The financial information reveals a pattern of uncertain donor funding. This made planning for more than one year virtually impossible. Under these circumstances, input delivery was neither always effective nor of high quality. ALCOM's management was tied up every year for many weeks, recalculating available resources. From September to December 1993, ALCOM operated on an austerity budget. Specifically, the following pattern of financial uncertainty emerges:
GCP/INT/436/SWE started with a preparatory phase from October 1986 to September 1989, with a SIDA contribution of the equivalent of US$ 1 302.974. But in September 1989 SIDA announced that, despite approval of the Programme document for 5 years, they were only able to commit funds for one more year. Irrespective of the uncertainties and anxieties that this caused to staff during that period, these financial difficulties compounded the problem of Programme planning. Later, SIDA agreed that the Programme could be extended through December 1990, within the limits of funds available (US$ 891 442). The period from September 1989 to September 1990 was a posterioridefined as “an interim period”. Eventually, SIDA approved the Document for the Phase I Programme of 5 years (October 1990 – September 1995), but could only confirm funding of US$ 2 523.185 for the first two years, through September 1992. SIDA subsequently approved an allocation of SEK 15 million (at the time equivalent to US$ 2 777.778) for the following 3 years. For internal administrative reasons within SIDA, the period October 1992 to September 1995 was renamed Phase II (although it was originally part of Phase I) and FAO thereafter gave it the new symbol GCP/INT/555/SWE.
GCP/RAF/277/BEL covering the Utilization of Small Water Bodies, became operational in September 1992 with a contribution of US$ 2 172.877 for five years through September 1977.
With the devaluation of the Swedish Kronor funding declined by more than 30%, to the equivalent of US$ 1 885.122. To partly offset this the donor agreed to reduce the present phase by 9 months ending in December 1994.
Fortunately, other measures contributed to alleviating the critical situation; the Belgium agreement to finance for one year (1994) the post of Socio-Economist; FAO's approval of the TCP/RAF/2380, which finances during the same period the post of the Senior Aquaculturist and the extension pilot projects in Mozambique and Zambia with a contribution of US$ 315 000 as of January 1994.
It appears evident that the yearly allocation for core financing has never been sufficient to adequately cover the core requirements: core staff, HQs operational expenses, minimum information (reports and newsletter), pilot projects. Each phase ended earlier than originally agreed and in no case was it possible to proportionally reduce the expected outputs. The 1994 total financial support of USD 1 305.000 was composed of 500 000 (Sweden), 490,000 (Belgium) and 315 000 (FAO TCP). The actual Programme expenses between 1986 and 1994 are found in Annex 10.
From 1988 to 1992 internal management efforts appeared to focus on the promotion of the ALCOM Programme in the Region, without necessarily facilitating implementation of activities; and to that extent transparent and rational management was compromised. Owing to that, budgets were nearly always overspent, with consequent delays in planned activities. Sub-project expenditures were difficult to track down.
It was only in 1994 that a detailed budget management system became operational. It is now possible to follow expenditures against budget allocations by sub-project and Programme budget line item. Annex 10 contains current budgeting (1994).
Within the implementation period, ALCOM's activities, outputs and work plans were modified at different times according to the recommendations of Advisory Committees, and the recommendations of the Steering Committees meetings.
In the initial Prodoc, 7 target areas were retained. Within those target areas, a number of activities were listed, as well as some suggested locations and duration. The scheduling and duration of nearly half of the important activities were to be determined. Target areas were used by ALCOM from 1989 to 1992. ALCOM's internal review (1992) recommended that the target areas of the Project Document and those recommended later (1989: aquaculture and human nutrition - listed as activity 1.5 in the Project Document and 1990: development support) should be grouped into four action programmes. Expected outputs were never listed.
Although it was not possible to conduct an exhaustive analysis due to time limitations, selected planned Programme activities are summarized by objectives, activities and outputs by year in Annex 11. In general, most activities were clearly and precisely described, but the planned duration of many activities was too short. This was due to constraints of funding, staff recruitment and continuity, counterpart scarcity, and regional institutional weaknesses. As a result a pattern of nearly haphazard shifts of activities from year to year emerges. This led, per force, to many unfinished outputs. In fact from the 7 Target Areas, only 3 (Women in Aquaculture, Information Service and Aquaculture and Farming Systems) produced relevant outputs to the fulfillment of objectives. Nonetheless, the Programme staff produced a substantial amount of technical publications by target area as shown in Annex 3. These publications often overlap and are, necessarily, of uneven quality. The extension material published in English/Portuguese and Nyanja and Shona, respectively, is practical, clear and relevant.
What follows is an examination of activities and outputs that were deemed to be completed by 1992 by management and Steering Committee.
(a) Environmental Aspects (ENV/GEN)
This activity is being undertaken by an APO Ecologist. Problems in this activity began at the very start. According to the job description for which the APO was hired, the subproject was to be concerned with the impacts of the biological and physical environment on aquaculture and the relationship between soil conservation and aquaculture. Silting of small water bodies from nearby severe gullies and deflation surfaces is, for example, the principal problem facing their fishery potential in Lesotho. However, on taking up the post, the APO was instructed to focus on the impact of aquaculture on the environment, aquaculture and waterborne human diseases, aquaculture and schistosomiasis. Aquaculture in treated sewage water was added in 1993.
None of those activities are relevant to the Programme objectives:
Small-scale aquaculture as practised in Southern Africa has little or no deleterious impact on the biological and physical environment (such an impact results only from large-scale intensive, commercial systems). On the contrary, small-scale aquaculture is environmentally friendly and has the potential for a low input sustainable production system.
aquaculture in treated sewage water is an extremely well-documented topic, but such aquaculture is intensive and so does not fit into the target areas of the ALCOM Project. This is an example of ALCOM responding to a local request.
work on aquaculture and schistosomiasis has focused on the control of snails by molluscivorous fish. In addition to weak and partial conclusions such an approach to schistosomiasis control is complex compared to using biocides like Ragweed or Soapberry (ICLARM-GTZ 1992), combined with maintaining a weed-free pond perimeter.
the desk study on water resources management concluded that “water will definitely be a limiting factor for aquaculture in Southern Africa”. This has long been known, and hardly required a desk study to verify it.
Results:
Outputs were clearly defined but irrelevant to the fulfillment of either intermediate or development objectives.
(b) Youth in Aquaculture
An activity was envisaged to identify possibilities of involving youth and school children in aquaculture, the latter via school ponds. ALCOM abandoned this activity before it began, since it would have had little relevance to the overall objective of the Programme.
The introduction of younger persons to aquaculture in rural areas would have been a more realistic concept for such an activity. If aquaculture is successfully adopted by a farm household and seems to contribute to family welfare, it is likely that young persons will adopt it as they do other proven on-farm activities.
Results:
No outputs were produced.
(c) Women in Aquaculture
- General and Enhancement of the Role of Women in Inland Fisheries/Aquaculture Development
There is gender balance among the ALCOM staff and many actual women's issues have been incorporated within Programme activities.
However, outputs so far have, unfortunately, contributed little to the attainment of development objectives, despite the large effort exerted. The principal contribution to attainment of the development objectives of the Programme occurs among the women's groups in Eastern Province, Zambia, based on the 3-year period of field study and implementation done while staff were outposted to Chipata.
This target area aimed, through literature survey and field studies, to identify options and activities to be included in other ALCOM activities. A workshop was sponsored on Gender Issues in Fisheries and Aquaculture Development, the principal - but hardly novel - recommendation of which was that information on gender (i.e. women, not really gender after all) issues must be made available beforepolicy is made and projects planned and implemented. Although attesting to ALCOM's political correctness, sponsoring such a workshop will not contribute substantially to attaining the development objective.
Guidelines for use by planners for “Meeting Information Needs on Gender Issues in Inland Fisheries, Small Water Bodies and Aquaculture” were drafted by an ALCOM staff member and two consultants (all females but still the subject was gender). These guidelines remain in draft form and still require considerable modification before they are either useful to other ALCOM Programme activities or to their intended target group of planners. Greatly simplified, with a simpler yet still comprehensive check list of questions, clearly separated into issues for aquaculture and those for fisheries, and after testing within the SADC Region, these guidelines could assist in attaining the goals of ALCOM's Methodology and Extension activities.
Results:
Outputs during the period 1990–1991 clearly specified and aimed precisely at attaining objectives (three case studies, workshop and report, and support for and monitoring of women's groups). 1992 output specification is not well related to attainment of immediate objectives.
(d) Human Nutrition
- General, Zambia- and Luapula Province, Zambia
This overly ambitious activity was poorly conceived, with delayed and inadequate inputs and no usable results. There were many implementation problems with the sub-project. These have been summarized by a Joint Evaluation Mission conducted in 1993 (GCP/INT/467/NOR, pp. 21–22), from which we quote directly:-
The ALCOM experience generally does not seem to have produced tangible effects, for a number of quite complicated reasons. The implicit intended outcome was a strategy for incorporating nutrition concerns into aquaculture; this was implemented by appointment of a national nutrition Project officer to ALCOM. Subsequent difficulties … [were]
timing of recruitment, before the Project Nutritionist was in their post, to a new post in a new subject area was not helpful;
even with subsequent help in planning activities, the supervision and technical backstopping proved insufficient (despite several attempted remedies) for the technical capacity of the staff involved, particularly over conceptualizing and implementing surveys, and writing reports;
the aquaculture programme developed very slowly in Zambia (throughout the Project Officer's appointment, there were no fish), so that surveying potential adopters was rather meaningless;
conflict over deciding what to do instead was unresolved between the project and ALCOM's authority;
ALCOM moved its headquarters to Harare, leaving the Project Officer with little tangible opportunity to influence their activities.
Two manuals were drafted, but have not been finalized. The sub-project evaluators questioned the actual usefulness of either manual.
As such, this sub-project contributed nothing to what was already intuitively known about the potential role of aquaculture in improving household access to animal proteins. In terms of institutional enhancement, the activity never effectively progressed beyond the talking and preliminary planning stage.
Results:
No tangible or other outputs were finalized.
(e) Intermittent Harvesting Methods
Since appropriate harvesting methods are a significant problem in small-scale aquaculture, and intermittent harvesting seems to be a widespread technique, had they been fulfilled the objectives of this activity would probably have contributed toward attainment of the overall development Objective. However, owing to personnel relocations, and destruction in a house fire of the computer programme and data base, the simulation model was lost. Drought and predation at the Chilanga Fish Farm trial site precluded reliable trials. Unless revived, this activity can contribute nothing to the Programme.
On-station trials of intermittent harvesting methods should be conducted in collaboration with ICLARM, which has far better pond facilities on its station at Domasi than those of any station available to ALCOM. ALCOM should confine itself to conducting trials with farmers.
Results:
Although clearly specified and aimed precisely at attaining objectives, no outputs were produced.
(f) Information Service
In general the performance and outputs of the Information Service satisfy overall development Objectives. In particular, it commends the organization and performance of the library, especially as a Regional Documentation Centre. Technical Reports and administrative documents (e.g., Steering Committee reports) are well produced, extension materials are good and well received by field staff and target groups. Although there remains a backlog of documents to be published, a good attempt has been made to catch-up on publications delayed in earlier years by financial constraints.
Although field interviews indicate that the ALCOM News is appreciated as a source of regional information on aquaculture, the Mission is concerned that its style is too journalistic, too self-congratulatory, and that the stage-management of photographic sessions and purportedly transparently untrue photograph captions may undermine the credibility of ALCOM in target communities. It was also noted that it has proven most difficult to obtain contributed articles from persons outside ALCOM.
What is somewhat troubling, however, is the apparent media hype approach to ALCOM publicity materials. In particular, the sketch-book, Aquaculture in Southern Africa, promoted forcefully as “the best ALCOM publication to date”, was poorly conceived, is of low quality and dubious artistic merit. For a total expenditure of US$ 20 000 (including consultancy fee and other related expenses), it is not the best use of ALCOM funds.
In addition, the failure to publish more that one output of the ALCOM Programme in the “prime literature” is also a serious omission. Although not an objective of the Programme, contributions to scientific and policy journals would likely have raised the awareness and enthusiasm of other donors and have led also to collaboration of other development and research centres and universities, thereby providing higher quality staff through the stationing of advanced graduate students and other personnel to ALCOM subproject sites.
Results:
Outputs are clearly specified and most contribute to the fulfilment of immediate objectives.
(g) Aquaculture and Farming Systems
- Field Testing of Aquaculture in Rural Development, Aquaculture and Integrated Rural Development, and Extension/Training
This target area has been successfully implemented. All activities contribute significantly to ALCOM's objectives. Most activities were coherent, input levels were substantial, and continued over a period of 7 years, and the quality was generally high. Activities have been many, varied and contribute to the successful outputs produced. Particularly in Eastern Province, Zambia, initial case studies were well prepared, extension materials, training, monitoring and implementation have all been performed to high professional standards. Given the dedication, excellent moral and high degree of professionalism demonstrated by national staff in Chipata, Eastern Province, Zambia, the prospects for sustainability are high. Similarly, this effort appears replicable in the Manica Province, Mozambique. It should be pointed out, however, that an in-depth analysis of this successful case is pending. Although the relevant information is scattered in several Programme publications, it is essential to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions of these successful results.
Results:
The outputs were clearly and precisely described and adequate for the fulfilment of immediate and development objectives.
(i) Overall Appraisal of Fish Farming Activities
Seemingly, outputs fell short of expectations stemming from the shift in programme rationale from the “preparatory” to the current phases. In the “Preparatory Phase”, ALCOM's rationale was the development of a methodology to introduce and sustain fish farming in small-scale farm households, those who cultivate a range of crops and into whose annual labour schedule fish culture could be integrated smoothly. This model was developed and implemented with success in the early years of ALCOM (1987–1990) in the Eastern Province of Zambia. During that same period the method was tried out with some success in Luapula Province, Zambia.
Despite the recommendations of the 1988 SIDA-FAO Evaluation Mission to avoid a “high profile” approach, in the current phase (1990–1994), ALCOM's activities drifted away from those original concepts. After relocation of the headquarters and expert staff to Harare, only some scattered APOs remained in the field. ALCOM became centralized; from Harare headquarters, experts travel around the SADC region attempting to test innovative techniques in rural areas which require continuous monitoring. This implementation procedure was not effective. In addition, ALCOM expanded to most fields of inland water-related activities, either to please new donors (the human nutrition experience, the women and youth experience), or to satisfy members of the Steering Committee (mariculture, national fish marketing, seaweed collection and culture, intensification and commercialization). Although those fields are important for national development, they are beyond ALCOM's capabilities.
Only a few of the activities conducted during the past years relate directly to ALCOM's original objectives (i.e., EXT/ZAM, EXT/MOZ and REC/URT). Most others are desk studies, either literature reviews, or reports of missions in which data were collected in a minimum of time (travel is expensive). Evidently the design of the current Programme was inattentive to the recommendations from the 1988 FAO/SIDA Evaluation Mission.4 Indeed, the mission recommended that the Programme “should strive to become more practically oriented in its pilot activities and research work.”(p.3). Moreover, while the mission realized “the importance of promotional activities and information in order to spread knowledge of the Programme, there may be a risk that future expectations are raised to a level higher than the Programme will be able to live up to… the Programme should concentrate on and emphasize its trial and research activities and establish a reputation for producing practical results.” (p.4).
(ii) Overall Appraisal of Small Water Bodies (SWB)
Similar design and constraints are found in the development of small water bodies. Interest in fish production in small water bodies increased during the 1980s. The Prodoc's assumption was that SWB have yielded encouraging economic results through stocking and controlled harvesting under the regime of private farms. It is expected that similar results can be achieved, through similar methods, if SWB are brought under the full control of small rural communities. The principal constraint is that almost nothing is known about SWB. The SWB programme was included from the first implementation phase of ALCOM (first data were collected in 1989/1990) and financed separately by Belgium since 1992.
Unfortunately, development of the SWB methodology did not follow the basic approach which gave ALCOM its successes in the development of the fish farming methodology, if that was the approach to be taken. Apparently, the experts experienced problems with the development of this new theme because of its innate interdisciplinary nature, bio-technical analysis together with tenure regimes. Hence, a wide range of activities in different countries was observed. When Belgium finally decided to contribute to ALCOM, a Professional Fishery Officer was appointed to streamline the Programme. But instead of selecting an area in which, according to the ALCOM approach, a methodology could be developed, activities were even further diversified. All ongoing subprojects are now completely incoherent: the emphasis lies either on survey, socio-economy, biotechnical aspects, or on management. In none of the sub-projects are all four aspects linked toward the development of a methodology. This is not to imply that some of the work done is not of high quality; but, by definition, a programme should be more than a catalog of isolated activities.
It is clear that there are many constraints on the legal, biotechnical, social, and economic aspects. So Programme management needs to improve significantly the interdisciplinary nature of SWB. The analysis of tenure regimes and bio-technical aspects needs to be carried out, simultaneously, so that the results of one feed into the other. Coordination and a problem-oriented approach is essential. The community-based management of the Mwenje and Mufurudzi reservoirs in Zimbabwe, outlined in Annex 9, illustrate one successful approach. These encouraging results highlight the potential contribution of community-based management of SWB.
(iii) Summary
ALCOM performed well in its original objectives of the “Preparatory Phase.” The benefits of small-scale fish culture in the SADC Region are accepted, at both the farm household and extensionists' level, as well as by policy makers (Steering Committee).
The strong points of ALCOM during its 7 years of activity are:
Despite the relative abundant information on the achievements of ALCOM in the Eastern Province of Zambia, there is no analytical framework that ascertains the necessary and sufficient conditions for ALCOM's success. The development of this framework is pivotal to replicate this concept. Nonetheless, based on the existing material (Annex 3) and the field inspection of the Programme's activities in Zambia (Annex 8), the following characteristics emerge.
Firstly, on the whole, there is a balance between social and economic goals within the context of the ecological setting. There is an absence of excessive concern on economic returns or the “technicalities” of the technology being introduced.
Secondly, the fundamental approach to introduce fish farming is straightforward. It simply consists in providing the farmer with another crop to diversify his risks. This is critical in a drought-prone area, like the Eastern Province, where agricultural production depends on the whims of nature.
Thirdly, this straightforward approach encourages the involvement of ultimate beneficiaries as early as the design stage. Often this is achieved through contact farmers or “motivators” as they are also called.
Fourthly, the simpleness of the concept together with the limited or no investments needed to start up fish farming has led to immediate tangible results which have contributed either to food security or increased cash income for the family unit. During field inspections, we have witnessed an enpowerment of farmers, in particular women's groups.
Fifthly, the participation of women in fish farming has been of great consequence. Indeed, we have observed women's groups exploiting the economic potential of fish farming with business acumen. One group sold the whole harvest in nearby villages. The total proceeds were given out as short term loans. Eventually once the principal and the interest accrued were recovered, the funds were used to procure sewing and knitting machines so the members made and sold womens and children's clothing during the off season. Lastly, each member of the group had built a small fish pond at home dedicated to feed the family unit.
Sixthly, sustainability is an essential element at two levels. At the institutional level by using the existing framework for extension purposes; and at the village level by encouraging the production of fingerlings by farmers themselves. The latter poses, of course, problems because of broodstock quality control. This introduces, necessarily, if not governmental, at least, an NGO intervention from outside the village.
These outlined characteristics are relevant in the context of eradicating rural poverty through the use of agricultural projects. To begin with, recently Zambia has been classified as the country with the highest poverty rate in Africa: 825.2 per 1000 residents in 1992.5 Poverty is defined as an income level below which a minimum nutritionally adequate diet plus essential non-food requirements are not affordable.
A recent study on poverty alleviation6 has found that during the past decades agricultural projects geared to economic growth, income redistribution or economic adjustment have failed to relieve rural poverty. The study concludes that for projects to be successful in poverty alleviation, “the economic and social objectives need to be balanced; gender issues need to be taken into account; and potential beneficiaries need to be involved in project design and implementation.”
These are some of the characteristics of Programme's activities in Zambia which made the Programme successful. It indicates that the Programme has produced an important operational concept to alleviate poverty.
Despite the above cardinal success, the current Programme deviated from a focused, continuous work plan of the “Preparatory Phase” to a number of imprecise activities without clearly defined linkages to outputs and objectives. Although most of the Programme's staff performed well, other factors also affected the Programme performance. Principal among them were:
APOs were allowed to implement activities with inadequate supervision, which led to variable quality, and faults in screening project profiles. Regardless of their individual potential, APOs need close, onsite supervision, since the transition from an academic environment to the realities of rural life in Southern Africa will take time.
Specifically, in the absence of any senior social scientist with long field experience, there was no full-time social scientist on the Programme until August 1992, APOs have not had close supervision. Similarly, the biotechnical specialists would have benefitted by having a senior mentor in their area.
The specialist on farming systems analysis, anticipated to join core staff in the workplan, was never recruited. A programme attempting to integrate aquaculture into farming had to do without the participation of an expert in farming systems.
The absence of any process for filtering sub-project ideas or proposals submitted by SADC members according to a well conceived set of priorities led to haphazard shifts of activities from year to year.
As a result of the above, management executed sub-projects that served more to promote ALCOM than to yield actual progress toward achieving the development objectives.
5 Quoted in NYT, June 19, 1994.
ALCOM is a Programme executed by FAO. Under current arrangements there is no formal link between FAO and SADC. ALCOM HQ staff have no counterparts. The SADC Inland Fisheries Officer resides in Malawi. SADC has no day-to-day activities planned within ALCOM. There are also no financial or personnel inputs from SADC to ALCOM, although SADC has decision-making authority on the priorities of the annual work plan. It was not conducive to sustainability to share decision-making authority without sharing responsibility of the results so produced.
In contrast, the field sub-projects are implemented on a national basis, either by the country alone or with permanent technical assistance from ALCOM, via an NPO or an APO. ALCOM implements those field sub-projects directly with the relevant departments or ministries. Although this modality provides flexibility in implementation, it is not conducive to sustainability because the final responsibility of results so produced does not belong to the local institution.
This situation is far from ideal. It was noted in several of the countries that national workers (counterparts) had lost interest in the sub-project, because they see no future for themselves after the sub-project has been completed. This is due to the fact that national governments do not commit themselves with a recurrent budget either because aquaculture has a low priority or the national budget is already overcommitted. As a result, there is a large turnover of staff and those few counterparts trained in aquaculture are moved to other subsectors with a budget. At the end of the Programme this will result in no or very few national officers having been trained to continue aquaculture activities nationwide.
The only exception appears to be Zambia, where ALCOM has been present since 1987 and the professional staff was posted in the field, so the aquaculture-agriculture integration has taken root. Extension, fisheries and agriculture departments and administrative councils are continuing ALCOM-initiated actions without much external aid. But the national resources are very limited.
On the other hand, as already stated, ALCOM has been requested to execute sub-projects which deviate widely from the central objectives of the Programme: such as mariculture, seaweed collections and cultures, nationwide surveys and others. To a large extent this is due to such a large number of activities in the work plan without scheduling and subject to future arrangements. In the event of a third phase, all activities should be scheduled in advance in terms of time and resource use.
Internal management showed limited effectiveness, particularly in the use of staff. Indeed, the procedures in place were deceptively simple for a regional programme cutting across disciplines and institutions. Specifically, a relatively small core of professionals, relative to the large number of activities to be executed in the region, centralized in Harare, was expected to conduct the testing of innovative techniques in collaboration with national organizations through periodic visits. As will be shown below, this implementation procedure was not sound.
(i) Human Resources
Until now the Programme has had a total 7 experts, 18 APO's and 4 NPO's. All staff, including APOs, are centralized at headquarters, in Harare since 1990. In 1991 there were 8 professionals at headquarters. Relatively few staff are field-based, at pilot project sites. Many of the APOs are recent masters level graduates with no field experience in rural Africa and little other knowledge but “book learning”. This seriously impedes their ability to provide useful and practical technical support unless under close and experienced supervision. Approximately 50 % of the APO's were working at headquarters. The use of an APO at headquarters engaged in internal management is questionable.
It must also be questioned just how many APO's this Programme could absorb. Often with no previous experience in the field, an APO needs to be trained and supervised before being assigned to a duty station alone. This was often omitted because senior core staff were either travelling or did not have much available time for APOs. Field supervision was limited to short infrequent visits, training limited to a briefing at HQ, Harare. This poor use of staff is not a reflection of individual APO's or the APO programme itself, but of faulty internal staff management - so much so that the APO programme has become an issue in ALCOM.
To be certain, those APO's who happened to have their task well defined, performed well and produced relevant outputs. But other APO's clearly took advantage of the situation and worked mainly for their own academic careers, and were permitted to do that at Programme expense. A third group of APO's, most of those stationed in Harare, expressed their frustrations to the Mission. A widely voiced complaint was that job descriptions for which APOs signed on did not resemble the tasks to which they were assigned. As a result many ended up doing tasks without professional consequence. This, however, may reflect the long lead time (often up to 3 years) required to locate, process and field- assign an APO, such that when he/she finally arrives at the programme, programmatic needs have changed. In one case, 2 APOs were hired for the same position due to administrative bungling.
Harare-based APOs also noted that they often had no clearly defined responsibilities and that they were sometimes used as assistants in up to 7 activities. Thus the amount of time that they could devote to supporting any given project activity was minimal, and the quality of their inputs consequently low. In other cases, some APOs reported to as many as three people (management, a social scientist and biologist). This diffuseness of responsibilities is symptomatic of weak human resource planning and use.
It must be underlined that the above is not an indictment of the APO programme or individual APOs, it is simply an examination of the planning and use of human resources in the Programme.
(ii) The Programme
As already stated, the ALCOM Programme's rationale consisted in giving priority to developing a methodology, applying that methodology in pilot projects and propagating successful methodologies on a country basis, with appropriate adaptations.
ALCOM developed this strategy successfully in Zambia (see Annex 8). Unfortunately, those successes were not replicated after 1990/1991. Trials for fish farming extension started only recently in Mozambique and Tanzania. The potential for fish farming in the Manica region of Mozambique appears considerable (see Annex 6).
Although the early results of the community-based management of small water bodies in Zimbabwe are promising (see Annex 9), a methodology has yet to be developed for small water bodies. Effective interdisciplinary analysis and careful coordination of activities will be vital.
ALCOM could not withstand the many requests from outside (donors, SADC countries, executing agency). Apparently the need to respond to all such pressures so as to promote the Programme compromised progress toward achieving objectives. This was compounded by weak linkages among inputs, activities, outputs and objectives. The limited availability of inputs, in particular senior staff, with respect to a large number of activities (of which nearly half required scheduling) to be conducted on a regional basis, diminished its effectiveness. So the Programme overreached itself in a broad spectrum of activities with limited field results.
An outline of a proposed programme design for phase III is found in Annex 12. It is composed of a core management and two projects. Project 1 relates to the integrated small-scale aquaculture with small-holder farming. Project 2 concerns the enhancement of fish production in community-based managed small water bodies. The core management, from Harare, will ensure coordination, Programme management and information dissemination in the region. The core staff is composed of a Programme manager, an information expert (national) and a librarian (national).
The two projects are field oriented so staff will be out-posted for the duration of project activities. Local implementing agencies can be used if available. From the onset the target population together with the project team will jointly design the activities of the pilot projects. To ensure sustainability the design will use the participatory approach and the final executing responsibility will rest with the country.
Project 1 The professional team comprises a Sr. Aquaculturalist, Extension/Training Expert and Ag.Eco/Farm Management Expert. Several scenarios are available in terms of number of pilot projects and executing modality.
-Initially 3 pilots projects are anticipated in Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia, respectively. This is probably the optimum number. But according to resource availability it could be increased to 4 or decreased to 2.
The scenarios on executing modalities depend on the country's executing capacity. Option A calls for intensive participation of the project team during a period of 4 years with progressive phasing off to ensure active participation of national counterparts. Option B can be used when there is considerable national commitment and an available implementing agency. So the project team will phase off after year 2. This allows the project team to commence another pilot project under the same option.
Project 2. The project team comprises a Sr. Inland Fisheries Expert, an Extension/Training Expert and national expert on rural institutions/tenure regimes. Because the small water bodies conditions of Zimbabwe appear representative of the region, the project will be carried out there. The thrust should be on consolidating the efforts executed in Zimbabwe with the purpose of developing methodologies for community-based management of fisheries enhancement and strategies for reservoir stocking. Actual interdisciplinary analysis and precise coordination will be vital.
From the experiences of the current Programme, fielding a preparation/appraisal mission appears useful. The activities are complex and the executing capabilities of participating countries must be evaluated in order to choose executing modalities. The country must take over ownership, control and direction of a pilot project so that it is responsible for the sustainability of the results produced.
Technical and operational backstopping are discussed on five levels: (a) the donors, (b) the partners, (c) the executing agency, (d) the Steering Committee, and (e) ALCOM to its field staff.
(i) The donors
In a case of a multi-donor programme, like ALCOM, the relationship between donor, partners and executing agency becomes complex. Each donor has its own priorities. It became clear that in the ALCOM Programme there was very little formal contact between the donors themselves or between the donors and the recipient countries or executing agency. This sometimes led to conflicting opinions and unmet expectations. Again, this inconsistency of goals was already highlighted by the 1988 FAO-SIDA Evaluation Mission (p.4).
ALCOM is one of the better rural development projects. It does not seek to impose “off-the-shelf” techniques on small-scale farmers, but develops a methodology to approach farmers with new techniques. To create a relationship between the Programme and a rural community is time consuming. Hence, donors should not expect quick results, but should be aware that while financing this type of project they have to commit themselves for a longer period.
The donor's uncertain pattern of financing has definitely hampered ALCOM's activities. The preparatory phase (3 years) was the longest period for which ALCOM was financially secure. After that, ALCOM was financed in 1 or 2-year periods. Long term programming was not possible under these conditions. After each short financial period, ALCOM was under pressure to show some immediate results.
International projects are budgeted in US dollars, but donors budget in their own currency. In the unexpected case of a devaluation, such as has happened in ALCOM, a phasing out period has to be implemented so that the principal Programme activities are not aborted. This has been more or less been achieved by ALCOM.
On the other hand, donors should be aware that in a programme like ALCOM long term programming is essential and that some guarantee for long term execution is required in order to achieve planned objectives. This also reflects on the donors who participate in the APO programme. Cutting down commitments during the execution of the programme has irreversible negative impact on project execution. If, during execution, the term of APOs is reduced from 3 to 2 years, those stationed in the field should finish their 3-year period. If not, programmed activity has to be aborted.
The Mission finds that the local representatives of the Swedish donor have in no discernible manner rendered any assistance or advice to the ALCOM Programme. Local offices of SIDA in Harare and Lusaka are barely aware of the existence of ALCOM and have offered no support or comments.
(ii) The Partners
ALCOM originated as an FAO interregional project executed in Zambia with considerable national participation. In 1990, FAO continued executing ALCOM but started working regionally in the SADC area. In contrast, sub-projects are executed by ALCOM in different SADC countries. This modality does not give sufficient responsibility, either to SADC or to the participating countries, for the results so produced. It is not surprising, therefore, that ALCOM's programming suffers from limited sustainable results.
SADC has different subcommittees. In the case of ALCOM the Inland Fisheries Subcommittee, based in Malawi, is the most suitable partner. The relationship between ALCOM and the subcommittee is good. But there is no formal linkage between ALCOM and the subcommittee. ALCOM HQ works only with donor funds and there is no counterpart from SADC to sustain ALCOM's post-project activities. It would be highly desirable that in ALCOM's phase III, as outlined in Annex 12, SADC would finance the information dissemination function in the core management since this activity should continue after Programme total phase-off.
The sub-projects are executed by ALCOM in different SADC countries. For the reasons indicated above, the level of integration of ALCOM's activities in the national programmes is minimal. Counterparts or national experts change continuously. But it can be different when small-scale aquaculture with associated extension procedures take root. In Eastern Province, Zambia, for example, the Fisheries Officer (now provincial) has been working together with ALCOM since 1987. The result of such a stable environment is visible in rural communities.
Another problem is that aquaculture belongs to different ministries and departments in each of the member states. Field experience shows that for small-holders the adoption of fish culture is like the adoption of a new crop, such as vegetables. It gives income and risks to the farmers. Therefore, fish culture should be integrated in agricultural activities, at least for extension.
In brief, ALCOM's executing modalities should be reconsidered so that participating countries and SADC become responsible for the sustainability of results produced.
(iii) The Executing Agency.
The Executing Agency has in a large sense fulfilled its commitments. Backstopping was effective. The Programme has received high quality support from FAO Representatives who have continuously provided operational and administrative backstopping to ALCOM's activities.
The Executing Agency was also able to solve temporarily the financial problems of the Programme, by negotiating with donors, reducing expenses and supporting a TCP project. Thus, the most important activities of ALCOM were able to continue.
The Executing Agency should have been more involved in the correction of ALCOM activities, particularly when ALCOM began overreaching itself. Although the proposed change from many target areas to well-defined action programmes (1992-review) was a first correction, implementation in the field was also to respond. In fact, a Programme of the present scope could have benefitted immensely from a mid-term evaluation. A good number of management pitfalls would have been corrected together with design weaknesses. In this context, the Executing Agency would have had the opportunity to review the conditions for Programme sustainability. After 7 years of execution, no national (regional) counterparts are involved in the day-by-day management of the Programme.
(iv) Steering Committee Meetings
Donors, partners and executing agency meet annually in a Steering Committee meeting. The Steering Committee reviews the activities of ALCOM and advises“… on priorities for its implementation within the frame work of the Plan of Operation”. ALCOM's priorities lie in the development of methods for small-scale farmers, and not in the development of aquaculture per se. It is known that aquaculture offers many development possibilities, but those are not ALCOM's aims.
The Steering Committee is an important mechanism for correcting deviations from the original planning. The Mission was pleased to see that the 7th Steering Committee Meeting assumed its responsibility, and discussed the new ways in which ALCOM should proceed.
(v) ALCOM to its Field Staff
The extent and quality of the administrative and technical backstopping from Harare received by the Programme staff has been quite varied. Administrative support is usually effective.
However, serious reservations were voiced to the Mission regarding the centralized managerial style of ALCOM, despite the relative sharing of decision-making by a Steering Committee and discussions with the staff.
Technical backstopping from Harare, particularly in the area of small water bodies, is held back by the lack of a senior social scientist and a senior fisheries biologist. Those at present heading these areas, though competent in their own right, have neither the depth nor length of field experience to provide specific technical advice to the very wide range of activities that the Programme is involved in. This became evident during the Mission field visits to Lesotho (Annex 5) and Zimbabwe (Annex 7).
Unfortunately, the Programme design did not include monitoring and evaluation activities (M&E). Albeit there have been for sometime M&E procedures applied to extension-type projects such as ALCOM. If Programme management would have had access to monitoring information to guide its decision-making, the Programme might now be better focused and closer to attaining its overall development objective. A future phase should certainly include M&E activities for management purposes.
