The above analysis has provided the background to recommendations for government strategy in support of fish culture in rural areas. Such a strategy will be discussed in this chapter. It will focus on the department of fisheries or equivalent. The recommendations will be general in nature, and apply not only to Zambia, but to southern Africa in general.
The strategy in fact will not be one, but several. It needs to deal with the fishery department's contacts with:
farmers and fish farmers;
other government departments (Ministry of agriculture, Ministry of finance, regional administrations);
It has consequences for the
organization and use of the department's staff, infrastructure and operating budgets.
Each of these aspects will be discussed below.
The discussion that follows will be divided into: preparation of a programme, its implementation and monitoring.
The first part of the programme formulation is fact-finding. It is essential to obtain the following data.
Census of fish ponds (number, size, location).
Availability of water and land.
A description of the agricultural economy of rural areas.
(iv) Fish consumption in rural areas.
In order to save government funds, the enquiry should be organized to minimize field time (and related expenditures on transport, and per diem). Hence, the recommended sequence of activities is as follows:
| first: | HQ based desk studies. |
| second: | Field enquiries. |
(i) HQ based desk studies
The HQ based desk studies will serve to identify areas where priority action is most likely to be required. The following sequence of activities is suggested for the study team at HQ:
Fish pond survey. At the outset the study group should organize a “rough” census of existing fish ponds. This should be done through regional and/or district administrations. It should not involve any roving teams dispatched from HQ. The district fisheries or agricultural officer, in the normal cause of his/her duties, should carry out the census. The purpose is to provide information about fish farmers who might need help to improve their fish pond management skills. The census should:
Water availability. The study team identifies areas where water is physically available in quantities large enough to sustain year-round fish culture in ponds. The areas are classified in groups according to the quantities of water believed to be available to the average farmer. Those areas that fall below the minimum are not further considered.
Land availability. Within the areas identified as having a suitable amount of water, those in which land -- for whatever reason -- is physically not available for pond construction, or for which the general ground conditions are known to be adverse to fish pond construction, are eliminated from further consideration.
Rural economy. In the remaining areas (that is those that are suitable from the standpoint of physical availability of land and water) the areas are categorized according to the general state of their economy. This categorization will include information on the existing situation and expected trends for:
The description of the rural economy should identify the extent of underemployment in rural households, recent changes and likely future possibilities for employment.
To the extent possible, data already available to government (both central and local) should be used. Of prime concern would be: (i) household consumption/expenditure surveys; (ii) agricultural production statistics; (iii) nutrition data; (iv) school enrolment data; (v) information on disease by household; (vi) crops grown.
On the basis of these data the regions will be ranked. When ranking, most importance should be given to unemployment figures (present situation and expected trends), and the least importance to the level of disposable income.
When the fish pond census has been completed for the priority areas, it is time to verify and complement the information through interviews.
(ii) Field surveys
Two types of areas should now be subject to closer examination. Areas with a stagnant economy, underemployment and no fish ponds, and areas with both fish ponds and a growing agricultural economy.
In the first type of area, introduction of fish farming might make a considerable difference to economic growth. In the second, farmers might be receptive to suggestions on how they should go about increasing the output from their ponds, so that the fish ponds remain competitive with other activities available to the farmer. Improved production from this group will, as we have seen above, also contribute to economic growth.
Stagnant areas without fish ponds
In priority areas with no fish ponds (high underemployment, few apparent alternatives; low household incomes) it is now time to establish:
After consultation with area agricultural officers about the availability of water, farmers in the areas should be interviewed about critical issues.
The critical issue with land and water is their availability to the household. In particular, is the farmer already using as much as he has? If not, a fish pond need not reduce, or otherwise influence the extent of the household's agricultural production. The visit to the farmer should also be used to establish soil characteristics and the relative effort that would be involved in pond construction in the area.
The real concern is thus the “economic availability” of land and water. The “economic availability” reflects competing uses. Thus, if the farmers do not regularly use all the water they believe is available to them, this is the most advantageous situation, and the water is then “economically available”.
The purpose of finding out about fish consumption is twofold: on the one hand to establish the level of fish consumption in the household, and on the other to make certain that the population of the area is already consuming any fish considered a candidate for fish culture.
The fish fauna in local rivers and small water bodies would give an indication. In addition the local fisheries and/or agricultural officers should have some idea of the magnitude of the quantities of fish that are being landed.
As farmers are interviewed they should also be made to provide information on aspects of their economic and social situation, which should be known in order to shape later interventions in support of farmers. The questionnaires should cover the following subjects:
Farmers should be selected at random for the interviews. A relatively small proportion (not larger than 5 %) of heads of households in a few selected villages would be sufficient.
The interviewers should have both fish culture and economics expertise. If, in the course of the interviews, they find that farmers have water and land to spare, and are likely to both sell and eat the product, the opportunity should be used to stimulate their interest in raising fish in ponds. They should be told in particular about the need for careful siting and pond construction. Realistic estimates of future production should be provided.
Subsequently, when surveys have been completed and the data analyzed, the areas surveyed can be ranked in order of priority the largest weight given to availability of land/water and to fish consumption habits.
Areas with a growing agricultural economy and fish ponds
In areas with a growing agricultural economy and close to full employment, the resources used to grow fish will increasingly demand a return. If at one time land and water could be considered free of charge, alternative use for these inputs in income producing activities will place a price on their use. Similarly with labour supplied by the household. However, the possibility to use, most of the time, children and/or older individuals within the households means that these (real) costs will increase only slowly. They will of course not appear as cash payments, only as cash not received (in payment for other activities).
Thus, in these areas, surveys should be designed to establish whether an extension effort aimed at up grading technology would be useful. In particular this means finding out:
Whether the farmers are under economic pressure to abandon fish raising in ponds; and, if yes, whether there are obvious ways of improving the output of the ponds in such a manner that the activity would remain competitive.
Which farms can hold more fish ponds, big enough to make fish culture the dominant activity on the farm.
These surveys must by necessity be somewhat more prodding than those described above for areas where there are no fish ponds.
Once these surveys have been completed and analyzed it should be possible to identify the priority areas and the tasks for the future in order to achieve rural economic growth by supporting rural fish farming.
(iii) Conclusions
At this point the fisheries department concerned will have a list of priority areas. Apart from identifying the geographical areas the list will show:
As this report has made clear, the economic environment is crucial for the message that the fish culture extension worker should pass on to the farmer. The two extreme conditions of the rural agricultural economy are: a stagnant rural economy, with much underemployment, and a growing economy with close to full employment. In the first instance it is essentially a matter of getting ponds constructed; in the second of improving the productivity of existing fish ponds. However, before getting into details, two basic rules apply whatever the economy is like.
First, the farmer does the work, the extension agent demonstrates and provides advice, no more. Naturally the information provided should be as accurate as possible. It must be provided, otherwise the farmer has no means of evaluating the possibility.
The reason for this distribution of labour is that the farmer himself is the best judge of the economics of the fish farming activity he might undertake. The moment work is done for him free of charge, the “true” economics of the situation is faulted, to the detriment of economic growth.
Second, in any area or region, the nature of fish farming is determined by the prevailing agricultural economy. This must guide the type of assistance provided.
(i) Introduction of fish ponds in a stagnant economy
Once interest has been raised in fish farming, ponds constructed and stocked, there is not much more for the extension service to do. The reason is that once the farmer has found a technology that seems to fit his requirements, he is unlikely to change it unless there is an economic stimulus to do so. In a stagnant economy such a stimulus does not come about unless access is gained to a market that is not normally reached by products from the area concerned.
Thus, the rules for implementing the strategy (in view of, the benefits to be obtained and the need to conserve taxpayers money) are:
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 extension activity, as long as the rural economy remains stagnant.
This means, amongst other things, that as far as possible fixed public installations should be avoided. In clear terms; no fish farms only for the purpose of providing fingerlings. It is better to rent/lease fish ponds from farmers who seem likely to be able to become entrepreneurs in the production and sale of fingerlings.
First priority: 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.
This is the single most important task when introducing pond culture of fish in a stagnant economy. The main reason for fish ponds being abandoned in Zambia seems to be that the ponds themselves have ceased to function as fish ponds. Generally, the farmer's knowledge of fish pond construction principles is close to zero, so he is likely to consider it beyond his capability to repair ponds.
Second priority: help fish reach markets.
In a rural economy where most people are underemployed, in spite of land and water being available, the economy is stagnant because the farmers cannot bring to markets the produce and the services they are able to provide. In this situation, access to markets which includes preparation of fish products, their storage, transport and preservation could be of catalytic importance, and should take priority over attempts to improve in ponds. However, the fish should be sold at prices reflecting the real costs incurred. Subsidies should be avoided.
Given the high “consumption effect” generated by this activity, the author feels that considerable effort could realistically be expanded to support the development of stable markets for rural fish farm produce.
Once an area is saturated with fish ponds - move on to the next.
There is little economic growth to be had from trying to improve the productivity of ponds owned by farmers living in a stagnating rural economy. They will improve productivity when outside economic forces make such changes attractive. To try to convince them, before changes are in tune with the general economy, is wasted effort. More is gained by moving to the next area, waiting for the rural economy to start to grow.
(ii) Improvement of productivity in fish ponds located in areas with expanding agricultural economies
Economic developments elsewhere have shown that economic growth occurs together with growing trade and increasing specialization. Specialization in turn implies larger units of production, less self-sufficiency and, conversely, a larger dependence on trade. This, no doubt, will occur also in the countryside of southern Africa, when economic growth comes.
Also, fish farming will be subject to these “laws” of economic growth. The most immediate consequence will be that small rural ponds will be abandoned by farmers who find that they should specialize in activities other than fish farming. An immediate reason for this might simply be that the homestead does not have the water and land needed for a large fish farm.
Those who do decide to remain in fish farming will find that they will be running increasingly intensive units; intensive in the sense of an increasing quantity of fish produced per unit of pond surface area. This will bring with it questions of feed, fish health, etc. The need for secure markets will place demands on the public service for support in that area.
When the economy is close to full employment, extension agents are going to find that the fact that farmers have land and water is insufficient for convincing them to start fish culture. It might be sufficient when underemployment prevails. It will not remain so when the agricultural economy provides income-earning opportunities off-farm, or through farming for distant markets.
The farmer is going to ask for both technical and economic advice. Technical as he is likely to want a higher production per unit of pond surface area than the subsistence farmer, and economic as he will not engage in this activity if the production is only large enough to feed his family. He will want to produce for sale. He then must trade with a commodity which is more perishable than any other he is dealing with. Livestock can be transported alive; large quantities of tilapia cannot (it would become exorbitantly costly, given the volumes of water needed).
In this context, the role of the extension agent -- who has to be knowledgable about both agriculture and basic economic analysis -- is to help the farmer identify how his fish culture can improve. The farmer must try to answer the question: “Will a more concerted effort with fish culture yield a better return than on some other agricultural/livestock activity?”
This is a task which few extension agents are able to undertake, and which the fisheries department must prepare for. The preparation will involve: (i) the establishment and operation of a first-rate fish culture station, and (ii) the continuous upgrading and training of fish culture extension specialists and extension agents.
In order to achieve economies in the extension service, the production advice should focus on those who are likely to specialize in fish farming, when the agricultural economy starts to grow rapidly. Those for whom fish farming is not the natural field of specialization should come second in priority. They would have to look up the extension service agent for advice. The first group may count on being identified and visited by the extension service agent at the initiative of the latter.
a. Fish culture research and development station
The prime task for the fish culture station is to try out the various technologies which might, one day, become useful for fish farmers. Fish culture extension specialists must work at the station for some period every year, to remain up to date with the latest findings and practices. The main purpose of the station is not to produce fingerlings.
If there are significant climatological differences in the country concerned, it means that to the extent that finances permit, there should be one station in each climatological zone. Only in exceptional circumstances will more be required. Other fish culture stations should preferably be sold.
b. Fish culture extension specialists
Fish culture extension specialists should generally work through agricultural extensionists. In most districts there are too few fish farmers to warrant full-time fish culture extensionists.
The fish culture extension specialist must be multi-disciplinary, with know-how not merely in biology, but also in agriculture and social sciences. Few graduates have studied this combination of subjects. They must be provided with the opportunity to do so as part of their employment.
As indicated above, fish culture extension specialists will train at the fish culture research and development centre. They should do so regularly -- possibly once a year -- to keep up to date. For those who are not agronomists, a one-year course in agronomy will be required. Likewise, those who have no background in economics will need a one-year course in basic economics (accounting, micro and macro economics).
The fish culture extension specialists will supervise the extension effort of fisheries and/or agricultural extension agents. The latter will work with farmers who already have fish ponds and who in a growing agricultural economy might find it useful to improve productivity, and with farmers who do not have fish ponds but might find them useful in their stagnated rural economy.
The priority of selected areas (for introduction of fish ponds, and improvement of productivity respectively) should be reviewed by HQ 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 fish marketing locally should be reviewed; and (iii) internal auditing carried out of the effectiveness of the fish culture extension effort.
The rural economy is monitored through close liaison with appropriate government and bank departments.
Monitoring of technical developments in fish farming will involve on the one hand contacts with leading local farmers; evaluation of results at the government fish culture research station; review of international literature; and participation in technical fish culture seminars, nationally and internationally.
The development of fish markets will concern mostly local markets. It should be carried out through the appropriate market authorities at the main national fish markets. In this context, it is useful to keep a tab on developments in fish technology (processing, preservation, handling, etc). This is also the duty of HQ based staff.
Internal audit of the effectiveness of the fish culture extension effort is essential. It should be carried out at random, and in depth in selected areas. Senior departmental personnel, and non-departmental staff should be employed.
There are two types of contacts: (i) those meant to obtain funding for fish culture development work and (ii) those meant to carry out the work.
Unless fishery departments become better at economic evaluation they run at least one big risk: that they will be accused, possibly by the public, and certainly by their colleagues in capture fisheries and by those handling government tax revenues, of using too much money for too little fish.
Those who are not aware of the economic implications of fish farming in rural areas will argue that the fishery department is throwing away resources. In this situation the department should have available information, preferably in the form of a study, which illustrates that it does at least as well as other government departments in terms of contributing to economic growth.
Such a study should combine information about (i) consumption effects; (ii) increases in productivity where achieved; and (iii) results of internal audits of fish culture extension effort. This type of study should considerably strengthen the case of the fish culture department in its annual quest for government funds.
As is probably clear from the preceding part of this chapter, the author is of the view that the fish culture department should:
aim at becoming a group of highly qualified specialists, with access to specialized infrastructure and equipment; and,
execute fish culture extension work as much as possible, through regional and district administrations.
This means in effect that the fish culture unit in the Ministry concerned will act as a “consultant” not only to farmers but also, and in fact primarily, to other government departments entrusted with executing rural development. The HQ-based fish culture group advises district and regional officers, basically in agriculture, fisheries or forestry, who are responsible for the day to day contacts with the farmer.
The HQ staff, and in particular the economist, should have close contacts with economists in the Ministries of Finance, Agriculture and any Ministry responsible for regional and district administrations. The extent to which these contacts need to be formal (working parties; commissions) should be decided according to local circumstances.
The presumed or suggested organization of the fish culture development unit has been revealed in part by the foregoing discussion. It may be summed up as follows. The fish culture development unit should:
have high level expertise in a central headquarters - not a large number of extension agents;
be mobile: have vehicles - not fish farms;
produce high quality research - not fingerlings;
The headquarters of the fish culture development unit should have experts at least in the following four fields: fish culture (aquaculture), civil engineering (for pond construction), fish culture extension, and, economics. As it will prove more than difficult to recruit an economist specialized in fish culture, it would seem important to recruit an economist knowledgeable in agriculture rather than in fisheries.
The latter three specialists will spend a considerable part of their time teaching extension agents (from agriculture, forestry and fisheries).
Generally, in Zambia at least, the demands made by the farmer on fish scouts have been low. In practice it has probably meant that if fish scouts could find a place where a pond could be built, and if they could assure that it was built so that it held water, their task was solved. As this report has shown repeatedly, this will not remain so. This type of assistance is going to be totally inadequate.
Initially the farmers are going to demand, if not make themselves, some kind of economic feasibility study. They are going to weigh costs against expected income. At a later stage they are going to demand help with technical questions: feed, fish health, etc. Marketing is going to become an issue, as farmers will grow fish mostly for markets.
The earlier fishery extension workers attain a basic understanding and know-how of the principles of economic analysis, agriculture and fish culture in ponds, the better it is. It is better because they will then be able to concentrate their extension effort on those farmers who quite obviously have a potential (either because of the land/water combination under their control, or their access to markets) to maintain the activity also during the next stage in the economic development of the area. This will ensure a better use of the ponds. The longer they are in use the better from the point of view of the economy as a whole.
Experience has proven that government-run fish farms are not a reliable source of fingerlings for farmers' ponds. It would seem better to organize the extension effort so that entre-preneurial farmers become, where needed (and not all farmers find they need extra fingerlings to restock), a commercial source of fingerlings.
Amongst existing government fish farms, one should be chosen to become the nucleus of a fish culture research and development centre. The choice should fall on the farm that apart from being in a climatic region that is representative of most of the farmers, has a secure (unpolluted) water supply and is capable of holding at least 5 ha, preferably 10 ha, of pond surface area. It should also be so located that senior aquaculturists will find it convenient to live at the station.
In countries where a large number of government fish farms exist, one way of obtaining funds for creating a fish culture research and development centre would be to sell out the “surplus” farms to private enterprise.
