What Are the Prospects of Sustainable Aquaculture in the Niger Delta, Nigeria?

Globally, the wild capture fishery is declining, and aquaculture is expanding to help fill the gap, especially in Asia and developing countries. However, the sustainability of the aquaculture sector is raising questions, and answering those questions requires the adoption of new technologies and better management practices. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in Nigeria where aquaculture generally means catfish, the most farmed species of which is clarias garipinus because it is a native species, and it plays an important role in the average Nigerian diet. However, small-scale catfish aquaculture businesses are affected by various challenges that threaten the sustainability of the sector. Prominent among these challenges are: poor management skills; lack of good quality fish seed supply; high cost of fish feed; inconsistency in government policy and limited regulations; lack of consideration about the impacts of aquaculture practice on the environment causing water pollution and environmental degradation, and insecurity of investment against natural disasters such as floods. This research investigated these challenges in eight sites in two states (Delta and Bayelsa) in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Data were gathered from a survey questionnaire, key informant interviews, personal observations, and published literature. Key findings showed that the sustainable development of the small-scale catfish farming industry in Delta and Bayelsa states is vulnerable to several threats that prevent it from fulfilling its undoubted potential to grow into a much larger sector, which could significantly reduce Nigeria’s reliance on fish imports, as well as relieve pressure on the overfished marine catch sector. Nevertheless, despite the threats, most catfish farmers are committed to their work and deserve the support of the government to enable them to succeed.


I. INTRODUCTION
Since the late 1980s, global capture fishery production has been relatively static, while aquaculture production has been rising rapidly (FAO, 2016).For instance, aquaculture's production of fish for human consumption in 1974 was 7% of total world fish production; in 1994 it was 26%; in 2004 it was 39%; and in 2015 it was 69% (FAO, 2016).However, this expansion of aquaculture has been very uneven across the world, with Asia accounting for nearly 90% of global production in 2015 compared with 2.3% for Africa (FAO, 2017).In Nigeria, aquaculture practice began in 1951, with an experimental station at Onikan Lagos (Olangunjuet al., 2007) and the Panyam industrial fish farm in Jos, Plateau State established by the federal government of Nigeria (Olangunju et al., 2007;Adewumi, 2015).In 2000, fish from aquaculture contributed 0.154% to Nigeria's GDP, and by 2014 this figure had increased to 0.48% (Nigeria Fishery Statistics, 2016), reflecting the fact that the sector has been growing at a rate of around 20% per year since 2003 (Ozigbo et al., 2014).The production of farmed fish is largely based on small-scale operations (Adewumi, 2015;Oluwasola & Ige, 2015), ranging from homestead concrete ponds of 25-40 m to small earthen ponds of 0.02 ha (Oluwasola & Ige, 2015).It is expected that small-scale operations in ponds will continue to drive the aquaculture sector in most African countries (FAO, 1975), and the major strategic objective of African governments is to boost the productivity of small-scale farms in order to increase their efficiency, making better use of the huge natural resources in their hands, and increasing the income of rural farmers in places where poverty has been most persistent (Larson et al., 2016).
Aquaculture in Nigeria revolves around catfish (clarias) farming (Adewumi & Olaleye, 2011), which accounts for more than 80% of the total farmed species (Atanda, 2007) and about 90% (by weight) of fish produced from aquaculture in Nigeria (Seisay & Nouala, 2013).African catfish (clarias garipinus) is the most important (Idodo-Umeh, 2003) kind of catfish for aquaculture in Nigeria for many reasons.It appeals to consumers because of its pleasant taste and high flesh quality (FAO, 1999, Hecht et al., 1996); it is a native species (Olangunjuet al, 2007); it is cheaper than other types of animal protein (beef, pork and chicken) in the country (FDF, 2008); it is readily available to Nigerians in fresh, smoked, dried or frozen forms with no religious taboos like beef or pork have; it tolerates extreme environmental situations; it adapts to high stocking densities; it copes with handling and stress; it does not require pure water quality; it can grow fast to reach market size (FAO, 1999); and its ability to eat all kinds of food (Dabelo et al., 2014;Lizard & Oswald, 1995), including aquatic weeds and insects, other small fish and snails (Dadebo, 2000), makes it easy to feed.
Nigeria has a natural potential for aquaculture development (Ozigbo et al., 2014;FAO, 2017a), especially in the coastal regions, including the Niger Delta.The country's 853 km coastline, 79,100,000 ha of landmass, 1,010,000 ha of perennial swamp, 12,500,000 ha of fresh water, 741,509 ha of brackish water, and 48,695ha of marine water, are all suitable areas for aquaculture, but most of these areas remain largely untapped (Anetekhai, 2004).@ Nigeria has a population of 190 million with a median age of 18 years, so there are plenty of people of working age to join the aquaculture sector.Nigeria's domestic fish production in 2016 (mostly from capture fisheries) was 1.123 million metric tonnes compared to the national demand of about 3.32 million tons (Nigeria Fishery Statistics, 2016).This large deficit between supply and demand has been filled by a high level of fish imports, which has been draining the exchange earnings of Nigeria (FDF, 2008).Nigeria imports over 0.7 million metric tons of fish annually, costing over US$500 (Kudiet al, 2008;Adewumi, 2015;Ekelemu, 2016).The shortfall of supply has been traced to the unsustainable practices of the Nigerian marine capture fishery sector (Ekelemu, 2016;Global Agriculture Information Network, 2007), which provides a livelihood for many Nigerian coastal communities (Adedeji and Okocha, 2011;Ekelemu, 2016).The current level of aquaculture production 316,727 metric tons -is far from the quantity required to fill the gap between fish supply and demand of 2.2 million metric tons per annum (Ekelemu, 2016, Adewumi, 2015).
Moreover, there is a great need to develop the aquaculture sector in Nigeria not just to cope with the huge demand for fish, but also to diversify its oil-based economy which is currently poised on the edge of depression.The Nigerian oil sector has been the main source of foreign exchange earnings and a major driver of the economy, but it has declined severely as the international crude oil price has fallen, and this has caused a major economic crisis in the country (Vanguard, 2017).A sharp drop in its crude oil and gas output forced down the country's foreign exchange earnings, reduced public revenue, engendered a devaluation of the naira due to a scarcity of foreign exchange, and brought about a general hike in the prices of goods and services, starting with a hike in the price of petrol (Vanguard, 2017).As a result, inflation figures increased dramatically, trade and industrial activity fell steeply, unemployment rose sharply, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures declined.Aquaculture, if adequately and sustainably managed, has the capacity to make a significant contribution to the country's GDP and exports (for example, the US is one of the biggest consumers of catfish so there is an opportunity to export to this market), as well as help solve the acute unemployment problem of many young people.
However, according to the literature, fish farming in Nigeria faces nine major obstacles.First, fish farmers have limited knowledge of aquaculture science (Adewumi, 2015).For instance, they have an inadequate understanding of the best use of fish feed, which means they spend too much money on feed.Also, they lack knowledge of pond assimilation capacity, site construction, and maintenance record keeping (Ozigbo et al., 2014;Kubiat, 2018).Adewumi (2015) reports that interactions between extension-agents and farmers are very poor, due to the low level of education of most farmers in the industry.Second, fish farmers have outdated equipment.Most fish farm tools used in Nigeria are old and primitive (Ogamba & Abowei, 2012).For example, there is only the traditional smoke drying method in the region, and this involves massive burning of wood, which releases contaminants called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs), depositing tar particles on the finished product (dried fish) which affects both the quality and taste of the fish, thereby making the product more difficult to sell (FAO, 2015).
Third, fish farmers find it hard to obtain high-quality fish seeds to stock their ponds.Hatcheries in Nigeria are not producing adequate quantities of quality seeds for farmers.According to Anetekhai et al. (2004), the total number of fingerlings raised in Nigeria is about 55,000,000 per annum, against the total market demand of about 500,000,000 per annum (Atanda, 2007).This is because of inadequate brood stocks, lack of skilled manpower, poor water quality, unreliable electricity supply, limited access to live food for fries, difficulty in getting natural hormones, and costly synthetic hormones.Moreover, often the supplied seeds are not of good quality or the quality deteriorates, and so the survival rates of the fingerlings are low.Also, fingerlings purchased from far distances experience stress levels that increase their mortality rates (Anthonio & Akinwumi, 1991).There is no modern live fish transport system available in Nigeria for small-scale farmers (Miller & Aleem, 2010), and most live fish transport is done using old plastic jerry cans without oxygen, diffusers, or air stones (Miller & Aleem, 2010).
Fourth, fish feed is very expensive.Feed production requires fishmeal, fish oil, and soybean meal which have become costly in international markets (Naylor et al., 2009;Hardy, 2010).Fish feed in Nigeria is classified into three types: imported (foreign) feeds, locally branded feeds, and locally home-made feeds (Miller & Aleem, 2010;PIND, 2014).However, the cost of foreign and locally branded feeds in Nigeria is prohibitively high for most fish farmers (Ayinla, 1988;Fagbenro & Davis, 2003), often amounting to over 60% of total farm production expenditure (Gabriel, 2007;Aderolu, 2010;Himadriet al., 2012).Many fish farmers are thus forced to make their own feeds using locally available food materials like maize (Zea mays L.) and rice (Oryzasativa) bran, food remains, and garbage from their farms, which is usually prepared by trial and error methods using indigenous knowledge (PIND, 2014), and is often of poor quality.
Fifth, fish farmers experience difficulty in obtaining funding to improve the efficiency of their operations by, for instance, expanding their premises and buying new equipment.They need access to capital (Adedeji & Okocha, 2013), but loans from financial institutions are costly and require collateral assets that small-scale fish farmers do not possess (Anetekhai, 2002;Emmanuel, 2017).Often the borrowers of funds default in their payments to the banks, and their businesses collapse.Sixth, many fish farmers experience marketing problems.For example, farms are often located far from markets, and the places where demand is high are difficult to reach.This is partly because the roads the farmers travel on are either in a state of disrepair, raising the cost of transportation, or insecure, exposing farmers to highway robbery (Adewumi, 2015).As a result, almost all the farmers sell their products within their farm yards despite the lower prices obtained.
Seventh, although there are plenty of suitable sites for fish farms, they may be vulnerable to some environmental hazards.For example, flooding has seriously affected aquaculture production in the coastal areas of the Niger Delta (NEMA, 2013).Nigeria is said to be among the top twenty countries in the world exposed to coastal flooding (Nicholls et al., 2008).Flooding usually occurs between July and October, and its incidence is linked to poor planning of pond construction: farmers do not use experts in ponds' siting and construction (Adeloye & Rustun, 2011).There are inadequate drainage and waste management disposal systems, and flood washes away fish from earthen ponds, tears down pond embankments, and deposits toxic materials into the ponds (Adeleke & Omoboyeye, 2016).Floods also lead to human mortality, food insecurity, the spread of diseases, injuries, disruption, and destruction of farms (Nkwunonwo et al., 2015).Not only natural hazards but man-made hazards may harm fish farmsincluding oil spills.In the Niger Delta, the environmental damage caused by the oil industry is welldocumented, including pollution of rivers, coastal areas, and lands (Peter & Badejo, 2005;Gidi, 2017).This damage has been compounded by vandalism of oil pipes which has had a major effect on offshore and onshore aquaculture production in Niger Delta through oil spills on the seas and rivers.There were over 13,000 incidents of oil-pipeline vandalism cases in Nigeria during 1999-2013 (Nwachukwu, 2015).
Eighth, fish farmers themselves often cause environmental hazards for neighboring areas and populations, which may make them liable for costly clean-ups.Common environmental impacts include ecosystem destruction and reduction in biodiversity around fish farms; pollution of groundwater from the landfill of organic and inorganic wastes; contamination of the seabed from waste feed, faeces, fertilizers, pesticides, disinfectants, therapeutants, hormones, and anti-biotic medicines; anti-foulant treatment of nets; pollution from water discharged into municipal sewage systems, land drainage, or into surface and sea waters; toxic air emissions from rendering of solid organic waste; smoke releases from processing activities; depletion of freshwater aquifers; and the spread of diseases and parasites (Adewumi, 2015;Tucker & Hargreaves, 2008).Most farmers use excessive doses of antibiotics and other chemicals for disease control, and because the use of chemicals is very common and not regulated in aquaculture practice in the region, the effect is very costly (FAO, 2017).The socio-economic effects on local agricultural farmers include loss of farming land; lowering of lake and water table levels in freshwater farming; foul odour and noise, as well as the reduction of the aesthetic value of the natural environment caused by catfish farms (Akinrotimi et al., 2011).
Ninth, there is very little governmental regulation of the aquaculture sector in Nigeria.For example, fish seed production and distribution in Nigeria does not have statutory regulations for licensing or certification of products (Atanda, 2007;Adedeji & Okocha, 2011).Moreover, where aquaculture development is not protected by law, legislation that is enacted to govern other sectors' activities tends to hinder its development (Fakoya et al., 2005).This is partly because such legislation is not appropriate for the aquaculture sector yet may be applied to it, and partly because governmental attention is focused primarily on the other sectors and little time is given to the needs of aquaculture.
In the literature, considerable attention has been devoted to devising solutions to meet the above challenges.For example, to overcome the first obstacle (fish farmers' lack of technical knowledge), commentators have recommended that the educational status of fish farmers should be improved so they can have a better understanding of formal training provided for the sector (FAO, 1999).To meet the second challenge (outdated equipment), commentators have argued that the government should subsidize aquaculture equipment to help farmers upgrade their techniques.For instance, the use of FAO FTT Technology for fish drying would safeguard consumers' health, meet international food standards, improve working conditions, boost sales, and reduce food losses (FAO, 2015).To overcome the third obstacle (poor quality fish seed), commentators call for an expansion in the number of hatcheries situated very close to the farms for easy reach and reduction in stress of the fingerlings during delivery (Anetekhai et al., 2004).The government and the sector should enforce good measures/standards on fingerlings, post fingerlings, and juvenile production, to improve the quality of fingerlings supplied (Isyagi et al., 2009).To meet the fourth challenge (expensive fish feed), commentators have urged more research into the use of unconventional protein sources, particularly from plant products such as seeds, leaves, and agricultural by-products which are cheap, readily available, and highly digestible (Ayinla, 1988;El-Sayed, 1999;Olaniyi, 2009).The government should stimulate the private sector to invest in feed improvement and should upgrade distribution channels to promote the adoption of locally produced feeds (PIND, 2014).Also, farmers need to be trained in how to minimize the quantity of fish feed used and reduce the amount they spend in buying fish feed (PIND, 2014;Miller & Aleem, 2010).
To overcome the fifth obstacle (lack of funding), commentators such as Adewumi (2015) have suggested that government provides fish farmers with low interest loans, development grants, equity shareholding, insurance, leasing of facilities, compensation schemes, and subsidies for construction, equipment, supplies, labor, and price support.To meet the sixth challenge (market access), commentators say the government should repair the roads leading to markets to create a more enabling environment for sales and distribution, so fish farmers can explore niche and international markets for their products (World Economic and Social Survey, (2013).To overcome the seventh obstacle (vulnerability to environmental hazards), commentators have called for action from the government to monitor and stop oil vandals causing pollution to the rivers and to implement a flood risk management strategy that includes mitigation preparedness, response, and recovery ( Nkwunonwo et al., 2015), and flood modeling and vulnerability assessment (FAO, 2013).Future pond constructions and siting should be done using better management practices by which ponds are constructed to divert future flood waters from the farms, dikes are reinforced, and outlets from ponds are de-sited (FAO, 2013).
To meet the eighth challenge (cause of environmental hazards), commentators have called for best management practices for feeding, cleaning of raceways, and solid waste control (MacMillan, et al., 2003).Also, measures must be taken to prevent over-stocking of ponds which causes water pollution and disease (Isyagiet al., 2009;Abiodun, 2016).There should also be research into how novel bioremediation technologies can help minimize the negative impacts of aquaculture in the Niger Delta (Chukwuma et al., 2012).Integration of fish and aquatic plant production can help to reduce pollution levelsfor example, where the waste from fish farms is used as feed for aquatic plants such as vegetables (Sri-uam et al., 2016;David et al., 2017).The West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (WECARD) and University of Ibadan (UI) have promoted the integration of fish, poultry/pig, and rice farming in Nigeria (Adewumi, 2015).To overcome the ninth obstacle (poor governance), the above measures will go a long way to bring good governance to the regulation of fish farming in Nigeria, but there is also a need for fish farmers to play a larger part in federal and state-level decision-making on aquaculture policy.Multi-level aquaculture governance is weak yet a prerequisite for a sustainable aquaculture development sector (Stead, 2019).
This literature review of nine obstacles and the proposed solutions applies to both large-scale and small-scale fish farming in Nigeria, but most research on catfish farming in Nigeria has focused on large-scale aquaculture, ignoring the considerable number of people working in small-scale catfish farming (Mafimisebi, 2003).This study is an attempt to fill that gap by concentrating on the perspective of small-scale fish farmers as expressed by 21 key informants and 60 farmers in the Niger Delta.The problems and solutions identified in the literature review helped to inform the way this fieldwork was carried out, especially in the framing of the questions asked of respondents.
There are four further sections in this paper.Section two describes the case study chosen to investigate the reasons for the lack-luster performance of aquaculture in Nigeria and explains the methods used in the fieldwork to gather primary data.Section three reports the findings of the fieldwork.Section four discusses the meaning and significance of those findings, and section five concludes the paper with recommendations to the Nigerian government on how to develop the aquaculture sector.

II. METHODOLOGY
The Niger Delta region of Nigeria is found in the Atlantic coastal area of Southern Nigeria (Ogboma, 2010;Kadafa, 2012), and comprises nine states -Bayelsa, Akwa Ibom, Edo, Cross River, Rivers, Delta, Ondo, Abia, and Imo.It is the largest delta in Africa and the world's second-largest delta, with a coastline of 450km (Okonkwo, et al, 2015).The region occupies an area of about 112,110 km 2 (NDRDM; Okonkwo et al., 2015;Kadafa, 2012) and it is recorded as the largest African wetland and the world's third largest wetland (Ajonina et al., 2008).Considerable potential exists for aquaculture production in this region.The two study sites of Delta State and Bayelsa State were chosen for three reasons.First, they are located at the center of the Niger Delta region, with Bayelsa as the main home of the fishermen from the Ijaw tribe.Bayelsa has eight local government areas and Delta has 25 local government areas, all with different ethnic groups.Second, Bayelsa and Delta states are endowed with many waterways and together account for about 80% of all forms of agricultural activities (including aquaculture) in the Niger Delta region (Ogboma, 2010).Third, both Bayelsa and Delta states are very rich in petroleum resources, and they have the highest production levels of crude oil in Nigeria (Ogboma, 2010) and consequently high levels of oil pollution.The particular sites selected for fieldwork in this study are located in the Warri/Effurun axis in Delta State and the Oporoma/Opolo axis in Bayelsa Stateboth areas where fish farming dominates the local economy.
At the beginning of this research, a coping study was carried out in June 2017 to interview 21 key informants (KIs) to ascertain the challenges of the sector as it affects the farmers.The key informants included four managers from the United Ufuoma Fish Farmers' Association (UUFFA); four community leaders; and 10 major feed suppliers and retailers in Delta and Bayelsa States.They were asked what the factors were affecting the overall cost of feed as an input into the production of catfish, and how they perceived the general business environment for fish farmers.
In the main fieldwork, a questionnaire survey was administered in September 2017 to 60 farmers in the Warri/Effurun/Uvwie Local Government Area (L.G.A) axis and the Oporoma/Opolo axis.The majority (58%) of the participants came from UFFA because UUFFA has the highest number of small-scale farmers in clustered form (over 6,500 farmers with over 14,500 ponds, in one of the biggest fish farm settlements in the West African Sub-region (The Nation News, 2013).The participants, who responded through hard copy answers to questionnaires that were conducted via physical visits, were mostly individuals who volunteered to take part in the survey comprising fish farmers and association management officials (who are also farmers).They were expected to have a deep understanding of the industry (Ogbuagu, 2013), and all participants had to have a basic level of education.The instrument chosen for the survey was a structured hard copy questionnaire containing 51 questions, which allowed participants to choose options, addressing the challenges faced by small-scale aquaculture farmers and asking them whether the proposed remedies would have a positive impact on the sector (a copy of the questionnaire is available in the Annex).The first page of the survey was an introduction that explained the contents and purpose of the survey.The survey questions were developed by the researcher and four experts in the aquaculture sector (managers in the United Ufuoma Fish Farmers Association (UUFFA), and informed by reference to the literature (Halkier, 2013).The 60 survey questionnaires were conducted in person by the first co-author who visited the farms under study in order to ensure a high rate of return and prevent attrition.
The fieldwork data was analyzed as follows.The KI interview data were divided into two themes: the cost of fish feed and the general business environment.The data from the 60 questionnaires were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).The data were grouped according to research questions and then organized and presented in tables and charts, using mean score, percentage, and frequency.

III. RESULT
The results from the fieldwork begin with the characteristics of the fish farmers who completed the survey questionnaire.Of the total number of 60 survey participants, 44 were from Delta State (35 from Uvwie; four from Warri SW; three from Warri N; and two from Warri S) and 16 from Bayelsa State (nine from Yenogowa; and seven from Southern Ijaw).Of the 39 farmers who answered the gender question, 24 were male (61.5%) and 15 were female (38.5%), suggesting that fish farming is predominantly a male occupation.Of the 21 farmers who responded to the question on age, 5.8 % were below 25 years; 87.6% were between 25 and 57 years; and 6.6% were above 57 years.The average age overall was 45 years, suggesting that entry into fish farming at a young age may be difficult.Forty-one farmers (68.3%) were full-time self-employed; nine (15%) were part-time self-employed; seven (11.7%) were fulltime employees; and three (5%) were part-time employees.This suggests that fish farming is mainly a full-time and self-employed occupation.On educational levels, 5.1% had post-graduate qualifications; 55.9% were university graduates; 32.2% had secondary education qualifications, and 6.8% had primary education qualifications.This finding is almost certainly skewed because the study chose to focus only on literate farmers to get more informed responses.On the length of experience of fish farming, 31.7% of the farmers had 0-3 years of experience; 26.6% had 4-8 years of experience; 31.7% had 9-12 years of experience; 6.7% had 13-16 years of experience, and 3.3% had more than 17 years of experience.Uvwie had a greater percentage of farmers with more experience, followed by Southern Ijaw, while Warri South had the lowest percentage.This indicates that most participants had considerable amounts of experience to draw on when answering the survey questions.
On fish farmers' training, 40 farmers (66.7%) had received formal training in fish farming, while the remaining 20 (33.3%) had not.However, 45% of the farmers who received training were only trained in good practices in feed and feeding, not in site selection and construction, solid waste removal and disposal, pond fertilization, access to business finance, or good record keeping.Most farmers (76.7%) strongly agreed, and 21.7% agreed, with the statement that access to skill training and professional development would improve the sustainability of small-scale farmers in the industry.On access to market information, 60.0% of the farmers had access to fish feed market information through various means including fellow fish farmers (69.4%), extension officers (8.3%), media (19.4%), and family and friends (2.8%).So, 40.0% of farmers had little access to information, and most who did have access relied on their peers.On ownership of ponds, 28.3% of the farmers owned between one and three ponds; 66.7% owned between four and six ponds; 1.7% owned between seven and nine ponds; 1.7% owned between 10 and 12 ponds, and 1.7% owned more than 13 ponds.So, the vast majority were very small-scale fish farmers.With regard to the size of ponds, 16.7% of the ponds were less than 6.1 m by 6.1 m; 80% were on average 6.1 m by 12.21 m; and 3.3% were on average 12.5 m by 18.3 m.These did not correspond with the characteristics of good, cultured pond construction by international (FAO, 2005).
On fish feed, most (83.3%) of the respondents were critical of the high cost of fish feed: 73.3% of the farmers felt that moderate/low cost of fish feeds through the production of good locally sourced feeds and subsidizing branded feeds would have a very good impact on their businesses, while 16.7% felt it would have a good impact.
Only 8.3% of the respondents sourced all their feed locally, either by buying the branded local feed or using local ingredients to selfformulate their feed, while the rest of the farmers (91.7%) used either foreign feed only or a combination of foreign and local feed in their production.This means most farmers were highly dependent on foreign imports of feed.On the use of water-stable feeds, 63.3% of the respondents said this innovation would have a very good impact and 30% said it would have a good impact.On fish seed, a small majority (51.7%) of farmers said there is no adequate good quality fish seed supply in the region.Most farmers (75%) knew the source of their fish seed supply to be artificial propagation in a hatchery, but the remainder did not know where their fish seed supply came from.Low price for catfish seed (1.8 mean score), followed by availability (1.5 mean score), and then quality (1.4 mean score) were the three major factors farmers considered in buying fish seed.Nearly half (46.6%) of the farmers produced fish at any given season regardless of the weather; 41.7% preferred to produce more fish during the dry season, while 7% preferred the rainy seasons.
On funding, 90% of respondents claimed they found it hard to obtain cheap funds: personal savings accounted for the highest source (83.3%) of credit to fish farmers; friends and relatives provided 8.3%; and co-operative societies provided 5%); while only 3.3 % of credit facility came from banks.Most (71.7%) of the respondents strongly agreed, and 23.3% agreed, with the statement that government support in facilitating access to cheap funds, subsidizing aquaculture equipment, ensuring cheap but high-quality feeds, underwriting insurance for aquaculture developers, and securing the services of extension agents, would increase the growth and sustainability of aquaculture development.On profits, the majority of farmers (56.7%) said they did not make an adequate profit from their investment, yet most farmers (66.7%) were committed to remaining in fish farming even up to ten years.On technology, most (93.3%)farmers reported they did not have modern/new technology or tools available to work.On expert services, 70% of participants said that they did not employ experts' services in the construction and management of their ponds, which may explain why 70% of respondents claimed that flooding destroyed ponds in the study area.On steps to avoid/minimize flood disasters and theft, 85% of the respondents agreed such steps would have a very good impact.On-site conflicts, several UUFFA KI interviewees claimed that some ethnic community groups extorted money from farm businesses whose operations were within their regions.For their part, community interviewees in Ijaw, Itsekiri, Urhobo, and Ogoni argued they were entitled to payment from businesses that operated in their locations, exploiting their lands, damaging their environment, and not employing local labor.In reply, the fish farm companies pointed out they already paid taxes and other royalties to the federal government.On government policies, 90% of farmers were critical of a lack of regulations and instability: 56.7% of the respondents said proper regulations and government policies would have a very good impact on their businesses, while 26.7% said they would have a good impact.For example, 56.7% of farmers strongly agreed, and the remaining respondents agreed, with the proposition that enforcing standards on fingerlings, post-fingerlings, and juvenile production and supply would help improve catfish production.Another finding is that 70% of the respondents perceived that better management practices (BMPs) on feed and feeding, site selection and construction, solid waste removal and disposal, and fertilization would have a very good impact; while 23.3% said that it would have a good impact.On an integrated system of production combining fish farming with crop farming whereby the waste from fish farms is used as feed for the crops, 60% of the farmers said this would have a very good impact on the sector while 25% said it would have a good impact.On measures to take care of the negative impacts of aquaculture practices (such as water pollution, disease, and environmental degradation), 46.7% of the respondents believed they would have a very good impact on the sector, while 41.7% believed they would have a good impact.

IV. DISCUSSION
This discussion section compares the above results with the conclusions of previous studies published in the peer-reviewed literature.On gender, the fact that the majority of the respondents are male may reflect the sampling methods used in the study -in particular, the decision to choose only graduates for the survey.But if so, the fact that graduates were mostly male is itself an indication of male-domination and suggests that fish farming in the Niger Delta is a male-dominated industry.This is a finding that is in line with the studies conducted by Folayan et al. (2014), Adewuyi et al. (2010) and PIND (2014).Ofuoku et al. (2008) claim this is linked to the laborious nature of fish farming which makes it easier for males to cope.But more likely it reflects the fact that Nigerian culture is heavily male-dominated, and women have to demonstrate exceptional levels of skill before they are accepted in many technical professions, including aquaculture (Imhanlahimi & Eloebhose, 2006).According to Fapohunda and Tinuke (2012), women's inequitable gender relations, their poverty, and their powerlessness in Nigerian society are interconnected.Overcoming the gender divide in fish farming in the Niger Delta could transform the prospects of the aquaculture sector.On age, the finding of the study that the fish farming industry attracts mostly farmers of prime working age is consistent with the conclusions of Egbufor et al. (2012).The age distribution of fish farmers in the Niger Delta reflects the fact that in Nigeria, aquaculture is still carried out using some physical strength, which declines with age, making aquaculture an attractive occupation for people in the age range of 18-45 years, which accounts for about 60% of the total population of the country (Adelodun, 2015).
On hours worked, the results reveal that the majority of the fish farmers are full-time farmers, which contrasts with the findings of Ideba et al. (2013) that 89% of fish farmers in Cross River state were part-time.This difference may be because Delta and Bayelsa are much richer in natural resources than Cross River state.According to Ugwuja et al. (2017), full-time farmers are much more committed and innovative than part-time farmers.On levels of education, most respondents in the study were university graduates because the researcher deliberately chose to focus only on literate farmers to get more informed responses, though fish farms in the Niger Delta are not generally run by graduates.According to Aromolaran (2000) the higher the level of education of farmers, the larger their farm production because of their greater ability to understand, evaluate, and adopt new technologies.On the length of experience, the results show that most respondents had between four and 12 years of experience in fish farming.According to Onu and Unaeze ( 2009), four years is the minimum level of experience required to maximize production, so Niger Delta farmers appear to be in a good position to cope with fish farming problems (Odefadehanet al., 2015).On training, although two-thirds of respondents had formal training in fish farming, nearly half of those were only trained in feed and feeding, which shows that the training acquired by the respondents is very limited.This is different from Asian countries where sustainable aquaculture production has been successful for decades as a result of training in better management practices on pond assimilation capacities, feed handling, maintenance record keeping, pond constructions, and managements, feed, and feedings, which are the key areas in catfish production (Anugwa et al., 2017).The farmers' proposals for access to skill training and professional development as well as improved educational levels concurs with the findings of Adedeji and Okocha (2011).Many of the challenges of fish farming revealed in the survey -especially weak management skills, poor quality fish seeds, environmental pollution, and limited marketing opportunitieswere linked by commentators to a lack of training (PIND, 2014).On access to market information, most farmers obtained that information only from fellow farmers, which indicates that extension agents were not getting through to them, unlike in Asian countries (FAO, 1999).
On pond usage, aquaculture production in the study area is characterized by small production units, which is similar to the findings of Adeogun et al. (2007) and Aphunu and Nwabueze (2012).Most farmers stocked only 3-4 ponds per yeara number which, according to Adewumi (2015), is adequate to avoid cannibalism, though it may reflect a lack of investment in the sector.On the kinds of fish stocked, most farmers bought fingerlings because of their greater availability, their stable cost, and the shorter period of time they take to be produced than other types of fish seed.However, the mortality rate of fingerlings is usually higher than that of post-fingerlings and juveniles (FAO, 2019), so the farmers might be better off buying post-fingerlings and juveniles.On the source of fish seed supply, it was worrying that of the three main factors that farmers considered when purchasing fish seedlow price, availability, and quality (in that order)quality came third in their list of priorities, which is not the case in Asian countries (FAO, 2018).A majority of farmers complained there was not an adequate supply of good quality fish seed in the region.This is in line with the challenges identified by Anetekhai et al. (2004), Adewumi and Olaleye (2010), Ugwumba and Orji (2007), Adewumi (2015), Ele et al. (2013), andOmitoyin (2007), who reported poor supply of good quality seed as one of the major problems hindering the aquaculture sector in Nigeria.Quality fish seed can enhance productivity by almost 25% to 30% (The Fish Site, 2014), so farmers must prioritize quality over cheapness, and hatcheries need to improve their management systems and follow genetic principles (The Fish Site, 2014), adopting the latest technology and use of quality broodstock.
Most respondents said the high cost of fish feed was damaging their businessesa result that corresponds with the findings of Anetekhai et al. (2004), Adewumi and Olaleye (2010), Ugwumba and Orji (2007), Ajana (2007), Omitoyin (2007), Umar et al. (2017), andPIND (2014).The ever-increasing cost of feed in Nigeria is largely due to a lack of raw materials which have to be imported; competition in the livestock industry for micro and macronutrients and essential amino acids used in the production of fish feed (Adedeji & Okocha, 2011); and nutrient safety requirements (Mente et al., 2006).Moreover, fish meal and fish oil are derived from small pelagic fish species (Pérona et al., 2010), and there are concerns that the resulting pressure on global pelagic fish stocks will undermine the sustainability of protein production by aquaculture (Kristofersson & Anderson, 2006).Although farmers preferred foreign feed to locally sourced feed, many used homemade feeds at the end of production cycles when they ran out of cash to purchase the branded feed, because locally made feeds were 10-20% cheaper than branded feed (Rana and Hasan, 2013), though the quality of these homemade feeds is questionable and their impacts on the water-body are undocumented.Ayinla (1988) and Anhwange et al. (2004) have shown that protein from local plant products and agricultural by-products (like blood meal and poultry meal) is cheaper, more readily available, with higher digestibility rates for catfish growth (see also Fish Site, 2016).Respondents' endorsement of using water-stable feeds concurs with Adewumi (2015) conclusion that they reduce waste accumulation and water pollution in the ponds.Such feeds offer farmers fast growth and a low feed conversion ratio (FCR), which lowers feed costs; reduces the use of chemicals; and contributes to higher survival rates of fish (Miller & Aleem, 2010;Cripps & Bergheim, 2000).Fagbenro et al. (1999) suggested the use of aquacultural by-products for producing economical fish feeds, but whether this is feasible is unclear.
On sales of fish, the results show that Uvwie had the highest price tag because they paid huge dues and commissions to the association (UUFFA) and community leaders.On the weight of harvested fish, most fish weighed between 1 kg and 1.5 kg, which indicates good table-sized catfish (Anthony, 2007).While nearly half of the farmers carried out production all year round regardless of the weather, most of the other half restricted their production to the dry season because heavy rainfall destroyed their ponds.A large majority of respondents said that flooding destroyed ponds in the study area.Exposure to flood disasters was noted in the findings of Omitoyin (2007), Anetekhai et al. (2004), Nkwunonwo et al. (2015), Tawari-Fufeyin et al. (2015), andFAO (2012).The best sites are those with slopes of less than 2% where flooding hardly ever occurs (The Fish Site, 2016).Nearly all farmers in the survey reported their lack of technology.This finding chimes with other studies in developing countries which found most farmers learned the art of fish-farming from their uneducated parents and carried on using the same methods and tools their parents used (Ogamba & Abowei, 2012).The farmers' inability to acquire modern tools was because of low incomes, ignorance of available technology, and lack of government support (Adewumi, 2015).Fish farming requires capital for construction work, initial operation, equipment, working capital, and expansion (Adedeji & Okocha, 2013), which necessitates loans from banks.However, only a small percentage of farmers had access to credit.Anetekhai (2002) reports that the cost of bank loans in Nigeria is very high and requires substantial collateral which is impossible for most of these farmers to provide (see also Emmanuel, 2017).Most participants said experts' services were not employed by them in the construction and management of ponds, which is a serious problem since a lack of expertise can mean ponds are sited in vulnerable locations leading to environmental and economic unsustainability, as Ajieh (2010) noted.To avoid flooding, experts need to tell farmers where to site their ponds (FAO, 2019).To end site conflicts, the government needs to protect fish farmers from intimidation by interest groups (FAO, 2019).Accurate information on aquaculture markets is also critical to fish farmers' success, so lack of access to it is very worrying (Agahi et al., 2012), and there is a need for market experts to help.
Respondents' complaints that government policies were too changeable replicate the findings of Nwachukwu (2015), Adedeji andOkocha (2011), Ezigbo et al. (2014), Adewumi (2015), and Umar et al. (2017), who all reported that unstable government policy was one of the major frustrating factors in Nigerian businesses.This is in line with a report by FAO (2014) which states that good governance is critically important for the long-term future of the sector: security of property rights and contracts; political stability, and compliance with laws, rules, and regulations, are all vital instruments needed to stimulate entrepreneurship and investment, as the example of the Indonesian government's policy of promoting small-scale aquaculture operations shows (FAO, 2014).Part of good governance is to regulate the aquaculture industry, and in the survey, nearly all the farmers demanded more regulation, which is what many international reports on aquaculture have called for.For example, Sustain Aqua (2009) urged the setting of norms, agreements, and policies that mitigate environmental degradation, including a ban on chemicals and therapeutics used in ponds; the regulated use of organic fertilizers; mitigating the impacts of waste; integrated pollution prevention and control; laying down criteria and guidelines for aquaculture Environment Impact Assessments (EIAs); and encouraging extensive culture and re-stocking The most important guidelines are the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995), the FEAP Code of Conduct for European Aquaculture (2000), and the Agreement of Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA).But farmers also need support: Adewumi (2015) predicts that farmers' resilience may be undermined if government support does not come soon.In particular, farmers need to have access to cheap funds from the government that are readily available on favorable terms (Adewumi, 2015).Most fish farmers' perceptions that better management practices (BMPs) would significantly improve their productivity, were in line with a Fish Site (2016) study into BMPs in fresh water aquaculture which concluded that they would mitigate the effects of flood disasters, water pollution, diseases and environmental degradation.On KIs' proposal of integrated fish farming, Akinrotimi et al. (2005) reported that combining fish farming with vegetable crops has helped smallscale farmers in many rural areas to enhance profits, improve growth, and increase food security.The West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development, in collaboration with the University of Ibadan, Nigeria is currently promoting integrating the farming of fish, poultry/pig, and rice.

V. CONCLUSION
Aquaculture is an important industry in the world and is frequently cited as the fastest growing food production sector (PIND, 2014).However, in practice, its growth and sustainability are variable (Edwards et al., 2018(Edwards et al., or 2019)).Aquaculture is particularly important for Nigeria as a means of taking the pressure off its over-fished marine catch sector and reducing the level of fish imports into the country which currently amount to 0.7 million metric tons of fish annually costing over 0.5 billion US dollars per annum (Kudi et al., 2008;Adewumi, 2015;Ekelemu, 2016).Focusing on the case of small-scale catfish farmers in the Niger Delta, the study used fieldwork in two sites to examine fish farmers' perceptions of the problems facing them, and of possible solutions to those problems.A key finding of the research is that the five most important challenges to the large-scale sector identified in the literature exist in the small-scale sector in the study areas: poor management skills; the use of obsolete technology; limited access to cheap funds; inadequate governmental regulations; and the high cost of fish feed.Six recommendations for policy makers arise out of this research.First, more experts should be employed to train and mentor fish farmers' activities to increase their access to modern fisheries technologies and their adoption of better management practices.
Second, the federal government should introduce regulations that lay down environmental and safety standards for fish farming production.Third, the federal government should provide incentives to reduce lending risks to banks in funding the development of the sector.Fourth, more research should be carried out into alternative sources of fish feed as a substitute for the very expensive imported fish feed and other locally branded feed in the market.Fifth, the state government should establish modern hatchery facilities to improve the quality of fish seeds and the efficiency of the production of fingerlings.Sixth, the state government should incentivise experiments in integrated aquacultural and agricultural coproduction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to especially acknowledge Prof. Tim Gray for his invaluable contributions in reviewing this paper.His expertise and insightful comments greatly enhanced the quality of the research and played a significant role in its acceptance for publication.I am very grateful for his time, support, and effort all through the review phase.His constructive criticism and suggestions have undoubtedly strengthened the overall impact and clarity of the paper.I am very honoured to have had the opportunity to benefit from his expertise, and I am deeply appreciative of his support and mentorship.
I am also very grateful to my adviser, Dr Michael Tlusty, for his belief in my ability, which gave me the confidence to pursue this endeavour.His expertise, patience, and mentorship have been invaluable in shaping my research and refining my writing.Thank you for believing in me, and for empowering me to share my work with the wider academic community.