1. Survey design and testing
The survey was designed during the second half of 1987. In August and September questionnaires were developed and tested on 14 farmers in the Chipata area. The activity is described in some detail in a report entitled: “Fish farmers in rural communities: design of a socio-economic survey.”
A pilot survey followed during October 1987. It was carried out on 89 farmers in the Northern province. The data collected during the survey was processed on micro-computers using standard software. Findings, conclusions and recommendations are given in: “Fish farmers in rural communities: results of a socio-economic pilot survey in Northern Province of Zambia” and “Fish-farmers in rural communities: evaluation of questionnaires and survey routines used during a pilot survey in the Northern province of Zambia”. The questionnaires are published in the second report.
The survey confirmed the difficulty of obtaining reliable numerical estimates of both effort and yield. It was thought, at the time, that a major reason is that farmers engage in intermittent rather than batch-harvesting. The questionnaires were built on the proposition that batch-harvesting was most prevalent. When this was found not to be the case, enumerators were not able to record information regarding intermittent harvesting. Thus, subsequent to the pilot survey, the questionnaires were modified to make it possible to record also the extent and results of intermittent harvesting. They were also modified to take into account the difficulties of obtaining reliable estimates of the quantities of feed and fertilizer used as well as the quantities of fish harvested.
2. Full-scale surveys
Two full-scale surveys were carried out during 1988. The first in the North-Western province (April to June), the second in the Luapula province (June – August). The first included 132 farmers, the second 92.
The survey teams were composed of local fishery officers, ALCOM project staff, and local consultants with academic qualifications in sociology. Frequently the teams were accompanied by individuals familiar with the local geography, inhabitants and language.
The findings in the three provinces are quite similar. As a result recommendations also coincide.
1. Recommendations to provincial staff of the Department of Fisheries.
They concern:
ponds: better site selection, construction and maintenance.
grow-out: better use of on-farm fertilizers and feed;
harvesting: instructions in harvesting strategy, emphasizing adequate use of intermittent harvesting.
It seems more important to get abandoned ponds to be used than to promote the construction of more ponds. In Luapula province it might help if seining for fingerlings were permitted and farmers assisted to develop appropriate technology for transport of fingerlings over longer distances.
It is recognized that in the long run, the farmers will need to improve their methods and procedures with a view to getting more out of each hour worked. Such a strategy will strengthen pond farming of tilapia. It will remain competitive when economic growth promotes specialization and reduces the number of inactive hours per household.
2. Recommendations to the Department of Fisheries, Lusaka
The Department is encouraged to support their provincial staff by:
ensuring that fish scouts know enough about agriculture and economics to be able to function as appropriate extension agents, and, by,
using Government run fish culture stations to conduct applied investigations aiming to ensure optimum use of feed and fertilizers and to adapt intermittent harvesting techniques to the needs of the farmers.
3. Recommendations to ALCOM
The reports state that in Southern Africa farmers and fishery officers will want to have a better understanding of intermittent harvesting. ALCOM should therefore support applied research in this field.
In addition it is suggested that ALCOM investigates the reasons for the low pond productivity. Given the overall economic context of the various households, is it rational for the farmers to allocate inputs (land, water, fertilizers, feed, etc) in the manner they do? Or, is the allocation based on scanty knowledge of the results which can be expected from the use of fertilizers and feed in fish ponds? The present day knowledge of fish scouts appears insufficient for them to provide thorough extension advice.
1. The survey methodology
The survey methodology proved adequate for establishing the nature of the fish farming activity and for describing the individuals involved. It proved inadequate for obtaining an exact and comprehensive picture of the effort spent and yield obtained by farmers when raising tilapia. In retrospect, to what extent is such data useful?
2. The need for quantitative data
Given the low level of productivity (or low level of technology) it is quite obvious that there is no need for rapid government interventions. These might be useful in high-intensity systems where fish kills (due to disease, low temperatures, etc) might have dramatic consequences.
Thus even if in some way quantitative details could be had of the exact efforts and yields of the average fish farmer in the three Zambian Provinces concerned, the author does not believe that information would change in any way the proposed strategy for government support to fish farmers.
3. Cost-effective gathering of yield and effort data
What would be the most cost-effective method of obtaining quantitative data, if it was deemed useful? There seems to be no cheap way.
At the present level of production and income, farmers do not keep records; and furthermore, do not apparently consider the activity sufficiently important to make an effort to remember the data. Thus, as there does not seem to be any recall, it would be necessary to somehow start off a “book-keeping” system.
To have a non resident do this over the period concerned, a full culture cycle would seem essential, and would immediately prove too expensive. A local fish farmer would have to be convinced. This in turn might require a payment in some form. This type of data should be cross-checked. Extension personnel can do this through systematic and random interviewing about efforts and yields in the immediate past (the past week).
In order to investigate the “consumption effects” it would probably be useful to break down the enquiry into at least two parts:
What is the effect on agricultural production (or other income generating activities) in rural households as a result of improved:
What is the actual experience with regard to the consumption pattern, which an increased income give rise to in the concerned communities? How much is used for expenditures on food, health, education and farm equipment?
Neither of these two are specific to fish culture or fisheries. They may have already been tackled by researchers with starting points other than fish farming. That should be the first avenue of investigation.
It would seem that this type of information should be available to the Ministry that has the responsibility for sharing out government (and international aid) funds for development.
Once these avenues of investigation have been exhausted, it is probably time to verify the hypothesis which has been developed, through random spot checks with fish farmer households. At that time it is of utmost importance to investigate income, costs and consumption patterns of all members of the household, irrespective of their gender or age.
In areas where land and water have a cost, while under-employment prevails (high population density areas) the net wealth generated will be lower than in those areas where land and water are “free”. There will be correspondingly less justification for government to promote fish culture as a way to stimulate growth.
