1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Mission visited Malawi from 1 to 4 May. The Mission met with the FAO Representative, the Technical Coordinator of the SADC Fisheries Sector Technical Cooperation Unit; the Head, staff of the National Aquaculture Centre, the Project Director, staff of the ICLARM/GTZ Africa Aquaculture Project, both in Domasi; the Team leader and staff of MAGFAD in Zomba. ALCOM's activities pertain to the subproject on the small water bodies executed in the Southern part of Malaŵi.
1.1 THE SUB-PROJECT CONCEPT
During the Mission's discussions with different national and international project authorities, it became clear that through ALCOM News, ALCOM was widely known and appreciated as a regional information centre. It provides valuable news on aquaculture activities in the SADC countries. By contract, ALCOM's methodology to promote fishculture appears less known. One project made use of ALCOM's slide show owing to its collaboration with the ICLARM research project, which is also promoting an integrated fish farming system.
According to the SADC Technical Coordinator of the Fisheries Sector, ALCOM's strength resides in: (a) fund raising, (b) launching projects and programmes, (c) bringing regional aquaculture operators together, and (d) developing methods to solve aquacultural problems. However, to bring ALCOM's concepts closer to the national programmes more national involvement is required, and the priorities of member countries should be taken in account. He also observed that, ALCOM should focus its activities more toward poverty alleviation.
ALCOM is currently executing one sub-project: SWB/MLW, which started in 1991 and was expected to last for 18 months. The subproject's rational is that Malaŵi has over 700 reservoirs. But, knowledge of fish population dynamics to develop a management strategy for those reservoirs is lacking. Therefore this subproject aims of improving fishery assessment tools, train Malaŵian staff and to provide management options for use in producing more fish on a sustainable basis from small reservoirs. This rational appears to not have considered socio-economic constraints such as tenure regime.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
Development of a fisheries stock assessment method for use in appraising small reservoir fishery yield parameters and the potential management of and enhancements to small reservoir fisheries.
2.1 Refine fish sampling technique and use sampling data from selected small reservoirs to determine fishery yield parameters;
2.2 Train participating Malaŵian staff on-the-job in small reservoir stock assessment methods;
2.3 Correlate measurable limnological parameters with estimated productivity; and
2.4 Develop a framework for determining small reservoir fishery management and enhancement options.
3.0 OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES
3.1 Four reservoirs were selected for study. The criteria for selection were:
3.2 Fish sampling protocols:
3.3 Fishery and limnological data collected.
3.4 Fishery yield parameters determined for each reservoir;
3.5 Describe the relationship between productivity and limnological parameters;
3.6 Fishery Management options and productivity enhancements proposed for the reservoirs sampled.
3.7 Set of follow-up recommendations for using stock assessment procedures and implementing management options.
4.0 REVIEW OF OBJECTIVES
The objectives from 2.1 to 2.3 are related conceptually; Whereas objective 2.4 is not linked with prior objectives and activities.
4.1 Review of activities
The activities resemble postgraduate research proposal rather than a coherent programme for a bio-technical reservoir management. Activities 3.1 to 3.4 concern a monthly sampling programme on four (!) selected reservoirs and the analysis of the results. No other biological data (feeding habits, reproduction) are considered. Activity 3.5 establishes the relationship between productivity and limnological parameters, using multivariate analysis. The study of only 4 reservoirs during one year cannot give statistical evidence of such relationships. Activities 3.6 and 3.7, concerning management options and follow-up recommendations, are not commensurate with the expected outputs of the proceeding activities.
4.2 REVIEW OF RESULTS
As stated above, the sub-project results reflect the activities and outputs suitable to an academic research proposal than a well-elaborated management programme:-
Four reservoirs selected for study (activity 3.1). Although from early 1992 progress reports it appears that some work has been done on four reservoirs, data of only two reservoirs had been collected before the Mission arrived;
Data collection (activities 3.2 to 3.3): Data were collected between 1991 and 1994;
Data analysis (activities 3.4 to 3.5): Research resulted in some scientific publications by the APO. Target data as described in the project document have not yet been processed; and
Fishery management and recommendations (activities 3.6 to 3.7). Not yet done.
When visiting the Bvoniha reservoir, it was evident that tagged fish occurred below the dam, which will render density calculations inaccurate. It is also apparent that there was very little, if any, involvement of the local communities. The area of influence was approximately 20 ha, most of which was cropped, with maize, sugarcane and rice. Apparently systematic effort had been made to draw agricultural benefits from the watertable created by the reservoir.
4.3 MANAGEMENT
It was planned to execute the subproject jointly by ALCOM, DOF Malaŵi and ICLARM.
(a) ALCOM management.
From October 1991 to June 1993, the subproject was executed by an APO, who seems to have diverted it into an academic exercise. This resulted in various irrelevant research trials, none of which are mentioned in the activity list of the subproject. When the APO left, only the tagging/recapture trial in two reservoirs continued, infrequently followed by the ALCOM fisheries officer.
It is regrettable that after three years (1991–1994) this subproject has not yet produced, any relevant information within the context of ALCOM programme objectives. It should be emphasized that ALCOM is a development programme for rural communities and should not be subverted as a surrogate postgraduate grant for personal academic research.
(b) National management.
According to the subproject document, the Malaŵi DOF is responsible for monitoring project progress against a mutually agreed workplan. The sub-project inputs were limited to the appointment of personnel recruitment and procurement of small equipment.
The Mission was gratified that a Fisheries Technical Assistant and a local fisher had been fully trained in the tagging/recapture procedure. But the sub-project's priority for DoF Malaŵi is questionable. The recruitment of different Research Associates, who were not always committed to the subproject, and the lack of a national budget to sustain the activities, suggest that the sub-project was accepted rather than endorsed.
Moreover, some national staff claimed that they were only used for data collection and that they were neither involved in sub-project design nor the research procedures.
(c) ICLARM involvement.
It was agreed from the onset that ICLARM should be involved in implementation in terms of technical and material support. However, ICLARM did not provide the agreed transport inputs during the first two years. Also, a change in ICLARM/GTZ project directions in 1992/93 led to a discontinuity in technical backstopping. In this vein, after the departure of the APO, ICLARM made every effort to supervise the subproject activities, including logistical and material support.
4.4 BUDGET
In the subproject document a total budget of USD42.500 was anticipated for an 18 months execution period. The salary of the APO was not included, since it is not part of the ALCOM budget. Figures are unavailable to determine exactly the actual subproject cost. However, USD34.725 is the planned expenditure for 1994.
4.5 SUSTAINABILITY
The information presented suggests that the conditions required for sustainability of the sub-project's are lacking.
4.6 PREVAILING ISSUES
Regrettably, the subproject was set up and executed more like an academic research exercise. As a result it was poorly integrated in an overall development programme for small water bodies. If after three years no useful results have been produced, the concept and execution must be seriously questioned. Published scientific information is of interest to the scientific community, but it should never be the principal aim of a rural development project. It is to be hoped that effort in the subproject's during the past year to generate data, now being processed by ALCOM staff with support for a consultant, will yield results to develop a methodology. Eventually this methodology should be used for the management of other small water bodies.
The Mission noted that, in general, the concept of ALCOM, as a regional information and coordinating programme, is endorsed by all regional and national authorities met. The extension methodology prepared by ALCOM was known or used by other projects. However, the subproject concept, execution and anticipated results for the development of a rural management methodology of small water bodies leaves much to be desired.
