INTEGRATED AQUACULTURE IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

RANDALL E. BRUMMETT ICLARM, P.O. Box 229, Zomba, Malawi

Abstract. An incremental, farmer participatory approach to the development of sustainable aquaculture in integrated farming systems has been tested in Malawi. Average fish production rose from 900 to approximately 1500 kg ha−1 as farms achieved increasing levels of integration. Integrated farms produce almost six times the cash generated by the typical Malawian smallholder. The integrated pond-vegetable garden generates almost three times the annual net income from the staple maize crop and the homestead combined. The ecological footprint of integrated aquaculture is approximately 4 m2 per kg of fish produced compared to 170 m2 for more intensive systems. The incremental approach offers the possibility of fostering substantial improvement in rural livelihoods among African smallholding farmers. Key words: Africa, aquaculture development, integrated farming systems

Introduction An integrated farm is one in which the wastes from each farming enterprise are recycled into other enterprises, thus raising the economic and ecological efficiency of all. Aquaculture has often played an important role in both the development and function of integrated farming systems. This is due to a fish pond’s particularly effective role in processing waste materials without creating some of the problems associated with mulches and green manures (e.g., weeds or insect pests). The classical image of an integrated farm comes from China where a wide variety of integration modules (e.g., duck–fish, rice–fish, mulberry–fish, chicken– pig–fish, etc.) have evolved over a period of nearly 2,000 years (Kangmin and Peizhen, 1995). These modules have been studied for their economic efficiency, found to be good and packaged by development agencies for widespread transfer to smallholding farmers, including those in sub-Saharan Africa. Unfortunately, they have not produced the results predicted. They are, in fact, seldom adopted and the reason for this is simple: smallholders do not normally make adoption decisions solely on the basis of a technology’s economic performance (Brummett and Haight, 1997). Smallholdings must first and foremost produce food all year round. They must also survive in an, often, harsh environment and within the complex village social system. It is interesting to note that these farms maintain many different crops. This is obviously because, as mentioned above, the farm must provide food all year round. A mix of crops ensures that food will be available each month and, in case of adverse weather, some crops may still succeed when others fail. Normally, these mixed cropping systems are viewed by farmers as more or less independent enterprises linked to seasons rather than inter-connected resources systems with potentially synergistic links to each other (Lightfoot and Minnick, 1991). It seems that this mix of crops would be a fertile bed for integration if a workable approach to the transformation of the farmer’s perspective could be found (Lightfoot and Environment, Development and Sustainability 1: 315–321, 1999. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

316

r.e. brummett

Noble, 1993). In Malawi the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) believes that we have found such an approach. We call it the Farmer–Scientist Research Partnership (FSRP). The basic idea of the FSRP is common to the development of agriculture in many countries: a working relationship between farmers and researchers which ensures that the problems being addressed on the experiment stations are really the ones the farmers face. The technologies that address these problems should evolve over time on the farm itself so that farmers thoroughly understand and are comfortable with them. In western industrialized countries, this is not so difficult. The relatively high education level of farmers and the cash basis of agriculture mean that farmers and scientists can effectively communicate and they normally agree on the objective of the farm: to make money. In many poor, tropical countries the situation is quite different: many farmers have little or no education and are not comfortable with mathematical analyses or explanations of soil chemistry. They also have a wide range of factors in addition to income generation that must be considered when deciding whether or not to adopt a new technology. The FSRP (Figure 1) starts from a participatory resource assessment that puts the researchers and farmers on common ground. It then obviates many of the conflicting

Figure 1. The Farmer-Scientist Research Partnership (FSRP) approach to technology development and transfer. The feedback loop to the farmer facilitates among researchers a better understanding of constraints faced by farmers, and among farmers a better understanding of the basic principles of integrated farming. Using actual farm productivity data (as collated and averaged by PondSim, a simple spreadsheet developed by ICLARM) as the control of treatments, technologies developed are more comprehensible by farmers and immediately applicable to the farming system.

integrated aquaculture

317

socio-economic factors influencing adoption decisions by letting the farmers themselves decide which technologies are suitable for their farms. This requires that a range of methods be presented to farmers and that these be sufficiently easy to understand that the farmers can make intelligent choices (not guesses) about which would work best. Making available a range of technological options not only increases the chances for adoption of at least one improved method, but also takes into consideration the variation among farms that often exists within even a small area. Initially, it will be necessary to generate the range of technologies from which farmers might select. Some techniques, such as green manuring and composting, are more or less universally applicable and can be obtained through literature review. Others, more suited to a specific locale (e.g., breeding techniques for an endemic species), need to be generated at the experiment station. To optimize the chances that these will be able to make real contributions to farm livelihoods, technologies must be ‘appropriate’. This means that a systematic characterization of farming systems should be conducted prior to starting the program of research and that researchers must avoid the temptations of utilizing capital or knowledge-intensive technologies which cannot easily be made available to farmers. Once a starting point has been selected, the FSRP works with farmers to incrementally improve their system over several seasons, thus giving the farmers a chance to learn all the details of the new technology. This process leads to high rates of adoption. Of the Malawian farmers who have been exposed to integrated aquaculture technology through the FSRP, 86% have adopted at least one of the demonstrated technologies, 76% adopted at least two, and 24% adopted four (Brummett and Noble, 1995). In addition, the adoption is sustained over time. All of the farmers with whom ICLARM has worked who have access to permanent water are continuing to grow fish and improve their production. Among those farmers with only rainfed ponds, 36% dropped out for one reason or another (40% of those dropping did so because of family deaths or illness rather than any agricultural reason), but those remaining also have continuously improved their ponds and production. For example, average pond size has increased from 64 to 88 m2 and new gardens are being planted around ponds (Brummett and Chikafumbwa, 1995). Once in the rural community, the technologies spread and evolve without further extension support. A survey found that, within six months of the May 1990 open day, 46% of adopters in the target area had learned about it from other farmers. A third of these farmers had adopted two or more technologies from their neighbors. By the end of 1992, almost 80% of the farmers practicing integrated rice–fish farming in Zomba District had never witnessed first hand an extension demonstration (Chikafumbwa, 1994). In Zomba East, where ICLARM worked with 34 farmers from 1991 to 1995 (ICLARM and GTZ, 1991), there are now 225 practicing fish farmers (Scholz et al., 1997).

Improvements in productivity Average fish (typically a polyculture of two indigenous tilapias: Tilapia rendalli and Oreochromis shiranus) productivity of integrated Malawian smallholdings is 1350 kg ha−1 yr−1 in rainfed areas and 1650 kg ha−1 yr−1 in springfed areas compared to an average of about

318

r.e. brummett

900 kg ha−1 yr−1 for the 48 most productive fish farms in Southern Malawi (Chimatiro and Scholz, 1995). The difference stems from the range of inputs available as pond inputs and the location of the ponds relative to other farm enterprises. To properly feed the typical farm pond, a farmer needs about 522 kg of dry matter (Brummett, 1997). On integrated farms, ponds are generally located in vegetable gardens (or, as often happens, vegetable gardens develop around the fishpond to take advantage of emergency irrigation water) and wastes from the garden are used to feed fish. Typically, these wastes amount to some 3,700 kg of dry matter per year and the material is generated in close proximity to the pond, minimizing the work involved in transportation. Non-integrated farms, on the other hand, are using exclusively maize bran as recommended by extension as the best fish food. Maize bran production averages around 192 kg of dry matter, only 37% of the amount needed. The maize bran is produced in the house, often far from the pond. Maize bran is also a possible emergency food for humans whereas vegetable garden wastes are typically burned if not used in a pond. On a continent where an estimated 80% of the population is rural, the potential impact on food security is enormous. Using very conservative figures, FAO has recently estimated that 31% of sub-Saharan Africa (parts of 40 countries, 9.2 million km2 ) is suitable for small-scale integrated fish farming (Kapetsky, 1994). If production figures from relatively recent development projects (1300–2300 kg ha−1 yr−1 ) are used, 580,000t, or 35% of Africa’s increased fish need up to the year 2010, could be met by small-scale fish farmers on only 0.5% of the total area potentially available (Kapetsky, 1995). Focusing on local producers and production systems to meet local needs obviates the problems inherent in long-distance marketing of fish in Africa (Brummett, 2000).

Economic growth Economically, integrated farms produce almost six times the cash generated by the typical Malawian smallholder (Chimatiro and Scholz, 1995). The integrated pond–vegetable garden is the economic engine on these farms, generating almost three times the annual net income from the staple maize crop and the homestead combined. The vegetable–fish component contributes, on average, 72% of annual cash income (Brummett and Noble, 1995). On a per unit area basis, the vegetable garden/pond resource system generates almost $14.00 per 100 m2 per year compared with $1.00 and $2.00 for the maize crop and homestead respectively. If this level of economic return is sufficient to overcome recurrent cash flow problems and give farmers enough cash to reinvest in their farms (something which is not yet proven) then integrated farming might contribute significantly to real economic growth of rural communities. This farm-level economic impact produces wider economic growth. Delgado et al. (1998) in a review of results from Burkina Faso, Niger, Senegal and Zambia found that ‘. . . even small increments to rural incomes that are widely distributed can make large net additions to growth and improve food security.’ Winkleman (1998) identified interventions that lead to improved incomes at the level of the rural farmer and resource manager as ‘having a larger impact on countrywide income than increases in any other sector.’

integrated aquaculture

319

Figure 2. Pond productivity over time in ponds integrated through the Farmer Scientist Research Partnership approach (IAA/FSRP) Vs ponds on farms to which integration modules were introduced through a Training and Visit approach (T&V) fishponds in Southern Malawi. The production target of 2500 kg ha−1 was arrived at by extrapolation of Malawi’s national fish production need to the land area available for aquaculture. The technology promoted was too complex for most farmers to fully understand and/or adopt, resulting in declining production as extension support waned. IAA entry-level technology, is much simpler and less productive initially, but evolves on-farm, as farmers who understand the technology are able to more efficiently manipulate it to suit their individual situation. The result is sustained, incremental growth of both production and efficiency.

Circumstantial evidence indicates that ponds also have the potential to profoundly affect the stability of small farms. All of the farms involved in pilot research were badly affected by drought, which had been serious from 1991 through 1995. Yet in all cases, even though maize crops failed and farmers suffered economic losses, the pond-vegetable systems kept operating and sustaining the farms. By retaining water on the land, ponds have enabled farms to sustain their food production and balance their losses on seasonal croplands. For example, in the 1993/94 drought season, when only 60% of normal rain fell, average net cash income to a study group of rainfed integrated farms was 18% higher than non-integrated farmers in an area with some of Malawi’s severest poverty (Brummett and Chikafumbwa, 1995). Due to the incremental nature of the FSRP, these benefits accrue over time (Figure 2). In contrast, as most development workers are aware, attempts to directly transfer complete technology packages and modules results in unsustained adoption and gradual declines in productivity as projects phase out (Harrison et al., 1994). The FSRP starts with direct discussion and simple methods so farmers can understand and feel comfortable with the technology. Then, in partnership with researchers the farmers themselves work to improve their output over time. This takes time and patience, but unlike many other approaches, it works.

Environmental and social sustainability Small-scale integrated farming systems are more efficient at converting feeds into fish and produce fewer negative environmental impacts than purely commercial fish farms (Table I). They also have the advantage of not using one human foodstuff to produce another. Some authors have even predicted that the widespread adoption of integrated aquaculture might

r.e. brummett

320

TABLE I. Efficiency of two theoretical aquaculture systems, as described by the concept of the ‘ecological footprint’ (Berg et al., 1996). The ecological footprint is the quantity of environmental goods and services consumed by a food production system in the generation of external inputs and the processing of wastes. The integrated pond uses agricutural by-products as inputs to fuel natural processes that generate the bulk of the food for the fish. This converts what are waste products in the cage system into inputs in the integrated system with the consequent reduction in polluting discharge and vastly increased production efficiency To support a 1 m2 tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) cage you need: 21,000 m2 of ocean to grow fishmeal for inclusion in fish feeds 420 m2 of cropland to grow grains for inclusion in fish feeds 60 m2 of green plants to produce oxygen for consumption by fish 115 m2 of benthic community to assimilate waste phosphorus ‘Ecological Footprint’ (125 kg fish @ 6 g fish m−2 of footprint)

21,700 m2 2

To support 1 m of waste-fed integrated tilapia pond, you need: 0.9 m2 of additional benthic community to assimilate phosphorus 0.9 m2 of green plants to produce oxygen for consumption by fish 1.8 m2

‘Ecological Footprint’ (0.5 kg fish @ 278 g fish m−2 of footprint)

actually improve local environments by reducing soil erosion and increasing tree cover (Lightfoot et al., 1993; Lightfoot and Pullin, 1995) although this remains to be demonstrated on the ground. At some point in the evolution of their integrated farms, farmers will need to begin importing nutrients to replace those that are exported to market. This, in the face of increasing population pressure and traditional landholding practices that allocate land to every family in a village regardless of that family’s ability to farm, is inevitable. Land use efficiency must increase if we are to feed the next generation of Africans (Brummett, 1995). This necessity often leads planners to the false assumption that larger scale commercial farms that produce larger quantities of fish per unit area would be better investments. In Africa, large-scale commercial aquaculture seldom returns much economic benefit to the local community and hence often has little impact on food security or poverty for the approximately 85% of Africans who live in rural areas. This is because investors have both cash flow and profit margin considerations. Producing large quantities (to generate cash flow) of low-value species that poor people can afford to buy, compromises profit margin (and thus return on investment) in Africa’s impoverished rural markets. Consequently, investors in African aquaculture tend to produce high-value species for more lucrative urban or export markets. Both the money generated and the fish end up in cities. A policy more equitable and likely to produce shorter-term positive impacts in rural areas would be to support the evolution of integrated smaller-scale operations that can profitably and efficiently produce low-value species for local markets. Supporting initiatives of smallholders and rural investors in integrated aquaculture-based farming systems could thus improve both rural livelihoods and the environmental sustainability of African agriculture. References Berg, H., Michelsen, P., Folke, C., Kautsky, N. and Troell, M.: 1996, ‘Managing aquaculture for sustainability in tropical Lake Kariba, Zimabwe’, Ecological Economics 18, 141–159.

integrated aquaculture

321

Brummett, R.E.: 1995, ‘The context of smallholding integrated aquaculture in Malawi: a case study for subSaharan Africa’. Naga, the ICLARM Quarterly 18(4), 8–10. Brummett, R.E.: 1997, ‘Why Malawian smallholders do not feed their fish’, Presented to the First SADC Regional Conference on Aquaculture, Bunda College of Agriculture, Lilongwe, Malawi, 17–19 November. Brummett, R.E. and Chikafumbwa. F.J.K.: 1995, ‘Management of rainfed aquaculture on Malawian smallholdings’, Paper presented at the PACON Conference on Sustainable Aquaculture, 11–14 June, Honolulu, Hawaii. Pacific Congress on Marine Science and Technology, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Brummett, R.E. and Noble. R.P.: 1995, ‘Aquaculture for African smallholders’, ICLARM Tech. Rpt. 46. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Brummett, R.E. and Haight. B.A.: 1997, ‘Research–development linkages’, in M. Martinez-Espinosa (compiler) Report of the Expert Consultation on Small-Scale Rural Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Report 548. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Brummett R.E.: 2000, ‘Factors influencing fish prices in Southern Malawi. Aquaculture’, 186(3–4), 243–251. Chikafumbwa, F.J.K.: 1994, ‘Farmer participation in technology development and transfer in Malawi’, in R.E. Brummett (ed.) Aquaculture Policy Options for Integrated Resource Management in SubSaharan Africa. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 46. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Chimatiro, S.K. and Scholz. U.F.: 1995, ‘Integrated aquaculture-agriculture farming systems: a sustainable response towards food security for small-scale poor farmers in Malawi’, Presented to the Bunda College Aquaculture Symposium, Lilongwe, Malawi, 11 February. Delgado, C.L., Hopkins J. and Kelly. V.A.: 1998, ‘Agricultural Growth Linkages in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Research Report 107. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute. Harrison, E., Stewart, J.A., Stirrat, R.L., and Muir, J.: 1994, ‘Fish farming in Africa – What’s the catch?’, Summary report of the ODA sponsored research project ‘Aquaculture Development in Sub-Saharan Africa’. Institute of Aquaculture, Stirling, Brighton, UK, Scotland and University of Sussex. ICLARM and GTZ.: 1991. The context of small-scale integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems in Africa: a case study of Malawi. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines and Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur Technische Zusammenarbeit, Eschborn, Germany. Kangmin, L. and Peizhen. L.: 1995, ‘Integration of agriculture, livestock and fish farming in the Wuxi region of China’, in J.-J. Symoens and J.-C. Micha (eds.). The Management of Integrated Freshwater Agropiscicultural Ecosystems in Tropical Areas. Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, Wageningen, Brussels, Belgium, The Netherlands and Royal Academy of Overseas Sciences. Kapetsky, J.M.: 1994, ‘A strategic assessment of warm-water fish farming potential in Africa’, CIFA Technical Paper 27. Rome, Italy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Kapetsky, J.M.: 1995, ‘A first look at the potential contribution of warm water fish farming to food security in Africa’, in J.-J. Symoens and J.-C. Micha (eds). The Management of Integrated Freshwater Agropiscicultural Ecosystems in Tropical Areas. Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, Wageningen, Brussels, Belgium, The Netherlands and Royal Academy of Overseas Sciences. Lightfoot, C. and Minnick. D.R.: 1991, ‘Farmer-first qualitative methods: farmer’ diagrams for improving methods of experimental design in integrated farming systems’, Journal for Farming Systems ResearchExtension 2(1), 57–69. Lightfoot, C. and Noble. R.: 1993, ‘A participatory experiment in sustainable agriculture’, Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension 4(1), 11–34. Lightfoot, C. and Pullin. R.S.V.: 1995, ‘Why an integrated resource management approach?’, in: R.E. Brummett (ed.) Aquaculture Policy Options for Integrated Resource Management in SubSaharan Africa. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 46. Manila, Philippines, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management. Lightfoot, C., Bimbao, M.A.P., Dalsgaard, J.P.T. and Pullin. R.S.V.: 1993, ‘Aquaculture and sustainability through integrated resources management’, Outlook on Agriculture 22(3), 143–150. Scholz, U.F., Chimatiro, S.K. and Hummel. M.: 1997, ‘Status and prospects of aquaculture development in Malawi, a case study of MAGFAD: is there sustainability and a future?’ Presented to the First SADC Regional Conference on Aquaculture, Lilongwe, Malawi, Bunda College of Agriculture, 17–19 November. Winkleman, D.L.: 1998, ‘CGIAR activities and goals: tracing the connections’. Issues in Agriculture, World Bank, Washington,D.C., Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.