Abstract:

Executive Summary
This report is a result of a study commissioned by LVFO and FAO under the TRUEFISH project Result Area 3.2 that focuses on ensuring an orderly and sustainable cage aquaculture development through zoning and Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (EAA) implementation. The EAA is a strategy for the integration of the aquaculture within the wider ecosystem where the activity occurs, such that it promotes sustainable development, equity, and resilience of interlinked social-ecological systems.

The purpose of the study was to produce a “Situational Analysis” towards an inclusive and participatory development of cage aquaculture in the Lake Victoria basin. The analysis is intended to help set the upper limits of aquaculture production given its social acceptability, thus avoiding “unacceptable change” to the social functions and structures of the Lake Victoria basin. The analysis therefore highlights areas within Lake Victoria that have been assessed to be socially compatible with the development of the cage aquaculture.

Data collection included discussions with the Assistant Commisioner-Aquaculture Management and Development, who is the National Focal Point Person (NFP) of the assignment and respective District Fisheries Officers (DFOs), to inform them about the work and to obtain official documents regarding policy provisions, lake zoning and lists of cage aquaculture operators in the districts. The study was based on a sample of four districts (Buikwe, Jinja, Mukono and Wakiso), the criteria used being that these districts host the highest number of cage aquaculture operators. The consultant reviewed relevant documents, and held consultations with fisheries officials at national and local government level, and selected stakeholders in the study area including cage aquaculture operators, other lake users and community leaders. Observations of the various lake uses were also made. The data gathered being largely qualitative, thematic content analysis was used.

The study found that awareness about the aquaculture provisions at national level among key stakeholders was adequate. However, the respondents, especially cage aquaculture operators and district fisheries staff, felt that the government and DiFR in particular has not provided adequate support for the regulatory and monitoring roles of district fisheries staff, and to cage aquaculture operators to address challenges that affect their businesses.

The study established that districts plans and priorities regarding the development of cage aquaculture, including carrying out comprehensive zoning, strengthening enforcement of regulations, promoting farmer registration with producer organisations such as UCFFA, capacity building and provision of extension services. The study however noted a lack of harmonisation of the various district priorities given that the lake is a shared resource.

No comprehensive zoning for cage aquaculture has been carried out on the Uganda section of the lake. The National Fisheries Resources Research Institute however carried out cage aquaculture site suitability studies (NaFIRRI-NARO 2013, Ogutu-Ohwayo et al., 2016) on which some of the cage aquaculture establishments were based. In other instances, the operators privately sought services of researchers to carry out suitability assessments of sites they had identified themselves. The guidelines for establishing cage aquaculture enterprises are not strictly followed.

The study assessed positive and negative socio-economic impacts of cage aquaculture. The positive impacts include increased incomes from fish trade (for both cage operators and the small scale village traders, most of whom are women), increased availability of fish (for trade and household nutrition), increased awareness about fish farming among the communities (leading to investment in the sector where community members have necessary starter capital), increased regional fish trade and access to fish markets. Other impacts include increased employment opportunities (especially for youths and women), markets for other goods and services, and support to community social and infrastructure services by cage aquaculture operators. Some cage farmers have also supported community projects / activities aimed at improving cage fish farm-community relations and obtain their social licence to operate, given the initial negative attitude to cage farms among local communities and other lake users. The recycling of fish feed bags into various uses by the communities is also an added benefit, despite the urgent need to manage the volume of the bags to prevent potential negative environmental impact.

Among the negative impacts is restricted access to fishing grounds by local fishers, increased insecurity and thefts on the lake and the potential environmental degradation associated with cage fish farming.

The study assessed the social suitability of the sampled cage aquaculture sites. Of the thirteen sampled sites in the four districts, cage aquaculture was assessed to be incompatible with some of the other existing lake uses. Nine sites were found socially suitable as no conflicts existed between the cage aquaculture establishment and other lake uses. Three sites were found socially suitable but with moderate conflicts, while one site was assessed as unsuitable due to conflicts. In this regard, it was noted that compatibility can be ensured with appropriate in interventions to eliminate the conflicts through enforcement of guidelines by the relevant authorities, particularly DiFR, NEMA, in collaboration with the District Local Governments.

Regarding the challenges facing cage aquaculture, the study identified limited joint planning for cage aquaculture development between the DiFR and the District Local Government, competing lake uses, limited enforcement of environmental regulations and biosecurity, high cost of aquaculture inputs (which limits local people’s participation in the sectors), fish price fluctuations, and limited technical skills among cage fish farmers and their employees. Other challenges include inadequate and poor quality feeds and natural hazards.

The study makes the following recommendations:
1.    Enforcement of existing policy and regulatory framework: This should be done through joint planning for cage aquaculture development between DiFR and the District Local Governments. The DiFR also needs to ensure enforcement to the LVFO 2018 guidelines for establishment and operation of cage fish farming. There is need to update the database of cage aquaculture establishments
2.    Enforcement of environmental regulations and biosafety: Closer monitoring of the fish farm operations by MAAIF in collaboration with NaFFIRI and other stakeholder organizations such as NEMA needs to be strengthened. There is also need for enforcement of regulations on the management of non-biodegradable feed bags. For monitoring to be effective, the capacity of District Fisheries Offices needs to be enhanced through staffing and equipment.
3.    Harmonization of competing lake uses: Undertaking social suitability alongside biophysical suitability, and involving key stakeholders during the process is important so as to create consensus. Regular engagement between the key stakeholders to resolve latent conflicts before escalation should be the norm. The boundaries of cage fish farm should be clearly specified on paper (in MoUs) and visible on the lake/ground.
4.    Cost of aquaculture inputs: There is need to control the cost of aquaculture inputs including support local feed manufacturers to produce quality feed at low cost, controlling the types and amounts of imported fish feed, to boost local production. Taxes on fishing nets and other cage fish inputs should be reduced Key services needed in the industry including electricity and road infrastructure should be prioritized by central and local government to ease operations of the sector.
5.    Support to fish marketing: Government should identify new markets (including export beyond the region) and support farmers to take advantage of these opportunities because cage fish production potential is very high.
6.    Technical capacity development: This is important as a means to encourage local people’s participation in the sector. This includes organizing fish farmers into producer organizations/co-operatives for training and extension service provision. This will enhance benefits and impact of cage aquaculture among the host communities.

The major limitation to the study was the lack of data on systematic zoning as had been anticipated and indicated in the ToRs. Only sample-based and old information was found about site suitability studies carried out in 6 districts namely Buikwe, Mukono, Wakiso, Busia, Mayuge, and Kalangala Districts. No zoning activity has been undertaken to provide a lake-wide picture. This limitation calls for a comprehensive lake zoning exercise that involves a multidisciplinary team. Nonetheless, this study results should be considered as a true representation of the situational analysis of cage aquaculture around Lake Victoria.