The proposed agreement presented above (in section 5) has been approved, in principle by the management of both institutions, FSL and the new Lima Bank, as well as by the Director of the Department of Fisheries.
It became clear at that stage that three possible solutions were left, namely:
utilizing FSL and the Lima Bank in combination
FSL exclusively
the Lima Bank exclusively
Here again the pros and cons of each solution were assessed, and are summarized below in tabular form.
| Terms of the Final Alternative | Pros | Cons |
| Combined solution (FSL and Lima Bank) | Two distinct channels will permit a wider geographic coverage and a larger selection of applicants than a single one Possible multiplier effect (FSL is not likely to operate the scheme on its own funds in the foreseeable future, whereas the new Lima Bank, well funded, under GRZ's prodding, might do so) | This solution would entail more dispersion on the part of the FAO/GRZ project staff (danger of overstretching already very limited manpower resources and available skills) Lima's organization and capabilities untested as yet |
| FSL alone | Proved mechanism already in place at FSL for enforcing repayments through group pressure Reverse of cons above | Reverse of pros above |
| Lima Bank alone | Established by GRZ for promoting credit to all sectors of agricultural development Potential multiplier effect (on its own funds) Possibility to operate with its own staff | Newly established Time factor for new procedures to be worked out |
In the final analysis, the determining factor in the choice of a preferable solution is the capacity of either institution to administer the scheme professionally in the immediate future.
