by Arne Andreasson
1. INTRODUCTION
2. RECENT TRENDS
3. GOVERNMENTS AND SMALL-SCALE AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT
4. THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND SMALL-SCALE AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT
5. DEVELOPMENT AID AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
6. ELEMENTS OF INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
7. CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES *
The aims of the paper are to describe the institutional context of small-scale rural aquaculture and to indicate areas of current institutional change.
Sorensen et. al. (1990) define institutional arrangements as ".. the composite of laws, customs, organizations and management strategies established by society to allocate scarce resources and competing values for a social purpose...". The legal and macro-economic frameworks for aquaculture development, polices and plans etc. are discussed in the paper. However, a rather narrow understanding of the concept of institutions is applied, close to the formal definition of organizations: a structure within which people cooperate according to accepted and recognized roles. No attempt is made to venture into theories of organizational or institutional development. Further, the focus is on governmental institutions and their interaction with the private sector (producers, associations, companies and non-governmental organizations, etc.), international organizations, in this case mainly FAO, and donor agencies.
The paper focuses on sub-Saharan Africa and discusses mainly small-scale aquaculture. A strict definition of small-scale aquaculture is not applied: it is understood to range from the subsistence farmer with a 100 m2, pond keeping tilapia, to the highly commercialized seaweed fanning on Zanzibar. The main criteria are that the producers belong to the rural or peri-urban populations, with the extensive or semi-intensive aquaculture production as one of two or more household activities to obtain income and/or food.
The role of governmental institutions is changing rapidly. This is partly a result of changes in macro-economic policies. Economies are liberalized with less governmental direct involvement in production and budgets for government authorities are reduced. Consequently, aquaculture development institutions need to find new, more effective, means to reach their objectives and target groups. They also need to sharpen their arguments for funds for aquaculture development.
Institution building, institutional development and strengthening of institutions were important aspects of development work in the 1960's and are again in fashion. There are, however, no quick fixes in development work and institutional weakness is only one of many interrelated reasons and explanations for the slow development of aquaculture.
The mode of operation of development aid projects is also changing. Projects, with expatriate personnel, working closely with counterparts in direct contact with target groups are being replaced by indirect interventions. Projects more frequently support an institutional function which, in turn, is expected to reach the target group with support. The expatriate is being replaced by "institutional twinning" and short term consultants. Governments, international organizations and donors need to modify their work to accommodate these changes.
The focus on institutional development occurs at the same time as aid increasingly is being channelled through NGO's, which often are believed to be in a better position to support grass-root development than governmental institutions. However, more funds at the disposal of NGO's reveal their weaknesses and aid funds are also allocated to the strengthening of such organizations.
A fundamental question is: How should governments adjust their institutions to new situations and reach their objectives and targets with limited resources?
3.1 Macro-Economic Framework
3.2 Legislation
3.3 Policies and Plans for Aquaculture Development
3.4 Credit
3.5 Management and Administration
3.6 Research and Development
3.7 Extension
3.8 Supply of Inputs
Governments in sub-Saharan Africa have traditionally assumed an important and wide role for aquaculture development, ranging from legislation to production and distribution of seed and other inputs (FAO, UNDP and Norway, 1987). The engagement in the productive end of the chain has also often involved production and sale of table fish.
Macro-economic conditions to a large extent determine aquaculture development. They provide the framework within which the sector operates and create the "business climate". This can either promote or restrict development. The rapid development of seaweed culture on Zanzibar and the expansion of rural small-scale fish ponds in Eastern Province of Zambia occurred when the economies were liberalized. There are other examples which seem to indicate a correlation between liberal macro-economic policies and development of small-scale aquaculture (Andreasson, 1992).
It is evident that government, though not aquaculture development institutions, has the ultimate responsibility for macro-economic policies. There are a wide variety of instruments for governments related to the fiscal and monetary policies for support to the sector (Kouka, in print). Planning for aquaculture development, as well as development interventions, governmental or private, need to consider the macro-economic conditions in more detail than previously has been done (ALCOM, 1994).
Coche et. al. (1994) found, in a review of 12 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, that six countries (Côte d'Ivoire, Cameron, Congo, Central African Republic, and Zambia) had no specific aquaculture legislation, three (Zimbabwe, Malawi, Tanzania) had limited legislation for the introduction of exotic species, and three countries (Madagascar, Kenya and Nigeria) had specific aquaculture legislation. An ICLARM study of aquaculture in Malawi (ICLARM and GTZ, 1991) states that the sector is unprotected by formal legislation and that customary law applies to aquaculture with few exceptions.
Houtte, et. al (1989) list a number of laws which affect aquaculture, such as tax and duty laws and regulations, land laws and regulations, water codes, environment protection, conservation of natural resources, control of pollution, animal health and animal disease laws, import and export laws and regulations, public health and sanitary laws and regulations, fish and game laws and regulations etc. Many laws, acts and ordinances which affect aquaculture were instituted long before aquaculture became an established industry (Ackefors, et. al. 1994). Existing legislation, often more concerned with conservation than production, related to water abstraction, pollution, water or coastal and lakeshore rights, hinder the development of small-scale fish fanning (ICLARM and GTZ, 1991).
There are according to Houtte et. al. (1989) a few key legal issues:
- the general place of aquaculture in the legal system
- access to the use of water and land
- environmental impact (including diseases)
- import of live fish
- the introduction of non-indigenous species.
In an article in 1994, Houtte raises questions regarding the definition of aquaculture. The current FAO definition, largely for statistical purposes, gives importance to ownership to determine the borderline between capture fisheries and aquaculture. Houtte argues that for legal purposes the definition should be related more to the activity than to ownership.
An important issue for small-scale aquaculture development in southern Africa is access and rights to land and water. Traditional customs often conflict with modem law. Aquaculture development institutions need to acquire a thorough knowledge of and adjust their operations to such conditions. Hereditary customs and differences between these in patri-and matrilineal societies influence the adoption of aquaculture (van der Mheen-Sluijer et. al. 1988, ICLARM and GTZ, 1991, and van der Mheen-Sluijer, 1991).
A specific issue for legislation is manmade reservoirs built for irrigation, domestic water or watering of livestock. There is often a lack of rules and regulations for access to fishing, management of the fisheries and the establishment of aquaculture facilities (enclosures or cages). While such laws and regulations have been enacted for large reservoirs, for example Lake Kariba, which is shared between Zambia and Zimbabwe, many smaller reservoirs are unregulated. One element is whether the reservoir is on private or communal land. Botswana and Lesotho, for example, have experienced such problems (Nermark et al 1994, David e Silva, 1993, Haight. et. al. 1994). These countries are amending or have recently amended their laws. Uncertainties about delegation of resource utilization rights to dam committees in Zimbabwe have been reported as one reason for unsuccessful community management of the resources (Sayagues, 1995).
Most countries have introduced procedures to obtain a license or permit for the establishment and operation of an aquaculture facility. The permit is usually related to the right to land and water and environmental factors. There are at present no requirements for licenses and permits for the establishment of small-scale rural fish ponds in the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. The ponds are small and located within an existing farm and the access rights (customary or modem law) also cover fish ponds.
ALCOM reviewed policies and plans for aquaculture development in the, then ten, SADC-countries in southern Africa (before the Republic of South Africa became a member). The reviews (ALCOM 1988a and b, ALCOM, 1994) showed that most governments in the SADC region did not have an explicit development policy or plans for aquaculture. Existing policy statements were linked to agriculture and fisheries and focused on the importance offish as food and the contribution offish to food security. Fish was often regarded as a source of cheap protein. The review concluded that more consistent policies, strategies, plans and programmes needed to be elaborated and that the close links between aquaculture and agriculture should be reflected to ensure sustainability.
Coche et. al. (1994) concluded from a review of twelve countries in sub-Saharan Africa that few countries had a quantified long-term plan for aquaculture development. Further, they state that the midterm sectoral plans usually include brief statements about targets for aquaculture. However, the plans and programmes often basically are lists of projects without clear links to policies and strategies.
The governments of sub-Saharan Africa have recognized the need for policies and plans for the aquaculture sector. It is important in the process of plan preparation to establish mechanisms for consultations with the target groups and other agents, which are often lacking (ALCOM, 1994).
Credit is an issue mainly for large-scale, capital intensive, aquaculture. In many countries, including in developed countries, banks have been reluctant to extend credit to aquaculture which is perceived as a high risk enterprise.
The Thematic Evaluation of Aquaculture (FAO, UNDP and Norway, 1987) states that credit does not seem to be a problem in areas where aquaculture is well established. Neither did it find that the expansion of small-scale rural fish farming in sub-Saharan Africa was restrained by credit. Formal credit is usually not extended to small-scale rural aquaculture but has been given on pilot scale under projects. The results have been negative: low repayment rates and no sustainability (Coche. et. al. 1994). Such schemes have often mainly benefited commercial farmers. Small farmers can usually not produce the required collateral. They also often lack knowledge to handle the paper work involved (FAO, UNDP and Norway, 1987).
Credit is normally not justified for small-scale rural fish fanning; the cost for pond construction is small. Governments have, in most of the sub-Saharan countries, supplied seed at highly subsidized prices. Further, the production is low and to a large extent consumed in the household, which is detrimental to cash outlays.
Informal sources of credit exist for pond construction and to obtain fingerlings. In some cases "working parties", for which there may be reciprocal obligations, are organized to help with pond construction.
Although credit at present is not regarded as an issue for small-scale aquaculture in sub-Saharan Africa, the situation may change. Demands for and interest in increased productivity will increase costs for pond construction. Costs may also be incurred for ex-farm feed ingredients. Finally, privatized seed production will increase the operating costs for farmers. The farmer may, when adopting technologies for commercial small-scale fish farming, need cash. There are no institutional mechanisms at present for such credit.
Tietze (1994) reports on changes in the international political and economic climate under which rural credit programmes operate. The economic deregulation and liberalization promoted by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have direct impacts on formal rural credit for fish farming. In this connection, credit programmes specifically targeted at the disadvantaged are discouraged in favour of free competition for the highest rates of financial return to capital.
Most countries organize their management and administration of the aquaculture sector within the ministry of agriculture or ministry of fisheries, in some cases in the ministry responsible for natural resources. Within the ministry there is usually a department of fisheries, which also handles aquaculture. There are few cases when small-scale pond fish farming, although conceptually closer to animal husbandry than fisheries, are managed within the department of agriculture. There are historical reasons for this.
The picture of aquaculture management and administration is somewhat diverse in the SADC-countries in Africa. In Zambia, Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland (all landlocked) aquaculture is handled by the ministry responsible for agriculture. In Malawi (landlocked) it falls under the ministry responsible for natural resources. Zimbabwe (landlocked) has divided the responsibility with aquaculture extension under the agriculture ministry and research and development under the ministry responsible for environment and tourism (within the wildlife management department). In Namibia aquaculture falls under the ministry of fisheries, as does mariculture in Angola and Mozambique. Inland aquaculture in the latter countries is handled by the ministry of agriculture (ALCOM 1988 and 1994). A similar arrangement has been established in South Africa with the department of agriculture handling inland aquaculture and the Sea Fisheries Directorate under the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism being responsible for mariculture (Hecht, 1994)
Coche et. al. (1994) found that in sub-Saharan Africa often more than one governmental department was responsible for aquaculture development, leading to overlapping, confusion and competition. They stress the importance of one single authority responsible for the sector and note that administrative changes recently have tended to achieve this.
The services provided by the departments responsible for aquaculture include in varying degree policy formulations, planning, legislation, research and development, training and extension, credit, and production inputs such as seed (FAO, UNDP and Norway, 1987). Additional services may include loans of construction equipment, supplementary feed, sale or provision of harvesting gear, grants for construction, sale of fish from government fish farms, and farmers training (Coche et. al. 1994).
The department responsible for aquaculture usually has a central administration and local representations linked to local government on provincial and district levels. For example Zambia has Provincial Fisheries Aquaculturists with Fisheries Officers and Fisheries Assistants at Provincial level and Fisheries Officers at District level. The functions of the decentralized staff are often linked to the operation of government fish farms and extension. Coche et. al. (1994) in their review of 12 countries found that they had more than 200 state fish farms. The majority of these farms were built in 1950 - 60s. Although many have been rehabilitated during the 70s and 80s through technical assistance programmes, most are in varying stages of disrepair and functioning far below capacity. The state of government fish farms is the same in the whole of the SADC region, with the exception of Namibia and South Africa, and to some extent Malawi. There are many reasons for this:
- state fish farms may in some cases have outlived their usefulness for development in light of new policies stressing the role of the private sector- governments are not able to allocate sufficient funds for their operation
- state fish farms are used for purposes they were not designed for (for example production of table size fish for sale instead of research and production of fingerlings)
- bad management partly because of lack of incentives for the staff
- inappropriate site selection, which in some cases seem to have been based more on political concerns than physical criteria
The farms have in some cases been obliged to produce fish for sale to improve finances. This has been detrimental to the original purposes of the farms. Management and decentralized staff have tended to give priority to the operation of the fish farm over other duties such as extension. Some countries are at present divesting their interests in government fish farms. A few, for example Congo and Rwanda, are planning privatization of the state infrastructure (Coche et. al. 1994).
One symptom of institutional weaknesses is the lack, in most sub-Saharan countries, of data and information which are systematized and easily accessible to the private sector, scientists, extension workers and administrators and policy makers. This lack of compiled information is detrimental also to project formulation. Both governments' and donor's decisions regarding support to projects are affected by this. Andersson (1989) found some 450 references for fisheries and aquaculture in Zambia. The documents were scattered in different document holdings or resting with individuals; some not even available in the country. Most fisheries and aquaculture departments in sub-Saharan Africa have a documentation center or library. Because of lack of funds for renewals of subscriptions on scientific journals, magazines and handbooks, the holdings are usually outdated. Reports from research, missions etc. are often not submitted to the documentation center and the usefulness of the library is reduced.
Good progress has been made in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa with regard to education. The level of education is today, at least in the central administrations, usually relevant and adequate. This has been achieved through emphasis on the national education system and on higher level training often through fellowships abroad. However, the existing staff of the departments usually have an educational background in biology or technology. Few of the staff have the necessary background for policy and strategy formulation, planning, economics, socio-economics, and information technology which are essential for modem fisheries and aquaculture administrations.
Institutional constraints have in the past been attributed to lack of or limited "resources" such as trained staff, infrastructure and operational funds. Recent work on organizational and institutional development pays more attention to issues of motivation, incentive, reward and sanction (Moore, 1995). Experiences from ALCOM's work with extension projects in Zambia, Mozambique and Tanzania support this new emphasis. Good results were achieved thanks to what has been labelled as "dedicated department of fisheries staff". No additional formal training was provided for the staff through the projects. However, "enabling" conditions were created. They included fora for discussion of findings, exchange of information and exposure to new approaches from outside the department. Leth-Nissen (1995) argues that by removing obstacles with regard to communications, internal reporting and follow-up, access to up-to-date information and the creation of fora for discussion of new ideas and visions in which junior staff actively could participate, considerably improved their performance and the efficiency of the department's extension work.
The Thematic Evaluation of Aquaculture (FAO, 1987) stated that aquaculture research is mainly carried out by government departments, the same which have the responsibility for management and administration of the sector. In some countries universities also have important research programs for aquaculture. The evaluation further concludes that the ongoing research is mainly oriented towards biological and technical disciplines and that research faces severe institutional constraints; weak management and coordination, inexperienced scientists and insufficient funding. Little research was carried out on the economics and socio-economics of aquaculture.
Coche et. al. (1994) made a thorough review of aquaculture research in 12 countries. They found that these countries had at least 21 major research stations. The government is dominant in research. However, also the private sector carries out research in Kenya, Zambia and Zimbabwe. They ranked the research facilities and categorized only two as "very good" (in Côte d'Ivoire and Rwanda) and three as "good" (Malawi, Madagascar and Cameroon). They also found, similar to the findings of the Thematic Evaluation, that bio-technological research dominates and is given top priority in all countries. However, economic aspects (mainly marketing) had been studied in half of the countries, while social aspects and especially environmental research had been given low priority. They found that the researchers themselves to a large extent decide on and define the research topic. The objectives are mainly related to institutional objectives or those of the international programmes. In the identification of research projects there is in some cases a dialogue between producers and scientists. However there are only a few cases when the research objectives are defined in a national plan.
Additional institutional constraints are lack of data bases and flows of information within and between research institutions in the region and between researchers and users of the results (extension systems, producers).
The research priorities, identified by the SIFR (Study on International Fisheries Research) as reported in Coche et. al. (1994) and by Pedini (1994), are bio-technical (species, feed, fertilizers, brood stock, culture systems, small water-body fisheries, and marine aquaculture), economic (mainly market research) and socio-economic. Thus, the highest priority is still given the bio-technical aspects offish farming. There are several reasons to the low priority of other disciplines. Administrators and policy makers need economic, social and environmental data for policies, strategies and planning. These needs have not yet been channelled to and been felt by researchers. Further, there is a lack of researchers representing these disciplines in administrations.
A round-table meeting in Zimbabwe defined institutional constraints to aquaculture research in terms of ill-defined research goals, lack of coordination between government institutions and research institutes, and lack of access to systematized information on past and ongoing research in the country (ALCOM, 1991 and Madhu, 1991).
The meeting also reviewed the private sector research on trout, which has been organized by the Trout Producers Association. The trout farmers felt the need for additional research, were financially sufficiently strong and had the organizational capacity to establish a small research facility. Staff of the governmental Nyanga Trout Research Center can conduct experiments of interest for the commercial farmers at that facility. Private sector research or, more likely, experimental work is also carried out on most commercial fish farms in the region. The editorial of the Newsletter of the Aquaculture Association of Southern Africa (no. 32, September 1995), discusses open as opposed to confidential aquaculture research. The article discusses "assignments" to scientists and research institutions from the private sector, in which the contracts can have a clause on confidentiality. It argues that this way of organizing research and development leads to duplications and late introduction of innovations in the commercial sector in southern Africa.
Organized private sector research relies on strong common interests in a restricted group, which is well organized and has sufficient economic strength, assignments to scientists or research institutions by individual companies or on-farm experiments. For small-scale aquaculture, research funds have to come from outside the producers. Institutional arrangements promoting a close dialogue and collaboration on more equal terms between scientists and farmers would be an appropriate approach. Brummett and Haight (this volume) discuss participatory research in detail. To be effective and to have a wide impact different forms of rural organizations should preferably be involved in farmer-participatory research. Bebbington et. al. (1996) conclude that there is a considerable potential for the participation of rural organizations in both research and extension. However, there are limitations. There are only a few rural organizations or producers associations active in fish farming. Experience has shown that it is difficult to establish new sustainable organizations. If organizations exist, they are often institutionally weak for the purpose of aquaculture development because of lack of funds, skills, and limited information channels. Further, if they exist, they were often created for other purposes than fish farming and may not give priority to research and extension. When venturing into farmer-participatory research (and/or extension) such weaknesses should be considered and institutional support should be included when required.
A thorough review of extension for rural aquaculture is made in Sen. et al. (this volume) and no details are discussed here. It may suffice to state that extension services, in spite of approach, structure or institutional arrangements, are costly and that their effectiveness and efficiency have often been questioned. Extension methods have tended over the last years to become more participatory in approach, involving the target group in a dialogue.
In most countries in sub-Saharan Africa a separate fisheries and aquaculture extension service has been created. One exception is Zimbabwe. Arguments have for many years been brought forward giving the rationale for the integration of aquaculture into agricultural extension systems (Harrison, 1994, Sen et. al. 1996). This is being done for example in Zambia, which at present is reported to be reorganizing its fisheries department to allow a formal integration of the extension services. Mozambique and Tanzania have also attempted such integration. While integration is conceptually convincing, its practicalities still need to be demonstrated. The work of the Department of Fisheries in Eastern Province of Zambia was enhanced by close, although informal, collaboration with the agriculture extension service initiated in 1992 (ALCOM, 1995). The early hesitance about collaboration was changed. It can be argued that a positive attitude was created simultaneously with the staff of the provincial Department of Fisheries becoming more confident in their roles as aquaculture subject matter specialists. The integration of the extension services was facilitated because both departments belonged to the same ministry. Van der Mheen (1996), reporting from a sub-regional consultation on extension for small-scale fish farming in southern Africa, identified administrative routines of ministries and departments as the main obstacle for integration of extension systems.
Seed has been the main input supplied by governments in Latin America and Africa, where aquaculture is a young sector. Where aquaculture is more established, the private sector is itself organizing the supply (FAO, UNDP and Norway, 1987). Besides seed, materials for pond construction, tools, feed, and harvesting equipment have also at times been provided by governments at a subsidized price, as gifts or as loans (often as components of aquaculture development projects).
The supply of inputs can be regarded as a subsidy to create interest in and an understanding of aquaculture practices and to stimulate initial developments. The sustainability of such government services are, however, uncertain. The prices for the inputs do not reflect real costs, the government facilities (fish culture stations) are inefficient and often not able to provide seed on a regular basis. Harrison (1994) questions the supply of inputs with regard to costs for government facilities (hatcheries, transport), the creation of dependence and inhibition of private initiatives, production and distribution of the inputs on commercial conditions organized by farmers, and the implications for the long term viability. The Thematic Evaluation of Aquaculture (FAO, UNDP and Norway, 1987) discusses the supply of inputs, mainly fingerlings, and states that governments are not organized to provide fingerlings efficiently. It also argues that the decline of fish farming in the 60's in sub-Saharan Africa was related to the decline in operations of government fish farms and subsequent lack of fingerlings for farmers at the expected low, subsided, prices.
At the time of the Thematic Evaluation, 1985-1987, there were few signs that governments were changing their attitudes to the supply of inputs. Attitudes are, however, changing now. Harrison (1994) reports on attempts in Kenya to give up government supply of fingerlings, Coche et. al. (1994) mention plans to privatize government fish farms in a few countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Jensen et. al. (1994) and van der Berg (1996) discuss successful privatization of fingerling production and sale in Madagascar. Farmer-to-farmer supply of fingerlings is becoming more and more important in Zambia, Tanzania and Mozambique, actively supported by projects. It is safe to conclude that governments in general in sub-Saharan Africa have recognized the limitations of government supplies of inputs to small-scale aquaculture development.
4.1 Producers and Producers' Organizations
4.2 Production of Inputs
4.3 Marketing Systems
4.4 Private Sector Extension
4.5 Non-Governmental Organizations
The private sector is a wide concept which encompasses the small-scale producers, farmers' associations, fish farming companies, and companies producing seed, feed, tools and materials, and traders, as well as non-governmental organizations.
The small-scale aquaculture production in sub-Saharan Africa is mainly organized by the household within the frame of the farming system. The household usually generates income and food from a relatively wide range of sources: on-farm activities with crops as maize, cassava and vegetables, chicken and livestock, and in some cases fish, and off-farm income or food generating activities. Typically, fish is a secondary source of income and food and accorded priority in relation to this. There are numerous reports and research papers on the household organization and small-scale fish fanning (see for example ALCOM 1987, van der Mheen-Sluijer et. al. 1988, Wijkstrom et. al. 1989, ICLARM and GTZ 1991, Goevereh et. al. undated, Harrison 1994, and Nilsson et. al. 1994) and the organization of fish production in the farming system (for example ICLARM and GTZ 1991, Kartzow et. al. 1992, Brummett and Haight, in print). Questions of risk and diversification of production are important for the household's decisions on fish farming. Its decisions are also influenced by access to inputs, markets, extension services, information, the legal framework and the general economic conditions.
Fish farmers' associations are not prominent in southern Africa for rural small-scale fish farming. A few active associations are reported from Tanzania and Zambia, functioning as discussion clubs and (in Tanzania) to set the prices for the sale of fingerlings (van der Mheen, personal communication). There are also a few examples of women's clubs and one football club in Zambia, which are engaged in fish fanning. The situation is different for commercial aquaculture, where for example the trout farmers' association in Zimbabwe is strong, as well as farmers' associations in South Africa (Hecht 1992).
There are a few examples on cooperative small-scale fish farming, mainly from the so called "green belts" around Maputo in Mozambique. However, cooperatives have not had any significant influence on small-scale aquaculture development in southern Africa.
The organization of fish seed supply is becoming an important aspect of rural aquaculture development in southern Africa. The documented examples of private seed production and distribution are still few. However, these activities are becoming important in parts of Zambia, Tanzania and Mozambique, van der Berg (1996) describes the best documented example, in Madagascar. The development, which was initiated by a project, had good results. Already in 1992, 75% of the market was served by 72 private fingerling producers.
There is no production of prefabricated feed in the rural-small scale fish farming in southern Africa and thus no producers of specific fish feed. The same is valid for manufacturers of tools and equipment. There are net manufacturers in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi, Tanzania and Angola, all operating far below capacity. There is an unmet demand for fishing nets in all countries, possibly with the exception of Malawi (Melander and Nilsson, 1991) also for the fish farming sub-sector. However, the development of this industry is likely to focus on the needs of capture fisheries. Harvesting gear for small-scale aquaculture will be a low priority because of their scattered nature and low purchasing power at the present level of productivity.
Marketing of fish has not been controlled in the same way as marketing of agriculture products. However, most fish from rural small-scale fish farming have been, and is, either consumed in the producing or nearby households. The portion of the harvest which is sold is done so at the pond site. Thus, there are no developed marketing systems.
Improved marketing opportunities, possibly linked to market systems for agriculture products, as vegetables, could provide incentives for intensification of fish farming. It could, however, possibly have a negative effect on fish fanning by increasing opportunity costs for land and labour suitable for ponds and vegetable gardens (Sen et. al. 1996).
Farmer-to-farmer transfer of technology is important in rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Van der Mheen-Sluijer (1991 and 1995) and Sen et. al. (1996) discuss the importance of farmer-to-farmer exchange of information for example for the adoption of small-scale fish farming. The earlier negative attitude among government authorities and externally funded projects towards farmer-to-farmer exchange of information has changed and also projects have encouraged this form to expand the coverage. In Eastern Province of Zambia 93% of fish farmers had received information from other farmers. The majority of farmers had got the information this way in Tanzania (Nilsson and Wetengere 1994). Farmer-to-farmer exchange of information can be strengthened by the utilization of contact farmers or motivators as intermediaries between the formal extension system, groups of farmers and between farmers, especially late adopters (van der Mheen-Sluijer, 1995).
In Madagascar fingerling producers assumed certain extension functions, assisted by a project. This is one indication on increasing importance of the private sector involvement in extension in the region (van den Berg 1996).
Feed suppliers could be another resource for private sector extension. Both feed and seed suppliers have an interest in the spread of fish farming to increase their market. However, at the present stage of rural fish farming in southern Africa, pelleted feed or ex-farm feed ingredients are seldom used, and this extension resource can be realized only if more intensive fish fanning practices are adopted.
The remarkable development of seaweed fanning in Zanzibar was led by a private sector initiative. Companies wishing to purchase dried seaweed gave extension advice and organized inputs for small-scale seaweed farming. The seaweed industry recently encompassed 15000 self-employed culturists, mainly women (Sen, 1991, Msuya 1993 and 1995). The seaweed culture development is an example of a highly effective private sector extension without any links to a formal extension system. The motive for the private sector initiative was pure profit. The impact, however, was important for rural development and improved standard of living in a rural area.
Non-governmental organizations are understood (Holmén and Jirstrom 1996) to include "... small-scale local (development) organizations in the Third World, indigenous or international service organizations giving support to local development organizations, as well as private aid-organizations of varying sizes and purpose in the rich countries".
The trend towards NGOs as channels for development assistance was mentioned in Section 2. International funding through NGO's doubled (from US$ 3,6 to 7 billion) from 1983 to 1990. The assistance through NGOs increased five times more than the total overseas development assistance during the same period. This means that a substantial reallocation of funds between channels has occurred. The number of NGOs has mushroomed, specially in developing countries. Only 50% of NGOs in developing countries are more than 10 years old. This indicates that niches for access to funds have been created and are being filled with NGOs. Holmén and Jirstrom (1996) relate the "donor scramble for NGOs" more to political and social developments in the north than conditions in the south. These developments are related to the World Bank structural adjustment policies and aid fatigue in developed countries, the latter more concerned with perceived inefficient channels than aid in itself.
The Working Group on the Future of ALCOM found (ALCOM 1994) that eleven NGOs had been involved in aquaculture projects in six SADC-countries (South Africa was not a member at that time); Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Zambia. Two NGOs assisted more than one country. These were OXFAM and CUSO. Besides these US Peace Corps and the Catholic Church (Zambia) were the main organizations. It is evident that NGO's have had only a limited and local impact on aquaculture development in the region.
The activities of the Catholic Church in Luapula Province of Zambia in the development of fish fanning have been documented. However, there is scanty information on NGOs and rural fish farming development. Generally it may be stated that in spite of the donor interest in and emphasis on support to and though NGOs, the effectiveness and efficiency also of NGO interventions are questioned. Their weaknesses would seem to be similar to those of governmental or official channels for assistance; problems of reaching the grassroots levels and weak performance in relation to gender.
5.1 Trends in Development Aid to Aquaculture
5.2 Donor Agencies and Institutional Support
5.3 FAO and the Development of Aquaculture Institutions
The Thematic Evaluation of Aquaculture (FAO, UNDP and Norway 1987) reported that US$ 368 million had been allocated worldwide for aquaculture development between 1978 and 1984. This was 14% of the total assistance to the fisheries sector. US$ 38 million had been channelled through FAO, which got 90% of its funding for aquaculture projects from UNDP. Harrison (this volume) reports that US$ 910 million had been committed to 440 aquaculture projects worldwide. Fifteen percent of the number of projects were implemented in Africa. FAO was the executing agency for 18% of the projects. In ALCOM (1994) it is reported that 59 aquaculture projects had been implemented in the SADC-region during the period 1973 - 1993. In addition the region had participated in nine regional or interregional projects. ALCOM drew the conclusion that the development support to aquaculture projects had decreased since the 1980s.
The general trends for development aid indicated in Section 2 are valid also for support to aquaculture development; institutional development and assistance through NGOs.
Institution building or institutional development is receiving increasing attention from donors. Support to institution building or development is nothing new. Substantial effort went into the creation and strengthening of institutions in the 1950s and 60s. In the case of aquaculture this was reflected for example in support to fisheries departments through training programmes and the creation of government fish farms for research and demonstration purposes. Also, the emphasis on "absorption capacity" in the institutions in recipient countries was a reflection of the concern for institutional weaknesses. During the last few years institutional weaknesses have again been in the focus for explanations of "development failures" and support to institutions have again become an important feature of aid programmes.
From the literature about institutional development (reviewed by Moore 1995) it is evident that there are uncertainties about definitions of the concept "institutions". The range in definitions is wide as stated in the introduction to this paper. Consequently, also the definitions of institution building, strengthening of institutions and institutional development are vague and no borders between the different concepts are maintained. Moore concludes that it is hardly meaningful to dwell on subtle differences in the definitions. Also the concept "capacity building", which has been given prominence in sub-Saharan Africa is similar and for the purpose of the analysis equivalent to institutional development.
There are considerable methodological difficulties in the evaluation of institutions. Most methods discussed in the literature seem more to be checklists than proper evaluation methods. The donors also seem to give considerable freedom to their consultants in choosing their method for the evaluation or appraisal of institutions.
In spite of the difficulties with evaluations there seems to be a consensus that institution building projects are less successful than other projects. Among the reasons cited are that donors have difficulties in showing the required flexibility (an institutional weakness among donors) in approach and inability to give long-term commitments to the process for improved efficiency and effectiveness.
A few donors' approaches to the appraisal of institutions were reviewed in the preparation of this paper. In SIDA (the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency) the importance of an assessment of the administrative capacity is stressed (SIDA, 1990). The criteria to be assessed are:
- the experience and competence of the staff with regard to project management- routines for the transfer of knowledge (the interactions between the project, the line ministry, the ministry of finance or corresponding, and the donor)
- competence and routine for procurement of goods and services
- internal managerial and administrative systems and procedures, including decision making, salary structure, and other rules and conditions which determine performance incentives
- the relations between the proposed project and the ministry
- the need to support the project management with donor resources.
SIDA has also used a relatively simple model to categorize institutions as to their performance (Andersson, 1991):
Stage 1. The organization exists but does not have the capacity and capability to perform the expected tasksStage 2. The organization produces the expected work (achieving objectives and targets with acceptable standard)
Stage 3. The institution/organization has the capability to initiate, plan and implement changes for improved performance.
In NORAD's Manual for programme and project cycle management (NORAD, 1994) it is stated that the main emphasis in the appraisal of projects should be design elements and sustainability factors. The institutional setting is regarded as one sustainability factor. The document however does not give any details about methods for the appraisal or detailed criteria for appraisals. The Norwegian aid programme emphasizes the responsibility of the recipient country for planning, implementation and evaluation. Institutional development is a priority area for Norwegian assistance. NORAD is at present elaborating strategies for support to institutional development.
The Directorate-General for International Cooperation of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs states in its Policy Plan for 1992 - 1995 that limited capacities of both governments and nongovernmental organizations are among the greatest problems affecting the countries of southern Africa. The weaknesses are attributed the lack of trained personnel (general lack and the inability of governments to retain competent staff in competition with the private sector), budget deficits, outdated structures of institutions and inadequate separation between politics and administration. Lack of resources and trained staff are factors hampering NGOs. The Netherlands therefore supports institution-building in the region and the document states that institutional feasibility is one of the considerations in project appraisals. The factors which are examined are efficiency, effectiveness, and the extent to which the proposed structure fits into the project's social context. When there is a need, the Netherlands will also support exclusive institution building projects.
FAO supports member nations with activities on three levels (Pedini, 1992 and 1993); the regular programme, the field programme and through the Investment Center.
The Regular Programme has key roles to be normative, advisory and a clearing house for information and data. A number of regional advisory bodies are serviced by the Regular Programme (the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM), the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Commission (IPFC), the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC), the Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa (CIFA), and the Commission for Inland Fisheries for Latin America (COPESCAL)). Examples of normative functions have been the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) which is guiding future fisheries and aquaculture developments with regard to resources and environment. The Codes contain a commitment to support for developing countries to realize their aquaculture potential. Other such initiatives have been the, then important, Kyoto Strategy from 1976 and the Thematic Evaluation of 1987. Both represent the understanding of the issues facing aquaculture development at that time and provide advice and guidance based on the experiences which had been gained. A number of regional projects were initiated under the Field Programme to further test and develop development issues after the Kyoto meeting; NACA in Asia, ARAC in Africa, AQUILA in Latin America, and MEDRAP in the Mediterranean. These projects lasted more than 10 years each. Besides working on specific issues for aquaculture development they acted as institutional arrangements for regional exchange of data and information.
Later, sub-regional programmes as the BOBP (the Bay of Bengal Programme) in South Asia and ALCOM (Aquaculture for Local Community Development Programme) in the SADC-region of southern Africa have furthered sub-regional collaboration and worked on test and demonstration of methods and techniques for coastal small-scale aquaculture (BOBP) and small-scale inland aquaculture (ALCOM).
Both the regional and sub-regional initiatives have had an impact on institutional development. In the case of the BOBP this impact was incidental (institutional development was not mentioned as an objective or aim of the programme). In a forthcoming report, Andreasson states that institutional development, however, was the impact mentioned most frequently by respondents in interviews.
FAO is also the executing agency for national aquaculture development projects. In 1993 FAO operated 33 national projects; 14 in Asia, 8 in Africa, 7 in Latin America and 4 in the Mediterranean (Pedini, 1993).
Recent developments have and are changing the traditional mode of operation of FAO. Budgets have been cut which have resulted in reduction of FAO headquarters staff. UNDP has decided on national execution of its projects. In 1984 UNDP contributed 90% of FAOs aquaculture field projects. The Field Programme has been drastically reduced. It is unlikely that this reduction will be compensated by increases in bilaterally funded and executed projects. FAO has also initiated a decentralization of its organization with both professional and operational capacity being outstationed to regional and sub-regional offices.
The effects of the changes have not yet been fully reviewed. However, there is an understanding that FAOs normative role will be given more prominence. Concern is, however, expressed that to fulfill the normative role the organization and its staff need close links to and hands-on contacts with field developments.
6.1 Summary of Changes with Effect on Aquaculture Institutions
6.2 Key Central Government Activities for Small-Scale Aquaculture
6.3 International Organizations
6.4 Donor Agencies
Governments are rethinking their role, public spending has been cut, subsidies have been reduced, civil servants have been retrenched, trade have been liberalized and free markets have been introduced - all these are changes affect aquaculture and aquaculture institutions. Governments will rely on more indirect measures to reach their objectives, they will provide less direct support to the sector and the sector has to argue for its share of government budgets. FAO, as the lead organization in aquaculture, is subject to change; its normative role is emphasized and the direct involvement on field level is reduced, its budgets are cut and the organization is being decentralized. The funding to its field programme is gradually decreasing.
Donor agencies are changing their mode of work; several countries have announced heavy cuts in aid budgets, there are demands that aid funds should be used more effectively and efficiently, and more funds are channeled through non-governmental organizations. The design of projects goes towards "institutional twinning" and short term consultancies instead of the long term expatriate working with counterparts.
Arguments for small-scale aquaculture have tended to be weak - it has had a slow start in sub-Saharan Africa. There is however, a considerable physical potential (Kapetsky, 1994). There are also numerous reports on increasing numbers of farming households who take up fish farming. The data on the viability and profitability of individual farms or ponds are, however, at best scanty. There are inherent methodological problems in determining production and productivity in relation to inputs. However, as reported by Harrison (1994) and Sen et. al. (this volume) the scattered information indicates that small-scale rural aquaculture is beneficial for farming households (income, food, risk minimization) and in many cases the best known alternative use of resources. There is also an argument that through a close integration of fish ponds with the farming systems the increase in the total output from the farm is higher than just the additional fish (Brummett and Haight, this volume). Wijkstrom (1991) discussed the contribution of small-scale, rural, aquaculture to economic growth. He argued that the contribution is highest in stagnant economies with idle resources. He also argued that the farmer (individual or household) derives an income in three ways from fish farming; direct net income, income in kind (through improving the household's cash balance) and through the "consumption effect". More and systematized quantitative data is required by governments to justify budget allocations to the sector.
Governments will increasingly rely on indirect measures to promote different economic sectors, including small-scale aquaculture. The instruments are macro-economic policies, legislation and sectoral policies and plans. Governments can adopt two main strategies when reducing public spending. Either slices are cut from all activities and the operations rationalized, or the government focuses its resources on key activities. A combination of the two strategies is likely in most cases (retrenchment is time consuming, meets political and union resistance, and commitments can not be abruptly discontinued without social and economic effects). However, governments will over time focus more and more of their scarce resources on the core functions.
The indirect promotion and regulation of a sector implies less precise objectives. Objectives in terms of growth can still be fixed. However, support cannot easily be targeted to specific groups. This is also in line with the discouragement of targeting, for example, credit to the disadvantaged in favour of free competition for the highest return to capital as described above (Tietze, 1994).
It is important that governments seek consistency between macro-economic policies, sectoral policies and plans, and legislation. The main issues to solve with legislation are access to land and water, introduction of species and environmental aspects.
Institutional development is, as discussed earlier, often linked to factors related to incentives, working conditions and job satisfaction. The civil service salary structure is an important measure for incentives. The low, often almost non-existent, salaries for some civil services works against all other inputs for improved institutional performance. This can, however, only be changed by central government, not its aquaculture institutions.
6.2.1 Aquaculture Departments
Aquaculture departments (here understood as the governmental entity responsible for aquaculture whether part of a fisheries, agriculture or any other department) in sub-Saharan Africa cannot expect increasing budgets in the foreseeable future and may have to accept budget cuts. The departments will also come under increasing pressure from the central government to adjust their operations and to increase effectiveness and efficiency.
Departments needs good arguments to retain a fair share of the government budget. They need to document and disseminate information on its activities and their results both to central government and to its "clients" (the private sector, donors and international organizations). They also needs to define their core activities and focus effort and resources to these. This may require restructuring and restaffing of departments. In doing this they have to pose the question of which functions could be performed by others.
The institutional adjustment to the changes will include reorganization within and between departments, new procedures for policy and plan formulation, training of staff, retrenchment of existing staff, and replacement of some staff to staff the institution with the currently required expertise.
Andreasson (1992 a) stressed, when discussing government responses to budget cuts, that no "ready made" recipes should be proposed. Each department should review its situation, its strengths and weaknesses in terms of staff, infrastructure etc and plan for the change. An important aspect of the reviews and planning for change are to seek "partners". As argued below, these partners should be sought in the private sector and among NGOs. Both have long-term commitments to development although for completely different reasons and motives. Also partnership with other governmental institutions can improve performance as can networking with sister organizations in neighbouring countries. The new information technology is cheap and facilitates unorthodox solutions.
6.2.2 Information
Departments need to strengthen information gathering and dissemination. The information unit should gather, compile and disseminate information in an understandable format, utilizing whenever possible available information technologies. These should be accessible, to the producers, producer organizations and others in the private sector (potential investors, potential resources for extension etc), NGO's, extension officers, researchers, administrators, policy makers, international organizations and donors. With proper compilation and dissemination of data and information the department can ensure that the sector and its importance and potential for development are understood.
The requirements for the information unit are small: a librarian, computer, access to information technology for dissemination and a documentation centre. This should be regarded as a key function of the department and reallocations be made in the budget.
6.2.3 Policy and Plan Preparation
Overall policies are set by ministries. The department can influence the specifics of the policies provided its arguments are supported by facts. It was stated above that departments often lack socio-economic and economic expertise to analyze data and information and provide a framework for policy and plan formulations. Can the department hire the expertise in a situation with retrenchments? While the department needs basic capabilities in these field it can augment the capacity by using resources from other departments and governmental bodies, it can hire short term consultants and it may obtain international expertise on a short term basis.
6.2.4 Research and Training
Funds for research and training are also becoming scarce and new approaches are required to maintain a minimum of both for the development of the sector. Coche et. al. (1994) found nineteen research stations in the twelve countries, which were reviewed in sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the stations were operating far below capacity. It can be argued that a country needs one station in each agro-climatic zone to serve the sector. It may not be possible to keep that capacity. The department then has to define priority-zones based on existing fish farming, trends in the development and physical and socio-economic potential for development. Its research efforts should be concentrated on these areas. Other research stations should be disposed of, if possible sold out to the private sector. Further, sub-regional cooperation could also enhance the research capacity by secondment of researchers and bilateral agreements on joint operation of a research facility.
The aquaculture sector is, as has often been stated, a small and young sector in sub-Saharan Africa. The number of people who require training on different levels is therefore limited. Also for training, aquaculture departments have to seek regional, sub-regional or bilateral cooperation with neighbours. The SADC fisheries and aquaculture training programme, which was formulated in early 1990s was such an attempt. Although arguably overambitious and overestimating the need for trained staff in technical disciplines the initiative should be followed up.
6.2.5 Extension and Provision of Inputs
These are the areas where institutional changes could have the most profound impact on government budgets and the effectiveness and efficiency of support to the development of small-scale aquaculture.
Budgets for extension have been reduced. The solution for departments of aquaculture is to look for partners to maintain an effective support to farmers. This can be through
- Liaison with other governmental departments, in first hand the department of agriculture. Liaison with the department of agriculture offers the additional advantage of promoting an integration of the fish farm into the farming system- Promotion of private sector extension. This can be support to and training of fingerling producers, feed producers, traders and others
Both liaison with other governmental extension services and promotion of private sector extension require a redefinition of the role of the aquaculture officers, technicians and extension workers. In the new institutional arrangements they will function as subject matter specialists, for which they may require additional training. The number of officers required may be reduced, as in the example from Madagascar.
The above implies a reorganization of extension functions within the frame of an existing aquaculture department. However, to become effective more profound institutional changes may in some cases be beneficial. Formal merging of extension services has been done in Zimbabwe and is reportedly being attempted in Zambia. These experiences should be reviewed with respect to the effectiveness to reach targets and target groups.
For the purpose of extension and provision of inputs, mainly fingerlings, governments in the twelve countries reviewed by Coche et. al. (1994) are operating some 200 farms. The government fish farms in the SADC-region are often functioning far below capacity or not functioning at all for their purpose (ALCOM, 1994). Although there was a rationale for the construction of these farms at the early stages of aquaculture development in sub-Saharan Africa, they have a limited role in the future. Budgets have been cut over the last few years for the operation of the stations and it is evident that governments neither can afford, nor intends to continue running the farms. As reported, some countries are attempting to privatize the farms. Alternatively, farms could be leased to private operators.
How could FAO best serve aquaculture development in the new situation with regard to changes in government policies and the changes in the organization itself?
One important aspect is to continue to develop the normative role. This is done on overall policy levels but could also be on a rather detailed level. One example is work which was initiated in the early 90s on strategies for aquaculture development under different economic situations in rural areas (Wijkstrom, 1991). This type of work would serve planning functions in countries and would benefit from close collaboration between the different units of the fisheries department and between departments. FAO should also maintain its role for collection, analysis and dissemination of data and information.
FAO has the regional organizations and has been expanding its professional competence on regional and sub-regional levels. While this brings the expertise closer to countries in need of assistance and advice, it is important also to keep expertise on a central, global, level.
The field experience of FAO has been generated by its field programme in inter-regional, regional and sub-regional programmes and national projects. The regional and sub-regional programmes have been efficient fora to promote collaboration between countries, for test and demonstration of approaches, methods and technologies and for exchange of information. Three major such programmes, BOBP in South Asia, AQUILA in Latin America, and ALCOM in southern Africa have been or will soon be terminated. The design of such sub-regional programmes has been flexible and allows innovative and unorthodox activities. Within their frame new approaches to how to work with institutions can be tried. One example would be to work directly with NGO's, private companies, producers' associations etc with the consent of the government. Such attempts could demonstrate feasibility to governments and their aquaculture departments and allow them to concentrate on more catalytic activities. So far, regional and sub-regional collaboration has mainly been fostered through these programmes on governmental level. Regional collaboration between associations, private producers, companies and traders is just as justified and could be promoted. This could cover many areas such as production technology, export/import and trade. One specific area would be to promote the creation and strengthening of private consultancy groups, who could operate on sub-regional level.
The regional programmes, often operating with pilot projects in different countries, have a multi-disciplinary core staff, centrally placed in a sub-region. The staff gain a thorough knowledge of its area of operation and can provide effective and efficient advice and support to member countries. FAO should consider to establish long-term sub-regional (preferably not more than 10-15 countries) programmes in dialogue with member countries and potential donors.
One characteristic of the programmes has been their long-term character. BOBP has been operational since 1979 and ALCOM since 1987. The sub-regional programmes can thus provide the continuity which is not always possible in national projects. The sub-regional programmes would serve, besides support and advice to countries, to maintain FAOs field expertise which is essential for its normative and informative functions.
Other international institutions of importance for aquaculture development are the Asian Institute of Technology, ICLARM, and SEAFDEC. All are located in Asia (ICLARM has operations in Africa). Africa would benefit from a central regional research and development institute or organization. Possibly one research institute in South Africa could emerge as the initiator of the regional institute, which could be a network of institutes with a strong center.
An institutional alternative to the preferable regional and sub-regional programmes is that FAO's regional and sub-regional expertise is provided with operational funds allowing them to undertake extensive surveys and studies, short term consultancy inputs and implementation of pilot projects and, probably the most important function, to promote regional and sub-regional cooperation and exchange of data and information.
Several major donor agencies see their budgets cut and it seems that funds for fisheries and aquaculture diminish. Reasons for donors withdrawing from fisheries and aquaculture can be budget cuts, a need to focus efforts on a few programmes, little priority given the sector by governments and a preconceived understanding of fisheries and aquaculture programmes being less successful than other interventions.
Donors' assistance to the development of aquaculture is required on several levels. One level is political and technical support to the elaboration of international agreements and codes of practice and then to support the implementation of international agreements on regional, sub-regional and national levels. Good coordination between donors and close collaboration with FAO would strengthen the approach.
Donor assistance would be required to build up a network of sub-regional programmes and institutions for aquaculture development. This would be in line with the shift towards institutional twinning and a vehicle to develop such strategies. This could include support for networking also with other international and national institutions in the field of rural aquaculture development, research and training.
On the national level, donor support would effectively support policy and plan formulation, institutional reorganization and strengthening, and the private sector to take over functions from government departments as well as assisting the departments to focus on their main responsibilities.
Most governments in sub-Saharan Africa are adopting policies promoting private sector development, reducing budgets for governmental institutions and rethinking their roles. In this context the promotion and regulation of aquaculture development become the prime tasks and legislation, policies and plans important instruments. Aquaculture institutions need to adjust to these new priorities and strengthen their competences in planning and economics. Environmental aspects, regulated in law, become the major regulatory aspect for small-scale aquaculture development.
Extension is and will be important. Aquaculture institutions have to, in light of unfavourable cost-benefit ratios for extension, decide on types of aquaculture to be actively promoted based on economic analysis. A development towards increased intensity and market orientation among small-scale farmers should in this context be considered as a complement to and natural development from the extensive, subsistence oriented, fish farming in ponds. Martinez-Espinosa (1995) has labelled this "... type II rural aquaculture". Improved cost-effectiveness in extension can also be achieved through integration with agriculture extension systems. However, this will not be sufficient. Aquaculture departments should also seek to promote private sector partners in development; among seed producers, farmers associations etc.
In the process of adjusting the governmental institutions - aquaculture departments - have to withdraw from activities, such as seed production, which can be taken over by the private sector. The majority of governmental fish farms should be reviewed with the aim of privatizing or closing them.
Governments will need support in this process. How could FAO best assist? FAO is going through institutional changes of its own, focusing more on its normative role. This is important also for small-scale aquaculture for example with regard to codes of conduct for introductions and environmental guidelines. In light of the need for support to small-scale fish farming development in sub-Saharan Africa this should be complemented with active support on regional and sub-regional levels. Sub-regional experimental and innovative programmes, with centrally placed multidisciplinary teams of experts, would be a cost-effective way to support institutional change and strengthening and sector development. Such teams could, with the consent of the governments, work directly with provincial or district authorities, NGOs and the private sector. They should, as a complement to the regional commissions and committees, foster sub-regional collaboration on a technical level both in the governmental and private sectors. One area of support could be to promote the establishment of sub-regional consultancy groups.
An all important factor is funding for development interventions. And funds for small-scale rural aquaculture development are in decline. As shown above the funds required for small-scale aquaculture development, working on the sub-regional levels, are limited.. A sub-regional approach would allow direct support and collaboration with the private sector and NGOs, and using institutional twinning as a method.
A coordinated effort led by governments, with support from FAO as the lead agency in aquaculture and donor agencies would effectively facilitate the required institutional changes and promote a sound development of small-scale aquaculture in sub-Saharan Africa.
* Apart from the layout, the references are as presented by the author
Ackefors, H., Huner, J.V. & Konikoff, M. (1994). Introduction to the General Principles of Aquaculture. New York: Food Products Press
ALCOM (1988). Technical consultation on aquaculture in rural development, Lusaka, Zambia, 27-30 October 1987 (Report GCP/INT/436/SWE/REP/2). Rome: FAO.
ALCOM (1988a). Formulation mission: Southern African region (November - December 1987). (FI:GCP/INT/436/SWE.3). Rome: FAO.
ALCOM (1988b). Formulation mission: Botswana (March 1988). (FI:GCP/INT/436/SWE.3 Add. 1). Lusaka: FAO.
ALCOM (1991). Round-table meeting on research needs in aquaculture and culture-based fisheries in Zimbabwe. (ALCOM Field Document GCP/INT/436/SWE.18). Harare: FAO.
ALCOM (1993). Report of the Technical Consultation on the enhancement of small water body fisheries in southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe, 25-29 January, 1993. (ALCOM Report No. 12). Harare: FAO
ALCOM (1994). Aquaculture into the 21st century in Southern Africa. Report prepared by the Working Group on the Future of ALCOM, (ALCOM Report No. 15). Harare: FAO.
ALCOM (1995). Report on the seminar on aquaculture extension in Zambia. 2-6 October 1995, Kabwe, Zambia. (ALCOM Field Document No. 36). Harare: FAO.
Andersson, G. (1991). Nagra reflektioner om organisationsutveckling iu-land. Erfarenheter av organisationsutveckling i u-land. Stockholm: SIDA.
Andersson, I. & Mubamba, R. (1989). A bibliography of fisheries and aquaculture, Zambia. (GCP/INT/436/SWE.10). Lusaka: FAO.
Andréasson, A. (1992). Long-term commitment to development. ALCOM News, (7), 2-3.
Andréasson, A. (1992a). With budgets shrinking, how can governments strengthen institutions? ALCOM News, (6), 2-3.
Bebbington, A.J., Merril-Sands, D. & Farrington, AJ. (1996). Farmer and community organisations in agricultural research and extension: functions, impacts and questions. IDRCurrents, (11), 23-31.
Van den Berg (1996) The private sector: A potential key element in the development of small-scale aquaculture in Africa. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, (12), 14-16.
Brummet, R.E. & B.A. Haight (in print). Research-development linkages. Paper prepared for the Expert Consultation on Small-Scale Rural Aquaculture, May 1996, FAO, Rome, Italy. Rome: FAO.
Coche, A (1991). The future of aquaculture in Southern Africa. ALCOM News, (4), 4-8.
Coche, A.G., B. Haight & M. Vincke (1994). Aquaculture development and research in sub-Saharan Africa. Synthesis of national reviews and indicative action plan for research (CIFA Technical Paper No. 23). Rome: FAO
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995). Rome: FAO.
David e Silva, F. (1993). Legislation concerning small water bodies. ALCOM News, (11), 20-21.
Directorate-General for International Cooperation (1992). Policy Plan for 1992-1996. Southern African Region. The Hague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Govereh, J., S.M. Chigume & S. Sen. Socio-economic and marketing constraints to the development of aquaculture and utilisation of small water bodies in Zimbabwe. Agritex Fisheries Unit, FAO/UNDP support for rural aquaculture extention (ZIM/88/021).
FAO, UNDP & Norway (1987). Thematic Evaluation of Aquaculture. Joint study by United Nations Development Programme, Norwegian Ministry of Development Cooperation and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome: FAO.
Harrison, E. (1994): Fish farming in Africa? What's the catch? Summary report of ODA-supported research project "Aquaculture development in Sub-Saharan Africa". University of Sussex.
Harrison, E. (in print): Options for small-scale rural aquaculture development. A discussion paper. Introductory overview paper prepared for the Consultation on Small-Scale Aquaculture, Rome, FAO HQ, May 1995. Rome: FAO
Hecht, T. (1992). Aquaculture in South Africa. World Aquaculture, 23(1), 7-19.
Hecht, T. (1994). Aquaculture in South Africa: Where is it now? Where is it going? ALCOM News, (16), 5-10.
Houtte van, A.R., N. Bonucci & W. R. Edeson (1989). A preliminary review of selected legislation governing aquaculture. (ACDP/REP/89/42). Rome: FAO.
Holmén, H. & Jirstrom, M. (1996). Second thoughts about NGOs as triggers for development. IRDCurrents, (11), 8-17
ICLARM & GTZ (1991). The context of small-scale integrated agriculture aquaculture systems in Africa: a case study of Malawi. (ICLARM Stud. Rev. 18).
Jensen, A., van den Berg, F. & Janssen, J. (1994). Privatization of rural extension - is it possible? ALCOM News, (13), 2-5.
Kapetsky, J (1994). The potential for warm water aquaculture in the SADC countries. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, (6), 2-6.
Kartzow de, A., P. Van der Heijden & J. Van der Schoot (1992). Integration offish farming into the farm-household system in Luapula Province, Zambia. (ALCOM Field Document No. 16). Harare: FAO.
Kouka, P-J. (in print). The Use of Macro-Economic Information in the Identification and Formulation of Policies and Plans for Rural Aquaculture Development. Paper prepared for the Expert Consultation on Small-Scale Rural Aquaculture, 28-31 May 1996, FAO, Rome, Italy. Rome: FAO.
Leth-Nissen, Soeren (1995). What happened in Eastern Province? ALCOM News, (18), 8-9, 12.
Madhu, S.R. (1991). Aquaculture research in Zimbabwe: Where is it now? Where is it going? ALCOM News, (4), 17-18.
Madhu, S.R. (1992). Stimulating aquaculture in Southern Africa - the ALCOM experience. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, (2), 5-7.
Martinez-Espinosa, M. (1995). Development of type II rural aquaculture in Latin America. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, (11)6-10.
Melander, R. & K. Nilsson (1991). The fishing net industry in SADCC. (Fisheries Development series 59). Göteborg: Swedmar.
Van der Mheen-Sluijer, J. & H.W. van der Mheen (1988). Field testing of aquaculture in Eastern Province, Zambia. (FI:GCP/INT/436/SWE.6). Lusaka: FAO.
Van der Mheen-Sluijer, J. (1991) Adoption offish farming: Promoting and inhibiting factors in Eastern Province, Zambia. (GCP/INT/436/SWE.13). Harare: FAO.
Van der Mheen-Sluijer, J. (1995). Report of the Technical Consultation on Extension Methods for Smallholder Fish Farming in Southern Africa. (GCP/INT/555/SWE). Harare: FAO
Van der Mheen-Sluijer, J. (1995). Aquaculture extension guidelines for small-scale farmers. Based on experiences from a pilot project in Eastern Province, Zambia. (ALCOM Report No. 16). Harare: FAO.
Moore, M. (1995): Institution building as a development assistance method. A review of literature and ideas. (SIDA Evaluation Report 1). Stockholm, 1995
Msuya, F. (1993): Seaweed farming in Zanzibar. An amazing story. ALCOM News, (11), 11-16.
Msuya, E.F. & A.J. Mochi (1995). The seaweed farming industry in Zanzibar. Swedmar Review, (November), 17-21.
Nermark, U.P. & Mmopelwa, T.G. (1994). Utilization of small water bodies, Botswana: Report of activities towards fisheries exploitation, 1992-1993. (ALCOM Field Document No. 29). Harare: FAO.
Nilsson et al. (1994). Adoption and viability criteria for semi-intensive fish farming: A report on a socio-economic study in Ruvuma and Mbeya regions, Tanzania. (ALCOM Field Document No. 28). Harare: FAO.
Nilsson, H. & K. Wetengere (1994). Adoption and viability criteria for semi-intensive fish farming. A report on a socio-economic study in Ruvuma and Mbeya regions, Tanzania (ALCOM Field Document No. 28). Harare: FAO.
NORAD (1994). Manual for programme and project cycle management. Oslo: NORAD.
Pedini, M. (1992). An overview of FAO's role in support of aquaculture development. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, (1), 2-5.
Pedini, M. (1993). The FAO Field Programme. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, (3), 14-16.
Pedini, M. (1994). FAO and the Strategy for International Fisheries Research (SIFR). The aquaculture component. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, (6), 7-10.
Sayagues, M. (1995). Community management of fisheries. Can it work? ALCOM News, (19), 5-6.
Sen, S. (1991). Seaweed collection and culture in Tanzania. (GCP/INT/436/SWE.14). Harare: FAO.
Sen, S., van der Mheen, H. & van der Mheen-Sluijer, J. (in print). The place of aquaculture in rural development. Paper prepared for the Expert Consultation on Small-Scale Rural Aquaculture, 28-31 May 1996. FAO, Rome. Rome: FAO
SIDA (1990). Metodhandbok 90. Stockholm: SIDA.
Sorensen, J.C. & McCreary, S.T. (1990). Institutional arrangements for managing coastal resources and environments (Rev. 2. ed.). (Renewable resources information series. Coastal management publication 1). Washington D.C.: U.S. National Park Service.
Tietze, U. (1994). Elements of successful fisheries credit policies and procedures. ALCOM News, (13), 7-11.
Wijkstrom, U. & H. Aase (1989). Fish farmers in rural communities: Results of a socio-economic pilot survey in Northern Province of Zambia. (GCP/INT/436/SWE.5). Lusaka: FAO
Wijkstrom, U. (1991). How fish culture can stimulate economic growth: Conclusions from fish farmer surveys in Zambia. (ALCOM Report No. 9). Harare: Rome.
Wijkstrom, U. & R. Larsson (1992). Fish farmers in rural communities: Results of a survey in Northwestern Province of Zambia. (ALCOM Field Document No. 8). Harare: FAO.
Wijkstrom, U. (1992). Notes for a technical seminar on aquaculture and economic growth. (ALCOM Field Document No. 19). Harare: FAO
