3.6.2 Sub-Saharan Africa

Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cameroon, Central African Republic,
Côte d’Ivoire, Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Réunion, Rwanda, Senegal,
Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa,
Sudan, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania,
Togo, Uganda, Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe

Figure 3.6.2.1.
Aquaculture statistics in many countries of this sub-region, although improving, are often not very accurate. This is probably because of the relatively low economic profile of the sector and the lack of financial resources to monitor developments and rural production. On the basis of reports from member countries to FAO, aquaculture production in sub-Saharan Africa amounted to 42,000 mt in 1995, valued at US$85.5 million (Figure 3.6.2.1). This represents an increase over 1994 of 3,600 mt and only 3,500 mt over 1992. In terms of value, the increase over 1994 totalled US$9.8 million and US$8.3 million over 1992. In 1995, Sub-Saharan Africa contributed 38.8% of the total volume of African production from aquaculture and 40.4% of the total value.

In 1995, fish and shellfish culture contributed 37,000 mt to food fish production, or less than 1% of the combined supply from capture fisheries and aquaculture. Although this contribution appears to be minimal, the percentage would be higher in the interior of many countries, where supplies from capture fisheries rarely penetrate, and represent a valuable contribution of animal protein to the diet of the rural population, as has been the case in the high plateau of Madagascar or rural areas of Zambia. The APR for production growth in sub-Saharan Africa for 1984-1995 was 14.7, with a decrease to 11.1 for 1990-1995, reflecting some growth difficulties in the latter period. Although these growth rates are better than the average world figures, it is also true that given the low initial production levels for the entire sub-region, better results should have been expected given the length of the period under examination and the number of projects which have been implemented in favour of aquaculture development. The value of aquaculture production grew at an APR of 18 in 1984-1995 and 17.5 in 1990-1995. For capture fisheries, the APRs for volume of catch in the same two periods were 2.8 and 0.8, respectively.

Figure 3.6.2.2.
Nigeria was the most important producer during 1984-1995, with an output of 17,000 mt in 1995. Several countries showed significant improvements in their production during 1984-1995, such as Madagascar, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and South Africa, which reached production levels ranging from 4,000 mt to 5,000 mt in 1995, from starting levels of a few hundred mt (Figure 3.6.2.2). However, most of the countries have not shown similar progress. More modest growth appears to have taken place in Togo, Kenya and Sudan, which reached production values in the order of 1,000-1,500 mt in 1995. In the group of eleven countries which produced 100 mt to 850 mt in 1995, Côte d’Ivoire and Zaire showed relatively good APRs for 1984-1995, while other countries, such as Ghana, Malawi and Zimbabwe had very minimal growth. A last group of fourteen countries had production levels between 4 and 60 mt in 1995.

Production trends were far from homogeneous in the sub-region. Aquaculture development has been negatively affected by very many factors, including climatic disasters, civil unrest, and drastic economic and institutional changes which, when linked to structural adjustment programmes, have reduced governmental support for the promotion of new technologies. In 1990-1995, 15 out of 31 countries (for which aquaculture production data series are available) showed a decrease in the growth rate of aquaculture production and, in the case of Congo and Réunion, a major decrease to levels lower that those recorded for the pre-1990 period. Other countries show a stagnation of growth; e.g. Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, United Republic of Tanzania, South Africa (although with still interesting production levels), Zaire and Zimbabwe. However, on the more positive side, there are countries in which aquaculture development has maintained good growth rates, such as Madagascar, Central African Republic, Mauritius, Seychelles, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia.

Figure 3.6.2.5.
Among the finfish, the tilapias were the most important species group, with production of 14,000 mt based on seven clearly identifiable species and some unspecified Oreochromis spp. The catfishes were the second most important group with 7,000 mt , with the African catfish, Clarias gariepinus (4,000 mt) and the cyprinids (4,000 mt) as the most important species, followed by salmonids (essentially rainbow trout) with 1,000 mt (Figure 3.6.2.5). Also, in terms of value, the tilapia group was the most important, at US$21.8 million, followed by catfish (US$20.8 million) and salmonids (US$3.9 million).

In 1990-1995, production of tilapias grew at an APR of 11, compared with 17.5 for catfishes, with an APR of 35.5 in the case of C. gariepinus, showing the interest in this species especially in Nigeria, the major producer. Culture of carps also showed good growth in this period, thanks to the fast development of rice-cum-fish culture in Madagascar. The APR for common carp, Cyprinus carpio, in the sub-Saharan group was 43.1, even reaching 74 in Madagascar, indicating potential for considerable additional growth in the culture of this species (Figure 3.6.2.5). Rainbow trout culture experienced a slight decrease in APR in 1990-1995 after having shown an acceptable APR over the previous five years; this may be indicative of possible market saturation.

Only four countries reported aquatic plant production, with United Republic of Tanzania being the most important producer in 1995, followed by Namibia. Seaweeds are farmed for extraction of colloids for industrial use; the most important species in 1995 were Eucheuma spp., used for the extraction of carrageenans. This group developed rapidly in the 1980s reaching a maximum production of 8,000 mt in 1992 after which production decreased due to erratic output (large fluctuations) from Namibia. The value of aquatic plant production in 1995 was estimated at US$1.8 million.

Production of molluscs in 1995 was concentrated in four countries -- Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa and Sudan, with South Africa by far the largest producer (2,596 mt out of total of 2,659 mt produced). The largest contribution came from culture of the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis (2,000 mt). The farming of this commodity started in the mid 1980s in South Africa and peaked at 2,700 mt in 1994. However, in spite of a very rapid initial growth (APR of 110 in 1984-1989), farming slowed down considerably in 1990-1995 and more so in the last three years, with an APR of 14 for the period. Farming of oysters showed a four-fold increase from 1985 to 1990 (from about 150 mt to 625 mt), thereafter decreasing progressively to 390 mt in 1995. In terms of value, the mollusc group was worth US$3.8 million in 1995, with mussels contributing US$2.2 million and oysters US$1.5 million.

Crustaceans ranked fourth in terms of production volume, with a total of 2,000 mt produced in 1995. Recent development of shrimp farming was reported in six countries of this group. Madagascar is the main shrimp producer (1,500 mt in 1995), based on culture of Penaeus monodon, which is also farmed to a much lesser extent in Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa and Kenya. The APR for shrimp in these countries for 1990-1995 was 131, albeit from a low production base, reflecting the interest of the private sector, particularly in Madagascar where the APR for the period was 173. Culture of freshwater prawns (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) was also reported in five countries--Mauritius, Malawi, Réunion, Senegal and Zimbabwe--although with modest production (less than 100 mt in the four countries). The culture of this species is most important in Mauritius, although production growth has slowed down in 1990-1995 to a rather modest APR of 4. In terms of value, crustacean culture contributed about US$12.1 million in 1995, thus ranking second in economic importance after finfish, but with a faster growth rate in 1990-1995 in terms of value (APR of 50 compared to 18.2 for finfish).

This review of production data in sub-Saharan Africa shows that while there are a few countries in which aquaculture is becoming an important reality for rural economies, most countries have only incipient or erratic aquaculture production. Aquaculture in sub-Saharan Africa is still facing the twin problems of adoption and sustainability, and a development momentum is yet to materialize. The underlying reasons are complex, and many are not specific to aquaculture alone; they have been summarized in an earlier version of this circular (FAO, 1995) and in other publications (FAO/NORAD/UNDP, 1987; Satia, 1989; Lazard et al., 1991; Coche et al., 1994; Harrison, 1994; Brummett and Noble, 1995; FAO, 1996; Martinez-Espinosa, 1996).

Briefly, the problems encompass, inter alia, (a) poor macro-environment for development; i.e. civil unrest, weak institutional frameworks, economic problems, structural readjustments and reduced role of government before establishment of viable alternative support mechanisms, etc.; (b) limited financial resources and heavy dependence on external support for both research and development, often leading to erratic development efforts due to differences in expectations and priorities between donors and host countries, and to collapse of development efforts on conclusion of external support; (c) the novelty of aquaculture as a food-producing system and its low priority in development plans; (d) frequent droughts and poor water shortage; (e) lack of cohesive aquaculture development plans and firm commitment to its promotion; (f) rural aquaculture development strategies inconsistent with the needs and circumstances of rural communities and family economies; and (g) promotion of rural aquaculture as a stand-alone activity, with its own specialized extension service, with top-down approaches based on demonstration stations.

These problems were diagnosed and noted in the late 1980s (FAO/NORAD/UNDP, 1987) and were still valid in the early 1990s, suggesting that many governments and donors had not yet responded to the need for a change in development approach (Coche et al., 1994).

However, a paradigm shift in both research and development strategies is in progress, based on participatory planning and implementation of research and development, and on the concept of aquaculture as a component of integrated farm activities based largely on use of on-farm resources. A recent review of these approaches (Martinez-Espinosa, 1996) indicated that most were still in the exploratory stages, devising and testing new tools for more effective farmer participation and information dissemination-adoption, and exploring opportunities for integration with various agriculture systems. As can be expected with new approaches, problems are surfacing that need to be addressed before significant progress can be made.

To begin with, the extent of the overall development effort is inadequate to the task at hand. Although integrated agriculture-aquaculture has been demonstrated to provide new benefits from existing resources under certain conditions and with proper planning (Jamu and Costa-Pierce, 1995), research efforts to identify opportunities for integration and to document their economic impact are scarce. Despite the general agreement that aquaculture should be integrated with agricultural activities, agriculture planners rarely give consideration to aquaculture as a farming activity. There is urgent need to strengthen research on integrated systems and to increase awareness of the opportunities and benefits of integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems in the agricultural sector, particularly in irrigated agriculture.

Aquaculture development efforts in sub-Saharan Africa have centred largely on subsistence rural aquaculture. Resource-poor farmers, who have been the target beneficiaries of donor-supported projects, frequently face considerable problems in effectively making use of aquaculture technology or gaining access to the resources to make it work. It has been recognized that even small-scale rural aquaculture is far more readily adopted by those with slightly more resources and entrepreneurial attitude (Lazard et al., 1991; Martinez-Espinosa, 1996). As a result, there are differences of opinion on selection of target beneficiaries in rural communities. A common trend is to work with "model" farmers to capitalize on the development potential of those with slightly more resources and entrepreneurial attitude. For many, intensification of the activity of these model farmers is increasingly seen as the key to sustained fish farming (Lazard et al., 1991; Martinez-Espinosa, 1996).

Although this should not deter efforts for the development of low-input, low-cost aquaculture systems for resource-poor farmers, it explains the slow pace of progress with this approach and underlines the need for stronger and longer-term efforts to help overcome difficulties and allow time for adoption. However, the focus on resource-poor farmers need not deter aquaculture development efforts based on mobilization of the more entrepreneurial groups, particularly in peri-urban areas, to supply city markets and major local markets, especially if this is not done at the expense of rural communities. Interestingly, in recent years, more progress in aquaculture has been made in those countries where entrepreneurs and progressive farmers have been systematically involved (e.g. in Madagascar, Kenya and Zambia).

Another issue is the supporting infrastructure required for rural aquaculture development. Much work lies ahead to tackle problems of incorporating participatory planning approaches at the field level with the more traditional "top-down" modes of planning commonly used in governments and development institutions. Means of linking participatory planning in the field with mechanisms for policy formulation and national planning are felt to be generally lacking (Martinez-Espinosa, 1996). Efforts are also needed to merge aquaculture extension with that of agriculture.

The contribution of aquaculture to fish supplies (only 0.7%) and food security, based on available statistics, is still modest although considerable potential exists in terms of land and water across the sub-region in relation to the present production levels. It is estimated that less than 5% of this potential has been used (Kapetsky, 1994). At present only six countries account for 84% of total production (42,000 mt) in the sub-region. However, the development of the existing potential appears to be distant due to a complex of factors also linked to the general development pattern of the sub-region, not totally specific to aquaculture.

An evaluation of the APRs for the period 1990-1995, for species and countries, suggests that rapid growth of production is likely to continue for the farming of P. monodon and common carp in Madagascar (APRs of 173 and 73, respectively), and current (1995) levels of production which can be considered commercial in both cases. Other species which show good growth potential are C. gariepinus in Mali, and Tilapia rendalli, Oreochromis macrochir and O. andersonii in Zambia. More moderate growth potential can be expected for the farming of O. niloticus in Mali, Sudan, Senegal, and Central African Republic, and for C. gariepinus in Nigeria.

There seem to be still untapped possibilities for integration of aquaculture in small water bodies and irrigation schemes, and in some cases for integration with rice culture. Also a broader approach to aquaculture development, in terms of target groups involving small-scale and commercial-scale entrepreneurs in addition to rural development efforts, would help mobilize resources of the private sector with the aim of supplying urban centres with fresh fish, and for production of export commodities where opportunities exist.

The use of small reservoirs for extensive forms of aquaculture in some of these countries represents a new option for development not yet properly exploited, although some studies have been carried out and development projects have been implemented in Burkina Faso for example (Traore and Baijot, 1989). Another option to overcome the scarcity of water for aquaculture in the more arid countries is the integration of aquaculture in irrigation schemes which has been tested in Mali with encouraging results (Coche and Muller-Fall, 1993; FAO, 1993). However, in spite of the untapped potential, the expansion of aquaculture in these countries may be limited by low consumption of fishery products. Consumption is very low in the Sahelian countries, with values in the order of 0.4 kg/caput/year (average values for the period 1991-93) in Niger and 1.4 kg/caput/year in Burkina Faso.

Expected difficulties in ensuring adequate fish supplies in the medium term should favour aquaculture development in some countries, as prices of fish will increase. However, this trend may be reversed in some of the southern African countries by the increased supply and improved distribution of cheap frozen pelagic fish. The current international concern and focus on food security in the region may lead to a renewed thrust to develop certain forms of aquaculture in the sub-region. However, a substantial research effort will be needed at the field level to adapt aquaculture development approaches to diverse rural environments and farming systems in which it is supposed to be integrated. Major and co-ordinated support from donors will be required to establish sounder bases for such development over the next 15 years. In order to increase fish production, governments in the sub-region are likely to emphasise the strengthening of capacities to manage capture fisheries on a sustainable basis, and the elaboration of more appropriate frameworks for the development of aquaculture.

Achievement of sustainable increases in aquaculture production requires that emphasis be given to: (a) integration of fish culture with agriculture using family level technologies applied in schemes that involve water storage practices, including micro-irrigation and small ponds; encouraging aquaculture in irrigation networks and integrated rice-cum-fish culture, and in farming systems in general as appropriate; (b) encouraging investment-oriented aquaculture by progressive farmers and entrepreneurs in peri-urban areas; and (c) aquaculture-based stocking and stock enhancement in small and medium-size water bodies, focusing on reservoirs and eventually on medium-size lakes and river floodplains, using local species and including the development of cage culture.

External assistance continues to be essential for further development, but it should be more carefully planned and designed with longer time frames in order to establish strong bases for sustained development. It should also be provided mainly where there is evidence of strong government commitment to the sector and reasonable prospects for success.

Brummett, R.E. and R. Noble. 1995. Aquaculture for African Smallholders. ICLARM Technical Reports No. 46. Manila, ICLARM. 69p.

Coche, A.G. and A. Muller-Fall. 1993. Propositions de developpement piscicole en zone office Riz Segou et en zone du Niger - Macina. Ministere du Developpement Rural, Republic du Mali. 61p.

Coche, A.G., B. Haight, and M. Vincke.1994. Aquaculture development and research in sub-Sahara Africa. Synthesis of national reviews and indicative action plan for research. CIFA Technical Paper No. 23. Rome, FAO. 151 p.

FAO. 1993. Developpement de la pisciculture, Mali. Conclusions et recommendations du project. DP/MLI/86/001. Rome, FAO. 27p.

FAO. 1995. Review of the state of world fishery resources: aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 886. Rome, FAO. 127p.

FAO. 1996. Fisheries and aquaculture in sub-Saharan Africa: situation and outlook in 1996. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 922. Rome, FAO. 44p.

FAO/NORAD/UNDP. 1987. Thematic evaluation of aquaculture. Rome, FAO. 147 p.

Harrison, E. 1994. Aquaculture in Africa, socioeconomic dimensions. Recent Advances in

Aquaculture 5:240-299.

Jamu. D.M. and B.A. Costa-Pierce. 1995. Culture of indigenous species using on-farm resources: a rational approach to the development and evolution of aquaculture in rural Africa. World Aquaculture 26(2):45-9.

Kapetsky, J. M. 1994. A strategic assessment of warm water fish farming potential in Africa. CIFA Technical Paper No. 27, Rome, FAO. 67 p.

Lazard, J., Y. Lemcomte, B. Stomal and J.Y. Weigel. 1991. Pisciculture en Afrique Subsaharienne: Situations et projets dans les pays Francophones, propositions d’action. Ministere de la Cooperation et de Development, France.

Martinez-Espinosa, M. 1996. Report of the expert consultation on small-scale rural aquaculture. Rome, Italy, 28-31 May 1996. FAO Fisheries Report No. 548. Rome, FAO. 182p.

Satia, B. 1989. A sub-regional survey of the aquaculture sector in Africa South of the sahara. Aquaculture Development and Coordination Programme. ADCP/REP/89/36. Rome, FAO.

Traore, A.C. and E. Baijot. 1989. Village hatcheries in Burkina - a first experience. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin 2(1):11-15.