4. RESULTS

4.1 Adoption of fish farming

A specific objective of the study was to determine when women first heard or learnt about fish farming and whether they learnt about it at the same time as men. Eight out of 14 women respondents in Musonda Bule described their first source of knowledge on the subject -- during 1988–89 -- as the Department of Fisheries working together with ALCOM. One man had heard about fish farming for the first time from the Department of Fisheries. All the rest said that they heard about fish farming from Father Angelo, a Catholic missionary at Chibote mission in 1987.

Father Angelo's project was aimed at young men. He visited Musonda Bule and selected 10 young men between the ages of 15 and 21.

HISTORICAL CHART OF FISH FARMING IN BULE AND CHIBOTE

Some older men took up fish farming later, but women did not. Musonda Bule is a fairly small place compared to Chibote, and the houses are not far apart. Further, everyone in Bule is related to the headman; thus the village is one, large extended family living together. Communication of the latest technology in the village is quite easy. Therefore, quite a number of people must have seen or heard about the 10 youths constructing ponds as a result of Fr Angelo's mission.

One question that arises is, “Why didn't women take up fish farming when they saw their husbands start constructing ponds?” The main reason is that fish farming was viewed as a male activity. In particular, pond construction was and is still seen as a man's job. The second reason is that the person who introduced fish farming to Musonda Bule dealt with it as a male activity. This meant that in a society already stratified by gender, another role had been added to a specific gender.

The third reason is that the young people who attended the training course organized by Fr Angelo were men. Besides the training course, these youths also received some fingerlings and equipment as an incentive to start fish farming. So men were the beneficiaries by way of both knowledge and resources, women were not.

This point is clarified by the findings in Chibote. The majority of respondents said that had they never heard about fish farming, they only saw some ponds. This was unlike the case in Musonda Bule, where those who owned the first ponds were part of a small community.

Discussion with men in Chibote revealed that those who were left out of the training course felt they had been discriminated against. Unlike Musonda Bule where the population of the “ingroup” was small, enabling all youth to participate, in Chibote only a few were able to benefit from the training course. One woman in Chibote charged that those who introduced the idea discriminated against them. Those who owned fish ponds had nothing to do with those who do not, except as sellers of fish.

According to men and women in Musonda Bule, the adult males followed the youths' example after they saw the latter's fish reproducing. The women joined after being motivated by ALCOM and the fisheries staff, and were the last to take up fish farming.

From these findings we can conclude as follows:

1. When the project was introduced some people wanted to wait and see the results. Said one respondent: “I constructed my pond later, only after I saw the advantages of fish farming. When you see what your friend has done, it is important to be patient. You don't just rush to copy it. First wait and see its advantages.” A female respondent also said that the women waited to see the benefits of fish farming.

2. When men took up fish farming in Musonda Bule, the women did not join, because they did not have the inputs. This situation changed when they were promised fingerlings. The government price of fingerlings is lower than that charged by the Chibote youth.

3. The other obstacle women had to overcome was that of gender role stereotyping of activities. Once the programme was introduced as a male activity, the women had to overcome that stereotyping before engaging in fish farming. The change came when the fisheries department and ALCOM encouraged women to participate in fish farming. Several respondents said they had been passive earlier, because they thought fish farming was not for women.

4.2 Inputs, gender and fish farming

The main inputs into fish farming are labour and time, land, equipment, fingerlings and fish feed. The findings in Musonda Bule show that there is a relationship between these inputs and gender. Although land and fingerlings are available to both sexes equally, labour, equipment and time are not. As a result, mobilizing resources already available is less easy for women.

Labour and time

Labour is not available to women on the same basis as men. Women are more obliged to carry out domestic chores and household duties than men. In Chapter 3, women's activities were shown to be repetitive and time-consuming. Women therefore cannot easily commit themselves to fish farming. All the women in Musonda Bule indicated that men and children helped construct their ponds and helped feed the fish and manage the ponds. It was observed that fish farming did not replace any duties, it only added to existing duties. Fish farming did also not change gender roles in any way; duties earlier performed by women still had to be performed by women.

The main time-consuming tasks are pond construction and feeding. Although fish feed is readily available in the village, the continuous harvesting of cassava leaves women with very little time for fish farming. In a place like Chibote where the Chitemene fields are far away, time is spent in ensuring food for the family, and this basically means crop farming.

All respondents in Chibote agreed that labour -- or rather, the absence of it -- is a limiting factor in fish farming. Asked why she had not started fish farming, one respondent countered: “How can you find time to dig a pond with so much work?” One difference between Chibote and Musonda Bule was that the latter had better access to male labour, since men did not go out very far to work.

The alternative to one's own labour is hired labour. In Musonda Bule, most ponds were built with family labour, so the question of paying for the labour didn't arise. In Chibote, however, family labour was not easily available since the Chitemenes are further away from the villages. When family labour is committed to subsistence, it can't be easily taken away for other tasks. Besides, women's labour is managed by men: it's they who decide who will carry out which household task. (Section 4.5)

Related to the issue of labour is that of money. All respondents in Chibote explained that though labour was available for a fee, they could not afford the fee. The average charge for pond construction was ZK750 -- a figure way above what most women in Chibote can pay. Wages in Chibote were generally higher than those in the surrounding villages. Further, the average size of a pond in Chibote is 177m² while in Bule it is 93m². This could also account for the higher pond construction charges in Chibote.

In Musonda Bule, on the other hand, labour was relatively easy to mobilize, and could be paid with beer, or even with payments to the church. Another form of payment was through chicken, cassava, millet, salt or clothes. Such payments in kind could be made to individuals or to groups of people. Musonda Bule residents said that most activities -- crop growing, weeding, harvesting -- could be carried out with hired labour.

Land

People in Musonda Bule and Chibote believe that all land is owned by God. No one allocates land in either place. Ideally the headman is supposed to manage this land, but since plenty of land is still available in Musonda Bule, people dig a pond wherever they want to.

Ponds are constructed near streams in Musonda Bule and Chibote, and prior to fish farming land was not used for anything at all. Only three respondents in Bule said that land was used for something (vegetable gardening, pineapple growing and rice growing). Some respondents said that energy to construct the ponds would run out but not land. Each respondent in Musonda Bule said confidently that he or she could easily construct more ponds without land problems.

In Chibote, however, there are signs that land might soon become a constraining factor. The stream floods during the rainy season; thus, land that is too near the stream is not very suitable. The population in Chibote is higher than in Musonda Bule, and thus land used for other activities has already stated becoming an issue.

The norm for allocating land for private use is the same in both Chibote and Musonda Bule, but in Chibote, people are more likely to dig a lot of ponds so as to secure land. Since women do not control their own labour, one can assume that should there be a scramble for land in Chibote, women's participation in fish farming will be impeded -- they will not be able to start constructing fish ponds at the same time as men. This would apply also to single women; their control over their own labour does not put them in a better position since they have to enlist someone else's labour. Nonetheless three respondents in Chibote declared confidently that land is available.

Equipment

Hoes are easily available because they are used in crop farming, but shovels are scarce in both Chibote and Musonda Bule, for both men and women. When ponds were being constructed, both male and female respondents borrowed hoes and shovels from the Chibote youth. The latter did not charge for the shovels, but obtaining a shovel was not that easy. As one respondent described it “I need a shovel terribly. You go from one person to the other and they all say no. A shovel is the most difficult item to obtain. I would have dug three ponds if I had a shovel. I can afford to buy it using chickens but no one is selling a shovel.” During group discussions, shovels were identified along with fingerlings as the main type of support any agency could give to fish farmers. In Chibote, people are not in the habit of lending materials to one another very readily. Lending a woman a shovel was all the more difficult because she wasn't the person most likely to use it.

Fingerlings

An important source for fingerlings was the young men trained by Fr Angelo. But they sold fingerlings only to people they knew. One respondent said: “If you are lucky, they will sell the stuff to you.”

The fingerlings were expensive. One person paid two chickens for 90 fingerlings and the price of a chicken was K100. Few people could afford such prices. The only single woman in Musonda Bule said “It isn't how many fingerlings you want but how much money you have that matters.”

Most women would have been unable to start fish farming if ALCOM and the fisheries staff had not provided them with fingerlings.

Fish Feed

One problem-free area was fish feed. Fish feed is easily available and doesn't take much time to prepare. This is important: when a woman has so much to do and work so hard just for subsistence, she can't take up any time-consuming activities.

The majority of the respondents feed the fish twice or thrice a week. It's usually men or children who do the feeding, even when women own the ponds. It's when the males aren't around that women take up the chore. Children are very handy for fish-feeding errands, or for clearing the surrounds of a pond.

Women feed the fish more regularly when they are working from fields on the same side of the village as the fish ponds. They then do the job on their way to the fields, or when returning home.

Knowledge of fish farming

Most respondents in Chibote knew something about fish feed but little about pond construction. No meeting had been held in Chibote, unlike in Musonda Bule. Women learnt what they knew about fish farming from what they saw and observed in the area. It's possible that since they were observers rather than participants in pond construction, they got the wrong idea about it. The story of how a man had tried to construct a pond and failed was told with a lot of amusement. When asked to describe how ponds are supposed to be constructed to avoid flooding and stealing, the respondents said they didn't know. Some remarked “We don't know but you will teach us.”

4.3. Society's attitude to women fish farmers

Lack of knowledge combined with the way the programme was introduced in Chibote led to negative societal attitudes towards fish farming. Although women helped build ponds in Musonda Bule, Chibote women maintained quite vehemently that pond construction was a man's job. One respondent cited the comment: “A women digging a pond! She will just kill herself working.” She suggested a solution: several women should start digging ponds at the same time as men. Another respondent said: “You can't ignore society's reactions. People will laugh at a woman constructing a pond.” She added that if the husband were around to help in pond construction, people wouldn't laugh. Yet another respondent said that people would mock and scoff: “You go and see what is happening at the stream. You will find an old woman digging a pond. This is the limit, a woman digging a pond! I have never seen it before”. She pointed out that this attitude could change with education. “Maybe because you are now teaching people this attitude will change,” she said.

The Chibote mission's venture to promote fish farming among youth omitted women and kept them out of an “inner circle” of knowledge. Men too, those not selected for the experiment, felt discriminated against. They tended to gloat over any failures on the part of the fish farmers and exaggerate them. The constraints to fish farming were also exaggerated. If a farmer succeeded, it was because father Angelo gave him hoes, shovels and fingerlings. If he failed, it showed that fish farming did not work and others shouldn't take it up. The attitude to fish farming was negative and unhealthy, perhaps because of frustration.

4.4 Women and pond construction

Although building a pond with shovels and hoes is physically strenuous, some women had a go at it. Many respondents in both Musonda Bule and Chibote felt that though pond construction is the most difficult part of fish farming, women can do it if they are strong enough. A point overlooked in these discussions is time. All the respondents except two opined that fish farming did not replace but only added to household duties.

A female respondent remarked that fish farming, especially pond construction, is carried out after working in the fields in the morning; it therefore does not replace any duties, it certainly adds to them. With the exception of three, all the female respondents took part in pond construction. Some did a lot more than their husbands. This means that women can actually construct ponds, given the time. What's noticeable is that the men also (including young men) did not construct ponds on their own, they were helped by their spouses or they contracted labour, just as the women did.

Several families in Musonda Bule constructed ponds together by themselves, thus saving labour cost. Three respondents (male or female?) said that though they took part in pond construction, they had to hire labour as well, spending between 30 and 40 kwacha. One respondent said she brew beer for those who built her ponds. One respondent said she paid a worker a chicken to help complete her pond.

Age was not a constraint to fish farming in Musonda Bule. Labour, money, fish feed, fingerlings, equipment and land --these are the inputs essential for fish farming, irrespective of the fish farmer's age. Those who did not dig ponds were hampered not by age but by other factors, such as illness during pond construction, lack of time due to household duties, or lack of funds to hire workers. Some young people were unable to dig ponds, while some older respondents were able to do so. Table 3 gives an age-wise breakdown of those who took part in pond construction in Musonda Bule.

Table 3: Participation of Respondents in Pond Construction

Men and women performed the same activities during pond construction. The only difference is that sometimes women left the scene to resume domestic duties. They took part in digging and in removing the soil from the pond, but did not use shovels, since the soil was too heavy. They removed soil with their own hands. They could not use anything else, the soil was too wet and heavy for basins.

Women used shovels to carry out “light” tasks such as cleaning a yard. In two instances basins were used ( only by women; basins are regarded as female tools.) There were no specific norms on the use of hoes or shovels; men used shovels to dig ponds because they had the strength to do so. Hoes too, common in crop cultivation, were not used by most women, because digging wet soil is a strenuous task.

4.5 Gender and decision-making in fish farming

It is believed that Bemba women normally do not enjoy much decision-making power on family and community matters (Richards, 1956). One of the objectives of the present study was to probe this belief, and to ascertain the power women actually have to make decisions concerning their households, their ponds and themselves.

It's men who generally decide who will carry out what household tasks including fish farming activities. The labour contribution to fish farming is thus decided by men. A natural inference is that women have to put aside fish farming activities if men consider something else to be more important.

The women in Musonda Bule decided on their own how they would finance fish farming (whether they would brew beer, sell chickens or pay church members for labour). The ponds would be theirs after they had paid for the construction and brought fingerlings. That they could not work on the ponds as and when they liked -- because it's the men who controlled their time --did not affect or dilute pond ownership by women. But since the women were so busy, it's possible that their ponds might suffer neglect.

Generally speaking, the owner of a pond decided on taking some fish out for consumption, but asked his or her partner for an opinion. The decision, however, lay with the pond owner.

There were two exceptions: two young men, aged 21 and 28, said they had sole responsibility for decisions on the subject. The 21-year-old remarked that he had dug the ponds before he got married.

All the women, without exception, said they consulted their husbands about fish consumption. Children's suggestions on the subject were not taken seriously.

When was it considered right to take fish out of the ponds? When relish was not available, when there was an illness in the family, when relatives or friends from far-off places paid a visit.

One female respondent asserted: “I discuss with my children and my husband, but I do what I want to do. They can only suggest what they think I should do .. they do not have power.”

When asked who decides how the fish is distributed, 66 percent of the respondents replied that the owner of the pond decides. 17 per cent said that both the husband and the wife in a household take the decision. A youth said vehemently: “I do. How can anyone who did not dig the pond tell me what to do?”

Among those who indicated the head of the household as the decision-maker, 80 per cent were male respondents. Of a total of 15 women in Bule, only one believed that a man must decide when and how the fish should be distributed. Her husband does not own a fish pond. Thus one may assume that although she owns a pond she does not control how the fish is distributed. On who decides when fish can be taken out for sale or barter, she said that both husband and wife make that decision. On the subject of consumption, she said that men are stingy, so she decides on when to take the fish out.

Apart from members of the household, relatives and friends also ate fish from the ponds, either when they paid a social call, or after a harvest.

Generally, women respect their husbands and consult them on the use of fish -- that is, consumption, distribution and selling. Women in Musonda Bule did not directly state that they are not allowed to take out fish when their relatives visit. But one woman ventured the remark that men are stingy, so she decides unilaterally to take fish out. In Chibote, all women interviewed did not own any fish ponds and depended on their husbands' goodwill for entertaining relatives with fish.

Most respondents said that the fish are offered to relatives as a gesture of goodwill and nothing is expected in return. The question “What do you expect in return?” seemed to surprise and even shock some respondents. However, two women remarked that relatives and friends who are offered fish might in future give you something, articles such as clothing or foodstuffs. Reciprocity did not seem to be a major factor in decision - making, and women definitely did not give with a hope of getting something in return.

Sale of fish was only an academic question for a number of respondents: their fish was too small. Fingerlings were salable, but since the women had just stocked their ponds, these couldn't be sold either. However, following the norm in the area, both male and female respondents said they would discuss the subject with their spouses.

Five female respondents out of 15 said they decide to sell the fish, though they do consult their spouses. One female respondent claimed sole power of sale in her family. She said: “How can anyone who does not own the pond have power over it?” A number of couples said both the owner and the spouse must take the decision. Only three persons (of whom one is a woman) constituting 12 per cent said that a man made the decision.

All respondents said that once household needs were met, their spouses were free to spend their share of sales as they wished. The most frequent answers were “I don't know what my partner would buy,” and “She or he would spend it on his or her own needs.”

One female respondent declared, “Money is not shared, his is his and mine is mine.” This is the same woman who owned several banana trees and was observed selling bananas during the study.

This was true also of the women in Chibote. They explained that husbands on selling fish spend the money on household needs such as salt and soap. This can be interpreted in two ways. One is that the proceeds are shared. Another is that money from sale of fish is still negligible; that's why all of it is spent on household needs.

34% of the respondents (half of them female) said that the male as the head of a household decides how benefits will be distributed. However, another 34% of the respondents replied that both husband and wife have a say on the distribution of proceeds.

But if we were to get a complete picture, we would have to look at the number of women who said that the owner of the pond decides. Only 2 women out of 15 said that they as owners of the ponds would decide unilaterally. This shows that women have to discuss the subject with their husbands, just as the husbands have to discuss it with them. Priority, ideally, is given to household needs.

4.6. The Impact of Fish Farming on the Status of Women in Bule

It is still too early to determine the financial impact of fish farming on women. So far, sales of fish have been too insubstantive to make any immediate tangible impact on the status of women or on their lifestyles.

However, fish farming by women has definitely benefited both the household and the women. The household stands to gain whether the fish is eaten (everyone eats the fish) or sold (everyone shares the proceeds). Thus women derive power to make decisions that benefit the household.

Fish farming has given women property of their own, and increased their financial security. Upon their death, the ponds are inherited by children or relatives. Even divorce doesn't affect their right of ownership. Thus fish farming is an investment, like livestock.

Most women responded to the question “Have you personally benefited from fish farming?” with a firm “Yes.” They were asked to catalogue the benefits of fish farming. Typical answers: “I have eaten fish”; “I will not have to buy fish when mine reproduces”; “I now have an alternative relish, and not just the same type everyday”; “I have a large family, and fish farming has provided me with a lot more relish”; and “I have something to domesticate.”

It's possible that in future -- as fish farming gains ground and becomes more common -- its benefits will be more tangible and substantial.