Most of the rural population of the SADC Region is poor and malnourished. Animal proteins are especially lacking in diets of the rural poor and affect the most vulnerable members: women and children. Although meat from livestock is generally expensive, fish is relatively affordable and sought after. But paradoxically, in Southern Africa there exist a vast number of small water bodies, whose fisheries potential and current levels of exploitation are unknown, and many extensive areas which are biologically and physically suitable for small-scale aquaculture development.
Small-scale aquaculture integrated with existing farming systems allows diversification of farm production and provides a risk reduction strategy. So integration of a pond within existing farming systems could improve farm family diets both directly (through home consumption) or indirectly (through sales and purchase of other foodstuffs). It can also contribute to augment household cash incomes to permit the purchase of other essential goods and services (inter aliamedicines, school fees, clothing) at present financially out-of-reach to most rural households, when demand exists. But above all, the integration of aquaculture within existing family farm operations provides a further option in a strategy to reduce risk.
So far, integrated systems of agriculture-aquaculture have contributed little to the objectives of rural development. An exception of this general situation occurs in Eastern Zambia, where the prevailing pattern of agricultural land use is diversified and aquaculture contributes to risk reduction.
The reasons are complex and varied, but the two predominant causes are that previous attempts have introduced inappropriate systems of aquaculture, as well as the failure to address the major social, cultural, economic, and institutional factors that can hold back the adoption of aquaculture by small-scale farmers. In short, it appears that aquaculture represents an additional element in the diversification of cropping patterns, a strategy that has not been addressed properly in most aquaculture development efforts.
The ALCOM Programme was justified in terms of its high potential for contributing to the attainment of rural development objectives in Southern Africa by establishing a programme that combined a socio-economic and bio-technical framework to devise locally appropriate aquaculture systems for integration with existing small-scale farming systems, and extend them to potential adopters via a locally appropriate and institutionally embedded extension package.
The Programme's justification is sound. However, it must be underlined that considerable constraints militate against the development of the aquaculture sub-sector in the region. In one country visited (Annex 6) the effort required to reconstruct the sector after a prolonged period of hostilities left little or no resources unused for a new activity. With the exception of Zambia, most countries' national policies and institutional framework reflect little or no priority attached to the subsector--despite its potential benefits. In the end, it is possible that the most serious constraint is the fact that aquaculture is an exotic concept in the region. One study (ICLARM 1991, p. 40)2 found that compared with other parts of Africa, there appears to have been less tradition of aquaculture in the SADC countries.
In this light, one must understand that it took several generations of farmers to master water management when irrigation was introduced in areas without previous irrigation experience. Likewise, it may take several generations of farmers to master the integration of aquaculture with farming.
(i) Summary of original Programme objectives
In the “Preparatory Phase” (1986–1989) only an overall objective was defined. The intermediate and immediate objectives emerged from the activities conducted during the preparatory phase. Those activities also led to a refinement of the overall objective.
(a) Overall (Development) Objective
During the “Preparatory Phase” (1986–1989) of the Programme, the Overall (Development) Objective was to “… elaborate effective strategies, policies and methodologies for assisting rural peoples in improving their quality of life through the development of aquaculture, either in conjunction with land based farming, or as an alternative to fishing”.
For the “Interim Phase” (Oct. 1989 – Sept. 1990) and Phase 1 and Phase 2 the Overall (Development) Objective was stated as: “…an increase in cash income and/or animal protein component in the diet of rural communities, achieved through increased production of fish from small-scale aquaculture integrated with mixed farming systems or as a complement or alternative to traditional small-scale fishing.”
(b) Intermediate Objective
As a result of the “Preparatory Phase”, for Phases 1 and 2 the intermediate objective was stated as
“… the adoption in such communities [rural] of appropriate fish culture practices, introduced, promoted and supported through other nationally and internationally funded projects concerned with rural development and integrated into the local farming systems.”
(c) Immediate Objectives
As a result of the “Preparatory Phase”, two immediate objectives were defined for Phases 1 and 2. These are stated as
(1) … the provision of a whole series of tested technologically and economically appropriate fish culture systems which will enable members of rural communities to increase their small-scale aquaculture production; and
(2) … the implementation of these appropriate fish culture systems as part of mixed farming systems in a few selected pilot scale sites, so as to encourage other projects, farms, and communities to adopt similar systems themselves.
(ii) Critical Reappraisal of the Project's Immediate and Long-Term Objectives
Necessarily, the hierarchy of objectives must be seen as a set, since at any one level alone they would be deficient.
(a) Long-term
During the Preparatory Phase, the Overall (Development) Objective was imprecise. However, such a vague statement of general purpose had the operational merit of not holding back the development of Programme activities as experience accumulated. Since an implicit objective of the Preparatory Phase was a more precise definition of objectives for Phases 1 and 2, such imprecision could be justified and premature definition correctly seen as a probable constraint. Although of necessity imprecise, the Overall (Development) objective during the Preparatory Phase was relevant to the identified needs to which the Programme was likely to eventually contribute.
However, from the start, it would have been useful to apply an operational definition of rural development. This would have avoided the eventual dilution of programme cohesion in so many types of aquaculture that have been examined (e.g., cage culture, mariculture). The focus should have been on low cost, use of local materials and participatory approach.
The Overall (development) Objective for the later phases of the Programme was more precisely defined: small-scale aquaculture, integrated farming, and complementing small-scale fishing are all incorporated in the definition.
There is a policy paradox, however, in this regional programme which militates against sustainability. Most regional programmes, like ALCOM, are not owned by any government. Even though the Steering Committee had an advisory role in the implementation of the Programme's priorities and different national ministries participated in different degrees in implementation of subprojects, in the end, the responsibility of producing results was not the responsibility of any government. This paradox has been compensated for by the current policy framework for execution and implementation of projects/programmes within the UN system.3 With the purpose of promoting the self-reliance of developing countries through multilateral cooperation, it is recognized that when a project/programme is nationally owned, directed and controlled, the sustainability of results produced are the responsibility of the government.
It is not surprising, therefore, that “institutionalization” of Programme activities both within SADC and in member countries is nowhere explicitly mentioned in either the original or revised longterm objective statements. Now one major problem is to ensure the Programme's sustainability in the future and this should have been anticipated at the outset in Programme design.
(b) Immediate Objectives
The immediate objectives are not precisely stated, which makes interpretation difficult unless they are read in conjunction with each activity objective statement. For instance, it would have been useful to test those fish culture systems with the best “fit” to the region's prevalent agro-economic conditions.
(i) Identification of Immediate and Ultimate Beneficiaries
There is no consistency in the selection of target groups, or immediate and ultimate beneficiaries of Programme outputs. The needs of the various beneficiaries are not clearly defined and the mechanisms by which they can be expected to be reached are not adequately spelled out. Examples abound: some are indicated below as illustrations.
For example, in the workplan, the target communities are:
those which depend for a living on family scale mixed farming systems or small-scale fisheries, based partly on subsistence and partly on the local market economy. Often these small household-farms are headed by females, and the children share significantly in the labour required.
Such an all-embracing statement says everything and nothing.
Similarly, in the FAS/SWA sub-project the target population was loosely specified as “rural communities with special emphasis on low profile fish farmers”.
For the sub-project AIR/LPZ targets were specified narrowly as:
The direct recipients will be staff of the Department of Fisheries, Luapula Province and selected farmers who participate in extension and monitoring activities in:
The pilot project was to indirectly assist rural small-scale farmers who operate fish ponds in these areas.
In general, with the exception of SWB/BOT, definition of target groups was better within the Small Water Bodies sub-project.
For SWB/LES the stated target populations are:
Small-scale entrepreneurs and subsistence/part-time fisherfolk, including unemployed youths.
For SWB/MLW the intended beneficiaries were:
… the Fisheries Department [by providing] experience in small reservoir fisheries assessment and management, and the local communities in terms of improved nutrition and income.
The immediate beneficiaries of ALCOM activities are mainly government extension agents and selected groups of contact farmers. However, the statements on target groups reveal a focus on a wider community of farmers and on specific groups such as women and youth. The linkage between immediate and ultimate beneficiaries, although never clearly spelledout in the project documents, is thus implicitly seen as critical if the ALCOM Programme were to attain its designed overall and intermediate objectives.
The lack of precise definition of beneficiaries was recognized by the ALCOM Professional staff (“Notes from a Professional Staff Meeting, 11–13 March, 1992”; ALCOM Files). Unfortunately, there is little evidence that their concern has been translated into action through modifications to field activities.
(ii) Overall Programme Logic
The overall programme logic suffered from weak linkages among inputs, activities, outputs and objectives. Thus, the core staff comprised only of 4 senior and 3 professionals had to cover 27 activities in 7 broad target areas: aquaculture and farming systems, improved utilization of small dams and natural water bodies for aquaculture, extension and training, women and youth in aquaculture development, environmental aspects of aquaculture, information needs for national planning and project design and development support.
For more than half (59%) of the activities, of which a large proportion were to be conducted on a regional basis, the scheduling and duration was specified. But for the other half (41%) the scheduling and duration of activities were to be determined during implementation. Using this framework, there was no commensurate linkage between inputs and activities. The availability of inputs, particularly from senior staff, relative to a large number of activities within 7 incoherent target areas, was disproportionate. This was aggravated by the regional nature of the activities to be executed, of which a substantial number required additional efforts for identification and preparation. In brief, it is obvious that if outputs were compromised by weak linkages with inputs, then objectives would be also compromised by weak linkages with outputs.
Indeed, it is surprising that given the Programme's regional scope and above all its innovative nature, the Prodoc was not the subject of a preparation/appraisal mission. This mission would have ensured effectiveness in the use of core staff. Above all, it could have come up with a strategy to narrow down the types of fish culture systems for testing, choose execution sites together with modalities to ensure representativeness--and thus, decrease the number of activities and consolidate the target areas.
Under the expressed aim of husbanding resources, many donors underestimate the potential contributions of preparation/appraisal missions in cost effectiveness. Their absence allows for unguided improvisations and compromises accurate monitoring. The additional cost of fielding a preparation/appraisal mission is not more than 3% of the total project costs. The losses, however, far exceed that figure.
(iii) Description of Programme Outputs
The outputs of those activities for which the Prodoc had identified the scheduling and duration, were described with clarity. But, regrettably, for the large number of activities whose scheduling and duration were to be determined, the description of outputs were, per force, unclear and imprecise. In this light, on the whole, it was difficult to relate logically outputs, derived from activities to be determined to the fulfillment of immediate objectives.
(iv) Description of Planned Programme Activities
In the Plan of Operations (FIO/13/1/89), the description of planned Programme activities were logical. But to the extent that the scheduling and the duration of activities were yet to be determined, the actualization of the workplan diminished considerably. The absence of specific figures concerning the future execution of major activities had to have a negative impact on budget control/monitoring and manpower use. Thus, it appears that almost from the start the Programme's real cost and duration were already unknown quantities.
Nonetheless, the availability of inputs in the workplan, with respect to the Prodoc, shows improvement. A farm system analyst was included in the core staff. Unfortunately, despite the improvement of input availability, the job description of each staff member had remained too general for the requirements of a workplan. Specifically, since the Programme was of an innovative and interdisciplinary nature, it was vital to define tasks to be accomplished in terms of each discipline and as a team. This was essential not only to avoid overlapping but also to focus clearly on desired targets.
In this connection, the potential contribution of the social sciences seemed not have been explored in detail. The term “socio-economist” encompasses a large set of social science branches. In reality it needs definition according to the needs and problems on site. In a rural development context, where aquaculture is included, the most relevant disciplines would be agricultural economics, in particular farm management, rural sociology or anthropology, in particular rural institutions and tenure systems.
(v) The Programme's Internal Management Structure
For a regional programme, with such variety of innovative activities and cutting across not only disciplines but also institutions, the internal management structure was deceptively simple. In the preparatory stage, flexibility and simplicity was justified. Logic would suggest that for this stage, accuracy in focusing activities to ensure effectiveness was essential. Thus, it was not effective for the core staff, stationed in Harare, to conduct tests on innovative techniques on a regional basis through periodic visits--as often as these visits would have been. This was compounded by the limited size of senior staff and the absence of the subproject's ownership by the governments concerned--so the final responsibility of outputs belonged to the Programme.
The bi-annual reports to be sent to FAO headquarters and donors were an adequate procedure for monitoring. However, no formal or informal interaction among donors was planned, with the exception of the Programme Manager's liaison with Swedish authorities.
(vi) Risks and Assumptions
It is noteworthy that the Prodoc itself does not identify any risks explicitly. It is reasonable to state that there were severe risks associated with the uncertainties of the scheduling and duration of a large number of important activities to be determined.
Concerning small water bodies, one major assumption was explicitly stated. Those small water bodies which are a part of private large farms, through stocking, controlled harvesting and other methods, have yielded encouraging economic results. It is assumed that similar results can be achieved, through similar approaches, if small water bodies are brought under the full control of small rural communities.
This is a lofty assumption. In a typical situation, it will be necessary that, simultaneously with the Programme, the State authority through regional requests, or any other such procedure, codifies customary arrangements in natural resource management. Once this is achieved, through national procedures, it should be raised to the level of legislation. Once legislation has been approved according to internal means, administrative arrangements should be worked out with regional authorities so the State devolves to rural communities, or any other rural entity, authority to control and manage natural resources. In countries, where legislation for this purpose has already been workedout, the above procedure will be less cumbersome.
(vii) External Institutional Setting
ALCOM as a regional programme was included as contributing to the Action Programme of SADC. Its importance is shown by the fact that the mandate, specifically to the Steering Committee (SC), constitutes Annex 1 of the Project Document. The mandate is oriented to facilitate inter-governmental cooperation and coordination among participating governments and donors in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Programme.
The SC was also expected to provide guidelines in the implementation of the Programme, through monitoring progress in terms of results, reviewing performance in execution, etc. Lastly, the SC had the role of reviewing the annual work plan and advising on priorities for its implementation within the framework of the work plan.
These linkages are necessary in regional operations. Two immediate issues arise. Within the framework of partners in the implementation of programmes, they should assume shared responsibility of sustainability of results so produced. SADC needed to participate with its own resources in Programme implementation in order to also share responsibility in implementation.
A substantial amount of the work plan's important activities were to be determined. This introduced the conditions to compete for those activities. It appears that these conditions gave way to executing these activities more in terms of requests, rather than the Programme's technical considerations and/or objectives.
