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

2. AQUACULTURE RESEARCH IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

In this second chapter, the aquaculture research sector will be first described by defining who, at national level, are the actors participating in the development of aquaculture research, which are the objectives to be attained, the resources utilized and the programmes implemented in the past (last 15–20 years) or planned for the immediate future.

Then, in a following section, the institutional framework will be reviewed to evaluate the degree of dependence of aquaculture research in relation to the administrative sector and the existence of positive and/or negative feedback. The way in which this sector uses aquaculture research to support the development process will also be analyzed.

Finally, the contribution of aquaculture research to development will be reviewed. The reasons for, as well as the subjects and mechanisms of collaboration between the research sector and the development sector will be examined. The results obtained from each of the main research programmes will be analyzed.

Historical aspects of aquaculture research in sub-Saharan Africa have been briefly dealt with earlier (Section 1.3.4).

2.1 Description of the Research Sector

2.1.1 Participation (Annex 10)

In all the countries reviewed, the public sector participates in aquaculture research. In MAG, the participation is in part through a parastatal enterprise, financially independent. The private sector is very active in KEN, ZAM and ZIM.

Public sector research

Administratively, public research mostly depends from the Ministry responsible for:

• Scientific Research (4/12 countries), or
• Forestry/Natural Resources (4/12 countries), or
• Agriculture (3/12 countries).

In Rwanda, aquaculture research depends directly from the national University, Agricultural Faculty, sited in Butare.

Institutions responsible for carrying out aquaculture research programmes are of three kinds:

• Department of Fisheries/Aquaculture Service (6/12 countries); or
• University Department (5/12 countries); or
• Research Institute (8/12 countries):
  • Fisheries oriented (5/12 countries)
  • Natural Resources (2/12 countries)
  • Animal husbandry (1/12 countries)

2.1.2 Definition of research objectives (Annex 10)

The objectives of the various research programmes are most commonly defined according to either institutional objectives or international programmes.

Producers influence research programmes either in the private sector (commercial farmers conducting research personally) or in the public sector through extension/surveys feedback (MLW, URT).

Research workers define by themselves the kind of research to be carried out in 4/12 countries, while cooperation with other institutions is responsible for such choice in 3/12 countries only.

As a specific National Plan for Aquaculture Development exists in very few countries (see Section 1.6), it is no surprise to observe that research objectives are defined in such a plan in one country only (Madagascar), even if Nigeria also has gone through such planning exercise.

Only three countries report that research objectives are defined in their general National Development Plan, although this is probably the case in several other countries also.

2.1.3 General orientation of research

In relation to the multiple factors of aquaculture development, research programmes have covered (or cover) mostly biotechnological aspects, not only in all countries reviewed but also as a top priority subject in a large majority of them.

Economic aspects have been studied in about half of the countries reviewed, concentrating mostly on marketing research.

Slightly less importance has been given to social aspects (e.g. study of target groups, rates of adoption, gender issues).

On the contrary, environmental research has received very low priority until now in most countries, except Nigeria.

2.1.4 Available resources for research

Resources available for aquaculture research in the countries reviewed are found in Annex 11.

Infrastructure and equipment

The actual operational capability of the major African aquaculture research stations is rated from “very good” to “poor” on the basis of infrastructure (age, diversity) and availability of laboratories, varied equipment and support facilities (hatchery, feed processing, library), as shown in Table 12.

Only one marine research station (rated good) is available in Madagascar where applied shrimp research is carried out since 1988 (UNDP/FAO Project 1988–91).

Brackishwater research stations are available in Côte d'Ivoire (very good) and Nigeria (2 × average).

Most of the major research stations operate in a freshwater environment. Only four of them are rated from “very good” (IVC, RWA) to “good” (CMR, MLW). Four others are poorly equipped (KEN, NIR, ZAM), while another four stations are characterized by a very old infrastructure (dating from the 50's mostly) and poor equipment. For completeness, a fifth station has been added from Zaire, a non-reviewed country.

At the research stations rated from “very good” to “good”, the existing facilities and equipment are generally in full use. On the contrary, in the other stations, they are little used, except in Nigeria.

Table 12. Operational capability of major African aquaculture research stations

Financial resources

Overall national financing of aquaculture research is very limited and its availability most uncertain, even in large countries such as Nigeria and Kenya.

It is only in the presence of foreign assistance, either bilateral or multilateral, that reasonable research budgets are available together with the necessary infrastructure and equipment (see above), such as in Côte d'Ivoire, Rwanda, Cameroon and Malawi.

Human resources

Generally between 3 and 10 national senior staff are engaged in each country in aquaculture research. Two countries reviewed are exceptional: in Nigeria, the number of senior research staff is above average while in Kenya, it seems excessively high for the type and amount of research done (Section 2.2.3).

Foreign senior research staff are particularly numerous in Côte d'Ivoire which still receives a strong technical assistance in aquaculture research. In Rwanda, technical assistance is also relatively high in this sector.

The number of middle-level research staff is strikingly low in Côte d'Ivoire and way above average in Malawi (4/1 senior staff).

In most countries, aquaculture researchers are biologists/ecologists. Other professional profiles include veterinary science/animal husbandry, agriculture and forestry, but only in one country each.

Actual employment of available research staff is generally limited or part time. Some of this staff have also development responsibilities (e.g. MLW, URT, ZAM) or are involved in other types of research, such as capture fisheries or aquatic ecology (e.g. ZIM). Full time employment of aquaculture research staff exists only:

• where a strong financial assistance enables research programmes to be fully carried out (IVC, RWA); or

• where government gives enough priority to such kind of research and some budget is available in the presence of adequate infrastructure and basic equipment.

2.2 Main Aquaculture Research Programmes

The major aquaculture research programmes described by the various authors in their national studies and carried out in their countries during the last 15 – 20 years are briefly summarized in Annexes 12 to 14. for the four agro-ecological zones defined (see Section 1.1.3).

In total, 73 research programmes are considered, mostly for the period 1975 – 1993 (Table 14).

2.2.1 Immediate research objectives

Immediate objectives of the research programmes described in the national studies are listed in Table 13. If they are ranked on the basis of their frequency of occurrence in the 12 countries reviewed, the ten top ranking objectives (in order of importance) are as follows:

It is to be remarked that most of these top-ranking objectives are related both

• to the identified development constraints (see Section 1.10) and
• to the mentioned research priorities (see Section 3.2).

2.2.2 Duration of research programmes

Aquaculture research programmes usually last for 2 to 4 years (Table 14). Longer-term programmes are observed mainly in Rwanda and in all four countries of the Southern Region.

2.2.3 Distribution of research programmes

Average number of aquaculture research programmes per country greatly varies on a regional basis (Table 14):

It is to be observed that Kenya (East Region) has had no main research programme to report on.

2.3 Institutional Framework for Aquaculture Research

2.3.1 Definition of research programmes (Annex 15)

Aquaculture research programmes are defined in three ways:

• by a multi-disciplinary committee (3/12 countries);
• by the institutional board of directors (3/12 countries);
• by the staff of the institution (6/12 countries), mostly the research staff itself.

Table 13. Immediate objectives of aquaculture research programmes.

Table 14. Duration and number of research programmes per country and region

Rem 1] O on-going programme, C completed programme

2.3.2 Fund raising (Annex 15)

In most cases, public research funds for aquaculture are raised at the institution's level, either as part of the available national budget or from foreign donors. Competition for limited funds is often severe and the low priority given to aquaculture by public administration (see Section 1.4.1) often results in insufficient public financing.

2.3.3 Utilization of research results

The results from aquaculture research are usually not properly evaluated. Among the countries reviewed, only three reported the existence of an evaluation procedure (Annex 15).

Research results are mostly transferred through either extension (7/12 countries) or written material (progress reports/local publications in five countries and scientific publications in three countries). Researchers transfer results themselves directly to the producers in three cases (CMR, MAG, RWA). In Malawi, use is made of “Open days” and “Participatory research” to improve the transfer process.

2.3.4 Research as development support

In most cases (6/12 countries), research is said to be used directly to support development (Annex 15). However, only Malawi judges that such support is of good quality, while, on the contrary, it is considered in four other countries that such support is at the best limited. In Zimbabwe, there is even no such support.

Four countries agree that there is need for a better coordination between research and development sectors and/or that a better system is needed to improve the use of aquaculture research as development support.

2.4 Collaboration Between Research and Production Sectors

2.4.1 Reasons for collaboration

In all the countries under review (Annex 15), the relationship between the aquaculture research and production sectors is motivated by individual contacts between researchers and producers. In half of the cases however, such contacts are limited, mostly due to lack of transport.

A second relatively important reason (9/12 countries) consists in the participation of producers in the identification of research programmes, although this happens on a limited scale in half the cases only.

A third mentioned reason is the positive attitude of producers to include research in their own activities particularly at the commercial scale, such as in MAG/MLW/RWA (small scale) and in ZAM/ZIM (large scale only).

Only in Nigeria are development policies identified together with the researchers.

2.4.2 Subjects of collaboration

This research-production collaboration has mainly developed on three broad subjects (Annex 15):

• technical, such as equipment and juvenile fish for pond stocking, in all 12 countries.
• economic, such as marketing, in 7/12 countries
• social, such as appropriate technology development, in 6/12 countries.

Environmental subjects, such as impact of the environment on fish production or impact of aquaculture practices on the environment, are mentioned in three countries only (NIR, IVC, MLW).

Institutional subjects, such as the definition of policies, regulations and legislation, are rarely subjects of such collaboration. Exceptions are Nigeria and Rwanda.

2.4.3 Mechanisms of collaboration (Annex 15)

Two mechanisms in particular favour the collaboration between the aquaculture research and production sectors:

• extension, in all 12 countries although on a limited scale only in CMR, KEN and NIR;
• direct transfer of technology, in 9/12 countries (limited in Nigeria).

Publications are little used as a collaboration mechanism. Only three countries actually make use of them (IVC, NIR, MLW).

Training of extensionists and farmers, under the form of either basic or refresher courses, is reported by 4/12 countries.

Other mentioned mechanisms of collaboration include workshops (NIR), Open Days at research stations (MLW), Field Days (ZAM), as well as the participation of small-scale producers in research programmes, either on station (MLW) or on their own farm (RWA).

2.5 Results of Main Aquaculture Research Programmes

The results of the main aquaculture research programmes (Section 2.2) are presented in Annexes 16 to 18, together with a brief evaluation of these programmes' performance, the limiting factors experienced and the causes for eventual failures.

Most results relate to propagation technology (catfishes especially), production of culture systems, genetics/hybridization, feeds/feeding, and small-water bodies management.

Induced results relate mostly to aquaculture development based on the direct results, through transfer to the producers.

Sustainability and continuity of effects are estimated to be “good” in 57 per cent of the cases reviewed and from “bad” to “limited” in 26 percent of them.

The limiting factors are rather numerous and varied, depending on the type of research programme envisaged. Limited funds and high costs are mentioned on several occasions. The use of imported inputs has caused problems in most cases.

2.6 Summary: The Aquaculture Research Sector

2.6.1 Description of the research sector

2.6.2 Main aquaculture research programmes

2.6.3 Institutional framework of research

2.6.4 Collaboration between research and production sectors

2.6.5 Results of main research programmes

2.6.6 Personal considerations and comments

Research staff and research quality

There is no doubt that the relative value of the research results obtained depends greatly on the researcher himself, even in the presence of the best facilities and generous financial support.

As already stressed elsewhere (Pauly et al., 1991), for the quality of research to be maintained at a high level for simply improved), it is necessary to provide to the staff good living and working conditions. This includes mainly an adequate status for the research personnel (salary, allowances, incentives, health/pension schemes, etc.) and the existence of procedures for evaluating individual performances which link production and rewards to performance.

High quality basic training followed by opportunities for continuous updating specialised theoretical and practical knowledge are essential for developing a cadre of scientifically qualified research staff.

There is a need to develop adequate education and training facilities in Africa, aiming specifically at the development of such qualified aquaculture research manpower.

Development constraints to be alleviated by research

From the long list of development constraints identified in the national studies (Annex 9), it is to be stressed that only a limited number of them could be alleviated by research:

• Production statistics: collection
• Sound economic data for private entrepreneurs
• Village socio-economics poorly understood
• Lack of juveniles for restocking private ponds
• Broodstock degeneration
• Indigenous species not well known
• Good-growing indigenous species unavailable (introduction of exotic species, legislation and code of practice)

All other identified development constraints cannot be alleviated by research.

Availability of research results, past and present

It has been noted that in most countries the collaboration between aquaculture development and research sectors could be stronger, resulting in a wider availability and better utilization of research results.

If such transfer problems already exist at the national level, it is not surprising to observe a general lack of information flow not only at the continental level (in particular francophone-anglophone and interregional exchanges) but also at the regional level, even within areas with a common language (e.g. Zambia/Zimbabwe/Tanzania or Congo/Central African Republic/Gabon/Cameroon) and even at the national level.

Not only are information exchanges limited to rare occasions (e.g. international meetings) but there is also an increasing tendency to ignore research carried out in the past. Most of its results are unfortunately available from a “grey” literature, unaccessible to most African researchers. This difficulty of access appears to be amplified to the extreme if the original reporting language is French, to the point that even well-known international institutions then resign themselves to ignore such literature.

There is a definite need for an improved information flow throughout Africa at least in its two main official languages English and French. Both past and present research literature should become available, on simple request, to all aquaculture research institutions and their staff.

Future international collaboration at a fully continental scale

It would be futile to ignore the vast aquaculture knowledge and experience presently existing in the Republic of South Africa, both in the freshwater and marine environments.

For political reasons, such valuable technical information has remained until now inaccessible for most other African nations. It is to be hoped that in a not too distant future, political barriers will be lifted. A normal information flow should then be established between aquaculture researchers at a true continental scale.

3. AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH PRIORITIES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

3.1 Aquaculture Development Priorities

On the basis of the analysis of the past and present situation made in the two preceding Sections, priorities for aquaculture development in the short and medium terms have been identified by the authors in each national study. These priorities are assembled on a regional basis in Annexes 19 to 22.

3.1.1 Identification of the priorities

Development priorities have been mostly identified during meetings involving only representatives of the Ministry (or Ministries) directly involved in aquaculture development (9/12 countries). In the other countries, they were identified either during multidisciplinary meetings (CMR and MAG) or by the author himself (KEN).

3.1.2 Priority subjects

The identified priorities have been summarized and regrouped by subjects and regions, as presented in Table 15.

Priorities consist mostly in non-technical subjects such as:

• Public administration (planning, reorganisation, legislation, data base)
• Education/training (all levels, incl. curricula improvement)
• Socio-economics (privatisation, credit, economics, marketing)
• Infrastructure (fish farms, development centre, training and documentation centres, fish seed multiplication centres)
• Information (dissemination)
• Extension services (reorganize/strengthen)
• Private sector development (investment, school and homestead programmes, women participation)

3.1.3 Type of priorities

Most identified priorities pertain to aquaculture development in the short term.

3.1.4 Implementation responsibility

The responsibility for implementing the identified priorities generally rests with the ministry (and its related institutions) responsible for aquaculture development in the country.

3.1.5 Requested assistance for implementation of development priorities

For the implementation of the 58 priority programmes listed in Annexes 19 to 22, two types of possible assistance have been envisaged (Table 16):

• financial assistance, requested by all countries, for 79 percent of the proposed programmes
• technical assistance, requested by all countries except Nigeria, for 55 per cent of the programmes

Very few estimates of the financial resources required for the implementation of each priority programme have been provided by the authors. Exceptions are Cameroon, Congo and Rwanda.

3.1.6 Relative importance of the priorities

The relative importance of these development priorities is ranked in Table 17.

Major identified development priorities for sub-Saharan Africa as a whole are as follows:

Other important priority lines of future aquaculture development have been identified by 41 percent of the countries reviewed as follows:

• Establishment of an aquaculture data base
• Education/training of medium-level staff
• Dissemination of information

From comparing these major development priorities with the major development constraints identified earlier (Section 1.10 and Table 11), it can be seen that nearly all major priorities relate to major constraints.

But some of the constraints remain unaddressed such as (Table 11):

1. Limited availability of public finances
2. Instability of institutional framework
3. No sound economic data for private entrepreneurs
4. Insecurity (poaching of fish/livestock)
5. Extensionists not adequately trained
6. Transport costs prohibitive

Except constraints (c) and (e), all the others in fact could not be removed through a priority programme, too limited in time and resources. Some of these constraints, hopefully might be removed as the national structural adjustment programme is implemented.

Table 15. Summary: Aquaculture development priorities in Africa

Table 16. Kind of assistance suggested for identified priority development programme

Table 17. Ranking of aquaculture development priorities for Africa