Lesotho, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zimbabwe display notable differences in the organization, diversity and level of their economies. Nevertheless, there are striking similarities in the social and physical environment of small farmers engaged in fish-farming. Also, the strategies adopted by governments and their administrations toward fish-farming have several aspects in common.
In the following paragraphs these similarities are summarized and the resulting consequences for the future of small-scale rural fish-farming are discussed. The mission also addresses a number of recommendations to public administrations and to the Programme. While many of the observations on which these recommendations are based are not new, the mission believes that the recommendations which follow, if put into practice, will increase the significance of fish-farming as a means of social and economic development in rural communities through a more efficient use of government resources.
Government policies for rural fish-farming usually identify species and areas, and often the usefulness of integrating fish-farming with poultry and livestock husbandry is mentioned. However, seldom is the technical level of the farming system given much attention. This means that ultimately the field officer, or the frontline extension worker, is the one selecting the fish-farming system recommended to the farmer. While this is a logical procedure with potential for adaptation to local conditions, it was observed in the countries visited that often an inappropriate system is used as a model for rural fish-farming. This system is exemplified by government fish-farms with drainable ponds, certified fast growing species, and the production of table-size (above 200 g) fish. Rarely has this model been successfully adopted by rural fish-farmers.
In pursuing the introduction and maintenance of rural fish-farming, Lesotho, Swaziland and Zimbabwe have used agricultural extension workers. In Lesotho, home economics extension workers also promote fish-farming. In Tanzania, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Tourism has its own field staff in the Division of Fisheries working on extension tasks.
The use of agricultural and home economics extension workers to promote fish-farming has met with mixed results. In Lesotho and Swaziland, for example, it seems that a large portion of the contacts with fish-farming households has been through fisheries staff rather than other extension workers, mainly because they have access to fingerlings, gear, and limited transport. The agricultural and home economics extension workers have little knowledge of fish-farming, and they lack transport; it appears that during the last few years rural fish-farming development has remained stagnant in both countries. In Zimbabwe, on the other hand, agricultural extension staff have had access to fish-culture expertise and local fingerling production facilities, and viable rural fish-farming seems to have been established in some areas. In Tanzania, it appears that the fisheries extension activities in the Regions are severely hampered, at least in part, by lack of transport. Most ongoing fish-farming extension work is supported by foreign assistance through non-governmental and voluntary organizations.
It is the view of the mission that at least part of the explanation for the modest results obtained by extension efforts is the relative isolation of fish-farming specialists within government administrations. It is also noted that, given the constraints on agricultural extension workers due to limited transport, equipment, and access to know-how, more coordination with extension workers in home economics, nutrition, health, and general rural development could help deliver fish-farming messages to farmers. In all four countries the fisheries staff seem to have regular official meetings with those government staff responsible for planning and implementation of irrigation schemes, yet there are few attemps made to include fish-farming activities in community irrigation schemes.
In the four countries visited there are few staff at ministry level dealing directly with fish-farming, and almost all of these staff have natural science backgrounds with a technician's outlook on fish-farming. The tendency is to see fish-farming development as a challenge to grow a large quantity of big fish rather than as a means of providing better food (from the point of view of the consumer) or cash income to the rural household.
A number of government, fish-culture stations have been built to support the technicians' work, but currently most of these stations are not being fully utilized and some are virtually abandoned. Governments seem reluctant to provide the funds necessary to rehabilitate and operate these stations. In all countries visited regular and reliable transport is not available to fish-farming staff, making it impossible for them to carry out their work at the government fish-farms and with rural fish-farmers.
Since there is no specific Ministry of Fisheries in any of the four countries, government staff dealing with capture fisheries and fish-farming are located in ministries dealing with either agriculture or natural resources.
In Tanzania, the Division of Fisheries have a relatively large staff, most of whom are engaged in capture fisheries. However, because the responsibility for development activities and administration is delegated to the Regions, the vast majority of these staff are not under control of Headquarts officials in Dar-es-Salaam. Headquarters staff act mainly as technical advisers to field staff, who must obtain equipment and facilities for field work from the Regional Development Directors.
In Zimbabwe is found the only agriculture extension unit (Agritex) which includes a group of staff specialized in fish-farming, who act as advisers to frontline extension staff. The Government department in charge of fisheries matters, which controls the six existing fish-culture stations, but does not carry out extension work, is also responsible for wildlife preservation and national parts. These taks bring this department's staff into conflict with capture fishermen and would be likely to hinder their effectiveness as fish-farming extension workers, should they assume this role, because farmers may see them as enforcers rather than advisers.
The contribution of rural small-scale fish-farming to fish production, family income and employment is relatively small. In none of the countries visited is it likely to be contributing even one percent of the total national fish consumption. Overall, the development of this activity was observed to be stagnant.
A number of factors emerge in relation to the rural fish-farming activities observed by the mission:
There are no rural fish-farmers, per se, only farmers who raise fish as one of many activities
If not naturally present, fish are introduced into water-bodies meant to provide water for livestock or irrigate crops, rarely were ponds constructed primarily for raising fish
Inputs used in raising fish, with the possible exception of initial fingerlings, are not purchased; agricultural by-products and kitchen leftovers are fed to fish when available
The sale of fish is common, increasing in proportion to the size of the farm
The trade of fingerlings among neighbouring farmers is more common then fishery officers are aware
Where women make up the majority of the adult population, such as in rural areas of Lesotho, Swaziland and Zimbabwe, they carry out most of the activities related to fish-farming; however, this does not mean that they are engaged in processing, preservation, or sale of fish, or have the right to dispose of any income that fish may generate.
Outside those areas dominated by large-scale, modern, commercial agriculture, modernization has resulted in only minimal changes to agricultural practices. This trend will strongly influence the economic and technical character of the fish-farming system that rural farmers may want to implement. In general, rural farmers produce several different crops in a year, with most of the harvest consumed by the household. In Lesotho, Swaziland and Zimbabwe, the lack of cash crops on rural farms may be in part due to the opportunities to obtain wage employment in the commercial agricultural sector, in manufacturing or services, in Government, or outside the country. As a result, it appears quite common that men see their farms as a place to return to when not wage-employed, rather than as a place to earn a living.
In Zimbabwe and Tanzania recent economic policies have attempted to stimulate the production and sale of crops grown by small farmers, such as maize and cotton. These policies have succeeded to a certain degree at increasing small-holder production and income. In the long run, these policies may lead to a reduction in subsistence farming as farmers specialize to meet the market for specific crops. They will then be selling a significant proportion of their production and purchasing an increasing share of their household food needs. This trend will affect rural small-scale fish-farming in a similar manner.
Wage employment in the mining, agriculture, manufacturing, service and Government sectors has attracted mainly male individuals in their most productive years. Rural households, with the possible exception of Tanzania, therefore, have a larger proportion of very young, very old, and female individuals than the general population. Given the traditional primary decision-making role of men, this situation has not favoured the transformation and modernization of rural small-holder agriculture. The fact that a husband is away from the family for long periods does not mean that the wife can assume control of the use of land or other household assets, or have the right to dispose of family income.
Generally, women are fully occupied with tasks such as fetching water and fuel, cooking, cleaning, washing, tending children, preparing land, and tending crops and livestock. In those activities which women undertake to earn cash, such as vegetable gardening, poultry-raising, and making handicrafts, they are limited by the need to remain near their homes. They are not able to venture far away in search of the highest price for their products. The result of these conditions is that cash income generated by rural household is scarce.
Rural farmers generally keep some livestock, usually more for wealth and social status rather than as a source of dietary meat. Therefore, animal protein is often rare in rural diets, especially in those of children, since elder men, by tradition, may receive food first. It should not be concluded that the introduction of fish-farming will automatically alleviate this nutritional situation, since in some regions fish consumption is not favoured.
It is evident that the effort spent on introducing fish-farming in rural areas has not had a result commensurate with that effort, or with initial expectations. There does not seem to be any reason to expect significant improvements if the strategy and organization of public support to fish farming continue unchanged. The mission believes that both the content of the fish-farming extension message as well as the manner in which it has been brought to the farmer can be considerably improved. This also has implications for the manner in which the Programme's target areas should, or could, be approached. These issues are discussed in detail below.
The message has, perhaps unwittingly, emphasized fish-farming as an activity to rely on for earning a living. It presents fish-farming as a modern occupation requiring management and know-how, time and money, meant to become a significant money-earning activity for the farmer.
As a result, the basic entry point, an activity making use as much as possible of resources already available to the farmer but yielding small amounts of fish, has been neglected. The essence of this more basic strategy is that it fits into the existing situation of most farmers. It can widen his source of food, and possible, cash, at little extra expense. It simply requires the farmer to put fish into a body of water which he may already have and feed the fish with the available agricultural by-products or household leftovers. The activity will take virtually no extra time, no cash other than perhaps initially for the purchase of fish seed, and will give the farmer some food and perhaps a small cash income.
There are several benefits associated with this strategy. First, in the immediate future it might provide an important nutritional addition to the diet of household members. This will be the case more often than not when the pond is small and the quantity of fish produced does not warrant the effort to organize the sale of fish. Second, the farming of fish in this manner will encourage the habit of eating fish, an important trend because in the long run it will create the market for fish. Third, it will establish the base for the emergence of commercial fish-farming among small-scale farmers, once this sector's agriculture practices have progressed to a point where the farmer must specialize. Farmers with a particular interest in fish, and with access to the land and water required, will then find it natural to specialize in fish-farming, producing fish at levels above subsistence requirements. They will start to rely on the income from fish sales for a livelihood, to the extent that they become true fish-farmers.
Thus the mission concludes that, at this time, fish-farming for a living is an activity too advanced for most rural communities where small-scale farmers dominate. A reorientation towards promoting fish-farming as a complementary farming activity might reach more rural farmers more effectively and lead to growing nutritional benefits.
However, this reorientation will only occur if the extension workers and others in direct contact with farmers adopt this strategy, and do so whole-heartedly. The extension worker must believe in the correctness of the strategy, and must have the education and experience necessary to determine if fish-farming can complement existing household farming activities in a sustainable manner.
The promotion of fish-farming only through technical departments specialized in fisheries and fish-farming has meant that it has been difficult for technically-oriented staff to understand why farmers have taken up fish-farming so slowly. Also, the more modern or advanced the proposed fish-farming method is, the more essential it becomes to have a fish-culture station for research support. Given the slow taking-up of the fish-farming message, governments have frequently not been forthcoming with the funds required to keep fish-culture stations operating.
Had agricultural or other established extension workers been used more systematically to promote rural fish-farming, better results would probably have been obtained, since these extension workers often know who among the farmers would be likely, given their inclinations and access to resources, to engage in commercial fish-farming.
Also, had there been closer cooperation with those in Government who plan and implement irrigation schemes, there would have been a better chance to obtain access to water-bodies appropriate for fish-farming as part of these schemes.
To summarize, the emphasis on specialization has harmed the effectiveness of public efforts to stimulate rural fish-farming; first by excluding small-scale farmers not ready for commercial undertakings, and second by foregoing the use of additional resources available through agriculture extension services and irrigation schemes.
Fish-farming by small-scale rural farmers to date has not spread significantly unless promoted by some form of public extension effort. It should be noted that such efforts will be necessary for some time to come in the spreading and improvement of rural fish-farming. Almost without exception, rural households in the countries visited are involved in agriculture. Thus, any fish-farming undertaken by rural households must fit in as one activity among all those which constitute agriculture. Women and youth are disproportionately involved in fish-farming since, with the possible exception of Tanzania, they make up more than their natural share of the rural population. In addition, the mission concludes that it will be unwise to start pilot project activities without conducting studies of the communities concerned. These studies will make use of survey of various types. The knowledge of ongoing fish-farming activities, and of nutritional income status, are far too thin and sketchy to permit the start of pilot projects without further investigation.
The mission concludes, therefore, that any pilot project that deals with fish-farming by small-scale farmers will also deal with four of the Programme's six target areas: surveys and information needs, extension and training; women and youth, and aquaculture in farming systems.
The two other target areas will not automatically be covered by fish-farming pilot projects. Environmental aspects might be covered in two ways: farming of fish in water-bodies built primarily as a means of erosion control; and the beneficial effects of fish predation on disease carrying organisms such as snails (Schistosomiasis) and mosquito larvae (Malaria). Pilot project coverage of small water-bodies depends on how one defines a small water-body. If it includes only publicly-owned or managed water-bodies with a moderate surface area of perhaps more than 5 ha, the potential pilot projects would be different in nature from those so far discussed.
The over-riding conclusion of the mission is that problems whose causes can be linked to issues raised in the target areas will be substantially solved if the main effort of the Programme is directed at:
promoting fish-farming as a small, integral part of farming, and
ensuring contributions towards this goal from government services other than fisheries departments alone.
With few exceptions, small-scale farmers who want to start raising fish are going to continue to start doing so by using small surfaces of water and employ extensive production systems producing small quantities of fish. Future government stimulus to this activity should take account of this behaviour.
Efforts should be concentrated in encouraging low-technology, part-time raising of fish by rural farmers. This means that the species used should be hardy, reproduce readily in ponds, be accepted as food by the farmer and his household at the size at which it will normally be harvested, and thrive on the most commonly available agricultural by-products and household leftovers. This strategy does not demand much time or cash outlay from household members overcoming a common limitation to production especially in female-headed households.
The effort should be organized so that farmers rapidly become independent of direct government support for their activities. In particular, they should not have to rely on government agents and fish-farms to obtain fish seed or for help with harvesting the fish. This independence could perhaps be achieved by working with traditional and modern local organizations.
It must be realized that fish is not readily acceptable, nor is its nutritional value understood, in all rural households. Heads of households should be instructed in these matters and on the technical aspects of raising fish. Given the predominance of female-headed households and the reported difficulties in ensuring effective communication between them and male extension workers, it is urgent that more use be made of women as extensionists. It is recommended that extension workers who promote fish-farming be made aware of the necessity to work with those household members who in fact carry out the fish-farming activity.
In order to keep the cost of extension services at a reasonable level, it is essential that the fisheries department works through the existing extension services, both agricultural and others.
Those in Government responsible for fish-farming should brief those responsible for irrigation on what the possibilities are for incorporating fish-farming as an activity in irrigation schemes. This should be followed through for each planned irrigation scheme.
Government fish-culture stations should be used as:
Centres for pure stocks of cultured species
Sources of pure fish seed of cultured species
Training of government fish-farming specialists
Centres for short training courses for agricultural extension officers in raising fish
Centres for adapting improved fish culture technology for local part-time subsistence and commercial fish-farming.
It seems likely that one such centre per main climatic zone would suffice.
The strategy proposed above is a new approach to rural fish-farming development. The Programme's task is first to convince Governments that it is an effective strategy, and second to help them implement it.
The first step in this task would be to study and publish the effects on rural farmers of the self-sustained, low technology, part-time raising of fish. This could probably be done in the Murewa area of Zimbabwe, using mainly Programme staff and vehicles.
On the basis of the study and as a second step, a general approach to public support for information dissemination services which can spread this activity should be developed.
The third step in the proposed strategy for the Programme would be to launch one or more pilot projects, through local administrations, to test the efficiency of the methods developed in step two. One area where such a pilot project might be appropriate is Southern Tanzania.
On socio-economic grounds there is little reason, a priori, to prefer one potential pilot project site over another. Pilot project sites should be chosen mainly on the suitability of their technical characteristics in relation to the particular fish-farming activity to be implemented. Thereafter it is recommended that socio-economic investigations be limited to the general area of the pilot project site.
Given that it is important for the Programme to appraise the role of fish-farming as a means of improving the standard of living in rural communities, the mission recommends that studies not rely on any one technique for collecting information but rather use a combination of desk studies, interviews, and participatory observations.
Desk studies should focus on available government and university documents such as censuses, nutritional surveys, annual reports of relevant government units, research reports, etc. The purpose is to place the project area in the social and economic context of the region and country where it is located.
Interviews, more or less structured, should be carried out with individuals in government ministries, census takers, local farmers, teachers, extension workers, and village leaders. The inverviews will serve to document recent developments in the pilot project area.
Participatory observations should be carried out in a sample of the participating households. They should be spaced over time to permit observations of seasonal changes in activities. Observations should be complemented with interviews of household members.
