Aquaculture development

PES covers the period 8/78-2/85 and summarizes an attached special evaluation (XD-AAR-354-A) which was based on document review, interviews with Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), USAID/C, and contractor personnel, and site visits. The project has had a history of implementation problems and has been at a standstill since 8/84. None of its major outputs have been completed, largely due to poor planning and poor management of inputs. Construction of the National Aquaculture Center (NAC) has been delayed by changes in design and a lack of technical expertise for monitoring; the TA team was not used effectively because of poor timing and was excluded from construction supervision. Inadequate English-language skills have severely constrained training - only 7 participants are in the United States, while 2 others have returned with Master"s degrees. Nonetheless, project assumptions remain valid; the MOA remains highly committed to aquaculture and the private sector has demonstrated its willingness to invest in fisheries. Revised project objectives - which focus on NAC construction and some training, while deleting support functions (hatcheries, collecting stations, revolving credit, and marketing) - can be achieved if the PACD is extended to 12/87. Even with diminished functions, the NAC will be able to fulfill important roles in aquaculture research and extension. In addition to extending the PACD, evaluation team recommendations include: continuance of long- and short-term training; revisions to NAC construction design; cost-benefit analysis of the homestead plan; funding for mullet broodstock development; and additional technical consultants for aquatic resource management, administrative planning, and engineering. Lessons learned: (1) the time, money, and expertise needed to implement the project were underestimated; (2) the management by committee approach was ineffective and culturally inappropriate; (3) separation of TA from architecture/engineering activities caused construction design problems; (4) project management was not assured of access to technical expertise or encouraged to use it in project monitoring; (5) host country contracting may have contributed to implementation problems. (Near East Abstract, modified)