The “ALCOM Model” is an interesting concept of a holistic approach, different from many other development models and dependent on direct support in terms of economic means and equipment, as a necessary part of the technical assistance. ALCOM has showed the way on how to transfer “pure” knowledge, which is usually desired but seldom done by donors. In the five countries visited by the mission, there was an undoubted expression of the need for the programme to continue. This, however, is not to say the programme objectives were understood to the same degree by all parties concerned. Those close to the programme such as policy makers and relevant national institutions, are by default better placed to more fully grasp ALCOM's purpose than the small-scale farming community (actual target group).
The most important, and usually least considered, aspect of the central activities of ALCOM is the creation of an organisational culture (the “myth making mechanism”). This largely explains the positive development of an “institution-feeling”, and of course the positive concept of “the ALCOM Model” in practice is the myth itself. The important thing is not to define the ALCOM Model in some exact way. It might then loose its attraction. The important thing is that inside people believe in what they are doing, and that relevant outside groups think that they really have the solution to most problems. The fact that ALCOM's task is to search these solutions does not decrease its general importance in influencing the mind of decision makers when promoting better conditions for fish farmers.
The gap between the “research and development” activities (a better terminology than “technical assistance” for the kind of activities performed by the operative parts of ALCOM headquarters), is not a problem in this perspective. In the short term, these activities support the necessary myth-making and it is the most practical use in this time perspective. In the long term, they are necessary for developing the very important aquaculture sector, in the same way as R&D are necessary in all successful activities in the society.
ALCOM is working within two supra-national structures, both trying to manage the project with bureaucratic means (policy indications in formulation of objectives, specified in intermediate and immediate objectives, specified in workplans/programmes, with specified activities, having target areas cutting across, etc.). In reality, ALCOM is managed by a competent leadership in close communication with both structures, but to a great extent outside the formalised management system mentioned.
The ALCOM aquaculture and small water bodies pilot projects share a number of common elements such as target group, fish production and socio-economic issues (e.g. food security and cash income generation). It seems logical to keep these two programmes united under a single umbrella.
ALCOM paperwork creates the impression of a heavy field organisation distributed in several SADC-countries, with a small coordinating centre in Harare. A “bottom up” - perspective of initiatives and grass-root management is expected. In reality, ALCOM represents a “top down”-organisation with field work only in some of the SADC-countries. Such heavy centre is natural in a research-like organisation, which corresponds closely to the main development tasks of ALCOM.
In principle, ALCOM is a project organisation, managed by objectives, limited in time and resources. A project organisation should ideally make the beneficiaries independent of the project activities. In ALCOM's case there is a tendency to prove the opposite: it would be most fruitful to have continuous support in aquaculture matters by an organisation like ALCOM. In practice, ALCOM has gone through a process of institutionalisation which is confirmed by its total structure: a critical mass of highly qualified researchers, advanced utilisation of a specialised library and other information services, central position in a network relevant to the integrated aquaculture approach for the improvement of quality of life for smallholder farmers..
ALCOM's approach to strengthening institutions is not through the traditional way of long-term training for staff or significant material input to them, but rather through mobilisation of collaborative extension services and perhaps reorganisation of institutions concerned with development, such as fisheries, agriculture and rural development.
Following the last evaluation, there has been a positive response to some of its recommendations. A good example is the gradual increase in the number of national professionals employed by the programme. These people are well placed and suited to work in rural areas where the pilot projects are located. They certainly show a lot of enthusiasm in their approach to work compared to their colleagues in government.
Fish production in small ponds as an activity integrated with agriculture, agro-forestry, water resource management, etc., as done by farmers at village level today, is highly recommendable from a perspective of self reliance. Sustainable structures, not necessarily efficient, are created. It is not the quantity of fish that is the output, but the quality of life. In practice, it means that there may be more efficient ways to produce protein, e.g. in medium-scale, capital-consuming, commercial fish farming. But this would usually create dependencies to actors outside the village and distribute the results in a way which is not appropriate for the smallholders.
This perspective of self-reliance is closely related to issues of food security, soil conservation and water resources management. It reduces the risks as calculated in early warning systems.
Data collected since 1987 in the socio-economic and biotechnical fields have never been fully synthesised, due to limited staff. This results in the absence of an overview of common constraints and problems which hampers their solution.
Good farmers become more easily good fish farmers. For farmers already familiar with at least a few of advanced farming practices such as irrigation/watering practices, diversified production, soil conservation (esp. on hilly terrain), organic/chemical fertilisation, crop rotation, cash vegetable farming on well-laid out elevated beds and contour/terrace cultivation, there is little difficulty to add pond fish farming, if interest exists and a minimum of technology is provided. Fish just becomes another crop.
No new aquaculture technology has been developed by ALCOM. It has introduced the basic technology of an extensive system (tilapia in small earthen ponds) which relies mostly on primary productivity. Logically, ALCOM has concentrated its activities on the development and mobilisation of extension/diffusion approaches.
Generation of the minimum amount of knowledge necessary for ALCOM to be able to draw valid conclusions and guidelines (for example, extension packages and new methodology) takes some time. On the basis of the experience gained in Eastern Province, Zambia, development lags for three to four years before suddenly taking off. Such a period is necessary for the small-scale farmers to become convinced of the interest for them of the new technology proposed. Pilot projects started in Mozambique in 1992 and in Tanzania in 1995. Results are progressively building up (Table 22).
The present SWB Project essentially consists of a methodology/management development programme and an information gathering programme. Those programmes are adequately implemented and documented within a logical time-scale.
Quantifiable impact of improved management on small reservoirs has not been well documented.
The Small Water Bodies development work on dam management may result in models that are too expensive to apply. The only feasible method to get optimal and controlled yields of fish might involve close contacts with agricultural and fishery management services (biological surveys, fish stocking, etc.), with police to enforce the management rules and lawyers or local consultants to settle disputes between groups or villages. There is a risk that such results will be irrelevant, with local communities (or the state) not being able to finance these activities in the future. The only practical principle behind fishing will remain that local farmers are hungry.
Sustainable adoption of a particular management strategy by local SWB communities depends on better understanding of the factors involved.
The SWB regional database holds an enormous potential for applications in fisheries, health, nutrition and water management in the SADC Region.
The SWB database is an important source of information but it is not enough advertised.
Fundamental data on fish biology in some particular types of reservoirs are virtually undocumented.
