Nigeria's fisheries subsidies before the WTO fisheries subsidies agreement

Nigeria's fisheries subsidies before the WTO fisheries subsidies agreement | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Nigeria's fisheries subsidies before the WTO fisheries subsidies agreement Shehu Latunji Akintola, Olanrewaju Femi Olagunju, Abdulwakil Olawale Saba, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7143083/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examines fisheries subsidies in Nigeria, providing a qualitative perspective and analyzing government expenditures on the fisheries and aquaculture sub-sectors over four decades (1980–2022), along with stakeholders’ perceptions of these subsidies. A mixed-method approach was employed combining government budget documents, stakeholder survey, and desk research on fisheries subsidies. The total estimated subsidy allocation was 4.7 billion naira (~ 6.1 million USD, exchange rate: 1 USD = 765 naira), with the majority categorized as beneficial subsidies. Most stakeholders perceived fisheries subsidies on energy, inputs, preservation, processing, and training as beneficial, citing cost reduction, increased production, and improved livelihoods. A substantial number of respondents perceived that, within the energy sector, petrol is the most subsidized; among inputs, fingerlings receive the highest level of subsidy; and in the processing segment, smoking kilns are recognized as the most subsidized. Concerns about the impact of subsidies included risks of overfishing, the potential to incentivize exports at the expense of local consumption, and poor targeting of subsidy beneficiaries. Compared to countries in Asia, Europe, Russia, and the United States, Nigeria’s fisheries sector receives the least support in percentage of total subsidies and actual monetary value allocated. However, unlike most of these countries, Nigeria prioritizes aquaculture funding over capture fisheries. The assessment reveals how Nigeria’s evolving subsidy landscape reflects the principles of the WTO Fisheries Subsidy Agreement, highlighting the need for increased transparency, stock assessment, and support for local livelihoods. This study offers a foundation for shaping national fisheries subsidy frameworks that support global sustainability goals and promote long-term ecological and economic resilience in Nigeria’s fisheries and aquaculture sector. Business and commerce/Economics Social science/Economics Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences Earth and environmental sciences/Ocean sciences Fisheries subsidy artisanal aquaculture development industrial fisheries beneficial harmful sustainable fisheries Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1 Introduction The fisheries subsidy economy has received far less outpour of emotions compared to subsidy reforms in the oil sectors that continue to dominate discussions on the political and economic atmosphere in Nigeria presently. Nigeria is an oil-producing nation blessed with aquatic resources such as 216 325 km 2 of shelf area and 853 km of continental coastline length 1 supporting fish production from the marine environment for industrial fishing. The networks of coastal/brackish systems are approximately 10, 000 km 2 and inland aquatic biomes (including lakes, rivers, streams, and artificial and natural lakes) with an estimated 10,000 km 2 of perennial freshwater swamps 2 popping up small-scale and artisanal fisheries. The country is active in fish trade with a value of fisheries imports of US $ 703.8 million and exports of US $ 1.31 million in 2021, thus a huge deficit trade balance of US $ 702.5 million 3 . There are concerns to reverse the deficit through increasing fish production from both capture and culture systems, and a general policy of economic diversification to drive less dependence on oil. Subsidies are considered as government intervention, assistance, transfers, and a support measure can be generally considered as a form of subsidy. The narrowest definition of subsidy is that it is a direct cash payment by a government to producers or consumers according to the United Nations Environmental Programme 4 . Fishery subsidies are said to be financial payments, direct or indirect from public entities to the fishing sector, which reduce the cost of fishing and/or increase revenues. The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) defined subsidy in a general term as any measure that keeps prices for consumers below market levels, or for producers above market levels or that reduces cost for consumers and producers 5 . Similarly, the International Energy Agency (IEA) defined subsidy as any government action that primarily lowers the cost of production, raises the price received by producers or lowers the price paid by consumers 6 . In this study, fisheries subsidy was defined and classified in line with Sumaila et. al. 7 as a direct or indirect financial transfer from public entities that creates a benefit for the fisheries sector, which enables enterprises to make more profit than they would have otherwise which could be in the form of capacity-enhancing, beneficial, or ambiguous. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, literature on fisheries subsidy is very rare in the country. The expectation is that the study will provide the foundation for subsequent theoretical and empirical analysis for future studies on fisheries subsidies in Nigeria. The works of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 8 and Millazo 9 were the earliest given estimates of global subsidy to be US $ 70 billion and range of US $ 14–20.5 billion annually respectively. The most recent global estimates of global fisheries subsidy were rendered by Sumaila et. al. 10 , 11 to be US $ 35.3 billion in total for diverse types of subsidies: ambiguous, beneficial and capacity enhancing. Regional works on subsidies were provided as Flaaten and Wallis 12 estimated that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries spent US $ 4.9 billion for general services and about US $ 1.4 billion was spent on revenue-enhancement and cost-reduction purposes in 1997. According to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the sum of US $ 4.2 billion of beneficial subsidies and US $ 8.4 billion of harmful subsidies for resource stocks were channelled to supporting fisheries in the Member States 13 . Country-level estimates for the United States showed that US $ 6.4 billion from 1996 to 2004 was provided by the US government for fisheries subsidies 14 compared to RMB 40.383 billion (or US $ 6.5 billion) the Chinese central government spent on fisheries subsidies 15 . Attention to country-level estimates is growing. Studies on fishery subsidies are limited by data availability and specifically in the case of country-level analyses inadequate knowledge to conduct true economic analyses on subsidies locally. Experience from this work indicated the lack of publicly available information on fiscal and para-fiscal policies in the fisheries sector of the country. Enquiries to access documents on fisheries subsidies were made by submitting a formal data request letter to the national authority in charge of fisheries management- the Federal Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (FDFA). Recourse was also made to the Finance and Account / Budget Division of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) to fill the gap of the data obtained that met with the scope of the period this study seeks to estimate, 2013 to 2022. This development also showed the complexity of the fishery sector and its challenges where information needed to formulate relevant sector-specific policies is often located and beyond the direct authority managing the fisheries at the local, state and national levels but with other agencies and different institutions. The growing literature on fishery subsidies has demonstrated that subsidies impact fish stocks both at the country level and globally. The impacts vary and are dependent on geographical context, prevailing fisheries management practice, fishing intensity, biological condition of the fishery, and externalities among others. Nigeria is in West Africa located in the Gulf of Guinea famous for its rich ecological systems making it one of the richest fishing grounds in the world and a hotspot for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU). Rent from deep sea fishing has been encumbered by IUU mainly from China. Globally, the impact of IUU as a major threat to ocean ecosystems worldwide, undermining efforts to sustainably manage global fisheries and effectively conserve ocean biodiversity is well established. The impact of IUU in Nigeria remained in the realm of speculation even though it is real thus perception remained high as reported by Akintola 16 . Country data are not available from agencies such as the Nigerian Navy and the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) that could help establish and mobilize the protection of the fisheries resources. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, Ministerial Decision of 17 June 2022 provides incentives to drive sustainable management of fisheries resources at global and country levels, especially in developing countries such as Nigeria. Once the agreement comes into force, the Fisheries Funding Mechanism could be used by developing and least-developed country (LDC) members with targeted technical assistance and capacity building to implement the disciplines under the Agreement. It is worthy of note that Nigeria is the 9th country globally and the 2nd in Africa to so do. In order to access the funds that may be used to improve the management of the fisheries resources of the country, which is one of the overarching objectives of prohibiting harmful fisheries subsidies and encouraging beneficial subsidies, there is a need to keep the focus. This article is structured to provide a comprehensive analysis of fisheries subsidies in Nigeria. The introduction outlines the study's objectives and contextual background. The methodology details the data collection and analytical approach employed. The results present a narrative of fisheries subsidies under various programs, national subsidy estimates, and stakeholder perspectives, accompanied by a comparative analysis with other countries. The discussion interprets these findings, exploring their implications in light of the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies and broader sustainability goals. The conclusion summarizes the key insights and offers policy recommendations for enhancing Nigeria’s fisheries subsidies towards a sustainable sector. 2 Methodology 2.1 Study Area Nigeria is a maritime country as nine of its 36 states are situated along the Atlantic Ocean. The southern region of the nation, encompassing states such as Akwa Ibom, Cross Rivers, Rivers, Edo, Delta, Bayelsa, Lagos, Ogun, and Ondo, constitutes the federal coastal states of Nigeria. The fishing industry holds immeasurable significance to both the people and economies of both developed and developing nations worldwide. It is noteworthy that aquatic foods provide more than 16% of the global animal protein consumption and over 20% in low-middle-income countries 17 . Agriculture contributed approximately 24% of Nigeria's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2021, with fisheries contributing 1.3% the same year 18 . Despite the low contribution, fish remains a primary source of protein in the Nigerian diet. 2.2 Source of Data and Desk Research A formal data request letter was made to the FDFA and the Finance and Account / Budget Division of the FMARD to provide information on funds budgeting and expenditures. However, only data from 2013 to 2022 was available. This limitation posed challenges in conducting a comprehensive analysis of long-term trends within the sector. Nevertheless, the available data provided valuable insights into recent budget allocations and spending patterns. To supplement this, events and government programs preceding 2013 were gathered through desk research involving online publications and historical archives. The WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, including official publications from the WTO and its affiliates, was also consulted in analysing the implications of the agreement for Nigeria as a WTO member. These documents were sourced from official repositories and analysed to identify the key policy provisions of the agreement, with a focus on prohibited subsidies, special and differential treatment (SDT), and transparency mechanisms. 2.3 Basis of Fisheries and Aquaculture Subsidies Classification Fisheries and aquaculture subsidies classification followed the categorisation of Sumaila 11 , 19 . The fisheries subsidies are classified into three broad categories based on their impact on fish stocks over time and grounded in economic theory as beneficial, capacity-enhancing (harmful), and ambiguous 11 . The classification of projects under aquaculture also follows their impacts on social, environmental and economic sustainability 20 , 21 . Beneficial aquaculture subsidies emphasize sustainable practices, while harmful subsidies exacerbate environmental degradation. Ambiguous aquaculture subsidies are those that may have unintended consequences or create complex trade-offs between different policy objectives. 2.4 Survey Approach A stakeholder survey was conducted to examine state and non-state actors’ understanding and perceptions of fisheries subsidies in Nigeria. Semi-structured questionnaires were administered to government officials, fisheries cooperative leaders, fisherfolk, and NGOs. The questionnaire was validated through expert review in fisheries science and policy to ensure face and content validity. The instrument comprised seven sections covering demographic characteristics; awareness of subsidies related to energy, aquaculture inputs, and post-harvest infrastructure; and perceptions of subsidy usefulness. Additional sections addressed perceived impacts on production and sustainability, personal experiences with subsidies, sources of subsidy-related information, and overall attitudes toward the necessity and adequacy of government support. The questionnaire was administered online through Google Forms ( https://docs.google.com/forms ) and descriptive statistics were carried out using Microsoft Office Excel 2017. The link to the survey was shared in different WhatsApp groups and emails of fisherfolks, fish farmers, fish processors, civil servants and academics in fisheries-related occupations. 3 Results 3.1 Fisheries Subsidy Narrative Under Different Government Programmes (1980–2012). The subsidy narratives for Nigeria in the period under review showed that in the three sub-sectors (artisanal, industrial and aquaculture), subsidy supports were funded mainly through governments and international development agencies. Also, Table 1 outlines the various government subsidy programs implemented in Nigeria’s fisheries sectors from 1980 to 2012. These programs were designed to support artisanal, industrial, and aquaculture sub-sectors, enhancing productivity and modernizing operations. Subsidies ranged from fishing inputs and infrastructure support for small-scale fishermen to credit facilities, tax waivers, and fuel subsidies for industrial operators. Additionally, the government provided capacity building, technical assistance, and financial support to promote aquaculture development. Table 1 Government Subsidy Programs in Nigeria's Fisheries Sector (1980–2012) Sub-Sector Government Programme/Initiative Subsidy Details Aquaculture Fish Feed Multiplication Centres and Mills Established centres and feed mills to promote local feed production (Ibadan, Ogun State, etc.). Fish Farm Estate Development Programme Government financial and technical support to private sector for fish farm development. Commercial Tilapia and Cage Fish Farming Fish cages installed in collaboration with private investors, e.g., Lagos State Government. Capacity Building and Training National training programs, including sponsorship of youth for overseas training. Fish Farm Upgrades and Demonstration Centres Collaboration with Bank of Agriculture to upgrade facilities and establish pilot fish farms for rapid aquaculture development. Artisanal Fisheries National Accelerated Fisheries Projects (1980s) Provided nets, floats, sinkers, and twines at 50% subsidy, along with boats and landing sites equipped with modern facilities. Integrated Rural Fisheries Project Inputs, boat building, net making, credit facilities through Nigerian Agricultural and Co‑operative Bank (NACB) at 5–7% interest, and training in boat making and repairs. ECOWAS-Fund Accelerated Fisheries Development Project (1990–2006) Access to credit facilities at single interest rates, assistance from IFAD. Fish Processing Plants and Market Development Established fish markets, fish processing plants, and model fish processing centres across various states and zones. Fishing Terminals Coastal fishery terminals were built. Industrial Fisheries Export Expansion Grant (EEG) Payback based on volume and cost of fish and shrimp exports. Medium-sized Trawlers Procurement of medium-sized trawlers to bridge artisanal and industrial fishing. Diesel Subsidy Dedicated allocation of Automated Gas Oil (AGO) at controlled prices. Tax Holidays and Credit Facilities One-year moratorium on credit facilities and duty waivers. Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance Unit Established with World Bank assistance to monitor fishing activities and ensure crew safety. (Table 1 ) Specifically, in aquaculture, support focused on promoting local feed production, fish farm development, cage farming, and capacity building. Key programs included the establishment of feed mills, technical and financial support for private fish farms, youth training (including overseas sponsorship), and demonstration centres developed in collaboration with the Bank of Agriculture. In the artisanal, historical programmes like the National Accelerated Fisheries Projects and the Integrated Rural Fisheries Project provided subsidized nets, boats, and training, along with credit through institutions such as Nigerian Agricultural and Co‑operative Bank (NACB). For the industrial fisheries, fiscal incentives such as the Export Expansion Grant, duty waivers, diesel subsidies, and trawler procurement were notable. Furthermore, the establishment of a Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance Unit—with World Bank support—highlighted efforts to ensure compliance and sustainability within the sector. 3.2 National Estimates of Fisheries and Aquaculture Subsidies (2013–2022). 3.2.1 Government-Appropriated Programmes in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sectors Government often shows some funding ambitions seeking to support the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, however funds allocated and utilized often do not meet up with what has been appropriated as shown in Fig. 1 . While it is often common for expenditures to be less than the amount appropriated, occasionally, it could be higher like in the case of the years 2015 and 2016. These disparities and imbalances can be occasioned by revenue shortfalls or unexpected expenditures in other areas or sometimes just due to budgetary adjustments. However, in most cases in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, the amount utilized is often close to the amount of allocation released except in the case of the year 2020, during the pandemic. Also of note were years 2021 and 2022 when appropriation, allocation and utilization were approximately equal. The highest appropriation and by extension allocation and utilization was obtained in the year 2017, but unfortunately there was a subsequent decline. 3.2.2 Government Expenditures for the Nigeria Fisheries and Aquaculture Sectors from 2013–2022 Based on the data from FMARD a total of 4,696,698,828 Naira was expended on the fisheries and aquaculture sector from 2013 to 2022 (Table 2 ), which is about 80% of the total amount appropriated and 95% of the total amount released for the sector within the period. Moreover, the allocation of funds to the different sub-sectors for the years varies depending on the government’s priority at the period and the amount of funds available. Across the ten-year period, expenditures on Aquaculture, Artisanal, and Trade, Storage and Processing featured more prominently than others. Across the years under review, the funding to the different budget heads were not consistent and the proportion varies across the years. For instance, there was no fund for artisanal, industrial fisheries, data management, administration and technology services budgetary heads in the year 2013 and this accounted for the null value reported. (Table 2 ) The expended funds were directed into different budgetary heads of the FDFA. During this period, the aquaculture sector was the most funded (48.4%), followed by the capture fisheries sector, which received a combined total of 25.2%, including artisanal (small-scale) fisheries at 19% and industrial fisheries at 6.2%. Trade, Storage, and Processing came next with 19.4%, followed by Quality Assurance (3.3%), Data Management (2.6%), Administration (1.0%), and Technology and Support Services (0.14%). Details of different project types and categories funded under the sub-sectors are here expounded. 3.2.2.1 Aquaculture Under aquaculture, the establishment of fish clusters was 41.6% (N951,637,732) of the total amount expended under the sub-sector (Appendix 1). The project has taken different dimensions over the years. Initially tagged Fish Farm Estate Development Programme, the project provided financial grants to selected fish producers nationwide to strengthen their operation and increase their scale of production. The model was later modified, and the government took the responsibility of constructing cluster ponds in selected communities while the host community identified the beneficiaries who were subsequently trained and supported with aquaculture inputs for production. The establishment of fish feed mills also featured among the major aquaculture projects (12%) (N274,626,846). Different scales of fish feed mills were established under this project, targeted toward the promotion of local fish feed development and the reduction in the cost of aquaculture production given that fish feed takes more than 70% of the production cost. The feed mills were established in private fish clusters and also provided as a support facility for the government-established fish farm clusters. As shown in Appendix 1, 11.94% (N272,901,566) of the funds for aquaculture were channelled to Input Supply. Under this project, the input supply is directly managed by the FDFA. The inputs provided are mainly fingerlings, fish feed and mobile fish tanks. The GES scheme is likewise an input support program but structured and was centrally managed lasting from 2013 to 2014 for the aquaculture sector. The fund on GES was 8.60% (N196,573,000) of the aquaculture expenditure. Another initiative that received significant funding up to N212,021,260 (9.28%) was Federal Government Colleges’ (FGC) Cottage Fish Farm supporting the Young Fish Farmers Development programme, a catch-them-young programme of the Department whereby cottage fish farms were established in Federal Government Secondary Schools. The students were trained in fish farming, and continuous mentoring is being provided by the federal fisheries officers in the State. The programme was aimed at promoting the culture and consumption of fish for its health and nutritional benefits. This also fits into the Federal Government School Feeding Program and the national education policy which have included aquaculture as one of the technical subjects taught in secondary education. Other projects that are featured under aquaculture included capacity building, promotion of aquaculture certification, establishment of fingerlings production centres, cage culture development, and infrastructure rehabilitation. 3.2.2.2 Fish Trade, Storage and Processing Projects related to storage and processing were designed to enhance the quality of fish products while also minimizing the rate of post-harvest losses in both capture and culture fisheries. The provision of smoking kilns to producers was valued at N390,426,664 (43%) and had the highest proportion of funds among the budget heads. This was followed by the establishment of fish processing centres which was 25% (N230,809,901) of the budget head, and then the establishment of fish markets in proximity to main fish production hubs ranked third with a total sum of N156,192,840 (17%). Trade-related projects were aimed at increasing market access for fish products. In this budget group also, funds were expended on cold-room establishment, and capacity building for fish processors and producers for effective post-harvest management to minimize loss to producers and increase the value and profitability of fish products. 3.2.2.3 Artisanal Fisheries The lake enhancement project received the highest fund under the artisanal fisheries-related budget head which stood at N589,517,587 (66%). Since the rate of growth in artisanal fisheries production in Nigeria has been declining over the years, the project focused on boosting the fisheries of inland freshwater bodies. As the nation abounds with numerous inland freshwater lakes, they were therefore selected for stocking considering the ease of post-stocking monitoring, management and impact compared with other inland water types. This was followed by the input support programme where inputs such as canoes, fishing nets and accessories, and insulated storage boxes were provided to the fishers. Other projects carried out under the sub sector include the promotion of compliance with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF), initiation of the canoe registration exercise and capacity building for the fisher folks. 3.2.2.4 Industrial Fisheries Efforts have increased in recent years to enhance the productivity and performance of the industrial fisheries sub-sector. Dedicated funds to this sector intensified in 2017. These funds have been mainly focused on improving the monitoring and surveillance activities of the government to deter the practice of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing in Nigerian waters. The establishment of Vessel Monitoring Stations therefore took a substantial portion which is 58% (N169,429,4305) of the funds expended in this budget. The support was also aimed at promoting compliance among the operators not to operate within the delineated 5 nautical mile designated for coastal artisanal fishers as provided by the Sea Fisheries Act (1992: S.1. 19) which is also meant to protect the coastal fisheries from intensive exploitation. Other industrial fisheries-related projects included the development of jetties, promotion of diversification into tuna fisheries, capacity building and training on compliance with the fisheries management measures provided in the Sea Fisheries Act, and adherence to import nation requirements for Nigerian seafood products. 3.2.2.5 Other Sub-Divisions Expenditures on Quality Assurance, Data Management, Administration and Technology Support Services constituted only 7.04% of the total budget spending for the period under review. Quality assurance was majorly focused on the provision of equipment and inputs for the National Fisheries Laboratory which is the recognised laboratory for the certification and assessment of fish and fish products imported or destined for export markets. Funds provided under the Data Management section were utilized in conducting surveys and production of fisheries and aquaculture yearbooks. The expenditures under the administrative section were mostly used for procurement of working materials and equipment as well as training and capacity building for the professionals working in the government sector for effective service delivery. The funds expended under the Technology and Support Services were least in respect of the total expenditure to the sector but were however notable as it was expended on the boatyards which serve to support the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the fabrication of fibreglass products used in boat building and repairs and production of mobile fish production tanks. 3.2.3 Implicit Payments and Support to the Industry. It is important to note that there are other government initiatives which also subsidize the fisheries sector, but they are not specific to fisheries and include those related to the agriculture sector. Records on the implicit payments were not available to the authors thus not quantified or estimated. These include government loans, loan guarantees, insurance, tax waivers and deferrals. Government loans and loan guarantees are provided through various national financial institutions to ease investment funding. Such institutions include the Bank of Industry, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL). The smallholder farmers, producers and aggregators who are critical in the value chain also have access to credit facilities through the NIRSAL to ensure the agroindustry does not lack the necessary input for its continual running. The credit guarantee scheme, APPEALS project (Agro-processing, Productivity Enhancement and Livelihood Improvement Support project) and the Anchor Borrower Scheme of the CBN are also among such loan guarantee and support schemes 22 – 24 . The Credit Guarantee Scheme provides credit guarantees to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), including those in aquaculture, helping to reduce the risk for commercial banks when lending to farmers. The APPEALS project targets small and medium-scale farmers and provides training, infrastructure, and financial support while focusing on improving farmers' access to new technologies, enhancing market linkages, and promoting sustainable practices, thus supporting aquaculture’s role in food security and poverty reduction. The Anchor Borrowers’ Program provides financing to farmers, typically in the form of input supplies rather than cash, reducing the risk of misuse. In aquaculture, this scheme enables catfish and tilapia farmers to access the inputs and technical support needed for scaling up production. By guaranteeing off-takers for the products, the program helps farmers ensure market access, thus boosting their income and productivity. In the case of insurance, through the National Agricultural Insurance Corporation (NAIC), Nigeria provides subsidized insurance for fish farmers under the subsidized livestock policy. Under this insurance, only 50% of the premium is paid by the farmer while the Federal Government and the State government where the farm is domiciled shared the remaining 50% at a ratio of 3:1 respectively. Disasters covered by the insurance include fish mortality due to disease, accident, fire, lightning, storm and flood. Moreover, several economic incentives are offered to Agriculture Investors in Nigeria including income tax relief, zero import duty on equipment, VAT exemptions, and others. Specifically, the Federal Government through the Federal Ministry of Finance, Budget and National Planning provides tariff reduction and duty waivers on imports of agricultural equipment and machinery which also covers the fisheries and aquaculture sector. 3.3 Types of Subsidies- Harmful, Beneficial or Ambiguous. 3.3.1 Classification of Subsidies for the Aquaculture Sector The overall aquaculture program includes beneficial, ambiguous and potentially harmful subsidies, depending on specific implementation strategies (Table 3 ). The majority of the projects (8) are considered beneficial, accounting for 83.26% of the total expenditure. The remaining two projects are classified as either ambiguous or harmful accounting for 4.64% and 12.09% of the total spending during the period covered, respectively. A significant portion of the beneficial category is allocated to the Fish Farm Cluster initiative, which alone comprises 41.88% of total spending. It is therefore classified as beneficial because it contributes to increased efficiency of resources and thereby enhances sustainability. Other beneficial projects include FGC Cottage Fish Farm (9.33%), which supports youth involvement in aquaculture, aligning with broader educational and nutritional programs and promoting social and economic development. Table 3 Classification of Aquaculture Subsidy in Nigeria Project Proportion of Total Amount Spent Categorization Reason/ Basis for classification Aquaculture Certification 0.96% Beneficial Certification ensures sustainable practices, environmental standards, and product quality, positively contributing to responsible aquaculture management. Cage Culture 4.64% Ambiguous Cage culture can be beneficial if managed properly (regarding water quality and species selection) but can become harmful if it leads to overstocking, pollution and disruption in biodiversity. Capacity Building 1.75% Beneficial Capacity building provides training and knowledge, which can improve aquaculture efficiency, sustainability, and community benefits. FGC Cottage Fish Farm 9.33% Beneficial This project supports youth engagement in aquaculture and aligns with educational and nutritional programs, promoting both social and economic development. Fingerlings Production 0.55% Beneficial Producing fingerlings supports the aquaculture lifecycle and reduces reliance on wild populations, contributing to sustainable stock replenishment thereby reducing pressure on the wild stocks. Fish Farm Cluster 41.88% Beneficial In Nigeria, presently the government supports the clustering of land-based farms. The clustering approach improves the efficiency and profitability of fish farmers. Fish Feed Mill 12.09% Harmful This is due to reliance on the wild for fish meal as a major protein component in fish feed production. Most fish meals are imported. GES (Growth Enhancement Support) 8.65% Beneficial GES supports small-scale producers, encourages inclusive growth and can promote sustainable practices through the provision of quality inputs like fingerlings. Infrastructure Rehabilitation 8.72% Beneficial Rehabilitation of infrastructure improves operational efficiency and can reduce environmental impacts by upgrading outdated or inefficient systems. Input Support for small scale producers 11.42% Beneficial Direct support for small-scale producers encourages inclusive growth and can promote sustainable practices through the provision of quality inputs like fingerlings. Implicit Payments to Aquaculture - Beneficial There is no data to assess the percentage. Beneficial 83.26% Ambiguous 4.64% Harmful 12.09% (Table 3 ) Input Support for Small-Scale Producers (11.42%) and GES (Growth Enhancement Support) (8.65%) also receive substantial funding. These initiatives help empower small-scale producers by providing essential inputs like fingerlings, fostering inclusive growth, and promoting sustainable practices. Additional investments in Infrastructure Rehabilitation (8.72%) and Capacity Building (1.75%) demonstrate a commitment to improving operational efficiency and enhancing technical knowledge in the aquaculture sector. The smallest share within the beneficial category, Fingerlings Production (0.55%), nevertheless plays a crucial role by supporting the aquaculture lifecycle and reducing reliance on wild populations, thus easing pressure on natural stocks. A smaller proportion of funds (4.64%) is allocated to projects classified as ambiguous, such as Cage Culture. Conversely, projects deemed harmful make up 12.09% of the total allocation under aquaculture, with the Fish Feed Mill establishment. 3.3.2 Classification of Subsidies for the Capture Fisheries and Other Sub-Sectors The types of subsidies in Nigeria's fisheries sector and other sub-sectors are provided in Table 4 . The majority (89.91%) are classified as beneficial, 4.06% as ambiguous and 6.04% as harmful. All the project expenditures under data management, industrial fisheries, quality assurance, and trade, storage and processing were classed as beneficial. Similarly, project expenditures under administration and technology and support services were all classified as ambiguous due to the associated uncertainty of the direction of impact of the projects on the capture fisheries resources. Project expenditure under the artisanal fisheries belonged to the three categories with 16.4% of it considered a harmful subsidy, but largely the artisanal expenditures were mostly beneficial (78.5%). Table 4 Percentage of government expenditure by sub-sectors classified as Harmful, Beneficial, or Ambiguous. Sub-Sector Ambiguous Beneficial Harmful Sub-Sector Total Administration 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Artisanal Fisheries 5.04% 78.54% 16.41% 100.00% Data Management 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% Industrial Fisheries 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% Quality Assurance 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% Technology Support Services 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Trade, Storage & Processing 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% Implicit Payments to Fisheries - - - - Grand Total 4.06% 89.91% 6.04% 100.00% (Table 4 ) On the basis of these classifications, the majority of the projects funded by the government described above mostly fall into either the beneficial or ambiguous category of subsidy. However, a percentage of artisanal fisheries projects (input support) are classified as harmful due to their tendency to favour overcapacity and overexploitation of the resources. 3.4 Stakeholder Perspectives on Fisheries Subsidies in Nigeria 3.4.1 Sociodemographic Information The sociodemographic characteristics of stakeholders who participated in the survey can be seen in Fig. 2 . A total of 84 stakeholders from different fisheries-related occupations responded to the survey of which about 60% of them are males and the most frequent age category is 36–50 with about 54% of the respondents falling into this category. Most of the respondents (30%) are into fish farming followed by fishers (13%), academicians/researchers and fish/seafood processors (10% each). Other notable categories include fish association officials (4%), Government Officials (6%), fish sellers (6%) and extension workers (4%). The most prevalent degree certification was a bachelor’s degree, with 22 respondents holding this qualification. Following closely, 18 participants possessed a master’s degree, showcasing a significant level of specialization in their respective fields. The most common income range was between 51,000 to 100,000 with about 41% of the respondents falling into this category. This was closely followed by the 101,000 to 250,000 categories with 32% of the respondents reporting incomes within this bracket. Additionally, about 16% of the respondents reported earnings above 250,000 monthly, while only about 6% earned less than 30,000. 3.4.2 Awareness and General Perception. 3.4.2.1 Energy or Power About 58.3% of the respondents are aware of fisheries subsidies on energy or power sources. The most mentioned fisheries subsidy on energy or power was petrol (36) followed by engines (17), and diesel (9) (Fig. 3 A). This indicates a significant reliance on petrol subsidies within the fisheries sector. The majority of respondents (65.5%) considered fisheries subsidies on energy or power to be beneficial. The reasons provided highlight the perceived positive impacts on revenue, cost reduction, profitability, economic value, increased production, and support for the fisheries industry. 3.4.2.2 Inputs The respondents (62%) are generally aware of subsidies on inputs. More so, the most frequently mentioned subsidy type under the input category was fingerlings (27) followed by fish feed (26), While the least mentioned was outboard motor (1) (Fig. 3 B). Fishing gear, juveniles, fishing craft, and parent stock are other subsidy types mentioned under this category. More so, most of them (66%) believe that subsidies on inputs are beneficial, while 6% and 2% believe that subsidies on inputs are ambiguous and harmful. Based on the reasons provided, the majority of respondents consider fisheries subsidies on inputs to be beneficial. The reasons cited include increasing fish production to meet demand, reducing the cost of production, boosting the business of fish farmers, supporting the growth of the economy, improving yield and efficiency, and providing essential operational inputs. 3.4.2.3 Preservation and Processing Most of the respondents are aware of subsidies on fish preservation (cold rooms) (60.7%) and processing (72.6%) with about 82.1% and 90.1% of them believing that subsidies on preservation and processing are beneficial, respectively. None of them see subsidies on preservation as harmful, while only 1.2% see subsidies on processing as harmful. Ambiguities were also noted regarding the availability and accessibility of cold rooms, which has a direct impact on preservation practices and the overall quality of fish products. Regarding the processing options, the most frequently mentioned subsidy type (57) known to the respondents was the smoking kiln (Fig. 3 C). 3.4.2.4 Infrastructure, Export, Import and Payments. Most of the respondents are not aware of subsidies on infrastructure (52.4%), export (60.7%), import (54.7%) and payments (47.6%), while these subsidies are mostly deemed beneficial for infrastructure (57.1%), export (45.2%), import (45.2%), and payments (53.6%). More so, some allude that infrastructure subsidies might lead to overfishing and modify the shore ecosystem, others think that having them will benefit the fishers. Among the responses recorded one respondent noted that subsidies on infrastructure could lead to overexploitation. As for export, a respondent mentioned that “if a lot of fish is exported more than needed to meet local consumption needs, it's harmful” . However, “ if prized fish is exported, fishers and the economy as a whole benefit” . Another respondent noted that “ fisheries subsidy might be beneficial in some regions while harmful in other states ”. Furthermore, some respondents believe that import subsidies can enhance economic growth, accessibility of fish, profitability, and necessary support for practitioners, others express concerns about the negative impact on local farmers, domestic producers, and the quality of imported products. As for payments, they are seen as providing motivation, financial support, and encouragement to fishermen, fish farmers, processors, and exporters. They contribute to poverty reduction, improved livelihoods, increased productivity, and availability of fish. However, there are concerns regarding the proper distribution and effective targeting of subsidies to reach the intended beneficiaries. 3.4.2.5 Training Most of the respondents are aware of subsidies for training (53.6%) and also believe that they are beneficial (85.7%). The findings reveal that respondents are generally aware of the significance of subsidies on training, research, and development in the fisheries sector. These subsidies are widely perceived as beneficial, as they contribute to the improvement of knowledge, skills, productivity, competitiveness, and the adoption of modern techniques. Training programs are seen as essential for creating awareness of good fishing practices and management. Subsidies allocated to research and development are expected to address existing challenges, enhance infrastructure, and elevate the quality of fish products. However, some ambiguous responses indicate a lack of personal experience or uncertainty regarding the impact of these subsidies. To optimize the outcomes, it is essential to implement targeted training, research, and development initiatives that address the specific needs and challenges faced by the fisheries sector. 3.4.3 Perception of Subsidy Impacts The analysis reveals that the highest number of respondents, with 39 instances (42.9%), strongly agreed that fisheries subsidies have a positive impact. They perceive subsidies as beneficial and believe that they contribute to various positive outcomes within the fishing industry. Following closely, 38 respondents (41.8%) agreed that fisheries subsidies have a positive impact. Although not as strongly as the previous group, they still perceive subsidies in a positive light and recognize their beneficial effects. A considerable number of respondents, 14 instances (15.4%), expressed a neutral stance regarding the impact of fisheries subsidies. These stakeholders may have reservations, uncertainties, or lack sufficient information to form a clear opinion about the effects of subsidies. On the other hand, a smaller number of respondents disagreed with the positive impact of subsidies. Two respondents (2.2%) provided a rating of 2, indicating their disagreement, while only one respondent (1.1%) strongly disagreed with the positive impact of fisheries subsidies, providing a rating of 1. 3.5 Comparative Analysis of Fisheries and Aquaculture Subsidies in Nigeria, the EU, and Select Non-EU Countries Nigeria allocates a substantial portion of its fisheries funding to aquaculture, with 48.4% (€5.68 million) of the subsidies directed to this sector, making it the most funded sub-sector. This reflects Nigeria's commitment to developing aquaculture compared to captured fisheries receiving 25.2% (€2.95 million) of the subsidies. However, this policy direction has only resulted in marginal growth in aquaculture due to reliance on one dominant species - catfish. This observation is consistent with the limited funding being experienced generally in the fisheries budgetary allocation. Capture fisheries remain dominant in food security and a source of foreign exchange. Nevertheless, the sector being data-poor experiences limitations in the development of effective fisheries management among others and is faced with limited funding compared to global players. Also, Nigeria's subsidy allocation structure contrasts sharply with countries like Japan and South Korea, where over 90% (€1.5 billion in 2014) of subsidies are directed towards capture fisheries (Table 5 ). Japan, for example, has historically favoured traditional fishing practices, directing approximately 99% of its subsidies towards capture fisheries as of 2015. These subsidies, primarily in the form of direct grants and loans, represented around 7% of the landed catch's value. Similarly, China allocates 98% of its fisheries subsidies to capture fisheries, mainly through fuel subsidies, despite aquaculture's significant contribution to its seafood production. However, regional governments in China support aquaculture, leading to rapid sector growth, with production reaching 45.5 million tonnes in 2014. Table 5 A comparison of Fisheries and Aquaculture Subsidies in Nigeria, the EU, and Select Non-EU Countries Country/ Region Subsidy Distribution (in %, €) Time Period Key Focus Areas Outcomes/Challenges Nigeria (Euro € estimates based on 2019 rate) - Aquaculture : 48.4% (€5.68 million) - Capture Fisheries (Artisanal & Industrial) : 25.2% (€2.95 million) - Trade, Storage & Processing : 19.4% (€2.28 million) - Pre-2013: Data unavailable 2013–2022 - Focus on aquaculture as the primary sector - Emphasis on trade, processing, and artisanal fisheries -Promoting beneficial subsidies against harmful in capture fisheries - Aquaculture growth has been marginal with one dominant species/Limited funding for research and scope of aquaculture practices -Capture fisheries remain dominant in food security and a source of foreign exchange/ Poor fisheries data management and limited funding compared to global players European Union (EU) - Aquaculture : 20% of a total of €1.72 billion (2014–2020) - 2000–2014: €1.17 billion - Fisheries : Mixed Capacity & Benefits 2000–2020 - Sustainability and environmental protection in aquaculture - Fleet modernization and capacity management - Increased regulatory procedure, which is now considered to be hindering growth - Mixed success in capture fisheries/ Harmful subsidies exists and limits the efforts to reduce overcapacitation South Korea - Aquaculture and processing: Minimal funding - Capture: 90–100% (EUR 1.5 billion in 2014) 2009–2014 - Emphasis on fleet reduction, sustainable coastal and offshore fisheries - Support for decommissioning vessels - Growth in aquaculture through marine farms - Decline in capture production and fleet due to decommissioning efforts​ Japan - Aquaculture and marketing: Negligible - Capture: 53% (2008) to 99% (2015) 2008–2015 - Disaster recovery and fleet modernization post-2011 earthquake - Focus on sustainable fisheries management - Infrastructure and insurance dominant subsidies post-2011 - Limited funds for aquaculture; substantial decrease in processing sector subsidies​ Russia - Aquaculture : 33% (2015) - Capture Fisheries : 63% of subsidies (2015) 2001–2015 - Increasing support for aquaculture - Focus on vessel modernization and infrastructure development - Boosting aquaculture production to improve food security - Increased value addition of fish product/ Complex regulatory regulatory framework for fisheries and aquaculture China - Aquaculture : 2% (€97 million) - Capture Fisheries : 98% (€5.47 billion) 2011–2013 - Capture sector dominates subsidy allocation - Aquaculture modernization focus - Large fuel subsidies for distant water fleet - Improved aquaculture modernization, research, and management efforts/Intensive aquaculture practices have led to environmental issues - Encourages overcapacity and overfishing in both national and international waters Taiwan - Aquaculture : 12% (€3 million) - Capture Fisheries : 88% (€22 million) 2013 - Large subsidies for vessel buybacks and modernization programs - Aquaculture still underfunded compared to distant water fleet/Access to accurate, updated subsidy data is challenging, with official information often limited or unavailable. United States - Aquaculture : Small (€23 million) - Capture Fisheries : 99% (€1.5 billion) 2013 - Focus on modernization and management in Capture sector - Aquaculture receives minimal federal support, mostly through grants/ Lack of centralized reporting system complicating data aggregation and transparency in subsidy allocation Source: EU aquaculture subsidies, Guillen, J. et al. 55 ; EU fisheries subsidies, Skerritt, D. J. et al. 56 ; fisheries and aquaculture subsidies in Non-EU Countries, Arthur, R. et al. 44 (Table 5 ) In the EU, despite a larger total investment of €1.72 billion under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) from 2014 to 2020, only about 20% of this budget is allocated to aquaculture. The EU focuses heavily on sustainability and high-quality production standards, which has hindered substantial growth. While the majority of the subsidy in the EU has been on capture fisheries, the EU has in the past two decades shifted from funding capacity-enhancing subsidies (e.g., vessel construction, modernization) to more beneficial subsidies, such as conservation and management efforts aimed at sustainability. Nevertheless, a significant number of harmful subsidies still remain due to the conflicting use of capacity-enhancing subsidies and has limited the EU, as the second-largest subsidizer globally, in meeting SDG 14.6 targets. In the United States, aquaculture receives minimal direct subsidies (2%), primarily through federal grants targeted at sustainability and innovation. The sector is largely self-sufficient, driven by private investment rather than government support. Unlike Nigeria, where government-directed subsidies dominate, the U.S. aquaculture industry relies on market forces and investments in high-value species like salmon. Similarly, in Japan, subsidies to aquaculture have been relatively small and declining, falling to just 1% of the total by 2015. Japan, like the U.S., emphasises high-value species and small-scale innovations. Russia, on the other hand, allocates 33% of its fisheries subsidies to aquaculture, a higher proportion compared to most other countries. This significant investment, characterized by high per-tonne subsidies (€57 per tonne), indicates the government's strategic focus on boosting aquaculture for food security. 4 Discussion Narrative description of the government support between 1980–2022 showed different trajectories among sub-sectors. The government supported the fisheries sector fundamentally to promote food security, livelihood enhancement, trade and foreign exchange earning especially in the case of industrial capture fisheries. However, quantitative records of government spending were not accessible for the period 1980–2012, a data accessibility challenge frequently noted in the literature on subsidy analysis 19 , 23 . It is common for fisheries governors (authorities) in charge of managing fisheries to limit data archiving to only catch data leaving out trade, investment, and even aid related data to other parastatals or ministries. This practice is negative as it affects data availability for effective fisheries management as the total picture is often missing. There is a need for a holistic picture or a paradigm shift in the training and knowledge acquisition of fisheries practitioners to a more diversified knowledge base beyond the usual subjects to those covering natural resource economics, experimental economics, international trade, markets and policy analysis. This thought aligns with the views of other experts in the field 24 – 26 . 4.1 Fisheries and aquaculture subsidies for the period 1980–2012 In spite of difficulty in data accessibility, qualitative data for the period showed that subsidies carried out to support fisheries sectors in Nigeria are similar to what is obtainable in many countries of West Africa. Subsidies to the fisheries sectors usually take the form of a reduction in the price of inputs, a reduction in the price of consumer goods (mainly foods), and the provision of infrastructure and services such as extension and training 27 . While highlighting the fact that there is a conflict between the government subsidy programme and restrictions on the importation of fishing materials, studies showed that subsidy on the importation of these materials was designed to increase the rate of modernization which will in turn bring about a change in the approach to attaining self-sufficiency in food production 28 . Subsidies to the aquaculture sector during the same period were mainly targeted towards input supports, aquaculture infrastructure development and capacity building programmes. Most of them may be considered beneficial considering their tendency to reduced pressure on the wild fish stocks; however, the lack of detailed information on these projects limits a thorough assessment of their long-term sustainability and environmental impact. Supports to the artisanal sector during the period were funded by both the national government and international agencies and mostly periodical in nature with a clear intervention target. We inferred that most of the support focused on driving production with no attention to development of a strong and sustainable fisheries management program particularly in areas like stock assessment and mitigating vulnerabilities to climate change impacts. A culture which has remained to date. However, some of the projects are considered beneficial as they were targeted towards reducing post-harvest losses and promoting trade. Subsidies to the industrial sector were mainly capacity enhancing like energy subsidy and vessel purchase. Notwithstanding, some supports funded through aid from the World Bank were beneficial promoting monitoring and surveillance. 4.2 Fisheries and aquaculture subsidies for the period 2013–2022 A quantitative assessment of national fisheries subsidies for the period was carried out using available data from the government. Available data suggests a possible deliberate effort by the concerned department to systematically archive detailed information on projects and programs making it easier for quantitative assessment. Subsidies in aquaculture sub-heads in Nigeria fall into the six categories and types listed by Sumaila 19 viz research and development, infrastructure development, management programs and services, marketing support, production incentives and others. We also extended subsidy types used in fisheries subsidy classification in terms of beneficial, harmful and ambiguous 7 , 29 . For instance, we considered activities of fish feed mills harmful due to almost absolute dependence on fish meal as a major protein source with potential negative consequences on the wild. Aquaculture is recognized as a significant pressure on wild fish stocks, largely due to the demand for fishmeal from wild-caught fish 30 . Most of the other projects under land-based aquaculture were considered beneficial, focusing on production enhancement which has a tendency to reduce impact on the wild and capacity building programmes. However, some water-based aquaculture projects, like the cage culture initiative, presented more complex implications considering their danger to the environment if carried out on open water bodies due to risk of overstocking, water pollution, and biodiversity disruptions 31 , 32 . The country began to prioritize use of open water bodies as means of increasing fish production. There is however the need for good stewardship practice to prevent negative consequences on wild stock. The integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) could be a solution to the multiple objectives of increasing fish production, diversification of aquaculture species, environmental stewardship and more if implemented conscientiously 33 . The Nigeria IMTA project in partnership with WorldFish and the Lagos State University, funded by the UK's International Development through the Blue Planet Fund, aims to strengthen sustainable aquaculture practices under the Asia-Africa BlueTech Superhighway initiative (2023–2030). In the artisanal sector, the majority of expenditures are classified as beneficial. This is mainly dominated by initiatives, such as the lake enhancement project aimed at boosting artisanal fisheries production, which reflects the government commitment to enhance local fishery resources. However, a notable portion of artisanal sector subsidies (input support) were classified as harmful as it could encourage overcapacity and overfishing 34 – 36 . While these subsidies are critical for sustaining the livelihoods of small scale fishers, they pose potential risks that must be carefully managed​. This is similar to other developing countries where small scale fisheries play significant role in food security, employment and regional trade 16 , 37 . Such subsidies for small-scale fishers have persisted through both the pre- and post-2013 periods covered in this study. However, with respect to proportion, Nigeria's situation notably diverges from the global trend observed in marine subsidies. Globally, small-scale fisheries tend to receive less subsidy support, with nearly 90% of the subsidies allocated to large-scale fisheries directed toward capacity-enhancing measures that often contribute to overfishing 38 , 39 . Nigeria’s large-scale fisheries receive relatively minimal subsidies, and the subsidies allocated are predominantly beneficial rather than capacity-enhancing. The harmful subsidies of the industrial/large scale fisheries sector such as the one subsidizing fuel cost during the pre-2013 period was stopped leaving only the beneficial ones as most of the current subsidies to the sector were targetted towards monitoring and surveillance. Migrating from harmful to beneficial subsidy is a remarkable development in the management of industrial fisheries in Nigeria and the resolve to combat IUU fishing and making the sector more transparent as Nigeria intends to become a part of the Fisheries Transparency Initiative (FiTI). According to Ball 40 and Skerritt 41 , lack of transparency can foster public disempowerment and distrust, while its presence encourages communication and inclusivity. Nevertheless, the inadequacy of stock assessment studies remains a challenge as stock assessment holds a necessary and sufficient condition in attaining sustainable fisheries management. The government financial and insurance institutions as part of their mandates promote financing and insurance coverage in support of different sectoral developments. The fisheries and aquaculture subsectors also enjoy such financial interventions under different programmes mentioned earlier under government’s implicit payments 42 – 44 . These includes tax deferrals, duty free imports on inputs, insurance supports to mention a few. However, while they are mostly targetted towards sectoral development, some of these implicit payments can contribute capacity enhancement 7 . Implicit payments to the fisheries sector are a common practice in many countries including the US, Japan and others 45 . It is imperative that fisheries governors and managers have a holistic information about this kind of financing or supports in order to be able to contextualise their ramification on the sustainable management of the fisheries. Managers must communicate the need to focus on beneficial subsidies such as research and developments and specifically stock assessment activities. The stakeholder’s demography is well distributed across different age, gender, occupation and education categories. Subsidies is not just an economic decision making process but also has socio-political dimension requiring a broad based support in many context 46 . Within the period covered, the energy and power subsidy are provided nationwide to reduce the cost of petrol which is mostly used by many thereby reducing the cost associated with transportation of goods and services. While the subsidy is not specifically to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, the stakeholders recognize its significant impact on the sector. Nigeria has totally deregulated its fuel/energy sector removing the subsidy being benefitted by the citizens with consequent impact on the prices of goods and services. Similar effect has been reported in Spain 47 . A study on the specific impact of this deregulation on the fisheries and aquaculture sector would be very important as it can shape and influence the kind of fisheries subsidy that government would be encouraged to provide to reduce spiral cost of fish production and a depressed fish consumption. Nigeria does not provide any fuel subsidy specifically to the fisheries sector but the stakeholders in the sector benefits from the general fuel subsidy program on petroleum motorist spirit (PMS). The subsidy on the AGO has been removed much earlier, the industrial fisheries has stopped receiving any support. Schuhbauer et al. 38 argue that fuel subsidies can perpetuate inefficient technology and further marginalize small-scale fishers. Evidence from Senegal’s artisanal purse seine fishery shows that fuel subsidies contributed to overfishing and is postulated to lead to a collapse of the fishery by 2030-2035 48 . On the other hand, fuel subsidies can also provide short-term benefits, such as increasing the monthly income of small-scale fishermen, as seen in Kedah and Perlis, Malaysia 49 . A smaller group of respondents considered these subsidies to be harmful, primarily due to potential cost implications and overfishing. This mirror concerns raised in the global discourse on fisheries subsidies, where fuel subsidies, particularly in capture fisheries, are linked to overexploitation of marine resources 29 . The presence of such concerns among Nigerian stakeholders indicates an awareness of the trade-offs between short-term economic gains and long-term sustainability. This suggests the need for more stringent regulation and better targeting of subsidies to avoid exacerbating overfishing, particularly in the already vulnerable capture fisheries sector. Fisheries and aquaculture enjoyed subsidized inputs from the government which a small proportion of stakeholder viewed as harmful or ambiguous. This suggests that there may be localized issues of inefficiency or misallocation, warranting closer scrutiny to ensure that the right inputs are reaching the right stakeholders in a timely and efficient manner. Majority of the stakeholders are aware of subsidies available on provision of preservation facilities (kilns, oven and coldrooms) and believe they are beneficial. However, the limited accessibility and availability of coldrooms highlight a structural challenge within the post-harvest phase of the fisheries value chain. This limitation not only affects the quality and preservation of fish products but also undermines the broader efforts to improve food security and reduce economic losses 37 . Such structural challenge is common in different forms of input subsidies. Addressing these infrastructural gaps could significantly enhance the sustainability of fisheries production and reduce the environmental footprint of the industry by minimizing waste. Stakeholders’ positive view of subsidies related to capacity building reflect the crucial role that it plays in enhancing productivity and competitiveness in the fisheries sector. Training programs have been shown to drive significant advancements in fisheries and aquaculture sectors globally 50 . However, a portion of the respondents expressed ambiguity on the impact of training (short or long term) highlighting a serious concern in the relevance or delivery of these training programs relative to their expectations. To maximize the impact of training initiatives, there should be more targeted approaches addressing the specific needs of local fish farmers and fishers, crew members, processors, and traders 51 , 52 . Moreover, integrating these training programs with ongoing research and development initiatives could foster a more dynamic and responsive knowledge transfer system that meets the evolving challenges of the sector. In comparison with global trends, the stakeholders’ perception of Nigeria’s fishery subsidies seems to mirror patterns observed in other developing countries, where the balance between beneficial and harmful subsidies is a constant point of contention 53 . The consensus among Nigerian stakeholders, however, lean toward subsidies as a tool for positive change, particularly in aquaculture. This focus on aquaculture subsidies is in line with recent global shifts toward promoting aquaculture as a sustainable alternative to capture fisheries, especially in regions where wild stocks are declining due to overfishing and climate change impacts 54 , 55 . The government should direct more subsidies towards capture fisheries to ensure that fish stock assessment and fisheries data management should be enhanced given their relatively higher return to food security, livelihood and sources of foreign exchange earnings than cultured fishes. 4.3 Comparative Assessment of Fisheries and Aquaculture Subsidies: Nigeria and Global Context Nigeria's limited allocation of fisheries subsidies, particularly compared to major players like China and the EU 45 , 56 , 57 , reflects a broader trend where developing countries generally spend less on fisheries subsidies than developed nations, as observed by Sumaila et al. 29 . Despite this, Nigeria prioritizes aquaculture, dedicating a significant portion of its subsidies to this sector—a commitment shaped in part by the 2005 Fish for All Summit, where African leaders pledged to invest in aquaculture for production growth and food security 58 . Nevertheless, with local fish production still largely reliant on capture fisheries, Nigeria must consider structuring subsidies to support both capture and aquaculture sectors to balance food security goals with long-term resource sustainability. Such diversified support is necessary, especially in countries where capture fisheries remain integral to production 59 . While Nigeria's aquaculture sector is the most funded within its fisheries industry, challenges remain in technology adoption and infrastructure development. Only 0.14% of the funds are directed toward technology and support services, suggesting a need for increased investment in these areas to overcome current limitations. In the EU, regulatory and environmental hurdles pose significant challenges. Despite substantial investment, bureaucratic barriers have led to stagnation in aquaculture growth 56 . In contrast, China and Russia have achieved substantial production growth with fewer regulatory constraints, focusing more on infrastructure and expansion rather than solely on environmental sustainability. For the United States, the lack of substantial direct subsidies is a barrier to rapid expansion, although private investments have fostered innovation in high-value species 60 . The small percentage of funding allocated to technology and support services in Nigeria indicates a potential area for improvement. Enhancing investment in these areas could spur technological innovation and modernization, essential for increasing production efficiency and sustainability. Nigeria's approach to aquaculture subsidies aligns most closely with the strategies of Russia and China, focusing on food security. The EU’s emphasis on sustainability and quality, while commendable, faces challenges due to regulatory constraints. Japan and the U.S., with their focus on high-value species and sustainable practices, offer a contrast in subsidy allocation and reliance on private investment. Nigeria’s future fisheries and aquaculture growth will benefit from a heightened focus on technological and support services investments, adopting a strategy that comprehensively addresses the sector’s diverse needs. Furthermore, Nigeria’s limited funding for technology and support services in the fisheries sector suggests an area for policy enhancement. Investments in technology and support services are essential for fostering innovation, efficiency, and sustainable practices in fisheries and aquaculture thus, addressing this funding gap could improve the productivity and resilience of Nigeria's fisheries, advancing both economic and food security outcomes 61 , 62 . 4.4 WTO Fisheries Subsidy Agreement and Its Implications for Nigeria The WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies was adopted in June 2022. It focuses solely on subsidies for marine wild fisheries and does not include those for aquaculture, inland freshwater fisheries, or any land-based activities (including onshore processing) 63 . Nigeria submitted its instrument of acceptance for the Agreement on June 12, 2023, becoming the second African WTO member to take this step 64 . The Agreement prohibits harmful subsidies, which include those that promote IUU fishing, as well as subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and the overfishing of stocks in a depleted condition 65 . Fuel subsidies are among the major culprits of harmful subsidies globally 29 . Prior to the Agreement, Nigeria had already withdrawn fuel subsidies for industrial fishers in 2000. By 2023, all forms of fuel subsidies that could directly or indirectly impact the fisheries sector were eliminated, aligning Nigeria’s subsidy framework with the WTO's sustainability objectives. The WTO Fisheries Subsidy Agreement presents both opportunities and challenges for Nigeria's fisheries sector, which comprises crucial artisanal and industrial fisheries. The subsidies provided to industrial fisheries in Nigeria are largely beneficial focusing mostly on monitoring and surveillance. However, unquantified subsidies such as import duty waivers for the importation of fisheries equipment still take place and may contribute to overcapacity and overfishing if not properly monitored. Without clear limitations or transparency in the allocation of these waivers, there is a risk of undermining sustainable fishing practices, which is a key concern under the WTO agreement. Moreover, certain portions of the artisanal subsidies such as the input-support programs have potential to promote overcapacity. Thus, caution is required when providing such capacity-enhancing subsidies, especially given that the status of many Nigerian fish stocks is currently unknown 66 . Article 5.3 of the Agreement states that “A Member shall take special care and exercise due restraint when granting subsidies to fishing or fishing related activities regarding stocks the status of which is unknown 65 .” This provision applies to all members – developed, developing and LDCs 66 . However, Nigeria can leverage on the provision of Article 7 of the Agreement to secure technical assistance and capacity building through the WTO Fisheries Funding Mechanism provided under the Article in determining the status of Nigeria fisheries stocks. By doing so, Nigeria can enhance transparency on fisheries-related information, as required by the Agreement 66 . Additionally, the Agreement’s provisions for special and differential treatment (SDT) for developing countries provide Nigeria with some flexibility in transitioning towards more sustainable fishing practices. In light of these, Nigeria must strike a careful balance between reforming fisheries subsidies and supporting local fisheries livelihoods. Utilizing the technical assistance and capacity-building opportunities provided through the WTO Fisheries Funding Mechanism could be instrumental in assessing Nigeria’s fish stock health, enhancing transparency and enabling more targeted subsidy allocations in line with WTO requirements. Concurrently, Nigeria should continue reviewing its subsidy programs to ensure they fully comply with WTO standards, particularly regarding those that may contribute to overfishing or IUU fishing. 5 Conclusions This study highlights the evolving nature of government support to both capture and culture fisheries in Nigeria. For much of the first three decades, the lack of quantitative data limited detailed analysis, though international and government support played a significant role in promoting sectoral development during that time. In more recent years, support has become predominantly government-led and largely focused on aquaculture, with less funding directed toward trade, processing, artisanal and industrial fisheries, quality assurance, and technology services. Aquaculture support covered a broad range of areas, including certification, cage culture, capacity building, fingerlings production, feed mills, farm clusters, the Growth Enhancement Support (GES) scheme, infrastructure rehabilitation, and input support for small-scale producers. Support for artisanal fisheries was modest, concentrating on canoe registration, capacity building, input supply, and lake enhancement, with minimal investment in governance or management. Industrial fisheries subsidies, though limited, prioritized regulatory oversight through investments in vessel monitoring systems, and broader monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) infrastructure. Nigeria’s fisheries and aquaculture subsidies reflect a complex mix of beneficial, harmful, and ambiguous interventions. Classification shows that most aquaculture-related interventions are perceived as beneficial. However, a few aquaculture programs were viewed as ambiguous, such as cage culture, due to their potential environmental risks when implemented in open water bodies. Subsidies directed at capture fisheries also present a mixed picture. While interventions like canoe registration and selective input supply were seen as potentially beneficial, they were often hindered by poor targeting and inadequate follow-up, making their impact ambiguous in many cases. Industrial fisheries subsidies are now viewed as mostly beneficial, particularly following the cessation of diesel subsidies. This shift has reduced distortive incentives and sustainability concerns associated with earlier fuel support. Investments in vessel monitoring and supporting governance infrastructure have instead enhanced monitoring and resource management. Stakeholders generally viewed Nigeria’s fisheries and aquaculture subsidies as beneficial. However, concerns were raised over the removal of general fuel subsidies, limited access to post-harvest infrastructure, and ambiguity in the impact of training programs, especially where delivery failed to meet local needs. Overall, stakeholders expressed support for well-targeted and transparent subsidies, while emphasizing the need for more balanced attention to capture fisheries to strengthen sustainability, food security, and livelihoods. While global fisheries subsidies tend to favor capture fisheries, Nigeria’s subsidy framework diverges by placing greater emphasis on aquaculture. This strategic focus reflects efforts to increase production and reduce import dependence. However, given the persistent role of capture fisheries in meeting domestic fish demand and supporting rural livelihoods, a more integrated subsidy approach is essential. Increasing support for capture fisheries will be critical to achieving both food security and long-term sustainability of aquatic resources. Notably, prior to WTO agreement, Nigeria has removed support towards harmful subsidy especially with respect to AGO subsidy. The country can further strengthen the industrial fisheries sector by taking advantage of the WTO Fisheries Funding Mechanism to strategically develop the subsector towards the part of sustainable oceans fisheries development. This will include prioritizing regular stock assessment which is considered the fulcrum of sustainable fisheries and blue economy. By integrating stakeholder insights and focusing on evidence-based policymaking, Nigeria can strengthen its fisheries subsidy framework to not only promote ecological sustainability but also ensure equitable economic benefits across communities. This research provides a crucial roadmap for policymakers, offering actionable strategies to balance economic development with resource conservation, and fostering a resilient and sustainable fisheries sector in alignment with national and global goals. The findings highlight the urgency of continued investments in beneficial subsidies while phasing out harmful practices, creating a pathway towards a more sustainable and prosperous future for Nigeria’s fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Declarations Author Contributions S.L.A. contributed to the design of the study. S.L.A. and O.F.O. sourced data from FMARD. A.O.S. facilitated the design and distribution of the survey questionnaire. O.F.O. and A.O.S. contributed to the data analysis. All authors (S.LA., K.A.F., F.O.A., O.F.O. and A.O.S.) contributed to the interpretation of the results. All authors contributed to the writing and provided substantive feedback on the manuscript. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all the survey respondents as well as the staff of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Finance Department of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development for making available the data used in this study. This study received no funding. Competing interests All authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests. Data availability The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References FAO. Nigeria - Fisheries and Aquaculture Country Profiles. Country Profile Fact Sheets https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/facp/nga?lang=en (2023). Anetekhai, M. A., Akin-Oriola, G. A., Aderinola, O. J. & Akintola, S. L. Steps ahead for aquaculture development in Sub-Saharan Africa - The case of Nigeria. Aquaculture 239 , 237–248 (2004). TrendEconomy. Nigeria: Imports and Exports. Annual International Trade Statistics by Country (HS) https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/Nigeria/0303 (2023). UNEP. Fisheries Subsidies and Marine Resource Management: Lessons Learned from Studies in Argentina and Senegal . https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/9175 (2003). OECD. Policy Brief: Subsidies: A Way Towards Sustainable Fisheries? (2005). IEA. World Energy Outlook 1999: Looking at Energy Subsidies: Getting the Prices Right . (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2000). doi:10.1787/weo-1999-en. Sumaila, U. R. et al. A bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies. Journal of Bioeconomics 12 , 201–225 (2010). FAO. Marine Fisheries and the Law of the Sea: A Decade of Change. Special Chapter (Revised) of The State of Food and Agriculture 1992. (1992). Milazzo, M. Subsidies in World Fisheries: A Re-examination. World Bank technical paper no. 406. Fisheries series. Preprint at https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:152882029 (1998). Sumaila, U. R. et al. A global dataset on subsidies to the fisheries sector. Data Brief 27 , 104706 (2019). Sumaila, U. R. et al. Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies. Mar Policy 109 , 103695 (2019). Flaaten, O. & Wallis, P. Government Financial Transfers to Fishing Industries in OECD Countries. in Proceedings from the 10th Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, Oregon, Oregon State University (2001). APEC. Study into the Nature and Extent of Subsidies in the Fisheries Sector of APEC Member Economies, 2000 . (2000). Sharp, R. & Sumaila, U. R. Quantification of U.S. Marine Fisheries Subsidies. N Am J Fish Manag 29 , 18–32 (2009). Mallory, T. G. Fisheries subsidies in China: Quantitative and qualitative assessment of policy coherence and effectiveness. Mar Policy 68 , 74–82 (2016). Akintola, S. L. Perception and Reality of Justice in the Small-Scale Fisheries of Nigeria. in Blue Justice: Small-Scale Fisheries in a Sustainable Ocean Economy (eds. Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., Bugeja Said, A. & Isaacs, M.) 179–197 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-89624-9_10. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation . (FAO, Rome, 2022). doi:10.4060/CC0461EN. Statista. Share of Gross Domestic Production (GDP) generated by the agricultural sector in Nigeria as of 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1207940/share-of-gdp-by-agricultural-sector-in-nigeria/# (2022). Sumaila, U. R. Transparency in aquaculture subsidy reporting urgently needed. Sci Adv 10 , eadt5484 (2024). Garlock, T. M. et al. Environmental, economic, and social sustainability in aquaculture: the aquaculture performance indicators. Nat Commun 15 , 5274 (2024). Drillet, G. et al. Opinions on the Sustainable Development of Aquaculture. Journal of Fisheries & Livestock Production 2 , 1–3 (2014). World Bank. World Development Indicators | DataBank. DataBank, World Bank Group https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&country=ARE# (2024). Sumaila, U. R. Fisheries subsidies are an obstacle to achieving Infinity Fish. in Infinity Fish 121–138 (Elsevier, 2022). doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823816-5.00026-6. Sumaila, U. R. Reflections on Breaking Down Silos in Fisheries Science. Fisheries (Bethesda) 49 , 207–210 (2024). Anderson, J. Chapter: 1. We Are the Apex Predators. in Future of Fisheries: Perspectives for Emerging Professionals (eds. Taylor, W. W., Lynch, A. J. & Léonard, N. J.) 3–8 (American Fisheries Society, 2014). Cochrane, K. L. An integrated view of fisheries: tunnelling between silos. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74 , 625–634 (2017). Mabawonku, A. F. The Role and Effect Subsidies on Fisheries Development in West Africa (Nigeria, Cote D’Ivoire, The Gambia, Senegal) . (1990). Mabawonku, A. F. & Olomola, S. A. Regulations and policies on the importation of fishing materials in Nigeria: 1970–1980. Fish Res 4 , 213–222 (1986). Sumaila, U. R., Lam, V., Le Manach, F., Swartz, W. & Pauly, D. Global fisheries subsidies: An updated estimate. Mar Policy 69 , 189–193 (2016). Bogmans, C. W. J. & van Soest, D. Can global aquaculture growth help to conserve wild fish stocks? Theory and empirical analysis. Nat Resour Model 35 , e12323 (2022). Price, C., Black, K. D., Hargrave, B. T. & Morris, J. A. Marine cage culture and the environment: effects on water quality and primary production. Aquac Environ Interact 6 , 151–174 (2015). Kumari, S. et al. Assessment of Cage Culture Practices in Chandil Reservoir, Jharkhand. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology 21–30 (2021) doi:10.9734/AJAEES/2021/V39I930637. Giangrande, A. et al. An Integrated Monitoring Approach to the Evaluation of the Environmental Impact of an Inshore Mariculture Plant (Mar Grande of Taranto, Ionian Sea). Biology (Basel) 11 , (2022). Millage, K. D. et al. SubsidyExplorer: A decision-support tool to improve our understanding of the ecological and economic effects of reforming fisheries subsidies. PLoS One 17 , (2022). Andreoli, V. et al. Fisheries subsidies exacerbate inequities in accessing seafood nutrients in the Indian Ocean. npj Ocean Sustainability 2 , (2023). Bangura, K. Z. & Kromah, A. Z. The WTO’s Fisheries Subsidies Agreement: What’s New and What’s Next? Global Trade and Customs Journal 17 , 431–435 (2022). Akintola, S. L., Fakoya, K. A., Elegbede, I. O., Odunsi, E. & Jolaosho, T. Chapter three - Postharvest Practices in Small-Scale Fisheries. in Sustainable Fish Production and Processing (ed. Galanakis, C. M.) 79–110 (Academic Press, 2022). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824296-4.00008-6. Schuhbauer, A., Skerritt, D. J., Ebrahim, N., Le Manach, F. & Sumaila, U. R. The Global Fisheries Subsidies Divide Between Small- and Large-Scale Fisheries. Front Mar Sci 7 , (2020). Schuhbauer, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Cheung, W. W. L., Greer, K. & Sumaila, U. R. How subsidies affect the economic viability of small-scale fisheries. Mar Policy 82 , 114–121 (2017). Ball, C. What Is Transparency? Public Integrity 11 , 293–308 (2009). Skerritt, D. J. Seeking clarity on transparency in fisheries governance and management. Mar Policy 165 , 106221 (2024). Central Bank of Nigeria. Anchor Borrowers’ Programme (ABP) Guidelines . (2021). FGN-World Bank. FGN-World Bank APPEALS Project. Agro Processing, Productivity Enhancement and Livelihood Improvement Support – APPEALS Project https://appealsproject.com.ng/ (2023). Central Bank of Nigeria. Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (ACGSF). Agricultural Credit https://www.cbn.gov.ng/Devfin/acgsf.asp (2023). Arthur, R. et al. Study on the Subsidies to the Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Marketing and Processing Subsectors in Major Fishing Nations beyond the EU . (European Commission, 2017). doi:10.2771/812134. Crane, A. & Ruebottom, T. Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification. Journal of Business Ethics 102 , 77–87 (2011). Alberto, R. F. & Emilio, P. R. Analysing the impacts of a reform on harmful fishery subsidies in Spain using a social accounting matrix. J Econ Struct 13 , 1–29 (2024). Lancker, K., Deppenmeier, A.-L., Demissie, T. & Schmidt, J. O. Climate change adaptation and the role of fuel subsidies: An empirical bio-economic modeling study for an artisanal open-access fishery. PLoS One 14 , e0220433- (2019). Husain, A. M., Hafidzatul, W., Ali, J. & Arzemi, A. Impact of fuel subsidies on fishermen income: an empirical study of small-scale fishermen in Kedah and Perlis. Journal of Economics and Sustainability 2 , 13 (2020). Wang, P. W., Mendes, I. & Franic, R. Investigating the Relationship between Aquaculture Investments, Training, and Environmental Factors in Guangdong: An Alternative Perspective. Fishes 8 , (2023). Popoola, O. V., Oyetunde, C. O., Adebayo, A. V. & Olasunkanmi, A. J. Research and Development in Nigeria’s Tertiary Institutions: Issues, Challenges and Way Forward. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT) 2779–2787 (2024) doi:10.38124/IJISRT/IJISRT24MAY2157. Macfadyen, G. & Huntington, T. Human capacity development in fisheries. in FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 1003. 80 (Rome, 2004). Willima, D., Reva, D. & Walker, T. Does Africa gain from the WTO’s landmark fishing subsidies deal? Institute of Security Studies https://issafrica.org/iss-today/does-africa-gain-from-the-wtos-landmark-fishing-subsidies-deal (2024). Okeke-Ogbuafor, N., Stead, S. & Gray, T. Is inland aquaculture the panacea for Sierra Leone’s decline in marine fish stocks? Mar Policy 132 , 104663 (2021). Roberts, D. Sustainable Aquaculture: Protecting Our Oceans and Feeding the World. in 373–378 (2019). doi:10.1163/9789004380271_063. Guillen, J. et al. Aquaculture subsidies in the European Union: Evolution, impact and future potential for growth. Mar Policy 104 , 19–28 (2019). Skerritt, D. J. et al. A 20-year retrospective on the provision of fisheries subsidies in the European Union. ICES Journal of Marine Science 77 , 2741–2752 (2020). NEPAD. Proceedings of the NEPAD Fish for All Summit. in NEPAD Fish for All Summit (New Partnership for Africa’s Development, Abuja, Nigeria, 2005). Chan, C. Y. et al. The future of fish in Africa: Employment and investment opportunities. PLoS One 16 , e0261615 (2021). European Commission: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. Study on the Subsidies to the Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Marketing and Processing Subsectors in Major Fishing Nations beyond the EU . (Publications Office, 2016). doi:doi/10.2771/812134. Jiang, S. Aquaculture, capture fisheries, and wild fish stocks. Resour Energy Econ 32 , 65–77 (2010). Asche, F., Roll, K. H. & Tveteras, R. Innovations and Productivity Performance in Salmon Aquaculture. IFIP Adv Inf Commun Technol 384 , 620–627 (2012). Sumaila, U. R. Reducing the Impact of Subsidies on Fishing Activity: Advances and Challenges . https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/reducing-impact-subsidies-fishing-activity-advances-and-challenges (2023). World Trade Organization. Nigeria formally accepts the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. Negotiations on Fisheries Subsidy https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news23_e/fish_12jun23_e.htm (2024). World Trade Organization. Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies . (World Trade Organisation, Geneva, 2022). World Trade Organization. Implementing the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies- Challenges and Opportunities for Developing and Least-Developed Country Members . (World Trade Organization, Geneva, 2022). Tables Table 2 is available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Table2.docx APPENDIX1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 27 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Jan, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 25 Aug, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 17 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 17 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 16 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7143083","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":487132846,"identity":"28a36c97-5ce4-4ee0-b083-dbcc1bb3be52","order_by":0,"name":"Shehu Latunji Akintola","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lagos State University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shehu","middleName":"Latunji","lastName":"Akintola","suffix":""},{"id":487132847,"identity":"533c663a-6bd9-4d12-b972-58964e2d2c9b","order_by":1,"name":"Olanrewaju Femi Olagunju","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Iceland","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Olanrewaju","middleName":"Femi","lastName":"Olagunju","suffix":""},{"id":487132848,"identity":"e73aaaa5-46d7-4dbb-b079-c62e709ce040","order_by":2,"name":"Abdulwakil Olawale Saba","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lagos State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abdulwakil","middleName":"Olawale","lastName":"Saba","suffix":""},{"id":487132849,"identity":"607a18a3-5ec5-4222-a2f0-66513871a4e9","order_by":3,"name":"Foluke Omotayo Areola","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lagos State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Foluke","middleName":"Omotayo","lastName":"Areola","suffix":""},{"id":487132850,"identity":"9c9e2f6d-72fb-4b0a-84ed-311cf2e30c78","order_by":4,"name":"Kafayat Adetoun Fakoya","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lagos State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kafayat","middleName":"Adetoun","lastName":"Fakoya","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-16 20:08:07","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7143083/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7143083/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87020259,"identity":"58b53dcd-f713-4e79-a0b6-56d96e9562b5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-18 11:01:03","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":18282,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEstimates of the total amounts appropriated, released and expended for the Nigeria Fisheries and Aquaculture sector from 2013 – 2022 (Exchange rate: 1 USD = 765 Naira\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7143083/v1/6fb42ade5f90c6c657b315f0.png"},{"id":87020182,"identity":"4ae266dd-e29c-426e-8069-e522ce1a1448","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-18 11:00:13","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":50522,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSociodemographic characteristics of stakeholders\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7143083/v1/0007f9263506362d3d41840f.png"},{"id":87020187,"identity":"cf17b779-c27c-4c42-aec6-836aa54f1d17","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-18 11:00:13","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":29334,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA-Frequency of the different energy/power, B-Input subsidy categories mentioned, and C-Processing subsidies mentioned by respondents.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7143083/v1/972dff6f91dc915d3889a0af.png"},{"id":87022268,"identity":"c687fe79-da70-46c6-a6f1-ceef991efa80","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-18 11:24:14","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2017829,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7143083/v1/0483978a-7296-4165-a948-b5da7f037db3.pdf"},{"id":87020185,"identity":"3660318b-ad5c-46ec-8c20-ceca084e8841","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-18 11:00:13","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":25656,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7143083/v1/5f1bd4bd25218c6b39c82f66.docx"},{"id":87020627,"identity":"ea017a1c-e5d9-4476-8601-8b07a88bfdb0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-18 11:08:13","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":17782,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"APPENDIX1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7143083/v1/251bd604b4ab4db68233518d.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Nigeria's fisheries subsidies before the WTO fisheries subsidies agreement","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe fisheries subsidy economy has received far less outpour of emotions compared to subsidy reforms in the oil sectors that continue to dominate discussions on the political and economic atmosphere in Nigeria presently. Nigeria is an oil-producing nation blessed with aquatic resources such as 216 325 km\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e of shelf area and 853 km of continental coastline length\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e supporting fish production from the marine environment for industrial fishing. The networks of coastal/brackish systems are approximately 10, 000 km\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and inland aquatic biomes (including lakes, rivers, streams, and artificial and natural lakes) with an estimated 10,000 km\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e of perennial freshwater swamps\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e popping up small-scale and artisanal fisheries. The country is active in fish trade with a value of fisheries imports of US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 703.8\u0026nbsp;million and exports of US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1.31\u0026nbsp;million in 2021, thus a huge deficit trade balance of US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e702.5 million\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. There are concerns to reverse the deficit through increasing fish production from both capture and culture systems, and a general policy of economic diversification to drive less dependence on oil.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubsidies are considered as government intervention, assistance, transfers, and a support measure can be generally considered as a form of subsidy. The narrowest definition of subsidy is that it is a direct cash payment by a government to producers or consumers according to the United Nations Environmental Programme\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Fishery subsidies are said to be financial payments, direct or indirect from public entities to the fishing sector, which reduce the cost of fishing and/or increase revenues. The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) defined subsidy in a general term as any measure that keeps prices for consumers below market levels, or for producers above market levels or that reduces cost for consumers and producers\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Similarly, the International Energy Agency (IEA) defined subsidy as any government action that primarily lowers the cost of production, raises the price received by producers or lowers the price paid by consumers\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, fisheries subsidy was defined and classified in line with Sumaila et. al.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e as a direct or indirect financial transfer from public entities that creates a benefit for the fisheries sector, which enables enterprises to make more profit than they would have otherwise which could be in the form of capacity-enhancing, beneficial, or ambiguous. To the best of the authors\u0026rsquo; knowledge, literature on fisheries subsidy is very rare in the country. The expectation is that the study will provide the foundation for subsequent theoretical and empirical analysis for future studies on fisheries subsidies in Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe works of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and Millazo\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e were the earliest given estimates of global subsidy to be US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e70\u0026nbsp;billion and range of US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 14\u0026ndash;20.5\u0026nbsp;billion annually respectively. The most recent global estimates of global fisheries subsidy were rendered by Sumaila et. al.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e to be US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e35.3\u0026nbsp;billion in total for diverse types of subsidies: ambiguous, beneficial and capacity enhancing. Regional works on subsidies were provided as Flaaten and Wallis\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e estimated that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries spent US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e4.9\u0026nbsp;billion for general services and about US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 1.4\u0026nbsp;billion was spent on revenue-enhancement and cost-reduction purposes in 1997. According to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the sum of US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 4.2\u0026nbsp;billion of beneficial subsidies and US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 8.4\u0026nbsp;billion of harmful subsidies for resource stocks were channelled to supporting fisheries in the Member States\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCountry-level estimates for the United States showed that US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 6.4\u0026nbsp;billion from 1996 to 2004 was provided by the US government for fisheries subsidies\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e compared to RMB 40.383\u0026nbsp;billion (or US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 6.5\u0026nbsp;billion) the Chinese central government spent on fisheries subsidies\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Attention to country-level estimates is growing. Studies on fishery subsidies are limited by data availability and specifically in the case of country-level analyses inadequate knowledge to conduct true economic analyses on subsidies locally.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperience from this work indicated the lack of publicly available information on fiscal and para-fiscal policies in the fisheries sector of the country. Enquiries to access documents on fisheries subsidies were made by submitting a formal data request letter to the national authority in charge of fisheries management- the Federal Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (FDFA). Recourse was also made to the Finance and Account / Budget Division of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) to fill the gap of the data obtained that met with the scope of the period this study seeks to estimate, 2013 to 2022. This development also showed the complexity of the fishery sector and its challenges where information needed to formulate relevant sector-specific policies is often located and beyond the direct authority managing the fisheries at the local, state and national levels but with other agencies and different institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe growing literature on fishery subsidies has demonstrated that subsidies impact fish stocks both at the country level and globally. The impacts vary and are dependent on geographical context, prevailing fisheries management practice, fishing intensity, biological condition of the fishery, and externalities among others. Nigeria is in West Africa located in the Gulf of Guinea famous for its rich ecological systems making it one of the richest fishing grounds in the world and a hotspot for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU). Rent from deep sea fishing has been encumbered by IUU mainly from China. Globally, the impact of IUU as a major threat to ocean ecosystems worldwide, undermining efforts to sustainably manage global fisheries and effectively conserve ocean biodiversity is well established. The impact of IUU in Nigeria remained in the realm of speculation even though it is real thus perception remained high as reported by Akintola\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Country data are not available from agencies such as the Nigerian Navy and the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) that could help establish and mobilize the protection of the fisheries resources.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, Ministerial Decision of 17 June 2022 provides incentives to drive sustainable management of fisheries resources at global and country levels, especially in developing countries such as Nigeria. Once the agreement comes into force, the Fisheries Funding Mechanism could be used by developing and least-developed country (LDC) members with targeted technical assistance and capacity building to implement the disciplines under the Agreement. It is worthy of note that Nigeria is the 9th country globally and the 2nd in Africa to so do. In order to access the funds that may be used to improve the management of the fisheries resources of the country, which is one of the overarching objectives of prohibiting harmful fisheries subsidies and encouraging beneficial subsidies, there is a need to keep the focus.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis article is structured to provide a comprehensive analysis of fisheries subsidies in Nigeria. The introduction outlines the study's objectives and contextual background. The methodology details the data collection and analytical approach employed. The results present a narrative of fisheries subsidies under various programs, national subsidy estimates, and stakeholder perspectives, accompanied by a comparative analysis with other countries. The discussion interprets these findings, exploring their implications in light of the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies and broader sustainability goals. The conclusion summarizes the key insights and offers policy recommendations for enhancing Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s fisheries subsidies towards a sustainable sector.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Study Area\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNigeria is a maritime country as nine of its 36 states are situated along the Atlantic Ocean. The southern region of the nation, encompassing states such as Akwa Ibom, Cross Rivers, Rivers, Edo, Delta, Bayelsa, Lagos, Ogun, and Ondo, constitutes the federal coastal states of Nigeria. The fishing industry holds immeasurable significance to both the people and economies of both developed and developing nations worldwide. It is noteworthy that aquatic foods provide more than 16% of the global animal protein consumption and over 20% in low-middle-income countries\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Agriculture contributed approximately 24% of Nigeria's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2021, with fisheries contributing 1.3% the same year\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Despite the low contribution, fish remains a primary source of protein in the Nigerian diet.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Source of Data and Desk Research\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA formal data request letter was made to the FDFA and the Finance and Account / Budget Division of the FMARD to provide information on funds budgeting and expenditures. However, only data from 2013 to 2022 was available. This limitation posed challenges in conducting a comprehensive analysis of long-term trends within the sector. Nevertheless, the available data provided valuable insights into recent budget allocations and spending patterns. To supplement this, events and government programs preceding 2013 were gathered through desk research involving online publications and historical archives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, including official publications from the WTO and its affiliates, was also consulted in analysing the implications of the agreement for Nigeria as a WTO member. These documents were sourced from official repositories and analysed to identify the key policy provisions of the agreement, with a focus on prohibited subsidies, special and differential treatment (SDT), and transparency mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3 Basis of Fisheries and Aquaculture Subsidies Classification\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFisheries and aquaculture subsidies classification followed the categorisation of Sumaila\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The fisheries subsidies are classified into three broad categories based on their impact on fish stocks over time and grounded in economic theory as beneficial, capacity-enhancing (harmful), and ambiguous\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The classification of projects under aquaculture also follows their impacts on social, environmental and economic sustainability\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Beneficial aquaculture subsidies emphasize sustainable practices, while harmful subsidies exacerbate environmental degradation. Ambiguous aquaculture subsidies are those that may have unintended consequences or create complex trade-offs between different policy objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.4 Survey Approach\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA stakeholder survey was conducted to examine state and non-state actors\u0026rsquo; understanding and perceptions of fisheries subsidies in Nigeria. Semi-structured questionnaires were administered to government officials, fisheries cooperative leaders, fisherfolk, and NGOs. The questionnaire was validated through expert review in fisheries science and policy to ensure face and content validity. The instrument comprised seven sections covering demographic characteristics; awareness of subsidies related to energy, aquaculture inputs, and post-harvest infrastructure; and perceptions of subsidy usefulness. Additional sections addressed perceived impacts on production and sustainability, personal experiences with subsidies, sources of subsidy-related information, and overall attitudes toward the necessity and adequacy of government support. The questionnaire was administered online through Google Forms (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://docs.google.com/forms\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://docs.google.com/forms\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) and descriptive statistics were carried out using Microsoft Office Excel 2017. The link to the survey was shared in different WhatsApp groups and emails of fisherfolks, fish farmers, fish processors, civil servants and academics in fisheries-related occupations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Fisheries Subsidy Narrative Under Different Government Programmes (1980\u0026ndash;2012).\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe subsidy narratives for Nigeria in the period under review showed that in the three sub-sectors (artisanal, industrial and aquaculture), subsidy supports were funded mainly through governments and international development agencies. Also, Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e outlines the various government subsidy programs implemented in Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s fisheries sectors from 1980 to 2012. These programs were designed to support artisanal, industrial, and aquaculture sub-sectors, enhancing productivity and modernizing operations. Subsidies ranged from fishing inputs and infrastructure support for small-scale fishermen to credit facilities, tax waivers, and fuel subsidies for industrial operators. Additionally, the government provided capacity building, technical assistance, and financial support to promote aquaculture development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovernment Subsidy Programs in Nigeria's Fisheries Sector (1980\u0026ndash;2012)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSub-Sector\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovernment Programme/Initiative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubsidy Details\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAquaculture\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFish Feed Multiplication Centres and Mills\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablished centres and feed mills to promote local feed production (Ibadan, Ogun State, etc.).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFish Farm Estate Development Programme\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovernment financial and technical support to private sector for fish farm development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommercial Tilapia and Cage Fish Farming\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFish cages installed in collaboration with private investors, e.g., Lagos State Government.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCapacity Building and Training\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNational training programs, including sponsorship of youth for overseas training.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFish Farm Upgrades and Demonstration Centres\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollaboration with Bank of Agriculture to upgrade facilities and establish pilot fish farms for rapid aquaculture development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eArtisanal Fisheries\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNational Accelerated Fisheries Projects (1980s)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvided nets, floats, sinkers, and twines at 50% subsidy, along with boats and landing sites equipped with modern facilities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntegrated Rural Fisheries Project\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInputs, boat building, net making, credit facilities through Nigerian Agricultural and Co‑operative Bank (NACB) at 5\u0026ndash;7% interest, and training in boat making and repairs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eECOWAS-Fund Accelerated Fisheries Development Project (1990\u0026ndash;2006)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to credit facilities at single interest rates, assistance from IFAD.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFish Processing Plants and Market Development\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablished fish markets, fish processing plants, and model fish processing centres across various states and zones.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFishing Terminals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCoastal fishery terminals were built.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndustrial Fisheries\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExport Expansion Grant (EEG)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePayback based on volume and cost of fish and shrimp exports.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedium-sized Trawlers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProcurement of medium-sized trawlers to bridge artisanal and industrial fishing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDiesel Subsidy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDedicated allocation of Automated Gas Oil (AGO) at controlled prices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTax Holidays and Credit Facilities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne-year moratorium on credit facilities and duty waivers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMonitoring, Control, and Surveillance Unit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablished with World Bank assistance to monitor fishing activities and ensure crew safety.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, in aquaculture, support focused on promoting local feed production, fish farm development, cage farming, and capacity building. Key programs included the establishment of feed mills, technical and financial support for private fish farms, youth training (including overseas sponsorship), and demonstration centres developed in collaboration with the Bank of Agriculture. In the artisanal, historical programmes like the National Accelerated Fisheries Projects and the Integrated Rural Fisheries Project provided subsidized nets, boats, and training, along with credit through institutions such as Nigerian Agricultural and Co‑operative Bank (NACB). For the industrial fisheries, fiscal incentives such as the Export Expansion Grant, duty waivers, diesel subsidies, and trawler procurement were notable. Furthermore, the establishment of a Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance Unit\u0026mdash;with World Bank support\u0026mdash;highlighted efforts to ensure compliance and sustainability within the sector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 National Estimates of Fisheries and Aquaculture Subsidies (2013\u0026ndash;2022).\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.1 Government-Appropriated Programmes in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sectors\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovernment often shows some funding ambitions seeking to support the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, however funds allocated and utilized often do not meet up with what has been appropriated as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. While it is often common for expenditures to be less than the amount appropriated, occasionally, it could be higher like in the case of the years 2015 and 2016. These disparities and imbalances can be occasioned by revenue shortfalls or unexpected expenditures in other areas or sometimes just due to budgetary adjustments. However, in most cases in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, the amount utilized is often close to the amount of allocation released except in the case of the year 2020, during the pandemic. Also of note were years 2021 and 2022 when appropriation, allocation and utilization were approximately equal. The highest appropriation and by extension allocation and utilization was obtained in the year 2017, but unfortunately there was a subsequent decline.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2 Government Expenditures for the Nigeria Fisheries and Aquaculture Sectors from 2013\u0026ndash;2022\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the data from FMARD a total of 4,696,698,828 Naira was expended on the fisheries and aquaculture sector from 2013 to 2022 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), which is about 80% of the total amount appropriated and 95% of the total amount released for the sector within the period. Moreover, the allocation of funds to the different sub-sectors for the years varies depending on the government\u0026rsquo;s priority at the period and the amount of funds available. Across the ten-year period, expenditures on Aquaculture, Artisanal, and Trade, Storage and Processing featured more prominently than others. Across the years under review, the funding to the different budget heads were not consistent and the proportion varies across the years. For instance, there was no fund for artisanal, industrial fisheries, data management, administration and technology services budgetary heads in the year 2013 and this accounted for the null value reported.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe expended funds were directed into different budgetary heads of the FDFA. During this period, the aquaculture sector was the most funded (48.4%), followed by the capture fisheries sector, which received a combined total of 25.2%, including artisanal (small-scale) fisheries at 19% and industrial fisheries at 6.2%. Trade, Storage, and Processing came next with 19.4%, followed by Quality Assurance (3.3%), Data Management (2.6%), Administration (1.0%), and Technology and Support Services (0.14%). Details of different project types and categories funded under the sub-sectors are here expounded.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2.1 Aquaculture\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnder aquaculture, the establishment of fish clusters was 41.6% (N951,637,732) of the total amount expended under the sub-sector (Appendix 1). The project has taken different dimensions over the years. Initially tagged Fish Farm Estate Development Programme, the project provided financial grants to selected fish producers nationwide to strengthen their operation and increase their scale of production. The model was later modified, and the government took the responsibility of constructing cluster ponds in selected communities while the host community identified the beneficiaries who were subsequently trained and supported with aquaculture inputs for production.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe establishment of fish feed mills also featured among the major aquaculture projects (12%) (N274,626,846). Different scales of fish feed mills were established under this project, targeted toward the promotion of local fish feed development and the reduction in the cost of aquaculture production given that fish feed takes more than 70% of the production cost. The feed mills were established in private fish clusters and also provided as a support facility for the government-established fish farm clusters. As shown in Appendix 1, 11.94% (N272,901,566) of the funds for aquaculture were channelled to Input Supply. Under this project, the input supply is directly managed by the FDFA. The inputs provided are mainly fingerlings, fish feed and mobile fish tanks. The GES scheme is likewise an input support program but structured and was centrally managed lasting from 2013 to 2014 for the aquaculture sector. The fund on GES was 8.60% (N196,573,000) of the aquaculture expenditure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother initiative that received significant funding up to N212,021,260 (9.28%) was Federal Government Colleges\u0026rsquo; (FGC) Cottage Fish Farm supporting the Young Fish Farmers Development programme, a catch-them-young programme of the Department whereby cottage fish farms were established in Federal Government Secondary Schools. The students were trained in fish farming, and continuous mentoring is being provided by the federal fisheries officers in the State. The programme was aimed at promoting the culture and consumption of fish for its health and nutritional benefits. This also fits into the Federal Government School Feeding Program and the national education policy which have included aquaculture as one of the technical subjects taught in secondary education. Other projects that are featured under aquaculture included capacity building, promotion of aquaculture certification, establishment of fingerlings production centres, cage culture development, and infrastructure rehabilitation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2.2 Fish Trade, Storage and Processing\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eProjects related to storage and processing were designed to enhance the quality of fish products while also minimizing the rate of post-harvest losses in both capture and culture fisheries. The provision of smoking kilns to producers was valued at N390,426,664 (43%) and had the highest proportion of funds among the budget heads. This was followed by the establishment of fish processing centres which was 25% (N230,809,901) of the budget head, and then the establishment of fish markets in proximity to main fish production hubs ranked third with a total sum of N156,192,840 (17%). Trade-related projects were aimed at increasing market access for fish products. In this budget group also, funds were expended on cold-room establishment, and capacity building for fish processors and producers for effective post-harvest management to minimize loss to producers and increase the value and profitability of fish products.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2.3 Artisanal Fisheries\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe lake enhancement project received the highest fund under the artisanal fisheries-related budget head which stood at N589,517,587 (66%). Since the rate of growth in artisanal fisheries production in Nigeria has been declining over the years, the project focused on boosting the fisheries of inland freshwater bodies. As the nation abounds with numerous inland freshwater lakes, they were therefore selected for stocking considering the ease of post-stocking monitoring, management and impact compared with other inland water types. This was followed by the input support programme where inputs such as canoes, fishing nets and accessories, and insulated storage boxes were provided to the fishers. Other projects carried out under the sub sector include the promotion of compliance with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF), initiation of the canoe registration exercise and capacity building for the fisher folks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2.4 Industrial Fisheries\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEfforts have increased in recent years to enhance the productivity and performance of the industrial fisheries sub-sector. Dedicated funds to this sector intensified in 2017. These funds have been mainly focused on improving the monitoring and surveillance activities of the government to deter the practice of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing in Nigerian waters. The establishment of Vessel Monitoring Stations therefore took a substantial portion which is 58% (N169,429,4305) of the funds expended in this budget. The support was also aimed at promoting compliance among the operators not to operate within the delineated 5 nautical mile designated for coastal artisanal fishers as provided by the Sea Fisheries Act (1992: S.1. 19) which is also meant to protect the coastal fisheries from intensive exploitation. Other industrial fisheries-related projects included the development of jetties, promotion of diversification into tuna fisheries, capacity building and training on compliance with the fisheries management measures provided in the Sea Fisheries Act, and adherence to import nation requirements for Nigerian seafood products.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2.5 Other Sub-Divisions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpenditures on Quality Assurance, Data Management, Administration and Technology Support Services constituted only 7.04% of the total budget spending for the period under review. Quality assurance was majorly focused on the provision of equipment and inputs for the National Fisheries Laboratory which is the recognised laboratory for the certification and assessment of fish and fish products imported or destined for export markets. Funds provided under the Data Management section were utilized in conducting surveys and production of fisheries and aquaculture yearbooks. The expenditures under the administrative section were mostly used for procurement of working materials and equipment as well as training and capacity building for the professionals working in the government sector for effective service delivery. The funds expended under the Technology and Support Services were least in respect of the total expenditure to the sector but were however notable as it was expended on the boatyards which serve to support the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the fabrication of fibreglass products used in boat building and repairs and production of mobile fish production tanks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.3 Implicit Payments and Support to the Industry.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is important to note that there are other government initiatives which also subsidize the fisheries sector, but they are not specific to fisheries and include those related to the agriculture sector. Records on the implicit payments were not available to the authors thus not quantified or estimated. These include government loans, loan guarantees, insurance, tax waivers and deferrals. Government loans and loan guarantees are provided through various national financial institutions to ease investment funding. Such institutions include the Bank of Industry, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL). The smallholder farmers, producers and aggregators who are critical in the value chain also have access to credit facilities through the NIRSAL to ensure the agroindustry does not lack the necessary input for its continual running.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe credit guarantee scheme, APPEALS project (Agro-processing, Productivity Enhancement and Livelihood Improvement Support project) and the Anchor Borrower Scheme of the CBN are also among such loan guarantee and support schemes\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR23\" citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The Credit Guarantee Scheme provides credit guarantees to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), including those in aquaculture, helping to reduce the risk for commercial banks when lending to farmers. The APPEALS project targets small and medium-scale farmers and provides training, infrastructure, and financial support while focusing on improving farmers' access to new technologies, enhancing market linkages, and promoting sustainable practices, thus supporting aquaculture\u0026rsquo;s role in food security and poverty reduction. The Anchor Borrowers\u0026rsquo; Program provides financing to farmers, typically in the form of input supplies rather than cash, reducing the risk of misuse. In aquaculture, this scheme enables catfish and tilapia farmers to access the inputs and technical support needed for scaling up production. By guaranteeing off-takers for the products, the program helps farmers ensure market access, thus boosting their income and productivity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the case of insurance, through the National Agricultural Insurance Corporation (NAIC), Nigeria provides subsidized insurance for fish farmers under the subsidized livestock policy. Under this insurance, only 50% of the premium is paid by the farmer while the Federal Government and the State government where the farm is domiciled shared the remaining 50% at a ratio of 3:1 respectively. Disasters covered by the insurance include fish mortality due to disease, accident, fire, lightning, storm and flood. Moreover, several economic incentives are offered to Agriculture Investors in Nigeria including income tax relief, zero import duty on equipment, VAT exemptions, and others. Specifically, the Federal Government through the Federal Ministry of Finance, Budget and National Planning provides tariff reduction and duty waivers on imports of agricultural equipment and machinery which also covers the fisheries and aquaculture sector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Types of Subsidies- Harmful, Beneficial or Ambiguous.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.1 Classification of Subsidies for the Aquaculture Sector\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe overall aquaculture program includes beneficial, ambiguous and potentially harmful subsidies, depending on specific implementation strategies (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The majority of the projects (8) are considered beneficial, accounting for 83.26% of the total expenditure. The remaining two projects are classified as either ambiguous or harmful accounting for 4.64% and 12.09% of the total spending during the period covered, respectively. A significant portion of the beneficial category is allocated to the Fish Farm Cluster initiative, which alone comprises 41.88% of total spending. It is therefore classified as beneficial because it contributes to increased efficiency of resources and thereby enhances sustainability. Other beneficial projects include FGC Cottage Fish Farm (9.33%), which supports youth involvement in aquaculture, aligning with broader educational and nutritional programs and promoting social and economic development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassification of Aquaculture Subsidy in Nigeria\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProportion of Total Amount Spent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCategorization\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReason/ Basis for classification\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAquaculture Certification\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.96%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeneficial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCertification ensures sustainable practices, environmental standards, and product quality, positively contributing to responsible aquaculture management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCage Culture\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.64%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmbiguous\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCage culture can be beneficial if managed properly (regarding water quality and species selection) but can become harmful if it leads to overstocking, pollution and disruption in biodiversity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCapacity Building\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.75%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeneficial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCapacity building provides training and knowledge, which can improve aquaculture efficiency, sustainability, and community benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFGC Cottage Fish Farm\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.33%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeneficial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis project supports youth engagement in aquaculture and aligns with educational and nutritional programs, promoting both social and economic development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFingerlings Production\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.55%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeneficial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProducing fingerlings supports the aquaculture lifecycle and reduces reliance on wild populations, contributing to sustainable stock replenishment thereby reducing pressure on the wild stocks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFish Farm Cluster\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41.88%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeneficial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Nigeria, presently the government supports the clustering of land-based farms. The clustering approach improves the efficiency and profitability of fish farmers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFish Feed Mill\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.09%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHarmful\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is due to reliance on the wild for fish meal as a major protein component in fish feed production. Most fish meals are imported.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGES (Growth Enhancement Support)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.65%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeneficial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGES supports small-scale producers, encourages inclusive growth and can promote sustainable practices through the provision of quality inputs like fingerlings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInfrastructure Rehabilitation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.72%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeneficial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRehabilitation of infrastructure improves operational efficiency and can reduce environmental impacts by upgrading outdated or inefficient systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInput Support for small scale producers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.42%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeneficial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDirect support for small-scale producers encourages inclusive growth and can promote sustainable practices through the provision of quality inputs like fingerlings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplicit Payments to Aquaculture\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeneficial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is no data to assess the percentage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBeneficial\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e83.26%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAmbiguous\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.64%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHarmful\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e12.09%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInput Support for Small-Scale Producers (11.42%) and GES (Growth Enhancement Support) (8.65%) also receive substantial funding. These initiatives help empower small-scale producers by providing essential inputs like fingerlings, fostering inclusive growth, and promoting sustainable practices. Additional investments in Infrastructure Rehabilitation (8.72%) and Capacity Building (1.75%) demonstrate a commitment to improving operational efficiency and enhancing technical knowledge in the aquaculture sector. The smallest share within the beneficial category, Fingerlings Production (0.55%), nevertheless plays a crucial role by supporting the aquaculture lifecycle and reducing reliance on wild populations, thus easing pressure on natural stocks. A smaller proportion of funds (4.64%) is allocated to projects classified as ambiguous, such as Cage Culture. Conversely, projects deemed harmful make up 12.09% of the total allocation under aquaculture, with the Fish Feed Mill establishment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.2 Classification of Subsidies for the Capture Fisheries and Other Sub-Sectors\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe types of subsidies in Nigeria's fisheries sector and other sub-sectors are provided in Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. The majority (89.91%) are classified as beneficial, 4.06% as ambiguous and 6.04% as harmful. All the project expenditures under data management, industrial fisheries, quality assurance, and trade, storage and processing were classed as beneficial. Similarly, project expenditures under administration and technology and support services were all classified as ambiguous due to the associated uncertainty of the direction of impact of the projects on the capture fisheries resources. Project expenditure under the artisanal fisheries belonged to the three categories with 16.4% of it considered a harmful subsidy, but largely the artisanal expenditures were mostly beneficial (78.5%).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage of government expenditure by sub-sectors classified as Harmful, Beneficial, or Ambiguous.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSub-Sector\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmbiguous\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeneficial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHarmful\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSub-Sector Total\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdministration\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArtisanal Fisheries\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.04%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78.54%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.41%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eData Management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndustrial Fisheries\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuality Assurance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTechnology Support Services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTrade, Storage \u0026amp; Processing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplicit Payments to Fisheries\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGrand Total\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.06%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e89.91%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6.04%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.00%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the basis of these classifications, the majority of the projects funded by the government described above mostly fall into either the beneficial or ambiguous category of subsidy. However, a percentage of artisanal fisheries projects (input support) are classified as harmful due to their tendency to favour overcapacity and overexploitation of the resources.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4 Stakeholder Perspectives on Fisheries Subsidies in Nigeria\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.1 Sociodemographic Information\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe sociodemographic characteristics of stakeholders who participated in the survey can be seen in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. A total of 84 stakeholders from different fisheries-related occupations responded to the survey of which about 60% of them are males and the most frequent age category is 36\u0026ndash;50 with about 54% of the respondents falling into this category. Most of the respondents (30%) are into fish farming followed by fishers (13%), academicians/researchers and fish/seafood processors (10% each). Other notable categories include fish association officials (4%), Government Officials (6%), fish sellers (6%) and extension workers (4%). The most prevalent degree certification was a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree, with 22 respondents holding this qualification. Following closely, 18 participants possessed a master\u0026rsquo;s degree, showcasing a significant level of specialization in their respective fields.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most common income range was between 51,000 to 100,000 with about 41% of the respondents falling into this category. This was closely followed by the 101,000 to 250,000 categories with 32% of the respondents reporting incomes within this bracket. Additionally, about 16% of the respondents reported earnings above 250,000 monthly, while only about 6% earned less than 30,000.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.2 Awareness and General Perception.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.2.1 Energy or Power\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbout 58.3% of the respondents are aware of fisheries subsidies on energy or power sources. The most mentioned fisheries subsidy on energy or power was petrol (36) followed by engines (17), and diesel (9) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA). This indicates a significant reliance on petrol subsidies within the fisheries sector. The majority of respondents (65.5%) considered fisheries subsidies on energy or power to be beneficial. The reasons provided highlight the perceived positive impacts on revenue, cost reduction, profitability, economic value, increased production, and support for the fisheries industry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.2.2 Inputs\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe respondents (62%) are generally aware of subsidies on inputs. More so, the most frequently mentioned subsidy type under the input category was fingerlings (27) followed by fish feed (26), While the least mentioned was outboard motor (1) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eB). Fishing gear, juveniles, fishing craft, and parent stock are other subsidy types mentioned under this category. More so, most of them (66%) believe that subsidies on inputs are beneficial, while 6% and 2% believe that subsidies on inputs are ambiguous and harmful. Based on the reasons provided, the majority of respondents consider fisheries subsidies on inputs to be beneficial. The reasons cited include increasing fish production to meet demand, reducing the cost of production, boosting the business of fish farmers, supporting the growth of the economy, improving yield and efficiency, and providing essential operational inputs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.2.3 Preservation and Processing\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost of the respondents are aware of subsidies on fish preservation (cold rooms) (60.7%) and processing (72.6%) with about 82.1% and 90.1% of them believing that subsidies on preservation and processing are beneficial, respectively. None of them see subsidies on preservation as harmful, while only 1.2% see subsidies on processing as harmful. Ambiguities were also noted regarding the availability and accessibility of cold rooms, which has a direct impact on preservation practices and the overall quality of fish products. Regarding the processing options, the most frequently mentioned subsidy type (57) known to the respondents was the smoking kiln (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eC).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.2.4 Infrastructure, Export, Import and Payments.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost of the respondents are not aware of subsidies on infrastructure (52.4%), export (60.7%), import (54.7%) and payments (47.6%), while these subsidies are mostly deemed beneficial for infrastructure (57.1%), export (45.2%), import (45.2%), and payments (53.6%). More so, some allude that infrastructure subsidies might lead to overfishing and modify the shore ecosystem, others think that having them will benefit the fishers. Among the responses recorded one respondent noted that subsidies on infrastructure could lead to overexploitation. As for export, a respondent mentioned that \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;if a lot of fish is exported more than needed to meet local consumption needs, it's harmful\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e. However, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eif prized fish is exported, fishers and the economy as a whole benefit\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Another respondent noted that \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003efisheries subsidy might be beneficial in some regions while harmful in other states\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;. Furthermore, some respondents believe that import subsidies can enhance economic growth, accessibility of fish, profitability, and necessary support for practitioners, others express concerns about the negative impact on local farmers, domestic producers, and the quality of imported products. As for payments, they are seen as providing motivation, financial support, and encouragement to fishermen, fish farmers, processors, and exporters. They contribute to poverty reduction, improved livelihoods, increased productivity, and availability of fish. However, there are concerns regarding the proper distribution and effective targeting of subsidies to reach the intended beneficiaries.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.2.5 Training\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost of the respondents are aware of subsidies for training (53.6%) and also believe that they are beneficial (85.7%). The findings reveal that respondents are generally aware of the significance of subsidies on training, research, and development in the fisheries sector. These subsidies are widely perceived as beneficial, as they contribute to the improvement of knowledge, skills, productivity, competitiveness, and the adoption of modern techniques. Training programs are seen as essential for creating awareness of good fishing practices and management. Subsidies allocated to research and development are expected to address existing challenges, enhance infrastructure, and elevate the quality of fish products. However, some ambiguous responses indicate a lack of personal experience or uncertainty regarding the impact of these subsidies. To optimize the outcomes, it is essential to implement targeted training, research, and development initiatives that address the specific needs and challenges faced by the fisheries sector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.3 Perception of Subsidy Impacts\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis reveals that the highest number of respondents, with 39 instances (42.9%), strongly agreed that fisheries subsidies have a positive impact. They perceive subsidies as beneficial and believe that they contribute to various positive outcomes within the fishing industry. Following closely, 38 respondents (41.8%) agreed that fisheries subsidies have a positive impact. Although not as strongly as the previous group, they still perceive subsidies in a positive light and recognize their beneficial effects. A considerable number of respondents, 14 instances (15.4%), expressed a neutral stance regarding the impact of fisheries subsidies. These stakeholders may have reservations, uncertainties, or lack sufficient information to form a clear opinion about the effects of subsidies. On the other hand, a smaller number of respondents disagreed with the positive impact of subsidies. Two respondents (2.2%) provided a rating of 2, indicating their disagreement, while only one respondent (1.1%) strongly disagreed with the positive impact of fisheries subsidies, providing a rating of 1.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.5 Comparative Analysis of Fisheries and Aquaculture Subsidies in Nigeria, the EU, and Select Non-EU Countries\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNigeria allocates a substantial portion of its fisheries funding to aquaculture, with 48.4% (\u0026euro;5.68\u0026nbsp;million) of the subsidies directed to this sector, making it the most funded sub-sector. This reflects Nigeria's commitment to developing aquaculture compared to captured fisheries receiving 25.2% (\u0026euro;2.95\u0026nbsp;million) of the subsidies. However, this policy direction has only resulted in marginal growth in aquaculture due to reliance on one dominant species - catfish. This observation is consistent with the limited funding being experienced generally in the fisheries budgetary allocation. Capture fisheries remain dominant in food security and a source of foreign exchange. Nevertheless, the sector being data-poor experiences limitations in the development of effective fisheries management among others and is faced with limited funding compared to global players.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlso, Nigeria's subsidy allocation structure contrasts sharply with countries like Japan and South Korea, where over 90% (\u0026euro;1.5\u0026nbsp;billion in 2014) of subsidies are directed towards capture fisheries (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). Japan, for example, has historically favoured traditional fishing practices, directing approximately 99% of its subsidies towards capture fisheries as of 2015. These subsidies, primarily in the form of direct grants and loans, represented around 7% of the landed catch's value. Similarly, China allocates 98% of its fisheries subsidies to capture fisheries, mainly through fuel subsidies, despite aquaculture's significant contribution to its seafood production. However, regional governments in China support aquaculture, leading to rapid sector growth, with production reaching 45.5\u0026nbsp;million tonnes in 2014.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA comparison of Fisheries and Aquaculture Subsidies in Nigeria, the EU, and Select Non-EU Countries\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCountry/ Region\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubsidy Distribution (in %, \u0026euro;)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTime Period\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey Focus Areas\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutcomes/Challenges\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNigeria\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Euro \u0026euro; estimates based on 2019 rate)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eAquaculture\u003c/b\u003e: 48.4% (\u0026euro;5.68\u0026nbsp;million) \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eCapture Fisheries (Artisanal \u0026amp; Industrial)\u003c/b\u003e: 25.2% (\u0026euro;2.95\u0026nbsp;million)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eTrade, Storage \u0026amp; Processing\u003c/b\u003e: 19.4% (\u0026euro;2.28\u0026nbsp;million)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Pre-2013: Data unavailable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2013\u0026ndash;2022\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Focus on aquaculture as the primary sector \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Emphasis on trade, processing, and artisanal fisheries\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e-Promoting beneficial subsidies against harmful in capture fisheries\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Aquaculture growth has been marginal with one dominant species/Limited funding for research and scope of aquaculture practices\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e-Capture fisheries remain dominant in food security and a source of foreign exchange/ Poor fisheries data management and limited funding compared to global players\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEuropean Union (EU)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eAquaculture\u003c/b\u003e: 20% of a total of \u0026euro;1.72\u0026nbsp;billion (2014\u0026ndash;2020) \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- 2000\u0026ndash;2014: \u0026euro;1.17\u0026nbsp;billion \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eFisheries\u003c/b\u003e: Mixed Capacity \u0026amp; Benefits\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2000\u0026ndash;2020\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Sustainability and environmental protection in aquaculture \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Fleet modernization and capacity management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Increased regulatory procedure, which is now considered to be hindering growth\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Mixed success in capture fisheries/ Harmful subsidies exists and limits the efforts to reduce overcapacitation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSouth Korea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Aquaculture and processing: Minimal funding\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Capture: 90\u0026ndash;100% (EUR 1.5\u0026nbsp;billion in 2014)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2009\u0026ndash;2014\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Emphasis on fleet reduction, sustainable coastal and offshore fisheries\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e - Support for decommissioning vessels\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Growth in aquaculture through marine farms\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e - Decline in capture production and fleet due to decommissioning efforts​\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eJapan\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Aquaculture and marketing: Negligible\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Capture: 53% (2008) to 99% (2015)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2008\u0026ndash;2015\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Disaster recovery and fleet modernization post-2011 earthquake\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e - Focus on sustainable fisheries management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Infrastructure and insurance dominant subsidies post-2011\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e - Limited funds for aquaculture; substantial decrease in processing sector subsidies​\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRussia\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eAquaculture\u003c/b\u003e: 33% (2015)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eCapture Fisheries\u003c/b\u003e: 63% of subsidies (2015) \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2001\u0026ndash;2015\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Increasing support for aquaculture\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Focus on vessel modernization and infrastructure development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Boosting aquaculture production to improve food security\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Increased value addition of fish product/ Complex regulatory regulatory framework for fisheries and aquaculture\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eChina\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eAquaculture\u003c/b\u003e: 2% (\u0026euro;97\u0026nbsp;million)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eCapture Fisheries\u003c/b\u003e: 98% (\u0026euro;5.47\u0026nbsp;billion) \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2011\u0026ndash;2013\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Capture sector dominates subsidy allocation\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Aquaculture modernization focus\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Large fuel subsidies for distant water fleet\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Improved aquaculture modernization, research, and management efforts/Intensive aquaculture practices have led to environmental issues\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Encourages overcapacity and overfishing in both national and international waters\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTaiwan\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eAquaculture\u003c/b\u003e: 12% (\u0026euro;3\u0026nbsp;million)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eCapture Fisheries\u003c/b\u003e: 88% (\u0026euro;22\u0026nbsp;million)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2013\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Large subsidies for vessel buybacks and modernization programs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Aquaculture still underfunded compared to distant water fleet/Access to accurate, updated subsidy data is challenging, with official information often limited or unavailable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUnited States\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eAquaculture\u003c/b\u003e: Small (\u0026euro;23\u0026nbsp;million)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- \u003cb\u003eCapture Fisheries\u003c/b\u003e: 99% (\u0026euro;1.5\u0026nbsp;billion) \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2013\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Focus on modernization and management in Capture sector\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Aquaculture receives minimal federal support, mostly through grants/ Lack of centralized reporting system complicating data aggregation and transparency in subsidy allocation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003eSource: EU aquaculture subsidies, Guillen, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e; EU fisheries subsidies, Skerritt, D. J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e; fisheries and aquaculture subsidies in Non-EU Countries, Arthur, R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the EU, despite a larger total investment of \u0026euro;1.72\u0026nbsp;billion under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) from 2014 to 2020, only about 20% of this budget is allocated to aquaculture. The EU focuses heavily on sustainability and high-quality production standards, which has hindered substantial growth. While the majority of the subsidy in the EU has been on capture fisheries, the EU has in the past two decades shifted from funding capacity-enhancing subsidies (e.g., vessel construction, modernization) to more beneficial subsidies, such as conservation and management efforts aimed at sustainability. Nevertheless, a significant number of harmful subsidies still remain due to the conflicting use of capacity-enhancing subsidies and has limited the EU, as the second-largest subsidizer globally, in meeting SDG 14.6 targets.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the United States, aquaculture receives minimal direct subsidies (2%), primarily through federal grants targeted at sustainability and innovation. The sector is largely self-sufficient, driven by private investment rather than government support. Unlike Nigeria, where government-directed subsidies dominate, the U.S. aquaculture industry relies on market forces and investments in high-value species like salmon. Similarly, in Japan, subsidies to aquaculture have been relatively small and declining, falling to just 1% of the total by 2015. Japan, like the U.S., emphasises high-value species and small-scale innovations. Russia, on the other hand, allocates 33% of its fisheries subsidies to aquaculture, a higher proportion compared to most other countries. This significant investment, characterized by high per-tonne subsidies (\u0026euro;57 per tonne), indicates the government's strategic focus on boosting aquaculture for food security.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eNarrative description of the government support between 1980\u0026ndash;2022 showed different trajectories among sub-sectors. The government supported the fisheries sector fundamentally to promote food security, livelihood enhancement, trade and foreign exchange earning especially in the case of industrial capture fisheries. However, quantitative records of government spending were not accessible for the period 1980\u0026ndash;2012, a data accessibility challenge frequently noted in the literature on subsidy analysis\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. It is common for fisheries governors (authorities) in charge of managing fisheries to limit data archiving to only catch data leaving out trade, investment, and even aid related data to other parastatals or ministries. This practice is negative as it affects data availability for effective fisheries management as the total picture is often missing. There is a need for a holistic picture or a paradigm shift in the training and knowledge acquisition of fisheries practitioners to a more diversified knowledge base beyond the usual subjects to those covering natural resource economics, experimental economics, international trade, markets and policy analysis. This thought aligns with the views of other experts in the field\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR25\" citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Fisheries and aquaculture subsidies for the period 1980\u0026ndash;2012\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn spite of difficulty in data accessibility, qualitative data for the period showed that subsidies carried out to support fisheries sectors in Nigeria are similar to what is obtainable in many countries of West Africa. Subsidies to the fisheries sectors usually take the form of a reduction in the price of inputs, a reduction in the price of consumer goods (mainly foods), and the provision of infrastructure and services such as extension and training\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. While highlighting the fact that there is a conflict between the government subsidy programme and restrictions on the importation of fishing materials, studies showed that subsidy on the importation of these materials was designed to increase the rate of modernization which will in turn bring about a change in the approach to attaining self-sufficiency in food production\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubsidies to the aquaculture sector during the same period were mainly targeted towards input supports, aquaculture infrastructure development and capacity building programmes. Most of them may be considered beneficial considering their tendency to reduced pressure on the wild fish stocks; however, the lack of detailed information on these projects limits a thorough assessment of their long-term sustainability and environmental impact. Supports to the artisanal sector during the period were funded by both the national government and international agencies and mostly periodical in nature with a clear intervention target. We inferred that most of the support focused on driving production with no attention to development of a strong and sustainable fisheries management program particularly in areas like stock assessment and mitigating vulnerabilities to climate change impacts. A culture which has remained to date. However, some of the projects are considered beneficial as they were targeted towards reducing post-harvest losses and promoting trade. Subsidies to the industrial sector were mainly capacity enhancing like energy subsidy and vessel purchase. Notwithstanding, some supports funded through aid from the World Bank were beneficial promoting monitoring and surveillance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Fisheries and aquaculture subsidies for the period 2013\u0026ndash;2022\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA quantitative assessment of national fisheries subsidies for the period was carried out using available data from the government. Available data suggests a possible deliberate effort by the concerned department to systematically archive detailed information on projects and programs making it easier for quantitative assessment. Subsidies in aquaculture sub-heads in Nigeria fall into the six categories and types listed by Sumaila\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e viz research and development, infrastructure development, management programs and services, marketing support, production incentives and others. We also extended subsidy types used in fisheries subsidy classification in terms of beneficial, harmful and ambiguous\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. For instance, we considered activities of fish feed mills harmful due to almost absolute dependence on fish meal as a major protein source with potential negative consequences on the wild. Aquaculture is recognized as a significant pressure on wild fish stocks, largely due to the demand for fishmeal from wild-caught fish\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost of the other projects under land-based aquaculture were considered beneficial, focusing on production enhancement which has a tendency to reduce impact on the wild and capacity building programmes. However, some water-based aquaculture projects, like the cage culture initiative, presented more complex implications considering their danger to the environment if carried out on open water bodies due to risk of overstocking, water pollution, and biodiversity disruptions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The country began to prioritize use of open water bodies as means of increasing fish production. There is however the need for good stewardship practice to prevent negative consequences on wild stock. The integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) could be a solution to the multiple objectives of increasing fish production, diversification of aquaculture species, environmental stewardship and more if implemented conscientiously\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The Nigeria IMTA project in partnership with WorldFish and the Lagos State University, funded by the UK's International Development through the Blue Planet Fund, aims to strengthen sustainable aquaculture practices under the Asia-Africa BlueTech Superhighway initiative (2023\u0026ndash;2030).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the artisanal sector, the majority of expenditures are classified as beneficial. This is mainly dominated by initiatives, such as the lake enhancement project aimed at boosting artisanal fisheries production, which reflects the government commitment to enhance local fishery resources. However, a notable portion of artisanal sector subsidies (input support) were classified as harmful as it could encourage overcapacity and overfishing\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR35\" citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. While these subsidies are critical for sustaining the livelihoods of small scale fishers, they pose potential risks that must be carefully managed​. This is similar to other developing countries where small scale fisheries play significant role in food security, employment and regional trade \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Such subsidies for small-scale fishers have persisted through both the pre- and post-2013 periods covered in this study. However, with respect to proportion, Nigeria's situation notably diverges from the global trend observed in marine subsidies. Globally, small-scale fisheries tend to receive less subsidy support, with nearly 90% of the subsidies allocated to large-scale fisheries directed toward capacity-enhancing measures that often contribute to overfishing\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s large-scale fisheries receive relatively minimal subsidies, and the subsidies allocated are predominantly beneficial rather than capacity-enhancing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe harmful subsidies of the industrial/large scale fisheries sector such as the one subsidizing fuel cost during the pre-2013 period was stopped leaving only the beneficial ones as most of the current subsidies to the sector were targetted towards monitoring and surveillance. Migrating from harmful to beneficial subsidy is a remarkable development in the management of industrial fisheries in Nigeria and the resolve to combat IUU fishing and making the sector more transparent as Nigeria intends to become a part of the Fisheries Transparency Initiative (FiTI). According to Ball\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and Skerritt\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, lack of transparency can foster public disempowerment and distrust, while its presence encourages communication and inclusivity. Nevertheless, the inadequacy of stock assessment studies remains a challenge as stock assessment holds a necessary and sufficient condition in attaining sustainable fisheries management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government financial and insurance institutions as part of their mandates promote financing and insurance coverage in support of different sectoral developments. The fisheries and aquaculture subsectors also enjoy such financial interventions under different programmes mentioned earlier under government\u0026rsquo;s implicit payments\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR43\" citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. These includes tax deferrals, duty free imports on inputs, insurance supports to mention a few. However, while they are mostly targetted towards sectoral development, some of these implicit payments can contribute capacity enhancement\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Implicit payments to the fisheries sector are a common practice in many countries including the US, Japan and others\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. It is imperative that fisheries governors and managers have a holistic information about this kind of financing or supports in order to be able to contextualise their ramification on the sustainable management of the fisheries. Managers must communicate the need to focus on beneficial subsidies such as research and developments and specifically stock assessment activities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe stakeholder\u0026rsquo;s demography is well distributed across different age, gender, occupation and education categories. Subsidies is not just an economic decision making process but also has socio-political dimension requiring a broad based support in many context\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Within the period covered, the energy and power subsidy are provided nationwide to reduce the cost of petrol which is mostly used by many thereby reducing the cost associated with transportation of goods and services. While the subsidy is not specifically to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, the stakeholders recognize its significant impact on the sector. Nigeria has totally deregulated its fuel/energy sector removing the subsidy being benefitted by the citizens with consequent impact on the prices of goods and services. Similar effect has been reported in Spain\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. A study on the specific impact of this deregulation on the fisheries and aquaculture sector would be very important as it can shape and influence the kind of fisheries subsidy that government would be encouraged to provide to reduce spiral cost of fish production and a depressed fish consumption.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNigeria does not provide any fuel subsidy specifically to the fisheries sector but the stakeholders in the sector benefits from the general fuel subsidy program on petroleum motorist spirit (PMS). The subsidy on the AGO has been removed much earlier, the industrial fisheries has stopped receiving any support. Schuhbauer et al.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e argue that fuel subsidies can perpetuate inefficient technology and further marginalize small-scale fishers. Evidence from Senegal\u0026rsquo;s artisanal purse seine fishery shows that fuel subsidies contributed to overfishing and is postulated to lead to a collapse of the fishery by 2030-2035\u003csup\u003e48\u003c/sup\u003e. On the other hand, fuel subsidies can also provide short-term benefits, such as increasing the monthly income of small-scale fishermen, as seen in Kedah and Perlis, Malaysia\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. A smaller group of respondents considered these subsidies to be harmful, primarily due to potential cost implications and overfishing. This mirror concerns raised in the global discourse on fisheries subsidies, where fuel subsidies, particularly in capture fisheries, are linked to overexploitation of marine resources\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The presence of such concerns among Nigerian stakeholders indicates an awareness of the trade-offs between short-term economic gains and long-term sustainability. This suggests the need for more stringent regulation and better targeting of subsidies to avoid exacerbating overfishing, particularly in the already vulnerable capture fisheries sector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFisheries and aquaculture enjoyed subsidized inputs from the government which a small proportion of stakeholder viewed as harmful or ambiguous. This suggests that there may be localized issues of inefficiency or misallocation, warranting closer scrutiny to ensure that the right inputs are reaching the right stakeholders in a timely and efficient manner. Majority of the stakeholders are aware of subsidies available on provision of preservation facilities (kilns, oven and coldrooms) and believe they are beneficial. However, the limited accessibility and availability of coldrooms highlight a structural challenge within the post-harvest phase of the fisheries value chain. This limitation not only affects the quality and preservation of fish products but also undermines the broader efforts to improve food security and reduce economic losses\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Such structural challenge is common in different forms of input subsidies. Addressing these infrastructural gaps could significantly enhance the sustainability of fisheries production and reduce the environmental footprint of the industry by minimizing waste.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStakeholders\u0026rsquo; positive view of subsidies related to capacity building reflect the crucial role that it plays in enhancing productivity and competitiveness in the fisheries sector. Training programs have been shown to drive significant advancements in fisheries and aquaculture sectors globally\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, a portion of the respondents expressed ambiguity on the impact of training (short or long term) highlighting a serious concern in the relevance or delivery of these training programs relative to their expectations. To maximize the impact of training initiatives, there should be more targeted approaches addressing the specific needs of local fish farmers and fishers, crew members, processors, and traders\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Moreover, integrating these training programs with ongoing research and development initiatives could foster a more dynamic and responsive knowledge transfer system that meets the evolving challenges of the sector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn comparison with global trends, the stakeholders\u0026rsquo; perception of Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s fishery subsidies seems to mirror patterns observed in other developing countries, where the balance between beneficial and harmful subsidies is a constant point of contention\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The consensus among Nigerian stakeholders, however, lean toward subsidies as a tool for positive change, particularly in aquaculture. This focus on aquaculture subsidies is in line with recent global shifts toward promoting aquaculture as a sustainable alternative to capture fisheries, especially in regions where wild stocks are declining due to overfishing and climate change impacts\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The government should direct more subsidies towards capture fisheries to ensure that fish stock assessment and fisheries data management should be enhanced given their relatively higher return to food security, livelihood and sources of foreign exchange earnings than cultured fishes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3 Comparative Assessment of Fisheries and Aquaculture Subsidies: Nigeria and Global Context\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNigeria's limited allocation of fisheries subsidies, particularly compared to major players like China and the EU\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, reflects a broader trend where developing countries generally spend less on fisheries subsidies than developed nations, as observed by Sumaila et al.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Despite this, Nigeria prioritizes aquaculture, dedicating a significant portion of its subsidies to this sector\u0026mdash;a commitment shaped in part by the 2005 Fish for All Summit, where African leaders pledged to invest in aquaculture for production growth and food security\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Nevertheless, with local fish production still largely reliant on capture fisheries, Nigeria must consider structuring subsidies to support both capture and aquaculture sectors to balance food security goals with long-term resource sustainability. Such diversified support is necessary, especially in countries where capture fisheries remain integral to production\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile Nigeria's aquaculture sector is the most funded within its fisheries industry, challenges remain in technology adoption and infrastructure development. Only 0.14% of the funds are directed toward technology and support services, suggesting a need for increased investment in these areas to overcome current limitations. In the EU, regulatory and environmental hurdles pose significant challenges. Despite substantial investment, bureaucratic barriers have led to stagnation in aquaculture growth\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In contrast, China and Russia have achieved substantial production growth with fewer regulatory constraints, focusing more on infrastructure and expansion rather than solely on environmental sustainability. For the United States, the lack of substantial direct subsidies is a barrier to rapid expansion, although private investments have fostered innovation in high-value species\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe small percentage of funding allocated to technology and support services in Nigeria indicates a potential area for improvement. Enhancing investment in these areas could spur technological innovation and modernization, essential for increasing production efficiency and sustainability. Nigeria's approach to aquaculture subsidies aligns most closely with the strategies of Russia and China, focusing on food security. The EU\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on sustainability and quality, while commendable, faces challenges due to regulatory constraints. Japan and the U.S., with their focus on high-value species and sustainable practices, offer a contrast in subsidy allocation and reliance on private investment. Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s future fisheries and aquaculture growth will benefit from a heightened focus on technological and support services investments, adopting a strategy that comprehensively addresses the sector\u0026rsquo;s diverse needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s limited funding for technology and support services in the fisheries sector suggests an area for policy enhancement. Investments in technology and support services are essential for fostering innovation, efficiency, and sustainable practices in fisheries and aquaculture thus, addressing this funding gap could improve the productivity and resilience of Nigeria's fisheries, advancing both economic and food security outcomes\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec35\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.4 WTO Fisheries Subsidy Agreement and Its Implications for Nigeria\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies was adopted in June 2022. It focuses solely on subsidies for marine wild fisheries and does not include those for aquaculture, inland freshwater fisheries, or any land-based activities (including onshore processing)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Nigeria submitted its instrument of acceptance for the Agreement on June 12, 2023, becoming the second African WTO member to take this step\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The Agreement prohibits harmful subsidies, which include those that promote IUU fishing, as well as subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and the overfishing of stocks in a depleted condition\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Fuel subsidies are among the major culprits of harmful subsidies globally\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Prior to the Agreement, Nigeria had already withdrawn fuel subsidies for industrial fishers in 2000. By 2023, all forms of fuel subsidies that could directly or indirectly impact the fisheries sector were eliminated, aligning Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s subsidy framework with the WTO's sustainability objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe WTO Fisheries Subsidy Agreement presents both opportunities and challenges for Nigeria's fisheries sector, which comprises crucial artisanal and industrial fisheries. The subsidies provided to industrial fisheries in Nigeria are largely beneficial focusing mostly on monitoring and surveillance. However, unquantified subsidies such as import duty waivers for the importation of fisheries equipment still take place and may contribute to overcapacity and overfishing if not properly monitored. Without clear limitations or transparency in the allocation of these waivers, there is a risk of undermining sustainable fishing practices, which is a key concern under the WTO agreement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, certain portions of the artisanal subsidies such as the input-support programs have potential to promote overcapacity. Thus, caution is required when providing such capacity-enhancing subsidies, especially given that the status of many Nigerian fish stocks is currently unknown\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Article 5.3 of the Agreement states that \u0026ldquo;A Member shall take special care and exercise due restraint when granting subsidies to fishing or fishing related activities regarding stocks the status of which is unknown\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026rdquo; This provision applies to all members \u0026ndash; developed, developing and LDCs\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, Nigeria can leverage on the provision of Article 7 of the Agreement to secure technical assistance and capacity building through the WTO Fisheries Funding Mechanism provided under the Article in determining the status of Nigeria fisheries stocks. By doing so, Nigeria can enhance transparency on fisheries-related information, as required by the Agreement\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, the Agreement\u0026rsquo;s provisions for special and differential treatment (SDT) for developing countries provide Nigeria with some flexibility in transitioning towards more sustainable fishing practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn light of these, Nigeria must strike a careful balance between reforming fisheries subsidies and supporting local fisheries livelihoods. Utilizing the technical assistance and capacity-building opportunities provided through the WTO Fisheries Funding Mechanism could be instrumental in assessing Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s fish stock health, enhancing transparency and enabling more targeted subsidy allocations in line with WTO requirements. Concurrently, Nigeria should continue reviewing its subsidy programs to ensure they fully comply with WTO standards, particularly regarding those that may contribute to overfishing or IUU fishing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5 Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights the evolving nature of government support to both capture and culture fisheries in Nigeria. For much of the first three decades, the lack of quantitative data limited detailed analysis, though international and government support played a significant role in promoting sectoral development during that time. In more recent years, support has become predominantly government-led and largely focused on aquaculture, with less funding directed toward trade, processing, artisanal and industrial fisheries, quality assurance, and technology services.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAquaculture support covered a broad range of areas, including certification, cage culture, capacity building, fingerlings production, feed mills, farm clusters, the Growth Enhancement Support (GES) scheme, infrastructure rehabilitation, and input support for small-scale producers. Support for artisanal fisheries was modest, concentrating on canoe registration, capacity building, input supply, and lake enhancement, with minimal investment in governance or management. Industrial fisheries subsidies, though limited, prioritized regulatory oversight through investments in vessel monitoring systems, and broader monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNigeria\u0026rsquo;s fisheries and aquaculture subsidies reflect a complex mix of beneficial, harmful, and ambiguous interventions. Classification shows that most aquaculture-related interventions are perceived as beneficial. However, a few aquaculture programs were viewed as ambiguous, such as cage culture, due to their potential environmental risks when implemented in open water bodies. Subsidies directed at capture fisheries also present a mixed picture. While interventions like canoe registration and selective input supply were seen as potentially beneficial, they were often hindered by poor targeting and inadequate follow-up, making their impact ambiguous in many cases. Industrial fisheries subsidies are now viewed as mostly beneficial, particularly following the cessation of diesel subsidies. This shift has reduced distortive incentives and sustainability concerns associated with earlier fuel support. Investments in vessel monitoring and supporting governance infrastructure have instead enhanced monitoring and resource management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStakeholders generally viewed Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s fisheries and aquaculture subsidies as beneficial. However, concerns were raised over the removal of general fuel subsidies, limited access to post-harvest infrastructure, and ambiguity in the impact of training programs, especially where delivery failed to meet local needs. Overall, stakeholders expressed support for well-targeted and transparent subsidies, while emphasizing the need for more balanced attention to capture fisheries to strengthen sustainability, food security, and livelihoods.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile global fisheries subsidies tend to favor capture fisheries, Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s subsidy framework diverges by placing greater emphasis on aquaculture. This strategic focus reflects efforts to increase production and reduce import dependence. However, given the persistent role of capture fisheries in meeting domestic fish demand and supporting rural livelihoods, a more integrated subsidy approach is essential. Increasing support for capture fisheries will be critical to achieving both food security and long-term sustainability of aquatic resources.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNotably, prior to WTO agreement, Nigeria has removed support towards harmful subsidy especially with respect to AGO subsidy. The country can further strengthen the industrial fisheries sector by taking advantage of the WTO Fisheries Funding Mechanism to strategically develop the subsector towards the part of sustainable oceans fisheries development. This will include prioritizing regular stock assessment which is considered the fulcrum of sustainable fisheries and blue economy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy integrating stakeholder insights and focusing on evidence-based policymaking, Nigeria can strengthen its fisheries subsidy framework to not only promote ecological sustainability but also ensure equitable economic benefits across communities. This research provides a crucial roadmap for policymakers, offering actionable strategies to balance economic development with resource conservation, and fostering a resilient and sustainable fisheries sector in alignment with national and global goals. The findings highlight the urgency of continued investments in beneficial subsidies while phasing out harmful practices, creating a pathway towards a more sustainable and prosperous future for Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s fisheries and aquaculture sectors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eS.L.A. contributed to the design of the study. S.L.A. and O.F.O. sourced data from FMARD. A.O.S. facilitated the design and distribution of the survey questionnaire. O.F.O. and A.O.S. contributed to the data analysis. All authors (S.LA., K.A.F., F.O.A., O.F.O. and A.O.S.) contributed to the interpretation of the results. All authors contributed to the writing and provided substantive feedback on the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank all the survey respondents as well as the staff of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Finance Department of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development for making available the data used in this study. This study received no funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO. Nigeria - Fisheries and Aquaculture Country Profiles. \u003cem\u003eCountry Profile Fact Sheets\u003c/em\u003e https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/facp/nga?lang=en (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnetekhai, M. A., Akin-Oriola, G. A., Aderinola, O. J. \u0026amp; Akintola, S. L. Steps ahead for aquaculture development in Sub-Saharan Africa - The case of Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eAquaculture\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e239\u003c/strong\u003e, 237\u0026ndash;248 (2004).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrendEconomy. Nigeria: Imports and Exports. \u003cem\u003eAnnual International Trade Statistics by Country (HS)\u003c/em\u003e https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/Nigeria/0303 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNEP. \u003cem\u003eFisheries Subsidies and Marine Resource Management: Lessons Learned from Studies in Argentina and Senegal\u003c/em\u003e. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/9175 (2003).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOECD. \u003cem\u003ePolicy Brief: Subsidies: A Way Towards Sustainable Fisheries?\u003c/em\u003e (2005).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIEA. \u003cem\u003eWorld Energy Outlook 1999: Looking at Energy Subsidies: Getting the Prices Right\u003c/em\u003e. (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2000). doi:10.1787/weo-1999-en.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSumaila, U. R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e A bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Bioeconomics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 201\u0026ndash;225 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO. \u003cem\u003eMarine Fisheries and the Law of the Sea: A Decade of Change. Special Chapter (Revised) of The State of Food and Agriculture 1992.\u003c/em\u003e (1992).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMilazzo, M. Subsidies in World Fisheries: A Re-examination. \u003cem\u003eWorld Bank technical paper no. 406. Fisheries series.\u003c/em\u003e Preprint at https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:152882029 (1998).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSumaila, U. R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e A global dataset on subsidies to the fisheries sector. \u003cem\u003eData Brief\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e27\u003c/strong\u003e, 104706 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSumaila, U. R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies. \u003cem\u003eMar Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e109\u003c/strong\u003e, 103695 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlaaten, O. \u0026amp; Wallis, P. Government Financial Transfers to Fishing Industries in OECD Countries. in \u003cem\u003eProceedings from the 10th Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, Oregon, Oregon State University\u003c/em\u003e (2001).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAPEC. \u003cem\u003eStudy into the Nature and Extent of Subsidies in the Fisheries Sector of APEC Member Economies, 2000\u003c/em\u003e. (2000).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharp, R. \u0026amp; Sumaila, U. R. Quantification of U.S. Marine Fisheries Subsidies. \u003cem\u003eN Am J Fish Manag\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e29\u003c/strong\u003e, 18\u0026ndash;32 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMallory, T. G. Fisheries subsidies in China: Quantitative and qualitative assessment of policy coherence and effectiveness. \u003cem\u003eMar Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e68\u003c/strong\u003e, 74\u0026ndash;82 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkintola, S. L. Perception and Reality of Justice in the Small-Scale Fisheries of Nigeria. in \u003cem\u003eBlue Justice: Small-Scale Fisheries in a Sustainable Ocean Economy\u003c/em\u003e (eds. Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., Bugeja Said, A. \u0026amp; Isaacs, M.) 179\u0026ndash;197 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-89624-9_10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO. \u003cem\u003eThe State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation\u003c/em\u003e. (FAO, Rome, 2022). doi:10.4060/CC0461EN.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStatista. Share of Gross Domestic Production (GDP) generated by the agricultural sector in Nigeria as of 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1207940/share-of-gdp-by-agricultural-sector-in-nigeria/# (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSumaila, U. R. Transparency in aquaculture subsidy reporting urgently needed. \u003cem\u003eSci Adv\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, eadt5484 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarlock, T. M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Environmental, economic, and social sustainability in aquaculture: the aquaculture performance indicators. \u003cem\u003eNat Commun\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e, 5274 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDrillet, G. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Opinions on the Sustainable Development of Aquaculture. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Fisheries \u0026amp; Livestock Production\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;3 (2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Bank. World Development Indicators | DataBank. \u003cem\u003eDataBank, World Bank Group\u003c/em\u003e https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2\u0026amp;country=ARE# (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSumaila, U. R. Fisheries subsidies are an obstacle to achieving Infinity Fish. in \u003cem\u003eInfinity Fish\u003c/em\u003e 121\u0026ndash;138 (Elsevier, 2022). doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823816-5.00026-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSumaila, U. R. Reflections on Breaking Down Silos in Fisheries Science. \u003cem\u003eFisheries (Bethesda)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e49\u003c/strong\u003e, 207\u0026ndash;210 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, J. Chapter: 1. We Are the Apex Predators. in \u003cem\u003eFuture of Fisheries: Perspectives for Emerging Professionals\u003c/em\u003e (eds. Taylor, W. W., Lynch, A. J. \u0026amp; L\u0026eacute;onard, N. J.) 3\u0026ndash;8 (American Fisheries Society, 2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCochrane, K. L. An integrated view of fisheries: tunnelling between silos. \u003cem\u003eICES Journal of Marine Science\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e74\u003c/strong\u003e, 625\u0026ndash;634 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMabawonku, A. F. \u003cem\u003eThe Role and Effect Subsidies on Fisheries Development in West Africa (Nigeria, Cote D\u0026rsquo;Ivoire, The Gambia, Senegal)\u003c/em\u003e. (1990).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMabawonku, A. F. \u0026amp; Olomola, S. A. Regulations and policies on the importation of fishing materials in Nigeria: 1970\u0026ndash;1980. \u003cem\u003eFish Res\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 213\u0026ndash;222 (1986).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSumaila, U. R., Lam, V., Le Manach, F., Swartz, W. \u0026amp; Pauly, D. Global fisheries subsidies: An updated estimate. \u003cem\u003eMar Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e69\u003c/strong\u003e, 189\u0026ndash;193 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBogmans, C. W. J. \u0026amp; van Soest, D. Can global aquaculture growth help to conserve wild fish stocks? Theory and empirical analysis. \u003cem\u003eNat Resour Model\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e35\u003c/strong\u003e, e12323 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrice, C., Black, K. D., Hargrave, B. T. \u0026amp; Morris, J. A. Marine cage culture and the environment: effects on water quality and primary production. \u003cem\u003eAquac Environ Interact\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, 151\u0026ndash;174 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumari, S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Assessment of Cage Culture Practices in Chandil Reservoir, Jharkhand. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics \u0026amp; Sociology\u003c/em\u003e 21\u0026ndash;30 (2021) doi:10.9734/AJAEES/2021/V39I930637.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiangrande, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e An Integrated Monitoring Approach to the Evaluation of the Environmental Impact of an Inshore Mariculture Plant (Mar Grande of Taranto, Ionian Sea). \u003cem\u003eBiology (Basel)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e, (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMillage, K. D. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e SubsidyExplorer: A decision-support tool to improve our understanding of the ecological and economic effects of reforming fisheries subsidies. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e, (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndreoli, V. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Fisheries subsidies exacerbate inequities in accessing seafood nutrients in the Indian Ocean. \u003cem\u003enpj Ocean Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e, (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBangura, K. Z. \u0026amp; Kromah, A. Z. The WTO\u0026rsquo;s Fisheries Subsidies Agreement: What\u0026rsquo;s New and What\u0026rsquo;s Next? \u003cem\u003eGlobal Trade and Customs Journal\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e, 431\u0026ndash;435 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkintola, S. L., Fakoya, K. A., Elegbede, I. O., Odunsi, E. \u0026amp; Jolaosho, T. Chapter three - Postharvest Practices in Small-Scale Fisheries. in \u003cem\u003eSustainable Fish Production and Processing\u003c/em\u003e (ed. Galanakis, C. M.) 79\u0026ndash;110 (Academic Press, 2022). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824296-4.00008-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchuhbauer, A., Skerritt, D. J., Ebrahim, N., Le Manach, F. \u0026amp; Sumaila, U. R. The Global Fisheries Subsidies Divide Between Small- and Large-Scale Fisheries. \u003cem\u003eFront Mar Sci\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e, (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchuhbauer, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Cheung, W. W. L., Greer, K. \u0026amp; Sumaila, U. R. How subsidies affect the economic viability of small-scale fisheries. \u003cem\u003eMar Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e82\u003c/strong\u003e, 114\u0026ndash;121 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBall, C. What Is Transparency? \u003cem\u003ePublic Integrity\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e, 293\u0026ndash;308 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkerritt, D. J. Seeking clarity on transparency in fisheries governance and management. \u003cem\u003eMar Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e165\u003c/strong\u003e, 106221 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentral Bank of Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eAnchor Borrowers\u0026rsquo; Programme (ABP) Guidelines\u003c/em\u003e. (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFGN-World Bank. FGN-World Bank APPEALS Project. \u003cem\u003eAgro Processing, Productivity Enhancement and Livelihood Improvement Support \u0026ndash; APPEALS Project\u003c/em\u003e https://appealsproject.com.ng/ (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentral Bank of Nigeria. Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (ACGSF). \u003cem\u003eAgricultural Credit\u003c/em\u003e https://www.cbn.gov.ng/Devfin/acgsf.asp (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArthur, R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eStudy on the Subsidies to the Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Marketing and Processing Subsectors in Major Fishing Nations beyond the EU\u003c/em\u003e. (European Commission, 2017). doi:10.2771/812134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrane, A. \u0026amp; Ruebottom, T. Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e102\u003c/strong\u003e, 77\u0026ndash;87 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlberto, R. F. \u0026amp; Emilio, P. R. Analysing the impacts of a reform on harmful fishery subsidies in Spain using a social accounting matrix. \u003cem\u003eJ Econ Struct\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;29 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLancker, K., Deppenmeier, A.-L., Demissie, T. \u0026amp; Schmidt, J. O. Climate change adaptation and the role of fuel subsidies: An empirical bio-economic modeling study for an artisanal open-access fishery. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e, e0220433- (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHusain, A. M., Hafidzatul, W., Ali, J. \u0026amp; Arzemi, A. Impact of fuel subsidies on fishermen income: an empirical study of small-scale fishermen in Kedah and Perlis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Economics and Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e, 13 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, P. W., Mendes, I. \u0026amp; Franic, R. Investigating the Relationship between Aquaculture Investments, Training, and Environmental Factors in Guangdong: An Alternative Perspective. \u003cem\u003eFishes\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopoola, O. V., Oyetunde, C. O., Adebayo, A. V. \u0026amp; Olasunkanmi, A. J. Research and Development in Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s Tertiary Institutions: Issues, Challenges and Way Forward. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT)\u003c/em\u003e 2779\u0026ndash;2787 (2024) doi:10.38124/IJISRT/IJISRT24MAY2157.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacfadyen, G. \u0026amp; Huntington, T. Human capacity development in fisheries. in \u003cem\u003eFAO Fisheries Circular. No. 1003.\u003c/em\u003e 80 (Rome, 2004).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWillima, D., Reva, D. \u0026amp; Walker, T. Does Africa gain from the WTO\u0026rsquo;s landmark fishing subsidies deal? \u003cem\u003eInstitute of Security Studies\u003c/em\u003e https://issafrica.org/iss-today/does-africa-gain-from-the-wtos-landmark-fishing-subsidies-deal (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkeke-Ogbuafor, N., Stead, S. \u0026amp; Gray, T. Is inland aquaculture the panacea for Sierra Leone\u0026rsquo;s decline in marine fish stocks? \u003cem\u003eMar Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e132\u003c/strong\u003e, 104663 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoberts, D. Sustainable Aquaculture: Protecting Our Oceans and Feeding the World. in 373\u0026ndash;378 (2019). doi:10.1163/9789004380271_063.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuillen, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Aquaculture subsidies in the European Union: Evolution, impact and future potential for growth. \u003cem\u003eMar Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e104\u003c/strong\u003e, 19\u0026ndash;28 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkerritt, D. J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e A 20-year retrospective on the provision of fisheries subsidies in the European Union. \u003cem\u003eICES Journal of Marine Science\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e77\u003c/strong\u003e, 2741\u0026ndash;2752 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNEPAD. Proceedings of the NEPAD Fish for All Summit. in \u003cem\u003eNEPAD Fish for All Summit\u003c/em\u003e (New Partnership for Africa\u0026rsquo;s Development, Abuja, Nigeria, 2005).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan, C. Y. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The future of fish in Africa: Employment and investment opportunities. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, e0261615 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEuropean Commission: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. \u003cem\u003eStudy on the Subsidies to the Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Marketing and Processing Subsectors in Major Fishing Nations beyond the EU\u003c/em\u003e. (Publications Office, 2016). doi:doi/10.2771/812134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJiang, S. Aquaculture, capture fisheries, and wild fish stocks. \u003cem\u003eResour Energy Econ\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e32\u003c/strong\u003e, 65\u0026ndash;77 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsche, F., Roll, K. H. \u0026amp; Tveteras, R. Innovations and Productivity Performance in Salmon Aquaculture. \u003cem\u003eIFIP Adv Inf Commun Technol\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e384\u003c/strong\u003e, 620\u0026ndash;627 (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSumaila, U. R. \u003cem\u003eReducing the Impact of Subsidies on Fishing Activity: Advances and Challenges\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/reducing-impact-subsidies-fishing-activity-advances-and-challenges (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Trade Organization. Nigeria formally accepts the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. \u003cem\u003eNegotiations on Fisheries Subsidy\u003c/em\u003e https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news23_e/fish_12jun23_e.htm (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Trade Organization. \u003cem\u003eAgreement on Fisheries Subsidies\u003c/em\u003e. (World Trade Organisation, Geneva, 2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Trade Organization. \u003cem\u003eImplementing the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies- Challenges and Opportunities for Developing and Least-Developed Country Members\u003c/em\u003e. (World Trade Organization, Geneva, 2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 2 is available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-ocean-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"npjoceansustain","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Ocean Sustainability](https://www.nature.com/npjoceansustain/)","snPcode":"44183","submissionUrl":"https://mts-npjoceansustain.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"npj Ocean Sustainability","twitterHandle":"@NaturePortfolio","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"npj","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Fisheries subsidy, artisanal, aquaculture development, industrial fisheries, beneficial, harmful, sustainable fisheries","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7143083/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7143083/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examines fisheries subsidies in Nigeria, providing a qualitative perspective and analyzing government expenditures on the fisheries and aquaculture sub-sectors over four decades (1980\u0026ndash;2022), along with stakeholders\u0026rsquo; perceptions of these subsidies. A mixed-method approach was employed combining government budget documents, stakeholder survey, and desk research on fisheries subsidies. The total estimated subsidy allocation was 4.7\u0026nbsp;billion naira (~\u0026thinsp;6.1\u0026nbsp;million USD, exchange rate: 1 USD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;765 naira), with the majority categorized as beneficial subsidies. Most stakeholders perceived fisheries subsidies on energy, inputs, preservation, processing, and training as beneficial, citing cost reduction, increased production, and improved livelihoods. A substantial number of respondents perceived that, within the energy sector, petrol is the most subsidized; among inputs, fingerlings receive the highest level of subsidy; and in the processing segment, smoking kilns are recognized as the most subsidized. Concerns about the impact of subsidies included risks of overfishing, the potential to incentivize exports at the expense of local consumption, and poor targeting of subsidy beneficiaries. Compared to countries in Asia, Europe, Russia, and the United States, Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s fisheries sector receives the least support in percentage of total subsidies and actual monetary value allocated. However, unlike most of these countries, Nigeria prioritizes aquaculture funding over capture fisheries. The assessment reveals how Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s evolving subsidy landscape reflects the principles of the WTO Fisheries Subsidy Agreement, highlighting the need for increased transparency, stock assessment, and support for local livelihoods. This study offers a foundation for shaping national fisheries subsidy frameworks that support global sustainability goals and promote long-term ecological and economic resilience in Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s fisheries and aquaculture sector.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Nigeria's fisheries subsidies before the WTO fisheries subsidies agreement","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-18 11:00:08","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7143083/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-27T16:02:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"238280982895789375825240720244304634075","date":"2026-04-18T11:40:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"174136681615574169474338962240877622974","date":"2026-01-12T15:13:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-25T08:09:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-18T00:39:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-17T11:38:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"npj Ocean Sustainability","date":"2025-07-16T19:54:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-ocean-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"npjoceansustain","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Ocean Sustainability](https://www.nature.com/npjoceansustain/)","snPcode":"44183","submissionUrl":"https://mts-npjoceansustain.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"npj Ocean Sustainability","twitterHandle":"@NaturePortfolio","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"npj","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"eb7b3298-4823-40ec-b5b1-a8da6a844dda","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 18th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":51718599,"name":"Business and commerce/Economics"},{"id":51718600,"name":"Social science/Economics"},{"id":51718601,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental sciences"},{"id":51718602,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences"},{"id":51718603,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Ocean sciences"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-25T08:23:14+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-18 11:00:08","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7143083","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7143083","identity":"rs-7143083","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}