Residents’ Perception of Aquaculture Development. The Case of Buguma Fish Farm in Rivers State, Nigeria

Thèse de Master , 2017 , 150 Pages

Sciences de la Terre / Géographie - Divers

The high rate of urbanisation and population explosion in the world has placed high demand for food especially the demand for fish, which has continued to rise. Aquaculture, therefore, has manifested as a significant means of nutritious food production, income generation and livelihood support in the lives of so many natives around the globe. Buguma community residents who were primarily into traditional fishing to earn a living can hardly go out for fishing because of pipeline vandalism triggered pollution, rape of women fisher folks and criminal activities such as piracy, kidnapping, theft, etc. in the creeks. It is apparent that there is the loss of livelihood in Buguma thus the establishment of the Buguma fish farm as an intervention project. The researcher on this note develops the nexus to investigate the perception of Buguma residents to the Buguma fish farm and its potential to revitalize the livelihood base of the area. Specific objectives of this study are: to assess the level of awareness of the Buguma aquaculture farm and its products by Buguma community residents, ascertain the residents’ perceptions of the aquaculture farm project and its activities in terms of positive and negative impacts, identify the benefits enjoyed from the Buguma fish farm by the respondents and appraise the operational successes and challenges of the Buguma fish farm development from 2013-2016. This study was undertaken as a mixed method research with the use of convenience and stratified random sampling of households in 28 streets of Buguma. The research design used was the “Triangulation Mixed-Method Design”. The number of questionnaires administered to residents’ households was 384, while the number returned was 376. Data analysis employed descriptive statistical techniques - bar charts, pie charts, histogram with mode and percentages. In general, the result of the research work affirms that there was livelihood loss due to oil pollution from pipeline vandalism; and high level of criminal activities such as kidnapping and robbery but that the Buguma fish farm as an intervention project reinvigorated the livelihood base and improved the living standard of Buguma residents as it opened window of investment opportunities, serve as a tourism destination and provides jobs/ employment for Buguma residents. The researcher designs an agropolitan centre model for the area and recommends effective implementation.

Table of Content Page

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background to the Study
1.2 Statement of the Problem
1.3 Aim of the study
1.4 Objectives of the Study
1.5 Research Questions
1.6 Justification for the Study
1.7 Scope of the Study
1.8 Description of the Study Area
1.9 Historical Information on the Buguma Fish Farm
1.10 Significance of the Study
1.11 Limitation / Research Gap
1.12 Conceptual/ Operational Definition of Terms
1.13 List of Acronyms/ Abbreviations

Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Conceptual Framework
2.2 Models of Regional development
2.2.1 The Chinese Model of Rural Territorial Organisation
2.2.2 Review of John Friedmann and the Agropolitan Concept of Regional Development
2.2.2.1 Definition of Agropolitan
2.2.2.2 The Objectives of Agropolitan Development
2.2.2.3 The Basis of Agropolitan Development
2.2.2.4 Basis for Agropolis (Agricultural-Based Urban Growth Center)
2.3 Aquaculture Planning and Management
2.4 Perceptions of Aquaculture Development
2.4.1 Determinants of Residents Perceptions of Aquaculture
2.5 Summary to literature reviewed

Chapter 3
Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Design
3.3 Data Sources
3.4 Field Research Strategies
3.3 Population and Sample
3.3.1 Population of Study (Sample Frame)
3.3.2 Sample Size
3.3.3 Sampling Technique
3.3.4 Target Population
3.4 Questionnaire Design
3.5 Data Preparation and Storage
3.6. Reliability and Validity of Research Instrument
3.7. Analytical Techniques

Chapter 4
Data Presentation and Analysis
4.1 Household questionnaire distributed and returned
4.2 Sex of Respondents
4.3 Age of Respondents
4.4 Literacy (Educational Attainment) of Respondents
4.5 Respondents Employment Status
4.6 Respondents Occupational Status
4.7 Supplementary Occupational Status of Respondents
4.8 Marital Status of Respondent
4.9 Income Status of Respondents
4.10 Number of persons in Household
4.11 Origin of Residents in the study area
4.12 Household members employed
4.13 Sources of Drinking Water
4.14 Mode of Household Travel
4.15 Primary Source of Power Supply
4.16 Length of Stay in Buguma
4.17 Residents Security Rating of Buguma Community
4.18 Communication Device owned by Respondent
4.19 Ways of communication by respondents who do not own a device
4.20 Where latest information is obtained
4.21 How financial dealings are transacted
4.22 Nearness/Proximity to Bank
4.23 Heard of the term “Aquaculture”
4.24 Awareness of Aquaculture in Buguma
4.25 Sea foods produced by aquaculture farms in Buguma
4.26 How often respondents eat sea foods
4.27 How respondents get fish they eat
4.28 Name of sea foods/ fishes sold in Buguma
4.29 When last Respondents’ eat Buguma Aquaculture fish
4.30 Reason why respondents have not eaten aquaculture products from the Buguma fish farm
4.31 State of sea food production without aquaculture
4.32 Other Uses of Buguma coastal environment
4.33 Whether respondent own a boat or not
4.34 How often you have gone fishing for recreation
4.35 Reason for not going on fishing for recreation
4.36 Respondents overall Perception of the aquaculture farm in Buguma
4.37 Reason for having positive views about the Buguma aquaculture farm
4.38 Reason for having negative views about the Buguma aquaculture farm
4.39 Suggestion on how to make more persons patronize Buguma aquaculture products
4.40 Sources of information about the Buguma Aquaculture farm
4.41 Residents’ Personal view of Impact of the Buguma aquaculture on residents
4.42 Buguma residents use of the coast been positively impacted by aquaculture
4.43 Buguma residents’ use of the coast has been negatively impacted by aquaculture
4.44 Operationalization of Aquaculture
4.45 Reasons for disagreeing that aquaculture is a sustainable way to produce food
4.46 Ways respondents’ think aquaculture poses a risk to natural sea life
4.47 As a fisherfolk, How often do you go a fishing
4.48 Fishing Implements respondents own
4.49 Quantity of fish catches per outing by respondents
4.50 Uses of fishes harvested in the open river
4.51 Where fisher folks sell their fishes
4.52 Fish preservation methods
4.53 Challenges faced in the sea while fishing
4.54 Fishers folk willingness to embrace new way of catching or rearing fish
4.55 Whether the Buguma aquaculture farm is a welcome development
4.56 Reasons fisher folks give why it is a welcome development
4.57 Whether there is competition between fisher folks and aquaculture farm activities
4.58 Extent of competition
4.59 Reasons for disagreeing that there is competition
4.60: Things the Buguma fish farm management need do to boast activity
4.61 Summary of Research Findings

Chapter 5
Discussion of Findings
5.1 Characteristics of Respondents
5.2 Occupational classification
5.3 Literacy Level/Educational Attainment of Respondents
5.4 Income Level of Respondent
5.5 Length of Stay in Buguma
5.6 Residents Security Rating of Buguma Community
5.7 Awareness of Aquaculture in Buguma
5.8 Respondents’ consumption of Buguma Aquaculture fish
5.9 Benefits of Buguma Aquaculture fish farm
5.10 Overall residents’ perception of the aquaculture farm in Buguma
5.11 Residents’ opinion of the challenges of the Buguma fish farm
5.12 Respondent Suggestion on Buguma aquaculture farm

Chapter 6
Recommendation and Conclusion
6.1 Conclusion
6.2 Recommendations
6.2.1 Agropolitan Settlement Plan Proposals
6.2.2 The Agropolitan Project Model for Asari-Toru Local Government Area
6.2.3 Content of AGC
6.2.4 Content of the Sub- Regional Agropolitan Industrial Center
6.2.5 Employment to be provided
6.2.6 Implementation Strategy for the Agropolitan Development
6.2.7 Project Implementation

References

Appendix

Abstract

The high rate of urbanisation and population explosion in the world has placed high demand for food especially the demand for fish, which has continued to rise. Aquaculture, therefore, has manifested as a significant means of nutritious food production, income generation and livelihood support in the lives of so many natives around the globe. Buguma community residents who were primarily into traditional fishing to earn a living can hardly go out for fishing because of pipeline vandalism triggered pollution, rape of women fisher folks and criminal activities such as piracy, kidnapping, theft, etc. in the creeks. It is apparent that there is the loss of livelihood in Buguma thus the establishment of the Buguma fish farm as an intervention project. The researcher on this note develops the nexus to investigate the perception of Buguma residents to the Buguma fish farm and its potential to revitalize the livelihood base of the area. Specific objectives of this study are: to assess the level of awareness of the Buguma aquaculture farm and its products by Buguma community residents, ascertain the residents’ perceptions of the aquaculture farm project and its activities in terms of positive and negative impacts, identify the benefits enjoyed from the Buguma fish farm by the respondents and appraise the operational successes and challenges of the Buguma fish farm development from 2013-2016. This study was undertaken as a mixed method research with the use of convenience and stratified random sampling of households in 28 streets of Buguma. The research design used was the “Triangulation Mixed-Method Design”. The number of questionnaires administered to residents’ households was 384, while the number returned was 376. The number and quality of questionnaires collected allowed a qualitative and quantitative examination of the residents’ perception of the Buguma fish farm. The study relied on two sources of information-primary (pre-coded questionnaires, key informants, small group discussions, direct observation) and secondary (government records, past research works, maps and published information on hard copies and online journals). Data analysis employed descriptive statistical techniques - bar charts, pie charts, histogram with mode and percentages. In general, the result of the research work affirms that there was livelihood loss due to oil pollution from pipeline vandalism; and high level of criminal activities such as kidnapping and robbery but that the Buguma fish farm as an intervention project reinvigorated the livelihood base and improved the living standard of Buguma residents as it opened window of investment opportunities, serve as a tourism destination and provides jobs/ employment for Buguma residents. Presently, the Buguma fish farm is moribund and it is the residents’ recommendation to restore it. It is on this note that the researcher designs an agropolitan centre model for the area and recommends full community/local participation, key stakeholders engagement and proper collaboration with experienced companies for effective implementation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This dissertation became fruitful as a result of network of so many people who contributed to its successful conclusion. To be specific, my meritorious Supervisor Prof. E. E. Okoko was able to patiently read through the manuscript, gave helpful suggestions, valuable comments and correction. His phone line and mailbox were always receptive whenever I needed guide on matters concerning my research. He constantly propelled me to approach this dissertation as my own work and make me dream of it at all times.

My strong acknowledgement goes to Prof. Arthur Essangah, Prof. Joseph Uyanga, Prof. Mrs. O. B. Owei and Dr. V. C. Obinna as readers of this dissertation and I am gratefully indebted to them as they made valuable comments and contributions which has improved the output of this project. I also appreciate our able Head of Department of Urban and Regional Planning- Tpl. Jane Emeruem, Dr. C. F. Igwe for assistance in the supervision of this work, Dr. P. N. Ede, Mr. G. E. Nkwo, Tpl. C. O. Ibeakuzie, Tpl. Emmanuel Dike., Tpl. Ibama Brown, Rev. F. C. Dakoru, Rev. Lee Nwikpo and Mr. N. P. Visigah for their positive contributions.

I would also like to thank the heads of the team of enumerators who were involved in the survey process for this research project. Opubo West, Biokpo Alphin and Opulo Oliseh. Without their enthusiastic involvement and effort, the questionnaires could hardly be effectively distributed.

We were a one big family in class, kudos to my big brother Opiriba Ikiriko, Johnbull Sime, Dapa Nengi, Edmund Nwokaeze, Bright Ameme, Tari Eyenghe and Akue Lekau. Faithful Worahu my boss and Kpobari Visigah were major sources of motivation to me. I appreciate them specially.

Special appreciation goes to Rev. Okezie Emmanuel of Foundation Faith Church Oyigbo, Jonathan Osuagwu of Joneez Resources Energy Concept Ltd, Pst Songo Whyte-Founder of Superlife Ministries Worldwide, Pst. & Dr. Mrs. Ola Ola-Bright of Ascenders Christian School and Pst. (Barr.) Clement Wokoma with the beloved members of Multiple Blessings Christian Center -Alleluia City International for their support and understanding.

In conclusion, I see it necessary to express my weighty appreciation to my parents Dawaye and Priscilla, my spouse Akoboba and to my children Samuel and David, for giving me their full assistance and motivation throughout my days of schoolwork and during the researching process and calligraphy of this dissertation. This achievement would hardly be possible without their understanding. I love you all.

Ikiriko T. Dawaye

Dedication

Dedication

Dedicated to Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior

And to my grandmothers,

Mrs. Boma R. G. Alphin and Mrs. Awoba S. K. Jack

And to my darling wife,

Mrs. Akoboba T. D. Ikiriko

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1: Map of Study Area: Nigeria, Rivers State & Asari Toru Local Government Area Buguma is the Headquarter of the LGA

Fig. 1.2 Map Data © 2016 Google Imagery showing Buguma City

Fig. 1.3 Map Data © 2016 Google Imagery of Buguma Fish Farm

Fig. 1.4 Map of Buguma showing streets

Fig. 2.1: Organizational chart of the federal department of fisheries

Fig. 4.1 Bar Chart showing Respondents Age Distribution

Fig. 4.2 Pie Chart showing Literacy (Educational Attainment) of Respondents

Fig. 4.3 Category of Household Employment

Fig. 4.4 Pie Chart showing Primary Source of Power Supply

Fig. 4.5 Bar Chart showing Reason why respondents have not eaten aquaculture products from the Buguma fish farm

Fig. 4.6 Pie Chart showing state of sea foods if there is no aquaculture

Fig. 6.1 showing Agropolitan Concept of Regional Development

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Aquaculture interest groups main concerns

Table 3.1 Population Size Distribution

Table 4.1: Number of Household Questionnaires Distributed and Returned

Table 4.2 Sex distribution

Table 4.3 Respondents Employment Status

Table 4.4 Respondents Occupational Status

Table 4.5 Respondents Supplementary Occupational Status

Table 4.6 Respondents’ Marital Status

Table 4.7 Respondents Monthly Income Status

Table 4.8 Number of persons in Household

Table 4.9 Origin of Residents in the study area

Table 4.10 Sources of Drinking Water

Table 4.11 Mode of Household Travel

Table 4.12 Length of Stay in Buguma

Table 4.13 Residents Rating of Buguma Community

Table 4.14 Communication Device owned by Respondent

Table 4.15 ways of communication by respondents who do not own a device

Table 4.16 where latest information is obtained

Table 4.17 How financial dealings are transacted

Table 4.18 Nearness/Proximity to Bank

Table 4.19 Heard of the term ‘aquaculture’

Table 4.20 Awareness of Aquaculture in Buguma

Table 4.21 Sea foods produced by aquaculture farms in Buguma

Table 4.21 How often respondents eat sea foods

Table 4.22 How respondents get fish they eat

Table 4.23 Name of sea foods/ fishes sold in Buguma town

Table 4.24 Consumption of aquaculture products in the last 12 months

Table 4.25 Consumption of aquaculture products in the last 12 months

Table 4.26 Last time Respondents’ eat fish from Buguma Aquaculture farm

Table 4.27 Other Uses of Buguma coastal environment

Table 4.28 Respondents ownership of boat

Table 4.29 How often have you gone on fishing for recreation

Table 4.30 Reason for not going on fishing for recreation

Table 4.31 Respondents overall Perception of the aquaculture farm in Buguma

Table 4.32 Reason for having quite or very positive views about the Buguma aquaculture farm

Table 4.33 Reason for having negative views about the Buguma aquaculture farm

Table 4.34 Respondents suggestion on how to make more persons patronize Buguma aquaculture products

Table 4.35 Where respondent have seen, heard and read information about the Buguma Aquaculture farm

Table 4.36 Impact of the Buguma aquaculture on Buguma residents

Table 4.37 How Buguma residents use of the coast has been positively impacted by aquaculture

Table 4.38 How Buguma residents use of the coast has been negatively impacted by aquaculture

Table 4.39 Knowledge of someone working in the Buguma aquaculture farm

Table 4.40 Operationalization of Aquaculture

Table 4.41 Reasons for disagreeing that aquaculture is a sustainable way to produce food

Table 4.42 ways respondents’ think aquaculture poses a risk to natural sea life

Table 4.43 How often respondents go a fishing

Table 4.44: Fishing Implements respondents own

Table 4.45: Quantity of fish catch per outing by respondents

Table 4.46: What happens to the catch?

Table 4.47: Where fisher folks sell their fishes

Table 4.48: How fishes are preserved

Table 4.49: Challenges faced in the sea while fishing

Table 4.50: Fishers folk willingness to embrace new way of catching or rearing fish

Table 4.51: Fishers folk awareness of Buguma fish farm

Table 4.52: Whether the Buguma aquaculture farm is a welcome development

Table 4.53: Reasons fisher folks give why it is a welcome development

Table 4.54: Whether there is competition between fisher folks and aquaculture

Table 4.55: If yes, Extent of competition

Table 4.56: Reasons for disagreeing that there is competition

Table 4.57: Things the Buguma fish farm management need do to boast activity

Table 6.1 Requirement for Land Allocation/ Acquisition

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background to the Study

The coastal communities and marine ecosystem according to Poloczanska et al. 2013, are presently witnessing progressive pressures from various quarters causing changes in exceptional ways. These changes are the key threats to marine ecosystem services provision which ordinarily supports coastal communities in different ways. According to Folke et al. 2010 and Barbier et al. 2011, “Adaptation and transformation supposedly are the essential ways to sustaining coastal social-ecological systems”.

Globally, rapid population explosion has statistical figure standing at about 7.3 billion in 2016 (UNFPA, 2016). This was made possible by advanced maternity and health care. However, the rise presents with it various challenges around global sustainability. One of such challenges is the demand for more food (FAO, 2016). A publication of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2014) was able to draw and analyse the direction of the global population. It posits that the population of the world is expected to increase for about 2.3 billion people between now and 2050. Although this suggests that there is a slower rate of growth compared with the experience over the past 40 years, it is still about 30 percent increase in the number of people who will definitely demand food. It is to be noted that the amount of food that will be demanded, produced and processed will increase by about 70 per cent to 100 per cent in the developing countries like Nigeria. Nigeria’s population in 2001 was 124 445 829 at 2.55% growth rate. It was 140,431,790 at 2.5% growth rate in 2006 (NPC, 2006). As at 1st January 2016, it was projected to 184 635 279 at 2.67% growth rate showing a difference in population of 44,203,489 (Countrymeters information, 2016). This will invariably mean a demand in favour of increased supply of several types of food products to cope with the increased demand. To this effect, aquaculture is poised to assume its high position as an adaptation strategy with industrial capacity that will tackle reduction in wild fish catches, an aspect of sea foods production that will meet up the increasing request for seafood protein and economic empowerment (Tidwell & Allen 2001).

According to FAO, 2012 report labeled "World survey for fishery and aquaculture", it was articulated that "wild fish catch and aquaculture supplied the global population with around 148 million tons of fish in 2010; that is an aggregate estimation of US$217.5 billion, of which around 128 million tons was used for individuals nourishment. Their preliminary information for 2011 show expanded generation of 154 million tons, with 131 million tons meant for sustenance.

Production of fish has changed significantly in the course of recent decades and half of all fish today originates from aquaculture (Troeng, 2011). Aquaculture and fisheries are very important sources of income, nutrition, food and livelihood support for most people in the globe. The World Per capita fish supply achieved a high testimony of 20 kilograms in 2014, as a result of lively development in aquaculture, which currently has given half of fish produced to human consumption, with improved condition of certain fish stocks enhanced by fisheries administration (FAO 2016). With these key explanations; it is obvious that aquaculture as of now is seen all inclusive as a monetary advancement apparatus for the coastal communities with the arrangement of key factors that may in diverse ways enhance the personal satisfaction of the general population. This might be regarding employment, business ventures, income generation, gigantic fish production, food security and sustenance for all (Oyase et. al; 2016 and FAO; 2016). This was bolstered by Christophe et al, (2016). According to them, "Aquaculture adds to poverty alleviation as it gives work to lots of individuals, in the firm itself and its supporting services".

Well beyond producing food, aquaculture has additional possibilities: creating dietary and industrial mixes; boosting quantities of wild fish for recreational fishing; re-establishing threatened and endangered species; reconstructing vital shellfish natural surroundings; and giving ornamental fish, coral and live shake for aquariums and foreign exchange when developed on a substantial scale (Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, 2016).

The potentials of aquaculture assert that it is integrated as a major contributor to it’s country’s GDP. According to Ekunwe and Emokaro (2009), Nigeria is recorded statistically as the largest producer of African aquaculture products, with a production clucking over 15,489 tons every year. The Buguma aquaculture farm which is under the researcher's investigation is one of the major farms in the Rivers State of Nigeria. The Millennium Development Goals were laudable and really impactful against poverty and poor health for millions of people all over the world. The current strategy is the new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Since the world can no longer be sustained by hunting for fish or catching fish in the open river, the new paradigm- aquaculture seems to be a path to achieving part of the new Sustainable Goals.

Famine and starvation are always waging war mostly among the poor people in the world. The FAO (2003) estimates that 799 million people in 98 developing nations are not getting enough food to live normal, healthy and energetic lives. Food demand, especially the request for fish, has risen continuously, and it is forecasted that more population explosion coupled with change in eating behavior will place more demand on food supplies subsequently for more thirty years (FAO 2016). This demand mainly has to be met from local food production systems (FAO 2016).

Farming in the upland area and fishing in the coastal communities of Rivers State had been the backbone of Rivers State economy for many years. However, the focus changed when oil was discovered in Oloibiri community of the then Rivers State in 1956. Today, the primary occupation farming and fishing in Asari-Toru Local Government area of Rivers State, Nigeria is done by small old aged farmers and fishermen. Majority of the educated young and able men and women are constantly moving to the urban areas for greener pastures because the only available secondary occupation providers in the area are works in the education sector, health sector and the Asari-Toru Local Government Council domiciled in Buguma which all put together has not succeeded in employing more than 5% of the total population. The vast majority are left to take decisions either to migrate to urban centres or to resort to the traditional fishing and farming at a subsistence level leaving the vast local resources untapped.

This, therefore, has led to consistent poverty, unemployment and hunger which thus are generating associated problems necessitating breaking down of law and order. This is totally different from what is currently happening globally. So many communities in notable countries of the world had resorted to aquaculture. They farm, harvest, package in cans and export the fish globally especially to developing countries of the world at the more expensive amount. Nigeria has water bodies and has the enabling environment and yet, she is still importing fishes. Taking a gander at the measurements set forward by the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in the State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture report of 2010, around 62% of all the fish cultivated globally is credited to China, 4.5% in Europe, 26% in Asia outside of China, and 4.5% was recorded for America. (sea plants is not part of the record). It is on this note the Rivers State government went into partnership with a private aquaculture organisation to build up the Buguma Fish farm so as to create jobs, increase seafood production and destruction of outright destitution.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Buguma community residents who were primarily into traditional fishing to earn a living can hardly go out for fishing because of pipeline vandalism triggered pollution, rape of women fisherfolks and criminal activities such as piracy, kidnapping, theft, etc. in the creeks. It is apparent that there is a loss of livelihood in Buguma. Fishing is a gender discriminating activity. The women folk are more engaged in fishing or fetching sea foods like periwinkle, oyster, shellfish etc. close to the town and mostly during the day. Most of the women don’t throw nets or use hooks and lines. These are the responsibilities of men who happen to go out for long hours fishing mostly through the night. The women even in their fishing which is in close proximity to town had often been vulnerable to kidnap, rape and even killed in extreme cases. This has made women find it difficult to go and fetch these sea foods. The young men and youths in the face of these challenges are not also willing to take the task of going out into the river and casting net at fishes. Even the high rate of oil pipeline vandalism triggered pollution on the river and creeks has reduced the amount of catch as traditional fishing is no longer as lucrative as it was before.

Gordon et al, (2003) conducted a study on aquaculture potential in Rivers State of Nigeria. Their discoveries or findings demonstrates that Rivers State holds promise for aquaculture advancement and aquaculture can possibly add to both sustenance security and economic security in the state. Ideal components for aquaculture advancement in the Rivers State that they highlighted incorporate abundant water resources, a tropical year-round growing season, a tradition of fishing and fish consumption, an informed and prepared unit of aquaculture researchers and specialists, and a noteworthy populace that is youthful, unemployed and looking for opportunities to accommodate themselves and their families. The establishment of the Buguma fish farm as seen as an intervention project has therefore poised the researcher to look into the perception of the residents towards the project.

1.3 Aim of the study

The aim of this study is to assess the perception of Buguma community residents of the aquaculture development in Buguma.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

The following objectives are formulated to guide the study

1. To assess the level of awareness to the Buguma aquaculture farm and its products by Buguma community residents
2. To ascertain the residents’ perceptions of the aquaculture farm project and its activities in terms of positive and negative impacts.
3. To identify the benefits enjoyed from the Buguma fish farm by the respondents
4. To appraise the operational successes and challenges of the Buguma fish farm development from 2013-2016.

1.5 Research Questions

Based on the objectives, the following research questions are raised:

1. To what extent are the residents of Buguma aware of the existence of the Buguma aquaculture farm and access to its products?
2. How do the residents perceive the Buguma aquaculture farm and its activities?
3. What are the benefits enjoyed from the Buguma fish farm as identified by the respondents?
4. In respondents opinions, what are the operational successes and challenges of the Buguma fish farm development from 2013-2016

1.6 Justification for the Study

The outcome of the study will make available the basis for aquaculture to be accepted as a development strategy, guideline and policy framework and an alternate means of food production in Rivers State. With aquaculture farms established with proper community participation and watch, the decline in seafood production, increased out-migration and social problems will be checked or reduced. The study will reveal perception of the Buguma community residents to the Buguma fish farm and extracts the benefits enjoyed which will give appropriate direction for decision making.

1.7 Scope of the Study

The research focused on residents’ perception of aquaculture development with a critical look at the Buguma Fish Farm in Rivers State, Nigeria. The study will encompass Buguma community in Asari-Toru LGA of Rivers State. Both quantitative and qualitative data were obtained and analysed.

1.8 Description of the Study Area

The study was conducted in Buguma, headquarters of Asari-Toru Local Government Area of Rivers State, Nigeria. Buguma City historically is the foundation of the Kalabari kingdom where the King Amachree dynasty sits. Buguma is an Island that is surrounded by sea and creeks (the Asari-Toru –Buguma Sea leading to the Cawthorne channels and the Amanyanabo Okolo creek connecting to the Girls Secondary School Marywood through to the Buguma fish farm site). Buguma is sharing boundary at East by Bukuma community of Degema Local Government Area. In the south are the tributaries leading to the Atlantic Ocean; her West by Angulama, Omekwetariama, Minama, Krakrama, Sangama communities and in her north by Ido community of the Asari-Toru Local Government Area.

Buguma like other settlements in the Niger Delta is engulfed with a predominant mangrove swamp vegetation and tropical rain forest climate. The people are pre-occupied with fishing along the creeks that criss-cross the area and sea fishing traditionally in canoes. Buguma is dominated by one traditional language known as Kalabari; although there are strangers-Hausas, Ibos, Ibibio etc engaged in different kinds of trading which are the paramount activity that makes up the major economic activity of the rural dwellers. Buguma community enjoys rural-urban and urban-rural linkage by the Emuohia-Abonnema-Buguma link road thus making transportation and flow of ideas easy.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 1.1: Map of Study Area: Nigeria, Rivers State & Asari Toru Local Government Area Buguma is the Headquarter of the LGA

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 1.2 Map Data © 2016 Google Imagery showing Buguma City: Headquarter of Asari Toru LGA

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 1.4 Map of Buguma showing streets

1.9 Historical Information on the Buguma Fish Farm

In the pre-independent era, many African communities engaged in vibrant community development processes. The majority of these activities are self-help projects championed by the leaders, elders, youths and women group. Buguma while in her old shipping settlement (called Elem Kalabari) had different fishing groups and clubs which happen to be the life wire of the community since fishing happens to be the prevalent primary occupation of the residents. After the transition from the old shipping settlement via the cawthorne channel to the present location, they introduced the same fishing groups and clubbing culture with pockets of fish ponds in different waterfronts and back swamps within the community. The prevailing culture was strengthened by the relationship with the European traders who introduced education in the area. The educated amongst them came up with a greater development force- what they called the “Buguma Internal Affairs Society”- a pressure group which the main goal was to develop Buguma. The Buguma fish farm is a beneficiary of that model of self-help project. The idea was to sustain production of fish for the people, create employment to the jobless; alleviate hunger, malnutrition and poverty and improve on the standard of living of the people with consideration to ensuring sustainability and security of products for the present and future generations.

Rivers State appears to hold promise for aquaculture development. The Federal Government of Nigeria in an offer to expand fish production through saline water fish cultivation requested the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 1962 to assess the likelihood of expanding fish creation through aquaculture. The FAO allowed this demand in October 1962 and by a matter of impact from an enlightened group of the area, a specialist was sent to direct tests in Buguma, Asari-Toru Local Government Area, Rivers State. The reason that the informed individuals from the region used to influence the choice of FAO were that, there is as of now a culture of fishing - inside the mangrove and swamps abutting the Atlantic which is terribly rich with the pertinent possibilities for aquaculture advancement like bottomless water assets, tropical year-round developing season, conventional fishing practice and every day fishing practice, access to Port Harcourt where there are higher establishments with taught and prepared unit of aquaculture researchers/experts and country populace that is youthful, unemployed and looking for opportunities to accommodate themselves and their families. In 1963, the FAO expert, Dr T.V.R. Pillay and his Nigerian counterpart, a son of Buguma Mr S.A. Wokoma, who was working under the auspices of the Federal Department of Fisheries (FDF) in partnership with Niger Delta Development Board concluded their preliminary assignment. Their investigation established the viability of a fish culture project and the urgent need to train extension workers that will assist in the development of brackish water fish farming. This was what led to the brackish water aquaculture station that was established on 25 ha of land in Buguma. The experiment of these experts continued from 1962 to 1967 but was interrupted by the Nigerian Civil War in 1967. Work at Buguma was reactivated in 1970. In 1975, the Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research (NIOMR) was established and the management of the station at Buguma was transferred from Federal Department of Fisheries to the Institute (NIOMR).

In 1980, the African Regional Aquaculture Centre (ARAC) was established to meet the need for aquaculture development in the regions of African. This was birthed by recommendations of the Aquaculture Planning Regional Workshop held in Accra, Ghana in 1975. The funding and operations of ARAC became the responsibility of the Federal Government of Nigeria and so ARAC was officially handed over to NIOMR in 1987. Until the 1980s, residents of Buguma and its environs rely on the farm for domestic fish-food supply as the price of fishes per kilo was termed very cheap. Others buy from the farm and retail to others who could not go to the farm. The farm generated so much economic security and rural empowerment as money was moving from person to person through trading of the products.

The fame of the fish farm started declining after Buguma was declared the administrative centre of the Asari-Toru local government area in 1989 encompassing a total land area of 44sqmm (113km2). The funding of the Fish farm was deviated to funding the LGAs though the LGAs were given powers to finance rural agriculture. The Asari Toru local government council as a baby local government area never took charge of the management of the fish farm but rather had other different avenues it was directing its resources. The management of the fish farm became the sole responsibility of Federal government of Nigeria. This is now declared as the Federal Government Fish Farm in Buguma under the auspices of the Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research.

The Hon. Ojukaye Flagg Amachree led local government administration in 2012 with the collaboration of foreign firm Onida Development Company of Israel, Rivers State Government, the Federal Government and the Asari-Toru Local Government Area established a new fish farm project of international standard on a total land area of 25ha at the Buguma- Abbiama community extension with the production of 1000 tonnes of Barramundi and Croaker (Marine fish) per day. The interest was to sustain production of fish for the people, create employment to the jobless; alleviate hunger, malnutrition and poverty and improve on the standard of living of the people with consideration to ensuring sustainability and security of products for the present and future generations. It is the Hon. Ojukaye Flagg Amachree led Buguma fish farm that is under investigation by the researcher.

1.10 Significance of the Study

The result of the study will affect three groups which are, the residents, the aquaculture firm and other stakeholders. There is high demand for sea foods from aquaculture production due to rise in population and low death rate, challenges of open fish catch due to overfishing, pollution and other human impacts like kidnapping and abuse or rape of women fisher folks. Aquaculture, therefore, seems to be the sustainable means to overcoming the high need for sea food. This does not mean that residents of communities should not have a choice and voice towards the kind of industry that is operational in their domain. They have the right to know what is produced, how it is produced, the kind of activities that take place whether it is detrimental to their environment, society and economy. The review is noteworthy to the community and the common society in that it reveals insight into the connection between residents' perception, participation and project results. There will, in this manner, be interest for openness and open availability which can assume a part in improving learning and producing a positive view of the business. Looking for data about the perception of residents of a community gives data about the qualities that groups and different partners append to aquaculture. The perception of local people to aquaculture and how aquaculture is affecting them is imperative and has a tendency to enhance the success of the venture as far as empowering aquaculture firms to know the psyche of the general population and convey adequately.

For specialists with enthusiasm on residents or public perception and manageability, this review inspects variables influencing group interest and distinguishing the connection between group cooperation and supportability of aquaculture tasks, an issue that both the administration and improvement accomplices should be resolved to make a win-win circumstance and upgrade the economy. This research will contribute to the existing stock of facts in the literature and help advance the frontier of knowledge development as this seems to be the first social science research work on the Buguma fish farm project.

1.11 Limitation / Research Gap

The researcher applied phone contacts and email but could not access the aquaculture company, Onida Development Company of Israel since they have short down operations. The researcher was interested in knowing from them the type of fishes cultivated, tons of fishes produced and marketed each year, major markets for the products of the company, estimated revenue generated each year over a time period, total number and cadre of staff employed, total number and cadre of staff recruited from the community, the social facilities and infrastructures provided and offered, their success stories and the major challenges they have encountered in their business in Buguma. It’s quiet unfortunate that all efforts to reaching them proved abortive. In the opinion of the researcher, the work would have been more complete if the above sorted information could have been obtained from the aquaculture firm. Currently, the researchers’ study was strictly on the residents’ opinion or perspective and there has not been any resident perception study conducted on the Buguma fish farm.

1.12 Conceptual/ Operational Definition of Terms

The following terms are conceptualized as follows:

Aquaculture: Aquaculture is the breeding,rearing, and harvesting of fish, shellfish, plants, algae and other organisms in all types of water environments including ponds, rivers, lakes, and the ocean (NOAA, 2016 )

Fish farming: Fish farming is the principal form of aquaculture and involves raising fish for personal use or profit.

Agropolitan Centers: These are riverine super settlements with diversified economic base organized to provide for the basic needs of residents and also to serve as service centers to smaller settlements surrounding it.

Residents Perception: This is simply the way residents of a community perceive a situation or something; that is how they give meaning to the environment around them.

Streets: This is a public parcel of land created as road adjoining compounds (Polo) of family units/ residential buildings on which people freely assemble, interact, and move about.

1.13 List of Acronyms/ Abbreviations

ARAC: African Regional Aquaculture Centre

ASALGA: Asari Toru local Government Area

DFO: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

EC: European Commission

FAO: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

MDGs: Millennium Development Goals

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPC: National Population Commission

NIOMR: Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research

R/S: Rivers State

UNFPA: The United nations Population Fund

WHO: World Health Organization

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Several authors have made remarkable contributions in writing on the concept of development and residents’ perception concerning aquaculture. Their studies, findings and contributions are presented in this chapter.

2.1 Conceptual Framework

Although, there are several concepts for explaining facts generated in research endeavor, for the purpose of this study, the Agropolitan Center strategy for regional development shall be adopted. This became expedient because all the factors that are commonly advanced as an explanation for the establishment of the Buguma fish farm to stimulate community development which can be located in the above context all relate to the bottom line, which is the participation of the community residents.

2.2 Models of Regional Development

Two models of regional development are discussed in this section. They are the Chinese Model of Rural Territorial Organisation and Fredmann Agropolitan Model.

2.2.1 The Chinese Model of Rural Territorial Organisation

Before the Chinese Revolution which started in 1920, China was plagued by a variety of socio-economic problems including traditional and often inefficient methods of production, rural poverty and natural disasters, such as floods and drought which occurred with depressing regularity. Despite Chinese reclamation of additional lands for many years, only about 15-20 percent of China's land surface was cultivable. It was against this background of environmental and socio-economic constraints to development that the Chinese revolution started to evolve its own approach to integrated rural development. (Aziz, 1978).

The establishment of the Chinese People’s Republic 1949 heralded a new social order in rural areas. In June 1950, the Agrarian Reform Law was promulgated emphasizing the redistribution of land and reorganization of the supply of all inputs. In December 1951, the central committee issued its first directive calling for farm co-operatives. The process of establishing co-operations took place in stages, viz:

a. The creation of mutual aid teams
b. Elementary and Advanced procedure co-operative and finally,
c. The communes the whole process spanned a ten years period (Broad Bent, 1976: 201).

Aziz (1974) defined the commune as a multipurpose political, administrative and organizational unit covering the full range of feasible rural community within the Chinese bureaucratic structure, the commune (popularly known as the people's commune) formed the basic unit of rural transformation. The system includes production teams, production brigades,' communes, provinces and the central planning commission.

A production team often comprises a historic hamlet or cluster of houses within 20-40 families of 100-200 members. Production teams combine into production brigades and brigades into people's communes, Countries and multi-commune governmental units. They combine to form provinces. The central planning commission coordinates the national production plan and targets (Olarewagu) 1080:5-7).

The Chinese commune is a composite unit of local government that encompasses the whole range of economic, social, administrative and political functions for rural communities [Aziz, 1978). This type of planning philosophies commonly reformed to as planning from below (bottom-up strategy). China achieved a lot with the Commune System. A common feature among developing nations is the wide disparity between wealthy land owners and subsistence farmers. The Chinese dealt with this and other problems by collectivizing land and by taking other steps:

(a) One of the factors in the commune system was its ability to mobilize the unemployed/labour force for improvement, building dams and dikes, digging irrigation channels and cultivating existing land more intensely.
(b) The communes were able to engage in rural formation and industrialization through a system of transfer of 15-20 percent of total commune revenue to accumulation fund.
(c) The communes played a vital role of providing basic facilities (especially in the fields of education and health), thus making the people reap direct social benefit from their labour
(d) There was decentralization of rural planning with its emphasis on the maximum exploitation of local resources to meet local needs.
(e) Finally, but probably most important, the commune occupied a strategic position in the political and ideological system of china (Aziz 1978). However, the material benefits obtained' by the average Chinese rural dweller were not without prices such as: limited private freedom to choose a way of life (that might not be in line with the prevailing ideology).

In whatever way it is argued in the literature, one thing is certain and that is that the Chinese approach is quite distinct from that of other countries and holds a lot to be learnt by developing countries, especially in the areas of enhanced agricultural output and the promotion of rural industrialization.

2.2.2 John Friedmann and the Agropolitan Concept of Regional Development

The agropolitan concept was proposed by Friedmann (1975). It was proposed as a strategy aimed at meeting communities basic needs. He said needs are basic to the extent that their satisfaction is regarded as essential for human existence. He pointed out three conditions that are necessary for successful agropolitan development. The first is that the rural communities must be territorially closed and integrated. These characteristics give the people the feeling of oneness and the desire to work together for their own common interest. Secondly, land and water resources must be communally owned. By communalizing these resources, the power to determine the critical uses and division of land and water would rest with the community. Thirdly, access to the fundamental buildup of social power must be equal. Where this access is equally circulated, it prepares the ground for entering freely on co-operative relations but if access to the use of social power is not equal, it enhances the power of the few to control the many.

Furthermore, Friedmann is of the opinion that agropolitan centres are the smallest units that are still capable of providing for the basic needs of all their inhabitants with only very few resources imported from outside the centre. In his opinion, an agropolitan centre can have a population density of 200 persons per square kilometres of cultivated land and can be designed to have a total population of as low as 2,000 as in South Vietnam. The population of an agropolitan centre can also range from 15,000 to 60,000 for rural areas (the population figure will base on the country’s definition of rural areas) having in mind the need for face-to-face governance of agropolitan affairs (Friedmann, 1984:211-214).

Friedmann went forward in presenting that the principle of territoriality should be applied to problems of economic organisations. This in effect means strengthening the territorial (regional) economy at all relevant levels, that is the agropolitan centre and the level immediately superior to it (district centre). It is based on these that he derived a number of related principles on development; that development should aim at diversifying the territorial economy, attempt to maximise development of physical resources consistent with the principles of conservation, encourage the expansion of regional and inter-regional domestic markets, be based on much as possible or the principle of self-financing and finally, seek to promote self-governance of agropolitan centres such that they have authority over their productive and residential activities.

Friedmann pointed out that though agropolitan centres are autonomous, they are not sovereign units, but part of a larger territorial system (comprising local, state and national levels) which in turn is linked to the overall world economy. According to him, the roles of the state are productive, developmental, regulative and distributive. It maintains a balance within the system of social relationships so that changes and growth in the territory occur without excessive disruption of the entire system.

Although the above development concept and theories dates back to 1975, it is quite important to state that it is not out of place in the present reality where there is a recorded high level of government grandiose infrastructural projects and programmes failure. There is need for community development appraisal, prioritization of needs and full community participation for effective development project implementation and operation.

2.2.2.1 Definition of Agropolitan

Saefulhakim (2004) defines Agropolitan development by breaking the term into two terms, agro and metropolis. Agro in Latin means a managed land or crop cultivation. Metropolis alludes to an essential linkage of different community activities. In this manner, Agropolis can be characterized as an essential issue that serves rural based economic centres. The development of Agropolitan can in this way be characterized as the advancement of different aspects that bolster the part of an Agropolis as an administration community or service centre for a locality comprising of agrarian based economic action.

As per Anwar (2004), Agropolitan districts can be characterized as focal spots or central places that have a various leveled structure. An Agropolis, specifically, is alluded to as small scale urban-towns that can develop because of its capacity of organizing the fundamental exercises of agro-business principle activities. Along these lines, an Agropolitan districts can be characterized as a useful and functional framework comprising of at least one rural based urban areas in a specific agrarian district, which is portrayed by the presence of a spatial pecking order for agriculturists' settlements units. The spatial order is made out of an Agropolitan centre and encompassing production foci.

As indicated by Rustiadi (2004), Agropolitan development is a model that depends on decentralization and urban framework arrangement in provincial ranges, all of which prompt to urbanization. For this situation, urbanization is viewed in a positive angle, in which the rustic zones which are the rural areas encounter change towards getting to be distinctly urban. This, thus, overcomes the diseconomies of scale related with urban improvements, such as excessive migration to the urban areas, pollution, traffic congestions, slums and squatter settlements and resource depletions. Taking a look at literature are different meanings of agropolitan. Consolidating the different definitions, Dardak (2007) said that the term agropolitan can be characterised as follows:

1. An Agropolitan district is an area in light of a functional framework that comprises at least one agricultural based urban regions (agropolis) in a specific agricultural area, which is thus portrayed by the presence of a practical linkage framework and a spatial chain of command of settlements, gainful units and agro-business frameworks. This district can be made with or without formal arrangements or planning.
2. An agropolis is a focal area that serves the encompassing agrarian based economic activities centres.
3. Agropolitan development is a rural advancement approach that components the development of agriculture-based urban areas (Agropolis) as a piece of an urban framework, with the target of making an adjusted local improvement through a synergetic rural-urban linkage.

2.2.2.2 The Objectives of Agropolitan Development

With reference to the foundation and meaning of the term Agropolitan, Dardak, 2007 characterised the definitions of Agropolitan development inside the setting of interregional development as follows:

1. Making adjusted and balanced rural-urban development;
2. Enhancing the synergetic rural-urban linkages;
3. Building up the economy and condition of agriculture- based rural settlements;
4. Development and renewal of small urban centres;
5. Enhancement and enlarging of income and welfare bases;
6. Understanding a self-governing and confident rural territory;
7. Separating the unreasonable rural-urban migration (adds to tackling urban social issues);
8. Recouping the characteristic natural assets and condition;
9. Creating driving prepared rural agricultural products;
10. Giving satisfactory settlement infrastructure and facilities to an urban standard;
11. Providing satisfactory production infrastructure and facilities that are available to the neighborhood residents.

2.2.2.3 The Basis of Agropolitan Development

With reference to the definitions and objectives of Agropolitan region development, Dardak, 2007 listed the Basis in determining the characteristics of an Agropolitan development area as follows:

Agropolitan areas should

1. Possesses adequate carrying capacity including suitability of soil and agro-climate
2. Have to lead processed agricultural commodities. In this case, aquaculture commodities
3. The sizes of the area and population should meet the requirement for economies of scale (ideally with a radius of up to 10 km and may consist of villages from one or up to three different sub-districts)
4. Have urban settlement framework such as infrastructures
5. Have production framework, infrastructure and facilities that are open to the community residents
6. Contain at least one little scale urban centres that are coordinated practically with the encompassing agricultural products delivering areas
7. Have administration frameworks with sufficient independence
8. Have an arranged and controlled spatial courses of action framework
9. Empower the advancement of auxiliary (assembling) and tertiary (administrations) segments
10. Have solid local area monetary institutions
11. Have satisfactory access to financial assets for the community residents.

2.2.2.4 Basis for an Agropolis (Agricultural-Based Urban Growth Center)

1. The focal point of settlements with the most noteworthy accessibility inside (with different ranges inside the Agropolitan district) and remotely (with other urban centres),
2. The focal point of activities for preparing and appropriation of farm products, which is portrayed by the centralization of agro-business offices and establishments.

2.3 Aquaculture Planning and Management

Aquaculture is the farming of aquatic organisms such as fish, molluscs (shellfish), crustaceans and marine plants, and involves practices such as regular stocking, feeding, and/or protecting stock from predators . Aquaculture takes place in inland, marine and coastal settings using a variety of methods, including raceways, cages, ponds, tanks, ropes, rafts and racks (FAO, 2012).

Aquaculture management entails the making of management decisions such as what, where, when and how to produce, in addition to the execution of such decisions (Jhingran, 1987). In China and Socialist nations of Europe which represents a high extent of present day aquaculture production of the world, fish culture is set up in state farms, communes or through the agreeable venture. In these nations, aquaculture commands unusual consideration as a result of its part in community, groups and personal welfare. In industrially advanced nations, aquaculture is ventured by private sector, that is; private individuals and companies. In North America, Japan and West Europe, private companies have become progressively more prominent in the practice of aquaculture.

In developing countries like Nigeria, aquaculture is renowned in the federal and state levels but is circumvented by obvious bureaucratic bottlenecks in the processes. This has made it to be mostly practiced by small-scale or subsistence level farmers. In these cases, there is heavy dependence on governmental support, including technical and financial assistance. Much of the time, be that as it may, the government is not completely mindful in support of aquaculture. The reason seems, by all accounts, to be that aquaculture does not have a firm lawful status of its own, it being ordered neither as agriculture, nor animal husbandry nor even really fishing (capture fishery). Aquaculture does not qualify itself for administrative support and incentives given to agriculture and animal husbandry. Nigerian government included aquaculture under fishery sector despite the productive phase of aquaculture being more skin to agriculture (e.g. manuring and fertilizing practices). The role of the federal and state government in aquaculture is shown below in an organizational chart of the federal department of fisheries.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Source: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development, 2016

Fig.2.1: Organizational chart of the federal department of fisheries

The institutional arrangement of aquaculture management in Nigeria in the chart shows the major role of federal government in management of aquaculture. They are, a. policy formulation; b. advisory services, c. establishment of public fish farm projects, d. funding/organization of extension services, e. fish seed production, f. training of man power, g. field demonstration in universities and colleges, h. collection of aquaculture statistics and i. monitoring and evaluation of aquaculture projects.

With clear cut understanding, most of these management responsibilities are aimed at encouraging private investors and individual participation in aquaculture. However, the bureaucratic bottlenecks of government administration have resulted in poor implementation of the relevant roles. This has therefore developed the following problems which are evident in the sector today.

- Inadequate functional fish ponds with most ponds poorly constructed
- Inadequate reliable and culturable fish seeds
- Poor dispersal of research discoveries prompting to inaccessibility of ebb and flow and present day methods for homestead administration to ranchers.
- Poor financing of research by government
- Poor preparing and financing of Universities and schools
- Lack of sorted out rural area with resultant lack of aquaculture data sources, for example, feed ingredients, seed and manure/ fertiliser.
- Poor network of extension workforce network

Suffice it to express that every one of these issues, notwithstanding, there are a developing mindfulness and improvement in the field of aquaculture by and by in Nigeria. This development is driven by the private segment and has been grasped by Nigerians through their extraordinary support of patronage. Most Nigerians now prefer to eat live/frozen/dried/smoked fish instead of imported ice fish. It is obvious that the positive role aquaculture is playing in contributing to national wealth, resource utilization and production of protective protein food, aquaculture is on its way to occupying a position of its own in Nigeria.

2.4 Perceptions of Aquaculture Development

Aquaculture is the breeding, rearing, and harvesting of fish, shellfish, plants, algae and other organisms in all types of water environments (NOAA, 2016). Aquaculture has a major advantage over the decreasing capture fisheries as the time of harvest can be synchronised to coincide with market demand (FAO, 2008). Aquaculture is one arm of agriculture that can thrive in any ecological area of Nigeria. According to the Nigerian Fifth National Biodiversity Report, 2015, there are five priority ecological areas of Nigeria which are arid, guinea savannah woodlands, coastal and marine ecosystem, rainforest belt including montane forest and wetlands and river basins. As long as water (whether brackish or fresh) which creates the enabling environment for aquaculture industry to thrive is available or provided, aquaculture will do well in any part of Nigeria.

Looking in a global perspective, several authors and scholars have made remarkable contributions in the way people, the public, locals or residents perceive aquaculture development in their locality or area of interest. D'Anna, L. M., and G. Murray (2015) conducted a research on Perceptions of shellfish aquaculture in British Columbia and implications for well-being in marine social-ecological systems. They measured how the perceived environmental, economic, and experiential effects of shellfish aquaculture have suggestion for the well-being of the social component in a social-ecological system. They conducted a multi-methods study using interviews, participant-employed photography, and a household survey. Their results reveal that aquaculture affects individuals and communities along multiple dimensions that they termed environment, economy, and experience.

Gordon et al, (2003) conducted a study on Aquaculture potential in the Rivers State of Nigeria. Their discoveries or findings demonstrates that Rivers State holds promise for aquaculture advancement and aquaculture can possibly add to both sustenance security and economic security in the state. Ideal components for aquaculture advancement in the Rivers State that they highlighted incorporate abundant water resources, a tropical year-round growing season, a tradition of fishing and fish consumption, an informed and prepared unit of aquaculture researchers and specialists, and a noteworthy populace that is youthful, unemployed and looking for opportunities to accommodate themselves and their families. Whitmarsh and Palmieri (2009) researched on the social acceptability of marine aquaculture. Their review shows that public attitudes towards the eventual fate of aquaculture- the salmon producing industry are a component of the weights individuals connect to the helpful impacts of business extension (i.e. job creation, and so on.) as against the apparent negative impacts related to ecological degradation. Research in Mexico and Greece recognized that the aquaculture industry’s social acceptability was enhanced where local concerns about environmental damage from aquaculture were low, perceived socio-economic benefits were high and location and management regimes were considered suited to the region (Hugues-Dit-Ciles 2000; Katranidis 2003).

Katranidis et al. (2003) found that what made the peoples’ acknowledgement of aquaculture activities as more noteworthy were financial advantages and there was less worries about ecological contamination from the business. Women, community groups (particularly those with conservation interests), ecotourism industries, some researchers, local governments, some state agency staff and educated individuals from the overall population will probably concentrate on aquaculture's contrary (ecological, monetary and social) dangers and look for upgrades in aquaculture arranging and administration to significantly diminish those dangers ( Nicole et al; 2008). Local, regional and national studies have examined opinion of the industry’s sustainability, how communities regard the industry and appropriate institutional assistance to the industry’s challenges in Australia, Canada, Europe, Mexico and the United States. One review in the United States and two in Australia proposed that parts of society view the business' natural manageability positively, despite the fact that there was low consciousness of a portion of the ecological issues testing the business (Blackstone 2001; Aslin and Byron 2003; Mazur et al. 2004).

Wilson 2001 recommended that aquaculture’s social acceptability increases where its socioeconomic benefits (e.g. employment opportunities) can be clearly verified and communities and stakeholders are kept well informed about the industry’s environmental impacts and governments’ regulatory and management processes. Hugues-Dit-Ciles (2000) established that where the values and needs of local communities in Mexico were integrated into aquaculture planning prior to development, the industry’s social, economic and environmental sustainability could more easily be protected.

Kaiser and Stead (2002) distinguished a scope of faltering and perspectives influencing European waterfront aquaculture. They have reasoned that expanded utilization of coordinated (marine and seaside) arranging, which highlights more open, straightforward and participatory fora, is required to help the business accomplish its maximum capacity.

Mazur et al. (2005) presented a report on Community Perceptions of Aquaculture. Their report presents answers to questions on the public knowledge and their opinions about aquaculture in Australia in two specific regions. The survey had the aim to investigate the peoples’ opinions concerning aquaculture in general, the information and presumptions towards the economic and social estimation of fish farming, their mindfulness about potential ecological effects and their estimation of aquacultures' sustainability. They employed two methods in their work. The first method employed is the stakeholder's identification method. This involves a variety of individuals and groups who have a specific interest in aquaculture (communities of interest) and those who are interested in aquaculture because they live in close proximity to it (place-based communities). These different stakeholders and their broad areas of interest as identified by the report are as shown in Table 2.1.

[...]

• Auteur: Tamunoikuronibo Ikiriko (Auteur)
• Année de publication: 2017
• Pages: 150
• N° de catalogue: V544510
• ISBN (ebook): 9783346166364
• ISBN (Livre): 9783346166371
• Langue: anglais
• mots-clé: aquaculture, rivers, residents’, perception, nigeria, fish, farm, development, case, buguma, state