The utility of all later recommendations depends on how reliably they take into account the small farmers' scope for action. The more is known about the target group, the behavioral alternatives for this group and the media and resources available to the extension agent, the more precise and comprehensive the planning of extension can be. This is why it was necessary to carry out a situation analysis.
| Description | Analysis of the current situation of the target group regarding access to production factors, communication channels, ext. services, past f.f. development efforts, adoption of fish farming, farmers' awareness of fish farming, causes of their problems, awareness of solutions, farmers goals. Analysis of the existing extension system, achievements, problems, and possibilities. | |
| Purpose: | To acquire knowledge on the one hand about the target group, the needs felt by this group and their possible behavioral alternatives and on the other hand the resources available to the extension service and the needs for change recognized by the extension agents. | |
| Specific aims of the analysis were: | ||
| - | identification of problems. An investigation of the existing circumstances with the purpose of defining the barriers (physical, economic, socio-cultural, political obstacles) to fish farming for the target group and the scope for action. Previously tried methods and the experience of predecessors were also analyzed for the degree of its success. | |
| - | definition of pilot project's aims. The selection of goals is based on 4 factors: the perception of the present situation, the vision of the desired situation, perception of why the present deviates from the desired situation, and the possibilities for bringing about changes through extension with available resources and manpower. | |
| - | decision on appropriate measures and therefore on the content of extension. | |
| Method: | The situation analysis was carried out in three phases: | |
| - | collection of general information, through desk studies and brief field visits, to identify the scope of the project. | |
| - | more detailed information was used to plan the project. Data were obtained from secondary sources, key informants, group discussions, observations as well as surveys. | |
| - | systematic monitoring and feed-back from the target group were used to re-direct the project when necessary. | |
The pilot project aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of small-scale aquaculture in rural communities. Desk studies were the initial step in a continuous process of problem identification. They identified those factors likely to be crucial to the integration of aquaculture into rural development especially with regard to the acceptance to the target group, socio-cultural and economic relevance, and optimal and sustainable use of natural resources. Table 2 summarizes the findings of the four desk studies (for details see Drewes et al., 1987).
Based on the results of the desk studies, the immediate objectives of the pilot project were identified as:
develop an extension methodology which enables rural farming households to evaluate, select and implement practical fish farming systems using locally available resources;
train extensionists to use the system, and
develop effective means of communications between aquaculture technicians, extensionists and community members.
In addition, the extension methodology to be demonstrated had to ensure:
an appropriate selection of site and target group.
an increase in the target group's own control over fish production and production facilities.
the participation of the target group in all stages of the development process.
that the products generated should be locally consumed with a concomitant improvement in the nutritional well-being of the group, or an increase in real income at the producer level.
the women of the target group should also share significantly in the benefits of the development process.
The pilot project was process oriented and as such was not intended to yield immediate and widespread production results. Nor was this project directly addressing the issue of how to provide extension services. Rather it demonstrated a method which should yield improved rural fish farming results in the long term (Haight, 1989).
Eastern Province, Zambia, provided a good setting to carry out the pilot project. The Department of Fisheries had established the basic infrastructure for fingerling and technology development in Chipata (the Provincial capital). There was a felt need to enable rural communities to produce fish.
For about ten years to the mid-1970's the main aquaculture activity in Eastern Province, Zambia, was stocking and management of the over 200 small irrigation dams. In the late 1970's the culture of fish (mainly the tilapia Oreochromis andersonii) in small ponds was promoted and Chipata became one of the centres of activity under the National Fish Culture Development project. This project developed technical guidelines for rural aquaculture in Zambia. About one hundred rural fish ponds had been built in four of the six districts of Eastern Province. Many of these were abandoned by the mid-1980's and only eleven fish farmers were found to be active at the beginning of the pilot project in March 1987 (Haight, 1989).
| SOCIO-CULTURAL ASPECTS | SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS | BIO-ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS | BIO-TECHNICAL ASPECTS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | Possession certain attitudes of villagers necessary for successful uptake of fish farming, like achievement motivation, rational calculation and a positive attitude toward innovation and risk. Extension can make up if some attribute is ‘missing’. | TARGET GROUP IDENTIFICATION | FACTORS INFLUENCING SITE SELECTION | SELECTION AQUACULTURE SYSTEMS LIMITED BY: | |||
| - | Indicators to locate target group are: farm sizes, annual avg. cash income, health, nutritional and educational status. Unless this information exists or is being generated, targeted rural families are unlikely to be reached. | - | Water resources (quantity, quality, annual distribution) | - | Suitability land and water | ||
| - | Climate | ||||||
| - | Climatic conditions (altitude and/or latitude determines fish species) | - | Fish. Target group consumption preferences and seed availability (ease of breeding and distribution) | ||||
| - | Complementary attitudes required from project staff, like openness to the relativity of assumptions and to the character and importance of social integration at village level. | - | Identification of households by gender; female-headed-households often have lowest standard of living. | - | Topography & soil conditions (slight gradient facilitates excavation and decreases risk of erosion and siltation; clay content necessary) | - | Availability of fertilizer and feed |
| CRUCIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS | SELECTION OF FISH SPECIES | AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS | |||||
| - | To increase likelihood of survival and spontaneous continuation of fish farming, it must be integrated into dominant economic activities. | - | Access to land | - | Indigenous or already established and suitable for pond culture; ease of breeding | - | Degree of intensification of production process was used to identify 3 aquaculture systems: |
| - | Access to necessary farm inputs (fish seed, feed, harvesting equipment). Select technologies without heavily subsidized inputs to ensure sustainability. | - | Temperature preferences and length of production cycle | - | Extensive (stocking & fishing of impoundments; stocking & fertilizing & harvesting of ponds) | ||
| - | Type of feed and fertilizer locally available | ||||||
| - | When introducing fish farming, local power structures are important. Effectiveness of these power structures is reflection of level of solidarity in community (kinship system intact, its control over economic activities e.g. allocation of land). | - | Access to technical knowledge and management skills. On-the-job training and practical exercises is effective but requires practical and communication skills of trainers. Fisheries officers often lack these. | - | Low food conversion ratio and rapid growth | - | Semi-intensive (stocking & fertilizing & feeding & harvesting of ponds) |
| - | Species purity and high genetic variability | - | Intensive (stocking & fertilizing & feeding & harvesting of ponds in association with animals). | ||||
| - | Demand for fish. | INTEGRATION WITH AGRICULTURE | SYSTEM INTENSITY LIMITED BY AVAILABILITY OF: | ||||
| - | Fear of witchcraft very much alive. Individuals showing too much prowess are at risk. One strategy is to move to another rural area in order to progress as farmers. | - | Access to capital. Fish farming is part-time and thus small-scale activity. Small-scale farmer can not raise money for (semi) intensive production systems. Female farmers greater need for finance to meet labour costs. | - | Plant wastes from agriculture and manure from animal husbandry can be used as food and fertilizers for fish. Objective is to increase total fish production without utilizing expensive artificial feeds. | - | Quality and quantity of feed and fertilizer |
| - | Labour | ||||||
| - | Capital | ||||||
| - | Technical and management skills | ||||||
| - | Aquaculture system to be viable and profitable without subsidized inputs. | IMPACT ON/OF AQUACULTURE | In the past the aquaculture system selection has been made primarily on bio-technical issues, ignoring to a great extent other factors important to community development. For sustainable aquaculture all needs of the rural farming community have to be taken into account. | ||||
| - | Down stream impact of ponds through wastes | ||||||
| - | Impact on wild fish populations | ||||||
| - | Introduction of alien fish species | ||||||
| - | Impact on development and spreading of parasites and diseases (tilapias less prone to develop diseases). Waterborne diseases like malaria, bilharzia and sleeping sickness | ||||||
Three areas composed mainly of subsistence farmers were chosen for initial activities because they:
were relatively close to Chipata, facilitating contact;
had physical potential for fish farming;
had different experiences and interests in fish farming. In the first area, two sets of fish ponds had operated for over ten years, but no expansion had taken place. In the second area, fish ponds had been built below an irrigation dam in the late 1970's but were quickly abandoned. In the third area, a youth group was interested to build the community's first fish pond.
During subsequent years, activities were expanded to more communities of Eastern Province.
The initial situation analysis defined the major complexes of problems, established targets, and proposed measures to achieve them. The next step was a situation analysis for planning the project. A checklist of factors to be investigated during the situation analysis at this stage is given in Appendix 1. Information was initially collected from secondary data. Additional information was obtained from key informants as well as from active and potential fish farmers through either individual or group discussions. Observations on fish farming practices and yields complemented the data. The findings are summarized in Table 34.
Provided that fish farming did not require scarce resources at critical times, it had potential to contribute to the precarious cash and animal protein situation. In addition, this new source of income could be used to purchase the seasonal shortfall of energy-providing food. Fish farming systems would thus have to rely on locally available fertilizers and feed, which restricted integrated fish farming to using animals which were already kept in the villages.
A study was carried out to determine the availability and use of on-farm by-products. Although the farmers were sceptical about the possibility to find something in their villages that could be fed to the fish, the following resources were identified (Table 4).
Table 3: Main Findings of Situation Analysis in Eastern Province, Zambia, for Project Planning
| Resources | Shortage of labour during critical times (planting, weeding) is a limiting factor for further expansion of farms. Lack of capital and no access to credit by target group members, limits possibilities to intensify farming activities. |
| Dietary Problems | Seasonally low availability and at the same time high requirement for energy food because of frequent bouts of malaria and diarrhoea. |
| Demand for Fish and Cash | High unmet demand for fish and cash in the rural areas in Eastern Province. |
| Market Places | No organized market places in the rural areas. |
| Transport | Transport to District Capitals is poor. Fish raised in ponds is therefore mainly meant for local consumption. |
| Fish Feed | No compounded fish feed can be bought. Stock feed for poultry is available in Chipata but costs and transport problems makes it unavailable for the small-scale farmer. |
| Extension Services | The agricultural extension services (Training and Visit system) did not effectively reach the small-scale farmers. Only few farmers received advice from contact farmers and late adopters could not take up the practices of the innovators because they faced serious resource constraints. |
| Fish Farming Extension | Fish farming extension had not been carried out in a systematic way and was almost non-existent at the start of the pilot project. Only those farmers who had transport to go to the Government Fish Farm (12 km out of Chipata) and ask for information or could provide transport to take the extension worker to his farm, would receive technical advice. The typical advice offered to the farmer was the ZIBA package, an intensive production system which uses pigs and peking ducks on a 500 m2 pond. |
| Knowledge and Perception of Fish Farming | The knowledge and perception of fish farming was based on what people had seen or heard through previous developments. Since several schools received inputs free of charge to build ponds and because some practising fish farmers also used resources which were not available to small-scale farmers, these ponds were a disincentive to the adoption of fish farming. The image people had of fish farming was beyond their means and adoption was unlikely unless these resources were provided. |
| Cultural Values | The adoption of fish farming does not only depend on natural, technical and economic conditions. The behaviour of a person is closely linked to that of the other members in his/her village or community. Cultural values also determined how people react to fish farming developments. For example, in some cases where solidarity in the community still existed to a great extent, it was not considered appropriate to start fish farming if the village headman did not yet have fish ponds. |
| Communication Channels | There are no newspapers in the rural areas and because of the high price of batteries people can not always listen to the radio. Mostly informal channels of communication are used. Many people meet weekly in church. Other places were hospitals, rural health clinics and the grinding mill for women. The majority of the villagers attended village meetings, but they were held irregularly. |
| The villagers esteemed their headmen and his advisers. Consequently, it was appropriate to contact them through their traditional leaders. | |
| To avoid claims from the extended family and for fear of witchcraft, emerging and commercial farmers often left home areas and started farming in settlement areas. They hardly associate with the villages. Compared to most villagers, they were quite active in party politics and could thus best be contacted through the political leaders in the area. |
Table 4: Identification of Locally Available Resources for Compost or Fish Feed
| CROP | BY-PRODUCT | USE OF BY-PRODUCT | QTY WITHOUT USE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local maize (all households) | - | stalks | - | fertilizer | - | none |
| - | ears | - | lit fire soda | - | none | |
| - | bran | - | brew beer | - | plenty | |
| animal feed | ||||||
| - | beer waste | - | animal feed | - | plenty during winter | |
| Groundnuts (all households) | - | shells | - | none | - | plenty |
| - | leaves | - | soda fertilizer | - | none | |
| Sorghum (most households) | - | stalks | - | building material fertilizer | - | none |
| - | bran | - | brew beer porridge repounded for meal | - | none | |
| - | beer waste | - | animal feed | - | enough during winter | |
| Tubers, roots, beans and pumpkin (most households) | - | leaves | - | relish | - | only during time of abundance |
| Hybrid maize (few households) | - | ears | - | lit fire soda | - | little |
| - | stalks | - | fertilizer | - | none | |
| Cotton (few households) | - | stalks | - | fertilizer | - | none |
| - | leaves | - | fertilizer | - | none | |
| Chickens (most households) | - | manure | - | fertilize vegetable garden | - | enough |
Many households faced maize shortages between January and April. Consequently, the availability of maize bran for fish farming was also decreasing during that time. This period coincided with the time most ponds were filled with water, high temperatures and should thus be used to obtain optimal growth.
Table 5 outlines the main problems, targets and measures derived from this situation analysis.
| TARGETS | OBSTACLES | MEASURES | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adoption of fish farming by small-scale farmers | - | Sites for pond culture limited and dispersed | - | Take limitation of sites into account when evaluating possibilities of fish farming |
| - | Existing fish farming extension service does not reach small-scale farmers | - | Extension services to be reviewed within reach of small-scale farmers | |
| - | Small-scale farmers do not have means to adopt ZIBA package (thus can not copy from other farmers) | - | Offer situation specific fish farming system within reach of small-scale farmers | |
| - | Existing credit services do not reach small-scale farmers | - | Implementation of fish farming using farmers' own resources | |
| - | Go out to rural areas and provide fish farming information for small-scale farmers | |||
| Sustainability of fish farming systems adopted | - | Existing extension service develops dependency farmers (ponds always laid out by DoF5, only use fingerlings supplied by DoF, DoF provides seine net, no harvesting without presence Fish Scout, etc.). Because extension service can not provide these services to all farmers, this strategy impedes long term sustainability | - | Provide fish farmers with basic technical knowledge on fish farming which should enable farmers to take their own decision regarding the system to adopt (pond size, fingerling source, management, harvesting techniques) |
| - | Resources of extension service limited | - | Promote farmer-to-farmer extension | |
| Train existing extension workers to use Problem-Solving Approach | - | Extension workers were taught to deliver standard message | - | Assess extension workers' knowledge and performance |
| - | Extension workers are not familiar with assessment of farmers' potential and constraints and consequently do not evaluate best fish farming system for specific situation | - | Give initially on-the-job training in Problem-Solving Approach; followed by more formal training in method when main weaknesses of extension workers are known | |
| - | Provide them with appropriate extension material | |||
This section summarizes the results of a study carried out during the implementation of the pilot project. It aimed at identifying the reasons for different reactions shown on the introduction of fish farming6. Furthermore, the participation of women in fish farming was reviewed.
One and a half years after the start of the pilot project, different results were obtained in two areas which had received more or less the same extension efforts. Therefore, a study was carried out to identify:
the factors accounting for the difference in the uptake of fish farming in the two areas, and
the main elements differentiating adopters of fish farming from those not interested.
Data were gathered through structured interviews with key informants and elders and interviews with farmers with the help of questionnaires. Three different questionnaires were designed for farmers. One was for those who had expressed interest and started the construction of an individual pond. Another one was for those who preferred to have a communal pond and, the third one was for those who did not show any interest in fish farming. For the first two questionnaires, a set of questions was included for those who had abandoned pond construction. A stratified sample took the percentage of female headed households into account. A total of 139 interviews were carried out; 24% of the respondents were female. Fourteen group interviews were held with the elders in the village, eight with men and six with women. In addition, eight key informants were interviewed.
Table 6 summarizes the results of these studies.
Table 6: Main Findings of Studies Carried Out During the Implementation Phase
| Primary reasons accounting for the difference in uptake of fish farming | |
|---|---|
| Demand for fish farming | The two areas had a different demand for fish farming. The absence of a dam or streams from which fish could be caught for home consumption influenced the perceived need for animal protein. In addition, lack of opportunities to earn cash from farming (no credit and transport facilities for the required inputs in that area) encouraged people to diversify their income earning activities. Fish farming was thus mainly considered as a source of income. |
| Social category | Fish farming was not limited to a certain social category within the population. Mainly households with limited resources adopted fish farming because they were often not in a position to engage in cash crop farming on a scale large enough to support the family. They thus had to look for other activities to supplement their household's budget but did not demand scarce resources. |
| Social system | It was easier for members of a loose-knit social system7 to adopt fish farming. The rules and norms of who is supposed to take up a new activity first are not as strong as in a close-knit system. Those who want to start fish farming can do so without endangering their position. |
| Participation of women in fish farming | |
| Access to information on fish farming | Both men and women had access to information on fish farming and their knowledge on fish farming was the same. |
| Women's participation in fish farming | Women and children do participate. The digging of a fish pond was seen as a man's job, although there were examples that women also did it. Often women helped in transporting the excavated dirt. In many cases women and children were feeding the fish. The motivation of the women to feed the fish was highly dependent upon the remuneration they received. |
| Female fish farmers | Although men and women had the same knowledge on fish farming, this has not led to women becoming owners of fish ponds. Fish farming appeared to be seen as a male activity. In addition, it was found that not only sex but also age was an important factor for the adoption of fish farming. None of the households without a man under 50 years old had constructed a fish pond. This was a constraint for the female-headed-households of which the majority (96%) did not have adult sons. |
Three possible explanations were given why women had not yet taken up fish farming (van der Mheen-Sluijer, 1990):
attempts had been made to integrate fish farming into the traditional social structures with the result that it has been integrated in households' existing division of labour;
women, and especially from female-headed households, cannot free enough labour for the construction of a pond;
in some cases prevailing norms may prevent women from being innovators.
To enable field staff to examine possible benefits of fish farming for women and possibly stimulate women to take up fish farming, guidelines to integrate gender issues in fish farming were developed. One of the rules of thumb was to relate the benefits of fish farming to their costs in terms of time and money for both men and women. Then it should be evaluated whether:
a household fish pond contributes (either positively or, if production factors had a better alternative, negatively) to the household's standard of living;
women would prefer to have their own fish ponds;
fish farming is compatible with women's own activities.
Different reactions of women were obtained. Some wanted to have their own fish ponds, like they have their own fields. The reason was that although they regularly feed the fish, the husbands did not allow them to take fish for relish or take part in the decision on what to do with the proceeds of the pond. Other women said that they always worked hand in hand with their husband. They could take fish for home consumption whenever they wanted, and they were selling the fish upon a major harvest. They decided together with the husband on what to buy from the money obtained, or sometimes the husband left it up to the wife to decide what to do with the income.
No general conclusion on the benefit of fish farming to women can thus be drawn. Nevertheless, a suggestion made by the women is valid in all situations namely, to include women as much as possible in the extension work (meetings, farm visits). The reasons put forward were:
if women are not included right from the start when fish farming is introduced, it is often perceived as a male activity;
women often participate in fish farming. Therefore, they need to know what has been said during extension visits/meetings. Men do not always give them the full information on what has been discussed, or sometimes do not bother at all to inform them.
Only a few basic aspects of acquiring information for a situation analysis are discussed here. More details can be found in textbooks8.
Secondary sources (mainly reports written by Government Departments) provided enough information on climate (i.e. temperatures, rainfall) soils, and major crops to create a profile of farming conditions. Results of a population census were used to highlight the most important demographic issues in the Province and District. Reports from Non Governmental Organizations and International Organizations working in the same District were used to create a simple socio-economic profile of farmers.
Additional information was obtained from key informants and elders through discussions either on individual or group basis. However, care has to be taken when identifying informants. In the first instance, the better educated, better-off and more powerful persons in the community (with presumably extensive knowledge of their own communities and fellow citizens) were chosen as informants. Examples are: teachers, extension agents, nurses in rural health clinics, local politicians. It appeared that many of these informants were in fact ‘outsiders’ to the communities and could as such not give much detailed information on social relations within the villages and people's priorities. On the other hand, elders and especially headmen, liked to give a harmonious picture of their village which also introduced biases. It is thus important that efforts are made to select representatives of all groups within the communities.
Free ranging discussions or interviews against a checklist with a small sample of farmers brought out issues otherwise not covered.
In certain situations, like in the case of different reactions shown to the introduction of fish farming in two areas, the information obtained using informal methods, did not reveal all explanatory factors. A survey was then considered appropriate.
6For details, see van der Mheen-Sluijer, 1991
