Ad
The aim of the project was to build the core of an entirely new land-based aquaculture industry in Mozambique. It has not quite turned out that way.

Virus alarm at Norwegian-funded tilapia facility

Norwegian authorities spent more than NOK 111 million on freshwater aquaculture in Mozambique. During the project, a Norwegian technical manager raised the alarm after several positive tests for the feared tilapia virus TiLV.

Published Modified

The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation NRK writes this in a major article about the case.

NRK writes that the Norwegian Society for Development received NOK 111.1 million during the period 2018–2024 to operate, among other things, the Cepaq facility, which was intended to produce tilapia broodstock and juvenile fish.

Aquaculture consultant Morten Frost Høyum, who had helped build the facility, warned as early as January 2018 of suspected virus infection, according to NRK. Samples analysed at NMBU returned positive results, and new samples in 2019 did the same. Høyum recommended that the fish be destroyed and the facility restarted.

NRK writes that the fish were not destroyed. Although the facility had been placed under quarantine, several hundred thousand juvenile fish were reportedly transported to other fish farmers. The Norwegian Society for Development confirms that sales took place in breach of the contingency plan, but says that it was the Mozambican authorities who carried out the sales.

“I can only conclude that Norwegian aid, with its eyes open, put an African country at risk of being hit by a possible biological catastrophe,” Høyum tells NRK.

The Norwegian Society for Development strongly objects to this portrayal and defends its handling of the matter.

“We choose to rely on external evaluations which conclude that our handling was in line with international best practice,” Norges Vel communications director Leif-Arne Kristiansen told NRK.

Subsequent tests conducted at an international reference laboratory in Italy did not detect TiLV. The Norwegian Veterinary Institute describes the earlier findings as grounds for suspecting an infection, but also points out that new samples should have been taken much sooner.