The pilot project adopted the problem-solving approach. This approach tries to formulate problems not just from the standpoint of the national economy1 but from the perspective and capacity of the target population as well. Hence an analysis of the current farming methods, fish farming developments, and ways of communication for different categories of rural households was carried out. Based on this situation analysis and the diagnosis why small-scale farming households had not taken up fish farming, a strategy to reach this target group was worked out.
This approach differs from the method often followed in which a pre-formulated target is set2 or a standard package is offered to farmers. These targets and packages are often formulated without a thorough knowledge of the circumstances of the rural population. In rural areas in Zambia access to markets, availability of key inputs and high level management of fish farms is limited. Therefore, previous efforts to develop fish farming resulted in low adoption of the recommended technology by a select group of farmers.
The problem-solving approach requires that advice be directed specifically towards target groups and it also demands an active participation of these target groups.
| Description: | Segmentation of the rural population into groups according to major attributes like: availability of production factors, access to extension and risk diversification. |
| Purpose: | By directing fish farming extension to the specific circumstances of the target group, it was anticipated that the willingness of the small-scale farmers to respond would increase. |
| Method: | Review of secondary information, discussion with key informants, group discussions. |
The following groups were defined in the pilot areas:
the total population;
the target population, i.e. all the people for whose benefit fish farming extension methods were to be developed. Farmers in Eastern Province were classified into three groups (van der Mheen-Sluijer and van der Mheen, 1988): commercial farmers (4%) cultivating an average of 25 ha, ‘emerging’ farmers (10%) each cultivating some 5 ha, and subsistence farmers (86%) each cultivating about 1 ha. Additionally, the absolute level of income of the last group was so low that they could be considered as poor or very poor.
sub-groups, i.e. groups within the target groups who are defined according to observable criteria. The criterium used to create sub-groups was ‘people that have definable nutritional problems or are at risk of developing them’. Such sub-groups were: pregnant and lactating women, growing children, and the sick and convalescent (Appleton, Tandberg and Luhila, 1989).
groups indirectly affected by the project, such as people who are not directly addressed by the project but who nevertheless derive benefit or suffer disadvantages from it, e.g. large-scale farmers can copy fish farming; other people may see their position threatened by the increase in status which often goes together with good fish farming.
Figure 1: Differentiation of Groups in Pilot Areas
(Adapted version of Albrecht et al., 1989)
The ‘target group discussion’ centred around the question whether the full 86% of the rural population should be targeted or whether the pilot project should focus on priority beneficiaries. The reason for advocating sub-groups for fish farming development was that the ‘average diet’ which was just adequate for a moderately active population was not universally consumed. Furthermore, it was not necessarily adequate in energy and protein for groups with high requirements e.g. growing children, pregnant and lactating women, and the sick and convalescent, especially in the large number of households whose consumption varied dramatically over the year (Appleton, Tandberg and Luhila, 1989). The same report also suggested that it could be very difficult to identify these people in practice and that no time should be spent to decide whether an individual or group exactly fits a target group description.
It was decided to keep the description of the target population broad. There were three additional reasons for this decision:
in practice it was hard to deny certain people the information on fish farming. There was a fear that they might jeopardize project activities;
there was limited physical potential for fish farming in Eastern Province and an overall increase in availability of fish would benefit the target group;
the composition of proposed sub-groups changed over time.
| Description: | Responsible, critical involvement of the target groups in the decision-making process. The extension worker may contribute expertise if the farmer appears to need it, but decisions are made as much as possible by the farmers. | |
| Purpose: | - | The extension worker usually finds a better solution working in association with the farmer, because each has part of the relevant information; |
| - | The understanding and free will of farmers encourages interest and adoption of fish farming; | |
| - | It helps the farmer's personal development if he can solve his own problems and will positively influence long-term sustainability. | |
| Method: | Participation requires regular discussion between extension staff and target group concerning targets, bottlenecks, measures, responsibility, etc. | |
In the pilot project, farmer's involvement in the decision-making process was ensured at all levels. Participation was built in the extension approach (see Chapters 5 and 6). People's ideas and opinions were explicitly solicited for during village meetings and slide shows. During farm visits of the extension personnel (Aquaculturist or Fish Scout), the farmer's targets, problems and solutions were always discussed. For instance, the pond size would be discussed in relation to the labour availability and on-farm by-products to feed the fish with.
Table 1 summarizes a number of factors which have to be taken into account when aiming at target group participation.
Table 1: Factors Influencing Participation and Possible Solutions
| Factors | Possible solutions |
|---|---|
| -Previous extension services have shown instruction-oriented behaviour towards the farmers. Based on this experience population is used to adopting passive roles and following orders. | -Explain repeatedly that participation is important in order to adopt a fish farming system which suits their specific situation. Farmers should be able to adapt system if their circumstances change. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the basic elements of fish farming. |
| - Provision of nets, fingerlings, and knowledge on pond construction and management3 were kept under the central control of the extension service. | - Stimulate the community's own development efforts in order to achieve long-term sustainability. |
| - Bad weather and times of heavy labour demand can affect participation. | - Plan extension activities during slack period, usually dry season. |
| - Women's role of taking care of children and household duties may affect their participation. | - Plan extension activities at time convenient to women, preferably in village to avoid child care problems. |
| - Women's role in decision making, their limited land ownership and availability of other production factors affect their participation in fish farming. | - Women are seldom fish pond owners but do take part in pond management. Recognize this role and stimulate household members to appreciate and remunerate the effort. |
| - Values and norms of a society may restrict expression of ideas of certain groups in community; e.g women cannot express themselves freely in front of men. | - When necessary call for separate meetings with women and present their views to the whole group. |
Self-help was always encouraged, so that the farmers themselves could sustain their fish farming activities. This implied that they used their own resources. No tools or nets were lent, fish feed and stock feed for animals were not provided and no fencing material was donated. Initially farmers were not happy when they heard that nothing would be given to them. After several discussions about the reasons for not donating anything, most people agreed that this approach would be more sustainable in the long run.
