Evaluates two projects to develop a national inland fishing industry in Jamaica. Special evaluation covers the period 1979-11/84 and is based on document review, site visits, and interviews with project staff, fish farmers, and involved host country personnel. The projects have successfully established a viable tilapia production industry in Jamaica, having transferred aquaculture technology and skills to both private farmers, many of whom have been able to increase their income through fish production and sales, and the Inland Fisheries Unit (IFU), a government research and extension agency. IFU extension agents have shown increasing confidence and ability in their work due to project-funded training. However, the potential profitability of fish farming has encouraged its expansion in ways which were unanticipated and unintended. The inadequacy of existing distribution and marketing channels and competition from medium-scale farmers and commercial enterprises have taken away much of the market from the projects' target group, small farmers; the participation of larger producers has also resulted in the overproduction of fish and decreased the market price. In St. Catherine Parish, where the largest number of fish ponds are, the projects have exacerbated two environmental problems: saltwater intrusion and shortages of drinking water. Also, the production technology extended by the projects, while effective, may eventually prove less profitable than an alternative technology now in use on at least two large farms. Sustainability is threatened by two factors: Jamaica still lacks the capacity to produce trained aquaculture professionals and technicians; and, the future role of the IFU is in doubt as the result of the withdrawal of A.I.D. funding, staff attrition, and competing institutional interests. The projects have taught the need for: (1) a more effective strategy to keep large farmers from seizing control of the industry from the target population; and (2) realistic assessment of marketing opportunities; (3) environmental reassessment following changes in project direction and/or technologies; (4) monitoring of the host government's commitment to sustaining research and training.