Significant investments have been poured into Kenya’s cage aquaculture industry on Lake Victoria. Furthermore, its development is encouraged in Kenya’s Blue Economy Strategic plan. But considering the extremely high rates of malnutrition and poverty among its lakeshore populations, the aquaculture industry’s impact on poverty should be scrutinized. Thus, this study aimed to examine aquaculture’s effect on the food security of these littoral communities. The study achieved this by understanding the communities’ perception of the industry, its socio-economic effects on livelihoods and the local economy, and to what extent farmed tilapia contributed directly to local diets. The methods used qualitative and quantitative research methods: interviews, focus groups, a household questionnaire, and dietary intake data.
This study found that overall, tilapia cage farming was welcomed into the community as complimentary to fishing. Locals viewed aquaculture as a ‘modern’ version of fishing, rather than a distinct or competing industry. In contrast to the ‘traditional’ and deteriorating fishing industry, which was tarnished by its risky and dangerous reputation, tilapia farming employment that provided a dependable income was respected and coveted. Because of employment opportunities, local residents were positive about and in favour of industry growth. Furthermore, locals believed that aquaculture would support sustainable fisheries: employment generated by aquaculture could continue to convert fishers into fish farm employees, reducing pressure on fisheries and improving catch-per-unit-effort for remaining fishers. Indeed, the emergent tilapia cage culture industry provided ample employment opportunities, with financial knock-on benefits to local economies.
Direct nutrition gains from consumption of farmed tilapia were limited. While most people still sourced and preferred to source tilapia from fisheries, cultured fish were consumed with increasingly frequency as a result of emergent local aquaculture. Yet, it was only affordable by wealthier households, and worse-off households ate farmed fish significantly less frequently. Farmed tilapia largely remains a luxury item. Continued development of aquaculture has the opportunity to practice inclusive business models. For example, the strategic production of smaller tilapia could be a ‘pro-poor’ and inclusive business model that increases tilapia accessibility. Additionally, avoiding the use of omena/dagaa (Rastrineobola argentea) in aquafeeds would be socially responsible: omena is a critical source of nutrition for lakeshore communities with disproportionate importance in worse-off diets, and increased demand from aquaculture could drive up prices and reduce its accessibility for the poor.
Thus, aquaculture can offer benefits as well as consequences, changeable with the characteristics of the businesses and adaptations of the community. Answering the question “Is aquaculture pro-poor?” in Kenya’s Lake Victoria has required embracing the complexity of the whole food system and pathways to impact. Multidisciplinary approaches have been critical. Similar investigations should be performed in Uganda and Tanzania: understanding contextual differences is essential to adequately and appropriately inform international policies regarding the lake and its emergent aquaculture industry.