The socio-economic study sought to determine whether the success of rural aquaculture development was linked to the classification of Natural Regions commonly used in Zimbabwe. To a certain extent the fact that one of the main criteria used to classify Natural regions is rainfall means that Natural Regions IV and V, because they are dry, are less likely to be suitable for rural aquaculture and more likely to be suitable for developing small water body exploitation in dams used for livestock watering and irrigation.
Consequently, it is not surprising that the number of fish farmers in Natural Region II is higher than those found in NRs III and IV. However, success of fish farming cannot only be measured in terms of numbers of ponds or numbers of fish farmers. Equally important is the type, intensity and quality of fish farming that is practised in the different NRs.
The survey results indicate that across all NR's, FFH had better access to water resources than NFF households. Ponds fed by ground water and shallow wells are the most common, with the majority of shallow wells owned by the individual except in NRIV. The results clearly indicate that in NRs where rainfall is low, households that take up fish farming are those which have access to a source of water which does not dry up -or is in short supply.
Household composition was not significantly different between FHH and NFHH in Natural Regions except in NRII where household size was significantly larger in FFH than in NFHH. The reasons for this are difficult to say. In terms of household sources of income, a higher portion of FFH cited horticulture as their main source of income than NFFH across all NRs and the results are statistically significant. This result is supported by the results on farm sizes.
On average, FFH had larger farm sizes that NFHH, although only in NRIII was the result significant. More importantly, however, the size of garden plots were significantly different in all regions. Thus, the main difference between NFFH and FFH households is the priority they give to horticulture in their on-farm activities. This priority might be influenced by the fact that they have better access to water than some NFHH. It can also be concluded that fish farming is regarded as an appropriate activity by farmers already involved in horticulture.
The sample size of female headed households was too small to draw any firm conclusions with regard to the differences between either male-headed and female-headed FFH or female-headed FFH and female-headed NFFH. The fact that the study's design did not accommodate more female headed and NFFH does not indicate in itself that this activity is not taken up by such households. However, female-headed households had a significantly lower number of full time male adults, suggesting that there could be a potential labour constraint for these households to expand into other economic activities. In addition, average land holding was smaller for female headed households than male headed households.
The AGRITEX project “Support for Rural Aquaculture Extension” has had significant impact in the pilot zones of Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo. Results on awareness indicate that the majority of the farmers were aware of fish farming in all NRs and many non fish-farmers had learnt about it in the last two years since the project began. With the exception of NRII, FFH had first heard about fish farming over 2 years ago which suggests that one of the effects of the project has been on the dissemination of the possibilities of fish farming amongst those who knew nothing about it. However, fish farming has been practised for more than five years in the surveyed areas.
Over the last two years more than 50 percent of the existing ponds have been constructed. More than half of the ponds have also been stocked during the last two years. These results indicate the positive effect the project has had on reaching those farmers who had thought about fish farming but have now decided to actually try it, encouraged by the intensification of the Agritex extension effort during 1989–90.
One of the hypotheses to be tested by the study was that extension institutions provide less support to fish farming in NR's III and IV. The results of the survey indicate that most respondents in all surveyed regions had heard about fish farming. The main source of information about fish farming comes from Agritex, except in NRII, where there are a greater number of fish farmers, and the main source of information comes from other fish farmers. In contrast, in NRs II and III, FFH are also important sources of information for NFF. It can therefore be concluded that in terms of informing farmers about fish farming, NRs III an IV receive comparable support from extension institutions. The results confirm the importance (already recognised by Agritex) of the fish farmer-fish farmer interface for passing on extension messages.
The proportion of ponds remaining unstocked shows no significant variation and is around 20 % of all FFH. The period between construction and stocking also shows no significant regional variation. It can be concluded that, except for a lower proportion of ponds not stocked in NRIV after 1900, there is no evidence to suggest that extension institutions give less support to fish farming activities in NRs III and IV. However, it should be mentioned that the areas which were surveyed have been identified as Agritex pilot areas, where extension activities are concentrated.
The results clearly indicate that fish farming is carried out primarily to obtain fish for household consumption, although national census results show a significant proportion (30%) of FFH with a desire to sell fish. Only 8% of all FHH in the sample surveyed sited fish farming as one of the three main sources of household income. This result is also confirmed by the results on intermittent harvesting which show that such a harvesting strategy is carried out by the majority of all households in all NRs. As the harvesting method is hook and line, quantities caught are likely to be small and therefore probably for household consumption only. More importantly, a majority (60–80%) of the FFH in all NRs felt that they had access to easier ways of raising money than from fish farming. Also, 50–62% of FFH did not feel fish farming provided relish most easily. It can therefore be concluded that fish farming is not perceived as an ‘easy option’ for farmers either in terms of raising cash or providing food for the household. This result has clear implications for the adoption of fish farming and the ways in which the benefits of fish farming are communicated by extension workers.
Stocking of most ponds has taken place over the last two years. The results show that approximately two-thirds of farmers in all NRs have had to wait for a year or more to obtain fingerlings. In NR II and IV, the major source of fingerlings was from extension workers, whilst in NRIII the major source was other fish farmers because supplies from Agritex was poorest. Overall, however, most farmers did not feel there was a problem in obtaining fingerlings. The results also indicated that cost of fingerlings for the farmer is not a constraint to the development of fish farming, but distribution problems delay stocking and could act as a disincentive to potential fish farmers.
The results indicate that in NR II and III, a greater proportion of FFH owned more ploughs and scotch carts than NFFH. In NRIV, there appeared to be no differences in FFH and NFFH in terms of equipment ownership, except in the case of wheelbarrows where a greater portion of FFH owned wheelbarrows than NFHH. The results indicate that FFH do not own dam scoops but hire them from Agritex. The availability and access to equipment appears greater in FFH than NFHH. The results indicate that the availability and access to equipment is greater in FFH than NFHH, measured strictly in terms of the proportion of FFH and NFHH which owned or has access to, farm equipment. However, the results do not enable any firm conclusions to be drawn on the differences between FFH and NFHH on access and ownership of farm equipment. Although cattle ownership was not significantly different FFH and NFHH, differences in access to draft power was significant in all NRs except NRIV. The most arduous task in fish farming is pond construction which means that access to dam scoops may reduce the labour requirements so that the task is made easier. Access to draft power would only become a limiting factor when dam scoops are available for purchase or hire to most farmers. The small number of dam scoops currently owned suggests that draught power is currently not limiting fish farming development.
It is difficult to assess whether availability of on-farm inputs is a constraint to fish farming development. From the survey results, a variety of feeds are used but the frequency of their use is a more critical factor and could not be established in a survey of this kind. The majority of FFH do not purchase feeds for fish, which further supports the fact that fish farming is currently not an economically important activity in which farmers are willing to invest cash - or it may indicate that the costs of purchased feed are simply beyond the reach of most farmers.
Competition for manure from other on-farm activities provides an indication of the relative importance of fish farming. The results indicate that crop and horticulture production are given higher priority when allocating cattle manure than fish farming, reflecting the importance fish farming is accorded when farmers are trying to optimise the use of on-farm fertilisers.
In order to test the hypothesis that a lack of technical knowledge affects the continuation of fish farming, a number of questions were asked which appeared conceptually difficult for both enumerators and fish farmers to understand.
Information on existing fish farming practises was easier to collect. The main criteria used to select a site for fish ponds in all areas was access to a year round water supply. This can be explained by the fact that many FFH in these regions used their existing ponds which were used for horticulture. In NRs III and IV, a year round water supply was important but soil type was also considered very important. Proximity to fields was also an important factor for FFH in NRIV, probably because farm sizes are larger and more extensive due to marginal farming potential of the land. Extension workers appeared to have little impact on helping farmers determine their site for a pond. These findings suggest that FFH are well aware of the necessity to have a year round supply of water. However the importance accorded to soil type in NRs III and IV might be attributed to two reasons. Firstly, it might be because fish are sited in areas where the soil is not good for other farming activities or because extension efforts have stressed the importance of having the correct soil type. The latter reason is more likely given responses on alternative used for the land. Less than 20 % of FFH in NRs III and IV thought that the land was not suitable for crops, while over half thought an alternative use could be for horticulture.
Half of the ponds in NR II and IV were below the Agritex minimum recommended size of 200m2 whereas in NRII, one third of the ponds were of the minimum size and less than half below the minimum size. This is because in NRII, farmers had converted their existing shallow wells into ponds and in NRIV, there was not sufficient water. It is likely that ponds built more recently are those that are equal to or above the minimum size, given increased extension efforts.
Many farmers in all NRs complained about the low survival rate of fingerlings after stocking. This indicates problems on both the distribution system for fingerlings and that more training on the necessary procedures to be followed when moving fingerlings from one place to another is required both for extension workers and farmers.
The results of the survey do not make it possible to draw conclusions concerning technical knowledge about fish farming. However, results on fish farming practises indicate that existing pond management is poor. Whether this is due to a lack of technical knowledge or because the availability of inputs (feeds, fertilizer, labour) is limited, is unclear. Nevertheless, continued poor pond management by existing fish farmers and by new fish farmers will affect the sustainability of rural aquaculture in Zimbabwe.
Most decisions on feeding, fertilizing and harvesting were made by the household head, although the implementation of decisions is usually carried out by the spouse and other family members. As the majority of FFH were male headed in the sample, this confirms the hypothesis that wives carry out the day-to-day responsibilities of pond management along with other family members. In households where the male head was working away from the farm, spouses had greater responsibility in decision-making.
The hypothesis that proximity to market centres influences the level of participation in fish farming was also to be tested. The proportions of farmers who farmed fish to sell was very small, so that statistical tests could not be performed. This indicates that production from ponds is currently too low to provide surplus for sale, or that all fish is readily sold at the pond site.
Results from the fisherfolk survey indicate that fishing does occur around small water bodies primarily with hook and line but also ‘illegally’ using other methods such as traps and some home-made nets. Most of the fish caught was smoked.
The case studies of fishing groups did support the premise that origin, structure and social cohesion affected the viability of groups. It appears that the main reason for group formation when it was not imposed by outsiders, was to obtain a fishing permit.
Thus many members of groups were ‘poachers’ before they joined the group. Few of the groups interviewed are financially self-supporting thus limiting their scale operation. This could occur for a number of reasons: catches from small water bodies do not provide a sufficient income to support the group; the group is too large so that benefits are dissipated; or members under-report catches.
It is clear, however, that all groups have experienced difficulties in obtaining permits to fish and found it difficult; and at times expensive to circumvent the bureaucracy of obtaining a permit. For some groups permits were granted for a number of geographically dispersed dams, and it is questionable, taking into account the lack of transport, how these groups can fully exploit the potential of all dams. In addition, groups complained of a lack of information, training and follow-up from Agritex.
All groups also complained about the need for more gear, a boat and in some cases, transport. The biggest constraint appeared to be lack of finance to purchase this equipment rather than availability.
With the exception of one group (Zvidozvevanhu), there are no female members of fishing groups. The reason given was that fishing, like hunting, is considered a male activity. It is not considered socially acceptable for women to participate in activities away from the home.
Generally, demand for fresh water fish outstripped supply, hence groups normally sold all their catch at the dam site. In cases where the dam is near a business centre, they would normally sell their catch at centres where they could fetch higher prices.
In conclusion, the fishing groups which were interviewed all experienced problems with regard to their organizational structure and membership. This situation is exacerbated by difficulties in obtaining permits to fish.
The survey results provide enough evidence to support the hypothesis that the demand for fish exceeds supply of fish in rural areas. Fish is the preferred source of animal protein over all meats except chicken. The majority of rural households which said they were eating less fish than five years ago blamed it on short supply, although some households also thought fish had become too expensive - possibly as a consequence of excess demand over supply.
In urban areas, fish is the preferred source of protein over all meats except chicken and beef. This might be explained by greater availability of beef in urban areas or because disposable incomes are higher. It is interesting however, to see that in urban areas, of those respondents which thought they were eating less fish, the majority in Murehwa and Masvingo thought this was because of short supply, while the majority in Chitungwiza and Mabelreign thought the main reason for this was price.
Overall, however, in both rural and urban areas, the majority of respondent thought that they were eating less fish than five years ago - the main causes being less availability and price.
With the exception of kapenta, approximately half of the households in rural areas are fish once or twice a month, and the remaining half ate it once in six months or rarely. FFH seem to eat fish more frequently than NFHH - which supports the conclusion that households practise intermittent harvesting for own consumption.
In urban areas, fish is consumed more frequently, with the majority of households eating bream at least once a month. Other species of fish are eaten less frequently.
In both rural and urban areas, preference is given to meaty and tasty fish, and bream is generally preferred although there are regional differences in fish consumed due to availability from natural sources.
Interviews with wholesalers and retailers indicate that one of the main constraints of fish marketing in the low income sector of the population is price. Until recently, dried kapenta was a low cost fish which was commonly purchased. However, price increases in kapenta have meant that demand has fallen. This indicates that the demand for kapenta is relatively price elastic.
For other species, such as bream, the main marketing constraint is supply. There is clearly a demand for fresh water fish in both the urban and rural areas and all fish caught or farmed is easily sold in rural areas. Rural producers think that a premium will be paid for fish in urban or peri-urban markets but are faced with transport problems. The survey did not investigate whether this assumption is correct. However, the problems of getting fish caught at isolated small water bodies to the market remains although it appears that smoke drying fish as a means of preservation is acceptable to consumers in rural areas.
Given current production levels and that the main motive of fish farmers is to produce fish for household consumption, there appears to be no marketing constraint facing them. However, the possibility of improved production and expansion of aquaculture might increase the amount of fish sold and create problems in marketing.
Shortage of time and resources meant that some aspects of the marketing survey were not carried out. This limits any firm conclusions on the marketing constraints.
