7. STANDARD OF LIVING OF FISHERS COMPARED TO NON-FISHERS

When comparing the standard of living of the fishers with the non-fishing households, the household sizes and composition had to be taken into account (see Table 15) as these may determine a household's activities and relative well-being. Although the anglers were relatively young, the composition of the household they were members of was comparable to those of the other fisher categories. The main difference was that the anglers were often dependants while the other fishers were heads or spouses of heads of households.

Table 15: Demographic characteristics of the different household categories (H.H .= Household)

The household size of the net fishers was large but many of its members were in the productive age group. Therefore, their dependency ratios⁷ together with those of the anglers, were low compared to the other household categories. The dependency ratios for the non-fishers were relatively high although the difference with the other four categories was not significant. Female-headed households as well as households headed by elderly people were over represented in this group. These households often had fewer people in the productive age group while they still had the same number of children to look after. The resulting time and labour constraint partly explained their household's lack of interest in taking up fishing.

Table 16: Primary sources of income (% of Respondents)

All fishers had other income generating activities. For the majority, farming was the major source of income, sometimes supplemented by money derived from fishing (see Table 16). Generally it was the net fishers who considered fishing as an important economic activity. Twenty two percent of them mainly relied on fishing for their income, while 38.5% ranked it as their next most important source of income.

Calculations concerning significant differences in primary sources of income between the five categories of households were made. While net fishers obtained an income from fishing, many households in the other fishing groups made a living from vegetable gardening. The fishers employing “other gear” derived relatively little income from farming. On the other hand, there was a high percentage of this category whose primary source of income was from piecework. It is difficult to give a satisfactory explanation for this fact. The standard of living for this group did not differ considerably from that of the trap fishers, anglers and non-fishers (which can thus not explain the high incidence of working for others). Neither did the household composition differ significantly from the other categories.

Considering the figures in Table 16, it is understandable that most fishers gave priority to fanning rather than fishing when there were labour constraints. Apart from the net fishers in Makungwa, all fishers fished on a part-time basis.

Table 17: Percentage of households owning certain items

A comparison was made for certain indicators of prosperity between households of different categories (see Table 17). Although animal husbandry was not mentioned as an important source of income, the majority of households in all categories did keep animals. Apparently it was more seen as an investment than a commodity to trade. The net fishers in Makungwa and Kangombe kept more cows and goats than the other households. While it was anticipated that the trap fishers would have more animals than the anglers and non-fishers (because of their age and status in the community) this only held true for Kangombe dam and to a lesser extent for Chadewa dam.

A resource index, combining all these indicators of prosperity, was developed. The results for the five target groups are also reproduced in Table 17 as a percentage of the total possible score (29), The median rather than the average scores were given because of the high variation in answers. The differences in scores for the resource index were significant for all three dams. The non-fishers and the anglers were the poorer groups in the community while the net fishers were relatively prosperous.

Figure 9: Percentage of respondents reporting lack of nshima during certain months of the year, by gear

Figure 10: Percentage of respondents reporting lack of animal protein during certain months of the year, by gear

The household food security for the different categories was measured by the availability of the staple food nshima (Figure 9), a thick porridge made of maize meal, as well as the abundance of animal protein (Figure 10).

The hungry season, February, hit all household categories equally. It was remarkable that net fishers experienced a higher lack of the staple food (see Table 18), especially since they were relatively well-off and they were also active in fanning. It is possible that they concentrated more on the cultivation of cash crops and thereby neglected food crops, which is a common feature in Zambia.

An index⁸, combining the availability of the staple food and animal protein, was developed. The results are given in Table 18 in percentages of the total possible score (24). The results were significantly different between categories at all dams.

Table 18: Average number of months per year households lack animal protein and nshima

During the rainy season (December until April), the non-fishers felt a higher lack of animal protein than all the other categories of fishers. The main contributions to animal protein were fish, meat and eggs. No significant differences were found between the five categories with regard to the consumption of meat and eggs during the rainy season (see Table 19). The difference in consumption of animal protein was determined by the consumption of fish. Obviously the non-fishers had less access to fish and consequently experienced a higher lack of animal protein. The fact that the fish catches were available at the time when there was a shortage of animal protein in the area is an important factor to recognise in all types of reservoir fisheries. However, it was surprising that fishers perceived a high lack of animal protein during the month of February (also for those fishers who mainly fished during the rainy season). It is possible that this lack was related to the shortage of the staple food (if there is no nshima, the accompanying relish is not eaten). Another possibility is that a relatively large portion of the fish is being sold during that period in order to pay for the labour needed for weeding the crops, purchase of fertilizer or school fees and uniforms for the children.

Table 19: Consumption of meat, fish and eggs for the different household categories (in number of times per month)

During the dry season the non-fishers did not only consume less fish, they also ate less meat and less eggs than the other household categories. The household food security for this group was thus more precarious than for the other groups.

It was striking that apparently the fish catches did not alleviate problems of animal protein in Kangombe like it did in the other areas (see Table 18). Even net fishers felt they lacked animal protein during 4 months of the year. There are several possible explanations for this fact:

• the net fishers here did not fish as often as those in other dams because they gave priority to farming;

• the trap fishery, which was not very time consuming, was not affected by this labour and time constraint;

• there were indications that the dam was overfished (fish caught were relatively small);

• because of the stumps and vegetation, it was more difficult to catch the fish.

⁷Dependency ratio = ((No. persons less than 14 yrs) + (No. persons 60 yrs and over)) / (No. persons 15 – 59 yrs)

⁸ Food security index is composed of the following indicators: number of months household has nshima, number of months household has animal protein, number of times household consumes fish, meat and eggs in rainy and dry season. A higher figure indicates a better food security sutation.