Over a period of 10 months beginning November 1987, ALCOM conducted surveys of 338 fish farmers in three provinces of Zambia -- Northern, Northwestern and Luapula. Findings from three surveys have been published earlier, besides a questionnaire design and an evaluation of survey methodology.
The total survey effort added up to about two man-years of professional staff time plus one man-year of support staff time. Each survey was done by two to four enumerators. Besides, four ALCOM staff and three Department of Fisheries staff took part in the initial survey design, carried out in Chipata, Eastern Province, in August 1987.
This paper, the last in the series of six, examines the results from earlier reports and also discusses the meaning and the consequences of these findings for government support to rural fish farming.
ALCOM (Aquaculture for Local Community Development Programme) is executed by FAO and funded by Sweden (SIDA). It is an inter-regional programme, though focusing on countries of southern Africa. The Programme's main goal is to develop, test and demonstrate methods and techniques by which rural communities can improve their living standards through aquaculure, and assist participating countries in applying the results of methodology development
| Address : | ||
| Harare | Mail : | P O Box 3730, Harare, Zimbabwe |
| Telex : | 26040 FAO ZW | |
| Tel. : | 724985/734797 | |
| Fax : | 263:22 AM3-4-729563 |
This report is the last in a series of six about Zambian farmers who culture tilapia in ponds, or are about to do so. The report looks briefly at the results, available in detail in other reports, and then considers the consequences of these findings for governmental support to rural fish farming. These include a discussion of the possible magnitude of resources that should be allocated for such support and a strategy for their use.
The farmers surveyed were divided into three groups: those who were culturing fish (almost exclusively tilapia) in ponds at the time of the survey; those who had done so, but abandoned the activity; and those who, because of their access to land and water, were believed to have the resources and incentives to culture fish in ponds in the future. The main aim of the questions addressed to farmers was to find out what factors (economic, social, bio-technical) were critical to success. (Success was equated with continued culture of fish in ponds.)
Between November 1987 and August 1988, 338 randomly selected farmers were interviewed in Northern, North-western and Luapula provinces. Roughly two thirds were “practising” farmers, the remaining one third divided between ex-farmers and “potential” farmers.
FINDINGS
The survey findings in the three provinces were homogeneous. Any differences by province were mainly on account of recent development assistance. The main findings were:
Farmers want to earn an income from fish ponds. They see the ponds as a source of cash, and try to maximize their cash balance by keeping down their spending on pond culture. Thus raising tilapia in ponds, like crop-growing or livestock raising, is an economic activity; three out of every four farmers treats it as a commercial activity.
Growing tilapia in ponds is a supplementary activity; the farmer does not let it affect his other agricultural or livestock activities; he is, in fact, spreading his risks.
Most farmers produce small quantities of tilapia. The activity is extensive (few fish per square metre of pond surface) and all ponds are not in use. About 1 in 5 were found abandoned at the time of the surveys.
Productivity is low (in the region of 5 kgs/are/year) and the use of existing ponds is below maximum. The overall output of farmed fish can be expected to grow at less than 10 % per year under economic conditions similar to those prevailing in 1988.
It does not seem possible to predict, at the time a farmer is considering raising tilapia in ponds, whether he is going to be successful or not. No characteristic, or group of characteristics, were identified as essential for success. A major part of the explanation is probably the low level of technology now employed in combination with the low returns required under present economic conditions.
Neither negative environmental effects nor social constraints have been obstacles to culture of tilapia in ponds.
The survey methodology proved unsuitable for obtaining detailed and precise quantitative data on effort and yield, but did provide reasonable information on other characteristics of the fish farming activity and about the fish farmer.
Both the farmer and the public at large are keen that the farmer contributes to economic growth (increase in incomes) when he launches into fish farming.
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
The extent to which fish culture contributes to economic growth depends largely on the state of the rural, agricultural economy of which the farmer is a part. Those farmers who are poor and underemployed and have access to more water and land than they can use, contribute most to economic growth, per kg of fish produced, when they engage in fish farming. In other words, these farmers are putting idle resources to good use. Those who already in one way or another use all water and land that are available to them, contribute somewhat less per kg of fish since they need to reduce some other activity in order to engage in fish farming. The farmer who is fully employed, and who uses all water and land available to him, is the one who contributes least to economic growth, per kg of fish, when he ventures into fish culture.
Farmers who for some time have been producing fish in ponds can also contribute to economic growth. They do so when they increase their production, and in particular when they increase their productivity. The more specialized they become, the larger the share of growth that originates in the productivity increase in already established ponds. The main reason that productivity increases contribute to economic growth is that the more specialized the farmer is, the more difficult it will be for him to switch to any other activity and continue to earn as much.
To the extent that the production of pond-cultured fish increases as a direct consequence of public support, the disposable income of the general public will decline by the amount of tax levied to finance that effort. The disposable income of the farmers will increase, more so (again per kg of fish produced) for the poor farmer in the stagnant economy, than for the better off farmer who is fully employed in a growing economy.
The surveys have demonstrated that farmers get into pond culture of tilapia (and remain in the activity) because they want to earn an income. The author is of the view that their net income in effect can be considerably larger than the income in kind and cash that the pond-produced fish can provide. Whether it is in fact larger or not depends on the economic circumstances of the farmer's household. The poorer it is, the greater, in the long-term, are the likely positive effects on the farmer's future production and therefore on his income. These “consumption effects” on overall national production occur as the farmer spends more (per day or year) on nutritious food, health care, education and farm implements.
HOW MUCH EFFORT
How much effort should the government put in to promote fish culture in rural areas?
The farmers' likely long-term contributions to economic growth should be explicitly recognized by Government and aid agencies. They constitute the main economic argument for assistance to those farmers who are worst off. There are of course humanitarian arguments that point in the same direction.
The costs government incurs (mainly through its fisheries department or equivalent) when providing farmers with assistance in fish culture are not equivalent to the tax collected for that purpose. The funds collected through the taxes are generally spent and therefore sustain the over-all demand in the economy. However, there is a real cost to the economy the moment the funds used to support fish culture do not stimulate economic growth as effectively as they would have done if allocated to the budgets of other government departments.
Both sides of this equation -- the economic growth generated by the governmental effort and the cost of doing so -- are not readily quantifiable. This, however, will not prevent the competitors for tax revenues (fisheries, agriculture, or other ministries) from asking “What contributions do fish culture make to farmer income and/or economic growth?” The chief of the fish culture department (or equivalent) must be prepared to answer this question in a factual manner.
In this report the answer is framed in relative, not absolute, terms. Without being able to state how much, in kwacha, dollars or any other currency, the author believes the following guidelines to be useful:
The poorer the household of the underemployed farmer, and the more land and water that is available, the larger is the justification, per kg of fish produced, for spending government funds to introduce fish farming in such a household.
In areas where available land and water is being used, introduction is going to contribute less, per kg of fish farming, and the justification for spending, again per kg of fish produced, therefore, declines.1
A growing agricultural economy, with a corresponding reduction in underemployment, will also reduce the net contribution to economic growth, per kg of fish produced, in additional ponds.
In areas where a large number of farmers own fish ponds, and where the economy is expanding, the argument is stronger for assisting farmers to produce more from those ponds.
STRATEGY FOR FISH CULTURE DEPARTMENTS
The strategy has three parts: (a) a programme to help farmers with fish culture; (b) arguments for obtaining the necessary funding and (c) guidelines for how to organize, staff and equip the fish culture department (or equivalent).
For those in the fish culture department who feel that the activity has stagnated and needs a new programme, the author recommends an approach that identifies the programme in two stages, and, while doing so, focuses on key information.
The purpose of a two-staged approach is to keep expenditures down. That means to limit field work to those regions which are likely to become priority regions for development work. Before field work is undertaken, priority areas are identified in a preliminary manner through HQ based analysis of essential data: the status of the agricultural economy and in particular the level of income, the degree of underemployment, the economic availability of land and water, and the location of existing fish ponds.
Thus, the first stage of investigations is centred at the headquarters. These comprise the organization of a rough census, executed by district based staff, and assembly and scrutiny of available data on land, water, and the local agricultural economy. The analysis of data should produce a list of areas where farmers are likely to be receptive to a fish culture extension effort. The areas should be ranked according to the likely effect that expansion of fish culture will have on long-term economic growth.
The second stage in formulating the fish culture development programme consists essentially of field visits aimed at establishing the “economic availability” of the main inputs (land, water, household labour). Simultaneously the data obtained about the general economic situation of the area are verified, and the fish culture extension effort is started. The field visits will be the base for elaborating a detailed programme for extension advice and the start of a research programme. Subsequently the priorities assigned to the areas will be checked.
The status of the rural, agricultural economy not only influences the selection of priority areas, but the content of the programme for extension services, and the manner in which the programme is implemented. In areas with a stagnating rural economy, the following rules would seem to apply:
Stimulate the interest of the farmer and let him decide if and when to start pond culture of fish.
Do not plan on a permanent activity, as long as the rural economy remains stagnant.
First priority in helping farmers: Ensure that fish ponds are built so that they have the highest possible chances to retain water and do so for the largest possible number of years.
Second priority in helping farmers: help their fish to reach markets.
Once an area is saturated with fish ponds move the extension effort to the next on the priority list.
In areas with a growing rural economy, the emphasis in the programme changes. If farmers are not already having fish ponds, considerably more technical information (feeding, water management, marketing) will be needed than in the situation just described of the stagnant economy. It will prove increasingly fruitful (from the point of view of achieving economic growth) to strive for improved productivity of those farmers who are already producing fish in ponds (or other culture units).
However, to do that, the unit responsible for the fish culture extension work will find that it will be increasingly in need of (i) a fish culture research and development station, and, (ii) well-qualified fish culture extension specialists. To the extent that farmers become part of a growing and prosperous rural economy, the need for the research and development station will become more pressing. Likewise, the need for more and more qualified fish culture extension advice will become evident.
The priority of selected areas (for introduction of fish ponds, and improvement of productivity respectively) should be reviewed by the headquarters at fixed intervals, probably yearly. This means that: (i) the status of the rural agricultural economy should be monitored; (ii) technical developments in pond culture of fish and of local fish marketing should be reviewed; and (iii) local auditing carried out of the effectiveness of the fish culture extension effort.
The main component of the strategy for obtaining funding is to pay attention to the economic (growth) consequences of the effort that is being made. In order to counter arguments like: “You spend too much money for too little fish”, the fish culture department must ensure that it has staff which understands the economics of the activity, can study the economic consequences and therefore argue the case for funding2.
How should the government equip its fish culture extension services? The conclusions from these surveys cover a few aspects. Three stand out: be specialized, be selective, be mobile. This confirms several of the recent trends in this field. It means in particular that:
In order that the extension agent has an outlook on the farm that is as similar to the farmer's as possible, work through agriculture extension agents, backed up by fish culture extension specialists;
Promote commercial supply of fingerlings, and avoid running government fish farms merely to supply fingerlings;
Develop at least one government fish farm into a centre for fish culture research, development and training.
