2. PRIVATE FISH FARMING PRIOR TO 1964

Rural fish farming experienced a flourishing beginning in the early 1950's in the CAR. According to various authors (Guigonis, 1960; Meschkat, 1966; de Kimpe, 1970; and Vincke and Maletoungou, 1975), at least 12 000 private ponds constructed in the country through extension programmes established by past colonial administration. In 1956 three extension teams including 40 extension workers were active in the regions of Bangui, Berberati, Bambaru, Bria, Cuango, Bossembele and Bouar, Vincke and Maletoungou (1975, in preparation) summarized the development of rural fish farming up to 1960 as indicated in Table 1, based on available records including observations by de Kimpe (1970).

This spectacular interest in fish culture in the CAR rapidly peaked in 1958–59 and was followed by a period of limited activity until the mid 1960's. Various reasons cited for this decline in interest include the following:

1. The initial programme was over ambitious, in the end its success was not measured by the number of ponds constructed.

2. A serious lack of adequately trained extension workers existed.

3. The techniques of African fish culture were not yet well developed. Initial cultures employed Tilapia zilli, a species no longer used due to difficulty in management caused by its excessive overpopulation resulting in stunting and poor production.

4. Ponds were often poorly built in bad locations and were, on the average, very small in area not permitting a desirable return in fish production. Furthermore, the majority of ponds were built with an insufficient water supply, and more often than not, depended on ground water for water supply.

5. In at least some areas, interest was lost because farmers had been obliged to build ponds.

6. Stealing of fish was a major problem in many isolated ponds.

Because of these reasons the vast majority of private ponds were abandoned in the CAR in the early 1960's.

It was during this early period that many fish culture stations were built in the country. Available information on these stations including number of ponds, approximate area and the organization presently responsible for them is presented in Table 2. A map showing the locations of these stations is presented in Figure 1. It should be noted that in some cases station sites were poorly chosen. This is due in part to the priority role played by the forest service in their selection. Once sites for national forests were chosen, the fish culture stations were often conveniently located nearby. Thus, only one water and forest agent was needed to manage both the forest and the fish culture station.

* Several Government stations are abandoned.