISH  CRP  provides  and  receives.  
   

  45
 
 Submitting  CRP:  Fish  Agri-­‐Food  Systems  (FISH)    
Partner  CRP   Activity   FISH  role   Collaborating  CRP  role   Collaboration   Output;  added  value;  
[country(ies)  in   mode   target  countries  
which  this  takes  
place]  
PIM   Foresight   Participate  in   Development  and   Co-­‐investment   • Scenarios  with  
  modeling     community  of   maintenance  of  core   (ongoing)   different  
[Malaysia]   practice,  provide   modeling  suite,  training,   assumptions  about  
biophysical  and  other   convening  community   technologies  
attributes  for  general   of  practice,  coordination   • Value:  for  decisions  
modeling  suite,  run   and  synthesis  of  cross-­‐ on  investment  in  
scenarios  of   cutting  foresight  studies   research,  value  for  
particular  interest  to   regional  and  national  
CRP,  share  results   planning  for  climate-­‐
preparedness  
• Bangladesh,  Nigeria,  
Tanzania,  Myanmar  
Strengthening   Developing  tools  and   Developing  research   Parallel   • More  systematic  
value  chains   methods,  applying  to   tools  and  methods,   investment   understanding  of  
[Bangladesh,   fisheries  and   convening  community   (ongoing)   bottlenecks  in  value  
Egypt,  Tanzania]  
aquaculture  value   of  practice,   chains  and  workable  
chains,  sharing   prioritization  of  value   interventions  
lessons  with   chains  and  enabling   • Value:  cross-­‐CRP  
community  of   environment   learning  
practice,   constraints,   • Bangladesh,  Egypt,  
disseminating  PIM   coordination  and   Tanzania  
and  CRP  results  to   synthesis  of  cross-­‐
stakeholders  in   cutting  value  chain  
relevant  value  chains   studies,  maintaining  
online  platform  for  
dissemination  
Measuring  and   Co-­‐development  of   Developing   Parallel   • Rigorous  
reducing   methodology,   methodology,   investment   quantification  of  
postharvest   application  of   coordinating  joint   (new)   postharvest  losses,  
losses   methodology  in  fish   studies,  convening  to   design  of  cost-­‐
[Bangladesh,   value  chains,  sharing   discuss  results  and   effective  
Tanzania]   findings  with  the   disseminate;  linkage   interventions  
research,   into  the  global   • Value:  cross-­‐CRP  
development  and   postharvest  waste  and   learning,  integrated  
policy  communities     loss  platform   view  
• Bangladesh,  Tanzania  
Managing   Governance  analysis   Development  and   Co-­‐investment   • Shared  body  of  work  
shared   of  floodplain  and   management  of  online   (ongoing);   covering  a  range  of  
landscapes   coastal  fisheries   resource  center,  training   joint  resource   resources  within  
(inland  and   systems,  analysis  of   materials;  convening  to   mobilization   shared  landscapes  
coastal  fisheries   sources  of   share  approaches  and   • Value:  cross-­‐CRP  
governance;   competition  over   results,  providing  tenure   learning,  joint  policy  
aquaculture   natural  resources   and  governance  inputs   impact  
expansion)   and  strategies  to   into  landscape-­‐level   • Myanmar,  
[Myanmar,   sustain  gender-­‐ interventions  tested;   Bangladesh,  
Bangladesh,   equitable  access  for   synthesis  of  policy   Cambodia,  Tanzania  
Cambodia,   marginalized  groups   lessons  
Tanzania]  

  46
 
 CGIAR   Participating  in   Managing  platform   Parallel   • Better  coordination  
Collaborative   collaboration   investment   of  gender  research,  
Platform  for   through  the   (PIM  funds   strategic  
Gender  Research  platform,  applying   platform,  FISH   prioritization  
and  disseminating   funds  gender   • Value:  cross-­‐CRP  
good  gender   research)   learning,  joint  impact  
research  practices,   • All  focus  countries  
raising  visibility  of  
gender  in  CGIAR  
research,  
contributing  gender-­‐
transformative  
strategies  
A4NH   Integration  of   Strengthening  the   Enabling  country   Co-­‐investment   • Strong  evidence  of  
fish  in  nutrition   evidence  on   performance  on   (ongoing)   nutritional  value  of  
strategies  of   nutritional  outcomes   improving  human   fish  
national   and  disseminating   nutrition   • Value:  integrated  
governments   cost-­‐effective   policy  engagement    
and   solutions  for   • Bangladesh,  Zambia,  
development   nutrition-­‐sensitive   Tanzania  
agencies   fish  production,  
[Bangladesh,   processing  and  
Zambia,   behavioral  change  
Tanzania]   benefiting  women  
  and  children  
Risk  assessment   Analysis  of  food   Research  tools  and   Parallel   • Improved  
and  mitigation   safety  and  fish   methods   investment   understanding  of  
for  fish  food   quality  issues  along   (new)   food  safety  risks  
safety   the  chain  integrated   along  fish  value  
[Bangladesh,   into  the  consumer-­‐ chains  in  target  
Tanzania]   focused  value  chain   countries    
assessments   • Value:  cross-­‐CRP  
  learning,  integrated  
view  
• Bangladesh,  Tanzania  
Reducing   Expand  research  to   Research  tools  and   Parallel   • Identification  of  value  
postharvest  fish   reduce  postharvest   methods   investment   chain  enhancement  
losses   fish  losses,  increase   (ongoing)   measures  
[Bangladesh,   penetration  of   • Value:  integrated  
Tanzania]   distant  markets  with   policy  engagement  
fresh  fish,  and   • Bangladesh,  Tanzania  
improve  fish  drying  
and  smoking  
processes  
CCAFS   Foresight   Analysis  of  the   Analysis  of  future   Co-­‐investment   • Improved  
analysis  and   impacts  of  climate   climate  scenario   (ongoing)   understanding  of  
scenario   change  on  fish   projections;  early   aquaculture  
development   production  and   warning  systems  of   technologies  that  
  associated  livelihood   monsoon  shifts  and   enhance  adaptation  
  and  nutrition   saline  incursions,   to  climate  change  
  outcomes  in  our   feeding  into  design  of   • Value:  for  regional  
target  geographies   climate-­‐smart   and  national  
  aquaculture  systems   planning,  cross-­‐CRP  
  learning    
  • Bangladesh,  
Cambodia,  Myanmar,  
Pacific  

  47
 
 Climate-­‐smart   Assess  and   Management  of  learning  Co-­‐investment   • Proven  process  of  
agriculture   communicate   platform  on  ex  ante   (ongoing)   designing,  testing  and  
[Cambodia]   evidence  on  climate-­‐ evaluation  and  priority   scaling  climate-­‐smart  
smart  aquaculture   setting     fish  interventions  
options  and  small-­‐   • Value:  integration  of  
scale  fisheries   Communication  of   various  CGIAR  
adaptation  responses   fisheries  and   Centers’  expertise  
  aquaculture  solutions  in   within  a  village  
policies  and  investments   context  
targeting  future  climate-­‐ • Cambodia  
smart  agriculture  
WLE   Managing   Integration  of   Analysis  and  convening   Parallel   • Improved  knowledge  
resource   fisheries  and   on  basin  and  watershed-­‐ investment   and  tools  to  inform  
variability  in   aquaculture   scale  resource   (ongoing)   water  development  
multifunctional   development   competition  and     decisions  and  policies  
landscapes   scenarios  with   development  scenarios;   Joint  resource   • Value:  integration  of  
[Bangladesh,   broader  research  on   analysis  to  optimize   mobilization   agri-­‐food  system  
Cambodia]   multiple  uses  of   water  management  in   (new)   innovations  through  
  water  and  land   crop  and  fish   water  management  
resources  at   production,  and  to   lens  
landscape  and  river-­‐ manage  water  quality   • Bangladesh,  
basin  scales   and  pollution  risks   Cambodia  
associated  with  
aquaculture  
intensification      

Livestock   Animal  disease     Methods  for  value  chain   Parallel   • Identification  of  
detection  and   assessment  applicable   investment   technological  and  
prevention;   to  perishable  products;   (ongoing)   institutional  
value  chain   methods  for  assessing     innovations  to  
assessment;   contribution  of  animal-­‐ Joint  resource   improve  the  
animal-­‐source   source  foods  in  human   mobilization   performance  of  fish  
foods  and   nutrition   (new)   value  chains  based  
human  nutrition   on  the  assessments  
[Bangladesh,   • Value:  joint  impact  
Tanzania]   • Bangladesh,  Tanzania  
 
RICE   Integrated  rice-­‐ Improve  the   Lead  integrative  farming   Co-­‐investment   • Technologies  and  
fish  systems     productivity  of  both   system  design  in  rice-­‐   (new)   methods  to  increase  
[Philippines]   rice  and  fish;   dominated  farming   system  productivity,  
investigate  microbial   system  areas;  introduce   proven  aquafeed  
processes  to  bio-­‐ novel  rice  management   technologies      
convert  rice  waste  to   technologies  that   • Value:  cross-­‐CRP  
bioactive  aquafeed   support  the  introduction   learning,  joint  impact  
ingredients   of  new  fish;  lead   • Bangladesh,  
systems  research  on   Cambodia,  Myanmar,  
rice-­‐based  farming   Philippines    
systems  
RTB   Conversion  of   Investigate  use  of     Co-­‐investment   • Proven  aquafeed  
cassava  waste   microbial  processes   (new)   technologies  ready  
into  fish  feed   to  bio-­‐convert  plant   for  scaling  
[Tanzania]   wastes,  such  as   • Value:  encourage  
    cassava  waste,  to   private  sector  
bioactive  aquafeed   investment  and  
ingredients   entrepreneurship  

  48
 
   • Nigeria,  Tanzania  

GLDC   Use  of  sorghum   Investigate  use  of     Co-­‐investment   • Proven  aquafeed  
and  sorghum   sorghum  as  a  fish   (new)   technologies  ready  
wastes  in  fish   feed  ingredient.   for  scaling  
feed   Microbial  processes   • Value:  encourage  
[Kenya]   to  bio-­‐convert   private  sector  
    sorghum  waste,  to   investment  and  
bioactive  aquafeed   entrepreneurship  
ingredients   • Kenya  
 
Excellence  in   Genetic   Develop  genomic   Provide  the  managing   Parallel   • Proven  tools  and  
Breeding   improvement  of   tools  to  accelerate   platform     investment   methods  to  achieve  
Platform   tilapia  and  carp   the  speed  of  genetic   (ongoing)   genetic  gains  in  fish  
[Egypt,  Malaysia]  gain,  close  the  yield   breeding  programs  
gap  and  enhance  the   • Value:  cross-­‐CRP  
production  efficiency   learning  
of  our  breeding   • Bangladesh,  Egypt,  
programs  for  tilapias   Nigeria,  Tanzania,  
and  carps   Myanmar,  Cambodia,  
Zambia  
Big  Data   Managing  big   Provide  access  to   Provide  methods  and   Parallel   • New  data  and  data  
platform   data  produced   large  datasets  of  fish   approaches  to  managing   investment   management  
by  genetic   genetics  and  related   and  analyzing  larger   (ongoing)   approaches  on  
improvement  of   data;  access  data   databases,  such  as   genetic  improvement  
fish   analysis  tools   through  consultations   of  fish  
and  training   • Value:  cross-­‐CRP  
  learning  
  • Bangladesh,  Egypt,  
Nigeria,  Tanzania,  
Myanmar,  Cambodia,  
Zambia  
Table  2a.  Partnerships  with  other  CRPs  (activities,  mode,  geographies  and  outcomes  sought).    
 
Site  integration  
Primary  countries  for  site  integration  are  FISH  focal  countries  Bangladesh,  Nigeria  and  Tanzania  (each  highest  priority  
++  for  CGIAR  site  integration),  and  Zambia  (high  priority  +  for  site  integration).  In  these  countries,  we  aim  to  partner  
with  PIM,  A4NH,  CCAFS  and  WLE,  wherever  possible,  on  analyses  of  opportunities  to  integrate  fish-­‐based  solutions  in  
support  of  national  policies  on  food  security,  nutrition,  land  and  water  management,  and  climate  change  adaptation.  In  
addition,  we  look  to  develop  linkages  to  other  agri-­‐food  system  CRPs  and  their  associated  centers  in  these  countries.  
These  include  collaboration  with  RTB  on  the  use  of  cassava  waste  inputs  to  novel  aquafeed.  Further  details  of  this  
intended  collaboration  with  other  CRPs  is  provided  in  Table  2b,  together  with  a  summary  of  the  status  of  country  and  
partner  engagements  to  advance  this  site  integration.  
 
In  addition  to  this  focus  on  high-­‐priority  countries  for  CGIAR  site  integration,  the  FISH  CRP  will  pursue  opportunities  for  
collaboration  with  other  CRPs  in  other  countries  wherever  possible.  For  example,  WorldFish  and  IWMI  have  already  
worked  closely  with  IRRI  to  identify  opportunities  for  collaboration  in  Myanmar’s  Ayeyarwady  Delta,  and  this  will  be  
pursued  through  collaboration  among  FISH,  WLE  and  RICE.  This  collaboration  will  also  be  pursued  in  Cambodia.

  49
 
 Target  countries   Steps  taken  so  far  to  establish   Plan  and  schedule  through  which  the  CRP  will  provide  
(++  and  +)  that  are   national-­‐level  engagement  with   relevant  elements  for  development  of  CGIAR  site  
FISH  focal  countries   other  CRPs  towards  site  integration   integration  in  this  country  
Bangladesh  ++   In  Bangladesh,  a  CGIAR  advisory   WorldFish  has  been  engaged  in  research  to  support  the  
committee  has  been  in  operation  for   development  of  aquaculture  and  fisheries  in  Bangladesh  for  
three  years.  This  provides  a  venue  for   over  20  years,  and  IWMI  has  been  engaged  in  water  
the  seven  CGIAR  centers  (and  seven   management  issues  for  a  similar  period.  This  has  involved  
CRPs)  present  in  Bangladesh,   close  collaboration  with  other  CGIAR  Centers  and  their  related  
together  with  AVRDC  and  IFDC,  to   CRPs,  notably  IRRI,  CIMMYT  and  IFPRI.  FISH  will  build  on  this  
meet  with  NARES  and  ministry   strong  foundation  to  develop  collaboration  with  other  CRPs,  
officials  and  strengthen  alignment  of   in  particular  with  RICE  on  rice  field  fisheries;  WLE  on  fish  in  
CGIAR  research  with  national   multifunctional  landscapes;  PIM  on  the  development  of  tools  
priorities  and  processes.  Two   and  methods  being  used  in  study  of  fish  value  chains;  CCAFS  
meetings  were  held  in  2015,  and  two   on  the  design  of  climate-­‐smart  aquaculture  systems;  and  
are  scheduled  for  2016.  For  FISH,   A4NH  regarding  nutrition-­‐sensitive  fish  production,  analysis  of  
WorldFish  currently  serves  as   food  safety  and  fish  quality  issues,  and  integration  of  learning  
Secretary  to  the  Committee.     in  national  nutrition  strategies.  
Nigeria  ++   A  national  site  integration  and   A  roadmap  to  further  development  of  site  integration  in  
consultation  workshop  was  convened   Nigeria  has  been  developed,  and  WorldFish  will  engage  in  
by  IITA  in  Abuja,  Nigeria,  on  16–17   this  process  in  its  role  as  the  lead  center  for  FISH.  A  critical  
November  2015.  This  meeting   step  was  a  workshop  on  11–15  April  2016  to  support  a  new  
brought  together  all  CGIAR  centers   African  Development  Bank  initiative  on  Technologies  for  
working  in  Nigeria  and  a  wide  range  of   African  Agricultural  Transformation  (TAAT).  WorldFish  will  
stakeholders  in  the  agriculture  sector   attended  this  workshop  in  preparation  for  FISH  with  a  
to  examine  how  CGIAR  can  be  better   specific  focus  on  integrating  aquaculture  development  
integrated  in  the  country’s  agriculture   elements  within  the  initiative,  including  in  particular  in  
R4D  efforts.  WorldFish  was  unable  to   Nigeria,  Tanzania  and  Zambia.  Discussions  with  partners  
attend  this  meeting,  but  has  liaised   and  with  other  centers  and  CRPs  during  this  workshop  will  
with  IITA  to  engage  in  follow-­‐up   be  used  to  further  strengthen  targeting  of  FISH  in  Nigeria,  
CGIAR  integration  activities,  and   and  a  series  of  follow-­‐up  actions  will  be  agreed  upon  for  
pursued  country  engagement  plans   implementation  in  the  remainder  of  2016.  
with  national  partners.  
Tanzania  ++   The  Tanzania  CGIAR  stakeholders’   An  initial  roadmap  to  further  progress  of  site  integration  in  
consultation  workshop  was  held   Tanzania  has  been  developed,  and  WorldFish  will  engage  in  
during  3–4  December  2015  and  there   this  process  in  preparation  for  its  role  as  the  lead  center  for  
was  agreement  upon  principles  of   FISH.  Specific  areas  of  integration  being  pursued  are  
success  and  major  opportunities  for   linkages  with  PIM  on  the  development  of  tools  and  
integration  between  and  among   methods  being  used  in  the  study  of  the  small  fish  value  
CGIAR  centers,  CRPs  and  national   chain  from  Lake  Victoria;  with  A4NH  regarding  integration  
partners.  FISH  was  not  represented   of  fish  in  national  nutrition  strategies,  and  analysis  of  food  
at  the  workshop,  but  follow-­‐up   safety  and  fish  quality  issues  in  the  small  fish  value  chain;  
discussions  are  being  pursued.   and  with  RTB  on  conversion  of  cassava  waste  into  fish  feed.  
Zambia  +   The  Zambian  site  integration   An  initial  set  of  steps  for  site  integration  in  Zambia  has  
consultation  workshop  was  held   been  agreed  upon,  and  this  will  be  developed  after  
during  9–10  February  2016  and   GCARD3.  WorldFish  will  engage  in  this  process  on  behalf  of  
brought  together  key  stakeholders   FISH  and  pursue  best  opportunities  for  integration  with  
from  government,  research  and   other  CRPs.  This  is  likely  to  include  WLE  on  fish  in  
academic  institutions,  donors,  NGOs   multifunctional  landscapes,  and  with  PIM  on  governance  of  
and  the  private  sector.  The  Zambian   inland  fisheries.  
National  Agriculture  Investment  Plan  
provided  a  basis  and  will  be  a  key  
focus  for  alignment  of  the  CRPs  in  
Zambia.  FISH  was  represented  at  the  
workshop  by  WorldFish.  
Table  2b.  Plans  for  site  integration  in  CGIAR  target  countries.    

  50
 
Annex  3.8  Staffing  of  management  team  and  flagship  projects  
 
A  summary  of  the  skills,  experience  and  capacity  of  the  science  teams  engaged  in  FISH  is  provided  in  the  attached  CVs.  
Roles  are  summarized  below  and  grouped  by  flagship.  Cross-­‐cutting  roles  are  listed  as  well.  Flagship  leaders  are  named  
first,  followed  by  respective  cluster  leaders  and  then  key  science  leadership.  Contributors  may  be  listed  more  than  once,  
where  they  contribute  to  multiple  flagships.  No  CV  is  provided  for  the  Program  Director,  as  this  position  will  be  subject  
to  international  recruitment.  
 
Name   Institution    Role  in  FISH  
Flagship  1:  Sustainable  aquaculture      
Michael  Phillips   WorldFish   Flagship  Leader    
John  Benzie     WorldFish   Leader  Cluster  1:  Fish  breeds  and  genetics  
Johan  A.J.  Verreth   Wageningen  University   Leader  Cluster  2:  Fish  health,  feeds  and  nutrition  
Nhuong  Tran   WorldFish   Leader  Cluster  3:  Aquaculture  systems  
Nigel  Preston   WorldFish   Sr.  Advisor:  Sustainable  Aquaculture  
Conner  Bailey   Auburn  University   Sr.  Scientist:  Social  analysis  of  aquaculture  
Federica  Di  Palma   The  Genome  Analysis  Centre   Sr.  Scientist:  Genomics  and  aquatic  biodiversity  
Ross  Houston   University  of  Edinburgh   Sr.  Scientist:  Genomic  resources  for  fish  
Hans  Komen   Wageningen  University   Sr.  Scientist:  Fish  genetics  and  environment  
David  Little   University  of  Stirling   Sr.  Scientist:  Aquaculture  systems  analysis  
Vishnumurthy  Mohan  Chadag   WorldFish   Sr.  Scientist:  Aquatic  animal  health  
Max  Troell   Stockholm  Resilience  Centre   Sr.  Scientist:  Aquaculture  and  resilience  
Sohela  Nazneen   Institute  of  Development   Scientist:  Livelihoods  and  gender  
Studies,  University  of  Sussex  
Sloans  Chimatiro   WorldFish   Policy  Advisor:  African  aquaculture  
Flagship  2:  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries    
Neil  Andrew   WorldFish   Flagship  Leader  &  Principal  Investigator:  Small-­‐scale  fisheries  
governance  
Joshua  Cinner   James  Cook  University   Leader  Cluster  1:  Resilient  coastal  fisheries  
Sonali  Sellamuttu   IWMI   Leader  Cluster  2:  Fish  in  multifunctional  landscapes  
Phillipa  Cohen   WorldFish   Leader  Cluster  3:  Fish  in  regional  food  systems  
Blake  Ratner   WorldFish   Principal  Investigator:  Governance    
Robyn  Johnston   IWMI   Principal  Investigator:  Water  and  land  resources  
management  
Matthew  McCartney   IWMI   Principal  Investigator:  Water  resource  management  and  
ecosystem  services  
Eric  Baran   WorldFish   Sr  Scientist:  Inland  fisheries  ecology  and  management  
Abdul  Wahab   WorldFish   Sr  Scientist:  Inland  fisheries  ecology  and  management  
Jane  Kato-­‐Wallace   Promundo   Specialist:  Gender  transformative  approaches  
Steve  Cole   WorldFish     Scientist:  Gender  equity  
Yumiko  Kura   WorldFish   Scientist:  Fisheries  policy  and  management  
Flagship  3:  Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  health  of  the  poor  
Shakuntala  Thilsted   WorldFish   Flagship  Leader  
Chris  Brown   WorldFish   Leader  Cluster  1:  Nutrition-­‐sensitive  fish  production  
Chris  Bennett   Natural  Resources  Institute,   Leader  Cluster  2:  Reducing  waste  and  loss  in  fish  value  chains    
University  of  Greenwich  
Andrew  Thorne-­‐Lyman   WorldFish   Leader  Cluster  3:  Fish  for  nutrition  and  health  of  women  and  
children  
Ilaria  Tedesco   Natural  Resources  Institute,   Principal  Investigator:  Economic  fish  waste  and  losses  
University  of  Greenwich  
Joel  Gittelsohn   Center  for  Human  Nutrition,   Sr.  Scientist:  Behavior  change  communication  and  nutrition  
Johns  Hopkins  University   education  

  51
 
 Nanna  Roos   University  of  Copenhagen   Sr.  Scientist:  Efficacy  of  fish-­‐based  complementary  foods  
Wafaie  Fawzi   Harvard  School  of  Public   Sr.  Scientist:  Effects  of  nutrient-­‐rich  foods  on  nutrition  and  
Health   health  
Benoy  Barman   WorldFish   Scientist:  Small  indigenous  fish  production  technologies    
Froukje  Kruijssen   WorldFish   Scientist:  Fish  value  chains  
Rhiannon  Pyburn   The  Royal  Tropical  Institute   Scientist:  Gender  and  value  chains  
(KIT)  
Sloans  Chimatiro     WorldFish   Policy  Advisor:  African  regional  fish  trade  
Christopher  Sudfeld   Harvard  School  of  Public   Scientist:  Effects  of  nutrient-­‐rich  foods  on  nutrition  and  
Health   health  
Cross-­‐cutting  roles  
[See  Terms  of  Reference]   WorldFish   FISH  CRP  Director  
Andrew  Thorne-­‐Lyman   WorldFish   M&E  Leader  
Cynthia  McDougall   WorldFish   Gender  Research  Leader  
Ian  Scoones   Institute  of  Development   Principal  Investigator:  Expanding  assets  and  livelihood  
Studies,  University  of  Sussex   opportunities  for  resource-­‐poor  women  and  youth  
Kate  Doyle   Promundo   Specialist:  Gender  capacity  development  
   

  52
 
 PHILLIPS,  MICHAEL  J.  
PROFILE    
Integrated  aquaculture  systems  specialist:    
• Over   30   years’   technical   leadership   and   policy   guidance   on   sustainable   aquaculture   with   experience   covering  
freshwater   and   marine   aquaculture   systems   and   engagement   with   government,   university,   development   agencies,  
NGOs  and  private  sector.  
• Leadership  of  multi-­‐national  and  multi-­‐stakeholder  research  and  development  teams  over  more  than  25  years,  with  
geographical  experience  in  Africa,  Asia,  Europe  and  the  Pacific.    
• More   than   140   research   publications   covering   aquaculture   technologies,   aquatic   farming   systems,   water   quality,  
environmental   and   sustainability   assessments   of   aquaculture,   aquaculture   policies   and   sector   development  
strategies.  49  peer-­‐reviewed  papers  and  book  chapters.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2014  to  date   Program  Leader,  Sustainable  Aquaculture,  WorldFish,  Malaysia  
2008  –  2014   Principal  Scientist,  Aquaculture  and  Genetic  Improvement  Discipline,  WorldFish,  Malaysia  
2003  –  2008     Program   Manager,   Aquaculture,   Intergovernmental   Organisation   of   the   Network   of   Aquaculture  
Centers  in  Asia-­‐Pacific  (NACA),  Bangkok,  Thailand  
1994  –  2003     Aquaculture   and   Environment   Specialist,   Intergovernmental   Organisation   of   the   Network   of  
Aquaculture  Centres  in  Asia-­‐Pacific  (NACA),  Bangkok,  Thailand    
 
EDUCATION    
1982   PhD  Aquaculture  and  Fish  Behaviour,  University  of  Stirling,  Scotland,  UK  
1979   BSc  (Hon),  Biological  Sciences,  University  of  Lancaster,  UK  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Karim,  M.,  Sarwer,  M.H.,  Phillips,  M.J.,  Belton,  B.  (2014)  Profitability  and  adoption  of  improved  shrimp  farming  
technologies  in  the  aquatic  agricultural  systems  of  southwestern  Bangladesh.  Aquaculture  428–429:  61–70.  
• Cleasby,  N.,  Schwarz,  A.M.,  Phillips,  M.,  Paul,  C.,  Pant,  J.,  Oeta,  J.  Pickering,T.,  Meloty,  A.,  Kori,  M.  (2014).  The  socio-­‐
economic  context  for  improving  food  security  through  land  based  aquaculture  in  Solomon  Islands:  a  peri-­‐urban  
case  study.  Marine  Policy  45:  89–97.  
• Jonell,  M.,  Phillips,  M.,  Rönnbäck,  P.,  Troell,  M.  (2013)  Aquaculture  certification:  Does  it  make  a  difference?  
Ambio  42  (6):  659–74.  
• Bene,  C.,  Allison,  E.,  Phillips,  M.  (2011)  The  Forgotten  Service.  Food  as  an  Ecosystem  Service  from  Estuarine  and  
Coastal  Zones.  In  van  den  Belt  M.  and  Costanza  R.  (eds)  Ecological  Economics  of  Estuaries  and  Coasts.  Waltham,  
MA:  Academic  Press.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Contributions  to  global  aquaculture  policy  documents  (FAO,  World  Bank);  leadership  of  scientists  and  development  
consortia  addressing  several  key  aquaculture  development  challenges  over  the  past  three  decades,  including  post-­‐
earthquake  and  tsunami  rehabilitation  (with  ADB,  FAO)  and  assessments  of  impacts  of  aquaculture  on  the  environment  
and  ecosystem  approaches  to  aquaculture  (with  World  Bank,  WWF  and  FAO).  Major  grants  awarded:  Solomon  Islands  
Aquaculture  (ACIAR  AUS  1.2M);  Aquaculture  and  the  Poor  (GIZ,  €1.2M);  Aquaculture  for  Food  Security,  Poverty  
Alleviation  and  Nutrition  (European  Union  FP7:  total  project  €1.2M);  Sierra  Leone  integrated  agriculture-­‐aquaculture  
(USAID,  USD  3M).  Recipient  of  World  Bank  “Green  Award  for  2006”  (for  research  and  development  of  the  International  
Principles  for  Responsible  Shrimp  Farming).  Member,  Program  Management  Committee,  Livestock  &  Fish.  Theme  
Leader,  Productivity,  AAS.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Flagship  Leader,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture  
   

  53
 
 BENZIE,  JOHN  
PROFILE    
Principal  scientist  and  Theme  Leader  for  Genetics  in  Livestock  and  Fish:  
• More  than  30  years’  experience  in  aquaculture  and  natural  resource  management  in  marine  and  freshwater  systems  
working  in  government,  university  and  private  sectors.  
• Leading   multidisciplinary   national   and   international   research   groups   for   more   than   25   years   on   aquaculture   and  
biotechnology  development  in  Australia,  Europe,  America,  Asia  and  Africa.  
• Areas   of   work   include   quantitative,   population   and   molecular   genetics   and   their   application   to   ecological,   natural  
resource   management   and   biotechnology   developments   in   aquaculture.   Leading   breeding   programs   in   aquatic  
organisms,   including   shrimp,   fish   and   molluscs.   More   than   168   publications,   including   3   books;   editor   for   leading  
journals:  Aquaculture,  Molecular  Ecology.  Over  140  peer-­‐reviewed  publications.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2013  to  date   Principal  Scientist,  Leader  of  the  Genetics  Group,  WorldFish,  Malaysia  
2008  to  date   Professor   of   Marine   Molecular   Biodiversity/Marine   Molecular   Ecology,   University   College   Cork,  
Ireland  
2003  –  2008   Head  of  R&D,  Moana  Technologies,  Hong  Kong  
2000  –  2003   Professor   and   Director,   Centre   for   Marine   and   Coastal   Studies,   University   of   New   South   Wales,  
Australia  
 
EDUCATION    
1986   PhD  Genetics,  Australian  National  University,  Canberra,  Australia  
1978   BSc  (Hon)  First  class,  Zoology,  Aberdeen  University,  Aberdeen,  UK  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Ma,   T.H.T.,   Benzie,   J.A.H.,   He,   J-­‐G.,   Sun,   C-­‐B.,   Chan,   S-­‐M.   (2014)   PmPPAF   is   a   pro-­‐phenoloxidase   activating   factor  
involved   in   innate   immunity   response   of   the   shrimp   Penaeus   monodon.   Developmental   and   Comparative  
Immunology  44:  163–172.  
• Korres,   N.E.,   O’Kiely,   P.,   Benzie,   J.A.H.,   West   J.S.   (eds)   (2013)   Bioenergy   Production   by   Anaerobic   Digestion:   Using  
Agricultural  Biomass  and  Organic  Wastes.  Earthscan/Routledge,  Taylor  &  Francis  Publishing  Group.  442pp.    
• O'Farrell,   B.,   Benzie,   J.A.H.,   McGinnity,   P.,   de   Eyto,   E.,   et   al.   (2013)   Selection   and   phylogenetics   of   salmonid   MHC  
class  I:  Wild  brown  trout  (Salmo  trutta)  differ  from  a  non-­‐native  introduced  strain  PLoS  ONE  PONE-­‐D-­‐12-­‐34666R2.  
• Bourlat,  S.J.,  Borja,   A.,   Gilbert,  J.,  Taylor,  M.I.,  Davies,  N.,  [Benzie,  J.]   et   al.  (2013)  Genomics  in  marine  monitoring:  
New  opportunities  for  assessing  marine  health  status.  Marine  Pollution  Bulletin  74:  19–31.  
• Benzie,  J.A.H.,  Nguyen,  T.T.T.,  Hulata,  G.,  Bartley,  D.M.,  et  al.  (2012)  Promoting  responsible  use  and  conservation  of  
aquatic   biodiversity   for   sustainable   aquaculture   development.   In   R.P.   Subasinghe,   et   al.,   eds.   Farming   the   Waters   for  
People  and  Food.  Proc.  Global  Conf.  on  Aquaculture  2010,  Phuket,  Thailand.  Sept.  2010.  Pages  337–383.  FAO,  Rome  
and  NACA,  Bangkok.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Development   of   improved   black   tiger   strain   now   fully   commercialized.   More   than   AUD   20M   in   grants   in   Australia   in  
genetics  of  marine  systems  and  aquaculture,  1990–2003;  Belgian  Dept.  Sci.  &Tech.  €2.1M  sex  determination  in  shrimp,  
2005–07;  EUFP7  Knowledge  transfer  in  marine  genomics  to  industry  and  government  €0.99M  2011–13.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Leader,  Cluster  1  –  Fish  breeds  and  genetics,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture    

  54
 
 VERRETH,  JOHAN  
PROFILE    
Aquaculture  and  fisheries  researcher  and  trainer:  
• More   than   15   years’   experience   leading   and   mentoring   multidisciplinary   teams   on   research   into   the   interface  
between  animal,  (a)biotic  environments  and  human  use;  the  interaction  of  nutrition  and  water  quality  in  intensive  
production  systems;  and  sustainability  assessments  of  farmed  seafood.  
• Key   research   focus   is   developing   aquaculture   and   aquaculture   farming   systems   that   are   ecologically   sustainable.  
Other  research  interests  include  the  fate  of  nutrients  and  nutrient  dynamics  in  different  production  systems  of  fish;  
e.g.  in  ponds,  in  recirculating  aquaculture  systems  and  at  the  animal  level.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2012  –  2015   Director,  Graduate  School,  Institute  of  Animal  Sciences,  Wageningen  University,  The  Netherlands    
2000  to  date   Professor,  Aquaculture  and  Fisheries,  Wageningen  University,  The  Netherlands  
1996  –  2000   Associate  Professor,  Fish  Culture  and  Fisheries  Group,  Wageningen  University,  The  Netherlands  
1993  –  2003   Guest  Professor,  Aquaculture,  Gent  University,  Belgium  
 
EDUCATION    
1994   PhD  Agricultural  and  Environmental  Sciences,  Wageningen  University,  The  Netherlands  
1974   MSc  Zoology  (Hons),  Gent  University,  Belgium  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Asaduzzaman,   M.,   Rahman,   M.M.,   Azim,   M.E.,   Islam,   M.A.,   Wahab,   M.A.,   Verdegem,   M.C.J.,   Verreth,   J.A.J.   (2010)  
Effects   of   C/N   ratio   and   substrate   addition   on   natural   food   communities   in   freshwater   prawn   monoculture   ponds.  
Aquaculture  306:  127–136.  
• Saravanan,  S.,  Geurden,  I.,  Figueiredo-­‐Silva,  A.C.,  Kaushik,  S.J.,  Verreth,  J.A.J.,  Schrama,  J.W.  (2013)  Voluntary  feed  
intake  in  rainbow  trout  is  regulated  by  diet-­‐induced  differences  in  oxygen  use.  The  Journal  of  Nutrition  143:  781–
787.  
• Saravanan,   S.,   Geurden,   I.,   Orozco,   Z.G.A.,   Kaushik,   S.J.,   Verreth,   J.A.J.,   Schrama,   J.W.   (2013)   Dietary   electrolyte  
balance   affects   the   nutrient   digestibility   and   maintenance   energy   expenditure   of   Nile   tilapia.   British   Journal   of  
Nutrition  110:  1948–1957.  
• Giatsis,   C.,   Sipkema,   D.,   Smidt,   H.,   Heilig,   H.,   Benvenuti,   G.,   Verreth,   J.A.J.,   Verdegem,   M.   (2015)   The   impact   of  
rearing   environment   on   the   development   of   gut   microbiota   in   tilapia   larvae.   Scientific   Reports   5,   18206.   DOI:  
10.1038/srep18206  
• Joffre,   O.M.,   Bosma,   R.H.,   Bregt,   A.K.,   van   Zwieten,   P.A.M.,   Bush,   S.R.,   Verreth,   J.A.J.   (2015)   What   drives   the  
adoption  of  integrated  shrimp  mangrove  aquaculture  in  Vietnam?  Ocean  and  Coastal  Management  114:  53–63.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Member,   National   Scientific   Advisory   Board,   INRA,   France   (2006–2010)   and   INRA’s   Division   Phase   (2011–2013);  
Member,   Scientific   Advisory   Board   Fac   Fisheries,   South   Bohemian   Univ.,   Czech   Republic   (2014).   President,   European  
Aquaculture   Society   (2004–2006);   Member,   Board   of   EAS   (1996–2008).   Co-­‐Chair,   Working   Group   on   Recirculation  
Systems,   European   Aquaculture   Technology   and   Innovation   Platform   (EATiP)   (2011–2012).   President,   Steering  
Committees   Conferences   “Aquaculture   Europe   2015”;   “World   Aquaculture   2006.”   Scientific   Director:   NWO-­‐WOTRO  
Program  Project  “Disentangling  the  Social  and  Ecological  Drivers  of  Ecosystem  Change  in  Lake  Victoria,”  SEDEC  (2009–
2013);  Nutritious  Ponds  (2015–2018).  Scientific  Director,  WU-­‐INREF  (interdisciplinary  research)  programs  “Resilience  of  
Coastal  Populations  and  Aquatic  Resources”  RESCOPAR  (2007–2013),  POND  (2000–2006)  and  BestTUNA  (2011).  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Leader,  Cluster  2  –  Fish  health,  feeds  and  nutrition,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture    

  55
 
 TRAN,  NHUONG  
PROFILE    
Scientist  and  economics  foresight  modelling  leader,  WorldFish,  Malaysia:  
• Interdisciplinary   (social,   economic   and   environmental   management)   researcher   specializing   in   aquaculture   and  
fisheries  development.    
• Areas   of   work   include   econometric   &   foresight   modelling,   economics   sociology   of   fish   value   chain   configuration,  
climate  and  environmental  change.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2013  to  date   Scientist,  Policies,  Economics  and  Social  Science,  WorldFish,  Malaysia  
2011  –  2013   Postdoctoral  Fellow,  Policies,  Economics  and  Social  Science,  WorldFish,  Malaysia  
2006  –  2011     Research  Assistant,  Agricultural  Economics  &  Rural  Sociology  Department,  Auburn  University,  USA  
2004  –  2005     Vietnamese  Coordinator,  PORESSFA  project  funded  by  EC,  Vietnam  
 
EDUCATION    
2011   PhD  Applied  Economics,  Agricultural  Economics  &  Rural  Sociology,  Auburn  University,  USA  
2010   MS  Rural  Sociology,  Agricultural  Economics  &  Rural  Sociology,  Auburn  University,  USA  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Tran,   N.,   Nguyen,   A.   V.   T.,   Wilson,   N.   (2014)   The   differential   effects   of   food   safety   regulations   on   animal   products  
trade:  The  case  of  crustacean  product  trade.  Agribusiness  30  (1):  30–45.  
• Tran,  N.,  Bailey,  C.,  Wilson,  N.,  Phillips,  M.  (2013)  Governance  of  global  value  chains  in  response  to  food  safety  and  
certification  standards:  The  case  of  shrimp  from  Vietnam.  World  Development  45:  325–336.  
• Tran,   N.,   Wilson,   N.,   Hite,   D.   (2013)   Choosing   the   Best   Model   in   the   Presence   of   Zero   Trade:   A   Fish   Product   Analysis.  
In   J.C.  Beghin   (ed.)   Non-­‐Tariff   Measures   with   Market   Imperfections:   Trade   and   Welfare   Implications   (Frontiers   of  
Economics  and  Globalization  volume  12).  Emerald  Group  Publishing  Limited.  Pages  127–148.    
• Tran,   N.,   Wilson,   N.,   Anders,   S.   (2012)   Standard   harmonization   as   chasing   zero   (tolerance   limits):   The   Impact   of  
veterinary  (cloramphenicol  analytical)  standards  on  crustacean  imports  in  Canada,  EU,  Japan,  and  the  U.S.   American  
Journal  of  Agricultural  Economics  94  (2):  496–502.  
• Dyer,   J.,   Bailey,   C.,   Tran,   N.   (2009)   A   “disadvantaged   class”:   Ownership   characteristics   of   heir   property   in   a   black   belt  
county.  Southern  Rural  Sociology  24  (2):  192–217.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
• Leading  foresight  modelling  activity  in  WorldFish,  global  futures  and  strategic  foresight  project/CRP  PIM,  L&F.    
• Leading  climate-­‐smart  aquaculture  project  in  Vietnam,  CRP  CCAFS  SEA  office.  Coordinating  PORESSFA  project  funded  
by  EC  in  Vietnam.    
• Managing  VIE  97/030  Project  implemented  in  Vietnam,  funded  by  UNDP  and  UNOPS.    
• 2009–2010  Norman  Borlaug  Leadership  Enhancement  in  Agriculture  Program  (LEAP)  Award.    
• 2006–2009  Ford  Foundation  International  Fellowship  Award.    
• 2005  Australian  Collaboration  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (CARD)  program  and  Vietnamese  government  
grant  (500,000  AUD)  for  Better  Management  Practices  Application  in  Aquaculture  in  Vietnam.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Leader,  Cluster  3  –  Aquaculture  systems,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture    

  56
 
 PRESTON,  NIGEL  
PROFILE    
Marine  sciences  specialist:    
• Over   25   years’   technical   leadership   and   policy   guidance   in   coral   reef   ecology,   fisheries   ecology,   sustainable  
aquaculture,  and  the  development  and  application  of  advanced  genetics  and  nutritional  technologies  to  enhance  the  
productivity,  sustainability  and  market  quality  of  aquaculture.  
• Experience   leading   multidisciplinary   research   teams   that   have   contributed   to   the   economic   and   environmental  
sustainability  of  aquaculture  industries  in  Australia,  Vietnam,  China,  Indonesia,  Saudi  Arabia,  Mexico  and  Brazil.  
• More   than   100   publications   (81   peer-­‐reviewed)   covering   marine   biology,   invertebrate   embryology,   coral   reef  
ecology,  aquaculture  research  (reproductive  biology,  genetics),  and  biotechnology  and  environmental  management.  
Holds  3  patents.  
 
EMPLOYMENT  
2015  to  date   Director  General,  WorldFish,  Malaysia  
2014  –  2015   Research   Program   Director,   Integrated   Sustainable   Aquaculture   Production,   CSIRO   Agriculture  
Flagship,  Australia  
2013  –  2014   Acting  Director,  CSIRO  Food  Futures  Flagship,  Australia  
2002  –  2013     Theme  Leader,  Breed  Engineering,  CSIRO  Food  Futures  Flagship,  Australia  
 
EDUCATION  
1985   PhD  Marine  Biology,  University  of  Sydney,  Australia    
1978   BSc  (Hon),  Marine  Sciences,  Bangor  University,  UK  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Glencross,  B.D.,  Irvin,  S.,  Arnold,  S.,  Blythe,  Bourne,  N.,  Preston,  N.P.  (2014)  Effective  use  of  microbial  biomass  
products  to  facilitate  the  complete  replacement  of  fishery  resources  in  diets  for  the  black  tiger  shrimp,  Penaeus  
monodon.  DOI:  10.1016/j  Aquaculture  2014.02.033  
• Coman,  G.J.,  Arnold,  S.J.,  Wood,  A.T.,  Preston,  N.P.  (2013)  Evaluation  of  egg  and  nauplii  production  parameters  of  a  
single  stock  of  domesticated  Penaeus  monodon  across  generations.  Aquaculture  400–401:  125–128.  DOI:  
10.1016/j.Aquaculture.2013.03.015  
• Sellars,  M.J.,  Wood,  A.,  Murphy,  B.,  Coman,  G.J.,  Arnold,  S.J.,  McCulloch,  R.M.,  Preston,  N.P.  (2013)  Reproductive  
performance  and  mature  gonad  morphology  of  triploid  and  diploid  Black  Tiger  shrimp  (Penaeus  monodon)  siblings.  
Aquaculture  Research  44:  1493–1501.  DOI:  10.1111/j.1365-­‐2109.2012.03156.x  
• Glencross,  B.D.,  Tabrett,  S.J.,  Irvin,  S.,  Wade,  N.,  Anderson,  M.,  Blyth,  D.,  Smith,  D.M.,  Coman,  G.E.,  Preston,  N.P.  
(2013)  An  analysis  of  the  effect  of  diet  and  genotype  on  protein  and  energy  utilization  by  the  black  tiger  shrimp,  
Penaeus  monodon:  Why  do  genetically  selected  shrimp  grow  faster?  Aquaculture  Nutrition  19:  128–138.  
• Sellars,  M.J.,  Wood,  A.,  Murphy,  B.,  McCulloch,  R.M.,  Preston,  N.P.  (2012)  Triploid  black  tiger  shrimp  (Penaeus  
monodon)  performance  from  egg  to  harvest  age.  Aquaculture  324–325:  242–249.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Led  CSIRO  research  and  development  program  (AUD10M)  on  prawn  breeding  and  feed,  leading  to  improved  prawn  
varieties  and  new  prawn  feed  additive  (NovacqTM);  cumulative  benefits  of  novel  prawn  feed  between  2014  and  2023–24  
valued  at  AUD  1.9  billion.  Chair  of  World  Aquaculture  Working  Group  on  Shrimp  Breeding  and  Genetics  (2002).  Major  
awards:  CSIRO  Award  for  Establishing  Food  Futures  Flagship  2003;  Australian  Aquaculture  Award  for  services  to  the  
prawn  farming  industry  2010;  Winner,  Environment,  Agriculture  and  Food  category,  The  Australian  Innovation  
Challenge  2013,  for  the  development  of  NovacqTM;  CSIRO  Medal  Science  for  Impact  Award  2014;  and  Fellow  of  the  
World  Aquaculture  Society  2014.    
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Senior  Advisor,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture    

  57
 
 BAILEY,  CONNER  
PROFILE    
• Rural  sociologist  with  extensive  experience  on  marine  fisheries  (Malaysia,  Indonesia,  the  Philippines,  Canada  and  the  
U.S.)  and  aquaculture  (Indonesia,  the  Philippines,  Vietnam,  Norway,  Brazil).    
• Experience  consulting  on  marine  fisheries  and  aquaculture  with  USAID,  FAO  and  World  Bank.  
• Fluent  in  Bahasa  Indonesia/Malaysia  and  basic  Spanish.    
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2015  to  date   Professor  Emeritus,  Auburn  University,  USA  
1994  –  2015   Professor,  Auburn  University,  USA  
1988  –  1994     Associate  Professor,  Auburn  University,  USA  
1985  –  1988     Assistant  Professor,  Auburn  University,  USA    
 
EDUCATION    
1980   PhD  Development  Sociology,  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  New  York,  USA    
1974   MA  International  Affairs  (southeast  Asia),  Ohio  University,  Athens,  Ohio,  USA  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Bailey,  C.  (2015)  Transgenic  salmon:  Science,  politics,  and  flawed  policy.  Society  &  Natural  Resources  28  (11):  1249–
1260.  DOI:  10.1080/08941920.2015.1089610  
• Lima,  J.S.G.,  Bailey,  C.  (2015)  Shrimp  Farming  as  a  Coastal  Zone  Challenge  in  Sergipe  State,  Brazil:  Balancing  Goals  
of   Conservation   and   Social   Justice.   In   Finkl,   C.W.,   Makowski,   C.   (eds.),   Environmental   Management   and  
Governance:   Advances   in   Coastal   and   Marine   Resources.   Coastal   Research   Library   8.   Cham,   Switzerland:   Springer  
International  Publishing.  Pages  233–252.  DOI:  10.1007/978-­‐3-­‐319-­‐06305-­‐8_9  
• Bailey,  C.,  Jensen,  L.,  Ransom,  E.  (eds).  (2014)  Rural  America  in  a  Globalizing  World:  Problems  and  Prospects  for  the  
2010s.  Morgantown,  WV:  West  Virginia  University  Press.  705  p.  
• Bailey,   C.,   Gramling,   B.,   Laska,   S.   (2014)   Complexities   of   Resilience:   Adaptation   and   Change   within   Human  
Communities   of   Coastal   Louisiana.   In   Day,   J.,   Kemp,   P.,   Freeman,   A.,   Muth,   D.   (eds).   The   Once   and   Future  
Delta.  New  York:  Springer.  Pages  125–140.  
• Nhuong   Van,   T.,   Bailey,   C.,   Wilson,   N.,   Phillips,   M.   (2013)   Governance   of   global   value   chains   in   response   to   food  
safety  and  certification  standards:  The  case  of  shrimp  from  Vietnam.  World  Development  45:  325–336.  
• Bailey,   C.   (2013)   Remaking   Fish   for   Aquaculture   in   the   United   States;   From   Selective   Breeding   to   Genetic  
Engineering.  Professional  Report  No.  4-­‐2013.  Oslo,  Norway:  National  Institute  for  Consumer  Research  (SIFO).    
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Served  as  Principal  Investigator  on  16  competitive  research  grants  between  1992  and  2019  that  brought  in  USD  2.2  
million.  Seven  were  national  competitive  grants  involving  inter-­‐disciplinary  teams  of  scientists  accounting  for  USD  2.014  
million.  Recipient  of  two  Auburn  University  awards  for  being  the  top  researcher  (2013).  President  of  the  Rural  
Sociological  Society  (2011)  and  Chair  of  the  University  Senate  at  Auburn  University  (2005–06).  Awarded  the  
Distinguished  Diversity  Research  Award  in  2008  (Auburn  University)  and  the  Excellence  in  Research  Award  in  2007  
(Rural  Sociological  Society).  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Sr.  Scientist  –  Social  analysis  of  aquaculture,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture  
   

  58
 
 DI  PALMA,  FEDERICA  
PROFILE    
• Over   10   years’   experience   in   managing   and   coordinating   large-­‐scale   collaborative   genome   sequencing   projects,  
including  recently  leading  the  Cichlid  Genome  Project  (Brawand  et  al.,  Nature,  2014).  
• Extensive   experience   in   computational   analysis,   especially   of   whole   genome   sequencing,   transcriptome   and  
epigenetic  data.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2015  to  date   Professor  of  Vertebrate  Genomics,  School  of  Biological  Sciences,  University  of  East  Anglia,  UK    
2014  to  date   Director   of   Science   and   Head   of   Vertebrate   and   Health   Genomics,   The   Genome   Analysis   Centre,  
Norwich,  UK  
2014  to  date   Visiting  Scientist,  The  Broad  Institute  of  Harvard  and  MIT,  Cambridge,  MA,  USA  
2010  –  2014     Assistant   Director,   Vertebrate   Genome   Biology,   Genome   Sequencing   and   Analysis   Program,   The  
Broad  Institute  of  Harvard  and  MIT,  Cambridge,  MA,  USA  
 
EDUCATION    
1998   PhD  Immunogenetics,  University  of  Reading,  UK  
1995   BSc  (Hons)  Cell  and  Molecular  Biology,  University  of  Essex,  UK  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Brawand,  D.,  Wagner,  C.E.,  Li,  Y.I.,  The  Cichlid  Genome  Consortium,  Ponting,  C.P.,  Streelman,  J.T.,  Lindblad-­‐Toh,  K.,  
Seehausen,  O.,  Di  Palma,  F.  (2014)  The  genomic  substrate  for  adaptive  radiation  in  African  cichlid  fish.  Nature  513:  
375–381.      
• Carneiro,  M.,  Rubin,  C-­‐J.,  Di  Palma,  F.  et  al.  (2014)  Rabbit  genome  analysis  reveals  a  polygenic  basis  for  phenotypic  
change  during  domestication.  Science  345:  1074–1079.      
• Keane,  M.,  Craig,  T.,  Alföldi,  J.,  Berlin,  A.M.,  Johnson,  J.,  Seluanov,  A.,  Gorbunova,  V.,  Di  Palma,  F.,  Lindblad-­‐Toh,  K.,  
Church,   G.M.,   de   Magalhães,   J.P.   (2014)   The   naked   mole   rat   genome   resource:   Facilitating   analyses   of   cancer   and  
longevity-­‐related  adaptations.  Bioinformatics  (AOP;  in  press).      
• Di   Palma,   F.   et   al.   (2014)   An   improved   canine   genome   and   a   comprehensive   catalogue   of   coding   genes   and   non-­‐
coding  transcripts.  PlosOne  9:  1–11.      
• Amemiya,   C.T,   Alföldi,   J.,   et   al.,   Di   Palma,   F.,   Lander,   E.S.,   Meyer,   A.,   Lindblad-­‐Toh,   K.   (2013)   Comparative   analysis   of  
the   genome   of   the   African   coelacanth,   Latimeria   chalumnae,   sheds   light   on   tetrapod   evolution.   Nature   496:   311–
316.      
• Di  Palma,  F.  et  al.  (2011)  The  genomic  basis  of  adaptive  evolution  in  threespine  sticklebacks.  Nature  484:  55–61.      
• Alföldi,  J.,  Di  Palma,  F.  et  al.  (2011)  The  genome  of  the  green  anole  lizard  and  a  comparative  analysis  with  birds  and  
mammals.  Nature  477:  587.      
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Manager  of  large-­‐scale  Col  Vertebrate  genome  sequencing  project  (USD  2M/year);  Broad  Institute  Large  Scale  Genome  
Sequencing  and  Analysis  award.  PI  on  Broad  Institute  NHGRI,  NIH,  ARRA  award.  Ad  hoc  reviewer  for  Science  and  Nature.  
Member,  Editorial  Board,  Journal  of  Genomics.    
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Sr.  Scientist  –  Genomics  and  aquatic  biodiversity,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture    

  59
 
 HOUSTON,  ROSS  D.  
PROFILE    
• Group   leader   at   the   Roslin   Institute   with   experience   successfully   leading   large-­‐scale   (inter)national   research   projects  
to   develop   genomic   resources   for   finfish   and   shellfish   species   and   their   implementation   to   improve   disease  
resistance  in  aquaculture  breeding  programs.    
• Successful   track   record   in   knowledge   exchange   via   close   collaboration   with   private   and   public   sector   bodies,  
including  discovery  and  implementation  of  a  major  locus  (QTL)  affecting  virus  resistance  in  salmon.  
• 35   peer-­‐reviewed   journal   publications   relating   to   subject   areas   such   as   genomics,   selective   breeding,   gene  
expression,  disease  resistance,  genotyping  by  sequencing,  etc.  
• Associate  editor  for  G3:  Genes,  Genomes,  Genetics  and  Nature  Scientific  Reports  journals.  
• Plenary  or  invited  speaker  on  aquaculture  genetics  and  genomics  at  major  international  conferences  including  Plant  
and  Animal  Genome  2015,  and  International  Society  for  Animal  Genetics  2016.    
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2014  to  date   Group  Leader,  Senior  Lecturer,  The  Roslin  Institute,  University  of  Edinburgh,  UK  
2010  –  2015   BBSRC-­‐funded  Institute  Career  Path  Fellowship,  The  Roslin  Institute,  University  of  Edinburgh,  UK  
2004  –  2010     Postdoctoral  Research  Fellow,  The  Roslin  Institute,  University  of  Edinburgh,  UK  

EDUCATION    
2004   PhD  Genetics,  University  of  Aberdeen,  UK  
2000   BSc  (Hon),  Human  Biology,  Loughborough  University,  UK  

SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  

• Robledo,  D.,  Taggart,  J.B.,  Houston,  R.D.  (2016)  Gene  expression  comparison  of  resistant  and  susceptible  Atlantic  
salmon  fry  challenged  with  Infectious  Pancreatic  Necrosis  virus  reveals  a  marked  contrast  in  immune  response.  BMC  
Genomics,  in  press.  
• Tsai,  H.Y.,  Hamilton,  A.,  Houston,  R.D.  (2015)  Genome  wide  association  and  genomic  prediction  for  growth  traits  in  
juvenile  farmed  Atlantic  salmon  using  a  high  density  SNP  array.  BMC  Genomics  16:  969.  
• Gonen,  S.,  Baranski,  M.,  Houston,  R.D.  (2015)  Mapping  and  validation  of  a  major  QTL  affecting  resistance  to  
pancreas  disease  (salmonid  alphavirus)  in  Atlantic  salmon  (Salmo  salar).  Heredity  115:  405–14.  
• Houston,  R.D.,  Taggart,  J.B.,  Hamilton  A.  (2014)  Development  and  validation  of  a  high  density  SNP  genotyping  array  
for  Atlantic  salmon  (Salmo  salar).  BMC  Genomics  15  (1):  90.  
• Houston,  R.D.,  Haley,  C.S.,  Bishop,  S.C.  (2010)  The  susceptibility  of  Atlantic  salmon  fry  to  freshwater  Infectious  
Pancreatic  Necrosis  is  largely  explained  by  a  major  QTL.  Heredity  105:  318–327.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
• Workpackage  leader  for  disease  resistance  in  the  €6M  Euro  EU  FP7  project  FISHBOOST:  Boosting  European  
aquaculture  by  advancing  selective  breeding  to  the  next  levels  (2014–2019).  Coordinating  large-­‐scale  disease  
challenge  and  genomics  experiments  with  collaborators  across  EU  countries.    
• BBSRC  Institute  Career  Path  Fellowship  (£1.4M;  2010–2015)  including  discovery  of  marker  predictors  of  resistance  
to  Infectious  Pancreatic  Necrosis  virus  in  salmon.  The  discovery  and  its  commercial  application  made  the  final  of  the  
BBSRC  Innovator  of  the  Year  competition  in  2014.  
• PI  for  recent  RCUK-­‐CONICYT  Newton  award  (£0.5M;  2016–2018):  Utilising  functional  genomic  variation  for  
improved  disease  resistance  in  Chilean  salmon  aquaculture.    
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Sr.  Scientist  –  Genomic  resources  for  fish,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture  
   

  60
 
 KOMEN,  HANS  (JOHANNES)  
PROFILE    
• 25   years’   experience   in   research   in   aquaculture;   the   last   12   years   working   specifically   on   the   design   of   breeding  
programs  for  aquaculture  species.  
• Experience   covering   freshwater   and   marine   aquaculture   species   and   engagement   with   government,   university,  
development  agencies,  NGOs  and  private  sector.  
• More   than   100   peer-­‐reviewed   research   publications   covering   various   aquaculture   research   areas,   such   as   sex  
determination,  clonal  reproduction  techniques,  stress  physiology,  and  estimation  of  genetic  parameters  for  a  suite  of  
aquatic  species,  most  notably  the  Nile  tilapia.  H-­‐index  32.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2015  to  date   Senior  Researcher,  Aquaculture  Group,  Wageningen  Livestock  Research,  Wageningen  University,  The  
Netherlands  
2007  to  date   Associate   Professor   and   Teamleader,   Animal   Breeding   and   Genomics   Group,   Wageningen   University,  
The  Netherlands  
2004  –  2007   Assistant  Professor,  Animal  Breeding  and  Genetics  Group,  Wageningen  University,  The  Netherlands  
1997  –  2004   Assistant  Professor,  Aquaculture  and  Fisheries  Group,  Wageningen  University,  The  Netherlands  
 
EDUCATION    
1990   PhD  Genetics,  Wageningen  University,  The  Netherlands  
1985   MSc  (Cum  Laude),  Biology,  Wageningen  University,  The  Netherlands  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Omasaki,  S.,  Komen,  H.,  Kahi,  A.K.,  Charo-­‐Karrisa,  H.  (2016)  Defining  a  breeding  objective  for  Nile  tilapia  that  takes  
into  account  the  diversity  of  smallholder  production  systems.  Journal  Animal  Breeding  and  Genetics,  in  press.  
• Diopere,  E.,  Maes,  G.  E.,  Komen,  H.,  et  al.  (2014)  A  genetic  linkage  map  of  sole  (Solea  solea):  A  tool  for  evolutionary  
and  comparative  analyses  of  exploited  (flat)fishes.  Plos  One  DOI:  10.1371/journal.pone.0115040  
• Besson,  M.,  Komen,  H.,  Aubin,  J.,  et  al.  (2014)  Economic  values  of  growth  and  feed  efficiency  for  fish  farming  in  
recirculating  aquaculture  system  with  density  and  nitrogen  output  limitations:  A  case  study  with  African  catfish  
(Clarias  gariepinus).  Journal  of  Animal  Science  92  (12):  5394–5405.  
• Sae-­‐Lim,  P.,  Komen,  H.,  Kause,  A.,  et  al.  (2014)  Identifying  environmental  variables  explaining  genotype-­‐by-­‐
environment  interaction  for  body  weight  of  rainbow  trout  (Onchorynchus  mykiss):  Reaction  norm  and  factor  analytic  
models.  Genetics  Selection  Evolution.  DOI:  10.1186/1297-­‐9686-­‐46-­‐16  
• Sae-­‐Lim,  P.,  Komen,  H.,  Kause,  A.,  Van  Arendonk,  J.  A.  M.,  Barfoot,  A.  J.,  Martin,  K.  E.,  Parsons,  J.  E.  (2011)  Defining  
desired  genetic  gains  for  rainbow  trout  breeding  objective  using  analytic  hierarchy  process.  2012.  Journal  of  Animal  
Science  90  (6):  1766–1776.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Member  of  the  executive  board  and  chair  of  the  education  committee  of  EU-­‐funded  European  graduate  school  EGSABG,  
a  consortium  of  four  universities  that  have  developed  a  joint  PhD  degree  program.  Member  of  the  executive  board  and  
workpackage  leader  for  FISHBOOST,  economic  evaluation  of  fish  breeding  programs  in  Europe.  Program  leader  for  
training  of  early  stage  researchers;  responsible  for  formulation  of  long-­‐term  breeding  program  for  the  African  chicken  
genetic  gains  program:  Bill  &  Melinda  Gates-­‐funded  program.    
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Sr.  Scientist  –  Fish  genetics  and  environment,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture    

  61
 
 LITTLE,  DAVID  C.  
PROFILE    
Specialist  in  aquatic  resource  development  and  capacity  building  with  an  Asian  focus:    
• Over  30  years  of  experience  in  interdisciplinary  research  and  education,  significant  proportion  based  in  the  Region  
generating  around  £10  million  income.    
• Published   over   100   academic   papers   and   reviews;   (h   index   27;   ~2500   citations).   Total   number   of   peer   reviewed  
publications:  106.  
• Supervised  over  100  postgraduate  student  research  projects,  of  which  more  than  20  have  been  PhDs.    
• Key  role  as  coordinator  and  partner  of  interdisciplinary  and  intercultural  research  for  development.    
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2009  to  date   Professor  of  Aquatic  Resource  Development,  Institute  of  Aquaculture,  University  of  Stirling,  Scotland,  
UK  
1997  –  2009   Employed  on  research  and  teaching  contracts  
1984  –  1997   Asian  Institute  of  Technology,  Agricultural  and  Aquatic  Programme,  Thailand  
1980  –  1982   VSO  based  in  Thailand  
 
EDUCATION    
1989   PhD  Aquaculture,  University  of  Stirling,  Scotland,  UK  
1983   MSc  Aquaculture  and  Fisheries  Management,  University  of  Stirling,  Scotland,  UK  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Bush,  S.R.,  Belton,  Hall,  D.  Vandergeest,  P.,  Murray,  F.J.,  Ponte,  S.,  Oosterveer,  P.,  Islam,  M.S.,  Mol,  A.P.J.,  Hatanaka,  
M.,  Kruijssen,  F.,  Ha,  T.T.T.,  Little,  D.C.,  Kusumawati,  R.  (2013)  Certify  sustainable  aquaculture?  Science  341:  1067–
1068.  
• Rico,   A.,   Phu,   T.M.,   Satapornvanit,   K.,   Min,   J.,   Shahabuddin,   A.M.,   Henriksson,   P.J.G.,   Murray,   F.J.,   Little,   D.C.,  
Dalsgaard,   A.,   Van   den   Brink,   P.J.   (2013)   Use   of   veterinary   medicines,   feed   additives   and   probiotics   in   four   major  
internationally  traded  aquaculture  species  farmed  in  Asia.  Aquaculture  412–413:  231–243.  
• Haque,   M.M.,   Little,   D.C.,   Barman,   B.K.,   Wahab,   M.A.   &   Telfer,   T.C.   (2012)   Impacts   of   decentralized   fish   fingerling  
production  in  irrigated  rice  fields  in  Northwest  Bangladesh.  Aquaculture  Research  1–20.  DOI:  10.1111/are.12000  
• Belton,   B.,   Haque,   M.M.,   Little,   D.C.   (2012)   Does   size   matter?   Reassessing   the   relationship   between   aquaculture   and  
poverty  in  Bangladesh.  Journal  of  Development  Studies  48:  1–19.    
• Watterson,   A.,   Little,   D.,   Young,   J.A.,   Murray,   F.J.,   Doi,   L.,   Boyd,   K.,   Azim,   E.   (2012)   Scoping   a   Public   Health   Impact  
Assessment   of   Aquaculture   with   Particular   Reference   to   Tilapia   in   the   UK.   Public   Health.   18p   DOI:  
10.5402/2012/203796  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Nominator   Pew   Marine   Scholarships   (2015–   );   Member,   Academic   reference   group,   Fishmongers   Company   (2015–   );  
Member,   Technical   Committee,   Aquaculture   Standards,   Seafood   Watch   Programme,   Monterey   Bay   Aquaria;   Section  
Editor   Sustainability   and   Society,   Aquaculture   journal,   Elsevier   (2011–   );   Director,   Board   of   World   Aquaculture   Society  
(2010–2014);   Member,   Standards   Oversight   Committee,   BAP,   Global   Aquaculture   Alliance   (2010–   );   Member,   Project  
Assessment   Committee,   Farmers   in   Transition   Fund,   IDH,   Netherlands   (2014–   );   Member,   Panel   of   Advisers,  
Commonwealths   Scholarships   Commission   (2010–   );   Member   of   the   editorial   board   for   CABI   Perspectives   in   Agriculture,  
Veterinary   Science,   Nutrition   and   Natural   Resources;   Member   of   the   Standards   Committee   for   aquaculture   of   the   Soil  
Association  (2003–  ).  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Sr.  Scientist  –  Aquaculture  systems  analysis,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture    

  62
 
 MOHAN,  CHADAG  
PROFILE    
• Over   30   years’   technical   leadership   and   policy   guidance   on   sustainable   aquaculture;   over   30   years’   experience   in  
aquaculture  and  aquatic  animal  health  management.  
• Expertise   on   fish   and   shrimp   pathology,   aquatic   epidemiology,   surveillance   and   risk   management,   small-­‐scale  
aquaculture.  
• Secured  funding  and  implemented  several  national,  regional  and  international  research  and  development  projects  in  
the  area  of  aquatic  animal  health.  
• Published  over  60  research  papers.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2014  to  date   Senior  Scientist  Aquaculture,  WorldFish,  Penang  
2009  –  2014   Research  and  Development  Manager,  NACA,  Bangkok,  Thailand  
2003  –  2009     Coordinator  Aquatic  Animal  Health  Program,  NACA,  Bangkok,  Thailand  
2000  –  2003     Professor  of  Fish  Pathology,  College  of  Fisheries,  UAS,  Mangalore,  India  
 
EDUCATION    
1990   PhD  Institute  of  Aquaculture,  University  of  Stirling,  UK  
1982   MFSc  (Master  of  Fisheries  Sciences),  College  of  Fisheries,  UAS,  Mangalore,  India  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Partho,   D.,   Khan,   S.H.,   Karim,   M.,   Belton,   B.,   Mohan,   C.V.,   Phillips,   M.   (2015)   Review   of   the   history,   status   and  
prospects  of  the  black  tiger  shrimp  (Penaeus  monodon)  hatchery  sector  in  Bangladesh.  Reviews  in  Aquaculture.  DOI:  
10.1111/raq.12094  
• Rodgers,  C.J.,  Mohan,  C.V.,  Peeler,  E.J.  (2011)  The  spread  of  pathogens  through  trade  in  aquatic  animals  and  their  
products.  OIE  Scientific  and  Technical  Review  30  (1):  241–256.  
• Walker,  P.J.,  Gudkovs,  N.,  Mohan,  C.V.,  Raj,  V.S.,  Pradeep,  B.,  Sergeant,  E.,  Mohan,  A.B.C.,  Babu,  G.R.,  Karunasagar,  I.,  
Santiago,   T.C.   (2011)   Longitudinal   disease   studies   in   small-­‐holder   black   tiger   shrimp   (Penaeus   monodon)   ponds   in  
Andhra   Pradesh,   India.   II.   Multiple   WSSV   genotypes   associated   with   disease   outbreaks   in   ponds   seeded   with  
uninfected  postlarvae.  Aquaculture  319:  18–24.  
• Sahoo,  A.K.,  Mohan,  C.V.,  Shankar,  K.M.,  Corsin,  F.,  Turnbull,  J.F.,  Thakur,  P.C.,  Hao,  N.V.,  Morgan,  K.L.,  Padiyar,  P.A.  
(2010)  Clinical  white  spot  disease  status  in  Penaeus  monodon  during  the  middle  of  the  culture  period-­‐its  
epidemiological  significance.  Journal  of  Fish  Disease  33:  609–615.  
• Walker,  P.J.,  Mohan  C.V.  (2009)  Viral  disease  emergence  in  shrimp  aquaculture:  Origins,  impact  and  the  
effectiveness  of  health  management.  Reviews  in  Aquaculture  1:  125–154.  
• Mohan,  C.V.,  Chinabut,  S.,  Kanchanakhan,  S.  (2008)  Perspectives  on  aquatic  animal  disease  contingency  planning  in  
the  Asia-­‐Pacific  region.  In  Changing  trends  in  managing  aquatic  animal  disease  emergencies.  Rev.sci.tech.Off.int.Epiz.  
2008,  27  (1):  89–102.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Secured   funding   and   implemented   several   regional   aquatic   animal   health   projects   in   Asia-­‐Pacific   in   previous   role   at  
NACA.   Involved   in   two   aquatic   animal   health   (UK   Newton   fund)   and   one   area-­‐based   management   (WOTRO,  
Netherlands)   bilateral   projects   approved   for   implementation   in   2016.   Best   Teacher   Award   for   the   year   1997   by   ICAR,  
India,   and   served   as   Chairperson   of   Fish   Health   Section   (FHS)   of   the   Asian   Fisheries   Society   (AFS),   Manila,   for   the   period  
2012–2014.  Editorial  Board  Member  for  Reviews  in  Aquaculture.    
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Sr.  Scientist  –  Aquatic  animal  health,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture    

  63
 
 TROELL,  MAX  
PROFILE    
• System   ecologist/marine   biologist   working   with   a   broad   range   of   sustainability   and   governance   issues   related   to  
social-­‐ecological  systems,  with  emphasis  on  coastal  and  marine  ecosystems.  
• Main  research  areas:  environmental,  social  impacts  and  sustainability  of  aquaculture;  challenges  for  governance  of  
coastal  and  marine  ecosystems;  identification  and  valuation  of  ecosystem  functions  and  services;  resilience  of  social-­‐
ecological   systems;   identification   and   implication   from   regime   shifts   in   marine   systems   and   aquacultures   role   for  
food  security.    
• More  than  90  publications  covering  environmental  management,  ecological  economics,  resource  biology  and  social-­‐
ecological  modelling  that  impacts  marine  conservation  policies  and  aquaculture  practices.  
 
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2008  to  date   Senior   Researcher,   Stockholm   Resilience   Centre,   Co-­‐leader   of   Marine   Governance   Theme,   Stockholm  
University,  Stockholm,  Sweden  
1996  to  date   Senior   Researcher,   Director   of   Beijer   Aquaculture   Program,   The   Beijer   Institute   of   Ecological  
Economics,  The  Royal  Swedish  Academy  of  Sciences,  Stockholm,  Sweden  
1996  –  2009   Researcher,   Department   of   Ecology,   Environment   and   Plant   Science,   Stockholm   University,  
Stockholm,  Sweden  
 
EDUCATION    
1996   PhD  Systems  Ecology,  Stockholm  University,  Sweden  
1994   Licentiate  Degree  Systems  Ecology,  Stockholm  University,  Sweden  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Béné,  C.,  Arthur,  R.,  Norbury,  H.,  Allison,  E.H.,  Beveridge,  M.,  Bush,  S.,  Campling,  L.,  Leschen,  W.,  Little,  D.,  Squires,  
D.,   Thilsted,   S.H.,   Troell,   M.,   Williams,   M.   (2016)   Contribution   of   fisheries   and   aquaculture   to   food   security   and  
poverty  reduction:  Assessing  the  current  evidence.  World  Development  79:  177–196.  
• Henriksson,   P.,   Troell,   M.,   Rico,   A.   (2015)   Antimicrobial   use   in   aquaculture:   Some   complementing   facts.   PNAS   112  
(26):  E3317.  
• Österblom,   H.,   Jouffray,   J.B.,   Folke,   C.,   Crona,   B.,   Troell,   M.,   Merrie,   A.,   Rockstrom,   J.   (2015)   Transnational  
corporations  as  'keystone  actors'  in  marine  ecosystems.  PLOS  One  10  (5).  
• Krause,   G.,   Brugere,   C.,   Diedrich,   E.,   Ebeling,   M.W.,   Ferse,   S.C.A,   Mikkelson,   E.,   Perez   Agundez,   J.A.,   Stead,   S.M.,  
Stybel,  N.,  Troell,  M.  (2015)  A  revolution  without  people?  Closing  the  people-­‐policy  gap  in  aquaculture  development.  
Aquaculture  44:  44–55.  
• Cao,  L.,  Naylor,  R.,  Henriksson,  P.,  Leadbitter,  D.,  Metian,  M.,  Troell,  M.,  Zhang,  W.  (2015)  China's  aquaculture  and  
the  world's  wild  fisheries.  Science  347  (6218):  133–135.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Swedish   coordinator   for   joint   bilateral   research   programs:   The   implementation   of   re-­‐circulation   systems   in   abalone  
farming  (SEK  450,000;  2003-­‐2006)  and  Integrated  culture  of  abalone  and  seaweed  in  land-­‐based  systems  (SEK  430,000;  
2000-­‐2003).  Received  funding  for  one  PhD  student  from  SAREC  (Swedish  Agency  for  Research  in  Economical  Developing  
Countries;  SEK  1,600,000).  Coordinator  for  the  Swedish  partners  in  a  EC  project:  Assessment  of  mangrove  degradation  
and   resilience   in   the   Indian   sub-­‐continent:   The   cases   of   Godavari   estuary   and   South   West   Sri   Lanka   (SEK   821,554;   2003-­‐
2006).  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Sr.  Scientist  –  Aquaculture  and  resilience,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture    

  64
 
  
NAZNEEN,  SOHELA  
PROFILE    
Gender  and  development  specialist  with:  
• 16  years  of  research,  teaching,  policy  analysis  and  advocacy  experience  on  gender  and  development  issues.  
• A  research  focus  on  gender  and  governance,  politics  of  service  delivery,  rural  livelihoods  and  social  and  feminist  
movements  in  South  Asia  and  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa.  
• Experience  working  as  a  consultant  in  South  Asia  and  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa  (Bangladesh,  Indian,  Sri  Lanka,  Nepal,  
Uganda,  Ghana,  South  Africa  and  Rwanda)  for  UNDP,  The  Bill  and  Melinda  Gates  Foundation  and  other  international  
agencies—designing  development  interventions,  conducting  policy  analysis  and  program  evaluations.  
• 10  peer-­‐reviewed  journal  articles,  12  book  chapters  and  one  published  book  (co-­‐editor).    
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2016  to  date     Political  Economy  lead,  Gender  Adolescence  Global  Evidence  research  program  consortium,  UK  
2013  –  2016   Thematic   Leader,   Gender   and   the   Political   Settlement,   Effective   States   and   Inclusive   Development  
research  program  consortium,  University  of  Manchester,  UK  
2008  –  2012     Research   Fellow   (part-­‐time),   BRAC   Development   Institute,   BRAC   University,   Bangladesh;   Associate  
Professor,  Department  of  International  Relations,  University  of  Dhaka,  Bangladesh  
2004  –  2008   Assistant  Professor,  Department  of  International  Relations,  University  of  Dhaka,  Bangladesh  
 
EDUCATION    
2008   PhD  Development  Studies,  University  of  Sussex,  UK  
2001   MA  Gender  and  Development,  University  of  Sussex,  UK  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Nazneen,  S.,  Darkwah,  A.  and  Sultan,  M.  (2014)  Researching  women’s  empowerment:  Reflections  on  methodology  
by  southern  feminists.  Women’s  Studies  International  Forum  45:  55-­‐62.  
• Nazneen,  S.  and  Sultan,  M.  (2014)  Positionality  and  transformative  knowledge  in  conducting  ‘feminist’  research  on  
empowerment  in  Bangladesh.  Women’s  Studies  International  Forum  45:  63-­‐71.  
• Schuler,  S.R.,  Lenzi,  R.,  Nazneen,  S.  and  Bates,  L.M.  (2013)  Perceived  decline  in  intimate  partner  violence  against  
women  in  Bangladesh:  qualitative  evidence.  Studies  in  Family  Planning  44(3):  243-­‐57.  
• Nazneem,  S.  and  Tasneem,  S.  (2010)  A  silver  lining:  Women  in  reserved  seats  in  local  government  in  Bangladesh.  IDS  
Bulletin  41(5):  35-­‐42.  
• Nazneen,  S.,  Sultan,  M.,  and  Hossain,  N.  (2010)  National  Discourses  on  Women’s  Empowerment:  Enabling  or  
Constraining  Women’s  Choices.  Development  53(2):  239-­‐246.  
• Nazneen,  S.  and  Sultan,  M.  (2010)  Recriprocity,  distancing  and  opportunistic  overtures:  Women’s  organizations  
negotiating  legitimacy  and  space  in  Bangladesh.  IDS  Bulletin  41(2):  70-­‐78.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Contributions  to  global  gender  and  development  research,  including  women’s  voice  and  agency  in  agriculture  (FAO),  
governance  and  accountability  in  Bangladesh  (UNDP),  women’s  transformative  leadership  (OXFAM)  and  women’s  land  
rights  in  the  Asia  Pacific  (UNDP).  Political  Economy  Lead  for  Gender  Adolescence  Global  Evidence  research  program  
(ODI)  (2016).  Thematic  Leader  on  gender  and  political  settlement  research  for  University  of  Manchester,  UK  (2013-­‐16).  
Co-­‐principal  investigator  (2013-­‐16)  on  DFID-­‐funded  project  comparing  gender  norms  between  India  and  Bangladesh,  
and  co-­‐investigator  (2000-­‐10)  on  NIH-­‐funded  project  exploring  women’s  empowerment  and  intimate  partner  violence.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Scientist  –  Livelihoods  and  gender,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture    

  65
 
 CHIMATIRO,  SLOANS  KALUMBA  
PROFILE  
• Senior  specialist  with  more  than  15  years’  experience  in  research  in  fisheries  and  aquaculture  administration,  policy  
reform,  and  project  management  at  a  senior  government  level.    
• Policy  advisor  on  fisheries  and  aquaculture  to  the  Southern  African  Development  Community  (SADC),  the  Common  
Market  for  Eastern  and  Southern  Africa  (COMESA)  and  the  New  Partnership  for  Africa’s  Development  (NEPAD).    
• Conversant  with  fish  processing,  quality  assurance  and  trade  issues  within  the  framework  of  regional  integration  and  
improving  market  access  for  African  fish  products.    
• Presented  the  Action  Plan  to  the  Heads  of  State  and  Governments  during  the  Abuja  Summit  and  was  instrumental  in  
formulating  the  2005  NEPAD  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Action  Plan.    
• Head   of   Fisheries   at   NEPAD   responsible   for   (i)   the   development   of   the   Pan-­‐African   Fisheries   &   Aquaculture   Policy  
Framework   &   Reform   Strategy;   (ii)   assisting   African   countries   to   design   and   implement   fisheries   policy   and  
governance   reforms;   (iii)   designing   innovative   investment   strategies   for   small   and   medium   enterprises   in   fisheries  
and  aquaculture.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2014  to  date   Program  Manager,  Aquaculture  &  Genetic  Improvement,  WorldFish,  Zambia  
2009  –  2014   Head  of  Fisheries,  NEPAD  Agency  
2002  –  2006   Director  of  Fisheries,  Malawi  Department  of  Fisheries,  Malawi  
1999  –  2002   Deputy  Director  of  Fisheries,  Malawi  Department  of  Fisheries,  Malawi  
 
EDUCATION    
2004   PhD,  Fisheries  Science,  Rhodes  University,  South  Africa  
1993   MSc,  Aquaculture,  University  of  Malawi,  Malawi  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Onyango,  P.O.,  Chimatiro,  S.,  Sumaila,  R.  (eds).  (In  press)  Accelerating  Economic  Growth  and  Food  Security  in  Africa:  
The  Contribution  of  Capture  and  Aquaculture  Fisheries.  Springer,  Mare  Book  Publication  Series.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
As   Director   of   Fisheries   in   Malawi,   initiated   the   “Save   the   Chambo   Campaign”   as   Malawi’s   response   to   the   World  
Summit  on  Sustainable  Development  (WSSD),  and  the  Presidential  Initiative  on  Aquaculture  as  Malawi’s  response  to  the  
African   Union/NEPAD   Pan-­‐African   Fisheries.   As   Head   of   Fisheries   at   NEPAD,   initiated   and   led   the   development   of   the  
Pan-­‐African   Fisheries   &   Aquaculture   Policy   Framework   &   Reform   Strategy   that   was   approved   by   African   Union   Heads   of  
States   in   2014   and   supported   the   integration   of   fisheries   and   aquaculture   in   the   CAADP.   Significant   grant   awards:  
International   Partnership   for   African   Fisheries   Governance   and   Trade   (£9   million)   and   NEPAD-­‐FAO   Fish   Partnership  
(NFFP)  (USD  1.2  million).  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
• Policy  Advisor  –  African  aquaculture,  FP1  Sustainable  aquaculture    
• Policy   Advisor   –   African   regional   fish   trade,   FP3   Enhancing   the   contribution   of   fish   to   nutrition   and   health   of   the  
poor      

  66
 
 ANDREW,  NEIL  
PROFILE  
• Expertise  in  fisheries  research  with  a  focus  on  small-­‐scale  fisheries,  food  security  and  poverty  reduction.    
• Experience   and   publication   record   of   research   in   inland   and   marine   fisheries   in   Africa,   Southeast   Asia   and   the   Pacific  
region,  as  well  as  global  and  regional  syntheses  and  perspectives.  
• More   than   25   years’   experience   in   technical   and   corporate   leadership   roles   in   large   research   organizations   and  
advisory  boards.  
• More  than  105  peer-­‐reviewed  publications  on  marine  ecology,  fisheries,  development  and  resilience  (Google  Scholar  
h  =  39,  i10  =  95,  total  citations  =  5591  at  25  March  2016).  
 
EMPLOYMENT  
2013  to  date   Principal  Scientist  and  Regional  Director,  Pacific  and  Island  Asia,  WorldFish  
2005  –  2012     Director,  Natural  Resource  Management,  The  WorldFish  Center,  Malaysia  
2003  –  2005     General  Manager,  National  Institute  of  Water  and  Atmospheric  Research,  New  Zealand  
1998  –  2003     Principal  Scientist,  National  Institute  of  Water  and  Atmospheric  Research,  New  Zealand  
 
EDUCATION  
1988   PhD,  University  of  Sydney,  Australia  
1982   MSc  (First  Class  Honours),  University  of  Auckland,  New  Zealand  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Eriksson,   H.,   Osterblom,   H.,   Crona,   B.,   Andrew,   N.L.,   Wilen   J.,   Folke   C.   (2015)   Contagious   exploitation   of   marine  
resources.  Frontiers  in  Ecology  and  the  Environment  13:  435–440.  
• Bell,  J.D.,  Adams,  T.J.H.,  Allain,  V.,  Andréfouët,  S.,  Andrew,  N.L.  et  al.  (2015)  Diversifying  the  use  of  tuna  to  improve  
food  security  and  public  health  in  Pacific  Island  countries  and  territories.  Marine  Policy  51:  584–591.  
• Albert,   J.D.,   Beare,   D.,   Schwarz,   A-­‐M.,   Albert,   S.,   Warren,   R.,   Siota,   J.,  Andrew,   N.L.   (2014)   Contribution   of   nearshore  
fish  aggregating  devices  (FADs)  to  food  security  and  livelihoods  in  Solomon  Islands.  PLoS  ONE  9(12):  e115386  
• Hall,   S.J.,   Hilborn,   R.,   Andrew,   N.L.,   Allison,   E.H.   (2013)   Innovations   in   capture   fisheries   are   an   imperative   for  
nutrition  security  in  the  developing  world.  Proc.  Natl.  Acad.  Sci.  USA.  110:  8345–8348.  
• Morand,  P.,  Kodio,  A.,  Andrew,  N.L.  et  al.  (2012)  Vulnerability  and  adaptation  of  African  rural  populations  to  hydro-­‐
climatic  change:  Experience  from  fisher  communities  of  the  Inner  Niger  Delta  (Mali).  Climatic  Change  115:  463–483.  
• Schwarz,  A-­‐M.,  Béné,  C.,  Bennett,  G.,  Boso,  D.,  Hilly,  Z.,  Paul,  A.,  Posala,  R.,  Sibiti,  S.,  Andrew,  N.L.  (2011)  Vulnerability  
and   resilience   of   remote   rural   communities   to   shocks   and   global   changes:   Empirical   analysis   from   the   Solomon  
Islands.  Global  Environmental  Change  21:  1128–1140.  
• Walker,  B.D.,  Sayer,  J.,  Andrew,  N.L.,  Campbell,  B.D.  (2010)  Resilience  in  practice:  Challenges  and  opportunities  for  
natural  resource  management  in  the  developing  world.  Crop  Science  50:  10–19.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
• Contributions  to  regional  and  global  fisheries  science  and  policy  forums,  symposia  and  documents  with  FAO,  World  
Bank,  and  SPC.    
• More  than  20  years’  experience  in  project  leadership  of  large  multi-­‐stakeholder  projects.    
• Recent   major   grants   awarded:   2013   ACIAR   Research   Grant   FIS/2013/074   (USD   4.2   million)   for   Pacific   small-­‐scale  
fisheries  governance,  2015  ACIAR  Research  Grant  FIS/2015/031  (USD  1.2  million)  for  fish  in  regional  food  systems.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Flagship  Leader,  FP2  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries  
Principal  Investigator  –  Small-­‐scale  fisheries  governance,  FP2  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries    

  67
 
 CINNER,  JOSHUA  
PROFILE  
Research  explores  how  social,  economic  and  cultural  factors  influence  the  ways  in  which  people  use,  perceive  and  govern  
natural  resources.  Works  closely  with  ecologists  on  interdisciplinary  research  topics,  including  defining  the  socioeconomic  
factors   that   drive   successful   marine   conservation,   understanding   resilience   and   thresholds   in   social   ecological   systems,  
and  examining  vulnerability  to  environmental  change.  102  peer-­‐reviewed  publications.  
   
EMPLOYMENT    
2014  to  date     Professorial  Research  Fellow,  ARC  Centre  of  Excellence  for  Coral  Reef  Studies,  James  Cook  University,  
Australia  
2012  –  2014     Principal  Research  Fellow/Associate  Professor,  James  Cook  University,  Australia    
2008  –  2012     Senior  Research  Fellow/Senior  Lecturer,  James  Cook  University,  Australia  
2006  –  2007     Postdoctoral  Research  Fellow,  James  Cook  University,  Australia  
 
EDUCATION  
2006   PhD,  James  Cook  University,  Australia  
2000   MSc,  University  of  Rhode  Island,  USA  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Cinner,   J.   et   al.   (2015)   Changes   in   adaptive   capacity   of   Kenyan   fishing   communities.   Nature   Climate   Change.   (In  
press.)  
• Cinner,  J.  et  al.  (2015)  A  framework  for  understanding  climate  change  impacts  on  coral  reef  social-­‐ecological  systems.  
Regional  Environmental  Change.  (In  press.)  
• Cinner,   J.,   McClanahan,   T.R.   (2015)   A   sea   change   on   the   African   coast?   Preliminary   social   and   ecological   outcomes   of  
a  governance  transformation  in  Kenyan  fisheries.  Global  Environmental  Change  30:  133–139.  
• Eckstrom,   Suatoni,   Cooley,   Pendleton,   Waldbusser,   Cinner,   J.   et   al.   (2015)   Vulnerability   and   adaptation   of   US  
shellfisheries  to  ocean  acidification.  Nature  Climate  Change  5:  207–214.  
• Cinner,  J.,  MacNeil,  M.A.,  Basurto,  X.,  Gelcich,  S.  (2014)  Looking  beyond  the  fisheries  crisis:  Cumulative  learning  from  
small-­‐scale  fisheries  through  diagnostic  approaches.  Global  Environmental  Change  23:  1359–1365.  
• MacNeil,  A.,  Graham,  N.A.J.,  Cinner,  J.  et  al.  (2015)  Recovery  potential  of  the  world’s  coral  reef  fishes.  Nature  520:  
341–344.  
• Cinner,   J.,   Huchery,   C.   (2014)   A   comparison   of   social   outcomes   associated   with   different   fisheries   co-­‐management  
institutions.  Conservation  Letters  7:  224–232.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
2015–2018         Pew  Fellowship  in  Marine  Conservation  
2014–2020   ARC  Centre  of  Excellence  grant  
2011–2015   ARC  Discovery  Grant-­‐Australian  Research  Fellowship.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Leader,  Cluster  1  –  Resilient  coastal  fisheries,  FP2  Sustaining  Small-­‐scale  fisheries    

  68
 
 SENARATNA  SELLAMUTTU,  SONALI  
PROFILE    
• 17  years’  experience  in  natural  resource  management,  sustainable  livelihoods  and  poverty  reduction-­‐related  issues  
in  the  context  of  agricultural  and  aquatic  systems  (including  coastal  and  inland  systems).    
• Over   50   articles,   book   chapters,   technical   reports   and   policy   briefs   published   on   these   topics   (including   21   peer-­‐
reviewed  publications).    
• Led  and  managed  a  number  of  multidisciplinary  projects  in  Southeast  Asia,  South  Asia  and  Africa.    
 
EMPLOYMENT  
2011  to  date   Senior  Researcher,  Acting  Theme  Leader,  Head  of  IWMI  Southeast  Asia  Regional  Office,  Vientiane,  Lao  
PDR  
2006  –  2010   Researcher  –  Livelihood  Systems,  IWMI  HQ,  Sri  Lanka  &  IWMI  Southeast  Asia  
2000  –  2001   Head,  National  Marine  &  Coastal  Program,  IUCN,  Sri  Lanka  
1999  –  2000   Policy  Fellow,  Sustainable  Use  Initiative/Ford  Foundation,  IUCN,  Washington  DC,  USA  
 
EDUCATION  
2006   PhD,  Imperial  College  London,  UK  
1995   MSc  Ecosystems  Analysis  and  Governance,  University  of  Warwick,  Coventry,  UK  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• McCartney,   M.,   Rebelo,   L.   M.,   Senaratna   Sellamuttu,   S.   (2015)   Wetlands,   livelihoods   and   human   health.   In  
Wetlands   and   Human   Health.   Edited   by   C.   M.   Finlayson,   P.   Horwitz   and   P.   Weinstein.   Wetlands:   Ecology,  
Conservation  and  Management  5:  123–148.  
• Senaratna   Sellamuttu,   S.,   Aida,   T.,   Kasahara,   R.,   Sawada,   Y.,   Wijerathna,   D.   (2014)   How   access   to   irrigation  
influences  poverty  and  livelihoods:  A  case  study  from  Sri  Lanka.  Journal  of  Dev.  Studies  [ISI]  50  (5):  748–768.    
• Senaratna  Sellamuttu,  S.,  de  Silva,  S.,  Nagabhatla,  N.,  Finlayson,  M.,  Pattanaik,  C.,  Prasad,  S.  N.  (2012)  The  Ramsar  
Convention’s  wise  use  concept  in  theory  and  practice:  An  inter-­‐disciplinary  investigation  of  practice  in  Kolleru  Lake,  
India.  Journal  of  International  Wildlife  Law  and  Policy  [ISI]  03–04:  228–250.  
• Senaratna   Sellamuttu,   S.,   de   Silva,   S.,   Nguyen   Khoa,   S.   (2011)   Exploring   relationships   between   conservation   and  
poverty  reduction  in  wetland  ecosystems:  lessons  from  ten  integrated  wetland  conservation  and  poverty  reduction  
initiatives.  International  Journal  of  Sustainable  Development  &  World  Ecology  [ISI]  18  (4):  328–340.  
• Senaratna   Sellamuttu,   S.,   Finlayson,   M.   C.,   Nagabhatla,   N.,   Diphoorn,   L.   (2011)   Exploring   linkages   between   changes  
in  land  cover  (use)  patterns,  local  perceptions  and  livelihoods  in  a  coastal  wetland  system  in  Sri  Lanka.  Journal  of  the  
National  Science  Foundation  Sri  Lanka  [ISI]  39  (4):  391–402.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Co-­‐Chair  for  the  Intergovernmental  Science  Policy  Platform  on  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services  (IPBES)  Asia-­‐Pacific  
Regional   Assessment   (2015–2017).   Involves   a   team   of   130   scientists   covering   5   sub-­‐regions   and   68   countries.   IWMI  
Representative  on  the  Ramsar  Convention’s  Scientific  and  Technical  Review  Panel  (STRP)  for  2013–2015.  Lead  for  the  
STRP  Working  Group  on  Wetlands  and  Poverty  Eradication  (2013–2015).  Member  of  Working  Group  (2009–2012)  and  
provided  significant  inputs  to  Ramsar  Resolutions  on  wetlands  and  poverty.  Member  of  AAS  CRP  Strategic  Leadership  
Group.  Major  grants  awarded:  CPWF  Mekong1  (USD  1.6  million);  CPWF  PN71  (USD  570K);  LIFT  (USD  400K).  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Leader,  Cluster  2  –  Fish  in  multifunctional  landscapes,  FP2  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries    

  69
 
 COHEN,  PHILLIPA  
PROFILE  
• Interdisciplinary  (social  science  and  ecology)  researcher  who  specializes  in  small-­‐scale  fisheries  and  food  security.  
Research   addresses   the   increasingly   urgent   need   to   improve   environmental   sustainability   and   food   security   in  
developing  countries,  particularly  for  securing  the  contribution  of  fisheries  to  incomes  and  diets  of  large  numbers  
of  people  living  in  rural  and  remote  areas.    
• Solution-­‐orientated   and   applied   research   that   provides   guidance   to   development   policies   and   interventions,  
particularly  via  CGIAR.    
• 23  peer-­‐reviewed  publications.  
 
EMPLOYMENT  
2013  to  date   Scientist,  WorldFish,  Australia;  Research  Fellow,  ARC  Centre  of  Excellence  for  Coral  Reef  Studies,  James  
Cook  University,  Australia  
2011  –  2013   Consultant,  WorldFish,  Australia,  Solomon  Islands,  Timor  Leste  
2010  –  2011   Reef  Life  Survey,  Tasmanian  Aquaculture  &  Fisheries  Institute,  Australia  
2007  –  2009   ReefBase  Pacific  Coordinator,  WorldFish,  Fiji  
 
EDUCATION  
2013   PhD,  ARC  Centre  of  Excellence  for  Excellence,  James  Cook  University,  Australia    
2000   BSc  (Hons)  Marine,  Freshwater  &  Antarctic  Biology,  University  of  Tasmania,  Australia  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Case,   P.,   Evans,   L.,   Fabinyi,   M.,   Cohen,   P.,   Hicks,   C.,   Prideaux,   M.   et   al.   (2015)   Rethinking   environmental   leadership:  
The  social  construction  of  leaders  and  leadership  in  discourses  of  ecological  crisis,  development  and  conservation.  
Leadership.  In  press.  
• Cohen,   P.,   Steenbergen,   D.   (2015)   Social   dimensions   of   local   fisheries   co-­‐management   in   the   Coral   Triangle.  
Environmental  Conservation.  In  press.  
• Evans,   L.,   Hicks,   C.,   Cohen,   P.,   Case,   P.,   Prideaux,   M.,   Mills,   D.   (2015)   Understanding   leadership   in   the   sustainability  
sciences.  Ecology  and  Society  20:  50.  DOI:  10.5751/ES-­‐07268-­‐200150  
• Jupiter,  S.,  Cohen,  P.,  Weeks,  R.,  Tawake,  A.,  Govan,  H.  (2014)  Locally-­‐managed  marine  areas:  Multiple  objectives  
and  diverse  strategies.  Pacific  Conservation  Biology  20:  165–179.  
• Mills,   M.,   Álvarez-­‐Romero,   J.,   Vance-­‐Borland,   K.,   Cohen,   P.   et   al.   (2014)   Social   network   analysis   for   systematic  
conservation  planning.  Biological  Conservation  169:  6–13.  
• Cohen,   P.,   Cinner,   J.,   Foale,   S.   (2013)   Fishing   dynamics   associated   with   periodically-­‐harvested   marine   closures.  
Global  Environmental  Change  23  (6):  1702–1713.  
• Cohen,   P.,   Alexander,   T.   (2013)   Catch   rates,   composition   and   fish   size   from   reefs   managed   with   periodically-­‐
harvested  closures.  PLoSONE  8(9):  e73383.  DOI:  10.1371/journal.pone.0073383  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
• 2014     Young  Tall  Poppy  Science  Award  
• 2010   Coral  Reef  Initiatives  of  the  Pacific,  Research  Grant  
• 2009   Australian  National  Network  in  Marine  Science,  Internship  Grant  
• 2009   Secretariat  of  the  Pacific  Regional  Environment  Programme,  WorldFish  Center  contract  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Leader,  Cluster  3  –  Fish  in  regional  food  systems,  FP2  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries    

  70
 
 RATNER,  BLAKE  D.  
PROFILE  
• Responsible   for   overall   research   strategy   and   leadership,   with   oversight   of   WorldFish’s   research   programs   in  
aquaculture,  small-­‐scale  fisheries,  and  value  chains  and  nutrition.    
• An  environmental  sociologist,  research  focuses  on  natural  resource  governance,  conflict,  and  cooperation  from  local  
to   regional   scales.   Specialist   in   participatory   multi-­‐stakeholder   dialogue   to   build   institutional   and   policy   innovation  
addressing  competition  over  common-­‐pool  resources  (land,  water,  forests,  fisheries).  
• Skilled   in   executive   leadership,   organizational   change,   participatory   facilitation,   experiential   education   and   conflict  
mediation.  Fluent  in  English,  Spanish,  French  and  Khmer  (Cambodian).    
• 30  peer-­‐reviewed  publications,  plus  20  policy  reports  and  practitioner  guidance  publications.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2014  to  date   Research  Director,  WorldFish,  Malaysia;  Initiative  Director,  Natural  Resource  Governance  
2003  –  2014   Program  Leader,  Governance;  Regional  Director,  Mekong,  WorldFish,  Cambodia  
2000  –  2003   Consultant  and  Faculty  Appointments:  World  Bank,  University  of  Minnesota,  USA  
1997  –  2000   Sr.  Associate  and  Regional  Program  Manager,  World  Resources  Institute,  Thailand  
 
EDUCATION    
1997   PhD,  Development  Sociology  (Rural  and  Environmental  Sociology),  Cornell  University,  USA  
1995     MS,  Development  Sociology  and  MPS,  Rural  Development  Administration,  Cornell  University,  USA  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Ensor,   J.,   Park,   S.,   Hoddy,   E.,   Ratner,   B.D.   (2015)   A   rights-­‐based   perspective   on   adaptive   capacity.   Global  
Environmental  Change  31:  38–49.    
• Ratner,  B.D.,  Mam,  K.,  Halpern,  G.  (2014)  Collaborating  for  resilience:  Conflict,  collective  action,  and  transformation  
on  Cambodia's  Tonle  Sap  Lake.  Ecology  and  Society  19:  31.    
• Ratner,   B.D.,   Åsgard,   B.,   Allison,   E.H.   (2014)   Fishing   for   justice:   Human   rights,   development,   and   fisheries   sector  
reform.  Global  Environmental  Change  27:  120–130.  
• Ratner,   B.D.,   Cohen,   P.,   Barman,   B.,   Mam,   K.,   Nagoli,   J.,   Allison,   E.H.   (2013)   Governance   of   aquatic   agricultural  
systems:  Analyzing  representation,  power,  and  accountability.  Ecology  and  Society  18:  59.    
• Ratner,   B.D.,   Meinzen-­‐Dick,   R.,   May,   C.,   Haglund,   E.   (2013)   Resource   conflict,   collective   action,   and   resilience:   An  
analytical  framework.  International  Journal  of  the  Commons  7:  183–208.  
• Ratner,   B.D.,   Allison,   E.H.   (2012)   Wealth,   rights,   and   resilience:   An   agenda   for   governance   reform   in   small-­‐scale  
fisheries.  Development  Policy  Review  30:  371–398.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
• Led   cross-­‐regional,   action   research   resulting   in   governance   innovations   that   improved   resource   access,   reinforced  
livelihood  security,  and  reduced  social  conflict  in  Cambodia,  Uganda  and  Zambia,  with  lessons  from  the   Collaborating  
for  Resilience  approach  now  applied  in  Bangladesh,  Solomons,  Philippines  and  India.    
• Led   cross-­‐regional   exchange   and   synthesis   of   lessons   aimed   at   strengthening   collective   action   for   management   of  
water,  forests  and  fisheries  in  conflict-­‐sensitive  environments  of  Asia,  Africa  and  Latin  America.  
• Led   participatory   research   to   build   collective   action   and   strengthen   civil   society-­‐state   linkages   in   Cambodia’s   Tonle  
Sap  Lake,  contributing  to  more  effective  community  advocacy  for  reform.    
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Principal  Investigator  –  Governance,  FP2  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries    

  71
 
 JOHNSTON,  ROBYN  
PROFILE  
Principal  Research  Scientist,  International  Water  Management  Institute  and  IWMI  Representative  in  Myanmar:  
• 30   years’   experience   in   water   and   land   resources   research,   with   emphasis   on   a   cross-­‐disciplinary   approach   and  
integration  of  scientific,  economic  and  social  information  to  address  management  questions.  
• Broadly   based   expertise   in   sustainable   land   and   water   management,   the   role   of   water   in   mediating   interactions  
between  agriculture,  ecosystems  and  climate  change,  and  the  implications  for  management  and  ecosystem  services.  
Project  experience  encompassing  basin  planning,  riverine  and  wetland  ecosystem  health,  irrigation  and  agricultural  
water   management,   land   degradation,   hydrological   modelling   and   remote   sensing/GIS   in   Southeast   Asia,   Africa,  
Australia  and  the  Pacific.    
• 75  research  and  policy  publications  (28  peer  reviewed)  covering  river  basin  management  and  planning,  hydrological  
modelling,  sustainable  agricultural  systems,  climate  change  and  river  health.    
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2009  –  2016   Senior  and  Principal  Researcher  at  IWMI,  Sri  Lanka;  IWMI  Representative  in  Myanmar  
2007  –  2008   Program  Leader,  Sustainable  Rivers  Audit,  Murray  Darling  Basin  Commission,  Canberra,  Australia  
2006   Environment  Advisor,  Australian  Agency  for  International  Development,  Canberra,    
  Australia  
2002  –  2005   Basin  Planner  Mekong  River  Commission,  Phnom  Penh,  Cambodia;  Vientiane,  Lao  PDR  
 
EDUCATION    
1990   PhD,  University  of  New  England,  Armidale,  Australia  
1981   MSc  Geochemistry,  University  of  Leeds,  Leeds,  United  Kingdom  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Hoanh,  C.,  Smakhtin,  V.,  Johnston,  R.  (eds)  (2016)  Climate  Change  and  Agricultural  Water  Management  in  
Developing  Countries.  CABI  and  IWMI.  227pp.  
• Johnston,  R.,  Smakhtin,  V.  (2014)  Hydrological  modeling  in  large  river  basins  –  How  much  is  enough?  Water  
Resources  Management  (Online  first)  DOI:  10.1007/s11269-­‐014-­‐0637-­‐8  
• de  Silva,  S.,  Johnston,  R.,  Senaratna  Sellamuttu,  S.  (2014)  Agriculture,  irrigation  and  poverty  reduction  in  Cambodia:  
Policy  narratives  and  ground  realities  compared.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  
Agricultural  Systems.  Working  Paper:  AAS-­‐2014-­‐13.    
• Rebelo,  L.M.,  Johnston,  R.,  Karimi,  P.,  McCornick,  P.G.  (2014)  Determining  the  dynamics  of  agricultural  water  use:  
Cases  from  Asia  and  Africa.  Journal  of  Contemporary  Water  Research  153:  79–90.  
• Johnston,  R.,  Cools,  J.,  Liersch,  S.,  Morardet,  S.,  Murgue,  C.,  Mahieu,  M.,  Zsuffa,  I.,  Uyttendaele,  G.P.  (2013)  
WETwin:  A  structured  approach  to  evaluating  wetland  management  options  in  data-­‐poor  contexts.  Environmental  
Science  &  Policy  34:  3–17.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Led  the  team  responsible  for  delivering  first  Sustainable  Rivers  Audit  for  Murray  Darling  Basin;  budget  of  AUD  13  million  
over   3   years,   involving   a   team   of   around   100   people   (including   State   agency   staff,   researchers,   consultants   and  
independent   ecologists)   to   provide   evidence-­‐based   research   for   river   management.   Led   IWMI’s   input   to   WETWIN   and  
AfroMaison   participatory   research   projects   to   integrate   ecosystem   services   concepts   into   land   and   water   resources  
management  in  Africa,  linking  research  to  local  government  planning  in  Ethiopia,  South  Africa  and  Tunisia.    
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Scientist  –  Water  and  land  resources  management,  FP2  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries    

  72
 
 MCCARTNEY,  MATTHEW  P.  
PROFILE  
• Over   20   years   of   experience   in   water,   natural   resources   and   ecosystems-­‐related   research,   with   geographical  
experience  in  Africa,  Asia  and  Europe.  
• Contributed  to,  and  managed  multi-­‐disciplinary  teams,  dealing  with  (i)  decision  support  systems  for  large  dams;  (ii)  
water  storage  and  climate  change;  (iii)  agricultural  and  competing  water  use;  (iv)  the  role  of  wetlands  in  supporting  
livelihoods;   (v)   hydropower;   (vi)   malaria   in   the   vicinity   of   reservoirs;   (vii)   environmental   flows;   and   (vii)   integrating  
natural  and  built  infrastructure.  
• More   than   250   publications   covering   hydrology,   water   resources,   large   dam   planning   and   management,  
environmental   impact,   ecosystem   services,   climate   change,   food   security,   and   human   health.   100   peer-­‐reviewed  
papers,  research  reports  and  book  chapters.  
 
EMPLOYMENT  
2014  to  date   Theme  Leader,  Ecosystem  Services,  IWMI,  Lao  PDR  
2012  to  2014   Office  Head,  IWMI  Southeast  Asia,  Lao  PDR  
2002  –  2012   Sr.  Researcher  &  Principal  Researcher,  IWMI  (South  Africa,  Ethiopia  and  Lao  PDR)    
1989  –  2002     Scientist  and  Senior  Scientist,  Centre  for  Ecology  and  Hydrology,  Wallingford,  UK    
 
EDUCATION  
1998   PhD  Wetland  Hydrology,  University  of  Reading,  UK  
1988   MSc  Engineering  Hydrology,  Imperial  College,  London,  UK  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Kibret,  S.,  Lautze,  J.,  McCartney,  M.P.,  Wilson,  G.,  Luxon,  N.  (2015)  Malaria  impact  of  large  dams  in  sub-­‐Saharan  
Africa:  maps,  estimates  and  predictions.  Malaria  Journal  14:  339.    
• McCartney,  M.P.,  Rebelo,  L-­‐M.,  Senaratna  Sellamuttu,  S.  (2015)  Wetlands,  Livelihoods  and  Human  Health.  In  
Finlayson,  C.M.,  Horwitz,  P.,  Weinstein,  P.  (eds)  Wetlands  and  Human  Health.  Springer.  Pages  123–145.    
• McCartney,  M.P.,  Khaing,  O.  (2014)  A  Country  in  Rapid  Transition:  Can  Myanmar  Achieve  Food  Security?  In  Sekhar,  
N.U.  (ed).  Food  Security  and  Development.  Oxford,  UK:  Rutledge-­‐Earthscan.  Pages  79–103.    
• Lacombe,  G.,  McCartney,  M.P.  (2014)  Uncovering  consistencies  in  rainfall  trends  across  India  (1951-­‐2007).  Climatic  
Change.  DOI:  10.1007/s10584-­‐013-­‐1036-­‐5  
• Zemaddin,  B.,  McCartney,  M.P.,  Langan,  S.,  Sharma,  B.  (2014)  A  participatory  approach  for  hydrometeorological  
monitoring  in  the  Blue  Nile  River  Basin  of  Ethiopia.  Colombo,  Sri  Lanka:  International  Water  Management  Institute  
(IWMI  Research  Report  155).  DOI:  10.5337/2014.200  32pp.  
• McCartney,  M.P.  (2013)  Wetlands  and  Livelihoods:  The  Value  of  Wetlands  for  Livelihood  Support  in  Tanzania  and  
Zambia  (Chapter  2).  In  Wood,  A.,  Dixon,  A.,  McCartney,  M.P.  (eds).  Wetlands  Management  and  Sustainable  
Livelihoods  in  Africa.  Routledge  and  Earthscan.  Pages  43–62.    
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Contributed   to   broad-­‐ranging   reviews   for   national   and   international   organizations   such   as   the   UK   Department   for  
International  Development  (DFID),  the  World  Conservation  Union  (IUCN),  the  United  Nations  Environment  Programme  
(UNEP),   FAO   and   the   World   Bank.   Steering   committee   member,   UNEP   Dams   Development   Project   (2002–2004).  
Member,   Ramsar   Science   and   Technical   Review   Panel   (STRP)   contributing   to   the   working   groups   on   wetlands   and  
agriculture,   and   wetlands   and   water   resources   (2007–2015).   Major   grants   awarded:   Federal   Ministry   for   the  
Environment,   Nature   Conservation   and   Nuclear   Safety,   International   Climate   Initiative:   €936K;   GIZ:   rethinking   water  
storage  for  climate  change  in  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa  €1.12  million;  CPWF:  Improved  livelihoods  through  dam  management  
USD  637K  and  others.  Adjunct  Research  Fellow,  Charles  Sturt  University,  Australia.    
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Scientist  –  Water  resource  management  and  ecosystem  services,  FP2  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries  

  73
 
 BARAN,  ERIC  
PROFILE  
Specialist  in  sustainability  of  fishery  resources,  environmental  management  and  research  for  development:  
• 25  years’  experience  as  senior  scientist,  project  leader  or  expert  in  12  countries.  
• Leader  of  six  large  research  projects  (USD  0.5–1.5  million),  component  leader  of  nine  research  or   capacity-­‐building  
projects,  scientist  in  four  research  projects  and  independent  expert  in  four  reviews  and  assessments.  
• 31  refereed  publications;  24  books,  chapters  or  booklets;  21  science  articles  and  policy  briefs.  
• Focus  on  aquatic  resources,  food  security,  infrastructure  development  impacts  and  mitigation,  ecological  services  
and  sustainable  productivity.    
 
EMPLOYMENT  
2000  –  2016   Research  Scientist  then  Senior  Scientist,  WorldFish,  Cambodia  
1998  –  2000   Consultant,  UNDP,  World  Health  Organization,  IUCN,  IRD/ORSTOM  and  others  
1996  –  1998   Lecturer  and  Consultant,  Biology,  University  Claude  Bernard  Lyon  1,  France  
1995  –  1996   Postdoctoral  Fellow,  University  Lyon  1,  France  
 
EDUCATION  
1995     PhD  Biological  Oceanography,  University  of  Brittany  and  ORSTOM,  France  
1990   MSc  Marine  Biology,  University  of  Brittany,  France  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Winemiller,   K.O.,   McIntyre,   P.B.,   Castello,   L.,   Fluet-­‐Chouinard,   E.,   Giarrizzo,   T.,   Nam,   S.,   Baird,   I.   G.,   Darwall,   W.,  
Lujan,   N.K.,   Harrison,   I.,   Stiassny,   M.L.J.,   Silvano,   R.A.M.,   Fitzgerald,   D.B.,   Pelicice,   F.M.,   Agostinho,   A.A.,   Gomes,  
L.C.,  Albert,  J.S.,  Baran,  E.,  et  al.  (2016)  Balancing  hydropower  and  biodiversity  in  the  Amazon,  Congo,  and  Mekong.  
Science  351  (6269):  128–129.  
• Baran,  E.,  Guerin,  E.,  Nasielski,  J.  (2015)  Fish,  sediment  and  dams  in  the  Mekong.  Penang,  Malaysia:  WorldFish,  and  
CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Water,  Land  and  Ecosystems  (WLE).  108  pp.  
• Ziv,  G.,  Baran,  E.,  So  Nam,  Rodríguez-­‐Iturbe,  I.,  Levin,  S.  A.  (2012)  Trading-­‐off  fish  biodiversity,  food  security,  and  
hydropower  in  the  Mekong  River  Basin.  Proceedings  of  the  National  Academy  of  Science  109  (15):  5609–5614.  
• Baran,  E.,  Chum,  N.,  Fukushima,  M.,  Hand,  T.,  Hortle,  K.G.,  Jutagate,  T.,  Kang,  B.  (2012)  Fish  biodiversity  research  in  
the  Mekong  Basin.  In  Nakano  S.,  Yahara  T.  and  Nakashizuka  T.  (eds.):  The  Biodiversity  Observation  Network  in  the  
Asia-­‐Pacific  Region:  Toward  Further  Development  of  Monitoring.  Tokyo:  Ecological  Research  Monographs,  Springer.  
Pages  149–164.  
• Dugan,   P.J.,   Barlow,   C.,   Agostinho,   A.   A.,   Baran,   E.,   Cada,   G.   F.,   Chen,   D.,   Cowx,   I.G.,   Ferguson,   J.W.,   Jutagate,   T.,  
Mallen-­‐Cooper,  M.,  Marmulla,  G.,  Nestler,  J.,  Petrere,  M.,  Welcomme,  R.L.,  Winemiller,  K.O.  (2010)  Fish  migration,  
dams,  and  loss  of  ecosystem  services  in  the  Mekong  Basin.  Ambio.  39:  344–348.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Recipient   of   2011   WorldFish   Board   Research   Award,   2011   Team   Award   of   the   International   Association   for   Impact  
Assessment  and  2005  WorldFish  outstanding  performance  award.  Organizer  or  co-­‐organizer  of  eight  large-­‐scale  national  
and   international   scientific   meetings   and   contributor   to   62   international   symposia   or   meetings   (15   as   keynote   speaker).  
Contributor   to   60+   news   articles,   9   video   documentaries   and   8   radio   programs;   cited   in   Nature,   Science,   National  
Geographic,   The   New   York   Times,   The   Economist   and   Time.   Development,   with   partners,   of   19   successful   project  
proposals  worth  USD  11.9  million.  Average  fundraising  over  10  years  (2004–2014):  USD  880,000  per  year.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Sr.  Scientist  –  Inland  fisheries  ecology  and  management,  FP2  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries    

  74
 
 WAHAB,  MD.  ABDUL  
PROFILE  
Aquaculture  and  limnology  specialist:  
• 35   years’   experience   at   Bangladesh   Agricultural   University   (BAU),   Mymensingh,   Bangladesh;   served   as   Professor   &  
founding  Head  of  Dept.  of  Fisheries  Management,  Dean  of  Faculty  of  Fisheries.  
• Extensive   research   and   consultancy   experience   on   freshwater   and   coastal   aquaculture,   water   quality   and   pond  
dynamics,  and  open  water  capture  fisheries.  
• 96   research   publications   in   peer-­‐reviewed   journals   covering   aquaculture   technologies,   water   quality   &  
environmental  impacts.  12  book  chapters.  
 
EMPLOYMENT  
2014  to  date   Team  Leader,  Enhanced  Coastal  Fisheries  In  Bangladesh  (ECOFISHBD),  WorldFish,  BD  
2010  –  2012   Dean,  Faculty  of  Fisheries,  Bangladesh  Agricultural  University,  Mymensingh,  BD  
2007  –  2014     Host  Country  Principal  Investigator,  USAID  CRSP  &  AquaFish  Fish  Innovation  Lab  
1996  –  1998     Head,  Dept.  of  Fisheries  Management,  Bangladesh  Agricultural  University,  Mymensingh,  BD    
 
EDUCATION  
1986   PhD  Aquaculture,  University  of  Stirling,  Scotland,  United  Kingdom  
1979     MSc  Fisheries  Biology  &  Limnology,  Bangladesh  Agricultural  University  (BAU),  Myanmar  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Wahab,  M.A.,  Nahid,  Sk.  A.  A.  M.,  Ahmed,  M.N.,  Haque,  M.M.,  Karim,  M.M.  (2012)  Current  status  and  prospect  of  
farming   of   Giant   River   prawn   Macrobrachium   rosenbergii   (De   Man)   in   Bangladesh:   A   review.   Aquaculture   Research  
43:  970–983.  
• Wahab,   M.A.,   Kadir,   A.,   Milstein,   A.,   Kunda,   M.   (2011)   Manipulation   of   species   combination   for   enhancing   fish  
production  in  polyculture  systems  involving  major  carps  and  small  indigenous  fish  species.  Aquaculture  321:  289–
297.  
• Asaduzzaman,  M.,  Wahab,  M.A.,  Verdegem,  M.C.J.,  Mondal,  M.N.,  Azim,  M.E.  (2009)  Effects  of  stocking  density  of  
freshwater  prawn  Macrobrachium  rosenbergii  and  addition  of  different  levels  of  tilapia  Oreochromis  niloticus  on  
production  in  C/N  controlled  periphyton  based  system.  Aquaculture  286:  72–79.    
• Wahab,  M.A.,  Kunda,  M.,  Azim,  M.E.,  Dewan,  S.,  Thilsted,  S.H.  (2008)  Evaluation  of  concurrent  rice-­‐  freshwater  
prawn  small  fish  culture  in  rain-­‐fed  rice  fields  in  central  Bangladesh.  Aquaculture  Research  39:  1524–1532.    
• Wahab,  M.A.,  Alim,  M.A.,  Milstein,  A.  (2003)  Effects  of  adding  the  small  fish  punti,  (Puntius  sophore),  and/or  mola,  
(Amblypharyngodon  mola),  to  a  polyculture  of  large  carp.  Aquaculture  Research  34  (2):  149–164.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Development  of  10  sustainable  technologies  in  freshwater  and  coastal  aquaculture  widely  practiced  in  Bangladesh,  
Nepal  and  Cambodia.  Pioneer  researcher  on  nutrient-­‐rich  mola  fish  research  in  the  South  Asia  region.  Led  World  Bank-­‐
funded  Flood  Action  Plan-­‐17:  Fisheries  project  in  North  Central  region  of  Bangladesh  in  1992–93.  Presently  leading  the  
USAID-­‐funded  Enhanced  Coastal  Fisheries  in  Bangladesh  (ECOFISHBD)  project  in  Bangladesh.  Major  grants  awarded:  
Environment  and  socioeconomic  assessment  of  shrimp  farming  in  Bangladesh  (USD  240,000,  NORAD);  Sustainable  
Ethical  Aquaculture  Trade  (SEAT)  (USD  313,000,  EU);  Economic  Incentives  to  Conserve  Hilsa  Fish  in  Bangladesh  (USD  
61,000,  DFID’s  Darwin  Initiative);  and  Enhancing  Aquaculture  Technologies  and  Adaptive  Measures  to  Climate  Impacts  in  
Bangladesh  (USD  310,000,  USAID  AquaFish  Innovation  Lab).    
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Sr.  Scientist  –  Inland  fisheries  ecology  and  management,  FP2  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries    

  75
 
 KATO-­‐WALLACE,  JANE  

PROFILE    
Gender  specialist  with:  
• Experience  in  coordinating  and  implementing  formative  research  and  program  evaluations  with  partners  on  gender  
equality,  masculinity  and  fatherhood  in  Latin  America,  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa,  Eastern  Europe,  and  Asia.  
• Leadership  of  gender  equality  projects,  including  authoring  and  adapting  gender-­‐transformative  methods  to  engage,  
men,  boys,  women  and  girls  in  gender  equality.  
• Skills  in  developing  monitoring  and  evaluation  tools  to  track  the  success  of  gender  projects.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2011  to  date   Senior  Program  Officer,  Promundo-­‐US,  USA  
2011  –  2012   Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Officer,  Futures  Group  International,  USA  
2011  –  2012     Gender  Research  Consultant,  Columbia  University,  USA  
2011     Field  Research  Coordinator,  Columbia  University,  USA  
 
EDUCATION  
2011   MPH  Public  and  Family  Health,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  USA  
2007   BA  International  Relations,  The  American  University,  Washington,  USA  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Kato-­‐Wallace,  J.,  Barker,  G.,  Eads,  M.,  and  Levtov,  R.  (2014).  Global  pathways  to  men’s  caregiving:  Mixed  
methods  findings  from  the  International  Men  and  Gender  Equality  Survey  and  the  Men  Who  Care  study.  
Global  Public  Health  DOI:  10.1080/17441692.2014.921829.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Experience  managing  large  and  small  gender  equality-­‐related  projects  worth  USD  8  million  from  both  private  
and  government  donors.  Previous  experience  developing,  implementing  and  evaluating  training  workshops  
that  promote  gender-­‐transformative  methodologies  and  approaches.  Lead  teams  to  support  the  coordination  
of  qualitative  and  quantitative  research.  Published  research  on  the  role  of  adolescent  boys  and  young  men  in  
gender  equality  and  health,  and  the  involvement  of  men  in  caregiving.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Specialist  –  Gender-­‐transformative  approaches,  FP2  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries  

  76
 
 COLE,  STEVEN  
PROFILE  
• Expertise   in   social/gender   inequality,   food   and   livelihood   security,   nutrition,   rural   land   tenure   and   labor  
arrangements,  and  masculinity  and  women’s  empowerment  in  small-­‐scale  fisheries.    
• Experience  and  publication  record  of  research  in  Zambia.    
• 14   research   publications   (7   peer-­‐reviewed)   on   social/gender   inequality,   vulnerability,   food   and   livelihood   security,  
nutrition   and   health,   rural   labor   arrangements,   small-­‐scale   fisheries,   gender-­‐transformative   approaches   (Google  
Scholar  h  =  3,  i10  =  2,  total  citations  =  57  at  28  March  2016).  
 
EMPLOYMENT  
2015  to  date   Social  Scientist,  WorldFish,  Zambia  
2013  –  2014     Postdoctoral  Fellow,  WorldFish,  Zambia  
2004  –  2012   Independent   Consultant/Research   Assistant   (e.g.   for   USAID,   Michigan   State   University,   Baylor  
University)  while  pursuing  PhD,  USA  
 
EDUCATION  
2012   PhD  Biological  Anthropology,  University  of  Arizona,  USA  
2004   MSc  Agricultural  and  Resource  Economics,  University  of  Arizona,  USA  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Rajaratnam,  S.,  Cole,  S.M.,  Kruijssen,  F.,  Sarapura,  S.,  Longley,  C.  (Accepted).  Gender  inequalities  in  access  to  and  
benefits  derived  from  the  natural  fishery  in  the  Barotse  Floodplain,  Zambia,  Southern  Africa.  Asian  Fisheries  Science  
Journal.  
• Cole,  S.M.,  Puskur,  R.,  Rajaratnam,  S.,  Zulu,  F.  (2015)  Exploring  the  intricate  relationship  between  poverty,  gender  
inequality,  and  rural  masculinity:  A  case  study  from  an  aquatic  agricultural  system  in  Zambia.  Culture,  Society  and  
Masculinities  7  (2):  154–170.  
• Longley,   C.,   Thilsted,   S.H.,   Beveridge,   M.,   Cole,   S.M.,   Nyirenda,   D.B.,   Heck,   S.,   Nielsen,   A-­‐L.H.   (2014)   The   role   of   fish  
in  the  first  1,000  days.  International  Development  Studies  Bulletin  Special  Collection  (September):  27–35.  
• Cole,   S.M.,   Hoon,   P.N.   (2013)  Piecework   (ganyu)  as  an  indicator  of  household  vulnerability  in  rural  Zambia.   Ecology  
of  Food  and  Nutrition  52(5):  407–426.  
• Cole,   S.M.   (2012)   The   relationship   between   relative   deprivation   and   adult   nutritional   status   in   rural   Zambia.  
American  Journal  of  Human  Biology  24:  800–805.  
• Cole,   S.M.,   Tembo,   G.   (2011)   The   effect   of   food   insecurity   on   mental   health:   Panel   evidence   from   rural   Zambia.  
Social  Science  &  Medicine  73(7):  1071–1079.  
• Crooks,   D.L.,   Cliggett,   L.,   Cole,   S.M.   (2007)   Child   growth   as   a   measure   of   livelihood   security:   The   case   of   the  
Gwembe  Tonga.  American  Journal  of  Human  Biology  19(5):  669–675.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
• Leader   of   a   research   project   on   aquaculture   and   nutrition   (Irish   Aid-­‐funded,   USD   2.5million).   P.I.   for   WorldFish   on   a  
multi-­‐partner   research   project   on   postharvest   fish   losses   and   gender   (IDRC/ACIAR-­‐funded,   CAD   1.6million).   Both  
projects  are  in  Zambia.  
• Integrating  (and  testing)  gender-­‐transformative  approaches  in  small-­‐scale  fisheries-­‐focused  research  projects.  
• Peer-­‐review  journal  referee  since  2011.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Scientist  –  Gender  equity,  FP2  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries      

  77
 
 KURA,  YUMIKO  
PROFILE  
Natural  resources  management  specialist:    
• 18   years   of   research   and   program   management   experience   in   fisheries   policy,   aquatic   ecosystem   services  
assessment   and   management,   and   biodiversity   conservation,   and   engagement   with   government,   university,  
development  agencies  and  NGOs.  
• Leadership   role   in   multi-­‐disciplinary   research   and   development   projects   in   several   countries   in   Southeast   Asia   and  
Africa;   contribution   to   global   and   regional   syntheses   by   UNEP,   FAO,   World   Bank,   and   the   Ramsar   Convention   on  
Wetlands.  
• More   than   30   research   publications   on   water   resources,   ecosystems   and   biodiversity,   and   fisheries;   17   are   peer  
reviewed  (Google  Scholar:  h  =  11,  i10  =  12,  total  citations  =  3729  at  28  March  2016).  
 
EMPLOYMENT  
2008  to  date   Regional  Program  Manager,  WorldFish  -­‐  Greater  Mekong  Region,  Cambodia  
2005  –  2008   Regional  Program  Coordinator,  WorldFish  Center  -­‐  Greater  Mekong  Region,  Cambodia    
1998  –  2004     Research   Analyst   (Senior   Associate   from   2001),   People   and   Ecosystems   Program,   the   World  
Resources  Institute  (WRI),  Washington  DC  
1997  –  1998     Independent  Consultant  (clients  –  WWF,  Conservation  International,  World  Bank)  
 
EDUCATION  
1997   MA  Environmental  Science  and  Policy,  Clark  University,  Worcester,  Massachusetts,  USA  
1992   BA  English  Literature  and  Language,  Aichi  Prefectural  University,  Nagoya,  Japan  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Kura,  Y.,  Joffre,  O.,  Laplante,  B.,  Sengvilaykham,  B.  Coping  with  resettlement:  A  livelihood  adaptation  analysis  in  the  
Mekong  River  Basin.  Submitted  to  Land  Use  Policy.  Under  review.  
• Kura,  Y.,  Joffre,  O.,  Laplante,  B.,  Sengvilaykham,  B.  (2014)  Redistribution  of  water  use  and  benefits  among  
hydropower  affected  communities  in  Lao  PDR.  Water  Resources  and  Rural  Development  4:  67–84.  
• Mills,  D  J.,  Westlund,  L.,  de  Graaf,  G.,  Kura,  Y.,  Willman,  R.,  Kelleher,  K.  (2011)  Underreported  and  Undervalued:  
Small-­‐scale  Fisheries  in  the  Developing  World.  In  Pomeroy,  R.S.,  Andrew,  N.L.  (eds).  Small-­‐scale  Fisheries  
Management.  CAB  International.  
• Watson,  R.,  Revenga,  C.,  Kura,  Y.  (2006a)  Fishing  gear  associated  with  global  marine  catches:  I.  Database  
development.  Fisheries  Research  79  (2006):  97–102.  
• Watson,  R.,  Revenga,  C.  Kura,  Y.  (2006b)  Fishing  gear  associated  with  global  marine  catches:  II.  Trends  in  trawling  
and  dredging.  Fisheries  Research  79  (2006):  103–111.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Establishment  of  WorldFish’s  in-­‐country  representation  and  operation  in  Cambodia  and  Myanmar:  management  of  
annual  program  portfolio  of  approx.  USD  2–3  million;  lead  role  in  15  projects  of  various  sizes  (USD  300K  to  2  million),  
addressing  community-­‐based  natural  resource  management  and  capacity  building  of  government  research  institutes.  
Major  grants  awarded:  Mekong  fisheries  and  aquaculture  R&D  (Japan,  cumulative  USD  1.5  million  since  2007);  reservoir  
water  management  (CPWF,  USD  1  million  2010–2014);  rice  field  fisheries  enhancement  (USAID,  USD  6  million  2016–
2021);  contributed  to  securing  over  USD  12  million  in  grants  to  WorldFish.  Science  focal  point  for  CRP  Water,  Land,  and  
Ecosystems.  Focal  point  for  CCAFS  Climate  Smart  Village  in  Cambodia.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Scientist  –  Fisheries  policy  and  management,  FP2  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries      

  78
 
 THILSTED,  SHAKUNTALA  HARAKSINGH  
PROFILE  
• Expertise,  experience,  research,  academic  teaching  and  mentorship  in  food-­‐based  strategies,  with  focus  on  fish  for  
improved  food  and  nutrition  security  in  low-­‐income  countries.  
• Leading   science   direction,   execution   of   research   program,   partnerships   and   funding   strategy   for   the   research  
program:  Value  Chains  and  Nutrition  at  WorldFish.    
• Areas   of   work   include   nutrition-­‐sensitive   capture   fisheries   and   aquaculture,   nutrient-­‐rich   small   fish   in   combating   and  
preventing  micronutrient  deficiencies,  fish-­‐based  products  in  the  first  1000  days  of  life.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2015  to  date   Research  Program  Leader,  Value  Chains  and  Nutrition,  WorldFish,  Cambodia  
2010  –  2015   Senior  Nutrition  Scientist,  WorldFish,  Bangladesh  and  Cambodia  
1992  –  2009   Associate   Professor   (Nutrition   in   Low-­‐Income   Countries),   Department   of   Human   Nutrition,   Faculty   of  
Life  Sciences,  University  of  Copenhagen,  Denmark    
1991  –  1992   Associate  Professor,  Department  of  Production  Physiology  and  Human  Nutrition,  The  Royal  Veterinary  
and  Agricultural  University,  Denmark  
 
EDUCATION    
1980   PhD   Physiology   of   Nutrition,   Department   of   Animal   Science,   The   Royal   Veterinary   and   Agricultural  
University  (Faculty  of  Life  Sciences,  University  of  Copenhagen),  Denmark    
1976   Postgraduate   Course   in   Physiology   of   Animal   Nutrition,   Veterinary   Faculty   for   FAO   Fellows,   The   Royal  
Veterinary  and  Agricultural  University,  Denmark  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Thilsted,  S.H.,  Thorne-­‐Lyman,  A.L.,  Subasinghe,  R,  Webb,  P.,  Bogard,  J.R.,  Phillips,  M.J.,  Allison,  E.H.  (2016)  Sustaining  
healthy  diets:  The  role  of  capture  fisheries  and  aquaculture  for  improving  nutrition  in  the  post-­‐2015  era.  DOI:  
10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.02.005  
• Béné,  C.,  Arthur,  R.,  Norbury,  H.,  Allison,  E.H.,  Beveridge,  M.,  Bush,  S.,  Campling,  L.,  Leschen,  W.,  Little,  D.,  Squires,  S.,  
Thilsted,  S.H.,  Troell,  M.  (2016)  Contribution  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  to  food  security  and  poverty  reduction:  
Assessing  the  current  evidence.  World  Development  79:  177–196.    
• Fiedler,  J.,  Lividini,  K.,  Drummond,  E.,  Thilsted  S.H.  (2016)  Strengthening  the  contribution  of  aquaculture  to  food  and  
nutrition  security:  The  potential  of  a  vitamin  A-­‐rich  small  fish  in  Bangladesh.  Aquaculture  452:  291–303.  
• Bogard,  J.R.,  Thilsted,  S.H.,  Marks,  G.C.,  Wahab,  M.A.,  Hossain,  M.A.R.,  Jakobsen,  J.,  Stangoulis,  J.  (2015)  Nutrient  
composition  of  important  fish  species  in  Bangladesh  and  potential  contribution  to  recommended  nutrient  intakes.  
Journal  of  Food  Composition  and  Analysis  42:  120–133.  
• Powell,  B.,  Thilsted,  S.H.,  Ickowitz,  A.,  Termote,  C.,  Sunderland,  T.,  Herforth,  A.  (2015)  Improving  diets  with  wild  and  
cultivated  biodiversity  from  across  the  landscape.  Food  Security  7:  535–554.    
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Leader   and   technical   advisor   of   global   (UN,   HarvestPlus)   and   national   (Denmark,   Bangladesh,   Kenya)   advisory   bodies   on  
food  and  nutrition  security,  e.g.  Member,  Technical  Advisory  Committee,  USAID  Nutrition  Innovation  Lab.  Project  leader  
for  several  WorldFish-­‐led  projects  within  fisheries  and  nutrition  in  Africa  and  Asia,  with  funding  from  multiple  sources,  
e.g.   DFID,   IFAD,   World   Bank.   Guest   speaker   in   various   international   forums,   e.g.   World   Food   Prize,   United   Nations  
Informal  Consultative  Process  on  Oceans  and  the  Law  of  the  Sea,  World  Aquaculture  Conference  2015.  Co-­‐supervisor  of  
postdoctoral  and  PhD  fellows.    
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Flagship  Leader,  FP3  Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  health  of  the  poor    

  79
 
 BROWN,  CHRISTOPHER  LYON  
PROFILE    
• Lead  researcher  for  WorldFish  on  fisheries  and  aquaculture  activities  in  Bangladesh  and  South  Asia.  Coordination  and  
professional   development   of   ~300   employees   and   bilaterally   supported   projects   at   a   total   of   ~USD   10   million   per  
year.    
• Expertise   in   fish   physiology   and   development,   culture   and   nutrition.   15   years   USAID-­‐sponsored   leadership   in   the  
Philippines.  
• Fish   physiologist   with   tenured   academic   program   direction   in   two   large,   minority-­‐serving   US   universities;   program  
building  and  leadership  experience.  Advisement  and  support  of  21  graduate  and  postdoctoral  students.  Design  and  
construction  of  two  new  laboratories.  
• Areas  of  work  include  progressive  analysis  of  fish  culture  systems,  genomics  and  DNA,  nutrition,  pathology,  hatchery  
technology.  
• 85  published  contributions,  including  4  books  edited,  1  sole-­‐authored,  81  scientific  articles.  Most  peer-­‐reviewed  in  
international  scientific  journals,  some  chapters,  a  majority  either  first-­‐  or  senior-­‐authored.  As  of  March  2016,  1993  
citations  of  my  contributions;  h-­‐index  =  23,  i-­‐10  index  =  47.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2015  to  date   Science  Leader,  WorldFish,  Bangladesh  and  South  Asia  
2007  –  2015   Division  Chief,  NOAA,  US  Department  of  Commerce,  USA  
2000  –  2007   Marine  Program  Director  and  Professor  of  Biology,  Florida  International  University  (Tenured),  USA  
1989  –  2000   Aquaculture  Coordinator  and  Full  Professor,  University  of  Hawaii  (tenured),  USA  
 
EDUCATION    
1989   Postdoctoral  Scientist,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  California,  USA  
1984   PhD,  Biology/Physiology  University  of  Delaware,  Newark,  Delaware,  USA  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Yan,   S.,   Wang,   M.,   Yang,   C.-­‐P.,   Zhi,   T.T.,   Brown,   C.L.,   Yang.   T.-­‐B.   (2016)   Comparative   phylogeography   of   two  
monogenean   species   (Mazocraeidae)   on   the   host   of   chub   mackerel,   Scomber   japonicus,   along   the   coast   of   China.  
DOI:  10.1017/S0031182016000160  
• Yan,  S.,  Catanese,  G.,  Brown,  C.L.,  Wang,  M.,  Yang,  C.,  Yang.  T.-­‐B.  (2015)  Phylogeography  study  on  the  chub  mackerel  
(Scomber  japonicus)  in  the  Northwestern  Pacific  indicates  the  late  Pleistocene  population  isolation.  Marine  Ecology  
36  (3):  753–765.  DOI:  10.1111/maec.12267  
• Reynaud,   Y.,   Millet,   J.,   Couvin,   D.,   Rastogi,   N.,   Brown,   C.L.,   Couppié,   P.,   Legrand,   E.   (2015)   Heterogeneity   among  
Mycobacterium  ulcerans  from  French  Guiana.  PLoS  ONE  10(2):  e0118597.  DOI:  10.1371/journal.pone.0118597  
• Brown,   C.L.,   Urbinati,   E.,   Zhang,   W.,   Brown,   S.B.,   McComb-­‐Kobza,   M.   (2014)   Maternal   thyroid   and   glucocorticoid  
hormone  interactions  in  larval  fish  development,  and  their  applications  in  aquaculture.  Reviews  in  Fisheries  Science  
and  Aquaculture  22  (3):  207–220.    
• Brown,  C.L.,  Yang,  T.-­‐B.,  Fitzsimmons,  K.,  Bolivar,  R.  (2014)  The  value  of  pig  manure  as  a  source  of  nutrients  for  mass  
culture  of  Nile  tilapia  in  ponds  (a  review).  Agricultural  Sciences  5:  1182–1193.    
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Uninterrupted   extramural   support   for   research   as   PI   beginning   in   graduate   school;   funds   from   numerous   US   federal,  
private   and   international   sources.   Extensive   networking   through   collaborative   research   in   Asia   and   Europe.   Served   as  
leader   of   a   National   Geographic   expedition   in   remote   Brazil,   taught   biodiversity   at   a   Smithsonian   Institution   research  
station  in  Panama.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Leader,  Cluster  1   –  Nutrition-­‐sensitive  fish  production,  FP3  Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  health  of  
the  poor    

  80
 
 BENNETT,  CHRISTOPHER  
PROFILE  
• 28   years   of   experience   in   development   consultancy   and   research,   much   of   which   (14   years)   has   been   spent  
embedded  as  a  long-­‐term  advisor  in  various  developing  countries  (Namibia,  the  Philippines  and  Nigeria).    
• Deputy   Director   of   the   Natural   Resources   Institute   (www.nri.org)   and   Faculty   Deputy   Director   of   Research   and  
Enterprise  responsible  for  leading  NRI  in  these  areas  of  practice.    
• Recognized   expert   and   practice   leader   on   postharvest   economics,   including   value   chain   analysis   and   commodity  
markets.  Leads  work  in  NRI  on  the  economics  and  value  chain  aspects  of  postharvest  losses.  
• Expert  in  the  preparation  and  evaluation  of  agricultural  research  projects,  having  been  a  Team  Leader  on  five  major  
CGIAR  Reviews.  
• Expert   in   agricultural,   fisheries   and   natural   product   marketing   policy   and   managing   research   into   trade   in  
commodities   with   20+   years   of   experience   advising   donors   and   governments   on   agricultural   marketing   policy   for  
both  perishable  and  non-­‐perishable  products.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2015  to  date   Deputy  Director,  Natural  Resources  Institute,  University  of  Greenwich,  UK  
2006  –  2015   Head   of   Department,   Food   &   Markets   Department,   Natural   Resources   Institute,   University   of  
Greenwich,  UK  
1998  –  2006   Advisor  on  trade,  marketing  &  agricultural  policy,  Government  of  Namibia  
1994  –  1998   Advisor  on  trade,  marketing  &  agricultural  policy,  Government  of  Philippines  
 
EDUCATION    
1987   MSc  Development  Administration,  University  of  Birmingham,  UK  
1983   BSc  (Hon),  Economics,  University  of  Liverpool,  UK  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Bennett,   B.   (2015)   Smallholder   cassava   production   and   the   cassava   processing   sector   in   Africa.   Editorial   for   a  
special  edition  of  the  Journal  Food  Chain,  Practical  Action  Publishing.  
• Abdulsalam-­‐Saghir,   P.,   Bennett,   B.,   Quaye,   W.,   Tu   Viet   Phu,   Sanni,   L.,   Martin,   A.   (2015)   Gender   analysis   of  
households’  decision-­‐making  to  reduce  post-­‐harvest  losses  of  cassava  in  Ghana,  Nigeria  and  Vietnam.  Food  Chain.  
• Forsythe,   L.,   Nyamanda,   N.,   Mwangwela,   A.,   Bennett,   B.   (2015)   Beliefs,   taboos   and   minor   crops:   The   case   of  
Bambara  Groundnut  in  Malawi.  Food,  Culture  and  Society  18(3).  
• Naziri,   D.,   Quaye,   W.,   Siwoku,   B.,   Wanlapatit,   S.,   Tu   Viet   Phu,  Bennett,   B.   (2015)   The   diversity   of   postharvest   losses  
in   cassava   value   chains   in   selected   developing   countries.   Journal   of   Agriculture   and   Rural   Development   in   the  
Tropics  and  Subtropics  115(2).  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Team  Leader  of  several  major  research  initiatives  and  consultancies,  including  a  program  in  West  and  Central  Africa  to  
improve   cassava   processing   funded   by   the   International   Fund   for   Agricultural   Development   (IFAD).   Editorial   Board  
Member,  Journal  Food  Chain.  Member,  Panel  of  the  Global  mFarmer  Mobile  Phone  Initiative.  Member  of  the  Organising  
Committee   of   the   first   Global   Postharvest   Losses   Symposium.   Has   led   and   won   numerous   large   grants   from   funders  
including  IFAD,  Millennium  Challenge  Corporation  &  McKnight  Foundation.    
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Leader,   Cluster   2   –   Reducing   waste   and   loss   in   fish   value   chains,   FP3   Enhancing   the   contribution   of   fish   to   nutrition   and  
health  of  the  poor      

  81
 
 THORNE-­‐LYMAN,  ANDREW  L.  
PROFILE  
• Senior  Nutrition  Specialist,  Theme  Leader  Nutrition,  WorldFish,  Malaysia.  
• Nutritional  epidemiologist  and  anthropologist,  18  years  of  experience  working  on  issues  related  to  nutrition  in  low-­‐
income  settings  with  expertise  on  epidemiology  and  study  design,  food  security,  measurement  of  diet  and  nutritional  
status,  and  qualitative  research  methods.  
• 30  peer-­‐reviewed  publications,  including  many  in  top  nutrition  and  medical  journals.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2014  to  date   Senior  Nutrition  Specialist,  Team  Leader,  Impact  Evaluation,  WorldFish,  Malaysia  
2014  to  date   Adjunct  Lecturer,  Department  of  Nutrition,  Harvard  School  of  Public  Health,  USA  
2013  –  2014   Director  of  Nutrition  Research,  The  Earth  Institute,  Columbia  University,  USA  
2001  –  2008   Public  Health  Nutrition  Officer,  UN  World  Food  Programme,  Italy  
 
EDUCATION    
2013   ScD  Nutrition,  Harvard  School  of  Public  Health,  Boston,  MA,  USA  
1997   MHS  International  Health,  Johns  Hopkins  School  of  Public  Health,  Baltimore,  MD,  USA  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Thorne-­‐Lyman,   A.L.,   Spiegelman,   D.,   Fawzi,   W.W.   (2014)   Is   the   strength   of   association   between   indicators   of   dietary  
quality  and  the  nutritional  status  of  children  being  underestimated?  Maternal  &  Child  Nutrition  10  (1):  159–160.    
• Global  Burden  of  Disease  Collaborators.  (2014)  Global,  regional,  and  national  levels  and  causes  of  maternal  mortality  
during  1990-­‐2013:  A  systematic  analysis  for  the  Global  Burden  of  Disease  Study  2013.  The  Lancet.    
• Thorne-­‐Lyman,   A.L.,   Fawzi,   W.W.   (2012)   Vitamin   D   during   pregnancy   and   maternal   and   infant   health   outcomes:   A  
systematic   review   and   meta-­‐analysis.   Paediatric   and   Perinatal   Epidemiology.   Suppl   1:   75–90.   (Second   most   cited  
publication  in  this  journal  for  2012).  
• Thorne-­‐Lyman,  A.L.,  Valpiani,  N.,  Sun,  K.,  Semba,  R.D.,  Klotz,  C.,  Kraemer,  K.,  Akter,  N.,  de  Pee,  S.,  Moench-­‐Pfanner,  
R.,   Sari,   M.,   Bloem,   M.W.   (2010)   Dietary   diversity   and   household   food   expenditures   are   closely   linked   in   rural  
Bangladesh,  increasing  the  risk  of  malnutrition  due  to  the  financial  crisis.  Journal  of  Nutrition  140  (1):  182S–8S.    
• Campbell,   A.A.,   Thorne-­‐Lyman,   A.L.,   Sun,   K.,   de   Pee,   S.,   Kraemer,   K.,   Moench-­‐Pfanner,   R.,   et   al.   (2009)   Indonesian  
women   of   childbearing   age   are   at   greater   risk   of   clinical   vitamin   A   deficiency   in   families   that   spend   more   on   rice   and  
less  on  fruits/vegetables  and  animal-­‐based  foods.  Nutrition  Research  29  (2):  75–81.    
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Investigator,   ‘Aquaculture   for   Low   Income   Consumers’   (BMZ/GiZ   funded).   Principal   Investigator,   Harvard   School   of  
Public  Health,  USAID  Nutrition  Innovation  Lab  in  Nepal.  Julius  B.  Richmond  Fellowship  from  the  Harvard  Center  on  the  
Developing   Child,   2011;   NIH   Doctoral   Training   Grant,   2011–13;   Peipers   Fellowship,   2009.   Co-­‐Leader,   United   Nations  
Food  Security  and  Nutrition  Assessment,  Darfur,  Sudan,  2005.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Leader,   Cluster   3   –   Fish   for   nutrition   and   health   of   women   and   children,   FP3   Enhancing   the   contribution   of   fish   to  
nutrition  and  health  of  the  poor    

  82
 
 TEDESCO,  ILARIA  
PROFILE    
Economist  with  expertise  in  development,  agriculture  and  commodity  markets:  
• 8   years   of   experience   in   agricultural   and   development   consultancy   and   research.   Long-­‐term   experience   in   Syria;  
short-­‐term  missions  to  Paraguay,  Nigeria,  Turkey,  Oman,  Mauritius,  Kenya,  Mozambique  and  Uganda.  
• Experience   in   projects—as   leader   and   team   member—on   cost-­‐benefit   analysis;   agricultural   commodities   value  
chain   studies;   policy   impact   analysis;   risk   assessment;   training   and   backstopping   national   analysts   of   ministries   and  
research   institutes;   preparation   of   capacity-­‐building   material;   data   collection,   management   and   analysis;  
econometrics;  economic  modeling;  international  trade;  environmental  economics.    
• Commodity  experience  includes  roots  and  tubers;  grains;  fisheries;  fruits  and  vegetables;  water  and  irrigation.  
• Italian  national,  fluency  in  English  and  intermediate  working  knowledge  of  French.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2014  to  date   Economist,  Natural  Resources  Institute,  University  of  Greenwich,  UK  
2011  –  2014     Policy  Officer/Economist  at  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  UN  (FAO),  Italy    
2009     Junior  Economist  at  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  UN  (FAO),  Italy  
2007     Junior  Agricultural  Economist  at  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  UN  (FAO),    
    Syria    
 
EDUCATION  
2013   PhD  Economics,  University  of  Rome  Tor  Vergata,  Italy  
2004   MSc  Territorial  Marketing  and  Local  Development,  Catholic  University,  Italy  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Tedesco,   I.,   Pelloni,   A.,   Trovato,   G.   (2015)   OECD   agricultural   subsidies   and   poverty   rates   in   lower   income   countries.  
International   Journal   of   Food   and   Agricultural   Economics   3(2),   Special   Issue:   31–49.   (ISSN   2147-­‐8988,   E-­‐ISSN:   2149-­‐
3766).  
• Pelloni,  A.,  Stengos,  T.,  Tedesco,  I.  (2015)  Aid  to  agriculture,  trade  and  take-­‐off  (forthcoming  submission).  
• Tedesco,   I.,   Brouwer,   R.   (2015)   Sweetpotato   value   chains   in   Mozambique   and   the   potential   role   for   commercial  
fresh  root  storage.  NRI  report,  June  2015,  University  of  Greenwich,  Chatham:  UK.  
• Tedesco,  I.,  Stathers,  T.  (2015)  Sweetpotato  value  chains  in  Kenya:  A  business  opportunity  for  puree  processing  and  
the  potential  role  for  commercial  fresh  root  storage.  NRI  report,  February  2015,  University  of  Greenwich,  Chatham:  
UK.  117pp.  
• Tedesco,   I.,   Bellu’,   L.G.,   (2015)   Supporting   evidence-­‐based   decision   making   through   impact   analysis   of   policy  
options   for   sustainable   development,   food   security   and   inclusive   growth   in   Nigeria.   Rome:   Food   and   Agricultural  
Organization  of  the  UN  (FAO)  (forthcoming).  
• Battaglia,  L.,  Bellu’,  L.G.,  Dieng,  C.,  Tedesco,  I.  (2013)  Development  paradigms  and  related  policies.  Rome:  Food  and  
Agricultural  Organization  of  the  UN  (FAO),  Technical  Cooperation  Division,  EASYPOL  working  paper.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
2007  –  2010     Full  Scholarship,  PhD  Program,  University  of  Rome  Tor  Vergata,  Italian  Ministry  of  Education  
2004   Tuition  fee,  MSc  Territorial  Marketing  and  Local  Development,  Catholic  University  
1997  –  2002   Scholarships,  Undergraduate  Program,  Bocconi  University  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Principal  Investigator  –  Economic  fish  waste  and  losses,  FP3  Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  health  of  
the  poor    

  83
 
 GITTELSOHN,  JOEL  
PROFILE  
• Nutritional   anthropologist   with   decades   of   experience   undertaking   community-­‐based   qualitative   research   and  
intervention  studies  on  the  design  and  evaluation  of  food  store-­‐based  interventions  to  increase  access  and  point  of  
purchase  promotions  for  healthier  eating.    
• Work   integrates   qualitative   and   quantitative   approaches   to   better   understand   culture-­‐based   beliefs   and   behaviors  
regarding  dietary  patterns  and  how  those  factors  influence  the  success  or  failure  of  dietary  and  lifestyle  modification  
studies.    
• 222  peer-­‐reviewed  publications  including  many  in  top  nutrition  and  medical  journals  (H-­‐index  54).  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2009   to   date     Professor,   Center   for   Human   Nutrition,   Johns   Hopkins   University,   USA.   Affiliated   faculty,   Center   for  
Adolescent  Health  Promotion  and  Disease  Prevention.    
2000  –  2009     Associate   Professor,   Center   for   Human   Nutrition,   Johns   Hopkins   University,   USA.   Affiliated   faculty,  
Center   for   Adolescent   Health   Promotion   and   Disease   Prevention,   Affiliated   faculty,   Center   for   American  
Indian  Health,  Johns  Hopkins  University.    
1994  –  2000   Assistant  Professor,  Division  of  Human  Nutrition,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  USA.  
1989  –  1994   Research  Associate,  Division  of  Human  Nutrition,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  USA.    
 
EDUCATION    
1989   PhD  Medical  Anthropology,  University  of  Connecticut-­‐Storrs,  USA                        
1991     MS  Maternal  and  Child  Health,  Harvard  University,  USA  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Sato,  P.M.,  Anderson  Steeves,  E.,  Carnell,  S.,  Cheskin,  L.J.,  Trude,  A.C.,  Shipley,  C.,  Mejía  Ruiz,  M.J.,  Gittelsohn,  J.  
(2016)  A  youth  mentor-­‐led  nutritional  intervention  in  urban  Recreation  Centers:  A  promising  strategy  for  childhood  
obesity  prevention  in  low-­‐income  neighborhoods.  Health  Education  Research  31(2):  195-­‐206.  
• Gittelsohn,  J.,  Mui,  Y.,  Adam,  A.,  Lin,  S.,  Kharmats,  A.,  Igusa,  T.  and  Lee,  B.Y.  (2015)  Incorporating  systems  science  
principles  into  the  development  of  obesity  prevention  interventions:  Principles,  benefits  and  challenges.  Curr  Obes  
Rep  4(2):  174-­‐81.  
• Kodish,  S.,  Aburto,  N.J.,  Nseluke  Hambayi,  M.,  Kennedy,  C.,  and  Gittelsohn,  J.  (2015)  Sociocultural  barriers  and  
facilitating  factors  of  an  integrated  nutrition  program  to  prevent  stunting  in  Ntchisi,  Malawi.  Food  &  Nutrition  
Bulletin  36(2):  138-­‐53.  
• Gittelsohn,  J.  and  Trude,  A.  (2015)  Environmental  interventions  for  obesity  and  diabetes  prevention.  J  Nutr  Sci  
Vitaminol  61:  S15-­‐S16.  
• Gittelsohn,  J.  and  Cristello,  A.  (2014)  Sustaining  a  National  MNP  Supplementation  Program:  Findings  of  the  
qualitative  evaluation  of  the  FORTIDOM  pilot  trial  in  Madagascar.  Sight  and  Life  28(2):  16-­‐23.  
• Letona,  P.,  Ramirez-­‐Zea,  M.,  Caballero,  B.  and  Gittelsohn,  J.  (2014)  Development  of  a  Community-­‐Based  
Intervention  for  Chronic  Disease  Prevention  in  Guatemalan  School-­‐Age  Children.  BMC  Public  Health  14:101.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
34  Grants  as  Principle  Investigator  from  NIH,  foundations,  and  US  national  and  local  governments.  Developed  multilevel  
communications  and  access  strategies  to  improve  the  food  environment  in  diverse  locations.  Research  grants  include:  
Increasing  Food  Security  for  the  Inner-­‐City  Population  in  Baltimore:  Formative  Research  for  Food  Store-­‐Based  
Environmental  Interventions  (Sponsored  by  Center  for  a  Livable  Future);  and  formative  research  for  a  prepared  food  
source  intervention  to  reduce  diabetes  risk  among  urban  African  Americans.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Sr.  Scientist  –  Behavior  change  communication  and  nutrition  education,  FP3  Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  
nutrition  and  health  of  the  poor    
   

  84
 
 ROOS,  NANNA  
PROFILE  
Global  nutrition  specialist  and  researcher:  
• Research,  teaching  and  support  to  research  capacity  building  in  developing  countries  in  human  nutrition  and  
nutrition  intervention  strategies,  with  focus  on  animal-­‐source  foods  in  food-­‐based  strategies.  
• Research  fields  include:  nutritional  significance  of  small  indigenous  fish  in  diets  in  Asia;  integration  of  nutritious  fish  
species  in  aquaculture;  development  of  food  aid  products  with  fish;  and  mass  production  of  insects  for  food  and  
feed  (including  fish  feed).  
• Research  methodologies:  human  intervention  studies  in  developing  countries  (randomized  trials,  specifically  in  
children),  nutritional  status  indicators,  and  food  composition.  Experienced  in  interdisciplinary  research.  
 
EMPLOYMENT                        
2007  to  date   Associate   professor/research   coordinator,   Department   of   Nutrition,   Exercise   and   Sports,   Section   on  
Paediatric  and  International  Nutrition,  University  of  Copenhagen  (KU),  Denmark  
2008   Consultancies  for  Novozymes  A/S,  Denmark,  and  University  of  Copenhagen  
2001  –  2006   Assistant  professor,  Department  of  Human  Nutrition,  The  Royal  Veterinary  and  Agricultural  University,  
Denmark  
2002     Consultancy  for  International  Food  Policy  Research  Institute  (IFPRI),  USA  
 
EDUCATION    
2001   PhD  Nutrition  in  Developing  Countries,  The  Royal  Veterinary  and  Agricultural  University,  Denmark                                                
1994   MSc  Biology,  Roskilde  University  Center,  Denmark  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Roos,  N.  (2016  in  press)  Freshwater  fish  in  the  food  basket  in  developing  countries:  A  key  to  alleviate  under-­‐
nutrition.  In  W.  W.  Taylor  et  al.  (eds):  Freshwater,  fish,  and  the  future:  Proceedings  of  the  Global  Cross-­‐Sectoral  
Conference.  American  Fisheries  Society,  Bethesda,  Maryland.  
• Andersen,  A.B.,  Schmidt,  L.K.H.,  Faurholt-­‐Jepsen,  D.,  Roos,  N.,  Friis,  H.,  Kongsbak,  K.,  Wahed,  M.A.,  and  Thilsted,  S.H.  
(2016)  The  effect  of  daily  consumption  of  the  small  fish  Amblypharyngodon  mola  or  added  vitamin  A  on  iron  status:  
a  randomised  controlled  trial  among  Bangladeshi  children  with  marginal  vitamin  A  status.  Asia  Pacific  Journal  of  
Clinical  Nutrition  25(3).  
• Owino,  V.O.,  Skau,  J.,  Omollo,  S.,  Konyole,  S.,  Kinyuru,  J.,  Estambale,  B.,  Owuor,  B.,  Roos,  N.  and  Friis,  H.  (2015)  
WinFood  data  from  Kenya  and  Cambodia:  Constraints  on  field  procedures.  Food  and  Nutrition  Bulletin  36  (4),  NP1-­‐4.    
• Skau,  J.K.H.,  Bunthang,  T.,  Chamnan,  C.,  Chea,  M.,  Unni,  U.S.,  Makurat,  J.,  Filteau,  S.,  Wieringa,  F.T.,  Dijkhuizen,  M.A.,  
Roos,  N.  et  al.  (2015).  Effects  of  animal-­‐source  food  and  micronutrient-­‐fortification  in  complementary  foods  on  
body  composition,  iron  status  and  linear  growth  –  a  randomized  trial  in  Cambodia.  American  Journal  of  Clinical  
Nutrition  101(4):  742-­‐751.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Current   project   leader   and   investigator,   since   2001,   of   several   research   and   research-­‐capacity   building   projects   about  
the   role   of   fish   and   other   animal-­‐source   foods   in   food   and   nutrition   security   funded   by   Danida,   Ministry   of   Foreign  
Affairs,  Denmark.  Involved  in  the  ‘WinFood  project’  (2008-­‐2013),  where  a  complementary  food  product  was  developed  
with   small   indigenous   fish   species   and   tested   in   randomized   intervention   studies   in   children   in   Cambodia   and   Kenya.   At  
present,   leading   the   research   project   ‘GREEiNSECT   –   insect   for   green   economy’   in   Kenya,   in   which   one   aspect   of  
developing  mass-­‐rearing  of  insects  is  to  supply  protein  to  fish  feed.  Currently  supervising  five  PhD  students  (including  
two  funded  by  UNICEF)  enrolled  at  University  of  Copenhagen.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Sr.  Scientist  –  Efficacy  of  fish-­‐based  complementary  foods,  FP3  Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  health  
of  the  poor    
   

  85
 
 FAWZI,  WAFAIE  
PROFILE  
Nutritional  epidemiologist  and  medical  doctor  with:  
• 25  years’  experience  designing  and  implementing  randomized  trials  and  studies  in  Africa  and  a  long  history  of  
collaboration  with  Tanzanian  research  centers.  
• 285  peer-­‐reviewed  publications  including  many  in  top  nutrition  and  medical  journals.  
   
EMPLOYMENT    
2008  to  date     Chair,  Department  of  Global  Health  and  Population,  Richard  Saltonstall  Professor  of  Population  Sciences  
(2011-­‐present),   Professor   of   Nutrition   and   Epidemiology   (2006   to   present)   and   Global   Health   (2008-­‐
present),  Harvard  School  of  Public  Health  
1996  –  1998   Assistant  Professor  of  International  Nutrition,  Harvard  School  of  Public  Health  
1993  –  1996   Research  Associate,  Department  of  Nutrition,  Harvard  School  of  Public  Health  
 
EDUCATION    
1992       DPH  Public  Health,  Harvard  University,  School  of  Public  Health,  USA  
1991       MSc  Maternal  and  Child  Health,  Harvard  University,  School  of  Public  Health,  USA  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Sudfeld,  C.R.,  McCoy,  D.C.,  Fink,  G.,  Muhihi,  A.,  Bellinger,  D.C.,  Masanja,  H.,  Smith,  E.R.,  Danaei,  G.,  Ezzati,  M.,  and  
Fawzi,  W.W.  (2015)  Malnutrition  and  Its  Determinants  Are  Associated  with  Suboptimal  Cognitive,  Communication,  
and  Motor  Development  in  Tanzanian  Children.  J  Nutr  Dec  145(12):  2705-­‐14.  
• Abioye,  A.I.,  Isanaka,  S.,  Liu,  E.,  Mwiru,  R.S.,  Noor,  R.A.,  Spiegelman,  D.,  Mugusi,  F.  and  Fawzi,  W.  (2015)  Gender  
differences  in  diet  and  nutrition  among  adults  initiating  antiretroviral  therapy  in  Dar  es  Salaam,  Tanzania.  AIDS  Care  
Jan  6:  1-­‐10.  
• Fawzi,  W.W.,  Villamor,  E.,  Msamanga,  G.I.,  Antelman,  G.,  Aboud,  S.  and  Urassa,  W.  (2005)  Hunter  D.  Trial  of  Zinc  
Supplements  in  Relation  to  Pregnancy  Outcomes,  hematologic  indicators  and  T  cell  counts  among  HIV-­‐1  Infected  
Women  in  Tanzania.  American  Journal  of  Clinical  Nutrition  81(1):  167-­‐7.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Principle   Investigator   on   31   research   grants   dating   back   to   1992   including   significant   funding   from   NIH,   USAID,  
Foundations.  Previous  Principle  Investigator  for:  
• Homestead  Agriculture  and  Nutrition  Project  in  Rufiji  District,  Tanzania  (IZUMI  Foundation).  
• Poverty-­‐related  Risk  Factors  for  Child  Development  and  Human  Capital:  Comparative  National  and  Global  
Assessment  (Grand  Challenges  Canada)  
• Fostering  Opportunities  for  Nutrition  and  Global  Health.  
• Trials  of  Vitamins  in  HIV  Progression  and  Transmission.  Renewed  in  1999  and  2005.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Sr.  Scientist  –  Effects  of  nutrient-­‐rich  foods  on  nutrition  and  health,  FP3  Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  
and  health  of  the  poor    
 
 

   

  86
 
 BARMAN,  BENOY  KUMAR  
PROFILE  
Specialist  in  the  field  of  aquaculture  and  aquatic  resources  management:  
• More  than  25  years’  experience  working  in  Bangladesh,  Vietnam,  Thailand,  Nepal  and  India.    
• Has   led   a   number   of   projects   for   WorldFish   related   to   small   indigenous   fish   species   and   facilitating   access   to  
aquaculture  technologies  by  the  poor  in  Bangladesh.    
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2012  to  date   Senior  Scientist/Project  Leader,  WorldFish,  Bangladesh  and  South  Asia  
2003  –  2012   Scientist/Project  Leader,  WorldFish,  Bangladesh  and  South  Asia  
2002  –  2003     Postdoctoral  Fellow,  University  of  Stirling,  UK  &  WorldFish,  Bangladesh    
2001     Senior  Upazila  Fisheries  Officer,  Department  of  Fisheries  (DoF),  Bangladesh  
 
EDUCATION    
2000   PhD   Technical   Science,   Aquaculture   and   Aquatic   Resources   Management,   Asian   Institute   of  
Technology,  Bangkok,  Thailand    
1990   MSc   Aquaculture   and   Aquatic   Resources   Management,   Asian   Institute   of   Technology,   Bangkok,  
Thailand  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Pant,   J.,   Barman,   B.K.,   Murshed-­‐E-­‐Jahan,   K.,   Belton,   B.,   Beveridge,   M.   (2014)   Can   aquaculture   benefit   the   extreme  
poor?  A  case  study  of  landless  and  socially  marginalized  Adivasi  (ethnic)  communities  in  Bangladesh.  ISSN  0044-­‐8486.  
Aquaculture  418–419:  1–10.  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848613004857  
• Little,   D.C.,   Barman,   B.K.,   Belton,   B.,   Beveridge,   M.C.,   Bush,   S.J.,   Dabaddie,   L.,   Demaine,   H.,   Edwards,   P.,   Haque,  
M.M.,   Kibria,   G.,   Morales,   E.,   Murray,   F.J.,   Leschen,   W.A.,   Nandeesha,   M.C.,   Sukadi,   F.   (2012)   Alleviating   Poverty  
through  Aquaculture:  Progress,  Opportunities  and  Improvements.  In  Subasinghe,  R.P.,  Arthur,  J.R.,  Bartley,  D.M.,  De  
Silva,  S.S.,  Halwart,  M.,  Hishamunda,  N.,  Mohan,  C.V.,  Sorgeloos,  P.  (eds).  Farming  the  Waters  for  People  and  Food.  
Proceedings  of  the  Global  Conference  on  Aquaculture  2010,  22–25  September  2010,  Phuket,  Thailand.  FAO,  Rome  
and  NACA,  Bangkok.  Pages  719–783.  
• Barman,   B.K.,   Little,   D.C.   (2011)   Use   of   hapas   to   produce   Nile   tilapia   (Oreochromis   niloticus   L.)   seed   in   household  
foodfish   ponds:   A   participatory   trial   with   small-­‐scale   farming   households   in   Northwest   Bangladesh.   Aquaculture   317:  
211-­‐222.    
• Haque,   M.M.,   Little,   D.C.,   Barman,   B.K.,   Wahab,   M.A.   (2010)   The   adoption   process   of   fish   seed   production   in  
northwest  Bangladesh:  An  understanding  through  quantitative  and  qualitative  investigation.  Journal  of  Agricultural  
Extension  and  Education  16  (2):  161–177.  
• Haque,   M.M.,   Little,   D.C.,   Barman,   B.K.,   Wahab,   M.A.   (2010)   The   adoption   process   of   fish   seed   production   in  
northwest  Bangladesh:  An  understanding  through  quantitative  and  qualitative  investigation.  Journal  of  Agricultural  
Extension  and  Education  16  (2):  161–177.    
• Barman,   B.K.,   Karim,   M.   (2007)   Analysis   of   feeds   and   fertilizers   for   sustainable   aquaculture   development   in  
Bangladesh.  In  Hasan,  M.R.,  Hecht,  T.,  De  Silva,  S.S.,  Tacon,  A.G.J.  (eds).  Study  and  analysis  of  feeds  and  fertilizers  for  
sustainable  aquaculture  development.  FAO  Fisheries  Technical  Paper.  No.  497.  Rome:  FAO.  Pages  113–140.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Received   Best   Fisheries   Officers   Award   of   Rajshahi   Division   from   DoF,   Bangladesh.   Obtained   Fellowship   Award   for  
Doctoral   and   Postdoctoral   Studies   from   DFID.   Developed   several   project   proposals   in   collaboration   with   other  
colleagues  of  WorldFish  and  awarded  from  donors  (DFID,  EU,  IFAD,  BLUE  GOLD  and  others),  declared  as  champions  for  
leading  an  IFAD-­‐WLE  program-­‐funded  project.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Scientist   –   Small   indigenous   fish   production   technologies,   FP3   Enhancing   the   contribution   of   fish   to   nutrition   and   health  
of  the  poor      

  87
 
 KRUIJSSEN,  FROUKJE  
PROFILE    
• Agricultural  development  economist  with  over  12  years  of  experience  in  applied  research  on  agri-­‐food  value  chains  
and  sustainable  development.  
• Lead   researcher   for   WorldFish   on   fisheries   and   aquaculture   value   chains,   markets   and   trade,   providing   leadership  
and  support  to  projects  across  Asia  and  Africa.    
• Areas   of   work   include   improved   fish   value   chain   analysis   tools,   improved   models   for   inputs   and   service   provision,  
upgrading  and  governance  in  fish  value  chains,  and  gender  integration  in  value  chain  approaches.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2013  to  date   Scientist,  Markets  and  Trade,  WorldFish,  the  Netherlands  
2010  –  2013   Postdoctoral  Fellow,  Markets  and  Trade,  WorldFish,  Malaysia  
2008  –  2010   Independent  Consultant,  Netherlands  (part-­‐time)  
2005  –  2008   Associate  Scientist,  Bioversity  International,  Malaysia  
 
EDUCATION    
Ongoing   PhD  International  Development,  Radboud  University,  Nijmegen,  The  Netherlands  
2003   PhD  MSc  Agricultural  Development  Economics,  Wageningen  University,  The  Netherlands  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Henriksson,  P.J.G.,  Rico,  A.,  Zhang,  W.,  Ahmad-­‐Al-­‐Nahid,  Sk.,  Newton,  R.,  Phan,  L.T.,  Zhang,  Z.,  Jaithiang,  J.,  Dao,  H.M.,  
Phu,   T.M.,   Little,   D.C.,   Murray,   F.J.,   Satapornvanit,   K.,   Liu,   L.,   Liu,   Q.,   Haque,   M.M.,   Kruijssen,   F.,   de   Snoo,   GR..,  
Heijungs,  R.,  van  Bodegom,  P.M.,  Guinée,  J.B.  (2015)  A  comparison  of  Asian  aquaculture  products  using  statistically  
supported  Life  Cycle  Assessment.  Environmental  Science  &  Technology  49  (24):  14176–14183.  
• Farnworth,   C.R.,   Kantor,   P.,   Kruijssen,   F.,   Longley,   C.,   Colverson,   K.   (2015)   Gender   integration   in   livestock   and  
fisheries   value   chains:   Emerging   good   practices   from   analysis   to   action.   International   Journal   of   Agricultural  
Resources  Governance  and  Ecology  11  (3/4):  262–279.  
• Jespersen,  K.S.,  Kelling,  I.,  Ponte,  S.,  Kruijssen,  F.  (2014)  What  shapes  food  value  chains?  Lessons  from  aquaculture  in  
Asia.  Food  Policy  49–1:  228–240.  
• Ponte,   S.,   Kelling,   I.,   Jespersen,   K.S.,   Kruijssen,   F.   (2014)   The   blue   revolution   in   Asia:   Upgrading   and   governance   in  
aquaculture  value  chains.  World  Development  64:  52–64.  
• Bush,   S.R.,   Belton,   B.,   Hall,   D.,   Vandergeest,   P.,   Murray,   F.J.,   Ponte,   S.,   Oosterveer,   P.,   Islam,   Md.S.,   Mol,   A.P.J.,  
Hatanaka,   M.,   Kruijssen,   F.,   Ha,   T.T.T.,   Little,   D.C.,   Kusumawati,   R.   (2013)   Certify   Sustainable   Aquaculture?   Science  
341:  1067–1068.  
• Kruijssen,   F.,   Keizer,   M.,   Giuliani,   A.   (2009)   Collective   action   for   small-­‐scale   producers   of   agricultural   biodiversity  
products.  Food  Policy  34  (1):  46–52.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
2016  to  date   Project  leader  ‘Aquaculture  for  Low  Income  Consumers’  (BMZ/GiZ  funded)  
2014  to  date   WorldFish  focal  point  for  CRP  PIM  
2014  to  date   Theme  leader,  ‘Equitable  access  to  markets,’  senior  leadership  team  member,  AAS  
2013  to  date   WorldFish  research  area  leader  ‘Value  Chains’  
2012  to  date   WorldFish  focal  point  for  ‘Systems  Analysis  for  Sustainable  Innovations’  Flagship  and  ‘gender  initiative’  
and  member  of  WorldFish  leadership  team  for  CRP  L&F  
2010  –  2013   Principal   Investigator   ‘Sustaining   Ethical   Aquaculture   Trade’   project   (FP7-­‐EU   funded),   leading   work  
package  on  social  and  economic  dynamics  in  aquaculture  value  chains    
2005  –  2008   Grant  from  the  Netherlands  Associate  Experts  Programme  of  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs.  Assignment  
with  Bioversity  International.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Scientist  –  Fish  value  chains,  FP3  Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  health  of  the  poor    
   

  88
 
 PYBURN,  RHIANNON  
PROFILE    
• Over  20  years’  experience  in  the  social  dynamics  of  agricultural  research  and  development  –  specifically  smallholder  
inclusion  and  the  gender  dimensions  of  value  chain  development  and  agricultural  innovation  systems.    
• Experience  working  throughout  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa  (Côte  d’Ivoire,  Ghana,  Sierra  Leone,  The  Gambia,  Burkina  Faso,  
Mali,  Kenya,  Rwanda,  Uganda  and  Tanzania,  in  particular),  South  and  South-­‐East  Asia  and  the  Pacific.    
• Current  leader  (since  June  2014)  of  the  Royal  Tropical  Institute  (KIT)  team  working  with  CRP  Livestock  and  Fish  to  
make  gender  integration  into  technical  flagship  research  more  robust,  as  well  as  providing  interim  leadership  to  the  
Livestock  and  Fish  Gender  Initiative.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2008  to  date   Senior  Advisor  Sustainable  Economic  Development  and  Gender,  Royal  Tropical  Institute,  Amsterdam,  
the  Netherlands  
2002  –  2008   Freelance  Consultant  –  Sustainable  Development    
2002   Academic  Researcher,  Communication  and  Innovation  Studies,  Wageningen  University,  the  Netherlands  
1999   Program  Officer,  Canada  World  Youth,  Vancouver,  Canada  
 
EDUCATION    
2008   PhD  research  –  Communication  and  Innovation  Studies  Group,  Wageningen  University,  the  Netherlands    
2003   MSc  Management  of  Agro-­‐Ecological  Knowledge  and  Social  Change,  Wageningen  University,  the  
Netherlands  
1995   BSc  International  Development  Studies,  University  of  Toronto,  Canada  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• Pyburn,  R.,  Audet-­‐Belanger,  A.,  Dido,  S.,  Quiroga,  G  and  Flink  I.  (2015).  Unleashing  potential:  gender  and  youth  
inclusive  agri-­‐food  chains.  KIT  Working  Paper  series  No.  2015-­‐7.  
• Laven,  A.  and  Pyburn,  R.  2015.  Facilitating  gender  inclusive  agri-­‐business.  Knowledge  Management  for  Development  
Journal  11(1):  10-­‐  30.  
• Pyburn,  R.  and  Woodhill  J.  2014.  Dynamics  of  Rural  Innovation:  a  primer  for  emerging  professionals.  Amsterdam:  LM  
Publishers.  
• Sanyang,  S.,  Pyburn,  R.,  Mur,  R.  and  Audet-­‐Belanger,  A.  2014.  Against  the  Grain  and  to  the  Roots:  maize  and  cassava  
innovation  platforms  in  West  and  Central  Africa.  Amsterdam:  KIT  Publishers.  
• KIT,  APF,  IIRR.  2012.  Challenging  Chains  to  Change:  gender  equity  in  agricultural  value  chain  development.  
Amsterdam:  KIT  Publishers.  
• Verhart,  N.  and  Pyburn,  R.  2012.  Gender  Equality  in  Certified  Agricultural  Value  Chains.  In:  Harcourt,  W.  Women  
reclaiming  sustainable  livelihoods:  spaces  lost,  spaces  gained.  New  York:  Palgrave:  62-­‐82.  
• Verhart,  N.  and  Pyburn,  R.  2010.  The  Rough  Road  to  Gender  Equitable  Growth:  The  case  of  Café  de  Mujer  
Guatemala.  Development  53(3):  356–361.    
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Lead  a  four-­‐year  multi-­‐organization  project  for  the  Global  Standards  Initiative  exploring  gender  equity  in  certified  coffee,  
tea,  cocoa  value  chains  (650K  euro).  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Scientist  –  Gender  and  value  chains,  FP3  Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  health  of  the  poor    
 

  89
 
 SUDFELD,  CHRISTOPHER  R.  
PROFILE  
Nutritional  epidemiologist  with:  
• A  focus  on  maternal  and  child  micronutrient  and  nutrition  research  in  resource-­‐limited  settings  including  Tanzania.    
• 32  peer-­‐reviewed  publications  including  many  in  top  medical  and  nutrition  journals.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2015    to  date   Assistant  Professor  of  Global  Health  and  Nutrition,  Harvard  T.H.  Chan  School  of  Public  Health,  USA  
2014  –  2015   Postdoctoral  Fellow,  Department  of  Global  Health,  Harvard  T.H.  Chan  School  of  Public  Health,  USA  
2011  –  2013   Nutrition  Fellow,  Harvard  Humanitarian  Initiative,  USA  
 
EDUCATION    
2014             DSc  Epidemiology,  Harvard  School  of  Public  Health,  Boston,  USA  
2009               MSc  Epidemiology,  Johns  Hopkins  School  of  Public  Health,  Baltimore,  USA  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Sudfeld,  C.R.,  McCoy,  D.C.,  Fink,  G.,  Muhihi,  A.,  Bellinger,  D.C.,  Masanja,  H.,  Smith,  E.R.,  Danaei,  G.,  Ezzati,  M.  and  
Fawzi,  W.W.  (2015)  Malnutrition  and  its  determinants  are  associated  with  suboptimal  cognitive,  communication,  
and  motor  development  in  Tanzanian  children.  J  Nutr  145(12):  2705-­‐14.  
• Sudfeld,  C.R.,  Duggan,  C.,  Aboud,  S.,  Kupka,  R.,  Manji,  K.P.,  Kisenge,  R.  and  Fawzi,  W.W.  (2015)  Vitamin  D  status  is  
associated  with  mortality,  morbidity,  and  growth  failure  among  a  prospective  cohort  of  HIV-­‐infected  and  HIV-­‐
exposed  Tanzanian  infants.  J  Nutr  145(1):  121-­‐7.  
• Muhihi,  A.,  Sudfeld,  C.R.,  Smith,  E.R.,  Noor,  R.A.,  Mshamu,  S.,  Briegleb,  C.,  Bakari,  M.,  Masanja,  H.,  Fawzi,  W.  and  
Chan,  G.J.  (2016)  Risk  factors  for  small-­‐for-­‐gestational-­‐age  and  preterm  births  among  19,269  Tanzanian  newborns.  
BMC  Pregnancy  Childbirth  16:110.  
• Sudfeld,  C.R.,  Charles  McCoy,  D.,  Danaei,  G.,  Fink,  G.,  Ezzati,  M.,  Andrews,  K.G.  and  Fawzi,  W.W.  (2015)  Linear  
growth  and  child  development  in  low  and  middle-­‐income  countries:  Review  and  meta-­‐analysis.  Pediatrics  135(5):  
e1266-­‐75.  
• Sudfeld,  C.R.,  Aboud,  S.,  Kupka,  R.,  Mugusi,  M.  and  Fawzi,  W.W.  (2014)  Effect  of  selenium  supplementation  on  HIV-­‐1  
RNA  detection  in  breast  milk  of  Tanzanian  women.  Nutrition  30(9):  1081-­‐4.  
• Abioye,  A.I.,  Aboud,  S.,  Premji,  Z.,  Etheredge,  A.J.,  Gunaratna,  N.S.,  Sudfeld,  C.R.,  Mongi,  R.,  Meloney,  L.,  Darling,  
A.M.  and  Noor,  R.A.  (2016)  Iron  supplementation  improves  hematologic  biomarker  concentrations  and  pregnancy  
outcomes  among  iron-­‐deficient  Tanzanian  pregnant  women.  J  Nutr  146(6):  1162-­‐71.  
• Sudfeld,  C.R.,  Isanaka,  S.,  Mugusi,  F.M.,  Aboud,  S.,  Wang,  M.,  Chalamilla,  G.E.,  Giovannucci,  E.L.  and  Fawzi,  W.W.  
(2013)  Weight  change  at  1  mo  of  antiretroviral  therapy  and  its  association  with  subsequent  mortality,  morbidity,  
and  CD4  T  cell  reconstitution  in  a  Tanzanian  HIV-­‐infected  adult  cohort.  Am  J  Clin  Nutr.  97:1278-­‐87.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Currently   the   Principal   Investigator   for   a   Trial   of   Vitamin   D   Supplementation   in   Maternal   and   Child   Health-­‐Tanzania  
(funded  by  NIH).  Current  Co-­‐Investigator  for:  Trial  of  Vitamin  D  in  HIV  Progression  for  Tanzanian  Adults  (NIH  RO1);  Trial  
of  Antibiotics  for  Severe  Pneumonia  in  Tanzania  (Gates  Foundation/WHO);  and  Zinc  Dosing  Trial  for  Acute  Diarrhea  in  
Tanzania   (Gates   Foundation/WHO).   Active   Member   of   the   American   Society   for   Nutrition   and   International   AIDS  
Society.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Scientist  –  Effects  of  nutrient-­‐rich  foods  on  nutrition  and  health,  FP3  Enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  
health  of  the  poor    
   

  90
 
  
FISH  CRP  DIRECTOR  –  TERMS  OF  REFERENCE  

Background  information:  
 
WorldFish  is  an  international,  nonprofit  research  organization  that  harnesses  the  potential  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  
to  reduce  hunger  and  poverty.  Utilizing  its  scientific  expertise,  its  networks  and  partnerships,  and  an  innovative  
‘research  in  development’  approach,  WorldFish  increases  the  productivity  and  sustainability  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  
and  improves  the  lives  of  poor  people  who  rely  on  them.  WorldFish  is  a  member  of  CGIAR,  a  global  agriculture  research  
partnership  for  a  food  secure  future.  
 
The  FISH  CRP  is  a  new,  integrated,  multidisciplinary  research  program  designed  in  collaboration  with  beneficiaries,  
research  partners  and  multiple  stakeholders  within  and  beyond  CGIAR.  The  program  will  develop  and  implement  
research  innovations  that  optimize  the  individual  and  joint  contributions  of  aquaculture  and  small-­‐scale  fisheries  to  
reduce  poverty,  improve  food  and  nutrition  security  for  health  and  sustain  the  underlying  natural  resources  systems  and  
ecosystems  services  on  which  both  depend.      
 
WorldFish  is  conducting  an  international  search  to  recruit  an  experienced  research  leader  to  oversee  effective  
implementation  of  the  program’s  integrated  research  agenda  focused  upon  equitably  increasing  agricultural  
productivity,  increasing  income,  improving  nutrition,  improving  social-­‐ecological  resilience.  This  role  is  integrated  within  
the  WorldFish  position  of  Director,  Aquaculture  and  Fisheries  Sciences.  
 
Key  responsibilities:  
 
The  FISH  CRP  Director  will  lead  the  team  of  scientists  working  on  this  extensive  research  agenda.  Reporting  
programmatically  to  the  program’s  Independent  Steering  Committee  (ISC)  and  administratively  to  the  Director  General  
of  WorldFish,  the  CRP  Director  will  have  overall  responsibility  for  effective  integration  and  delivery  of  the  program’s  
science  agenda,  including  leading  program  level  science  planning  and  review  processes  and  ensuring  that  effective  
systems  of  quality  control  are  in  place.  The  CRP  Director  will:  
 
• Provide  dynamic  leadership  and  vision  for  the  role  of  aquaculture  and  fisheries  in  the  global  efforts  to  tackle  poverty,  
hunger  and  environmental  degradation  via  the  CGIAR  research  programs  (CRPs).    
• Represent  the  FISH  CRP  research  interests  in  the  CGIAR  Consortium  and  associated  high-­‐level  forums  through  
appropriate  influence  and  engagement  in  system  level  activities.  
• Lead  the  design,  development  and  execution  of  the  FISH  CRP  through  its  network  of  partners,  to  enable  quality  
outcomes  and  impact,  including  linkages  of  the  program  with  other  CRPs  and  integration  of  bilateral  projects.  
• Lead  the  program  management  committee  (MC),  ensuring  effective  and  transparent  decision-­‐making,  and  manage  
relationships  with  the  Flagship  Leaders  and  managing  partners  to  support  effective  results-­‐based  management.  
• With  managing  partners,  provide  shared  leadership  for  resource  mobilization  and  a  strong  funding  pipeline  to  ensure  
a  diverse  portfolio  of  funding  vehicles  with  a  view  on  risk  minimization  and  sustainable  resources  required  to  achieve  
the  objectives  of  the  CRP.  
• Provide  support  and  guidance  to  the  work  of  the  FISH  Independent  Steering  Committee  (ISC).  Take  the  lead  on  
drafting  strategy,  budgetary  positions  and  briefing  papers  for  submission  to  the  FISH  Independent  Steering  
Committee  and  WorldFish  Board  of  Trustees,  where  appropriate,  with  input  from  the  program’s  lead  center  and  
managing  partners.    
• Ensure  that  the  FISH  CRP  has  a  well-­‐designed  and  implemented  gender  strategy;  monitoring,  evaluation  and  learning;  
and  capacity  development  program,  providing  oversight  to  lead  staff  responsible  for  each.    
• Liaise  with  the  Director,  Finance  and  Operations,  in  matters  related  to  staff  recruitment  and  management  issues  and  
financial  and  administrative  matters,  and  the  Communications  Head  on  strategic  communications.      
• Assume  decision-­‐making  authority  with  respect  to  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  operations  of  the  FISH  CRP  and,  in  accordance  with  
the  Program  Participant  Agreements  (PPA),  authorize  the  release  of  funding  to  partners.    
• Ensure  effective  mechanisms  of  science  quality  assurance  and  review  for  FISH  CRP  reports  and  project  deliverables  
prior  to  their  public  release.    
 
 
 
   
  91
 
Essential  skills  and  qualifications:  
 
• A  completed  PhD  in  aquaculture  or  fisheries  or  related  discipline.  
• More  than  15  years  of  international  research  and  development  experience,  including  the  application  of  research  
results  for  developing  countries  conditions,  addressing  food  security,  poverty  alleviation,  human  nutrition  and  
health.  
• A  minimum  of  10  years  of  progressive  responsible  leadership  experience  including  the  leadership  and  management  
of  an  organization  or  a  complex  business  unit  in  the  public  or  private  sectors  or  academia.  
• A  sustained  record  of  achievement  and  innovation,  an  established  reputation  and  strong  publication  record  in  high-­‐
ranking  peer-­‐reviewed  journals,  a  track  record  in  R&D  for  public/private  partnerships.  
• Demonstrated  success  in  resource  mobilization  from  a  global  donor  network  including  governments,  foundations,  
private  sector.  
• Experience  living  and  working  in  at  least  two  regions,  evidenced  leadership  that  inspires  trust  and  loyalty  from  staff  
of  different  nationalities  and  cultures;  and  demonstrated  commitment  to  building  a  diverse  workforce.  
• Demonstrated  quality  of  judgment  and  the  ability  to  think  strategically,  assessing  and  responding  to  new  challenges  
in  development.  
• Superior  written  and  oral  communication  skills  in  English,  knowledge  of  other  major  language(s)  desirable.  
 
Timeframe  and  location  

This  position  will  be  based  at  the  WorldFish  HQ  in  Penang,  Malaysia,  with  extensive  travel  in  Asia-­‐Pacific  and  Africa.  The  
intention  is  to  make  an  appointment  of  the  Director,  Aquaculture  and  Fisheries  Sciences  by  September  2016  for  an  
initial  3  year  fixed  term  contract,  with  the  possibility  of  extension.  Confirmation  of  the  CRP  Director  role  will  be  subject  
to  review  and  recommendation  by  the  ISC,  once  this  body  is  formed  in  preparation  for  the  CRP  launch.  
   

  92
 
 THORNE-­‐LYMAN,  ANDREW  L.  
PROFILE  
• Team  Leader,  Impact  Assessment,  WorldFish,  Malaysia.  
• Nutritional   epidemiologist   and   anthropologist,   18   years   of   experience   working   on   issues   related   to   nutritional  
surveillance  in  low-­‐income  settings  with  expertise  on  epidemiology  and  study  design,  food  security,  measurement  of  
diet  and  nutritional  status,  and  qualitative  research  methods.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2014  to  date   Senior  Nutrition  Specialist,  Team  Leader,  Impact  Evaluation,  WorldFish,  Malaysia  
2014  to  date   Adjunct  Lecturer,  Department  of  Nutrition,  Harvard  School  of  Public  Health,  USA  
2013  –  2014   Director  of  Nutrition  Research,  The  Earth  Institute,  Columbia  University,  USA  
2001  –  2008   Public  Health  Nutrition  Officer,  UN  World  Food  Programme,  Italy  
 
EDUCATION    
2013   ScD  Nutrition,  Harvard  School  of  Public  Health,  Boston,  MA,  USA  
1997   MHS  International  Health,  Johns  Hopkins  School  of  Public  Health,  Baltimore,  MD,  USA  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Thorne-­‐Lyman,   A.L.,   Spiegelman,   D.,   Fawzi,   W.W.   (2014)   Is   the   strength   of   association   between   indicators   of   dietary  
quality  and  the  nutritional  status  of  children  being  underestimated?  Maternal  &  Child  Nutrition  10  (1):  159–160.    
• Global  Burden  of  Disease  Collaborators.  (2014)  Global,  regional,  and  national  levels  and  causes  of  maternal  mortality  
during  1990-­‐2013:  A  systematic  analysis  for  the  Global  Burden  of  Disease  Study  2013.  The  Lancet.    
• Thorne-­‐Lyman,   A.L.,   Fawzi,   W.W.   (2012)   Vitamin   D   during   pregnancy   and   maternal   and   infant   health   outcomes:   A  
systematic   review   and   meta-­‐analysis.   Paediatric   and   Perinatal   Epidemiology.   Suppl   1:   75–90.   (Second   most   cited  
publication  in  this  journal  for  2012).  
• Thorne-­‐Lyman,  A.L.,  Valpiani,  N.,  Sun,  K.,  Semba,  R.D.,  Klotz,  C.,  Kraemer,  K.,  Akter,  N.,  de  Pee,  S.,  Moench-­‐Pfanner,  
R.,   Sari,   M.,   Bloem,   M.W.   (2010)   Dietary   diversity   and   household   food   expenditures   are   closely   linked   in   rural  
Bangladesh,  increasing  the  risk  of  malnutrition  due  to  the  financial  crisis.  Journal  of  Nutrition  140  (1):  182S–8S.    
• Campbell,   A.A.,   Thorne-­‐Lyman,   A.L.,   Sun,   K.,   de   Pee,   S.,   Kraemer,   K.,   Moench-­‐Pfanner,   R.,   et   al.   (2009)   Indonesian  
women   of   childbearing   age   are   at   greater   risk   of   clinical   vitamin   A   deficiency   in   families   that   spend   more   on   rice   and  
less  on  fruits/vegetables  and  animal-­‐based  foods.  Nutrition  Research  29  (2):  75–81.    
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Investigator,   ‘Aquaculture   for   Low   Income   Consumers’   (BMZ/GiZ   funded).   Principal   Investigator,   Harvard   School   of  
Public  Health,  USAID  Nutrition  Innovation  Lab  in  Nepal.  Julius  B.  Richmond  Fellowship  from  the  Harvard  Center  on  the  
Developing  Child,  2011;  NIH  Doctoral  Training  Grant,  2011–13;  Peipers  Fellowship,  2009.  30  peer-­‐reviewed  publications,  
including  many  in  top  nutrition  and  medical  journals.  Focal  point  on  measurement  of  nutrition  impact  and  results-­‐based  
management,  Strategy  and  Policy  Division,  UN  World  Food  Programme  Headquarters.  Co-­‐Leader,  United  Nations  Food  
Security  and  Nutrition  Assessment,  Darfur,  Sudan,  2005.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
M&E  Lead  (Cross-­‐cutting  role)    

  93
 
 MCDOUGALL,  CYNTHIA  
PROFILE    
• Interdisciplinary,   gender   and   social   equity-­‐oriented   researcher   and   team   leader   with   a   background   in   systems  
thinking.    
• Lead   and   support   the   development   and   implementation   of   gender-­‐integrated,   strategic   and   transformative   research  
across   WorldFish   research   initiatives,   including   in   AAS   and   L&F,   in   relation   to   aquaculture,   fisheries   management,  
value  chains  and  livelihood  strategies,  including  micro-­‐credit.  
• Main   research   areas:   Gender,   community   development   and   livelihoods,   natural   resource   governance,   social   learning  
and  adaptive  collaborative  management.  
• Total  number  of  peer-­‐reviewed  publications:  22  journal  articles,  book  chapters  and  edited  books.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2015  to  date   Senior  Scientist,  Gender  &  Equity  Theme  Leader,  WorldFish,  Malaysia  
2013  –  2014   Independent  Consultant  
2013   Researcher/Research   Award   Recipient,   Ecosystems   Approaches   to   Health   Programme,   The  
International  Development  Research  Centre  (IDRC),  Canada  
1998  –  2008   Research   Fellow,   Scientist   and   Science   Associate,   Adaptive   Co-­‐Management   Project—Nepal   Team  
Leader,   Participatory   Research   and   Gender   Analysis   Focal   Point,   Center   for   International   Forestry  
Research  (CIFOR),  Indonesia  &  Canada  
 
EDUCATION    
2015   PhD  Knowledge,  Technology  and  Innovation  Group,  Wageningen  University,  The  Netherlands  
1994   MPhil   Environment   and   Development,   Department   of   Geography,   Cambridge   University,   United  
Kingdom  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS    
• McDougall,  C.,  Ojha,  H.  Forthcoming.  The  persistence  of  power  in  community-­‐based  natural  resource  management:  
A  theoretical  perspective.  Ecology  and  Society.  
• McDougall,  C.,  Banjade,  M.R.  (2015)  Social  capital,  conflict,  and  adaptive  collaborative  governance:  Exploring  the  
dialectic.  Ecology  and  Society  20(1).  
• McDougall,  C.,  Jiggins,  J.,  Pandit,  B.H.,  Thapa  Magar  Rana,  S.K.,  Leeuwis,  C.  (2013)  Does  adaptive  collaborative  forest  
governance  affect  poverty?  Participatory  action  research  in  Nepal's  community  forests.  Society  &  Natural  Resources  
26  (11):  1235–1251.    
• McDougall,  C.L.,  Leeuwis,  C.,  Bhattarai,  T.,  Maharjan,  M.R.,  Jiggins,  J.  (2013)  Engaging  women  and  the  poor:  Adaptive  
collaborative  governance  of  community  forests  in  Nepal.  Agriculture  and  Human  Values  30  (4):  569–585.    
• Ojha,  H.,  Paudel,  N.S.,  Banjade,  M.R.,  McDougall,  C.,  Cameron,  J.  (2010)  The  Deliberative  Scientist:  Towards  an  
Approach  to  Integrating  Science  and  Politics  in  Forest  Resource  Governance  in  Nepal.    
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Successfully  fundraised  and  led  collaborative  multi-­‐year,  multi-­‐scale  systems-­‐based  governance  research  (2000–2008).  
Contributed   to   establishment   of   Research   Chairs   in   Health   and   Global   Environmental   Change   in   Sub-­‐Saharan   Africa  
(2013).   Keynote   presenter:   Gender   and   Systems   Research.   International   Conference   on   Integrated   Systems   and  
Sustainable  Intensification.  IITA,  Ibadan,  Nigeria  (March  2015).  Recipient  of  Research  Award,  International  Development  
Research   Centre   (IDRC);   Queens'   College   Bursary,   Cambridge   University;   Dean's   Honour   Role,   Trent   University;  
Economics  Letter  of  Recognition,  Trent  University;  Trent  University  Entrance  Scholarship,  Trent  University.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Gender  Research  Lead  (Cross-­‐cutting  role)    

  94
 
 SCOONES,  IAN  
PROFILE    
• Research  focuses  on  the  intersections  of  livelihoods,  agrarian  and  environmental  change,  and  policy  processes.  
• Worked  extensively  on  issues  of  land  and  livelihoods  in  Africa,  including  on  land  reform,  agricultural  
commercialization  and  investment,  and  impacts  on  agrarian  economies.    
• Has  managed  many  large,  complex  interdisciplinary  research  programs,  with  partnerships  across  the  world.    
• Total  number  of  peer-­‐reviewed  publications:  25  books.  
 
EMPLOYMENT  
2002  to  date   Professorial  Fellow,  Director  of  ESRC  STEPS  Centre,  Institute  of  Development  Studies,  University  of  Sussex,  
UK  
1995  to  date   Fellow  in  Environment  and  Development,  Institute  of  Development  Studies,  University  of  Sussex,  UK  
1989  –  1995   Research   Associate,   Drylands   and   Sustainable   Agriculture   Programmes,   International   Institute   for  
Environment  and  Development,  London,  UK  
1985  –  1989   Research   Associate,   Renewable   Resources   Assessment   Group,   Centre   for   Environmental   Technology,  
Imperial  College  of  Science  and  Technology,  London,  UK    
 
EDUCATION    
1990   PhD  Imperial  College  of  Science  and  Technology,  University  of  London,  UK  
1985   MSc   Ecological   Management   (Distinction),   Centre   for   Environmental   Technology,   Imperial   College,  
London,  UK  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
• Scoones,  I.,  Leach,  M.,  Newell,  P.  (eds)  (2015)  The  Politics  of  Green  Transformations.  London:  Routledge.  
• Catley,  A.,  Lind,  J.,  Scoones,  I.  (eds)  (2013)  Pastoral  Development  in  Africa:  Dynamic  Change  at  the  Margins.  
London:  Earthscan/Routledge.  
• Scoones,  I.,  Marongwe,  N.,  Mavedzenge,  B.,  Mahenehene,  J.,  Murimbarimba,  F.,  Sukume,  C.  (2010)  Zimbabwe's  
Land  Reform:  Myths  and  Realities.  Suffolk:  James  Currey.  
• Leach,  M.,  Scoones,  I.,  Stirling,  A.  (2010)  Dynamic  Sustainabilities:  Technology,  Environment,  Social  Justice.  London:  
Earthscan.  
• Wolford,  W.,  Saturnino,  M.,  Borras,  J.,  Hall,  R.,  Scoones,  I.,  White,  B.  (eds)  (2012)  Governing  global  land  deals:  The  
role  of  the  state  in  the  rush  for  land.  Special  Issue,  Development  and  Change  44  (2):  189–210.    
• Scoones,  I.,  Fairhead,  J.,  Leach,  M.  (2012)  Green  grabbing:  A  new  appropriation  of  nature?  Special  Issue.  Journal  of  
Peasant  Studies  39  (2):  237–261.  
• Scoones,  I.,  White,  B.,  Borras,  J.,  Hall,  R.,  Woolford,  W.  (2012)  The  new  enclosures:  Critical  perspectives  on  
corporate  land  deals.  Journal  of  Peasant  Studies  39  (3–4):  619–647.  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY    
Weekly   Zimbabweland   blog   on   ongoing   work   on   land   and   agrarian   change,   receives   around   3000   views   per   month.  
Jointly  oversees  around  £3m  per  year  of  research  grant  funding,  from  ESRC,  NERC  and  DFID.  PI  on  a  number  of  major  
research   programmes,   including   the   ESRC-­‐funded   STEPS   Centre,   and   the   Future   Agricultures   Consortium’s   China   and  
Brazil  in  African  Agriculture  programme.  Winner  of  ESRC’s  Outstanding  International  Impact  Prize  in  2015.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH  
Principal   Investigator   –   Expanding   assets   and   livelihood   opportunities   for   resource-­‐poor   women   and   youth   (Cross-­‐
cutting  role)  
 
   

  95
 
 DOYLE,  KATE  E.  
PROFILE    
Gender  specialist  with:  
• Experience  in  researching  and  developing  projects  on  maternal,  newborn  and  child  health  and  men’s  caregiving,  
respectful  maternity  care,  and  sexual  and  reproductive  health  and  rights.  
• Extensive  experience  working  in  developing  countries,  particularly  Rwanda,  including  developing,  implementing  and  
leading  research  programs  focused  on  men’s  involvement  in  MNCH  and  gender  equality  in  strategies  to  tackle  HIV  
and  AIDS.  
• Skills  in  developing  and  running  gender-­‐transformative  training  packages  that  engage  men,  boys,  women  and  girls  in  
gender  equality  and  violence  prevention.  
 
EMPLOYMENT    
2016  to  date   Senior  Program  Officer,  Promundo,  Belgium  
2014  –  2016     Program  Officer,  Promundo,  Belgium  
2013  –  2014     Rwanda  Project  Coordinator,  Promundo,  Rwanda  
2011  –  2013     Gender  and  HIV  Officer,  UNAIDS,  Rwanda  
 
EDUCATION    
2008   MSc  Anthropology  of  Health  and  Illness,  University  of  Edinburgh,  Edinburg,  UK  
2005   BA  Anthropology,  McGill  University,  Montreal,  Canada  
 
SELECTED  RECENT  PEER-­‐REVIEWED  PUBLICATIONS  
N/A  
 
OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  LEADERSHIP,  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  DELIVERY  
Currently   leads   a   multi-­‐site   randomized   controlled   trial   in   Rwanda   of   couples’   group   education   for   couples’   on   men’s  
involvement  in  maternal,  newborn  and  child  health.  Managed  the  implementation,  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  a  3-­‐
year   program   to   engage   men   and   boys   in   sexual   and   reproductive   health   and   maternal,   newborn   and   child   health   in  
Rwanda   from   2013-­‐2014.   Piloted   the   UNAIDS   Gender   Assessment   Tool   with   government,   civil   society   and   partners   in  
Rwanda  from  2011-­‐2013.  
 
ROLE  IN  FISH    
Specialist  –  Gender  capacity  development  (cross-­‐cutting  role)    

  96
 
Annex  3.9  Open  access  (OA)  and  open  data  (OD)  management  
 
CGIAR  regards  results  of  its  research  and  development  activities  as  international  public  goods  and  is  committed  to  
widespread  dissemination  to  benefit  the  poor,  especially  smallholder  producers  in  developing  countries.  
 
The  FISH  strategy  for  management  of  open  access  should  be  read  in  conjunction  with  its  strategy  on  intellectual  asset  
management.  The  FISH  program  will  rely  on  the  policies,  procedures  and  capabilities  of  the  lead  center,  WorldFish,  to  
ensure  compliance  with  the  CGIAR  Open  Access  and  Data  Management  (OADM)  Policy  and  its  Implementation  
Guidelines,  both  of  which  have  been  adopted  by  the  WorldFish  Board.  Follow  this  link  for  more  information  on  
WorldFish’s  Ownership  and  Archiving  of  Research  Data  Policy.    
 
This  policy  framework  stipulates  that  open  access  is  required  for  all  CGIAR  information  products.  Information  products  
include  peer-­‐reviewed  journal  articles,  reports  and  other  papers,  books  and  book  chapters,  data  and  databases,  data  
collection  and  analysis  tools  (e.g.  models  and  survey  tools),  video,  audio,  images,  computer  software,  web  services  (e.g.  
data  portals  and  modeling  online  platforms),  and  metadata  associated  with  the  information  products  above.  Key  
exceptions  include  information  that  is  sensitive  due  to  privacy  concerns,  political  sensitivity  and  adverse  effects  on  
farmers’  rights,  and  confidential  information  associated  with  permitted  restrictions  or  subject  to  limited  delays  to  seek  
IP  rights.  
 
The  program  will  use  Creative  Commons  licensing  on  its  self-­‐published  information  products.  All  program  publications  
(journal  articles,  book  chapters,  policy  briefs,  factsheets,  manuals  and  guides),  along  with  other  published  knowledge  
products  (tools  and  software),  will  be  catalogued  and  searchable  via  a  FISH  program  website,  in  addition  to  other  
outlets.  For  its  peer-­‐reviewed  research  publications,  the  program  will  encourage  its  scientists  to  publish  in  open  access  
journals.  In  those  instances  where  publishing  in  fee-­‐paying  journals  is  preferred,  the  program  will  purchase  open  access  
privileges.  To  ensure  proper  deposit  of  journal  articles,  a  pipeline  tracking  system  will  be  implemented  to  ensure  the  
program  has  a  clear  view  of  the  journal  articles  and  other  external  publications  (e.g.  book  chapters)  to  be  produced  
each  year,  and  to  ensure  that  fees  for  open  access  are  included  in  the  communications  budget  for  particular  research  
activities.    
 
Open  access  database  products  produced  and  maintained  by  the  program  will  include  geo-­‐tagged  data,  as  relevant,  on  
topics  such  as  the  genetic  characteristics  of  farmed  fish  species,  comparative  data  on  the  implementation  of  fisheries  
management  regimes,  household  survey  data,  and  estimates  on  fish  postharvest  waste  and  losses  in  different  locations.  
Where  appropriate  global  database  projects  exist,  data  collection  and  storage  protocols  will  be  designed  to  contribute  
to  these.  Finished  datasets  will  be  migrated  to  the  open  source  Dataverse  network  hosted  by  Harvard  University,  where  
WorldFish  has  previously  published  open  access  datasets.  
 
Notable  databases  that  will  be  generated  or  contributed  to  by  the  FISH  program  include  the  following:    
• FishBase.  Through  FP1  and  FP2,  the  program  will  contribute  aquaculture  species  data  to  FishBase,  the  world’s  
leading  open  access  database  on  fish  biology.  WorldFish  maintains  this  database,  which  was  developed  by  ICLARM  
(now  WorldFish)  in  the  1980s.  
• Coral  Triangle  Atlas.  Under  FP2,  the  FISH  program  will  contribute  data  research  in  the  Philippines  and  Solomon  
Islands.  The  Coral  Triangle  Atlas  (CT  Atlas)  is  an  online  GIS  database,  providing  governments,  NGOs  and  researchers  
with  a  view  of  spatial  data  at  the  regional  scale.  
 
Qualitative  research  information  consisting  of  ongoing  knowledge  and  learning  that  is  amassed  over  time  will  be  made  
readily  accessible  to  researchers  and  other  program  partners  via  the  CGXchange  Google  Apps  tool.  The  cloud-­‐based  
system  emphasizes  collaboration  and  learning.  A  hierarchical  set  of  repositories  has  been  established  to  co-­‐develop,  
store  and  access  research  information  and  learning  outputs  by  people  working  on  the  same  program  across  the  world.  
Collaboration  within  and  across  countries  and  regions  is  supported  with  tools  and  guidelines  and  complemented  by  
training  and  support  provisions.  
 
Critical  issues  and  anticipated  challenges  
To  ensure  adoption  of  best  practices,  WorldFish,  as  the  lead  center  for  FISH,  will  continue  to  participate  in  the  CGIAR  
Open  Access  Implementation  Working  Group  and  the  CGIAR  Data  Management  Task  Force,  which  takes  a  lead  role  in  
coordinating  implementation,  with  a  focus  on  data  management.  The  task  force  will  provide  oversight  of  data  standards  
and  provide  policies  on  standards  and  interoperability  protocols  across  CGIAR  open  access  repositories.  
 

  97
 
Research  data  management  and  open  access  implementation  will  comply  with  the  FAIR  principles,  which  stipulate  that  
information  products  should  be  findable,  accessible,  interoperable  and  re-­‐usable.    
 
FISH  research  staff,  visiting  scientists,  consultants  and  collaborators  are  expected  to  be  efficient  when  writing  and  
publishing  scientific  data  and  information  products  (whether  through  journal  publication,  accessible  databases  or  other  
means),  in  line  with  the  CGIAR  OADM  policy.  The  program  supports  publication  in  open  access  journals.  Individuals  or  
teams  generating  data  have  the  first  right  to  publication  unless  they  specifically  waive  this  right.  The  FISH  program  will  
aim  to  make  all  information  products  open  access,  subject  to  the  legal  right  and  legitimate  interest  of  stakeholders  and  
third  parties,  including  intellectual  property  rights,  confidentiality,  sensitivity,  and  farmers’  rights  and  privacy,  with  
respect  to  personally  identifiable  information  as  described  in  Annex  3.10  on  the  intellectual  asset  management  strategy.    
 
Publication  of  scientific  data  and  information  products  will  also  be  supported  through  a  peer  review  process  established  
by  WorldFish  to  ensure  the  quality  of  research  publications;  that  also  includes  a  mentoring  system  for  young  
researchers  to  build  their  capability  in  research  design,  analysis  and  publication.  Other  information  products  generated  
through  the  FISH  CRP  will  be  similarly  screened  for  quality  before  public  release.      
 
Specific  conditions  are  set  on  the  sharing  and  use  of  (raw)  prepublication  scientific  data  (PSD),  meaning  all  research  
data,  databases,  data  analyses,  data  interpretations,  draft  presentations,  reports,  manuscripts,  intellectual  property  
(whether  in  preparation  or  filed,  but  not  published)  or  other  documentation  of  research  results  or  outputs  that  are  
confidential  to,  or  not  (yet)  disclosed  by  partners  engaged  in  implementing  research  within  the  FISH  program.    
 
Project  planning  and  implementation  
The  FISH  management  committee  will  ensure  that  research  teams  include  the  cost  of  implementing  research  data  
management  and  open  access  principles  in  activity  budgets  and  will  ask  for  information  about  application  of  these  
principles  as  part  of  the  reporting  process.  Periodic  meetings  will  be  organized  with  managing  partners  to  discuss  status  
of  delivery  and  any  concern  related  to  research  data  management  and  open  access.    
 
At  project  planning,  agreements  will  be  made  among  project  partners  on  the  sharing  of  PSD,  the  anticipated  resulting  
information  products,  publication  strategies,  and  the  storage  and  sharing  media  to  be  used.  Where  PSD  sharing  is  
required  to  meet  the  objectives  of  multi-­‐organization  projects  or  programs,  the  project  team  should  define  principles  
and  procedures  for  data  sharing  at  the  initiation  of  the  project  or  at  an  appropriate  time  thereafter.  To  incentivize  
compliance  of  staff  and  partners  with  OA-­‐OD  commitments,  the  system  used  for  program  activity  planning  and  
monitoring  (OCS)  will  require  the  development  of  a  plan  for  research  data  management,  and  partner  agreements  will  
include  checkpoints  to  ensure  the  defined  data  sharing  procedures  are  adhered  to  before  disbursement  of  funds  for  
future  stages  of  the  collaboration.  The  online  publications  portal  managed  by  WorldFish  will  be  used  to  keep  track  of  
deliverable  outputs  including  open  access  status.  Principles  and  procedures  for  data  sharing  will  be  included  as  clauses  
in  partnership  agreements  and  will  be  assessed  by  the  implementing  centers  prior  to  contract  execution.    
 
Where  sensitive  data  (because  of  IP,  contractual  obligation,  publication  or  other  reasons)  is  to  be  shared  between  
organizations,  a  confidentiality  and  nondisclosure  agreement  will  be  entered  into,  which  defines  the  purpose  of  the  data  
transfer,  confidentiality  arrangements,  and  the  ways  in  which  the  data  may  be  used.  Donors  or  R&D  collaborators  may  
request  data  sharing  or  confidentiality  policies  or  mechanisms,  but  such  requests  must  be  consistent  with  the  pertinent  
policies  of  the  implementing  centers  and  in  line  with  the  CGIAR  Principles  on  the  Management  of  Intellectual  Assets.  
Within  12  months  after  completed  data  curation  and  quality  control,  or  within  6  months  from  publication,  information  
products  will  be  made  available  through  dedicated  and  pertinent  open  access  media.  
 
Operations  
To  ensure  sustainability  after  the  CRP  ends,  the  implementing  centers  will  be  responsible  for  maintaining  open  access  
databases  and  information  products.  These  centers  will  follow  their  OADM  policies  developed  in  line  with  the  CGIAR  
OADM  policies  and  guidelines.  The  technical  OADM  infrastructure  will  adhere  to  the  FAIR  principles  described  above.  
Data  will  be  searchable  and  accessible  through  websites  of  FISH  and  the  implementing  centers  and  their  partners.  File  
formats  include  jpg,  jpeg,  xls,  csv,  doc,  avi,  mkw,  xml,  pdf,  ascii,  and  others—preferably  open  formats  that  facilitate  
interoperability.  The  FISH  website  provides  access  to  publications  (journal  articles,  books  and  book  chapters,  reports,  
serials,  manuals,  working  papers,  research  notes,  policy  briefs,  brochures,  posters,  videos,  audio  podcasts,  images,  
infographics,  and  other  web  tools),  datasets  (agronomic  and  socio-­‐economic,  survey,  experimental,  statistical,  crop,  
variety,  genetic,  etc.),  and  software  and  tools  (e.g.  simulation  and  statistical  models,  biometric  tools,  advisory  systems,  
and  aquaculture  management  tools).  FISH  information  products  will  be  made  freely  available  through  these  and  other  
websites,  such  as  dedicated  project  websites.  

  98
 
Within  Dataverse,  data  and  databases  are  as  much  as  possible  interoperable—syntactic  interoperability  is  achieved  
through  the  use  of  standard  protocols.  Databases  can  be  queried  using  standard  protocols  on  web-­‐based  and  user-­‐
friendly  interfaces,  and  are  downloadable,  accessible  and  re-­‐usable  through  well-­‐described  ontologies  and  explanatory  
annotations.  All  datasets  are  distributed  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution-­‐NonCommercial  4.0  International  
License.  The  publication  materials  are  either  fully  downloadable  or  linked  to  third-­‐party  websites  in  cases  where  
copyrights  apply  (e.g.  certain  journals  that  are  not  open  access).  For  publications  that  are  not  copyrighted  by  third  
parties  (such  as  certain  publishing  companies),  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution-­‐NonCommercial-­‐NoDerivs  2.0  Generic  
License  is  used.  Data  is  only  made  available  that  has  passed  data  curation  and  data  quality-­‐control  standards.    
 
WorldFish  will  conduct  regular  training  for  its  staff  and  partners’  staff  on  data  management.  The  research  support  hub  
team  will  conduct  quarterly  training  courses  that  cover  various  areas  of  data  management,  including  research  data  
planning;  data  collection,  authentication  and  analysis;  data  storage,  backup  and  security;  and  data  archival,  sharing  and  
collaboration.    
 
Staff  engaged  in  program  implementation  will  be  expected  to  archive  their  PSD,  published,  metadata  and  other  
information  products  on  a  regular  basis  in  institutional  repositories  managed  by  data  managers.  Aggregation  of  data  
into  databases  or  other  data  repositories  should  occur  through  processes  that  clarify  publication  intent  and  authorship  
expectations.    
 
The  program  will  track  and  assess  the  impact  of  open  access  and  open  data,  and  will  coordinate  with  the  CGIAR  Open  
Access  Implementation  Working  Group  to  design  and  implement  measures  of  success.  
   
Capacity  and  budget  for  implementation  
Capabilities  to  support  implementation  are  centered  in  a  WorldFish  research  support  hub  that  includes  a  research  data  
management  support  specialist,  database  specialist  and  administrative  staff  dedicated  to  publications  tracking  and  
management,  along  with  a  grants  and  contracts  unit  and  legal  advisory  services  to  monitor  compliance  in  contracting  
procedures,  including  provisions  related  to  OA  and  OD.  (See  Annex  3.10  for  details  of  legal  advisory  services.)  The  
program  budget  also  provides  for  recruitment  of  a  new,  dedicated  national  research  analyst  position  focused  on  
technical  support  to  research  data  management  planning,  as  well  as  OA  and  OD  support  and  compliance.  The  
responsibility  for  compliance  with  open  access  management  rests  primarily  on  the  research  and  communications  teams  
themselves,  while  the  research  data  management  support  specialist  and  research  analyst  provide  a  service  function  and  
control  point  to  curate  and  ensure  that  the  quality  of  data  submitted  are  in  compliance  with  the  standards  set  by  the  
CGIAR  Open  Access  and  Data  Management  (OADM)  Policy  and  its  Implementation  Guidelines.  
 
The  program  budget  includes  provision  for  a  portion  of  the  program  director’s  and  flagship  leaders’  time  focused  on  OA  
and  OD  planning  and  compliance.  Additional  costs  to  support  implementation  and  compliance  for  IA  and  OA  jointly,  
including  oversight  by  the  management  committee,  are  included  in  the  program  management  budget.    

  99
 
Annex  3.10  Intellectual  asset  management  
 
The  FISH  program  will  rely  on  the  policies,  procedures  and  capabilities  of  the  lead  center,  WorldFish,  to  ensure  
compliance  with  the  CGIAR  Principles  on  the  Management  of  Intellectual  Assets  and  its  Implementation  Guidelines,  
both  of  which  have  been  adopted  by  the  WorldFish  Board.  Information  products  produced  by  managing  and  
implementing  centers  and  partners  are  subject  to  these  policies.  
 
“Intellectual  Assets  (IA)”  refer  to  any  results  and/or  products  of  research  and  development  activities,  of  any  nature  
(including,  but  not  limited  to,  knowledge,  technologies  and  know-­‐how),  whether  or  not  they  are  or  can  be  protected  by  
intellectual  property  rights.  Examples  of  IA  are  peer-­‐reviewed  journal  articles,  reports  and  other  papers,  books  and  book  
chapters,  data  and  databases,  data  collection  and  analysis  tools  (e.g.  models  and  survey  tools),  video,  audio,  images,  
computer  software,  web  services  (e.g.  data  portals  and  modeling  online  platforms),  and  metadata  associated  with  the  
information  products  above,  novel  germplasm  products  (varieties,  strains,  discovered  genes,  markers,  etc.),  and  novel  
water,  pest  and  fish  disease  management  technologies.  
 
“Intellectual  property  (IP)  rights”  refer  to  ownership  rights  over  intellectual  property  (or  applications  thereof),  whether  
registered  or  not,  granted  in  any  jurisdiction,  including  but  not  limited  to  copyrights  and  related  rights,  database  rights,  
patents,  industrial  design  rights,  germplasm  variety  rights,  trademarks  and  service  marks,  geographical  indications,  and  
trade  secrets.  
 
Role  of  IA  in  CRP  impact  pathways  
Effective  management  of  intellectual  assets  is  essential  to  ensure  success  in  CRP  impact  pathways.  The  most  complex  
issues  concern  the  development  and  dissemination  of  improved  aquaculture  technologies.  Several  of  these  key  
dimensions  are  identified  below.    
 
Managing  IA  as  International  Public  Goods.  FP  1  research  products  subject  to  IA  management  include  predominantly  
improved  fish  strains  (Cluster  1.1);  fish  feed  and  disease  control  technologies  (Cluster  2);  and  aquaculture  systems  and  
management  models,  datasets  arising  from  genetic  analysis  and  fish  performance  assessments,  software  and  
models/tools  and  publications  (Clusters  1,  2  and  3).  The  FISH  managing  partners  are  committed  to  keeping  such  IAs  
available  to  public  and/or  private  sector  entities  through  multiple  pathways  that  facilitate  the  achievement  of  maximum  
impact  for  poor  farmers  and  consumers  consistent  with  the  FISH  mission.  To  the  extent  possible  and  when  appropriate,  
publication  or  contractual  provisions  will  be  used  to  ensure  that  such  information,  innovation,  or  material  remains  
available  for  use  by  the  public  and  private  sectors.  
 
In  accordance  with  all  relevant  biosafety,  phytosanitary,  import,  and  export  regulations,  samples  of  fish  genetic  
resources  (arising  from  Cluster  1.1)  will  be  supplied  for  the  purposes  of  research,  breeding,  and  training  for  food  and  
agriculture,  under  the  terms  of  a  Standard  Material  Transfer  Agreement  (SMTA),  as  a  key  pathway  for  dissemination  of  
IPG.    Such  methods,  which  WorldFish  has  been  using  to  date,  are  foreseen  as  remaining  by  far  the  dominant  means  of  
providing  IPG  fish  germplasm  generated  through  FISH  research  and  the  contribution  of  FISH  to  SLO  targets.  
 
Exclusivity,  patents,  and  fish  variety  protection.  There  are  currently  no  plans  to  use  patents  to  protect  genetically  
improved  fish  breeds  (from  Cluster  1),  though  time-­‐limited  licensing  may  be  pursued  to  enable  commercialization  under  
certain  conditions  where  this  is  deemed  the  most  effective  route  to  bring  technologies  to  scale.  In  some  markets,  
branding  of  improved  tilapia  and  carp  breeds  may  be  used  to  facilitate  dissemination  of  improved  breeds  and  protection  
of  the  improved  strain,  as  well  as  farmers,  for  example,  from  breeders  and  hatcheries  falsely  claiming  to  be  producing  
and  selling  genetically  improved  tilapia  fingerlings  (Ponzoni  et  al.  2012).  Feed,  disease  and  aquaculture  technologies  
arising  from  Clusters  2  and  3  may  be  subject  to  time-­‐limited  licensing  where  deemed  most  effective  for  dissemination  
through  public  and  private  pathways  at  scale  to  small  farmers.  
 
Innovative  models  and  private  sector  involvement.  In  view  of  the  increasing  private  sector  involvement  in  tilapia  
worldwide,  we  are  investigating  innovative  business  models,  which  may  involve  branding  or  licensing,  to  facilitate  
dissemination  of  improved  strains  and  increased  value  and  impact  utilizing  the  commercial  aquaculture  sector,  including  
further  development  of  genetically  improved  fish  strains  for  sustainability  of  breeding  programs.  We  may  enter  into  
formalized  collaborative  relationships  with  the  public  and  private  sectors,  including  civil  society  organizations,  when  such  
relationships  serve  to  further  FISH’s  goals  and  objectives,  enhance  the  quality  and  impact  of  research,  contribute  to  
capacity  development  and  ensure  continued  availability  and  delivery  of  information  and  inventions.  All  such  partnership  

 100
 
arrangements  will  be  undertaken  under  agreements  that  define  the  IA  policies  that  would  apply  to  the  further  
development,  use  or  commercialization  of  the  IA.  
 
Critical  issues  and  anticipated  challenges  
The  lead  center,  managing  partners  and  other  research  partners  will  ensure,  as  permitted  by  law,  that  they  have  the  
rights  to  the  information  products  produced  by  their  staff,  visiting  scientists,  consultants,  students  and  any  other  person  
acting  on  their  behalf.  Therefore,  the  centers  and  partners  have  stewardship  and  ownership  responsibilities  towards  the  
information  products  produced  under  FISH.  Partners  will  typically  co-­‐own  information  products  created  under  the  
program,  as  specified  in  letters  of  agreement  or  partnership  contracts.  
 
Parties  engaged  in  program  implementation  will  secure  appropriate  licenses  in  accordance  with  their  policies  and  the  
CGIAR  IA  policies  as  required.  They  may  enter  into  agreements  for  the  acquisition  and  use  of  third-­‐party  IA  that  restrict  
the  global  accessibility  of  the  products  or  services  resulting  from  the  use  of  such  IA  for  commercialization,  research  and  
development  provided  that:  (1)  they  are,  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge,  unable  to  acquire  equivalent  IA  from  other  
sources  under  no  or  less  restrictive  conditions;  (2)  the  products  or  services  intended  to  result  from  the  use  of  such  third-­‐
party  IA  will  contribute  to  the  goals  and  objectives  of  the  program;  and  (3)  managing  and  implementing  centers  and  
partners  will  use  their  best  efforts  to  ensure  that  such  third-­‐party  IAs  are  only  used  in  relation  to,  or  incorporated  into,  
such  intended  products  or  services.  
 
The  program  will  access  specialized  legal  services  as  required  to  ensure  that  policies  and  practices  for  IA  management  
are  consistent  with  the  following:  
• the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  (CBD)  and  its  objectives,  including  conserving  biological  diversity,  the  
sustainable  use  of  its  components,  and  the  fair  and  equitable  sharing  of  benefits  from  the  utilization  of  genetic  
resources;  
• fundamental  rights  outlined  in  the  Universal  Declaration  on  Human  Rights  and  other  relevant  international  treaties;  
• the  Nagoya  Protocol  on  Access  to  Genetic  Resources  and  the  Fair  and  Equitable  Sharing  of  Benefits  Arising  from  
their  Utilization  to  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity;  
• all  applicable  international  treaties,  and  supranational  and  national  laws  on  IP.  
 
Where  research  engages  with  communities,  particular  challenges  revolve  around  appropriate  management  of  data  to  
protect  the  confidentiality  of  participants  in  panel  and  frame  surveys.  Much  of  the  data  from  interviews  will  be  narrative-­‐
based  and  difficult  to  make  open  access  without  considerable  risk  of  breaching  confidentiality.  Care  is  therefore  required  
in  anonymizing  such  qualitative  data.    
 
For  analysis  of  Household  Income  and  Expenditure  Survey  (HIES)  data  and  census  data  with  national  agencies,  
challenges  in  sharing  information  arise.  These  data  are  national  assets  and  we  have  access  to  them  through  strict  
confidentiality  and  raw  data  deletion  agreements.  These  data  are  normally  considered  as  third-­‐party  IP  rather  than  IP  
generated  by  the  program  and  partners.  Our  ability  to  make  such  datasets  open  access  may  in  such  cases  be  
constrained  by  the  agreements  under  which  they  are  acquired.    
 
With  regards  to  development  and  dissemination  of  fish-­‐based  products  targeting  nutrition  improvement  for  the  first  
1000  days  of  life  (FP  3),  at  country-­‐level  these  products  must  meet  all  requirements  (regulatory  and  legislative)  with  
respect  to  food  safety,  composition,  ingredient  declaration  and  shelf  life  for  distribution  and  sale.    Meeting  the  above  
requirements  is  the  full  responsibility  of  the  entities  producing,  distributing  and  selling  the  fish-­‐based  products.  
WorldFish  and  partners  will  give  free  access  to  all  material  regarding  product  development.  
 
Project  planning  and  implementation  
Mechanisms  to  ensure  compliance  include  IA  obligations  in  staff  contracts  and  partner  agreements,  a  tracking  system  of  
databases  and  publications  in  progress,  confirming  that  partners  follow  prior  informed  consent  and  confidentiality  
principles  in  data  collection  and  storage,  and  centralized  data  management  protocols.  
 
The  FISH  management  committee  will  ensure  that  research  teams  include  the  cost  of  implementing  IA  principles  in  
project  budgets  (i.e.  open  access  costs  for  publications  and  datasets)  and  apply  IA  principles  in  their  reporting  processes.  
Meetings  will  be  organized  periodically  with  cluster  leaders  to  discuss  the  management  and  delivery  of  IA  principles.  
Expectations  around  IA  management  and  IP  sharing  arrangements  will  be  included  in  all  project  contracts.  These  will  be  
developed  and  agreed  upon  with  project  partners,  including  the  appropriate  distribution  channels  as  per  relevant  
institutional  and  CGIAR  IA  policies.  
 
 101
 
With  respect  to  fish  genetic  improvement  and  dissemination,  reviews  of  IP  regimes  have  been  completed  with  respect  
to  patent  and  fish  breeders’  rights  protection  in  Asia  (Bangladesh,  Cambodia,  Myanmar,  Philippines),  Africa  (Egypt,  
Zambia)  and  Pacific  islands  (Solomon  Islands).  
 
WorldFish  will  base  its  data  preservation  strategy  on  the  Open  Archival  Information  System  (OAIS)  reference  model  (ISO  
14721:2012);  the  repository  system  will  provide  long-­‐term  access  to  submitted  works  along  with  associated  metadata.  
To  provide  long-­‐term  access,  WorldFish  will  back  up  files  in  a  secure  and  redundant  manner,  periodically  refresh  the  
storage  media  and  migrate  obsolete  file  formats  to  recommended  open  file  formats.  
 
Tablets  are  increasingly  the  medium  of  choice  for  field-­‐based  data  collection.  This  tool  will  be  an  important  enabler  in  
getting  clean  data  into  databases  in  a  timely  manner.  The  program  is  well  served  by  able  staff  that  can  create  and  
manage  cloud-­‐based,  secure  databases  for  these  data.  
 
Operations  
As  a  condition  of  program  participation,  WorldFish  and  FISH  managing  partners  commit  to  keeping  their  program-­‐
related  IAs,  including  germplasm,  inventions,  improvements,  data,  processes,  technologies,  software,  trademarks  and  
publications,  as  freely  available  as  possible  to  any  public  or  private  sector  entity  in  compliance  with  the  CGIAR  Open  
Access  and  Data  Management  (OADM)  Policy  and  its  Implementation  Guidelines.  To  the  extent  possible  and  when  
appropriate,  publication  or  contractual  provisions  will  be  used  to  ensure  that  such  information,  innovation  or  material  
remains  available  for  use  by  the  public  and  private  sectors.  
 
In  accordance  with  all  relevant  biosafety,  quarantine,  import  and  export  regulations,  WorldFish  and  partners  will  supply  
samples  of  fish  genetic  resources,  whether  or  not  they  are  conserved  in  their  gene  banks,  to  others  for  the  purposes  of  
research,  breeding,  and  training  for  food  and  agriculture.  This  will  be  done  under  the  terms  of  a  Standard  Material  Transfer  
Agreement  and  within  the  limits  of  capacity  and  availability,  provided  they  are  not  subject  to  IP  or  other  contractual  
restrictions  set  by  FISH  collaborators.  Transboundary  transfers  of  live  fish  will  take  place  in  line  with  the  recommendations  
and  guidelines  set  out  in  WorldFish  policies  on  movement  of  tilapia  from  Asia  to  Africa,  and  other  non-­‐binding  
international  declarations,  such  as  the  Nairobi  Declaration  on  aquatic  biodiversity  conservation  and  the  Dhaka  Declaration  
on  ecological  risk  assessment  of  genetically  improved  fish.  
 
For  innovative  models  and  private  sector  involvement,  WorldFish  and  managing  partners  will  establish  collaborative  
relationships  with  the  public  and  private  sectors,  including  civil  society  organizations.  These  relationships  will  enable  the  
FISH  program  to  achieve  its  goals  and  objectives,  enhance  the  quality  and  impact  of  research,  contribute  to  capacity  
development,  and  ensure  continued  availability  and  delivery  of  information  and  inventions.  
 
In  the  case  of  improved  fish  breeds  and  feed  formulations,  time-­‐limited  licensing  may  be  pursued  to  enable  
commercialization  under  certain  conditions  where  this  is  deemed  the  most  effective  route  to  bring  the  technologies  to  
scale.  Where  access  to  patented  technology  is  required,  such  as  the  CSIRO  aquafeed  technology,  we  will  negotiate  the  
terms  and  conditions  of  the  FISH  CRP  license  to  operate.  We  will  adopt  this  same  approach  for  other  patented  
technologies,  including  disease  screening  and  prevention  technologies.  
 
Capacity  and  budget  for  implementation  
Capabilities  to  support  implementation  are  centered  in  a  WorldFish  research  support  hub,  including  a  research  data  
management  support  specialist,  database  specialist,  and  administrative  staff  dedicated  to  publications  tracking  and  
management,  along  with  a  grants  and  contracts  unit  and  legal  advisory  services  to  monitor  compliance  in  contracting  
procedures.  The  primary  responsibility  for  compliance  with  intellectual  asset  management  rests  with  research  teams,  and  
the  budget  for  this  is  reflected  in  the  FP  research  budgets.  Additional  costs  to  support  implementation  and  compliance  for  
IA  and  OA  jointly,  including  oversight  by  the  management  committee,  are  included  in  the  program  management  budget.      
 
The  FISH  CRP  will  access  specialized  advisory  services,  including  lawyers,  for  assessments,  protection  and  suitable  
arrangements  to  ensure  that  policies  and  practices  for  IA  are  implemented  appropriately.  To  this  end,  WorldFish  retains  the  
services  of  two  external  legal  advisors  on  an  annual  retainer:  
 
Deeksha  Gujral,  Consultant  (India),  provides  a  broad  range  of  legal  advice.  She  is  a  qualified  lawyer  who  studied  law  at  
the  University  of  Cambridge.  She  was  subsequently  a  law  clerk  for  a  judge  of  the  Indian  Supreme  Court  and  is  currently  
practicing  law  in  courts  of  New  Delhi,  India.  Her  practice  areas  include  civil  and  commercial  law.  She  provides  assistance  
in  drafting  contracts  and  other  legal  documents  and  advises  on  ongoing  negotiations.  She  has  also  created  WorldFish's  

 102
 
current  draft  contracts  and  assists  in  developing  WorldFish  policies.  Deeksha  also  assists  in  ensuring  that  WorldFish  
complies  with  the  CGIAR  IA  Principles  and  Open  Access  Policy.  
 
Dr.  Sean  Butler,  Consultant  (United  Kingdom),  provides  external  IP  advice  including  visiting  field  operations  as  required  to  
assess  and  discuss  IP  related  issues  with  staff  members.  Dr.  Butler  has  been  working  as  a  consultant  to  various  CGIAR  
centers  for  more  than  10  years  (including  CIMMYT,  CIAT,  CIP,  ICARDA,  ICRISAT,  ICRAF,  IWMI  and  IITA)  on  various  activities,  
including  transaction  drafting  and  negotiations,  training,  and  review  of  IP  practices  and  procedures,  as  well  as  business  
development  (including  development  of  business  incubators).  Sean  is  a  lecturer  (professor)  at  Cambridge  University  where  
he  teaches  IP  law,  and  a  Fellow  of  St.  Edmund's  College,  Cambridge.  He  is  also  a  qualified  English  solicitor  specializing  in  
intellectual  property  in  life  sciences.  He  has  law  degrees  from  Oxford  and  the  LSE,  a  genetics  degree  from  Cambridge  and  a  
PhD  from  Imperial  College,  London  (in  technology  transfer  from  the  public  sector  to  the  private  sector).  He  has  worked  for  
commercial  and  public  research  organizations,  and  currently  he  is  also  Head  of  Strategy  at  the  National  Institute  of  
Agricultural  Botany  (NIAB)  in  the  UK.    
 
Sean  provides  support  for  three  centers  (ICRAF,  CIP  and  IITA),  providing  transaction  advice,  training,  and  general  
strategy,  plus  of  course  ensuring  that  centers  comply  with  the  IA  Principles.  He  provides  the  specialist  IP  support  that  
centers  need  when  dealing  with  IP-­‐related  issues,  including  transaction  advice  and  drafting  support  as  required;  online  
masterclasses  and  in-­‐person  workshops  on  relevant  IP  topics;  and  visits  to  the  center  (or  regional  office)  to  meet  with  
managers  and  scientists,  give  IP  lectures,  work  on  current  transactions,  develop  the  IP  strategy  and  issues,  review  for  
compliance  with  IA  Principles,  and  report  to  the  DG/DDG.      

 103
 
Annex  3.11  Explanatory  notes  regarding  SLO  outcome  targets,  assumptions,  and  
supporting  evidence  
 
Introduction  
 
This  annex  explains  the  process  used  in  setting  the  CRP  targets  for  contributions  to  SLOs  (presented  in  Table  1  below),  
including  examples  of  the  considerations  and  assumptions  used  for  setting  country-­‐level  targets.  
 
SLO   Contribution  to  SLO  target  by  country  or  region      
 
target   (in  millions)  
  FP1   FP2        
FISH  CRP  R&D  focus   Scaling  
R&D   R&D    
 
Bangladesh++  

Solomon  Is.  
Tanzania++  
Cambodia  
Myanmar  

Nigeria++  

Zambia+    

Totals  
Africa  
Egypt  

Units  
Asia  
 

1.1   4.9  million  producer  households  adopted  improved  breeds,  aquafeeds,  fish  health,   House-­‐    
  and  aquaculture  and  fisheries  management  practices   holds    
1.80   0.45   0.19   0.35   0.11   0.12   0.10   0.02   1.27   0.45   4.9    
1.2   People  
3.5  million  people,  of  which  at  least  50%  are  women,  assisted  to  exit  poverty    
through  livelihood  improvements  related  to  fisheries  and  aquaculture  value  chains    

1.17   0.40   0.18   0.19   0.10   0.09   0.26   0.05   0.94   0.18   3.5    
2.3   People    
  2.4  million  people,  of  which  50%  are  women,  without  deficiencies  of  one  or  more  of  
the  following  essential  micronutrients:  iron,  zinc,  iodine,  vitamin  A,  folate  and  B12    
 
0.90   0.12   0.08   0.12   0.13   0.04   0.10   0.08   0.73   0.13   2.4  
 
2.4   4.7  million  more  women  of  reproductive  age  consuming  an  adequate  number  of   People  
food  groups    
1.96   0.35   0.13   0.13   0.13   0.07   0.34   0.02   1.07   0.53   4.7    
3.1  &   20%  reduction  in  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  10%  increase  in  water-­‐  and  nutrient-­‐use   Metric  tons  of    
3.2   efficiency  in  4.8  million  metric  tons  of  annual  farmed  fish  production   fish  per  annum  
 
1.65   0.34   0.15   0.20   0.04   0.05   0.30   0.00   1.56   0.47   4.8  
 
3.3   3.3  million  ha  of  ecosystems  restored  through  more  productive  and  equitable   Ha  of  restored  
management  of  SSF  resources  and  restoration  of  degraded  aquaculture  ponds     ecosystems    
 
1.07   0.47   0.37   0.11   0.01   0.26   0.11   0.25   0.55   0.13   3.3    
 
Table  1.  Fish  CRP  SLO  Targets    (reproduced  from  Section  1)  
 
The  Annex  is  divided  into  three  parts:  Part  1  outlines  the  relationships  between  Flagship  targets  and  SLO  targets;  Part  2  
describes  the  general  context,  assumptions  and  prior  experience  that  helped  guide  the  process  of  SLO  target  setting;  and  
Part  3  provides  illustrative  country  examples  for  each  of  the  SLO  targets.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 104
 
  
Part  1.  Relationship  between  flagship  and  SLO  targets  
 
The  FISH  CRP  aims  to  achieve  significant  contributions  to  each  of  the  three  SLOs  as  shown  in  the  blue  boxes  at  the  top  of  
Figure  1,  below.  These  SLO  targets  are  categorized  into  three  groups:  Poverty  and  livelihoods  (SLO  1),  food  security  and  
nutrition  (SLO  2),  and  environment  and  ecosystems  services  (SLO  3).      
 
The  CRP  flagships  each  have  different  primary  targets  (shown  in  the  boxes  with  black  outlines)  that  align  with  specific  
flagship  targets,  but  many  flagships  make  secondary  contributions  as  well  (shown  in  boxes  without  black  outlines).  For  
example,  FP2  (presented  in  light  blue)  focuses  primarily  on  achieving  the  targets  related  to  poverty  alleviation  and  
habitat  restoration,  but  by  enhancing  the  productivity  of  small  scale  fisheries,  it  would  also  be  expected  to  contribute  to  
secondary  targets  related  to  nutrition—specifically  those  enhancing  the  micronutrient  status  of  populations  and  dietary  
diversity  of  women,  which  are  primary  objectives  of  FP3.    
 
Figure  1  also  illustrates  the  relationships  between  flagship  specific  targets  and  each  of  the  SLO  targets  using  blue  
arrows.  A  distinction  is  made  between  those  targets  that  are  additive  (where  the  numbers  indicated  in  each  flagship  are  
mutually  exclusive  and  therefore  may  be  summed  to  reach  the  total  CRP  contribution  to  a  given  SLO  target)  versus  
those  that  are  contributory  (meaning  these  contribute  to  other  flagship  targets  and  are  not  counted  separately  in  
arriving  at  the  total  CRP  contribution  to  SLO  targets).    Data  collected  during  the  CRP  will  help  the  program  understand  
the  causal  relationships  in  outcomes  measured  by  indicators  related  to  these  targets—for  example,  how  strongly  
increased  fish  consumption  results  in  changes  measured  by  indicators  of  dietary  diversity.    
 
Several  general  rules/principles  were  used  to  allocate  the  attribution  of  targets  by  flagship  for  joint  work  to  avoid  
double  counting:  
 
1. Where  FP3  has  joint  research  activities  linked  to  either  FP1  or  2  (for  example,  nutrition  education  or  behavioral  
change  communication  planned  alongside  fish  production  or  polyculture  with  small  indigenous  fish  was  part  of  
production  systems  for  carp  or  tilapia),  the  numbers  for  SLO  targets  2.3  and  2.4  were  allocated  to  FP3  rather  than  
FP1  or  2,  because  these  targets  were  considered  to  be  primary  goals  of  nutrition  work.    
2. For  other  targets  resulting  from  joint  work  across  FP1  or  2  and  FP3,  numbers  were  allocated  towards  either  FP1  or  2.  
 
   

 105
 
 Poverty and Food Security and Environment and
Livelihoods Nutrition Ecosystem Services

4.9 million producer 2.4 million people, of which 50% 20% reduction in greenhouse
households adopted improved are women, without deficiencies gas emissions, 10% increase in
breeds, aquafeeds, fish health, of one or more of the following water- and nutrient-use
and aquaculture and fisheries essential micronutrients: iron, efficiency in 4.8 million metric
management practices (1.1) zinc, iodine, vitamin A, folate and tons of annual farmed fish
B12 (2.3) production (3.1 and 3.2) Fish
Contributions
to SLO
3.5 million people, of which at 4.7 million more women of 3.3 million ha of ecosystems
least 50% are women, assisted reproductive age consuming an restored through more
Targets
to exit poverty through adequate number of food productive and equitable
livelihood improvements related groups (2.4) management of SSF resources
to fisheries and aquaculture and restoration of degraded
value chains (1.2) aquaculture ponds (3.3)

1.2 million households have 1.4 million people, of which at

greater productivity of nutrient- least 700,000 are female, with
rich small fish from their own micronutrient deficiencies
ponds or rice field fisheries alleviated

1 million fishery-dependent 0.3 million people, of which

households have reduced 50% are women… as a result of
poverty as a result of adopting increased consumption of fish
improved fisheries management sourced from small-scale
fisheries
4.8 million metric tons of
0.2 million people, of which at annual farmed fish production
least 60% are women and 0.7 million people, of which with reduced environmental
youth, with improved livelihoods 50% are women… as a result of impact and increased resource-
as a result of nutrition-sensitive increased consumption of use efficiency (measured by
fish production, processing and farmed fish 20% reduction in greenhouse
trade activities gas emissions and 10%
increase in water and nutrient-
2.5 million farm households use efficiency)
have adopted disease detection 2.2 million women women of
and control strategies, cost- reproductive age consuming
effective and sustainable more food groups as a result of
aquafeeds, and/or improved increased fish consumption
aquaculture management
practices 1.8 million more women… as a
result of increased
aquaculture production 1.25 million ha of ecosystems
restored through more
{Subset of households 0.6 million more women… as a productive and equitable
adopting improved practices} result of improvements in management of aquaculture
small-scale fisheries ponds

1.5 million farm households Flagship

{Factors contributing to gains 2.1 million hectares ha of
have access to and are using
in micronutrient intake and aquatic and coastal marine
Targets
our selectively improved, faster dietary diversity}
growing and more resilient habitat restored and under more
strains of tilapia and carp seed productive and equitable
1 million low-income management
consumers consuming eating
greater amounts of high-quality
nutritious fish due to reductions
in waste and loss,
2.3 million poor men, women
and youth access improved improvements in food safety,
livelihood opportunities resulting and more efficient value chains
from increased aquaculture Legend
production and associated 30% increase in proportion of
value chains and enterprise mothers in target geographies FP1 FP2 FP3
development who report feeding fish to their
children in the past week Primary
Flagship
1.2 million people, of which
50% are women, assisted to Targets
exit poverty through livelihood Novel fish-based products
improvements designed to address nutrition Secondary
gaps reach at least 100,000 Flagship
lower-income women and child Targets
consumers
Additive Contributing
Targets Targets
4 countries adopt policy
measures or country investment
plans addressing nutrition-
sensitive technologies or
practices for fish production or
value chains, including reduced
waste and loss

 
Figure  1.    Relationships  between  flagship  and  SLO  targets  
 
   

 106
 
Part  2.  Review  of  the  context,  evidence  and  assumptions  used  to  generate  targets  
 
Globally,  aquaculture  is  the  fastest  growing  agricultural  sector  and  is  expected  to  remain  so  during  the  life  of  the  CRP  
(FAO  2016;  OECD/FAO  2016).  Strong  demand  for  fish  by  consumers  due  to  economic  development  and  demographic  
patterns  and  considerable  policy  priority  on  aquaculture  and  fisheries  by  national  governments  in  focus  countries  
provide  a  favorable  context  for  the  CRP  to  pursue  many  of  the  SLO  targets.    
 
Table  2  below  presents  key  data  on  fish  production  and  consumption  in  FISH  focal  countries,  providing  an  indication  of  
the  different  dynamics  of  the  settings  the  program  will  work  in,  which  influences  the  prioritization  of  activities  at  the  
country  level  as  well  as  the  targets.  The  table  shows  variation  by  country  in  the  amount  of  fish  produced,  the  reliance  on  
aquaculture  vs.  fisheries  for  production,  the  different  trajectories  of  each,  as  well  as  estimates  of  the  amount  of  in-­‐
country  consumption  of  fish.    
 
  (*)  Annual  fish   From   Aquaculture   Fisheries   (**)  Fish/seafood  
production   Aquaculture   growth   production   consumption  
(excluding  aquatic   (%)   (1994-­‐2014)   change   kg/capita/year  
plants  MT)-­‐2014   (%)   (1994-­‐2014)   (2011)  
(%)  
Bangladesh   3,548,115   55   11   4   19.68  
Cambodia   745,310   16   14   10   37.17  
Egypt   1,481,883   77   16   1   55.33  
Myanmar   5,045,426   19   14   9   22.13  
Nigeria   1,073,059   29   16   5   35.46  
Solomon  Islands   71,315   0   -­‐9   2   17.11  
Tanzania   346,295   1   17   1   n.a  
Zambia   100,107   19   8   1   6.64  
*Data  from  FishStat      **Data  from  FAOSTAT    
Table  2.  Production  and  consumption  patterns  and  trends  in  FISH  focal  countries  
 
Evidence  used  to  inform  the  estimation  of  targets  
The  targets  for  the  sustainable  aquaculture  FP1  in  each  country  are  informed  by  (i)  data  on  the  present  number  of  
households  engaged  in  aquaculture  production  and  working  in  value  chains;  (ii)  projections  for  growth  in  the  
aquaculture  sector  (World  Bank  2013,  Phillips  et  al.  2015);  and  (iii)  projections  and  assumptions  based  on  evidence  from  
WorldFish  and  its  partners  concerning  the  development  and  dissemination  of  aquaculture  technologies  in  selected  
countries.    
 
Livelihood  improvements  related  to  aquaculture  (SLO  1.2)  are  also  informed  by  aquaculture  labor  productivity  and  
related  employment  data  from  an  FAO/WorldFish  study  (Phillips  et  al.  2016),  research  that  provides  insights  into  
employment  in  production  and  value  chains  that  might  reasonably  be  expected  from  an  expanding  aquaculture  sector  
in  the  developing  world.    
 
An  overview  of  projected  fish  supply  and  demand  is  provided  in  Table  3  below  for  the  FISH  focal  countries.  For  most  of  
these  countries,  production  is  expected  to  grow  over  the  next  15  years  and  the  CRP  will  strive  to  steer  this  growth  
towards  sustainable  increases  approaching  the  upper  end  of  projections.  Tanzania,  Zambia,  and  Solomon  Islands  are  
countries  with  smaller  amounts  of  farmed  fish  production  at  present  and/or  slower  growth  rates.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 107
 
  
 Focal  country   Notes  on  aquaculture  projections  
Bangladesh   FAO  fish  supply-­‐demand  projections  indicate  an  aquaculture  sector  that  will  grow  from  1.9  to  
3.1  million  tons/year  between  2013  and  2030,  an  increase  over  2014  baselines  of  1.2  million  
tons/year.  
Myanmar   FAO  fish  supply–demand  projections  suggest  a  further  strong  growth  of  aquaculture  from  0.9  to  
2.1  million  tons/year,  or  an  increase  of  1.2  million  tons/year  
Cambodia   FAO  fish-­‐supply  suggest  an  aquaculture  supply  projected  to  grow  from  0.09  to  0.19  million  
tons/year.  WorldFish  modeling  suggests  that  the  upper  end  of  this  growth  projection  will  be  
needed  to  meet  demand  of  around  0.2  million  tons/year  by  2030  (WorldFish  2011).    
Nigeria   FAO  and  OECD  fish  supply-­‐demand  projections  project  aquaculture  supply  to  grow  from  0.3  to  
0.6  million  tons  per  year  by  2025  (OECD/FAO  2016)  and  0.8  million  tons/year  by  2030,  but  the  
country  is  still  projected  to  face  a  large  fish  deficit,  providing  significant  need/potential  for  
future  aquaculture  growth  should  the  enabling  environment  remain  positive  for  aquaculture  
growth.    
Tanzania   Tanzania  aquaculture  growth  has  been  stagnant,  less  than  5,000  tons/year  and  FAO  fish-­‐supply  
demand  projections  suggest  the  country  faces  increasing  deficits  by  2030,  of  the  order  of  0.35  
million  tons/year,  should  substantial  growth  in  aquaculture  and  fisheries  not  be  realized.    
Zambia    Zambian  aquaculture  is  projected  to  increase  from  20,000  to  35,000  tons/year  by  2030,  but  
without  stronger  growth  the  country  faces  a  fish  deficit  of  0.14  million  tons/year  by  2030  
Egypt   Egyptian  aquaculture  is  projected  to  continue  to  grow  from  1  million  tons  in  2013  to  1.3  million  
in  2025  (FAO/OECD),  though  FAO  fish  supply  projections  suggest  stronger  growth  to  2.7  million  
tons/year  in  2030  
Solomon  Islands   Solomon  Islands  faces  a  fish  deficit  of  greater  than  4,000  tons  in  2030,  with  WorldFish  
projections  suggesting  that  15,000t/year  of  aquaculture  supply  (Cleasby  et  al.  2013)  is  needed  
by  2030.    
Table  3.  Current  and  future  trends  in  aquaculture  production  for  FISH  focal  countries.  
 
The  following  subsections  describe  previous  experience  and  evidence  that  helped  inform  the  setting  of  SLO  targets,  
incorporating  direct  activities  in  focal  countries  and  scaling  estimates.  
 
Evidence  related  to  SLO  1.1.  Producer  households  adopting  improved  breeds,  aquafeeds,  fish  health,  and  aquaculture  
and  fisheries  management  practices  
 
• Impacts  from  improved  tilapia  strains:  A  rich  body  of  evidence  exists  documenting  the  evidence  of  impact  from  
widespread  dissemination  of  the  WorldFish  GIFT  Tilapia  (WorldFish  2015)  strain  in  Asia,  the  Abbassa  Tilapia  strain  in  
Egypt,  and  improved  Tilapia  strains  in  Ghana  and  Malawi.  These  experiences  have  shown  the  potential  for  improved  
fish  strains  to  contribute  significantly  to  national  aquaculture  production,  economic  development,  poverty  
reduction  and  to  be  rapidly  adopted  by  fish  farmers  due  to  their  improved  performance  and  profitability  over  most  
existing  strains.    
 
Key  references  documenting  the  high  coverage  of  disseminated  strains  include  ADB  (2005)  (Asian  Development  
Bank  2005)  which  “found  that  in  2003,  GIFT  and  GIFT-­‐derived  strains  accounted  for  68%  of  the  total  tilapia  seed  
produced  in  the  Philippines,  46%  in  Thailand,  and  an  estimated  17%  in  Viet  Nam.”    Preliminary  findings  from  a  
survey  conducted  in  2016  under  a  SPIA-­‐funded  research  project  in  Bangladesh  suggests  an  80%  penetration  of  the  
most  recent  improved  tilapia  strains.  In  Egypt,  a  recent  impact  assessment  of  the  Improving  Employment  and  
Income  through  Development  of  Egypt’s  Aquaculture  Sector  (IEIDEAS)  project  confirmed  strong  farmer  interest  in  
adoption  of  improved  tilapia  strains  (Dickson  et  al.  2016).    The  existing  networks  of  public  and  private  partners,  
including  fish  hatcheries  in  Bangladesh,  Egypt  and  elsewhere  provide  a  solid  foundation  for  dissemination  of  
improved  strains  developed  during  the  FISH  CRP.  Our  estimates  of  potential  for  impact  are  higher  in  those  countries  
with  established  tilapia  improvement  programs  (e.g.  Bangladesh)  than  those  where  such  programs  are  in  the  early  
stages  of  development  (e.g.  Nigeria,  Tanzania,  Zambia),  and  our  SLO  targets  reflect  this.  
 
• Improved  aquafeeds:  Drawing  on  a  fish  feed  sector  analysis  conducted  in  2013  and  feed  value  chain  research  in  
Egypt  (El-­‐Sayed  et  al.  2015),  L&F  worked  to  improve  access  of  fish  farmers  to  improved  fish  feed  formulations  and  
better  management  practices  for  fish  feeding  by  farmers  in  both  countries  (Dickson  et  al.  2016).  Our  L&F  research  in  
Bangladesh  involved  scaling  of  improved  feed  formulations  through  60  local  feed  mills  established  under  the  USAID  
 108
 
 AIN  project,  and  commercial  feed  milling  businesses,  who  received  training  in  fish  feed  formulation.  Improved  
feeding  practices  were  disseminated  to  farmers  via  commercial  feed  business,  feed  traders  and  their  agents,  a  
network  of  local  service  providers  as  well  as  USAID  project  staff  (Karim  et  al.  2016).  We  will  build  on  this  network  
and  experience  to  introduce  new  ingredients  and  disseminate  improved  practices  in  Bangladesh.  WorldFish  
established  new  feed  improvement  programs  in  Myanmar  through  the  LIFT  project  and  in  Egypt  an  agreement  was  
signed  with  a  major  international  feed  company,  Skretting,  establishing  shared  feeds  research  facilities.  We  will  
build  on  these  existing  partnerships  to  disseminate  improved  feed  ingredients  and  better  feed  management  
practices.  Our  collaboration  with  Skretting  in  Egypt,  which  was  established  new  fish  feed  factories  in  Nigeria  and  
Zambia,  will  provide  the  opportunity  for  scaling  through  private  sector  networks  in  Egypt  and  two  focal  countries  in  
sub-­‐Saharan  Africa.  
 
• Rice  field  fisheries:  WorldFish/ICLARM  pioneered  research  in  rice-­‐field  fisheries  improvements  (Halwart  and  Gupta  
2004;  Dey  et  al.  2005).  The  results  of  this  research  is  now  being  implemented  on  a  large  scale  in  Bangladesh  and  in  
Cambodia,  two  countries  combining  extensive  flooding  and  rice  fields,  in  which  substantial  capture  production  gains  
have  been  achieved.  The  combination  of  agriculture  and  fisheries,  in  particular  in  the  case  of  rice  field  management  
for  increased  fish  production,  has  been  largely  demonstrated  in  Southeast  Asia  (Gregory  1997,  Halwart  and  Gupta  
2004;  Dey  et  al.  2005)  
 
• Aquaculture  management  practices:  WorldFish  has  worked  in  a  number  of  countries  to  integrate  aquaculture  
research  findings  into  “best  practices”  for  aquaculture  management,  and  wide  dissemination  to  farming  
communities,  notably  in  Bangladesh  and  Egypt  (under  AAS  and  L&F)  and  Indonesia  (under  bilaterally  funded  
projects).  In  all  cases,  such  practices  have  delivered  social,  economic  and  environmental  outcomes,  suggesting  
significant  opportunities  for  integrated  packages  of  best  practices  to  address  many  of  the  efficiency  challenges  of  
developing  country  aquaculture.  Research  in  Egypt  has  also  shown  a  strongly  increased  profitability  from  farmer  
adoption  of  best  practice  packages  (Dickson  et  al.  2016),  providing  a  strong  incentive  for  uptake  by  farmers  of  
improved  practices  that  deliver  improved  productivity  and/or  profitability.  Such  experiences  provide  a  strong  
foundation  for  wider  scaling.  
 
• Fisheries  management  practices:  Capture  fisheries  in  inland  and  coastal  areas  will,  for  the  foreseeable  future,  
continue  to  supply  most  of  the  fish  consumed  in  the  developing  world  (World  Bank/FAO/WorldFish  2012).  Globally,  
capture  fisheries  that  are  assessed  and  actively  managed  show  clear  trajectories  towards  improved  sustainability  
outcomes;  a  recent  estimate  suggests  “commonsense”  adjustments  (balancing  fishing  effort  in  relation  to  stock  
productivity)  in  fisheries  management  could  yield  an  additional  16  million  tons  of  fish  annually  (Costello  et  al.  2016).  
Substantive  gains  can  be  made  rapidly  by  building  on  the  productivity  of  natural  systems;  however  the  challenges  in  
translating  these  wins  to  the  context  of  developing  countries  are  many  (Hall  et  al.  2013,  Hilborn  et  al.  2015).  
 
For  the  millions  of  people  depending  on  small-­‐scale  fisheries  for  food  and  income,  imagining  a  pathway  to  
sustainable  and  equitable  use  of  resources  requires  innovative  approaches  building  on  the  strengths  of  local  people  
and  institutions.  A  strong  and  growing  line  of  evidence  (e.g.  Guiterrez  et  al.  2011;  Cinner  et  al.  2013)  suggests  that  
new  forms  of  governance  fostered  through  participatory  diagnosis  and  adaptive,  collaborative  management  
processes  (Andrew  et  al.  2007)  provide  the  required  mechanisms  to  manage  fisheries  socio-­‐ecological  systems  for  
equitable  and  pro-­‐poor  outcomes.  Hybrid  governance  systems,  incorporating  customary  management  with  new  
thinking  on  co-­‐management  and  data-­‐poor  participatory  fisheries  assessment  (Cinner  and  Aswani  2007;  Cohen  and  
Steenbergen  2015)  provide  a  contextualized  approach  to  governance  reform.  WorldFish  case  studies  from  Solomon  
Islands  (Schwartz  et  al.  2011)  and  West  Africa  (Bene  et  al.  2011)  suggest  management  focused  on  resilience  
outcomes  at  the  household  and  community  level  can  provide  both  incentives  for  engagement  and  a  feasible  
mechanism  for  incorporating  diverse  drivers  of  resource  status  into  governance  systems.  Recent  case  studies  of  the  
promotion  of  fish  aggregating  devices  (Albert  et  al.  2014;  Bell  et  al.  2015)  provide  evidence  of  the  management  and  
climate  change  adaptation  benefits  of  well-­‐considered  technological  interventions,  which  are  now  being  scaled  out  
in  the  Pacific  region.  
 
Given  the  scale  and  importance  of  small-­‐scale  fisheries,  even  modest  improvements  in  the  geographic  reach  or  
efficacy  of  management  and  governance  will  have  very  large  impacts  for  yields.  For  example,  in  Myanmar,  there  are  
23  million  people  living  in  rural  areas,  and  approximately  half  are  considered  landless  poor.  Building  on  our  research  
in  other  geographies  and  the  clear  evidence  from  the  literature,  FISH  will  impact  through  direct  engagement  with  
approximately  1%  of  the  landless  and  boat-­‐less  poor  and  a  further  1%  targeted  through  our  partners  and  scaling  
networks  to  reach  a  target  of  0.24  million  people  exiting  poverty  through  livelihood  improvements  by  2020.  Fish  has  

 109
 
 established  the  networks  of  national  agencies,  development  NGOs  and  research  partners  to  reach  this  proportion  of  
people  and  fisheries  in  the  delta.  
 
Evidence  related  to  SLO  1.2:  Number  of  people,  of  which  at  least  50%  are  women,  assisted  to  exit  poverty  through  
livelihood  improvements  related  to  fisheries  and  aquaculture  value  chains  
 
• Fisheries  value  chains.  Globally,  more  than  220  million  people  participate  in  seafood  harvesting  and  value-­‐chains  
(FAO  2013)—85  percent  of  them  in  the  Asia-­‐Pacific  region  (FAO  2014).  In  developing  countries,  small-­‐scale  fisheries  
postharvest  activities  employ  at  least  82  million  full-­‐time  and  part-­‐time  workers;  about  twice  as  many  as  are  directly  
engaged  in  fishing  (Mills  et  al.  2011).  While  data  are  sparse,  in  FP2  focus  countries  there  are  some  1M  people  in  
Cambodia,  and  1.6  million  people  in  Bangladesh  engaged  in  SSF  postharvest  livelihoods  (World  Bank  2012).  These  
numbers  indicate  the  scope  of  impact  through  value-­‐chain  upgrading  connected  to  improved  productivity  that  
comes  from  better  resource  management.  Therein  lies  also  a  challenge:  contemporary  markets  effective  in  
communication  and  infrastructure  connect  distant  sources  of  supply  with  metropolitan  areas  of  demand  (e.g.  
Eriksson  et  al.  2015).  Modern  seafood  sourcing  networks  are  seen  in  juxtaposition  as  both  a  threat  to  local  
ecosystems  (e.g.  Cinner  et  al.  2016)  and  an  opportunity  for  rural  development.  
 
•  Aquaculture  value  chains.  Analysis  of  poverty  impacts  from  aquaculture  growth  in  Bangladesh  (Belton  et  al.  2014;  
Pant  et  al.  2013;  Toufique  and  Belton  2014)  have  shown  the  pro-­‐poor  benefits  associated  with  aquaculture  growth,  
in  terms  of  on-­‐farm  employment,  new  jobs  in  value  chains  and  services,  and  increased  contribution  to  fish  
consumption.  Research  on  employment  generation  through  aquaculture  (Phillips  et  al.  2016,  in  press)  in  nine  
countries,  including  Bangladesh,  Egypt  and  Zambia  provided  estimates  show  an  average  of  1.03  tons  of  fish  
produced  per  person  (full-­‐  and  part-­‐time  workers,  ranging  from  2.98  tons  in  Egypt  to  0.34  in  Bangladesh  and  0.20  in  
Zambia).  These  figures  allow  us  to  estimate  employment  potential  of  a  growing  aquaculture  sector.  For  example,  in  
Bangladesh  an  increased  fish  production  of  1.2  million  tons  may  translates  into  employment  opportunities  for  3.5  
million  people.  Using  a  reasonable  average  of  1.03  tons  per  person,  a  CRP  research  contribution  of  4.8  million  
tons/year  across  Africa  and  Asia  would  generate  new  employment  for  more  than  4.7  million  people,  reaching  four  
to  five  times  more  if  family  members  are  included.  FAO/WorldFish  case  studies  also  show  that  of  the  people  
employed  in  aquaculture  value  chains,  40%–80%  are  women,  indicative  of  the  scope  for  positive  gender  outcomes  
and  the  CRP  target  of  >50%  of  women  assisted  to  exit  poverty.    
 
Evidence  and  assumptions  related  to  SLO  2.3:  Reduced  micronutrient  deficiencies  
 
Fish  is  an  important  dietary  source  of  micronutrients.  A  recently  published  paper  in  Nature  projected  that  845  million  
people,   or   11%   of   the   global   population,   are   at   risk   of   deficiencies   of   zinc,   iron   or   vitamin   A   due   to   declines   in   fish  
consumption,  if  current  trends  in  the  decline  of  fisheries  continue  (Golden  et  al.  2016).    Improving  the  management  of  
small-­‐scale   fisheries   and   expanding   innovative   approaches   to   increase   the   production   and   consumption   of  
micronutrient  rich  fish  species  by  at-­‐risk  populations  is  therefore  an  important  intervention,  and  one  that  is  of  growing  
interest  to  policymakers  in  low  and  middle  income  countries.      
 
WorldFish  has  been  pioneering  the  concept  of  nutrition-­‐sensitive  aquaculture  and  fisheries  (Thilsted  2016).  Research  in  
collaboration  with  the  University  of  Copenhagen  was  among  the  first  to  demonstrate  that  nutrient-­‐rich  fish  can  be  
cultivated  in  polyculture  with  carp  without  adversely  affecting  productivity  of  carp  (Roos  2007)  and  WorldFish  
implemented  this  approach  and  pond-­‐dyke  gardening  as  part  of  the  Aquaculture  for  Income  and  Nutrition  Project  in  
Bangladesh.    
 
The  nutritional  profile  of  fish  is  very  diverse,  and  micronutrient  content,  in  particular,  is  influenced  by  factors  such  as  
species,  the  edible  portion  consumed  (bones,  head  and  viscera  are  particularly  rich  in  micronutrients),  the  nutritional  
content   of   feeds   and   the   environment   in   which   the   fish   was   raised   (Bogard   et   al.   2015;   Thilsted   et   al.   2016).   Knowledge  
about  the  micronutrient  content  of  different  fish  species  expanded  rapidly  over  the  past  few  years  due  to  research  by  
WorldFish   in   Bangladesh,   work   that   provides   a   platform   for   new   advances   in   fisheries   and   aquaculture   to   promote  
nutrient-­‐rich  fish  (Bogard  et  al.  2015).  Aside  from  the  micronutrient  content  of  the  fish  itself,  there  are  indirect  ways  fish  
can  influence  the  micronutrient  status  of  consumers,  including  a  component  called  the  ‘meat  factor,’  which  enhances  
the   absorption   of   micronutrients   from   other   parts   of   the   diet   and   the   fact   that   when   cooked,   fish   is   a   catalyst   for  
consumption  of  vegetables  and  other  foods  that  might  not  otherwise  not  be  consumed  as  part  of  a  meal.    
 
While   all   of   the   above   present   plausible   evidence   of   the   ways   fish   can   influence   micronutrient   status,   relatively   few  
studies   have   been   done   to   explore   the   efficacy   of   fish   consumption   on   the   micronutrient   status   of   humans.   (Most  
 110
 
nutritional   work   has   focused   on   fish   consumption   or   fish   oil   consumption   on   long   chain   omega-­‐3   fatty   acids.)   A   recently  
published   study   involving   researchers   from   WorldFish   and   the   University   of   Copenhagen   provides   evidence   that  
consumption  of  mola  by  vitamin  A  deficient  children  in  Bangladesh  does  improve  the  iron  status  of  children  (Andersen  
et  al.  2016).  We  plan  to  undertake  more  studies  as  part  of  the  fish  CRP,  which  will  provide  valuable  evidence  to  help  
guide  policies  about  the  specific  species  and  approaches  that  can  help  achieve  this  SLO.  
 
We  have  therefore  based  the  estimates  of  impact  of  CRP  research  on  micronutrient  deficiencies  in  Table  1  largely  on  
considerations  related  to  (1)  the  micronutrient  content  of  specific  fish  species  produced,   with  nutrient-­‐rich  species  or  
production   models   involving   enhanced   micronutrient   feeds   having   a   greater   assumed   efficacy;   (2)   the   integration   of  
activities   providing   nutrition   education   or   behavioral   change   communication   models;   and   (3)   the   likely   prevalence   of  
micronutrient  deficiencies  in  each  country  (noting  little  available  information  for  most  nutrient  deficiencies  but  taking  
into  account  the  likelihood  of  clustering  of  deficiencies,  and  using  estimates  of  iron  deficiency  anemia,  zinc  deficiency,  
sub  clinical  vitamin  A  deficiency  and  other  factors  as  proxies.)  
 
 

 
 
Figure  2.  Pathways  to  greater  dietary  diversity  through  FISH  CRP  research  activities  
 
The   target   setting   accounts   for   four   distinct   pathways   to   increased   dietary   diversity,   as   illustrated   in   Figure   2.   For  
households   not   involved   in   fish   production,   greater   year-­‐round   availability   of   fish   in   markets   (through   greater  
production  and  value  chain  improvements  such  as  preservation)  leads  to  greater  opportunity  to  diversify  diets  (green  
pathway).   Additionally,   these   same   improvements   may   result   in   lower   fish   prices,   increasing   access   by   poor   groups   and  
also  resulting  in  greater  dietary  diversity  (orange  pathway).  Improved  dietary  diversity  will  also  be  accelerated  through  
behavior  change  communication  and  nutrition  education  interventions  that  accompany  the  work  of  FP3.    
 
The   relative   importance   of   each   of   these   pathways   is   uncertain   and   will   be   studied   as   part   of   the   CRP   research.  
Generally,  we  assume  that  the  impact  of  greater  fish  availability  (orange  arrow)  will  be  greater  for  poor  non-­‐producing  
households  who  buy  fish  than  the  direct  effect  on  producing  households  themselves  (shown  in  blue).  This  assumption  is  
supported  by  M&E  findings  from  the  Aquaculture  for  Income  and  Nutrition  project  in  Bangladesh,  which  showed  little  
change   in   the   average   amount   of   fish   consumed   by   pond-­‐owning   households   over   the   duration   of   several   years   of  
project   implementation   despite   greater   productivity   and   income   (unpublished   monitoring   data).   While   work   by  
WorldFish   suggests   aquaculture   in   Bangladesh   is   generally   pro-­‐poor,   evidenced   by   proportionately   high   consumption   of  
farmed   fish   species   by   poor   households   (Toufique   2014),   research   is   needed   to   generate   a   better   quantitative  
understanding  of  each  of  the  pathways  in  the  settings  the  CRP  will  work  in  and  may  involve  exploration  of  issues  such  as  
(1)  how  much  distance  does  fish  travel  once  it  is  produced;  (2)  who  consumes  the  fish  (identifying  differences  among  
socioeconomic   groups   and   within   the   household);   (3)   the   effects   of   increased   fish   production   on   prices,   including  
seasonal  availability  of  fish;  and  (4)  how  value  chain  interventions  affect  availability  and  consumption  of  fish  by  different  
populations.    
 
Additionally,   estimating   the   impact   on   dietary   diversity   is   challenged   by   the   fact   that   the   main   indicator   of   women’s  
dietary  diversity,  the  Minimum  Dietary  Diversity  for  Women  indicator,  was  only  developed  last  year,  and  little  data  exist  
to  be  able  to  estimate  baseline  prevalence  of  the  indicator,  or  to  estimate  the  degree  to  which  changes  in  the  frequency  
or  amount  of  fish  consumed  result  in  shifts  to  the  indicator.  Guiding  principles  that  we  used  in  estimating  CRP  impacts  
on  dietary  diversity  were  as  follows:  

 111
 
  
a) Animal  source  foods  are  generally  the  most  likely  to  not  be  consumed  by  poor  populations,  and  that  fish  can  
therefore  have  strong  leverage  in  moving  dietary  diversity  indicators.  
b) The  effect  of  aquaculture  and  small-­‐scale  fisheries  on  dietary  diversity  would  be  greater  if  combined  with  
specific  behavior  change  communication  and  nutrition  education  interventions  occurring  in  the  same  areas—
particularly  in  contexts  where  women,  infants  and  young  children  have  lower  rates  of  fish  consumption  than  
men,  and  where  women  are  involved  directly  in  production  and  harvesting.      
c) That  integrated  aquaculture-­‐agriculture  programs  (for  example  aquaculture  interventions  that  incorporate  
cropping  on  pond  dykes)  and  food  processing  interventions  (such  as  development  of  fish-­‐based  products  that  
incorporate  orange-­‐flesh  sweet  potatoes  along  with  fish)  also  have  stronger  potential  to  increase  dietary  
diversity  outcomes.    
 
Research  conducted  over  the  course  of  the  CRP  will  test  these  assumptions.  
 
As   noted   above,   no   data   exist   on   the   prevalence   of   women   meeting   minimum   dietary   diversity   using   the   Minimum  
Dietary   Diversity   for   Women   indicator.   We   intend   to   collect   baseline   and   follow-­‐up   data   as   part   of   the   CRP.   For  
estimation  of  the  denominator,  to  arrive  at  an  estimate  of  the  percentage  of  the  target  population  benefiting,  we  used  
the  total  number  of  people  in  each  country  assumed  to  be  living  in  aquatic  agricultural  settings,  as  estimated  by  Bene  
and  Teoh  (unpublished).  
 
Evidence  related  to  SLO  3.1:  Greenhouse  gas  emissions,  water  and  nutrient  use  efficiency  
 
Our   assessments   of   environmental   improvements   in   aquaculture   are   based   on   lifecycle   assessments   of   the   global  
aquaculture   sector   (Hall   et   al.   2011),   which   have   been   followed   by   country   specific   analyses   of   environmental  
performance  of  tilapia  farming  in  Egypt  (Henriksson  et  al.  in  press),  Indonesia  (Phillips  et  al.  2016)  and  14  aquaculture  
system  types  in  Bangladesh.  The  evidence  from  this  research  indicates  that  adoption  of  aquaculture  management  can  
deliver   substantial   reductions   in   greenhouse   gas   emissions   and   improvements   in   water   and   nutrient   use   efficiencies.  
Adoption   of   integrated   packages   of   best   management,   including   improved   tilapia   strains   and   feed   management  
practices  in  Egypt,  using  global  warming  potential  (CO2  eq),  freshwater  consumption  (m3)  and  eutrophication  (as  PO4-­‐
eq.)   show   improvements   over   control   farms   of   reduction   in   22%–23%   in   global   warming   potential,   32%–35%   of  
eutrophication   and   18%–22%   of   improved   water   use   per   unit   farmed   tilapia   production.   Furthermore,   impact  
assessments   (Dickson   et   al.   2016)   show   that   adoption   of   these   improvements   lead   to   increased   farm   profitability,  
providing   a   powerful   incentive   for   adoption.   The   SLO   targets   used   by   the   CRP—20%   improvements   in   GHG   and   10%   for  
nutrient  and  water  use  efficiencies—are  therefore  considered  achievable  based  on  these  experiences.    
 
Evidence   related   to   SLO   3.3:   Ecosystems   restored   through   more   productive   and   equitable   management   of   SSF  
resources  and  restoration  of  degraded  aquaculture  ponds  
 
• Ecosystem  restoration  through  small-­‐scale  fisheries  governance.  Small-­‐scale  fisheries  operate  over  large  areas  of  
coral  reef,  lagoons,  rivers,  lakes  and  so  forth.    As  the  CRP  works  to  improve  governance  through  management  plans  
co-­‐developed  with  national  agencies,  communities  and  other  development  actors,  the  geographic  reach  of  impacts  
will  be  large.  In  setting  targets  for  impact  on  ecosystems  as  a  result  of  improved  fisheries  governance,  we  have  
made  conservative  assumptions  based  on  estimates  of  the  total  ecosystems  in  need  of  restoration  or  better  
management,  as  well  as  our  ability  to  impact  those  ecosystems.  For  example,  in  Myanmar,  we  assume  CRP  
research  will  contribute  to  restoring  1%  of  Myanmar’s  inland  freshwater  in  the  Ayeyarwady  River  catchment  area,  
or  0.38  million  ha  of  ecosystems.    
 
• Ecosystem  restoration  through  aquaculture  improvement  in  coastal  zones.  Our  assumptions  about  the  impact  our  
aquaculture  work  can  have  on  ecosystems  draws  on  prior  work  done  in  Bangladesh  as  part  of  the  Aquaculture  for  
Income  and  Nutrition  project,  which  involved  rehabilitation  of  fresh  and  brackish  water  ghers  (enclosed  low-­‐lying  
fields  used  to  raise  fish,  prawns  and  shrimps),  which  are  particularly  important  in  regions  vulnerable  to  climate  
change  (Nahiduzzaman  et  al.  2015).    
 
• Ecosystem  restoration  through  improvement  of  SSF  and  aquaculture  in  floodplain  and  irrigated  systems.  
Aquaculture  occurs  within  a  diverse  range  of  aquatic-­‐agricultural  landscapes  in  focal  and  scaling  countries,  
commonly  including  rice  fields,  crop  land,  wetlands  and  low-­‐lying  deltaic  land  and  floodplains.  Our  assumptions  for  
restoration  are  informed  by  AAS  research  on  ecosystem  services  and  sustainable  intensification  of  aquatic  systems  
(Attwood  et  al.  2016),  seeking  to  introduce  and  scale  improvements  in  aquatic  system  productivity  and  ecosystem  
 112
 
 services  of  aquatic-­‐agricultural  systems  at  landscape  level.  Research  in  Bangladesh  during  AAS  has,  for  example,  
documented  improvements  in  rice  field  system  productivity  and  ecosystem  services  through  introduction  of  fish  
culture  (Islam  et  al.  2015),  diversification  of  low-­‐lying  ghers  (Faruque  et  al.  2016),  introduction  of  fish  stocking  into  
enclosed  water  bodies,  so-­‐called  beels  (Victor  and  Pukinsis  2014)  and  homestead  pond  culture  (Humphreys  et  al.  
2015),  all  of  which  have  significant  potential  for  scaling  (Dey  et  al.  2013;  Nahiduzzaman  et  al.  2015).  Rice  field  
systems,  covering  10  million  ha  in  Bangladesh  alone,  will  be  a  particular  target.  Examples  of  improvements  in  such  
systems  will  involve  improving  productivity  and  ecosystem  services  through  introduction  of  improved  fish  seed  and  
management  practices,  waste  recycling  and  habitat  modifications,  all  of  which  have  potential  for  ecosystem  
improvements  through  reduction  in  pesticide  use,  more  efficient  nutrient  use  and  improved  habitats  for  wild  fish  
and  associated  fauna  (Hu  et  al.  2016;  Saiful  Islam  et  al.  2015;  Dey  et  al.  2013).  Improvements  in  productivity  of  
floodplains  and  associated  ecosystem  services  will  involve  further  development  of  models  and  scaling  of  recent  
advances  in  management  of  such  ecosystems  through  stocking  of  indigenous  carps,  nutritious  fish  such  as  mola  and  
fish  refuges  (Victor  and  Pukinsis  2014).  
 

Part  3.  Illustrative  country  examples  for  SLO  target  setting  

 
This  section  provides  country-­‐level  examples  to  illustrate  the  considerations  and  process  used  to  estimate  the  SLO  
target  contributions  shown  in  Table  1.      
 

SLO  1.1  Adoption  of  improved  breeds,  aquafeeds,  fish  health,  and  aquaculture  and  fisheries  management:  Example  
from  Bangladesh  
 
WorldFish   has   a   long   history   of   research,   training   and   interventions   throughout   Bangladesh,   reaching   and   positively  
influencing   large   numbers   of   rural   communities.   There   are   at   least   5   million   households   involved   with   aquaculture   and  
associated  value  chains  in  Bangladesh  (Belton  et  al.  2012),  of  which  an  estimated  4-­‐million  plus  households  have  access  to  
homestead   ponds   for   fish   farming.   We   assume   that   aquaculture   will   continue   to   grow   in   response   to   growing   market  
demand  and  that  30%  of  the  estimated  5  million  households  will  be  reached  directly  and  indirectly  through  adoption  of  
improved   tilapia   and   carp   seed,   improved   feed,   health   and/or   management   packages/practices   supported   by   FP1  
activities—primarily  through  partners  and  private  sector  scaling  pathways.  A  number  of  recent  experiences  inform  this  SLO  
target.  
 
• The  USAID-­‐funded  AIN  and  CSISA  projects  implemented  by  WorldFish  over  the  past  five  years  reached  over  0.5  
million  farm  households  with  improved  fish  breeds,  feeding  practices  and  aquaculture  technology  and  
management  training.  Building  on  these  large-­‐scale  projects,  we  expect  to  target  0.5  million  directly  through  
WorldFish-­‐related  projects  and  1.0  million  indirectly  through  wider  public  and  private  sector  networks.  
• We  already  have  extensive  collaborations  with  hatcheries  in  Bangladesh.  In  fact,  recent  Worldfish  research  
suggests  80%  of  the  more  than  250  hatcheries  throughout  the  country  are  already  disseminating  GIFT  tilapia.  This  
provides  a  strong  foundation  for  further  technology  dissemination  with  improved  fish  seed  through  the  private  
sector.  
• WorldFish  is  presently  managing,  with  partners,  the  only  source  of  improved  rohu  carp  strains  within  the  country.  
This  provides  a  key  entry  point  for  strong  uptake  by  farmers,  which  we  anticipate  will  be  scaled  up  during  the  latter  
part  of  the  FISH  CRP.  
 
Our   planned   work   to   enhance   small-­‐scale   fisheries   management   will   draw   on   both   ongoing   and   planned   research  
projects,  many  of  which  have  large  numbers  of  beneficiaries  and  potential  for  scaling:  
 
• The  USAID-­‐sponsored  ECOFISH  project  involves  20,000  households  involved  in  fishing  and/or  SSF  value  chains,  
primarily  for  hilsa  and  other  riverine  and  brackish  water  species  of  fish.  
• EU  and  DFID-­‐supported  Suchana  project  reaching  0.25  million  households,  of  which  around  10%  will  be  involved  
with  SSF.  
• An  IFAD  supported  project  (HILIP)  under  implementation  in  northeastern  districts  of  Bangladesh  reaching  25,000  
households  of  fishers  and  fish  value  chain  actors.  
• The  USAID-­‐supported  CREL  project  benefiting  20,000  households  as  members  of  community-­‐based  organizations  
addressing  sustainable  management  of  wetland  resources.    
• The  Ecopond  project  supported  by  the  BLUE  GOLD  Program  and  CRS,  benefitng    10,000  households  through  
ecological  management  of  small  homestead  ponds.    

 113
 
  
 
 
This  will  be  augmented  by  additional  bilaterally  funded  projects.  Projects  in  the  pipeline  for  Bangladesh  include:  
   
• an  EU  funded  project  on  beels  covering  150,000  households  to  benefit  through  their  involvement  in  improved  
management  of  SSF  based  in  400-­‐500  waterbodies  using  a  community  based  approach;  
• Improving  Food  Security  and  Livelihood  (IFSL)  implemented  by  WorldFish  and  Concern  Universal  Bangladesh  and  
funded  by  DFID  in  six  Upazillas  of  the  southwest  regions  (42,376  households  will  be  supported  on  agriculture,  
fisheries  and  livestock  production);  of  these,  an  estimated  30%–40%  (around  15000)  are  households  involved  in  
fish  production;  
• the  Aquaculture  for  Income  and  Nutrition  project  has  directly  supported  559,940  households  (including  122,614  
women);  directly  provided  training  to  129,848  households  (71,356  women  households  are  trained)  and  provided  
quality  seeds  to  430,092  households.  An  application  for  a  new  five-­‐year  project  of  similar  scope  is  under  review  by  
USAID.  
 

SLO  1.2  People  assisted  to  exit  poverty  through  livelihood  improvements  related  to  fisheries  and  aquaculture  value  
chains:  Example  from  Myanmar    
 
Aquaculture  is  relatively  new  in  Myanmar  but  already  represents  one  of  the  most  rapidly  growing  sectors  in  the  country  
(Belton  2015).  There  is  little  evidence  available,  however,  to  estimate  the  number  of  fish  farmers  in  Myanmar.  New  
research  (Belton  et  al.  2015)  suggests  there  are  0.2  million  small  backyard  ponds  in  the  Ayerawaddy  Delta  alone.  An  
older  estimate  from  2003  suggests  an  estimated  3.4  million  rural  farm  households  in  Myanmar  in  2003  (IRRI,  2015).  We  
assume  that  if  50%  of  the  small  backyard  ponds  could  be  utilized  and  5%  of  rural  households  could  adopt  aquaculture,  
this  would  lead  to  around  ~  0.3  million  households  benefiting  from  access  to  improved  seed/feed/management  
practices  with  follow-­‐up  benefits  for  both  household  members  and  those  working  in  value  chains.  We  feel  that  high  
adoption  of  aquaculture  is  likely,  given  that  it  generates  average  profits  five  to  10  times  higher  than  rice  and  other  
agricultural  crops  and  more  than  twice  as  much  employment  per  acre  as  paddy  farming.  Diversification  of  rice  farming  
systems,  as  in  other  neighboring  countries,  represents  a  major  development  opportunity  (Myanmar  Fisheries  
Partnership  2016).      
 
We  have  estimated  that  0.16  million  people  involved  in  fish  production  will  be  assisted  to  exit  poverty  via  livelihood  
improvements  through  FP1  activities.  We  feel  this  is  a  conservative  estimate  as  a  projected  growth  in  production  of  1.9  
million  tons  by  2030  would  create  in  excess  of  1.9  million  jobs  that  could  be  generated  based  on  average  aquaculture  labor  
productivity  figures  (FAO/WorldFish  2016).  Our  work  will  draw  on  recent  experiences  from  Bangladesh  and  will  be  initially  
funded  under  new  project  funding  from  LIFT  and  pipeline  projects  with  GIZ/EC  that  have  strong  public  and  private  sector  
networks,  civil  society  and  donor  partnerships  established  by  WorldFish  in  the  previous  five  years  of  research  within  the  
country.      
 
There  are  23  million  people  living  in  rural  Myanmar,  and  approximately  half  are  considered  landless  poor.  Work  under  
FP2   will   involve   direct   engagement   with   approximately   1%   of   the   landless   and   boat-­‐less   poor   and   a   further   1%   targeted  
through   our   partners   and   scaling   networks   to   reach   a   target   of   0.24   million   people   that   will   exit   poverty   through  
livelihood  improvements  by  2020.  
 

SLO  2.3  and  SLO  2.4  Reduction  in  number  of  people  with  micronutrient  deficiencies  and  improved  dietary  diversity  
among  women  of  reproductive  age:  Example  from  Bangladesh  
 
We   anticipate   that   these   two   interrelated   targets   are   achievable   through   the   multiple   pathways   outlined   in   Figure   2,  
with  contributions  towards  improving  dietary  diversity  and  micronutrient  status  coming  from  all  three  flagships.  Work  in  
Bangladesh  will  build  on  current  and  recent  activities  involving  polyculture  with  small  indigenous  fish,  improvements  in  
small   dried   fish   value   chains,   and   nutrition   education/communications   work   occurring   alongside   fish   production  
activities.  Current  and  future  activities  are  as  follows:  
 
• WorldFish  is  a  partner  in  the  consortium  implementing  the  project  “SUCHANA:  Ending  the  cycle  of  malnutrition  in  
north-­‐east  Bangladesh,”  a  four-­‐year  project  that  commenced  in  2016.  The  project  targets  0.2  million  poor  
households.  WorldFish  will  work  with  50%  of  these  households  to  promote  homestead  pond  aquaculture,  

 114
 
 community-­‐based  wetlands  management,  fish  drying  and  vegetable  production:  125,000  households  (average  
household  size  of  five  people,  one  woman  of  reproductive  age  per  household),  625,000  people,  including  125,000  
women  of  reproductive  age  will  benefit  directly  from  these  interventions.  We  assume  30%  of  people  will  move  to  
sufficiency  in  one  or  more  micronutrients  and  all  women  of  reproductive  age  will  have  a  greater  fish  intake  and  
dietary  diversity,  with  additional  effects  on  these  indicators  resulting  from  greater  fish  availability  and  from  the  
adoption  of  technologies  and  approaches  in  non-­‐project  households.  Further  scaling  is  likely,  given  the  partners  in  
this  project  include  the  Government  of  Bangladesh,  Save  the  Children,  Helen  Keller  International  (HKI)  and  local  
NGOs.  
 
• Production  of  nutrient-­‐rich  fish  in  homestead  pond  polyculture.  It  has  been  estimated  that  there  are  3.86  million  
small  pond-­‐owning  households  in  Bangladesh.  As  a  result  of  our  efforts  and  the  current  national  policy  momentum  
related  to  nutrition-­‐sensitive  pond  polyculture,  we  expect  that  a  national  program  will  be  commenced.  Many  of  the  
assumptions  outlining  the  potential  impact  of  such  a  program  are  outlined  in  the  recent  publication  from  WorldFish  
and  IFPRI  (Fiedler  et  al.  2016).  Assuming  one-­‐third  of  households  (3.86  million  x  0.33)  adopt  this  technology  over  a  
period  of  11  years  (Fiedler  et  al.  2016),  around  1.27  million  households  will  have  greater  access  to  fish  from  their  
own  production.  Taking  into  consideration  it  will  take  some  time  for  FISH  to  begin  its  activities  and  have  an  impact,  
we  assume  that  20%  of  these  households,  230,000  households  in  total,  will  practice  this  technology  by  2022.  Using  
the  same  assumptions  as  above  (household  size  of  five  and  30%  of  people  becoming  sufficient  in  one  or  more  
micronutrients)  we  anticipate  improving  the  micronutrient  status  of  345,000  people  and  the  dietary  diversity  of  
230,000  more  women  of  reproductive  age.  Given  that  these  numbers  do  not  factor  in  the  consumption  of  mola  by  
non-­‐producing  households,  the  total  impact  is  expected  to  be  even  greater.        
 
• Wetland  fisheries.  WorldFish  is  partnering  in  projects  implemented  by  GoB,  LGED  (Local  Government  Engineering  
Department)  and  funded  by  IFAD  and  JICA  in  northeast  Bangladesh  to  promote  community-­‐based  fisheries  
management  in  wetlands.  (All  references  already  cited  in  proposal.)  The  number  of  households  to  be  reached  with  
nutrition-­‐sensitive  interventions—enhanced  stocking  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish,  nutrition  education  for  increased  
fish  consumption  and  fish  drying—is  assumed  to  be  10,000  households  (each  household  with  five  persons  and  one  
woman  of  reproductive  age),  with  50%  of  people  reaching  sufficiency  in  one  or  more  micronutrients.  The  drying  of  
nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  will  be  supported  by  the  research  activities  under  Cluster  2  in  FP3:  Reducing  waste  and  loss  
in  fish  value  chains.  We  anticipate  this  activity  will  result  in  25,000  people  becoming  sufficient  in  one  or  more  
micronutrients  and  that  dietary  diversity  will  improve  in  10,000  women  of  reproductive  age.    
 
• Development  and  use  of  fish-­‐based  products  in  the  first  1000  days  of  life:  WorldFish  will  be  working  with  partners  to  
reach  women  and  children  with  fish-­‐based  products  in  the  first  1000  days  of  life  (Bogard  et  al.  2015b).  This  research  
activity  has  just  started,  and  it  will  take  some  time  to  reach  large  numbers.  We  assume  that  through  2022,  100,000  
women  will  be  reached  with  fish-­‐based  products,  with  50%  reaching  sufficiency  in  one  or  more  micronutrients,  and  
an  additional  12,000  infants  and  young  children  reached  with  fish-­‐based  products,  with  75%  reaching  sufficiency  in  
one  or  more  micronutrients,  resulting  in  59,000  people  impacted  under  SLO  2.3  and  100,000  women  of  
reproductive  age  under  SLO  2.4.  Partners  will  include  the  World  Bank  (funding  project  activities  related  to  
development,  social  marketing,  open  sale),  USAID  through  Food  for  Peace,  Development  Food  Aid  Program  (DFAP,  
funding  trials  of  fish-­‐based  products  by  HKI,  World  Vision  and  CARE),  private  sector  partners  Mark  Foods  and  SKK  
(production  of  fish-­‐based  products),  and  BRAC  (social  marketing  and  sales).  
 
SLO  3.1  and  3.2  reduction  in  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  10%  increase  in  water-­‐  and  nutrient-­‐use  efficiency:  Example  
from  Egypt  
 
There  is  evidence  that  improved  management  practices  can  deliver  substantial  reductions  in  greenhouse  gas  emissions  
and  improvements  in  water  and  nutrient  use  efficiencies.  The  calculations  used  for  GHG  emission,  water  and  nutrient  
use  efficiency  throughout  our  targeting  are  based  on  recent  lifecycle  assessments  of  on-­‐farm  improvements  associated  
with   adoption   of   improved   tilapia   and   management   practices   improved   in   the   tilapia   value   chain   in   Egypt,   as   well   as  
ongoing  studies  in  Bangladesh,  conducted  during  L&F.  This  research  used  global  warming  potential  (CO2  eq),  freshwater  
consumption  (m3)  and  eutrophication  (as  PO4-­‐eq.).  Research  shows  that  on-­‐farm  improvements  of  22%–23%  in  global  
warming  potential,  32%–35%  of  eutrophication  and  18%–22%  of  improved  water  use  per  unit  production.  Furthermore,  
impact   assessments   (Dickson   et   al.   2016)   show   that   adoption   of   these   improvements   leads   to   increased   farm  
profitability,   providing   a   powerful   incentive   for   adoption.   The   improvement   targets   are   therefore   achievable   through  
on-­‐farm  improvements,  with  strong  profit  incentive  for  adoption  by  farmers.    
 

 115
 
SLO  3.3  Ecosystems  restored:  Example  from  Solomon  Islands  
 
There   are   ca.   9991   sq   km   of   shallow   (<30   m   deep)   coastal   habitat   in   Solomon   Islands   and   approximately   77,000  
households   in   the   rural   part   of   the   country.   The   SLO   contribution   target   is   set   on   the   assumption   that   the   CRP   will   directly  
engage  about  5%  of  these  households  and  a  further  20%  through  our  partners  and  scaling  networks  to  reach  a  target  of  
20,000   households   by   2020.   Through   this   community   engagement   in   management   of   coastal   ecosystems,   we   estimate  
being  able  to  impact  about  25%  of  the  coastal  habitat  mentioned  above,  reaching  a  target  of  0.25  million  ha  by  2020  (1  ha  
=  0.01  sq  km).    
 
WorldFish  already  has  an  extensive  list  of  partners  that  it  works  with  in  the  Solomons  and  in  the  region,  including  the  Pacific  
Community  (SPC),  which  has  a  range  of  investments  in  fisheries  and  climate  change  adaptation.  The  partnership  between  
WorldFish  and  SPC  (guided  by  a  long-­‐standing  MoU)  will  ensure  this  project  is  well  integrated  into  regional  initiatives.  Of  
particular  note  is  the  new  key  regional  policy  on  coastal  fisheries  called  the  “New  song”  (SPC  2015)  or  the  Noumea  Strategy,  
which   energizes   the   coastal   fisheries   emphasis   for   regional   livelihoods   and   food   security.   The   strategy   is   spearheaded   by  
SPC   but   is   a   product   of   a   regional   consortium   of   bodies   under   funding   from   the   Australian   government   and   endorsed   by  
regional  ministers.  
 
FISH   will   also   mobilize   a   coalition   of   local   partners   from   relevant   sectors   as   required.   These   will   include   the   Malaita  
Provincial  Government,  the  Malaita  Province  Partnership  for  Development  (MPPD),  AVRDC-­‐The  World  Vegetable  Center,  Zai  
na  Tina  Farms  and  the  Rokotanikeni  Women’s  Association.  National  networks  such  as  the  National  Co-­‐ordinating  Committee  
for  the  Coral  Triangle  Initiative  (NCC)  and  the  Solomon  Islands  Locally  Managed  Marine  Area  network  (SILMMA)  will  be  used  
as  information  dissemination  and  lesson  sharing  forums.    
 
In   Solomon   Islands,   FISH   and   its   constituent   projects   will   integrate   with   an   institutional   strengthening   program   (New  
Zealand   Fisheries   and   Marine   Resources   Sector   Programme,   MSSIF).   WorldFish   has   worked   with   the   Solomon   Islands  
government  since  the  1980s  and  is  currently  collaborating  with  MFMR.  Through  the  MSSIF  program,  MFMR  is  considering  a  
national  diagnosis  initiative  to  improve  its  service  delivery  to  provinces.  This  project  offers  a  strategic  collaboration  with  the  
MSSIF  investment  and  will  inform  decision-­‐making  and  build  capacity  in  MFMR,  the  responsible  national  agency,  including  
the  provincial  government.    

 116
 
Annex  3.12  References    
 
Abernethy  K,  Bodin  O,  Olsson  P,  Hilly  Z  and  Schwarz  A.  2014.  Two  steps  forward,  two  steps  back:  The  role  of  innovation  
in  transforming  towards  community-­‐based  marine  resource  management  in  Solomon  Islands.  Global  Environmental  
Change  28:309–21.  
 
Adebayo  K,  Abayomi  L,  Abass  A,  Dziedzoave  NT,  Forsythe  L,  Hillocks  RJ,  Gensi  R,  Gibson  RW,  Graffham  AJ,  Ilona  P  et  al.  
2010.  Sustainable  inclusion  of  smallholders  in  the  emerging  high  quality  cassava  flour  value  chains  in  Africa:  Challenges  
for  agricultural  extension  services.  Journal  of  Agricultural  Extension  14(1):1–10.    
 
Ahmed  N  and  Glaser  M.  2016.  Coastal  aquaculture,  mangrove  deforestation  and  blue  carbon  emissions:  Is  REDD+  a    
solution?  Marine  Policy  66:58–66.  
 
Albert  JA,  Beare  D,  Schwarz  AM,  Albert  S,  Warren  R,  and  Teri  J  et  al.  2014.  The  contribution  of  nearshore  fish  
aggregating  devices  (FADs)  to  food  security  and  livelihoods  in  Solomon  Islands.  PLoS  ONE  9:e115386.  
 
Allison  EH  and  Ellis  F.  2001.  The  livelihoods  approach  and  management  of  small-­‐scale  fisheries.  Marine  Policy  25(5),  
377–88.  
 
Allison  EH,  Perry  AL,  Badjeck  MC,  Adger  WN,  Brown  K,  Conway  D,  Halls  AS,  Pilling  GM,  Reynolds  JD  and  Andrew  NL.  
2009.  Vulnerability  of  national  economies  to  the  impacts  of  climate  change  on  fisheries.  Fish  and  Fisheries  10:173–96.  
 
Allison  EH,  Ratner  BD,  Asgard  B,  Willmann  R,  Pomeroy  R  and  Kurien  J.  2012.  Rights-­‐based  fisheries  governance:  From  
fishing  rights  to  human  rights.  Fish  and  Fisheries  13(1):14–29.  
 
Amos  M,  Bell  J,  Taylor  M  and  Andrew  N.  2016.  Climate  change  and  Pacific  food  systems.  Copenhagen:  CCAFS;  
Wageningen:  CTA.    
 
Andersen  AB,  Schmidt  LKH,  Faurholt-­‐Jepsen  D,  Roos  N,  Friis  H,  Kongsbak  K,  Wahed  MA  and  Thilsted  SH.  2016.  The  effect  
of  daily  consumption  of  the  small  fish  Amblypharyngodon  mola  or  added  vitamin  A  on  iron  status:  A  randomised  
controlled  trial  among  Bangladeshi  children  with  marginal  vitamin  A  status.  Asia  Pacific  Journal  of  Clinical  Nutrition  
25(3):464–71.    
 
Andrew  NL,  Béné  C,  Hall  SJ,  Allison  EH,  Heck  S  and  Ratner  BD.  2007.  Diagnosis  and  management  of  small-­‐scale  fisheries  
in  developing  countries.  Fish  and  Fisheries  8:227–40.  
 
Anh  PT,  My  Dieu  TT,  Mol  APJ,  Kroeze  C  and  Bush  SR.  2011.  Towards  eco-­‐agro  industrial  clusters  in  aquatic  production:  
the  case  of  shrimp  processing  industry  in  Vietnam.  Journal  of    Cleaner  Production  19(17-­‐18):2107–2118.  
 
Apgar   JM,   Cohen   PJ,   Ratner   BD,   de   Silva   S,   Buisson   MC,   Longley   C,   Bastakoti   R   and   Mapedza   E.   In   review.   Navigating  
opportunities  for  governance  transformations  in  aquatic  agricultural  systems.  Ecology  and  Society.    
 
Apgar  JM,  Douthwaite  B,  Allen  W  and  Ybernegaray  PR.  In  press.  Getting  beneath  the  surface  in  program  planning  
monitoring  and  evaluation:  Learning  from  use  of  participatory  action  research  and  theory  of  change.  Journal  of  Action  
Research.  
 
Apgar  M,  Ekong  J,  Sarapura  S  and  Douthwaite  B.  2015.  Strengthening  capacities  for  research  in  development  in  aquatic  
agricultural  systems.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Working  Paper:  AAS-­‐
2015-­‐14.  
 
[Apia  Policy]  Pacific  Islands  regional  coastal  fisheries  management  policy  and  strategic  actions.  2008–2013.  Developed  
and  endorsed  by  Heads  of  Fisheries  in  the  Pacific  Region  during  the  special  session  conducted  11–13  February  2008,  
Apia,  Samoa.    
 
Armitage  DR,  Plummer  R,  Berkes  F,  Arthur  RI,  Charles  AT,  Davidson-­‐Hunt  IJ,  Diduck  AP,  Doubleday  NC,  Johnson  DS,  
Marschke  M  et  al.  2009.  Adaptive  co-­‐management  for  social-­‐ecological  complexity.  Frontiers  in  Ecology  and  the  
Environment  7:95–102.  
 
 117
 
Ashford  L,  Clifton  D  and  Kaneda  T.  2006.  The  World’s  Youth  2006.  Washington,  DC:  Population  Reference  Bureau.  
 
Attwood  SJ,  Park  SE,  Loos  J,  Phillips  M,  Mills  D  and  McDougall  C.  In  Press.  Does  sustainable  intensification  offer  a  
pathway  to  improved  food  security  for  aquatic  agricultural  system-­‐dependent  communities?  In  Oborn  et  al.,  eds.  
Sustainable  Intensification  in  Smallholder  Agriculture:  An  Integrated  Systems  Research  Approach.  London:  Earthscan.  
 
Asian  Development  Bank.  2005.  An  impact  evaluation  of  the  development  of  genetically  improved  farmed  tilapia  and  
their  dissemination  on  selected  countries.  Manila,  Philippines:  ADB.    
 
Attwood  SJ,  Park  SE,  Smith  P,  Troell  M,  Kam  SP,  Pouil  S,  Phillips  M  and  Mills  D.  In  prep.  How  applicable  is  sustainable  
intensification  thinking  to  increasing  fish  production  from  aquaculture?  Invited  submission  to  Global  Change  Biology.  
 
[AU]  African  Union.  2014.  Resolutions  of  the  AU  joint  conference  of  ministers  of  agriculture,  rural  development,  
fisheries  and  aquaculture  AUCC  in  Addis  Ababa,  Ethiopia,  1–2  May  2014.  
 
Bacharach  E,  Mishra  N,  Briese  T,  Zody  MC,  Tsofack  JEK,  Zamostiano  R,  Berkowitz  A,  Ng  J,  Nitido  A,  Corvelo  A,  Toussaint  
NC,  Abel  Nielsen  SC,  Hornig  M,  Del  Pozo  J,  Bloom  T,  Ferguson  H,  Eldar  A,  Lipkin  WI.  2016.  Characterization  of  a  novel  
orthomyxo-­‐like  virus  causing  mass  die-­‐offs  of  tilapia.  mBio  7(2):e00431-­‐16.  doi:10.1128/mBio.00431-­‐16.  
 
Baidu-­‐Forson  JJ,  Chanamwe  S,  Muyaule  C,  Mulanda  A,  Ndiyoi  M  and  Ward  A.  2015.  Capturing  views  of  men,  women  
and  youth  on  agricultural  biodiversity  resources  consumed  in  Barotseland,  Zambia.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  
Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Working  Paper:  AAS-­‐2015-­‐17.  
 
Ballard  T,  Coates  J,  Swindale  A  and  Deitchler  M.  2011.  Household  hunger  scale:  Indicator  definition  and  measurement  
guide.  Food  and  Nutrition  Technical  Assistance  II  Project  FHI  360.  Washington,  DC.  
 
Baran  E,  Guerin  E  and  Nasielski  J.  2015.  Fish,  sediment  and  dams  in  the  Mekong.  Penang,  Malaysia:  WorldFish  and  
CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Water,  Land  and  Ecosystems  (WLE).  
 
Bavinck  JM,  Chuenpagdee  R,  Jentoft  S  and  Kooiman  J.  2013.  Governability  of  fisheries:  Theory  and  applications.  
Springer,  Dordrecht.  
 
Bell  JD,  Albert  J,  Andrefouet  S,  Andrew  NL,  Blanc  M,  Bright  P,  Brogan  D,  Campbell  B,  Govan  H,  Hampton  J  et  al.  2015.  
Optimising  the  use  of  nearshore  fish  aggregating  devices  for  food  security  in  the  Pacific  Islands.  Marine  Policy  56:98–
105.  
 
Belton  B,  Ahmed  N  and  Murshed-­‐e-­‐Jahan  K.  2014.  Aquaculture,  employment,  poverty,  food  security  and  well-­‐being  in  
Bangladesh:  A  comparative  study.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Program  
Report:  AAS-­‐2014-­‐39.  
 
Belton  B  and  Bush  S.  2014.  Beyond  net  deficits:  New  priorities  for  an  aquacultural  geography.  The  Geographical  Journal  
180(1):3–14.  
 
Belton  B,  Hein  A,  Htoo  K,  Seng  Kham  L,  Nischan  U,  Reardon  T  and  Boughton  D.  2015.  Aquaculture  in  transition:  value  
chain  transformation,  fish  and  food  security  in  Myanmar.  Department  of  Agricultural,  Food,  and  Resource  Economics  
and  the  Department  of  Economics,  Michigan  State  University,  East  Lansing,  Michigan,  U.S.A.  Research  Report  #4.    
 
Belton  B,  Karim  M,  Thilsted  S,  Jahan  MK,  Collis  W  and  Phillips  M.  2011.  Review  of  aquaculture  and  fish  consumption  in  
Bangladesh.  Studies  and  Reviews.  Dhaka:  WorldFish.    
 
Belton  B  and  Thilsted  SH.  2014.  Fisheries  in  transition:  Food  and  nutrition  security  implications  for  the  global  south.  
Global  Food  Security  3(1):59–66.  
Belton  B,  van  Asseldonk  IJM  and  Thilsted  SH.  2014.  Faltering  fisheries  and  ascendant  aquaculture:  Implications  for  food  
and  nutrition  security  in  Bangladesh.  Food  Policy  44:77–87.  
 
Béné   C.   2003.   When   fishery   rhymes   with   poverty:   A   first   step   beyond   the   old   paradigm   on   poverty   in   small-­‐scale  
fisheries.  World  Development  31,  949-­‐975.  
 

 118
 
Béné  C,  Arthur  R,  Norbury  H,  Allison  EH,  Beveridge  M,  Bush  S,  Campling  L,  Leschen  W,  Little  D,  Squires  S  et  al.  2016.  
Contribution  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  to  food  security  and  poverty  reduction:  Assessing  the  current  evidence.  
World  Development  79:177–96.  
 
Béné  C,  Barange  M,  Subasinghe  R,  Pinstrup-­‐Andersen  P,  Merino  G,  Hemre  GI  and  Williams  M.  2015.  Feeding  9  billion  by  
2050  –  Putting  fish  back  on  the  menu.  Food  Security  7:261–74.  
 
Béné  C,  Belal  E,  Baba  MO,  Ovie  S,  Raji  A,  Malasha  I,  Njaya  F,  Andi  MN,  Russell  A  and  Neiland  A.  2009.  Power  struggle,  
dispute  and  alliance  over  local  resources:  Analyzing  'democratic'  decentralization  of  natural  resources  through  the  
lenses  of  Africa  inland  fisheries.  World  Development  37:1935–50.  
 
Bene   C,   Evans   L,   Mills   D,   Ovie   S,  Raji   A,  Tafida   A,  Kodio   A,  Sinaba   F,  Morand   P,  Lemoalle   J,  Andrew   N.   2011.   Testing  
resilience  thinking  in  a  poverty  context:  Experience  from  the  Niger  River  basin.  Global  Environmental  Change.  Human  
and  Policy  Dimensions,  2011,  21  (4),  p.  1173-­‐1184.  ISSN  0959-­‐3780.    
 
Béné  C,  Hersoug  B  and  Allison  EH.  2010.  Not  by  rent  alone:  Analyzing  the  pro-­‐poor  functions  of  small-­‐scale  fisheries  in  
developing  countries.  Development  Policy  Review  28:325–58.  
 
Béné  C,  Lawton  R  and  Allison  EH.  2010.  Trade  matters  in  the  fight  against  poverty:  Narratives,  perceptions,  and  (lack  of)  
evidence  in  the  case  of  fish  trade  in  Africa.  World  Development  38(7):933–54.  
 
Bene  C  and  Merten  S.  2008.  Women  and  fish-­‐for-­‐sex:  Transactional  sex,  HIV/AIDS  and  gender  in  African  fisheries.  World  
Development  36(5):875–99.    
 
Bernet  T,  Thiele  G  and  Zschocke  T,  eds.  2006.  Participatory  Market  Chain  Approach  (PMCA):  User  Guide.  Lima:  
International  Potato  Center.  
 
Beveridge  MCM,  Thilsted  SH,  Phillips  MJ,  Metian  M,  Troell  M  and  Hall  SJ.  2013.  Meeting  the  food  and  nutrition  needs  of  
the  poor:  The  role  of  fish  and  the  opportunities  and  challenges  emerging  from  the  rise  of  aquaculture.  Journal  of  Fish  
Biology  83(4):1067–84.  
 
Blythe  J,  Cohen  P,  Harohau  D  and  Eriksson  H.  In  prep.  Building  governance  capacity  through  social  networks.  
 
Blythe  J,  Sulu  S,  Harohau  D  et  al.  In  review.  Social  dynamics  shaping  the  diffusion  of  aquaculture  innovations.  
Aquaculture.  
 
Bogard  JR,  Hother  AL,  Saha  M,  Bose  S,  Kabir  H,  Marks  GC  and  Thilsted  SH.  2015.  Inclusion  of  small  indigenous  fish  
improves  nutritional  quality  during  the  first  1000  days.  Food  Nutr  Bull.    
 
Bogard  JR,  Marks  GC,  Mamum  A  and  Thilsted  SH.  In  review.  Non-­‐farmed  fish  contributes  to  greater  nutrient  intakes  than  
farmed  fish:  Results  from  an  intra-­‐household  survey  in  rural  Bangladesh.  Public  Health  Nutrition.  
 
Brown  K.  2014.  Global  environmental  change  I:  A  social  turn  for  resilience?  Progress  in  Human  Geography  38:107–17.  
 
Burnley  C,  Adriázola  P,  Comardicea  I,  Mugisha  S  and  Mushabe  N.  2014.  Strengthening  community  roles  in  aquatic  
resource  governance  in  Uganda.  Collaborating  for  Resilience.  Program  Report.  
 
Bush  SR,  Belton  B,  Hall  D,  Vandergeest  P,  Murray  FJ,  Ponte  S,  Oosterveer  P,  Islam  Md  S,  Mol  APJ,  Hatanaka  M  et  al.  
2013.  Certify  sustainable  aquaculture?  Science  341:1067–68.    
 
Cai   XL,   Tamiru   AH   and   Mapedza   E.   In   review.   Living   with   Floods.   Living   with   floods   –   household   perception   and   satellite  
observations   in   the   Barotse   Floodplain,   Zambia.   Colombo,   Sri   Lanka:   International   Water   Management   Institute   (IWMI).  
IWMI  Research  Report.  
 
Campbell  AA,  de  Pee  S,  Sun  K,  Kraemer  K,  Thorne-­‐Lyman  A,  Moench-­‐Pfanner  R  and  Semba  RD.  2010.  Household  rice  
expenditure  and  maternal  and  child  nutritional  status  in  Bangladesh.  J  Nutr  140(1):  189–94.  doi:  10.3945/jn.109.110718  
 
 

 119
 
Campbell  AA,  Thorne-­‐Lyman  A,  Sun  K,  de  Pee  S,  Kraemer,  K,  Moench-­‐Pfanner  R  and  Semba  RD.  2008.  Greater  
household  expenditures  on  fruits  and  vegetables  but  not  animal  source  foods  are  associated  with  decreased  risk  of  
under-­‐five  child  mortality  among  families  in  rural  Indonesia.  J  Nutr  138(11):2244–49.    
 
Cheke  R  and  Ward  AR.  1998.  Modelling  post-­‐harvest  fish  losses.  Fisheries  Research  35:219–27.    
 
Chhorvirith  T,  Meng  S  and  Kosal  S.  2005.  Experiences  and  lessons  learned  on  child  labour  monitoring:  Rubber,  salt  and  
fishing  sectors  in  Cambodia.  ILO  International  Program  on  the  Elimination  of  Child  Labour.  Phnom  Penh:  Ministry  of  
Labour  and  Vocational  Training  and  International  Labour  Organization.  
 
Christian  P,  Thorne-­‐Lyman  AL,  West  KP,  Bentley  ME,  Khatry  SK,  Pradhan  EK  and  Shrestha  SR.  1998.  Working  after  the  
sun  goes  down:  Exploring  how  night  blindness  impairs  women’s  work  activities  in  rural  Nepal.  Eur  J  Clin  Nutr  52(7):519–
24.    
 
Cinner  JE  and  Aswani  S.  2007.  Integrating  customary  management  into  marine  conservation.  Biological  Conservation  
140:  201–216.    
 
Cinner  JE  and  Bodin  Ö.  2010.  Livelihood  diversification  in  tropical  coastal  communities:  A  network-­‐based  approach  to  
analyzing  ‘livelihood  landscapes.’  PLoS  ONE  5.  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011999  
 
Cinner  JE,  Graham  NAJ,  Hucher  C  and  Macneil  MA.  2013.  Global  effects  of  local  human  population  density  and  distance  
to  markets  on  the  condition  of  coral  reef  fisheries.  Conservation  Biology  27:453–58.  
 
Cinner  JE,  McClanahan  TR,  Graham  NAJ,  Daw  TM,  Maina  J,  Stead  SM,  Wamukota  A,  Brown  K  and  Bodin  Ö.  2012b.  
Vulnerability  of  coastal  communities  to  key  impacts  of  climate  change  on  coral  reef  fisheries.  Global  Environmental  
Change-­‐Human  Policy  Dimensions  22:12–20.  
 
Cinner  JE,  McClanahan  TR,  MacNeil  A,  Graham  NAJ,  Daw  TM,  Mukminin  A,  Feary  DA,  Rabearisoa  AL,  Wamukota  A,  
Jiddawi  N  et  al.  2012a.  Co-­‐management  of  coral  reef  social-­‐ecological  systems.  Proceedings  of  the  National  Academy  of  
Sciences  of  the  United  States  of  America  109:5219–22.  
 
Cinner  JE,  MacNeil  MA,  Basurto  X  and  Gelcich  S.  2013.  Looking  beyond  the  fisheries  crisis:  Cumulative  learning  from  
small-­‐scale  fisheries  through  diagnostic  approaches.  Global  Environmental  Change  23(6):  1359-­‐1365.  
 
Cleasby  N,  Schwarz  A,  Phillips  M,  Paul  C,  Pant  J,  Oeta  J,  Pickering  T,  Meloty  A,  Laumani  M  and  Kori  M.  2013.  The  socio-­‐
economic  context  for  improving  food  security  through  land  based  aquaculture  in  Solomon  Islands:  A  peri-­‐urban  case  
study.  Marine  Policy  45  (2014)  89–97.    
 
Cohen  PJ,  Allison  EH,  Andrew  NL  et  al.  Submitted.  Securing  a  just  space  for  small-­‐scale  fisheries.    
 
Cohen  PJ,  Cinner  J  and  Foale  S.  2013.  Fishing  dynamics  associated  with  periodically-­‐harvested  marine  closures.  Global  
Environmental  Change  23:1702–13.  
 
Cohen  PJ,  Evans  L  and  Mills  M.  2012.  Social  networks  supporting  governance  of  coastal  ecosystems  in  Solomon  Islands.  
Conservation  Letters  5:376–86.  
 
Cohen  PJ  and  Foale  SJ.  2013.  Sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries  with  periodically  harvested  marine  reserves.  Marine  Policy  
37:278–87.  
 
Cohen  PJ,  Jupiter  SD,  Weeks  R,  Tawake  A  and  Govan  H.  2014.  Reviewing  the  multiple  objectives  and  diverse  strategies  of  
community-­‐based  fisheries  management.  SPC  Traditional  Marine  Resource  Management  and  Knowledge  Bulletin.  
 
Cohen  PJ  and  Steenbergen  DJ.  2015.  Social  dimensions  of  local  fisheries  co-­‐management  in  the  Coral  Triangle.  
Environmental  Conservation  3:1–11.    
 
Cohen  PK  and  Alexander  TJ.  2013.  Catch  rates,  composition  and  fish  size  from  reefs  managed  with  periodically-­‐
harvested  closures.  PloS  ONE  8:e73383.  
 

 120
 
Cole  SM,  Kantor  P,  Sarapura  S  and  Rajaratnam  S.  2014.  Gender-­‐transformative  approaches  to  address  inequalities  in  
food,  nutrition  and  economic  outcomes  in  aquatic  agricultural  systems.  Penang,  Malaysia:  WorldFish.  
 
Cole  SM  and  Muyaule  C.  2015b.  Savings  and  Internal  Lending  Communities  +  Gender  Transformative  Approach  Pilot  
Project.  SG2015  Savings  Groups  Conference,  10–12  November  2015,  Lusaka,  Zambia.    
 
Cole  SM,  Puskur  R,  Rajaratnam  S  and  Zulu  F.  2015a.  Exploring  the  intricate  relationship  between  poverty,  gender  
inequality  and  rural  masculinity:  A  case  study  from  an  aquatic  agricultural  system  in  Zambia.  Culture,  Society  and  
Masculinities  7(2):151–70.    
 
Colverson  KE.  2014.  Gender  capacity  gaps  in  livestock  and  fish  value  chain  partners.  ILRI  Discussion  Paper  27.  Nairobi:  
ILRI.    
 
Costello  C,  Ovando  D,  Clavelle  T,  Strauss  CK  et  al.  2016.  Global  fishery  prospects  under  contrasting  management  
regimes.  Proc  Natl  Acad  Sci  113(18):  5125–9.  
 
Cote  M  and  Nightingale  AJ.  2012.  Resilience  thinking  meets  social  theory:  Situating  social  change  in  socio-­‐ecological  
systems  (SES)  research.  Progress  in  Human  Geography  36:475–89.  
 
Coulthard  S.  2012.  Can  we  be  both  resilient  and  well,  and  what  choices  do  people  have?  Incorporating  agency  into  the  
resilience  debate  from  a  fisheries  perspective.  Ecology  and  Society  17(1):4.  
 
Cunningham  S,  Neiland  AE,  Arbuckle  M,  Bostock  T.  2009.  Wealth-­‐based  Fisheries  Management:  Using  Fisheries  Wealth  
to  Orchestrate  Sound  Fisheries  Policy  in  Practice.  Marine  Resource  Economics  24,  271-­‐287.  
 
Dewan   C,   Buisson   MC   and   Mukherji   A.   2014.   The   Imposition   of   Participation?   The   Case   of   Participatory   Water  
Management  in  Coastal  Bangladesh.  Water  Alternative:  7(2).  
 
Dey  MM,  Alam  MF  and  Paraguas  FJ.  2011.  A  multistage  budgeting  approach  to  the  analysis  of  demand  for  fish:  An  
application  to  inland  areas  of  Bangladesh.  Marine  Resource  Economics  26(1):35–58.  
 
Dey  MM,  Briones  R  and  Ahmed  M.  2005.  Projecting  supply,  demand  and  trade  for  specific  fish  types  in  Asia:  Baseline  
model  and  estimation  strategy.  Aquaculture  Economics  and  Management  9:113–39.  
 
Dey   MM,  Kumar   P,  Chen   OL,  Khan   MA,  Barik   NK,  Li   L,  Nissapa   A  and  Pham   NS.   2013.   Potential   impact   of   genetically  
improved  carp  strains  in  Asia.  Food  Policy  43  (2013):  306–320.  
 
Dey  MM,  Prein  M,  Mahfuzul  Haque  ABM,  Sultana  P,  Nguyen  CD  and  Nguyen  VH.  2005.  Economic  feasibility  of  
community-­‐based  fish  culture  in  seasonality  flooded  rice  fields  in  Bangladesh  and  Vietnam.  Aquaculture  Economics  &  
Management  9:65–88.  
 
Dey  MM,  Spielman  DJ.  Haque  ABMM,  Rahman  MS  and  Valmonte-­‐Santos  R.  2013.  Change  and  diversity  in  smallholder  
rice–fish  systems:  Recent  evidence  and  policy  lessons  from  Bangladesh.  Food  Policy  43  (2013):108–117.      
 
Dickson  M,  Nasr-­‐Allah  AM,  Kenawy  D,  Fathi  M,  El-­‐Naggar  G  and  Ibrahim  N.  2016.  Improving  Employment  and  Income  
through  Development  of  Egypt’s  Aquaculture  Sector  (IEIDEAS)  project.  WorldFish  Program  Report  2016-­‐14.  Penang,  
Malaysia:  WorldFish.  
Douthwaite  B,  Apgar  JM,  Schwarz  A,  McDougall  C,  Attwood  S,  Senaratna  Sellamuttu  S  and  Clayton  T,  eds.  2015.  
Research  in  development:  Learning  from  the  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Penang,  
Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Working  Paper:  AAS-­‐2015-­‐16.  
 
Douthwaite  B,  Apgar  M  and  Crissman  C.  2014.  Monitoring  and  evaluations  strategy  brief.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  
Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Program  Brief:  AAS-­‐2014-­‐04.  
 
Dugan  et  al.  2010.  2010.  Fish  migration,  dams,  and  loss  of  ecosystem  services  in  the  Mekong  basin.  Ambio  39(4):344–8.  
 
El  Mahdi  A,  Krstic  J,  Abdallah  A,  Abdullah  H,  Kantor  P  and  Valpiani  N.  2015.  The  role  of  farmed  fish  in  the  diets  of  the  
resource-­‐poor  in  Egypt.  Penang,  Malaysia:  WorldFish.  Program  Report:  2015-­‐05.  

 121
 
El-­‐Sayed  AFM,  Dickson  MW  and  El-­‐Naggar  GO.  2015.  Value  chain  analysis  of  the  aquaculture  feed  sector  in  Egypt.  
Aquaculture.  437:92–102.  
 
Eriksson  H  and  Clarke  S.  2015.  Chinese  market  responses  to  overexploitation  of  sharks  and  sea  cucumbers.  Biological  
Conservation  184:163–73.  
 
Eriksson  H,  Osterblom  H,  Crona  B,  Troel  M  and  Andrew  NL.  2015.  Contagious  exploitation  of  marine  resources.  
Frontiers  in  Ecology  and  the  Environment  13:435–40.  
 
Evans  L,  Cherrett  N  and  Pemsl  D.  2011.  Assessing  the  impact  of  fisheries  co-­‐management  interventions  in  developing  
countries:  A  meta-­‐analysis.  Journal  of  Environmental  Management  92:1938–49.  
 
Evans  LS,  Hicks  CC,  Fidelman  P,  Tobin  RC  and  Perry  AL.  2013.  Future  scenarios  as  a  research  tool:  Investigating  climate  
change  impacts,  adaptation  options  and  outcomes  for  the  Great  Barrier  Reef,  Australia.  Human  Ecology  41:841–57.  
 
Ezzati  M  and  Riboli  E.  2013.  Behavioral  and  dietary  risk  factors  for  noncommunicable  diseases.  The  New  England  
Journal  of  Medicine  369(10):954–64.  
 
[FAO]  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations.  2011.  Global  food  losses  and  food  waste:  Extent,  causes  
and  prevention.  Study  conducted  for  the  International  Congress  Save  Food!  at  Interpack2011,  Düsseldorf,  Germany,  by  
Gustavsson  J,  Cederberg  C,  Sonesson  U,  van  Otterdijk  R  and  Meybeck  A.  Rome:  FAO.  
 
[FAO]  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations.  2013.  FAO  Statistical  Yearbook  2013  World  Food  and  
Agriculture.  Retrieved  from  http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3107e/i3107e.PDF    
 
[FAO]  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations.  2014.  FAO  Statistical  Yearbook  2014  Asia  and  the  Pacific  
Food  and  Agriculture.  Retrieved  from  http://www.fao.org/3/a-­‐i3590e.pdf  
 
[FAO]  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations.  2014.  The  state  of  world  fisheries  and  aquaculture:  
Opportunities  and  challenges.  Rome:  FAO.    
 
[FAO]  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations.  2015.  Voluntary  guidelines  for  securing  sustainable  
small-­‐scale  fisheries  in  the  context  of  food  security  and  poverty  eradication.  Rome:  FAO.  
 
[FAO]  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations.  2016.  FAO  and  the  17  sustainable  development  
goals.  Rome:  FAO.  
 
[FAO]   Food   and   Agriculture   Organization   of   the   United   Nations.   2016.   The   State   of   World   Fisheries   and   Aquaculture  
2016.  Contributing  to  food  security  and  nutrition  for  all.  Rome:  FAO.  200  pp.  
 
[FAO]  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations  and  [ILO]  International  Labour  Organization.  2011.  FAO-­‐
ILO  good  practice  guide  for  addressing  child  labour  in  fisheries  and  aquaculture:  Policy  and  practice.  Preliminary  Version.  
Rome:  FAO.      
 
[FAOSTAT]  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations  FAOSTAT  database.  2014.  Retrieved  from  
http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E  
 
Fabinyi  M.  2016.  Producing  for  Chinese  luxury  seafood  value  chains:  Different  outcomes  for  producers  in  the  
Philippines  and  North  America.  Marine  Policy  63:  184–90.  
 
Farnworth  CR,  Kantor  P,  Kruijssen  F,  Longley  C  and  Colverson  K.  2015a.  Gender  integration  in  livestock  and  fisheries  
value  chains:  Emerging  good  practices  from  analysis  to  action.  International  Journal  of  Agricultural  Resources  
Governance  and  Ecology  11(3/4):262–79.  
 
Farnworth  CR,  Sultana  N,  Kantor  P  and  Choudhury  A.  2015b.  Gender  integration  in  aquaculture  research  and  technology  
adoption  processes:  Lessons  learned  in  Bangladesh.  Penang,  Malaysia:  WorldFish.  Working  Paper:  2015-­‐17.  
 

 122
 
Faruque  G,  Sarwer  RH,  Karim  M,  Phillips  M,  Collis  WJ,  Belton  B  and  Kassam  L.  2016.    The  evolution  of  aquatic  agricultural  
systems   in   Southwest   Bangladesh   in   response   to   salinity   and   other   drivers   of   change.   International   Journal   of  
Agricultural  Sustainability.  doi:10.1080/14735903.2016.1193424  
 
Fiedler  J,  Lividini  K,  Drummond  E  and  Thilsted  SH.  2016.  Strengthening  the  contribution  of  aquaculture  to  food  and  
nutrition  security:  The  potential  of  a  vitamin  A-­‐rich  small  fish  in  Bangladesh.  Aquaculture  452:291–303.  
 
Foale  S,  Adhuri  D,  Aliño  P,  Allison  EH,  Andrew  N,  Cohen  P,  Evans  L,  Fabinyi  P,  Gregory  C,  Stacey  N  et  al.  2013.  Food  
security  and  the  Coral  Triangle  Initiative.  Marine  Policy  38:174–83.  
 
Folke  C,  Carpenter  SR,  Walker  B,  Scheffer  M,  Chapin  T  and  Rockström  J.  2010.  Resilience  thinking:  Integrating  resilience,  
adaptability  and  transformability.  Ecology  and  Society  15(4):20.  
 
[GAIN]  Global  Alliance  for  Improved  Nutrition.  2014.  Improving  childhood  nutrition  by  changing  infant  feeding  practices  
in  Sidoarjo,  East  Java:  A  GAIN  formative  research  and  design  case  study.    
 
Gallopin  GC.  2006.  Linkages  between  vulnerability,  resilience,  and  adaptive  capacity.  Global  Environmental  Change  16:  
293–303.  
 
Gelcich  S,  Hughes  TP,  Olsson  P,  Folke  C,  Defeo  O,  Fernandez  M,  Foale  S,  Gunderson  LH,  Rodriguez-­‐Sickert  C,  Scheffer  M  
et  al.  2010.  Navigating  transformations  in  governance  of  Chilean  marine  coastal  resources.  Proceedings  of  the  National  
Academy  of  Sciences  of  the  United  States  of  America  107:16794–99.  
 
Gelli  A,  Hawkes  C,  Donovan  J,  Harris  J,  Allen  SL,  De  Brauw  A,  Henson  S,  Johnson  N,  Garrett  J  and  Ryckembusch  D.  2015.  
Value  chains  and  nutrition:  A  framework  to  support  the  identification,  design,  and  evaluation  of  interventions.  IFPRI  
Discussion  Paper  01413.  Washington,  DC:  IFPRI.  
 
Genshick  S,  Phillips  MJ,  Thilsted  SH,  Thorne-­‐Lyman  AL  and  Subasinghe  R.  2015.  Aquaculture  and  fisheries  for  improved  
nutrition:  Towards  a  nutrition-­‐sensitive  approach.  Infofish  International  3:14–17.  
 
Gillett  R  and  Cartwright  I.  2010.  The  Future  of  Pacific  Island  Fisheries.  Secretariat  of  the  Pacific  Community,  Noumea  
and  the  Forum  Fisheries  Agency,  Honiara.  
 
Gittelsohn  J  and  Vastine  A.  2003.  Sociocultural  and  household  factors  impacting  on  the  selection,  allocation  and  
consumption  of  animal  source  foods:  Current  knowledge  and  application.  Journal  of  Nutrition  133(11S-­‐II):4036S–41S.  
 
Gjedrem  T,  Robinson  N  and  Rye  M.  2012.  The  importance  of  selective  breeding  in  aquaculture  to  meet  future  demand  
of  animal  protein:  A  review.  Aquaculture  350–353(June):117–29.  
 
Glencross  BD,  Irvin  S,  Arnold  S,  Blythe  D,  Bourne  N  and  Preston  NP.  2014.  Effective  use  of  microbial  biomass  products  
to  facilitate  the  complete  replacement  of  fishery  resources  in  diets  for  the  black  tiger  shrimp,  Penaeus  monodon.  
Aquaculture  431:12–19.  
 
Glencross  BD  and  Preston  NP.  2013.  NovacqTM  feed  additive:  A  game  changer  in  prawn  feed  technology.  Aquafeed:  
Advances  in  Processing  and  Formulation  5(3):9–12.    
 
Golden  CD,  Allison  EH,  Cheung  WW,  Dey  MM,  Halpern  BS,  McCauley  DJ,  Smith  M,  Vaitla  B,  Zeller  D  and  Myers  SS.  2016.  
Nutrition:  Fall  in  fish  catch  threatens  human  health.  Nature  534(7607):317–20.  
 
Gordon  A.  2009.  Fish  trade  in  Africa:  Its  characteristics,  role  and  importance.  In  Wramner  P,  Cullberg  M  and  Ackefors  H,  
eds.  Fisheries,  Sustainability  and  Development.  Stockholm:  Royal  Swedish  Academy  of  Agriculture  and  Forestry.  435–
42.  
Gram  L  and  Huss  HH.  1996.  Microbiological  spoilage  of  fish  and  fish  products.  Int  J  Food  Microbiol  33(1):121–37.  
 
Gregory  R.    1997.    Ricefield  fisheries  handbook.  Cambodia-­‐IRRI-­‐Australia  Project,  Phnom  Penh,  Cambodia.  38  pp.  
 
Guijt  I.  2010.  Exploding  the  myth  of  incompatibility  between  accountability  and  learning.  In  Ubels  J,  Acquae-­‐Badoo  N  
and  Fowler  A,  eds.  Capacity  Development  in  Practice.  London:  Earthscan.  

 123
 
Gutierrez  NL,  Hilborn  R  and  Defeo  O.  2011.  Leadership,  social  capital  and  incentives  promote  successful  fisheries.  
Nature  470:386–89.  
 
Hall  SJ,  Delaporte  A,  Phillips  MJ,  Beveridge  M  and  O’Keefe  M.  2011.  Blue  Frontiers:  Managing  the  Environmental  Costs  
of  Aquaculture.  Penang,  Malaysia:  WorldFish  Center.  
 
Hall  S,  Hilborn  R,  Andrew  NL  and  Allison  EH.  2013.  Innovations  in  capture  fisheries  are  an  imperative  for  nutrition  
security  in  the  developing  world.  Proc  Natl  Acad  Sci  110(21):8393–98.  
 
Halwart  M  and  Gupta  MV,  eds.  2004.  Culture  of  fish  in  rice  fields.  FAO,  Rome,  Italy;  WorldFish  Center,  Penang,  
Malaysia.  83  pp.  
 
Hamilton  S.  2013.  Assessing  the  role  of  commercial  aquaculture  in  displacing  mangrove  forest.  Bulletin  of  Marine  
Science  89(2):585–601.  
 
Hansen  M,  Thilsted  SH,  Sandstrom  B,  Kongsbak  K,  Larsen  T,  Jensen  M  and  Sorensen  SS.  1998.  Calcium  absorption  from  
small  soft-­‐boned  fish.  J  Trace  Elem  Med  Biol  12(3):148–54.    
 
Hayes  H  and  Goddard  M.  2010.  Genome-­‐wide  association  and  genomic  selection  in  animal  breeding.  Paper  from  
Conference  “Exploiting  Genome-­‐wide  Association  in  Oilseed  Brassicas:  a  model  for  genetic  improvement  of  major  
OECD  crops  for  sustainable  farming”.  Genome  53:876-­‐883,  10.1139/G10-­‐076.  
 
Hecht  J  and  Lacombe  G.  2014.  The  effects  of  hydropower  dams  on  the  hydrology  of  the  Mekong  Basin.  State  of  
Knowledge  Series  5.  Vientiane:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Water,  Land  and  Ecosystems.  
 
Heck  S,  Bene  C  and  Reyes-­‐Gaskin  R.  2007.  Investing  in  African  fisheries:  Building  links  to  the  Millennium  Development  
Goals.  Fish  and  Fisheries  8:211–26.  
 
Hels  O,  Hassan  N,  Tetens  I  and  Thilsted  SH.  2003.  Food  consumption,  energy  and  nutrient  intake  and  nutritional  status  
in  rural  Bangladesh:  Changes  from  1981-­‐1982  to  1995-­‐96.  European  Journal  of  Clinical  Nutrition  57(4):586–94.  
 
Hels  O,  Larsen  T,  Christensen  LP,  Kidmose  U,  Hassan  N  and  Thilsted  SH.  2004.  Contents  of  iron,  calcium,  zinc  and  beta-­‐
carotene  in  commonly  consumed  vegetables  in  Bangladesh.  Journal  of  Food  Composition  and  Analysis  17:587–95.  
 
Henjum  S,  Manger  M,  Skeie  E,  Ulak  M,  Thorne-­‐Lyman  AL,  Chandyo  R,  Shrestha  PS,  Locks  L,  Ulvik  RJ  and  Fawzi  WW.  
2014.  Iron  deficiency  is  uncommon  among  lactating  women  in  urban  Nepal,  despite  a  high  risk  of  inadequate  dietary  
iron  intake.  Br  J  Nutr  112(1):132–41.    
 
Henriksson  PJG,  Dickson  M,  Allah  AMN,  Kenawy  DAR  and  Phillips  MJ.  2016.  Benchmarking  the  environmental  
performance  of  best  management  practice  and  genetic  improvements  in  Egyptian  aquaculture  using  LCA.  Aquaculture.  
Henriksson  PJG,  Heijungs  R,  Dao  HM,  Phan  LT,  de  Snoo  GR  and  Guiné  JB.  2015.  Product  carbon  footprints  and  their  
uncertainties  in  comparative  decision  contexts.  PLoS  ONE.  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121221  
 
Hernández  C,  Olvera-­‐Novoa  MA,  Voitolina  D,  Hardy  RW,  González-­‐Rodríguez  B,  Domínguez-­‐Jiménez  P,  Valverde-­‐Romero  
M  and  Agramon-­‐Romero  S.  2013.  Use  of  tuna  industry  waste  in  diets  for  Nile  tilapia,  Oreochromis  niloticus,  fingerlings:  
Effect  on  digestibility  and  growth  performance.  Latin  American  Journal  of  Aquatic  Research.  Lat.  Am.  J.  Aquat.  Res.,  41  
(3):  468-­‐478.  
 
Hicks  CC,  McClanahan  TR,  Cinner  JE  and  Hills  JM.  2009.  Trade-­‐offs  in  values  assigned  to  ecological  goods  and  services  
associated  with  different  coral  reef  management  strategies.  Ecology  and  Society  14.  
 
Hilborn  R,  Fulton  EA,  Green  BS  and  Hartmann  K  et  al.  2015.  When  is  a  fishery  sustainable?  Canadian  Journal  of  Fisheries  
and  Aquatic  Sciences  72:1433–41.  
 
Hills  T,  Pramova  E,  Neufeldt  H,  Ericksen  P,  Thornton  P,  Noble  A,  Weight  E,  Campbell  B  and  McCartney  M.  2015.  A  
monitoring  instrument  for  resilience.  CCAFS  Working  Paper  No.  96.  Copenhagen:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Climate  
Change,  Agriculture  and  Food  Security  (CCAFS).    
 

 124
 
Hilly  Z,  Schwarz  AM  and  Boso  D.  2012.  Strengthening  the  role  of  women  in  community-­‐based  marine  resource  
management:  Lessons  learned  from  community  workshops.  SPC  Women  in  Fisheries  Information  Bulletin  22:29–35.  
 
[HLPE]  High  Level  Panel  of  Experts  on  Food  Security  and  Nutrition.  2014.  Sustainable  fisheries  and  aquaculture  for  food  
security  and  nutrition.  A  report  by  the  High  Level  Panel  of  Experts  on  Food  Security  and  Nutrition  of  the  Committee  on  
World  Food  Security,  Rome.  
 
Hoanh  CT,  Jirayoot  K,  Lacombe  G  and  Srinetr  V.  2010.  Comparison  of  climate  change  impacts  and  development  effects  
on  future  Mekong  flow  regime.  2010  International  Congress  on  Environmental  Modelling  and  Software.  Modelling  for  
Environment’s  Sake,  5th  Biennial  meeting,  5–8  July  2010,  Ottawa,  Canada.  
 
Hodges  RJ,  Buzby  JC  and  Bennett  B.  2011.  Postharvest  losses  and  waste  in  developed  and  less  developed  countries:  
Opportunities  to  improve  resource  use.  The  Journal  of  Agricultural  Science  149(S1):37–45.  ISSN  0021-­‐8596  (print),  
1469-­‐5146.  
 
Hother  AL,  Saha  M,  Bogard  J  and  Thilsted  SH.  2014.  Fish  based  products  to  improve  nutrition  in  the  first  1,000  days  of  
life.  Retrieved  from  http://www.worldfishcenter.org/content/fish-­‐based-­‐products-­‐improve-­‐nutrition-­‐first-­‐1000-­‐days-­‐
life-­‐hother-­‐m-­‐saha-­‐sh-­‐thilsted-­‐and-­‐j  
 
Hotz  C,  Pelto  G,  Armar-­‐Klemesu  M,  Ferguson  EF,  Chege  P  and  Musinguzi  E.  2015.  Constraints  and  opportunities  for  
implementing  nutrition-­‐specific,  agricultural  and  market-­‐based  approaches  to  improve  nutrient  intake  adequacy  among  
infants  and  young  children  in  two  regions  of  rural  Kenya.  Maternal  &  Child  Nutrition  11(Suppl  3):39–54.  
 
Houston  RD,  Taggart  JB,  Cézard  T,  Bekaert  M,  Lowe  NR,  Downing  A,  Talbot  R,  Bishop  SC,  Archibald  AL,  Bron  JE  et  al.  
2014.  Development  and  validation  of  a  high  density  SNP  genotyping  array  for  Atlantic  salmon  (Salmo  salar).  BMC  
Genomics  15:90.  
 
Hu  L,  Zhang  J,  Ren  W  et  al.  2016.  Can  the  co-­‐cultivation  of  rice  and  fish  help  sustain  rice  production?  Scientific  Reports.6:  
Article  Number  28728  (2016).  doi:10.1038/srep28728  
 
Humphreys  E,  Tuong  TP,  Buisson  MC,  Pukinskis  I  and  Phillips  M.  2015.  Revitalizing  the  Ganges  Coastal  Zone:  Turning  
Science  into  Policy  and  Practices  Conference  Proceedings.  Colombo,  Sri  Lanka:  CGIAR  Challenge  Program  on  Water  and  
Food  (CPWF).  600pp.  
 
Hüsken  SM  and  Heck  S.  2012.  The  ‘Fish  Trader+’  model:  Reducing  female  traders’  vulnerability  to  HIV.  African  Journal  of  
AIDS  Research  11(1):17–26.  
 
[ILRI]  International  Livestock  Research  Institute.  2015.  Scaling  the  use  of  cassava  peels  as  quality  livestock  feed  in  Africa.  
ILRI  Research  Proposal  Summary.  Nairobi:  ILRI.  
 
[IRRI]  International  Rice  Research  Institute.  2015.  Myanmar  Rice  Sector  Developnment  Strategy.  Manila,  Philippines:  
IRRI.  
 
Jacinto  ER  and  Pomeroy  RS.  2011.  Developing  markets  for  small-­‐scale  fisheries:  Utilizing  the  value  chain  approach.  In  
Pomeroy  RS  and  Andrew  NL,  eds.  Small-­‐Scale  Fisheries  Management:  Frameworks  and  Approaches  for  the  Developing  
World.  Wallingford,  UK:  CABI.  160–77.  
 
Jahan  KM,  Ahmed  M  and  Belton  B.  2010.  The  impacts  of  aquaculture  development  on  food  security:  Lessons  from  
Bangladesh.  Aquaculture  Research  41:481–95.  
 
Jahan  KM,  Belton  B,  Ali  H,  Dhar  GC  and  Ara  I.  2015.  Aquaculture  technologies  in  Bangladesh:  An  assessment  of  technical  
and  economic  performance  and  producer  behavior.  Penang,  Malaysia:  WorldFish.  Program  Report:  2015-­‐52.  
 
Jentoft  S  and  Chuenpagdee  R.  2009.  Fisheries  and  coastal  governance  as  a  wicked  problem.  Marine  Policy  33(4):553–60.  
 
Jespersen  KS,  Kelling  I,  Ponte  S  and  Kruijssen  F.  2014.  What  shapes  food  value  chains?  Lessons  from  aquaculture  in  Asia.  
Food  Policy  49(Part  1):228–40.  
 

 125
 
Kam  SP,  Nhuong  T,  Hoanh  CT  and  Hien  NX.  2016.  Aquaculture  adaptation  to  climate  change  in  Vietnam’s  Mekong  Delta.  In  
Hoanh  CT,  Johnston  R  and  Smakhtin  V,  eds.  Climate  Change  and  Agricultural  Water  Management  in  Developing  Countries.  
CABI  Climate  Change  Series  No.  8.  Wallingford,  UK:  CABI  Publishing;  Sri  Lanka:  International  Water  Management  Institute  
(IWMI).  
 
Kantor  P  and  Kruijssen  F.  2014.  Informal  fish  retailing  in  rural  Egypt:  Opportunities  to  enhance  income  and  work  conditions  
for  women  and  men.  Penang,  Malaysia:  WorldFish.  Project  Report:  2014-­‐51.    
 
Kantor  P,  Kruijssen  F,  Longley  C,  Galie  A  and  Farnworth  C.  2015.  Tools  for  gender  transformative  analysis  of  the  value  
chain.  Version  1.0.  Available  from  the  Livestock  &  Fish  wikispaces.  Retrieved  from  https://livestock-­‐
fish.wikispaces.com/VC_Toolkit.    
 
Kantor  P,  Morgan  M  and  Choudhury  A.  2015.  Amplifying  outcomes  by  addressing  inequality:  The  role  of  gender  
transformative  approaches  in  agricultural  research  for  development.  Gender,  Technology  and  Development  19:292–319.  
Karim  M,  Keus  HJ,  Ullah  MH,  Kassam  L,  Phillips  M  and  Beveridge  M.  2016.  Investing  in  carp  seed  quality  improvements  in  
homestead  aquaculture:  Lessons  from  Bangladesh.  Aquaculture  453:19–30.  
 
Kawarazuka  N  and  Béné  C.  2011.  The  potential  role  of  small  fish  in  improving  micronutrient  deficiencies  in  developing  
countries:  Building  the  evidence.  Public  Health  Nutrition  14(20):1–12.  
 
Kelleher  K.  2005.  Discards  in  the  world’s  marine  fisheries:  An  update.  FAO  Fisheries  Technical  Paper  No.  470.  Rome:  FAO.  
 
Kenia   N   and   Buisson   MC.   2015.   How   successful   are   community-­‐led   organizations   for   water   management?:   evidence  
from  an  assessment  of  water  management  organizations  in  coastal  Bangladesh.  In  Humphreys  E,  Tuong  TP,  Buisson  MC,  
Pukinskis   I   and   Phillips   M,   eds.   Proceedings   of   the   CPWF,   GBDC,   WLE   Conference   on   Revitalizing   the   Ganges   Coastal  
Zone:   Turning   Science   into   Policy   and   Practices,   Dhaka,   Bangladesh,   21-­‐23   October   2015.   Colombo,   Sri   Lanka:   CGIAR  
Challenge  Program  on  Water  and  Food  (CPWF).  pp.131-­‐146.  
 
Khaw  HL.  2015.  Cooperative  and  uniform  fish?  Social  interactions  and  variability  in  live  body  weight  in  the  GIFT  strain  
(Nile  tilapia,  Oreochromic  niloticus)  in  Malaysia.  [PhD  thesis]  Wageningen  University.  
 
Khaw  HL,  Ponzoni  RW,  Yee  HY,  bin  Aziz  MA  and  Bijma  P.  2016.  Genetic  and  non-­‐genetic  indirect  effects  for  harvest  
weight  in  the  GIFT  strain  of  Nile  tilapia  (Oreochromis  niloticus).  Aquaculture  450:154–61.    
 
KIT,  Agri-­‐ProFocus  and  [IIRR]  International  Institute  of  Rural  Reconstruction.  2012.  Challenging  chains  to  change:  Gender  
equity  in  agricultural  value  chain  development.  Amsterdam:  KIT  Publishers,  Royal  Tropical  Institute.  
Kobayashi  M,  Msangi  S,  Batka  M,  Vannuccini  S,  Dey  MM  and  Anderson  JL.  2015.  Fish  to  2030:  The  Role  and  Opportunity  
for  Aquaculture.  Aquaculture  Economics  &  Management.  Volume  19,  Number  3,  3  July  2015,  pp.  282-­‐300(19).  
 
Kongsbak  K,  Thilsted  SH  and  Wahed  MA.  2008.  Effect  of  consumption  of  the  nutrient-­‐dense,  freshwater  small  fish  
Amblypharyngodon  mola  on  biochemical  indicators  of  vitamin  A  status  in  Bangladeshi  children:  A  randomised,  
controlled  study  of  efficacy.  Br  J  Nutr  99(3):581–97.    
 
Kruijssen  F,  Albert  JA,  Morgan  M,  Boso  D,  Siota  F,  Sibiti  S  and  Schwarz  AJ.  2013.  Livelihoods,  markets,  and  gender  roles  
in  Solomon  Islands:  Case  studies  from  Western  and  Isabel  Provinces.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  
Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Project  Report:  AAS-­‐2013-­‐22.  
 
Kruijssen  F  and  Longley  C.  2015.  AAS  value  chain  initiative  for  the  Barotse  flood  plain:  Guidelines  and  tools  for  the  fish  
value  chain  analysis.  Unpublished  AAS  report.  
 
Kura  Y,  Joffre  O,  Laplante  B  and  Sengvilaykham  B.  2014.  Redistribution  of  water  use  and  benefits  among  hydropower  
affected  communities  in  Lao  PDR.  Water  Resources  and  Rural  Development  4:67–84.  
 
Kwashimbisa  M  and  Puskur  R.  2014.  Gender  situational  analysis  of  the  Barotse  Flood  Plain.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  
Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Program  Report:  AAS-­‐2014-­‐43.  
 
Lacombe  G,  Douangsavanh  S,  Vogel  RM,  McCartney  M,  Chemin  Y,  Rebelo  LM  and  Sotoukee  T.  2014.  Multivariate  power-­‐
law  models  for  streamflow  prediction  in  the  Mekong  Basin.  Journal  of  Hydrology:  Regional  Studies  2:35–48.  

 126
 
Larsen  T,  Thilsted  SH,  Kongsbak  K  and  Hansen  M.  2000.  Whole  small  fish  as  a  rich  calcium  source.  Br  J  Nutr  83(2):191–
96.    
 
Lawless  S,  Cohen  PJ,  Siota  F,  Orirana  G  and  McDougall  C.  In  prep.  Considerations  for  facilitating  gender  sensitive  and  
transformative  change  for  community-­‐based  natural  resource  management  and  development  initiatives.  
 
Lee  KN.  1993.  Compass  and  Gyroscope:  Integrating  Science  and  Politics  for  the  Environment.  Washington  and  Covelo:  
Island  Press.  
 
Leuwis  C,  Schut  M,  Waters-­‐Bayer  A,  Mur  R,  Atta-­‐Krah  K  and  Douthwaite  B.  2014.  Capacity  to  innovate  from  a  system  
CGIAR  research  program  perspective.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  
Program  Brief:  AAS-­‐2014-­‐29.    
 
Lind  CE,  Dana  GV,  Perera  RP  and  Phillips  MJ.  2015.  Risk  analysis  in  aquaculture:  A  step-­‐by-­‐step  introduction  with  
worked  examples.  Penang,  Malaysia:  WorldFish.  Technical  report.  
 
Losch  B.  2012.  Agriculture:  The  key  to  the  employment  challenge.  Perspective  19.  
 
Lundy  M,  Becx  G,  Zamierowski  N,  Amrein  A,  Hurtado  JJ,  Mosquera  EE  and  Rodríguez  F.  2012.  LINK  methodology:  A  
participatory  guide  to  business  models  that  link  smallholders  to  markets.  CIAT  Publication  No.  380.  Cali,  Colombia:  
Centro  Internacional  de  Agricultura  Tropical  (CIAT).  
 
Macfadyen  G,  Nasr-­‐Alla  AM,  Al-­‐Kenawy  D,  Fathi  M,  Hebicha  H,  Diab  AM,  Hussein  SM,  Abou-­‐Zeid  RM  and  El-­‐Naggar  G.  
2012.  Value-­‐chain  analysis:  An  assessment  methodology  to  estimate  Egyptian  aquaculture  sector  performance.  
Aquaculture  362-­‐363:18–27.  
 
Mamun-­‐Ur-­‐Rashid  M,  Belton  B,  Phillips  M  and  Rosentrater  KA.  2013.  Improving  aquaculture  feed  in  Bangladesh:  From  
feed  ingredients  to  farmer  profit  to  safe  consumption.  WorldFish,  Penang,  Malaysia.  Working  Paper:  2013-­‐34.  
 
Mapedza  E,  Geheb  K,  van  Koppen  B  and  Chisaka  J.  2012.  Narratives  from  a  wetland:  Sustainable  management  in  
Lukanga,  Zambia.  Development  Southern  Africa  29(3):379–90.  
 
Myanmar  Fisheries  Partnership.  2016.  Myanmar  fisheries:  Aquaculture.  Myanmar.    
Mayne  J.  2007.  Best  practices  in  results  based  management:  A  review  of  experience.  A  report  for  the  United  Nations  
Secretariat.    
 
McClanahan  TR,  Graham  NAJ,  MacNeil  MA,  Muthiga  NA,  Cinner  JE,  Bruggemann  JH  and  Wilson  SK.  2011.  Critical  
thresholds  and  tangible  targets  for  ecosystem-­‐based  management  of  coral  reef  fisheries.  Proceedings  of  the  National  
Academy  of  Sciences  of  the  United  States  of  America  108:17230–33.  
 
McDougall  C,  Cole  SM,  Rajaratnam  S,  Brown  J,  Choudhury  A,  Kato-­‐Wallace  J,  Manlosa  A,  Meng  K,  Muyaule  C,  Schwarz  A  
et  al.  2015.  Implementing  a  gender  transformative  research  approach:  Early  lessons.  In  Douthwaite  B,  Apgar  JM,  
Schwarz  A,  McDougall  C,  Attwood  S,  Senaratna  Sellamuttu  S  and  Clayton  T,  eds.  2015.  Research  in  Development:  
Learning  from  the  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  
Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Working  Paper:  AAS-­‐2015-­‐16.  
 
McDougall  D.  2005.  The  unintended  consequences  of  clarification:  Development,  disputing,  and  the  dynamics  of  
community  in  Ranongga,  Solomon  Islands.  Ethnohistory  52:81–109.  
 
McGregor  A,  Coulthard  S  and  Camfield  L.  2015.  Measuring  what  matters:  The  role  of  wellbeing  methods  in  development  
policy  and  practice.  Development  Progress  Project  Note  4.  Overseas  Development  Institute.  
 
Meenakshi  JV,  Banerji  A,  Manyong  V,  Tomlins  K,  Nitya  M  and  Hamukwala  P.  2012.  Using  a  discrete  choice  experiment  
to  elicit  the  demand  for  a  nutritious  food:  Willingness-­‐to-­‐pay  for  orange  maize  in  rural  Zambia.  Journal  of  Health  
Economics  31(1):62–71.  ISSN  0167-­‐6296.  
 

 127
 
Mills  DJ,  Westlund  L,  Graaf  GD,  Kura  Y,  Willman  R  and  Kelleher  K.  2011.  Under-­‐reported  and  undervalued:  Small-­‐scale  
fisheries  in  the  developing  world.  In  Pomeroy  RS  and  Andrew  NL,  eds.  Small-­‐scale  Fisheries  Management:  Frameworks  
and  Approaches  for  the  Developing  World.  Wallingford,  UK:  CABI  Publishing.  
 
Mondal  S.  2016.  Biology  and  production  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  mola  (Amblypharyngodon  mola)  and  darkina  
(Esomus  danricus)  in  rice-­‐field  and  pond  condition.  [Dissertation  thesis]  Bangladesh  Agricultural  University  (BAU).  
 
Morgan  P.  2006.  The  concept  of  capacity.  European  Centre  for  Development  Policy  Management  (ECDPM),  Maastricht.  
 
Morgan  M,  Choudhury  A,  Braun  M,  Beare  D,  Benedict  J  and  Kantor  P.  2015.  Enhancing  the  gender-­‐equitable  potential  of  
aquaculture  technologies.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Program  Brief:  
AAS-­‐2015-­‐07.  
 
Morgan  M,  Terry  G,  Rajaratnam  S  and  Pant  J.  2016.  Socio-­‐cultural  dynamics  shaping  the  potential  of  aquaculture  to  
deliver  development  outcomes.  Reviews  in  Aquaculture.  doi:10.1111/raq.12137  
 
Moriarty  P,  Fonseca  C,  Smits  S  and  Schouten  T.  2005.  Background  paper  for  the  symposium:  Learning  alliances  for  
scaling  up  innovative  approaches  in  the  water  and  sanitation  sector.  IRC  June.  
 
Nahiduzzaman  M,  Zahura  I,  Islam  ME,  Sarker  AK,  Miah  MMA,  Datta  GC,  Basak  RK,  Haque,  ABMM  and  Hossain  MM.  
2015.  Improving  income  and  livelihood  of  poor  farming  household  in  Bangladesh  through  adoption  of  improved  
aquaculture  technologies  and  varieties.  Dhaka,  Bangladesh:  WorldFish.  
 
Naylor  RL,  Goldburg  RJ,  Mooney  H,  Beveridge  M,  Clay  J,  Folke  C,  Kautsky  N,  Lubchenco  J,  Primavera  J  and  Williams  M.  
1998.  Nature’s  subsidies  to  shrimp  and  salmon  farming.  Science  282(5390):883–4.  
 
Naylor  RL,  Goldburg  RJ,  Primavera  JH,  Kautsky  N,  Beveridge  MCM,  Clay  J,  Folke  C,  Lubchencos  J,  Mooney  H  and  Troell  
M.  2000.  Effect  of  aquaculture  on  world  fish  supplies.  Nature  405:1017–24.  
 
Ndanga  LZB,  Quagrainie  KK  and  Dennis  JH.  2013.  Economically  feasible  options  for  increased  women  participation  in  
Kenyan  aquaculture  value  chain.  Aquaculture  414-­‐415:183–90.  
 
Newton   R,   Telfer   T   and   Little   D.   2014.   Perspectives   on   the   Utilization   of   Aquaculture   Coproduct   in   Europe   and   Asia:  
Prospects   for   Value   Addition   and   Improved   Resource   Efficiency.   Critical   Reviews   in   Food   Science   and   Nutrition   54(4):  
495-­‐510.  
 
Nguyen  PH,  Avula  R,  Ruel  MT,  Saha  KK,  Ali  D,  Tran  LM,  Frongillo  EA,  Menon  P  and  Rawat  R.  2013.  Maternal  and  child  
dietary  diversity  are  associated  in  Bangladesh,  Vietnam,  and  Ethiopia.  Nutrition  143(7):1176–83.  
 
[OECD]  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-­‐operation  and  Development.  2013.  OECD  guidelines  on  measuring  subjective  well-­‐
being.  OECD  Publishing,  Paris.    
 
[OECD-­‐FAO]  OECD/Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations.  2015.  OECD-­‐FAO  Agricultural  Outlook  
2015,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris.  
 
[OECD-­‐FAO]  OECD/Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations.  2016.  OECD-­‐FAO  Agricultural  Outlook  
2016-­‐2025,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris.  
 
[OECD-­‐FAO]  OECD/Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations.  2016.  Fish  and  Seafood,  in  OECD-­‐FAO  
Agricultural  Outlook  2016-­‐2025  ,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris.  
 
Olsen   RL,   Toppe   J   and   Karunasagar   I.   2014.  Challenges   and   realistic   opportunities   in   the   use   of   by-­‐products   from  
processing   of   fish   and   shellfish.   Trends   in   Food   Science   &   Technology.   Volume   36,   ISSN   0924-­‐2244.s   144-­‐151.s  
doi:  10.1016/j.tifs.2014.01.007  
 
Ortiz  A  and  Taylor  P.  2008.  Learning  purposefully  in  capacity  development:  Why,  what  and  when  to  measure?  An  
opinion  paper  prepared  for  the  International  Institute  of  Educational  Planning  (IIEP).  Institute  of  Development  Studies,  
United  Kingdom.  

 128
 
Ostrom  E.  1990.  Governing  the  commons.  Cambridge  University  Press.  
 
Pant  J,  Barman  BK,  Murshed-­‐E-­‐Jahan  K,  Belton  B  and  Beveridge  M.  2014.  Can  aquaculture  benefit  the  extreme  poor?  A  
case  study  of  landless  and  socially  marginalized  Adivasi  (ethnic)  communities  in  Bangladesh.  Aquaculture  418–419:1-­‐10.    
 
Pauly  D  and  Zeller  D.  2016.  Catch  reconstructions  reveal  that  global  marine  fisheries  catches  are  higher  than  reported  
and  declining.  Nature  communications,  7.  
 
Pelto  GH,  Armar-­‐Klemesu  M,  Siekmann  J  and  Schofield  D.  2013.  The  focused  ethnographic  study  ‘assessing  the  
behavioral  and  local  market  environment  for  improving  the  diets  of  infants  and  young  children  6  to  23  months  old’  and  
its  use  in  three  countries.  Maternal  &  Child  Nutrition  9:35–46.    
 
Phillips  MJ,  Henriksson  PJG,  Tran  NV,  Chan  CY,  Mohan  CV,  Rodriguez  UP,  Suri  S,  Hall  S  and  Koeshendrajana  S.  2015.  
Exploring  Indonesian  aquaculture  futures.  Penang,  Malaysia:  WorldFish.  Program  Report:  2015-­‐39.    
 
Phillips  MJ,  Kwei-­‐Lin  C  and  Beveridge  MCM.  1993.  Shrimp  culture  and  the  environment:  Lessons  from  the  world's  most  
rapidly  expanding  warmwater  aquaculture  sector.  In  Pullin  RSV,  Rosenthal  H  and  Maclean  JL,  eds.  Environment  and  
Aquaculture  in  Developing  Countries.  ICLARM  Conference  Proceedings  31.  171–97.  
 
Phong  ND,  Hoanh  CT,  Tho  TQ,  Ngoc  NV,  Dong  TD,  Tuong  TP,  Khoi  NH,  Hien  NX  and  Nam  NT.  2016.  Water  management  
for  agricultural  production  in  a  coastal  province  of  the  Mekong  River  Delta  under  sea  level  rise.  In  Hoanh  CT,  Johnston  R  
and  Smakhtin  V,  eds.  Climate  Change  and  Agricultural  Water  Management  in  Developing  Countries.  CABI  Climate  
Change  Series  No.  8.  Wallingford,  UK:  CABI  Publishing;  Sri  Lanka:  International  Water  Management  Institute  (IWMI).  
 
Pomeroy  RE  and  Andrew  NL.  2011.  Managing  Small-­‐Scale  Fisheries:  Frameworks  and  Approaches.  Wallingford,  UK:  CABI  
Publishing.  
 
Ponte  S  and  Ewert  J.  2009.  Which  way  is  “up”  in  upgrading?  Trajectories  of  change  in  the  value  chain  for  South  African  
wine.  World  Development  37(10):1637–50.  
Ponte  S,  Kelling  I,  Jespersen  KS  and  Kruijssen  F.  2014.  The  blue  revolution  in  Asia:  Upgrading  and  governance  in  
aquaculture  value  chains.  World  Development  64:52–64.  
 
Ponzoni  RW,  Nguyen  NH,  Khaw  HL,  and  Rodriguez  Jr  BM.  2012.  Considerations  about  effective  dissemination  of  
improved  fish  strains.  WorldFish,  Penang,  Malaysia.  Working  Paper:  2012-­‐47.  
 
Powell  B,  Thilsted  SH,  Ickowitz  A,  Termote  C,  Sunderland  T  and  Herforth  A.  2015.  Improving  diets  with  wild  and  
cultivated  biodiversity  from  across  the  landscape.  Food  Security  7(3):535-­‐554.  
 
Promundo-­‐US  and  [AAS]  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  2016.  Promoting  Gender-­‐
Transformative  Change  with  Men  and  Boys:  A  Manual  to  Spark  Critical  Reflection  on  Harmful  Gender  Norms  with  Men  
and  Boys  in  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Washington,  DC:  Promundo-­‐US  and  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  
Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  
 
Purcell  S.  2014.  Processing  sea  cucumbers  into  beche-­‐de-­‐mer:  a  manual  for  Pacific  Islanders.  Retrieved  from  
http://aciar.gov.au/files/processing_sea_cucumbers_into_beche-­‐de-­‐mer_-­‐_a_manual_for_pacific_island_0.pdf  
 
Puskur  R  and  Pant  J.  In  press.  Small  scale  aquaculture  for  enhancing  food  and  nutrition  security  and  reducing  poverty  in  
Ayeyarwady  Delta:  Women  as  drivers  of  growth.  WorldFish  Project  Brief.  
 
Puskur  R  and  Thilsted  S.  2012.  Promoting  women's  engagement  in  aquaculture  production:  Does  it  always  lead  to  
household  food  and  nutrition  security?  Paper  presented  at  the  Global  Conference  on  Women  in  Agriculture,  13–15  
March,  New  Delhi.  
 
Rajaratnam  S,  Cole  SM,  Fox  KM,  Dierksmeier  B,  Puskur  R,  Zulu  F,  Teoh  SJ  and  Situmo  J.  2015.  Social  and  gender  analysis  
report:  Barotse  Floodplain,  Western  Province,  Zambia.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  
Agricultural  Systems.  Program  Report:  AAS-­‐2015-­‐18.  
 

 129
 
Randy  GD  and  Kanuka  H.  2004.  Blended  learning:  Uncovering  its  transformative  potential  in  higher  education.  The  
Internet  and  Higher  Education  7(2):95–105.  
 
Ratner  BD  and  Allison  EH.  2012.  Wealth,  rights,  and  resilience:  An  agenda  for  governance  reform  in  small-­‐scale  fisheries.  
Development  Policy  Review  30:371–98.  
 
Ratner  BD,  Cohen  P,  Barman  B,  Mam  K,  Nagoli  J  and  Allison  EH.  2013.  Governance  of  aquatic  agricultural  systems:  
Analyzing  representation,  power  and  accountability.  Ecology  and  Society  18:59.  
 
Ratner  BD,  Mam  K  and  Halpern  G.  2014.  Collaborating  for  resilience:  Conflict,  collective  action,  and  transformation  on  
Cambodia’s  Tonle  Sap  Lake.  Ecology  and  Society  19(3):31.  
 
Reason  P  and  Bradbury  H.  2008.  Handbook  of  Action  Research:  Participative  Inquiry  and  Practice.  2nd  ed.  London:  Sage  
Publications.  
 
Rembold  F,  Hodges  R,  Bernard  M,  Knipschild  H  and  Léo  O.  2011.  The  African  Postharvest  Losses  Information  System  
(APHLIS):  An  innovative  framework  to  analyse  and  compute  quantitative  postharvest  losses  for  cereals  under  different  
farming  and  environmental  conditions  in  East  and  Southern  Africa.  Project  Report.  Luxembourg:  Publications  Office  of  
the  European  Union/European  Commission  –  Joint  Research  Centre  –  Institute  of  Environment  and  Sustainability  (JRC-­‐
IES).  
 
Roos  N.  2001.  Fish  Consumption  and  Aquaculture  in  Rural  Bangladesh:  Nutritional  Contribution  and  Production  Potential  
of  Culturing  Small  Indigenous  Fish  Species  (SIS)  in  Pond  Polyculture  with  Commonly  Cultured  Carps.  Copenhagen:  Royal  
Veterinary  and  Agricultural  University,  Research  Department  of  Human  Nutrition.  
 
Roos  N,  Islam  M  and  Thilsted  SH.  2003b.  Small  fish  is  an  important  dietary  source  of  vitamin  A  and  calcium  in  rural  
Bangladesh.  Int  J  Food  Sci  Nutr  54(5):329–39.  doi:10.1080/09637480120092125  
 
Roos  N,  Islam  MM  and  Thilsted  SH.  2003a.  Small  indigenous  fish  species  in  Bangladesh:  Contribution  to  vitamin  A,  
calcium  and  iron  intakes.  J  Nutr  133(11,  Suppl  2):4021S–26S.    
 
Rosegrant  MW,  Paisner  MS,  Meijer  S  and  Witcover  J.  2001.  Global  Food  Projections  to  2020:  Emerging  Trends  and  
Alternative  Futures.  Washington,  DC:  International  Food  Policy  Research  Institute.  
 
Saha  MK.  In  prep.  Studies  on  morphometry,  breeding  and  larval  development  of  mola,  Amblypharyngodon  mola  
(Hamilton,  1822)  from  different  regions  of  Bangladesh.  [Dissertation  thesis]  Bangladesh  Agricultural  University  (BAU).    
 
Saiful  Islam  AHMd,  Barman  BK  and  Murshed-­‐e-­‐Jahan  K.  2015.  Adoption  and  impact  of  integrated  rice-­‐fish  farming  
system  in  Bangladesh.  Aquaculture  447:76–85.    
 
Sarapura  ES  and  Puskur  R.  2014.  Gender  capacity  development  and  organizational  culture  change  in  the  CGIAR  Research  
Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems:  A  conceptual  framework.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  
Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Working  Paper:  AAS-­‐2014-­‐45.  
 
Sari  M,  de  Pee  S,  Bloem  MW,  Sun  K,  Thorne-­‐Lyman  AL,  Moench-­‐Pfanner  R,  AKhter  N,  Kraemer  K  and  Semba  RD.  2010.  
Higher  household  expenditure  on  animal-­‐source  and  nongrain  foods  lowers  the  risk  of  stunting  among  children  0-­‐59  
months  old  in  Indonesia:  Implications  of  rising  food  prices.  J  Nutr  140(1):195S–200S.    
 
Sayer  JA  and  Campbell  BM.  2004.  The  Science  of  Sustainable  Development:  Local  Livelihoods  and  the  Global  
Environment.  Cambridge,  UK:  Cambridge  University  Press.  
 
Schwarz  A,  James  A,  Teioli  HM,  Cohen  P  and  Morgan  M.  2014.  Engaging  men  and  women  in  community-­‐based  resource  
management  processes  in  Solomon  Islands.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  
Systems.  Case  Study:  AAS-­‐2014-­‐33.  
 
Schwarz  AM,  Béné  C,  Bennett  G,  Boso  D,  Hilly  Z,  Paul  C,  Posala  R,  Sibiti  S  and  Andrew  NL.  2011.  Vulnerability  and  
resilience  of  remote  rural  communities  to  shocks  and  global  changes:  Empirical  analysis  from  Solomon  Islands.  Global  
Environmental  Change  21:1128–40.  

 130
 
Secretariat  of  the  Pacific  Community.  2015.  A  new  song  for  coastal  fisheries  –  pathways  to  change:  The  Noumea  
strategy.  Noumea.  
 
Selig  ER,  Kleisner  KM,  Ahoobim  O,  Arocha  F,  Cruz-­‐Trinidad  A,  Fujita  R,  Grasso  T,  Hara  M,  Katz  L,  McConney  P  et  al.  In  
press.  A  typology  of  small-­‐scale  fisheries  management  tools:  Using  experience  to  catalyze  greater  success.  Fish  and  
Fisheries.  
 
Sellars  MJ,  Rao  M,  Cowley  JA,  Glencross  BD,  Preston  NP,  Irvin  SI  and  Polymeris  N.  2015.  Feed  containing  NovacqTM  
improves  resilience  of  black  tiger  shrimp,  Penaeus  monodon,  to  gill-­‐associated  virus-­‐induced  mortality.  Journal  of  the  
World  Aquaculture  Society  46(3):328–36.  
 
Skau  JKH.  2014.  Preventing  undernutrition  in  Cambodia:  Assessing  the  effect  of  improved  local  complementary  food  on  
growth.  [PhD  thesis]  University  of  Copenhagen,  Faculty  of  Science.  
 
Smith  LC  and  Subandoro  A.  2007.  Measuring  Food  Security  Using  Household  Expenditure  Surveys.  Washington,  DC:  
International  Food  Policy  Research  Institute  (IFPRI).  
 
Sonesson   AK   and   Meuwissen   THE.   2009.   Testing   strategies   for   genomic   selection   in   aquaculture   breeding   programs.  
Genetics  Selection  Evolution  41:37.  doi:10.1186/1297-­‐9686-­‐41-­‐37  
 
Spielman  DJ  and  Pandya-­‐Lorch  R.  2009.  Millions  Fed:  Proven  Successes  in  Agricultural  Development.  Washington,  DC:  
International  Food  Policy  Research  Institute  (IFPRI).  
 
Stiglitz  J,  Sen  AK  and  Fitoussi  JP.  2009.  The  measurement  of  economic  performance  and  social  progress  revisited:  
Reflections  and  overview.  Paris:  Commission  on  the  Measurement  of  Economic  Performance  and  Social  Progress.    
Stockholm  Resilience  Center.  2015.  Applying  resilience  thinking;  Seven  principles  for  building  resilience  in  social-­‐
ecological  systems.  
 
Sulu  RJ,  Eriksson  H,  Schwarz  AM,  Andrew  NL,  Orirana  G,  Sukulu  M,  Oeta  J,  Harohau  D,  Sibiti  S,  Toritela  A  et  al.  2015.  
Livelihoods  and  fisheries  governance  in  a  contemporary  Pacific  Island  setting.  PLoS  ONE.  
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143516  
 
Tacon  AGJ  and  Metian  M.  2008.  Global  overview  on  the  use  of  fish  meal  and  fish  oil  in  industrially  compounded  
aquafeeds:  Trends  and  future  prospects.  Aquaculture.  285(1-­‐4):  146-­‐158.  
 
Thilsted  SH.  2012a.  Improved  management,  increased  culture  and  consumption  of  small  fish  species  can  improve  diets  
of  the  rural  poor.  In  Sustainable  Diets  and  Biodiversity:  Directions  and  Solutions  for  Policy,  Research  and  Action.  Rome:  
FAO  and  Bioversity  International.  176–81.      
 
Thilsted  SH.  2012b.  The  potential  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  species  in  aquaculture  to  improve  human  nutrition  and  
health.  In  Subasinghe  RP,  Arthur  JR,  Bartley  DM,  De  Silva  SS,  Halwart  M,  Hishamunda  N,  Mohan  CV  and  Sorgeloos  P,  
eds.  Farming  the  Waters  for  People  and  Food.  Proceedings  of  the  Global  Conference  on  Aquaculture,  22–25  September  
2010,  Phuket,  Thailand.  Rome:  FAO;  Bangkok:  NACA.  57–73.  
 
Thilsted  SH,  Thorne-­‐Lyman  A,  Subasinghe  R,  Webb  P,  Bogard  JR,  Phillips  MJ  and  Allison  EH.  2016.  Sustaining  healthy  
diets:  The  role  of  capture  fisheries  and  aquaculture  for  improving  nutrition  in  the  post-­‐2015  era.  Food  Policy  61:126–31.    
 
Thilsted  SH  and  Wahab  MA.  2014a.  Nourishing  Bangladesh  with  micronutrient-­‐rich  small  fish.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  
Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Policy  Brief:  AAS-­‐2014-­‐08.  
 
Thilsted  SH  and  Wahab  MA.  2014b.  Increased  production  of  small  fish  in  wetlands  combats  micronutrient  deficiencies  
in  Bangladesh.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Policy  Brief:  AAS-­‐2014-­‐10.    
 
Thilsted  SH  and  Wahab  MA.  2014c.  Pond  polyculture  technologies  combat  micronutrient  deficiencies  and  increase  
household  income  in  Bangladesh.  Penang,  Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Policy  
Brief:  AAS-­‐2014-­‐09.    
 
 

 131
 
Thilsted  SH  and  Wahab  MA.  2014d.  Sustainable  production  of  small  fish  in  wetland  areas  of  Bangladesh.  Penang,  
Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Brochure:  AAS-­‐2014-­‐07.    
 
Thilsted  SH  and  Wahab  MA.  2014e.  Polyculture  of  carps  and  mola  in  ponds  and  ponds  connected  to  rice  fields.  Penang,  
Malaysia:  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Brochure:  AAS-­‐2014-­‐06.    
 
Thilsted  SH  and  Wahab  MA,  eds.  2014f.  Production  and  conservation  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish  (SIS)  in  ponds  and  
wetlands  for  nutrition  security  and  livelihoods  in  South  Asia.  Proceedings  of  a  World  Bank/SAFANSI  funded  regional  
workshop  on  small  fish  and  nutrition,  1–2  March  2014,  Dhaka,  Bangladesh.    
 
Thorne-­‐Lyman  A  and  Fawzi  WW.  2011.  Improving  child  survival  through  vitamin  A  supplementation.  BMJ  343:d5294.  
doi:10.1136/bmj.d5294  
 
Thorne-­‐Lyman  A  and  Fawzi  WW.  2012.  Vitamin  D  during  pregnancy  and  maternal,  neonatal  and  infant  health  
outcomes:  A  systematic  review  and  meta-­‐analysis.  Paediatr  Perinat  Epidemiol  26(Suppl  1):75–90.    
 
Thorne-­‐Lyman  A,  Spiegelman  D  and  Fawzi  WW.  2014.  Is  the  strength  of  association  between  indicators  of  dietary  
quality  and  the  nutritional  status  of  children  being  underestimated?  Matern  Child  Nutr  10(1):159–60.    
 
Thorne-­‐Lyman  AL,  Baten  A,  Gorshink  S,  Akhter  R,  Valpiani  N,  Karim  M,  and  Thilsted  SH.  In  review.  Fish  and  meat  are  
commonly  withheld  from  infants  6-­‐12  months  in  rural  Bangladesh.  Food  and  Nutrition  Bulletin.    
 
Thorne-­‐Lyman  AL,  Valpiani  N,  Sun  K,  Semba  RD,  Klotz  CL,  Kraemer  K,  Akhter  N,  de  Pee  S,  Moench-­‐Pfanner  R,  Sari  M  and  
Bloem  MW.  2010.  Household  dietary  diversity  and  food  expenditures  are  closely  linked  in  rural  Bangladesh,  increasing  
the  risk  of  malnutrition  due  to  the  financial  crisis.  J  Nutr  140(1):182S–88S.  
 
Tilman  D  and  Clark  M.  2014.  Global  diets  link  environmental  sustainability  and  human  health.  Nature  515(7528):518–
22.  
 
Toufique  KA  and  Belton  B.  2014.  Is  aquaculture  pro-­‐poor?  Empirical  evidence  of  impacts  on  fish  consumption  in  
Bangladesh.  World  Development  64:609–20.  
 
Tran  N,  Nguyen  A  and  Wilson  NL.  2014.  The  differential  effects  of  food  safety  regulations  on  animal  products  trade:  The  
case  of  crustacean  product  trade.  Agribusiness  30(1):31–45.  
 
Troell  M,  Naylor  RL,  Metian  M,  Beveridge  M,  Tyedmers  PF,  Folke  C,  Arrow  KJ,  Barrett  S,  Crepin  AS,  Ehrlich  PR  et  al.  2014.  
Does  aquaculture  add  resilience  to  the  global  food  system?  PNAS,  online  first  18  Aug.  doi:10.1073/pnas.1404067111  
 
[USAID/SPRING/GAIN]  USAID/Strengthening  Partnerships,  Results  and  Innovation  on  Nutrition  Globally/Global  Alliance  
for  Improved  Nutrition.  2014.  Conference  report  and  strategic  agenda  for  nutrition  SBCC.  Designing  the  Future  of  
Nutrition  Social  and  Behavior  Change  Communication:  How  to  Achieve  Impact  at  Scale.    
 
Vava’u.  2007.  The  Vava’u  Declaration  on  Pacific  Fisheries  Resources:  ‘Our  Fish,  Our  Future.’  Forum  Communique,  
Thirty-­‐eighth  Pacific  Islands  Forum,  16–17  October  2007,  Nuku’alofa,  Tonga.    
 
Veliu  A,  Gessese  N,  Ragasa  C  and  Okali  C.  2009.  Gender  analysis  of  aquaculture  value  chain  in  Northeast  Vietnam  and  
Nigeria.  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  Discussion  Paper  44.  The  World  Bank.  
 
Vervoort  JM,  Thornton  PK,  Kristjanson  P,  Forch  W,  Ericksen  PJ,  Kok  K,  Ingram  JSI,  Herrero  M,  Palazzo  A,  Helfgott  AES  et  
al.  2014.  Challenges  to  scenario-­‐guided  adaptive  action  on  food  security  under  climate  change.  Global  Environmental  
Change  28:383–94.  
 
Victor  M  and  Pukinskis  I.  2014.  The  beauty  of  small  things.  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Water,  Land  and  Ecosystems.      
Retrieved  from  https://wle.cgiar.org/thrive/2014/07/25/beauty-­‐small-­‐things    
 
Waite  R,  Beveridge  M,  Brummett  R,  Castine  S,  Chaiyawannakarn  N,  Kaushik  S,  Mungkung  R,  Nawapakpilai  S  and  Phillips  
M.  2014.  Improving  productivity  and  environmental  performance  of  aquaculture.  Working  Paper,  Installment  5  of  
Creating  a  Sustainable  Food  Future.  Washington,  DC:  World  Resources  Institute.    

 132
 
  
Walker  PJ  and  Winton  JR.  2010.  Emerging  viral  diseases  of  fish  and  shrimp.  Vet  Res  41(6):51.  
 
Ward  AR  and  Jeffries  DJ.  2000.  A  Manual  for  Assessing  Post-­‐Harvest  Fisheries  Losses.  Chatham,  UK:  Natural  Resources  
Institute.    
 
Weeratunge  N,  Bene  C,  Siriwardane  R,  Charles  A,  Johnson  D,  Allison  EH,  Nayak  PK  and  Badjeck  MC.  2014.  Small-­‐scale  
fisheries  through  the  wellbeing  lens.  Fish  and  Fisheries  15:255–79.  
 
Weeratunge  N,  Chiuta  TM,  Choudhury  A,  Ferrer  A,  Hüsken  SMC,  Kura  Y,  Kusakabe  K,  Madzudzo  E,  Maetala  R,  Naved  RT  
et  al.  2012.  Transforming  aquatic  agricultural  systems  towards  gender  equality:  A  five  country  review.  Penang,  Malaysia:  
CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Working  Paper:  AAS-­‐2012-­‐21.  
 
Weeratunge  N,  Joffre  O,  Senaratna  Sellamuttu  S,  Bouahom  B  and  Keophoxay.  In  review.  Livelihoods,  gender  and  
household  decision-­‐making  in  a  Lao  village:  Implications  for  hydropower  development.  Gender,  Place  and  Culture.  
Weeratunge  N,  Snyder  KA  and  Sze  CP.  2010.  Gleaner,  fisher,  trader,  processor:  Understanding  gendered  employment  in  
fisheries  and  aquaculture.  Fish  and  Fisheries  11(4):405–20.    
 
White  B.  2012.  Agriculture  and  the  generation  problem:  Rural  youth,  employment  and  the  future  of  farming.  IDS  
Bulletin  43(6):9–19.  
Wilson  D  and  Biller  M.  2012.  Three  Phases  of  Learning:  Learning  in,  from,  and  for  Action.  Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  
University,  Learning  Innovations  Laboratory.  
 
Winemiller  KO,  McIntyre  PB,  Castello  L,  Fluet-­‐Chouinard  E,  Giarrizzo  T,  Nam  S,  Baird  IG,  Darwall  W,  Lujan  NK,  Harrison  I  
et  al.  2016.  Balancing  hydropower  and  biodiversity  in  the  Amazon,  Congo,  and  Mekong.  Science  351(6269):128–29.  
 
World  Bank.  2012.  Hidden  harvest:  the  global  contribution  of  capture  fisheries.  World  Bank  Report  No.  66469-­‐GLB.  
Washington,  DC:  World  Bank.  
 
World  Bank.  2013.  Fish  to  2030:  Prospects  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture.  World  Bank  Report  No.  83117-­‐GLB.  
Washington,  DC:  World  Bank.    
 
World  Bank.  2014.  Reducing  disease  risk  in  aquaculture.  World  Bank  Report  No.  88257-­‐GL.  Agriculture  and  
Environmental  Services  Discussion  Paper  09.  Washington,  DC:  World  Bank.  
 
World  Bank-­‐FAO-­‐WorldFish.  2012.  Hidden  Harvest:  The  Global  Contribution  of  Capture  Fisheries.  Washington,  DC:  World  
Bank.    
 
WorldFish.  2011.  Fish  supply  and  demand  scenarios  in  Cambodia  and  perspectives  on  the  future  role  of  aquaculture.  
Project  Brief:  2011-­‐23.  WorldFish  Center.    
 
WorldFish.  2013.  Community-­‐based  marine  resource  management  in  Solomon  Islands:  A  facilitator’s  guide.  Based  on  
lessons  from  implementing  CBRM  with  rural  coastal  communities  in  Solomon  Islands  (2005–2013).  Penang,  Malaysia:  
CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems.  Manual:  AAS-­‐2013-­‐17.  
 
WorldFish.  2015.  Genetically  Improved  Farmed  Tilapia  (GIFT).  Penang,  Malaysia:  WorldFish.  Factsheet:  2015-­‐13.    
 
Yáñez  JM,  Newman  S  and  Houston  RD.  2015.  Genomics  in  aquaculture  to  better  understand  species  biology  and  
accelerate  genetic  progress.  Frontiers  in  Genetics  6:128.  doi:  10.3389/fgene.2015.00128  
 
Young  OR,  Berkhout  F,  Gallopin  GC,  Janssen  MA,  Ostrom  E  and  Leeuw  SVD.  2006.  The  globalization  of  socio-­‐ecological  
systems:  An  agenda  for  scientific  research.  Global  Environmental  Change-­‐Human  and  Policy  Dimensions  16:304-­‐316.  
 
Zhao  LG,  Sun  JW,  Yang  Y,  Ma  X,  Wang  YY  and  Xiang  YB.  2015.  Fish  consumption  and  all-­‐cause  mortality:  A  meta-­‐analysis  
of  cohort  studies.  European  Journal  of  Clinical  Nutrition  70(2):155–61.    

 133
 
Addenda
Addendum  1:  Summary  of  response  to  ISPC  commentary  on  full  proposal  (June  2016)  ............................................................  2
Addendum  2.  Response  to  ISPC  commentary  on  the  FISH  CRP  pre-­‐proposal  (January  2016)  ..................................................  12
Addendum  3.  Response  to  Consortium  Office  commentary  on  intellectual  assets  management  and  open  access  /  open  data  
(June  2016)  ................................................................................................................................................................................  16

 
 
 
 
   

1
Addendum  1:  Summary  of  response  to  ISPC  commentary  on  full  proposal  (June  
2016)  
 
The  ISPC  provided  commentary  on  each  CRP  full  proposal,  dated  15  June  2016.  Revisions  and  additions  responding  to  this  
commentary  on  the  FISH  CRP  have  been  integrated  into  this  resubmission  (July  2016).  The  following  summary  details  
changes  and  provides  additional  explanation  in  response  to  the  eight  bullet  points  of  the  ISPC  Commentary,  integrating  
responses  to  more  detailed  points  from  the  commentary  where  relevant.  This  is  followed  by  a  summary  of  responses  to  the  
specific  request  for  revisions  of  FP1.      
 
a.  A  description  of  the  process  which  the  CRP  intends  to  use  for  further  priority  setting  and  closer  functional  integration  
with  the  other  AFS  CRPs  and  GIPs.      
 
The  overall  priority  setting  process  across  the  FISH  research  portfolio  centers  on  a  quantitative  and  qualitative  analysis  
of  the  probability  of  success  across  four  dimensions:    

1. science  challenge  and  capability  (science  base,  technical  challenge  and  project  complexity,  world-­‐class  
capability  relative  to  others,  unique  capacity);  
2. capacity  to  deliver  (track  record  of  leadership,  team  composition  and  effectiveness,  scientific  partnerships  and  
linkages,  infrastructure  and  equipment);  
3. clarity  of  planned  outcomes  (quantitative  and  qualitative);  
4. clearly  defined  delivery  pathways  (capacity  of  focus  countries,  stage  of  partner  involvement,  partner  capacity  
to  co-­‐invest,  end-­‐user  capacity  to  adopt  research  advances  and  anticipated  timeframe  for  achieving  each  of  the  
specified  SLO  targets).  

The  results  of  this  priority  setting  process  are  plotted  in  a  matrix  of  SLO  targets  and  the  probability  of  success  of  each  of  
the  research  areas.  The  results  have  been  incorporated  into  the  revised  FISH  impact  pathways  and  theories  of  change.  
We  have  included  identified  risks  and  assumptions,  for  CRP  and  flagship  levels,  in  the  design  of  corresponding  
strategies  and  risk  management  actions  (see  sections  1.0.3,  2.1.1.3,  2.2.1.3  &  2.3.1.3).  To  test  assumptions  and  improve  
results  at  the  CRP  and  flagship  levels,  we  will  use  an  integrated  approach  to  outcome  evaluation  and  impact  
assessment.  These  assessment  activities  will  help  us  refine  the  targeting  and  design  of  project  activities  and  
demonstrate  quantitative  progress  towards  SLO  and  IDO  targets,  enabling  us  to  adjust  investment  in  our  research  areas  
and  geographies  for  greatest  impact.  

In  line  with  ISPC  Commentary,  additional  information  has  also  been  provided  in  the  budget  narrative  sections  of  the  
proposal  regarding  the  strategic  allocation  of  W1-­‐2  funds  versus  bilaterally  funded  activities,  as  well  as  a  detailed  
prioritization  of  additional  research  activities  that  would  be  funded  under  an  uplift  budget  scenario  (See  Budget  narratives).    
 
Regarding  functional  integration  with  other  CRPs,  Annex  3.7  details  cross-­‐CRP  linkages  and  the  rationale  behind  these.  
In  making  revisions  for  the  FISH  CRP  resubmission,  we  have  added  a  paragraph  to  Annex  3.7  to  clarify  the  way  in  which  
the  partnership  mode  reflects  prioritization  in  cross-­‐CRP  linkages.  Activities  identified  as  co-­‐investment  (ongoing)  are  
both  high  priority  and  planned  to  proceed  from  the  start  of  the  new  CRP.  These  are  
• foresight  modeling,  fisheries  governance  (PIM);  
• integration  of  fish  in  nutrition  strategies  of  national  governments  and  development  agencies  (A4NH);  
• foresight  analysis  and  scenario  development,  climate  smart  agriculture  options  (CCAFS).  
 
Activities  identified  as  co-­‐investment  (new)  are  also  high  priority  but  are  expected  to  be  phased  in  during  the  first  two  
years  of  program  implementation.  These  are  
• conversion  of  cassava  waste  into  fish  feed  (RTB);  
• integrated  rice-­‐fish  systems  (RICE);  
• sorghum  in  fish  feeds  (GLDC).  
 
Activities  identified  as  parallel  investment  (new)  are  considered  medium  priority,  expected  to  be  phased  in  during  the  

2
first  two  years  of  program  implementation,  but  with  the  potential  to  be  scaled  back  or  deferred  in  the  case  of  
inadequate  funding.  These  are  
• measuring  and  reducing  postharvest  losses  (PIM);  
• risk  assessment  and  mitigation  for  fish  food  safety  (A4NH).  
 
Lastly,  activities  identified  as  “joint  resource  mobilization”  are  those  dependent  on  new  sources  of  bilateral  funding,  
and  are  only  intended  to  launch  once  those  sources  have  been  secured.  
 
The  ISPC  Commentary  also  includes  more  detailed  points  regarding  cross-­‐CRP  collaboration.  These  have  been  
addressed  as  follows:    
 
Extent  of  collaboration  with  CCAFS.  The  commentary  notes  on  page  3  that  “the  proposed  relationship  with  CCAFS  
seems  to  stop  at  foresight  analysis  and  scenario  development.”  Annex  3.7,  Table  2a,  of  the  proposal  does  indeed  
state  that  there  will  be  collaboration  around  foresight  analysis  and  scenario  development,  but  on  the  next  page  the  
table  continues  with  further  information  on  proposed  collaboration  in  climate  smart  agriculture/aquaculture  
(aligning  with  FP2  of  the  new  CCAFS  proposal)  in  developing  and  testing  aquaculture  technologies  (e.g.  fast  growing  
strains  of  fish  that  can  complete  production  in  a  shorter  period  of  freshwater  availability)  and  habitat  modifications  
in  rice  fields  to  allow  refuges  for  fish  during  dry  seasons.  Minor  revisions  have  been  made  to  the  FP1  text  (Section  
2.1.18)  to  provide  additional  clarity/emphasis  on  the  collaboration  with  CCAFS  FP1  (Priorities  and  Policies  for  Climate  
Smart  Agriculture),  FP2  (Climate  Smart  Technologies  and  Practices)  and  FP3  (Low  Emissions  Development).  
 
Clarification  of  relationship  with  Excellence  in  Breeding  platform.  The  commentary  notes  on  page  3  that  “the  exact  
nature  of  the  relationship  and  activities  foreseen  with  the  Excellence  in  Breeding  platform  need  further  clarification.”  
More  detail  has  been  provided  in  Annex  3.7,  Table  2a.  Specifically  we  see  the  interactions  with  the  genetics  gain  
platform  in  assisting  the  development  of  genomic  breeding  strategies,  accessing  the  latest  molecular  and  
bioinformatics  tools  to  apply  to  fish  and  contributing  to  a  consolidated  approach  to  reporting  of  genetic  gain  by  
CGIAR.  Minor  revisions  have  been  made  in  the  FP1  text  (Sections  2.1.1.4,  and  2.1.1.6,  Cluster  1  text)  to  provide  
additional  clarity.    
 
Clarification  of  lessons  and  interactions  with  WLE.  The  commentary  on  page  8  requests  clarification  regarding  “how  
FP  2,  and  in  particular  cluster  2,  has  been  shaped  by  the  lessons  and  external  evaluation  of  AAS…  [and]  how  it  
interacts  with  WLE.”  FP2,  cluster  2,  design  has  indeed  drawn  from  AAS  lessons  and  evaluation  and  envisions  linkages  
with  WLE,  particularly  in  the  Mekong  and  Ganges  regions.  In  Zambia,  for  example,  the  proposed  work  under  cluster  2  
builds  on  the  experiences  and  research  in  the  Barotse  floodplain  under  AAS,  where  GIS  and  remote  sensing  were  key  
methods  to  better  understand  the  natural  resource  status  and  trajectory  of  change  over  time,  particularly  in  the  
context  of  a  trade-­‐off  analysis  for  potential  wetland  use  options.  These  tools  were  complemented  with  local  
knowledge  to  help  inform  realistic  decision-­‐making  in  wetland  areas  (Xueliang  et  al.  in  review).  In  regard  to  the  work  
proposed  for  Cambodia,  adapting  local  institutional  models  (developed  under  USAID-­‐supported  investment  on  rice  
field  fisheries  in  AAS)  through  participatory  community  dialogues  will  expand  the  scope  of  fish  refuge  management  
committees  to  adopt  a  more  multi-­‐user  orientation  critical  for  balancing  often  competing  uses.  Learning  from  AAS  on  
local  political  economies  in  Bangladesh,  Cambodia  and  Zambia  provides  critical  understanding  for  designing  
informed  and  effective  approaches  to  building  institutions  that  support  deliberative  and  inclusive  decision-­‐making  
processes  that  result  in  both  sustainable  and  equitable  resource  use  and  reduce  the  risk  of  elite  resource  capture  
(Agpar  et  al.  in  review).  Learning  from  Khulna  in  Bangladesh,  through  AAS  and  the  WLE  Ganges  focal  region  work  on  
improved  community  water  and  land  management  practices  at  the  micro-­‐scale  within  the  polders,  has  contributed  
to  the  creation  of  innovative  water  resource  governance  mechanisms  to  reduce  conflict  associated  with  water  
management  among  community  members  (Dewan  et  al.  2014;  Kenia  and  Buisson  2015)  and  has  informed  the  
subsequent  research  proposed  in  Bangladesh  under  cluster  2.  These  lessons  are  also  consistent  with  AAS  external  
evaluation  findings,  which  urged  greater  integration  of  the  political  economy  and  governance  analyses  with  technical  
research  activities.    
 
 
Through  linkages  with  WLE,  particularly  Flagship  4  on  managing  resource  variability,  risk  and  competing  uses  for  
3
 increased  resilience  (VCR),  FISH  FP2  will  jointly  explore  and  test  innovative  solutions  for  sustaining  fisheries  and  
livelihood  adaptations  in  man-­‐made  water  bodies  such  as  reservoirs  constructed  for  hydropower  and  irrigation.  
Additional  joint  research  will  support  the  optimization  of  water  management  in  integrated  fish  and  crop  production  
systems.  Our  partnership  with  WLE  seeks  to  make  certain  that  deliberations  over  basin  and  watershed-­‐scale  
resource  competition  and  development  scenarios  take  into  consideration  fisheries  outcomes.  Minor  edits  have  been  
made  in  Annex  3.7  to  clarify  these  linkages.      
 
Increased  collaboration  with  A4NH.  The  commentary  on  page  9  recommends  “increased  collaboration  with  A4NH”  
for  FP3  in  order  to  “enhance  its  relevance  to  the  grand  challenge  of  malnutrition.”  The  revised  text  of  FP3  in  section  
2,  and  in  Annex  3.7,  take  on  board  these  recommendations.  Building  on  strong  on-­‐going  collaboration  with  A4NH  
with  respect  to  fish  in  healthy  diets,  behavior  change  and  nutrition  education  for  increased  fish  consumption,  
development  of  fish-­‐based  products,  especially  in  Zambia  and  Bangladesh,  future  collaboration  aims  at  broader  
integration  of  fish  within  nutrition  policies  and  programs,  in  particular  through  A4NH  Flagship  1  (Food  systems  for  
healthier  diets),  Flagship  3  (Food  safety)  and  Flagship  4  (Supporting  Policies,  Programs  and  Enabling  Action  through  
Research).  As  an  example,  FISH  FP3  will  collaborate  with  A4NH  in  the  use  of  fish  products  developed  for  the  1000  
days  in  other  population  groups,  for  example,  as  part  of  broader  nutrition  improvement  programs  targeting  school  
children.    
 
Linkages  to  RICE.  In  FP3,  cluster  1,  research  on  rice  field  fisheries,  beginning  in  Bangladesh  and  Cambodia  and  
extending  to  Myanmar  will  build  on  existing  collaboration  with  IRRI.  Importantly,  we  will  collaborate  with  RICE  on  
research  to  explore  and  find  ways  to  expand  the  synergistic  benefits  to  both  rice  and  fish  productivity  through  
improved  management  of  rice  fish  systems.  These  clarifications  are  reflected  in  the  revised  text  on  FP3  in  section  2.    
Regarding  the  comment  on  the  need  to  study  the  effects  of  small  nutritious  fish  in  polyculture,  this  will  also  be  
addressed  in  collaboration  with  FP1  during  assessments  of  the  farming  system  performance  planned  for  cluster  3  
research  on  aquaculture  systems.  Minor  corresponding  edits  have  been  made  in  FP1,  section  2.1.1.6  (cluster  3).  
 
b.  The  provision  of  supplementary  information  to  better  support  the  CRP  and  FP  ToCs,  including  the  supporting  
evidence  base,  the  concomitant  capacity  development  and  a  deeper  analysis  of  complexities.  
 
The  CRP-­‐level  ToC  narrative  (section  1.0.3),  in  noting  the  attention  to  risks  and  corresponding  mitigating  actions  
detailed  within  each  FP  ToC,  includes  a  new  reference  to  potential  trade-­‐offs  and  unintended  consequences.  Space  
does  not  permit  an  elaboration  of  those  in  the  narrative;  however,  they  are  detailed  in  the  ToC  narratives  for  each  FP,  
and  in  particular  the  table  within  each  FP  detailing  the  change  mechanisms,  key  risks  and  assumptions,  and  
corresponding  management  actions  associated  with  each  (Tables  7,  12,  and  17).  These  include  risks  such  as  the  
potential  for  productivity-­‐improving  aquaculture  technologies  to  be  captured  as  increased  profits  for  larger  producers,  
rather  than  increased  production  with  intended  benefits  for  fish  affordability  and  consumption  (FP1),  the  potential  for  
governance  reforms  to  reinforce  trends  of  elite  capture  rather  than  increase  equity  and  resource  sustainability  (FP2),  
and  the  potential  for  labor  demands  in  homestead  polyculture  systems  to  exacerbate  gender  inequities  (FP3).  The  
Results  Based  Management  Annex  (Annex  3.6)  includes  new  text  to  describe  how  assessment  of  strategies  to  identify  
and  manage  risks  and  unintended  consequences  will  be  integrated  into  program-­‐level  M&E  systems.  Edits  have  
likewise  been  made  to  the  FP-­‐level  ToC  narratives  to  more  prominently  highlight  the  evidence  base  supporting  the  ToC  
and  the  capacity  building  investments  required  to  realize  intended  impact  pathways.  
 
Supplementary  information  on  the  complexities  of  system  change  has  been  provided  in  the  form  of  descriptions  of  how  
each  flagship  will  manage  trade-­‐offs  as  follows:    
 
FP1.  Research  within  cluster  3  (described  in  Section  2.1.1.6)  specifically  aims  to  understand  trade-­‐offs  associated  
with  aquaculture  technology  adoption,  noting  “We  will  use  tools  for  gender-­‐integrated  systems  analysis  to  
understand,  communicate  and  manage  trade  offs…”  (e.g.  with  respect  to  alternative  uses  of  land,  household  labor,  
and  natural  resources).  We  have  also  strengthened  the  section  to  address  the  ISPC  request  to  “identify  and  propose  
complementary  management  interventions  to  prevent  or  mitigate  any  unintended  consequences.”  
 
FP2.    The  text  in  Section  2.2.1.3  has  been  revised  to  re-­‐emphasize  the  complexity  of  achieving  change  in  multiscale  
4
 governance  landscapes.  The  ToC  explicitly  addresses  the  importance  of  multiscale  engagement  in  partnerships  and  
networks;  this  text  has  been  extended  to  include  further  reference  to  the  evidence  base  we  will  work  from  (see  also  
Table  12).  The  connection  and  lessons  learned  from  AAS  and  WLE  have  been  summarized  above  and  in  the  revised  
text.  A  central  element  of  research  in  cluster  2  of  FP2  focuses  on  analyzing  and  developing  tools  to  manage  conflict  
and  trade-­‐offs  in  the  management  of  fisheries  resources  in  multifunction  landscapes.    
 
FP3.  Additions  and  clarifications  made  to  Section  2.3.1.6,  cluster  2,  elaborate  trade-­‐offs.  The  proposed  research  
includes  analyses  of  trade-­‐offs  that  can  affect  nutrition  and  health  negatively  directly  or  indirectly,  for  example,  
increased  work  load  of  women,  women  losing  their  work  and  income  in  fish  value  chains,  higher  prices  of  dried  fish.  
Research  findings  will  then  be  translated  into  subsequent  innovations  supporting  improved  nutrition  and  health.    
 
As  a  cross-­‐flagship  issue  related  to  managing  trade-­‐offs,  the  commentary  asks  “whether  the  possibilities  to  supply  
fish  feed  to  aquaculture  through  utilization  of  SSF  waste  could  be  addressed  in  some  countries  or  regions”  (page  8).  
As  the  price  of  fish  oils  and  fish  meal  has  increased  markedly  in  recent  years  (Tacon  and  Metian  2008)  and  questions  
of  approaches  to  sustainable  intensification  of  aquaculture  production  have  come  to  the  fore,  the  use  of  fish  waste  
in  aquaculture  feed  production  has  received  increasing  attention  (Anh,  Tran  et  al.  2011;  Hernandez,  Olvera-­‐Novoa  et  
al.  2013;  Newton,  Telfer  et  al.  2014).  Notably,  existing  and  proposed  opportunities  for  waste  usage  deal  with  
industrial-­‐scale  fish  processing  to  capture  adequate  quantities  of  waste  for  viable  feed  production.  With  few  
exceptions  SSF  operate  in  a  dispersed  manner,  rarely  landing  or  processing  catch  in  the  concentrated  volumes  that  
would  facilitate  cost-­‐effective  waste  collection  and  processing.  Neither  do  small-­‐scale  fisheries  generate  the  volumes  
of  waste  or  by-­‐catch  seen  in  industrial  fisheries  (Mills  et  al.  2011).  Problems  such  as  seasonality  in  waste  supply,  
traceability  and  disease  spread  that  hinder  use  of  industrial  fish  waste  (Olsen,  Toppe  et  al.  2014)  would  be  
exacerbated  in  small-­‐scale  systems.  The  CRP  does  not  propose  to  address  industrial  fish  waste.  At  the  household  
scale,  however,  the  use  of  household  fish  waste  in  on-­‐farm  feed  production  is  certainly  appropriate  and  will  be  
considered  as  part  of  aquaculture  management  systems  under  FP1.  
 
Regarding  the  evidence  base  supporting  the  ToC,  a  summary  of  evidence  is  included  in  the  sections  on  lessons  learned  
and  ToC  for  each  FP  in  section  2,  and  this  is  supplemented  by  a  new  Annex  (3.11)  on  targets  and  evidence,  which  
provides  additional  evidence  corresponding  to  impact  pathways  from  each  FP.    
 
Regarding  the  capacity-­‐building  investments  required  to  realize  intended  impact  pathways,  the  commentary  notes  “the  
expected  activities  and  outcomes  of  capacity  development…should  be  developed  further”  (page  5).  We  have  revised  
the  Capacity  Development  Annex  3.3,  in  particular  by  including  a  new  table  (Table  3)  to  provide  greater  clarity  on  how  
the  program  will  work  through  partnerships  to  build  capacity  in  key  areas.  This  annex  now  clarifies  further  that  in  
implementing  the  capacity  development  strategy  we  will  draw  upon  the  comparative  advantage  and  experience  of  
managing  partners  in  specific  areas  of  science  and  practice,  while  applying  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  to  work  through  
national  and  international  partners  to  implement  other  specific  capacity  development  activities.  
 
Additional  clarifications  have  been  provided  as  well  in  the  flagship  text  regarding  capacity  development  activities  and  
how  these  will  be  operationalized.  See  in  particular  the  change  mechanism  tables  (Tables  7,  12  and  17),  which  present  
capacity-­‐building  activities  in  the  context  of  impact  pathways  of  each  flagship  ToC.  
 
 
c.  Checking  and  clarification  of  the  internal  consistency  of  the  CRP’s  outcome  targets  and  validation  against  poverty  
reduction  achievements  based  on  evidence  from  the  CGIAR.  
 
Responding  to  the  request  for  greater  clarification  regarding  the  setting  of  outcome  targets,  assumptions  made,  and  
corresponding  evidence  applied  in  target  setting  for  the  CRP,  a  new  annex  is  provided  (Annex  3.11).  Please  refer  to  the  
detailed  discussion  provided  in  that  annex.  

5
d.  Additional  clarification  is  needed  on  how  [the  CRP]  will  balance  its  research  agenda  between  the  need  for  context  
specific  response  while  at  the  same  time  achieving  impact  at  scale,  both  in  its  technology  and  policy  work.  
 
The  CRP  is  designed  to  combine  deliberate  focus  in  its  selection  of  geographic  sites  and  research  priorities  with  an  
explicit  scaling  strategy  integral  to  the  CRP-­‐level  and  flagship-­‐level  theories  of  change.  This  issue  is  addressed  in  the  
overview  section  on  ToC  (1.0.3),  in  the  science  quality  sections  of  each  flagship,  and  in  the  revised  annexes  on  
partnerships  (Annex  3.2)  and  capacity  development  (Annex  3.3).  (See  also  related  response  on  partnerships  for  point  e,  
below.)  
 
On  a  related  point,  the  commentary  recommends  “further  details  on  the  envisaged  ‘enterprise  development’  activities,  
to  ensure  that  its  implementation  strategies  are  based  on  partnership,  comparative  advantage,  and  subsidiarity  to  
prevent  the  ‘capture’  of  FISH’s  research  capacity  in  what  are  largely  development  activities”  (page  4).  The  inclusion  of  
enterprises  within  FP1  and  FP3  research  responds  to  the  SRF  and  provides  a  particular  focus  on  achieving  sub  IDO  1.1.1  
(“diversified  enterprise  opportunities”)  for  poor  men,  women  and  youth.  The  intention  is  that  research  activities  will  
focus  on  outputs  such  as  models  for  business  and  entrepreneurial  activities,  which  will  be  co-­‐developed  with  partners  
(the  Institute  of  Development  Studies  and  a  new  partner,  BoP  Innovation  Center,  included  to  strengthen  our  research  
and  scaling  in  this  subject  area).  Scaling  will  be  through  development  partners,  with  FP1  and  FP3  value  chain  
researchers,  particularly  in  focal  program  countries,  involved  with  provision  of  capacity  development,  and  monitoring  
and  evaluation  to  capturing  learning  from  such  scaling  activities.  Public-­‐private  sector  collaboration  already  established  
by  WorldFish  (such  as  the  Sustainable  Trade  Initiative,  Rabobank  Foundation,  and  Aquaspark  impact  investment  fund)  
will  provide  a  good  foundation  to  share  lessons  and  facilitate  wider  adoption  of  aquaculture  investment  policies  and  
practice.      
 
Minor  revisions  have  been  made  in  the  FP1  text  (Sections  2.6,  cluster  3;  Section  2.7  on  partnerships)  to  provide  further  
details  of  enterprise-­‐related  research  activities,  including  additional  clarity  on  the  role  of  FISH  research  and  partners  in  
scaling  of  FP1  business  and  entrepreneurial  models.  Annex  3.8  also  now  more  clearly  identifies  IDS  and  BoP  Inc.  as  
partners  with  responsibilities  for  bringing  business  and  entrepreneurial  research  skills  to  FP1.    
 
e.  The  provision  of  greater  detail  on  the  CRP’s  further  development  of  its  partnership  and  gender  strategy.  
 
We  have  added  Table  2  to  Annex  3.2  on  partnerships.  This  complements  the  analysis  of  strategic  partnerships  (already  
provided  in  Table  1  of  Annex  3.2)  by  providing  examples  of  the  key  contributions  made  by  selected  groups  of  partners  
to  achieving  the  program’s  development  outcome  targets,  both  directly  in  the  locations  where  FISH  pursues  research,  
and  through  scaling  to  other  locations  where  stakeholders  use  technologies  developed  through  FISH  but  applying  these  
without  the  explicit  support  of  the  CRP.  Together  with  the  examples  of  non-­‐CGIAR  partners  at  discovery,  proof  of  
concept  and  scaling  stages  of  the  impact  pathways  (as  provided  in  Tables  8,  14  and  18  of  the  proposal)  these  analyses  
show  how  the  CRP  will  pursue  a  partnerships-­‐focused  implementation  strategy  that  harnesses  the  strengths  of  
institutional  comparative  advantage  and  is  guided  by  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  By  doing  so,  we  aim  to  focus  our  
research  capacity  on  the  issues  and  tasks  where  this  can  make  the  greatest  contribution  to  achieving  the  program’s  
development  outcomes  and  avoid  dissipation  of  this  capacity  in  development  activities.  
 
The  new  table  provided  in  Annex  3.2  (Table  2)  gives  specific  examples  of  how  the  program  will  work  with  partners  to  
achieve  targets.  These  illustrate  the  detailed  approach  being  taken  by  each  of  the  flagships  to  achieve  outcomes,  
including  directly  in  the  locations  where  the  program  will  work,  and  through  scaling.  The  narrative  of  the  strategy  has  
also  been  modified  to  emphasize  how  the  strategic  partnerships  outlined  in  Table  1  of  Annex  3.2  not  only  provide  a  key  
mechanism  for  enhancing  the  quality  of  the  program’s  science  across  multiple  geographies,  but  also  provide  a  platform  
to  help  maximize  the  IPG  benefits  of  the  program’s  research.  In  addition,  Annex  3.2  provides  examples  of  how  the  
program  will  work  with  strategically  important  regional  and  global  partners  to  scale  use  of  technologies  (in  Table  2  and  
in  the  revised  text  of  Annex  3.2).  
 
The  commentary  also  specifically  requests  further  detail  on  the  roles  of  advanced  research  institute  partners  in  FP3.  
Revisions  to  the  flagship  text  now  elaborate  on  partnerships  with  Johns  Hopkins  University,  the  University  of  

6
Copenhagen  and  Harvard  University,  for  research  on  behavior  change  for  increased  fish  consumption  in  the  1000  days  
and  human  trials  with  fish-­‐based  products  on  child  growth,  development  and  cognition.  Four  partner  scientists  from  
these  three  universities  have  been  added  to  Annex  3.8,  including  their  CVs.          
 
Regarding  the  gender  strategy,  the  overview  gender  strategy  section  (1.0.4)  has  been  revised  to  more  explicitly  address  
the  role  of  gender  research  in  the  FISH  ToC  and  that  of  individual  flagships,  and  to  provide  further  clarification  on  
partner  roles  and  their  importance  in  achieving  impact.  This  includes  early  and  ongoing  partnerships  and  collaboration  
as  a  mechanism  for  broad  uptake  and  application  of  findings  beyond  the  immediate  research  contexts.  The  Gender  
Annex  (Annex  3.4)  has  also  been  revised  to  specify  partner  roles  in  more  detail.    
 

f.  The  specification  of  time  allocations  to  FISH  by  the  indicated  staff  and  availability  of  gender  and  process-­‐related  
research  skills  among  staff.  
 
The  commentary  notes  that  "given  the  significant  emphasis  on  gender  and  process-­‐related  research  activities,  the  
apparent  under-­‐representation  of  such  skills  in  the  proposed  staffing  may  need  further  attention"  (page  5).  The  
proposal  revisions  address  this  in  several  ways:  
 
• The  Gender  Annex  (3.4)  now  includes  an  explanation  of  the  gender  staffing  planning  process  that  was  
undertaken  during  the  proposal  writing  period,  which  identified  the  level  and  amount  of  gender  skills  needed  
for  each  cluster  of  each  flagship,  by  country.  This  process  has  created  an  outcome-­‐based  map  to  guide  staffing  
decisions.      
• We  have  additionally  noted  in  the  Gender  Annex  that  this  process  led  to  a  significant  planned  increase  in  both  
the  number  of  staff  with  gender  research  skills  across  the  focal  countries,  and  the  level  of  expertise  of  these  
planned  staff  in  focal  countries,  as  compared  to  AAS.  These  plans  are  likewise  incorporated  into  the  budget.    
• We  have  better  elucidated  the  range  of  partners  bringing  gender  expertise  by  adding  senior  positions  to  the  
Staffing  List  (Annex  3.8)  and  including  their  CVs.  
 
Annex  3.8  similarly  includes  detail  on  process-­‐related  skills  among  senior  positions,  relating  to  participatory  action  
research,  capacity  development,  monitoring  and  evaluation  and  learning,  partnerships  and  policy  dialogue.  For  
simplicity,  staff  roles  are  typically  listed  against  just  one  flagship,  or  in  the  cross-­‐cutting  category,  while  in  practice  the  
intent  is  to  manage  the  CRP  in  such  a  way  that  these  skills  can  be  drawn  on  as  needed  in  other  areas  as  well.  As  
detailed  in  the  annex  on  results-­‐based  management  (Annex  3.6),  learning  from  implementation  will  guide  an  adaptive  
approach  to  program  implementation,  and  this  includes  proactive  efforts  to  identify  and  fill  skills  gaps  through  both  
staffing  and  partnerships.    
 
g.  Terms  of  Reference  for  the  CRP  director  to  be  subject  to  international  recruitment  should  be  included.      
 
An  international  recruitment  is  underway  for  a  Director,  Aquaculture  and  Fisheries  Sciences  at  WorldFish,  a  position  
that  fully  integrates  the  role  of  FISH  CRP  Director.  This  integrated  approach  has  been  adopted  by  the  WorldFish  Board  
of  Trustees  in  light  of  the  2016  restructuring  of  the  programmatic  science  structure  of  WorldFish  so  that  the  center’s  
three  science  programs  mirror  the  three  FISH  flagships.  The  flagships  will  also  be  led  by  the  corresponding  WorldFish  
program  leaders  who  will  report  to  the  Director,  Aquaculture  and  Fisheries  Sciences.  The  Director  will  report  
programmatically  to  the  ISC  and  administratively  to  the  Director  General  of  WorldFish.  Confirmation  of  the  Director  
will  be  subject  to  review  and  recommendation  by  the  ISC,  once  that  body  is  formed  in  preparation  for  the  CRP  launch.  
The  recruitment  process  and  composition  of  the  ISC  will  both  be  completed  in  Q4  of  2016,  so  that,  pending  program  
approval,  both  management  and  governance  are  in  place  for  a  smooth  start  to  implementation  from  January  2017.    
 
Terms  of  Reference  for  the  role  of  FISH  CRP  Director  are  now  included  in  Annex  3.8.      
 

7
 h.  Clarification  of  the  foundational  science  at  the  basis  of  FP3  on  enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  
health  of  the  poor.      
 
The  benefits  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  health  are  well  recognized  and  documented.  Scientific  evidence  shows  that  fish  
intake  is  associated  with  a  36%  reduced  mortality  risk  from  heart  disease,  while  a  meta-­‐analysis  showed  that  
consumption  of  60  g  fish/day  is  associated  with  a  12%  reduction  in  mortality.  It  is  reported  that  diets  low  in  seafood  
omega-­‐3  fatty  acids  accounted  for  1.4  million  deaths  in  2010  and  that  diets  low  in  fish  and  seafood  are  responsible  for  
roughly  1%  of  the  world’s  total  burden  of  disease-­‐related  disability-­‐adjusted  life  years  (DALYs).    
 
Thilsted  et  al.  (2016)  summarize  the  foundational  research  for  the  program’s  focus  on  increasing  the  quantity  and  
frequency  of  consumption  of  fish.  This  highlights  the  importance  of  fish  as  a  source  of  the  long  chain  omega-­‐3  fatty  
acids  associated  with  reduced  risk  of  early  preterm  delivery.  Breastmilk,  along  with  fish  have  been  identified  as  the  
most  important  dietary  source  of  omega-­‐3  fatty  acids  for  infants  of  complementary  feeding  age,  and  the  consumption  
of  fish  and  other  seafood  by  the  mother  appears  to  be  the  most  important  determinant  of  breastmilk  concentration.  In  
addition,  fish  enhances  the  uptake  of  micronutrients  from  plant-­‐source  foods  in  the  meal.  Recognizing  these  multiple  
benefits,  an  increasing  number  of  (mostly  high-­‐income)  countries  are  recommending  minimum  levels  of  regular  fish  
consumption  in  their  national  dietary  guidelines.        
 
FP3  focuses  on  the  first  1000  days  of  life  because  of  the  potential  to  deliver  the  greatest  benefits  through  nutritional  
improvements  at  the  developmental  growth  stage  that  research  has  shown  to  deliver  lifelong  benefits  for  individuals  
and  for  societal  human  capital.  This  is,  of  course,  not  an  exclusive  focus,  as  many  of  the  same  interventions  aiming  to  
increase  the  production,  availability  and  accessibility  of  nutrient-­‐rich  fish  for  maternal  and  early  childhood  nutrition  
also  serve  to  increase  fish  production  and  nutritional  outcomes  in  the  broader  population.      
 
Building  on  this  foundation,  we  intend  to  go  further  with  our  research  in  FP3  to  demonstrate  that  the  production  and  
supply  of  nutrient-­‐rich  small  fish,  improved  fish  value  chains  and  development  and  consumption  of  fish-­‐based  products  
increase  the  intake  of  essential  nutrients  and  concentration  of  metabolites  in  the  blood  as  well  as  have  a  long-­‐term  
effect  on  growth,  development  and  cognition  in  children—prerequisites  for  optimal  school  and  work  performance  in  
later  life.  Research  findings  conducted  in  target  populations  in  a  focal  country  such  as  Bangladesh  offer  opportunities  
to  shape  policies  and  strategies  for  nutrition-­‐sensitive  fisheries  and  aquaculture,  as  well  as  use  of  fish  products  in  
programs,  for  example,  school  feeding,  mother  and  child  health  and  emergency  rations.  FP3  is  designed  to  
demonstrate  these  gains  and  communicate  the  lessons  for  maximum  effect  in  focal  and  scaling  countries.  Edits  to  the  
FP3  text  have  been  made  to  clarify  this  intent.    
 
   

8
FP1.  Include  a  rewriting  of  FP1  taking  into  account  the  comments…  particularly  regarding  the  critical  role  of  developing  
additional  genetic  technology,  which  will  need  additional  supporting  evidence  given  the  proposed  level  of  investment.  
 
FP1  has  been  revised  as  recommended  to  address  the  points  of  clarification.  Key  points  and  responses  are  summarized  
below.    
 
The  commentary  notes  that  “understanding  the  multiple  barriers  to  the  impact  at  scale  of  genetically  improved  fish,  
which  might  be  argued  to  be  more  critical  for  closing  yield  gaps  and  inefficiencies  than  applying  genomics  to  improve  
already  genetically  improved  tilapia,  needs  additional  attention”  (page  3).    
 
FP1  takes  two  complementary  and  interconnected  approaches  to  our  fish  breeding  and  genetics  research,  closing  
yield  gaps  and  addressing  inefficiencies:  firstly,  through  continued  development  and  dissemination  of  existing  
genetically  improved  tilapia  strains,  combined  with  careful  assessment  of  strains  to  understand  barriers  to  
dissemination/adoption  of  these  strains,  we  will  contribute  to  genetic  gains  and  closing  yield  gaps;  and  secondly,  
conducting  genomics  research  to  develop  breeds  that  are  resilient  to  the  future  challenges  of  fish  farm  development,  
particularly  in  adapting  to  climate  change,  fish  diseases  and  more  sustainable  aquafeeds.  Regarding  the  proposed  
level  of  investment,  we  estimate  that  25%  of  total  budget  in  Cluster  1  will  be  assigned  to  the  development  of  
additional  genetic  technologies  (i.e.,  genomic  selection),  with  75%  applied  to  research  on  existing  genetically  
improved  strains,  active  dissemination  of  these  strains  and  in-­‐depth  assessments  on-­‐farm  performance.  We  believe  
this  is  an  appropriate  balance  for  achieving  new  understanding  of  the  multiple  barriers  to  impact  at  scale  using  our  
existing  improved  breeds,  whilst  preparing  a  foundation  of  tools,  strategies  and  knowledge  with  partners  that  will  
enable  the  application  of  genomic  selection  for  key  production-­‐relevant  resilience  traits  in  tilapias  and  carps.    
 
FISH  research  on  developing  and  disseminating  faster  growing  tilapia  will  involve  assessments  with  cluster  3  to  
understand  the  multiple  barriers  to  impact  at  scale  of  genetically  improved  fish.  These  assessments  will  include  
improved  strains  already  released  (e.g.  in  Bangladesh  and  Egypt)  and  disseminations  that  will  take  place  2017–2022.  
This  research  will  generate  learning  about  the  yield  gaps  in  key  target  countries  by  examining  the  on-­‐farm  
performance  of  existing  improved  strains  and  how  to  improve  impact  through  other  interventions,  including  feed,  
health  and  husbandry  systems,  as  well  as  policy  and  institutional  capacity  development,  using  an  integrated  
approach.  Tight  integration  of  research  with  FISH  clusters  2  and  3  will  enable  unique  understanding  of  the  multiple  
barriers  to  impact  at  scale,  whilst  providing  genetic  data  that  can  be  used  to  improve  future  investments  in  genetic  
selection.  To  emphasize,  a  major  source  of  impact  of  FP1  until  2022  will  be  the  result  of  improvements  in  productivity  
possible  through  wider  use  of  existing  improved  strains,  rather  than  directly  through  genomics  investments.  
 
Genomic  selection  involves  the  incorporation  of  genome-­‐wide  genetic  markers  into  breeding  value  calculations,  and  
has  been  highly  successful  in  livestock  breeding  (Riggio  et  al,  2013),  but  has  received  limited  application  with  fish,  
despite  its  recognized  potential  (Yue,  2014).  The  incorporation  of  genomics  research  in  FISH  is  intended  to  contribute  
to  the  study  of  genetic  variation  within  key  species,  identify  genetic  variants  underlying  characteristics  of  biological  
and/or  economic  interest  (Yanez  et  al,  2015)  and  to  broaden  the  fish  breeding  goals  of  genetic  improvement  
programs  to  include  important  but  difficult  to  measure  traits,  such  as  resilience,  disease  resistance,  feed  efficiency  
and  temperature  tolerance.  Genomic  selection  should  also  open  new  possibilities  for  increasing  genetic  gain,  whilst  
increasing  selection  accuracy,  improving  selection  decisions  and  reducing  rates  of  inbreeding  compared  to  traditional  
within-­‐family  selection  (Hayes  and  Goddard,  2010;  Sonesson  and  Meuwissen,  2010).  Recent  research  with  Atlantic  
salmon  has  for  example  shown  >20%  increase  in  selection  accuracy  over  traditional  pedigree  methods  (Tsai  et  al,  
2015).    
 
Yanez  et  al  (2015)  has  emphasized  that  use  of  genomic  tools  to  more  effectively  utilize  genetic  variation  in  
economically-­‐important  traits  via  sustainable  breeding  programs  is  paramount  to  the  continued  successful  growth  
and  stability  of  aquaculture  production.  FISH  will  therefore  focus  on  development  of  key  fish  breeds  for  developing  
country  aquaculture  that  are  more  resilient,  with  an  emphasis  on  development  of  strains  that  are  adapted  to  the  
pressures  arising  from  climate  change,  sustainable  feeds  and  fish  disease  outbreaks  in  target  countries.  The  risks  of  
fish  disease  have  been  starkly  highlighted  by  the  recent  Tilapia  Lake  Virus  outbreak  that  threatens  tilapia  stocks  

9
 globally  (Bacharach  et  al,  2016),  another  indicator  of  the  imperative  for  research  on  integrating  disease  resistance  and  
other  resilience  traits  into  farmed  strains,  in  addition  to  characteristics  such  as  fast  growth.  FISH  investment  in  
genomics  research  is  intended  to  enable  progress  in  these  key  areas  of  future  development.  
 
Revisions  have  been  made  in  the  FP1  text  (sections  2.1.1.3,  2.1.1.4  and  2.1.1.6)  to  provide  additional  clarity.  
 
The  commentary  notes,  “Given  the  projected  increase  in  effective  demand,  it  may  very  well  be  possible  to  increase  
production  sharply  with  existing  technologies,  such  that  research  may  not  be  the  main  limiting  factor.  In  this  respect,  
there  is  also  a  strategic  need  to  further  elucidate  the  barriers  to  private  and  public  investments  in  sustainable  selective  
breeding  and  the  adoption  of  genetically  improved  seed  in  aquaculture  in  general,  beyond  its  current  sole  gender-­‐based  
focus”  (page  3).  
 
We  agree  with  the  suggestion  for  FISH  to  conduct  research  on  barriers  to  private  and  public  investments  in  
sustainable  breeding/dissemination  programs;  indeed,  the  intent  is  to  examine  multiple  barriers  to  adoption  by  small-­‐
scale  farmers,  not  only  gender-­‐based  barriers.  FP1  impact  pathways  (Figure  4)  and  change  mechanisms  (Table  7)  
specifically  recognize  the  role  of  private  and  public  investments  and  provide  reference  to  use  research  outputs  in  
public  and  private  sectors.  FISH  will  also  include  (with  Cluster  3)  analysis  of  breeding  programs  and  business  models,  
building  on  L&F  and  WorldFish  experiences  in  Egypt,  Bangladesh  and  Malaysia,  to  facilitate  development  of  
sustainable  tilapia  and  carp  breeding  and  dissemination  systems  at  the  scale  required  in  Africa  and  Asia.    
 
Revisions  have  been  made  in  the  FP1  text  (Section  2.1.1.6,  cluster  3)  to  further  clarify  this  purpose,  through  additional  
detail  on  research  on  delivery  and  use  systems  and  the  barriers  to  sustainable  selective  breeding  programs  and  
adoption.  
 
The  commentary  further  notes  that  “strong  private  actors  are  already  involved  in  tilapia  breeding  with  the  capacities  
and  resources  to  implement  genomic  selection  and  other  research  investment  without  heavy  public  support”  (page  6).  
 
We  acknowledge  that  there  are  private  companies  using  or  intending  to  use  genomic  tools  for  improving  tilapia  
strains,  particularly  within  the  Americas  and  Asia,  but  to  our  knowledge  not  in  Africa.  FP1  will  focus  research  on  
existing  pedigree  strains  of  tilapia  that  have  been  developed  by  WorldFish  in  Africa  (Abbassa,  Akosombo  strains)  and  
Asia  (GIFT).  These  established  strains  have  been  focused  on  small  farmers,  representing  an  investment  in  
international  public  goods  over  the  past  20-­‐plus  years.  These  existing  pedigreed  breeding  programs  provide  a  unique  
genetic  stock  within  which  new  resilient  strains  can  be  developed  for  target  populations  in  Africa  and  Asia.  In  Africa,  
there  is  no  selective  breeding  program  comparable  to  the  Abbassa  strain,  providing  substantial  competitive  
advantage  for  such  research  within  the  region.      
 
While  FISH  focuses  on  further  improving  WorldFish  tilapia  strains  and  disseminating  those  through  partners  to  small  
farmers,  the  new  research  on  resilience  will  provide  new  tools  and  methods  for  applying  resilience  concepts  to  tilapia  
breeding  programs.  This  is  a  knowledge  base  that  can  be  used  widely  across  public  and  private  sectors,  thus  informing  
broader  development  initiatives  to  boost  farmed  fish  supply  in  Asia  and  Africa.  Our  research  on  “delivery  and  use  
systems”  is  also  intended  to  inform  approaches  to  the  development  of  sustainable  tilapia  breeding  programs  within  
focal  and  scaling  countries.  Minor  revisions  have  been  made  in  the  corresponding  FP1  text  (Section  2.1.1.6,  cluster  3)  
to  provide  additional  detail  on  private  and  public  sector  roles.  
 
The  commentary  also  notes  that  the  “potential  of  reducing  yield  gaps  through  an  increased  emphasis  on  the  
establishment  of  selective  breeding  programs  for  carp  may  deserve  additional  reflection”  (page  3).  
 
World  Bank  Fish  to  2030  projections  are  that  aquaculture  production  in  South  Asia  and  India  will  grow  between  90.5  
to  121%  over  2010  baselines,  within  which  farmed  production  of  carps,  along  with  tilapia  and  catfish,  will  account  for  
most  of  the  increase,  and  represent  60%  of  total  aquaculture  production  in  2025  (FAO,  2016).  No  sustainable  carp  
breeding  program  has  yet  been  established  at  scale  in  South  Asia.  Earlier  WorldFish  research  on  carp  genetic  
improvement  in  Asia  clearly  indicates  fish  production  improvements  possible  at  national  and  household  levels  
through  farm-­‐level  adoption  of  genetically  improved  carps  (Dey  et  al.  2010).  With  limited  private  sector  investment  in  
10
 improved  carp  breeding  programs,  the  sector  still  relies  on  wild  stock  in  Bangladesh,  a  major  vulnerability  to  
sustainable  fish  production  and  fisheries  sector  development.  Our  research  will  contribute  to  sustainable  breeding  
programs  for  carp,  and  through  integrated  research  on  breeds,  feeds,  health  and  farming  systems,  increased  
productivity  of  carp  farming  systems.  The  research  also  seeks  to  improve  the  performance  of  multispecies  
(polyculture)  farming  systems,  of  which  genetics  is  a  component,  providing  important  insights  into  efficiencies  and  
improvement  of  large  volume  fish  production  systems  unique  to  South  Asia.  This  research  would  enable  us  to  
understand  genetics  in  multispecies  aquatic  farming  systems  and  relative  benefits  from  investments  in  carp  genetic  
improvement.  The  development  of  sustainable  production  systems  of  carp  polyculture,  including  with  nutritious  fish  
in  Bangladesh  (in  collaboration  with  FP3),  will  provide  the  proof  of  concept  that  may  then  be  scaled  through  bilateral  
projects  and  partnerships  within  India  and  elsewhere  in  South  Asia.      
 
The  commentary  requests  “further  clarification…on  how  the  genetic  improvement  of  tilapia  will  take  place  in  Nigeria,  
Tanzania,  Kenya  and  Zambia,  where  there  are  no  established  selective  breeding  programs  for  tilapia  nor  other  farmed  
fish”  (page  3).      
 
Kenya  and  Zambia  have  initiated  selective  breeding  programs  for  tilapia:  in  Kenya,  involving  Nile  tilapia  at  the  
National  Aquaculture  Research,  Development  and  Training  Center  at  Sagana  and  in  private  hatcheries;  and  in  Zambia  
with  the  Department  of  Fisheries  (with  additional  investment  planned  by  the  African  Development  Bank).  WorldFish  
has  engaged  with  and  will  build  on  these  partnerships  through  the  FISH  CRP.  In  Nigeria,  WorldFish  has  been  
requested  by  in-­‐country  partners  to  assist  in  establishing  a  tilapia  genetic  improvement  program.  An  early  activity  
within  the  CRP  will  be  to  assess  options  and  assist  as  appropriate.  In  Tanzania,  there  are  no  tilapia  improvement  
programs,  but  WorldFish  is  hosting  a  workshop  for  Tanzanian  aquaculture  specialists  during  August  2016  to  share  L&F  
experiences  in  fish  genetics  and  develop  a  fish  genetic  improvement  strategy,  which  can  be  taken  forward  during  FISH  
implementation.  
 
In  some  cases,  there  might  not  be  a  need  for  a  new  improvement  program,  but  the  introduction  of  existing  improved  
strains  may  be  an  option,  based  on  risk-­‐based  approaches.  FP1  research  will  continue  to  build  on  L&F  research  to  
develop  tools  for  risk  assessment  and  decisions  on  the  introduction  of  improved  strains  to  such  countries.  
Furthermore,  collaborative  research  with  partners  at  the  University  of  Norwich  (The  Genomic  Analysis  Centre)  and  
Bangor  University  on  the  analysis  of  genetic  diversity  and  domesticated-­‐wild  tilapia  interactions  in  Africa  will  provide  
new  insights  into  strategies  for  assessing  and  managing  risk  associated  with  potential  introductions.  The  research  
required  is  specifically  referred  to  in  the  FP1  discussion  of  science  quality  (Section  2.1.1.4),  and  in  revisions  to  Section  
2.1.1.6.    
 
Finally,  the  commentary  requests  elaboration  of  “explicit  lessons  from  L&F”  (page  3).    
 
Significant  elements  of  the  proposed  research  build  directly  on  lessons  from  L&F,  notably  in  genetics,  fish  health,  
feeds  and  environmental  assessments,  including  insights  from  the  recent  L&F  independent  external  evaluation.  These  
are  noted  in  Section  2.1.1.5.  The  FP1  approach  we  believe  provides  an  improved  focus  on  promising  key  areas  of  
research  that  are  more  effectively  and  efficiently  achieved  in  a  dedicated  program  focused  on  fish  rather  than  
through  a  combined  livestock  and  fish  program  as  structured  in  phase  1,  where  transaction  costs  at  times  were  found  
to  outweigh  other  benefits  of  collaboration.  The  proposal  does  capture  several  key  areas  of  future  collaboration  with  
the  phase  2  Livestock  CRP,  where  there  are  well-­‐focused  opportunities  for  synergies  and  efficiencies,  including  on  fish  
disease  detection  and  prevention,  feeds  and  value  chains.  These  are  indicated  in  Table  1  of  Annex  3.7.    
 
 
 
   

11
Addendum  2.  Response  to  ISPC  commentary  on  the  FISH  CRP  pre-­‐proposal  (January  
2016)  
 
In  its  review  of  the  pre-­‐proposal  for  a  FISH  CRP  (September  2015),  the  ISPC  recommended  that  the  Fund  Council  invite  the  
proponents  to  submit  a  revised  pre-­‐proposal  that  addresses  the  main  concerns  and  recommendations  of  the  ISPC.  The  
resubmission  of  an  overview  of  the  FISH  CRP  pre-­‐proposal  was  received  by  the  ISPC  in  January  2016.  The  resulting  ISPC  
commentary  was  structured  around  the  four  main  recommendations  made  previously  by  the  ISPC  and  focused  on  the  extent  to  
which  the  resubmission  provided  a  response  to  these  concerns  and  recommendations,  giving  the  ISPC  confidence  that  a  strong  
full  proposal  would  be  submitted.  The  ISPC  acknowledged  that  considerable  progress  had  been  made  but  considered  that  a  
number  of  the  points  and  concerns  from  its  previous  review  still  needed  substantial  additional  attention.  Each  of  the  
recommendations  made  by  the  ISPC  in  its  commentary  is  provided  below,  along  with  a  summary  of  the  response  addressed  in  
the  full  proposal.    
 
Original  ISPC  Recommendation  1.  The  CRP’s  analysis  of  sector  dynamics,  ToC,  impact  pathways,  targets,  and  budgetary  
allocations  need  revisiting  to  address  the  issues  detailed  in  the  ISPC  commentary.    
 
Recommendation:  Meeting  future  demand  growth  is  highlighted  as  the  central  challenge  for  the  CRP.  The  narrative,  however,  is  
not  clear  on  its  analysis  and  understanding  of  the  significant  regional  differences  in  addressing  this  challenge.  The  current  
narrative  describing  impact  pathways  and  ToC  needs  additional  clarity  on  the  changes  required,  impact  pathways,  and  how  these  
will  ensure  the  systemic  change  necessary  at  both  local  and  global  levels  to  achieve  the  impact  at  scale  that  the  CRP  is  aiming  for.    
 
Response:  In  response  to  this  recommendation,  we  internally  reviewed  the  probability  of  the  FISH  CRP’s  success  across  four  
dimensions:    
• science  challenge  and  capability  (science  base,  technical  challenge  and  project  complexity,  world-­‐class  capability  relative  to  
others,  and  unique  capacity)    
• capacity  to  deliver  (track  record  of  leadership,  team  composition  and  effectiveness,  scientific  partnerships  and  linkages,  and  
infrastructure  and  equipment)    
• clarity  of  planned  outcomes  (quantitative  and  qualitative)    
• clearly  defined  delivery  pathways  (capacity  of  focus  countries,  stage  of  partner  involvement,  partner  capacity  to  co-­‐invest,  
and  end-­‐user  capacity  to  adopt  research  advances).  
 
The  results  of  this  review  have  been  incorporated  into  the  revised  FISH  impact  pathways  and  theories  of  change.  We  have  
included  identified  risks  and  assumptions  for  CRP  and  flagship  levels  in  the  design  of  corresponding  strategies  and  risk  
management  actions  (see  sections  1.0.3  and  1.0.15,  as  well  as  theory  of  change  for  each  flagship).  To  test  assumptions  and  
improve  results  at  the  CRP  and  flagship  levels,  we  will  use  an  integrated  approach  to  outcome  evaluation  and  impact  assessment.  
These  assessment  activities  will  help  us  refine  the  targeting  and  design  of  project  activities  and  demonstrate  quantitative  
progress  towards  SLO  and  IDO  targets,  enabling  us  to  adjust  investment  in  our  research  areas  and  geographies  for  best  impact.  
The  revised  impact  pathways  and  theories  of  change  were  also  key  to  the  revision  of  the  proposed  FISH  budgetary  allocations.  
 
Original  ISPC  Recommendation  2.  The  CRP  needs  to  show  that  it  has  selected  its  priority  research  opportunities  based  on  its  
comparative  advantage  and  address  the  quality  of  science  in  the  associated  research  activities.    
 
Recommendation:  The  FISH  resubmission  makes  the  case  for  the  CRP’s  contribution  to  all  three  SLOs,  via  significant  
contributions  to  IDO  targets  in  7  priority  focus  countries  and  7  other  scaling  countries.  While  this  initial  targeting  effort  is  
commended  there  is  a  need  for  further  prioritization  and  a  process  that  would  allow  the  CRP  to  set  and  refine  its  research  
strategies  and  targets  its  specific  areas  of  comparative  advantage.    
 
Response:  We  comprehensively  reviewed  and  refined  our  geographic  focus  based  on  the  following  factors:    
• the  current  status  and  projected  future  potential  of  aquaculture  and  SSF  in  developing  countries  
• the   probability   that   FISH   and   its   managing   and   implementing   partners   can   effectively   and   competitively   respond   to  
demands  for  research  and  deliver  impacts  at  scale  

12
 • striking   a   balance   between   the   needs   of   producers   and   consumers   in   regions   where   the   poor   already   have   good   access   to   fish  
versus  regions  where  the  potential  to  increase  supplies  of  fish  and  improve  livelihoods  is  yet  to  be  realized  
• where  FISH  can  best  integrate  and  optimize  the  co-­‐contributions  of  aquaculture,  small-­‐scale  fisheries  and  fish  value  chains  
to  reduce  poverty  and  improve  food  security  alongside  improvements  to  environmental  sustainability.  
From  this  review  we  selected  six  priority  focal  countries:  three  in  Asia  (Bangladesh,  Myanmar  and  Cambodia)  and  three  in  Africa  
(Zambia,  Nigeria  and  Tanzania),  where  we  can  most  coherently  integrate  our  multidisciplinary  strengths  in  sustainable  
aquaculture,  SSF  and  enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  and  health  of  the  poor.  Two  additional  countries  will  
constitute  a  focus  for  particular  areas  of  research:  Egypt  as  a  research  hub  and  training  center  for  our  aquaculture  capacity  
development  in  Africa,  and  Solomon  Islands  as  a  hub  for  our  learning  networks  on  SSF  governance  in  the  Pacific.  As  detailed  in  
the  revised  FISH  proposal,  in  selecting  our  focal  countries  and  scaling  countries,  we  applied  a  series  of  metrics  tailored  to  each  of  
the  three  flagships  (sustainable  aquaculture,  sustaining  small-­‐scale  fisheries,  and  enhancing  the  contribution  of  fish  to  nutrition  
and  health  of  the  poor).  See  section  1.0.1  and  details  in  each  flagship  on  focus  and  scaling  countries.    
   
Recommendation:  The  SLO2  description  would  benefit  from  further  clarification  of  its  intention  in  respect  of  “small  indigenous  
fish  species”.  What  would  be  the  justification  for  a  significant  investment  in  this  area,  and  what  research  strategy  do  the  
proponents  suggest  to  pursue?  Similarly,  in  the  SLO3  description  on  resource  governance  in  aquaculture,  FISH  needs  to  clarify  its  
comparative  advantage  in  this  area,  and  how  this  integrates  with  related  global  and  regional  initiatives.    
 
Response:  The  justification  for  investment  in  the  production  of  small  indigenous  fish  species  and  the  proposed  research  strategy  
are  fully  articulated,  with  relevant  citations,  in  the  revised  proposal  (detailed  in  FP3).  In  summary,  the  potential  for  controlled,  
year-­‐round  production  of  highly  nutritious  small  indigenous  fish  in  small-­‐scale  enterprises  in  the  developing  world  is  a  new  
approach  based  on  initial  discovery  research  in  Bangladesh  that  has  significant  potential  to  scale  in  South  and  Southeast  Asia.  
Fish  farming  in  Asia  is  dominated  by  carp  and  tilapia,  comparatively  large  species  whose  major  nutritional  value  is  their  
contribution  to  dietary  protein.  There  are,  however,  several  species  of  small  freshwater  fish,  notably  mola  (Amblypharyngodon  
mola),  that  are  a  rich  source  of  the  nutrients  needed  for  healthy  growth  and  brain  development,  including  iron,  zinc,  vitamin  A,  
vitamin  B12,  calcium  and  essential  fatty  acids.  Extensive  field  experiments  in  Bangladesh  have  demonstrated  that  mola  can  be  
grown  in  polyculture  with  tilapia,  carp  and  other  commonly  cultivated  large  fish  species  without  adversely  affecting  total  
productivity.  Ex  ante  analysis  has  shown  that  scaling  up  production  of  mola  in  a  national  program  could  be  a  cost-­‐effective  
nutritional  intervention  for  reducing  vitamin  A  deficiency.  We  contend  that  conducting  research  to  overcome  barriers  to  
achieving  such  scaling  of  mola  production,  alongside  our  research  on  the  more  established  tilapia  and  carp  sectors,  provides  FISH  
significant  additional  capability  to  contribute  to  the  SLO  nutrition  targets.    
   
Recommendation:  The  analysis  of  national  fisheries  strategies  in  the  Pacific  regions  and  importance  of  inshore  fisheries  for  
national  food  security  and  well-­‐being,  suggests  demand,  but  clarification  of  the  comparative  advantage  for  the  CGIAR,  and  FISH  
in  particular,  in  this  area  is  required.  This  is  particularly  important,  as  the  Pacific  does  not  seem  to  be  part  of  the  priority  focus  
areas  of  the  CRP.  The  confirmation  of  the  CAADP  national  stakeholders’  commitment  to  the  FISH  program  is  welcome  but  more  
details  will  be  needed  in  the  full  proposal  on  the  research  priorities  and  the  targets  of  FISH  in  SS  Africa,  and  how  they  are  
embedded  in  NEPAD  and  the  CAADP  roadmap.    
 
Response:  In  the  revised  proposal,  particularly  in  the  FP2  narrative,  we  detail  the  comparative  advantages  for  FISH  and  its  
managing  and  implementing  partners  contributing  to  national  fisheries  strategies  in  the  Pacific,  as  well  as  the  importance  of  
inshore  fisheries  for  national  food  security  and  wellbeing.  We  also  clarify  the  reasons  for  and  extent  of  the  engagement  of  FISH  in  
the  Pacific.  Likewise,  we  more  clearly  articulate  FISH  research  priorities  and  targets  in  SS  Africa,  and  how  they  are  embedded  in  
the  CAADP  roadmap.  We  highlight  this  for  FP1  in  particular,  where  the  program  has  been  designed  to  align  explicitly  with  the  
priorities  of  the  African  Union’s  Pan-­‐African  Plan  of  Action  for  sustainable  aquaculture  development,  and  the  national  priorities  
such  as  improved  seed,  feed  and  fish  health  being  pursued  under  this  framework.  By  working  closely  with  AU-­‐IBAR  and  NEPAD  in  
the  design  and  implementation  of  this  research  agenda  (including  via  facilitation  of  a  regional  workshop  in  March  2016)  and  in  
the  dissemination  of  outputs  through  support  to  capacity  development  and  policy  initiatives,  the  program  is  also  positioned  to  
contribute  to  achieving  outcomes  at  wider  scale  as  an  increasing  number  of  African  countries  expand  their  investment  in  
aquaculture  development  under  their  CAADP  compacts.  
 
Recommendation:  The  gender  narrative  in  the  CRP  needs  to  provide  additional  evidence  of  its  understanding  of  gender,  and  how  
this  has  shaped  the  CRP  research  agenda.  Inclusion  of  the  lessons  learned  in  the  past  and  how  current  proposals  build  on  that  is  
13
equally  important.  In  addition,  providing  a  clearer  link  of  the  gender  narrative  to  the  subsequent  descriptions  of  the  Flagships  
and  clusters  is  also  recommended.    
 
Response:  We  have  addressed  this  concern  via  a  comprehensive  expansion  of  the  gender  narrative,  as  now  detailed  in  section  
1.0.4,  in  each  of  the  flagships,  and  in  Annex  3.4.    
 
Recommendation:  A  recurrent  issue  in  the  current  narrative  seems  to  be  the  absence  of  other  CRPs  (apart  from  IWMI  in  FP2;  
cluster  1).  Much  more  information  will  be  required  in  the  full  proposal  on  the  links  with  other  CRPs,  e.g.  PIM’s  role  in  foresight;  
and  the  role  of  other  AFS-­‐CRPs  e.g.  on  feeds;  nutrition;  resource  use;  diets;  food  safety  etc.  Moreover,  lessons  learned  in  the  
current  AAS,  and  Livestock  &  Fish  CRPs,  and  how  these  are  integrated,  acted  upon,  and  taken  forward  in  the  current  proposal  
need  clarification.    
 
Response:  We  have  addressed  this  concern  with  a  more  detailed  and  inclusive  narrative  of  the  engagement  of  FISH  with  other  
CRPs.  We  detail  the  nature  of  FISH  collaborations  with  four  global  integrative  CRPs:  PIM,  CCAFS,  A4NH  and  WLE.  Additional,  
targeted  linkages  include  those  between  the  aquaculture  breeds  research  and  the  CGIAR  platforms  on  Genetic  Gains  and  Big  
Data.  Particular  site  integration  activities  also  include  new  links  with  RICE  on  integrated  rice-­‐fish  systems,  RTB  on  cassava  waste  
inputs  to  novel  aquafeeds  and  Livestock  on  animal  health  and  feeds.  An  overview  of  cross-­‐CRP  integration  is  provided  in  Annex  
3.7,  Table  1.  
 
Original  ISPC  Recommendation  3.  The  CRP  needs  to  clarify  its  networking  and  partnership  arrangements,  roles  and  
responsibilities  on  the  basis  of  comparative  advantage  and  subsidiarity.    
 
Recommendation:  Compared  to  the  previous  version  of  the  pre-­‐proposal,  there  have  been  significant  changes  in  the  strategy  
and  design  of  the  CRP  partnership.  However,  the  partnership  approach  needs  further  details,  and  clarification;  what,  for  example  
does  the  “careful  selection  of  partners  in  target  countries”  entails.  The  partners  are  still  largely  presented  as  a  list,  with  no  
evidence  of  the  strategic  thinking  underlying  choices  and  the  comparative  advantage  of  the  selected  research  partners  in  the  
various  clusters.  In  addition,  limited  attention  seems  to  have  been  given,  thus  far,  to  national  partners,  site  integration,  and  
country  objectives.  Given  the  number  of  clusters  suggested  to  be  led  by  partners  and  ARIs,  there  is  a  need  to  document  the  
leadership  and  value  added  of  WorldFish.  Further  clarity  on  how  the  CRP  will  link  its  development  and  testing  of  foundational  
science  and  practice  to  global  multi-­‐stakeholder  initiatives  critical  to  knowledge  application,  systemic  change,  and  impact  at  
scale,  is  also  required.  
 
Response:  We  have  addressed  this  concern  via  a  more  detailed  explanation  of  our  partnership  strategy,  including  partner  types,  
partnership  modalities,  selection  of  partners,  and  the  competitive  advantages  and  specific  contributions  of  these  partners  along  
the  discovery,  proof  of  concept  and  scaling  stages  in  the  impact  pathways.  This  includes  a  more  detailed  illustration  of  
partnerships  for  each  cluster  of  activity  and  examples  of  strategic  research  partnerships,  as  well  as  cross-­‐CRP  collaboration  and  
site  integration.  We  have  also  provided  further  detail  on  the  comparative  advantage  of  WorldFish  and  partners  in  section  1.8  on  
Partnerships  and  Comparative  Advantage.  We  complement  this  with  further  information  on  multi-­‐stakeholder  partnerships  in  
the  flagship  narratives,  and  an  illustrative  sample  of  these  is  tabulated  in  Annex  3.2  (Partnership  Strategy).    
 
Original  ISPC  Recommendation  4.  The  CRP  needs  to  provide  a  rationale  for  its  geographical  focus,  and  a  strategy  on  how  it  will  
link  local  level  multi-­‐stakeholder  partnership  with  higher-­‐level  alliances,  thereby  creating  conditions  for  the  systemic  innovation  
that  is  required  to  attain  the  levels  of  impact  indicated.    
 
Recommendation:  The  revised  FISH  pre-­‐proposal  states  its  focus  on  local  and  system-­‐level  analyses  and  interventions  to  support  
improved  governance  of  fish  food  systems,  but  does  not  elaborate  convincingly  on  the  rationale  for  this.  It  is  also  not  clear  
whether  the  proposed  focus  on  “governance  of  fish  food  systems”  is  related  to  capture  fish  systems,  inland,  sea,  aquaculture,  or  
all  of  the  above.  The  FISH  regional  focus  and  particularly  the  differential  features  of  this  focus  need  further  clarification.  The  
current  network  of  partners  and  partnership  seems  to  be  lacking  clear  pathways  or  processes  that  will  contribute  to  systemic  
change  and  impact  at  scale  (see  comment  #3  above).  The  only  description  that  gives  a  hint  of  this  is  in  relation  to  the  mentioned  
partnership  with  the  SPC.  Similarly  in  SS  Africa,  evidence  should  be  presented  on  how  the  CRP’s  research  will  be  embedded  in  the  
AU-­‐NEPAD  and  the  CAADP  strategies,  for  instance  in  targeting  the  Malabo  declaration  goals.  More  information  will  also  be  
needed  on  the  specific  role  and  the  comparative  advantage  of  FISH  in  these  processes.  
14
  
Response:  We  have  clarified  the  program’s  focus  on  fish  food  systems;  i.e.  building  “the  evidence  base  needed  to  influence  
policy”  enabling  productive  and  equitable  SSF  and  the  associated  change  mechanisms  specified  in  the  impact  pathway  and  
theories  of  change  for  flagship  2.  We  have  also  provided  more  specificity  (in  Annex  3.2,  summarizing  the  program’s  Partnership  
Strategy)  on  the  mechanisms  through  which  we  believe  that  the  program’s  research  can  lead  to  systemic  change.  We  provide  
more  detail  on  our  partnership  with  SPC,  which  builds  on  long-­‐standing  collaboration,  and  with  AU-­‐IBAR  and  NEPAD,  focusing  on  
the  African  Union’s  Pan-­‐African  Plan  of  Action  for  sustainable  aquaculture  development.    
   

15
Addendum  3.  Response  to  Consortium  Office  commentary  on  intellectual  assets  
management  and  open  access  /  open  data  (June  2016)  
 
In  its  review  of  the  draft  FISH  CRP  proposal,  the  CGIAR  Consortium  Office  provided  comments  on  plans  regarding  intellectual  
assets  (IA)  management,  and  open  access  (OA)  /  open  data  (OD).    This  note  provides  a  brief  summary  of  revisions  that  have  been  
made  in  response  to  these  comments.    
 
Intellectual  assets  
Dissemination  pathways  and  critical  issues/challenges.    “Better  integration/  contextualisation  of  IA  management  is  
recommended.”    
 
Annex  3.10  has  been  revised  to  include  a  new  section  on  Role  of  IA  in  CRP  impact  pathways,  which  includes  
discussion  of  the  critical  dimensions  of  IA  in  the  context  of  the  FISH  CRP,  notably  concerning  the  development  and  
dissemination  of  improved  aquaculture  technologies.  
 
Planning  and  tracking,  decision  making.  “The  following  approaches  to  decision  making  and  capacity  should  be  considered:  
(i)  development  of  a  CRP  level  IP  policy  framework  to  guide  implementing  partners;  (ii)  formation  of  an  IP  Management  
Committee  to  support  the  CRP  and  to  coordinate  IA  management  across  CRP.”  
 
In  Annex  3.10,  the  section  on  Operations  details  the  role  of  WorldFish  as  lead  center  and  that  of  managing  partners  
in  program-­‐related  IA,  including  additional  detail  on  private  sector  partnerships  and  licensing  arrangements.    This  
adopts  the  principle  that  the  IP  policy  framework  is  a  responsibility  of  the  lead  center,  in  coordination  with  
managing  partners,  as  opposed  to  the  CRP  as  such,  which  is  not  a  legal  entity  or  policy  making  body.    The  FISH  
management  committee,  under  leadership  of  the  program  director,  includes  responsibility  for  IA  management  in  
compliance  with  the  CGIAR  Open  Access  and  Data  Management  (OADM)  Policy  and  its  Implementation  Guidelines.  
(See  also  program  director  Terms  of  Reference  in  Annex  3.8  on  staffing.)  
 
Capacity.  “The  CRP  proposal  could  be  further  strengthened  by  providing  insight  into  IP  legal  capacity  across  the  CRP.”  
 
As  requested,  information  on  IP  legal  capacity  is  significantly  expanded  with  revisions  to  Annex  3.10  section  on  
Capacity  and  budget  for  implementation,  which  now  details  the  responsibilities  and  qualifications  of  the  external  IP  
legal  advisors  retained  by  the  lead  center.    
 
Resource  allocation.  “The  IA  Management  sections  of  the  CRP  could  be  strengthened  by  providing  a  more  detailed  budget  
narrative  for  specific  activities  related  to  IA  management.”  
 
Additional  detail  has  been  provided  in  the  overview  Budget  narrative,  bringing  total  resource  allocation  in  line  with  
CO  recommendations.    
 
Open  access  and  open  data  
Governance/accountability.  “The  anticipated  pipeline  tracking  system  for  publications  is  good;  will  a  similar  approach  be  
implemented  for  data?  How  will  OA/OD  be  incentivized?  How  will  OA/OD  be  successfully  operationalized  with  
partners/collaborators  (e.g.  via  contractual/agreement  arrangements).”    
 
Annex  3.9,  in  the  section  on  Project  planning  and  implementation,  now  includes  an  expanded  discussion  of  tracking  
and  incentives  for  OA/OD,  as  well  as  contractual  arrangements  with  partners,  and  support  to  ensure  compliance.  
 
Human  and  technical  infrastructure.  “The  human  capacity  outlined  in  the  Annex  does  not  appear  adequate  for  effective  
OA/OD  implementation.”  
 
In  addition  to  detailing  responsibilities  of  the  program  director  and  flagship  leaders  with  respect  to  OA/OD,  the  
revised  Annex  3.9  includes  description  of  adjustments  to  the  program  budget,  which  now  provides  for  recruitment  
16
 of  a  new,  dedicated  national  research  analyst  position  focused  on  technical  support  to  research  data  management  
planning,  as  well  as  OA  and  OD  support  and  compliance.    This  is  in  addition  to  existing  research  support  hub  
capacity,  which  includes  successful  implementation  of  research  data  management,  as  well  as  open  access  sharing  
implemented  through  the  Dataverse  platform.    
 
Achievable  OA/OD  plan.    Questions  raised  regarding  alignment  with  Open  Access  and  Data  Management  Policy.      
 
Revisions  have  been  made  to  Annex  3.9  to  clarify  the  intent  to  make  all  publications  and  information  products  open  
access,  recognizing  the  need  to  respect  the  confidentiality  of  subjects  with  regards  to  data,  and  other  situations  
where  data  may  be  sensitive.    Additional  detail  has  been  provided  as  requested  on  plans  for  research  data  storage  
and  access.  
 
Monetary  commitment.  “It  is  recommended  that  the  CRP  dedicate  around  1.5–2%  of  the  total  budget  to  build  capacity  and  
deliver  effectively  on  OA/OD.”  
 
Additional  detail  has  been  provided  in  the  overview  Budget  narrative,  bringing  total  resource  allocation  in  line  with  
CO  recommendations.    
 

17