ANNEX 1
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Mark AMECHI
Aquaculturist
PO Box OS-2404
Osu
Accra - Ghana
Tel.: (233-21) 024-31.82.75/40.22.73

George H. ANYANE
Ag. Director of Fisheries
Department of Fisheries
Ministry of Food and Agriculture
PO Box 630
Accra - Ghana

O. AYINLA
Assistant Director
Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research (NIOMR)
P.M.B. 12729
Victoria Island
Lagos - Nigeria
E-mail:[email protected]

Ms. R. BASHIR
Asst. Chief Research Officer/Centre Manager
African Regional Aquaculture Centre (ARAC)/Nigerian Institute for
Oceanography and Marine Research (NIOMR)
PO Box 1522
Port Harcourt
Rivers State - Nigeria
Tel.: (234) 26.17.530
E-mail: [email protected]

R. BRUMMETT
Senior Scientist
ICLARM
PO Box 2416
Cairo - Egypt
E-mail:[email protected]

Ms R.M. ENTSUA-MENSAH
Research Officer
Water Research Institute
PO Box 38
Achimota
Accra - Ghana
Fax:(233-21) 77.71.70
E-mail: [email protected]

Gérard GNAKADJA
06 B.P. 340
Cotonou PK 3-Bénin
Tel.:(229) 22.37.45
Fax: (229) 33.59.96
E-mail: [email protected]

J.JANSSEN
Conseiller Technique
Projet Pêche (GTZ)
B.P. 2937
Bobo Dioulasso - Burkina Faso
Tel.: (226) 98.289
Fax:(226) 97.10.75
E-mail:[email protected]

Mulonda KALENDE
Consultant
Zambia Aquaculture Project
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
PO Box 50707
Lusaka - Zambia
Fax:26.06.85
E-mail: [email protected]

Michael V. KAPELETA
Fisheries Research Officer
National Aquaculture Centre
PO Box 44
Domasi - Malawi
Fax: 26.57.21.117
E-mail:[email protected]

Moussa KIENTA
Conseiller Technique
Assemblée Permanent des Chambres d'Agriculture
B.P. 3299
Bamako - Mali
Tel.: (223) 21.87.25
Fax (223) 21.87.37

Jean KOUAM
Chef
Service de l'Aquaculture
Direction des Pêches
Ministère de l'Elevage, des Pêches et des Industries Animales (MINEPIA)
B.P. 1050
Yaoundé - Cameroon
Tel.: (237) 31.60.49
Fax:(237) 22.14.05

Adjei LOMO
Deputy Director of Fisheries
Ministry of Food and Agriculture
PO Box 630
Accra - Ghana
Tel.: (233-21)77.60.71/2

Cecil MACHENA
Director
Africa Resources Trust
PO Box A860
Belgravia
Harare - Zimbabwe
E-mail:[email protected]

Charles T. MAGUSWI
Deputy Director
Fisheries Headquarters
PO Box 350100
Chilanga - Zambia
Tel.: (260-1) 27.81.73
E-mail: [email protected]

George MJOMBA
Fisheries Officer
Fisheries Department
Ngomeni Fish Farm
PO Box 12
Malindi - Kenya
Fax: (0123) 20.87

Emmanuel NDJIKARA
Directeur du Centre Piscicole National
Ministère des Eaux et Forêts
B.P. 830
Bangui -Central African Republic
or through the FAO Representation
Bangui - Central African Republic

Joseph OFORI
Water Research Institute
P. O. Box 38
Achimota
Accra - Ghana
Tel.: (233-21) 0251-786

Alexandre RABELAHATRA
Directeur de Projet FED/Aquaculture
Ministère de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques
PO Box 1699
Antananarivo (101) - Madagascar
E-mail:[email protected]

G. N. SHIMANG
Deputy Director of Fisheries
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
P.M.B. 135
Area11, Garki
Abuja - Nigeria
Tel.: (234-9) 23.44.664
Fax:(234-9) 23.44.665
E-mail:[email protected]

Kitojo K. WETENGERE
Socio-Economist
ALCOM
PO Box 35
Morogoro - Tanzania
E-mail:[email protected]

Ms Antoinette ZIEHI
Programme Officer
FAO Representation
01 B.P. 3894
Abidjan 01 - Côte d'lvoire
Tel.: (225) 21.25.65
Fax: (225) 21.47.96
E-mail:[email protected]

FAO

Consultants

André COCHE
Consultant
59 Viale degli Astri
Rome 00144
Italy
Tel.: (39-06) 52.95.977

Vincent O.SAGUA
Consultant
PO Box 71336
Victoria Island
Lagos - Nigeria
E-mail: [email protected]

Headquarters

Fisheries Department
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome
Italy

J. JIA
Chief
Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service (FIRI)
E-mail: [email protected]

Matthias HALWART
Fishery Resources Officer (Aquaculture)
Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service (FIRI)
E-mail:[email protected]

Nathanael HISHAMUNDA
Fishery Planning Analyst
Development and Planning Service (FIPP)
E-mail: [email protected]

Neil RIDLER
Consultant OC
Development and Planning Service (FIPP)
E-mail:[email protected]

Field

Regional Office for Africa (RAF)
PO Box 1628
Accra - Ghana
Tel.:(233-21) 24.40.51-7/70.10.930
Fax:(233-21) 66.84.27

Alhaji JALLOW
Fishery Planning Officer
Fisheries Department Group
E-mail:[email protected]

John F. MOEHL
Aquaculture Officer
Fisheries Department Group
E-mail:[email protected]

W. Q-B. WEST
Senior Fisheries Officer
Fisheries Department Group
E-mail:[email protected]

Secretariat

Angela Joyce ADDY
Secretary
Fisheries Department Group
E-mail:[email protected]

Francis K.E. NUNOO
Department of Oceanography and Fisheries
University of Ghana
PO Box LG 99
Legon - Accra
E-mail:[email protected]

Michael Y. ADELAAYITAR
RAFI Documentation Centre
E-mail:[email protected]

ANNEX 2
AGENDA

Day 1: 22 September
Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Day 2: 23 September
Session 5

Session 6

Day 3: 24 September
Session 7

Session 8

Session 9

Session 10

ANNEX 3
LIST OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AND THEIR AUTHORS

1. Review of Aquaculture in Cameroon (J. Kouam)

2. Review of Aquaculture in Côte d'Ivoire (W. Yté)

3. Review of Aquaculture in Nigeria (G. Shimang)

4. Review of Aquaculture in Central African Republic (E. Njikara)

5. Review of Aquaculture in Zambia (C. Maguswi)

6. Review of Aquaculture in Tanzania (K. Wetengere)

7. Review of Aquaculture in Mali (M. Kienta)

8. Summary of Aquaculture in Madagascar (A. Rabelahatra)

9. Summary of Aquaculture in Kenya (G. Njomba)

10. Summary of Aquaculture in Malawi (M. Kapeleta)

11. Africa Regional Aquaculture Review. Compendium (J. Moehl)

12. Review of Public Sector Support to Aquaculture (M. Entsua-Mensah, A. Lomo, and K.A. Koranteng)

13. Review of Aquaculture Extension (H. van der Mheen)

14. A Farmer-Participatory Approach to Aquaculture Research and Technology Development and Dissemination (R.E. Brummett)

15. Review of Small-scale Integrated Aquaculture Systems (M. Kalende)

16. Review of Medium-and Large-Scale Aquaculture Systems (O. Ayinla)

17. Review of Mariculture (P. Cook)

18. Review of Culture-based Systems (M. Kapeleta)

19. Tendances Actuelles et Développement de l'Aquaculture en Afrique (G. Gnakadja)

ANNEX 4

Past: Elements of past aquaculture development in
Cameroon (CMR),
Central African Republic (CAF),
Côte d'Ivoire (IVC),
Kenya (KEN),
Madagascar (MAD),
Malawi (MLW),
Mali (MLI),
Nigeria (NIR),
Tanzania (URT) and
Zambia (ZAM).

ANNEX 5

Present: Elements of the present aquaculture situation
Cameroon (CMR),
Central African Republic (CAF),
Côte d'Ivoire (IVC),
Kenya (KEN),
Madagascar (MAD),
Malawi (MLW),
Mali (MLI),
Nigeria (NIR),
Tanzania (URT) and
Zambia (ZAM).

ANNEX 6

What worked

In spite of aquaculture's modest growth in Africa, the past three decades are not without some important tangible results. Foremost among these is the fact that aquaculture is now known throughout Africa. Aquaculture has evolved from a non-traditional innovation for most of the Region to a well-known, if not well understood, production system. Fish ponds are now an accepted component of farming systems in most of the continent.

Basic culture technologies have also been generally adopted by a core of fish farmers in most countries. The adoption process may have led to some modifications, but simple semi-intensive fish raising techniques are available in most areas. These may be low-yield non-optimal methods, but they provide a foundation upon which to build.

Seed production techniques should be added to the list of acquired skills. As noted in Section 2.6, the reproductive biology of major culture species is now known-often by farmers as well as by technicians. Moreover, integrated aquaculture is a reality and is being widely practised.

Commercial aquaculture is slowly beginning to play a noteworthy role in fish production in some countries. Furthermore, there is increasing interest in opportunities for commercial ventures to supply local markets as well as for export.

A number of aquaculture technicians is likewise available in most countries. To a large extent these individuals represent those who benefited from capacity building efforts of earlier projects. It is true, however, that an ageing workforce and downsizing of agencies has taken a number of these people out of the arena, and their younger colleagues often do not have the benefit of external funds to enhance their educational opportunities.

Specifically, these achievements can be attributed to the following, among others:

• an acknowledgement that socio-economic elements of the adoption process are often more important than the technical issues - a better understanding of beneficiaries' priorities and perceptions is needed;
• increased involvement of the private sector;
• increased awareness of the importance of group formation and taking a community approach including the involvement of NGOs;
• encouraging a participatory approach;
• developing flexible extension messages that can be fine tuned to meet specific producer requirements; and
• relying on simple technologies and local materials.

What did not work

Institutional difficulties relate to frequently changing institutional homes for aquaculture and an over-reliance on donor funds. The former factor has led to difficulties in establishing effective extension services, to high turnover in personnel and to problems in elaborating needed development policies. The latter has promoted the incorporation of expensive infrastructure into national aquaculture programmes, infrastructure obtained through donor funds but which cannot be maintained with national assets.

These ubiquitous government structures and facilities have had another effect; they have focused attention on a national level whereas a regional or subregional orientation would be more appropriate in many cases. Numerous national training and research institutions lead to a duplication of effort and a high cost per unit of output. To a large extent, the training and research needs of the majority of the countries in the Region are similar and a regional approach to meeting these would be more cost effective. One or more regional training centres would be able to service the entire region while effective research and information exchange networks would link regional and inter-regional institutions and foster complementary as opposed to duplicate research.

Technical difficulties also have existed on two levels. On the one hand, technologies have been presented in cookbook fashion to farmers with little appreciation of what farmers' needs are - a top-down approach to technology transfer. Second, when results were less than anticipated, completely new technologies and/or culture species were sought when, in fact, the initial technology had the capacity to produce much more. In most cases, poor harvests are a result of poor management - neither a poor culture organism nor inferior technologies. Simple technologies have proven that they can produce well if moulded to farmers' needs/abilities and carefully explained.

A lack of research/extension linkages has regularly lead to situations where researchers examine aquaculture practices that have no relevance to local producers. Research should be “demand driven” and address producers' needs.

Past experiences have taught us that you cannot raise fish anywhere. During the boom years of the 1960s and 1970s, well-doers introduced fish farming into many areas where the prerequisite resources did not exist. Fish culture is more than land +water+fish. Site selection is crucial. And, once built in an unsuitable site, it is more difficult to rehabilitate an existing pond than to build a new one.

We have also learned that you cannot approach aquaculture in isolation. This applies to both farm and government levels. The largest number of fish farmers has small-scale diversified farms where all inputs (water, labour, and capital) are divided among a variety of enterprises. Introducing aquaculture into this collage requires a holistic approach encompassing all farm activities. At the government level, it is unlikely that dedicated extension services will re-surface as the principal tool of aquaculture extension. For better or worse, unified extension services are probably the structures within which one must work, and to do so also requires a holistic approach.

ANNEX 7
REVIEW OF PUBLIC SECTOR SUPPORT FOR AQUACULTURE IN AFRICA

by
M. Entsua-Mensah⁶, A.Lomo⁷ and K.A. Koranteng⁸

SUMMARY

The objective of this study is to review public sector support for aquaculture in Africa. ‘Public Sector Support’ in this context, refers to assistance given directly or indirectly by government or through national projects undertaken within bilateral cooperation, or regional projects undertaken within multilateral coperation. The review is based on published materials on aquaculture practices in ten African countries selected according to the broad geographic regions of the continent. The countries are Cameroon and Central African Republic (Central); Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania (East); Malawi and Zambia (Southern) and Côte d'lvoire, Ghana, Mali and Nigeria (West).

The history of aquaculture in sub-Saharan Africa is relatively recent compared to that of Asia. However, some form of aquaculture has been practised in many African countries for 40 years or more. During the 1960s, aquaculture development almost came to a standstill, with significant declines in many of the countries. Most ponds were abandoned because of poor returns, lack of stocking materials and drought among other reasons. In the last 50 years or so, several attempts have been made to introduce aquaculture in Africa with government and donor support. According to Coche et al. (1994) it was not until the late 1960s that aquaculture started to develop again in Africa following increased technical and financial assistance from multilateral and bilateral donors amounting to about US$500 million over a 20-year period. In spite of these attempts, no African country is included in the top 14 aquaculture producing countries in the world. Total aquaculture production in Africa rose from less than 40 000 tonnes in 1984 to over 100 000 tonnes in 1996. The total production of the ten countries constitutes between 14 and 31 percent (average 22 percent) of Africa's production. The most important country in the study in terms of aquaculture production is Nigeria.

Many countries, including those with significant aquaculture production or potential, do provide support services to the sector. These services may include research and development, training and extension, creating enabling conditions through policy and legislation, credit and post-harvest handling including marketing.

Extension Services

Extension services in aquaculture aim at providing existing knowledge and applying the appropriate technology to the sector, as well as identifying sources of recommended inputs and provision of training and advice to aquaculturists. In some of the countries reviewed there is a distinction between aquaculture and fisheries extension (e.g. Cameroon and Côte d'lvoire), although the same extension agents may also perform other duties (e.g. Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria). In all the countries reviewed, extension services suffer from inadequate mobility, lack of funds, equipment and other extension materials.

The lack of effective aquaculture extension in Ghana, for example, is being addressed through the Unified Agricultural Extension System (UAES) in which frontline staff of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture are expected to provide extension services to all sectors of agriculture including aquaculture. This is intended to increase the number of extension outreach staff available for aquaculture development and also to help integrate fish farming into existing farming systems. Consequently, aquaculture could get less attention in preference to more traditional agricultural activities under the unified agriculture extension system.

Fingerling production

To introduce or develop aquaculture, it is essential that the producer has access to production inputs including good seed. In Africa, shortage of fingerlings is identified as a major technical impediment which often results in reduced farmer interest in fish farming. This is because public sector involvement in the production of fingerlings is anything but efficient. Although all the countries in this review have fish breeding centres and hatcheries, many are in a state of disrepair. To ensure success of aquaculture it would be desirable for governments to support the establishment of good breeding facilities in collaboration with research institutions and universities until such a time that the private sector can take over this activity.

Subsidies on manufacturing and importation of feed and fertilizers

Feed and fertilizers are essential inputs for aquaculture production, however, due to the limited demand for fish feed and the high cost of agricultural by-products used in its formulation, the fish feed industry has not been well developed in most countries in Africa. Large-scale aquaculture producers in Nigeria and Malawi produce their own fish feed.

Research

Records show that aquaculture research in Africa could not be sustained in many of the countries until in late 1960s to early 1980s when through foreign technical assistance, aquaculture research was reactivated in most countries. The subregion still suffers from the lack of an adapted research programme to support extension services. Undoubtedly, research is expensive and the private sector in many African countries has not assisted in its funding. However, because research is needed to provide the basis for government support to aquaculture in the form of training, extension, input supplies, etc. public sector involvement in it is essential. Major constraints to aquaculture research in Africa are insufficiency of government funds and lack of experienced research staff. These imply that some kind of decision has to be made between research that could be carried out at the national level and that at international level. It would be more beneficial to spend time on adapting findings of international research initiatives (e.g. as by ICLARM) to local conditions.

Training

Almost every country in this review has some form of aquacultural training but only a few universities have specialized courses in aquaculture at degree level. Public support for higher education in aquaculture is essential and may best be done on a regional basis. For example, the African Regional Aquaculture Centre (ARAC) in Nigeria was established to meet the training need for specialized technical staff of individual African nations. However, international training activities at the Centre declined since the UNDP/FAO assistance ended. This is because many African governments could not afford to send students for training. For ARAC to function sustainably as a subregional training centre, it would be desirable to affiliate it to a consortium of African Universities and Research Institutions with satisfactory aquaculture training and research programmes, relevant international donor community (e.g. EU. IDRC) and international training and research institutes (e.g. ICLARM).

Under the present economic crises in Africa, governments' continued support for aquaculture is not bright. There is public and international concern that aquaculture, like many other trades, should be developed in a sustainable and responsible manner. Most state-run fish farms have failed to operate sustainably implying that direct involvement of government in this venture is not the right thing to do.

However, African governments can continue to provide support in the areas of training, research, extension, aquaculture policy and legislation.

Alternatives to public sector support

Public and private sector partnership in development is now accepted in many disciplines.

For aquaculture development in Africa, some of the alternatives to public sector support are:

• NGO participation should be encouraged; and
• Fish Farmers' Associations (FFA) must be formed in all countries and should be strengthened and properly organized as well as empowered to operate as service providers. FFAs could set up mobile pond construction units to help their members and serve as focal points for aquaculture extension. Furthermore, the associations could act as a point of contact for financial institutions, aid agencies and researchers. They could also serve as conduit for technology transfer to their members through pond site demonstration or organization of field days, seminars and workshops.

⁶ Water Research Institute, Accra, Ghana.
⁷ Directorate of Fisheries, Accra, Ghana
⁸ Directorate of Fisheries, Tema, Ghana

ANNEX 8
REVIEW OF AQUACULTURE EXTENSION IN AFRICA

by
Henk van der Mheen
FAO Consultant

SUMMARY

This document reviews the principles and methods used, in particular in the African region, in agricultural extension and aquaculture extension. It evaluates the different systems and assesses their sustainability. The document also comes with recommendations on how to change the extension services to make them more sustainable and effective in disseminating information to smallholder farmers.

The most important conclusions and recommendations are:

Although there have been quite some developments in the agriculture extension, most of the aquaculture extension programmes were based on the principle that it was necessary to introduce externally generated technology. This was caused by the fact that aquaculture is relatively new in Africa, but also by the fact that aquaculture projects were always executed by aquaculture technicians. The technicians focused on production increase only, and were prepared to manipulate local conditions if these were not favourable for the adoption of the advocated technology. The technology promoted by these projects proved not sustainable for most farmers.

Extension was in most cases simply interpreted as teaching farmers how to apply the developed technology. It was only in the 1990s that some projects tried to really integrate aquaculture into the farming system, and new approaches for extension were used.

A real analysis of why aquaculture did not develop as hoped for was never made, and the question remains whether it can be developed under the present conditions. This question not only applies to aquaculture but also is relevant for rural development in a general sense.

Most successes in agriculture development are still only on a relatively small scale. This is largely because an enabling policy environment is missing in almost every African country. Extension and research operate within a national political and economic environment and have to ensure that the developed systems are adaptable for farmers who operate their enterprise within this environment.

Aquaculture should not be conceptualized as a purely technical activity. Instead, these local conditions need to be analysed and conclusions drawn as to the possibilities of aquaculture within those conditions. If aquaculture is to be integrated into farming systems one must also understand its interactions with the surrounding physical, sociocultural and institutional environment. This analysis as well as the planning of improvements should involve farm families and rural communities.

This report concludes that in order to create sustainable development of aquaculture, a complete modification of the extension service is required. At present the objective of extension should change to an improvement of the living standards through improvement of the overall farming activities. This requires an extension approach that is not specialised for certain crops, able to deal with agricultural problems, and able to take local possibilities, wishes and knowledge of farmers into consideration. This requires a much more participatory approach, and hence requires a change of the extension system.

The system requires staff who are willing to listen, and are able to assist farmers in analysing their situation and in making decisions on how to solve problems, and provide a service to farmers instead of following instructions from supervisors. Most of their work should be to respond to requests from the farming communities. Reacting to the requests of farmers opens good possibilities for the improvement of the linkage between extension and research and for conducting on farm research. It also opens the possibility to request contributions of the farmers to the extension service.

The financial requirements for such an extension service will vary between countries. It will however be more expensive in countries with poor infrastructure and with an unstable political and economic environment. The dilemma is that these countries are in most cases the poorer countries.

The process of developing good extension material takes a long time and requires expertise. Efforts should be made to develop standard sets of materials that have been properly tested for their effectiveness and that can easily be modified to the local situation. These basic sets can be developed for a whole region with comparable conditions.

Financial constraints may restrict changes in the extension service, but more than money; changes that effectively improve the extension services need people who are genuinely interested to learn the lessons from past failures. Hence, it needs professionals who are open for change who look beyond technologies only and who are focused on learning from farmers rather than teaching. This requirement is probably the most difficult to fulfil.