**2. Overview of aquaculture development in Africa**

Brummett et al*.* [9] enunciated briefly the history of aquaculture as a baby born in due time by the then colonial masters who conceived it as a viable means of food production. The history of the development of aquaculture in Africa dated back to the 1940s and 1950s when the colonial masters first introduced it, and since then it has come a long way [10]. Culture of indigenous species dominated the initial efforts of the colonial lords and appropriate culture technology was equally introduced through basic research as a way of entrenching aquaculture in Africa. The gains of the early investment especially with respect to the ponds and research stations established in many African countries during the initial investment periods were soon abandoned when African government's attention and interest shifted to the development of other sectoral priorities. These discouraging scenarios however did not alter the development of the perceived potential of aquaculture in Africa. This was evidenced by its adoption between the 1970s and 1990s by a number of international donor agencies as a tool in rural food security and economic development. The development of the sector was consequently according to Pillay [11] taking over from government by the donors. The actual culture attempt in Africa was the successful trial of Tilapia in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1946 [12]. The success of the project stimulated high interest in aquaculture and this no doubt led to the establishment of about 300,000 production ponds in many African countries by the close of the 1950s [13]. In addition, a handful of aquaculture projects were also introduced in the 1970s and 1980s. The aim of the projects was to grow fish to close the supply gap with farm-raised fish and/or bolster sagging economies with high-value aquaculture products. The promotion of aquaculture in the early 1980s within the context of integrated aquaculture to address sociocultural and economic issues by some international development agencies and advanced research institutes has resulted in sustained aquaculture growth in handful of African countries, such as Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Ghana, Malaŵi, Nigeria, and Zambia. Effort in this direction is contributing significantly to boost the growth of the sector. The dwindling catches from inland capture fisheries in sub-Saharan Africa and the development of domestic and export markets for fish has made investment in aquaculture attractive.

Countries like Côte d'Ivoire, Madagascar, Malawi, Nigeria, and Zambia now have well-established aquaculture programs for the promotion of investment in aquaculture. Investment in commercial aquaculture by individuals has been reported in Egypt, Kenya, Namibia, Nigeria, Malaŵi, South Africa, and Zimbabwe (**Table 2**). South Africa is unarguably the leading country in mariculture in Africa. It is important to note that although the growth of aquaculture in Africa is encouraging, when it is compared to the rest of the world, production from the region is still insignificant. According to FAO [14], the production from Africa is only about 0.9% (404,571 tonnes) of the global aquaculture production. Growth in the sector in terms of aquaculture expansion, increases in production, and income generation has been disappointing. The aquaculture in sub-Saharan Africa has been constrained by a number of problems ranging from reduced access to capital and markets, inadequacy of good feed and seeds, and reduced access to good-quality information or appropriate technologies. Consequently, for African aquaculture to meet its anticipated potential and compete well with production from countries like China, the bottlenecks constraining its development need to be removed as a matter of urgency.

**173**

*The Role of International Donors in Aquaculture Development in Africa*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86569*

**2.1 Constraints of aquaculture in Africa**

**Table 2.**

Aquaculture has a huge potential to grow in sub-Saharan Africa. The rural economy of most African countries hinges on subsistence cropping and extensive livestock grazing and this according to experts augurs well for the development of aquaculture in the region. Aquaculture as an agricultural activity must necessarily compete with other crops for basic inputs such as land, water, and nutrient and as such, its growth is dependent on its ability to compete and meet related challenges. These related challenges have made the sector to underperform over years despite the quantum of money invested by private operators and international donors. In addition, since most of the farmers operate small-scale aquaculture enterprises, there is the need to carry out an assessment of their needs, priority, and aspirations. The poor performance of the sector has also been linked to the lack of proper understanding of existing challenges in the sector, which are presumed to be location and agroecology specific. According to Brummett et al. [9], the food security and economic growth benefits of aquaculture can only be fully realized if the challenges confronting the sector are addressed and nipped. These challenges, Brummett et al. [9] noted, are not different from those facing other commercial enterprises. Satia [13], Coche [16], Costa-Pierce [17], and Coche and Pedini [18] elaborated on key constraints of the African aquaculture sector. Coche et al., [19], Williams [20], UNDP [21], and Lazard et al. [22] identified poor infrastructure, volatile prices of essential inputs, political instability, and lack of the necessary R&D to backstop industrial growth as challenges respectively. Hetch [23] and Masser [24] jointly identified poor market development as one of the key constraints of the sector. Other key constraints identified by CIFA/ OP24 [26] as presented by Brummett et al. [9] include unavailability of good-quality fingerlings for stocking; unavailability of complete feeds; inadequate access to technical information; lack of marketing infrastructure, information, and organization; and inappropriate policies. These are however not quite different from what previous researchers in the field had elaborated, especially the ones compiled by the Africa Regional Aquaculture Review Meeting [28] (**Table 3**). Experiences gathered from different projects in some African countries clearly showed that improper alignment of internationally funded projects to local needs and ecology, government bureaucracies, and misapplication of grants by beneficiaries are issues that require serious attention if African aquaculture is to emerge from the woods. Other important issues to contend against are the rashness and hastiness of donors to achieve results not minding the sustainability factor and the expected long-term impact of the intervention. It is also important to mention here that significant portion of funds earmarked

*Top seven aquaculture producers in sub-Saharan Africa from 2008 to 2014 by quantity (in tonnes) [15, 16].*

**Country 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014** Nigeria 143,207 152,796 200,535 221,128 253,898 278,706 313,231 Uganda 52,250 76,654 95,000 85,713 95,906 98,063 111,023 Ghana 5594 7154 10,200 19,092 27,450 32,513 38,545 Kenya 4452 4895 12,154 22,135 21,488 23,501 24,098 Zambia 5640 8505 10,290 10,530 12,988 20,271 19,281 Madagascar 10,836 6116 6886 8845 8585 8974 8470 South Africa 3587 3433 3133 3572 3999 4010 4160 Other 14,001 14,426 17,917 24,898 28,380 33,683 38,142 Total 239,567 273,979 356,115 395,913 452,697 499,721 556,950

*The Role of International Donors in Aquaculture Development in Africa DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86569*


#### **Table 2.**

*Regional Development in Africa*

tonnes) together were responsible for 39.9%.

**2. Overview of aquaculture development in Africa**

and coastal aquaculture. Finfish (6.6 million tonnes) and crustaceans (4.8 million

Brummett et al*.* [9] enunciated briefly the history of aquaculture as a baby born in due time by the then colonial masters who conceived it as a viable means of food production. The history of the development of aquaculture in Africa dated back to the 1940s and 1950s when the colonial masters first introduced it, and since then it has come a long way [10]. Culture of indigenous species dominated the initial efforts of the colonial lords and appropriate culture technology was equally introduced through basic research as a way of entrenching aquaculture in Africa. The gains of the early investment especially with respect to the ponds and research stations established in many African countries during the initial investment periods were soon abandoned when African government's attention and interest shifted to the development of other sectoral priorities. These discouraging scenarios however did not alter the development of the perceived potential of aquaculture in Africa. This was evidenced by its adoption between the 1970s and 1990s by a number of international donor agencies as a tool in rural food security and economic development. The development of the sector was consequently according to Pillay [11] taking over from government by the donors. The actual culture attempt in Africa was the successful trial of Tilapia in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1946 [12]. The success of the project stimulated high interest in aquaculture and this no doubt led to the establishment of about 300,000 production ponds in many African countries by the close of the 1950s [13]. In addition, a handful of aquaculture projects were also introduced in the 1970s and 1980s. The aim of the projects was to grow fish to close the supply gap with farm-raised fish and/or bolster sagging economies with high-value aquaculture products. The promotion of aquaculture in the early 1980s within the context of integrated aquaculture to address sociocultural and economic issues by some international development agencies and advanced research institutes has resulted in sustained aquaculture growth in handful of African countries, such as Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Ghana, Malaŵi, Nigeria, and Zambia. Effort in this direction is contributing significantly to boost the growth of the sector. The dwindling catches from inland capture fisheries in sub-Saharan Africa and the development of domestic and export markets for fish has made investment in aquaculture attractive. Countries like Côte d'Ivoire, Madagascar, Malawi, Nigeria, and Zambia now have well-established aquaculture programs for the promotion of investment in aquaculture. Investment in commercial aquaculture by individuals has been reported in Egypt, Kenya, Namibia, Nigeria, Malaŵi, South Africa, and Zimbabwe

(**Table 2**). South Africa is unarguably the leading country in mariculture in Africa. It is important to note that although the growth of aquaculture in Africa is encouraging, when it is compared to the rest of the world, production from the region is still insignificant. According to FAO [14], the production from Africa is only about 0.9% (404,571 tonnes) of the global aquaculture production. Growth in the sector in terms of aquaculture expansion, increases in production, and income generation has been disappointing. The aquaculture in sub-Saharan Africa has been constrained by a number of problems ranging from reduced access to capital and markets, inadequacy of good feed and seeds, and reduced access to good-quality information or appropriate technologies. Consequently, for African aquaculture to meet its anticipated potential and compete well with production from countries like China, the bottlenecks constraining its development need to be removed as a matter

**172**

of urgency.

*Top seven aquaculture producers in sub-Saharan Africa from 2008 to 2014 by quantity (in tonnes) [15, 16].*

#### **2.1 Constraints of aquaculture in Africa**

Aquaculture has a huge potential to grow in sub-Saharan Africa. The rural economy of most African countries hinges on subsistence cropping and extensive livestock grazing and this according to experts augurs well for the development of aquaculture in the region. Aquaculture as an agricultural activity must necessarily compete with other crops for basic inputs such as land, water, and nutrient and as such, its growth is dependent on its ability to compete and meet related challenges. These related challenges have made the sector to underperform over years despite the quantum of money invested by private operators and international donors. In addition, since most of the farmers operate small-scale aquaculture enterprises, there is the need to carry out an assessment of their needs, priority, and aspirations. The poor performance of the sector has also been linked to the lack of proper understanding of existing challenges in the sector, which are presumed to be location and agroecology specific. According to Brummett et al. [9], the food security and economic growth benefits of aquaculture can only be fully realized if the challenges confronting the sector are addressed and nipped. These challenges, Brummett et al. [9] noted, are not different from those facing other commercial enterprises. Satia [13], Coche [16], Costa-Pierce [17], and Coche and Pedini [18] elaborated on key constraints of the African aquaculture sector. Coche et al., [19], Williams [20], UNDP [21], and Lazard et al. [22] identified poor infrastructure, volatile prices of essential inputs, political instability, and lack of the necessary R&D to backstop industrial growth as challenges respectively. Hetch [23] and Masser [24] jointly identified poor market development as one of the key constraints of the sector. Other key constraints identified by CIFA/ OP24 [26] as presented by Brummett et al. [9] include unavailability of good-quality fingerlings for stocking; unavailability of complete feeds; inadequate access to technical information; lack of marketing infrastructure, information, and organization; and inappropriate policies. These are however not quite different from what previous researchers in the field had elaborated, especially the ones compiled by the Africa Regional Aquaculture Review Meeting [28] (**Table 3**). Experiences gathered from different projects in some African countries clearly showed that improper alignment of internationally funded projects to local needs and ecology, government bureaucracies, and misapplication of grants by beneficiaries are issues that require serious attention if African aquaculture is to emerge from the woods. Other important issues to contend against are the rashness and hastiness of donors to achieve results not minding the sustainability factor and the expected long-term impact of the intervention. It is also important to mention here that significant portion of funds earmarked


**Table 3.**

*Constraints of small-scale, medium, and large-scale aquaculture.*

for project implementation in Africa are often spent to hire foreign experts who at times are not better than local experts who could be cheaply hired. These situations do not augur well for the development of aquaculture in sub-Sahara Africa.

#### **2.2 International donors' contribution to African aquaculture development**

The pace of the development of aquaculture in Africa is still slow despite the huge amount of money that has been invested by international donors and

**175**

**Table 4.**

*Recent IFC aquaculture loans by region [28].*

*The Role of International Donors in Aquaculture Development in Africa*

role(s) of international donors and funding agencies?"

ing for aquaculture made by IFC is presented in **Table 4**.

tion of how poorly aquaculture has been managed in Africa.

development agencies over the past 40 years. The sector has failed to realize its expected potential of enhanced food security and engender economic growth predicted by development agencies. Weak institutional arrangement and donordriven projects were presumed responsible for the slow growth rate of the sector. Brummett et al. ([9], p. 373) already asked the all-important question, "Who is in charge of supporting African aquaculture?;" and the next important question to ask is "Why the failure of the African aquaculture sector and what is or are the actual

Total external assistance to aquaculture development between 1978 and 1983 is estimated at \$368 million [27]. Josupeit [27] noted that \$190 million (52%) of the fund originated from the three major international development banks including World Bank, ADB, and IADB. Development assistance to aquaculture in this period increased from 8.5 to 17.5% of the total allocated to the fisheries sector. Between 1978 and 1984, Hecht [23] reported that African aquaculture received some \$72.5 million while Asia and the Pacific received in the same period \$171.3 million, which was almost three times of what Africa received. Asian countries in the reporting period utilized the fund received to produce 1000 times more fish than Africa. The reason behind the disparity in volume produced was obvious. Between 1987 and 1997, global investment in aquaculture was estimated at \$75 billion, and between 1974 and 2006, the combined World Bank Group (which include the IFC) investment in aquaculture-related projects was about \$1 billion. One example of the fund-

Moehl et al*.* [25] opined that money received by most of the African countries from international donors and funding agencies was invested in nonperforming infrastructure like the establishment of hatcheries and government stations; for instance, the establishment of the African Regional Aquaculture Centre (ARAC) in Port Harcourt, Nigeria and the Central Laboratory for Aquaculture Research (CLAR) in Abbassa, Egypt. Many other gargantuan aquaculture facilities' installation failed just as others previously mentioned. The failure of these facilities to produce positive or sustainable outcomes according to Moehl et al*.* [25] is an indica-

Government fish farms established in many African countries with international donors' support during the 1960s and 1970 and even after are in bad shapes and operating below capacity. Poor site selection probably motivated by political concerns, lackluster project design, and inability of government to maintain and continue with the farm operations after the exit of the external donors are some of the perceived problems of aquaculture in Africa. The roles of African government in aquaculture development have been discussed extensively by many researchers and organizations like FAO, but it appears government has rescinded its oversight function roles and limited itself to the vague role of creating a conducive environment for fish production as a means of achieving food security and poverty alleviation. This conducive environment has become so conducive for foreign donors and development agencies

**Region IFC loans (US\$ millions) Percent Number of loans** Africa 6.4 9 1 Asia 45.0 63 1 Latin America 20.0 28 3

Total 71.4 100 All shrimp culture projects

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86569*

#### *The Role of International Donors in Aquaculture Development in Africa DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86569*

*Regional Development in Africa*

Government support

Research and extension linkages

Research and development linkages

Prices of essential

inputs

Market development

Information management

**Table 3.**

Technical support Often inappropriate, lack of flexibility

Political instability Capable of disrupting

Seed supply Insufficient and often

Feed supply Frequently inadequate (in

Extension systems Lack of farmer participation,

Data collection Poor and often unreliable,

technicians

isolated

inadequate

*Constraints of small-scale, medium, and large-scale aquaculture.*

Credit availability Generally not available and

investment

needs questionable

dependent on public sector, little selection practiced

quality and or quantity) supplemental feeds

inadequate support, few

farms dispersed, often

Networking practically nonexistent, group formation desirable but often

**174**

for project implementation in Africa are often spent to hire foreign experts who at times are not better than local experts who could be cheaply hired. These situations

**Issue Category Researchers Small-scale system Medium and large systems**

Poor Poor [27]

Weak Weak or nonexistent [27]

Weak Weak or nonexistent [23]

inadequate

investment

Poor or nonexistent Poor or nonexistent [24, 25]

Capable of disrupting

or difficult to access

Necessary but often unavailable,

Generally provided on farm, monosex or hybridization practiced by some farmers

Generally provided on farm, complete feed preferred

On-farm data generally collected but sometimes

Poor information exchange and

inaccessible

communications

Often neglect larger producers [27]

Lacking, or volatile prices Volatile [2]

Inadequate [27]

[20]

[22]

[27]

[27]

[27]

[27]

[27]

Policy Lack of clear policy Lack of clear policy [27]

Donor support Donor dependence Little provided to date [27]

Infrastructure Poor or nonexistent Generally poor and often

**2.2 International donors' contribution to African aquaculture development**

The pace of the development of aquaculture in Africa is still slow despite the huge amount of money that has been invested by international donors and

do not augur well for the development of aquaculture in sub-Sahara Africa.

development agencies over the past 40 years. The sector has failed to realize its expected potential of enhanced food security and engender economic growth predicted by development agencies. Weak institutional arrangement and donordriven projects were presumed responsible for the slow growth rate of the sector. Brummett et al. ([9], p. 373) already asked the all-important question, "Who is in charge of supporting African aquaculture?;" and the next important question to ask is "Why the failure of the African aquaculture sector and what is or are the actual role(s) of international donors and funding agencies?"

Total external assistance to aquaculture development between 1978 and 1983 is estimated at \$368 million [27]. Josupeit [27] noted that \$190 million (52%) of the fund originated from the three major international development banks including World Bank, ADB, and IADB. Development assistance to aquaculture in this period increased from 8.5 to 17.5% of the total allocated to the fisheries sector. Between 1978 and 1984, Hecht [23] reported that African aquaculture received some \$72.5 million while Asia and the Pacific received in the same period \$171.3 million, which was almost three times of what Africa received. Asian countries in the reporting period utilized the fund received to produce 1000 times more fish than Africa. The reason behind the disparity in volume produced was obvious. Between 1987 and 1997, global investment in aquaculture was estimated at \$75 billion, and between 1974 and 2006, the combined World Bank Group (which include the IFC) investment in aquaculture-related projects was about \$1 billion. One example of the funding for aquaculture made by IFC is presented in **Table 4**.

Moehl et al*.* [25] opined that money received by most of the African countries from international donors and funding agencies was invested in nonperforming infrastructure like the establishment of hatcheries and government stations; for instance, the establishment of the African Regional Aquaculture Centre (ARAC) in Port Harcourt, Nigeria and the Central Laboratory for Aquaculture Research (CLAR) in Abbassa, Egypt. Many other gargantuan aquaculture facilities' installation failed just as others previously mentioned. The failure of these facilities to produce positive or sustainable outcomes according to Moehl et al*.* [25] is an indication of how poorly aquaculture has been managed in Africa.

Government fish farms established in many African countries with international donors' support during the 1960s and 1970 and even after are in bad shapes and operating below capacity. Poor site selection probably motivated by political concerns, lackluster project design, and inability of government to maintain and continue with the farm operations after the exit of the external donors are some of the perceived problems of aquaculture in Africa. The roles of African government in aquaculture development have been discussed extensively by many researchers and organizations like FAO, but it appears government has rescinded its oversight function roles and limited itself to the vague role of creating a conducive environment for fish production as a means of achieving food security and poverty alleviation. This conducive environment has become so conducive for foreign donors and development agencies


#### **Table 4.**

*Recent IFC aquaculture loans by region [28].*

who so to say exploit it to intervene on government's behalf. The donors use the open window to advantage to establish criteria and objectives they deem fit for achieving anticipated rapid gains against rural poverty and hunger. The role of international donors and development agencies appears to hinge more on technology transfer and capacity building that are not compatible with local needs and traditional experiences of the beneficiaries. Instead of promoting in funded projects the development of value chains and sustainable support systems (extension and credit), emphasis is placed on the promotion of technologies that require inputs (labor, feed, and fertilizers) that are probably not locally available and that are often prohibitive where they are available and beyond the means of the beneficiaries. Delgado et al*.* [29] suggested the replacement of foreign donor priorities (e.g., poverty alleviation among the poorest of the poor; cheap food for low-income urban consumers) with those of local decision-makers and farmers. Delgado et al. [29] pointed out that a supply-side with emphasis on aquaculture as a commercial venture (at a variety of scales and intensities) will serve to generate income and create secondary business opportunities and generalized economic growth.
