8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

During most of the duration of the pilot project, monitoring of extension efforts, pond performance, etc. took place on an ad hoc basis as these activities evolved. No data requirements for monitoring and evaluation had been decided in advance, nor how, when and who was going to collect these data.

Monthly descriptive reports were prepared on services provided to communities. They gave information on stocking and harvesting practices, disposal of fish, number of field visits, slide shows and other important issues discussed during field visits, e.g. harvesting methods. Based on these experiences, the pilot project formalized a monitoring process using eight monitoring forms. The systematic monitoring had to be seen in the light of the development of an extension methodology and was thus more comprehensive than a monitoring system of a regular fish farming extension service. Its objective was to measure the progress of fish farmers and evaluate:

• the importance of particular factors in aquaculture uptake;

• which variables determine intensity of management;

• the progress (relative and absolute) of individuals and groups of farmers over time;

• the reasons for differences in performance among farmers practising similar management.

A monitoring form had been made on each of the four stages in fish farming: site selection, pond construction, management and harvesting. In addition, for each farmer a form on his/her characteristics as well as one on his/her knowledge of fish farming was included. For those who abandoned fish farming or had abandoned the idea of starting after they had first shown interest, a separate form was included.

It was time consuming to keep up with this monitoring system and it seemed only feasible when extra staff was available. When the Department of Fisheries took over the pilot project, staff was limited and this monitoring system was abandoned. However, the activity reports continued to be written on a monthly basis. Moreover, notebooks were given to 80 farmers in which they recorded figures concerning stocking, harvesting (including intermittent harvesting), and notes and recommendations given by the extension worker.

Because the monitoring did not cover all aspects, it was suggested to carry out a review of the activities and results after five years of pilot project operations in 1992. The review was quite extensive and tried to examine the extent to which targets had been attained. Adoption rates and a comparison of costs and benefits were only part of the review. Social costs and benefits also had to be assessed, especially in the case of an extension service for small-scale farmers in difficult circumstances. The review thus placed economic and non-economic aims, quantitative and qualitative results side by side. It has to be emphasized that the development of extension methodologies implies that failure situations are seen as learning situations. It may show that false assumptions have been made or that planning was unrealistic. It was important that this was recognized and that the necessary changes were taken place.

The review was carried out by the Provincial Fish Culturist¹⁰ and an anthropologist recruited by FAO. They were both responsible for the implementation of the pilot project at that stage. The aspects covered as well as the main findings of the review are described below and summarized in Tables 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16.

8.1 Target Group Attainment

The review of the target group attainment concentrated on three issues: the diffusion of fish farming and, whether the target group in general and women in particular had been reached by the various extension methods (see Table 10 for details).

Often the adoption rates were hard to assess because the proportion of the population with suitable sites could not be determined. Village land is usually communally owned but this does not necessarily mean that everyone has access to it. There may be restrictions, e.g. women nowadays do not own land, the headman's next of kin may have first choice, etc. However, there were indications that in areas with suitable soil and sufficient land the adoption rates were high. In one village with 67 households, 28 households (42%) had built 75 ponds in the year following the introduction of fish farming.

Table 10: Subject for Review: Target Group Attainment

N.B. Target group (beneficiaries) is more than the fish farmers (participants) only

Figure 5 represents the diffusion of fish farming in Eastern Province from July 1987, the start of the pilot project.

Figure 5: Diffusion of Fish Farming in Eastern Province

A study carried out in 1989 reviewed among other things whether the people who took up fish farming were representative of the target population. It appeared that all fish farmers were men. Pond construction was perceived a tedious job which had to be carried out by men under 50 years of age. Furthermore, it showed that especially people with limited means of production had taken up fish farming. The non-adopters earned more money from farming than those households which had taken up fish farming, while their consumption needs were equal. Therefore, the adopters had a higher unmet demand for cash and were looking for activities to supplement their household's budget (van der Mheen-Sluijer, 1991).

During the review knowledgeable people in the villages were asked to stratify all households in the villages in three categories, the richer, middle and poorer class. They were then asked to divide the households which adopted fish farming over these three categories. It revealed that recently more relatively better-off farmers adopted fish farming. Although, an important part of the target group also started (see Table 11).

Table 11: Household Characteristics per Wealth Stratum

There is a contradiction between the available resources and constraints experienced for households falling in the richer category. A possible explanation is that farmers did have the resources but did not want to divert them into fish farming because other activities had priority.

In general, all categories had access to information on fish farming. The slide show and group meetings were attended by all groups. However, it seems that the target group had less access to the pamphlet.

Although not many women were owners of fish ponds (4 individual female fish farmers and 7 women's clubs in September 1992), the majority did assist their husbands in fish farming. The nature of their participation varied from construction to feeding & manuring, slashing, cropping and refilling the pond with water.

8.2 Participation of Target Group

The level of target group participation during the three main stages of fish farming adoption was reviewed. Table 12 gives the details on the criteria used, the indicators of target attainment and the data collection methods.

In spite of women's contribution to fish farming, they did not always take part in the decisions regarding the activity. It was found that 75% of the decisions were taken by the male fish farmer alone, 22% were taken jointly with the wife (wives) and 3% was taken by the wife alone (see Table 13). When spouses were interviewed separately, they agreed on who had taken the decisions with regard to fish farming.

Table 12: Subject for Review: Participation of Target Group in All Stages

Of the farmers interviewed, 5% were not married while 21% had married more than one wife. Joint decisions were more common in monogamous marriages (27% of all decisions versus 10%), while the wives in polygamous marriages were slightly more independent in decision making (7% versus 2%). However, the differences were not significant.

Table 13: Decision Making Pattern for Fish Farming (n=39)

¹¹ The total of the answers regarding harvesting and disposal of fish does not equal 100% because not all fish ponds had been harvested.

In the cases where the extension worker did not influence the decision regarding the number of fingerlings to stock, the farmer bought them from another fish farmer. If a fish farmer bought fingerlings from a government fish farm, the extension worker recommended how many to buy.

The actual source of fingerlings was a government fish farm in 46% of the cases, while 54% of the fish farmers purchased them from other fish farmers. One of the conditions for long-term sustainability of rural fish farming is reducing dependence on government fish farms for the supply of fingerling. However, when farmers were asked about their future source of fingerlings, it revealed that another element was measured. Because several farmers did receive fingerlings from the Department of Fisheries (at a price of ZK 100/kg which is approximately ZK 0.5/fingerling compared to ZK 10/piece charged by other fish farmers, prices June 1992) they saw it as the Department's duty to provide everyone with the relatively cheap fingerlings. Nevertheless, it appeared that there is already a system where fingerlings are sold between farmers.

The same phenomenon of incorrect assessment occurred when ‘the independence of the extension service’ was used as an indicator to measure self-reliance. The majority (83%) of the farmers felt that they needed assistance, mainly in the form of loans, from the Department of Fisheries in case they wanted to expand their fish farming activities. The government has for many years provided farmers with agricultural production incentives including provision of subsidized seeds and fertilizers on a credit basis. It was often difficult for the banks to recover the loan. Thus in practice, credit meant a gift to the farmers. Obviously, farmers were keen to get loans, but it does not mean that they can not adopt or expand fish farming without it. The recent development of fish farming in Eastern Province has taken place without any financial assistance or lending of equipment to farmers.

8.3 Rise in Living Standards of Target Group

In order to determine whether families who adopted fish farming did improve their standard of living, three aspects were reviewed: an increase in income, an improved nutritional well-being, and whether the uptake of fish farming had positive social effects (see Table 14 for the details).

Table 14: Subject for Review: Rise in Living Standards of Target Group

Households have increased their income through fish farming. The productivity of the ponds built during the first phase of the pilot project¹² has been good, i.e. an average of 27.8 kg/are/year. An important part of this fish was harvested and consumed on a regular basis by the household. In addition, fish was sold after a major harvest. This revenue was a valuable contribution to most household budgets. When comparing the cash income derived from fish farming after a culture period of 6.5 months (ZK 587 = US $36.68; prices 1989) with the average monthly income of farmers in Eastern Province (varying from ZK 56 to ZK 222 = US $7 - US$27.75; prices 1986)¹³ its importance for the farming households is evident.

Figure 6 demonstrates that the financial returns were substantial compared to its cash inputs. No opportunity costs were computed since households only adopted fish farming if they could spare the required resources. Calculations excluding opportunity costs were thus a better reflection of a fish farmer's decision process.

Figure 6: Inputs and Outputs for a Typical Production Cycle

It is thus not astonishing that ‘the additional source of cash income’ was seen as the most important advantage of fish farming by the majority of fish farmers. Moreover, fish was used as payment for seasonal labourers. In Zambia, where prices went up regularly and several commodities were scarce, many seasonal workers prefered to be paid in kind rather than cash. This practice, as well as the fish sales, contributed to the distribution of fish within the community. Therefore, many non-fish farmers also felt they had benefitted from the fish farming developments in their area.

No pattern was found for the timing of fish sales. Farmers usually have cash from September until November, while most of their expenses occur in December up to February. However, the receipts from fish farming were rarely used as an investment in agriculture. The money was rather used for household expenditures. In 46% of the cases, the fish farmer was the first to use the earnings. The reasons for him being the first recipient were that he was the pond owner, he wanted to use money to buy more fingerlings or simply because he was the head of the household. Women and children were the first users in 42.5% of the cases. The money was often spent on household items, to pay for the grinding mill or school requirements. In case other people assisted in pond construction they were given a share as well.

Fish farmers felt that other people in their area appreciated that they have started fish farming. The most important reason was that they produce relish which others could buy. They also sensed that they received more respect after taking up a new activity and advising others on how to raise fish. Through the additional revenue they could afford to buy more things which also adds to their status in the community.

It is remarkable that farmers did not express themselves regarding the distribution of money or fish in case they had not harvested yet. But, they all had an opinion on whether others appreciated their fish farming activities. Since the majority (97%) thought that their efforts were acknowledged, it appeared that at this stage, just the ownership of a fish pond was already important regardless of its production. Maybe at a later stage when fish farming is seen as a regular activity, the fish production may play a more important role.

The contribution of fish to the household food security was measured through the changes in the frequency of fish consumption, seasonal variation of fish consumption as well as its distribution within the household.

The majority of the households never ate fish or only rarely. The families with ponds now eat fish three to four times a month, and some even said ‘we eat fish any time we feel like’. The (non) availability of other sources of animal protein did not affect the frequency of fish consumption. Vegetables were still the most important source of relish foods and any additional source of meat replaces the vegetables.

Women cook and distribute the food, therefore they hold an important position regarding the apportionment of fish. According to the fish farmers, children were given fish first because they need the protein to grow well and they often assisted in feeding the fish. Those few (15%) fish farmers who said that they had received the biggest share, felt that it was their right as the head of the household.

8.4 Communication with Target Group

The review of the communication between extensionists and community members focused on five major issues: how the extension aids have been used and their effectiveness, behaviour of the various groups of advisers, density of contacts between advisers and community members, whether extension work had been correctly timed, and the support and supervision fish scouts and fish farming motivators received from their superiors (see Table 15 for details).

Table 15: Subject for Review: Effective Means of Communication between Fish Farming Technicians/Extensionists and Community Members

¹⁴ Note that extension pamphlets were mainly given to starting fish farmers while the slides how was used to inform all community members about fish farming.

¹⁵ Content is the subject matter, i.e. it describes how the extensionist explains fish farming topics to the farmer (= the message received by the fish farmer).

The review revealed the importance of farmer-to-farmer extension (see Figure 7). With the increasing number of fish farmers and the constraints faced by the extension service, this informal type of extension was becoming more and more important. As for the transfer of knowledge between the different types of advisers and the farming households, it was found that fish scouts, motivators and other fish farmers were equally efficient in conveying the information; i.e. the farmers' scores on fish farming knowledge¹⁶ were the same, regardless the source of advice. In general, they obtained two thirds of the highest possible score. Only the farmers who received advice from the aquaculturist or agricultural extension workers scored higher. However, in one area where detailed monitoring took place, the average pond area went down from 209 m² (std. 168) to 35 m² (std. 14) in the case where the farmers had not received any technical advice from the Department of Fisheries. No explanation for this phenomenon was found other than that farmers copy from each other, including the pond size.

Figure 7: Source of Fish Farming Advice (n = 42)

In fact farmers who have received advice from the same motivator (but live in different villages) scored differently on the items, e.g. some did have good compost cribs while others did not have sufficient knowledge about composting. The results differed per area. In some areas pond construction was well done, but no-one had a compost crib in the pond. In other areas pond construction was unsatisfactory. Farmers may simply copy from others in the village and not necessarily know why things are done in a certain way. This implies that if the first fish farmers adopt ‘wrong’ practices, the others are likely to follow their example. Monitoring is thus important to correct these mistakes early on.

All advisers made an average of two visits to each fish farmer. The duration of the visits depended on the type of adviser. Practising fish farmers usually came for a social visit of one to two hours during which fish farming matters were reviewed with the new fish farmer. Fish scouts generally only came to discuss fish farming and thus they did not stay as long.

Most farmers (95%) found the timing of the extension visits convenient, i.e. they had time to discuss and the technical advice came at the right moment. In the case of informal farmer-to-farmer extension, appointments were not always made. They just happened to meet and it was one of the issues they discussed. There were also a few occasions where nobody visited the fish farmer's site, farmers talked about it somewhere else and on the basis of that discussion the person started to construct a pond (it is not known whether the farmer had actually seen a fish pond before taking it up).

According to the fish farmers, the advisers kept to planned and announced dates and times. Only 3 out of a total of 100 farm visits had been cancelled. However, the discussions with personnel of the extension service revealed that they found it difficult to meet the farmers at the planned time. Unreliability of transport was the major constraint, followed by organisational problems; fish scouts had to report first to their supervisors which delayed their schedule and in some cases their daily schedule was changed. On the other hand, farmers were often engaged in other activities and were thus not always on time either. The explanation for the contradictory views between extension service personnel and farmers in this matter is that the majority of the fish farmers (93%) interviewed had received advice from motivators or other fish farmers. Apparently, they have less problems in keeping their appointments.

8.5 Performance of Extensionists

In order to assess whether the various categories of fish farming advisers were able to use the methodology effectively, the quantity and quality of their training was reviewed as well as their communication with others and the adoption results of the various categories of advisers (see Table 16 for more details).

In general, the fish scouts were found to be interested in their work and spent a considerable amount of time in the field. However, the transformation from delivering a ‘standard package’ to the farmers to a problem-solving approach has not always been easy for them. Moreover, fish farming was a side activity for the majority of the households. Thus households were not necessarily interested to optimize fish production if it meant that they would have to invest too many of their scarce resources. In addition, a long period may elapse between the first contact, start of pond construction and the stocking of the pond. It was quite demanding for extension workers to appreciate this situation.

The performance of the motivators has been quite good considering that they were not paid or given anything. Many households have learnt about fish farming through the motivators. As mentioned in chapter 5.2, the selection of motivators came more or less ‘naturally’. No special criteria were developed to choose motivators. Several groups were asked how they perceived the motivator(s) working in their area, and which criteria they would use if they had to select them. The results are given in table 17.

Table 16: Subject for Review: Training of Extensionists to use the Methodology

Table 17: Actual and Desired Characteristics of Motivators

On the whole, the ‘ideal’ qualities coincide with the perceived characteristics of the motivators. The fish farmers apparently agree with the ‘natural choice’ of the motivators, although a few respondents were of the opinion that the communities should vote for the motivators.

Both fish scouts and motivators would appreciate follow-up from the supervisors and believe that the actual supervision is inadequate. Regular meetings between the supervisors and fish scouts to discuss the problems they encounter in extension and to work out possible solutions and a detailed programme, would be welcomed by the fish scouts and motivators. Although the supervisors did realize the problems the fish scouts encounter in the field, the lack (or disturbance) of their daily/weekly programmes was not fully perceived. Similarly, the supervisors felt that the motivators' weakness was of a technical nature (e.g. pond construction is not always fully mastered), while the motivators mentioned the lack of support (follow-up and transport for fingerlings) as their major problem.

The pilot project has merely concentrated on the development of an extension methodology to reach small-scale farmers. The local aquaculturist played an important role in this development process and he was thus fully capable to implement this approach. However, when the approach was applied on a larger scale, the fish scouts started to play a crucial role. The participatory approach used by the project relied heavily on the motivation and ingenuity of the fish scouts. Since they were facing difficulties which hampered their work performance, it was risky to place too much responsibility on them.

Another weakness was that no time was allocated for the organization of fish farming extension. This became increasingly clear when many households took up fish farming and the methodology had to be applied on a larger scale. The programming of extension, follow-up and monitoring of fish scouts and motivators is essential in the implementation of and for the quality of the approach.

Moreover, the roles of the different parties involved in fish farming extension may have to be redefined. The extension service has to contend with staffing and transport shortages, a small budget for operating expenses, etc. Considering the increasing interest in fish farming and the concern for long-term sustainability, it is debatable whether the extension service should continue to try to distribute fingerlings¹⁷ and proceed with their ad hoc extension coverage. The facts indicate that only a minority of the fish farmers received advice through the ‘official channels’. It would thus be better to support the existing informal extension efforts and guarantee its quality. This could be done through systematically training and monitoring of motivators. In areas where fish farming has not yet taken off, the extension workers could concentrate on arousing the awareness of farmers.

¹⁰ At the start of the pilot project he was the Aquaculturist of the Department of Fisheries and assigned full-time to the project.

¹² The recently built ponds have not been harvested yet.

¹³ For details see Celis and Bliven, 1987.

¹⁶ Scores were given on nine items: soil, compaction of dikes, slopes dikes, pond depth, water level, screens, compost crib, crib full, signs of feeding.

¹⁷ The Department of Fisheries could not cope with the increasing demand of fingerlings. Its irregular supply has created animosity between fish farmers.