Over the past decade, the aquaculture sector in Ghana has experienced tremendous growth—driven mainly by large-scale cage farms—but it has been unclear how the rural poor have shared in this growth. A research project has been initiated to help diagnose, design, and test interventions for better inclusion of the rural poor, women, and youth in the tilapia value chain. This report describes the baseline data on 603 small-scale tilapia farmers in Ghana. The data collected during two-hour face-to-face interviews during May–July 2019 are disaggregated by socioeconomic indicators, gender, and age group. Baseline data show that 9 percent of farm managers and owners were women, and an additional 9 percent of farms engaged women in some decision-making. Moreover, women contributed 16 percent of family labor and 5 percent of hired labor on farms. Youth represented 14 and 24 percent of owners and managers, respectively, but contributed 68 percent of the total family and hired labor on farms. A large majority of managers and owners had at least high school education, with a third of owners and a quarter of managers attaining at least a college degree. In Brong Ahafo and Ashanti regions especially, most farmers engaged mainly in crop farming and non-farm businesses as their main livelihood, with fish farming as a small contributor to overall household income and livelihood. Farmers in all regions had poor record-keeping and management practices and low compliance with sanitation, fish health, and food safety standards. A wide variety of input usage, management practices, and performance was observed among fish farms. As a result, the profitability of fish farms was also wide-ranging, between –12.00 and 46.00 cedi per m2, with an average of 8.82 cedi per m2. Despite wide variability in production and profits, the majority of farmers experienced positive profits. On average, a farmer received a profit of 2.4 cedi per kilogram of tilapia produced or a 27 percent profit margin. These encouraging figures indicate that farmers who adopt good aquaculture practices can achieve respectable profits.

Many countries are promoting aquaculture as one of the prime drivers of the rural economy and the employment of women and youth. [Author] However, the industry is criticized for inadequately representing the needs of workers. [Author] Most African countries have shown a willingness to advance industry goals through domestic programme planning and facilitating foreign direct investment. [Author] However, there is a need for coherent strategies for employment governance. [Author] Hence, immediate change is required to modify the governance of aquaculture employment to foster industrial transformation. [Author] The objective of this research is to enhance understanding of the governance of aquaculture employment in ten African countries (Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia) and to determine their level of compliance with existing employment legislation in those countries. [Author] The ultimate goal is to learn from both positive and negative lessons and propose possible corrective measures for substandard practices in order to improve the public perception of aquaculture. [Author] The study seeks to evaluate existing employment governance in the aquaculture industry and to use the acquired knowledge to inform policymakers and industry leaders on the status of governance in employment. [Author]

Ghana’s aquaculture sector is among the recent success stories of fast-growing agricultural value chains in Africa south of the Sahara. The sector has also shown its vulnerability, with the infectious spleen and kidney necrosis virus spreading through tilapia farms in Lake Volta in late 2018. The global COVID-19 human pandemic reached Ghana in early 2020, affecting the sector directly and indirectly. Using a value chain approach, phone interviews were conducted with 369 small-scale fish farmers in six major producing regions, with 12 other value chain actors, and with 423 consumers in the capital, Accra, to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the sector. All value chain actors interviewed reported being affected directly by COVID-19 related restrictions on movement and indirectly by reduced demand for tilapia because of closures in the tourism and hospitality industries, important consumers of fresh tilapia. The crisis has reduced incomes for most actors along the aquaculture value chain and is anticipated to reduce future production. Most fish farmers surveyed were affected by disruptions in input and output markets. Two-thirds of the sample farmers were growing fish and 6 percent were harvesting when the COVID-19 crisis hit. Fifty-four percent of those growing fish experienced difficulties in accessing inputs – mainly fish feeds. Of those harvesting during the crisis, most experienced difficulty in selling their fish mainly because of low demand from buyers, lower tilapia prices, and higher transportation costs than before COVID-19. Income losses among fish farmers, including from other sources, such as crop farming, wage employment, and other own businesses, limits the funds that they have available to finance fish farming operations or to invest in future production capacity. Likewise, reduced incomes and purchasing power of consumers is causing a sharp decline in demand for fish.

Efforts to promote the development of agricultural value chains are a common element of strategies to stimulate economic growth in low-income countries. Since the world food price crisis in 2007-2008, developing country governments, international donor agencies, and development practitioners have placed additional emphasis on making agricultural value chains work better for the poor. As value chains evolve to serve new markets, they tend to become less inclusive. For example, if a market for high quality rice arises within an economy, it is inherently easier for traders who sell rice to retailers to source that high quality rice from larger farms that are better able to control its quality than from dozens of smallholder farms. As a result, the normal path of value chain evolution can be biased against smallholders; hence, it is important to understand what types of interventions can make value chains more inclusive while also making them more efficient. In this brief, we summarize studies on five types of value chain interventions that were supported by the CGIAR’s Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) through its Flagship 3 on Inclusive and Effective Value Chains. Figure 1 illustrates a “typical” agricultural value chain, including the five intervention types (in orange). These include interventions that attempt to deal with multiple production constraints; certification; contract farming; public-private partnerships; and “other” services related to trading and marketing agricultural products. Apart from the last category, these interventions all involve production. This reflects the fact that smallholder producers can be considered, in some ways, the weakest link in evolving agricultural value chains (de Brauw and Bulte 2021). Hence, it is sensible to target interventions either at or close to smallholders. However, in some cases, the best way to overcome smallholder constraints may be to help actors at other points in the value chain overcome constraints. Many interventions share a focus on reducing transaction costs to promote smallholder market integration. Ideally, interventions increase both efficiency and inclusion, but we observe that such win-win outcomes are rare. Trade-offs appear to be more common than synergies, and some value chain interventions involve clear winners and losers.

Over the past decade, Ghana’s tilapia farming has experienced tremendous growth in production; however, much of the growth has been driven by large-scale cage farmers around Lake Volta. It remains unclear how this growth is and can be made more inclusive of poor and young women and men. This study was conducted to analyze different inclusive business models along the fish seed value chain that can potentially be implemented in Ghana. Based on literature review, field interviews, analysis of survey data, and stakeholder workshops, this study develops four business model prototypes for seed multiplication and distribution to increase farmers’ access to and use of quality tilapia seed: (1) Nursery , which buy fish fry from a reliable hatchery, transport them to locations near other farmers, and grow it to a larger size; (2) Local feed mill, with pelleting machine and technical knowledge to advise on feed formulation; (3) Agents, technical experts who supply fingerlings, handle transport and marketing, and provide technical advice; and (4) Local hatchery, which obtains brood stock from a reliable source, produces local fingerlings to sell to nearby farmers, and provides technical support. Initial ex ante financial and profitability analyses were undertaken and will be refined according to the actual context in the particular district where the sensitization and pilot-testing will take place. These business models have the potential not only to increase farmers’ access to and use of quality tilapia seed but also to provide livelihood and income generation along the fish seed value chain.

Efforts to promote the development and agricultural value chains area common element of strategies to stimulate economic growth in low-income countries. Since the world food price crisis in 2007-2008, developing country governments, international donor agencies, and development practitioners have placed additional focus on trying to make agricultural value chains work better for the poor. As value chains evolve to serve new markets, they tend to become less inclusive. For example, if a value chain for high quality rice arises within an economy, it is inherently easier for those who sell rice to retailers to source that high quality rice from larger farms with the ability to control quality than from dozens of smallholder farms. As a result, the normal path of value chain evolution can be biased against smallholders; hence it is important to understand what types of interventions can make value chains more inclusive while also making them more efficient.

This study provides an assessment of changes in household income, livelihood sources, food consumption, and diet quality during the first months of the COVID-19 crisis in a sample of households drawn from both urban and rural areas in Ghana. Phone surveys were conducted in June 2020 with 423 urban consumers in Accra and with 369 small-scale crop and fish farmers in rural areas in six regions in middle and southern Ghana. Data was disaggregated by asset quintiles for both the urban and the rural samples. Reduction in incomes were reported by 83 percent of urban households in Accra, mainly due to business closures and lower sales from their trading enterprises. Most households, however, are showing resilience in terms of food consumption, with a majority of urban consumers surveyed maintaining their pre-COVID-19 level of food consumption; only 9 percent of urban consumers reported reductions in food consumption to cope with income loss due to COVID-19. For the respondents in the rural areas in middle and southern Ghana, 76 percent reported income loss, and all reported that their livelihoods had been affected. Thirty-four percent of 2020 minor season crop farmers experienced difficulty in selling their produce, and 43 percent of all sample crop farmers anticipated difficulties in accessing inputs in the 2020 major season, mainly fertilizers and agrochemicals. Of those growing fish, 53 percent experienced difficulty in accessing inputs, mainly feeds; 60 percent reported increased input prices; and 64 percent of those harvesting from March to June 2020 experienced difficulties in selling their fish because of lower demand, lower tilapia prices, and higher transportation costs. Despite farm and nonfarm income losses, a majority of households in the rural sample reported maintaining previous levels of diet diversity and food consumption - only 11 percent reported reducing their food consumption to cope with income loss. Several months into the COVID-19 crisis in Ghana, households in both rural and urban areas showed some resilience in terms of their agricultural production and food consumption. Regular monitoring is needed, however, especially if household savings start to dry up and coping mechanisms become more restrictive.