| COUNTRY | RES. PROG NO. | RESULTS OBTAINED | INDUCED RESULTS | SUSTAINABILITY AND CONTINUITY OF EFFECTS | LIMITING FACTORS | CAUSES FOR EVENTUAL FAILURES |
| MAG | 1 | C. carpio fry available from state farm and private farmers to sustain development | Establishment of private carp fry producers in rural areas | Hopefully good, due to strong economic interest | Lack of farm inputs Degenerated broodstock | |
| 2 | Adaptation of technology for production of shrimp larvae, post larvae and adults | Development of shrimp farming at commercial level | Very good, in presence of private investments | Shrimp feed still to be imported | ||
| RWA | 1 | Strain of O. niloticus adapted to high altitude/cold climate selected and popularized | Increased yields in private farms | Very good, following positive demonstrations | Availability of fry | |
| 2 | Composting technology using local plant material developed and popularized | Increased yields in absence of supplementary feeding | Average | Extra work involved | ||
| KEN | No on-going research programme | |||||
| URT | 1 | Technology demonstrated | Seaweed culture established | Good prospects, if markets available | ||
| 2–4 | - Cage culture O. esculenta and T. zillii not successful - Hybridization O. andersonii and T. zillii produce 100% male Brewery waste and fish meal (10:1) made good diet T. zillii not suitable - C. carpio not suitable - O. niloticus suitable | O. niloticus widely distributed and cultured | Never applied; bad Good prospects among better farmers | Limited on-farm resources and no extension follow-up | Centre transferred to Min. of Agriculture; all aquaculture research stopped | |
| 5–6 | - Not specified - Motivators are effective but need supervision | Improved extension practices adopted beyond test area | Realistic and cost effective approach | No. of interested farmers and extensionists limited | Individuals do not perform as expected; no back-up support | |
| 7–8 | Duck-fish 9.9 t/ha/yr fish | Unknown | Could be used in companion extension project | |||
| MLW | 1–5 | An understanding of energy and resource flows on small farms and the limiting factors to fish production | More focused experimentation and more useful extension messages | High: research focused on farmer problems and thus perceived as being useful | Costly research procedure; cannot be done on wide scale | |
| 6–7 | Slow-growing species is the main limitation | Not allowed to introduce new species | ||||
| 8 | Cannot yet demonstrate improved growth by local species | Try other species from Lake Malawi; start genetic improvement programme | Low: local species not performing well | High altitude in Centre and North | Short time allowed for long-term approach | |
| 9 | Still being analyzed | Short-term funds for research | ||||
| 10 | On-going | Participatory research approach developed; training provided to nationals | Good prospects due to participatory approach | Can only be done in localized areas; wide coverage not possible | Lack of funds to continue in long-term | |
| 11 | On-going | Increased communication between research and extension staff | Short-term funds |
