3. THE WORKSHOP

3.1 Introduction

In Africa aquaculture is growing in terms of intensity and productivity. The main types of investors are commercial and non-commercial. Within these domains, there exists a wide range of investment strategies from small- to large-scale. Two main groups dominate: large-scale commercial producers and small-scale artisanal producers. For small-scale artisanal producers, aquaculture increases revenues, crop diversity and ecological sustainability, while lowering risk and improving resilience. The vast majority of African fish farmers (probably more than 90 percent) fall into this category. A much smaller number of large-scale commercial fish farms generate food, jobs and considerable revenues in both export and local markets. Although it is not always well documented, the impacts of both of these groups are considerable and important.

However, most experts agree that small- and medium-scale commercial enterprises are the most efficacious engines of economic growth. Researchers at the International Food Policy Research Institute found that "... even small increments to rural incomes that are widely distributed can make large net additions to growth and improve food security." The CGIAR has identified interventions that lead to improved incomes at the level of the rural farmer and resource manager as "having a larger impact on countrywide income than increases in any other sector". To increase the benefits accruing from aquaculture, development planners should consider how to move from the current situation of dominance of small-scale artisanal/large-scale commercial investors, to one where there are many small- and medium-scale commercial investors, without losing the benefits currently being generated by aquaculture.

To advance the collective thinking on how to best encourage the development of aquaculture, particularly in light of the problem of fingerling quality and quantity, for the purposes of generating food, income and economic growth, FAO and the WorldFish Centre were jointly organizing a four-day strategic planning workshop with the objectives:

• Develop consensus on the current status and way forward for small-scale aquaculture in Africa.

• Identify partnerships that can develop and undertake projects with high probability of success.

• Elaborate concepts for intervention that take advantage of the capacities of partner agencies.

3.2 Definition of terms

Aquaculture has often been classified by those involved in the subsector in an attempt to better monitor its growth and development. This categorization has frequently been done in terms of intensity or size; extensive, intensive or semi-intensive operations of small-, medium- or large-scale. Such nomenclature has a high level of subjectivity: "How big is big?" and "How extensive is extensive?" For nearly every situation there are noteworthy exceptions; small, intensive operations along with large, extensive operations. Moreover, within a system based on magnitude - either size or intensity - there is an underlying assumption that size matters; that, all things being equal, producers would opt for larger or higher intensity operations. However, this assumption exists with little idea as to what producers’ expectations truly are.

It is now understood that the motivation of the producer is the key to production. As motivation becomes a more important criterion than the production facilities themselves, the priorities and investment strategies of producers become central determinants. With this analytical approach, one quickly identifies the two major types of investors mentioned in the previous section: commercial and non-commercial; with industrial a subset of the first category.

Commercial producers are defined as those who are:

• profit-oriented;

• small-, medium- or large-scale;

• active participants in the market;

• purchasing inputs (including capital and labour);

• engaged in off-farm sales of the fish produced; and

• aquaculture is among their principal economic activities.

As a relatively small component of the commercial category, industrial farms and farmers are typified by:

• agri-businesses where the scale is one of level of capital;

• where the produce is often traded on the global market; and

• where the technical assistance needs are in the form of policy, legislation, monitoring, regulation, etc.

Non-commercial farmers:

• may also purchase inputs, mainly seed and feed;

• rely chiefly on family labour and on-farm sales of the produce; and

• consider aquaculture being one of the variety of enterprises comprising the farming system, undertaken to diversify production, to improve resource use and to reduce risks of such events as crop or market failure.

Numerically, the majority of fish growers in any given area may be non-commercial producers and this group certainly constitutes the majority of the constituency in the Africa Region. Yet, commercial farmers serve a critical role, because:

• they are motors of aquaculture development, willing to invest capital in their enterprises;

• they create demand for high quality inputs;

• they catalyse producer groups; and

• they demand services.

For commercial producers to function in this essential way, they must have a critical mass, i.e. a density dependent factor requiring an economically viable "weight" (e.g. surface area, tonnage, etc.), and be present in an economically viable zone. Viable commercial producers will pull down benefits to non-commercial farmers who will inevitably share the same economic zone.

Many early aquaculture development theorists felt the successful establishment of aquaculture enterprises was best reflected by a continuum along which a given farmer would move. This path was seen as being resource limited and as farmers acquired more resources, including knowledge, their yields would improve accordingly. Nonetheless, several decades of empirical data have indicated a clear trend of farmers practising low-input/low-output aquaculture rarely progressing far beyond their entry point in terms of yield. In fact, first harvests may well be the largest these farmers achieve. Aquaculture development is now not seen as a series of vertical leaps as farmers reach higher and higher levels of production; it is rather viewed as a set of discrete enterprises where the farmers’ motives for adoption remain basically the same and increases are only those that can be easily obtained within the specific range of production technologies near the level where the farmer entered. In this scenario, non-commercial farmers rarely "graduate" to commercial levels but remain non-commercial, even if they do make progress in increasing their relative efficiency. While some innovative farmers may spontaneously jump to higher strata, most farmers move up levels only when management or the economic environment significantly changes.

In this context, it is the concept and not the exact nomenclature that is innovative: farmers should be viewed in terms of their prime motives for embarking on aquaculture enterprises. It is understood that the delineations between classifications are a bit murky and may even seem arbitrary. It is also understood that knowing enough about farmers’ motives requires a new set of priorities and methodologies for those whose objective is to aid these farmers to gain efficiency. Yet, the alternative to revising our approach and accepting the challenge is to keep using old tools that have proven their inability to address satisfactorily the key issues at hand.

3.3 Lessons from recent aquaculture development projects

A number of reviews of African aquaculture development has been undertaken in the last decade in an attempt to identify key constraints and opportunities for success. To update these studies in the light of new knowledge gained through newer research and development activities on the ground, a review of recent projects was undertaken and reported to the plenary. The projects reviewed were:

• Ghana/FAO: Strengthening Organizational Capacity of Fish Farmer Associations (2002-2004);

• Uganda/FAO: Assistance to Fish Farmers in Eastern Uganda to Improve Fish Seed (2002-2004);

• Guinea Conakry/FAO: Support to Rural Fish Farming Development in Guinea Forests (2001-2003);

• Cameroon/FAO: Appui à la composante diversification du Programme spécial de sécurité alimentaire, aquaculture (2003-2005);

• Zambia/US Peace Corps: Zambia Aquaculture Project in Northern and Northwest Zambia (1996 to date);

• Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)/United States (US) Peace Corps: Family Fish Farming Project (1979-1990).

The knowledge gained from these interventions has generally supported the view that aquaculture can be successful if it is well focused and addresses farmers’ needs and constraints. Critical concerns and salient features of successful interventions are outlined below:

Project formulation and approach

• Fish culture can be introduced and established in new sites without any external assistance beyond the provision of technical information (e.g. no credit, gifts, incentive, subsidies, etc.).

• Aquaculture development projects are generally too short (1 or 2 years).

• Most newer projects have usefully and successfully taken socio-economic aspects into consideration in project design and implementation.

Aquaculture extension

As part of the regional review, the recent history of aquaculture extension in five representative countries (Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar and Zambia) of sub-Saharan Africa was analysed. Country reviews were commissioned and synthesized. A number of extension guides, field manuals and dissemination tools were compared. Each of the reviewed countries has a similar history of aquaculture development, beginning with colonial experiments in the 1950s, through a period of neglect following independence in the 1960s, a period of intense international involvement in small-scale rural development (including aquaculture) in the 1970s and 1980s, ending in a period of reflection on results in the 1990s. Many of these past projects were driven by foreign donors interested primarily in poverty alleviation and working on national food security targets, ignoring the desires and constraints faced by would-be producers and beneficiaries. Working within the broader context of rural development, rather than the somewhat simpler world of commercial aquaculture technology, has created problems for poorly trained and motivated extension agents. New participatory paradigms have been incorporated into policy and planning, but are generally not reflected in the day-to-day work of either research or extension, leading to low rates of adoption and project sustainability. Extension systems based on the Training and Visit Model continue to dominate aquaculture extension in Africa. More sustainable gains made through participatory approaches, however, are leading more and more governments in the direction of farmer-led approaches. Some countries have moved faster to capitalize on lessons learned than others. Madagascar has made great advances based on establishing a close working relationship between small-scale farmers and private sector hatcheries. Zambia has profited from a commitment to integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems and participatory approaches. Cameroon, Ivory Coast and Kenya have lagged behind, but report some local successes with the use of participatory research initiatives. Lessons learned from these experiences lead the authors to the conclusion that aquaculture can play a much larger role in economic development if user interests and knowledge are better incorporated into research and extension processes, and if the quality of the extension services can be upgraded to ensure that good technology is made available to users. Important points to note include:

• There are a good number of well-trained aquaculture technicians in SSA. What is lacking is the experience how to transfer appropriate information to a given target group.

• Successful extension techniques and methods depend on the target group/farmer and his/her socio-economic environment and farming system. There is high specificity for technology adapted to each particular farming system. Classroom training is generally not profitable for small-scale fish farmers. Emphasis on practical aspects helps farmers to understand and improve their farms.

A particularly successful extension model stems from the experience of, inter alia, the DRC/US Peace Corps: Family Fish Farming Project. Mobile teams for aquaculture extension were commissioned and operationalized along the lines presented in Appendix 4. Key constraints to the use of such mobile teams were identified as: 1) cost of team support (esp. allowances, fuel and vehicle maintenance) and 2) lack of a formal, field-level link between public extension services and the mobile team. This latter link is especially important in the identification of farmers and corrects targeting of the mobile teams’ efforts.

Fish farmer associations

· Most aquaculture development stakeholders see fish farmer associations as important components for sustainability of aquaculture development. Unfortunately, few of these groups presently exist outside of a project context and it is unclear how group dynamics will affect long-term viability.

· The sustainability of fish farmer associations is better in cases where there are common goals and objectives as well as obvious reasons for collective action (e.g. collective marketing, fingerling production and credit).

· To succeed, farmer support groups must originate from the farmers themselves and not be imposed by outside actors.

Participatory approaches

• When doing interviews most farmers change their response according to donor’s orientation and expectations.

• In general, farmers expect some kind of financial subsidy from donors or projects. This is because of general political corruption that pervades African development, and early projects that centred on giving material and other form of financial assistance to engender rapid short-term increases in yield.

Record-keeping

• Most fish farmers, especially those operating at smaller scales, consider record keeping an onerous task. As a result, accurate pond records are sorely lacking. Most fish farmers do not see the importance of such data.

Credit

• Results from Guinea Conakry and the DRC show that many farmers have access to at least minimal credit through a range of village-based initiatives.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

• NGOs with adequate technical expertise in fish farming are rare or do not exist in the region. Most NGOs are good at group formation.

The role of the public sector

• Although some governments in sub-Saharan Africa are willing to make an effort to encourage small-scale aquaculture for rural communities, rarely is it a priority.

• The lack of adequate information collection is a major constraint to proper project/programme planning in the region.

Pond management

• Although seeming simple, good pond management is difficult to implement. One-time tasks, such as good pond construction, are more easily accomplished than continuous tasks such as regular and adequate fertilization.

• Farm integration is not a new concept to many farmers. Integrated aquaculture thus can build upon indigenous knowledge and thus create more sustainable systems than introduced technology.

• Use of on-farm inputs can realize good yields. In the DRC, for example, maximum yields were in the range of 4-8 tonnes/ha/year, while in Guinea an average of 5 tonnes/ha/year was achieved on farms using only agriculture by-products.

• Availability of supplementary feeds is often constrained by macroeconomic parameters, in particular transport costs and competition with the livestock sector.

Fingerling production

• When establishing seed production units, it is imperative to take into consideration the critical mass of commercial fish farmers that represents the market for fingerlings.

• Introductory fingerling production systems work better. They start with species that are easy to grow, but which will not reproduce in the pond during the grow-out cycle (e.g. Clarias catfish, mono-sex tilapia). Otherwise, fish farmers are tempted to use their own offspring, lowering genetic quality.

3.4 Presentation of the framework for an aquaculture outreach strategy in Cameroon

Background

The elaboration of this framework has been undertaken in a political context where there is a shift in paradigm necessitated by changing macro-economic conditions. The framework has been elaborated over a period of 10 days by a team composed of experts from the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Animal Industries (MINEPIA), the FAO, the Development Agriculture Research Institute (IRAD) and the WorldFish Center. As a result, government has adopted policies of economic liberalization along with divestment of public sector infrastructure and services in favour of private sector intervention. This is underpinned by a renewed emphasis on good governance as an essential part of the development of all sectors of the country’s economy. These policies require that government shifts from playing the role of investor and corporate manager to that of facilitator and regulator; civil society being in charge of developing the economy. With respect to the aquaculture subsector, this area of production remains underdeveloped, in spite of its reported potential and multiple past efforts to stimulate its growth. There is a need for strategic guidelines for the integration of the subsector into the new political and economic environment.

Aquaculture development objectives

Currently, Cameroon meets only half of domestic demand for fish, with aquaculture contributing less than 0.1 percent. Recent trends indicate that, like elsewhere, most natural fisheries have reached or exceeded maximum sustainable yields. Fish imports to satisfy local demand require hard currency, which is often lacking or scarce. Additional fish supply should come from aquaculture. Existing estimates indicate that inland aquaculture can be increased by over 50 fold, covering close to 5 percent of the local demand. Satisfying local demand through increased aquaculture production can improve food security. By providing opportunities for import substitution and export of fish and other aquatic products, aquaculture development can also improve the country’s balance of trade. Likewise, the generation of employment, on-farm and in service industries such as processing, marketing and input supply, can increase income and reduce poverty. In addition, increasing the efficiency of water use and adding value to agricultural by-products used as nutrient inputs can reduce pressure on natural resources and the environment.

Within this context, the objectives of the aquaculture subsector in Cameroon are to:

1. Meet local demand and assist in balancing trade in aquatic products.
2. Create employment opportunities in both urban and rural areas.
3. Improve efficiency of natural resource management.

The aim of this Strategic Framework is to suggest the ways of developing sustainable aquaculture that achieves the above-stated objectives.

Approach to framework definition

The elaboration of a Strategic Framework is the first step in the process of elaborating a detailed development strategy. The framework provides the skeleton to be filled out in the process of defining the strategy. During the course of the framework development mission, the authors met with policy makers from the MINEPIA, a number of managers of government fish stations, fish farmers and the FAO Representation in Yaoundé. The Strategic Framework was presented for discussion and adoption in a three day national workshop which was held in the "Palais des Congrès", Yaoundé, from 10 to 12 December 2003. The workshop also defined follow-up actions to the Strategic Framework.

Definition of the Strategic Framework

Identification of high-potential aquaculture zones

In most countries, the biophysical^[1] and socio-economic^[2] potential for aquaculture is not uniform, with some zones having greater intrinsic capacity for aquaculture growth than others. A first step in determining where resources to develop aquaculture could be efficaciously used is the identification of those areas with highest potential. This screening should be supplemented with a comparison of existing aquaculture activities, including the concentration of existing producers and the presence of government and other infrastructure^[3]. Zones based on biophysical and socio-economic potential may well be subdivided into areas that correspond to input supply/delivery. For example, to the extent that private seed supply comes from specialized private hatcheries, these hatcheries will operate within areas circumscribed by the economic ability to deliver seed to producers.

Definition of types of aquaculture

Categorising fish farmers and farms according to relative sizes, degree of capitalization and profit motivation is always difficult. In the aggregate, these categories are part of a spectrum that covers the full scope of production systems^[4]. If this spectrum reflects production intensity and investment level, individuals at the low end will likely internalize their aquaculture activities with little contribution to the public purse and little benefit from public services. Conversely, individuals at the high end of the scale may make important contributions to national aquaculture production but have relatively little need of public support. For the purposes of this framework, producers have been divided into two categories: commercial and non-commercial. Commercial producers can be small-, medium- or large-scale, and are active participants in the market. They purchase inputs (including capital and labour) and engage in off-farm sales of the fish produced. For these individuals, aquaculture is a principal economic activity^[5]. Non-commercial producers may also purchase inputs, mainly seed and feed, but rely chiefly on family labour and on-farm sales of the produce. An additional feature of non-commercial aquaculture is that it is but one of the variety of enterprises comprising the farming system; it is undertaken to diversify production, improve resource use and reduce risks of such events as crop or market failure.

Definition of an appropriate framework for aquaculture outreach

Some level of technical information dissemination is generally considered as necessary to support the aquaculture subsector. This is achieved through public-sector-supported outreach. Drawing upon a wide range of published experiences, a general approach to supporting the development of aquaculture can be suggested. This is based on the premises that:

• some long-term technical assistance for producers is necessary;

• generalist/unified extension services often lack the specific technical expertise to assist aquaculture producers; and

• extension services dedicated to aquaculture assistance must be limited in scope because of the corresponding limitations in human and financial resources.

In this light, high-quality technical support^[6] needs to be carefully assembled and targeted. This can best be achieved by "mobile mixed teams" providing punctual, periodic support to a relatively large geographic area. These teams, each composed of at least one technician from MINIPEA and one from IRAD should work exclusively in high priority zones and give priority to assisting effective producer groups in partnership with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other outreach agencies as feasible. Besides, they should be complemented by a series of private seed producers, or other service providers, who are also providing technical support to farmers. Thus, the mode of operation of these mobile teams should be one that brings research and extension together and into direct contact with farmers.

The elements of the strategic framework and the role of public and private sectors as well as the specific issues regarding the strategic framework for aquaculture development in Cameroon are given with Appendix 5.

3.5 Critical constraints and identification of priority areas by working groups

Following country presentations of the aquaculture development situation within the region (Appendix 6), each representative was requested to name the three major constraints faced by aquaculture. The constraints so identified are shown in Table 1. Analysis and discussion of these constraints led to the identification of three overall priority areas of concern: extension, fingerlings and feeds. Working groups were each assigned one of the three constraints and requested to elucidate in table form, as detailed a plan as possible to address each one.

While these three constraints were identified as important and were the main focus of working group sessions, the workshop acknowledged that there are other, equally or more important, constraints that effect the functioning of the aquaculture sector at a variety of levels. In particular, market development and the adoption of practical policies and the development of efficacious institutions were mentioned as critical.

Of particular note in addressing all constraints to aquaculture is the appearance of a core of persistent and experienced farmers, an important sign of progress that can serve as the foundation for future development. Extension agents are often less knowledgeable than these better farmers. This group may or may not be willing to join in cooperative activities for general social benefits, but their increasing political and economic clout requires that the private sector must somehow be brought into the general aquaculture development planning and extension process. The need to incorporate the private sector is reflected in the financing mechanisms proposed by all three working groups.

Extension

Extension, as defined for the purposes of this workshop, means the entire structure for elucidating, packaging and disseminating information for farmers. As the case study from DRC shows, there is a need for multiple talents within the extension service: data interpretation and analysis, needs assessment, technology adaptation and communication. A number of extension models has been elucidated over the years, the Training and Visit (T&V) system being currently the most widely used. Recently, participatory research and joint learning have come to the fore, but the application of these techniques on a large-scale has not yet been attempted.

The current institutional structure for aquaculture extension is very much top-down with often long chains of bureaucracy linking policy makers, research and technology users. This arrangement results in the loss of much important technical information going from research to farmers, as well as misinterpretation of the needs and constraints of farmers on the part of policy-makers. On the other hand, some progress has been made in terms of clearer job descriptions within the bureaucracy at various levels and more transparent and efficient administration of resources.

In addition to being heavily bureaucratised, the orientation of extension is generally driven by development goals derived with minimal user consultation. Most countries still use a variation of the World Bank T&V approach wherein researchers, attempting to meet national fish production targets, develop technology that seeks primarily to maximize fish production as opposed to meeting the personal development goals of farmers. Research releases its findings in the form of written documentation which is not directly accessible neither by extension agents nor by farmers. The information transmission system is consequently poor both in delivering knowledge of key constraints and development objectives to policy makers, and the delivery of technical information about production systems and markets to farmers. Overall, the achievements of the T&V model in Africa have been negligible in terms of both fish production and numbers of farmers.

High-quality human resources in the field are especially critical to the proper functioning of the T&V system, and this probably accounts for its very low success rate. For an approach such as the T&V system, which is based on adapting technological packages designed by research, field technicians require high levels of training to manipulate flexibly general principles to adjust them to specific on-farm situations. Unfortunately, the time and resources needed to ensure the quality of field staff are lacking in most countries.

Some successes have, however, been reported. Madagascar has decentralized extension by giving private fingerling producers the prime responsibility for technical messages, assuming that improved production will increase demand for fingerlings and, thus, profits fingerling producers. In the DRC, substantial progress has been reported (see Chapter 4.3.) through the use of mobile teams comprised of technical and information transfer specialists. In Malawi and Cameroon, research-extension teams have shown how participatory research can be used to increase technology adoption, even among the poorest user groups.

Contemplating this, the working group attempted to outline a new structure and approach that would incorporate these successes while avoiding the long chains of information transfer characterising less successful approaches. The key element is to concentrate energy on high-potential areas and farmers, hence the simplification of the group output table to just "commercial" farmers (Table 2). Industrial farmers are considered capable to get their own technological advice through in-house research and development or through hiring consultants. The non-commercial sector is encouraged to assume a more commercial orientation.

The main activities designed to overcome the problems facing aquaculture outreach/extension are:

1. High-quality training of extension staff. Such training would be a combination of traditional and on-the-job, joint-learning exercises conducted through the implementation of replicated on-farm trials.

2. A participatory research and extension approach made operational through the best-experienced staff available so as to build confidence among farmers.

3. Mobile research-extension teams to work directly with high-potential farmers.

Fingerling quantity and quality

The importance of high-quality seed for aquaculture was realized many years ago and has been the focus of a number of development interventions, most notably by the FAO, which built a number of large public-sector hatcheries in high-potential areas around the continent as models for development and sources of low-cost, high-quality fingerlings to spur the expansion of fish farming. Unfortunately, generally poor project design and the involvement of inefficient government management led these efforts failure.

A shift in public sector support from aquaculture development for its own sake, to aquaculture as a tool in rural poverty alleviation during the 1980s and 1990s led to the encouragement of small-scale, private hatcheries that could be operated in conjunction with extensive or semi-intensive grow-out systems. Although not encumbered with government bureaucracy, small-scale hatcheries are seriously constrained by cash-flow in a chicken-or-egg type of conundrum: There is no market for fingerlings without growth in the production sector. There can be no growth in the production sector without a reliable source of fingerlings. Due to the other constraints facing aquaculture (e.g. inputs and technical assistance), the time lag between growth of production and availability of seed can be several years and most small-scale hatcheries go out of business long before there are enough customers to make them profitable.

Nevertheless, there have been a number of limited successes with small-scale hatchery-led development, most notably in Madagascar, Malawi, Tanzania and, more recently, Cameroon. Where small-scale hatcheries have managed to generate significant incomes for the operators and numbers of fingerlings for other farmers, another problem has been encountered that dilutes impact: deterioration of the genetic quality of cultured populations. Up to 40 percent decline in performance have been reported from the field as a result of poor broodstock management and inadvertent selection.

The working group on fish seed recommended that national governments first seek to quantify the volume and structure (species, users, geography, etc.) of seed demand. In addition, there is a need to alter the prevailing attitude on the part of small-scale farmers that seed should be a free spin-off of pond production, rather than a regular cost factor. Recognizing this, the group maintains that for most of sub-Saharan Africa seed is either not available or if, it is of generally low quality.

The working group identified the lack of trained personnel and missing information dissemination structures as key constraints to ameliorating the seed supply situation. Assistance for all users (non-commercial, commercial, industrial) was basically the same: 1) provide technical and financial support to community-based farmer groups to allow them to produce quality seed for their members; and 2) develop a regional network to share experiences and knowledge (Table 3).

Feeds

Government was seen by the working group on feeds as a key player in the development and assurance of quality in economically viable aquaculture feeds (Table 4). At regional and national levels, inventories and quantitative assessments of supply versus demand of feed materials are seen as a crucial first step in mass production of high-quality fish feeds. Encouraging larger-scale producers by standardizing formulations and helping to ensure quality is another key step. Also important are policy mechanisms that would facilitate trade in feeds and feed materials, such as vitamin and mineral premixes, protein meals, essential oils, amino acids, etc. There were no substantial differences in the approach proposed for government and donors to the commercial and industrial groups, both being merely scales of the same basic type of enterprise.

Assuming that non-commercial farmers will be reluctant to purchase inputs and continue to rely on integrated agriculture-aquaculture technology, there are few short- and medium-term activities that can usefully be undertaken to help this group of farmers apart from the promotion and guidance in use of existing feed/fertilizer materials. The main area of work for this group is to encourage them to become commercial and begin purchasing inputs and selling more of their outputs.

Abbreviations

CIRAD: Centre of International Cooperation for Agricultural Development Research (France)
DFID: Department for International Development (United Kingdom)
BMZ: Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (Germany)
USAID: United States Agency for International Development

*Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-Pacific