Originally the ALCOM Programme was conceived as an inter-regional programme. Until now, its activities and range of influence have been geographically limited to the SADC Region. Methodologies and guidelines developed by ALCOM for aquaculture and SWB fish resources development should be more widely spread to the rest of the developing world. In particular, Africa and its francophone countries should become future priority targets.
Such wider dissemination of ALCOM results could be promoted in two ways:
through the FAO Regular Programme and its Regional Aquaculture Officer outposted in Accra, Ghana, whose terms of reference include “building up a strong sub-regional extension capacity in practical fish farming”, in collaboration with ALCOM.
The SADC decision to increase its efforts in the region to promote small scale aquaculture and small water bodies resources development through coordinating activities and information services (Section 3.7.3) has been noted by the Mission Team as a positive sign of interest. Part of the proposed activities include the take-over of ALCOM Information Service and library.
Even if this decision results in closing down ALCOM according to the first Scenario discussed previously (Section 8.1.1), this is still considered to-day as the most probable scenario. Until now no active step has been taken to save the ALCOM Model and its wide regional knowledge.
All resource persons interviewed by the Mission Team, including SADC/IFSTCU staff, agree that it would be a waste of resources to close down ALCOM now. Full results of its activities are not yet available and diffused to the extension services involved. They are in fact embodied in a combination of a critical mass of professionals, unspecified activities and a network of well worked-out relations, both at upper and lower levels within the SADC Region.
This points to Scenario four, the institutionalisation of ALCOM (Section 8.1.4), as the best one. But the constraints attached to it are still so severe (mobilisation of new donors, resistance to creation of a new institution in SADC Region) that the probability to immediately implement this best scenario is very small. As there are no financial resources within SADC to take over this kind of advanced activity in the short term, it would also create unwanted dependence from donors for a continuous implementation. Therefore, the Mission Team does not recommend this alternative as an immediate solution.
In order to save as much as possible of the ALCOM model and knowledge, the Mission Team instead recommends that Scenarios two and three, the survival of ALCOM in its present form (Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3), be seriously considered by the donors:
Practically, this would mean that the ALCOM Core Programme (Sweden) should be supported for a couple of years more during which:
As far as the SWB Project is concerned, it should preferably be kept united to the ALCOM Core Programme for reasons explained earlier. The overall concept of aquatic resources development for small-scale farmers should be pursued whole rather than separated into aquaculture and SWB fish resources. It is recommended that the present project be at least shortly extended until the end of the transition period proposed above for the core programme.
The ALCOM Steering Committee has confirmed rather than managed the activities so far. A great part of ALCOM central activities have been also outside the formal control of FAO, such as workplans for example, even if the informal control which has been maintained in direct contact with higher authorities and FAO-HQ has worked well in practice. Nevertheless, the “steering system” should be reconsidered, not necessarily to develop a new, formalised, resource - demanding control system. New forms of closer collaboration with SADC are needed, in which SADC officials should act instead of only react, in relation to aquaculture development activities.
Information activities have worked very well so far, within the ALCOM setting. There are several good reasons to keep up such high quality of services. This is the only point which conflicts with the SADC decision to start new aquaculture coordinating activities in Lilongwe, Malawi. The Mission Team recommends to SADC to build up this new activity slowly and to wait for the proposed finalisation of ALCOM activities according to Scenarios two or three (see above), before planning for the transfer of ALCOM library. Guidelines for the transfer of FAO project fisheries libraries are given in Annex 28 for information.
Because of:
the Mission Team recommends that SADC/FANR, the SIDA/FAO FARMESA Programme and eventually UNDP (Zimbabwe) be considered as the primary target organisations to become involved in the later transfer of ALCOM model and knowledge. Such transfer process would of course be facilitated by concrete collaboration prior to any transfer, including temporary financing of at least part of the core activities and/or the three most successful core pilot projects.
If within such setting SADC finds that the ALCOM model is fruitful and that regional development needs a more cross-sectoral approach than the proposed transfer to SADC/IFS, it is the responsibility of SADC only (not SIDA, FAO or anyone else) to decide on the future location of the institutional setting to be developed to support small-scale aquatic resources development in the region.
Efforts should continue in all aquaculture pilots projects to identify triggers of technology adoption, extension communication channels and message transmission efficiency.
In view of the low level of knowledge on aquaculture in the region, it seems logical to intensify efforts for the introduction of basic aquaculture rather than for the development of new systems, through improved extension services. Local expertise is adequate to provide this technology, concerned mainly with raising tilapia in small earthern ponds and relying on farm inputs for fertilisation and supplementary feeding. It is thus recommended that ALCOM concentrates on extension channels (technology transfer) rather than development of new advanced, systems.
As pointed out earlier, ALCOM has no provisions for training staff up to technical or professional level. It has rather concentrated on short-term training for the communities (PRA's, awareness courses) and on-the-job training for staff without an aquaculture/fisheries background. Where counterpart staff have a lower qualification than the ALCOM APO, funds should be made available to train them to at least the same level as the person he/she will eventually take over from.
As a basis for improved planning of future activities, syntheses of ALCOM data collected from all aquaculture field projects since 1987 should be elaborated.
Because of development lag in aquaculture projects, all future pilot projects should be planned for at least three years.
The involvement of national professionals in pilot projects has not only confirmed their capability and adaptability, given the necessary incentives, but has also been a positive path towards capacity building and institutional strengthening. The trend to increasingly involve more local professionals is encouraged and should be continued.
To assure sustainable adoption of particular management strategies by local SWB communities, additional efforts will be necessary in training and capacity building. A better understanding of all factors involved, particularly by local community leaders and selected villagers involved in the management strategies, will increase the chances of success.
Future efforts should be devoted to quantify impact of improved management on SWBs. This will require frequent field visits and adequate resources.
The information component of the SWB Project is very strong but not enough advertised. Contacts should be made with all organisations involved with water resources management (e.g. NGOs, UNDP, EC) to inform them of ALCOM resources of interest to their work (database, enhancement, management, socio-economic methodologies for communities surveys, etc…). Because of the important potential for various applications of the SWB regional database, it should be further developed and maintained in a GIS framework. In addition, the SWB project should set up its own information network.
A professional counterpart staff should be trained and affected to any future project for assisting with the coordination of all SWB Project activities (including regional database). This would ensure continuity for the regional SWB programme and a smoother take-over at the end of the project.
Information aspects should be emphasised to provide on request all relevant information on SWB fisheries in a comprehensive and analytical way to both governmental and non-governmental organisations in the SADC Region. This should include maintenance and updating of a regional SWB database which would contain all relevant information to determine the legal framework for SWB fisheries management in a number of SADC countries.
It has been learnt so far that stocking and re-stocking of small reservoirs may constitute an important component of enhancement and management of SWBs. However, availability of fingerlings is usually a serious constraint to achieve this as a regular scheduled activity. To this end, it is recommended that ALCOM and SADC approach donors to support a limited number of simple hatcheries, wherever feasible.
SWB future programme should be strongly oriented toward extension activities in direct collaboration with appropriate national institutions. A thorough investigation of the effective needs and possibilities of national institutions to execute this programme should be undertaken. Any future extension efforts would require adequate resources.
Because of the real interest of Agritex in applying the results of the SWB project, future activities should be reinforced in Zimbabwe and the collaboration with Agritex should be formalised.
Data on the biology of fish from reservoirs with large fisheries resources, subjected to important level fluctuations are virtually undocumented. To improve fish production and management strategies in such SWB, fundamental biological information are required concerning species community structure, population structure and growth for each important species, maturity evolution, food availability and food selection. It is recommended that the SWB Project collaborate with appropriate research institutes and universities in order to gather such fundamental information.
It is the wish of the Evaluation Team that the ALCOM Model and Concept survive for the benefit of not only all SADC Member Countries but also SADC as a regional institution. This ALCOM concept should be promoted and donors should be mobilised to ensure:
its integration within SADC as an entity responsible for the coordination and the development of aquatic resources for the benefit of small-scale farmers.
SADC should build up its new information activities slowly, waiting for the evolution of ALCOM activities as proposed earlier (Section 10.2), before physically transfering the actual ALCOM library.
Because of the common elements present in aquaculture and SWB programmes such as target group, fish seed production and socio-economic issues (food security/cash income generation), these programmes should be kept united under the single umbrella of water resources.
Future ALCOM should become more closely related to SADC/FANR responsible in Harare for the coordination of all issues related to food production, because of the strong relationship existing between ALCOM, agriculture development, water resources conservation/management, food security, and other socio-economic issues related to small-scale farmers.
Identification and training of future new extension channels should become a priority.
Ways should be found to reduce the unfair competition for the private fingerling producers created by the sale of fish seed by the Sussundenga state farm at a subsidized price.
Common carp should be cautiously used and promoted, even if its growth is better in cooler waters. Seed reproduction can only be successful in the state farm but its water supply is critical for several months per year. Distribution of carp fingerlings is too costly and unsustainable. Farmers' ponds are very small and food supply for carp is very limited.
Identification and training of an appropriate institution or local farmers' organisation that could continue aquaculture extension on a sustainable basis should become a priority.
The SWB pilot project should be reoriented and reactivated, particularly concerning monitoring of fishery statistics.
ALCOM staff should be relocated from the Kingolwira State farm to Morogoro town. This would save on transport costs. Direct involvement of ALCOM staff in state farm management would also be avoided, as this would be outside their terms of reference.
There is no real need at this time for recommending African catfish as a second species to be cultured by small-scale farmers. Unreliable state farm management (water supply critical) and costly/unsustainable fingerling distribution would make it unwise to pursue such development under actual circumstances.
Spatial mapping of small-scale farms is essential for future planning of development to be closely related to the reliability of water resources. It should receive immediate priority.
The SWB pilot project is well supported by government and the staff is susceptible to training. Field activities should continue.
The major reorganisation of DoA in mid-1996 should improve extension services, fisheries personnel becoming officially associated as subject matter specialists. Extra training in aquaculture and extension should be required under the new organisation structure. Additional institutional support will also be needed to ensure that the right extension approach is adopted.
Fishery Assistants involved with aquaculture extension should be given more opportunities to meet regularly with other technicians from the SADC Region, to exchange views and experiences and to reinforce regional identity.
This personnel should also be offered additional training opportunities to update and improve knowledge regularly.
The old national fish farming newsletter has died away. It should be revived but at the provincial level, with a minimum of financial support.
Genetic purity of Oreochromis andersoniibroodstock and fingerlings. Following severe drought and problems with the Chipata state farm management, fingerling supply has increasingly relied upon captured fingerlings from reservoirs, a mixture of O. andersoniiand O. macrochir(or hybrids). This technique is also used to rebuild O. andersoniibroodstock at the state farm. Great attention should be paid to the complete elimination of O. macrochir(or even hybrids) from the breeding ponds because easy hybridisation between the two species would produce fingerlings with a reduced growth potential. Small-scale farmers would be the first victims.
The collaboration with Agritex should be officialised.
The SWB pilot project is well supported by government. Its field activities should continue.
Office facilities/utilities offered by Government are excellent. They should emain available in the future, as long as required by ALCOM Core Programme and/or the Small Water Bodies Project.
At the last ALCOM Steering Committee, Sweden reported that ALCOM Phase III could be extended, if necessary, until end June 1997.
A revised date for the end of Phase III should be agreed upon as soon as possible, considering unspent allocated funds (and if necessary bridging funds) for the following purposes:
finalisation and publication of technical reports and field documents;
