Fisk for utvikling

Rapport 2021/31

Fisk for utvikling

Bjørnar Andreas Kvinge, Trond Norheim, Gunnar Sander, Xavier Gutierrez, Paula Andrea Rojas-Tirado og Ingrid Nesheim

Fisk for utvikling

Kategori	Rapporter
Underkategori(er)	UtviklingssamarbeidMiljøFiskeri og havbruk
År	2021
Rapportnummer	31
Forfatter(e)	Bjørnar Andreas Kvinge Trond Norheim Gunnar Sander Xavier Gutierrez Paula Andrea Rojas-Tirado Ingrid Nesheim
Last ned	file_download (1.4 MB)
Les i nettleser	find_in_page

Report 2021/31	 | 	NORAD	 	
 	
 	 	
Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for in-
stitutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 
Bjørnar Andreas Kvinge, Trond Norheim, Gunnar 	Sander, Xavier Gutierrez, Paula Andrea 	
Rojas	-Tirado and Ingrid Nesheim

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia an	d 	
Norway	 	
 
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	2 	
 
D	ocument details	 	
Tittel	 	Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation be-
tween Colombia and Norway	 	
Rapportnummer	 	2021/31	 	
ISBN	 	978	-82	-8126	-534	-9 	
Forfattere	 	Bjørnar Andreas Kvinge	, Trond Norheim, Gunnar Sander, 	Xavier Gutierrez, Paula Andrea 	
Rojas	-Tirado	 and 	Ingrid Nesheim 	 	
Prosjektleder	 	Bjørnar Andreas Kvinge	 	
Kvalitetssikrer	 	Haakon Vennemo	 	
Oppdragsgiver	 	NORAD	 	
Dato for ferdigstilling	 	28.06.2021	 	
Tilgjengelighet	 	Public	 	
Nøkkelord	 	Fish for development, Colombia, Appraisal,	 Fisheries, Foreign aid, Aquaculture	, Fisheries	 	
About us	 	
Vista Analysis	 is a social science consultancy with its main emphasis on economic research, policy analysis and advice, 	
and evaluations. We carry out projects to the highest professional standards, with independence and integrity. Our 
key thematic areas include climate 	change, energy, transport, urban planning and welfare issues.	 	
Our employees have high academic credentials and broad experience within consulting. When needed we 	utilize	 an 	
extensive network of companies and resource persons nationally and internationally.	 The company is fully employee	-	
owned.	 	
The Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) 	is Norway’s leading institute for fundamental and applied re-	
search on marine and freshwaters. Our research comprises a wide array of environmental, climatic and resource	-	
related fields. N=VA’s world	-class expertise is multidisciplinary with a broad scienti	fic scope in natural as well as social 	
sciences. NIVA combines research, monitoring, evaluation, problem	-solving and advisory services, aiming to find sus-	
tainable solutions for management, industries and civil society. The institute has broad internationa	l experience and 	
has i.a. established a subsidiary in Chile working with aquaculture.	 	
Link: https://www.niva.no/en/about	-niva

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and 
Norway	 	
 
Vista Analyse	 | 202	1/31	 	3 	
 
Foreword	 	
The report has been prepared 	by 	Gunnar Sander at NIVA	 and	 Trond Norheim and Bjørnar Andreas Kvinge from Vista 	
Analyse	, su	pported by a	 team at NIVA 	that has	 contributed with their knowledge on aquaculture and 	fisheries	; Xavier	 	
Gutierrez	, Paula	 Andrea Roja	s-Tirado	 and	 Ingrid Nesheim.	 Haakon Vennemo has been quality assurer.	 We want to 	
thank pr	ofessor emerit	us Bjørn 	Hersoug for comments to the report. 	Many people have provided valuable insights 	
in our interviews. 	These are listed in appendix C. We are thankful for all expertise and insights.	 We thank Olav 	Rostad 	
and Nina Kristin Snyder at 	NORAD	 for the 	assignment	 and 	for useful comments and reflections	. 	
June 28	th, 2021	. 	
Haakon Vennemo	 	
Partner	 	
Vista Analyse AS

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and 
Norway	 	
 
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	4 	
 
Glossary	 	
AUNAP	 	Colombian Authority for Fisheries and Aquaculture	 	
CAR	 	Regional development corporations	 	
CCC	 	Joint Coordination Committee	 	
FfD	 	Fish for 	Development	 	
FTS	 	Flow through systems	 	
GDP	 	Gross Domestic Product	 	
IAS	 	Invasive alien species	 	
IMF	 	International Monetary Fund	 	
IMR	 	Norwegian Institute of Marine Research	 	
MADR	 	The Colombian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development	 	
MADS	 	The 	Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development	 	
MFA	 	The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 	 	
NICFI	 	Norwegian International Climate and Forest Initiative	 	
PD	 	Draft Project Document	 	
RAS	 	Recirculating aquaculture system	 	
TOC	 	Theory of Chang	e 	
ToR	 	Terms of Reference	 	
WB	 	World Bank

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and 
Norway	 	
 
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	5 	
 
Contents	 	
Executive summary	 ................................	................................	................................	................................	.......................	 7 	
1 	Background	 ................................	................................	................................	................................	.........................	 10	 	
1.1	 	Cooperation betw	een Norway and Colombia	 	10	 	
1.2	 	The Fish for development Programme (FfD) in Colombia	 	10	 	
2 	Mandate and methodology	 ................................	................................	................................	................................	 13	 	
2.1	 	Purpose and scope	 	13	 	
2.2	 	Methodology	 	13	 	
3 	Political and economic context	 ................................	................................	................................	...........................	 14	 	
3.1	 	Fisheries and aquaculture in Colombia	 	14	 	
3.2	 	Political and economic context	 	17	 	
3.3	 	The project’s political relevance for Colombia	 	21	 	
3.4	 	Possible conflicts of interest between small	-scale and industrial operators	 	23	 	
3.5	 	Bottlenecks in l	icencing	 	24	 	
3.6	 	Opportunities and barriers	 	25	 	
4 	Risk analysis	 ................................	................................	................................	................................	........................	 27	 	
4.1	 	Risks for project performance	 	27	 	
4.2	 	Safeguards	 	31	 	
5 	Project appraisal	 ................................	................................	................................	................................	.................	 34	 	
5.1	 	The projec	t’s relevance to the FfD	-programme	 	34	 	
5.2	 	Competence needs	 	34	 	
5.3	 	Assessment of the results framework	 	36	 	
5.4	 	Project management 	structure	 	41	 	
5.5	 	Coordination with other projects and programmes	 	44	 	
5.6	 	Budget	 	46	 	
6 	Conclusions and recommendations	 ................................	................................	................................	....................	 47	 	
6.1	 	Conclusions	 	47	 	
6.2	 	Recommendations	 	48	 	
Appendices	 ................................	................................	................................	................................	................................	. 50	 	
A 	Terms of reference	 	50	 	
B 	References	 	57	 	
C 	List of interviews	 	58	 	
D 	Production volumes and trade for Colombian aquaculture and fisheries	 	59	 	
E 	Results framework with spe	cific comments	 	65	 	
F 	Risk analysis review (Risk matrix and safeguards)	 	66	 	 
Figure	s 	
Figure 3.1:	 	GDP growth in selected countries (1990=100)	 ................................	................................	...............	 18	 	
Figure 3.2:	 	Number of new daily confirmed Covid cases	 ................................	................................	..................	 19	 	
Figure 3.3:	 	Share of population that has received at least one dose of vaccine per cent	 ................................	 19	 	
Figure 3.4:	 	GDP/capita in fixed prices National currency, PPP, selected countries 2019	-2026	 ........................	 21

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and 
Norway	 	
 
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	6 	
 
Figure 5.1:	 	Description of phased project design	 ................................	................................	.............................	 42	 	
Figure 5.2:	 	Proposed i	nterrelation of different elements of Norwegian funded support to Colombia	 ............	 45	 	 
Tables	 	
Table 3.1:	 	Agriculture, forestry and fishing, part of value creation. Selected countries and years 
(Percent)	 ................................	................................	................................	................................	.........	 20	 	
Table 4.1:	 	The review team’s analysis of most important risks	 ................................	................................	.......	 29	 	
Table 5.1:	 	Review of baselines for impact level	 ................................	................................	...............................	 38

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	7 	
 
Executive summary	 	
Vista Analyse and NIVA have made an appraisal of a 	proposed Fish for Development project in Colombia. 	
The team believes that the project could be an important contribution to poverty reduction in Colombia, 
but that the plans seem too limited. We recommend changing the output structure and introducing 
new o	utputs and activities. In total, where our recommendations call for a larger project than the draft 	
plans and budget. However, we conclude that the project is ready to start after including environmental 
agencies in both countries to the project group. We 	recommend starting with an inception phase where 	
some parts of the original project plan can be executed, while other parts of the project undergo a new 
planning process.	 	
Fish for Development	 	
The overarching vision of FfD is to reduce poverty in the collab	orating countries by producing food and 	
generating sources of employment. This should be achieved by 1) improving fisheries management; 2) 
supporting the knowledge base; and 3) stimulating private entities. 	 	
Colombia is one of three partner countries in t	he programme, mainly because of the sectors’ potential 	
for strengthening rural areas and thereby contribute to the implementation of the peace accord and 
rural development ambitions of the Colombian government. 	 	
Vista Analyse and NIVA have assessed propose	d plans for FfD in Colombia. The proposed project consists 	
of collaboration between experts in Norwegian government agencies and Colombian counterparts, with 
the goal to support improved sustainable socio	-economic development for the Colombian fisheries an	d 	
aquaculture sectors. The review had two main purposes:	 	
1. 	To strategically inform Norwegian aid providers on key issues surrounding the political economy 	
of fisheries and aquaculture in Colombia and identify key factors that inhibit policy reform in the	 sector, 	
as well as the factors that influence goal achievement.	 	
2. 	To appraise the project document (PD) to assess the document’s relevance, realism, coherence, 	
potential feasibility, potential risks, safeguards, and the expected sustainability of the pro	ject.	 	
The proposed project consists of collaboration between experts in the Norwegian 	authorities and Co-	
lombian 	counterparts, with	 the goal to 	support i	mproved sustainable socio	-economic development for 	
the Colombian fisheries and aquaculture 	sectors	. 	
NORAD’s ambition is to enter into an agreement with the Colombian and Norwegian parties after having 
considered the current review, and after the parties having finalized the PD accordingly.	 	
Context	 	
Colombia’s tropical ecosystems have extraordinar	ily high biodiversity in freshwater as well as in the 	
oceans. Over half of all marine species for which information is available are overfished. Even though 
there is less information about the status in inland fisheries, overexploitation is a problem also 	for fresh-	
water species.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	8 	
 
 
Aquaculture in Colombia is completely dominated by freshwater production of the introduced tilapia 
and trout, but also includes the native species cachama (or pacu). Shrimp is the only species cultivated 
in the ocean. Colombian ex	port of cultivated fish is limited and has struggled to be competitive. While 	
catches in fisheries have declined, the opposite is the case for aquaculture. 	 	
 
Those working in fisheries and aquaculture are small	-scale fishers and producers with lower income and 	
education than average, applying relatively simple technologies. Thus, the target group is highly relevant 
for FfD. However, the project document contain	 little information about their situation, needs and re-	
sponses to the current management system. This needs to a part of the knowledge base for the project 
in order to reach FfD’s objective for poverty reduction. 	 	
 
Colombia is currently experiencing protes	ts and riots. A long history of internal conflicts is still affecting 	
the country	, leaving the country in a fragile situation	. Although Colombia is on a trajectory towards 	
increased economic output, large parts of the population 	is 	struggl	ing	 to make ends 	meet. A project 	
that can support sustainable jobs and food production in parts of Colombia where there are few job 
alternatives, is welcome.	 Colombian authorities are 	promoting increased private investments in fisher-	
ies and aquaculture, yet current 	profita	bility is poor.	 	
Main r	ecommendations	 	
The project should ensure participation from fishers, aquaculture producers and communities, aiming 
to include their knowledge and develop practices of co	-management.	 	
Focusing on inland aquaculture, possibly also inland	 fisheries, would ensure the best scope for reaching 	
the rural poor	. However, Norwegian competence on freshwater aquaculture in general and especially 	
in tropical waters is limited. 	Thus, we recommend including south	-south cooperation in the project can 	
be particularly useful	 for providing Colombia with relevant advice.	 	
The 	review team recommends that the FAO guidelines are included as a basis for developing policies 	
and management practices that addresses the needs of small	-scale fishers and aquaculture producers. 	 	
The project should carry out an analysis of the sources and 	reasons for overfishing as well as destructive 	
fishing practices. Support in finding better technology or practices will be important.	 	
The project should find mechanisms for assembling and sharing data from many stakeholders, and sup-
port development of a d	atabase that includes both fishing/aquaculture and socioeconomic information.	 	
The proposed project is small in scope and would not be able to give the expected impact. The project 
should increase its scope and activities along the lines suggested in this r	eport. This leads to that the 	
budget should be increased, but gradually, as new activities are introduced. 	 	
The project document reveals little information about environmental impacts of fishery and aquacul-
ture. Introduction of invasive species should be 	avoided in the framework of the project. Environmental 	
assessments, impact assessments and monitoring requirements should be key issues, and

Appraisal of the Fish for De	velopment project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	9 	
 
environmental agencies should be included on both sides (The Norwegian Environment Agency in Nor-
way and the Colombi	an Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development).	 	
The project results framework must be finalized and include all relevant baselines and targets. On the 
other hand, the risk matrix is not clearly related to the design as stated in the results framew	ork. The 	
matrix should focus on a limited number of the main risks for project management, which should be 
continuously monitored. Project safeguards must meet NORAD standards on ”do no harm” and cross	-	
cutting issues.	 	
The project should incorporate a local	 pilot project to try out in practice the theoretical learning 	
achieved and as a way to measure local impact of any changes AUNAP or ICA would like to make. The 
pilot will contribute to collaboration between regional and central authorities, as well as uni	versities.	 	
The review team finds that the project addresses important challenges and priorities in Colombian fish-
eries and aquaculture management. We recommend that it starts up with an inception phase, allowing 
for necessary changes in project design and 	budget followed by an adjusted execution phase.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for insti	tutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	10	 	
 	
1	 	Background	 	
1.1	 	Cooperation between Norway and Colombia	 	
The Norwegian engagement in Colombian fisheries is shaped by the Norwegian foreign assistance policy 
from 2017	-2018 (MFA 2018). The Solberg government wante	d to concentrate Norwegian foreign assis-	
tance to a limited number of states and a narrower range of topics. Norway therefore should collaborate 
more in	-depth and long	-term with ten partner states. The collaboration should be based on the achieve-	
ment of the	 sustainable development goals and poverty reduction, taking the states’ national ambitions 	
as well as Norwegian foreign policy priorities into account. The government also wanted to apply a wider 
set of approaches than the traditional aid by including for	 instance business collaboration, democracy, 	
human rights and transfer of knowledge through direct government	-to-government collaboration. The 	
ambition should be that the partner states in a longer term would manage without aid. 	 	
In the white paper, Colomb	ia was selected as one of the ten partner countries. A key background for 	
this was the Norwegian engagement in negotiations aiming to put an end to a more than 50 years’ long 
civil war. A peace accord was signed in 2016 between the Colombian government and	 the largest of the 	
guerrilla groups, FARC, which had control over parts of the territory. The peace accord contains direct 
peace related aspects such as cease fire, delivery of arms and justice for the victims, but also initiatives 
to reduce the root caus	es of the conflict, such as distribution of land and regional development pro-	
grammes that can offer alternative opportunities to those who had been engaged in the conflict. Such 
an approach would also be important in combatting another persistent problem i	n Colombia, the pro-	
duction of narcotics. Income from sale of drugs have fuelled the armed conflicts. The narco	-cartels have 	
a strong presence in certain regions of the country and infiltrate also legal sectors of the economy. 	 	
In Norwegian analyses of Colo	mbia, it is highlighted that the country is a medium level income state 	
with a considerable middle class and good competence level, though with large internal disparities. Four 
strategic goals are formulated for the Norwegian efforts: 1) A final peace, bu	ilding on implementation 	
of the peace accord with FARC and facilitation of renewed negotiations between the government and 
the ELN guerrilla; 2) Reduced deforestation as a mechanism for combatting climate change, protecting 
biodiversity and the land of man	y indigenous groups; 3) Sustainable business development in areas such 	
as oil and gas, fisheries and sustainable ocean economy; and 4) Increased collaboration with Norwegian 
companies, including in aquaculture and technology. 	 	
In 2020, a total of NOK 523.1	 million NOK was used in Colombia. Most of these funds went to govern-	
ance, civil society and conflict prevention, but the environment and energy sectors were also major 
beneficiaries.	 	
 	
1.2	 	The Fish for development Programme (FfD) in Colombia	 	
Developing countries increasingly request transfer of knowledge and capacity building. The Norwegian 
government has established a series of programmes aiming to contribute with Norwegian experiences

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombi	a and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	11	 	
 
and expertise on selected topics. These include oil, fish	, taxation, statistics, gender equality, digitalisa-	
tion, anti	-corruption and more. 	1 	
The Fish for Development (FfD) Programme was launched in 2015. The intention is to utilize Norway’s 
comparative advantages in responding to developing countries’ request	s for advice and capacity build-	
ing in sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. The programme is responsible for coordinating all develop-
ment projects supported by Norway in these areas. The overarching vision of FfD is to reduce poverty 
in the collaborating 	countries by producing food and generating sources of employment. This should be 	
achieved by 1) improving fisheries management; 2) supporting the knowledge base; and 3) stimulating 
private entities. 	 	
Even though Colombia was not a typical country for FfD 	collaboration, the Norwegian government re-	
sponded positively to a request from Colombia on collaboration and made the country one of three 
prioritized partners in the programme, together with Ghana and Myanmar. A major reason for this was 
the potential for	 strengthening rural areas, thereby contributing to the implementation of the peace 	
accord and rural development ambitions of the Colombian government. 	 	
FfD has provided support that has enabled starting a few projects in Colombia, executed by internat	ional 	
organisations and Caritas (see section 5.6). The project that is the subject 	of the current review is 	
planned to focus on institutional collaboration between Norwegian and Colombian government entities 
and is in a pre	-project planning phase. Discussi	ons of its scope and content have been ongoing since 	
2016. Two fact	-finding missions from Norway have travelled to Colombia, and two Colombian delega-	
tions have visited Norway. Many issues have been considered in this process. In the draft project docu-
ment 	(PD), there are four areas of cooperation and a budget which is lower than for the two other FfD 	
partner countries. Changes of government staff in Colombia following the last elections, and later the 
COVID	-19 pandemic, are major reasons why the process has	 taken so long. NORAD’s ambition is to enter 	
into an agreement with the Colombian and Norwegian parties after having considered the current re-
view, and after the parties having finalized the PD accordingly. 	 	
The project’s ambition is to 	contribute to improved sustainable socio	-economic development for the 	
Colombian fisheries and aquaculture sectors Appendix A includes the proposed outcomes and output 
of the project.	 	
 	 
 	
1 For more information, see https://www.norad.no/en/front/the	-knowledge	-bank/

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	12	 	
 
 
Text frame 	1.1: 	Project design	 	
Outcome 1: Relevant governmental management institutions and academia have increased capacity 
and knowledge in subjects regarding sustainable fisheries management, aquaculture and aquatic ani-
mal health 	 	
• 	Output 1.1: Increased number of staf	f in governmental management and educational 	institu-	
tions	 with international postgraduate education and short courses in subjects relevant for fisheries 	
management, aquaculture and aquatic animal health. 	 	
• 	Output 1.2: Increased participation from academi	a in government decision	-making processes 	
regarding fisheries and aquaculture. 	 	
• 	Output 1.3 Increased and strengthened postgraduate offers in fisheries and aquaculture at 	
Colombian universities 	 	
Outcome 2: Improved knowledge base for sustainable manageme	nt of fisheries 	 	
• 	Output 2.1: Increased knowledge about the state of fisheries re	-sources (including previously 	
nonexploited resources). 	 	
• 	Output 2.2: Increased knowledge about fishing gear to improve selectivity and reduce 	ecosys-	
tem	 impacts. 	 	
• 	Outp	ut 2.3: The EAF Implementation monitoring tool is introduced and used for selected ma-	
rine fisheries in Colombia 	 	
• 	Output 2.4: Increased capacity to interact with international and regional fisheries manage-	
ment bodies. 	 	
Outcome 3: Improved capacity for sustainable development of aquaculture 	 	
• 	Output 3.1: Aquaculture regulations improved. 	 	
• 	Output 3.2: Knowledge base for the development of marine aquaculture established 	 	
• 	Output 3.3: Knowledge about the prerequisite	s for an improved licensing process in aquacul-	
ture established. 	 	
• 	Output 3.4: Improved knowledge of water resource management in aquaculture, with special 	
regard to the effects of all users on general water quality in the waterbodies. 	 	
Outcome 4: Improv	ed health management of farmed aquatic animals in Colombia 	 	
• 	Output 4.1: Improved competence and capacity of ICA laboratory in the diagnosis of diseases. 	 	
• 	Output 4.2: Increased technical knowledge of ICA professionals in matters related to health, 	
epi	demiology, and diagnosis.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	13	 	
 	
2	 	Mandate and methodology	 	
2.1	 	Purpose and scope	 	
The present review has two main purposes:	 	
1. 	To strategically inform Norwegian aid providers on key issues surrounding the political econ-	
omy of fisheries and aquaculture in 	Colombia and identify key factors that inhibit policy re	-form in the 	
sector, as well as the factors that influence goal achievement. This analysis will identify risks associated 
with the proposed cooperation areas and the prospect of achieving results.	 	
2. 	To appraise the project document (PD) to assess the document’s relevance, realism, 	coher-	
ence	, potential feasibility, potential risks, safeguards, and the expected sustainability of the project. 	
The appraisal of the PD should consider findings in the politi	cal economic analysis and provide recom-	
mendations.	 	
The scope of the review is specified in the Terms of Reference (ToR) (	Appendix A	). The structure of the 	
report follows the ToR. 	 	
2.2	 	Methodology	 	
NORAD’s first request for this review was to conduct a desktop study, primarily based on documents 
provided. The review team received approx. 30 documents and reports about the project, and fisheries 
and aquaculture in Colombia, which have been consulted e	xtensively. We have supplemented with 	
searches on sources on the Internet and documents received from interviewees. The most important 
ones used in our work are listed in 	appendix B	. 	
During the discussions about the ToR, the team proposed to conduct a limi	ted number of interviews. 	
The intention was to get a better understanding of the project design phase and independent 	perspec-	
tives	 on the fishery and aquaculture sector in Colombia. The interviews were undertaken electronically 	
(Teams). There were two or t	hree participants from the review team on all interviews. The conversa-	
tions with the Colombian interviewees were in Spanish or English, depending on the language skills of 
the participants. The team took notes, but a couple of the interviews were also reco	rded for later con-	
sultation, with the consent of the interviewees. These will be deleted as soon as the review is finished. 	 	
There are clear limitations on how deeply and extensively we have been able to answer several ques-
tions from NORAD, given the n	umber of working days. Particularly the limited political 	– economic anal-	
ysis would have required more extensive interviews and searches in scientific literature. We therefore 
tried to answer them to the extent relevant for the primary task, the appraisal 	of the project. Many of 	
these issues need to be researched better after the start of the project.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	14	 	
 	
3	 	Political and economic context	 	
The political economy of fisheries and aquaculture in Colombia has not been the topic 	of a separate 	
Norwegian analysis befor	e. Elements of it have been addressed in the reports from international organ-	
izations such as OECD (2016), the PD and the reports from the Norwegian fact	-finding missions. A report 	
from KPMG also 	analysed	 several contextual issues as a background for reco	mmendations on how to 	
collaborate to stimulate the private sector under FfD in Colombia (KPMG 2018). Our report does only 
address selected issues according to the ToR. 	 	
3.1	 	Fisheries	 and aquaculture in Colombia 	 	
In Norway, the coast, and the oceans host most o	f the commercially important activities related to fish. 	
In aquaculture, production of fingerlings (smolt) on land prior to introduction of the fish in cages in the 
fiords is an important exception. A relatively new direction of development is the establis	hment of pro-	
duction sites for salmon on land to reduce the environmental impacts and avoid the management limi-
tations on the activity in the fiords. As regards inland fisheries, recreational fishing dominates; only cer-
tain lakes are fished more intensively	. 	
In Colombia, this is different. Both aquaculture and fisheries are significant in the more than 20 million 
hectares of aquatic ecosystems in the interior of the country as well as along the 3,000 km long 	coastline	 	
and out in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Thus, it is necessary to keep in mind that there are four 
sub	-sectors that are relevant in Colombia: Both fisheries and aquaculture occur in freshwater as well as 	
in marine waters (conceptually, a 2 x 2 matrix	). For FfD it should be important to have good information 	
on all of these as a basis for prioritisation and direction of efforts. This applies also to inland fisheries, 
even though it according to the PD is not a part of the FfD project. However, 	inland f	isheries	 need to be 	
included somehow, at least because 	these fisheries	 may be affected by aquaculture. 	 	
3.1.1	 	Key characteristics 	 	
Unreliable statistics and missing data in Colombia are key challenges for getting an overview of 	i.a. the 	
resources, volumes harves	ted and farmed, value creation, employment, and contribution to food secu-	
rity, livelihoods, and the national economy (OECD 2016: 10). Major reasons for this are the informal 
nature of the activities, the dispersion of fishers and producers throughout the c	ountry, and limited 	
government capacity to cover extensive areas, some of which 	are 	still associated with security risks and 	
low government control. Based on descriptions in the PD and in several other documents that the re-
view team has accessed (OECD 2016	, KPMG 2018, MADR 2021), we will highlight some key characteris-	
tics of fisheries and aquaculture in Colombia, with updated statistics where available: 	 	
• 	The 	wild	-living fishery resources	: Colombia’s tropical ecosystems have extraordinarily high biodi-	
versi	ty in freshwater as well as in the oceans. One implication is that there is a low abundance of 	
each fish species, as opposed to conditions in the Norwegian cold waters with fewer species oc-
curring in larger stocks. Thus, there is a high mix of species in m	any fisheries, making by	-catch an 	
important issue. Over half of all marine species for which information is available are overfished 
(PD: 9). There are some species that are under	-utilized and that may be sources for new

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	15	 	
 	
harvesting. However, IMR has assess	ed that the shallow Colombian continental shelf provides lim-	
ited possibilities for rich fisheries. 	 	
For inland fisheries, there is little information about the status of the 173 stocks that are reported to be 
fished (OECD 2016:13). However, overexploitatio	n is a problem 	even	 for freshwater species. In the ma-	
jor Magdalena and Cauca river basins, catches have dropped significantly, and a seasonal fishing ban 
has been introduced (PD: 9). Fishing for ornamental species meant for aquariums is a peculiar sub	-sect	or 	
that runs the risk of overexploitation of rare and endangered species. 	 	
• 	Production volumes:	 The two sub	-sectors demonstrate opposing trends: Total catches from fisher-	
ies has decreased by almost 50% from the 1990s (PD:9), dropping from 148,000 tons of fi	sh, 	crus-	
taceans,	 and molluscs in the peak year 1997 to 69,000 tons in 2018 (see details in 	Appendix D	). 	
Aquaculture production, on the other hand, has increased steadily since the turn of the century 
and reached a production of 179,000 tons in 2020. There 	are expectations for continuous growth 	
in freshwater aquaculture; opportunities for marine aquaculture are more uncertain due to i.a. 
lack of regulation and diseases in shrimp mariculture (PD: 11). 	 	
• 	GDP:	 In terms of registered value creation, aquaculture a	nd fisheries play a minor role in the coun-	
try’s economy, providing approx. 0.25% of the GDP (MADR	, 2021). The most valuable sub	-sectors 	
are those targeting products for export, such as tuna fishery and cultivation of shrimps, tilapia and 
trout (OECD	, 2016:	10). 	 	
• 	Trade:	 Fish has increasingly become a Colombian export product. At the same time, Colombia im-	
ports more fish than it exports: 70% of the fish consumed inland is imported (OECD 2016: 12, PD: 
8). In a comment to this report, AUNAP referred to a more recent estimat	e at 40%. One reason for 	
the trade deficit is the free trade agreements that stimulate import of fish. This puts a pressure on 
the prices of national producers that must compete with i.a. cheap pangasius from Asia. Colombia 
account for 5% of international 	trade in ornamental fish.	 	
• 	Employment	: Fish is more important for employment than in economic figures. Most fishers as 	
well as aquaculture producers operate informally, without registration or licences, making exact 
calculations difficult. Other complicatin	g factors are the seasonality of the activities and the many 	
part	-time employed, making a definition of a “fisher” difficult. OECD (2016:10	-11) estimated that 	
there were between 67,000 and 150,000 artisanal fishers and 10,000	-15,000 jobs related to indus-	
trial fisheries. Similarly, the estimate for jobs related to the aquaculture sector was approximately 
120,000. However, when taking indirect jobs from associated activities into account, the total em-
ployment from fisheries and aquaculture was 1.5 million acc	ording to a 2012 census. That was 	
slightly above 5% of the national employment at that time. 	 	
• 	Socioeconomic status	: Fisheries and aquaculture are means of livelihood for the poor in Colombia. 	
A large percentage of the activities take	s place in some of th	e poorer regions of the country, which 	
also are the homelands of indigenous communities and where people displaced from the internal 
conflicts are found. Moreover, a national household census from 2012 found that 3/4 of those em-
ployed in fisheries and aqua	culture production earned less than the minimum salary rate (which is 	
USD 245/month in 2021). Half of them had only a basic primary education level and almost one	-	
fifth were illiterate (OECD 2016: 11). 	 	
• 	Nutrition	: The average annual consumption of fish in 	Colombia is only 8.8 kg, however, rising 	
(MADR 2021). OECD warned that these averages hide strong regional and household	-level varia-	
tions. Fish is relatively expensive compared to chicken, 	beef,	 and pork, and therefore not a priority 	
for people with low an	d middle income that must buy their food. At the same time, fish is the

Appraisal of the Fish fo	r Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	16	 	
 	
cheapest and most easily accessible source of protein and vital nutrients for poor people living 
close to rivers, lakes, lagoons and along the coast. For them, fish provides an importa	nt supple-	
ment to a diet often dominated by carbohydrates. 	 	
• 	Marine 	– freshwater:	 Aquaculture in Colombia is completely dominated by freshwater production 	
of the introduced tilapia and rainbow trout, and the native species cachama (or pacu). Shrimp is 
the 	only species cultivated in the 	ocean but	 dropped to a record low production in 2018 (see de-	
tails in 	Appendix D	). 	
In fisheries, FAO data from 2018 indicate that the oceans contributed with the major share of the 
catches, 48,000 tons vs. 22,000 tons from fr	eshwater. For employment, it is the opposite: approx. 2/3 	
of the fishers operate in inland waters and 1/3 along the coasts (OECD 2016: 10). 	 	
The management system:	 Responsibilit	y is	 shared between agricultural and environmental authorities 	
(PD; OECD 2016). The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR) and the Ministry of Envi-
ronment and Sustainable Development (MADS) cooperate to develop laws and regulations related to 
hyd	ro-biological and fishery resources. MADR is responsible for drafting policies, plans and programmes 	
for sustainable development of the agricultural, 	fishing,	 and rural sectors. In this regard, and according 	
to the “National Development Plan” (NDP) which i	s issued every four years, the MADR proposes pro-	
grams and projects concerning promotion and research of fisheries and 	aquaculture	 to be carried out 	
by the Ministry itself or by its sub	-ordinate agencies. MADR also prepares and presents draft legislation 	
related to the agriculture and fisheries sectors to the Colombian Congress. 	 	
The main implementing agency for MADR in the sector is the National Authority for Aquaculture and 
Fisheries (AUNAP). The Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA) provides Veterinary 	Services for aquatic 	
animals. These are the two major institutional beneficiaries of the project in Colombia. 	 	
Decisions regarding management of the fish stocks are undertaken within the framework of the Execu-
tive Committee for Fisheries (CEP), an inter	-ag	ency law enforcement entity which brings together rep-	
resentatives of i.a. the MADR, MADS and AUNAP. MADS in collaboration with regional authorities are 
responsible for issuing environmental licences to aquaculture producers (see section 3.5).	 	
3.1.2	 	Supplementar	y information and data sources	 	
There are many needs for knowledge in the project, qualitative as well as quantitative. IMR (2018) em-
phasizes the need for better statistics on catch, the fish stocks and the ecosystems. OECD (2016) high-
lights the need for be	tter socio	-economic information. The PD adds needs for better knowledge on i.a. 	
fishing gear, environmental conditions, prerequisites for marine aquaculture regulations and improved 
licencing processes, and epidemiological information. Certain of these nee	ds for better knowledge will 	
be addressed in the project, while other topics should be added (section 5.2). 	 	
The need for better information and updated statistics has been a topic in several interviews. We have 
received references to web sites, most of 	which	 is in Spanish	. There is much information available, how-	
ever	 it is	 not easily accessible for all the needs of the project. Our general impression is that data seem 	
to be fragmented, hard to aggregate and reconcile across different sources such as loca	l administra-	
tions, has insecure quality, and variable geographical and temporal resolution	2. In the project, searches 	
 	
2 Aunap 	has in the finalization phase of this report provided us with additional data and statistics. This information is shared 	
with NORAD.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for i	nstitutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	17	 	
 
for supplementary information will be needed, for instance from universities, research institutions, 
NGOs and traditional data holders. W	e have tried to go into detail on two types of information, the 	
production volumes in aquaculture and in fisheries. This illustrates some of the problems of finding 
reliable and updated statistics, i.a. contradicting numbers from different sources. AUNAP a	lso has pro-	
vided more detailed statistics on trade in fish and shellfish products (	Appendix D	). 	
3.2	 	Political and 	economic	 context	 	
The current president Ivan Duque from Central democratic party was elected in 2018. The next election 
will be in May 2022 with ch	ange of government in August 2022. A new president leads to more extensive 	
changes in governmental positions than in Norway, where only the minister and a few advisors change 
after an election. 	 	
There have been riots and protests in Colombia in 2021. The p	rotests started as a response towards the 	
proposed tax reform. The tax reform has been heavily criticized for hurting the poor and the middle 
class. Regressive taxes will hurt the poor instead of preventing inequality that is prominent in 	Colombia	3. 	
The 	protesters accuse the government of being insensitive to the people’s situation in the economic 	
crisis caused by the COVID pandemic and for not implementing the peace accord. Increased tension in 
Colombia is considered by international investors as an incr	eased risk and hurt optimism in forecasts of 	
future opportunities. Thus, long	-term peace building and stability will be important for increasing for-	
eign investments in all industries, including aquaculture and fisheries. On the World bank’s index for 
“poli	tical stability and absence of Violence”, Colombia ranks below the 20th percentile. Colombia is still 	
in the recovery phase after years of internal conflicts. The implementation of the peace accord from 
2016 is key in this respect. Colombia still faces cha	llenges in consolidating peace and guaranteeing po-	
litical rights and civil liberties throughout its territory. The political situation and 	the country’s	 economic 	
development 	are	 fragile. 	The current administration is reluctant to implementing the existing 	peace 	
accord and has stated that it wants to revise parts of it	4. There are free elections and public institutions 	
seem to be functioning. Local and regional elections are generally characterized by greater opacity and 
more frequent violence than 	national elections. Crime rate and homicide rate fell after 2012 and has 	
now levelled out at a level close to some other neighbouring countries. Colombia needs support in 
building peace and stability.	 	
Sustainable job creation is vital in creating peace. I	n this respect, sustainable jobs in rural areas can be 	
significant. F	fD is therefore relevant in the political	-economic context (see section 5.1 on the current 	
project’s possible contribution).	 	
Colombia classifies as an emerging Upper	-middle income economy	. Gross domestic product has in	-	
creased more in Colombia than some of its neighbouring countries. The figure shows GDP in Colombia 
and neighbouring countries with GDP indexed and 1990	-level set to 100. The figure shows that Peru 	
followed by Bolivia has the	 highest growth in the period. Colombian growth seems to be placing itself 	
in the 	middle	5 . 	
 	
 	
3 World bank’s estimate for =ncome 	Gini	 index for 2019 is 51,3. This figure ranks between 	- perfectly egalitarian and 100. 	
Colombia’s index is well above USA, Europe and higher than most other countries in the region.	 	
4 Le Monde Diplomatique https://www.lm	d.no/2021/06/den	-indre	-fiende	-gjor	-oppror	-i-colombia/	 	
5 World bank database. GDP at constant USD. Recent data for Venezuela is missing

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Col	ombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	18	 	
 
Figure 	3.1: 	GDP growth in selected countries (1990=100)	 	
 	
Source:	 	World Bank, Vista Analyse	 	
 
Growth in GDP per capita has been modest in the last decade. Again, Colombia seems to be in the 
middle compared to neighbouring 	countries.	 Although GDP per capita ranks Colombia as an upper mid-	
dle	-income economy, 	wealth is	 distributed	 unevenly. Colombia continues to suffer from one of the high-	
est inequality rates in the west. Thus, one should aim at activities that support people on the lower end 
of the income distribution. Fisheries has a small part of the GDP, but it provides jobs, i	ncomes, and food 	
in rural areas where economic opportunities are scarce. Some of these regions are home to indigenous 
communities and people displaced by the internal domestic conflicts. A poll by Gallup from 2019	6 	
showed that about half of the respondent	s in Colombia stated that they had experienced lacking money 	
for food the last year. The situation was worse for women than for men.	 	
The FfD project’s ambition for poverty reduction will certainly be relevant for artisanal fishers	 and rural 	
population	. For	 a project aiming primarily at capacity building in public institutions, it is a challenge that 	
these fishers’ activities often are not registered and formalised. Registration and good statistics are rel-
evant for resource management and for providing techn	ical or financial support.	 	
COVID	-19 has affected Colombia and led to a steep temporary decrease in GDP in the second quarter 	
of 2020. Since then, macro	-economic figures have improved. Vaccination status shows that currently 	
about 10 million vaccine doses h	ave been distributed in Colombia, as of May 2021	. Colombia’s number 	
of 	covid	-cases has surged recently, the large number of people protesting being one likely cause. The 	
riots harm vaccination efficiency and health care negatively. The number of new cases 	per day in late 	
May and early June are the highest in the country since the pandemic started	7 (Figure 2). While some 	
of the neighbouring countries are on a trend with reduced numbers of new cases	, Colombia is now one 	
 	
6 https://news.gallup.com/poll/272324/colombians	-wider	-divide	-rich	-poor.aspx	 	
7 https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/colombia?country=COL~BRA~ECU~PER~VEN~PAN~BOL

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	19	 	
 
of the countries in the world with hig	hest number of new 	cases. In	 Bogota, there are only few 	available	 	
ICU beds in hospitals	8 . 	
 
Figure 	3.2: 	Number of new daily confirmed Covid cases	 	
 	
Source:	 	Johns Hopkins University	, Our World in Data	 	
 
Figure 	3.3 indicates that 	the 	vaccination rate in Colombia is better than most neighbouring countries	 	
and way above world 	average,	 but below average vaccination shares in South America. The trend is very 	
positive, with number of vaccinations increasing significantly	 in May and June 2021.	 	
 
Figure 	3.3: 	Share of population that has received at least one dose of vaccine per cent	 	
 	
Source:	 	Our world in data	 	
 	
 	
8 http://thecitypaperbogota.com/bogota/worst	-month	-for	-covid	-deaths	-in-colombia	-protes	ts-roadblocks	-continue/27602

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	20	 	
 
During the pandemic, the contribution to GDP and the number of workers in fisheries and aquaculture 
has risen. A temporary slump in other commercial industries, showing how fishing can be an activity to 
fall back to when other more profitable jobs are disa	ppearing, might have contributed to this effect. 	
Data suggest GDP growth from primary sector to be positive 	even	 prior to the pandemic	. The table 	
shows that Colombia’s share of value creation coming from primary sector has had a modest increase 
the last ye	ars. Fisheries and aquaculture seem to be a minor share of this value creation.	 	
Table 	3.1: 	Agriculture, forestry and fishing, part of value creation. Selected countries and 
years (Percent)	 	
Data unit	 	1990	 	2000	 	2011	 	2015	 	2019	 	
Bolivia	 	15.35	 	12.97	 	9.77	 	10.24	 	12.22	 	
Brazil	 	6.87	 	4.75	 	4.34	 	4.32	 	4.44	 	
Colombia	 	17.07	 	8.31	 	6.09	 	5.98	 	6.74	 	
Ecuador	 	20.52	 	15.	40	 	9.60	 	9.45	 	9.00	 	
Peru	 	 	8.07	 	7.10	 	7.05	 	6.96	 	
Venezuela	 	5.21	 	3.93	 	5.01	 	 	 	
Source:	 	World Bank database	 	
Some 	argue that the future of fish production in the world looks promising. According to Economist 	
Intelligence Unit, fish consumption and prices are likely to rise in the coming years in world markets. 
Their view is that COVID	-19 may have a lasting impact on f	ood consumption habits, away from red meat 	
and towards fruit and vegetables, but also fish. EIU stresses that they expect consumers to be increas-
ingly focused on sustainable food production. This means an opportunity for fish production, but also 
set clear	 demands for long	-term sustainability and eco	-friendliness of the production.	 Thus, profitability 	
in fish farming and fisheries is likely to rise. Forecasts by MADR also show an expected increase in fish 
consumption in the coming years.	 	
The last years’ eco	nomic and political crisis in neighbouring Venezuela has led to a steady flow of refu-	
gees and immigrants into Colombia. Approximately 2 million Venezuelan refugees and immigrants have 
entered Colombia, the majority in the last five	-year period. Colombia, w	ith its recent history of refugees 	
fleeing the country during the civil war, this spring awarded the refugees the right to register in Colom-
bia and granted them the right to work and the right to public services like schools and 	hospitals	. The 	
immigrants a	re dispersed throughout Colombia but are most visible in the big cities where many hope 	
to find a job. An influx of a large work force accepting low wages puts a downward pressure on Colom-
bian wages. Especially people in positions requiring little formal e	ducation are vulnerable for experienc-	
ing reduced household income. 	 	
Some information sources indicate that tension is higher in some remote regions	9, while other sources 	
suggest that rural areas now is more stable than the cities. The peace process is you	ng, and it is still 	
tension in Colombia with risk for armed conflicts. Related to this, there is a security risk associated with 
working in certain 	regions.	 If the project is choosing among relevant cases for a pilot, as described in 	
5.4.1, the local level	 of stability should be assessed and be an important decision criterium. 	 	
 	
9 Current advice from The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs advises against all travel and	 	
stays in the Catatumbo region in the county of Norte de Santander on the border with Venezuela. Fur	thermore, the Min-	
istry of Foreign Affairs advises against travel or stays that are not strictly necessary in the province of Tumaco in the pro	v-	
ince of Nariño on the border with Ecuador.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	21	 	
 
Development of the fisheries and aquaculture is strongly affected by fiscal regulations. Understanding 
the impact of fiscal regulations on the sector is key, as the effect of taxatio	n and subsidies tend to be 	
strong, outperforming many other factors. Offshore licenses for deep water fisheries are sold by the 
government at prices depending on fish type, area and period. Colombia has some minor subsidies to 
fisheries, providing boats an	d fishing nets for artisanal fishers. Public revenues from fisheries comes 	
from industrial fisheries and aquaculture, while most artisanal fishers do not pay taxes. As it is beyond 
the scope of this report and will need closer analysis, we will just mentio	n on a general level that a 	
situation where small	-scale fishers do not pay taxes, while industrial fishers pay company tax, may lead 	
to both suboptimal production and tax evasion. There are obvious positive distributional effects linked 
to food security, p	overty reduction and income distribution. Tax reforms tend to have both efficiency 	
effects and distributional effects, and the review team will just comment that these effects should be 
better understood. 	 	
The forecast for the Colombian economy is positive	. =MF’s 	medium	-term GDP forecast	10 to 2026 shows 	
expected growth in Colombia to be lower than for Peru and Panama and higher than Ecuador and Ven-
ezuela. The most recent update is from April 2021, and if the effect on forecast from the protests might 
not b	e included yet.	 	
 
Figure 	3.4: 	GDP/capita in fixed prices National currency, PPP, selected countries 2019	-2026	 	
 	
Source:	 	IMF WEO	 	
 	
3.3	 	The project’s political relevance for Colombia 	 	
NORAD	 has asked for an assessment of the project’s relevance to the political and governmental 	prior-	
ities	 in Colombia and an assessment of the project’s relevance to the main challenges in the fishery and 	
aquaculture sector in Colombia. 	 
 	
10 GDP in fixed prices. PPP, IMF forecasts from WEO database updated ap	ril 2021

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	22	 	
 
One year after the elec	tion in 2018, President Duque obtained Congress approval of his Plan Nacional 	
de Desarrollo National Development (PND). The PND outlines the national government’s plan for how 
it will dedicate its policy efforts and economic resources over the next four ye	ars. This proposal com-	
bines the government’s financial resources, approx. 150 billion COP (USD 40 million)/year, with partici-
pation from organisations and industry. The government calls this ‘co	-creating together’ and a form of 	
engagement that will play a 	key role in building sustainable peace. The plan focuses on reaching agree-	
ments between different stakeholders and could be understood as an attempt to build peace through 
reduced division lines within Colombia. 	 	
The plan aims at alleviating poverty by st	imulating the economy in several ways. The ambition is to 	
reduce unemployment with 1%	-point through the creation of 1.6 million jobs. Another feature of the 	
plan is targeting the development of international trade and the promotion of foreign investment in	 	
Colombia. This is expected to stimulate the economy.	 	
The PND is central in all public planning in Colombia and important for understanding policy develop-
ment 	even	 in the fish industry. A 2014 Plan for Sustainable Development of the Aquaculture Sector 	
(Pla	NDAS) serves as a basis for an important part of AUNAP’s work. 	 	
Colombia’s political priorities for fisheries and aquaculture include:	 	
• 	Increased activity and value creation in the sector, both in freshwater and in the oceans, and both 
in fisheries and aqua	culture	 	
• 	Job creation in fisheries and aquaculture	 	
• 	Reducing import of fish by increased consumption of domestic fish.	 	
• 	Increased investments (including foreign) in aquaculture and fisheries.	 	
The review team finds the project relevant for supporting 	Colombia’s goals. A major concern, however, 	
is that the project might be too narrow in scale and scope to make a significant contribution. This is 
further elaborated in chapters 5.3	-5.6.	 	
Departamento Nacional De Planeación (National Ministry for Planning 	- DNP) has identified several ob-	
stacles to growth in fisheries and aquaculture: 	 	
• 	Outdated rules and regulations	 	
• 	Reduction in resources caused by decrease in areas where fish spawn and smolt grow	 	
• 	Low national fish consumption	 	
• 	Fish	- and aquaculture absent in 	regional planning tools	 	
• 	Complex and expensive administrative procedures, harming investments and supporting in	-formal 	
deals	 	
• 	Absence of guarantees and financial support that would help entrepreneurs get financing in credit 
markets.	 	
Other key challenges iden	tified in our interviews and document reviews are:	 	
• 	Low economic productivity of aquaculture that reduces its competitiveness and reduces profitabil-
ity. Tilapia and trout, the species that are most produced in Colombian aquaculture meets strong 
competition 	in the international markets. The cost of feeding the fish is high compared to the mar-	
ket price of the grown fish. 	 	
• 	Overfishing, resulting in i.a. reduced catches and profitability, and less secure livelihoods.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	23	 	
 
• 	Pollution, especially discharges of mercury 	and 	cyanide	 from often	 illegal gold extraction, but also 	
pollutants from many sorts of industry. The resulting risks and impacts to human health can also 
harm consumer’s preferences towards Colombian fish, and potentially harm the ambition for in-
creasing d	omestic demand as well as export of fish.	 	
• 	Low investments	 	
NORAD also has asked why capacity in the sector is low. We believe the answer is related to structural 
characteristics. Fisheries and aquaculture 	are	 dominated by small	-scale fishers and producers a	pplying 	
local competence based on experience. Also, fisheries of industrial sized vessels are probably relying 
more on experience than formal education. 	 	
Relevant capacity building for industrial aquaculture can be elaborated along the lines explained in s	ec-	
tion 5.4.2. Currently, the Colombian aquaculture is not very competitive, but capacity building, innova-
tion in technology, reduction of diseases and domestication of native species will alter this in the future. 	 	
As explained in 3.2 the profitability of 	the fisheries and aquaculture may not be as high as in some other 	
production, but the importance of the sector must be understood	, including the fact that the fisheries 	
support many jobs and local food supply. Fisheries create employment in regions where o	ther industries 	
are absent and function as a safety net. 	 Norwegian expertise should 	look at ways to	 improv	e Colombian 	
aquaculture practice in order to increase productivity and competitiveness	. 	
The review team has not studied the distributional effects of	 increased revenues from industrial activi-	
ties. When it comes to pilots and other local projects, the review team recommends a stakeholder anal-
ysis that can reveal any conflicts between project ambitions and local fishers and other stakeholders’ 
interests.	 Besides that, we see no political	-economic arguments that indicate that the FfD project should 	
be cancelled.	 	
3.4	 	Possible conflicts of interest between small	-scale and industrial oper-	
ators 	 	
Colombia has a small industrial fleet of some 150 national 	vessels. There is no information in the docu-	
ments about the presence of foreign registered vessels in Colombian EEZ. In aquaculture, there are a 
few medium	-sized enterprises. The rest are according to interviews only small	-scale producers.	 	
Internationally,	 there has been considerable concern for small	-scale fishers and how their interests can 	
be taken care of in fisheries management. A key document in this context is FAO’s Small	-scale fisheries 	
guidelines (FAO 2014), which has been implemented in many diffe	rent contexts (Jentoft et. al 2017). 	
Better policies for small	-scale fishers may also result from long	-term political struggle, as in South Africa 	
(Sander et al 2020: 5	-6, with included references). According to an interviewee, Colombia has not 	
adopted the	 Guidelines, but hope to use the project as a mechanism for learning more about them and 	
possibly implement some elements. 	The review team recommends that the FAO guidelines are included 	
in the project outcome 2 and 3 	as a basis for developing policies and	 management practices that ad-	
dresses the needs of small	-scale fishers and aquaculture producers. 	This is	 key to achieving the goals of 	
the FfD programme and should also be pertinent since the UN General Assembly has declared 2022 as 
the international year 	of artisanal fisheries and aquaculture.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	24	 	
 
Competition over access to resources is a common source of conflict but is not analysed in the docu-
ments the review team had access to. The analysis stops with “overfishing” without any attempt to 
understand the rea	sons (weak governance?), attribute it to specific groups or see who is most affected. 	
The industrial fleet with more modern technology has probably a major responsibility. However, there 
are many artisanal fishers, and they may in sum also put an extra loa	d on certain stocks. 	An analysis of 	
the sources and reasons for overfishing as well as destructive fishing practices is needed as a part of the 
knowledge base to be developed in the project’s outcome 2. 	 	
Competition between the two segments of fisheries ca	n also take place over access to ocean space, 	
with conflicts between different gears as one component. Colombia has reserved areas within 1 nm 
from the coast to artisanal fisheries. In a few special zones, such as the North Pacific CERA, this is ex	-	
tended 	to 3 nm. To what extent this is a satisfying compromise is unknown. 	An analysis of competition 	
and user conflicts could also be included in outcome 2	. Colombian as well as Norwegian experiences for 	
solving this should also be included, both informal approa	ches between fishers and formal regulations. 	 	
NORAD has also asked about small	-scale fishers	’ lack of	 influence in decision making. Extensive research 	
would be required to answer 	this complex issue	, not least because of the many relevant decision arenas. 	
A general observation is that the level of organisation among small scale fishers is low, their organisa-
tions often weak and that the communities may be the nucleus for organising, not dedicated organisa-
tions for fishers. Several academic publications conte	nd that small	-scale fishers have not been fully rec-	
ognized as key stakeholders in the fisheries management process (Saavedra	-Diaz et al 2016: 2). Partici-	
pation may take many forms, including co	-production of knowledge and co	-management, both of which 	
recom	mended by OECD in Colombia (2016: 22	-23). One interviewee explained that there are examples 	
of sharing of information with the communities, but little co	-management. However, according to ex-	
tensive interviews by fishers, community leaders and fisheries exp	erts, there is a basis for developing 	
co	-management (Saavedra	-Diaz et al 2016). A warning from this publication is that if the Colombian 	
administration continues its centralized administration without support and involvement of the com-
munity level, future 	conditions may deteriorate (ibid: 19). Exploring better possibilities for participation 	
and co	-management therefore should be important tasks for the project to achieve a management sys-	
tem that is perceived as legitimate and acceptable, as emphasized by OE	CD (2016:17). It also seems 	
that co	-management would be in accordance with the government’s vision of co	-creation (see 3.4) and 	
a relevant response to the limited capacity and capability of the government apparatus. 	 	
3.5	 	Bottlenecks in licencing 	 	
Few Colombia	n fishers and aquaculture producers are formally registered; maybe up to 5% of the fish 	
farmers, according to one interviewee, 2% according to the PD. This has numerous implications for the 
management, including the availability of information and reliable	 statistics, distribution of quotas, guid-	
ance, and support (credits, subsidies etc), and enforcement. The problem has been raised especially for 
aquaculture and is described in several documents (OECD 2016: 25, KPMG 2018; PD:13). 	 	
Low registration for aqu	aculture activities is immersed in a complex social problem, including low edu-	
cation levels. Barriers mentioned in an interview are: 1) the registration process is expensive and takes 
a long time; 2) it is bureaucratic and related to different institutions	 participating and providing different 	
types of licences for production, sanitation, environment, processing and export, respectively; and 3) 
small producers make low profits and want to avoid fees. In addition, there is low capacity from govern-
ment agenci	es to cover large and in many cases inaccessible areas.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	25	 	
 
The system for environmental licences for inland aquaculture has received particular attention in the 
project. It is administered by the Autonomous regional corporations for sustainable development (	CAR). 	
These are 33 regional bodies that are responsible for multiple areas of development, including environ-
mental and natural resources management, having their mandate according to national law	11. Obtain-	
ing a licence requires that the applicant informs 	about water usage, treatment and discharges, and land 	
used (interview). There should be an EIA conducted by qualified experts. There are various pieces of 
national legislation describing that environmental monitoring for inland water bodies used for fish f	arm-	
ing is required	12. There is ongoing work in the Colombian administration to discuss whether the require-	
ments for the small and medium scale producers should be eased, as included in the objectives of a 
presidential decree	.13 The Colombian government has a general strategy for making its services more 	
efficient, called “Estado simple”, in which digitalization plays an important role. =t is easy to understand 
the need for making the licencing processes run more smoothly. 	There 	are many interests that must be 	
taken into consideration, for instance the risk of introducing invasive alien species and causing eutroph-
ication. Norwegian administrative procedures for aquaculture therefore also involve many actors in 
complicated processe	s. The review team recommends that the environmental licencing process, includ-	
ing baseline data, strategic/regional assessments, EIAs and monitoring, should be explored more in 
depth in Outcome 3 (we have been explained that it to some extent will be). Our	 preliminary assess-	
ment, based on the limited information we have achieved, is that there probably is a need for strength-
ening environmental elements. 	 	
This project will target institutional capacity building in central government. The project should con	-	
tribute to cooperation with the CARs, avoiding tension between central policy development and re-
gional responsibilities.	 	
3.6	 	Opportunities and barriers 	 	
NORAD has requested the team to consider opportunities and barriers for achieving the project’s oper-
ational 	goals. Issues related to this are addressed in especially sections 3.4, 5.4 (results framework) and 	
4.1 (risk matrix). Here, we will briefly highlight: 	 	
Opportunities:	 	
• 	The project is desired by stakeholders also outside the government administration 	 	
• 	Aquac	ulture and fisheries have increased its economic importance the last year 	 	
• 	There are identified needs for improvements both for fisheries and aquaculture 	 	
• 	Colombia has a well	-educated middle class and many competent employees in public 	administra-	
tion.	 	
• 	Colo	mbian universities and academics are recognized as among the best in Latin America 	 	
• 	There are national plans with ambitions for the sectors	 	
 	
11 See information from their national organisation at https://www.asocars.org/ , and https://tierracolombiana.org/corpo-
raciones	-autonomas	-regionales	-de-colombia/	 	
12 MADR	-Decree No.1541	-1978 surface water use concessions; Act No. 373	-1997 on the National Efficient Water Use and 	
Water	-Saving Culture Programme; and MADS	-Resolution No. 631	-2015 defining physicochemical parameters with thresh	-	
old values for discharges fr	om different sectors, including aquaculture, and requirements for their monitoring.	 	
13 Agreement for the sector”, signed by the Colombian president in Hanuary 2020.

Appraisal of the Fish for Develo	pment project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	26	 	
 
• 	The project will be carried out in a part of the world where Norway has provided support for con-
servation of forest 	and biodiversity. There is a potential for synergies with such projects.	 	
Barriers:	 	
• 	Still tension in Colombia with risk for armed conflicts, especially in rural areas	 	
• 	Related to this, there is a security risk associated with working in certain regions 	 	
• 	Poli	tical instability, riots and distrust towards the government 	 	
• 	COVID	-19 with the recent surge of cases; restrictions on travel etc. may continue. 	 	
• 	Economic slump and generally low tax levels in Colombia, restricting the government’s economic 
capabilities. 	 	
• 	Lack of investors may lead to slow progress and difficulty in finding co	-funding for a pilot	 	
• 	Diminishing fish stocks, pollution and other negative	 impacts limits the potential for achieving sus-	
tainable growth of the sector	 	
• 	Norwegian competence on freshwater aquaculture and small	-scale production is limited

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for instituti	onal cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	27	 	
 	
4	 	Risk analysis	 	
4.1	 	Risks for project performance 	 	
Annex 3 to PD presents a Risk 	Analysis that consists of:	 	
• 	A Risk Matrix which makes a distinction between external and internal risks; and	 	
• 	Identified risks of unintended consequences of the 	project	 	
During the discussion with NORAD about the present assignment, it was agreed to make a di	stinction 	
between risks and safeguards, which were reflected in the ToR/Approach document:	 	
Risks	 are the most important issues outside the project management’s control that could negatively 	
affect the project’s performance. These could include political	-institutional risks (including corruption), 	
economic	-financial risks, social 	risks,	 and environmental risks.	 	
Safeguards	: Measures needed to comply with the principle of “do no harm” and to avoid that the project 	
would contribute to adverse unintended consequ	ences, especially in the four crosscutting issues in Nor-	
wegian development policy: human rights, anti	-corruption, climate and environment, and women’s 	
rights and gender equality. The assessment of the PD has also considered measures to avoid inadvert-
ently 	contributing to elite enrichment without poverty reduction, and the undermining of government 	
responsibilities.	 	
This distinction between risks and safeguards is in line with international standards used by most devel-
opment agencies, the UN, development ban	ks, etc.	 	
“External risks”:	 	
It is positive that the proposed risk matrix considers probability and consequence of occurrence, as well 
as risk mitigation measures, which give the opportunity to focus on the main risks. The review team 
however considers that 	some of the most important risks have been left out. These include lack of reli-	
able data on fish stock, species and exploitation, inhibiting efficient planning, as well as potential spread 
of invasive alien species (IAS) into natural ecosystems (see table)	. 	
=t is important to highlight that real project risks are “outside project management’s control”. These 
issues include for instance change of political priorities, staff and budgets due to political changes, which 
could be a reality after the change of G	overnment in Colombia that will take place during the project 	
implementation. It could also include financial shocks, social uprising, natural disasters, etc. Project 
management has no way of preventing these to occur, but it is possible to prepare and mit	igate the 	
impact in case of occurrence.	 	
The PD considers that the major external risks that can negatively impact project implementation and 
achievement of desired results are “that proposals for improved regulation, management measures and 
guidelines are 	not adopted and implemented by the Colombian government”, and that there is insuffi-	
cient government funding such that the fisheries and aquaculture management institutions in Colombia 
are not able to deliver on their mandate. The review team does not agree	 with this analysis:

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia an	d Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	28	 	
 
• 	Even though, based on the draft PD design, it would be a risk that project proposals for regulations 
and guidelines are not adopted and implemented by the Colombian government, the weakness in 
the design is that a project results shoul	d not depend on the national multi	-stakeholder institu-	
tional process and final political approval, which often could take long time. It means that the pro-
ject outputs should conclude with presentation of the draft regulations and related guidelines. The 
PD	 proposal includes the project outcome indicator 3: Number of new regulations adopted, and 	
two project outputs that are approved guidelines: (i) National Guidelines concerning participation 
in RFMOs; and (ii) Guidelines for minimising water pollution from 	aquaculture. Often the final 	
guidelines would be politically approved and implemented after the project has closed, especially 
if the draft was finished towards the end of the project period. This does not make the project less 
effective. The project impac	t and sustainability would depend on the Government’s approval (af-	
ter some changes) of the measures and guidelines proposed by the project. This impact could of-
ten occur after the project (or first project phase) has ended, and the potential impact should 
therefore be part of the final evaluation.	 	
• 	Insufficient government funding for the institutions responsible for fisheries and aquaculture man-
agement is a real risk. It is however a risk that can be avoided under the cur	-rent government, 	
since AUNAP (under 	MADR) has been instrumental in designing the PD. The Norwegian govern-	
ment should assure that project co	-funding through AUNAP and ICA is confirmed in the funding 	
agreement, and that incompliance would be a valid reason for not continuing project funding. 
However, the review team agrees that insufficient government funding could potentially be an is-
sue after the change of government, when there normally are large institutional and budgetary 
changes.	 	
• 	There are several other risks that could negatively affect 	the project performance, 	and	 some of 	
them (pandemic, social unrest) are already occurring. It is therefore a question if they should be 
considered part of the project baseline instead of a risk.	 	
“=nternal risks”:	 	
Even though “internal risks” sometimes are mentioned in risk analyses, the review team is not in favour 
of including such risks because they could easily be an excuse for deficient project planning and bad 
project management, including 	inefficient	 lack of 	control for monitoring of results. There are many 	
measures that can be taken from the project management unit (PMU) side to avoid such “risks”, e.g. (i) 
a solid inception period (described in 5.	4.1) where the project operational rules are defined, e.g. 	by	-	
laws for the steering committee, and regulations for who should take which decisions and the order of 
decision	-making; (ii) Colombian rules and regulations to comply with, including preconditions for exter-	
nally funded projects before they can initiate; 	and (iii) ToR and recruitment process for project staff, 	
review of staff capacity, and plan for needed staff capacity building.	 	
The risk matrix considers as the main internal risks that relevant Norwegian or Colombian staff do not 
have sufficient time to p	ut effort into the project, resulting in delays. This sentence could have been 	
included in any project, and is not considered very relevant, especially considering the huge effort that 
both countries have gone through to prepare the PD. Another internal ri	sk factor mentioned is that the 	
activities are not planned sufficiently 	well and	 become less efficient. As mentioned above, this is not a 	
risk	, but poor project management and budgeting and can be avoided.	 	
The risk analysis presented in PD Annex 3 has addi	tional separate tables for each outcome. However, it 	
seems like the risk analysis has been done somewhat isolated from the results framework, for instance,

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	29	 	
 
under outcome 1: Proposed risk: Network with universities not established or not useful. This networ	k 	
is a project output under result 1.3 of the Results Framework. It is therefore not a risk. A real risk would 
be low interest from universities in participating in the network. Under outcome 2: Proposed “internal 
risk”: =mplementation of mechanisms studie	d for reducing bycatch is not carried out. Implementation 	
of the mechanism is not a project activity and would therefore not affect project performance. It could 
however be considered an external risk that would affect future impacts. 	 	
The risk analysis do	ne by the design team 	at the	 output level 	concern	s mostly minor risks that would 	
not greatly affect project performance. Even though all the risks were analysed, (see 	appendix F	), the 	
review team recommends 	removing the	 risk analysis on this level since it	 is giving too much detail with-	
out adding much value. 	 	
Table 	4.1: 	The review team’s analysis of most important risks	14 	
RISK	 	CONSEQUENCE 	 	PROBABILITY 
& IMPACT	 	MITIGATION ACTION	 	COMMENT FROM REVIEW 
TEAM	 	
Lack of reliable data 
on fish stock, species, 
exploitation, etc.	 	
Planning activities will not be 
based on correct infor-
mation, and therefore have 
low relevance and impact, 
and would not assure sus-
tainable management of fish 
stock	 	
3 	2 	 	Project to support i	mprove-	
ment of database and data 
quality	 	
This key issue was not in-
cluded in the proposed 
risk matrix, but is funda-
mental for baseline, plan-
ning, M&E	 	
Lack of political sup-
port for implementing 
more sustainable 
management 
measures 	 	
No move towards sustaina-
bility, with potential conse-
quence being further deple-
tion of fisheries resources, 
and leading to environmen-
tal and fish health problems 
in aquaculture	. 	
1 	3 	 	-Increase public awareness by 
making data, analysis, and rec-
ommendations public. 	 	
- CCC to discuss progress at 
least yearly and take action if 
insufficient progress.	 	
-Awareness of Project at high-
est level of the Colombian in-
stitutions involved	 	
-Invite CSOs to stakeholder 
meetings or present in project 
Annual meeting	 	
-Mid	-term review, and refor-	
mulation if needed 	 	
- Project outputs and out-
comes in line with Colombian 
policy	 	
Additional to inviting CSOs 
to stakeholder meetings, 
these could be part o	f an 	
external advisory group	 	
Corruption/political in-
terference related to 
enforcement of laws 
and regulations or 
granting of licenses	 	
As above, and imbalance in 
economic benefits from the 
sector, especially negative 
for the poorest stakeholders	 	
 	
2 	2 	 	-Focus on project issues where 
corruption could occur (e.g., 
procurement)	 	
-PMU to take part in national 
meetings about corruption	 	
-Learn from the UNODC pro-
ject	 	
A relatively small project 
cannot do much about 
corruption but should fo-
cus on avoiding corruption 
in the use of its own 
funds, to work as an ex-
ample. Especially im-
portant is to have clear 
rules and mo	nitoring of 	
their compliance for 	
 	
14 Complete risk matrix in 	appendix F

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	30	 	
 	
-Meetings with the CARs to in-
crease awareness of corrup-
tion risks in licensing 	 	
-Increased focus on local activi-
ties and beneficiaries	 	
procurement, recruitment 
and contracting	 	
Large and sudden dis-
ease outbreaks in aq-
uaculture or in terres-
trial animals.	 	
High economic losses, mar-
ket closure and impact on 
food safety. Impact on eco-
systems and biodiversity. F	o-	
cus of project partici-
pants/veterinarians from Co-
lombia diverted from project 
implementation. 	 	
2 	3 	 	Biosecurity measures would 
improve as result of the pro-
ject.	 	
- Change workplans to be able 
to use sudden disease out-
breaks as part of the research, 
training and competence build-
ing.	 	
-Activate and update emer-
gency response plans in ICA	 	
-Less focus on exotic spp and 
more focus on native spp with 
ecosystems	-based metho	ds 	
This is an area Norway is 
well equipped to support	 	
Spread of invasive al-
ien species (IAS) into 
natural ecosystems	 	
The escape of tilapia from 
fish farming and establish-
ment of wild tilapia could re-
sult in the decline of native 
fish species and 	affect the 	
entire ecosystem	 	
2 	3 	 	The project will not support 
further development of tilapia 
production or other IAS but 
concentrate on species that 
are not known to be invasive. 
The project would support re-
search into opportunities for 
cultivation of nati	ve fish.	 	
The spread of IAS is an in-
creasing problem in the 
world, highlighted by e.g., 
UNEP, IUCN and UNCBD. 
According to the Global 
Invasive Species Database, 
tilapia is a serious invasive 
species.	 	
Natural disasters, po-
litical unrest, security 
issues or 	pandemic 	
limits travel and some 
project activities	 	
Project implementation 
hampered, planned activities 
postponed	 	
3 	2 	 	-Virtual meetings and online 
training where possible	 	
-Project scope and content de-
signed to limit the risk that 
project 	activities are affected	 	
-Review information from rele-
vant authorities that assess 
risks for natural disasters prior 
to planned activities	 	
-Strengthening of community	-	
based activities that could con-
tinue even in moments of na-
tional crisis	 	
Some of these issu	es are 	
already happening, so the 
probability is 3. The last 
mitigation action was 
added by the review 
team. Note that even 
though Colombia still has 
a high homicide rate, the 
figures have gone signifi-
cantly down since year 
2002, and is now lower 
than many 	other countries 	
in the LAC region. 	 	
Colombian institutions 
are modified by new 
governmental man-
agement schemes	 	
Changed priorities by the 
new authorities affecting pri-
orities, budgets, and staff 
members 	 	
1 	3 	 	-Colombian government to as-
sure that responsi	bility for the 	
project is clearly defined in 
case of institutional change	 	
- -All project staff recruited by 
the Colombian institutions in-
volved in the FfD project will 
be on technical merit, and with 
contracts that go beyond the 
period for the current gove	rn-	
ment that may ensure the FfD 
project continuation.	 	
Note that consequence 
was changed since original 
text had little to do with 
the mentioned risk

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	31	 	
 	
-Immediately take action if 
adaptive management is 
needed. 	 	
 
 
 	
4.2	 	Safeguards	 	
The project design (PD annex 3 	– last part) presents a table called “=dentified risks of unintended con	-	
sequences of the Project”, which is in fact the project’s safeguards. 	As mentioned above t	he safeguards 	
are those actions that are needed to comply with the MFA	-NORAD principle of “do no harm” and to 	
avoid that the project would contribute to adverse unintended consequences. The review team consid-
ers that the project plan should plan to avoid u	nintended consequences (through safeguards), not to 	
mitigate them. 	 	
In 	appendix F	 to the present report, we propose to take out the centre column since the planning as 	
mentioned should focus on avoiding occurrence, and because it does not add anything sinc	e all issues 	
are marked with the same colour. The general principle has been reviewed with 	focus	 on the four cross-	
cutting issues in Norwegian development policy. 	 	
Human rights:	 The text “unlikely to have unintended negative consequences for human rights” i	s pro-	
posed taken out, because the safeguards have the purpose of assuring this, independent of the proba-
bility. The review team considers that there is in fact certain possibility that ethnic or social discrimina-
tion (as well as gender discrimination, see 	below) could happen for individual project activities, such as 	
training events. It is even more important to be alert in this period of transition after the peace agree-
ment, when former guerrilla soldiers should be integrated into society, while hostility 	is still maintained 	
between different groups. It is not enough to say that discrimination will not happen, because the pro-
ject should take measures to assure active participation of minorities. It must be planned for each indi-
vidual activity, but it is imp	ortant that the PMU has the HR goals clear and included in their job descrip-	
tions. Another important human 	right	 related aspect of the project is the improved food security from 	
strengthened fishery and aquaculture.	 	
Anti	-corruption	: It is a known fact that	 corruption is present in Latin American societies, and the Colom-	
bian fisheries and aquaculture sector is no exception. Weak governance is one of the main causes of the 
poor condition of fisheries and is characterized by corruption, lack of stakeholder par	ticipation, political 	
will and capacity, weak institutional capacity and capabilities, poor enforcement, and inadequate infor-
mation (CRG et al 2006, ref. in Saavedra	-Diaz et al 2016). According to some of the interviews carried 	
out during the review, this 	description from some years ago seems valid 	even	 today. 	 	
There is however no indication that corruption is stronger in the fishery and fish	-farming sector than in 	
other sectors, but it is present e.g. in public processes for licensing, w	here weak local ca	pacity and low 	
salaries are incentives for small	-scale bribery. This is a problem for the fishery and aquaculture sector 	
but 	not	 a particular	 risk for implementing a FfD project in Colombia. On 	contrary	, the relatively low 	
profitability in the sector compa	red with other sectors is a factor that limit	s the linkages with domestic

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	32	 	
 
and international crime. Money from the drug trade has been flowing into more profitable sectors in 
remote jungle areas, especially illegal logging and gold extraction in tropical ri	vers.	 	
The PD design considers that increased transparency will reduce the possibility for corruption and po-
litical interests interfering with the implementation and enforcement of management measures that 
will contribute towards sustainable management of f	isheries and aquaculture. Even though transpar-	
ency is positive, it is a relatively weak measure. A small project such as the FfD project in Colombia would 
not be able to do much to reduce corruption, however it could function as an example for how to avoid	 	
corruption within the framework of a project, especially the use of project funds. This would especially 
include procurement and contracting, as well as recruitment of project staff and consultants. The review 
team added the following measures:	 	
• 	Clear rule	s for procurement with project funds (Norwegian funding regulations) and follow	-up on 	
audit observations	 	
• 	Clear rules for recruitment and contracting (TOR, staff requirements) and monitoring of 	compli-	
ance	 	
Climate and environment:	 The first and most importan	t measure 	in terms of climate and the environ-	
ment	 is to comply with Colombian law, rules and regulations on environmental impacts. That means to 	
screen investments (relevant for fish farming) for potential negative environmental impacts, and to 
carry out a	n EIA if required. Internationally funded projects are not excepted from following these reg-	
ulations. In case of co	-funding, the review team considers that the issue should be important for Norway 	
even if Norwegian funds are not involved, because MFA	-NORAD	 would like to avoid negative impact 	
from co	-funded activities. It therefore refers to the proposed project pilot and investments financed by 	
any other source if it is carried out with advisory from Norwegian specialists. This issue has not been 
considered	 in the project design, which only says that “the Project aims to achieve the opposite” and 	
refers to planning of the activities. EIA is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment and 
Sustainable Development (M	ADS	), while the regional developm	ent corporations (CAR) are in charge of 	
the process on local level. As mentioned under the assessment of the project management structure, 
the review team recommends 	including	 a delegate from the “Marine, Coastal and Aquatic Resources 	
Affairs Direction” (DANCRA) at the M	ADS in the project Steering Committee CCC, which would be an 	
assurance seen from the Norwegian side that potential environmental impacts have been considered, 
as well as climate change and other environmental issues. During interviews with the Planning Depart-
ment and the Ministry of Agriculture, both mentioned that they work closely with the Ministry of Envi-
ronment and would have nothing against this ministry bei	ng incorporated in the project.	 	
The review team has added the following two measures:	 	
• 	Comply with national environmental regulations (considering when EIA is required) and assure 
that EIAs are carried out according to high quality standards. 	 	
• 	Joint Coordination Committee (CCC) to include M	ADS	 	
Regarding the risk that the project could lea	d to increased GHG emissions, the PD defines two 	safe-	
guards	, while the review team has added one:	 	
• 	Establish good communication between partners such that activities can be planned and exe	cuted 	
without excessive travel	 	
• 	Improved food security based on fish r	ather than meat would decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Appraisal of the Fish for De	velopment project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	33	 	
 
• 	More nature	-based solutions for fish farming in rivers, lakes and lagoons instead of constructing 	
fish tanks.	 	
Women’s right and gender equality	 	
The safeguards included in the design under “gender equ	ality and women’s rights” are all good 	
measures, however the review team considers that they could be more specific, and propos	es to include 	
two concrete measures:	 	
• 	Assure women’s participation i	n all project activities and on project decision	-making level 	(espe-	
cially CCC) and advisory committee.	 	
• 	Consider women’s views in the project design and implementation. 	 	
PD par. 6.4 has a good analysis on women’s rights and gender equality, but it is not clearly reflected in 
the design, where it quite weakly says: “G	ender mainstreaming may be supported …..” and “The FfD 	
project will try to head for a gender balance in all activities…”. =t is also curious that the 	results frame-	
work	 has no gender relevant targets, not even for participation in education and training. 	 	
Other issues	 NORAD also has requested an assessment of measures to 	make sure	 that the project 	does 	
not	 contribute to political destabilization, elite enrichment without poverty reduction, and the under-	
mining of government responsibilities. The review team c	onsiders that since the topic of the project is 	
not politically sensitive, there is low possibility that it could contribute to political destabilization. How-
ever, there are different views within the fishery and aquaculture sector on the best ways forward	, 	
based on socioeconomic, social and environmental considerations. The danger of elite enrichment with-
out poverty reduction could be a reality if the FfD project mostly focused on large private sector bene-
ficiaries (ocean industrial	-level fishing) and not 	community level aquaculture in poorer regions of the 	
country. The review team considers that the decision to focus on fish	-farming and aquaculture is a good 	
choice with high potential for supporting the poor, however the selection of region(s) and benefici	ary 	
communities for a proposed pilot should consider the goal of poverty reduction.	 	
The review team considers that there is no possibility that the project would undermine government 
responsibilities, since it is the Colombian government that is in charge 	of implementation.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for insti	tutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	34	 	
 	
5	 	Project appraisal	 	
5.1	 	The project’s relevance to the FfD	-programme 	 	
The overall goal of the FfD programme is “poverty reduction”. This is to be achieved by three outcomes, 
two of which are relevant for this project: 1) The authorities manage fisheries resources and aquaculture 
production in a sustainable manner; 2) Researc	h and educational institutions assist the authorities with 	
knowledge, data and advice about sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. The project addresses these 
challenges clearly. However, there are several limitations that means that it at best can give 	a partial 	
contribution to achieving the FfD outcomes. 	 	
Reaching the overarching goal of poverty reduction requires Colombian policies oriented towards this 
end and the implementation of effective means to achieve it. We have not explored to what extent that	 	
is the case in the fisheries and aquaculture policies and practices (ref sections 3.2 and 3.4 for some 
reflections). As regards FfD’s outcome 1 on sustainable management, the project does not consider all 
the dimensions of sustainability in a balanced man	ner. Even for addressing environmental and resource	-	
economic dimensions, it aims at providing an insufficient knowledge base. Improving the effectiveness 
of management for these objectives requires not only information on the natural environment, but also 
knowledge on the conditions for and actual performance of managing mostly small	-scale fishers and 	
producers, operating in a natural environment like Colombia. (ref. section 5.2). Moreover, the project 
aims at providing knowledge. Colombian authorities must	 consider recommendations and eventually 	
adopt and implement them before the FfD outcome 1 can be obtained. 	 	
A regards FfD outcome 2, research institutions and universities are supposed to be involved in the pro-
ject. In an interview, we have been explained	 that there is not a strong tradition for involving universities 	
in the management of fisheries and aquaculture in Colombia. Thus, there is a need to secure their par-
ticipation in the project (ref output 1.2, organisation and budget). In a situation where 	data deficiency 	
is a severe impediment to better management, it should be a key strategy in Colombia to involve all 
relevant knowledge holders and compile their contributions in shared databases. Norway has tried to 
improve this i.a. by the involvement of 	different sectors in the ocean management plans and platforms 	
such as 	BarentsWatch	15, and therefore has relevant experience to share. One of the experiences from 	
Norway is that this has contributed to reducing conflicts about facts and increasing collabora	tion and 	
trust between the involved parties. The project should include developing strategies and practical so-
lutions for compiling and sharing relevant knowledge and data, for instance starting with improving 
SEPEC (see 	Appendix D	) or with pilot projects	 on certain topics or in certain regions. 	 	
5.2	 	Competence needs	 	
The competence needed for addressing outcome 4 on fish health in aquaculture and many of the com-
petences needed for output 2 on marine fisheries are represented well in the project team. Here we 
will address more problematic issues related to two needs for competence. 	 	
 	
15 See https://www.barentswatch.no/en/

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombi	a and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	35	 	
 	
5.2.1	 	Freshwater versus saltwater aquaculture 	 	
There is a striking mismatch between Colombian and Norwegian aquaculture sectors both in terms of 
the marine 	– freshwater balance, and the te	chnological levels. =n Colombia, the legal definition of “con-	
tinental aquaculture” includes a gradient of technology levels, from sowing of fish in natural water bod-
ies without any subsequent management (“repopulation”) to intensive aquaculture (Conservati	on in-	
ternational 2020). Low intensive production for instance in ponds dominate. =n Norway, “repopulation” 
is referred to as fisheries cultivation and has a long tradition. There is a limited experience on the less 
intense types of cultivation that can be 	found in Colombia. Industrial and intensive salmon farming dom-	
inate the Norwegian sector, however, including an inland freshwater phase where eggs grow to finger-
lings in flow	-through systems (FTS) or recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), before being mo	ved to 	
cages in the fiords. 	 	
This does not mean that Norway cannot give advice on aquaculture in Colombia. There are generic 
issues such as fish biology, genetics, water quality, pollution from feed waste and f	aeces, 	escapes,	 and 	
sustainable feed production. However, FfD in Colombia will benefit from including supplementary ex-
pertise from countries with more similar technology levels in freshwater aquaculture to give relevant 
advice on outcome 3. 	 	
Another issue related to thi	s is that the management of inland fisheries and parts of what is considered 	
as aquaculture in Colombia, pertains to the environmental administration in Norway. The same admin-
istration has important roles in pollution abatement from i.a. aquaculture and is	 responsible for inte-	
grated water management (ref output 3.4). The Norwegian Environment Agency therefore should be 
involved in the activities to provide Colombia with a relevant comparison. 	 	
Finally, there is a need for competence on freshwater quality a	nd ecology related to the programme. As 	
mentioned above, impacts of aquaculture on the freshwater ecosystem, including native fish that are 
harvested, should be taken into consideration when giving advice for a better management system. 
Moreover, activitie	s on integrated water use management, as suggested in output 3.4, require special 	
competence on the different sources of pollution and their effects	, specifically in freshwater systems 	
relevant for Colombia. 	 	
5.2.2	 	Competence on socioeconomic conditions and regu	lations	 	
A common framework for studies of fisheries management divides the management system into two 
main units: The governance system and the system	-to-be	-governed (Kooiman et al 2005). The latter 	
consists of the natural ecosystems as well as the humans 	that exploit the resources. However, only the 	
humans can be managed; ecosystems and the natural environment 	are	 only managed indirectly. For 	
making this system governable in the sense that it produces desired outcomes, knowledge is needed 
about all the ele	ments in this framework and the interactions between them. 	 	
This seems not to be reflected well in the programme. The outcomes contain several explicit require-
ments for better knowledge about the resources. However, there are no requests for better information 
on the situation, 	opportunities,	 and perceptions of tho	se that are to be managed. This should be a cru-	
cial part of the knowledge base that is referred to in several outputs, including 2.3 about FAO’s Eco	-	
system Approach to Fisheries, which includes socioeconomic issues. Similarly, there is a need to include 
kn	owledge on how different types of management systems work and how they have succeeded or failed 	
towards different target groups and challenges. In this regard, Norwegian experiences may only be

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	36	 	
 
partly relevant. Norway differs from Colombia in many contextu	al issues, so Norwegian sol	utions cannot 	
be copied; elements may be adapted to the Colombian reality. Both the Norwegian and the Colombian 
parts in the project need to understand the other’s context to facilitate such adaptation. We will rec-
ommend that the	 competence of the programme is supplemented by social science comp	etence on 	
fisheries and aquaculture management in an international context beyond Norway. 	 	
5.2.3	 	Lessons learned from prior foreign assistance	 	
NORAD also has asked about the use of lessons learn	ed from similar projects, including experiences with 	
inland aquaculture. While Colombia is new in this context, Norway has been engaged in inland aquacul-
ture in Africa. This has been criticized harshly by Norwegian experts (Bistandsaktuelt 2017), claiming 
that 1) Aquaculture leads to detrimental damage to freshwater ecosystems, i.a. due to oxygen depletion 
and the introduction and spread of farmed fish, such as tilapia, that replaces local fish stocks, including 
those harvested; 2) Aquaculture does not bene	fit poor people; traditional inland fisheries produce fish 	
more cheaply; 3) The potential of inland fisheries is underestimated; catches in Africa grow by 4	-5% 	
annually; and 4) Most aquaculture requires more protein than it produces. In the following debat	e, they 	
were accused of making too general statements, i.a. not distinguishing between small	-scale and indus-	
trial aquaculture	16. Our concern here is not to say who is right about Africa. The key issue is that the 	
objections they present are serious and mus	t be considered in a Colombian context. Experience from 	
foreign assistance in i.a. Africa should be brought into the project when addressing them, combined 
with evaluation of Colombian experiences. 	 	
As regards the Norwegian participants’ use of such knowle	dge, it is important that the individuals that 	
are selected for the programme are well familiar with experiences from tropical climate. This must be 
considered in the selection of personnel for the programme and their training. 	 	
5.3	 	Assessment of the results f	ramework 	 	
The project management structure, efficiency and quality: 	 	
The review team considers the Results Framework (Annex 1 to the PD) as the core of the project de	-	
sign, because it should clearly define what the project will achieve and when the differ	ent partial results 	
are expected, which makes it different from a standard logical framework. It is a planning and monitor-
ing tool that is useful for the project manager, the project management unit and the supervisors on 
Colombian and Norwegian side, as w	ell as the basis for progress reports and evaluations. Under the 	
condition that it is well prepared with specific baselines and targets it is an efficient instrument for plan-
ning, monitoring, reporting and control.	 	
The positive side of the Results Framewor	k presented is that it reflects that the design team under	-	
stands the structure and purpose of a results framework. On the other hand, it seems like this annex 
has been prepared in the end, and has not been finalized, because it lacks consistency. It is fo	r instance 	
lacking several baselines and targets. It is also important to assure that each baseline and corresponding 
targets are measured with the same value (e.g. numbers with numbers). A target without a baseline has 
no value, and in those areas where n	othing has been done before, the baseline would be zero, then 	
 	
16 Lenke: https://	www.bistandsaktuelt.no/arkiv	-kommentarer/2017/ensidig	-om	-fiskeoppdrett	-i-sor/

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	37	 	
 
only measuring the project’s own result. =n all cases where baseline is not zero, the target should meas-
ure the total on different years (including baseline) to facilitate monitoring. In the cas	es that the lack of 	
baseline is due to lack of data, it would be necessary to carry out a baseline study, to be done as soon 
as possible or not later than during the inception phase. =t is not the review team’s role to update the 
Results Framework and defi	ning targets because that would require additional information, however all 	
its content has been reviewed and suggested changes were included in the table. One aspect to high-
light is that there are no gender relevant targets (see 4.2).	 	
5.3.1	 	Assessment of the de	scription of the current situation/baseline	 	
The description of the current situation in the sector is relatively good, but the problem is the lack of 
updated and reliable data that could function as a baseline for the project. This is the case both for the	 	
ocean and for freshwater, as well as for both fishery and aquaculture. A clear weakness is the lack of 
information on inland fish resources. According to information obtained during interviews and from 
other sources, this is not a weakness only for the PD	, but reflects the situation in the sector, which is 	
strongly limiting the possibility of efficient planning and sustainable management of the resources. To 
address this issue, the review team recommends two measures:	 	
• 	To carry out a baseline study during t	he inception phase for all targets in the results framework 	
that are lacking baseline figures; and	 	
• 	To support AUNAP and the Colombian Government in general in improving its database on fisher-
ies and aquaculture. 	 	
The review team has assessed the expected p	roject effectiveness (impact, outcomes and outputs). An-	
nex 7.6 presents detailed comments to a lot of the indicators and baselines. It would be the best to 
reduce the number of indicators on impact level, and only maintain those that have 	a reliable baseli	ne 	
and possibility to measure progress. The indicators should only cover issues where the project has a 
reasonable impact, considering the size of the intervention and type of outputs under each outcome.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	38	 	
 
Table 	5.1: 	Review of baselines for impact level	 	
Issue	 	Current proposed 
baseline	 	
Review team’s comments	 	
Marine fisheries Capture (2019) 	 	94.000 tonnes 	 	“Marine capture increased…” should not be an 
impact indicator for the FfD project because: (i) 
Current marine fish stock is going down, with un-
sustainable capture level; (ii) Marine capture is an 
unreliable indicator for available fish stock; (iii) 
There is not reliable baseline data; (iv) The project 
is too small to have any impact on overall fish 
stock; (v) The project is focus	ed	 mostly on fish 	
farming/aquaculture	 	
Total aquaculture production 
(2019) 	 	
171.000 tonnes	 	Good impact indicator for the project	 	
The aquaculture and fisheries 
share of GDP 	 	
0.2% (and 3.2 % to 
the agriculture Sec-
tor) 	 	
Should only include % of total GDP, because: (i) 
this sector is not agriculture; and (ii) the income 
from agriculture varies a lot (therefore not a use-
ful indicator for this project)	 	
Income generated from the fi	sh-	
eries sector (2019) 	 	
USD 112 Million	 	These two data were presented as a common in-
dicator: Proposed to separate	 	
Income generated from the aq-
uaculture sector (2019) 	 	
USD 52 Million	 	
Value Added Tax (VAT) gener-
ated from the aquaculture and 
fisheries sector (2019) 	 	
16 % (USD 26.2 Mil-
lion)	 	
A better indicator for the project would be VAT 
from only the aquaculture sector	 	
Source:	 	Vista Analyse	 	
RV Nansen was in Colombia in 1987. With Colomb	ia as one of the three partner states in FfD, the Nan-	
sen	-programme should pay another visit to Colombia. This will be important for achieving objectives 	
about better information about the stocks and about implementation of the Ecosystem approach to 
fisheri	es (output 2.1, 2.3), as well as improving the knowledge base for marine aquaculture (output 3.2). 	
While this may take a few years, opportunities for using other vessels for joint cruises with Norwegian 
personnel should be explored. It is of vital importan	ce that the sampled data are relevant for Colombian 	
fisheries management, accessible for Colombian academic and government parties, and are being ac-
tively used in sustainable fisheries management.	 	
5.3.2	 	Assessment of the main activities and main objectives 	 	
Even though not all information in the results framework has been filled in, it seems to be a clear relation 
between most activities and outputs, and between outputs and outcomes. There is however no realism 
in the relation between the outcomes and the exp	ected impact “=mproved sustainable socio	-economic 	
development for the Colombian fisheries and aquaculture sectors”. First of all, grammatically this sen-
tence implies that the sector is sustainable today and will be improved. Secondly, the project is small 
and only focusing on institutional capacity building in certain thematic areas, so it is a too huge step to 
go from this to sustainable socio	-economic development for both the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. 	
Even though the proposed project impact could	 be a long	-term goal 	- maybe the institutional goal for 	
the two target institutions 	- the design team should try to define the project impact, that would be

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	39	 	
 
reached at the end of the project or short time after. An option would be “improved public sector c	a-	
pacity for management of the Colombian fisheries and aquaculture sectors”.	 	
The review team considers that the project has consistency and realism in what has been proposed. 
Regarding the indicator to develop national guidelines/plan for implementation of 	a one	-stop	-shop, this 	
would be realistic during the project period if the target is understood as complied with when the pro-
ject presents a draft (not including the consultation	- and political approval process). 	 	
The main target groups for the project are 	AUNAP and ICA. The project is designed to prioritize activities 	
that will enhance these institutions’ capacity for sustainable management of fisheries resources and 
aquaculture production. =t is however a weakness that the PD doesn’t define how the capacit	y building 	
would (indirectly) benefit local stakeholders such as fishery communities and organizations, aquaculture 
producers, etc. 	 	
The review team recommends incorporating a local pilot. Our suggestion is to choose a local region in 
Colombia and use curr	ent activities there, including procedures undertaken by the local institutions, as 	
valuable real	-life input to the project. This will include contact between central agencies and regional 	
offices. 	 	
The project should also, as previously mentioned, support	 data gathering and management, which 	
would benefit both the two Colombian institutions and the project itself.	 	
5.3.3	 	Theory of change	 	
The review team has assessed the causal links between the problem description and chosen objectives 
and activities (theory of c	hange 	- TOC). The project document describes a lot of problems in the sector, 	
but it is difficult to find clear links between the project outcomes and resolution to these problems 
(except for disease control).	 	
The problem lies in the design process, which 	normally for a TOC analysis starts with establishing a 	
problem tree (in this case it could have been two, one for fisheries and one for aquaculture). The prob-
lem tree establishes the causes, main problems and consequences, and the analysis discovers that s	ome 	
problems are the main ones 	– while others are sub	-problems of the main problems. Once the problem 	
tree is agreed it is relatively easy to establish the TOC for a project, which could focus on only one main 
problem, but preferably should check that some	one (maybe other projects) is covering the other main 	
issues.	 	
In the case of the Colombian FfD project, the process was completely different: It started with gathering 
a long “wish	-list” that the two Colombian institutions would like to get financed, then 	reducing the num-	
ber in dialogue between Colombia and Norway, considering as an important element which ser	-vices 	
Norwegian institutions would be able to provide. The problem with this process is that it does not guar-
antee that the project would focus on th	e most important problems. The wish	-list process most often 	
leads to parallel activities and individual outputs that are resolving some problems but gives low total 
impact. For the FfD project it is reflected in the very little relation between outcomes an	d impact.	 	
The project proposal has the advantage from a TOC point of view that it concentrates mainly on institu-
tional capacity building. The review team is not able to tell if the outputs prioritized are those that would 
lead to the strongest outcomes and	 impact. Some very important activities might have been taken out

Appraisal of the Fish fo	r Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	40	 	
 
simply because it was considered that Norway would not be able to provide 	them	. That is no problem 	
if they are	 covered by other sources or projects, and that donor coordination is assured. H	owever, the 	
project should be able to include expertise from other countries than Norway if needed, and if experts 
are found in other tropical countries it would comply with the NORAD goal of supporting south	-south 	
cooperation. 	 	
The Theory of Change as pre	sented in the PD including fig 1 clarifies that the project design is a series 	
of activities and outputs mostly in parallel, and the TOC for the 5	-year project period would in fact end 	
with “proposals for new regulations...”. Since it will take time before	 new regulations are discussed, 	
approved and implemented, the next three levels in the TOC diagram would in the best	-case scenario 	
happen ex	-post or during a second project phase. It is recommended to define an immediate impact, 	
also called “project impact	”, that would be reached during implementation (see also review of Results 	
Framework). The project design would have benefitted from support of an expert on project design and 
TOC, to facilitate a participatory TOC exercise and restructure the design. This	 is more than just a for-	
mality because it would clarify which issues are important, including drivers and barriers for each step. 	 	
Considering the long design period and the positive attitude of collaboration from both countries, the 
review team will not 	propose starting from scratch with a new design process, however it would be 	
beneficial for the effectiveness and efficiency of the project implementation that the TOC is re	-visited 	
during the inception phase. 	The TOC	 should then define a matrix of activit	ies with a logical sequence, 	
including interrelations between the activities (what comes first, and which outputs must build on other 
outputs). A useful operational tool for this exercise is MS Project, which also considers the time needed 
for each part of	 the process (consisting of many micro steps).	 	
5.3.4	 	Monitoring and evaluation	 	
The monitoring and follow	-up of the project propose to use annual work plan for planning and coordi-	
nation. The activities shall be monitored quarterly in the Joint Implementation Grou	p (CCC) and the 	
results reported annually. Even though it is not specified in the PD chapter on project follow	-up, the 	
review team assumes that the results framework will be basis for the monitoring. The 	results framework	 	
(when finalized and corrected) is 	a simple user	-friendly monitoring tool. The Project Manager (leading 	
the project management unit) must oversee 	the preparation of	 annual work plans, updat	e the results 	
framework each quarter, and on this basis prepare the annual reports, to be presented to the CCC and 
discussed in the Annual Meeting. The Results Framework should be used as the main planning, moni-
toring, and reporting tool. This might seem ob	vious, but it is not uncommon that the project manage-	
ment unit (PMU) forgets about the results framework after the project is approved and starts preparing 
annual plans without considering the content of the framework. The fact that the results framework i	s 	
not yet finalized gives an indication that this could happen, so it is necessary to raise an alert. Each 
annual report should present the updated results framework with the results achieved on each target, 
and comment on progress and possible delays.	 	
The	 PD proposes that project risks should be monitored and managed by the CCC. This is not opera-	
tional, because the CCC would consist of different persons in the two countries. The Project Manager 
must oversee updating the risk matrix as a continuous process,	 and at least quarterly, and report on it 	
to the CCC as an annex to the yearly report. Any changes in the matrix should be discussed in the CCC 
and the Annual Meeting.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for i	nstitutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	41	 	
 
The Annual Report should also inform on how safeguards have been dealt with and highli	ght any issues 	
that could have come up during the last year, including crosscutting issues given priority by the Norwe-
gian cooperation 	- human rights, women’s rights and gender equality, climate and environment, and 	
corruption.	 	
The PD has no detail on the 	reviews to be carried out. We propose that the project should have two 	
reviews/evaluations:	 	
• 	Mid	-term review (MTR) is done by an external team, with 	a focus on effectiveness and efficiency. 	
The MTR should recommend any changes that must be done to improve p	roject per	formance, and 	
the report would be discussed in CCC	. CCC then	 decides which actions to take (during year 3)	 	
• 	Terminal evaluation (TE) is also done by an external 	team and	 will cover all the OECD	-DAC project 	
evaluation criteria. If a second phase is	 expected, the TOR for the TE could also include assessment 	
of the draft proposal for the new phase (during year 5).	 	
5.4	 	Project management structure 	 	
5.4.1	 	Assessment of the project management structure	 	
Project management has not been awarded a specific organisatio	n or person. The project has probably 	
underestimated the need for project management, and it will increase with our suggested amendments. 
We believe good coordination is important on both sides, and of vital importance in Colombia. We see 
that the involved	 partners have the will to drive the project through. A larger project that includes a 	
pilot might lead to a situation where a dedicated project manager can help the project succeed. Spanish 
lingual skills would be a clear advantage. To assure effective an	d efficient project management, a Co-	
lombian counterpart person should be determined, and a project management unit (PMU) established 
with participation of staff from the institutions involved.	 	
The PD mentions, additional to the Ministry of Agriculture and 	Rural Development (MADR), AUNAP and 	
ICA, several other Colombian stakeholders that would be involved, including FEDEACUA, the university 
sector, ANALDEX Tuna Industry Chamber, ACODIARPE Industrial and Fishing Vessels Owners Association, 
the National Fishin	g Promoters Association APROPESCA, and Small	-scale Fishermen Associations. These 	
have been involved during the design phase, which is a strength. It would be an important task during 
the inception phase to consult with all relevant stakeholder groups, incl	uding those mentioned, the 	
Ministry of Environment (to be included in CCC), indigenous and afro	-descendent communities, as well 	
as women organizations or a MADR gender expert, to assure gender mainstreaming of the project con-
tent and activities.	 	
Covid 19 m	akes a risk on/ risk off lever in project planning. Thus, we recommend seeing the first part of 	
the project as an inception phase. The concept is briefly described in chapter 4. The inception phase 
reduces the need for having everything ready at start	-up a	nd opens up for using lessons learned during 	
this inception phase in planning the project implementation design and activities in detail.	 	
In the inception phase the budget needs are limited. The project start	-up and implementation will not 	
be slowed down b	y introducing this face, rather the contrary, because the inception phase would assure 	
that the project is executed efficiently and without unnecessary bottlenecks. Obviously, introducing new 
partners such as the Ministry of Environment to the project grou	p should be done from the start.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Col	ombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	42	 	
 
 
Figure 	5.1: 	Description of phased project design	 	
 	
Source:	 	Vista Analyse	 	
 
The Inception phase can initiate activities that are ready to start. Budgets 	for	 this phase 	are	 likely to be 	
sufficient. When Covid	-19 restrictions are abandoned, travel is needed. The inception phase could end 	
in a progress report, that gives an opportuni	ty to adjust the project plan according to lessons learned 	
so far.	 	
As explained earlier in the report, we believe Norwegian competence on inland aquaculture is limited. 
The relevance of Norwegian technologies may also be of limited relevance. Thus, the pro	ject needs 	
maturing mutual understanding and knowledge. The review team see	s the need of competence building 	
both on the Norwegian side 	and	 the Colombian side. The budget must include mutual capacity building. 	
We recommend NORAD to reassess these matters. 	 	
Effective mutual learning means Norwegian participants should have a long	-term perspective on their 	
involvement and have time and interest of building their own knowledge on Colombian fisheries and 
aquaculture. One success factor of the project is to have	 a stable core team.	 	
Colombia’s neighbours such as Ecuador, Peru and Chile have more experience in aquaculture in tropical 
waters and mountain areas. The project might benefit from south	-south cooperation	, which is a priority 	
area from 	NORAD	’s side. Whethe	r this should be organized within 	FfD	 or a parallel project is beyond 	
this review to consider. Both south	-south cooperation and use of consultants with local expertise and 	
Spanish language skills would be of significant help to Colombia.	 	
Assessment of the 	chosen means of carrying out the program. Are there alternative activities, outputs 	
and outcomes which are more effective for reaching the impact?	 	
As described in chapter 5.3, the review team consider	s that	 the 	FfD	 project in Colombia 	lacks	 sufficient 	
envi	ronmental competence and would probably benefit from including concrete results in the environ-	
mental area.	 	
Possible added outcomes or outputs:

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	43	 	
 
1. 	Integrated watershed management 	– Colombian waterways are important for the local com-	
munities by providing foo	d, drink, irrigation, transport, potential sport and leisure activities and have 	
aesthetic and natural values. Seeing all effects in relation to each other is an important aspect of all 
economic activities. The CARs are already doing important work 	in these matters. We recommend this 	
field of work as an important part of inland aquaculture ma	nagement. This workflow should consider 	
potential environmental, economic and socio	-economic effects.	 	
2. 	Integrated marine management 	– When saltwater fisheries ar	e included in the programme, 	
focus on integrated marine management is important. This workflow may be linked to the Oceans for 
Development programme, securing coherence between the two different programmes.	 	
3. 	 Monitoring of fish stock and environmental fa	ctors in river systems 	– When assessing the en-	
vironmental and socio	-economic effects of new aquaculture projects in inland waterways or planned 	
changes in inland fisheries, the initial situation of fish stocks should be estimated. Further, as new ac-
tivitie	s are introduced changes in fish stock and fish stock composition should be monitored. 	 	
4. 	Data collection and data management of fish stock data and environmental data	 	
5. 	Invasive species. In the adjusted risk matrix introduction of alien Tilapia 	species or other IAS in 	
the vulnerable ecosystems of Colombian waterways should be a major concern	, focusing on local spe-	
cies as alternatives to industrial species from other parts of the world. Furthermore, look at regula-
tions and procedures for avoiding 	introduction of new invasive alien species through commercial ac-	
tivities in Colombia.	 	
Should the resources within the project have been distributed differently to increase goal achievement?	 	
The review team recommends building a stronger environmental focus	 in the project. Environmental 	
issues that should be included is described in 5.1	. The relevant Norwegian executive agency for inland 	
fisheries is The Norwegian Environment Agency. The project would benefit from including experts from 
The Norwegian Environ	ment Agency. Our suggested new outcomes and outputs in the previous 	para-	
graph	. 	
Symmetrically, we suggest including Colombian environmental agencies	: Ministerio de Ambiente y De-	
sarrollo Sostenible, Ideam etc.	 	
In addition, we have also introduced the idea 	of an inception phase to establish the project before trav-	
elling makes it easier to carry out the whole project.	 	
We suggest focusing on building up competence both on Colombian and Norwegian side, as Norwegian 
expertise on tropical freshwater aquaculture i	s limited. Thus, the Norwegian participants should be a 	
stable, committed team of relevant experts with time and resources to focus on Colombia.	 	
The duality of the project, where the complexity of Colombian nature and watersheds and the complex-
ity of the e	xisting regulations in Colombia on one side, and Norwegian complexity in industrial saltwater 	
aquaculture and Norwegian regulations and advanced fish stock management on Norwegian side de-
mands committed mutual competence building. 	 	
This should be included 	in 	the 	project plan and be reflected in budget. 	 	
5.4.2	 	Ambitions and resources	 	
Are the ambitions realistic when considering the total budget?

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	44	 	
 
The following recommendations from this report all support increasing 	the 	budget:	 	
• 	It seems that project administration 	is not given enough attention. 	 	
• 	Two phases may increase administration.	 	
• 	The inclusion of several issues raised in this report.	 	
• 	Inclusion of Colombian and Norwegian environmental agencies	 	
• 	Inclusion of time for Norwegian partners to increase knowledge of Col	ombian fisheries and aqua-	
culture.	 	
• 	Pilot	 	
The review team suggests 	the 	budget to be increased for the whole project period, due to increased 	
scope, need for competence development on both sides, need for local expertise in Colombia and in-
creased need for pro	ject management.	 	
For budgetary purposes, the need for mutual competence building might increase necessary travel 
needs beyond what has been planned for. Obviously, it will also take some project time.	 	
Once the COVID	-19 restrictions are removed, there might	 be a ketchup effect on travels	. The first year 	
after the inception phase is finished may lead to several necessary travels.	 	
The quality of the underlying analysis and planning process of the project, including participation of 
relevant stakeholders in the process. 	 	
The process of developing the project has been long and included many people. The project description 
may suffer	 for being developed over time and with too little focus on creating consistency between 	
desired tasks and the budget. This is described in chapters 5.4 to 5.	6. 	
5.5	 	Coordination with other projects and programmes	 	
The PD (p 27 	– 29) refers to several other proj	ects in the FfD 	portfolio	 in Colombia: 	 	
• 	=nternational programmes that have a component in Colombia: UNODC’s FishNet addressing fish-
eries crime and a FAO project on responsible fisheries and aquaculture. 	 	
• 	Projects (co	-)financed by FfD in Colombia: A study by KPMG on private sector initiatives (KPMG 	
2018); two Caritas Norway projects on developing the skills of youth for the 	aquaculture	 sector 	
and one on improving productivity, profitability and sustainabili	ty of tilapia 	production	 in two re-	
gions; two Conservation International projects on sustainable fishery management and poverty 
reduction (	Eco Gourmet	) and on a legal diagnosis of aquaculture in Colombia; and UN=DO’s project 	
on strengthening quality and sta	ndards in compliance capacity of shrimp and tilapia aquaculture 	
(GMAP). 	 	
There could be projects financed by others that also are of relevance for FfD. The review team broadly 
sees two rationales for coordination. First, there is a need to avoid overlaps	, ensure complementarity, 	
coordinate efforts, find synergies and learn from experience gained in several projects. Second, there is 
a need for the Norwegian partners to the FfD programme to build knowledge about Colombia, both the 
general societal context 	and the specific nature of its fisheries and aquaculture. This takes time.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	45	 	
 
In the interviews, we have asked for coordination mechanisms. The Government of Colombia has a 
general mechanism for coordinating foreign assistance (APC). From the donor side, the	 Embassy in 	
Bogota referred to broader mechanisms for coordination, which do not address fisheries and 	aquacul-	
ture	. However, there are coordination mechanisms mostly by Colombian stakeholders in the fishery 	
sector called “Mesas de pesca”. =n the autumn of 	2020, NORAD took the initiative to establish a 	network	 	
of actors with fisheries and aquaculture	-related projects in Colombia that will meet at regular intervals 	
to coordinate and share information.	 	
The review team supports NORAD’s initiative for coordinati	on and exchange of experiences. This should 	
be maintained throughout FfD’s engagement in Colombia. =t would be best to organize outside the cur-
rent project since it will have a broader scope and wider participation. 	 	
In addition, we will highlight the need	 for better exchange of experiences, building of better Norwegian 	
competence on Colombia and coordination of the work of Norwegian public and private organisations. 
As regards the governmental programmes, there are no coordination mechanism for Colombia be	-	
tween FfD and e.g. Oil for development and Norwegian International Climate and Forest Initiative 
(NICFI). There are also tasks in the FfD programme that can be expanded into an Oceans for develo	p-	
ment programme in Colombia. NICFI is by far the largest fund	ing from Norway to Colombia and goes 	
together with the Norwegian support for the peace process. Many communities including indigenous 
peoples are supporting nature	-based solutions that involve protection of natural vegetation around riv-	
ers and lakes, which	 also is feed for herbivore freshwater fish species. A potential parallel NICFI financed 	
watershed management project should however have its own design and would therefore not delay 
approval of the FfD project.	 	
 
Figure 5.	2: 	Proposed interrelation of different elements of Norwegian funded support to Co-
lombia	 	
 	
Source:	 	Vista Analyse

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	46	 	
 
The programme should have a website to provide access to its work for other actors in Colombia	. 	
5.6	 	Budget	 	
Assessment of the structure of the budget and its level of detail. 	 	
NORAD has explained how 	the 	budget 	is low compared to some other 	FfD	 projects	, in order	 to focus on 	
a few important outcomes. The FfD Colombia program was supposed to have a limited scope.	 It was 	
decided in 	the 	original project design to start 	on a small scale 	small and if successful expand. This strat-	
egy may have reduced attention on the most important issues that are relevant to 	FfD	. We have sug-	
gested inclusion of one or more environment	al outcomes. (See 5.1). 	 	
There are some arguments for holding budgets low when so many uncertainties exist. We suggest start-
ing a bit slow and then ramping up when project design can be further developed. The budget structure 
should separate the inception 	phase from the general project execution.	 	
The budget needs to be adjusted to eventual changes in outcomes and outputs. In 5.4 we propose some 
new possible outcomes/outputs/activities. Given the implementation of some of our suggested out-
comes/outputs, 	the 	budget needs to be increased. Redesigning the project can be done during the in-	
ception phase. A rough estimate indicates that the new activities would require additional funding of at 
least 15 million NOK (approx. 50/50 between data management and pilots),	 plus national co	-financing 	
from the beneficiaries. The review team will not create a detailed budget or time schedule for new 
possible activities. A top	-down rough estimate may be more confusing than useful. We suggest normal 	
budgeting when 	a new 	project design is decided. Any new activities need to be planned bottom	-up be	-	
fore any reasonable budgets can be made. New outputs and new partners will lead to more man	-hours 	
and more travel costs in total budget. The budget will have to be increased sign	ificantly. The inception 	
phase may, on the other hand, not be very expensive.	 	
NORAD	’s guidelines for budgets seem to have low levels of contingency, which might be a good policy 	
given 	NORAD	’s activities. To secure comparable figures, budgeting of this proj	ect should be done tech-	
nically in the same way as for other 	NORAD	 projects. The important part is to have detailed plans for 	
the activities and include all costs expected to 	oc	cur. This chapter has described some 	reasons why	 the 	
figures 	are	 too low.	 	
Assess	ment of indirect operating costs/administrative costs in the budget. 	 	
Travel costs are included on the activities where 	they	 ha	ve	 been identified, as necessary. It is likely that 	
we will experience a sort of ketchup effect on travels after the pandemic is 	over. Our view is that it is 	
probably money well spent to travel when it is opened and reasonably safe. We will recommend travels 
to venues for different types of aquaculture and fisheries, both inlands and in the oceans. 	 	
Assessment of sustainability	 and 	exit strategy.	 	
A sustainable project demands good cooperation and communication between the involved partici-
pants. We believe focusing on Colombian perspectives, building up Norwegian and Colombian compe-
tence on the matters and involving local expertise wi	ll help on the long	- term sustainability of the pro-	
ject. An exit strategy could include establishing south	-south cooperation and the successful implemen-	
tation of formal competence by the proposed university degrees.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	47	 	
 	
6	 	Conclusions and recommenda-
tions	 	
6.1	 	Conclusi	ons	 	
The review team finds that the project addresses important challenges and priorities in Colombian fish-
eries and aquaculture management. It has been planned for a long time, and several components could 
be started up. We would therefore recommend that i	t starts up with an inception phase. This should be 	
used to make the necessary changes in project design and budget and should probably last until most 
implications of Covid19 on travel have ceased.	 	
The political analysis reveals a lack of connection betwe	en the limited project and the 	ambitious	 goals. 	
The proposed project is small in scope and would not be able to give the expected impact. The project 
would benefit from increasing its scope and activities along some of the lines suggested here. Certain 
new	 outcomes and new tasks should be included and will have cost implications. There is also a need 	
for mutual learning, travel, and project management, that will affect costs. This leads us to conclude 
that the budget should be increased, but gradually, as n	ew activities are introduced, and the project 	
group gains experience. FfD should also consider supplementary beyond this project to reach the ob-
jectives of the programme. 	 	
Increased focus on achieving FfD objectives of poverty reduction is important for a	chieving FfD 	objec-	
tives	. This is also key for the programme to contribute to the peace accord’s goal of reducing root causes 	
of the internal conflict. It would require supplementary activities that may benefit marginalized groups 
in rural areas. This includes activities directed	 at getting better information on social, economic, and 	
cultural aspects of especially small	-scale fishers and aquaculture producers for developing knowledge	-	
based national policies. For efforts to improve the management of the sectors, it is of special im	portance 	
to understand how they react to current regulations and the extent to which and how they self	-organize 	
their activities. Experience with co	-management from Colombia and other relevant countries should be 	
synthesized and applied in the project. 	 	
It seems that focusing on inland aquaculture, possibly also inland fisheries, would ensure the best scope 
for reaching the rural poor. However, we will warn that Norwegian competence on freshwater aquacul-
ture in general, and in tropical waters in special, is	 limited. Thus, the project’s success depends on dia-	
logue and inclusion of a broader competence than the Norwegian. Thus, we recommend south	-south 	
cooperation with neighbouring and other relevant countries. 	 	
The project would also need supplementary activi	ties for contributing to environmental 	sustainability	 	
of aquaculture and fisheries. This includes knowledge about those to be managed, the effectiveness of 
relevant management regimes and the inclusion of environmental agencies on both sides (The Norwe-
gian	 Environment Agency in Norway and the Colombian Ministry of Environment and 	Sustainable	 De-	
velopment). Their inclusion may help the project in giving better advice on the management of environ-
mental risks, including in the context of Colombian initiatives o	f creating more efficient 	licensing	 proce-	
dures.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	48	 	
 
Colombia contains forests and aquatic environments with an extraordinary biodiversity with 	significance	 	
to the whole world. The review team has added introduction of invasive species as a 	serious	 risk with 	
the potential for irreversible negative effects. 	 	
The project document reveals little information about environmental impacts of aquaculture. For a pro-
ject aiming to support a growing industry with better regulation, it should be paramount to build these 
activities on a better scientific understanding of the ecology of the freshwater basins and better data. 
This should also include impacts on inland fisheries. Environmental assessments, impact 	assessments	 	
and monitoring requirements therefore should be key 	issues. These are also relevant for the manage-	
ment of the oceans. Some capacity building in how to assess sustainable fish stocks has been included 
in output 2.1	. 	
The project results framework structure is good, but must be finalized, and include all rele	vant baselines 	
and targets. 	The risk matrix is not clearly related to the design as stated in the results framework. The 	
matrix should focus only on a limited number of the main risks for project management, which should 
be continuously monitored. Project 	safeguards must assure to do no harm and thereby comply with the 	
cross	-cutting issues in Norwegian development policy. 	 	
To secure that the project can carry fruits after the project period ends, we recommend developing a 
pilot. 	The c	urrent situation in Col	ombia indicates that technology transfer and relevant capacity building 	
is likely to be more effective if knowledge could be tested in a real project. The pilot will contribute to 
collaboration between regional and central authorities. 	 	
The suggested acti	vities under output 4 on improved health management of farmed aquatic animals 	
seems well justified based on the information in the PD and associated documents and should start up 
as suggested. 	 	
6.2	 	Recommendations	 	
Recommendations are listed chronologically as 	they appear in the report (numbers refer to sections in 	
the report).	 	
1. 	The project should include FAO’s guidelines for small	-scale fisheries and recommendations for 	
small	-scale aquaculture producers. (3.4) 	 	
2. 	The project should carry out an analysis of the sources and reasons for overfishing as well as 	
destructive fishing pr	actices. (3.4) 	 	
3. 	The project should analyse competition over use of ocean space, including gear conflicts. (3.4) 	 	
4. 	The project should ensure participation from fishers, aquaculture producers and communities, 	
aiming to include their knowledge and develo	p practices of co	-management. (3.4)	 	
5. 	Strategic/regional environmental assessments, environmental impact assessments, monitor-	
ing and baseline data should be included, both for inland water bodies and oceans. (3.5) 	 	
6. 	Risk analysis should focus on the ext	ernal risks for project implementation (4.1)	 	
7. 	Safeguards should cover the four crosscutting issues of Norwegian development cooperation 	
(4.2)	 	
8. 	Universities’ participation in the project should be ensured (5.1)

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	49	 	
 
9. 	The project should find mechanisms for 	assembling and sharing data from many stakeholders 	
(5.1)	 	
10.	 	FfD in Colombia should incorporate supplementary expertise from countries with more similar 	
technology levels in freshwater aquaculture to give relevant advice on outcome 3. (5.2) 	 	
11.	 	The projec	t should develop a knowledge base that includes knowledge on the socioeconomic 	
situation and fishing/aquaculture practices of the regulatees. There is also a need to incorporate 	na-	
tional	 and international experiences with management practices relevant for 	Colombia (5.3)	 	
12.	 	The result framework should be finalized according to the proposed recommendations (5.3 	
and Annex)	 	
13.	 	The Norwegian Environment Agency and the Colombian Ministry of Environment should be in	-	
volved in the activities to provide sufficient	 environmental competence (5.3)	 	
14.	 	The competence of the programme should be supplemented by environmental and social sci-	
ence competence on fisheries and aquaculture management in an international context. (5.3)	 	
15.	 	The competence in the project should in	clude experience from foreign cooperation in i.a. Af-	
rica also when designing programs for inland aquaculture in Colombia, combined with evaluating Co-
lombian experiences (5.3)	 	
16.	 	The project should include environmental outcomes. (5.3)	 	
17.	 	With Colombia as	 one of the three partner states in FfD, the Nansen	-programme should pay 	
another visit to Colombia	 	
18.	 	The project should start up with an inception phase followed by an adjusted execution phase 	
(5.4)	 	
19.	 	The project should incorporate of a local pilot pro	jects to try out in practice the theoretical 	
learning achieved and also as a way to measure local impact of any changes AUNAP or ICA would like 
to make. (5.4)	 	
20.	 	Project administration should be included in the project description and in the budget. (5.4)	 	
21.	 	The project must ensure mutual competence building on both sides. There is a need to secure 	
continuity in involved personnel on both sides. (5.5) 	 	
22.	 	NORAD's initiative for a network of actors working with fisheries and aquaculture in Colombia 	
should	 be maintained throughout the lifetime of FfD's engagement in the country. There should al	-so 	
be a mechanism for exchange of experience across Norwegian programs (5.5)	 	
23.	 	The budget is insufficient, needs to be reassessed after new project design and shou	ld be in	-	
creased for execution phase(5.6)

Appraisal of the Fish for Develo	pment project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	50	 	
 
Appendices	 	
A	 	Terms of reference	 	
Terms of reference for quality assurance of the Fish for Development Programme 	Document	 for insti-	
tutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway 	 	
 
1. 	Background 	 	
The Fish for Development (FfD) programme was established in 2016 to support partner countries in 
their efforts to ensure sustainable fisheries and aquaculture and to increase th	e sustainable production 	
of fish and seafood. FfD	’s identified main partner countries are Colombia, Myanmar and Ghana. The 	
main purpose with the programme is to develop 	institutional	 cooperation with partner countries within 	
the fisheries and aquaculture s	ectors. 	 	
Colombia formally requested cooperation with the FfD programme in a letter to the Norwegian Ministry 
of Foreign Affairs (MFA) in 2016. The request was followed up by two fact	-finding missions by technical 	
teams from Norway (2017 and 2019), a conc	ept note from National Authority for Aquaculture and Fish-	
eries (AUNAP) (2017), and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the Kingdom of 
Norway and the Republic of Colombia in April 2018. 	 	
 A project document (PD) has now been developed (mostl	y through digital dialogue). The PD describes 	
a project (hereafter called ‘the FfD project’ in this document) designed to address selected challenges 
within the management of fisheries and aquaculture in Colombia. The selection is based on Colombian 
reques	ts combined with an assessment of where Norway has relevant expertise and experience. 	 	
 The Norwegian institutions involved in the project are the Institute of Marine Research (IMR), the Di-
rectorate of Fisheries (DoF), the Norwegian Veterinary Institute (	NVI) and the Norwegian Food Safety 	
Authority. On the Colombian side the involved institutions are AUNAP and the Colombian Agricultural 
Institute (ICA). The main target group of the project are AUNAP as the main management institution for 
the fisheries sect	or, and ICA as the main institution with responsibility for aquatic animal health in the 	
fish farming sector. The project is designed to prioritize activities that will enhance AUNAP’s and =CA’s 
capacity for sustainable management of fisheries resources an	d aquaculture production. 	 	
This is a 5	-year project with planned impact being “=mproved sustainable socio	-economic development 	
for the Colombian fisheries and aquaculture sectors”. :ence, the project tar	-gets socio	-economic de-	
velopment through sustainable 	management of Colombia’s fisheries resources and aquaculture pro-	
duction. Without sustainable management, the potential economic gains from fishing and aquaculture 
are likely to be short	-lived as fish stocks are overfished and development of the aquaculture	 industry is 	
hampered by negative developments in both fish health and the environmental status of the ecosys-
tems used for fish farming in Colombia. There is a lack of data from fisheries and aquaculture sector. 
The existing data for the latest decades ind	icates a strong decline in quanta of fish harvested and a 	
strong increase in aquaculture volumes.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for instituti	onal cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	51	 	
 
The institutional cooperation program has limited resources and cannot aim to tackle all challenges in 
the management of fisheries and aquaculture sector. B	ased on the limitation of what Norwegian fishery 	
and aquaculture institutions can contribute to, and the preparation work by technical teams and the 
partners involved, the following goals have been developed. 	 	
In addition to the institutional cooperation, 	Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (	NORAD	) 	
supports separate projects with relevance to fishery and aquaculture, and in	-formation about these 	
projects will be available. 	 	
 
The goals of the institutional cooperation programme between Norway and C	olombia are defined as 	
the following: 	 	
 
Impact: Improved sustainable socio	-economic development for the Colombian fisheries and aquacul-	
ture sectors 	 	
 
Outcome 1: Relevant governmental management institutions and academia have increased capacity 
and knowle	dge in subjects regarding sustainable fisheries management, 	aquaculture	 and aquatic animal 	
health 	 	
• 	Output 1.1: Increased number of staff in governmental management and educational institu-	
tions with international postgraduate education and short cour	ses 	in subjects relevant for fisheries man-	
agement, aquaculture and aquatic animal health. 	 	
• 	Output 1.2: Increased participation from academia in government decision	-making processes 	
regarding fisheries and aquaculture. 	 	
• 	Output 1.3 Increased and strengthen	ed postgraduate offers in fisheries and aquaculture at Co-	
lombian universities 	 	
 
Outcome 2: Improved knowledge base for sustainable management of fisheries 	 	
• 	Output 2.1: Increased knowledge about the state of fisheries re	-sources (including previously 	
no	nexploited resources). 	 	
• 	Output 2.2: Increased knowledge about fishing gear to improve 	selectivity	 and reduce ecosys-	
tem impacts. 	 	
• 	Output 2.3: The EAF Implementation monitoring tool is introduced and used for selected marine 	
fisheries in Colombia 	 	
• 	Output 2.4: Increased capacity to interact with international and regional fisheries management 	
bodies.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia an	d Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	52	 	
 
Outcome 3: Improved capacity for sustainable development of aquaculture 	 	
• 	Output 3.1: Aquaculture regulations improved. 	 	
• 	Output 3.2: Knowledge	 base for the development of marine 	aquaculture	 established 	 	
• 	Output 3.3: Knowledge about the prerequisites for an improved licensing process in aquacul-	
ture established. 	 	
• 	Output 3.4: Improved knowledge of water resource management in aquaculture, with special 	
regard to the effects of all users on general water qua	lity in the waterbodies. 	 	
 
Outcome 4: Improved health management of farmed aquatic animals in Colombia 	 	
• 	Output 4.1: Improved competence and capacity of ICA laboratory in the diagnosis of diseases. 	 	
• 	Output 4.2: Increased technical knowledge of ICA p	rofessionals in matters related to health, 	
epidemiology,	 and diagnosis. 	 	
 
2. 	Purpose 	 	
Both the Norwegian partners to the project and 	NORAD	 have been unable to travel to Colombia due to 	
Covid	-19 and therefore a better understanding of context is necessary before reviewing the project. 	
This appraisal is a two	-fold assignment, both a targeted Political Economy Analysis on central topics for 	
su	stainable management of the fisheries and aquaculture sector, and a quality assurance of the PD for 	
Institutional Co	-operation between Colombia and Norway. 	 	
The purpose of the limited Political Economy Analysis is to strategically inform Norwegian aid pro	viders 	
on key issues surrounding the political economy of fisheries and aquaculture in 	Colombia and	 identify 	
key factors that inhibit policy reform in the sector as well as the factors that influence goal achievement. 
The analysis shall identify risks asso	ciated with the proposed cooperation areas and the prospect of 	
achieving results. 	 	
The appraisal of the PD will assess the FfD project document’s relevance, real	-ism, coherence, potential 	
feasibility and potential risks, safeguards and expected sustainabi	lity of the development project. The 	
appraisal of the PD should consider findings in the political economic analysis and provide recommen-
dations. 	 	
 
3. 	Scope of work/priority issues 	 	
The assignment is limited in scope and shall include an assessment of t	he following points: 	 	
1. 	Political economy analysis relevant to fishery and aquaculture sector in Colombia 	 	
• 	The political system and economic situation 	– its influence on the fishing and aquaculture sector 	 	
o 	Updated information1 about development in 	relevant figures and economic indicators for this 	
project. Inclusive different types of aquaculture production and different type of fisheries harvested (for

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	53	 	
 
example: small scale, industry, inland, ocean, import, export, fleet categories/	-size/numbers, aqu	acul-	
ture categories/	-size/numbers). 	 	
o 	Assessment of the project’s relevance to the political and governmental priorities in Colombia. 	
Political will and incentive for responsible fisheries and aquaculture management in Colombia. Assess-
ment of the project	’s relevance to the main challenges in the fishery and aquaculture sector in Colom-	
bia. Why is the investment in capacity building in this sector so low? Are there other sectors who are 
prioritized/more profitable? 	 	
o 	Possible conflict of interest between s	mall	-scale and industry level in both the fisheries and 	
aquaculture sector should be assessed regarding contribution to poverty reduction/socio	-economic de-	
velopment. Identify who has limited or no influence in decision making 	 	
In addition, bottlenecks in 	governmental administration and control of the sector, herby 	 	
 	registration of licences and registrations of aquaculture and fishery actors should be assessed. 	 	
 	the system for environmental control of inland aquaculture implemented by various Regional 	
Autonomous Corporations (CARs). 	 	
o 	Cooperation areas 	– opportunities and barriers for achieving FfD programme operational goals 	 	
o 	Focus on the proposed cooperation areas in draft PD and highlight opportunities and barriers. 	
Provide strategic inputs on ho	w to best secure effective implementation and achieve operational goals. 	 	
Risk analysis 	 	
• 	The Consultant should, based on the PD as a minimum, identify the most important issues out-	
side the project management’s control that could negatively affect the p	roject’s performance. These 	
could include political	-institutional risks (including corruption), economic	-financial risks, social risks and 	
environmental risks. 	 	
 
Safeguards 	 	
• 	The Consultant should assess and recommend the safeguards needed to comply wi	th the prin-	
ciple of “do no harm” and to avoid that the project would contribute to adverse unintended cons	e-	
quences, especially in the four crosscutting issues in Norwegian development policy: human rights, anti	-	
corruption, climate and environment and women	’s rights and gender equality. 	 	
• 	 	
• 	The consultant should also assess if the PD is considering measures to avoid inadvertently con-	
tributing to elite enrichment without poverty reduction, and the undermining of government responsi-
bilities.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	54	 	
 
2. 	Assessment of the project’s coherence and 	relevance to the FfD	-programme (Included in report 	
if draft is written by 	NORAD	, otherwise excluded) 	 	
 
• 	Coherence with Norwegian development aid and country programme in Colombia 	 	
• 	The project design’s relevance to the priorities of the FfD programme 	 	
• 	Potential synergies and donor coordination in the fisheries and aqua	-culture sector 	 	
3. 	Assessment of the capacity and competence of the partners 	 	
• 	Assessment of the quality of the competence of the expected project partners 	 	
• 	Assessment of the releva	nt competence to the goal achievement in the project and the Colom-	
bian needs, for example to what degree are Norwegian competence relevant for inland aquaculture in 
Colombia. 	 	
4. 	Assessment of the results framework 	 	
• 	Assessment of the description of the current situation/baseline, 	 	
• 	Assessment of the main activities and main objectives (impact, outcomes, outputs) and target 	
group, e.g. consistency and realism, 	 	
• 	Assessment of the causal links between the problem des	cription and chosen objectives and 	
activities (theory of change). 	 	
• 	Assessment of the quality and sufficiency of the indicators, baseline and tar	-get values, data 	
sources and plans for evaluations. 	 	
• 	The quality, simplicity and user friendliness of the	 planned monitoring system for the project 	 	
 
• 	Other comments on the results framework. 	 	
 
 
5. 	Assessment of the project management structure, efficiency and quality 	 	
• 	Assessment of the project management structure 	 	
• 	Assessment of the chosen means of	 carrying out the project. Are there alter	-native activities, 	
outputs and outcomes which are more effective for reaching the impact? Should the resources within 
the project have been distributed differently to increase goal achievement? Are the ambitions r	ealistic 	
when considering the total budget? 	 	
• 	Assessment of whether technical challenges have been sufficiently considered for the imple-	
mentation of the programme, especially due to the Covid	-19 pandemic.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	55	 	
 
• 	The quality of the underlying analysis and pla	nning process of the project, including participa-	
tion of relevant stakeholders in the pro	-cess (including women and ethnic minorities). 	 	
• 	Analysis of ambition level in relation to the resources alloca	ted to the project and project dura-	
tion. 	 	
• 	The relevance of the project concerning challenges that the project is supposed to solve and 	
the interests of the involved stakeholders. 	 	
• 	The use of lessons learnt from earlier experience with similar projects and/or the best available 	
knowledge and evid	ence, for example experiences with inland aquaculture. 	 	
 
6. 	Assessment of budget and sustainability of the project 	 	
• 	Assessment of the structure of the budget and its level of detail. 	 	
• 	Assessment of indirect operating costs/administrative costs in the	 budget. 	 	
• 	Assessment of sustainability2 ref. 3.1 and exit strategy. 	 	
• 	The assessment of risk is already defined in 3.1, but has relevance for 3.6. 	 	
 
4. 	Implementation of the appraisal 	 	
 
Due to Covid	-19 restrictions this assignment is a desk apprais	al, undertaken without field visits or direct 	
visits to partner institutions. The assignment shall be conducted based on studies of available documen-
tation and where possible through interviews with representatives of relevant stakeholders in Colombia 
and 	Norway. 	NORAD	 will provide a list of relevant institutions and contact persons in Norway and Co-	
lombia, however, developing the full list will be the responsibility of the consultant. 	NORAD	 will provide 	
relevant project background information. 	 	
An incepti	on meeting with 	NORAD	 shall be held as soon as possible. Continuous dialogue with 	NORAD	 	
throughout the assignment is required. The appraisal will be carried out within the end of May 2019. 	 	
 
If the report contains sensitive information, the sensitive in	formation should be included in a separate 	
report. This can be discussed further with 	NORAD	. 	 	
 
5. 	Reporting 	 	
The report will not exceed 30 pages excluding annexes and will include a summary (2	-3 pages) with main 	
conclusions and recommendations. To the 	extent possible, the 	recommendations	 will directly relate to 	
the Project Document as it stands.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	56	 	
 
A complete draft report shall be submitted in English and in electronic form to 	NORAD	 by 19 May 2021: 	
olav.rostad@norad.no; nina.kristin.snyder@norad.no and cc post	-SKP@norad.no. The Embassy and 	
NORAD	 will submit possible comments within one week after receiving the draft. The final report shall 	
be submitted no later than 31 May 2021. 	 	
 
6. 	Competence of the team of consultants	 	
7. 	 	
 
The Consultant should ensure that the team has the following background and competence: 	 	
• 	Solid understanding of Colombia 	 	
• 	Experience with conducting similar political economy analysis 	 	
• 	Experience and	 knowledge of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors 	 	
• 	Experience from conducting appraisals of Norwegian development aid projects 	 	
 
7. 	List of Documents 	 	
 
-Project Document for The	 institutional Cooperation under the Fish for Development Programme in 	
Colombia (2021	-2025) 2021 	 	
-Assessment of opportunities for private sector development cooperation in Colombia, KPMG 2018 	 	
-AUNAPs Concept note 2017 	 	
-IMRs fact finding report 2018

Appraisal of the Fish for De	velopment project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	57	 	
 	
B	 	References	 	
Bistandsaktuelt 2017: The debate can be found in several articles linked to Kolding, J & Næsje, T.F. 
Uheldige konsekvenser av oppdrettsbistand. Web link: 	– Uheldige konsekvenser av oppdrettsbistand 	
(bistandsaktuelt.no)	 	
 
FAO 2014: 	Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small	-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food 	
Security and Poverty Eradication	. Available at 	http://www.fao.org/voluntary	-guidelines	-small	-scale	-fish-	
eries/en/	 	
FAO. 2021. 	Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global aquaculture production 1950	-2019	 (FishstatJ). In: 	
FAO Fisheries Division	 [online]. FAO, Rome. Updated 2021. 	www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/soft-	
ware/fishstatj/en	. Accessed 25 May 2021. 	 	
FAO. 2020. 	Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global capture produ	ction 1950	-2018	 (FishstatJ v4.01.0). 	
In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. FAO, Rome. Updated 2020. 	www.fao.org/fish-	
ery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en	 	
FAO Fisheries Division, Statistics and Information Branch (2020). FishStatJ: Universal software for fishery 
statistical time series. FAO, Rome.	 	
Jentoft, 	Chuenpagdee, Barragán	-Paladines & Franz (eds.)	 20	17: 	The Small	-Scale Fisheries Guidelines. 	
Global Implementation	. Springer International Publishing. Available at 	
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319550732	 	
KPMG 2018: Fish for development.	 Sustainable fishing and aquaculture production in Colombia. Assess-	
ment of opportunities for private sector collaboration. KPMG report to NORAD. 	 	
Le Monde Diplomatique (2021) Article about the tax reform, the peace process and security policy. Web 
link: ht	tps://www.lmd.no/2021/06/den	-indre	-fiende	-gjor	-oppror	-i-colombia/	 	
OECD 2016: Fisheries and aquaculture in Colombia. 	 	
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) 	– Utenriksdepartementet: 	Meld. St. 17 (2017	–2018), Partnerland i 	
utviklingspolitikken. Available at: 	Meld. St. 17 (2017	–2018) 	- regjeringen.no	 . See also 	Utvikling er mer 	
enn bistand 	- reg	jeringen.no	 	
World Bank’s index for political stability and absence of violence 	https://info.worldbank.org/govern-	
ance/wgi/Home/Reports	 	
Saavedra	-Diaz, Pomeroy & Rosenberg 2016: Managing s	mall	-scale fisheries in Colombia. 	Maritime Stud-	
ies	 (2016) 15(6)	 	
Sander, G. Santos, J. & Pretorius, K. 2020: Training the front	-line officers for better combat of fisheries 	
crime. A mid	-term review of the FishFORCE project at Nelson Mandela University, Sou	th Africa. Report 	
from Norwegian College of Fisheries Science to NORAD, June 2020.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for insti	tutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	58	 	
 	
C	 	List of interviews	 	
The review team has interviewed: 	 	
• 	Patrick Debels, Regional Coordinator CLME+ Project UNDP/GEF	 	
• 	Saulo Usma, Freshwater Specialist, WWF Colombia	 	
• 	Kirsti Andersen, Economy, Commerce and Culture Advisor, Royal Norwegian Embassy, Bogota.	 	
• 	Dr. Daniel Arboleda, Ministry of Agriculture and rural development	 	
• 	Maria Aguilera, Ministry of Agriculture and rural development	 	
• 	Alvaro Ortega, Ministry of Agriculture	 and rural development	 	
• 	Yeili Danielly Rangel Penaranda, Ministry of Commerce, Industry and tourism	 	
• 	Fernando Henao 	– Director of Sustainable Development, Department of Planning	 	
• 	Angie Paola Zamudio Villarreal, Department of Planning	 	
• 	Maria Olga Peña Mariño, D	epartment of Planning 	 	
• 	Javier Plata, Main contact for the project in AUNAP	 	
• 	Olav Rostad, 	NORAD	 	
• 	Nina Kristin Snyder, 	NORAD

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombi	a and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	59	 	
 	
D	 	Production volumes and trade for 
Colombian aquaculture and fisher-
ies	 	
The presentation of statistics here illustrates some of the pro	blems with finding relevant information, 	
ref. section 3.2. The underlying detailed overviews and calculations are presented in Excel sheets that 
can be sent to NORAD to be available for the project. 	 	
 
Aquaculture production	 	
The National Authority for Aqua	culture and Fisheries (AUNAP) presents data on the fisheries through 	
the Colombian Fisheries Service for Statistics (SEPEC). The information on the web site was difficult to 
access. For 2016	-2019 it is divided by municipalities (several hundred), while for	 1997	-2015, it can be 	
accessed by specie and years. Table A.4.1 shows consolidated data for the years 2016	-2018:	 
 	
Table 	D.1: Main species produced by aquaculture in Colombia 2016	-2018, according to SEPEC 	 	
 
Between 2016 and 2018, which is the most recent 	year in SEPEC, three types of freshwater fish repre-	
sented 98	-99% of the total production:	 	
1. 	Two Tilapia species (O. niloticus and O. spp.) that together represented between 83 to 90% of 	
the total fish farmed (23 195 to 29 459 tons/year). 	 	
2. 	Rainbow trout	 (O. mykiss) landing represented 5 to 8% of the total (1.372 to 2.057 tons/year). 	 	
3. 	Three species of “Cachama” (called white, black and hy	brid “Cachama”) represented 1 to 9% of 	
the total (312 to 2 717 tons/year).	 Species / Landings (Tons/yr)	2016	2017	2018	
Bacachico (	Prochilodus magdalenae)	38	 	 	56	 	 	596	 	 	
Cachama blanca / white (	Piaractus brachypomus	)	1.836	 	 	312	 	 	2.605	 	 	
Cachama negra / black (	Colossoma macropomum)	187	 	 	-	 	 	74	 	 	
Cachama híbrida / hydrid (blanca con negra)	20	 	 	-	 	 	38	 	 	
Tilapia plateada / Nile (	Oreochromis niloticus	)	11.312	 	 	13.420	 	 	6.399	 	 	
Tilapia roja / red (	Oreochromis	 spp.)	9.526	 	 	7.794	 	 	18.266	 	 	
Trucha arcoiris - Rainbow Trout (	Oncorhynchus mykiss	)	2.057	 	 	1.724	 	 	1.371	 	 	
Carpa / Carp (	Cyprinus carpio	)	122	 	 	118	 	 	1	 	 	
Otros peces cultivados / Other farmed fishes	98	 	 	99	 	 	110	 	 	
ACUIC. PECES / FISH FARMING	25.195	 	 	23.524	 	 	29.459	 	 	
Camarón blanco / shrimp (*1. 	Litopenaeus vannamei	)	4.497	 	 	4.479	 	 	114

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	60	 	
 
Small production of the carp (C. carpio), “Bocachico” (P. magdalenae) and other species (named as Pi-
rarucú, Sábalo, Chilocidio, Dorada, Sabaleta, Chango y Bagre) have registered volume from a few to 
some tens of tones per year, altogether just 1 	– 2 % of t	he total production. 	 	
Shrimp (L. vannamei) production was at an 	annual	 average of 8.847 tons per year between 1999 and 	
2018, reaching a maximum of 34.826 tons in 2008. Since then, it has been an unstable decrease over 
time, reaching a minimum record of only 114 tons in 2018. 	 	
FAO is another source of information, presentin	g data reported by Colombian authorities (FAO 2021). 	
Here, species names are presented in English, which makes comparisons with Spanish names in SEPEC 
challenging. The FAO data do not coincide with those found in SEPEC. According to it, six species ac	-	
coun	ted for 94 	– 97% of the FW aquaculture production (tons range for 2017	-2019): (1) Tilapias Nei 	
(50.450	-70.906 Tons), (2) Pirapatinga (White “Cachama”, Piaractus brachypomus; 21.150	-30.797 tons), 	
(3) Nile tilapia (19.400	-25.051 tons, (4) Rainbow trout (17.4	50	-26.471 tons), (5) Netted prochilod (Bo	-	
cachico, Prochilodus reticulatus; 0	-2.550 tons); (6) Cachama (0	-1.800 tons). Longer	-term production 	
volumes based on these data are found in Figure 	D.1. 	 	
 
 	 	
Figure 	D.1. Production volumes of different species in 	Colombian aquaculture, based on FAO (2021)	 	
The regional distribution of aquaculture is presented in Figure 	D.2.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	61	 	
 
 	
 	
Figure 	D.2: Distribution of aquaculture in Colombia (MADR 2021). 	 	
 
Catches in fisheries	 	
For fisheries, we present data on catches from FAO.	 As for aquaculture, data are provided for individual 	
species. In Figure A.4.3, we have grouped the data into freshwater and saltwater fisheries. We see that 
volumes from marine catches increased significantly in the 1990s before a decline. Inland fisher	ies have 	
been more stable, although also declining. The major marine species caught are tuna (Yellowtail, Skip-
jack and Bigeye tunas 	– 38 300 tons in 2018). The major catches in inland fisheries are Prochilodus 	
mariae (called boca chico, 15 870 tonnes), fol	lowed by siluroids fish (222 tonnes), Nile Tilapia (155 	
tonnes) and Trahira fish (115 tonnes). 	 	
 	
 	
Figure 	D.3. Annual catches in Colombian inland and marine fisheries, based on FAO (2021).

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	62	 	
 
Catch volumes in SEPEC are generally higher than in FAO. For insta	nce, SEPEC do report 36 000 tons 	
caught in freshwater in 2018, whereas FAO reports 22 000. 	 	
Another significant inconsistency in numbers can be found if FAO numbers are compared with the PD. 
Here, it was quoted that AUNAP estimated the national fisheries p	roduction in 2018 to be 194 000 tons 	
(PD:8). The FAO numbers that we have used in section 3 of the report, is 62 000 tons. We have not tried 
to find out whether this simply is a misunderstanding or if it represents systematic differences in differ-
ent stati	stics. 	 	
 
Colombian trade in fish and shellfish	 	
AUNAP has contributed with data on trade in 2019, included below. Updated numbers are published 
every three months and can be accessed at 	https://www.treid.co/post/importaciones	-y-exportaciones	-	
de	-pescado	-en	-colombia	 	
 
The value of fish	-shellfish products imported in 2019 accounted for closely USD 229	.3 million, including 	
cost, insurance and freight (CIF). From that number, the five most important fish	-shellfish products im-	
ported by Colombian companies were shrimp & prawns USD 36.0 million (CIF), salmons USD 24.8 million 
(CIF), frozen fish USD 24.3 mil	lion (CIF), salmon filets USD 16.6 million (CIF) y and frozen filets USD 16.0 	
million (CIF) (Fig 	D.4).	 	
 
 
 	
 	
Figure 	D.4. The five (5) top fish	-shellfish products imported by Colombia in 2019	 	
The fish	-shellfish imported by Colombia in 2019 came from 42 diff	erent countries. The top five were 	
Chile with an import of USD 55.6 million (CIF), Vietnam USD 46.5 million (CIF), Ecuador USD 41.4 million 
(CIF), China USD 21.7 million (CIF) y Argentina USD 14.1 million (CIF) (Fig 	D.5).

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	63	 	
 	
 	
Fig 	D.5. The top five countries from which fish	-shellfish products were imported by Colombia in 2019	 	
The value of fish	-shellfish products exported in 2019 accounted for closely USD 90.0 million Free on 	
Board (FOB). From that number, the five most important fish	-shellfish products exported by Colombian 	
companies 	were Tilapia	 filets USD 40.1 million (FOB), Yellow Fin Tuna USD 8.1 million (FOB), Frozen Tuna 	
USD 7.4 million (FOB), White tuna USD 6.7 million (FOB), and Skipjack Tuna USD 6.3 million (FOB) (Fig 
D.6).	 	
 	 	
Fig. 	D.6. The top five fish	-shellfish products exported by Colombia in 2019	 	
The fish	-shellfish exported by Colombia in 2019 went to 17 different countries. The top five were USA 	
with an export worth USD 51.3 million (FOB), Ecuador USD 10.3 million (FOB),	 Guatemala USD 6.1 million 	
(FOB), UK USD 2.5 million (FOB) and Peru USD 2.4 million (FOB) (Fig 	D.7).

Appraisal of the Fish fo	r Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	64	 	
 
 	 	
Fig 	D.7 The top five countries to which Colombia exported fish	-shellfish in 2019

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for i	nstitutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	65	 	
 	
E	 	Results framework with specific 
comments 	 	
The annex is provided as a separate Excel file to NORAD

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Col	ombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	66	 	
 	
F	 	Risk analysis review	 (Risk matrix 	
and safeguards	) 	
F.1.1	 	Summary	 of risk assessment	 	
Overall, the major external risks that can negatively impact Project implementation and achievement of 
desired results a	re that proposals for improved regulation, management measures and guidelines are 	
not adopted and implemented by the Colombian government, and that there is insufficient government 
funding such that the fisheries and aquaculture management institutions in 	Colombia are not able to 	
deliver on their mandate. The main internal risk factors are that relevant Norwegian or Colombian staff 
does not have sufficient time to put effort into the project such that planned activities are delayed. 
Another important intern	al risk factor is that the activities are not planned sufficiently well such that 	
they become less efficient in reaching the goals of the project, e.g., if training is not sufficiently targeted 
to the participants. 	 	
 	
 	
F.1.2	 	IMPACT: Improved 	sustainable socio	-economic development for the Colombian 	
fisheries and aquaculture sectors	 	
The identified external and internal risks and consequences related to the achievement of project im	-	
pact is presented in the table below. These are general risk fac	tors that also apply to most of the out	-	
comes in the project. Risk factors related specifically to each outcome are also presented unless they 
have already been presented under the risk factors for Impact.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	67	 	
 
EXTERNAL RISKS	 	CONSEQUENCE 	 	PROBABILITY & 	
IMPACT	 	MITIGATION ACTION	 	
Inadequate public 
funding allocated to 
AUNAP/ICA for nec-
essary personnel in-
put into the Project.	 	
All aspects of project im-
plementation hampered and 
identified challenges in 
fisheries and aquaculture 
not addressed, or	 threat to 	
sustainability of project re-
sults. 	 	
2 	3 	
 	
- The bilateral agreement be-
tween the Colombian and Nor-
wegian governments should 
specify the Colombian counter-
part staff, level, duration and 
budget cost. 	 	
-Project activities to be inte-
grated in workplans of AUNAP 
and ICA	 	
-Awareness raising of the 	pro-	
ject at management level in 
AUNAP and ICA	 	
-Establish t	he Joint Coordina-	
tion Committee	 (CCC) with by	-	
laws. The CCC will help the im-
plementation of the project by 
ensuring the endorsement of 
the project workplans at the top 
level of the involved instituti	ons, 	
necessary integration of the 
project workplans into the insti-
tutional workplans and efficient 
coordination among the in-
volved Colombian institutions	 	
Lack of reliable data 
on fish stock, species, 
exploitation, etc.	 	
Planning activities will not 
be base	d on correct infor-	
mation, and therefore have 
low relevance and impact	 	
3 	2 	RED	 	Project to support improvement 
of database and data quality	 	
Lack of political sup-
port for implementing 
more sustainable 
management 
measures 	 	
No move towards sustaina-
bility, with potential conse-
quence being further deple-
tion of fisheries resources, 
and leading to environmen-
tal and fish health 	problems 	
in aquaculture	. 	
1 	3 	 	-Increase public awareness by 
making data, analysis and rec-
ommendations public. 	 	
- CCC to discuss progress at 
least yearly, and take action if 
insufficient progress.	 	
-Awareness of Project at highest 
level of the Colombian institu-
tions 	involved	 	
-Invite civil society organiza-
tions to stakeholder meetings or 
present in parts of the Annual 
meeting of the project. Relevant

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	68	 	
 
EXTERNAL RISKS	 	CONSEQUENCE 	 	PROBABILITY & 	
IMPACT	 	MITIGATION ACTION	 	
NGOs are: MARVIVA, CI, 
FFCC, WWF	 	
-Mid	-term review, and reformu-	
lation if needed	 	
- Project outputs and outcomes 
are in li	ne with stated Colom-	
bian policy goals.	 	
Corruption/political 
interference related to 
enforcement of laws 
and regulations or 
granting of licenses	 	
As above, and imbalance in 
economic benefits from the 
sector, especially negative 
for the poorest 	stakeholders	 	
 	
2 	2 	 	-As above	 	
-Colombian project group take 
part in national meetings about 
corruption	 	
-Learn from the UNODC pro-
ject in Colombia	 	
-meetings also with the CARs to 
increase awareness of corrup-
tion risks in licensing (Associa-
tion of CARs)	 	
-Incre	ased focus on local activi-	
ties and beneficiaries	 	
Low compliance with 
fisheries/aquaculture 
laws and regulations 
on the part of private 
sector operators	 	
As above	 	 	1 	2 	 	-Stakeholder meetings/include 
private sector operators (also 
representatives for small scale 
producers) included in the prep-
arations for new regula-
tions/laws (this is mandatory in 
Colombia)	 	
-Improved communication/ in-
formation to small producers 
about new regulation	 	
-Enough trained govt local staff 
and budget to ass	ure monitoring 	
& control 	 	
Change in political 
power or large macro-
economic shock	 	
Political will or economic 
ability to support Project 
eroded	 	
1 	2 	 	- CCC to have sufficient power 
to act in case of external factors 
affecting the project	 	
Large and sudden dis-
ease outbreaks in aq-
uaculture or in terres-
trial animals.	 	
High economic losses, mar-
ket closure and impact on 
food safety. Impact on eco-
systems and biodiversity. 
Focus of project partici-
pants/veterinarians from 	
2 	3 	 	- Biosecurity measures would 
improve as result of 	the project.	 	
- Change workplans to be able to 
use sudden disease outbreaks as 
part of the research, training and 
competence building.

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	69	 	
 
EXTERNAL RISKS	 	CONSEQUENCE 	 	PROBABILITY & 	
IMPACT	 	MITIGATION ACTION	 	
Colombia diverted from 
project implementation. 	 	-Activate and update emergency 
response plans in ICA	 	
-Less focus on exotic spp and 
more focus on native spp with 
ecosystem	s-based methods	 	
Natural disasters, po-
litical unrest, security 
issues or pandemic 
limits travel and some 
project activities	 	
Project implementation 
hampered, planned activi-
ties postponed	 	
3 	2 	RED	 	-Virtual meetings and online 
training where possible	 	
-Project scope and content de-
signed to limit the risk that pro-
ject activities are affected	 	
-Review information from rele-
vant authorities that assess risks 
for natural disasters prior to 
planned activities to assess risk	 	
-Strengthening of community	-	
based ac	tivities that could con-	
tinue even in moments of na-
tional crisis	 	
Colombian institu-
tions are modified by 
new governmental 
management schemes	 	
Changed structure could re-
quire changes in project 
and result in delays	 	
1 	3 	 	-Colombian government to 	as-	
sure that responsibility for the 
project is clearly defined in case 
of institutional changes	 	
-Immediately act if project ad-
aptation is needed	 	
 
 
INTERNAL RISK	 	CONSEQUENCE 	 	PROBABILITY 	
& IMPACT	 	MITIGATION ACTION	 	
Key personnel in Co-
lombia without 
enough time to devote 
to Project	 	
Limited Project implemen-
tation with subsequent neg-
ative effects on the overall 
Project goal	 	
1 	3 	 	-Project goals are aligned with 
Colombian priorities	 	
- Workplans and Timing of work 
to be agreed early	 	
-Awareness of Project 	at highest 	
level of the Colombian institu-
tions involved	 	
- Training to assure efficiency of 
key staff (also in case of new staff 
being involved)

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	70	 	
 
INTERNAL RISK	 	CONSEQUENCE 	 	PROBABILITY 	
& IMPACT	 	MITIGATION ACTION	 	
Key personnel in Nor-
way not available to 
devote time to Project	 	
Limited Project implemen-
tation with 	subsequent neg-	
ative effects on the overall 
Project goal	 	
2 	2 	 	-Awareness of Project at highest 
level of the Norwegian institu-
tions involved	 	
-Inter	-institutional committee of 	
Norwegian partners involved	 	
-Workplans and Timing of work 
to be agreed early. 	 	
Staff trained by the 
Project not main-
tained or used in rele-
vant tasks	 	
Limited Project implemen-
tation and sustainability 
with subsequent negative 
effects on the overall Pro-
ject goal	 	
1 	2 	 	-ICA and 	AUNAP to plan for the 	
use of trained personnel	 	
-Employees with permanent con-
tracts have to work for 4 years af-
ter a sponsored 2	-year education 	
abroad (already gov. rule)	 	
-Training of new key staff being 
involved	 	
Training is not rele-
vant or not 	provided 	
to relevant employees	 	
As above	 	1 	2 	 	-Clear communication prior to 
planning of training to increase 
relevance	 	
-Clear criteria for selection of par-
ticipants for each type of training	 	
-Establish a committee across in-
stitutions in Colombia to select 
and prioritize candidates for mas-
ter studies	 	
-The project training to be inte-
grated in institutional staff devel-
opment plans	 	
-Evaluation of training to be used 
when planning subsequent train-
ing	 	
Key personnel quit 
(external risk) or are 
reallocated to other 
tasks	 	
Disruption in project man-
agement and implementa-
tion	 	
2 	2 	 	-Awareness of not reallocating	 	
-Periodical meetings in the Co-
lombian institutions to share in-
formation/ and to ensure that ac-
quired knowledge is spread 
within the instituti	on and to en-	
sure that the high level in the in-
stitutions are informed/involved	 	
-Training of new key staff being 
involved	 	
Ineffective project 
and financial manage-
ment 	 	
Project implementation 
hampered, undue advantage 	 
1 	3 	 	-Assure highly experienced pro-
ject manager and key staff

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	71	 	
 
INTERNAL RISK	 	CONSEQUENCE 	 	PROBABILITY 	
& IMPACT	 	MITIGATION ACTION	 	
-Clear and effective project man-
agement structure to be set up in 
the Institutional cooperation con-
tract	 	
-Sufficient planning, coordina-
tion and communication about 
upcoming activities	 	
- Norwegian auditor general/ac-
counting rules	 	
-Ask for and follow advice to im-
prove management effectiveness	 	
Overlap with other 
donor projects	 	
Inefficient use of 	resources	 	1 	1 	 	-Colombian project group to keep 
all parties updated on all relevant 
projects	 	
-Regular meetings with other rel-
evant projects 	 	
-Coordination also with people 
involved in international coopera-
tion in fisheries	 	
Low English level 
limit the 	benefits of 	
participation in pro-
ject activities	 	
Limited increase in capac-
ity and knowledge, commu-
nication problems may de-
lay project implementation.	 	
1 	2 	 	-English training provided by 
project prior to master studies	 	
-Selection of candidates also 
based on 	English proficiency	 	
-Providing English	-Spanish in-	
terpreters in working ses-
sions/short courses	 	
-translation of documents and 
reports where necessary	 	 	
Weak coordination 
and communication 
among collaborating 
partners both between 
and within countries 	 	
Project activities are not 
sufficiently planned and 
therefore either not con-
ducted or conducted with-
out reaching their full po-
tential 	 	
1 	2 	 	-Clear and 	effective project man-	
agement structure to be set up in 
the Institutional cooperation con-
tract	 	
-Sufficient time for planning and 
preparation of capacity building 
activities in budget	 	
-Involve decision	-makers and 	
colleagues in the project	 	
-Project to support	 inter	-institu-	
tional collaboration in the sector 
(including other projects) and be-
tween countries in the region

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	72	 	
 
 
 
 
 
 	
F.1.3	 	Risks related to Outcome 1: 	 	
Relevant governmental management institutions and academia have increased capacity and knowledge 
in subjects regarding sustainable fisheries management, aquaculture and aquatic animal health

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	73

Appraisal of the Fish for Develo	pment project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	74	 	
 	
F.1.4	 	Risks related to Outcome 2: 	 	
Improved knowledge base for sus	tainable management of fisheries

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for instituti	onal cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	75	 	
 
 	
F.1.5	 	Risks related to Outcome 3: 	 	
Improved capacity for sustainable development of aquaculture

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia an	d Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	76	 	
 	
F.1.6	 	Risks related to Outcome 4 	 	
 	
 
 	
F.1.7	 	Identified potential unintended consequences of the Project and safeguards	 	
UNINTENDED	 CONSEQUENCE 	 	Probabil-	
ity	 	SAFEGUARDS	 	
Gender equality and women’s rights:	 	
The undermining of the role of women as 
stakeholders and decision	-makers in the 	
fisheries sector by not including women as 
invited stakeholders to stakeholder plat-
forms including those settled in remote ar-
eas of the country	 	
 	-Assure women’s participation on project decision	-	
making level (especially CCC) and advisory com-
mittee	 	
-Make ef	fort to ensure that female stakeholders are 	
also represented in stakeholder meetings	 	
-Inviting women from isolated geographical areas 
in the country and supporting their participation

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	77	 	
 
UNINTENDED	 CONSEQUENCE 	 	Probabil-	
ity	 	SAFEGUARDS	 	
-Making preparatory meetings and getting involved 
diverse and widely representative stakeholders for 
each of the activities.	 	
Gender equality and women’s ri	ghts:	 	
The undermining of gender equality in 
governmental agencies if female employ-
ees of the partner institutions and other rel-
evant agencies are not included in Project 
activities	 	
 	
-Ensuring that relevant women are included in the 
Project activities	 	
-Cons	ider women views in the project design and 	
implementation 	 	
-Keeping records of gender balance of Project ac-
tivities	 	 	
Human rights and discrimination: The risk 
that project activities could lead to human 
rights violations	 	
 	Making preparatory meetings and getting involved 
diverse and widely representative stakeholders for 
each of the activities (including local fisher com-
munities, indigenous peoples and afro	-descend-	
ants).	 	
 	
Corruption: The risk that the Project itself 
could lead to increased corruption	 	
 	-Project should through increased transparency re-
duce the possibility for corruption and political in-
terests interfering with the implementation and en-
forcement of management measures that will con-
tribute towards sustain	able management of fisher-	
ies and aquaculture	 	
-Clear rules for procurement with project funds 
(Norwegian funding regulations) and follow	-up on 	
audit observations	 	
-Clear rules for recruitment and contracting (TOR, 
requirements) and monitoring of compliance	 	
Greenhouse gas emissions: The risk that 
the Project itself could lead to increased 
emissions	 	
 	- Establish good communication between partners 
such that activities can be planned and executed 
without excessive travel	 	
- Improved food security based on fish r	ather than 	
meat would decrease greenhouse gas emissions.	 	
- More nature	-based solutions for fish farming in-	
stead of constructing fish tanks	 	
Environmental damage: The risk that the 
Project itself could lead to environmental 
problems	 	
 	-Successful 	implementation of the Project aims to 	
achieve the opposite	 	
-Planning and advice prior to activities that may 
consider any possible environmental problems.	 	
-Comply with national environmental regulations 
(including when EIA is required)

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	78	 	
 
UNINTENDED	 CONSEQUENCE 	 	Probabil-	
ity	 	SAFEGUARDS	 	
-CCC to include Ministry of Environment and Sus-
tainable Development

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and 
Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	79

Appraisal of the Fish for Development project proposal for institutional cooperation between Colombia and 
Norway	 	
 	
Vista Analyse	 | 2021/31	 	80	 	
 
 	
 
 	
Vista Analyse AS	 	
Meltzers	 gate 4	 	
0257 Oslo	 	
 
post@vista	-analyse.no	 	
vista	-analyse.no