Part I: Aquaculture Development and Research Needs in sub-Saharan Africa (contd.)

Table 5. Agro-ecological regions in sub-Saharan Africa

Table 6. Economic data and groupings for sub-Saharan Africa

References : 1) FAO, 1986
2) FAO 1990
3) World Bank, 1992

1.2 Public Development. Infrastructure and Personnel

1.2.1 Public infrastructure (Annex 2)

In the 12 countries under review, the number of state fish farms (excl. research stations) totals more than 200. On average, each of these farms has a little less than 2 ha of fish ponds of 600 to 1 800 m² each.

Total water area available is over 400 ha, each country having 20 to 30 + ha of ponds. However, the limited data reviewed indicate that in some countries only half (or even less) of the total pond area is actually under production, for various reasons (financial constraints, drought, etc.).

Most of this infrastructure is very old, these fish farms having been built originally in the 1950 – 60's. Some have been renovated (several times in some cases) during technical assistance projects (see Tables 10 to 16), but even then inherent old-age problems subsist and farm management becomes abnormally difficult and maintenance costly.

In some countries however, a relatively new aquaculture infrastructure has been built to support development, such as in Cameroon, Malawi, Nigeria and Rwanda.

1.2.2 Administration and state farms personnel (excl. extension)

Although only limited data are available, countries may be regrouped into three categories as shown in Table 7.

On the basis of the pond area existing in the public development infrastructure (see Annex 2), most countries belong to the average category where personnel of high (0.33/ha), medium (0.7 – 1/ha) and low (2/ha) levels may be considered to be sufficient for the actual state of development.

A few countries are exceptions, notably Kenya where an excessive number of public servants of all three levels of education/employment is present. In the Central African Republic, all three levels of personnel are far below average. In Rwanda and Zambia, high and medium levels are deficient, while in Congo the low level is far below average.

Table 7. Average availability of public servants (including extension)

¹ For country name abbreviations, see Table 1

1.3 Support Activities for Aquaculture Development

1.3.1 Aquaculture extension (Annex 2)

Although aquaculture extension as a support to development started in some countries as early as the 1950's (e.g. in Cameroon, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire and Zambia), it collapsed in all of them in the early 1960's, following independence. Renewed extension activities, on much sounder bases, coincided with the implementation of various development projects financed through technical assistance schemes (see Annexes 4–8). Most of these projects were initiated from the early 70's to the early 80's, when aquaculture extension services were created. Some countries created similar services on their own, during the same period.

Practically all these extension services are specialized and restricted to aquaculture. A notable exception is Zimbabwe, where it is pluridisciplinary (agriculture-oriented). In Zambia and Malawi, some collaboration with agriculture extension has also been initiated recently, while in Rwanda it is planned to become effective soon, in accordance with the new World Bank development strategy.

Some countries have chosen to concentrate their extension activities in well selected regions with a good potential for aquaculture development, rather than to dilute their efforts over the whole country. Such decision has been usually imposed on these countries by the donors/executing agencies against local political pressures. In most cases, the resulting performance has been better and more sustainable in the long term, especially under the actual financial, transport and housing constraints experienced in most countries.

The number of extensionists involved is normally directly related to the area of territory to be serviced. From the few data available (Table 7), the Central African Republic (limited number of staff still active) and Cameroon (large number of staff with little results) are exceptions worth mentioning, where serious financial constraints are responsible for these imbalances.

1.3.2 Aquaculture legislation (Annex 2)

In most of the countries surveyed, specific aquaculture legislation either does not yet exist or has a very limited coverage. Only Kenya and Nigeria have taken real positive actions in the past, together with Madagascar, Malawi and Zimbabwe (exotic species) up to a certain extent.

1.3.3 Aquaculture credit scheme (Annex 2)

In practically all countries, small-scale fish farmers have no access to credit for development, except in Nigeria. Some activities exist also in Côte d'Ivoire and Zambia, but on a rather reduced scale.

A few pilot credit schemes have been studied and/or tried under technical assistance projects (see Annexes 4–8), with mixed results, mostly negative. Major reasons for failure were the lack of information/interest in the local financial agencies, the limited period of effective supervision, and the limited training of specialized personnel (including extensionists) and farmers.

1.3.4 Aquaculture research (Annex 2)

Applied freshwater aquaculture research started in sub-saharan Africa in the 1950's, following the first international aquaculture consultation held in 1949 in Lumumbashi, Zaire (Anon., 1950). At least 10 countries (BUR, IVC, KEN, MAG, PRC, RWA, UGA, ZAI, ZAM and ZIM) were particularly active at that time in conducting research and publishing results regularly. These research activities came to a stand still in the early 60's, following independence, except in Côte d'Ivoire and Madagascar.

Freshwater aquaculture research was reactivated in most countries under review from the late 60's (CAF and CMR) to the early 80's, supported by foreign technical assistance (Annexes 13 – 15). Brackish and marine water aquaculture research was mostly initiated later, from late 70's to late 80's, in a few countries only.

Today, most countries have at least one aquaculture research station for each of the environments in which they are interested. At least 21 major research stations exist, totalling about 120 ha of pond area, of which 90 ha for FW -, 11.50 ha for BW-, and 8.50 ha for MW research.

A thorough analysis of the aquaculture research sector is presented in Chapter 2.

1.3.5 Miscellaneous support activities (Annex 2)

Most common government support for aquaculture development consists in the production and distribution (at a subsidized price usually) of fry/fingerlings of the commonly farmed species. There is a tendency for this support to decrease in several countries, following the gradual take over of this activity by the private sector (esp. Congo, Madagascar) and the planned privatization of the inefficient state infrastructure, (esp. Congo and Rwanda).

Other kinds of support activities consist in:

• loan of construction equipment (IVC, MLW)
• storage/sale of mixed supplementary feeds (IVC)
• sale of harvesting gear (IVC)
• participation in part of investment costs (IVC)
• fixed sale price for fish produced in state farms (PRC)
• possibility of state farms to recycle sales revenues (PRC)
• liberalisation of fish prices (RWA)
• privatisation of state fish farms (RWA, KEN, CAF, MAG)
• farmers' training (ZAM, ZIM)

1.4 Institutional Framework

1.4.1 Aquaculture priority status (Annex 3)

The aquaculture sector generally receives very low priority from governments. The few sets of data available show that the annual budget of the ministry responsible for aquaculture development rarely exceeds 10 per cent of the total government budget. The aquaculture allocation is only a small fraction (nil in Cameroon and Congo, 1992) of this limited ministerial budget.

This problem is shared with the agricultural sector in general. Data from 17 countries for 1983–84 (FAO, 1986) showed that in most of them public expenditure on agriculture was less than 10 percent of government spending, even though agriculture often provides more than 30 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP, see Table 6), foreign exchange and employment. The Organisation of African Unity has set a target of devoting 20–25 percent of public investment to agriculture but very few African countries are near to achieving this goal.

A consequence of this low priority of aquaculture in government circles is a lack of development funds and a heavy (if not total) reliance on external funding for development-related activities (Annexes 4–8).

Such dependence implies that programmes and projects are often based on the priorities of donor agencies rather than on sectoral priorities as identified by national authorities (see also Section 1.6).

1.4.2 Stability of institutional framework (Annex 3)

In most countries, the stability of the institutional framework is poor, responsibilities for aquaculture development changing from one ministry to another every few years as administrative reorganizations take place.

Relative stability exists only in four countries (IVC, MLW, MAG, RWA).

1.4.3 Administrative organization

Many countries have more than one government department responsible for aquaculture development. This leads to overlapping authority, confusion, and sometimes even competition (e.g. for national and foreign resources). It is therefore important to have a single authority responsible for development (see also Section 1.3.1) and quantifying goals for growth or changes in strategy.

In several of the countries under review, the latest administrative reorganizations have tended to bring together all aquaculture activities to improve efficiency.

1.4.4 Coordination of aquaculture activities

The lack of an efficient coordination of all aquaculture-related activities is one of the main institutional problems in most of the countries reviewed (Annex 3). Even if, in some countries, an official mechanism has been set up to improve coordination, it appears that it is seldom fully efficient.

Instead, responsibilities are dispersed and numerous conflicts arise (Cameroon), the status of the service responsible for aquaculture development is ill-defined (Congo, Rwanda), and conflicts between national and regional authorities take place regularly (Kenya, Tanzania).

1.5 Aquaculture Education and Training

1.5.1 Specialized university curriculum (Annex 3)

Only two universities (both anglophone) offer a specialized aquaculture curriculum, leading to a BSc or MSc-equivalent degree (Malawi, Nigeria).

While some educational opportunities exist abroad, it is rarely available either due to lack of funds or because they are part of long-term training programmes and not necessarily relevant to the special problems and specific issues which African countries are facing.

1.5.2 Specialized university courses (Annex 3)

At the university level, only four universities offer specialized aquaculture courses (KEN, MLW, NIR, URT). Several others offer such courses on a more limited scale, both in French (West/Central Africa) and in English (East/Southern Africa).

1.5.3 Specialized secondary education (Annex 3)

In most countries, education facilities cater mostly for lower-to-medium level aquaculture staff, in both languages.

1.5.4 Practical on-station training (Annex 3)

In most countries, such practical on-station training, mostly of extensionists and farmers, either already exists or is being planned (except CAF, IVC, MAG, ZIM).

This type of training was present in practically all technical assistance projects (Annexes 4–8) of some importance. It generally loses importance and regularity soon after the project closes, due to financial constraints.

1.6 Aquaculture Development Planning (Annex 3)

Very few countries have a quantified long-term (or even mid-term) national plan and production target for their aquaculture sector on which government planning departments can base medium-term plans for realistic actions and financial commitments. These, among other priorities, will include education and training of human resources (see Section 1.5). Among the countries reviewed, only three have elaborated such development planning tool (NIR, MAG, MLW) and two others have taken definite steps toward such goal (RWA, URT).

At present, almost every country includes some reference to aquaculture in one of its mid-term (generally 5 years) sectoral development plans (Maine and Nash, 1987). This reference may be a brief statement in the national sectoral plan, possibly among a number of opportunities for increasing food self-sufficiency; or it may be a series of specific statements in the national fisheries component to increase aquaculture production by a numerical factor and to decrease reliance on fisheries imports.

In most cases, these aquaculture plans and programmes appear more as a catalogue of projects than a set of coordinated, integrated programmes linked to clear policies and strategies for development.

Fortunately, there is a growing recognition of the need for proper planning of the fisheries sector in general and the aquaculture sub-sector in particular. Several countries of Eastern, Central and Southern Africa have requested technical assistance to prepare sectoral studies and development plans (BUR, KEN, URT, ZAM, ZIM), while others have taken steps to increase their capabilities in this particular area such as MLW, MOZ, and UGA (Greboval et al., 1989).

1.7 Aquaculture Data Base (Annex 3)

The lack of an adequate information system is a major constraint to proper planning. The quantification of the goals to be included in a National Aquaculture Development Plan (see Section 1.6 above) should be based on a good data base providing a fairly accurate profile of the country's natural and technical resources for aquaculture, and a good understanding of the economic, social and political environment of the human population as well as the geographic areas concerned, if different from the national norm (Nash, 1992).

As an integral part of such data bases, national statistics relevant to the growth and change in the aquaculture sub-sector should be compiled and collated professionally on an annual basis, and structured in the most meaningful way. However, collection of aquaculture production data is problematic, especially in countries where extensive level aquaculture predominates.

The absence of such data bases, and in particular of a statistical system for the collection/processing of aquaculture data, is still a major constraint to the development planning process in most African countries reviewed. Only two countries (NIG, MLW) have a functional national statistical system. It is however doubtful that a wider data base exists, even in these countries.

1.8 Aquaculture Development Evaluations

Development evaluations on aquaculture-related subjects have been carried out in all countries, mostly with the assistance of foreign teams (Annex 3).

Most of these evaluations have been directed at the definition of the aquaculture development potential (national or regional) and at the identification of development constraints (see Section 1.10). Next in importance, are marketing surveys and study of target groups (mostly rural and small scale). Evaluations on credit/capital needs and financial analyses of production systems were the least practised in the countries reviewed.

All six kinds of evaluation were carried out in only three countries (CAF, NIR, ZAM), two of which were heavily assisted technically for relatively long periods (Annexes 4–8). Malawi and Tanzania evaluations were also rather diversified. Other countries were much less active or more concentrated in their interests, even in the presence of technical assistance.

1.9 Aquaculture Development Projects

The main aquaculture development projects described by the various authors in their national study and implemented in their country - mostly during the past 15–20 years - are briefly summarized in Annexes 4–8, for the four agro-ecological regions concerned (see Section 1.1.3).

1.9.1 Origin of development projects

All the main projects described have been financed and implemented through foreign technical assistance. The latter has been provided to the 12 countries reviewed, mostly from the 1970's until now.

Financial assistance

Based on a total of 54 financed projects reported in the national studies (Table 10), the regional geographical distribution was as follows:

Grants were provided by 9 multilateral donors and at least 12 bilateral donors. Major contributors were UNDP (18 projects) and USA (7 projects). Reimbursable loans were provided by four financial institutions, for projects sited in the Western and Central regions only, Côte d'Ivoire and Cameroon in particular. (Table 8/1)

Technical assistance implementation (Table 8/2)

Most of the aquaculture technical assistance has been implemented by FAO, the UN executing agency specialized in agriculture, forestry and fisheries (about half of reviewed projects), while US Peace Corps Volunteers have implemented 6/43 projects. Implementation therefore appears very closely related to financing.

The geographical distribution of the FAO implemented projects was rather well balanced among the four regions considered. On the contrary, most other technical assistance (exc. US/PCV) was heavily concentrated in the Southern region.

1.9.2 Objectives of development projects

The many diverse objectives of the projects under review are summarized in Table 9.

It may be concluded that the major objectives of these development projects were as follows:

• Building of infrastructure (fish farms, hatcheries…)
• Staff training at all levels (incl. extensionists)
• Juvenile fish production and distribution
• Extension support (subsistence/small scale commercial farmers)

Other important objectives were, in order of importance:

• Pond management and production improvement
• Applied research on various biotechnical subjects
• Data collection (biotechnology/socio-economics)
• Study of potential for development

1.9.3 Performance of development projects

The performance of the 54 development projects reviewed, essentially based on their sustainability after departure of the foreign technical assistance, is summarized in Table 10, on a regional basis.

Subjective rating is available for 31 projects which have been terminated in 1992 at the latest. Bad to limited sustainability is observed for 14 (or nearly half) projects. It is rated “average” 8 times and “good” 9 times. It is to be noted that in four occasions, project sustainability is rated “good”, only because of the presence of follow-up technical assistance.

The major reason for failures lies in the impossibility for the public administration to take over financial responsibilities after the foreign financial assistance has left. Other reasons are:

• Lack of coordination among different ministries
• State farm management deficient
• Developed technology not adapted to local environment
• Defection of trained staff, mainly for financial reasons
• Technical assistance too short and/or too diluted.

On the contrary, success mostly depends of the availability of the necessary financial means, either from the public or the private sector to take over from the technical assistance.

Table 8. Financial and technical assistance for aquaculture development

1. Financial assistance: Grants/loans, donors distribution (participation in projects)

2. Technical assistance: Implementation and its distribution

Table 9. Main objectives of aquaculture development projects

REM ¹ X as quoted in the national studies by the authors
V added from other reliable sources

Table 10. Performance of development projects

1.10 Aquaculture Development Constraints

Aquaculture development constraints as identified for each country by the authors of the national studies and by the authors of the present report are presented in Annex 9, where they are organized into seven groups. In each of these groups, they are ranked, on the basis of their total frequency of occurrence, from top (highest priority) to bottom (lowest priority).

A summary of the top priorities is given in Table 11, both at the continental level (priorities 1 to 5) and at the regional level (first priorities only).

1.10.1 Development constraints in sub-Saharan Africa

At the continental level, 42 constraints to aquaculture development have been identified in the national studies by their authors (Annex 9). Among these, 15 constraints are present in at least 50 percent of the countries reviewed (Table 11).

Most of these constraints pertain to Public administration and organization (Group A). Social and human constraints (Group B) are second in overall importance. On the contrary, most technological (Group C) and all physical (Group D) constraints have a low rank (Annex 9).

Among the constraints with a lower ranking (Annex 9), it seems worth mentioning those valid for 42 percent (rank 6) of the countries reviewed:

Administrative constraints (Table 11)

The most important general constraint is the lack of a sound national data base and in particular the absence of reliable aquaculture production statistics.

Limited public budget to support aquaculture development and lack of coordination between the development and research sectors are next in importance.

Ranked lowest (but still by half of the countries reviewed), are constraints related to the lack of collaboration between various public administration entities, the instability of the institutional framework and the inefficiency of the existing extension system.

Social and human constraints (Table 11)

Inaccessible credit facilities for small farmers and low technological level of the development target groups are top ranking constraints.

The lack of well-trained senior personnel is also ranked quite high, compared to the lack of sound economic data for private entrepreneurs and insecurity.

In half of the countries, it is felt that the training of the extensionists should be improved.

Technological constraints (Table 11)

Most important here is the local unavailability of ingredients suitable as supplementary fish feeds, resulting either from a real absence of ingredients or from competition with humans and/or with livestock production.

High transport costs and lack of juveniles for pond restocking have an overall high rank also.

1.10.2 Regional development constraints

At the regional level, 15 major constraints to aquaculture development have been identified in the national studies by all countries reviewed, in the four regions (Table 11).

Two of these major constraints have not been mentioned yet at the continental level, where they rank below the 42 percent occurrence:

• Lack of a national aquaculture development plan (West Africa)
• Under-utilization of trained personnel (Central Africa)

The greatest number of major constraints occurs in the Central Region (9), the lowest number in West Africa (3), while in the East and Southern regions the number of constraints are nearly equal (5–6).

Kinds of major constraints present in each of the four regions can be easily identified from Table 11.

Table 11. Major development constraints

¹ Priorities ranked from 1 (83 percent of the 12 countries reviewed) to 5 (50 percent)
² Priorities identified for all the countries studied in each region (100 per cent)

1.11 Summary: The Aquaculture Development Sector

1.11.1 Main characteristics of the sector and actual trends

1.11.2 Physical and human resources - economic situation

1.11.3 Development infrastructure and personnel

1.11.4 Support activities and development evaluations

1.11.5 Institutional framework, planning and data base

1.11.6 Aquaculture education and training

1.11.7 Aquaculture development projects and technical assistance

1.11.8 Aquaculture development constraints

1.11.9 Personal considerations and comments

1. Sudano-sahelian region

   Due to various reasons, no country belonging to the agro-ecological region 2 (see Section 1.1.3) could be included in this study. Actually, this entire region produced in 1990 a little more than 600 t of aquaculture products (Table 4), only about 4 percent of the total African aquaculture production. According to available statistics, the two major producers are Sudan (234 t) and Niger (182 t).

   But, in the future, it is important to include this region in the overall development of aquaculture in Africa, for several reasons:

   1. Marine aquaculture is developing rapidly (Gambia, Senegal).

   2. Commercial cage culture of tilapia is being developed with some success (Niger).

   3. There is a great potential for integrating aquaculture in large-scale irrigation schemes (Mali, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Senegal).

   4. There is a large potential for the development of culture-based fisheries in small water bodies (Burkina Faso, Mali).

2. Polyvalent extension service

   There is a trend to integrate the functions of the actual specialized aquaculture extension services into the agricultural extension service, to be supported by a few aquaculture specialists. Such integration into agriculture presents several advantages:

   • it is a nation-wide structure, well known by farmers
   • there are common interests (livestock, feed ingredients sources and use)

   • target groups are common (small rural farmers)

   However, it should be stressed that to become effective in reality an agreement must be reached by the different departments (if not ministries) involved and a close coordination mechanism should be established. Also, the success of this strategy hinges on the operational effectiveness of the agricultural extension services.

3. Manpower development programme and education/training

   Even in the absence of a national aquaculture development plan, a medium to long term manpower development programme should be designed and implemented. In the absence of such programme, education and training at national level or abroad are often decided on an ad hoc basis.

   Specialised university education cannot be afforded by each country on its own because of limited needs and high cost (for high quality). Agreements and recognition of diplomas should be reached on a regional basis, following the example given by SADC for the Southern region. Aquaculture education facilities are to be concentrated in Malawi.

4. Aquaculture production statistics

   The general absence in Africa of reliable national statistical systems for the collection and processing of aquaculture data casts doubts about the validity of most published aquaculture production data, particularly before 1990 (FAO, 1992). It is therefore too early to try to identify even general trends from the existing figures, for most countries.

   For the future, it is important that a closer collaboration be established between the collection of statistics for aquaculture with those of the agricultural sector as a whole, bearing in mind the difficulties encountered with obtaining data on extensive aquaculture. This will not only avoid duplication of effort but also the publication of conflicting data on the denominators which they both share, such as manpower, water and land resources, transportation and markets, and feed components.

5. Privatization of juvenile fish production

   It becomes more and more evident that the best chances of success lie in the development of a well-established private sector, economically sound and technically independent from government support for most of its regular needs. To reach such goal, it will be important to have a coherent national policy well coordinated within the framework of adequate planning.

6. Marketing constraint

   It is to be noted that aquaculture product marketing is not mentioned as a major constraint, in general. Based on our experience however, marketing may constitute an important constraint to aquaculture development, in particular at the larger commercial scale of production.