5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTPUT

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Three main aspects will be discussed in this chapter. The first concerns financing of ALCOM's whole programme, where the basic conditions for fulfilling this programme will be described and commented upon. Swedish, Belgian, FAO and national governments' contributions will be studied.

The second aspect concerns expenditures used (or to be used) necessary to implement the programme. The basic economic structure will be shown and assessed according to the objectives and the general logics of ALCOM's activities.

The third aspect concerns the concrete output so far produced and the anticipated output to be produced during the rest of the period under evaluation. When analysing the coordinating activities, general management and backstopping will also be assessed. When discussing the field activities, project management will be considered.

5.2 FINANCING

Over the last two years, ALCOM Programme was financed by three donors and national governments¹⁶. Their respective contributions are discussed below.

5.2.1 Aquaculture for Local Community Development, Phase III¹⁷

At the Seventh Steering Committee Meeting, in February 1994, the draft proposal for ALCOM Programme Phase III (1995–1999), prepared by the Programme and FAO-HQ on the basis of the document proposed by the Working Group on the Future of ALCOM, was presented and discussed. Comments from Sweden and member countries were later incorporated into a revised proposal, including also the recommendations of the last Evaluation Mission. This proposal was submitted by FAO to SIDA in September 1994, for a total amount of USD 4 976 500.

On 16 December 1994, the Swedish Government (through SIDA) agreed to continue its support to ALCOM but for two years only (letter from SIDA/NRM to FAO, ref. 1.52.15 FAO). It pledged SEK 10 million (eq. USD 1 345 895 on that date) to be spent in 1995 and 1996.

Budget revision D (8 Feb 1995) details how this contribution would be used in 1995–96 to finance most of ALCOM core activities (Annex 18). Savings could be used until June 1997, after the 10th Steering Committee Meeting (February 1997), the Technical Consultation on Institutional Strengthening and the completion of the programme final report (ref. SIDA agreement at the 9th Steering Committee).

¹⁶ SWEDEN through Project GCP/INT/555/SWE

• BELGIUM through Project GCP/RAF/277/BEL
• FAO through Project TCP/RAF/2380
• National governments

¹⁷ Project GCP/INT/555/SWE

5.2.2 Support to Aquaculture Training and Extension¹⁸

To alleviate the critical financial situation of ALCOM core programme brought about by the devaluation of the Swedish Kronor (more than 30 percent), FAO approved on 22 December 1993 the financing of project “Support to Aquaculture Training and Extension” for Mozambique and Zambia, for the amount of USD 315 000 to be spent in 1994. Later, two successive revisions extended the duration of the project until December 1995, without any budget increase. Budget revision No. 2 (16 August 1995) details how this contribution would finance part of ALCOM core activities (Annex 19)

¹⁸ Project TCP/RAF/2380

5.2.3 Utilisation of Small Water Bodies for Aquaculture and Fisheries¹⁹

Since September 1992, Belgium finances the project “Utilisation of Small Water Bodies” with an original contribution of USD 2 119 089, for a period of five years through August 1997.

As a result of the 1994 Evaluation, a major revision of the budget was made in December 1994, increasing the budget by USD 408 696 to include a socio-economist post, to better involve national experts and institutions, and to increase other inputs.

Budget revision B dated 30 December 1994, details how these contributions would be used to finance activities related to small water bodies in 1995–97 (Annex 20).

¹⁹ Project GCP/RAF/277/BEL

5.2.4 Total means available for ALCOM Phase III

Table 8. Total indicative funding for ALCOM Phase III (in USD)

Actual ALCOM Programme expenses for 1995 are given in Annex 21.

A detailed budget management system is operational since 1994 and it is possible to follow expenditures against budget allocations by sub-project and programme budget line items. Current budgeting for 1996 (and possibly 1997 partim) is given in Annex 22.

5.2.5 SADC and National Government Support

Concern was raised by the 1994 evaluation mission that although SADC countries share decision-making with ALCOM, through the Steering Committee, it was rather unfair that the responsibility for producing results was for ALCOM alone. Consequently, a recommendation was made that member countries should show their “ownership” of the programme through increased budgetary allocations and joint programme implementation at community level.

The 8th Steering Committee took note of this and specifically recommended that countries should aim to match 20 percent of donor financing by the end of 1996, with contributions in cash and/or in kind.

(a) SADC Support

ALCOM is a FAO-executed regional programme and actually there is no formal link between FAO and SADC/IFS. The following can be noted:

• there is no SADC/IFS counterpart staff directly involved in the management of the Programme at ALCOM Headquarters;
• the SADC Inland Fisheries staff resides in Malawi;
• SADC/IFS has no day-to-day activities planned within ALCOM;
• there are no SADC/IFS financial and/or personnel inputs into ALCOM.

The ALCOM regional coordination/information activities which have been proposed to be handed over to SADC/IFS in 1997 are actually completely unknown to its present staff.

(b) National governments' support

ALCOM pilot projects are implemented directly with the relevant institutions on a national basis, either by the country itself (Eastern Province, Zambia) or with permanent technical assistance (FAO international expert in Malawi, APO in Tanzania and Zambia; NPPP in SWB/Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Tanzania) This implementation structure provides high flexibility.

Most SADC countries are facing serious financial constraints. It has therefore been relatively easier for them to provide their contributions in kind (Table 9). In most cases, this consists in assigning existing staff to the project in addition to their daily duties, providing office accommodation, and making equipment available wherever possible. As usual, the greatest difficulty has been to assess the monetary value of such contributions. Labour costs vary widely within the region. Even when salaries can be used, differentiating the tasks as either ALCOM's or Government's for someone working within a pilot project area or partly working for the project is almost impossible.

Notwithstanding the above, ALCOM management made an effort when preparing the 1995 progress report to quantify governments support to the programme in USD equivalent. The outcome was that the five countries with pilot projects were found to contribute 13 percent of total donor funding. Reaching 20 percent by the end of 1996 still remains the goal.

Table 9. Host country contributions to ALCOM Programme, in kind.

Rem. * For details on national associated personnel, see Annex 14

Zambia, Eastern Province is actually the only host country where ALCOM initiated activities are continuing with relatively little ALCOM financial support, limited annually to about USD 30 000. Several reasons explain this particular situation, in a country where national resources are very limited:

• long presence and influence of ALCOM, since 1987;
• long and relatively good relationship created through personal contacts between DoA, DoF and resident international/APO ALCOM staff (1987–1994);
• presence of a World Bank project (ZAREP) for the last five years supporting agriculture extension as well as the integration of aquaculture into the latter, through ALCOM;
• major interest of local provincial authorities in the ALCOM approach to integrated small-scale aquaculture development;
• good support at DoF headquarters by ALCOM national associated staff.

The Government of Zimbabwe, through the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management should also be commended for its contribution in the form of highly functional accommodations for ALCOM headquarters in Harare. Offices and utilities (in particular telecommunication services) are excellent. The collaboration with the extension service of the Ministry of Agriculture (AGRITEX) although still informal, is also excellent.

5.3 EXPENDITURE

In order to give a rough indication of how money is spent within the ALCOM organisation, Table 10 is presented based on the 1996 indicative budget from Sweden (GCP/INT/555/SWE) and Belgium (GCP/RAF/277/BEL), and from the 1996 workplans considering contributions from the countries.

Table 10. Approximate yearly total expenditure and funding (USD)

Comments on overall expenditure

In general the budget reflects a very heavy central organisation, which is dependent on the frequent interactions in the field, as well as the development purpose (top down initiation of R&D issues).

Table 11. Categories of expenditure (in USD)

The special character of ALCOM's expenditure is further emphasised by the fact that rather little is spent on field activities. The bulk of the budget is related to high personnel salaries (international specialists, most of them based at H.Q., and consultants), their duty travels and related services. The Organisation of technical consultations, working groups and Steering Committee meetings claim a considerable part of the budget, but, bearing in mind the regional character of the project, they are necessary activities. Publication of technical documents, ALCOM News and Meetings reports obviously also require an adequate budget, but great savings could be made (and are presently pursued) if no higher printing quality would be required than is justified. Whether the proportion of funds allocated to salaries (about 60 %) in relation to supplies and materials (about 3 %), for example, is justified is however subject to debate. This latter fact may create a less positive view on the programme by participating countries who cannot avoid having the impression that funds are being used to create employment for some specialists, without any substantial input of material.

Fellowships and training activities (about 3%) seem to be particularly under-appreciated. This latter statement is rather regrettable, as ALCOM's field activities are basically designed to gather and disseminate information through national institutions and their staff. Where the data gathering system mechanism is well established in terms of institutional organisation, manpower and equipment, money earmarked for these is saved. Hard working local field staff give a lot but, unfortunately, receive very little in return.

Besides, no initial credit, seed money or assistance in kind is available to farmers interested in fish culture or for community activities aiming at improved reservoir management. Field activities and results are the main sources for papers and documents compiled in central headquarters, but they seem to be rather weakly supported.

5.4 OUTPUT

The output of the ALCOM Programme should be described in relation to its immediate objectives. One of the most logical structure for this section would be to first consider the three objectives for the core programme followed then by the three objectives for the Small Water Bodies Project.

But there are various obstacles to this. Every SWB pilot project refers to all three objectives. To break them down into activities related to each objective would disrupt the picture. The aquaculture projects do only refer to one of the objectives, the others beige directly or indirectly related to the Core activities in headquarters.

For pedagogic reasons the assessment instead will follow a tripartite structure. The first part will study the four Core Programme pilot projects. They are all related to immediate objective II (development of fish culture methodology), which will form the basis for their assessment.

The second part will consider the five SWB pilot projects. The assessment that follows will cover all three objectives, as they are going across the project structure.

The third part will concern the Core Programme central activities, carried out at headquarters. These correspond to immediate objective I on administration and management, as well as operative activities reflected from the first immediate objective on creating awareness about aquaculture development issues, potentials and limitations in the member countries. The central operative activities are also those who come closest to the immediate objective III (increased support by national and local institutions for sustained promotion of fish culture methods for the future). Other operative activities in headquarters such as supervising field projects and synthesising/reporting results from the field lack support as a central activity from any specific immediate objective. They are seen, however, as part of the general responsibility of the whole ALCOM Programme, and will be considered in the overall assessment to be presented at the end of the Chapter.

5.4.1 Field activities of the Core Programme

The four pilot projects concerning ALCOM immediate objective II “Fish culture methodologies developed, tested, and demonstrated, and systems integrated with the farming system which are technically, economically, and socially appropriate for the target communities identified” are each located in one country. Each of these projects will be studied in two tables, one for each project objective (Tables 12 to 15).

PILOT PROJECT ONE-EXT/MOZ

Table 12.1. Develop improved tilapia culture techniques for small-scale farmers in Manica Province, Mozambique

Table 12.2. Integrate improved fish-farming techniques into existing extension and information dissemination systems in the Manica Province, Mozambique.

PILOT PROJECT TWO - AQU/MOZ

Table 13.1. Develop Chinese carp culture and improved fish-farming techniques for small-scale farmers in Gaza Province, Mozambique (1995)

Table 13.2. Prepare guidelines to analyse the impact of the introduction of exotic species, in particular Chinese carps, and evaluate the appropriateness of this introduction in Gaza Province, Mozambique (1996)

PILOT PROJECT THREE - AQU/URT

Table 14.1. Develop semi-intensive fish-farming techniques for small-scale farmers in Morogoro Region, Tanzania

Table 14.2. Incorporate improved fish-farming techniques into rural extension systems (agriculture, rural development, farmer-to-farmer), in Morogoro Region Tanzania

PILOT PROJECT FOUR - AQU/ZAM

Table 15.1. Develop improved fish-farming techniques for small-scale farmers in Eastern Province, Zambia

Table 15.2. Incorporate improved fish-farming techniques into rural extension systems (agriculture, rural development, farmer-to-farmer) in Eastern Province, Zambia

5.4.2 Assessment of activities promoting ALCOM immediate objective II:

“Fish culture methodologies developed, tested and demonstrated, and systems integrated with the farming system which are technically, economically, and socially appropriate for the target communities identified”.

• Pilot project one: following a late start of the activities, appropriate methodology and culture system have not yet been neither completely/developed, nor tested/demonstrated. A very promising start has been made. Future progress should occur at a faster pace because of the most favourable social environment and the quality of local expertise. Problems still exist concerning the sustainable integration of the fish-farming techniques into the existing extension structure, the latter being entirely donor-supported. Best information channels for rural communities remain to be determined.
• Pilot project two: right from the start, this pilot project has taken a direction which was not originally foreseen and which does not at all address ALCOM's immediate objective II.
• Pilot project three: methodology and appropriate integrated culture systems are being actively developed, tested and demonstrated. By the end of 1996, extension packages should be ready because of quality of local expertise and favourable social setting. The location of DoA and DoF in separate ministries complicates the process of integrating fish-farming techniques into extension systems. For the same reason, sustainability of actual outputs still remains questionable.
• Pilot project four: several activities have been delayed mostly by severe drought in 1995. As a result, even if the methodology part of the immediate objective has been developed/tested/demonstrated, the improved culture system remains to be tested/demonstrated to be technically/economically/socially appropriate for the targeted small-scale farmers. Sustainability of the integration of fish-farming techniques into the rural extension systems is being increased by the actual reorganisation of the agriculture sector and by the official integration of aquaculture into it.
• Overall assessment of aquaculture pilot projects
  The ALCOM approach to realise immediate objective II is considered by the Mission to be appropriate. Even if delays in the production of expected output are observed (mostly due to factors beyond human control), most of the pilot projects may be considered as successful. Only one of them does not fit well with the other projects and most probably this could have been avoided by selecting Nile tilapia as the main species to be promoted instead of Chinese grass carp. Because of limited resources availability (qualified staff, recurrent budget), sustainability of the integration of fish-farming techniques into existing widespread extension system still remains questionable.