The following assessment of some of the variables which determine the socio-economic and socio-cultural context into which it is proposed to introduce improved fish culture techniques has to be considered theoretical to the extent that it was not possible to conduct a field survey or an extensive socio-cultural study on rural Rwanda. It is based on the few available studies and on interviews with persons familiar with the local rural situation.
The central constraint to a dynamic rural development is the discrepancy between an increasing population and finite land resources (3.2, 3.3). The population growth rate over the last ten years is estimated at 3.8 percent/annum, including immigration (0.4 percent). The population density, as mentioned earlier, is the highest in Africa. Between 1970 and 1976 the Ministry of Planning estimated 43 000 newly created jobs, while 258 000 new job seekers were believed to have entered the market (IBRD, 1977). In comparison with the population the land resource base is scarcely adequate.
The social structure of a stable rural society is the organizational reflection of the production structure under which the goods and material values necessary for the subsistence and satisfaction of the producers are generated. A change in the production structure of a social entity is likely to require or result in a change in its social organization, while social change may alter the organization of production.
9.3.1 Land ownership patterns were described in 3.3 above. With respect to fish culture development, the present land ownership structure is not expected to be altered nor does it need to be. On a long-term basis and if fish culture generates a large cash surplus for some industrious farmers, this could, however, accelerate the trend of land alienation noted in 3.3.4.
9.3.2 Kinship and neighbourhood ties within a locality, based on mutual assistance and communal organization of public works and social functions, have remained relatively intact. Within the family the farm labour is divided along sex lines, with banana cultivation, cash crop production and animal husbandry, as well as tasks requiring physical strength, being done by the men and food crop production being done by women. The World Bank quantified the system of division of labour as shown in the following table, stressing, however: ‘that in practice there is no such thing as a homogeneous farm but merely a series of overlapping sub-systems’ (IBRD, 1977).
A case study on the division of labour in the Byumba Prefecture produced the following break-down:
Table 25
Division of Labour
| Relative Importance (%) | Men | Women | ||
| (a) | Domestic activities | 15.5 | 10 | 90 |
| (b) | Processing activities | 5.1 | 5 | 95 |
| (c) | Marketing (markets) | 1.2 | 51 | 49 |
| (d) | Handicrafts | 1.7 | 1 | 99 |
| (e) | Animal husbandry | 10.7 | 44 | 56 |
| (f) | Food crops | 34.5 | 21 | 79 |
| (g) | Banana plantation | 0.7 | 93 | 7 |
| (h) | Coffee trees (some 200) | 23.0 | 30 | 70 |
| (i) | Outside work | 7.6 | 66 | 34 |
| Total | 100.0 | 27 | 73 | |
| Sub Total (f + g + h) | 58.2 | 25 | 75 | |
The Bank remarks further that:
‘Even if the work force is provided primarily by the family, the extent to which outside labour is obtained in the traditional form of mutual aid or on a wage-paying basis is by no means negligible (at Byumba 33 percent of families avail themselves of outside workers, averaging 34 days per production unit per annum), especially at the time of the principal bottleneck in the agricultural year, i.e., at plowing time in the main growing season of September to October. Mutual aid is practised both amongst relatives and neighbours.
A proportion of working hours, which may be substantial on some farms, is set aside for non-agricultural activities like handicrafts and trading’ (IBRD, 1977).
9.3.3 There is no apparent reason at present to suppose that the socio-economic organization of the family farm and its place in kinship and administrative structures will be significantly affected by the introduction or reactivation of fish culture in the rural milieu. The social organization of the family does not have to be altered in order to include fish farming in the production pattern. Only the structure of labour inputs will be changed to a limited extent, as time has to be allocated to construct and operate the fish pond. Pond construction and management can be integrated into the existing system of division of labour, with the men doing the earth work, which requires a large amount of physical effort, and the women doing daily maintenance work, composting, feeding, etc. Harvest and post-harvest activities will probably be carried out by both men and women, as is presently done for other crops.
9.3.4 For the collective undertaking of fish farming (e.g., within the framework of the Government settlement schemes (paysannats)) considerable organizational efforts would be required. Although mutual aid is common among farmers and one day per week is usually spent doing communal work, collectively planned, implemented and operated fish culture represents a new concept of production. The priorities accorded to it by the local administration, the qualities of the extension service and above all, the innovative enterprise of the farmers themselves, will determine whether such an approach can be carried through successfully. In order to ensure assimilation and retention of knowledge and skills in their districts, sharing of experience, and continuity of effort, and to sustain interest through mutual help and encouragement, the extension workers should encourage the formation of groups or collectives.
9.4.1 The present land use pattern in rural Rwanda is, apart from ecological parameters (soil quality, altitude, rainfall, etc.), determined by a number of socio-economically and socio-culturally based variables, as:
(i) Diversification of production
To cultivate a variety of food crops and to achieve self-sufficiency is seen as a risk-minimizing strategy by the farmer. In case one crop fails, the subsistence of the family can be maintained by other crops with similar nutritive value.
(ii) The pressure to produce cash crops, noted earlier above (3.3.6)
(iii) Status
As an inheritance from feudal times, the possession of cattle is still regarded as the highest status symbol. Cattle occupy grazing land but yield little economical return. They are used as dowry, giving status to both donor and recipient when exchanged. Banana and sorghum beer also serve as an exchange equivalent within social relationships; they are also used to compensate ex-farm labour inputs. By expanding his banana plantation a farmer increases his social status. Judging by its high exchange value, rural people grossly overestimate the nutritional value of beer (Ndengejeho, 1980).
(iv) Tradition
Traditionally cultivators, the Bahutu farmers are reluctant to adopt production concepts alien to agriculture. Animal husbandry, for example, plays only a very minor role in rural production, because regular feeding of livestock has never been practised. According to the survey of Ndengejeho (1980) a considerable number of his respondents believed that fish, kept in a pond, do not need food: they are believed to subsist on soil or water. Another example is the practice of confining chickens to a cage during the sorghum harvest, to keep them from feeding on the grains. Being given no other food many chickens starve to death during this time.
(v) Leadership and decision making
No pronounced internal leadership pattern exists in the rural society. Patrilinearly organized kinship groups had, and to a lesser degree, still have, influence only on land allocation and were the taxable entity during the feudal times. At present, and in line with the atomistic settlement structure, only one external authority, the Government, and its administrative bodies, exercise leadership above the family level. Within the family usually the senior male is formally in command, followed by his son. His wife, however, is rather autonomous in the spheres dominated by her, e.g., food crop production and the household. A man would have to ask his wife's permission before taking food from the household storage. In the absence of detailed studies on the present decision-making process, it may be assumed, therefore, that the farmer decides on farm affairs, other than day-to-day food crop production, but that his wife is likely to influence his decisions.
9.4.2 Thus:
Fish farming may be regarded by the farmer as a useful diversification of production. Ndengejeho (1980) indicates a high degree of interest in fish farming among his respondents.
Initially, at least, fish farming should be actively promoted by the local Governmental authorities.
Fish may acquire an acknowledged non-monetary exchange value, with a crop from one family pond being partly distributed among neighbours, and vice versa.
Farm management practice should be promoted, at least initially, with emphasis on fertilization, similar to plant crop production, rather than on feeding, as in animal husbandry.
Those engaged in extension and promotional activities should address themselves to both the farmer and his wife.
9.5.1 The basis of a farmer's decision to engage himself and his family in fish farming may be influenced by primary and secondary motivation factors. The primary motivation may include the expectation that fish farming will diversify his production further; that he achieves a higher degree of self-sufficiency; that the nutritional standard of his family is raised; that his monetary income is raised, and that his social status is heightened if he can give fish to his neighbours, etc. The intensity of primary motivation to produce fish will be determined by the value which is commonly attached to fish as a produce. In the survey conducted by Ndengejeho (1980) in four communes, his respondents gave as the principal reason for their interest in fish culture the nutritive value of fish, i.e., they were interested to grow fish for home consumption. Income creation, by selling fish, was rated as secondary. Fish was, according to the survey, thought of as having about the same nutritive value as red meat. The principal reasons for not eating fish were stated as non-availability and high prices.
9.5.2 The same survey indicated that farmers would be willing to undertake fish farming if they were encouraged to do so, if given help and if the necessary inputs were made available.
9.5.3 Ndengejeho's survey indicated a considerable degree of occupational mobility among his respondents with regard to fish farming. His sample was, however, geographically limited. To what extent the innovative potential and the occupational mobility of farmers in other areas can be reinforced and directed toward fish farming will depend upon the performance of fish culture extension and support from Government bodies. Initially successful on-the-spot demonstration in the field and on selected fish farms will be decisive.
9.6.1 During the initial phase of fish culture development, only a small group of farmers will be affected, because infrastructural support will be limited at that stage and will require time to develop. Nevertheless, the initial ‘target group’ of farmers, their selection and the approach employed to extend assistance to them, will determine the future impact of the development effort.
9.6.2 The identification of the individual farmer to be approached should involve the following criteria:
whether the environmental conditions necessary for fish culture exist on the land he cultivates;
whether his personal drive and interest is sufficient to engage himself, his family and, for pond construction, relatives and neighbours, in taking up fish culture successfully;
whether the accessibility of his farm to neighbours and his social status justify the aspiration that his fish pond can serve as a demonstration unit, convincing as many people as possible of the worthiness of fish farming.
Careful selection of the target group in the initial phase of development will be the most important prerequisite for successful dissemination of the concept. Demonstrable success will be the best means to convince others of the worthiness of fish farming. Other measures can be product promotion by Government bodies, extension agents and media, media coverage in general, inclusion of fish-culture-related courses in the curriculae of educational institutions, etc. The degree of success to which such strategies can be employed will determine the quantity of impact fish culture development may have in Rwanda.
9.7.1 The quality, socially and culturally, of change which can be expected as a result of the development, can be assessed here only in the broadest sense. Because in some ways it more closely resembles agriculture than animal husbandry (seed-time and harvest, fertilization), fish culture will not bring about much change in the existing behaviour and value patterns and will not require much effort to comprehend. Neither will it require a significant change of organizational and production structures. Depending on the extent to which they participate, it may better the rôle and status of rural women in the country.
9.7.2 If not extended to a sufficient number of farmers, it may, however, alter the structure of income distribution in the rural milieu by increasing the income and monetary potential of the farmers engaging in it successfully.
9.7.3 It is desirable to focus innovative efforts on existing cooperative organizations such as the Government-sponsored settlements or to encourage groups of farmers to cooperate in aquaculture.
