Once the extension message had been decided upon, appropriate ways of providing the information to the target groups had to be found.
| Description | Extension methods comprise the communication techniques between extension workers and target groups. | |
| Purpose | To facilitate farmers' decisions whether or not and how to adopt fish farming. | |
| Method | The choice of any of the methods available will depend on: | |
| - | the extension agents' goals, | |
| - | the circumstances in which they work, | |
| - | the type and volume of information to be delivered, | |
| - | the capacity of the extension service, | |
| - | the number of people addressed, and | |
| - | the problems to be solved. | |
| Generally speaking, mass media help extension agents to reach large numbers of farmers simultaneously. However, there is little opportunity for these farmers to interact among themselves or to provide feedback to the extension agents. Group methods reach fewer farmers but offer more opportunities for interaction and feedback. Individual extension consists mainly of a dialogue between extension agent and farmer. | ||
| The extension agents must also decide on how they will use these different methods (e.g. lecture type or participatory approach, see also chapter 6.1) | ||
The pilot project used various extension methods. Since rural farmers usually do not ask for information or may not be aware that they have sufficient resources to take up fish farming, the initial approach to the community had to be active (see also Section 3.2). Group extension was an important method for arousing awareness and for facilitating the decision process to adopt fish farming. Individual extension complemented the group methods. After having given as many people as possible the basic information on fish farming, only those who had shown interest were followed-up with on-farm visits.
Another extension method which was used by the Department of Fisheries to contact interested farmers was the agricultural shows. They took place yearly at District and Province level. The Department of Fisheries always participated at the Provincial show. They had an information stand (including a slide show, information leaflets and posters with explanations on fish farming), a demonstration pond and demonstrations of fish smoking. Often fresh and smoked fish was sold during the show. However, it was more likely for the project's target group to visit the District Agricultural Shows. Although neither the Department nor the pilot project exhibited at these shows, they did assist a youth club which wanted to demonstrate fish farming. The club members constructed a small pond at the show ground, including a compost crib. The pilot project assisted them to transport fish from their pond to the demonstration pond. Several posters were lent to them for their information stand. The members of the youth club informed the visitors about fish farming.
A few primary schools in Eastern Province had included fish ponds in their production unit with the help of donor funded projects. The project studied the possibility to use rural schools in fish farming extension. However, to make them a useful tool would have required the development of a curriculum for the different grades, demonstrations of practical sessions and the training of teachers in fish farming. This would have demanded a considerable amount of time and it was questionable whether it would have been an effective way of reaching the target group. Therefore, it was decided that extension through rural schools was not a priority during the first phase of the pilot project.
The advantages and disadvantages of the different extension methods which were within the possibilities of the project, are summarized in table 8.
Table 8: Advantages and Disadvantages of Extension Methods Available to the Project
| GROUP EXTENSION | INDIVIDUAL EXTENSION | AGRICULTURAL SHOWS | RURAL SCHOOLS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advantages: | Advantages: | Advantages: | Advantages: | ||||
| - | it avoids that a few powerful people in the community monopolize the information; | - | it was easier to communicate technical matters. E.g. the pro's and cons of a specific site could be discussed, accordingly review the basic elements of site selection; | - | it stimulates a lot of interest amongst farmers. | - | the majority of the school children in the rural areas will become farmers. Pupils who have learned about fish farming may apply this knowledge as soon as they become independent farmers; |
| - | a large number of people were reached, even though the material and staffing provision of the extension services was limited; | ||||||
| - | time savings compared with individual extension work; | - | information was tailored to the situation of the farmers' household. They could work out a fish farming system together which suited the farmers' specific situation. | - | pupils can accelerate the diffusion of fish farming if they pass on the received information. | ||
| - | extension costs per head of the target group were reduced; | ||||||
| - | techniques of group dynamics could be used to accelerate the spread of information and increase the willingness of the farming households to make decisions. Members of the group could weigh the advantages and disadvantages of fish farming in their area. After the meeting they could go back to other attendants to seek clarifications or discuss certain aspects. | ||||||
| Disadvantages: | Disadvantages: | Disadvantages: | Disadvantages: | ||||
| - | it was not the best way of communicating complex subject matters (e.g. site selection); | - | costs are high in terms of staff time and travel; | - | not known to what extent the pilot project's target group was reached with these Provincial shows. Transport to the Provencal capital and accommodation might prevent the target group from visiting the show. | The school ponds in the pilot project areas did not have this intended effect. Reasons identified were: | |
| - | it made increased demands on the methodological and organisational skills of the extension workers: | - | reaches only small proportion of the target group; | - | pupils dug the ponds, but did not know what they were meant for; | ||
| * village leaders were asked to invite participants. They had to be advised on who to select in order to obtain a fair representation of the pilot project's target groups (especially the participation of women had to be emphasized); * to lead group discussions successfully required a special skill. Extension workers had to provide information in such a way that all participants could follow him/her and were motivated to discuss and contribute their own experiences (as opposed to the delivery of a speech). In addition, they had to allow the group itself to make the decisions. Extension workers often do not have the skill or experience to lead group discussions in a participatory way. This was thus an important part of their training (see Chapter 7); * he/she had to encourage all participants to take part in the discussions. Equally he/she had to prevent domination of the discussion by pompous talkers and keep to the agenda; * use of slides made it more attractive and effective, but called for expertise on the part of the extension worker in handling the media (see also Chapter 6.1). | - | difficult for supervisor to control information given to the farmer by extension agent; | - | fish farming was not integrated in the curriculum and was thus not part of their education; | |||
| - | does not promote collaboration between farmers. E.g. a farmer does not realize that he has the same problem as his neighbours, and therefore he does not seek their assistance to solve the problem together. | - | the school ponds were managed by a worker, employed by the school. The children were not involved in practical sessions of pond management; | ||||
| - | parents were not involved or informed about the programme. Only teachers were contacted, thus parents felt that their children were used as cheap labour; | ||||||
| - | pupils did not transfer the information to their parents. They hardly ever talked about the fish ponds, except when they had assisted in pond cleaning; | ||||||
| - | the harvested fish was usually shared amongst the teachers. Neither pupils nor surrounding communities saw the end result of the fish farming activities; | ||||||
| - | no link was made between the activities of the school and people's own activities. They looked upon the school ponds as a separate project specifically set up for the school for academic reasons. | ||||||
The first contact with a community was made through the traditional leadership, the village headman. The topic of fish farming was introduced in terms of what it is and how it can benefit the household. If interest was shown, an appointment was made for a village meeting. These meetings and follow-up slide shows were used to inform a large number of people on fish farming, a relatively new idea in most areas. The pilot project did not form special groups for fish farming. Meetings and slide shows were held on village level. Traditional leaders were asked to invite village members.
Informal discussions with individual farmers and groups continued after the slide show. Appointments were made with interested farmers to visit potential fish pond sites. During follow-up visits to farmers' sites, a dialogue was established where farmers were assisted to make decisions concerning use and management of land, water, labour, fertilizers, and feeds in fish culture. Although the topics discussed during the farm visits differed, the extension talks usually followed the same ‘format’. Farmers were asked to give information about the resources they were willing to divert to fish farming, their aims (number and size of ponds, intensity), upon which a fish farming system was worked out together. When problems arose, during pond construction or fish production, the causes as well as possible solutions were identified by the farmer with assistance from the extension worker. For example, it was not possible for the extension worker to see the sites during both dry and rainy season. Therefore, the water situation was always judged from the farmers' comments. After explaining the water requirements as well as the advantages and inconveniences of a site, the final decision on where and how to build a pond was left to the farmers. Hence, farmers themselves felt responsible in case they had misjudged the water situation. They knew the cause of the problem and consequently could rectify the problem themselves.
Table 9 summarizes the combination of communication channels used by the pilot project.
When fish farming took off, it was difficult to contact all practising and intending fish farmers at every field visit to a certain area. At that time, interested fish farmers emerged and started to function as motivators. They provided a contact between other farmers and the pilot project. They knew the farmers who were interested to take-up fish farming as well as the progress of the starting and practising farmers. In consultation with the motivator, a programme of farm visits was established.
The motivators were not selected by the pilot project for this purpose. They were often farmers who were respected by others, and were willing to share their knowledge on fish farming with others. Hence, many farmers expressed their interest in fish farming to them. After a while, it was realized that the pilot project used more and more of these informed fish farmers. It was then decided to formalize their role.
Table 9: Combination of Communication Channels used by the Project to reach Small-Scale Farmers
| Communication Channel | Step in the Extension Process |
|---|---|
| Traditional leaders | First contact with community |
| Village meeting | Introduction of fish farming |
| Slide show | Visualize fish farming and discuss general issues concerning fish farming; create mutual background of information regarding opportunities and constraints of target group when adopting fish farming. |
| Farm visits | Assist farmers to take decisions concerning use and management of their resources |
| Motivators | Provide contact between other farmers and the project and give advisory support to late adopters |
| Pamphlets | Give specific information about pond construction techniques, fish species, stocking, fertilizing and feeding, and harvesting. |
When the Department of Fisheries carried out a one-week training course for fish farmers, several motivators were invited to attend the course as well. Because of their better knowledge on fish farming and because of the rapid expansion of the number of fish farmers (see Chapter 8.1) they also started to provide advisory support to late adopters.
Since the motivators carry out all this work on a voluntary basis (they do not receive any financial or material support), it is obvious that they can not be overloaded with work. For each motivator a balance had to be found between the amount of time he was willing to spend on extension and the number of farmers he could assist.
