EC FP7 Project Contract number: SARNISSA: Sustainable Aquaculture Research Networks in Sub Saharan Africa

Transcription

1 EC FP7 Project Contract number: SARNISSA: Sustainable Aquaculture Research Networks in Sub Saharan Africa Start Date: February 1 st 2008 Duration: 39 months Associations organisations and Companies: Their roles and opportunities in the formulation and transfer of skills within the framework of sustainable aquaculture development in Sub-Saharan Africa Lavrilleux Y. (APDRA), Mikolasek O (CIRAD). et Leschen W.(UoS) Project website address: Also on Facebook Keywords : (5 maximum) Sub-Saharan-Africa/ Aquaculture, Africa, commercial, training, information, networks.

2 1. Contents 1. Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Methodology recommended for the study SURVEYS BROADCAST VIA THE INTERNET TYPES OF AQUACULTURE FARMING SYSTEMS ADDITIONAL INTERVIEWS SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Stakeholders in the aquaculture sector and their contribution to its development in SSA FISH FARMERS COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN THE SECTOR OF AQUACULTURE NGOS AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS RESEARCHERS GOVERNMENT/STATE EXECUTIVES AND EMPLOYEES COMPARATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF EACH STAKEHOLDER CATEGORY TO AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT IN SSA Current impediments to aquaculture development in SSA INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS DIFFICULT ACCESS TO RECENT AND PERTINENT INFORMATION ON AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION WEAK PRIVATE SECTOR UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM OF THE AQUACULTURE SECTOR OTHER NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS EXPRESSED Transfer of skills to fish farmers CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSFER OF SKILLS EXPECTATIONS ON THE TRANSFER OF SKILLS Opportunities for NGOs and SMEs to contribute to sustainable development of aquaculture in SSA CONCLUSION Bibliographie APPENDICES GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN OF THE PERSONS INVESTIGATED (DISTRIBUTED INTO CENTRAL /WEST/SOUTHERN AFRICA, ETC.) 44 2

3 11.2. COPY OF THE ON-LINE QUESTIONNAIRE ADDRESSED TO LOW INCOME FISH FARMERS ADDITIONAL INTERVIEW GUIDE (EX: FOR COMPANIES OF THE SECTOR) OTHER OUTPUTS OF THE STUDY GRAPHS CITED IN THE DOCUMENT

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 117 stakeholders who answered the survey whicht supports this study, were made up of one third of researchers, one quarter of fish farmers/producers and nearly 15% for each of the following actors: associations, state services, commercial businesses of the aquacultural sector (85 African, and 32 other international stakeholders). The different stakeholders who participated are very critical and even negative on the current and past implementation of government extension services in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA). Several of these stakeholders give the opinion that extension services should no longer be managed bygovernment authorities alone but through consortiums (including NGOs, research teams, industrial aquaculture companies, etc.). Overall, 87% of the fish farmers surveyed met public extension officers less than once a year on their farm.. Criticisms about research [in aquaculture in SSA] were many and recurrent (from both researchers and non researchers). Results and conclusions of research programmes scarcely reach African fish farmers. Moreover, some researchers seem more concerned about producing scientific publications than popularizing or improving practices among producers. The opinion that private operators in the sector can contribute more to aquaculture development (in creating a productive and favourable environment by strengthening the activity upstream and downstream or/and ensure skill transfers towards fish-farmers) is common in the answers of respondents. There are therefore many opportunities for African and European SMEs (but also NGOs) to contribute to aquaculture development in SSA. All stakeholders in the sector of aquaculture consider that the main role of NGOs and associations is to improve the technical skills (by transmitting the information on tested best farming techniques and practices in the world) and collective organisation systems among fish farmers. But some denounce the lack of sustainability in the action of these NGOs stating their approach and planning is often short sighted and not over a long enough time scale. The greater majority of stakeholders (fish-farmers specifically) expressed needs for the acquisition of knowledge and skills on the production (and marketing) of aquaculture products. Needs in terms of skill transfers expressed by fish-farmers mainly concern on farm technical trainings (many consider that theoretical trainings in groups in closed places are largely inefficient and unproductive ) and there should be the necessity to address the real problems they encounter locally. Fish farmers have no significant preference for the type of organisations that should dispense those transfers of skills as long as they are competent (and not just managed by governmental services). Anglophone stakeholders tend to prioritise aquaculture development in SSA through the promotion of a dynamic private sector where fish farmers (especially Entrepreneurial and Industrial) are constantly conforming to market demands and constraints. However, Francophone stakeholders insist on the need to direct development towards support and capacity building to lower income household fish farmers to achieve rural development and improve food security locally. 4

5 2. INTRODUCTION Aquaculture in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has great development potential (Brummett and al. 2008). This fact has been largely established by several recent scientific publications. Current and potential demand for aquaculture products is high in this part of the continent. The reduction in wild fish catches (coastal and continental) and high population increase in the regions where these products account for a greater part of the population s food were it only in terms of protein intake has been an incentive for local production initiatives (FAO 2007; Chevassus-au-Louis and Lazard, 2009). Besides, in several SSA countries, conditions are favourable for this activity. Natural local conditions (especially climatic ones and soil natures) as well as the relative easy access to water, land and cheap labour, offer good opportunities for aquaculture development (Anderson, 2010). For about thirty years now, politicians and lenders have varied and renewed their interest in aquaculture development in SSA. These commitments have however scarcely led to an improvement in production volumes and the income of producers (Brummett and al. 2008). One of the reasons for the failure of sustainable aquaculture development in SSA has been the strategy implemented by lenders to development projects (Brummet and Rana, 2010). A case in point, amongst others, is training and the transfer of skills to producers (Mikolasek et al. 2009). The knowledge and skills required for farming aquatic organisms are multiple and highly specialized. Therefore, farming practices, aquatic site development methods, marketing and operating management techniques, etc. are some of the prerequisite aspects for the success and sustainability of aquaculture production systems. Today, the needs for the transfer of skills are still prominent and the issues regarding their implementation methodologies yet to be addressed. In the past, these were provided mainly by the government and international cooperation projects. However, such projects were extremely theoretical, short in duration, with very little implementation measures attached, leading to considerable financial wastage. These initial development promoters actually implemented means and approaches which suited their own objectives rather than addressing the true concerns of producers, thereby making them less economically efficient and sustainable (Lazard and al ; Bozena and Weigel, 1998). Aquaculture techniques popularization services (and other transfer of skills and provision of information aimed at strengthening and self-empowering fish farmers) require the use of adequate financial means and competent human resources to be relevant, sustainable and efficient. Should they therefore be the sole responsibility of the Ministry of State in charge of development and aquaculture? Or NGOs? Or commercial companies in the aquaculture sector instead? Generally speaking, how can the different actors involved in the aquaculture sector (especially the last two categories) contribute, separately or jointly, to the development of this sector in SSA? Does this development include capacity building for small-scale rural producers only or large scale industrial aquaculture only? In summary, what should be the means and strategy of implementation? These questions were the guiding principle of this study, realized as part of the SARNISSA project. To answer them, the opinions of subscribers to SARNISSA s African Aquaculture discussion forum distribution list were collected. This resulted in a wide survey which was broadcasted through the SARNISSA members discussion forum and a limited series of additional interviews (specifically involving fish farmers, association members and employees in the aquaculture sector in SSA) brought to the limelight the diversity of existing opinions and also the recurrent trends and themes in their expectations. The findings of these works are presented below. These results, it should be noted, were obtained after an analysis of the answers provided by the development stakeholders themselves. Though varied and even conflicting, thereby difficult to interpret, they however portray the diverse nature of the opinions of stakeholders experiencing and 5

6 contributing to aquaculture development on a daily basis. It was also a pre-requisite hypothesis of this study that there were significant differences in opinion and approach to SSA aquaculture of Francophone African and English speaking African stakeholders. After presenting the methodology used in realizing this study, this document discusses: The diverse nature of stakeholders and their contribution to aquaculture development in SSA, its current major constraints and finally the measures recommended for the transfer of skills and a way forward to increasing production for fish farmers. 3. Methodology recommended for the study The main objective of the study discussed here is to respond to and highlight the diverse nature of the expectations and potential role of entrepreneurial stakeholders (associations and companies) in sustainable aquaculture development in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Emphasis is laid especially on the way these stakeholders can contribute to the transfer of skills to fish farmers. This study is based on the formulation, implementation and analysis of the results, of a survey (carried out in French and in English) broadcast through the SARNISSA project internet forums. A small series of additional telephone interviews was carried out afterwards to discuss in detail some of the main ideas arising from the survey Surveys broadcast via the Internet The Internet survey has been adapted to the activities and expectations of the different categories of stakeholders involved in aquaculture development in SSA: The fish farmers themselves; employees of companies working in the aquaculture inputs and services sector; NGO members and other associations; researchers and finally government officers in charge of aquaculture development (see 10.2 for a presentation of the version of the survey addressed to fish farmers). The persons interviewed indicated their stakeholder category 1 when answering the first questions. Then, they are put on an appropriate track in the pages corresponding to their stakeholder category. The first section of the questions aimed to help the stakeholders describe their activities and the characteristics of their different organizations. The objective here is to understand how they currently contribute (as individuals or as an organization) to development. The second part aims to collect each respondent s opinion about current impediments to development of aquaculture and recommendations for its promotion. More specifically, these questions concern: extension and training activities, research orientations, the role that NGOs and companies should play in developing the sector, measures to be implemented in transferring skills to fish farmers, etc. 1 Of course, the information collected during this survey will remain confidential. 6

7 The investigation was in the form of a semi-open survey: Some of the questions were closed or quantitative; others open and meant to be analyzed qualitatively. At the end of each page (each version of the survey has 5 to 7 pages) a "free speech zone" was provided to respondents who wished to make other remarks or expectations not addressed in the previous questions. To avoid further complications to the time-consuming survey (it takes an average of 30 minutes to answer it correctly) and not to discourage those stakeholders who go ahead and answer them, most of the questions are not compulsory. However, a few questions are compulsory (if these questions are not answered, it is impossible to continue the survey). Of course, these few questions are the most important in the study 4. The questionnaires remained accessible online for 45 days and 3 s were sent on the SARNISSA discussion fora to remind people of this availability. 117 responses were collected from different actors (ie less than the 150 expected). This number is too small to conduct extensive quantitative analysis (by category of actors) but sufficient to account for a wide diversity of views and for those answers to be qualitatively analyzed. Of the 117 players who answered the survey, we found a third of researchers, one quarter of farmers and nearly 15% of each of these actors: associations, state services, enterprises of the aquacultural sector (see Graph 1). The answers were analyzed using classical database analysis tools for quantitative questions and more technical tools for qualitative questions. For the latter, a first reading of all the answers helped identify the "modalities most frequently repeated in the answers. Identifying these modalities is a delicate and tedious task. Actually, ideas expressed in an extremely varied way but contributing to a common guiding idea constitute a modality. Once identified, they are grouped into common themes, quantified while determining the frequency of appearance for each stakeholder category (or, accordingly, for all the stakeholders investigated). The percentages obtained from the answers to qualitative questions should be considered approximate values since they are treated by the person analyzing them Types of aquaculture farming systems Graph 1 Stakeholder categories of respondents to the questionnaire 2 ; 3 RESEARCH 34% Peasant aquaculture 5% State Services 12% ASSOCIATIONS 16% Entrepreneuria l aquaculture 1 INDUSTRIAL aquaculture 9% COMPANIES of the aquaculture sector 14% The questions asked throughout the investigation are meant to identify actions contributing to the development of the different types of aquaculture units present in SSA. The fish farmers themselves must identify with one of the categories retained for this study at the beginning of the study. Attempts at classifying aquaculture production systems according to specific types are legion in scientific literature. Here, such units will be differentiated according to their use of family 2 Only 62% of stakeholders answered all the questions. For most of the main questions addressed to all stakeholders, analysis will therefore bear on the answers of about a hundred stakeholders. 3 Out of 117 answers, 85 came from African stakeholders and 32 from other international stakeholders (see appendices 10.1) 4 Examples of compulsory questions: Choose the ONE category of actor in the name of which you will answer this questionnaire ; Please define, in your own words, your place / role in the ongoing development of aquaculture in sub-saharan Africa ; etc. 7

8 and/or salaried work («contemplative» aquaculture units requiring neither investment nor regular farming practices are not included in this study). The typology retained for the study is as follows: - Low income household level aquaculture where aquaculture is integrated into a production unit to diversify its activities mainly family businesses; - Entrepreneurial aquaculture - aquaculture developed by a promoter using salaried workers; - Industrial aquaculture promoted by investors; complete decoupling between investors and technical operators. It is sometimes difficult to differentiate between low income household level ˮ and entrepreneurialˮ aquaculture. The main indicator enabling the classification of aquaculture systems into these two categories is the family workers/salaried workersˮ ratio. If above 1, the unit is considered to be low income farmer and if below 1, it is classified as entrepreneurial Additional interviews After the first analyses of the survey were realized and the first results of the study obtained, a series of additional interviews was carried out. These additional interviews were aimed at obtaining complementary (and fine-tuned) information from selected stakeholders among those who gave key and/or representative answers of their stakeholder category. These included: 20 additional telephone interviews (of about twenty minutes each) with francophone stakeholders and 4 complementary surveys exchanged through mail with Anglophone stakeholders. All of these stakeholders, except two, belonged to the following categories: Fish farmers, members of associations, employees of companies working in the sector of aquaculture. Likewise all but two were working in SSA. The issues raised during these additional interviews almost exclusively concerned the transfer of skills and the role of NGOs and companies in aquaculture development. For each stakeholder category investigated again, a specific interview grid was drawn up (see 10.2 for a copy of the grid for low income household fish farmers) Scope and limitations of the study As mentioned earlier, the objectives of this study are to bring out the diversity of expectations expressed by a multitude of stakeholders across the African continent and from European stakeholders (European specifically). However, the main limitation of this study is the fact that it involved only a limited number of individuals. Even though SARNISSA E- mail discussion fora lists are consistent (1.500 individuals at the time the questionnaire was put online September 2010) they cannot group together the totality of the stakeholders involved in this vast sector. In addition, the number of fish farmers here represented is far below reality; meanwhile, researchers are overrepresented. Other - technical aspects have limited the scope of the study: - Regular access and the quality of Internet connection for some stakeholders (in SSA especially) may have hindered the survey circulated through this medium. This factor mainly explains why lower income livelihoods based fish farmers were the most underrepresented of the group; - The questionnaire (in its different versions) comprises many questions and is therefore long. The 30 minutes needed to answer all the questions may have discouraged some stakeholders from filling it completely and/or being more specific in their answers; 8

9 - Given the great diversity in the level of education and backgrounds of the stakeholders concerned by this survey, the questions were difficult to formulate. The attempt to maintain strict wordings to the questions and yet a simplified definition of concepts and the objectives of the study may have disconcerted some or pushed others to give simplistic answers; - The need to select one (and only one) stakeholder category at the very first page of the survey may have disconcerted some of the persons investigated into selecting just one "hat" among the many roles they assume (for example, several persons involved in aquaculture development in SSA are equally fish farmers, members of associations and are developing professional activities within companies or the government sector); - Finally, even though particular care was taken in translating the questionnaire from French into English, the formulation of some questions in both languages may have created a bias in the answers implied by those different formulations. 4. Stakeholders in the aquaculture sector and their contribution to its development in SSA Each respondent to the online questionnaire begins by identifying themselves with one of the five categories of stakeholders identified as involved in aquaculture development in SSA within the framework of this study. Their activities and contribution to the aquaculture sector confers on them very different roles. This part presents the diversity (or, depending on the case, homogeneity) of activities and contribution to development or roles of each of the stakeholder categories investigated. The definition of these roles is obtained after a study of the activities developed by each stakeholder and his/her own understanding of his/her role in aquaculture development in SSA" Fish farmers Diversity of production systems Among the 28 fish farmers (all African) investigated, only 6 belong to the Low income farmer category. 12 and 10 fish farmers belonged to the Entrepreneurial and Industrial fish farmer categories respectively. These fish farmers manage units of varied sizes (more than half of them have less than 100 ares - that is 10,000m² - of water against more than 10 hectares for 3 holdings see Graph 23) where aquaculture can contribute in very varied proportions to the turnover of such businesses (less than 5 for 3 of the 6 low income fish farmers interviewed; against 10 for 5 of the 10 industrial fish farmers interviewed). The majority of fish farmers interviewed produce Tilapia and to a lesser extent Silurids ie catfish (see Graph 25). An oyster, a mussels and a shrimp producer were also investigated during the survey. Only one fish farmer seems to have specialised in the production of fingerlings but 53% of those investigated own at least a fish hatchery in addition to their production ponds. Besides, fish production is done in varied facilities. Therefore, most fish farmers produce using their ponds only; meanwhile, a few fish farmers farm their fish in cages, tanks, or in a combination of these systems with ponds (see Graph 25). Other producers specified that they use variants or adaptations to these traditional facilities: natural ponds, dams, small reservoirs, etc. About a quarter of the Tilapia farmers investigated have yearly production volumes above 10 tonnes, meanwhile about a quarter do not exceed 1T/year (see Graph 26). Actually, some of the fish farmers among those investigated operate with few small ponds using relatively extensive methods (these low income fish farmers often do aquaculture to diversify and better integrate their operating systems). 9

10 Others use salaried workers and very intensive methods on large watercourses (Entrepreneurial or Industrial fish farmers often rely on significant amounts of capital and modern mechanized technologies). 6 of the fish farmers investigated said they belonged to Producer Organisations (this proportion is below 3 among Industrial fish farmers!). Apart from the implementation of mutual aid programmes in farm holdings during peak periods, the cooperative purchase of some production factors and the joint organisation responsible for the sale of products, these fish farmers say they joined producer organisations for the following three reasons (see Graph 27): - Producer organizations greatly facilitate the sharing of experiences between producers. Generally, these organizations bring together producers working within a limited defined region and experiencing relatively homogenous production constraints. - Most of the donor organizations carrying out agricultural development projects give priority to producers belonging to collective organizations. Setting up producer organizations facilitates access to financing for fish farmers. - Aquaculture producers who are generally distributed across vast expanses of land (often accompanied by poor road networks) suffer from a lack of visibility with public officials. Producer organizations are therefore best suited for representing these farmers besides institutions responsible for legislating on aquaculture production and for defining recommended objectives for its development. Half of the fish farmers investigated declare that they have never (or almost never) met State officials (fisheries expert, extension officers, etc) on their production unit or farm. Overall, 87% of the fish farmers meet those officials less than once a year on their unit (see Graphique 28). Apart from their aquaculture production activities, a few of the fish farmers investigated equally declared setting up solidarity activities through (see Graph 31): - Service delivery or training for their fish farmer neighbours (that is the case for all the 5 industrial fish farmers who answered this question). Several fish farmers also explain that - even if they have not set up such formal services they regularly participate in activities aimed at improving producers knowledge by sharing their experiences (during site visits or producer organization meetings for example). - The set up of a local "resource centre" (this is the case by one entrepreneurial and two industrial fish farmers) Growth prospects for aquaculture activities 9 out of the 15 Industrial and Entrepreneurial fish farmers who filled the questionnaire say they really want to improve their practices and/or infrastructures to increase their production volumes and/or position themselves in new markets (ex: Production in cages, adoption of input-saving modern techniques, production of new species, etc.) Several fish farmers said they were trying to produce feed for their fish species by themselves (7 out of 15) and their own fingerlings. Similarly, half of the fish farmers who replied that they had not yet developed a mechanism for the transfer of skills to their neighbours and colleagues also said that they were eager to develop such activities. Only a quarter of fish farmers specifically indicated their wish to improve exchanges with other stakeholders in aquaculture through federations, producer organizations or other professional networks. 8 of those fish farmers who want to develop their activities also hope to substantially increase their financial turnover in the short term or at medium term. According to them, this will facilitate the employment of new salaried workers 5. 5 It is difficult to interpret respondents quantification of these new job creations some of them are forecasting 200 jobs meanwhile their companies presently employ less than a dozen employees 10

11 Self-evaluation of the role of fish farmers in aquaculture development in SSA In addition to contributing to production volumes in aquaculture, investigated fish farmers also asserted that they were contributing to the development of the sector in SSA (see Graph 3): - Through the transfer of skills. Therefore, apart from providing training per se, a quarter of these fish farmers consider themselves to be "resource persons" since they support and share experiences with their colleagues and even share production techniques or other innovations; - By participating in research activities (construction of innovations through the participative approach with research teams, setting up of trials). - By participating in the structuring of the sector (setting up fish farmer networks and producer organizations, establishing contacts with public officials in charge of the fisheries sector and development agencies, building partnerships with private operators for the collective supply of inputs, etc.) The fish farmers investigated are therefore characterised by a great variety of operating systems and production scales. The constraints they face and other impediments to their development which are equally comparable though varied shall be discussed later. However, their expectations in terms of the transfer of skills vary, less on the content than in the form and on the identity of the agencies responsible for implementing them Commercial Companies in the sector of aquaculture Graph 1 Self-evaluation by fish farmers on their role in aquaculture development in SSA Supply of goods and services 11% Structuration /Renforceme nt de la filière 21% Others 18% Research 11% Transfers of skills to producers 39% The stakeholders who selected "company in the sector of aquaculture (excluding producers) in the online survey are equally very different in nature. Not all of them operate exclusively in the aquaculture sector: more than a third of the companies who responded to our questions have a turnover to which aquaculture activities contribute for less than 5. Among these 14 stakeholders (5 Africans, 2 from the EU. and 7 from the rest of the World) who painstakingly answered the questionnaire completely: - 4 exclusively market equipment needed in aquaculture (equipment, inputs); Graph 2 Field of activity for the companies investigated Production of aquaculture inputs Production of aquaculture equipments Engineering consulting firm Consulting - 3 exclusively do service delivery (counselling, studies bureau, training); - 7 of them combine these two activities. 11

12 Production of aquaculture inputs and equipment Among the 11 companies producing aquaculture inputs and equipment (including 6 which have combined both activities): - Some have specialized in the production of a specific type of equipment (supplying exclusively batch oxygenation systems or fish feed production equipment for example; one company even specializes in the production of equipment for sponge farming). - Others produce a multitude of equipment: pond development and maintenance equipments; fishing gear; cages; pipes; pumps; oxygenators; feed processing/distribution machines; equipment for monitoring water quality; etc. (for instance, a Thai company markets a number of aquaculture capital goods 13 types of goods out of the 16 listed in the survey - including fishing nets and oxygenation systems, hatching units or chemicals to regulate water quality). - One of them specializes in the production of fingerlings (Tilapias, Silurids, other fish) and species adapted to local biological and geographical climatic conditions ; - Seven of them mainly produce feed (or equipment for feed production) adapted for aquatic organisms (or their juveniles) and to the constraints of fish farmers Implementation of services addressed to fish farmers Ten of the stakeholders investigated work with companies involved in service delivery to fish farmers in SSA. These services vary (theoretical training, practical training, consulting, specific feasibility, market studies, etc.) and involve various themes: - Mainly technical supervision: Farming techniques, feed production and rationalization of feed, monitoring developments, monitoring technical and economic results, evaluation of potential aquaculture projects, etc.; - Organizational supervision to a lesser extent: Creating and strengthening producer organizations, setting up efficient administrative and accounting systems, assistance in writing projects and establishing contact with potential lenders. Etc. ; - Diverse services (specific to some of these companies): Assistance for the standardisation of farms, aid for the transportation / processing / marketing of products, hire / repair of fishing equipment, market studies, etc. These companies generally provide fish farmers with many services from different domains (assistance for technical farming methods coupled with administrative or organisational assistance, as well as preliminary studies or monitoring water quality for instance). Eight companies out of fifteen respondents declared they were implementing more than five services among those proposed in the questionnaire. Conversely, some companies propose and provide services in a specific domain (ex: Setting up fish feed production units; creation of technical training programmes and study tours). Half of the companies offering these services said they were specifically addressed to Low income" or entrepreneurial and industrial fish farmers, meanwhile the other half proposes such services to all fish farmers regardless of their operating scale. Companies working in the aquaculture sector (including industrial and entrepreneurial aquaculture companies developing such services) explain that there are two advantages in assisting low income fish farmers in their region, both technically and commercially: 12

13 - Strengthening (and increasing competition within) the sector through: Achieving economics of scale; multiplying market outlets; creating incentives for the establishment of new companies. - Taking advantage of the increase in the volume of activities for small producers by selling them more inputs and purchasing larger amounts of the fish they will eventually sell. These companies do not provide service delivery and transfer of skills disinterestedly, there are mutual benefits to both companies and local fish farmers Self-evaluation of the role of companies in aquaculture development in SSA In addition to generating activities in the sector of aquaculture and creating competition, companies in this sector also assume other roles in the current development (see Graph 7): - More than a third of those investigated contribute to aquaculture development by marketing and providing fish farmers with aquaculture equipment and technologies or inputs 6 ; - Close to a third of the contributions mentioned involve the creation of training programmes, the transfer of technologies or exchange platforms/counselling for fish farmers. - 11% of contributions involve service delivery and other counselling activities for fish farmers ; - Finally, other contributions include the participation of the investigated stakeholder in research activities on aquaculture or the design/dissemination of innovations. Graph 3 Self-evaluation by companies on their role in aquaculture development in SSA Consulting - Service delivery upon request 11% Marketing of aquaculture equipment and technologies 22% Marketing of inputs 17% Transfers of skills / Trainings 22% Participative research 6% "Resource" Person 5% Transfers of technology 6% Construction and dissemination of innovations 11% Investigated stakeholders opinion about the current role of commercial companies in the sector The other stakeholders in the sector equally gave their opinion about the contribution of companies in the sector to aquaculture development in SSA. Unfortunately, they concentrated more on the advantages these companies gain from getting involved in the sector rather than giving their impressions on the transfer of skills which these companies are supposed to provide. Two thirds of those investigated therefore answered the question by saying that 7 companies in the aquaculture sector contribute to its development (see Graph 5 Roles currently assumed by companies in aquaculture development in SSA according to stakeholder categories): 6 Five of the stakeholders investigated under the category company working in the aquaculture sector also said they market equipment (oxygenators for water basins, feed production units, additives for water quality control) or inputs which were not available prior to their establishment. 7 The following ideas express the general impression of each answer or the key words found in them ( very important ; absence of companies locally ; etc.) 13

14 - (49%) Positively and /or considerably. Companies in the sector are important for its development because they promote competition (ripple effect) between private operators and producers. By building partnerships (commercial and/or «joint and several») with producers, these companies enable the former to increase their skills and also provides them with a productive and secure environment with more market outlets. This opinion was recurrent in additional telephone surveys (as a reminder, these surveys were done with fish farmers, salaried workers in private companies and NGOs) The opinion that private operators in the sector can contribute more to aquaculture development is all over in the answers of respondents and therefore constitutes one of the main lesson of this study. - (29%) Very low and even nil. Actually, these stakeholders are of the opinion that private operators of the aquaculture sector are still inexistent (or too few to create positive competition in the sector), and that they are offering goods and services that are inaccessible to most producers. More specifically, the activities carried out by these private operators are in most cases, inaccessible to low income fish farmers. - (22%) Low or mixed. The opinion that private operators lack a long term vision of local aquaculture development is quite frequent in the questionnaires. As such, they are building purely commercial partnerships with no advantage to low income producers. This is not surprising for commercial structures. However, they are often criticized for not providing sufficient support for innovative aquaculture projects and therefore working with entrepreneurs wishing to implement such projects under drastic conditions. Graph 4 Each stakeholder category s opinion about companies contribution to aquaculture development 8 Graph 5 Roles currently assumed by companies in aquaculture development in SSA according to stakeholder categories Varied Low Very low and even nil Supply of services (on-demand services, skill transfers, etc.) Supply of inputs and equipments Funding Positive and considerable 4 3 Lobbying for an improved legal framework 2 1 Creation of outlets for local production Dissemination of useful information to the aquaculture sector Contrary to the opinion of stakeholder companies themselves, other stakeholders in the sector say that the former mainly contribute to aquaculture development by creating an enabling and productive environment for fish farmers (see 8 Caution these figures are based only on the answers from 40 actors to this question (!), i.e. 4 associations - 6 companies of the sector - 8 public services - 10 fish farmers and 12 researchers 14

15 Graph 5). 43% mention service delivery (services; transfer of skills; etc.) as these companies contribution to development while 3 believe that they do so through the provision of goods (aquaculture equipment and inputs feed in particular). The remaining 37% have varied opinions (outlets for local aquaculture produce; funding for local initiatives; lobbying besides authorities or dissemination of information). Particular attention is paid on the remaining 37% in additional surveys. Fish farmers and member associations contacted again for this occasion explain that these companies must also: - Create a productive and favourable environment by strengthening the activity downstream: Create outlets for local fish farmers; improve markets with their own produce; - Set up training activities (production technique / assistance for processing and marketing); - Vary services to fish farmers: Feasibility and market studies; veterinary follow-up; monitoring water quqlity; - Serve as examples ( ripple effect / success breeds success ) In summary, many of the stakeholders investigated were of the opinion that these companies could become true local development poles if their field of activity concentrated on the following: Equipment, knowledge, information, exchange and training platforms, etc. likely to help increasing the productions of fish farmers (particularly low income fish-farmers but also for entrepreneurs) NGOs and other associations Nature and objectives of the associations investigated Out of 15 stakeholders who responded (see Graph 6) under the category NGOs (local or international), Producer organisations, parent company or other associations, 8 are francophone. 53% of those stakeholders answer in the name of international NGOs principally from the E.U and in particular from France (even if a third of them are Africans). The NGO stakeholders work in West Africa (Cameroon, Niger, Benin, etc.), in Central Africa (Cameroon and CAR) as well as in Eastern Africa (Namibia, Tanzania, Kenya and one association in the Indian Ocean, from Reunion Island). Graph 6 Stakeholders who responded to the survey under the category associations (per type of association) National fedration of fish-farmers 6% Producer Organizations 19% Others 6% African NGOs (excluding P.O.s) 13% Local associations and Producer Organisations: Producer Organisations and other local associations included in the panel of this study are generally small scale structures (less than 50 members for all except one in Tanzania) and they were created to promote and develop rural activities in their localities (through aquaculture and other activities). The principal mission of these associations is to assist the population in upgrading their land in order to generate income ( building the self promotion capacities of rural and urban stakeholders to achieve sustainable development" said one of those investigated). Producer organizations in particular constitute a framework for community development through capacity building for producers and support for local initiatives". More specifically: International NGOs 56% 15

16 - Four of these local associations supervise aquaculture development activities in their locality (new fish stocking - water bodies or fish ponds, sharing experiences through meetings between fish farmers, technical training, capacity building and improving the visibility of producer organizations, etc.). - One of these local associations is responsible for promoting innovation and the transfer of technical skills in algae farming. International NGOs: The activities of seven international NGOs are described in the survey (sometimes by several stakeholders). They all affirm they contribute to the promotion of aquaculture as a tool for rural development. The objective of these associations is the fight against poverty by increasing farmers income and contributing to food security for their families. The activities described contribute specifically to the development of low income farmers fish production units. Generally, the actions carried out are limited to one (or several) regions or rural localities. For instance: - A set up and technical supervision project for fish farmers in the central and western regions of Cameroon; - A technical supervision project for fish farmers in DRC (a post conflict situation) aimed at training them in the production of fish of commercial sizes (coupled with assistance supplied in the form of equipment and inputs); - A project for the development of mud-crab farming in Mozambique; - A project for the creation of "Aqua-shopsˮ in Kenya (shops / resource centres proposing aquaculture equipment and inputs and providing producers with a set of information essential for aquaculture). Other associations: A national association of fish farmers (Central Africa) and an intergovernmental agency for the promotion of agriculture (Southern Africa) also contributed to this study. These two organisations seek to promote aquaculture development in their respective regions. The first aims at promoting low income fish farming (awareness campaigns, interface with competent authorities, collective organisations, etc.). The second mainly collaborates with entrepreneurial and industrial aquaculture companies to facilitate their access to information (legislative, results of recent research activities, directory of stakeholders, etc.), the creation of training modules and structuring (improving their competitiveness) markets for fishing produce Themes, form and nature of activities developed by associations The actions of association stakeholders which described their activities in the questionnaire have themes mainly centred on "aquaculture development" and "strengthening producer organisations" (6 of stakeholder associations mentioned these two themes) over «environmental», mediation between stakeholdersˮ or public policyˮ (see Graph 7). 16

17 Among with the form of activities listed in the questionnaire, these association stakeholders mentioned the following actions in priority: - The technical supervision of fish farmers through training programs (13 out of 15 associations investigated); - The coordination and development of aquaculture through collective activities with fish farmer groups (6 of those investigated); - Localised technical assistance (much more individual than the assistance mentioned above) at the request of fish farmers (6 of those interviewed). Graph 7 Themes of the activities carried out by associations investigated The other actions proposed in the survey for implementation by these associations were however only mentioned by a minority of stakeholders. It could however be thought that applications processes to lenders or mediation between stakeholders" are part and parcel of actions carried out by stakeholder associations. The actions of these association stakeholders are mainly technical in nature. So, two thirds of them are carrying out activities aimed at the popularisation of fish farming techniques, introduction of technical innovations" and "construction of fish farming facilities. Close to half of the associations investigated are equally committed to structuring Producer Organisations, though only less than a quarter of them distribute inputs and /or support local authorities in the domain of aquaculture. None currently carries out micro-credit activities. Besides, these associations are carrying out many diverse yet complementary actions (at least five out of ten actions listed in the questionnaire). For instance, a famous international association (the CICR), is carrying out technical popularisation campaigns and the distribution of inputs to fish farmers at the same time as it supports local authorities in defining policies in aquaculture development or organising fish farmer groups into producer organisations. Almost all the stakeholder associations investigated said they were planning to improve their activities in the future: - 5 said they were reflecting on how to introduce and support the production of new fish species; - 3 declared that they were trying to develop new production technologies or means of development; - 3 said they would love to develop activities aimed at making inputs (fingerlings and feed) easily accessible to fish farmers. Though they said little about new methods in the transfer of skills, they however mention two recurrent objectives: - Increasing the number of persons who benefit from their supervision; - Creating (or consolidating) aquaculture networks (producer groups, fish farmer federations at national levels, "stakeholder clusters", etc.) Self-evaluation of the role of NGOs and associations in aquaculture development in SSA Association stakeholders investigated say they are contributing to aquaculture development in SSA (about half of the opinions gathered on this subject) mainly through training and other methods for transferring skills to producers (see Graph 17). Indeed, they assist them in mastering fish farming practices; provide them with the most recent techniques 17

18 (which have been tested with other producers working under similar conditions) and help them in becoming autonomous in the management and the follow-up of their production system. Beyond technical aspects, these association stakeholders also support fish farmers by putting them in contact with each other and by strengthening their collective operation (by strengthening producer organizations among other actions). They equally participate in the design and dissemination of innovations in partnership with researchers through participative research projects in particular. Finally, these stakeholders serve as an interface between producers, public authorities and other stakeholders in aquaculture. This places them in a privileged position to participate in the structuring of the sector of aquaculture (building partnerships with various stakeholders) and the designing of public policies (evaluation of public policies and organization of round tables on the priorities of aquaculture development). Graph 8 Self-evaluation by Association stakeholders on their contribution to aquaculture development in SSA Networking between producers/st rengthening P.O. 14% Structuring the aquaculture sector 7% Research / Innovations 22% Transfers of skills and technologies counseling 5 Assistance for the formulation of public policies 7% Opinion of other stakeholders in the sector of the role of NGOs and associations in aquaculture development in SSA. The majority of stakeholders in the aquaculture sector (see Graph 9) are of the opinion that the contribution of associations to aquaculture development is positive. Meanwhile, surprisingly, fish farmers and companies working in the sector say that this contribution is positive only at 46% and 2 respectively. They are therefore representative of the stakeholders for which the contribution of associations is weak (even counterproductive) or at least mitigated. The reasons given for this negative opinion include: - The difference between the objectives of NGOs (meet the conditions set forth by donors/financers at all cost), the expectations of producers and technical and market constraints to aquaculture production; - The continuation (not welcome by several stakeholders investigated) of development through assistance (material and/or financial support) which will make producers oblivious to economic realities and seriously jeopardise the durability of the results of some projects. All stakeholders in the sector of aquaculture consider that the main role of NGOs and associations is to improve the technical skills and collective organisation systems among fish farmers. They therefore contend that association stakeholders contribute to development by training Graph 9 Evaluating the contribution of association structures to aquaculture development in SSA - by the different stakeholder categories Low and even counterproductive contribution Mitigated contribution Positive contribution producers to best farming practices; transferring skills (or introducing innovations) most likely to make them prosper 18

19 economically under their respective local conditions; directing them on how to efficiently pool resources and skills (building group dynamics, administrative and accounting support, etc.). However, these stakeholders attach more importance (see Graph 10) than association stakeholders on the role that the former can play in the following: - Raising awareness on the potential in aquaculture for local development, improving food security (and environmental issues related to the activity); - Material and financial support (assistance to new fish farmers, procurement of production equipment and tools, loans at preferential costs, etc.) 9 ; - Structuring the sector of aquaculture (ensuring contact with the research world and private operators, building partnerships between sector stakeholders at local and continental levels, creating a conducive environment for the marketing of aquaculture produce); - Relations with authorities and lenders (assistance to public services in the evaluation and definition of aquaculture policies; improving the visibility of fish farmers to entities likely to finance development projects). Graph 10 Role of association stakeholders in aquaculture development in SSA according to the different sector stakeholders 10 Raising awareness Structuring the sector 5 and ensuring contact with governement 4 authorities 3 Material, financial, 2 commercial assistance 1 Technical and organizational support 4.4. Researchers 9 N.B. : Few association stakeholders (16%) readily mention this type of support compared to other stakeholders (22%) 19

20 The stakeholder category researchers is the best represented within the questionnaire participants with 32 completely answered online questionnaires, 7 of which were African researchers. Three-quarters of these researchers are working for organisations equipped with a research unit (/service/team) specialised in aquaculture. Similarly, three-quarters of these agencies (or their partner universities) offer university programmes on aquaculture (two-thirds of which train more than 10 students in aquaculture yearly). Graph 11 Researchers main research topics (as a % of all the researchers investigated) For researchers investigated, main research topics included (see Graph 11) by descending order of importance: - Aquaculture technologies (close to 2/3 of them); - Livestock management and growth and thus financial performance of key aquaculture species (for close to half of them); - The environmental impacts of aquaculture (for close to 1/3 of them); - Fish nutrition as well as economics (/markets) of the sector (for close to ¼ of them); Researchers self-assigned roles in aquaculture development in SSA Unsurprisingly, researchers declare themselves that they contribute to aquaculture development in SSA mainly through (see Graph 33): - (48%) Construction and dissemination of innovations in aquaculture (7% of which concern the implementation of participative research programmes as portrayed later, this type of research is in high demand among stakeholders in the sector of aquaculture); - (41%) Transfer of skills (and technologies) and training to producers (7% of which concern researchers assimilation to "resource persons capable of transmitting relevant advice to fish farmers). There again, the dissemination of research results is still the subject of debate in the sector of aquaculture where several stakeholders consider that information issuing from research programmes are not properly disseminated and in unintelligible formats to the final users (fish farmers); - (7%) Academic training and the training of trainers; - (4%) Networking at the international level between stakeholders involved in aquaculture development and the formulation of this sector s public policies. The advantages and disadvantages of research works on aquaculture in SSA shall be discussed in detail later (see 5.2.2) Government/State executives and employees 20

21 Eleven stakeholders (including nine anglophones) completely answered the questionnaire of this study by identifying themselves as State officials in charge of aquaculture development. Three of them work for the ministries of education, science and techniques or the environment. All the others work for their respective ministries of Fisheries, agriculture or livestock. Besides, two of them occupy positions geared towards teaching lecturers while the 9 others occupy administrative or decision-making positions within their respective ministries. An overview of activities carried out by these different public stakeholders (see Graph 12): - Identifying the problems encountered by fish farmers / Research / Dissemination of the results in the field (the 11 stakeholders investigated say they have participated in raising awareness about knowledge in fish farming techniques); - Formulating and implementing the national policy for aquaculture development (ex: Monitoring and ensuring the respect of standards in the production, preservation, processing of fish farming produce); - Formulating, implementing, monitoring (and sometimes financing, often in collaboration with non-governmental agencies) aquaculture development projects; - Setting up and managing inputs (fingerlings and feed) supply centres to the benefit of fish farmers; - Promoting ( sustainable ) aquaculture with rural stakeholders (+ monitoring their activities and performance) / Promoting aquaculture with private operators capable of investing in the sector ; - Evaluating (ex-ante or ex-post) the impacts of aquaculture on the environment (depending on the practices adopted by fish farmers) / think tanks on environmental themes; Overview of the priorities in terms of aquaculture development: Graph 12 Activities of State officials in charge of aquaculture development - as a percentage of these stakeholders Legal framework design - Promoting the development of low income AND/OR entrepreneurial aquaculture (these two development visions shall be further discussed in part 6.2.2) ; - Popularization: Dissemination of (and training to) best aquaculture techniques adapted to local conditions and to the characteristics of each unit (see part for reflections on the quality of popularisation activities) ; - Facilitating access to inputs through the development (even public management) of structures responsible for the production and distribution of fingerlings/fry with good quality strains and adapted to local conditions, as well as performing and effective low cost feed (and fertilisers); - Raising awareness to the effects of aquaculture practices on the environment/promotion of an integrated agriculture; - Setting up specialized training units in aquaculture/promoting research in aquaculture defined depending on the local conditions and needs. Actions implemented by these State services and aimed at the popularisation of aquaculture techniques among producers are in different forms (see Graph 35). On-farm training sessions (or other advice, exchange of experience, etc.) are organised by the majority of State services in charge of supervising aquaculture (all the agents interviewed Controlling the application of the legal framework Strategic development objectives Popularization Assistance for activities the preparation of demands for funding Financing application for local initiative projects Research 21

22 admit that their service use to organise such training sessions). Such exchanges in the field (according to more than one agent on two interviewed) lead to the distribution of pedagogic material which serves as support for the diffusion (and sustainability) of the information and knowledge necessary to aquaculture. Note that such information can be addressed, as applicable, to individual fish farmers or to groups 10. Theoretical trainings (in class) are conducted only in 5 of the cases. Finally, more than one third of the agents interviewed mention the creation and supervision of resource aquaculture centres as being part of their popularization frameworks. These centers which are publicly managed, enable the production of fingerlings and feed local fish farmers need and to bring together in the same place competences, knowledge and information on aquaculture and its practice at the regional (and/or national) level. It is interesting noting that when they are asked to describe the way they contribute to aquaculture development, State service agents first and foremost put forward the realization of transfer of skills and technologies to fish farmers. Making inputs available to them, research activities and participation in the structuring of the sector are mentioned but after (see Graph 13). The set up of a legal framework which takes into consideration producers interestingly they don t mention (the weaknesses of this legal framework which are mentioned in this study will be examined in part 5.1). Graph 13 Self-evaluation by State officials on their contribution to aquaculture development in SSA Supply of goods and services 2 Others 7% Structuring / developing the sector 7% Research 13% Transfers of skills to producers 53% 4.6. Comparative contribution of each stakeholder category to aquaculture development in SSA Before defining their place (role) in development, each stakeholder investigated had to identify the major levers through which they are currently contributing to this development. These levers were defined during the formulation of the questionnaire and constituted a list. Among these levers, stakeholders had to choose three (at most). They constitute a set of inconsistent potential contributions to the development of the sector (technical, institutional, intellectual, economic contributions, etc.). The list of these levers and the answers to these questions are accessible through the appended Graph 34. Of these levers, each stakeholder category has given priority to the following: Increasing local aquaculture production. However, the second and third most cited levers vary with the type of stakeholder investigated (see Table 1) 11. Therefore, the 10 Also note this is in most cases written or illustrated text which has obvious shortcomings in terms of fish farmers being practically able to carry out many technical and hands on activities within hatcheries and farms 11 The interpretation of the answers to this question is sensitive since it seems not to have been properly understood by all those investigated (and that the "levers" proposed were overlapping, too vast or not sufficiently explicit) 22

23 companies in the sector are contributing to development by providing producers with goods and services, while association stakeholders are doing so through technical (dissemination of best farming practices) and organisational (strengthening producer organisations) assistance. Fish farmers on their part pointed out "networking in the sector" and the "construction of innovations" - a sign that they are giving priority to greater interaction between stakeholders in the sector and participation in research programmes destined to define more productive practices (or at least profitable and sustainable). Table 1 The second and third most cited levers per stakeholder category such as those through which these stakeholders contribute to aquaculture development in SSA 2nd most cited "lever" 3rd most cited "lever" uaculturists Networking / structuring of the sector Construction of innovations ompanies" Service delivery Production of goods sociations Dissemination of the best agronomic practices Strengthening of Pos searchers Increase of the economic performance of the units Delivery of the services necessary to aquaculture te Services Increase of the economic performance of the units Dissemination of the best agronomic practices Graph 14 is a compilation of the results (presented separately above) of the answers given by each stakeholder capacity to question Please define in your own words, your place /role in the current aquaculture development in Sub-Saharan Africa (at relevant levels: local/regional/national/continental)» 12. As expected, it portrays that: - The companies of the sector are participating in development (mostly) through the procurement of goods and services to fish farmers; - Researchers are contributing to this development by producing research results and constructing innovations; - Associations are the most active in structuring and strengthening the various stakeholders in the sector; - Fish farmers contribute in very diverse ways to development (as a reminder, the fish farmers in the panel vary greatly in their characteristics and production systems and scale). 12 These percentages should be considered by order of magnitude and not as a true reflection of reality. Actually, few contributions were gathered from the answers to the online survey based on which the graph was drawn up (between 10 and 27 according to stakeholder capacity there were about 90 contributions in all, thereby close to one per stakeholder who completely answered the questionnaire). This is mainly due to the fact that a good number of stakeholders misunderstood the question or gave wrong answers. 23

24 Graph 14 Each stakeholder category s self-imposed roles in aquaculture development 10 Others Supply of goods and services Structuring / developing the sector Research Transfers of skills to producers (and related contributions) In contrast, surprisingly, these stakeholder categories explain that they mainly contribute to this development through the transfer of skills 13 (from 33% of contributions for companies in the sector to 53% for State officials). Finally, the question What changes would you like to make to your place in the aquaculture sector or to your role as an actor in the aquaculture development in SSA? collected very few answers (37 only) not enough to analyze it by stakeholder category. However, all stakeholders combined, these answers can be distributed under the following four perspectives: - (35%) increasing the volume of activity (increasing production; new produce; number of projects, activities, research; etc.) - (27%) Contributing to the definition of public policies adapted to the local needs expressed (national coordination of development policies; international coordination of rules in aquaculture; modernization of State extension services; protection and incentives for the development of national aquaculture; etc.) - (24%) becoming a local development pole or focus (pole of competence, platform for equipment, information, inputs, services, etc.); - (14%) Facilitating greater interaction between stakeholders of the sector (networking among producers themselves and with the various stakeholders in the sector; building partnerships for development and increased trade exchange; etc.) 5. Current impediments to aquaculture development in SSA 13 Transfer of skills here includes (in addition to the transfers proper) : information, transfer of technologies and identification as resource person providing advice to fish farmers 24

25 Given that the role of the different stakeholders in the sector of aquaculture have been presented, prior to discussing in detail their contribution to the transfer of skills to fish farmers, hereunder will be examined obstacles (expressed by those investigated) currently impeding aquaculture development in SSA. The three major obstacles identified by producers and members of companies operating in the sector of aquaculture are: 1. Legal and administrative frameworks; 2. access to the knowledge and skills necessary for the success of their activities and 3. the weak dynamism of the private sector. Graph 15 Obstacles identified by fish farmers and members of the companies investigated as impediments to the development of their activities 4 35% 3 25% 2 15% 1 5% Ill-adapted legal framework Lack of dynamism upstream the sector Lack of dynamism downtream the sector Lack of information on aquaculture production Obstacles in popularizing the product Linguistic barriers Other obstacles 5.1. Inappropriate development policies and legal frameworks. As shown in Graph 15, inappropriate legal frameworks are the most cited (among those proposed) by fish farmers and employees in companies operating in the aquaculture sector as obstacles to the development of their activities. Stakeholders investigated gave several reasons for the inappropriateness of national regulations (sector-based and development policies; administrative and legal constraints, etc.) to the projects of entrepreneurs in aquaculture. In several cases, respondents stated the absence of such national regulations as well as the lack of government will to specifically support development in this sector. The lack of means devoted to such development is equally often criticised and accounts for this lack of will. The lack of incentives to the development of larger scale industrial units (or at least those geared towards the production of large volumes of aquaculture products destined for the market) as well as the absence of measures aimed at promoting local production or preventing imports are equally indicted. In the same way, land ownership regulations can sometimes hinder the emergence of new (or the extension of) fish farming units. Finally, administrative bottlenecks (as well as issues of corruption here and there) are symptoms, mentioned by sector stakeholders, of a rigid sector-based framework ill-adapted for the constraints and flexible realities of aquaculture production. More marginally, some stakeholders decry the absence of measures aimed at integrating issues related to environmental protection into aquaculture policies. They underline that it would be necessary to emulate the measures applied in other sectors (by introducing, for instance, preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment studies (EIA s) for new industrial aquaculture projects). Besides, the political or security climate of some countries restricts entrepreneurship and initiatives for the creation of aquaculture projects Difficult access to recent and pertinent information on aquaculture production 25

26 As indicated in Graph 15, difficult access to the most recent and relevant information on aquaculture techniques is an impediment mentioned by about a third of fish farmers and employees in companies operating in the sector 14. Perhaps if formulated differently (for example: lack of skills or knowledge on aquaculture production ) this part of the question on the obstacles encountered by respondents would have generated more answers and comments. Actually, many more stakeholders said they needed to acquire new skills (see part 6.2). More specifically, stakeholders decried the lack of (or difficult access to): - information (not obsolete!) on the most up to date and economically viable techniques and technologies in terms of productivity and profitability; - Information about adapting tried and true techniques used in other countries outside their own abroad to the obstacles encountered locally by fish farmers in SSA; - Works aimed at capitalizing on the failures and successes of such and such practice/production data; - Directories listing out contacts for local stakeholders (commercial and others) and activities in the aquaculture sector. The practices and operating methods currently used by extension services and research teams are criticized throughout the comments underlining difficult access to relevant information Inefficient aquaculture extension and training services Activities for the extension of aquaculture production activities are the responsibility of State services and project teams funded by associations, lenders or company foundations. The term extension service refers spontaneously though, in the mind, to the actions carried out specifically by public authorities. The different stakeholders investigated on the implementation of these activities in SSA are very critical and even negative (see. Graph 16). To the question What is your view on EXTENSION SERVICES currently implemented in SSA countries where you operate? : - Only 11% had a positive comment (/Optimistic /Encouraging) about extension actions currently carried out. - 2 said they are too limited in terms of impact and number of beneficiaries. - 33% and 36% mentioned poor extension actions, due respectively to obsolete or ill-adapted knowledge to the real problems of producers and insufficient financing. Graph 16 Impressions of stakeholders investigated on quality of popularisation services currently offered in SSA Poor quality due to obsolete knowledge/illadapted to real problems 33% Limited activities (weak impact and/org beneficiaries) 2 Positive impression (optimistic/im proving) 11% Poor quality due to very low financing 14 Some comments indicate on the other hand that the creation of information and exchange platforms 36% grouping actors of the same sector together give them better access to such information. Several actors even seize the opportunity of the questionnaire to congratulate or thank the SARNISSA team for creating this network that effectively provide them with the vital information for the development of their activities. 26

27 The expectations of stakeholders investigated in terms of reorientation/reorganisation of these extension services are many. The most recurrent expectation is a better adjustment of the assistance provided to satisfy the challenges and needs of producers (it seems that extension is currently hindered by the extremely obsolete nature of the knowledge and skills taught). Consequently, those investigated expect extension services to improve the training (with updated knowledge adapted to local characteristics) of their experts responsible for transmitting the knowledge to producers. In addition, several answers portray the need for setting up training programs for low income fish-farmers rather than entrepreneurial or industrial fish farmers... but others say exactly the contrary (!) - in comparable proportions (see on this issue). Anyway, several people are requesting that extension activities take into consideration all the stakeholders in the sector of aquaculture (and not simply small producers). They must equally be better adapted to the economic realities of aquaculture entrepreneurs and markets. Similarly, several stakeholders give the opinion that these activities should no longer be managed by public authorities alone but through consortium (including NGOs, research teams, industrial aquaculture companies, etc.). These stakeholders actually explain that aquaculture development through State institutions is hindered by lack of political volition and inadequate financing (and even glaring financial wastage), as well as truncated objectives due to the lack of knowledge about the economic realities inherent to aquaculture production. First and foremost, State-managed aquaculture farms do not face the same constraints as those operating in the private sector, thereby leading to irrational and ill-adapted economic decisions to market limitations faced by fish farmers. For these reasons, State institutions neither have sufficient means nor human resources to regularly monitor producers and to promote initiatives in this sector. The request for the transfer of extension services from the public to the private was also noted in the short remarks made about some government officials resistance to change and corruption. According to some of those investigated, these government officials receive no encouragement whatsoever to update their knowledge and teaching methods since they are not remunerated on performance. For some, these government officials are asserting their local influence by facilitating administrative authorizations to receive bribes A research inconsistent with the expectations of fish farmers Apart from the fact that the complimentary survey to this study was completed by a panel of stakeholders made up by one third of researchers, criticisms about research were many and recurrent (from both researchers and non researchers). Investigated researchers' self-evaluation of the efficiency of their works 27

28 To the question What's your opinion on the role RESEARCHERS fulfil (and should fulfil - don't hesitate underlining current problems) in the aquaculture development in SSA? ˮ, investigated researchers instead commented the relevance of this research (see Graph 17). About a dozen researchers underline the relevance to producers of current research in aquaculture, while more than double this number underlines the weaknesses of these research works. Among those who praised the relevance of current research programmes, half of them were evasive in their justifications and not specific while the other half highlighted the involvement of public institutions (and the creation of units dedicated to aquaculture within universities) or the current upwelling of interest for aquaculture due to the rise of the private sector in this sector. Among those researchers who instead castigated the lack of coherence (or rather relevance) of research actions currently implemented, some expressed it mainly as: - The lack of coordination in the themes investigated and collaboration between research agencies, leading to replication and multiple use of resources; - Research topics are not adapted to the expectations of fish farmers and the problems they are facing (this remark is very frequent in the survey); - The lack of means for carrying out research in SSA (difficult access to financing, lack of dedicated infrastructure, lack of the required skilled personnel, lack of training institutions, etc). While some were in favour of directing research towards the study of the potential contribution of large commercial operating systems to aquaculture development, others (in the same proportions) instead recommend that research should be focused on low-income household operating systems. The unwelcome but true fact that results and conclusions of research programmes do not always (even scarcely) reach African fish farmers (who are said to be at the heart of researchers' concerns) was underlined by 2 researchers only in their answers. Meanwhile, frequent mention is made of the problems related to the dissemination of scientific results to its possible beneficiaries, producers, under the free speech zone of the questionnaire. Particularly criticized are the attitudes of some researchers who are more concerned about producing scientific publications than popularizing practices among producers and the fact that research is not sufficiently geared towards lower income operating systems and endemic fishes in Africa. Stakeholders evaluation of the efficiency of research outputs Graph 17 Answers (grouped into main themes) given by researchers to the question what is your opinion about the coherence and objectives of research in aquaculture in SSA?» "Current research are relevant" "aquaculture research presents some weaknesses" "Obstacles to the dissemination of results to fish farmers" "Research must target PEASANT or, on the contrary, LARGE-SCALE systems" "Focus research on the production and use of intrants" Absence of answers / Misunderstood questions We just saw above that researchers themselves were making negative comments about the relevance of their current works. The other stakeholders of the sector were even more critical. Graph 36 therefore shows that scarcely 6% of non researchers (as against 44% of researchers) consider research to be the engine of aquaculture development. The other answers tend to denounce: 28

29 - (61% of non researchers and 33% of researchers) state the considerable difference between producers concerns and research objectives (which are hardly dissociable from public policies in the answers) ; - (11% of both researchers and non-researchers) public authorities' lack of interest in aquaculture research development; - (22% of non-researchers and 11% of researchers) the very limited financial and human means as well as the financial wastage inherent in these overall research infrastructure systems. Objectives to be encouraged in aquaculture research activities in SSA Among the research themes proposed in the question "What research topics (Maximum 3) do you think are necessary to develop as a priority (and may help you grow your business)?", those most frequently selected were: - Fish-farming techniques and production methods - Fish nutrition - Economy, markets and trade relations between stakeholders of the aquaculture sector Besides, the investigated shared their expectations from the potential reorientation of research activities. In the same proportions, researchers and non-researchers advanced the need for research (see Graph 37): - To meet the needs of producers and local constraints more directly; - To disseminate much more efficiently the results to researchers; - To target more particularly producers capacity to use feed adapted to their producing systems; - To target more specifically environmentally sustainable production units. Twice as many non-researchers as researchers emphasized the need to direct their works towards economicallysustainable operating systems. 18% of non-researchers (as against no researcher) mentioned the need for researchers to include all stakeholders in the sector when defining research objectives. Elsewhere, several stakeholders hold that besides new research, it is necessary that the results already obtained to be efficiently and widely disseminated to final users. Similarly, "it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel the outcome of research activities carried out by other regions of the world and/or with different production systems should be adapted to the environment of producers in SSA, and made available to them Weak private sector upstream and downstream of the aquaculture sector As indicated in Part 4, each stakeholder category contributes in its own way to aquaculture development. However, interaction between them and the density of their presence locally are as important for the vitality of the sector as their specific contributions. Naturally, fish farmers will improve their production thanks to assistance from government extension or association services, and the availability of inputs, aquaculture equipment and market outlets offered by companies, on condition that these stakeholder types are present (and accessible) locally. The density and dynamism of local aquaculture sectors therefore greatly influences the potential for its development. Upstream of the aquaculture sector: When private operators of the aquaculture sector are present in a locality, they are considered to be beneficial to the activities of local aquaculture producers. As such, several fish farmers say they depend on (or at least largely benefit from) the supply of equipment and inputs (feed specifically). Moreover, many of them declare that companies can contribute to their development by building commercial partnerships with them (5 consider this to be the potential contribution of local companies while 2 say it is the potential contribution of international companies - see Graph 29

30 18). Those who do large scale production are equally dependent on service providers or private suppliers for the realization of specific (market, feasibility, development plan, etc) studies and the supply of specialized equipment and technologies. Yet - the report is almost unanimous the aquaculture sector suffers from the low density of private operators capable of equipping, assisting or backing up fish farmers in their development. Several people are denouncing the absence of suppliers of inputs (feeds in particular) and structures able to technically support producers (despite the great development potential of such operators). Actually, on the one hand the demand for fresh fish is high on local markets and on the other hand, agricultural and climatic conditions are conducive for aquaculture in several SSA countries. Meanwhile, some regions lack fish farmers and the fish sold in their markets are imported. Almost all stakeholders contacted during additional interviews say that: The increase in the number (and therefore competitiveness) of these private operators will encourage other farmers to engage in aquaculture production or increase production volumes (positive entrepreneurial synergy) and finally, enable the sector to develop. Moreover, many of those investigated are advocating for the establishment of such private operators to stop or reduce State involvement in the sector. They actually declare that these State services are offering services and products of very poor or variable quality (for example: Some public services are supplying fry and fingerlingsto producers through public fish hatcheries, but the former add that these young fish are not those of a good quality (or growth rate- also sometimes with disease) and are not available the 12 months of the year as the producers need and would like in order to continually supply and maintain their markets. Downstream the aquaculture sector: Just like upstream of the aquaculture sector, its downstream in SSA lacks dynamism. Many stakeholders investigated (particularly industrial fish farmers and employees of companies operating in the sector) accuse the lack of market outlets for their produce, the difficulty involved in upgrading their produce through processing as well as difficult access to some local (and much more foreign) markets. Therefore, the marketing of aquaculture products at the local level, is impeded by troubles: lack of outlets at the local level (or easily accessible markets), transport of goods (poor road infrastructure and ill-structured costly distribution networks); Insufficient production scale (or lack of synergy among producers in the marketing of their products) and communication about their products (due to the lack of specific means and skills). One can discern from collected answers that the skills of several African producers are inadequate for post harvest management. They cannot easily afford processing, storage and the distribution of aquaculture products (especially since the means are not available). Export to foreign markets is equally difficult to several African industrial producers. They export in the subcontinent where they are, with much more difficulty to the rest of the continent and almost never on the international markets. The major obstacles mentioned to explain these difficulties are: Administrative bottlenecks (non-tariff barriers have become time-consuming bureaucratic red tape), certification procedures for aquaculture products, the lack of skills and means to advertise their products and difficult access to information about accessing the international market. More marginally, some have mentioned language barrier and issues of corruption as obstacles to the export of their products. Rather surprisingly commercial companies in the sector explain that they find it more difficult to penetrate the markets in the African continent (or sub continent) than European markets. They gave the following reasons to explain this: unclear registration protocols for their companies and products, legislative barriers, ill-structured trade networks and the difficulties of building solid partnerships with African stakeholders whose means are limited or unstable. 30

31 5.4. Other needs and expectations expressed As mentioned earlier, several producers in SSA lack the means and technical as well as human skills necessary for doing marketing. But not only this! More generally, these weaknesses also constitute obstacles to the development of their activities. Therefore, comments stipulating lack of means / absence of financing are legion in the answers of the survey. According to several stakeholders investigated, these reasons mainly justify the difficult development of aquaculture in SSA. Beyond these regularly expressed wishes for external financing ( sponsoring ) to aquaculture projects (see for more information on debates on development through "assistance" to lower income household producers), several companies and industrial units said that access to low-cost financing is difficult in Africa. Actually, according to these stakeholders, banks are reticent about financing aquaculture initiatives and financial support from public authorities is sometimes subject to favouritism (even corruption) with State officials. Technical and financial assistance by project teams, NGOs or other organisations to fish farmers is also difficult to access because the latter find it hard to make themselves known to the former (see Graph 18). To the question How can the following stakeholders 15 help you develop/improve your aquaculture production (through the transfer of skills, service delivery, supply of goods, etc.)?, the stakeholders investigated mentioned first and foremost (close to two-third of contributions see Graph 18) the "transfer of skills, training and other dissemination of information and technologies as expected from NGOs (against about 15% from companies). Nous revenons plus en détails sur ces attentes en matière de transferts de compétences en partie 0.These expectations in terms of transfer of skills will be discussed further in part 6.2. The needs expressed by the different stakeholders in the sector of aquaculture in SSA (producers specifically) are therefore multiple. Apart from the best orientation for legal Graph 18 Fish farmers needs in ASSISTANCE from different types of structures Networking between stakeholders (and structuring) of the sector Material and financial assistance Creation of commercial partnerships Dissemination of informaiton and technologies Transfers of skills - Trainings frameworks and aquaculture development policies, expectations in terms of focusing these policies on the development of the private sector or the best orientation of extension and promotion services and research projects, the greater majority of stakeholders talked about needs for the acquisition of knowledge and skills on the production and marketing of aquaculture products. The major challenges to aquaculture development may therefore reside in the capacity of development promoters to structure the sector such that synergies are created between stakeholders and relevant popularisation and technical assistance services are made accessible to fish farmers. As concerns environmental issues, some twenty stakeholders answered to the question How and by what means do you think that environmental issues can be better addressed and acted on in relation to SSA aquaculture development? it emerges from the survey that they advocate (see Graph 38): 15 African NGos / International NGOs / African companies / International companies 31

32 - The implementation (foremost) of more actions for raising awareness among producers about these aspects; - Better coordination of public policies bearing on the aquaculture sector and the environment; - The realization of preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies for all large scale aquaculture projects; - The transfer of technologies and more research on environmentally friendly production systems. Finally, several comments, disseminated here and there in the answers, highlight the need to: - Promote integrated production systems where aquaculture promotes by-products from livestock and crop farms; - Promote the use and development of indigenous species (adapted to local conditions) and avoid the damage to ecosystems and biodiversity caused by the introduction of non native species. 6. Transfer of skills to fish farmers The availability of technical support and other transfer of skills is a prerequisite to self-empowerment, to the increase of productivity and therefore to the sustainable economic profitability of producers' aquaculture workshops (whether "Industrial", "Entrepreneurial" or "Lower income household level"). In this part, we will examine in detail the expectations of stakeholders in the aquaculture sector as concerns the transfer of skills to fish farmers (implementation methods and current weaknesses; multi-stakeholder partnerships in charge; themes, forms and costs of these transfers, etc.). Emphasis is placed on the role that association structures can (should) play on the one hand and companies (specifically small and medium sized enterprises SME) on the other hand Current implementation of the transfer of skills Contractor Close to a third of the fish farmers who answered the questionnaire declared that they were currently benefiting, at different degrees, to the transfer of skills. These transfers are given by various structures: - NGOs/ projects financed by international lenders (national or decentralised cooperation; European Union; etc.) see ; - Research teams / public service extension agents; - Freelance consultants / Study bureaus / Companies of the aquaculture sector see 4.2.2; - Experienced local fish farmers. Themes These transfers of skills activities are carried out on varied themes (though they are mainly technical) and have the same objective: the increase in productivity and economic profitability of fish farmer operating systems. The themes thus transferred as mentioned by fish farmers investigated are: - Livestock/Farm management in general (stocking rates, association of species, artificial reproduction of some species, sexing, aquaculture techniques, etc.) - The construction and the sustainable maintenance of facilities adapted for fish farming (characteristics of ponds / dykes / inlet and outlet canals / drainage system, positioning of cages, maintenance of dykes, monitoring and correction of water quality in production ponds or other units, etc.) - The production and/or planned use of main aquaculture inputs: fingerlings and feeds (adaptation of farming techniques to the specificities of fry rearing, formulation of feed and their production method, etc.) 32

33 - The pooling of some production factors (labour/equipment/investment capacity) and productive synergies issuing from the organization of producers into informal groups or even Producer Organizations. Form of actions These different themes are examined through activities of varied forms (cf. Graph 19). Half of the skills transfer mentioned (by the farmers who benefited to) during the survey took place during "practical on-farm trainings", "visits and verbal exchanges whilst on the farms themselves or "individualised technical assistance (assistance and counselling)". The transfer of skills associated with practical training and with verbal exchanges on the units are obviously very similar (They are often carried out by governmental extension services or projects supervised by NGOs and are therefore free). It can be imagined that the difference lies in that practical training is planned upstream and involves capacity building on specific themes determined beforehand, while visits and exchanges result in the transfer of skills targeting problems and other needs which arise "on the spot" during informal conversations (around ponds for instance). Graph 19 Type of skills transfer provided by the different stakeholders in the sector to fish farmers Exchanges in groups/network 6% Elaboation and dissemination of teaching material 9% Constituing producer groups 3% Demonstration ponds 3% Participative research 7% Practical training (on-farm) 24% Individualised technical assistance (assistance and counselling) rather corresponds to prompt support provided upon the specific request of a fish farmer to an expert in fish farming. These assistance and counselling services are often provided by private operators and payable by fish farmers. 19% of the transfer of skills mentioned in the questionnaires is achieved through theoretical training during seminars, conferences, workshops and other courses. The remaining third of the transfers of skills mentioned in the survey takes different forms: Traing of local trainers 3% Workshops/semin ars/conference - theoretical trainings 19% Visits and exchanges on the units 18% Individualised technical assistance (assistancecounseling) 8% - Transfer of skills through "demonstration ponds. These ponds may belong to private companies or be managed by projects (on one of the units run by project beneficiaries for example). They enable fish farmers to see for themselves the techniques used in managing them and the results they generate. For instance, it is an ideal opportunity for showing fish farmers on visit that such or such a fertilization practice will produce good quality water (rich in elements that can be absorbed by fish, and a colour that proves good oxygenation in the pond, etc.) or that the sexing of Tilapias facilitates the control of proliferation and produces larger fishes (thereby more financially viable) than in the absence of this practice. - Transfer of skills through "participative research works. In this case, skills are not transferred", but rather jointly constructed" between fish farmers and research (or project) teams. - Transfer of skills during group exchanges (even networking) or during the constitution of fish farmers into "groupings. In this case, the interaction among producers (headed or not by experts in project or company aquaculture or extension services) enables them to demonstrate their respective experiences (constraints and 33

34 practices implemented as remedy; practices for increasing yields, limiting costs or working hours; revisiting performances relating to such or such input; etc.) and therefore take advantage of the failures or successes of neighbouring producers operating in environments with similar characteristics and constraints. Basically, learning from each other. - Transfer of skills through teaching material. The dissemination of teaching material to fish farmers will provide them with information about the successes and failures of different practices and those generally recommended for optimizing production under their specific production conditions. These teaching materials come in different forms: Research articles, extension manuals presenting best practices adapted to different production conditions - availability of inputs, producer resources, environmental and systemic constraints, posters on species biology, the characteristics of quality facilities for aquaculture, etc. - Transfer of skills to local resource persons capable of transferring the same skills to their colleagues, neighbours, group friends, etc. Financing These transfers of skills and other training activities for fish farmers are funded in different ways depending on their content, nature of operators and the financial capacities of the fish farmers involved. Most transfer of skills to Low income household fish farmers are projects financed by lenders (generally international) and therefore free. In some cases, these lower income fish farmers partially contribute to training costs by refunding the transport and lodging costs of visiting experts. In other cases, these transfers are done by local entrepreneurs who give counselling free of charge. However, this free counselling is not totally disinterested for these entrepreneurs who by so doing secure the loyalty of these fish farmers by selling them their inputs and/or purchasing their produce to increase their own sales volumes. Entrepreneurial and Industrial fish farmers can equally benefit from the transfer of skills free of charge (from Governmental extension agents for example, or through projects with commercial partners and other agricultural/industrial development promoters). Meanwhile, most transfers of skills activities are done through paid service deliveries, provided by specialised consulting firms, consulting companies, etc. These fish farmers generally have higher investment capacities than lower income farmers and require and can afford scarce and costly specialised support. Only a third of fish farmers investigated regularly benefit from such transfers of skills activities. The remaining two thirds are therefore weakened by a desperate lack of technical supervision and the non availability of such transfers of skills (as a reminder, see 4.1.1, 87% of fish farmers investigated are not visited more than once a year by aquaculture experts from the government). In addition to the inadequate means used for supervising a large number of fish farmers (and aspirants), these producers (especially at lower income level) are in dire need of visibility and representation with development operators (public or private). Moreover, even if they receive external support, such support is not necessarily likely to ensure sustainable benefits. Some persons are denouncing the lack of sustainability in some projects and NGOs. The actions of the latter are generally positive while they are present in the field but deteriorate as soon as they leave. Below we shall examine the existing expectations concerning this transfer of skills (opinions of fish farmers and other stakeholders in the sector) Expectations on the transfer of skills Priority themes 34

35 The needs expressed by fish farmers on the potential transfer of skills are many. First and foremost, they have expectations in technical training. Most fish farmers who intend to improve their knowledge and skills cited the following specific needs: Management of farming cycles, optimal stocking rates depending on their development and intensification levels, knowledge and mastery of biological cycles of reproduction and farming of aquatic species, etc. Self-empowerment in the formulation (even production) of feed nutritionally adapted to the growth of fish species is equally a major and recurrent expectation. Next are expectations in the transfer of skills for implementing and ensuring the maintenance of sustainable productive facilities (diversion area, ponds and dams, cages in freshwater or brackish water, fish hatcheries, etc.); as well as for assimilating methods for using modern technologies and equipment (oxygenators, feed production units, incubators controlled environments for juveniles, etc.) Secondly, training in financial / economic management and engineering was the next expectation in the transfer of skills. Several fish farmers (apart from those in the lower income household category) are hoping to improve their trading, business and marketing skills in order to better satisfy consumers and market demands. They are also eager to learn how to carry out, on their own, Annual Business production and marketing cycles and preliminary studies required for the development of their activities on new market segments or through new production systems. Finally, and more marginally the expectations expressed on the transfer of skills for bringing to standardise their production units farms, ponds, hatcheries, etc. and/or certify their produce to enable them access new markets. Whatever the case, the transfer of skills must meet the needs expressed and problems encountered by producers locally (and not issue from decisions taken above which are generally disconnected from the productive environment and the - various - constraints weighing down on producers) Transfer modalities Nature of actions Almost all stakeholders investigated expect the transfer of skills to fish farmers to be carried out in the field. As much as possible they should take place on beneficiaries farms (or at least on their production areas) or, by default, on pilot units (demonstration ponds, tanks or cages provided by resource centres in aquaculture public or private or by research teams). Actually, many of them consider that theoretical training" in groups in closed places (during seminars, conferences, work groups, restitution of research works and others) are largely inefficient. The reasons advanced for the inadequacy between producers expectations and boardroom" training vary: lack of interaction, unintelligible theoretical discourse (particularly by extension officers who have not mastered the local language), venues which are not accommodating to producers, etc. As mentioned in 6.2.1, these transfers of skills and knowledge must, at all cost, be adapted to the problems and expectations expressed locally by fish producers. There is therefore need for dialogue and exchanges between extension officers and beneficiaries, prior to the training, to make known the needs and expectations of the former (similarly, research themes must be defined in priority). Besides, apart from improving the individual skills of producers, training must ensure greater collective dynamics. Since they are meant for lower income fish farmers, they must therefore address groups (organised or not into producer organisations) instead of individual producers. Actually, the sharing of experiences between producers during informal conversations and group dynamics can be as efficient (and even more) than unidirectional support from (certified or alleged) "experts. Training should therefore not be geared towards technical issues only, but alongside, target networking among producers. Beyond the pooling of various production factors (specifically equipment and labour), this networking will enable them to create a group dynamic and to improve their visibility and representation beside other sector stakeholders (both public and private). 35

36 Another training strategy likely to impact on a great number of fish farmers, through the multiplying effect, constitutes in performing them through intermediaries. As such, some stakeholders interviewed advocate the transfer of skills addressing "relay persons" in priority. The former are charged with the responsibility of disseminating the knowledge acquired to other fish farmers in his or hers producers organisation or production area. Few of those investigated also talked about the need to organize exchange trips between fish farmers in regions (abroad or within the same country) where aquaculture is successful and producers are far experienced (and face similar production conditions as those visiting). Financing and beneficiaries of these transfers of skills One of the most striking facts about this study is the divergence of the opinions of stakeholders investigated on the type of fish farmers who should be targeted by aquaculture development promotion activities in SSA and funding methods. This difference is particularly wide between Anglophone and Francophone stakeholders. Therefore, notwithstanding some contrary opinions, the stakeholders and respondents to the questionnaire in English tend to prioritise aquaculture development in SSA through the promotion of a dynamic private sector where fish farmers (especially Entrepreneurial and Industrial) are constantly conforming to market demands and constraints. However, stakeholders interviewed through the questionnaire in French insist on the need to direct development towards support and capacity building to lower income household fish farmers to achieve rural development and improve food security locally. o Opinion of the majority of Anglophone respondents Most Anglophone stakeholders (but also a few francophone especially researchers) castigate the notion of development through craftsmanship. They consider that promoting aquaculture by providing financial and material support to lower income household producers (understood to be producing low volumes and selling them at low scale locally) is irrational financially and sustainably speaking. According to these same respondents, apart from being economically inefficient, such development policies are distorting the rules of competition among producers on aquaculture markets. So, they believe that the gains generated from the increase in producers incomes and available aquaculture production volumes will be lower compared to the sums invested in such development policies. Moreover, by subsidising the production of the weakest fish farmers, such measures will be protecting them from global competitive market constraints where they will be competing with other local and even international producers. By so doing, these farmers will not be able to be sustainably competitive and their income will crumble as soon as such financial support measures are ended. Furthermore, the other producers will also suffer the consequences of policies centred on small producers as they will be facing artificially competitive adversaries on an imbalanced market. The stakeholders expressing this opinion also gladly recommended development policies targeting: - The professionalization of the private commercial sector as the engine of development in perspective; - Strengthening the competitiveness of Entrepreneurial and Industrial producers. They advocate development through industrialisation and the improvement of producer competitiveness. This improved competition and the increase in production volumes can actually promote the direct creation of activities and employment, revitalise the local economic fibre as well as lower the prices of aquaculture products. Indirectly, this could therefore contribute to food security, more employment and incomes generated and therefore the fight against poverty at both local and national levels. 36

37 These Anglophone stakeholders and respondents recommend the implementation of transfers of skills to fish farmers. They however think that these transfers should be charged at a price for producers. Free services, on the contrary, will still amount to subsidizing aquaculture and could lead to an unwelcome imbalance on a competitive market by favouring some producers at the detriment of others. o Opinion of the majority of francophone respondents On the contrary, most francophone stakeholders investigated (as well as a few Anglophone stakeholders) emphasised the need to centre aquaculture development in SSA on support to lower income household fish farmers. According to them, in the perspective of rural development, the fight against poverty and attaining local as well as international food security, sustainable production capacity building for lower income fish farmers will be more efficient than the professionalization of the sector and providing support to Industrial fish farmers. Given that these lower income household level fish farmers have weak investment capacities and cashflow, it was obvious according to those investigated that the transfer of skills and capacity building to them fish farmers should be provided free of charge. They however think that the tradition of free services and assistance should not be perpetuated, rather those fish farmers who benefit from such services should be sensitised on the need to implement practices which will ensure them a regular income, as autonomous stakeholders without expecting further grants or subsidies. One of the modalities for the implementation of such technical support could be to have fish farmers participate in the financing of these capacity building actions progressively, depending on the evolution of their investment capacities. So, initially they should be provided for free, then these fish farmers should be made to participate in the costs (and later cover them entirely) as these actions improve their economic results. Also, these francophone respondents spontaneously recommended the implementation of such capacity building actions and transfer of skills by NGOs instead of private structures. They justify this preference by the fact that NGOs have more knowledge and experience with the Lower income household level sector and that private structures may be tempted to implement technical assistance with a view to increasing their profits instead of giving efficient and sustainable support to them. o Contradictory yet incompatible positions Though the opinions expressed above are undoubtedly contradictory, they are not necessarily incompatible within the framework of development dynamics. Several comments drawn from the answers to the survey suggest the need to support the sector through its different players (lower income household level fish farmers on the one hand, entrepreneurial and industrial fish farmers on the other hand, but equally local private, public operators and associations). Improving the competitiveness of industrial units through the structuring and development of the private sector could be done alongside capacity building activities addressed to lower income farmers who are eager to integrate fish farming as a way of diversifying their activities and securing their income. The professionalization of the former will favour a decrease in the prices of aquaculture products on urban markets and improve their exportation. The professionalization of the latter will provide a stimulus to the rural economic fibre and facilitate the access of poor families to products with high animal protein content. Besides, the transfer of skills for free to fish farmers does not necessarily entail complementary financial support. There are examples which portray that rural development through fish farming is possible through the transfer of skills without additional financial support. Finally, a deserving remark though extremely limited recommended that assistance to fish farmers could be the responsibility of NGOs while entrepreneurial and industrial fish farmers were assisted by companies. These structures 37

38 actually have a better knowledge of the organization and problems of these fish farmers, low income household level and commercial respectively. The expectations expressed in the survey on contractors providing the transfer of skills are revisited below Organizations providing the transfer of skills Fish farmers opinions All though during the telephone surveys fish farmers said that NGOs and companies played the same role in the transfer of skills, during the written survey, they differentiated the type of assistance that these organisations could provide to them. From a general perspective, they expect companies in the sector to implement fruitful partnerships and provide an economic environment conducive for its own development, much more than implementing the transfer of skills. Inversely, they naturally mentioned NGOs as potential dispensers of such transfers (or training). Despite all, the study has shown that fish farmers have no true preference for organisations that should dispense this transfer of skills as long as they are competent (and not only managed by governmental services). Meanwhile, some fish farmers hold that companies are unable to satisfy their expectations because they will implement such transfers for purely commercial reasons rather than local aquaculture development. Others, on the other hand say that NGOs (like governmental extension experts ) cannot provide assistance to producers effectively because their understanding of the economic constraints faced by fish farmers is in disparity with the realities of the market conditions of the latter. Opinions of all the stakeholders investigated To a majority of those investigated, the transfer of skills in view of building the capacity of fish farmers to produce in an autonomous and sustainable manner is the responsibility of the State. Since the State is unable to do efficiently and regularly (see 5.2.1), the stakeholders investigated suggest that association stakeholders or the private sector should dispense the transfers of skills. Some answers (mostly by Anglophones) even indicated that State services should under no circumstances interfere in these activities. Public services could however raise awareness among producers about environmental issues, promote aquaculture in rural areas, provide quality veterinary services, etc. 38

39 29 investigated stakeholders (only) gave pertinent answers to the question: In your opinion, which types of transfers of skills and beneficial activities towards SSA aquaculturists should, each of the below organisations, be developing in the future?. These answers rather classify the different contributions of each organisation category than comment specifically the transfer of skills which the latter is supposed to implement (see Graph 20). Graph 20 Potential contribution of companies and associations to aquaculture development in SSA according to all stakeholders investigated Almost all stakeholders differentiate between the potential contributions of Associations and those of Companies. There are similar expectations and each of these structures, according to them, seems competent enough to assist producers technically (African even more than international organisations). So, according to the panel of stakeholders who answered this question, associations are responsible for transmitting the information on tested best farming techniques and practices in the world, and assisting producers technically (86% and 69% of expected contributions from African and international associations respectively). The other recommended contributions are: networking in the sector and support to authorities in formulating public policies on aquaculture. Alongside, still according to this panel of stakeholders, companies should assist local producers technically (47% and 23% of expected contributions from African and international companies respectively). But they should be especially responsible for providing local producers with inputs and the most efficient equipments in aquaculture (often with preferential acquisition conditions such as credits or subventions) and to build development partnerships with them (ex: Technical support and supply of equipment on credit against the guarantee that aquaculture production will be given to the company). Moreover, one out of two stakeholders investigated differentiate between the potential contributions of local and international companies, and two out of three between local and international associations. Local organizations will have easier exchanges with producers and other local stakeholders, as well as a better understanding of the environmental and socio-cultural characteristics in which they are evolving. Their actions will therefore be better adapted to local conditions and more sustainable. International structures have more advanced means, and greater and more recent skills and experience. They would therefore be capable of subsidising local aquaculture development on the one hand and disseminating production techniques and technologies tested abroad, yet innovating locally, on the other hand. The stakeholders recontacted through phone said nothing (in majority) about the nature of organisations responsible for implementing the transfer of skills to fish farmers. They simply comment that this transfer must target real concerns and be adapted to the means of local producers. The other answers given by stakeholders are completely contradictory and comment, in comparable proportions, that: Local African associations International associations Local African companies Dissemination of information and sharing of experiences Technical assistance-adaptation and dissemination of best production techniques Networking within the sector International companies Building development/material and financial support partnerships Assistance for the formulation of public policies Supply of inputs/equipments and transfer of technologies adapted to local conditions 39

40 - These transfers of skills must be performed by companies because development must be adjusted to market constraints and only these companies know the difficulties faced by fish farmers; - These transfers of skills must be carried out by the State at all cost. Since generally they lack the means to provide quality and regular services, this responsibility should be transferred to NGOs and other associations. Companies should not be given this responsibility because they will charge these services very expensive to fish farmers. 7. Opportunities for NGOs and SMEs to contribute to sustainable development of aquaculture in SSA NGOs and companies, international (especially European), have real opportunities to enroll in the sustainable development of aquaculture in SSA. Farmers and entrepreneurs from SSA would of course benefit, so would their international counterparts. There are indeed, for these international organisations, many opportunities to develop their own activities in SSA. Thus, to the question "How do the following actors could help you develop / improve your aquaculture production (through transfer of skills, service delivery, supply of goods, etc..)? "91% of farmers surveyed attributed to European NGOs opportunities to help them in their development and 77% do the same in relation to European companies (see Graphique 21). In addition, to the question " In your opinion, which types of transfers of skills and beneficial activities towards SSA aquaculturists should, each of the below organisations, be developing in the future?", 75% of the respondents suggest opportunities for European associations (and other international associations) to implement such transfers, and 45% do the same for European companies (and other international companies). Graphique 21 Apports potentiels des associations et entreprises européennes au développement de l'activité aquacole des producteurs interrogés European Associations European Companies Commercial partnerships Dissemination of informations and sector strengthening Supply of goods and services (of quality if not innovative) Financial support Transfers of skills The implementation of new European companies in SSA would allow some win-win interactions where local farmers would benefit from opportunities to sell their output, but also from the availability of goods and services necessary to conduct their livestock; when European companies could, themselves, grow their business by accessing new markets. In particular, farmers are waiting for the European companies to make available modern or innovative technologies (or innovative) easily accessible on the African continent: feeds (and other feed supplements); production equipment for such feeds; recirculation water systems; best fingerling strains; etc. The farmers interviewed also wish to access more easily to Consulting Services of European experts in aquaculture. Note that these expectations vis-à-vis European firms are the result of comments from Entrepreneurial and even more Industrial farmers. The lower income household farmers express, themselves, less specific demands vis-à-vis these 40

41 European companies. They consider, generally, those companies as the organizations able to develop long term partnerships with them. These lower income farmers expressed more specific demands vis-à-vis European NGOs. European NGOs, in turn, have significant opportunities to expand the scope of their activities, by seeking to be part of aquaculture development in SSA. As already stated in part 6.2.3, these organizations are in fact seen as capable (or even "the most" able) to take charge of development activities towards farmers in SSA. The farmers surveyed (see Graphique 21) seem to expect, above all, that these NGOs transfer them skills. In addition, they expect them to promote their access to equipment, inputs and other production material (either through direct donations or through their sale at preferential terms). They think they can structure the aquaculture sector (through the networking of farmers among themselves and with the other various stakeholders in particular). Finally, they expect them to disseminate updated information on best practices identified, recent scientific literature, the evolution of public policies governing the sector, a directory of the various stakeholders - public and private - in the sector, etc. The very low number of responses from European entrepreneurial stakeholders (five from NGOs and three from SMEs) do not allow us to analyze in detail the ways they expect to expand or diversify their activities on the African continent; nor the specific impediments they have to face when trying to access new countries or new markets in the continent. Nevertheless, two Belgian stakeholders (each developing advisory activities in aquaculture - among other things) cite as the only "sticking point" in developing their activities on the African continent: "inadequate legal framework"(!). They qualify of "difficult" the access to the markets of the African continent (where, moreover, farmers generally lack resources to be able to contract their services). The two French NGOs having completed the survey explain that, in turn, they seek to further develop their activities in SSA through the expansion of their projects in new areas. They show, among their primary objectives, that of increasing the number of producers benefiting from their support. 8. CONCLUSION The hundred or so aquaculture producers, entrepreneurs, researchers and other development operators investigated (Africans for the most part) have a great diversity of contributions (and expectations) to aquaculture development in SSA. The fact that extension and promotion activities and the transfer of skills are essential for the sustainable development of the aquaculture sector in Africa met general consensus as the idea that these activities are not presently performed optimally. Governmental extension services as well as the main objectives and outputs of SSA aquaculture research are strongly criticised. They seriously lack the means (even political will) and also relevance. Several people are denouncing the inefficient dissemination of research results to their final users: ie the fish farmers. Similarly, the objectives, form, frequency and content of governmental extension services are considered inappropriate (because they are in disparity with producers expectations) and even counterproductive. The transfers of skills implemented by collective association type organisations (international NGOs supported by foreign lenders mainly) is considered beneficial (even constructive) by the majority of stakeholders. However, some criticize their lack of sustainability. By perpetuating a tradition of «assistance» some of these NGOs are not encouraging producers enough (Lower income household level in particular) to confront the constraints generated by a globalized aquaculture market. Therefore, most stakeholders investigated are requesting that governmental extension activities be redefined and fully funded or better still, that the implementation of these transfers be performed by entrepreneurial stakeholders in the 41

42 sector. As such, NGOs first, followed by companies could strengthen the skills of producers, organize them into groups and develop networking with the other stakeholders working in the aquaculture sector. They could therefore set up, individually or in partnership, transfers of skills with modalities which vary depending on the resources but also on the expectations of the different levels of fish farmers likely to benefit from these transfers; and to finance these activities. While most Anglophone stakeholders (from East and South Africa mainly) recommend that development aid should benefit Entrepreneurial and Industrial producers, francophone stakeholders (from West or Central Africa mainly) are advocating that Lower income household level producers should be the target. A development through the market and industry vision is opposed to a rural development perspective. They are however not incompatible. Relevant development policies could therefore be distributed among: - Measures supporting entrepreneurship and promoting competition in the aquaculture sector in order to assist large to mid scale producers as they adapt to market constraints; - Measures consolidating the autonomy and technical and management skills of lower income household based producer units in view of the fight against poverty and securing the animal protein intake of local populations. Companies (SMEs in most cases) seem well-fitted to become the engine of development by creating a ripple effect, providing local fish farmers with goods and services required for their professionalization or by contributing to the set up of local development poles or foci. Such development poles could associate companies, NGOs, research teams or State services in order to pool resources and knowledge. They could be a place of exchange; serve as platform for equipment, inputs, various information and services; allow for the establishment of theoretical and practical training as well as pilot production units for research or demonstration. Beyond their responsibility in the implementation of the transfers of skills, NGOs and companies in the sector of aquaculture in SSA focused other expectations. It is expected of NGOs: that they assist producers in their collective organisation (support to Producer Organisations) and in establishing networking; that they assist public authorities in defining relevant objectives for aquaculture development policies; that they raise awareness among the population about the potential of aquaculture in diversifying and securing agricultural revenues; that they sensitise producers about integrating environmental issues in the management of their units; and finally, that they facilitate development by supporting aquaculture initiatives materially and financially. Companies of the aquaculture sector on the other hand are expected to create a stable, (though dynamic) productive and yet safe environment for local producers: The development of partnerships with producers; providing quality inputs at cheap prices (especially feed) as well as services; adaptation to local conditions and dissemination of recent and productive technologies; construction of innovations; participation in the establishment of networking in the sector and lobbying beside authorities. Finally, to almost all the stakeholders investigated, the nature of organizations in charge of developing the transfer of skills to fish farmers is not important as long as these transfers are actually effective and that the development of this promising sector is encouraged and supported sustainably for food security and the economy of SSA countries. 9. Bibliographie Brummet R, Lazard J, Moehl J. African aquaculture: Realizing the potential. Food policy 2008 ; 33: FAO, L Aquaculture, seul moyen de combler le déficit de poisson. L avenir de la pisciculture au cœur d une réunion ministérielle. Note de synthèse réunion du 19 novembre Organisation des Nations Unies pour l Alimentation et l Agriculture, Rome. 42

43 Andersen M., Cadre général pour le développement de l aquaculture continentale dans les pays ACP, principalement en Afrique. Fichier CDE ACP/0913/02/FI, Européen Union. 27p Brummett B. and Rana K., Financer la recherche aquacole en Afrique. EC FP7 Project Contract number: , 33p Chevassus-au Louis B. et J. Lazard, Situation et perspectives de la pisciculture dans le monde : consommation et ptoduction. Cah Agric, vol. 18, n 2-3, mars-juin Mikolasek O., B. Barlet, E. Chia, V. Pouomogne, M. Tomedi Eyango Tabi, Développement de la petite pisciculture marchande au Cmaeroun: la recherché en action en partenariat.,cah Agric, vol. 18, n 2-3, mars-juin Lazard J, Lecome Y, Stomal B, Weigel JY. Pisciculture en Afrique subsaharienne. Paris (France): Ministère français de la coopération et du développement, Bozena S et Weigel JY. Mythes et réalités des aquacultures Africaines. Afrique contemporaine 1998; 187:

44 10. APPENDICES Geographical origin of the persons investigated (distributed into Central /West/Southern Africa, etc.) Graph 22 Geographical origin of stakeholders investigated North America 4% Indian Ocean 4% South America 4% Asia 7% Europe 1 Southern- Africa 12% East Africa 21% West Africa 29% Central Africa 9% Copy of the on-line questionnaire addressed to low income fish farmers 44

45 45

46 46

47 47

48 10.3. Additional interview guide (ex: for companies of the sector) o o o o o Do you transfer skills to fish farmers? Which skills? (BE SPECIFIC) Form? Number of beneficiaries? Paid or free of charge? Apart from financial, is there any other advantage to the company? o o What are some of the problems fish farmers in your region face in developing their production? What are the problems expressed by fish farmers? What are some of the skills they need? (BE SPECIFIC) o o o o o Who can(/should) transfer these skills to them? Are the popularization services efficient? Are there associations in the region? Are there companies in the region? Paid or necessarily free of charge? What difference in your opinion is there between Associations/Companies? 48