In this chapter the authors will examine the farmers who raise tilapia in ponds to find out if all farmers are equally likely to get involved. This is done first by comparing the respondents to the population of the province as a whole, and then, by comparing “ICARA” farmers and “non-ICARA” farmers.
While in the province as a whole, women head about one household in three, women in the survey accounted for only one respondent in ten. The survey does not explain the low occurrence of women as fish farmers. It may reflect the selection made by extension workers (as they were apparently involved at the start of most ponds in the region), as well as other reasons, such as underlying social norms and circumstances constraining women's access to resources crucial for fish farming.
The age distribution of fish farmers is similar to that of the population as a whole.
In the province's rural areas, Zambian - headed households account for 94% of all households. However, in the survey Zambian headed households occur in only 76% of all cases, most of the remainder originating from Angola. This is the result of the ICARA II Fish Pond Project which directed much of its efforts at supporting Angolan refugees. Outside the Maheba Refugee Settlement, where all fish farmers are refugees, Zambian nationals headed 91% of the households interviewed in the survey.
The average head of a fish farming household is considerably better - educated than the average head of a household in the province. While for the province as a whole, amongst males 15 years and above, about 60% lack formal education, the equivalent group of fish farmers lack education in only 20% of the cases. Only 30% of the population as a whole have attended primary school, while every second fish farmer reports that he knows to read and write a second language.
Table 3.1: Respondents compared to Province's Population (In per cent)
| Characteristics | Respondents | Province population |
|---|---|---|
| Women-headed households | 10** | 33 |
| Zambian-headed households in rural areas (excluding Maheba) | 91 | 94 |
| Males above 15 years of age without formal education | 20 | 60 |
Source: Survey and the National Population Census 1980, Central Statistics Office
Fish farmers in the province seem to belong to an “elite”, not only from an educational standpoint, but also because they participate in the affairs of their community. Half of them have had salaried jobs, and held positions in organizations of various kinds, most commonly local sections of UNIP (one of the main political parties in Zambia), co-operatives or churches. About half report being, or having been, members of UNIP. Two thirds of those interviewed report that they have lived outside their present place of residence for more than a year, the proportions somewhat influenced by the high incidence of Angolan refugees in the sample.
Quantitative information about the economic status of the average household is difficult to come by. However, it seems quite plausible to the authors that the economic situation of households is linked to at least some aspects of their social situation (education, travel, and membership in formal organizations). When these are above average in a household, it is likely to be better off also economically. Therefore, it seems fair to affirm that at present, in the North Western Province, fish farmers in general are more knowledgeable, and display a wider “outlook” than the population as a whole, and, that their general economic and social position is stronger than the average.
Are such characteristics essential prerequisites for farmers to become involved in aquaculture? A comparison of ICARA with non-ICARA farmers should provide indications.
Nearly 70% of the farmers sampled for interviews had somehow been selected by ICARA to receive subsidies to dig fish ponds. How were those farmers selected, by whom, and what criteria were applied? An answer to these questions is essential to find out whether the social and economic characteristics presented above are genuine prerequisites, or result from a biased selection favouring people with a certain socio-economic background. If that were the case, the sample would reflect that bias.
Initially ICARA staff let traditional chiefs select the farmers. This proved unsatisfactory and fish scouts were given the task instead. It was not possible for the survey team to determine to what extent the chiefs and the fish scouts on their own initiative “appointed” candidates, or if they limited their selection to those farmers who had announced their interest to them. It seems likely that in the beginning of the project most farmers were “appointed” beneficiaries, and that this practice was gradually abandoned, and that those who had announced their interest were given preference.
In any case, apart from the “refugee” status, there were no formal or official criteria to be met for candidates eligible for the ICARA grants, and the survey team in fact found ICARA fish farmers among the relatively wealthy as well as among the most destitute households. For example, ponds had been built for women-headed households likely to be able to undertake this work on their own. Relatively often, ICARA grants were given to individuals who had previously constructed ponds with grants obtained from a UNHCR project. Also, some households who already had constructed ponds entirely through their own efforts, received ICARA grants to expand their activities.
Table 3.2: ICARA versus Non-ICARA farmers
| Characteristics | ICARA | Non-ICARA |
|---|---|---|
| Average age | 41 | 48 |
| Women-headed households% | 10 | 5 |
| Read & Write mother tongue | 75 | 75 |
| Read & Write second language | 45 | 66 |
| Read & Write third language | 28 | 47 |
| Number of years in school | 4.5 | 5.9 |
| Absent from village longer than 1 year% | 59 | 90 |
| Lived outside Zambia | 34 | 28 |
| Office bearer of organization% | 50 | 74 |
| Organizational membership: | ||
| Church | 20 | 0 |
| Co-operative | 14 | 20 |
| UNIP | 65 | 40 |
| Credit unions | 0 | 10 |
| Other organizations | 1 | 30 |
| Assets in households: % | ||
| Permanent buildings | 20 | 60 |
| Mechanized farm equipment | 2 | 10 |
| Livestock | 80 | 80 |
| Vehicles | 2 | 20 |
| Sources of cash: % | ||
| Sale of crops | 98 | 90 |
| Sale of animals | 23 | 23 |
| Remittances | 5 | 10 |
| Salaries | 6 | 23 |
| Off-farm sources | 51 | 66 |
| NO CASH | 2 | 0 |
| Ever held salaried jobs Yes% | 41 | 85 |
Thus, non-ICARA farmers are more often men, and are somewhat older than the ICARA farmers. They are better travelled and have more often lived outside their village, and also outside Zambia (excluding refugees from the comparison).
Non-ICARA farmers are also better off economically. They have more assets (better houses, more farming equipment and vehicles) and more frequently receive cash through remittances or from salaries of household members. They are thrice as likely to have held a salaried job as the ICARA farmers.
They are also more influential and more often members of organizations in which they hold or previously held office functions. They are more frequently members of credit institutions and cooperatives, less frequently churches.
Non-ICARA farmers are also better - educated. Two out of three write a second language, while the corresponding ratio for ICARA farmers is only one in two. Almost half of the Non-ICARA farmers also write a third language (28% for ICARA).
The comparison between ICARA and non-ICARA subsistence fish farmers gives little support to the view that better off farmers were consciously favoured at the cost of others in the ICARA area. If such a tendency existed, it was at least much less pronounced than it was before the project.
The authors however believe that the most likely explanation for the overrepresentation of the better - off in the sample, is that such farmers are more likely than others to approach the extension service for advice and assistance, particularly financial. This circumstance, however, did not exclude others from taking up fish farming. In fact, the survey indicates that the ICARA project provided opportunities for people who normally might not have taken part in fish farming.
The survey indicates that “to be better off” is not an absolute requisite to become a fish farmer, but a circumstance that makes a farmer more likely to engage in the practice. To summarize, the survey indicates as follows:
Better off subsistence farmers are more likely to engage in fish farming than the less well - off.
The massive extension effort in the Mwinilunga district caused farmers not so well off to construct fish ponds and raise tilapia.
