The example of Uganda, where in the ten years from 1954 to 1963 fish consumption rose by approximately 48,000 tons per annum, shows that the East African market can absorb large increases in production, even in a relatively short period. Uganda's population over this period was approximately in the 5 to 6.5 million range and thus smaller than that of Kenya but, similarly, included large tribal groups who were not used to eating fish. In Uganda, prejudices against fish eating in general, or against eating particular species and types of fish, have been breaking down rapidly. A similar development can be expected in Kenya, especially if an ‘Eat More Fish’ campaign, which continues throughout the development period, is launched. The speed with which consumption can be increased was particularly well demonstrated in Uganda in the three-year period from 1961 to 1963 when, following the loss of the export market in dried fish to the Congo, the Government launched a campaign which led to an increase in domestic consumption of 20,000 tons per annum.
By 1965, approximately 10,000 tons of fish per million population were consumed in Uganda compared with 2,200 tons per million in Kenya. Tanzania's consumption was comparable to that of Uganda. On this basis, without taking account of population increase or betterment of living standards, the Kenya market could absorb some 90,000 tons of fish per annum compared with the present consumption of 26,000 tons.
TABLE IV - Fish Supplies for Domestic Consumption in Kenya in 1964
| Total catch from Kenya waters | 20,122 | tons |
| + Imports, 7,000 tons less 986 tons of fish meal (fresh equivalent) and fish oil | 6,014 | " |
| 26,136 | " | |
| - Exports | 122 | " |
| Apparent Consumption: | 26,014 | tons |
TABLE V - Imports of Fishery Products into Kenya in 1964
| Actual Recorded Returns from Customs Figures | Estimated Fresh Equivalent Weight | Value | |
| Centals | Centals | ||
| A. From Overseas | |||
(a) Fish meal | 5,297 | 21,188 | £15,590 |
(b) Fish oil | 1,029 | 1,029 | 5,748 |
(c) Fresh fish | 1,093 | 1,093 | 19,017 |
(d) Fish, salted, dried (inc.Aden 6,543 centals worth £16,486 Somalia 2,009 centals worth £4,717) | 14,943 | 44,829 | 52,273 |
(e) Fish tinned | 6,429 | 6,429 | 70,787 |
| B. From Tanzania/Uganda | |||
(a) Fresh fish (fillets) | |||
from Uganda | 3,661 | 10,983 | 36,523 |
from Tanzania | 63 | 63 | 815 |
(b) Dried salted and dried unsalted fish | |||
from Uganda | 29 | 87 | 175 |
from Tanzania | 1,710 | 5,130 | 10,224 |
| 34,254 | 90,831 | 211,152 | |
(c) Crustaceans(from Tanzania) | 1,210 | 20,456 | |
| 35, 464 | £231, 608 |
In 1964, imports of fish products into Kenya, including fish meal, fish oil, fresh, frozen and dried fish from overseas, Uganda, and Tanzania, were of the order of 3,425,400 lbs. in actual weight and 9,083,100 lbs. (or 4,055 long tons) in fresh weight equivalent. The value of the imports was £211,152. Including crustaceans, total imports amounted to 4,104 tons, of a value of £231,608. 1964 imports were twice as large as 1954 imports.
If unrecorded imports of dried and fresh lake fish from Uganda and Tanzania, estimated at being not less than 3,000 tons a year in fresh fish equivalent (of a value of approximately £150,000) are added, actual imports into Kenya are currently at a rate of 7,000 tons per year, worth approximately £380,000.
The unrecorded imports included dried fish from Mwanza in Tanzania, which was seen on sale in Kisumu, Nakuru and Nairobi markets, smoked lungfish (Protopterus) from Lake Kyoga 500 miles away, on sale at Thika 25 miles north of Nairobi, and smoked tilapia from Lake George 1,000 miles away, on sale in Mombasa. All this fish was moved by African fishmongers from Kenya. The species and cures could be potentially produced locally in Kenya.
It is significant that Kenya, which over the past few years spent less on developing its fisheries than the other two East African countries, now has to meet the largest import bills for fish.
Recorded exports of fish products, excluding crocodile skins (considerably fewer of these are exported than by Tanzania and Uganda) were somewhat smaller in 1964 than those of Uganda, and significantly smaller than those of Tanzania.
The export statistics of the East African countries for 1964 were as follows:
TABLE VI - Total 1964 Exports of Fishery Products, including Exports to the Other Countries of East Africa, but excluding Crocodile Skins
| Kenya | Uganda | Tanzania | |||
| Centals | Value | Centals | Value | Centals | Value |
| £ | £ | £ | |||
| 4,592 | 56,316 | 8,205 | 57,841 | 43,168 | 148,193 |
Principal Exports of Kenya, by destination (source: published trade returns for 1964:
| Wt. | Value | Main Destinations | |||
| Centals | £ | ||||
| (i) | Crustaceans | 302 | 7,157 | Netherlands, U.K., ships stores, Aden, Belgium | |
| (ii) | (a) | Fresh and frozen fish | 886 | 9,024 | to Uganda - mainly sea fish |
| (b) | " " | 1,095 | 16,107 | to Tanzania - mainly sea fish | |
| (c) | " " | 496 | 4,530 | the bulk to ships stores, small amounts to the Sudan, Ethiopia, Burundi, Congo (Léopoldville) | |
| (iii) | (a) | Salted or dried fish | 887 | 6,756 | to Tanzania - mainly sea fish |
| (b) | " " | 17 | 240 | to Uganda - lake fish | |
| (c) | " " | 578 | 9,495 | to Hong Kong (60%) - mainly sea fish Zanzibar (40%) | |
| (iv) | Bech de Mer | 215 | 1,730 | to Hong Kong. | |
To summarize: it seems that there is, for any foreseeable increase in local production, both a good potential home market as well as promising export markets. The latter have already been developed to some extent by private enterprise for selected products and presumably could be expanded if the Government were to sponsor an overseas sales drive.
In the course of the expert's survey, a question was raised on the advisability of banning imports of fish, especially frozen fillets from Uganda. The expert believes that such a measure would harm as many people as it would benefit, since it is likely that it would lead to retaliatory action by Uganda. The coastal fishermen who are in great need of markets would lose a small but valuable outlet for their production and the fisheries at Lake Rudolf would be even worse hit, since there is a good potential market for their fish in northern Uganda, especially in Karamoja and East Acholi, which are little farther from Lake Rudolf than they are from the main producing areas on Lake Albert and Kyoga. The people in Acholi, whose per capita fish consumption is among the highest of any group in East Africa, are acquainted with the Lake Rudolf species, since they are the same as the species caught in Lake Albert from which they have traditionally drawn much of their supplies. A good market also exists in the Kampala area of Uganda. Even though Kampala is already supplied with large quantities of fish from the Uganda lakes (possibly 20,000 tons a year), it can still absorb marginal supplies of fish from elsewhere, especially species or special cures of interest to minority tribal groups. Although the supplies may be of marginal importance for Kampala, from the point of view of the fishery at Ferguson's Gulf on Lake Rudolf, they may constitute a significant market outlet. Sales from Lake Rudolf to Uganda have already started, and probably more than 50 per cent of the dried fish sold from Ferguson's Gulf is now moving to Moroto, Kampala and Entebbe. Even for Lake Victoria fishermen, the ban would close an outlet for fish which have no local appeal. Fishermen from Kisumu sell considerable quantities of dried Bagrus (catfish) to Kampala; these fish rate last in popularity in Kisumu, whereas in Kampala they are very popular and bring top prices.
It is strongly recommended that no restrictions or tariffs be placed on the movement of fish between the countries of East Africa, in view of the considerable harm that such a move would cause to the industry of Kenya, especially on the coast and on Lake Rudolf.
