nasp cs oct 09
DESCRIPTION
Malawi Keywords Country [email protected] Email Date Malawi, governance, development, aquaculture, project implementation Bunda College, University of Malawi, Box 219 Lilongwe, Malawi 1 All SARNISSA case studies will be included in the Aquaculture Compendium, an interactive encyclopaedia with worldwide coverage of cultured aquatic and marine species. www.cabicompendium.org/ac 2TRANSCRIPT
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
SARNISSA Contract number: 213143 www.sarnissa.org
Duration: 36 months
A case study on the National Aquaculture Strategic Plan in Malawi
Country Malawi
Date March 2009
Author/s and affiliation Lisungu E. Banda, Jeremiah Kang’ombe and Emmanuel K. W. Kaunda Bunda College, University of Malawi, Box 219 Lilongwe, Malawi
Email [email protected]
Keywords Malawi, governance, development, aquaculture, project implementation
1
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
All SARNISSA case studies will be includedin the Aquaculture Compendium, an interactive encyclopaedia with worldwide coverage of cultured aquatic and marine species. www.cabicompendium.org/ac
Summary
This case study provides an analysis of the implementation of the National Aquaculture Strategic Plan (NASP) for Malawi. The NASP is a strategic document for aquaculture development in Malawi that was created in response to a request from the Government of Malawi (GoM) to the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) to conduct a Master Plan Study on Aquaculture Development. The NASP was set to improve aquaculture development from 2005 to 2015.
The aquaculture sector plays a significant role as a source of food, income and employment to Malawi’s population. It is estimated that the sector provides about 2% of the nation’s fish production and, among fish farming households, to contribute up to 17% of household income, depending on fish farming activities. Fish from both aquaculture and capture fisheries contribute about 4% to the country’s GDP and provide almost 70% of animal protein and 40% of total protein thereby contributing to the country’s food security and livelihood strategies.
The purpose of the case study was to provide a clear understanding of the existing state of the NASP. The case study involves a number of stakeholders that were chosen randomly from the NASP document as partners in its implementation. The study analyses the progress of the NASP implementation by looking at whether the implementation structure was functioning, it also assessed the knowledge of the stakeholders on the document, the linkage of the stakeholders, the coordination among stakeholders and developments in fish production through aquaculture.
The results show that the institutional structures that were proposed to implement and monitor all the NASP strategies and activities have not been formed. This has led to lack of knowledge of the document by some stakeholders. Poor coordination and networking among the stakeholders has also led to the failure of the strategic plan. The case study concludes that there is an urgent need for the formulation of a separate institutional structure to look into aquaculture development in Malawi with the help of the Departement of Fisheries (DoF) and all the stakeholders so as to help review and process the NASP action plans if quantitative progress is to be achieved.
2
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
Background
Development strategies and policies in Malawi since independence have been heavily biased towards agricultural development but the impact of these policies has been limited. Substantial resources have been devoted to the agricultural sector for the development of both estate and smallholder agriculture by donor programmes over the years to help reduce poverty and increase food security. It is believed that aquaculture is one of the viable agricultural activities to supply nutrition through fish production in Malawi though no definitive study has been done to prove this. From the 1970s to the mid-1990s, several donor organizations attempted to introduce aquaculture to rural farmers in Malawi as a way of increasing fish supplies while relieving the pressure on capture fisheries. But they had little success. The projects required considerable investments by farmers who could not afford it. Subsidies terminated with the projects, causing a decline in production and frequently leading to the abandonment of aquaculture. Furthermore, there was no diffusion of the technology outside the project area. Thus, in 1985 the total estimated aquaculture production in Malawi was 173 tonnes from 170 hectares of ponds (Zilberman and Waibel, 2005). Despite all this the production has been increasing and in 2005 the total fish production from Aquaculture was estimated at 800 tonnes (ADiM, 2005).
In 2005, the National Aquaculture Strategic Plan (NASP) was set as one of the development strategies created to examine the “best” approaches and actions to be taken by the DoF to ensure the sustainable development and growth of smallholder and commercial aquaculture in Malawi from 2005-2015. The Government of Japan through the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) funded the NASP development (http://www.jica.go.jp/malawi/english/about.html). The NASP document addresses key constraints on aquaculture that currently limit its growth and productivity in Malawi.
The case study was therefore carried out to find out what impact the NASP had made and the challenges it is facing, participation of stakeholders in its implementation and determine the way forward to enhance its intended implementation.
Description
Introduction
The structure of Malawi’s economy has largely remained unchanged since the 1970s in terms of the contribution of the agricultural sector towards total output, total formal employment and total earnings. The average share of the agricultural sector in the 1970s is similar to the share of agriculture in GDP in the current post-reform period, in which agriculture accounts for 39% of national output. Today the agricultural sector accounts for nearly 40% of total formal sector employment and provides 87% of total employment. It contributes 63% of the income of the rural poor in Malawi and generates more than 90% of export earnings.
Most Malawians are desperately poor, with 52.4% of the population living below the poverty line (K 44 per person per day about US $0.3 in October 2009) and 22.4% barely surviving (Agriculture Sector-Wide Approach; ASWAp, 2009). Aquaculture has come in as a way to reduce poverty and increase food security in the country by supplementing capture fisheries that is declining with the increasing population. The aquaculture sector has a potential to play a significant role to Malawi’s population as a source of food, income and employment. It is lately estimated that aquaculture provides about 2% of the nation’s fish production and, among fish farming households; to contribute up to 17% of household income, depending on fish farming activities pursued (Russell et al., 2008).
Fish, in Malawi plays an important role as a source of food, income and employment. It is estimated to provide approximately 70% of animal protein and 40% of the total protein intake for the majority of the rural poor. It provides the essential minerals and vitamins, available throughout the year even at times of drought; it is accessible to the vast majority of the people and is within the purchasing power of the majority of the population (Banda et al., 2005). The potential for aquaculture development in Malawi exists both at small- and large-scale commercial levels. The combined fish production from these different levels of aquaculture, if
3
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
fully exploited, could produce enough fish for the domestic as well as the export markets (Government of Malawi; GoM, 2006).
The National Aquaculture Strategic Plan (NASP)
The National Aquaculture Strategic Plan is a sector strategic document that was produced to help boost fish production. It is only available in countable DoF offices. It recognises and addresses the most pertinent international and national development frameworks of the country such as the Millennium Development Goals (MGDS, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml), the Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (MPRSP, http://www.finance.gov.mw/prsp/index.htm) and the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy (NFAP).
The NASP document has a clearly stipulated mission, values, vision, principles, strategies and action plans, implementation process and monitoring and evaluation procedures to review the plan’s implementation on a regular basis. The vision of the NASP is to create a practical DoF that is dedicated to improve technological innovation and extension for aquaculture development by the best possible use of available resources. The overall objective of the NASP is to facilitate the necessary institutional, legal, and administrative changes in the sector by increasing the capacity of stakeholders to enable improved livelihoods among the rural smallholder fish farmers; it also aims to increase the success of the commercial aquaculture sector, and to provide quality aquaculture services at a national and local level.
The guiding principles of the NASP are to contribute to the national goal of eradicating poverty and hunger by being customer-focused, responsive to the needs and capacity of stakeholders, being an instrument that promotes wider partnerships, and encouraging and facilitating a process of building the knowledge base.
The NASP also set strategies to help contribute to sustainable livelihoods, increase small-scale fish farmers in the country, increase the recognition of technical skills relating to aquaculture within local government and NGOs and increase the effective and efficient service delivered by the DoF. The proposed strategic themes and strategies of the NASP to guide the focus of the DoF from 2005-2015 are listed in the table below:-
Proposed themes and strategies of the NASP.
Themes Strategies
Strategic Theme 1
Integration of
aquaculture into rural
livelihoods
1. Providing the opportunity for all stakeholders to develop their
capacity to enhance the integrated livelihoods approach, this
includes aquaculture.
2. Enhancing institutional capacity of National Aquaculture Center
(NAC) to develop medium to large‐scale commercial fish
farming technologies.
Strategic Theme 2 Enhanced economic
opportunity for
commercial fish farmers
3. Providing an appropriate credit, business training and
technology package for small and medium‐scale commercial
fish farmers.
4
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
4. Creating a regionally competitive and investor friendly
environment through sound policy, clear procedure and legal
framework.
5. Ensuring aquaculture activities are environmentally
responsible and sustainable.
6. Establishing links and information flows between producers
and fish traders to enhance access to markets.
7. Sensitising and building capacity of local government on their
primary responsibilities in aquaculture development.
8. Developing alliances between the DoF and NGOs to promote
unified approaches in aquaculture extension.
9. Fostering fish producer organizations that assist farmers to
increase production, access to finance, markets and other
Strategic Theme 3 Competent local government,
NGOs and producer
organisations
services.
ource. 10.Building healthy DoF financial res
11.Realising efficient DoF operation.
12.Promoting quality DoF staff and information.
Strategic Theme 4 Smart and practical DoF
Source: SSC (2005)
A number of action plans were set with stakeholder responsibilities allocated to them (Appendix 1). In addition, two complementary projects were proposed to help in the implementation and integration of the NASP at district level. A structure of different bodies to help the implementation and coordination of all NASP activities was also suggested in the document. The structure, under the DoF, was suggested to comprise of:
• Aquaculture Advisory Body as the executive body, • Coordinating Committee to check the day-to-day progress and to form the annual work
plans, and the • District committees for coordinating the local level activities including the
complementary projects.
Foreign experts were to be allocated with operational and technical advisors to facilitate the implementation of the NASP.
The NASP also suggested a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) mechanism to help track progress in the implementation (NASP document figure 3.2 p.103).
Objectives
The overall objective of this case study was to assess the progress of the NASP implementation by specifically: • Assessing whether the stakeholders had knowledge of the NASP as a document and what it was aiming to achieve. • Assessing whether the stakeholders have been actively involved in implementing the NASP.
5
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
• Assessing NASP coordination and networking amongst stakeholders • Assessing impact of the NASP on fish production.
Activities
The case study used a random sample of some of the stakeholders listed in the NASP document as part of the partners in the implementation process of its strategies. The sample size was 30 and the sample frame included organisations such as the civil service, the Government, the private sector, university and college officials and individuals who are involved in aquaculture development. The study was conducted in 10 days by the authors covering five districts of the country; Zomba, Blantyre, Ntcheu, Mangochi and Lilongwe. A semi-structured questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was used to interview the participants and it focused on:
• Stakeholder identification • Stakeholder knowledge of NASP and its programmes • Stakeholder view on coordination and participation. • Stakeholder responsibilities and achievements • Stakeholder suggestion on way forward for implementation
Participants
The case study involved aquaculture stakeholders from Lilongwe, Blantyre, Mangochi, Zomba and Ntcheu. The table below gives details of organization and individuals.
Details of organisation and individuals in the case study
Organisation Type of Entity
Main contact (email address) Web address (URL)
Action Aid Civil society Mr Matekenya
www.actionaid.org/malawi
Churches Action in Relief Development
Civil Society Mr Kapitapita
Mrs Mphatso [email protected]
Concern Universal
Civil Society Mr Mwale
www.concern-universal.org
Fish producers and farmers
Private sector
Mrs Osmani
Mrs Chidothi
+265995739032
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Private Sector
Mr Manda
http://www.jica.go.jp
6
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
Malawi College of Fisheries
R & D education
Mr Nyasa
MALDECO Fisheries
Private sector
Mr Singini
www.presscorp.com
MoAFS Department of Fisheries
Government Mrs Pasani
Mrs Kazembe
Mr Kachinjika
www.malawi.gov.mw
National Aquaculture Center
Government Mr Brino Chriwa
University of Malawi (Bunda College)
R & D education
Dr Kang’ombe
Prof Kaunda
www.bunda.unima.mw
WorldFish centre
Private sector
Mr Nagoli
www.worldfishcenter.org
World Vision Civil Society Mr Mwendo
Mr Mtoso
www.wvi.org
Outcomes
Implementation structure
The NASP recommended an organisational structure for its implementation (see figure), but the structure has not been formulated to date (July 2009). The regulatory mechanisms for
7
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
developing aquaculture are provided under the Fisheries Act of the Ministry of Agriculture under the DoF. The implementing structure, after completion of the NASP study, was supposed to start functioning by passing through legal authorities. The Fisheries Board was supposed to take the lead as the mandatory body in the DoF but it did not take an initiative to do so. The Board lacked the authority to ask for funding from the government as well so as to support the implementation of the structure. The structure was important because it was supposed to coordinate the NASP.
The DoF later anticipated that the structure would be incorporated in its already existing structures through the aquaculture section without legalising the document. This, however, has not worked out. The aquaculture section of the DoF is still relatively small in comparison to the capture fisheries section and there is very minimal representation of the aquaculture sector in the main board of the DoF, the Fisheries Advisory Board (Fisheries Act 1997). Though the NASP document proposed an Aquaculture Advisory board in the NASP implementing body, its importance has not been appreciated. Thus, the functionality of the Fisheries Board in supporting aquaculture development in Malawi is not practical. Fish farming development is growing vibrantly and the Fisheries Board may not meet its demands, therefore there is a need for a separate Board.
The failure to formulate the NASP structure made the staff of the DoF, who already are dedicated to other issues, have responsibility over the NASP. This has led to very ineffective work. According to Masuda (2007), the DoF requires the setting up of a special implementation office specifically dedicated to the implementation of the NASP. Efficient implementation of the NASP can only be achieved through establishing a body, as stated in the NASP document, which would be able to help in the implementation of the aquaculture plans and advise on aquaculture development in Malawi. The body will function as the executive body that coordinates all aquaculture activities to ensure the efficient implementation of the NASP.
The majority of the stakeholders we interviewed (57%) commented that the implementation structure set in the NASP document was the ideal structure to help in the implementation and what was needed was to allocate the best implementers who would be committed to it. About 43% suggested change.
Coordination
One concern that is widely becoming accepted is the lack of coordination in the aquaculture sector. The failure to formulate the implementing structure has led to very poor coordination and networking on aquaculture development between the stakeholders. Implementation of the NASP requires extensive collaboration and partnerships between the different sections in the DoF, other agencies and the private sector. The case study showed that the linkage of the partners has failed to take place because the implementation structure that was interim failed to manage this and that there has not been proper funding to help in coordination. The existing legal structures are weak (Fisheries Board) as they lack the mandate to obtain proper funding from the government and other donors for the NASP. This shows the need for the NASP implementing structure to be functional. The capacity of the DoF has failed to carry out the coordination.
Most of the participants (77%) said the failure of the implementation of the NASP has mainly been due to poor coordination and networking, 7% said there has been no monitoring system to check their progress. Other participants did not even know whether the NASP was being implemented or not.
Reasons for implementation failure
The NASP has so far failed to achieve its guiding principles of contributing to the national goal of eradicating poverty and hunger forming part of the broader development policies such as the MDG’s, Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy (MPRS), National Strategy for Sustainable Development and Agenda 21. The NASP is supposed to form a part of the NFAP in order to justify its implementation. The NASP has failed to be a “customer-focused” initiative; it has not been sensitive and responsive to the different needs of DoF customers (end customers; small-holder and commercial fish farmers and the civil society), the immediate customers (NGO’s,
8
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
local government and farmer organisations) and its partners (universities, collaborative ministries, donors and international research institutions).
The NASP has so far failed to be “demand-driven” as there is poor participation from the stakeholders. The DoF has tried to be responsible but has failed to be accountable to the implementation of the NASP. This has led to a failure in policy dialogue to facilitate the effective participation of stakeholders in the aquaculture development process. The internal mechanisms for project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) that are currently in place in the DoF need to be strengthened to be effective in coordination and in tracking progress from the various stakeholders who practice aquaculture development for better record keeping and up-to-date information and for proper implementation of NASP activities at all levels.
Stakeholder knowledge and ownership of the NASP
Malawi has over 50% of people living under the poverty line and most of them are rural farmers. The aquaculture sector has a large potential to contribute to the life of these people through diversifying farm production and generating income. Farmers need adequate knowledge on aquaculture to improve this and the NASP is one such document that gives strategic ways to do this. Despite having a number of strategic documents such as the NASP, most of the documents are either too big or not available for the poor farmers. The NASP, as an aquaculture road map was set to examine the best approaches and actions to be taken to ensure the sustainable development and growth of smallholder and commercial aquaculture in Malawi and thus relevant for each stakeholder (SSC, 2005). According to the authors’ opinion the document should be readily available to the farmers in their local language for effective communication. Unfortunately, the document is written in English and has more than 200 pages; it is not in a format can be easily read and understood by local farmers. The NASP is not readily available even in some of the DoF offices and most of the stakeholders do not have it. The case study results show that there has been poor information flow amongst the stakeholders due to lack of knowledge and ownership of the document.
Some stakeholders do not even know that there is a NASP document that was once put as a strategic plan for aquaculture development. They practice aquaculture but do not follow any procedures or guidelines for the activity.
Knowledge of the NASP document
Out of the 87% of those surveyed who acknowledged hearing of the NASP, only 60% actually have a copy of the NASP document. The NASP report states that after the master plan study was concluded about one hundred NASP brochures and a number of copies of the final report were prepared and submitted to the DoF by JICA. But this case study’s survey indicates that almost 40% of the stakeholders do not own a copy of the document. This is a sign of poor linkage among and between the stakeholders and the DoF, which was responsible for the distribution of the documents.
A proper distribution of the document by the DoF is required. The local farmers should be able to have access to a summarised version in a style and format they can understand from the DoF offices in their respective Districts. The document should be well publicised enabling access for most Malawians; availability of the NASP document is essential in providing adequate access to information for all the relevant parties. Research institutions such as the universities and the civil society should own such documents, national libraries and fisheries offices should be places where such documents can be accessed. The government website (http://www.malawigovt.org/ ) should also make available such documents online for those in Malawi who have internet access and it is also equally important to provide access for the international audience who want to read them. This does not require significant costs but will have a large impact and benefit to the development of our country.
Production
The NASP focuses on increasing fish production and building the necessary capacity to support the development of the aquaculture sector. Assuming that the supportive conditions are
9
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
established for aquaculture development as a result of the implementation of the NASP, some estimates regarding future aquaculture production could be made. The strategy assumed 3500-5000 MT to be produced from commercial fish farming by 2015. Malawi Development Cooperation (MALDECO) to produce at least 3500 MT, GK Aqua farms at least 100 MT, Innovative Farmers at least 12 MT and the rest of the MT from 20 other commercial farmers that were to be established. It also assumed that rural fish farming production would increase to 441 MT in 2015 from 119 MT in 2003. Estimated aquaculture production by 2015
Category 2003 2015 Assumption
Rural fish
farming
119 MT
441 MT
[2003 Base year]
No. Of ponds: 9,500
Production: 12.5kg/pond (706kg/ha: 2003)
[Year 2015]
No. Of ponds: 29,815 (10% growth in pond
numbers)
Production scenario 1: 90% of total ponds @
12.5kg/pond (706kg/ha)
Production scenario 2: 10% of total ponds @
35.5kg/pond (2,000kg/ha)
Commercial
Fish
farming
0 MT
3,500 –
5,000 MT
[2003 Base year] no commercial operation
[Year 2015]
MALDECO produce at least 3,500 MT by cage
culture
G.K. Aqua farms produce at least 100 MT
(10,000kg x 10ha- two crops)
20 innovative farmers produce 12 t (4,000kg x
3ha)
Two additional commercial farms produce each
producing 125 MT (=250 MT)
Total 119 MT 4,303 MT
Source: SSC (2005)
There has not been proper research to establish the current tonnage of fish production in Malawi, but according to Masuda (2009), it is assumed that MALDECO Aquaculture Ltd will scale up its operation to achieve a 1000 ton/yr landmark production by the end of 2009. MALDECO completed setting up 48 cages of 1200 m3 capacities by the end of 2008. The current productivity level is up to 25 kg/m3, 17 cages were harvested with an estimated production of 510 tonnes. The potential production of the 48 cages, however, is 1440 tonnes (48cages × 1200 × 25 tonnes). Windmar et al. (2008) reported that due to technical challenges associated
10
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
with developing new large-scale production systems; current production reaches about 500 MT per year. Aquaculture production is estimated by DoF research officials for this year to be almost 1700 MT. This is a good achievement though it has not been done in accordance with the more ambitious NASP objectives. Projecting to 2015, the figures do not seem to come close to the predicted figures, with six years remaining of the Strategic Plan.
Therefore, from the NASP document, the assumption that aquaculture production in Malawi by 2015 will be between 3500 and 5000 MT is a rather too ambitious estimate. If MALDECO is still producing almost 510 MT by 2009 and the next biggest farm, GK Farms, 100 MT, it is not realistic that by 2015 Malawi will achieve 5000 MT. More effort is therefore needed from farmers and producers other than those already existing. There is also a need to collect proper data for better estimations of production from remote aquaculture farmers to help give better information to investors or potential investors in aquaculture in Malawi.
Programmes and funding
Currently, no international donor has committed to assisting with the implementation of the NASP. Any private investors or people who wish to invest money in aquaculture in Malawi will look at the production figures, then go and look at what the actual existing production is on the ground and quickly come to the conclusion that the two do not match. This overestimation of aquaculture production figures has been repeated continually in a number of other African countries and in the end it does not help since it goes towards formulating plans and government strategies that are overly ambitious and unsustainable. No proper budget was allocated to the NASP document implementation. This led the stakeholders that were involved to continue with their own activities whilst waiting for NASP-earmarked funding. The NASP had an assumption that there was going to be funding, after the strategy was put in place but it did not actually receive any. After the NASP report was finalized, the Government of Malawi (GoM) requested JICA to support the plan financially but JICA decided to bring in a technical advisor (Dr Masuda) as required as part of the implementation of the NASP document to help strengthen the NASP and for the purposes of long-term sustainability. Dr Masuda was working under the planning section of DoF, he was funded by JICA but the DoF used its resources from the department to support this.
Dr Masuda was a short-term expert who worked for a total of 16 months (8 months in two terms in 2008 and 8 months in 2008/09). The NASP document gave a framework for the employment of foreign specialists. It was estimated that by 2009 the experts would have helped in the NASP operation, institutional arrangements, rural development, aquaculture technology development and monitoring and evaluation.
Time frame for foreign specialists’ assignments. Unit: month
Year Title of specialists
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total month
1. NASP Operation ++++ ++ + ++++ ++++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 37
2. Institutional arrangement
+++ 5
3. Aquaculture technology
++ +++++ +++++ ++++ 38
11
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
4. Rural development + ++++ 9
5. Monitoring & Evaluation
++ + + + ++ 9
Others (non-specific specialist)
++ ++ ++ ++ 8
19 26 13 19 14 3 3 3 3 3 106
Source: SSC (2005)
According to his final report, Masuda (2009), the expert managed to achieve part of the first three strategic themes of the NASP. For the first theme of integrating aquaculture into rural livelihoods, the advisor assisted the DoF to complete the technical manual on ‘Makumba Rural Fish Farming’, which is based on the technical package of pond fish farming developed by the JICA project on aquaculture development of indigenous Malawian species. For the second theme regarding commercial aquaculture development, that was planned to address the dwindling national fish supply, the JICA NASP advisor contributed to the advancement of smallholder cage culture production system in Lake Malawi. In 2008/9, a total of 9 cages were constructed at Michesi village. This was achieved by producing guide manuals and the advisor also helped in the development of cage culture for commercial fish farming (Masuda, 2009). These documents are available at the DoF offices at Capital Hill in Lilongwe but it is not clear whether they are available anywhere else, or, specifically, whether they are available in more rural areas at District level.
Though the above measures by the JICA expert were carried out, they only seem to have gone a very small way to developing aquaculture. To implement the plan properly, the NASP needs the organizational structure that was proposed and an actual budget to fully take action.
Presidential Initiative on Aquaculture Development (PIAD, 2006)
The Presidential Initiative on Aquaculture Development (PIAD) is an initiative under taken by the President of the Republic of Malawi, Dr Bingu WA Mutharika, to develop aquaculture in Malawi. This initiative underscores the renewed focus of the Government of Malawi in bringing economic growth through active participation of various stakeholders to increase fish production in aquaculture from the current 500 metric tonnes to over 5,000 metric tonnes by 2011. This again is another overestimated prediction, it is not achievable, lower figures would help us focus more to attain more realistic levels of production. (http://agritrade.cta.int/en/content/view/full/2414/, http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/5675/govt-moves-fisheries-department-into-agriculture-ministry )
The PIAD initiative also builds on previous efforts undertaken in Malawi for the promotion of aquaculture, which are outlined in the Malawi Department of Fisheries Strategic Plan (2003 to 2008), the Chambo Restoration Strategic Plan (CRSP, 2003 to 2013; Banda, 2005) (http://ideas.repec.org/b/wfi/wfbook/16346.html and http://www.mca.edu.mw/enviro/chilwa/ministry/fish/chamboback.htm) , the National Aquaculture Strategic Plan (SSC, 2005) and NEPAD Fish For All Summit recommendations and various national economic growth and development strategies (http://www.fishforall.org/ffa-summit/outcomes.asp).
12
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
The initiative was aimed to ensure that joint research and outreach efforts of the public and private sectors in aquaculture will be translated into practical tools to be used by various end users within the country to increase fish production. It was set to help the GoM, bilateral and multilateral donor agencies and NGO’s to demonstrate how joint efforts can support actions that can lead to the promotion of aquaculture through multi-sectoral demand driven research programmes for the advancement of aquaculture development. Establishment of the PIAD Research and Development Fund (PRDF), by promoting fingerling and table fish production through adoption of modern technologies, fish feed production, aquaculture skills development and technology transfer, aquaculture credit schemes development, fish marketing and business development services (GoM, 2006).
Funding sources
According to the Chief fisheries officer of the DoF, PIAD came in to implement part of the NASP document. After the government had seen that there was no funding from other donors, it funded PIAD through the Malawi government development funds. The following are the estimated figures that the PIAD has received as funding from the government to promote aquaculture development.
Funding sources of PIAD
Funding source Year Type of fund
GoM development fund 2006-2007 • K 20 million
GoM development fund 2007-2008 • K 30 million
GoM development fund 2008-2009 • K 61 million
JICA 2006-2009
• K 3 million
• Technical advisor
FAO No information • No information
WorldFish Center No information • Research
USAID funded COMPASS No information • Small scale cages
• Extension material
• Governance in fisheries
Source: DoF PIAD presentation, May 2009 (Exchange rate of US $1: K 140)
The targeted beneficiaries according to the DoF are the small scale and commercial fish farmers, fish feed producers, fingerling producers, fisheries extension staff and research staff. There is, however, no linkage between the DoF and other stakeholders that are helping boost aquaculture development in the country. Though the PIAD clearly states that research programmes shall be multi-sectoral, involving the Department of Fisheries (National Aquaculture Centre and its satellite stations), World Fish Center (http://www.worldfishcenter.org/Pubs/malawi/malawi_brochure.pdf), COMPASS
13
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
(http://www.compass-malawi.com/), Chancellor College’s Biology and Economics Departments (http://www.chanco.unima.mw/faculty.htm), Bunda College’s Department of Aquaculture and Fisheries Sciences (http://www.bunda.unima.mw/aqua/aqua_home.htm), small-scale farmers, NGOs and the private sector, the District Assembly and other knowledge transfer agents at the grassroots level to ensure effective dissemination of results and adoption by farmers, these stakeholders are not being incorporated as most of them are not even aware that the DoF is getting some funding.
The majority of aquaculture stakeholders had little knowledge of whether or not the NASP or any of its projects were being funded (67%). Thirty three percent were aware of the funding.
Access and knowledge of funding
According to the Chief Fisheries officer of the DoF, the PIAD came in to implement the NASP and was the only programme under the NASP that was receiving government funding. This gave pressure to the funds that came in as they were expected to implement the whole NASP. Some funds that were allocated to the PIAD were used to set up other DoF offices in eight inland districts that did not have Fisheries District offices. Some other funds were used to renovate existing offices of the DoF such as Chisitu. According to the principal of Malawi College of Fisheries (MCF), some money was given to the institution to help in training the students but was instead used for feeding the students. The funds also assisted in providing technical assistance in rural DoF offices. Some money was used to set up a demonstration pond in Mchinji. One of the outcomes from that activity was recognition that demonstration ponds were more expensive than earlier thought (http://aquacomm.fcla.edu/1399/ ).
Implementation progress of PIAD
Output Output target Status
Production from
aquaculture
1 village farming scheme Njoka, Mchinji
Private sector
participation in
commercial fish farming
Produced 1 small scale
prototype
2 prototypes produced
trails underway (Jan 09)
Capacity in fish farming
techniques enhanced
Support to govt research
stations
Ongoing
Support to fish farming
extension activities
Ongoing
8 demonstration ponds
established
6 to date
Source DoF (2009)
The PIAD project has, through government funding, managed to produce fish farmer manuals for extension workers in the rural fish farming communities and has trained 400 fish farmers
14
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
nationwide. They have managed to carry out mapping of potential aquaculture areas in southern Malawi that could have an estimated aquaculture production of 2000 MT per year (DoF, 2009).
Problems encountered during the study
• Lack of accurate information on production figures due to lack of rigorous research; the national MT-mass production figures are based on estimations from government officials.
• Relatively small sample size of interviewees due to lack of resources to support the study.
• Late report submission due to lack of writing materials i.e. computer, storage devices etc.
• Failure to get reports from relevant sources due organisation failure to report recent findings.
Lessons learnt and conclusions
Aquaculture has the potential to boost the economic development of Malawi. The National Aquaculture Strategic Plan has very good strategies to achieve this. Unfortunately stakeholders are not using the document effectively because the document was not legalised, leading to a lack of knowledge of the Plan among stakeholders. Most stakeholders are do not know of the document, they have neither seen nor read it. There was proper allocation of responsibilities to DoF partners in the document but due to poor monitoring they were not achieved (see Appendix 2). The Fisheries Act that is being revised by the DoF, should make a special inclusion of the aquaculture sector structure in the act since there is an urgent need to formulate an institutional structure to help the coordination of aquaculture activities.
A comprehensive review process of the NASP Action Plan is required to enable appropriate changes to be incorporated and check for any quantitative progress. Unless the NASP is taken as a priority document, it will not accomplish its goals. There is a need for a wider approach to tackle the NASP in terms of networking and coordination. The approach should be able to check the progress of the aquaculture sector in line with the strategies by assessing the progress of the stakeholders toward the outputs. The NASP has not been implemented as planned, there are many organisations that are practicing aquaculture in the country but most of them are not aware of the strategic plan that was set as a road map to aquaculture development. There is a need to prioritize and legalize the NASP document and its contents to help in reducing the poverty levels and increasing food security.
It seems that much of the responsibility was put onto the DoF (generally) who quite obviously did not have the capacity, staff and then budget to carry most of it out. Inadequate donor and DoF coordination led to a duplication of effort by different stakeholders who were not sure whether they were implementing the NASP document or not. There is lack of policy direction and this has led to erosion of existing institutions. It appears that the NASP document made many plans but did not actually include any source of funds for the budget to implement its activities. It is highly questionable to spend time, money and resources to produce a National Aquaculture Plan or strategy document which essentially plans how aquaculture will develop in a country for the next 5-10 years if these plans and their activities therein are not related to a budget with a source of funds that stakeholders know is available to implement them. Most past agriculture strategy plans have been properly formulated and planned to a certain level and there has been a continual history of formulating such aquaculture plans (more specifically written documents) in Malawi and other countries, which historically, one by one, fall by the wayside due to constrains and challenges as laid down in this case study, and then as 5-10 years pass, other strategy papers are written.
There is, therefore, a requirement for some lesson learning on the whole process of planning. The National Aquaculture planning documents need to be more effective, more useful, more understandable, more specific, less general, more realistic, more achievable, less ambitious, more attainable and clearly funded with a specific budget for implementation. The designated task force should be able to help implement all this and to help track progress in implementation.
15
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
References
ADiM, 2005. Zomba District Aquaculture Profile. Lilongwe, Malawi: Master Plan Study on Aquaculture Development in Malawi, Department of Fisheries.
Banda M, Jamu DM, Njaya F, Makuwila M, Maluwa A, 2005. The Chambo Restoration Strategic Plan: Proceedings of the national workshop held on 13–16 May 2003 at Boadzulu Lakeshore Resort, Mangochi. WorldFish Centre Contribution 1740, WorldFish Centre, Malaysia, 112 pp.
GoM, 2009. Agriculture Sector Wide Approach. Draft report 2009. Lilongwe, Malawi: Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Government of Malawi.
GoM, 2006. Presidential Initiative on Aquaculture Development (PIAD). Lilongwe, Malawi: Ministry of Mines, Natural Resources and the Environment, Department of Fisheries.
Masuda K, (2007). Facilitation of the National Aquaculture Strategic Plan in the Republic of Malawi. 1st progress report. Overseas Agro-Fisheries Consultants (OAFIC). Tokyo, Japan: JICA.
Masuda K, (2009). Facilitation of the National Aquaculture Strategic Plan in the Republic of Malawi. Final report. Overseas Agro-Fisheries Consultants (OAFIC). Tokyo, Japan: JICA, Government of Malawi Department of Fisheries.
Russell AJM, Grötz PA, Kriesemer SK, Pemsl DE, 2008. Recommendation domains for pond aquaculture: country case study: development and status of freshwater aquaculture in Malawi. Studies and reviews (1869). Penang, Malaysia: The WorldFish Center.
SSC, 2005. National Aquaculture Strategic Plan (NASP) 2006-2015. Master Plan Study on Aquaculture Development in Malawi. Systems Science Consultants inc. Main Report. Tokyo, Japan: JICA.
Windmarr L, Kambewa P, Jamu D, Macuiane M, Kambewa E, Kanthuzi W, 2008. Feasibility Study for a community driven fish cage model in lake Malawi. Domasi, Malawi: WorldFish Center.
Zilberman D, Waibel H (eds), 2005. The Impact of Natural Resources Management Research in the CGIAR. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
16
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
Illustrations
Organization of the NASP implementing bodies
Reasons for failure of the NASP given by 30 stakeholders who responded to the survey
17
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
Appendix 1: Questionnaire on the implementation of the National Aquaculture Strategic Plan (1006-2011)
Target respondents: STAKE HOLDERS OF THE NASP
Type of sample: Purposeful random sample from THE
STAKEHOLDERS
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Name of the respondent ____________________________________________________
2. Name of the organisation___________________________________________________
3. Position in the Organisation_________________________________________________
4. Name of the section or unit of the org._________________________________________
i) Planning ii) research iii) Extension
5. What do you know about NASP?
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_
6. Which part of the NASP implementing body were you?
a. Fisheries Advisory Board
b. Aquaculture Advisory Board
c. NASP Coordinating Committee
d. NASP District Committees
18
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
e. DoF each sections
f. Operational Advisor (Foreign expert)
g. Technical Advisors (Foreign experts)
7. Do you know about NASP programme called PIAD?
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_
8. Have you been able to see an extent of implementation in the
NASP?
a. Yes, how far b. No, what is the problem
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
9. Have you been able to see an extent of implementation in the
PIAD?
a. Yes b. No
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_
10. What were your responsibilities in the plan?
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_
19
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
11. What were your achievements?
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_
12. What do you think your body has achieved so far according to
duties?
Aquac
ulture
Advi
sory
Body
NASP
Coor
din
atio
n
Com
mitte
e
NASP
Dis
tric
t Com
mitte
es
DoF
each
sec
tions
Oper
atio
nal
Advi
sor
(Fore
ign e
xper
t)
Tec
hnic
al A
dvi
sors
(For
eign e
xper
ts)
Implementation ● ●
Implementation of the annual plan ○ ● ●
Implementation of complementary project 1
● ● ●
Implementation of complementary project 2
○ ● ●
Coordination of activities ● ● ● ○
Monitoring & Evaluation
Monitoring /preparing monitoring report ● ○ ● ○
Organising annual evaluation meeting ○ ● ● ○ ● ○
Review of outputs ● ● ○
Figure .1. Summary functions of responsible implementation persons and committees
●: Responsible body ○: Participation or collaborative body
13. Do you think there has been an efficient approach in the way your
body has been implementing the strategies?
a. Yes b. No
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
20
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
__________________________
14. What do you think is the best allocation for the NASP to be
implemented effectively instead of those that are already in place?
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
__________________________
15. What do you think can be the best approach or structure put in
place to achieve this?
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
__________________________
B. IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the NASP requires extensive collaboration and
partnerships between the different sections in the DoF, other
agencies and the private sector
16. How best do you think these can be incorporated?
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
__________________________
21
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
17. What is the best approach to this to deal with the NASP then?
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_
18. Which Sector plan can we get an example of to see how best plans
are implemented?
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
__________________________
19. What strategy and plans did they use that may have lead to their
success?
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_
22
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
Appendix 2. Partners and responsibilities attached to the NASP
Outputs DoF Primary Sections Partners
1.1: Projects that adopt integrated livelihoods approach
Planning/ Extension Unit/ District Fisheries Office
DA, NGOs, WorldFish Center
1.2: Broader understanding of the context between aquaculture and socio-economic, institutional and political status of poor farmers
Planning / Research Unit/ NAC
DA, NGOs, WorldFish Center, Univ. of Malawi, international research institutes*
Str
ateg
y 1
1.3: Increased capacity of DoF, local government and NGO staff to utilise tools and methods necessary to support the integrated livelihoods approach
Malawi College of Fisheries (MCF)/ NAC
Bunda College, NGOs, WorldFish Center
2.1: Enabling environment and framework for commercially orientated aquaculture research at NAC established
NAC/ Aquaculture advisory body/ Planning Unit
Univ. of Malawi
Str
ateg
y 2
2.2: Scientific capacities in commercially orientated aquaculture enhanced
NAC Bunda College
3.1: Aquaculture credit scheme for small commercial fish farmers introduced
Planning Unit Partner organisations, NGOs, Commercial Bank
Str
ateg
y 3
3.2: Business planning and management capacity of small to medium-scale fish farmers improved
Planning Unit Partner organisations, private sector
23
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
Outputs DoF Primary Sections Partners
4.1: One-stop-shop for all aquaculture business application procedures established
Planning Unit Dept. of Env., Min. of Land, Min. of Local Gov.
Str
ateg
y 4
4.2: Competitive investment environment for commercial aquaculture established
Planning Unit Investment Promotion Agency, Min. of Commerce, DA
5.1: Fisheries Policy and Act with respect to environmental threats revised and amended
Aquaculture advisory body/ FRU/ NAC
DoF from neighbouring countries
5.2: Early warning system to monitor potential threats caused by aquaculture to biodiversity and environment established
Aquaculture advisory body/ FRU/ NAC
DoF from neighbouring countries, World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
Str
ateg
y 5
5.3: Knowledge of the link between aquaculture practices and environmental issues increased
Aquaculture advisory body/ FRU/ NAC
Dept. of Forestry, MAIFS, etc.
Str
ateg
y 6 6.1: Shared
information between fish producers and fish traders
Planning Unit Fish producers and traders, MAIFS, Min. of Trade
7.1: Capacity of DAs to formulate plans and strategies to guide aquaculture development enhanced
MCF/ District Fisheries Office
DA, VDC
Str
ateg
y 7 7.2: Existing
agriculture extension services utilised in promotion of fish farming
MCF/ District Fisheries Office
DA, VDC
24
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
Outputs DoF Primary Sections Partners
8.1: Aquaculture guidelines for NGOs which facilitate partnership agreements with the DoF developed
Planning Unit WorldFish Center, NGO
Str
ateg
y 8
8.2: Knowledge and technical skills in aquaculture extension among NGO field staff improved
MCF / NAC/ Extension unit
WorldFish Center, NGO
Str
ateg
y 9
9.1: Fish farmer networks strengthened and expanded
Extension Unit IFFNT, DA
Str
ateg
y 10 10.1:
Sustainable donor support for the aquaculture sector secured
Director of Fisheries Donor
11.1: Communication and partnerships between the DoF and stakeholders enhanced
Aquaculture advisory body
Bunda College
Str
ateg
y 11
11.2: Under-utilised DoF facilities restructured
Planning Unit
12.1: High quality capacity building secured
MCF Bunda College
Str
ateg
y 12
12.2: Reliable aquaculture statistical and economic analysis system for DoF staff and other stakeholders instituted
NAC/ FRU/ Extension Unit NGO
Source: SSC 2005
25
EC FP7 Project, SARNISSA Case study: title
COORDINATOR UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING Institute of Aquaculture Stirling FK9 4LA UK
Dr David Little E Mail: [email protected] TEL :44-1786-467923 FAX : 44-1786-472133
CONTRACTORS
CENTRE de COOPERATION INTERNATIONALE en RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE pour le DEVELOPPEMENT, Dept PERSYST/UR Aquaculture BP. 5095 TA B – 20 /01, Montpellier Cedex 1, 34033, France
Dr Jérôme Lazard Tel. + 33-4-67046365 Fax + 33-4-67635795 E-mail: [email protected]
WORLD FISH CENTRE (CAIRO), IITA Humid Forest Center BP, 2008 (MESSA), Yaounde 11278 Cameroon
Dr Randy Brummett Tel. + 237-2237-434 Fax +237-2237-437 E-mail: [email protected]
CAB INTERNATIONAL, Nosworthy Way, Wallingford, OX10 8DE United Kingdom
Dr Gareth Richards Tel. +44-1491-829442 Fax +44-1491-833508 E-mail: [email protected]
ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, 58 Moo 9 KM4L, Paholythin, Highway Klong Nueng, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand
Dr Ram C. Bhujel Tel. +66 02 524 5472 Fax +66 02 524 6200 E-mail: [email protected]
BUNDA COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF MALAWI, Bunda College, Lilongwe, Box 219, Malawi
Dr Emmanuel Kaunda Tel. + 265-1-277-240 Fax +265-1-277-364 E-mail: [email protected]
INSTITUT de RECHERCHE AGRICOLE pour le DEVELOPPMENT, IRAD, BP 2067/2123 Yaounde, Cameroon
Dr Victor Pouomogne Tel. + 237-22-23-3538 Fax +237-22-22-3362 E-mail: [email protected]
ETC FOUNDATION Kastanjelaan 5, Leusden, 3833AN, Netherlands PRINCIPAL SUBCONTRACTOR Moi University PO Box 3900 Eldoret, Kenya
Marielle Dubbeling Tel. + 33-565-741951 Fax + 31-33-4940791 E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Charles Ngugi Tel: +254-53-2063111/2, 63206 Fax: +254-53-2063206, 63257 E-mail: [email protected]
26