The Second Session of the CIFA Working Party on Aquaculture commenced on 13 September 1993, with participants from 13 member countries of the Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa and two observers. The list of participants is attached as Appendix 2.
The FAO Representative in Zimbabwe, Mr C.R. MacCulloch, seized the opportunity to present a review of aquaculture development and research and highlighted the fact that the meeting was the outcome of the joint effort of ECA, CEC and FAO with regard to the funding of the synthesis study and the national reports prepared by the participants.
The Secretary of CIFA, Mr W.Q.-B. West, indicated that, although the last session of the Working Party on Aquaculture had taken place long ago, there had been a number of follow-up activities. He also pointed out that the meeting provided an excellent opportunity for African countries to participate in a major activity at world level aiming at strengthening development through more efficient research programmes for fisheries and aquaculture.
Mr B. Haight, ALCOM Senior Aquaculturist, explained the work of the Aquaculture for Local Community Development Programme and illustrated the evolution which had characterized the last two years of work. This has led to the reorientation of the project into four major action programmes. ALCOM is interested in assisting the follow-up of this exercise.
On behalf of the Government of Zimbabwe, Mr Cecil Machena, Acting Chief Ecologist (Aquatic), Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management of Zimbabwe, stressed the importance of aquaculture as a mechanism to increase fish production and officially opened the meeting.
Ms S. Mutsekwa (Zimbabwe) and Mr E. Kali-Tchikati (Congo) were elected Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson respectively. After the election of the Meeting Officers, the Agenda was reviewed and adopted with amendments (Appendix 1). The list of the documents distributed appears as Appendix 3 of this report.
The review of the synthesis of the national reports and action plan for aquaculture research programmes (CIFA:WPA/93/2, Appendix 4 of this report) prepared for the meeting started with a presentation of the methodology followed for the organization of this activity. This was done mainly for the benefit of the participants which had not prepared national reports. It was highlighted that the implementation of this exercise would not have been possible without the collaboration from the outset of the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), which had participated in the discussion of the outline of the national reports and had facilitated financially the recruitment of the consultants. The organization of this Working Party meeting was also made possible by the generous contribution of DG-XII of the Commission of European Communities (CEC), which covered part of the cost of travel of the participants and will contribute to the publication of the proceedings.
The preparation of such an exercise had been considered necessary by FAO for four main reasons:
the conclusion of the ADCP as a leading programme of FAO after 15 years of activities in the field of aquaculture development, requiring the identification of how assistance to aquaculture development and research at regional and subregional levels could be carried out by FAO in the future;
the interest expressed by ECA/JEFAD to undertake a review to investigate the reasons for the limited development of aquaculture in Africa vis-a-vis other regions of the world;
the changes in the strategy of operation and funding of UNDP for field projects and programmes in member countries, requiring the integration of sectoral components into broader and more general multi-sectoral themes at country level and thus limiting the financial possibilities for regional and subregional approaches;
the conclusion of the Study on International Fisheries Research (SIFR), followed by the Strategy for International Fisheries Research, and the request made by the last Fisheries Donors' Meeting in October 1991 to the member agencies of the Steering Committee to contribute to the improvement of the Indicative Action Plan for development-oriented research.
A few editorial changes to the synthesis under review (Document CIFA:WPA/93/Inf.3) were suggested by the participants and noted by the Secretariat. It was agreed that these changes would be incorporated in the final version of the synthesis by the Secretariat immediately after the meeting.
It was also agreed that missing national data (in particular in Tables 2, 7, 9, 21 and 28) would be provided to Mr Pedini by the authors of the national reviews concerned, at the latest 15 days after the closure of the meeting.
The Working Party suggested that a similar review of the status of aquaculture development and research in Sub-Saharan Africa should be held every five years.
When defining the objectives of aquaculture development, it was stressed that the impacts at the micro-economic level and at the social level should be included. It is therefore of primary importance that a methodology for the evaluation of such impacts be developed. It was agreed that classical economic analyses as actually used were not sufficient to properly evaluate the impacts of small-scale aquaculture.
On the other hand, it was pointed out that there are cases where only large-scale aquaculture might be contemplated, for example in marine aquaculture development. Problems should then be resolved separately through specialized research.
As part of the constraints to aquaculture development the Working Party emphasized the following:
Lack of juveniles, a problem which is being alleviated in some countries by the privatization of juvenile production directly within the rural areas concerned;
Lack of marketing outlets, due, for example, to the prevalent low buying power of the majority of the population, even in urban areas;
Disruption of local markets, following the import of cheap marine fish from neighbouring countries.
To support the development of aquaculture, the participants stressed the need for:
Efficient extension systems, realizing that such systems needed to be greatly improved in most countries. The level of extension specialization to be adopted should be determined by the level of specialization of the agricultural production system, which varies from country to country.
Support to the fish farmers to be channelled as directly as possible to them, for example under the forms of education, training and incentives.
Marketing surveys to be carried out at regular intervals, to direct the development.
The Working Party realized that the gap existing between needed per capita consumption of fish and fish production cannot be met by standard aquaculture practices alone, even at the commercial level. It was therefore suggested that aquaculture production be increased through the following:
Enhancement of small-water bodies fisheries;
introduction of aquaculture practices into urban backyards, secondary schools and universities, as was already successfully initiated in Nigeria;
increased support of the private sector through various incentives.
The lack of an adequate information flow, at national, regional and continental levels, was considered by the Working Party as one of the major constraints for aquaculture research. In particular, the following points were stressed:
Lack of information flow among anglophone and francophone regions;
need for information from all sectors and sub-sectors related to aquaculture development;
the urgent need for the establishment of information centres, fully staffed and equipped.
Other major constraints for aquaculture research, common to most of the countries, were identified:
Strong bias toward biotechnological research, mostly due to the personal profile of the researchers, generally biologists and ecologists;
Excessive emphasis placed by the researchers on individual development at the expense of national interests, sometimes reinforced by the career development system and the short-term nature of most research projects financed by donors.
The Working Party also felt that the lack of a national aquaculture development plan made it impossible to properly plan aquaculture research. An additional difficulty stemmed from the location of administrative responsibilities for aquaculture development and research in separate ministries.
The general feeling was that the collaboration between development and research should be greatly improved for the benefit of both sectors.
To sensitize policy makers on the importance of development-orientated aquaculture research, it was suggested to disseminate research results through the extensive use of printed and electronic media, a process worth assistance by the donors.
The distinction to be made between development-orientated research (to support planning at national level) and production-orientated research (to improve production and profits at the producers' level) was stressed by the Working Party. Examples of how the results of each of these two types of research could be effectively applied toward aquaculture development were given by the Nigerian delegate.
This section of the synthesis report provided a ranking of the development priorities derived from the indications by the national authors. However, the lack of regular development planning exercises in most countries had created problems to the authors, who had few references at national level to prepare this section of the reports. The quantitative analysis carried out for the preparation of the synthesis resulted in a biased appreciation of the problem, as most of the authors expressed their personal opinion as aquaculturists.
The need for rigorous planning exercises which would allow a clearer focus on development priorities and their implementation was recognized as of the highest importance for aquaculture development.
These planning exercises would allow a more judicious allocation of the available public sector resources, now scarcer due to the structural adjustment programmes. Only in Madagascar and Nigeria the planning of aquaculture development has been carried out in some detail.
In connection with the discussion on planning and reorientation of aquaculture development, the need to look for indicators of socio-economic impact, not exclusively of financial nature, was mentioned, as there had been cases of adoption of aquaculture which could not be merely explained through classical financial analyses.
In reviewing the development priorities listed in the synthesis report, the participants centred their attention on the issue of availability of credit for aquaculture, which was ranked very high in the national reports. After reviewing the numerous and rather negative past experiences linked to the allocation of credit for rural aquaculture, it was concluded that, although there was a need for credit, its priority should not be ranked at a very high level for the time frame considered by this exercise (5–10 years). It was noted that, in the light of the lack of habit to request and repay credit in most rural areas of Africa, the banking community would not be encouraged to provide it in a near future.
For semi-commercial or commercial forms of aquaculture, credit through commercial banks is available, but the lack of information about economic data and financial viability of some of the proposed projects may hamper the granting of loans. However, this is rather a site-specific problem which the group felt did not require joint efforts at regional level.
Research priorities had been ranked from the long list obtained from the national reports (57 topics) on the basis of their frequency. The lack of planning exercises as in the development priorities cited above had resulted in incomplete correspondence between identified development constraints and the research priorities which could alleviate those constraints. Thus, the team which prepared the synthesis report had to complete the selection of priorities to match the constraints identified in the best possible way.
During the discussion on this item two points were also considered: the lack of regional research priorities for economic research to permit the preparation of financial models and the potential interest of research on equipment for aquaculture. In the former case it was agreed that, although important at national level, research on economic data was not a topic for regional or subregional efforts, due to the diversity of situations in the various countries. In the latter case, a component could be built into the relevant action programmes for the development of the necessary tools which would facilitate the attainment of the objectives.
The design criteria for preparation of the action plan comprising nine research programmes was presented. Six of the research programmes were proposed to alleviate aquaculture development constraints linked to development priorities identified in the national reviews. Three of the research programmes were suggested by the synthesis team to respond to needs which arise outside the national reviews:
aquaculture information, requiring a network to support information collection and dissemination;
aquaculture in irrigation schemes, and
coastal aquaculture, to exploit under-utilized aquatic environments.
It was noted that several aquaculture development constraints could not be alleviated by research. An aquaculture development plan is anyway needed to overcome those constraints as well as those not directly addressed by research. In particular, development priorities relating to extension services, administrative collaboration and coordination and national aquaculture development planning will be achieved mainly by development rather than research activities.
The Working Party recognized that aquaculture development planning is a national-level activity. It was suggested that the regional information programme be used to enlighten national development planners to accommodate aquaculture priorities and constraints in national plans.
The Working Group was informed that the proposed research programmes presented at this meeting are in outline form and will require detailed elaboration in the region before presentation to donors. While the mechanism for funding these proposed programmes through SIFR was still being worked out, several programme design criteria were important: clear identification of beneficiaries and their needs; measurable impact; regional networking; and, linkages with institutions outside the region. Furthermore, phased implementation of a limited number of programmes would help accommodate donor resources and national capacity.
Each proposed research programme was presented by FAO staff or consultants and discussed by the Working Party in terms of justification, objective, expected outputs, lead and network centres, priority, linkages and resources.
The Working Party suggested that in addition to two lead centres, one for each major language, there should be a network of centres with one from each agro-ecological region. Several such centres were identified for possible inclusion in the programme.
The importance of personal contacts among scientists was emphasized. The information centres could facilitate this contact by hosting a network or register of aquaculture scientists in the region. A register for fisheries and aquaculture capacities is now being compiled by the CIFA secretariat in Accra.
The Working Group recognized the fundamental importance of this research programme which addresses several development constraints. Work on appropriate extension methodologies should be included to help achieve the extension services development priority in the medium term.
On the question of whether this programme should be housed in universities or research institutes, it was pointed out that universities are more able to provide the multi-disciplinary resources and knowledge needed to carry out socio-economic research.
The close linkage of this programme with the socio-economics programme was recognized. The production indicators programme will provide the opportunity for inter-disciplinary research on a topic which concerns both the natural and social sciences. However, if necessary for funding reasons, these two programmes could be merged.
Three sub-topics were addressed by this programme: organic fertilization, fish feeds, and integrated fish-livestock production. It responds to several research priorities and is linked with nearly all other research programmes.
The large number of small fish ponds found in the region is unique, and the small size has implications for pond ecology. It was noted that in Asia, the scientific principles underlying successful pond culture techniques developed and practised over centuries are just being investigated.
With respect to fish ponds in Africa, it is at present not possible to predict consistently the impact of inputs on small pond ecology. To do this, a fundamental understanding of how these ponds respond to fertilization and feeding is needed in the near term. Based on this knowledge, the programme will, in the medium term, develop practical methods to optimize fish production in ponds relative to available inputs in each agro-ecological zone.
For those countries with more commercially-oriented producers, this programme should develop methods to produce low-cost feeds.
This programme will quickly yield useful material for aquaculture development activities, addressing both the development priority for privatization of seed and improved aquaculture technology. Development activities for seed distribution and farmer training will be needed to involve the private sector. Concern was expressed about the sustainability of long-term broodstock improvement and management.
Small water bodies are recognized as an important resource for fish production in the region. Neither the Working Party nor the programme outline offered a precise definition of a small water body. It was mentioned that four measurable criteria are useful for classifying small water bodies in a given area: age, morphology, size and potential management techniques. Classification by management intervention related to size is particularly useful for determining the extent and potential output of the resource, and such classification could be used to gauge the economic performance of culture-based fisheries.
Cage culture is one possible enhancement, although the programme should not address large-scale commercial cage culture methods. Rather, socio-economic aspects of cage-culture activities by local communities should be investigated in collaboration with the socio-economics programme.
The composition of the national centres was realigned and expanded, reflecting the interest raised in many countries by this subject. Due to the widespread interest, dissemination of research results should receive careful attention.
This programme addresses a priority identified outside the national reviews concerning the utilization of the region's numerous irrigation schemes. It accommodates the needs of the Sudano-Sahelian countries not covered by national reviews. In particular, it addresses the culture of fish within the socio-economic context of farming using water delivered by public irrigation schemes. It was noted that many commercial farmers in the region utilize private irrigation schemes, and some who have tried fish culture should participate in the programme. The economics of including fish culture as one of the productive uses of irrigation water should also be investigated as an element to calculate return on irrigation scheme financing by development agencies.
The Working Group recognized this as an important medium-term programme which will be region-specific due to the specific ranges of most fish species. There will be a need to link national centres to the regional network centres for transfer of methodology to facilitate national-level research.
Ideas were put forward for additional research programmes on the control of water-borne disease vectors, macrophytes, and fish populations by cultured fish. It was agreed that these ideas could be accommodated by the programme for indigenous fish species culture, with linkages to the programme on small water bodies fisheries enhancement.
This programme addresses a priority identified outside the national reviews concerning the utilization of the region's coastal environment. The Working Party noted that the programme outline should be further elaborated in line with the presentation provided at the meeting and should include additional information on the region's vast coastal environment and mariculture potential. One additional national centre was identified to join the network.
The Working Party was informed that a Seminar on African Inland Fisheries, Aquaculture and the Environment will be convened in October 1994 in connection with the next session of the Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa. The Information Note prepared by the Technical Secretariat of the Seminar was distributed to the participants, who were requested to disseminate this information in their own countries. A second information note will be issued soon, taking into account the results of the deliberations of this session of the CIFA Working Party on Aquaculture.
The Chairperson requested the participants for indications of interest to host the next session of the Working Party, subject to the approval of the concerned authorities in their own countries. Tanzania indicated interest in hosting the next session.
The general conclusion of the Working Party was that the synthesis report, once the amendments proposed in the various sections of the meeting are incorporated, reflected adequately the present situation and trends of aquaculture in the countries which had contributed national reports and in the region as a whole.
It was recognized that the type of quantitative analysis carried out to rank constraints and priorities would, by its own nature, not coincide with that of any particular country. The Working Party considered that the orientation the report provides was useful, as the Action Programme responded to the needs of the majority and also permitted a ranking of the Research Programmes to be undertaken in the region in the near future.
The Working Party accepted the formulation of the nine Aquaculture Research Programmes as presented with the amendments and improvements requested, which should be incorporated immediately after the meeting.
It is a rather urgent matter to proceed with the detailed formulation of the various programme ideas and their subsequent implementation. The Working Party urged FAO to establish contact with the Executive Secretary of SIFR without delay to inform him of the conclusions of the Working Party and to request the discussion of the various programmes with the donors. It was agreed that FAO would inform the members of the Working Party on the results of these discussions and in particular on the agreed mechanisms for the endorsement of the proposals by the recipient countries and their transmission to the donors.
The meeting also approved the priority ranking of the Aquaculture Research Programmes and recommended the consideration of those indicated as of first priority as a single block. Amongst the research programmes, the first, on Information Centres, although not a research activity per se, is considered to be a crucial element in the support of all other programmes because of the problems encountered so far in the dissemination and exchange of information among libraries of francophone and anglophone countries. The Working Party hoped that favourable consideration would be given by the SIFR Executive Secretary and the donors, as other programmes on fisheries information needs are being prepared in the context of SIFR.
The need for further work on aquaculture development aspects with a similar rigorous approach as in the case of research has been highlighted by the participants. However, it was also recognized that the most appropriate framework for such work is at national level, in view of the large differences which characterize the CIFA member countries, both in terms of general development and the status of aquaculture. It was considered that the area of research was more amenable to regional or subregional work than the area of development, which is more conditioned by the institutional set-up and decisionmaking process at national level.
Many of the problems encountered in developing aquaculture in Africa could be traced back to a lack of proper development planning, which had not allowed an efficient use of the scarce financial and human resources available and a proper targeting of areas in the countries offering the best potential for development. It was pointed out that very few countries had aquaculture development plans and, as indicated previously, there was little contribution of research to the improvement of the actual plans. The Working Party therefore considered that it was urgent that more attention be given by the countries to this aspect. It was felt that the assistance of the donor community and technical agencies such as FAO could be very useful in this respect.
As a result of the above, the Working Party addressed the following recommendation to the next Session of CIFA:
The Working Party, recognizing that fisheries and aquaculture are often neglected or not given sufficient priority in the national development plans of most African countries, recommends that the FAO Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa (CIFA):
highlight this problem;
encourage national governments to take appropriate steps to rectify this situation;
call on FAO to assist African countries where appropriate in the elaboration of the relevant sections of their national development plans dealing with fisheries and aquaculture development;
request FAO to solicit donor assistance as necessary in this endeavour.
In the closing ceremony the CIFA Secretary, Mr W.Q.-B. West, thanked the Government of Zimbabwe for hosting the meeting and the participants for the valuable contributions provided with the preparation of the national reports and during the discussions of the synthesis report and proposed action plan. He reminded them that the work which has been initiated in this meeting should be continued with the same enthusiasm. Further involvement of the participants in their countries will be required to follow the negotiations to implement the ideas generated in this meeting and to initiate regional or subregional programmes. This report was approved by the Working Party on 17 September 1993.
