4. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS: THE SUCCESSFUL SUBSISTENCE FISH FARMER

This chapter presents the results with respect to a major purpose of the survey; that of finding out what farmers expect from raising tilapia in ponds; and whether the social, cultural and economic background of the farmers indicates the degree to which they will continue and pursue the activity.

The successful fish farmer is defined as the farmer who continues and/or expands activities, irrespective of productivity achievements in absolute terms.

4.1 The subsistence fish farmer: the links between success and social and economic characteristics

So far, the analysis of survey data has not revealed whether the fact that fish farmers in the province are better off economically than other farmers, are better educated, more influential, etc. is because such qualities are crucial to success in tilapia farming in the area.

We will now break down the socio-economic characteristics, discussed in Chapter 3 for the average farmer, and discuss them vis-a-vis former farmers; practising farmers who prefer the status quo; practising farmers who want to expand their fish farming activity; and, potential farmers. The breakdown should reveal if entrepreneurship in fish farming can be linked to certain socio-economic characteristics.

4.1.1 The tendency to expand

In Table 4.1 (below) practising farmers are scrutinized. They are broken down into four groups: (i) those who were constructing new ponds at the time of the survey; (ii) those who said they intended to do so in the near future; (iii) those who would eventually do so; and, (iv) those who said they had no intention to expand.

Table 4.1: Selected characteristics for farmers who

1. build more ponds;
2. intend to do so in the near future
3. will do so eventually; and
4. will not construct more ponds

The information contained in Table 4.1 gives rise to the following two statements:

• Women as heads of households are less likely than men to become subsistence fish farmers. Once they do, they are less likely than men to modify culture practices.

• Those farmers who are likely to be satisfied with the status quo are generally slightly older, and have spent less time in school, than those who are willing to expand their ponds or start a different culture technology.

4.1.2 The links to failure

In Table 4.2, farmers who have stopped using their ponds are compared with those who continue to and/or expand their activities.

Table 4.2: Selected characteristics for farmers who

1. have abandoned their ponds
2. continue using their ponds
3. would like to construct ponds

Table 4.2 does not indicate any firm relationships between the characteristics listed and success when exfarmers are compared with those who continue to practise fish farming. However, the data indicate that a few relationships may in fact exist. Whether they do or not would need a more detailed survey than the present one. They are:

• Women are less likely to abandon culture than men
• The less farmers depend on non-agricultural sources of income for their sustenance, the more likely they are to continue fish culture
• Education (secondary schooling) contributes to success in raising tilapia

4.1.3 Conclusions

In conclusion, it can be said that investigations among respondents do not show that any particular set of characteristics would be more likely to lead to success in subsistence fish farming than any other. However, it should be remembered that amongst respondents, those who are relatively better off dominate.

4.2 The subsistence fish farmer: importance of motives and social norms

This section of the chapter raises two issues: (i) What do farmers want to get by raising tilapia in ponds? and, (ii) To what extent are they constrained by social norms? In this context, social norms are understood to be those rules of behaviour that determine what are, and what are not, proper things for a farmer to engage in. The next section of the chapter will deal with the constraints the farmer faces in his role as a producer (as opposed to consumer).

4.2.1 Motives

Farmers report that they raise tilapia in ponds so that they can eat some and sell some for cash. Those who want to start fish culture give the same reasons, as do former farmers.

The survey provided an opportunity to record motives other than “to eat” and “to sell”; in particular “increased status”. None of the respondents mentioned status spontaneously. The survey teams were able to detect the status motive only indirectly and after substantial prodding. This was time - consuming and not very conclusive. Thus, the survey has not come to any valid conclusions about the importance of improved status as a driving force for subsistence farmers.

Table 4.3: Stated reasons for pond farming of tilapia

Source: Survey

In most households, cultured tilapia are both eaten and sold. Two of the well - established farmers report that they do not eat their cultured fish. On the other hand one household in five does not sell fish at all, but eats all the cultured fish within the household.

Given that the households engage in a multitude of activities to ensure subsistence, growing tilapia in ponds is of course not their only means of obtaining either cash or food.

In fact, all the households reported that they eat fish, all of them obtaining fish also from sources other than their ponds. Fish is mostly purchased, but some households also engage in capture fishing. In the course of the survey it became apparent to the survey teams that within a neighbourhood, farmers often attempt to schedule the harvesting of ponds so that they all can be supplied with farmed fish at regular intervals.

According to the survey, fish taken out of the ponds during intermittent harvesting is, virtually without exception, used exclusively for household consumption.

Sale of fish from major harvests is done at the pond site where people from the neighbourhood gather to buy fish. Fish is never sold to traders for later resale at major urban or rural markets. Fish is sometimes given to people who have assisted with the harvest, or with other chores. It is doubtful that traders could compete with the prices offered by the consumers for fresh fish at the pond-site.

The share of fish farming in the households' total cash income varies considerably amongst practising farmers. The majority of the households report that sale of cultured fish generates about a quarter of their yearly income. This makes fish farming one of the most important sources of cash income. (Most farmers report that they obtain cash from sale of 4 to 5 different crops, in addition to earning cash through off-farm activities such as honey-collection, beer-brewing or piece-work).

Farmers need cash to buy essential items such as food, clothing and medicines. The survey indicates that growing tilapia in ponds is one of the more important options they have available to generate the needed cash. As farmers seldom purchase inputs for the fish farming activity (and do not reduce the scope of other farming activities either), sales of tilapia succeed in increasing the average household's net availability of cash. The extent to which households reduce their purchase of fish (or other food) as they start to eat their “own” fish is not revealed by the survey.

Thus, motives are clear, strong and possible to realize. But are there no constraints? Do social norms or economic imperatives hinder the farmer from building ponds or raising fish in them once they are built?

4.2.2 Social Norms

1. Decisions
   Once heads of households have obtained the approval of the authorities to use land and water for fish ponds, they are generally free to decide about pond construction, pond management and disposal of the fish taken out of the ponds. They consider themselves to be the sole decision -makers on behalf of their households.

2. Contacts
   It appears that farmers are free to contact anyone they like in order to obtain advice or assistance in their fish farming activity. During the initial phases of their activities fish farmers turn to the Department of Fisheries staff (fish scouts) for assistance and advice. One in four farmers received advice also from other farmers.

3. Approval
   Practising farmers usually have to obtain approval from family members when constructing their first pond. Sometimes, individuals outside the household disapprove of the idea of fish ponds. Respondents were not quite clear about the reasons for the disapproval. The survey did not reveal how many farmers abandoned the idea of fish farming on account of such disapproval. However, the survey teams did not find evidence of this having happened.

“Potential” farmers run into such ‘disapproval’ much less frequently than practising farmers who are about to start fish farming. This would seem rational, given the number of ponds already in operation. Most potential farmers, however, believe they also need approval from the Department of Fisheries before they start pond construction.

4.2.3 Conclusions

It should be pointed out that the scope of the survey is limited as regards social norms. The questionnaires were designed to record the opposition encountered by those who considered themselves suitable to engage in subsistence fish farming. It did not record the obstacles of those who --perhaps because of prevailing social norms -- did not consider themselves suited to raise fish in ponds. This is because a potential farmer was defined as a farmer who had expressed an interest in fish farming.

However, the authors conclude that farmers (either those constructing ponds or planning to do so) have not faced serious social constraints to fish farming, either in the past or at the time of the survey.