The current phase of ALCOM was originally planned for five years. However SIDA has confirmed funding for the first two years only (1995–1996). During the 8th Steering Committee meeting in February 1995, SIDA announced that its support to ALCOM Programme will stop at the end of 1996, in favour of a new programme for small-scale farmer development (FARMESA, Section 3.9.2)
In view of the imminent cessation of funding for ALCOM and possible negative implications in particular for the regional functions of the programme and its infrastructure (mainly the library) which might be lost for the SADC countries, the ALCOM Steering Committee has formed a Working Group to look specifically at the future of ALCOM.
The Working Group met three times in 1995 and decided, as an ALCOM rescue measure, to draft a project outline seeking funding to support SADC/IFSTCU to absorb, at least some of the ALCOM functions. The approach was to transfer “ownership” of ALCOM from the Steering Committee to IFSTCU to become a strengthened aquacultural planning, development, coordination and information unit. Other key points of the proposal were:
funding for the three officers and any other support staff identified in the project will be for a limited time following one of the three indicative budget levels proposed for the Malawi government and two year donor funding as indicated below:
indicative donor budget : 2 years maximum (total cost : USD 485 000)
The evaluation team learnt during the mission that the government of Malawi (with ICEIDA assistance) will provide two additional personnel to strengthen IFSTCU starting probably in August 1996.
The project outline/proposal has gone through all the SADC decisionmaking machinery and was approved by the Council of Ministers in August 1995. In the last quarter of 1995, the proposal was submitted to SIDA to consider for funding. During the 9th Steering Committee meeting in February 1996, SIDA welcomed the initiative taken by the working group. It indicated that they were now reviewing the proposal and were likely to suggest carrying out an appraisal in the first four months of 1996. But this appraisal has not yet taken place.
Four main scenarios can be envisaged concerning the future of the whole ALCOM Programme, as it stands now:
Each of these scenarios are discussed in the following sections, on the basis of the material presented previously. Assumptions on the objectives, main actors, tasks to perform, consequences of the scenario and limitations/constraints are successfully discussed for each of the above scenarios.
ALCOM might disappear rather rapidly, at the latest on 30 June 1997, when the actual support of the core programme by Sweden reaches an end. By that time, the immediate objectives of that programme will have been reasonably fulfilled (Section 5.4) and rather important results produced. (Section 6.1).
In such eventuality, the main actors would be FAO, SADC/IFS and ALCOM personnel.
The tasks to perform would be:
The consequences of this scenario would be:
Existing constraints for the realisation of this scenario mostly relate to human and financial resources, to ensure the take-over of the actual coordination functions of ALCOM and of the regional responsibilities of its Information Service, including the library and its databases.
This scenario has been the object of a proposal prepared by the Working Group on the Future of ALCOM for the Steering Committee. It dismantles ALCOM to only integrate its coordination/information functions into SADC/IFS in Lilongwe, Malawi.
ALCOM might disappear more progressively, phasing out over a period of two to three years. The immediate objectives would become better fulfilled, in particular in Mozambique and Tanzania (aquaculture), as well as in all SWB pilot projects.
The main actors would be ALCOM personnel, SADC, and potential donors (Sweden, Belgium, UNDP ....) and NGOs.
The tasks to perform would be similar to those listed for the previous scenario (Section 8.1.1), except that the SWB Project would close down simultaneously with ALCOM. In addition, new collaboration channels would have to be open, for example with UNDP and/or NGOs as well as other potential donors.
The consequences of this scenario would be similar, although delayed, to those listed previously (Section 8.1.1), except that regional development would be further improved following a slightly longer presence. The pilot projects would have more fully reached their objectives and could more easily be handed over to governments. The management and implementation of the actual SWB Project would not be perturbed.
Existing constraints also remain similar to those cited above (Section 8.1.1). In addition, the interest of potential donors would have to be raised, together with the interest of new collaborating institutions.
It is of particular interest to note that:
According to this scenario, ALCOM would still disappear but only after a short extension (1 to 2 years) during which priority activities would be intensified. This would result in fulfilling almost all immediate objectives and producing a high output at little additional cost.
Main actors would be ALCOM HQ staff, FAO and actual donors, Sweden and Belgium.
The tasks to perform would be similar to those listed previously (Section 8.1.1) except that the SWB Project if slightly extended could close simultaneously with ALCOM. In addition, general syntheses would be prepared from the information collected by ALCOM since its inception in 1987.
The consequences of this scenario would be similar to those discussed above (Section 8.1.1) except that general conditions would be better for the take-over of pilot projects implementation by national institutions. The management and implementation of the SWB projects would not be perturbed.
Existing constraints would be similar to those cited earlier(Section 8.1.1). In addition, donors should be willing to fund ALCOM's programme's extension/intensification. National resources should be available for take-over of pilot projects. ALCOM output (esp. syntheses) should be increasingly useful to member countries.
ALCOM Programme, limited in time, might transform itself from a regional project into a regional institution. This might happen either immediately or in the short term, for example after a transitional phase similar to the second or third scenario, except for closing down ALCOM. The actual immediate objectives would have to be replaced by new ones.
The actors would be essentially ALCOM HQ, SADC Secretariat and potential donors, such as UNDP (multilateral institution building/catalysing money) and/or bilateral assistance. For a transitional phase, FAO/TCP funds might be available.
The tasks would involve:
The consequences of this scenario would be radically different from those presented in the previous three scenarios:
Existing constraints for this scenario are:
