Good (1986) identified 85% of the rural households as poor and very poor. As a result of the chosen approach the farmers involved in pond construction belong to this broad target group, within which there are sub-groups. Sub-groups have been identified on the basis of the following criteria: area of land cultivated, income level, nutritional status, household composition, whether a household hires labour or its members are hired out.
To allow an evaluation about which sub-groups the approach is relevant for, and which sub-groups are not reached, it is necessary to identify the sub-groups of the people who were reached. If the sub-groups not reached are important, the approach should be revised taking into account their specific constraints and the designing support to overcome them.
Once it was explained that fish farming can be practised at different levels, including those with hardly any capital investment or other outside inputs, many of the villagers showed interest. Some started pond construction, but never at the expense of other productive activities. They worked at the pond during their leisure time, which is limited during certain periods of the year. Everyone wanted to construct a small pond during the first year to see if it was beneficial. Also the fact that most people wanted to construct a pond as a group, thereby decreasing the labour input per person, might be seen as a way to minimize the risk.
Production methods proposed are extensive; fertilizing with compost and manure and feeding with by-products and leftovers. Fish seed will be obtained from own ponds or from other local resources. Probably intermediate harvesting will play an important role. Fish farming should be seen as something akin to keeping goats, pigs, chickens and cattle. Fish farming adopted at this level might be taken up in rural areas. However, as long as a regular supply of inputs needed for more intensive management cannot be guaranteed, intensification of fish farming, like intensification of animal husbandry, cannot be considered feasible.
Johnson and Clark (in Molnar et al., 1985) cite three major determinants for the success of efforts to induce participation and build up effective local organizations:
The pilot project conforms well with these determinants:
project benefit: fish is a strongly “felt” need;
the pond farming techniques proposed are in harmony with other cultivation practices;
the techniques of extensive tilapia farming are relatively simple.
Pollnac (1987) identifies seven levels of participation which range from the lowest level, namely participation as ordered, to the highest level wherein the people take active part in project development, monitoring and evaluation. In each situation the type of people's participation most appropriate for a given project has to be defined.
In the first instance, in Yokoniya, participation was limited. The suggestion of a youth club and fish farming as one of the activities came from SCF. It was not clear if the only motive of the members in joining the group was the expected yield in fish. During the implementation of the project, the members did all the digging but the lay-out was done beforehand and they were told exactly where to dig and how deep. The tools like pick axes, shovels, buckets and wheelbarrows were lent to them and the necessary pipes, bricks and cement were provided by ALCOM.
The approach was modified for the other two target areas. Being an aquaculture programme, ALCOM offers in the first instance technical advice in this particular field. Therefore, the topic of fish farming was always introduced by the project. Thus the initial idea never originated from the people themselves. After the first introduction the full participation of the people was attempted. Through slide shows and discussions people could have the information they needed to decide whether they wanted to continue or not. They had a proper idea of the inputs and the time involved, from the construction of a pond up to harvesting and restocking. Because they had this knowledge, they could also make their own plans. They chose their sites, the size, the organizational form (individual or communal ponds), the time and pace of construction, the management level, and they would also decide how to harvest (intermediate harvesting and/or complete drainage).
No outside inputs were provided for the implementation. The people used their own means of production, mainly hoes and compactors. The ponds were laid out by the group/individuals. Weekly visits were made to each pond site by ALCOM and DoF staff and it was found that hardly any additional information was needed in order to carry on the construction.
Members of the youth club in Yokoniya once said that they wanted to build another pond. The project was asked to come again with the surveying equipment and lay out a new pond. In Mtemang'ombe, however, the villagers also want to build more ponds but they say that they know how to do it. They have offered to provide advice to others interested in constructing ponds.
It is premature to state that the youth club members will give their neighbouring communities the right advice, but the fact that this group has made its own plan and solved problems whenever they arose, augurs well for transfer of information to others.
Trottier (1987) identifies a number of reasons why women should be a good target group for fish farming development:
Because of their children and their crops, women are less likely than men to be away from home for long periods; therefore they can give continuous attention to pond husbandry, if the ponds are close;
Because they are accustomed to daily routine, women are likely to provide the constant attention required for good husbandry, and can use a variety of by-products (such as kitchen wastes, weeds and crop residues) for composting;
Because a typical rural fish pond does not provide full employment, women can accommodate fish farming tasks in their daily schedule;
Because of their responsibility towards the family, women give priority to family needs. Benefits aimed specifically at the head of the household do not necessarily accrue to other household members, and often there has been a resulting negative economic and nutritional impact on the position of the wife and the family.
In all meetings and slide shows special care was taken to ensure that the women were approached and received the same information as the men. After the gatherings they were always asked to give their opinions. So far, a women's club and one woman with her daughters-in-law have decided to build their own pond in one of the target areas. Because of factors outside their control, progress in construction is slow, and it is not yet known whether women might benefit more from fish farming if the pond belongs to them rather than their husbands or the village.
A survey on the role of women in fish farming in the Central African Republic indicates that fish obtained from intermediate fishing was used for home consumption and formed an important motive for women to assist their husbands in the operations. The few examples from Chipata District confirm this practice.
When the pond was drained and the fish sold, often items needed by members of the household were bought. Some women reported that if they themselves earn money they have to pay themselves for all expenses like school fees and clothes, whereas if they have no cash their husbands pay. In Zambia, joint decisions are often made on the sale of farm products and on expenditure.
If in Central Africa a man had more than one fish pond and the wife showed interest, she was sometimes given the usufruct of one pond. Many women thus did not consider the advantages of a fish pond of their own to be much greater than one which was owned by their husband (Sluijer, 1983).
A more detailed survey will be carried out on the distribution of benefits and the advantages women enjoy as owners of ponds or as participants in family or village ponds in Eastern Province.
The main constraint for women is time to allocate to a new activity. The great majority are wives and mothers; their primary preoccupations are their families and their crops. These will always get priority. Fish is very much appreciated as relish but rural women know that the staple food is maize; anything else can only be a supplement. Seeing the severe problems of labour shortage which are especially faced by female-headed households, it would be thoughtless to envisage the further development of fish farming to add to their overall burden. One can only expect woman to seriously consider the construction of a fish pond when labour can be saved from other activities (e.g., through the introduction of labour saving techniques or a well in the village) and when the benefits of her own pond compensate for the efforts.
Another constraint for women in patrilineal societies is that they do not have direct access to land. They must approach their husband for some of the land allocated to him. If the husband had paid “lobola”, the bride price, the wife and children have to stay in his village when he dies, but they will inherit his property. If however no such “lobola” has been paid, the wife can go back to her own village with her children. In that case they also lose the right to the land of the husband or father.
Usually women do not dig, excavate or construct ponds. They can help by carrying dirt, cooking meals, or brewing beer for working parties during construction. Although in principle pond construction is considered a man's job, in Rukuzye women have proved that they can do the work and the men have accepted this. When during discussions this example is mentioned, other women also say that they can do it. The availability of labour is the biggest constraint.
The first contact with the people was through a community meeting in which the programme was introduced to them. During the next phases two kinds of media were used, the slide show which can be considered as part of the introduction, and the pamphlets which were used during the work with the group or individual farmers. These were supplemented with site visits.
Although the slides used were not made in Zambia and were therefore not ideal, it was decided to show them because:
Slides are attractive; people are usually very interested in slide shows;
They stimulate discussion;
Their use is flexible. One can dwell upon a slide as long as necessary; it is possible to go back to slides which have already been shown.
The technology as proposed in section 6.2 deals with the content of the message. It was found that this determined to a great extent the image the people have of the necessary means. It also explains why the farmers have not copied the fish farming activities, although most of them (except in Yokoniya) had already seen fish ponds. Those with ponds were viewed as privileged because they received a gift of tools, fencing material, cement and in some cases even labour. In other cases, where the “fish farmers” did not receive outside help, other farmers did not replicate the fish farming activities because the first farmers used inputs which the latter group did not possess. Most of the time this referred to capital used for hired labour, cement and fish feed. Since these farmers had not seen any fish ponds constructed without these inputs, they were convinced of their necessity. Therefore, they concluded that fish farming was beyond their means.
The transfer of information has proved essential for the adoption process. It has to be stressed that the information given or shown has to be chosen very carefully. In the context of the approach chosen for Magwero and Rukuzye only locally available materials were used. Otherwise, the people might consider fish farming as not replicable without external assistance.
The ownership of cattle, poultry and crop land and the yields is measured by household, although there can be cooperation between villagers for certain tasks. Therefore, it was surprising that many people opted for a communal pond, where ownership and management will be communal. Though the ponds were usually built on communal village land, this does not exclude the possibility of individual ponds (compare with agricultural fields, section 4 and Appendix 2). The reason put forward is that the construction of a pond is a strenuous task and much easier to perform in a group (see section 5.3). Communal ownership is then a logical consequence of the joint effort. Another explanation was that because it is a new venture the farmers prefer to avoid risks. Since the capital requirements are minimal (only for the purchase of fingerlings) the biggest input is labour. By spreading this labour input the risks for an individual will diminish.
On the other hand, participants often encounter additional risks in investing in enterprises which are not experienced in private endeavours. The perceived balance in the objective allocation of rewards and costs among participants, i.e., fairness or “distributive justice”, is a central issue in collective adoption (Molnar, Schwartz and Lovshin, 1985). A sense of equity is a necessary condition for sustained operation of a communal venture.
To elaborate: close kin tend to share, to enter into generalized exchanges, while distant relatives and non-kin deal in equivalents or calculation (Molnar, Schwartz and Lovshin, 1985). The strength of a tribe is generally in homestead and hamlet, the smallest groups, where social interaction is greatest and cooperation most intense. The social system accordingly becomes weaker as it expands. Given these facts it is not surprising that the villages which have opted for a communal pond all consist of an extended family. Extended family in Zambia does not necessarily imply a single household composed of the senior couple, their married sons with wives and children, and unmarried daughters. Usually the sons break away when they get married and establish independent households, although these might be near their father's home. If a village is thus indicated as an extended family, it means that there is a group of kinfolk under the authority of a senior kinsman, the headman. Other villages which have many “immigrants” or returned migrants have greater difficulties in organizing themselves. Sometimes people from these villages ask for information on how to construct an individual pond, but nobody has gone further.
The village headman plays a vital role in a collective enterprise. When hierarchy is readily recognized, assigning, coordinating and monitoring responsibilities and rewards is more easily accomplished (Molnar, Schwartz and Lovshin, 1985). In one village, the headman initiated the idea of a village pond; several villagers joined him. Soon after, he delegated the leadership for the fish pond to his son who did not have the necessary authority to organize his peers. Therefore, many problems arose in coordinating labour for the construction. In another village the headman participated in pond construction. There were no problems in organizing the labour; it was not necessary that all the members should be there before they started working, and they could work on the pond whenever time permitted. Now that the pond is finished, it has become clear that some have worked harder than others. This has not created any difficulties, as they have confidence that their share of the harvest will be commensurate with their efforts.
Community-managed fish ponds should involve a relatively small number of individuals. Groups with many members (in excess of the ability of the pond to supply fish) may fail to adequately reward the labour of participants (Molnar, Schwarts and Lovshin, 1985). Moreover, in social systems where consensus is needed in order to take a group decision, communication is very important. As group size increases, group effort becomes more difficult. Winning a consensus, which might be necessary for action, can also pose problems.
