Taking all the major findings of the study into consideration, and having identified and analysed the issues, problems and constraints that confront the Sungai Merbok Project, some possible long-term as well as short-term measures are recommended and presented below. Broad policy implications and guidelines deemed important for future project planning and formulation are also highlighted.
In accordance with the finding that the Sungai Merbok Project was implemented hastily without sufficient planning, it is recommended that in future there has to be a more indepth and systematic planning prior to project implementation. The basic steps in a systematic planning are as follows: (See Figure 5)
Specifications of the project objectives and targets.
Undertaking a detailed feasibility study.
Identification of the “key” indicators to be monitored during project implementation.
Undertaking a baseline survey.
BASIC STEPS IN SYSTEMATIC PROJECT PLANNING
| Specifications of objectives and targets | ||
- establish “hierarchy of objectives | ||
- quantify targets | ||
- identify target population | ||
- specify inputs/outputs | ||
 | ||
| Feasibility Study (indepth appraisal) | ||
| ||
| Selection of key indicators | ||
- input/output indicators | ||
- effect/impact indicators | ||
| ||
| Baseline and socio-economic studies | ||
- socio-economic conditions of target population | ||
- incidence of poverty | ||
- ownership status etc. | ||
| ||
| Assessment and planning of implementation capabilities | ||
- resources | ||
- staff | ||
| ||
| Implementation | ||
Evaluating the implementation capabilities and staffing needs.
Basic to any systematic planning is the explicit specifications of objectives and target. Such an exercise will assist in providing answers to the following:
what the project is all about;
for whom is the project intended (target population);
what inputs are going to be provided;
what outputs will be delivered by the project; and
what is expected to be accomplished by the projects (the effects and impact).
The specification in particular should focus on realistic quantification of targets. For example, since raising the socio-economic status of participants is a major objective of the project, it should be specified, firstly, what is the expected income target from cage culture, and secondly, what should be the yield or productivity per cage in order to achieve the targetted income. To be realistic, these targets should vary with the status of development of the project. Hence a lower target should be set when the project is still in its “initial development” stage; but the target levels should be raised once the project is in its “full development” stage.
Having specified the project objectives and targets, the next step is to carry out an indepth feasibility study. The following variables should be taken into considerations in the feasibility study:
In brief, the feasibility study is undertaken to ascertain the economic viability of the project and to identify factors that will sustain long-term viability.
The next step in the systematic planning is to identify and select the indicators to be regularly monitored and from which the trends in project development will be established. There are two basic types of indicators vis. input/output indicators and effect/impact indicators. Some examples of common indicators are given in Appendix II. It should be noted that while input/output indicators are more easily quatifiable and over which the project has clear control, effects/impact indicators are often more complicated to measure and are less controlled by the project.
While the project is still under preparation, a socio-economic study should be conducted. Such study will serve not only as input into the project preparation but also as baseline for project monitoring. From the baseline survey, a general but comprehensive profile of the project area shall be obtained, including the basic socio-economic conditions in the fishing community, their production, income and employment patterns, incidence of poverty, labour utilisation, ownership of productive assets, level of technology, quality of life, migratory tendency, etc. Since the baseline survey functions as the first identification of indicators to be evaluated during the project implementation, it is important that all relevant variables are included. Once the project is well under way, say at the end of the 5th year of implementation, it is proposed that another baseline survey identical to the first is undertaken in order to provide “before” and “after” project comparison. Thus, the follow-up baseline survey should generate data and information on changes in the socio-economic conditions of the target population.
This will provide the basis to assess the effect and impact of the project at a later stage.
Finally, the implementation capabilities in terms of staff and resources should also be carefully assessed and planned during project preparation. In the cage culture project context, staffing needs become increasingly pertinent in view of the fact that there is certainly a dearth of staff and personnel with specialized qualifications and training in cage culture. At the initial stage of project implementation, it may be necessary to man the project with larger staff, particularly field supervisors, but the number should be reduced gradually once the project is well under way. Such provision of staff and resources should be done early in project preparation so as to ensure smooth implementation.
For more efficient management of the Project, it is recommended that some changes to the existing system are in order. Firstly, during the initial years of the Project, the number of supervisors should be increased from 2 to 5 so that there will be one supervisor for every 20 participants. this is to ensure adequate and stricter supervision of the participants. However, the creation of additional supervisors does not necessarily mean that new staff has to be appointed — rather it is just a matter of reallocation of the present Project's staff duties. Once the project is established and the participants more familiar with the cage culture practices, the number of supervisors can be reverted to the original two.
The present system whereby participants are divided into groups of ten, each headed by a leader, should be retained. Some modifications, however, are deemed necessary. Instead of appointing permanent leader as currently practised, it is recmmended that each participant is given the opportunity to be a group leader for a month during the first year of project implementation. This is to instil group dynamics and leadership development. After a year, two groups are united to form a block which acts as a working unit and communication link between management and participants. The leader for each block is selected by the participants, again on a rotational basis of 1 to 2 years. These block leaders are grouped together to form the “Participant Development Committee” or “Jawatnkuasa Kemajuan Peserta” (JKP) for the particular project. If and whenever necessary, local leaders such as the State Assemblyman, the Ketua Kampung, etc. should be co-opted into the Committee. The chairman of the JKP should be the project manager with elected participants holding the positions of deputy chairman, secretary and treasurer. In a sense, the JKP acts as the decision-making committee for the project, thus ensuring that settlers are involved in the planning and implementation of the project. The structure of the proposed JKP is shown in figure 6.
The study revealed that selection of participants for the Sungai Merbok Project has been somewhat haphazard and unguided by certain definite criteria. Wrong choice of participants tends to undermine the performance of the project and renders it unproductive and unprofitable. For this reason, it is recommended that, in future, there should be a more stringent selection process so as to segregate the bonafide fishermen from those who do not deserve such an assistance from the government. The criteria on who are eligible applicants should be clearly spelt out to facilitate the work of the screening or interviewing officers. A list of the eligibility criteria is given in Appendix III.
For the purpose of ensuring fairness and justice, it is proposed that the Merit or Point system be adopted for the selection of participants. Such merit system is deemed necessary in view of the large number of eligible applicants relative to the number of places available in the project. The main factors taken into consideration are age, educational attainment, health, occupational background, household income, household size and previous training and experience of applicants in aquaculture. These factors should be incorporated into the Applicant Interview Questionnaire as shown in Appendix IV.
The selection of participants should be accomplished through systematic and sequential procedures which involved the following steps:
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF “PARTICIPANTS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE”
Fishermen-applicant signs up with the Applicant Registry Book which should be kept by the respective FDC's office.
The FDC Screening Officer interviews applicants based on the Applicant Interview Questionnaire.
The Screening Officer affirms the answers obtained from the applicants with the KUKENAL or other local leaders.
The Screening Officer subsequently ranks the applicant based on the point system incorporated in the questionnaire.
The Screening Officer submits the list of applicants who had been shortlisted to the Selection Panel.
The Selection Panel interviews applicants for final selection. Members of the Selection Panel should comprise the followings:
| LKIM State Director | - Chairman |
| FDC Screening Officer Representative from State | - Member |
| Fisheries Department Representative from DO's | - Member |
| Office Representative from | - Member |
| Fishermen's Leaders | - Member |
| Local Assemblyman | - Member |
It is recommended that the Secretary to the Committee should be designated by FDC.
The final list of successful applicants is submitted to LKIM's headquarters for endorsement by the Board of Directors.
Finally, in line with the current campaign for clean, efficient and trustworthy government ways must be found for reducing partisan political interference in the selection of participants. Ideally, of course, no fishermen should be excluded from consideration to participate in the project on account of his political affiliation.
Systematic and close monitoring of project is an effective tool in detecting early operational setbacks and implementation problems which require corrective action, and in providing early feedbacks on the achievements of the project. For this reason, it is recommended that project monitoring should be given top priority by high level management.
One of the main tools for monitoring of the implementation process is periodic reports. It is noted that, for the Sungai Merbok Project, there already exists monthly reporting system providing informations on participants' income, credit situation, production, sales, stockings, and the project's physical and financial progress and performance. To minimise the reporting burden on the project staff, it is recommended that a Quarterly Progress Report, rather than monthly reporting, should be adopted. The report should contain the following information:
The actual expeditures compared to the annual budget.
Progress for three key indicators namely production, sales and incomes of participants compared to targets established.
Summary of Progress, Problems and Issues during the quarter.
Summary of steps or measures taken to overcome the problems and constraints confronting the project.
The Project Manager would be responsible for preparing the Quarterly Progress Reports, and these should be submitted to the Aquaculture Division at LKIM's headquarters. The latter should then awggregate the quarterly reports into annual summary report which would be submitted to LKIM's Board of Directors. A copy of the report should also be submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture.
The Annual Review Report which is already undertaken by the Headquater's Planning Division should be continued. In addition to reporting on the implementation process, the Annual Review should highlight the following issues:
How well is the project performing compared to the planned targets and objectives?
Are the participants likely to benefit as planned?
Is there a need for changes, improvements etc. in project design?
Is there a need for additional (or reduced) staff and resources?
The Annual Review Report should be the standard reporting tool from LKIM management to the Ministry of Agriculture and other central agencies such as the EPU. At the end of the fiscal year, these reports would be integrated into LKIM's General Annual Report.
Another effective tool for project monitoring will be periodic supervision visits to the project by Headquarters Staff. In this connection, it is proposed that an officer from the Technical Evaluation and Monitoring Unit (TEMU) should conduct periodic visits to the project and submits report to the Director of Aquaculture Division, and subsequently to the Deputy Director General Development (See Fig. 7). The report should contain informations on status and progress of project, problems/constraints and the remedial measures or actions recommended. There should be follow-up visits by TEMU Officer to ensure that the measures or actions recommended were implemented., In a sense, the role of the TEMU Officer can be likened to that of the Visiting Agent of the plantation sector.
One of the most severe constraints confronting the Sungai Merbok Project is shortage of fingerlings. Until now, the major source of fingerlings for the Project has been Thailand. It is reckoned that this problems will become more acute with the implementation of other cage culture projects all over the country.
FLOW CHART OF PROJECT MONITORING NETWORK
In view of this, therefore, it is proposed that suplementary sources from which adequate and regular supply of fingerlings can be obtained should always be explored. One possibility is to encourage participants to obtain juvenile fish caught from the wild (natural waters). Studies have indicated that mangrove areas, estuaries, etc. are common nursery grounds for species like grouper and red snapper, while seabass juveniles are found in waters with sandy and muddy bottoms. Securing supplies of fingerlings from natural sources is advantageous to the participants on two scores:
Participants saved on expediture incurred for purchasing fingerlings which had provened to be very costly.
Participants do not have to overdependent on supplies of fingerlings from sources far from the culture site.
Besides natural waters (wild stock), another source of fingerlings supply is from hatcheries. To date, however, there has been no major breakthrough in the artificial spawning of species meant for cage culture like red snapper and grouper, and supply of fingerlings from this source is uncommon. Yet it is expected that this will be the main source of fingerling supply to fish farmers in the future. An essential activity to achieve this goal is strengthening and expanding of hatchery projects undertaken by LKIM. To this end, it is recommended that LKIM should strengthen and consolidate the programmes or activities currently ongoing at the Sungai Merbok Hatchery Project. It may be necessary for LKIM to employ both service of foreign hatchery experts, perhaps through the FAO Technical Cooperation Programme or unilaterally. The consultants were aware that an expert from Thailand was assigned to the Project for a period of one year. However, it is generally felt that his duration was too short for the expert to produce any meaningful results, and to allow for the transfer of expertise to the local counterparts. It is therefore suggested that the durations of stay for the expert be extended to a minimum of 3 years per assignment. Finally, in views of the fingerling problem, priority should be given to hatchery programme in any foreign technical assistance available for aquaculture development in Malaysia.
It is also proposed that once the Sungai Merbok Hatchery Project is established, a Seed (Fry) Bank should be set up within the Project. The Seed Bank should function as a supply centre from which supply of fingerlings can be regularly secured by cage culture projects all over the country. To maintain sufficient stock at all times, the Seed Bank could also import fingerlings from Thailand and other natural sources. It is reckoned that a supply centre such as the proposed Seed Bank is very essential in order to meet the needs of the rapidly increasing number of cage culture projects in the future. Moverover, with the establishment of the proposed Seed Bank, it is hoped that in the future fish farmers do not have to pay the exhorbitant high prices that they are currently paying for fingerlings imported from Thailand.
One of the main factors causing high post-stocking mortality of fingerlings at the Sungai Merbok Project was because stocking was carried out immediately after arrival. In recognition of this problem, it is therefore recommended that, at the project level, some kind of depository or collection tank be constructed. It should function as a transitional tank where, upon arrival, the fingerlings are deposited into the tank for conditioning. Meanwhile, stock manipulation and grading should also be carried out to prevent cannabalism and to separate the diseased fingerlings from the unaffected to prevent infection. The affected fingerlings should be treated with proper drugs and chemicals. See Appendix V for details on fish disease treatment. Once the fingerlings have been conditioned, stabilised and treated, it can then be distributed to the individual participants. Hence, this means that participants are assured of getting conditioned and healthier fingerlings, thereby minimising the chances of post-stocking mortality.
Finally, it is proposed that an aquaculturist should be appointed to man the depository or collection tank at the project. This does not necessarily mean that a new list should be specially created since one of the Project Staff can be deployed to do the job. Even if a new post is created, in the long-run it may prove to more economical than the high costs incurred by participants as a result of extremely high post-stocking mortality.
The market for fish produced from the Sungai Merbok Project is dependent upon a few local fish dealers who have to come personally to the Project site to execute the transactions. This overdependence on relatively few dealers has created problems to the Project in terms of reduced market competitiveness and restricted market outlets. Under these circumstances, new market outlets have to be found and as far as possible, these should be directed away from the overdependence on local dealers. In this respect, two potential areas are worth noting for futher investigation:
Regular consignment to fish wholesalers in Penang, Ipoh and Kuala Lumpur.
Contractual marketing with existing business establishment such as hotels and restaurants in Penang, Ipoh and Kuala Lumpur.
Establishment of a fish stall at LKIM's existing complexes to sell cultured fish once a week.
To operate a sales point once a week at the convenient place not very far from the culture farm (one sales point in one district).
In case of iii) and iv), either auction or bidding should be adopted as the method of transaction. The question as to whether the whole lot of fish or only a sample fish should be displayed in the tank at the fish stall or the sales point can be determined on a case by case basis. Arrangements could be made in such a way that the sales day will be set at different days of the week at different complexes or the sales point, so that the regular supply of fish may be more possible to fish buyers who travel around LKIM complexes or such sales points.
It would be ideal if PN could undertake this work. However, recognizing the present inherent weakness and inadequacies of these institutions, it would be more realistic to propose that the Project should undertake this function until PN will achieve its competence in running marketing business. Success of this venture would lead to developing collective fish marketing system which will enhance the bargaining power of participants and benefit from economics of scale.
An indepth marketing study should be carried out with specific focus on the existing fish marketing and distribution channels of cultured fish, its consumption patterns and trends, consumers' preference and behaviour, the assessment of the market absorptive capacity and export possibilities.
One of the serious drawbacks to the Sungai Merbok Project, as in most rural projects, is the high degree of illiteracy among participant-fishermen. Illiteracy implies slowness in understanding and accepting new ideas and techniques of cage culture. Moreover, as most of the older fishermen are illiterate, formal educational programmes through written media would have little impact because participants would find it boring and difficult to comprehend. This was clearly demonstrated by the fact that majority of the Sungai Merbok Project participants did not utilise the manuals on cage culture husbandry and practices which were circulated to them prior to project execution. Under these circumstances, therefore, education through extension services, closely akin to the 2-L System (Lawatan dan Latihan) of the agricultural sector, perhaps would be more effective and produce better results. This educational approach could be achieved through talks, visits, demonstrations, pictorial illustrations, filmlets and mass media like the radio and television. Topics should be simple and focus on the following:
The principles of good cage husbandry or practices;
Techniques of fish handling, marketing and distribution;
Principles of book keeping;
The principle of cooperative marketing;
Approaches to sales promotion;
Criteria for price determination;
Efficient management and utilisation of credit funds;
Costs and earnings.
To operationalise the proposed educational extension programmes, it is imperative for LKIM to build up a “core” of trained and competent officers to provide these extension services on a regular and sustained basis. More importantly, the extension officers would have to move regularly and mix freely within the participant communities of the respective project. Such informal communication links are found to be more effective since most of the educational services could be imparted to the participants in the course of their daily associations with the extension officers. This should be occasionally supplemented by short and simple organised courses and dialogues at the community level so that more participants could be present. The assistance of the group and KUKENAL leaders should be sought in order to organise the participants to attend such courses. Coordination of the extension services at the project level should be undertaken by the FDCs.
For the start, a few trial projects should be selected in order to gauge the response and interest in the educational programmes. In this respect, LKIM should seek the cooperation of the various respective State Fisheries Divisions, Fishermen's Associations and Cooperative Societies. Talks or simple lecturers could be jointly organised and prepared to be followed by direct extension services. Among their many varied functions, the extension officers should promote and assist in the efficient management and maintenance of cages and nets, proper stocking and feeding methods, and prevention and treatment of fish disease, promote efficient and effective marketing of fish, advise and supervise in the proper utilisation of credit, and advise and supervise in the practice of simple book-keeping for stocking, production, sales, earnings and expeditures, etc.
The success of LKIM's cage culture project, as with its other projects, depends very much on the ability and skill of its staff. To achieve this, it is recommended that considerable training is required for staff at the operation or project level. The training components could be in the forms of short-term courses, workshops and seminars, on-the-job training as well as study tours. Such training activities would not only be useful in developing the skill and ability of the officers but would also encourage the sharing of views and experience between them. Moreover, training that is geared towards the development of specific management skill, particularly for the project manager, is so essential in a project which deals with human factors as in the case of the Sungai Merbok Cage Culture/Fishermen Resettlement Project.
For these reasons, it is proposed that LKIM should expand and intensify its training programmes specific for the project staff. Particular emphasis should be given to training the “trainers” such as the cage supervisors and extension officers. This type of training is aimed at equipping them with the necessary knowledge and skill to be imparted to the participants subsequently. It is reckoned that a competent and qualified “trainer” commands better respect and confidence from his “trainers” than someone who is untrained and unqualified.
In the light of the above, the following types of training for different levels of project staff are recommended for consideration:
| Level | Types of Training | ||
| A. | Manager | - | Financial Planning |
| - | Budgeting | ||
| - | Fiscal Management and Cost Control | ||
| - | Personnel Management | ||
| - | Human Management | ||
| B. | Cage Supervisors, | - | Cage Design and Construction |
| Aquaculturist, | - | Artificial Spawning | |
| Block Leaders | - | Handling of Fingerlings | |
| - | Culture Techiques | ||
| - | Fish Disease and Control | ||
| - | Maintenance of Cages and Nets | ||
| - | Harvesting and Marketing | ||
| C. | Clerks | - | Simple Book-keeping |
| - | Simple Accounting | ||
| - | Documentation |
During the course of the survey, one of the issues that surfaced repeatedly from discussions with participants was the smallness of their scale of operations in terms of number of cages. This opinion, was particularly expressed by participants who had joined the project earlier and who have had the track record of achieving the highest production, sales and income amongst the participants. although these participants were very keen to expand their production units (cages), financial constraint hindered them from doing so. In the light of this finding, therefore, it is proposed that a Production Credit Scheme should be set up to provide successful participants with loan faciities for the additional procurement of capital items (cages and nets) for production purpose.
The proposed Production Credit Scheme should constitute as an extension of the existing credit facilities available for working capitals. But it is important to bear in mind that the intention of setting up the proposed credit scheme is to help only those participants it deems successful judging from their previous records on production, sales, incomes and loan repayment. It is felt that the assistance/facilities renderred to the successful participants could contribute to the long-term development of the project. The general format of the proposed Production Credit Programme is given in Appendix VI. It is also proposed that “hirepurchase” system should be introduced to successful participants who wish to expand their cage operation.
According to the current share system, income to participants from the cage culture operation constitutes only 25% of gross proceeds (revenues) from sales of fish. The remaining 50% and 25% constitute compulsory deductions for operating capital and loan repayment respectively. Despite such inbuilt repayment mechanisms, loans outstanding from individual participants remain high because of low production/sales. The 50% deduction for operating capital was made compulsory as savings for the next production cycle. It was very clear from the survey that participants were very dissatisfied with the current system on the grounds that the Project was retaining too much whereas they were earning too little of the gross revenues. Such grievances and discontent among participants on the share system would only lead to cheating and illegal sales. Moreover, under the current share system participants were not motivated to increase their productivity since they earn only 20% of the gross revenue.
In the light of the above situation, there is an urgent need to review the current share system. To enable participants to feel that they are actually benefitting from their hard labour, it is proposed that some changes should be made to the share proportions as follows:
30 percent deduction of gross revenues for operating capital (50% under existing share system).
20 percent deduction of gross revenues for loan repayment (25% under existing share system).
50 percent of gross revenues and income to participants (25% under existing share system).
It is hoped that with the proposed share proportions, participants would not only be discouraged from selling illegally but also be motivated to increase their cage productivity. To up-date participants on their financial position, the project should furnish them with monthly statements containing information such as participants' sales, gross revenues,credit/loan outstanding, repayments and balance (or deficit) from their operating funds. In order to economise on labour, time and costs involved in preparing the monthly statements, it is proposed that a main-computer should perhaps be installed at the Project Office.
Paradoxically, the present strategy of managing the Sungai Merbok Cage Culture/Fishermen's Resettlement Project, while endeavouring to advocate self-development and selfreliance amongst participants, is subjecting them to become increasingly dependent on it. For instance, participants are dependent on the project management not only for the supply of inputs, credit, etc. for their cage culture operation but also for the marketing of fish as well as provision of facilities for their resettlement area. Such over-dependence on government for financial assistance and management generates a broad policy implication in that LKIM, should draw up a plan for the phasing out of financial and management responsibility from the agency to existing fishermen bodies like the PN or SKN.
It was realised, however, previous experience with the PN/SKN is not very encouraging and does not offer much prospect of success. Be that as it may, there should be a conscious and concerted effort on the part of LKIM to strengthen and consolidate the position of the PN in term of its economic viability and self-reliance. A time limit, say in ten years, should be set to enable the PN to reach this position or face the consequence of being cut off completely from government assistance and funding.
Theoretically, the participants should not have received any income in 1984. However, in reality they received a total of $73,700 (i.e. $295,151 × 0.25). Obviously, this amount can only be distributed out of the treasury of LKIM, which has led to the exploitation of LKIM financial resources.
Accounting records prepared by the Project are inappropriate and insufficient. Because of this, it was often found difficult to measure chronologically the performance of individual participants. There was no consistent system of record keeping. Since the Project became operational in 1981, the format of reporting has been changed at least 4 times. Despite of such changes, inconsistency in the recorded data has not been remedied, and this made it very difficult to carry out a detailed financial analysis. The data presented in this report were obtained and compiled by the project staff of TCP/MAL/4403 through personal interviews with fish farmers and investigation on the files lodged with the Project as well as LKIM.
The methods of accounting adopted by LKIM also adds to the problem. It seems that LKIM is mainly concerned with the repayment performance of the participants, but not so much with the project performance from the view point of economic viability. Consequently, LKIM only prepares a set of accounting records relevant to the repayment status of the participants which can not be used to gauge the overall performances of cage culture ventures.
There was a substantial amount of inconsistency in the data contained in the monthly progress reports submitted by the Project management to LKIM Headquarters during 1984.
The huge loss in 1984 can be attributable to the high mortality and the loss of fish which already exceeded the total sales of fish. As mentioned earlier, there was a strong suspicion that the loss of fish was caused by poaching by the participants themselves. This matter concerns the attitude of fishermen and the lack of supervision of the Project management.
It appears that the participants treat the cages and fish as the properties of LKIM rather than theirs (i.e. they feel that they are a tenant rather than the owner of a cage net) partly because they receive only 25% of the total proceeds. Since the operating costs are entirely paid by LKIM, the more they sell fish privately at the black market, the more they gain because fishermen could sell fish definitely at a higher rate than that LKIM pays to them (i.e. 25% of the value of fish).
The loss of fish is also partly caused by the breakage of nets which cannot be easily detected unless the nets are more frequently checked (hopefully once a week) by the participants. As indicated in Table 22, the attendance of the participants to the culture farms are extremely low. Of 60 participants, only 3 fish farmers attended their cages 25 – 30 days a month during February -September 1985. The great majority (20 or 33%) visited their cages 15 – 19 days a month and 17 or 20% of them 10 – 14 days. There were 11 participants who went to the cages less than 10 days and even there were fish farmers who never visited their farms (3 or 5%). They must go to the culture farm every day because fish must be fed every day.
There was an opinion expressed by an expert that the currently used nettings (25 – 30 plies) should be replaced by the thicker twines (40 plies) in order to detect the damage of the nettings easier.
An application of the same system (sharing system) to all participants does not give any incentive to serious and hardworking fish farmers. There is no opportunity for LKIM to foster individual entrepreneurship either if a 25% of the total sales is always guaranteed as their net incomes. In addition, the actual costs incurred were much higher than those was collected by LKIM, which would lead to a continuous outflow of resources on the part of LKIM.
LKIM should clearly define the objectives of cage culture resettlement scheme; whether it is to help poor fishermen by providing a very generous financial conditions (something like a grant) or to develop cage culture as a sound business enterprise with a rigid application of financial and management system. If the former is the case, cage culture does not appear to be an appropriate option for resettlement schemes.
Provision of a micro-computer would considerably improve the efficiency of the Project. Inputs such as sales of fish, stock addition, loss of fish, feed consumption and other expenses will be entered into the system daily or whenever they occur. In addition, the project expenses and other information can also be entered. The system is expected to process all transactions and come up with desired outputs.
Further, a micro-computer would considerably save time presently spent for reporting. For example, at present the sales of each participant is recorded first and then they are split into three parts, i.e. repayment of capital, operating expenses and income to the participants. Each account has to be prepared separately and manually. With the computerized system, only the sales need to be entered while all other transactions can be approximately done automatically by the computer. This would save ¾ of time presently spent. Errors in reporting, i.e. typing and arithmetic calculations, would also be minimized. An ad hoc reporting can be made easily in a short period of time.
Staff requirements in administration could be reduced and more efforts could be rendered to other sectors such as guidance, supervision, extension, training and marketing.
Recommendations
After a trial period of 2–3 years in increasing the share proportions to the participants as recommended in the preceeding chapter, the present sharing system should be phased out in 5 years time where deduction of costs will be carried out based on actual spending of costs.
It should be envisaged to implement in several years time that as fas financial matters are concerned LKIM's role should be limited to as being a guarantor for the participants toward the bank. Provision of funds and repayment of loans should be dealt with between the bank and the participants.
Establishment of individual accounts within the project is essential to measure the individual performance.
The participants should be engaged in cage culture operation on a full-time basis in order to increase economic returns. A system to check attendance of participants to culture farms should be established (e.g. record keeping on attendance).
It is imperative to strengthen extension services for the participants on business management and accounting book keeping.
A micro computer with a sufficient storage capacity (at least 10 megabytes) should be installed with the project office to improve the efficiency of reporting and record keeping, and minimize errors. Provision of a micro-computer would enable the project to save manual labour and improve cost-effectiveness. In this connection, Project Staff should be sent to basic training courses on the usage and general maintenance of the system.
One fundamental issue which arises form this review study is the viability of the cage culture operation upon which the very existence and development of the project depends. Unlike FELDA or the other resettlement projects which were based upon viable crops like rubber and oil-palm, cage culture is relatively new and its long-term viability not conclusively provened. Moreover judging from the experience of the Sungai Merbok Project, it is doubtful whether LKIM, single-handedly, could implement all the cage culture projects that had been planned, and whether all the projects could be implemented within a reasonable time-frame.
One broad policy implications that emerged from the above is private sector's involvement in cage culture programmes. In line with the Government's Privatisation and Malaysian Incorporated Concepts, perhaps it is timely that the private sector be called upon to participate in cage culture development. One possible strategy of involving the private sector is through the “nucleus estate” concept. Under this concept, the private sector will be invited to participate in the development of a large-scale cage culture “nucleus unit” for fishermen families. The latter will be developed at and around the periphery of the “nucleus farm”. See Appendix VII for a schematic representation of the nucleus-concept cage culture project. The “nucleus unit”
iv) access to government's extension service, training and research.
In conclusion, it is important to bear in mind that the private sector's participation as proposed in this study is simply to set a basic policy guideline for future development of the cage culture/resettlement programmes. If at all the policy recommendation proposed herein is eventually adopted for implementation, further indepth feasibility studies and detailed plans have to be generated for a more thorough appraisal.
