The tendency to expand
The survey provides information on actual and intended plans to expand activities on the part of those presently engaged in fish farming. Table 5.1 lists a number of characteristics for respondents who: (i) are in the process of building one or more ponds; (ii) say they intend to build ponds during this production period (and might be doing so at the time of the survey); (iii) say they intend building ponds some time in the future (irrespective of what they actually are doing); and (iv) those who say they will not build any more ponds (and are not building any at the moment).
Table 5.1 shows how the four groups are remarkably similar. The one big difference is the average age and the household size of the group who say they will not build any more ponds. As a group they are considerably older than the rest, and their household is generally smaller (7 members as opposed to 9). Those who are actually building ponds seem to be slightly worse off economically than the rest. This is reflected in what seems to be a slightly inferior access to assets, and also to cash from the formal sector (remittances or salaries). However, it is doubtful that this could be a relevant criterion for identifying those farmers who are likely to be receptive to aid/assistance in pond construction.
Could it be that the farm size and pond number are more important considerations when it comes to determining when to construct more ponds? Tables 5.2 and 5.3 illustrate these relationships. One type of consideration might have been the simple one of deciding whether or not to increase the farm on the basis of the farm size and/or pond numbers already existing and in production. The tables illustrate the fact that this seems not to be the case. The proportions of farmers actually building ponds seem to be rather independent of the farm size or the number of ponds per farm. Such behaviour would, in fact, be consistent with the farmers using the marginal benefit per pond (which might be independent of fish farm or pond size) to decide whether or not to construct more ponds.
The links to failure
What characteristics of the farmer identify him as someone who will not continue with his fish pond (the operational definition of failure in this context)?
The average ex-farmer is older than the average practising farmer; 47 years versus 41. The ex-farmers also have considerably less land (19 ha versus 54 ha) and livestock than the practising farmers. The third major difference would seem to be that in general the ex-farmer has access to more sources for earning cash. Thus, a hypothesis consistent with the above observation may be that the ex-farmer is somewhat less dependent on farming overall for his sustenance. In this context one of the activities that he drops is fish farming.
Conclusions
In Luapula the subsistence farmer who is interested, or active, in raising fish in ponds is better off than the average household in the province. Within this group however, it is not evident that those who will become successful fish farmers can be identified at an early stage.
The relative success seems to have little to do with the education, public service, assets or sources of income, amongst those who have decided to engage in fish culture. This might be interpreted to mean that the activity does not need particular skills. It can be mastered (at the level it is commonly carried out) by most of those who try. Their success would then depend more on the degree to which their other activities permit a rational care of the fish ponds and the fish than on their social and economic situation. This interpretation is supported by the finding that those who have ceased to use their fish ponds are generally older and have more sources of income.
Motives
Two motives for doing fish culture dominate: to eat and to sell fish. Either or both are reported by virtually all practising, former and potential farmers. The details are given in Figure 5.1 below:
Figure 5:1 Subsistence Farmers: Stated Motives for Fish Culture
Source: The Survey
| Building ponds (16 resp.) | Will build soon (28 resp.) | Will build sometime (44 resp.) | No more ponds (5 resp.) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average age of household (years): | 40 | 37 | 40 | 57 |
| Average size of household (no): | 9.0 | 8.7 | 0.6 | 7.0 |
| Women Head of household: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Read & write mother tongue | 97 | 95 | 94 | 80 |
| Read & write second language | 31 | 39 | 48 | 80 |
| Read & write their language | 6 | 11 | 14 | 40 |
| No of years in school | 6.4 | 6.6 | 6.4 | 5.3 |
| Not attended school % | 0 | 4 | 2 | 21 |
| Absent from village more than 1 year | 62 | 54 | 61 | 60 |
| Lived abroad | 31 | 25 | 30 | 20 |
| Member of organizations | 81 | 79 | 89 | 80 |
| Office bearer | 44 | 32 | 39 | 60 |
| Organizational membership: | ||||
| Church | 43 | 54 | 64 | 60 |
| Cooperative | 23 | 11 | 25 | 40 |
| UNIP | 38 | 43 | 48 | 40 |
| Household assets: | ||||
| Permanent buildings | 6 | 11 | 11 | 40 |
| Mechanized field equipment | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Livestock Vehicles | 69 | 64 | 75 | 80 |
| Ha of land | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Sources of cash: | 41 | 24 | 54 | 57 |
| Sale of crops | 100 | 96 | 95 | 80 |
| Sale of animals | 6 | 4 | 11 | 20 |
| Remittances | 0 | 0 | 5 | 4 |
| Salaries | 12 | 11 | 14 | 0 |
| Off-farm source | 44 | 36 | 39 | 40 |
| No cash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Held salaried job | 69 | 61 | 66 | 100 |
Source: The survey
Note: Unless otherwise indicated the numbers in the table give the percentages of the sample (as described in the column heading) which had replied positively.
| Building ponds (16 respondents) | Will build soon (28 respondents) | Will build sometime (44 respondents) | No more ponds (5 respondents) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farm Size (m2) | ||||
| 0 to 99 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 100 to 299 | 5 | 16 | 21 | 1 |
| 300 to 499 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 0 |
| 500 to 699 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 700 to 899 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| 900 to 1099 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1100 to 2000 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| 2000 to 5000 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| more than 5000 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Total | 16 | 28 | 44 | 5 |
Source: The Survey
| Number of farmers | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of ponds presently owned by respondents | Building ponds (16 resp.) | Will build soon (28 resp.) | Will build sometime (44 resp.) | Will build no more ponds (5 resp.) |
| 1 | 2 | 12 | 13 | 1 |
| 2 | 6 | 9 | 15 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 8 – 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| more 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Source: the Survey
| Former (12 respondents) | Potential (23 respondents) | Practising (50 respondents) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average age of household (years): | 47 | 34 | 41 | |
| Average size of household (no.): | 9.2 | 8.1 | 9.3 | |
| Women head of household | 5 | 0 | 0 | |
| Read & write mother tongue | 86 | 96 | 93 | |
| Read & write second language | 48 | 54 | 50 | |
| Read & write third language | 29 | 30 | 16 | |
| No. of years in school | 6.2 | 7.4 | 6.4 | |
| Not attended school | 5 | 0 | 4 | |
| Absent more than 1 year | 67 | 65 | 60 | |
| Lived abroad | 19 | 9 | 28 | |
| Member of organization | 90 | 91 | 86 | |
| Office bearer | 67 | 52 | 40 | |
| Organization membership: | ||||
| Church | 67 | 65 | 62 | |
| Cooperative | 14 | 30 | 24 | |
| UNIP | 81 | 48 | 46 | |
| Household assets: | ||||
| Permanent buildings | 20 | 17 | 16 | |
| Mechanized field equipment | 5 | 9 | 2 | |
| Livestock | 55 | 70 | 74 | |
| Vehicles | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| Sources of cash: | ||||
| Sale of crops | 95 | 96 | 94 | |
| Sale of animals | 10 | 9 | 12 | |
| Remittances | 10 | 0 | 2 | |
| Salaries | 29 | 9 | 12 | |
| Off-farm sources | 52 | 30 | 38 | |
| No cash | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Held salaried job | 90 | 65 | 68 | |
Source: The Survey
Note: Unless otherwise indicated the numbers in the table give the percentages of the sample (as described in the column heading) which had replied positively.
Amongst practising farmers, as many as 20% in the above figure report that they undertake the activity because they mainly intend to sell. Answers given elsewhere in the survey indicate that probably between 20 and 30% of the households do not eat cultured fish; instead they purchase fish (see table 5.4 below). As tilapia is common in the region it seems to the authors that this behaviour in fact is not a whim to satisfy a particular taste, but indicates that for the concerned subsistence farmers, fish farming is a highly commercial activity, meant to procure a surplus, presumably in cash.
Amongst the “non-Chibote” practising farmers, purchase of fish is important; about four out of five households do it. It is equally clear that obtaining fish by other means (barter, gifts, fishing) is not an alternative that is attractive to the households.
Fish is seldom sold to wholesalers. Only two cases are reported. Those who sell generally do so to neighbours who come to the pond at the time of the harvest. Those who do not sell to them report insufficient harvest. One of them states as a reason for not selling to neighbours that he sells to a wholesaler. The remainder (a total of five respondents) give priority for fish use to the household. See Table 5.5.
Table 5.5: Clients for cultured fish
| Selling to neighbours? | Selling to Traders | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| Yes | 1 | 14 | 15 |
| No | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Total | 2 | 19 | 21 |
Source: The survey
Note: Only “non-Chibote” farmers
However, in the province, fish farming is not an important source of income for the households. For just under half of the households the activity does not contribute to the households' overall cash income. For another 25% it contributes less than 10% of the overall cash incomes.
Social Norms
About every second head of household reports obtaining the approval of either the family or the local chief before engaging in pond culture of fish. However, the decision was taken on behalf of the household. The exception is in the Chibote area where, younger men reported taking such decisions on behalf of themselves only.
Both practising and ex-farmers, virtually without exception, report that they decide about how the fish is to be used.
Prior to and during pond construction, only one in four heads of household contacted other fish culturists for advice and assistance. About as many contacted the Department of Fisheries, and/or a local Christian Missions. One in three did not contact anybody. It seems as if subsistence farmers could contact whomsoever they liked for information.
The survey does not yield any conclusions or rules about what kind of farmer can engage in fish farming and how. But indications are that such rules do not exist. Because few (one in five of ex-farmers and present farmers) report that they were aware of anyone who might disapprove of their initiative at the time they considered starting fish farming. Also, the stated reasons for disapproval are neither economic (increased competition) nor related to status. The respondents believe that the negative attitudes of other community members spring from envy, ignorance or concern that the farmer would waste his efforts. Not one of the “potential”farmers interviewed during the survey reported they knew of someone who might disapprove their decision to engage in fish farming.
