No formalised market surveys specifically targeted to the consumption of fish have been undertaken in Lesotho. However, there are three main sources of information which provide data on the national consumption of fresh, frozen and processed fish import data, the Household Budget Survey 1986/87, and the World Food Programme.
Given that a very small amount of fish is produced locally, import data provide good indications of the demand for fish in Lesotho. The latest information available is presented in Table 19 and shows that, the per capita annual consumption of imported fish/fish products is approximately 800 grammes per person.
Table 19 : Fish Imports by Quantity (metric tonnes) 1983 and 1984
| 1983 | 1984 | |
|---|---|---|
Fresh and Frozen Fish: | 43.85 | 174.62 |
Dried and Salted: | 32.20 | 32.20 |
Canned Fish: | 951.16 | 889.41 |
TOTAL | 1027.21 | 1096.23 |
| Total De Facto Population (est.) | 1306000 | 1341000 |
| Fish Consumption Per Capita (kg) | 0.79 | 0.82 |
Source: Bureau of Statistics
Note: Population estimates made using 1976 census figures and applying a 2.6% annual growth rate.
The Household Budget Survey 1986/87 collected information on consumption and expenditure patterns of a stratified sample of 4800 rural households and 2880 urban households over a 12 month period. A summary of the main results indicates that the average Basotho household has a monthly cash income of 236 Maloti. Average incomes are higher in urban areas, with M 410 in Maseru and M361 in other urban areas and slightly lower in rural areas at M 211. However, just over 30% of households in rural areas have a monthly household cash income below M 50. Income distribution is skewed with 50% of the population accounting for 10% of total incomes, and 10% of the population accounting for 47% of total incomes.
With regard to the consumption of food, 38% of household expenditure is accounted for by food and beverages, with the proportion of total expenditure varying slightly between rural and urban areas. Large variations can be observed between the various income groups as shown in Table 20:
Table 20: Average Monthly Cash Domestic Expenditure per Household (%)
| Subs Farm | Cash Crop | Bus Incom | Wages | Migr. Remit | Other | All | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food and Beverages | 43 | 47 | 38 | 37 | 34 | 45 | 38 |
| Clothing and Footwear | 19 | 19 | 13 | 16 | 19 | 16 | 17 |
| Rent, fuel and power | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Furniture and Household | 10 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 14 | 9 | 12 |
| Medical and Health | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Transport and Commun. | 3 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| Education and Recreation | 4 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Misc. goods and Services | 14 | 11 | 20 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 16 |
| TOTAL | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Source: Household Budget Survey 1986/87, Bureau of Statistics
Elementary aggregates are also available on private consumption on food items thus providing an indication of the importance of fish, in terms of value, on total household expenditure on food items. Of the items included, fresh/frozen fish represents 0.2% of expenditure whilst tinned fish represents 1.6% of total expenditure. As comparison, poultry represents 5%, beef 3.5% and mutton 2.5%, eggs 2% and other dairy products 4.6%. Assuming that fish is regarded a substitute for other forms of animal protein, it is clear that tinned fish represents the greatest proportion of household expenditure on fish, but still falls below expenditures on other forms of animal protein. A summary of this information is provided in Appendix 3.
Up to June 1989, the WFP has been distributing tinned fish to 150 – 160 ‘past-primary’ schools, providing around 10 grammes/pupil/meal. Participants in Food-for-Work programmes receive a family ration (5 people) which includes 150 grammes of fish/day. The World Food Programme has recommended that the total requirement for tinned fish for the Food-for-Work Programme over the next five years will be 1370 tonnes, and the schools component will be 16 tonnes over 5 years. However, the WFP has been experiencing problems in acceptability of tinned fish, largely because the tinned fish distributed is not similar to the tinned fish imported from the Republic of South Africa.
The Lesotho Highlands Development Authority have recently conducted a socio-economic survey of 3339 households (2967 in the Katse local catchment and 372 in the 'Muela area) in which households were asked about fish consumption and fish catching. These results are presented in Appendix 4, but in brief, the results indicated that fish consumption is more common in the 'Muela area with only 9.1% of households claiming never to have eaten fish compared to 21.6% in the Katse local catchment area. For both areas, tinned fish was the most common type of fish eaten.
No households in the 'Muela Area reported catching fish, while 12.5% of households in the Katse local catchment said they had caught fish in rivers at some time. However, they reported that they the last fish they had caught had been caught more than a month before the date of the interview.
