A project is a scheme to organize the use of a given quantity of resources in a specific way to achieve particular results, all within a definite time. It has a precise beginning and a precise end. The execution of a project requires multidisciplinary effort, mobilizing different skills and resources to achieve predetermined development objectives which will result, directly or indirectly, in new or added value or social, economic or financial benefits.
Within this general definition many different examples of projects can be described, each with a different type of organization. However, they all have the same fundamental parts or phases, from the time each project is first conceptualized until it is terminated. These parts fit together and relate to each other in what is called the project cycle.
Projects may arise from many sources. They may originate or be included within a sector study and from there be translated into the sector development plan; they may result from a programming mission carried out by an external aid agency, a follow-up to another project, a project idea originated in a government agency or an external assistance agency, a commercial initiative, etc.
Sector and project planners, however, should be constantly aware that, whatever the source, projects must be well-integrated into the planning process or difficulties may occur. Among potential difficulties are the following:
There is no machinery for identifying and resolving critical policy issues.
If projects do not respond to real needs, natural resources will be dissipated.
Donor-financed projects may be accepted because of their short-term advantages to hard-pressed departmental budgets, but in the long-term there are insufficient resources to sustain them.
There is a conflict with other activities when projects are implemented.
Project objectives may conflict with each other.
Many of the weaknesses in projects which materialize in project implementation may be attributed to poor project formulation, in particular the often less-than-systematic way in which project ideas are integrated into the economic and institutional fabric of the sector. Good project formulation thus starts at the sectoral planning stage. The key to good sectoral planning is the sector study.
The sector study, into which national and sectoral objectives are fed, consists of two parts: (i) the sector review, or “stocktaking” of the sector, and (ii) the sector analysis, or “diagnosis”. The sector review is a description of the sector presented in such a way that the analysis follows from it. The analysis identifies areas of development concern evident from the review, and then indicates opportunities, constraints, and policy issues which have to be resolved. One result of the sector study may be that some or all objectives for the sector, set at the national level, have to be revised. Thus one of the outputs of the study is quantification of sector objectives into real and attainable targets.
Targets have to be translated into plans. Methodology for this is widely accepted, although the terminology is often confusing. The word “strategy”, for example, is often used in place of “policy”, and vice-versa; and sometimes planners confuse the substance of strategies with that of policies, or promote them to being objectives in their own right.
The strategy is the key planning document. It may be appropriate for a country's aquaculture sector to have a single strategy. Alternatively, if there are a number of distinct and significant parts of the sector (such as marine shrimp and seaweeds), or there are different geographic or climatic zones (such as upland areas high in rainfall and dry coastal flatlands), then each may require differing approaches and development initiatives, and a separate strategy may be needed for each sub-sector. This may be exemplified by the following illustration.
Country X has a national objective to improve the supply of fish from its inland fisheries. This is to be achieved through a single strategy encompassing both aquaculture and inland fisheries development. The strategy consists of three policies, each directed toward achieving certain specific aims, namely: (i) enhancement of culture-based fisheries, (ii) promotion of small-scale entrepreneurial fish-farming, and (iii) improvement of the capture fishery. These policies are delivered through policy instruments, which are (a) legislative changes, (b) provision of support services, and (c) projects. The policy concerned with the enhancement of culture-based fisheries consists of two types of policy instruments, namely projects and government support measures. Projects include construction of hatcheries and stocking of specified inland waters, improvement of landing sites, and provision of credit; government support services include improved management programmes and extension services targeted primarily toward small-scale farmers. Other policies, consisting of selected policy instruments, are formulated for small-scale fish-farming and inland capture fisheries.
In this illustration, the objective of improving the supply of fish from inland fisheries is first translated into a series of targets (production from inland fisheries, small-scale fish-farming, and inland capture fisheries), and these are the ends. The means by which the ends are met are: (i) the strategy, (ii) the policies, and (iii) the policy instruments.
It is important to note also that public sector projects are just one part of the development process. Equally, and possibly more important, is the total range of measures in addition to public sector investment projects which government has at its disposal to bring about profitable private investment.
Sectoral strategies, policies, and policy instruments are therefore all major components of the sector plan. The plan is concerned with the inputs required to obtain targeted outputs, and the management of these inputs. Thus, for the above policy concerned with small-scale fish-farming the plan might consist of a statement of objectives for farming tilapia and catfish in ponds over the next five years. This will be complemented by a statement of surface areas exploited, land, labour and capital requirements, research, training, and other necessary inputs and, in particular, who is responsible for what and when.
As already noted, the main feature of a project is that it has a precise beginning and a precise end. In between, a project has a development phase, during which new activities are started, an operational phase, which is reached when these activities are functioning at their planned level (or as near to it as possible) and, finally, a completion phase which includes an evaluation of the results of the project. Thus, in the illustration above, a project in the small-scale fish-farming policy might perhaps be in a second development phase in region A (increasing existing production by 25% by expanding the area under production from 400 to 500 ha), or it might be concerned with the introduction of small-scale farming in region B, where it has not existed before, with 500 ha put into production with the same average yield targeted in region A.
Project organization grows in complexity with project size and diversity. There are two organizational options independent of these factors. They are:
Option A: The project sponsor has project formulation and implementation capacity; thus it can:
undertake complete responsibility for project formulation and implementation;
partially delegate responsibility; or
create a special task force.
Option B: The project sponsor does not have project formulation and implementation capability, thus it has to delegate responsibility to a specialized company or agency.
Complete management responsibility is feasible when the project sponsor, such as a government ministry or private company, has its own technical studies and engineering offices, and construction and operational management units, all familiar with the type of project proposed. The project can then be integrated into its regular organization and management operations. This model frequently exists in the agriculture sector, where public or semi-public development boards or parastatal authorities may have such capabilities, but it is still exceptional in the aquaculture sector.
Project organization through partial delegation is more frequent in the aquaculture sector. In this situation the project sponsor may be able to formulate, implement, and operate a project, but lacks the specific technical knowledge required. It acquires this knowledge through the use of independent consultants, or consulting firms, and issues contracts for engineering and all other specialized work required. In this case, the consultants are advisers only, and contractors carry out the instructions of their contracts; all key decisions and management responsibilities remain with the project sponsor. Many capital investment projects in the private sector, and most technical assistance projects financed through international agencies, fall within this category.
A project task force, created within the organization of the project sponsor, is characteristic of large development projects within the public sector, or investment in new fields of activity within the private sector. During project formulation, or at the beginning of project implementation, a specific project task force is established from existing staff which is assigned to the project for its duration, together with additional staff recruited from outside as required. The task force is usually concerned with handling “total packages” in national or international contractual tenders for activities such as project engineering, construction works management, and technology transfer, etc. For projects in the public sector, particular administrative rules have to be followed, ensuring that monitoring, management decisions, and operations levels are independent of each other.
Where the project sponsor does not have any capabilities in project formulation, implementation, and management, it has to contract these functions to a specialized company. In this case the project sponsor limits its role to financing and supervision of what can become full “turnkey” contracts, which may be extended to include not only project formulation and implementation but also management supervision. Such arrangements are similar to those used, for example, by some hotel management companies which build and operate hotels they do not own. It is a relatively new concept in the aquaculture sector, but in the private sector such turnkey contracts are increasing and are now included in the strategies of development banks.
Many international assistance institutions distinguish between five stages in the cycle of existence of a project, namely, identification, preparation, appraisal and agreement, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. These are shown in the schematic representation (Figure 1) of the project cycle.
At project identification the project idea is translated into a preliminary description of the project. Terms of reference for the project reconnaissance team are established, analyses of existing situations are performed, a broad evaluation of the future “with” and “without” the project is made, and the extent and limits of the project are proposed. Different approaches to the project are identified, and a judgement made regarding which option should be taken forward to project preparation.
At project preparation the project is designed. Objectives, pre-requisites, inputs, outputs, organization, participants, clearances are all defined, costs and earnings are calculated, a financial plan is prepared, expected results are analysed, the socio-economic and environmental impacts are estimated, and the provisional and final project documents are prepared.
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the project cycle Adapted from “Guide for Training in the Formulation of Agricultural and Rural Investment Projects”, FAO 1986
At project appraisal and agreement appraisal documents are prepared from the project documents and a succession of appraisal meetings, clearances, and financing negotiations take place. This brings the project to the point of meeting the required start-up agreement conditions, sometimes after revision and adaptation of project schedule, cost, objectives, and financing.
In project implementation the project management and lines of command are established, and various implementation procedures established. In the course of implementation project progress is monitored, revisions and adaptations are made for unexpected events, and finally the project is brought to completion.
At project evaluation, which takes place at a suitable time after the project has been implemented, project objectives, project implementation, and project benefits are appraised. This evaluation may result in the project being extended or in the identification of a new project, and may lead to a revision of the method(s) by which similar projects will be formulated in the future. There are other types of evaluation which may be carried out earlier in the project. Frequently, for example, the FAO Investment Centre will make a “Project Completion Report”, or “PCR”, of projects which it has formulated. The PCR, which is usually carried out while the project is being implemented, seeks to identify problems which have arisen during implementation and which could have been foreseen at the time the project was designed. Particularly in the case of technical assistance projects, many donor agencies carry out “mid-term reviews” of projects which may result in changes being adopted.
All projects start with a project idea. Anyone or any organization which has a reasonably well formed idea about how money and other resources may be invested, may be said to have a project idea. A project idea might be expressed in national sector development plans, in reports of donor agencies' programming mission, in the mind of an individual entrepreneur or farmer, or as part of a private corporation's development strategy. If an entrepreneur or a corporation develops a project idea, financial resources are usually available to carry out further preliminary investigations. Others have to convince financial institutions of the validity of their project idea to carry it further. However, in many cases, experience in aquaculture project planning is lacking.
A project idea may have been developed from research and analysis of extensive materials, and a close knowledge of existing aquaculture activities in the proposed project area. For example, a plantation company may own land, adjacent to a river, no longer required for cane sugar and, after some research into the subject, decides to examine the feasibility of developing it for aquaculture. Alternatively there may be little background to the project, and the idea itself may not be related to any specific species or geographical location. For example, a company in seafood retailing might seek to secure future supplies of high-value fish by investing in farmed production but does not, at that stage, have any knowledge as to where and how an investment would be most profitable.
Whatever the background may be, if it is decided to carry the idea further and to formulate a project, then a process is initiated which takes the project through the first three stages of the project cycle described in Chapter 1, namely, identification, preparation, and appraisal.
Throughout the formulation process, from identification to appraisal, the project is neither approved nor established; it simply obtains increasing degrees of recognition by all parties who may be concerned or affected by it. During this process, many objections and criticisms may be received, and the project's objectives, budget, and schedule may have to be raised and perhaps even restated before the project is accepted. The project may indeed be cancelled at any one of these stages if it does not satisfy the criteria which have been set. Only the last stage, appraisal, leads to the final decision whether to implement the project, with full agreement to its components, or not to proceed further.
The three stages of the project cycle are undertaken in sequence, but the work can be broken down in many different ways. The constituent parts may be called “phases”, which are further broken down into “steps”. Phases and steps can overlap to some degree. Each step contains one or more “tasks”.
A framework for project formulation, adapted from the FAO “Guide for Training in the Formulation of Agricultural and Rural Investment Projects”, is shown below.
| Stage of Formulation | Phase |
|---|---|
| Identification | Preparation for project formulation Reconnaissance and preliminary project design |
| Preparation | Project design Analysis of expected results Project documentation and submission |
| Appraisal | Negotiating the project |
Figure 2, also adapted from the FAO “Guide”, illustrates this concept and shows the possible overlaps between phases. The activities in each phase are described in the following section.
The framework differs from that often presented which conforms with the general practice of donor agencies where the project formulation team is not usually involved in appraisal, this function being carried out by a separate group, often led by a staff member of the agency concerned. Outside the system of official external assistance, however, it is usual for the project formulation team to continue to be involved until the implementation agreement is signed. Under this arrangement, both project appraisal and negotiation are included in the process.
The phases, steps, and outputs of the project formulation process are shown in Figure 3, and are described in the text of the following sections. This presentation of project formulation is also adapted from the FAO “Guide”.
PHASE I: Preparation for Project Formulation
This first phase concerns all activities necessary to prepare for sound formulation of the project. It has two steps:
| Step 1 | - | Project inception, and |
| Step 2 | - | preparation of a formulation workplan. |
The output is the programme of work for project formulation.
PHASE II: Reconnaissance and Preliminary Project Design
The second phase contains all activities necessary to define the objectives of the project, identify and consider options for meeting these objectives, making a preliminary assessment of the content of the project and its likely effects. It normally has four steps, namely:
| Step 3 | - | analysis/diagnosis of the situation from an overall perspective; |
| Step 4 | - | analysis/diagnosis of the situation from the perspective of the main interest groups involved; |
| Step 5 | - | assessing the future without the project; and |
| Step 6 | - | outline specification of a possible project. |
Figure 2 The phases of project formulation and project stages Adapted from “Guide for Training in the Formulation of Agricultural and Rural Investment Projects”, FAO 1986
| Phase | I: | Preparatory Organization |
| Phase | II: | Reconnaissance and Preliminary Project Design |
| Phase | III: | Project Design |
| Phase | IV: | Analysis of Expected Project Results |
| Phase | V: | Project Documentation and Submission |
| Phase | VI: | Project Negotiation |
Figure 3 Phases, steps and outputs of the project formulation
The output of the second phase is the preliminary design of a project, including identification of its main features, such as location, type of participants, main activities, size, timing, organizational structure, and management system. It also includes a first estimate of cost, and a tentative assessment of viability and risk. While this report may be best termed “the identification report”, it may also be called a project reconnaissance and preliminary design report. In the private sector it is often called a project prefeasibility study.
At this point the report is normally submitted to the funding organization for approval before further formulation work is undertaken.
PHASE III: Project Design
This phase normally initiates the formal project preparation stage. It typically follows five steps, namely:
| Step 7 | - | detailed technical and socio-economic investigations, |
| Step 8 | - | more precise definition of project objectives, targets, and design criteria, |
| Step 9 | - | design of individual project components, |
| Step 10 | - | design of project organization, structure, and management arrangements, and |
| Step 11 | - | project cost and revenues estimation, and first financing proposal. |
The output of the phase is a full description and costing of the project, together with a proposed financing plan.
In external assistance projects this phase is not usually the subject of a separate report. In the private sector it may be, when it is usually called a “feasibility study”.
A number of adjustments and possibly revisions in project design will often be requested. These lead to additional work, often carried out in parallel with the next phase.
PHASE IV: Analysis of Expected Results
The fourth phase concerns all activities necessary to assess project results in terms of output, effects, and impact on the sector, and on any other sectors they may affect in some way. Its starting point is usually the project design report, which provides the basis for the analysis.
The work typically contains four steps, namely:
| Step 12 | - | financial analysis, |
| Step 13 | - | economic analysis, |
| Step 14 | - | social analysis, and |
| Step 15 | - | environmental impact analysis. |
The output of the phase is the determination of effects and impacts of the project.
PHASE V: Project Documentation and Submission
The fifth phase concerns all activities necessary to prepare a final project document, complete with design and relevant analysis.
The work of the fifth phase may be described in one step. It is:
Step 16 - project documentation and submission.
The output of the phase is the project document.
In external assistance projects the work of the formulation team is usually complete at the end of this phase. In the private sector, however, participation of team members may be of value in the project negotiation phase, particularly when several financing agencies are concerned, and/or if negotiations necessitate adjustments to the project.
PHASE VI: Negotiating the Project
The sixth phase concerns all activities necessary to have the project document accepted, and the project financed for implementation. It starts when the source of financing accepts the project formulation document.
The work includes only one principal step, namely:
Step 17 - project appraisal and negotiation.
The output is a project fully ready for implementation, under proper administration, and with the necessary financial commitments.
This chapter describes two aspects of project implementation, namely, the sequence of main implementation phases, and problem areas at different stages of implementation.
Implementation is described by further succession of phases, each phase containing a number of steps. However, because projects differ considerably, the process described below is of a general nature.
In the text, to avoid any confusion when cross-referencing to the work of different phases and steps, phases continue to be numbered consecutively with those in project formulation.
There are typically up to six phases in project implementation. These are:
| Phase | VII | Recruiting the Human Resource. |
| Phase | VIII | Studies and Engineering. |
| Phase | IX | Construction and Procurement. |
| Phase | X | Start-up of Field Operations. |
| Phase | XI | Standardization of Field Operations and Achievement of project Goals. |
| Phase | XII | Termination of the Project Component. |
Projects need not necessarily include all these phases, or all in their entirety. For example, in a mussel production and marketing project consisting of four components: a market study for increased production, an extension service for new farmers, a credit programme, and project management, only five of the phases would be necessary. In this situation, Phase IX (Construction and procurement) would not be required, while Phase VIII (Studies and engineering) would consist of the market study, and no engineering would be required. Also the phases would vary in the length of time they occupy in project implementation. For example, project management will begin when the project starts and will finish when it ends, while the market study might be fully implemented early in the project schedule.
The characteristics of each phase can be described briefly as follows:
PHASE VII: Recruiting the human Resource
This phase begins as soon as the project agreement is signed. Key steps in the phase are:
recruiting the project manager and project assistants, and recruiting managers and assistants for components;
establishing a project management office and (if needed) component offices, and providing them with means of operation; and
recruiting project consultants and (if needed) consultants for specific components.
This phase ends when the last recruitment has been made.
PHASE VIII: Studies and Engineering
The next phase, concerned with project studies and engineering, begins as soon as the project management office is operational. Depending on particular component schedules and characteristics, some studies and engineering work may be delayed (to start-up of the component concerned), or reduced to studies only (if no engineering is needed, as in a marketing component), or even omitted (if no study is needed, as in a training component the complete characteristics of which have been fully defined in project formulation).
Key steps in the second phase are:
site studies and topographic surveys;
monitoring environmental parameters;
engineering of facilities and preparation of tender documents; and
selection of equipment and supplies, and preparation of procurement lists.
The phase ends when the last construction or supply tender/procurement document is fully completed and approved.
PHASE IX: Construction and Procurement
The phase concerning construction and procurement begins as soon as the first tender or procurement dossier has been approved.
Key steps in this phase are:
selection of tenderer/supplier and issuing of tenders/supply requests,
analysis of offers and award of contracts,
supervision of contractors, works meetings, payment of contractors,
works and supplies control and agreement, customs clearances, and
post-delivery control and guarantees.
This phase ends when the last construction or delivery is completed or received, accepted, and terms of guarantees have been met. In construction work this usually means a full year after construction is completed.
PHASE X: Start-up of Field Operations
The next phase deals with field operations. It begins as soon as the first field terms has been hired, and provided with necessary working tools, such as vehicles, equipment, facilities, etc.
Key steps in this phase are:
field testing of all working tools;
meeting expected minimum biotechnical performance standards;
meeting expected minimum financial performance standards; and
meeting expected minimum training, extension, and other standards.
This phase ends when the field operation has reached all the expected standards.
PHASE XI: Standardization of Field Operations and Achievement of Project Goals
This phase begins when project start-up has been completed and management can turn its attention to the main project priorities, such as selling products from the completed ponds, and/or improving the performance of project components.
The phase ends with project termination.
PHASE XII: Termination of the Project Component
This is the last phase. It overlaps the preceding one and begins when all the goals have been reached, and/or funds are exhausted.
Key steps in this phase are:
preparations for project termination,
project follow-up, and
staff reallocation.
The phase ends when the last administrative structure of the project has been closed down, and all staff dispersed.
The way in which problems occur vary from project to project but they fall into certain well defined problem areas. These may be summarized as follows:
Institutional problems can arise when authority, responsibility, or working relationships are not fully clarified, with formal and properly applied lines of communication and proper decision-making authority among the project team and the organizational units. For example, difficulties in obtaining land for production ponds for a large number of farmers may be the result of dealing with a wrong organization, poor project management and staffing, procurement difficulties, and poor monitoring and evaluation.
Conceptual problems arise from inadequacies in project formulation, resulting from insufficient background studies, or erros in them, or inadequacies in the planning work to be performed. For example, the project may be too inflexible, the objectives may be wrong or non-sustainable, project components may be too many or too large, or the schedule may be unrealistic.
Technical problems arise from unexpected factors discovered during project implementation, or errors in project implementation work. For example, there might be a consistent shortfall in production from fish ponds, due to seasonal water quality changes or poor quality of feed not foreseen in project formulation, or the standard of engineering design and/or construction may have been poor.
Financial problems arise when procedures and schedules for funds, manpower, supplies, and equipment, etc., necessary for carrying out project activities, have not been adequately organized, or delays in implementation result in additional costs, or project costs have been under-estimated. For example, there may be recurrent budget shortages due to poor delivery scheduling of heavy earth-moving equipment for digging new canals or dredging, or, as a result, underestimated investment or operational costs. Also, financial problems may occur because of a change in price for the product as a result of competition or other market factors.
Social problems result from inadequacies in the analysis of social aspects of the project in formulation work, or from changes in social balances/organization during project implementation. Problems may be manifested by, for example, a slow adoption of project techniques by the target group which may find fish farming unattractive or difficult, or there may be an inequitable distribution of benefits as some farms are naturally more productive than others.
Political problems result from changes in national policy or government, or sudden unexpected political events. Insufficient government commitment may result. For example, there may be a change in government to one which is opposed to financial incentives for farmers and all subsidies and grants are cancelled, or a project may be disrupted as a result of internal strife.
Environmental problems often arise and affect the project, and/or the project itself may cause environmental damage which is unacceptable. In the former case these may arise either from project-related or external natural factors unforeseen during project formulation, or from other projects which did not exist or were not planned at the time of project formulation. For example, there may be sudden water pollution from new industrial projects nearby, or competition for the same water resources by urban development; there may be a general degradation of resources, or a natural disaster, such as earthquake or hurricane/typhoon. In the second case, examples may be the heavy discharge of nutrients from the system causing algal blooms dangerous to a nearby oyster fishery, or scouring may be destroying more mangroves than initially foreseen and accepted.
Other problems may occur which may be related to the management and operation of the project itself. These may include the human factor, where, for example, the personality of one member of management team causes minor difficulties to be exacerbated; or there may be a “force majeure”.
While it is the concern of the project formulation team to design the project to minimize all these potential problems or risks, so equally the project management must anticipate them as far as possible and minimize their impact when they occur.
It will be apparent from this list of potential problem areas in project implementation that many problems which arise can be foreseen at the time of project design. Satisfactory project implementation, therefore, is dependent on sound project formulation.
Keeping the project on schedule is the responsibility of the Project Manager or, in a large project, the Project Management Office (PMO). Effective monitoring of the project (Step 10) will assist project management in this task. In a small project the project manager will carry out his own monitoring, but a large project may justify formation of a separate group, such as a Project Monitoring Unit (PMU).
Maintenance of the project implementation schedule is particularly important as, more frequently than not, the direct consequences if it is not kept are cost over-runs. It is not an easy task to keep within predetermined time limits. In an analysis of problems associated with some 70 agricultural investment/development projects it prepared in the 1970s, the FAO Investment Centre reported that 80% had over-runs of more than six months, and 40% had over-runs of more than 20 months 1. No similar studies exist for aquaculture projects but it is highly probable that the results would be similar.
1 The design of agriculture investment projects: lessons from experience, 1989, FAO, Rome
There are a number of reasons for the many over-runs in project implementation. Among the most frequent is the considerable pressure on project formulation teams, especially in commercial projects, to complete the project in advance of schedule. Often the teams do not have the capacity to resist ‘directives’ from a corporate president or a Minister. For example, in a well-intentioned attempt to complete an aquaculture project in time to accommodate a breeding cycle of the finfish or shellfish being cultured (or to lose the whole year), there is a temptation to a project formulation team at the project preparation stage to accelerate the engineering design study or shorten the construction phase, in response to the promise of a Minister or Governor that priority will be given by the Public Works Department for equipment and materials for the project. However, it is less simple or advisable for the implementation team to take such shortcuts in practice. Design and construction proceed at a reasonably uniform and standard rate (unless the project is highly complex) relative to the cost. Without any additional human and financial resources to meet an accelerated schedule, any attempt to do so invariably backfires, causing a delay and a cost over-run, and often disharmony among partners.
Delays can be frequently traced back to a combination of conceptual, management, and technical problems. Such difficulties again often have their basis in weaknesses in the design of projects, particularly failure by the formulation team to ensure that tasks to be achieved in project implementation are compatible with skills and experience of project management, and time is available to carry them out.
Even when implementation schedules allowed for in project formulation are adequate, delays and over-runs may occur due to other reasons. A very frequent problem is the inability of borrowers to comply with conditions attached to the loans.
It can help managers to avoid or counter the problems identified above if they are familiar with the appropriate management tools, such as task analysis and, for larger projects, network analysis.
The three previous sections of Part I provided an introduction to projects, together with overviews of their processes and constituent parts. Reference has been made to the fact that, regardless of the type of project and whether it is within the public or the private sector, procedures are similar, even though, depending on the nature of the project, certain steps and even phases may be omitted or the project team may be able to deal with them quickly.
In practice, projects differ significantly and formulation has to take full account of the factors which are special to each situation. Illustrations are presented below of how formulation and implementation methodologies were applied to three projects. All are in the public sector funded through external assistance, but are very different in nature.
This was a single-component project, developed and financed through bilateral cooperation, to construct and operate a demonstration farm to test the feasibiity of shrimp farming in a specific environment.
The project was identified in 1980 by a study of aquaculture potentials of the Senegalese coast. The study showed Casamance to be a suitable region for shrimp farming in terms of the availability of sites and ambient temperatures, but concern was raised over hypersalinities of the Casamance River estuary during the dry season as a result of drought in the Sahel. Hypersalinities, together with seasonal variations of temperature, created a pattern of salinity and temperature variations not experienced in other shrimp farming areas. Moreover, there was no existing experience of cultivating the local shrimp species. There was a need, therefore, first to determine if the hypersalinity and high temperatures would be a constraint to shrimp farming and, second, to compare production performances of indigenous species with imported species for which cultivation techniques were known.
Within a few months preparations for project formulation were arranged between the Government of Senegal, a French overseas development agency, and a French consulting firm. Reconnaissance and preliminary project design were considered as having been, in practice, already carried out in the course of the original study. The project formulation team went, therefore, straight to project design, including a full techno-economic study in the format required by the agencies concerned. The terms of reference were to formulate a test to demonstrate, in conditions typical of the area, the technical and economic feasibility of shrimp farming in the large available area within the Casamance delta. The test was to be located at a site representative of average conditions in the region, from which results could be extrapolated to the area as a whole, rather than at a site particularly favourable to shrimp farming in terms of salinity and temperature ranges.
In order to minimize investment costs, test facilities were limited to 15 000 m2 of earthen ponds. It was assessed that no hatchery would be required, as shrimp post-larvae would be imported from abroad, and juveniles of native species would be collected from the wild.
The process of project formulation, appraisal, and negotiation was completed in less than a year, and the implementation agreement between the donor agency and Senegalese Ministry concerned was finalized in 1982. Implementation was begun immediately. The project, as formulated, was a single-component project planned for implementation through a turnkey contract, with international procurement restricted to French suppliers.
Within a short time the phase of recruiting the human resource was completed, a project manager having been assigned by the Ministry, and a two-year management contract having been signed with the French firm which had performed project formulation work. The phases of studies and engineering, and construction and procurement were executed as planned. The phase of start-up of field operation, however, faced considerable difficulties in the procurement (from Latin America and Asia) of the postlarvae of non-indigenous shrimps which were needed in the required quantities and qualities, and at the proper times. This resulted in delays in performing the growing tests as planned. Consequently, when the two-year test period came to an end, the project, instead of having clearly demonstarted results, had only preliminary data for six shrimp species, of which four were giving promising results.
It was decided that there should be an extension of the test project, with use of the original ponds to establish stocks of captive spawners, construction of a small hatchery, and of four new ponds of 1 ha each. This project extension, with allocation of additional funds, had new phases of construction and procurement and start up of field operations.
Finally, in 1986–87, the project was able to supply most of its post-larvae needs. An annual production of between 2–3 t/ha could be achieved with two production cycles a year, using different species of shrimp in each season. However, target levels of efficiency in spawning and hatchery operations were not reached, and repeat demonstrations could not be carried out in several ponds.
Full-time technical assistance was withdrawn at this point, the project being terminated without having reached the implementation phases of standard field operation and effective achievement of project goals.
A second project was then started, based on an external evaluation of the first. The purpose of this project, through the continued operation of facilities built in the first project, was to study ways of encourging investment in shrimp farming in the area, and of developing the sector generally.
This multi-component project, funded by the World Bank, had the objective of improving shrimp yields through improved water management, introduction of new production practices, and a loan programme for farmers.
Discussions between the Government of Bangladesh and the Bank regarding cooperation in coastal aquaculture started in 1979 and resulted in identification of a shrimp culture project in 1981. Project formulation and negotiation took almost five years. The project formulation report was completed in mid-1983 and discussions on the basis of the report extended for another year. An appraisal mission was undertaken in late 1984. Credit negotiations took place in late 1985, and the final staff appraisal report was delivered at the end of 1985. The implementation agreement was signed in mid-1986.
Project implementation began that year. Recruiting the human resource extended until mid-1987, with establishment of a Project Management Office, recruitment of national staff, and recruitment of foreign consultants through an international tender procedure.
At the time of implementation, the project was one of the largest in the aquaculture sub-sector, in terms of budget (over US$ 36 million) and number of target beneficiaries. It concerned small-scale farmers in about 7 000 ha of low-lying coastal lands already used for shrimp culture in the Districts of Cox's Bazar and Khulna. In this area the project provided an extension service, credit, and public investment. In another area of 2 500 ha, the project provided extension and credit only. The project had four components, namely:
Infrastructure: Design and construction of embankments, water control structures, and shrimp hatcheries (including two demonstration hatcheries in the public sector), to provide more efficient management in the main 7 000 ha project area, and to supply high quality shrimp seed.
Credit: Supply of medium-term credit to shrimp farmers, traders, and hatchery operators, for financing on-farm investments, marketing equipment, and private hatchery investments.
Institutional support: Financing of buildings, equipment, incremental staff salaries, and incremental operating costs of the Department of Fisheries and the Bangladesh Water Development Board, to strengthen their ability to implement and monitor the project.
Technical assistance: Consulting services to assist the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) in project implementation, training, and coordination of project activities, and to assist in training shrimp farmers, and in providing fellowships for education/training specialists and PIU staff.
The project cost was estimated to be US$ 36.7 millions, of which 60% was from the World Bank, 12% from the United Nations Development Programme, 12% from the Government of Bangladesh, 7% jointly from the Bangladesh Krishi Bank and the Sonali Bank, 5% from private Bangladeshi investors, and 4% from the Bangladesh Bank.
The project was one of several fisheries, aquaculture and irrigation projects in the country, many of which had already been completed (such as the Freshwater Aquaculture Development Project funded by the World Bank, and the First Aquaculture Development Project funded by the Asian Development Bank), or which were being implementated (such as bilateral technical cooperation projects with France and the Federal Republic of Germany), or which were being negotiated and would start soon after (such as the Second Aquaculture Development Project funded by the Asian Development Bank). These projects were essential to the development of this key sector in the country for food production for the domestic market and generation of export revenues. All were particularly targeted toward the rural poor.
By 1990, some delays had been encountered and adjustments made to the contracted work plan but, generally, it was in line with the original project concept.
This was an interregional aid project, funded by the European Economic Community and ASEAN countries. It was concerned with the provision and chanelling of technical assistance for scientific cooperation and technical training in aquaculture, and involved the twinning of institutes in Europe with institutes in the ASEAN region.
The project concept dated from the beginning of the 1980s, with a proposal from the ASEAN Committee on Food, Agriculture and Forestry to the EEC. Project formulation and negotiation was undertaken in 1985–86, with a project formulation contract between EEC and a Dutch University-related consulting group. This led to project approval in November 1986.
The formulated project had objectives of (a) strengthening applied research, development, and training services of selected aquaculture institutes within ASEAN, thus helping to upgrade technical capacities within the region; (b) improving socio-economic conditions of the rural poor through aquaculture development, specifically through increasing supplies of animal protein, increasing income, and providing additional or alternative employment opportunities; (c) optimizing available marine, coastal, and inland resources in ASEAN for aquaculture; (d) initiating long-term ASEAN regional collaboration and technological communication, and (e) fostering long-term collaborative linkages between EEC and ASEAN institutes engaged in aquaculture development, training, and research.
The project, coordinated from Thailand, had programme components in selected institutes in all five ASEAN countries, each component being the theme of a joint work programme by twinned EEC and ASEAN institutes.
In addition to the Project Management component, the five sub-sectoral components were:
Indonesia - to improve methodology of coastal zone assessment for aquaculture, including site surveys, and technological, ecological and socio-economic studies.
Malaysia - to improve methodology of assessing lakes and reservoirs for fish production, including survey technology, and the development of cost effective management systems.
Philippines - to improve capabilities of ASEAN training specialists in aquaculture, and develop applied aquaculture technology and training.
Singapore - to develop feeds for marine fish and transfer marine culture and post-harvest technology.
Thailand - to undertake applied research in fish and crustacean genetics to hasten domestication and increase production through development of faster growing, disease resistant strains.
On the ASEAN side participating institutes were nominated by their governments. On the EEC side, however, the procedure preferred was that of international tenders issued to a long list of interested institutes, evaluation of their capabilities by a committee of EEC experts, and establishment of a short list of institutes to carry out each component.
The project inputs included:
Staff provision and exchange: 200 man-months of technical assistance and other professional services to ASEAN institutes, 250 man-months of staff exchange between twinned institutes, and 88 man-months of staff exchange between ASEAN institutes themselves.
Interregional seminars: Two EEC/ASEAN seminars per component (one in the country of each twinned institute), plus two general interregional programme workshops (one in ASEAN, one in Europe).
Training: short-term courses for each component totalling 600 man-months of training, plus two long-term overseas scholarships per component for ASEAN staff.
Equipment: miscellaneous communication, scientific, and laboratory equipment, technical equipment (for ponds, cages, hatcheries, harvesting, feed preparation), and a small number of boats and vehicles to the ASEAN institutes.
Implementation of this five-year project began in late 1988 with signature of the general project agreement between the European Development Fund of EEC and the Committee on Food, Agriculture and Forestry of ASEAN. A Project Management Office was established at the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (Thailand), and appointments of a Project Manager (from Thailand) and an international expert as Project Coordinator. Effective field operations were scheduled for mid-1990, after approval by the Project Steering Committee in November 1989 of the five component workplans of twinned institutes.
Although not one of the largest development projects in terms of budget allocation (about US$ 11 million), the project was large in terms of geographical area (five ASEAN countries), and in its number of participating institutes (ten institutes from nine countries).
A mistaken assumption in project formulation caused considerable delay in the procedure of selecting international participants by the EEC. When the project was formulated (1985–86), it was assumed that participating institutes would not charge fees for their professional services but only request funds to replace staff on long-term assignment in ASEAN. Adequate arrangements between the different parties which remained interested were not reached until mid-1989. At that time agreements were finalised with, on the EEC side, a British institute (for Malaysia), a Dutch institute (for Thailand), two French institutes (for Indonesia and Singapore), and a French/Italian consortium of institutes (for the Philippines), and, on the side of ASEAN, a number of institutes in the region.
Besides economic, social, and technical benefits to the sector in the region, many of which were anticipated to be long-term and indirect because of the nature of the project, the main benefit is expected to arise from the creation of a framework for future interregional collaboration with the five pairs of twinned institutes setting the scene for future EEC/ASEAN collaboration, in close coordination with other agencies and with programmes undertaken in the region.
