by Sevaly Sen, Henk van der Mheen and Jennie van der Mheen-Sluijer
1. INTRODUCTION
2. AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: THE MACRO-LEVEL CONTEXT
3. THE MICRO-LEVEL CONTEXT
4. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SMALL-SCALE AQUACULTURE AND AGRICULTURE
5. INTEGRATING AGRICULTURE AND AQUACULTURE
6. MACRO-LEVEL AND MICRO-LEVEL IMPLICATIONS FOR INTEGRATED AQUACULTURE
7. AGRICULTURE AND AQUACULTURE EXTENSION APPROACHES
8. EXISTING EXTENSION SERVICES
9. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR AN INTEGRATED EXTENSION SERVICE
10. ELEMENTS OF A NOVEL EXTENSION SYSTEM
11. CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES *
This paper discusses the integration of aquaculture with agriculture from the perspective of optimizing its contribution to rural development. Drawing from experiences in southern and central Africa, the paper describes the current macro-level and micro-level context in which small-scale agriculture and aquaculture operate. Technical aspects of integrated aquaculture and agriculture are described, focusing on similarities and differences. The effect of the macro and micro level environment on the development of integrated small-scale aquaculture and the contribution of integrated aquaculture to rural development objectives are then discussed. As exchange of information is considered one of the most crucial factors for sustainable rural development, different extension approaches, current agriculture and aquaculture extension services and the problems of integrating the two services are reviewed. The paper then argues for a new extension approach for integrated aquaculture and concludes with observations on the place of aquaculture in rural development.
Historically, many areas of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) had low population densities and abundant land. Traditional agricultural practices often included shifting cultivation, as these were well suited to the ecology with fragile and acidic soils. In areas where population density increased slowly, these traditional systems gradually evolved into more intensive, eventually permanent systems which incorporated soil conservation, fertility management and integration of livestock into farming systems. Agricultural development in areas such as the highlands of Rwanda are a good example of this process. However, over the last thirty years, in many areas of SSA, population has been growing so rapidly that land is becoming limited and traditional systems are unable to evolve fast enough. Rural people, forced to abandon shifting cultivation methods, are cultivating the same land but continue to use traditional techniques. This has contributed to the growing problem of environmental degradation, including deforestation and loss of soil fertility, which has affected both productivity and resource sustainability.
Many of the new technologies offered by governments and donors to the African farmer were aimed at increasing output per unit of land through increases in capital (in the form of purchased inputs and equipment) and labour inputs. However, as most African small-scale farmers are faced with limited supplies of capital and labour during part or all of the agricultural year, these kinds of technologies were, for many, the reverse of what was needed. Furthermore, agricultural development has been distorted by government controls on prices, over-valued domestic currencies, heavy taxation on agriculture exports, neglect of rural infrastructure and ineffective research and extension services.
Consequently, over the last ten years, there has been a decline in food production and a stagnation in per capita calorie consumption. It is now estimated that 100 million people are food insecure in SSA (Cleaver et al. 1995). Since most of the poor and the food insecure are rural, governments and donors are pursuing rural development strategies specifically aimed at poverty alleviation, an increase in rural incomes and employment, better food security and improved environmental sustainability. There are two main components of these strategies: the creation of an enabling macro-economic environment and the stimulation of agricultural growth.
The creation of an enabling macro-economic environment is strongly influenced by the recommendations and subsequent implementation of International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP). SAP aims at creating a favourable macro-economic environment which encompasses two types of policies; stabilization and structural. Stabilization aims at reducing inflation and deficits in the current account of the balance of payments to levels which can be sustained. Structural policies aim to increase output over the medium term by the mobilization of domestic resources through fiscal, monetary and credit policies; improvement of the efficiency of resource allocation in general and the public sector in particular; reform of the structure of economic incentives to reduce distortions; and institutional reforms intended to support adjustment with growth (Spooner et al. 1991). These policies have led to a reduction in government resources and interventions and a promotion of the role of the private sector.
While an enabling macro-economic environment is considered a pre-requisite to agricultural development, SAP are not considered sufficient to stimulate agricultural growth. The World Bank has recommended other issues which have to be addressed in order to increase agricultural production. These include the introduction of new technologies and higher valued crops; more intensive use of chemical and organic inputs; integration of livestock to use animal power and manure; better techniques of irrigation, hand tools, crop storage; better rural infrastructure especially roads; greater security of land tenure: better education and health for farmers; better natural resource management and protection and; greater participation of farmers in services especially women farmers.
In addition, in order to mitigate the negative effects of SAP and other liberalization policies, two types of Social Dimensions of Adjustment (SDA) programmes have been implemented in some SSA countries. The first type aims to protect or mitigate the effects of SAP on particular target groups, namely the chronic poor, the "new" poor (i.e. those directly affected by SAP) and other vulnerable groups. These programmes consist of measures targeted to groups directly affected by policy and budgetary remedies and includes compensatory measures for retrenched government workers, food-for-work programmes, provision of health services and family planning in rural areas as well as better targeted food distribution to the neediest groups. The second type of programme is aimed at problem areas which might not have necessarily resulted from SAP or economic crisis, but will have a definite impact on the long term success of SAP by helping bring the poor and vulnerable groups into the economic mainstream. Programmes include the promotion of small and medium sized enterprises, land distribution schemes and credit schemes for small-scale farmers.
In summary, therefore, small-scale farmers in SSA are operating in a changing macro-economic environment which is characterized by liberalization, reduced government budgets, lower levels of agricultural production, increased poverty, food insecurity and environmental degradation.
3.1 Small-Scale Farming Households
3.2 Small-scale Aquaculture
Small-scale farmers in southern and eastern Africa grow a variety of crops for home consumption and for local sales. Cattle and small livestock such as goats and chicken are also usually kept, whilst pigs are only kept in certain localities. In the presence of good markets, households also produce vegetables on a semi-commercial scale. Prior to SAP and encouraged by a system of input subsidies and guaranteed prices, many small-scale farmers cultivated cash crops such as hybrid maize, cotton, groundnuts and tobacco.
In general, however, the majority of farm households maintain a significant, if varying, degree of autonomy from the market as characterized by the share of farm output which is consumed within the household rather than sold (Ellis 1992). Risk avoidance, rather than profit maximization, dominates household decision making and studies have shown that the market responses of small-holders reflect this phenomena (Duncan & Howell 1992). Therefore, the small-scale rural farmer experiences difficult trade offs between a number of goals. These goals are usually, but not always, some or all of the following: higher farm outputs; increased cash; greater food security and less family labour time in farm work.
One of the most important concerns for small-scale farming households is normally the security of household food supplies. This is because in many parts of southern and eastern Africa many of these rural households face one of two types of food insecurity: transitory or chronic. Transitory food insecurity is the result of a temporary decline in a household's access to enough food. This is more common among households in southern and central Africa. Chronic food insecurity is the result of a continuously inadequate diet caused by the persistent inability to acquire enough food. This often occurs in areas subject to severe drought or civil war, for example in Ethiopia and Angola.
One other important characteristic of small-scale farming systems is gender specific demarcation of activities (Duncan & Howell 1992). This gender demarcation varies depending on the level of out-migration and general availability of male labour.
In the context of southern and eastern Africa, small-scale aquaculture is the culture of fish in earthen ponds. It is characterized by extensive or semi-intensive management. The intensification of the system relates to the application of inputs to the production process. In extensive systems, production is primarily based on availability of natural food in the system, which can be enhanced by the application of relatively low levels of mainly organic fertilizers. In semi-intensive systems the production of natural food in the system is still important, but is increased by the application of higher levels of fertilizers, supplemented by feeds. Small-scale aquaculture is usually a part-time activity, often integrated into overall farm activities and drawing on many of the same resources as other agriculture and animal husbandry activities.
Small-scale aquaculture is a relatively new technology in southern and eastern Africa and as such has faced similar problems to other new agriculture technologies. Production data (albeit poor, as they are also for small-scale rural agriculture), have characterized small-scale aquaculture in southern and eastern Africa by low rates of improved technology adoption, a tendency for ponds to be abandoned or poorly managed, less than optimal productivity and poor sustainability of aquaculture projects (Harrison 1994). Consequently, many of the trends observed in the development of small-scale aquaculture are not unique and solutions may be the same as those for problems in rural and agricultural development.
4.1 Land and Water
4.2 Labour
4.3 Feeds and Fertilizers
4.4 Capital
As the previous section described, small-scale farming households have diverse farming systems, tend to be risk averse, are likely to suffer from transitory cash shortages and food insecurity. It is within this overall context that the similarities and differences between small-scale agriculture and aquaculture are discussed.
In extensive and semi-intensive aquaculture the amount of inputs as well as the surface area are the main determinants of total production of a fish pond. Availability of enough land is therefore crucial for the production of fish. In some countries, land is in short supply (e.g. Malawi, Zimbabwe, Rwanda), but in general, most countries in southern and central Africa such as Zambia, Zaire, Tanzania and Mozambique have ample land resources, and agricultural activities are not limited by the availability of land. However, land with a good source of water, necessary for small-scale aquaculture, is scarce in many countries. Suitable land is used for other, often intensive, horticulture activities. For example, in Tanzania, although agricultural land is generally available, land suitable for small-scale aquaculture is used for vegetable gardening (Nilsson & Wetengere 1994). Thus, due to the type of land and water resources required, small-scale aquaculture competes with vegetable cultivation.
There are, however, some exceptions to this competition between aquaculture and vegetable gardening. In Luapula Province in Zambia the relation between land and aquaculture has taken another direction. Ponds have been constructed in order to claim land. Land is regarded as a common property resource and the construction of ponds ensures the usufruct of the land to the farmer. Ponds were often not managed and sometimes not stocked or even completed. This illustrates that in areas with abundant land and high rainfall, sites suitable for pond construction are seen as a valuable resource, - worthwhile to establish ownership - although the land may only be used later of may ultimately be used for other activities.
In general, most small-scale farming households rely entirely on family labour for their agricultural activities. Fanning systems surveys confirm that the demand for labour in the planting and weeding season is the major constraint to the increase in production (Van der Mheen-Sluijer and Van der Mheen, 1988). Although small-scale aquaculture requires some labour, it does not significantly compete for labour during periods of highest labour demand in agriculture. The most labour intensive activity in small-scale aquaculture is pond construction. This is not restricted to a certain time of year and is generally undertaken during periods of light demand on male labour. Extensive and semi-intensive aquaculture production systems do not require much household labour for daily management. However, unequal control of inputs and products within a household can mean that, in some cases, aquaculture places a demand on labour of certain members of a household (such as women), who may already have a heavy workload.
Small-scale aquaculture and agriculture tend to use feeds and fertilizers coming from the farm itself. As a result, there is competition for these inputs among the different farm enterprises. Agricultural by-products like maize and rice bran, oil cakes and kitchen leftovers can be used for both fish and animal feeds. In those areas where animals, especially chickens and pigs, are raised, it is sometimes difficult for farmers to allocate the feed to the fish ponds.
Animal manure and compost can be used for fertilizing the pond, the field or the vegetable garden. For those small-scale farmers who use inorganic fertilizers, the removal of subsidies on chemical fertilizers has meant that farmers can afford less, thus increasing the opportunity cost for manure and compost, and increasing the competition amongst different on-farm activities for these inputs. Some of the organic material used for compost to fertilize ponds are also used for feeding farm animals.
Little capital is required for small-scale aquaculture. The main capital requirement is for purchases of fingerlings. Capital may also be required for pond construction. In general, however, farmers will only allocate money for the construction of a pond when they clearly understand the production system and the activity has proven successful.
An integrated farming system is one in which waste material from one enterprise is used to improve the production of another, thus increasing the efficiency of both. As described in the previous sections, small-scale aquaculture relies on on-farm resources and inputs, which have alternative uses on the farm. Aquaculture is therefore already integrated into the farming systems of many rural small-scale African farming households.
There are several distinct integrated production systems with high production potential; many of which have been promoted by various development projects. These include the integration of non-ruminants with fish, such as keeping pigs, chickens or ducks above or next to fish ponds. While this type of integration produces higher yields, it requires both the adoption of aquaculture with all its uncertainties and risks, and the adoption of animal production systems, with which most small-scale farmers in southern and eastern Africa are not acquainted. Thus, promotion of these integrated systems has complicated the uptake of fish farming for many farmers. In an effort to promote systems that obtain high yields, these integrated systems have been driven beyond the means of the small-scale farmer.
This does not mean that integrated systems are not viable for farmers. In fact, the best option for fish fanning is its integration into the farming system, but the existing farming system should be taken as a starting point and not a new system that technically offers the highest production. It is now widely accepted that priority should be given to the development of aquaculture which is thoroughly integrated with the small-scale agricultural activities of the farmer (Micha 1995). Since farming systems vary over even small areas, this means that the aquaculture systems have to be flexible and complement, rather than compete with, other on farm activities. It is therefore not always possible to identify a single system of integration of aquaculture for an entire area.
A good example of successful integration with an existing fanning system can be found in Madagascar. Most farmers have rice fields with flood irrigation. These paddies need little adaptation to make them suitable for rice fish farming. Productivity in these systems is low, 100-150 kg/ha/yr, but due to the appropriateness of the technology the adoption is high, resulting in a high total production (Janssen & Randriamiarana 1993).
In certain areas ponds are constructed in or around vegetable gardens, whereby water from the ponds is used to irrigate the crops. This system does not optimize the productivity of the pond, but due to the fact that it is well integrated into the other farm activities, it is more appropriate than systems which emphasize maximum pond production.
6.1 Structural Adjustment Programmes
6.2 Privatization of Input Supplies
6.3 Marketing
6.4 Credit
6.5 Income Generation
6.6 Food Security
6.7 Poverty Alleviation
6.8 Environmental Sustainability
6.9 Specific Aquaculture Problems
This section discusses the effects of the macro- and micro-level environment on integrated aquaculture development. This includes the effect of macro-level policies of SAP, privatization of input supplies, marketing and credit as well as the potential contribution of integrated aquaculture to rural development objectives of rural income generation, food security, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability.
One of the direct effects of SAP on the development of integrated aquaculture is the reduction in government budgets. This has caused the retrenchment of government personnel and a reduction in resource allocations to extension services. The retrenchment of government personnel is increasing unemployment rates, predominantly in urban areas. However, in the longer term, high unemployment rates in urban areas may lead to migration of labour back to rural areas. Whilst this will increase the labour available for agricultural production, it will also place increasing pressure on land which is already degraded in many areas.
Unless separate funding is found or the extension service is restructured, the reduction of extension service budgets affects the small-scale farmer the most. This is because governments are more likely to allocate the limited extension resources to crops and activities which yield the highest returns for the country, such as export and cash crops, and will allocate less or no resources to the diverse, complicated and low yielding farming activities of the small-scale farmers.
In the past, governments have emphasized the production of fingerlings at government-run fish farms for sale to farmers, often at subsidized prices. The system gradually deteriorated as the production of fingerlings and in particular, the timely delivery of these fingerlings to the farmers, became too expensive and difficult to organize. This led to a situation where many farmers became disappointed and thus delayed stocking of their ponds, decreased stocking densities, or abandoned fish farming altogether.
As a possible solution to these problems, and in line with the general macro-economic policy of regarding privatization as the panacea to problems of input supplies, government and donors are now promoting an activity they once discouraged - private fingerling production.
The success of private fingerling production will depend on the demand for fingerlings, the ease of distribution, their price and perhaps most importantly, the willingness and ability of entrepreneurs (including farmers) to become private fingerling producers and suppliers. In some countries, such as Madagascar, the development of private fingerling production and supply has been successful (Jensen 1994). In many southern and eastern African countries, however, provision of inputs by the private sector is more likely to occur in the medium term, once entrepreneurial capacity is built up. In some countries, it is still not clear whether private operators will enter the market or whether there will be effective competition.
Thus, in the short term, reduction in government budgets to operate government fish farms, the removal of input subsidies and the lack of private sector development means that there continue to be shortage of fingerlings in many countries. This is likely to have a negative effect on the development of aquaculture, whether integrated or not.
Extensive farming and livestock systems tend to be less dependent on markets and rural infrastructure. Given the macro-economic setting in many African countries, it is argued that maintaining such systems are rational responses for farmers to the unreliability and unpredictability of these structures. In general, the move towards liberalization and privatization of the markets for agricultural products as a result of SAP has increased uncertainties for small-scale farming households. The dismantling of parastatals, often without an alternative structure to replace them, has meant that small-holders have become deprived of marketing channels for their products, or have, in some cases been subject to monopolistic trading practices. However the marketing of fish, from either capture fisheries or small-scale aquaculture, has never been subject to the same level of marketing control as agriculture and therefore has not been directly affected by SAP policies.
With the exception of areas near capture fisheries, fresh fish is in short supply in many rural areas. Consequently, demand is high and fresh fish attains a relatively high price. Most fish is sold at or near the pond site. Production levels from small-scale aquaculture, in most areas of southern and eastern Africa, are not high enough to market fish further afield. Should fish production levels increase beyond that which can be absorbed by pond-side sales, there are clearly opportunities for combining fish marketing with the marketing of other produce at local markets in terms of sharing transport and reaching target consumers.
With respect to distant markets, unless the fish can be preserved in some way, it is more difficult to integrate fish marketing with other agricultural marketing activities. Fresh fish is more time sensitive than either crops or vegetables and would need to rely on availability of ice, refrigeration and reliable transport in order to reach distant markets in a fresh condition. Improved rural transport and distribution systems would therefore be a pre-requisite.
Where integration of marketing the products of agriculture and aquaculture might be logistically possible, it might not be possible if household members do not wish to integrate marketing activities. Often there may be separate income streams within the household, such that the owner of the fish pond may wish to sell their fish separately.
Finally, it is sometimes argued that better market opportunities will increase the chance for the sustainable uptake of fish farming. However, improved market opportunities also encourage the intensification of the production of horticulture products and thus increase the opportunity costs for labour and land suitable for both ponds and gardens. Whether the development of aquaculture will be affected by a generally improved market situation will depend on the aquaculture knowledge of the farmers and the specific market situation for the separate farm products.
In the past, several aquaculture extension projects have provided farmers with credit to start fish farming, although these credit programmes have usually targeted semi-intensive or intensive production systems. In general, repayment records have been very poor. For example, in 1985, the FAO Investment Center provided credit meant for 250 farmers the Central African Republic for the intensification of their fish fanning activities. By the middle of 1989, most of the money set aside for the scheme had been given only 29 farmers and repayment was low (Fulconis 1988). Allocation of credit through a government extension organization also caused considerable anger and jealousy, which discouraged new farmers (Van der Mheen-Sluijer 1989).
The availability of credit and capital should therefore not be considered necessary for the development of small-scale aquaculture. Indeed, the Thematic Evaluation of Aquaculture (FAO, NORAD, UNDP, 1987) concluded that the spread of family based aquaculture in rural Africa did not seem to be limited by non-availability of credit. Thus changes in credit availability as a result of SAP or other agricultural and rural development policies is unlikely to have a direct effect on the development of small-scale aquaculture.
One of the objectives of rural development policies is to generate higher incomes in rural areas. Research shows that small-scale farmers generally try to minimize risks in all of their activities, and do not reduce their household effort in their crop/livestock production when they engage in aquaculture. This has the advantage that the cash income of the household can be increased and economic vulnerability reduced by adding one more source of income (Wijkstrom & Aase 1989). Studies carried out in southern and eastern Africa indicate that small-scale aquaculture offers good potential for income generation and can be a strong incentive for farmers to start fish farming. Furthermore, small-scale farmers also see their pond as a savings account which can be harvested when there is a need for cash.
A socio-economic study in Northwestern Province of Zambia found that most fish farmers sell more than half of their produce, making fish one of their major sources of cash (Wijkstrom & Larsson 1992). In Eastern Province of Zambia, cash income from fish farming was found to be an important incentive for farmers to start fish farming especially in areas where there was an absence of other cash crops in certain areas (Van der Mheen-Sluijer 1991). The net returns of a 100 m2 pond amounted to several months of average farmer income. In the Central African Republic, a survey amongst 606 fish farmers found that an average pond area of 177 m2 resulted in an income equal to 48 days of regular employment although an average of around 20 working days were invested in aquaculture per year (Lietar 1985). In the Ruvuma Region of Tanzania, fish farming was ranked as the third most important source of income by farmers with fish ponds (Seki & Maly 1993). A study in southern Malawi found that the integration of fish ponds into the agricultural farming systems had a major impact on the cash income of farmer households (Scholtz & Chimatiro 1996). In Rwanda, fish farming is in strong competition with horticulture for suitable land and fertilizers, but enterprise budget analysis showed that fish farming yielded the highest net returns to land, labour and management. Sweet potatoes produced the highest yield of carbohydrates and soybeans were the least expensive source of protein. Therefore fish were used as a source of income (Thomas et al. 1995).
In all these studies, a small fish pond, managed extensively, was just one part of a larger fanning operation. Often, cash derived from fish farming is not invested in further intensification of the aquaculture operation but into other farming activities (Nilsson & Wetengere 1994). This is an indication that small-scale farmers are, in first instance, motivated to avoid risks.
One of the most important objectives of rural development has been to improve both transitory and chronic food insecurity.
Apart from being an important source of income, small-scale aquaculture also provides fish for home consumption. Fish are not only consumed when the whole pond is harvested but also throughout the year through intermittent harvesting. Fish have an advantage over other livestock because they can be caught and eaten when desired whilst animals such as chickens, goats, and cattle are usually only consumed on special occasions.
In Rwanda, 92% of the farmers consumed fish from their ponds and, of their total production, 28% of the fish was used for home consumption and 56% was sold (Thomas et al. 1995). A study in Southern Malawi (Scholtz & Chimatiro, 1996) has estimated that small-scale fanning households with a fish pond consumed one kilogram offish per week from their fish ponds.
Therefore, fish from small-scale aquaculture can contribute to improved food security, especially transitory food insecurity. However, in the short term this is only likely to be in localized areas, where land and water resources are available. It is feasible that in the medium to longer term, increased production and the development of marketing channels may also contribute to the alleviation of food insecurity in areas where the physical potential for small-scale aquaculture does not exist. With the exception of very localized areas, the contribution of small-scale aquaculture to the alleviation of chronic food insecurity in the short term at least, is likely to be negligible as production levels are too low.
A way of categorizing rural poor is:
· some types of female headed households;· households with old and infirm farmers;
· refugee households;
· households in remote areas far from roads and markets, receiving less inputs including extension;
· households where there are poor soils and rainfall.
Many small-scale farming households fall into these categories. Small-scale aquaculture can contribute to poverty alleviation for some of these categories. Studies have shown differences in the type of farmers which have, so far, taken up small-scale aquaculture.
Many studies indicate that fish farmers are better off than non-fish farmers, and have a better education than the non-fish farmers (Wijkstrom & Aase 1989, Nilsson & Wetengere 1994, Harrison 1993). Conversely, an adoption study on small-scale aquaculture in Eastern Province of Zambia showed that the adopters had a lower income than the non-adopters, which made the incentive for cash from aquaculture more attractive to them (Van der Mheen-Sluijer 1991). This was attributed to the extension message which had focused on providing aquaculture information appropriate for all small-scale farmers (rather than better off farmers only) and which was suitable for the integration into the existing farming system. It was concluded that the determining factor for adoption of a new technology was not the financial situation or level of formal education but the appropriateness of the technology and the extension method.
Therefore the potential for aquaculture to contribute to poverty alleviation is good, provided the extension message and the technology is appropriate for the rural poor, and the extension service makes an effort to reach that target group.
Environmental degradation is becoming an increasingly bigger problem with effects on the long term sustainability of the resource base. Integrating aquaculture with agriculture may have a positive impact on the ecological sustainability of farming systems. Research carried out by ICLARM (Lightfoot & Pullin 1994) indicate the potential to increase the number of recycling flows on-farm through aquaculture integration. At selected research sites in Ghana, Malawi and the Philippines, ecological sustainability improved after integration, as indicated by increases in bio-resource recycling, species diversity and productive capacity. This was because the pond provided mud and fertile water for use on vegetable gardens and the pond acted as a digester for raw nutrients added to it from other on-farm enterprises such as leaves, manure and cocoa pods (Prein 1994).
Experiences from Asia might also show the way forward for improving environmental sustainability in southern and eastern Africa. In Bangladesh, it has been demonstrated that in rice-integrated pest management with fish culture can eliminate pesticides entirely, improve rice yields and provide a harvest offish (Kamp et al. 1993). Rice-azolla systems are also common in many parts of Asia. The fish are beneficial because they eat weeds, algae and insect pests, and help to keep disease carriers in check whilst the azolla makes more nitrogen available compared to systems without fish.
In southern and eastern Africa, aquaculture is a relatively new activity for most farmers. Fish farming is an activity that can not in all aspects be compared with other farming activities, and has specific problems. Farmers are often unfamiliar with the construction offish ponds and this was mentioned to be an important constraint in aquaculture in Zimbabwe (Binali 1996). Theft and predation are common problems. Although some farmers have identified techniques to overcome these problems, theft and predation are still mentioned as the main problem by fish farmers in Zambia and Tanzania (Murnyak & Mafwenga 1996). Despite these problems and risks, fish fanning was ranked as a relatively low risk activity by farmers in Tanzania (Nilsson & Wetengere 1994), and considered much less risky then most other agricultural activities.
7.1 Transfer of Technology Approach
7.2 Target Group Approach
7.3 Participatory Extension Approach
It is clear from the preceding sections that aquaculture, integrated with small-scale agriculture can contribute to the realization of rural development objectives. However, this greatly depends on the extension approach, especially whether adequate and appropriate information is made available to small-scale farmers.
Before discussing current extension services and the opportunities and constraints for establishing an integrated aquaculture extension service, it is important to critically review the approaches which are used to carry out research and extension in both agriculture and aquaculture. The following section describes the various approaches, drawing upon examples from aquaculture.
The best known approach to agriculture and aquaculture extension is the transfer-of-technology approach, which is essentially a top-down approach. In this approach, scientists attempt to find solutions to what they perceive to be the farmers' major technological problems. Research is then carried out, usually at research stations. For example, in aquaculture, it has often been assumed that low production levels have led to discouragement and subsequently abandonment of fish farming. Consequently, aquaculture research has focused on increased fish production. Several packages have been developed which include one or several of the following components: minimum pond size, pre-selected fish species, integration with animal husbandry, pre-determined management practices, defined production cycle and harvesting techniques.
Once a possible technical solution is identified, it is developed into a recommendation for farmers to follow. Extension workers are then requested to disseminate this 'new knowledge' to the farmers, in the expectation that the newly recommended practice will diffuse amongst the farmers. Aquaculture projects have often begun by making technology available to farmers. However, when fish farming was not adopted at a rate felt necessary, incentives and encouragement were put in place like the provision of fish feeds, fingerlings, associated animals, tools, marketing facilities, credit etc. Adoption rates and fish yields increased but once the project support was gone these packages of technologies were no longer applied. A good example of this was seen when the "Projet Vulgarisation de la Pisciculture" in the Central African Republic came to an end. Farmers who wanted to produce fish for the market, disposed of some of their ponds when they no longer received fish feed on credit. The number of ponds they kept was determined by the amount of manure and fish feed they could pay for themselves. Those farmers who mainly produced fish for home consumption and thus were not worried about the size of the fish, kept their ponds and minimized their inputs. Their fish yields could have been improved by using on-farm inputs but these practices were no longer known since the various projects had promoted the purchasing of inputs (Van der Mheen-Sluijer 1989).
Typically, under this approach, farmers are viewed as ignorant and treated as passive receivers of expertise from outside sources. Specialists in the research and extension services define what is worth knowing. This leads to a situation where the attitudes and behaviour needed for rapport and exchange of ideas and information between farmers and research and extension workers are absent.
The Training and Visit (T&V) system typifies this approach and has become the most significant agriculture extension system used in many countries. The system aims at changing production technologies used by the majority of farmers through provision of advice from well-trained extension workers to individual farmers. The farmers are selected on the basis of the likelihood of adopting new technologies. The system relies on these contact farmers who spread the information to other farmers.
The T&V system was developed in Turkey in 1967, successfully used in countries like India and subsequently used as a blueprint in other countries. However, the situation in other countries was not the same as in India nor was it always properly analyzed before the introduction of the system. In many other developing countries there is a lack of trained agriculturists, while staff with higher training demand higher salaries and are usually not motivated to stay in the rural areas (Van den Ban & Hawkin 1988). In addition, extension workers often have a low level of basic training. As a result, the lowest trained and poorly paid staff are those who are in contact with the farmers. They are expected to give advice on all aspects of agriculture to farmers and ensure that the information from farmers is channelled up into the system.
A review of the T&V system in Zambia noted that the amount of information to be disseminated is too much to grasp for both the extension workers and the farmers (IAS, UNZA 1995). It also found that the system was very rigid in the sense that the extension workers cover many topics but are not well prepared to deal with issues of major concern to the farmers. Moreover, the majority of the farmers, the least well-off, were excluded, either by selective contact or by the inappropriateness of the packages. Extension workers were encouraged to select typical, but responsive, farmers as contact farmers for their areas. Often the contact farmers were found to be men with more formal education and larger farms than non-contact farmers. The resource constraints faced by many of the non-contact farmers impeded the adoption of many new technologies. Additionally, extension workers also felt that they were being policed by their supervisors to achieve targets (such as the number of meetings held) rather than being evaluated on whether they had transferred any relevant information to farmers.
However, there are situations where the T&V system has been effective. This has been when conditions for intensification of production existed, when inputs could be easily purchased and when markets were guaranteed e.g. cotton producing areas in Zambia. Information and necessary inputs were provided as a package to small-scale farmers by the cotton industry. This system is only sustainable when these conditions are maintained.
The extension approach that takes cognizance of the fact that rural communities comprise a diverse audience of farmers, is known as the target group approach. It has taken its name from the fact that in the execution of its extension work, it specifically aims at one or several categories of farmers, rather than at the farming population as a whole. Working with different categories of farmers means that the extension workers have detailed knowledge about the actual situations of categories of people.
Parallels can be drawn with the commercial practice of product development. This is the design and pre-testing of products for the market, an activity usually based on experience with, and systematic research of, the market as well as analysis of the consumers which make up the main segments of that market (Roling 1982).
Many aquaculture extension services design two types of aquaculture packages which take into account farmers' differential access to land, water, labour, inputs, capital, markets, and information. Information on extensive aquaculture was disseminated to anybody, regardless of their means of production. The more intensive techniques of aquaculture were designed for larger-scale and more market-oriented farmers. Often a list of minimum resources needed to implement the package, was drawn up, whereupon extension workers tried to identify suitable farmers. For example a FAO aquaculture project in Zambia propagated a production system with pigs and Peking ducks on a 500 m2 pond, and tried to target emerging farmers in Zambia (Aase & Mumba 1987). In the Central African Republic, the promotion of ponds ranging between 600 and 1200 m2 associated with pigs and chickens was aimed at slightly more advanced farmers (Lietar 1985). In Côte d'Ivoire an intensive system of monosex tilapia culture was promoted which included 5 fish ponds. The "Projet de développement de la Pisciculture en Milieu Rural" aimed at young men who could afford to invest one year of work to complete the construction of that system (Galbreath & Ziehi 1992).
Although the target group approach implies that information about the farmers is available, it still follows of the same sequence of first developing an aquaculture package and then finding the "right" farmers to disseminate the information to.
Over the last decade there has been a growing awareness of the inadequacies of conventional approaches to agricultural and aquacultural research and extension. Participatory extension strategies have been advocated as a remedy for low-impact extension. However, few people have attempted to describe what it entails, how extensionists should implement it, what the consequences are for training, and the impact on government departments and other implementing agencies and donors.
There are many ways the term participation is interpreted and used. It ranges from passive participation, where people are involved merely by being told what is to happen, to self mobilization, where people take initiatives independent of existing institutions. Pretty (1995) identifies seven clear types of participation (Table 1 on next page).
Table 1: A typology of participation: how people participate on development programmes and projects
|
Typology |
Characteristics of each type |
|
1. Passive participation |
People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already happened. It is a unilateral announcement by an administration or project management without any listening to people's responses. The information being shared belongs only to external professionals. |
|
2. Participation in information giving |
People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings are neither shared nor checked for accuracy. |
|
3. Participation by consultation |
People participate by being consulted and external agents listen to views. These external agents define both problems and solutions, and may modify these in the light of people's responses. Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision making and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people's views. |
|
4. Participation for material incentives |
People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash or other material incentives. Much on-farm research falls in this category, as farmers provided the fields but are not involved in experimentation or the process of learning. It is very common to see this called participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end. |
|
5. Functional participation |
People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion of externally initiators and facilitators, but may become self-dependent. |
|
6. Interactive participation |
People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives, and make use of systematic and structured learning processes. These groups take control over local decisions and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices. |
|
7. Self-mobilization |
People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used. Such self-initiated mobilization and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power. |
(Source: Pretty 1995)
It is clear from this typology that the term participation can be employed, even if it does not necessarily have to lead to a change in the approach of a programme. If the objective of a programme is sustainable development, then nothing less than functional participation will suffice.
The dilemma of aquaculture departments and projects is that their role is to promote aquaculture, although that may not be the priority or a perceived need of small-scale farmers. Interventions are often discrete; for example, an aquaculture extension service is not going to solve fertilizer distribution problems or tackle disease problems farmers may have with their crops. Hence, the initiative of introducing the concept of fish farming often comes from an external organization, not from the people themselves. However, once the idea has been raised, an equitable relationship between farmers and extensionists could develop through the establishment of a dialogue.
A pilot project in Zambia used group and individual extension methods to share information (Van der Mheen-Sluijer 1989). For example, a slide show was used to discuss general issues concerning fish farming. Instead of giving a standard talk or explanation, the moderator tried to provoke a discussion through asking questions with each slide, encouraging discussion amongst the audience. This interaction gave the extensionist an opportunity to learn about the farmers' situation and helped to create a mutual background of information. During individual farmer visits an exchange of information took place which always followed the same procedure. Farmers gave information about the resources they were willing to divert to fish farming and their aims (in terms of number and size of ponds, intensity), upon which a fish fanning system was worked out together with the extensionist.
Extension agents were used to deliver technical packages to farmers and did not always find it easy to be a facilitator. It required a thorough knowledge of the principles of aquaculture to adapt it to the local situation as well as skills to facilitate communication. Their limited, mainly theoretical, training in extension combined with their uncertainty regarding technical matters and their assumed authority in the field led to a rigid attitude.
The successful use of a participatory extension approach relies heavily on the motivation and ingenuity of the field workers. To bring about the desired change in attitude and extension methods by extension staff, a thorough training and restructuring of the extension organization is needed.
8.1 Agricultural Extension Services
8.2 Aquaculture Extension Services
8.3 Structural Considerations of Extension Services
Although research and extension have been identified as important factors influencing agricultural growth, these services have not been effective enough to introduce relevant agricultural and livestock technology on a significant scale (Cleaver 1993). This section describes the most common extension services used in agriculture and aquaculture and the problems they face.
In many countries, agriculture extension services use the T&V system. An ideal T&V system requires regular contact between farmers and the extension workers and between supervisors and extension workers. This requires a large and mobile organization. However, in most southern and eastern Africa countries, extension services are under-resourced so that many of the essential characteristics of a T&V system are not in place. In addition, a T&V system is expensive to maintain, especially in countries where farmers are difficult to reach because of their scattered or remote locations. Thus in those countries which are constrained by budgetary allocations, limited extension effort tends to be devoted to those farmers and crops which provide greatest contribution to export earnings or Gross National Product (GNP). Small-scale farmers, with diverse farming systems and few cash crops, scattered all over the country, tend not to receive priority.
Moreover, the structure of the T&V system has contributed to the failure of extension messages and research in dealing with issues of major concern to small-scale farmers. T&V has tended to deeply institutionalize extension's top-down hierarchy, so preventing extension systems from being learning organizations. Bureaucrats liked the system, because it could be used to hold staff accountable, but higher level staff and research scientists have severely inhibited the upward flow of information, despite early intentions to do so. It is therefore questionable whether the T&V system, as it currently functions, can deal with the changes that are needed to assist small-scale farmers adequately.
The organization of aquaculture extension services is normally hierarchical and relatively small. In order of seniority, these include aquaculturists, technicians, and field workers. In many countries they have the arduous task to reach the mass of scattered, small producers. In response to this problem of limited resources (staff and budget) and scattered farmers, three strategies are often employed:
· Integration of aquaculture as an activity within the services of an other ministry or department. For example in Zambia, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Agriculture have collaborated in certain areas. The aquaculturist and fisheries assistants function as subject matter specialists at provincial and district level. Their tasks are to prepare fish farming messages and train the agricultural staff at all levels of the T&V system in aquaculture. This collaboration is not officially supported at departmental or ministerial level.· The use of lay-extension workers, i.e. fish farmers. They are given some training and incentives so as to be able to serve as extension aids or animateurs. An aquaculture extension project in the Central African Republic trained 89 animateurs. They received a bicycle and a monthly allowance paid by UNICEF, in the anticipation that the government would incorporate them into their service after three years. The majority of the animateurs were not established fish farmers but young men who had just finished school. They were not always respected by the fish farmers who complained that instead one of them should have been trained. After three years, the animateurs were not employed by the government and 85% of them abandoned their ponds for other activities or employment (Van der Mheen-Sluijer 1989).
· The use of farmer groups. Groups of farmers are organized to enable discussion of certain topics and to enable demonstration of new techniques. These discussions and demonstrations take place at the farm of one of the fish farmers. Farmers who have experience with a certain technique are chosen for these demonstrations. This has proven to be an effective way to disseminate aquaculture information in Kenya (Campbell 1995).
Aquaculture extension, either by a government department or by a donor funded project, always faces the problem that farmers are only assisted with aquaculture. This activity is usually not the first priority of the small-scale farmer. Extension agents often find it difficult to assist farmers with other farming activities even though they may be related to fish farming. Sometimes it is also difficult for aquaculture extensionists to accept that farmers do not give a high priority to fish farming. This situation can be frustrating for the extension worker who has to (or wants to) have a certain number of fish ponds constructed every year and to the farmer who wants more information than the extension worker is able to give. For example, motivated aquaculture extension workers in the Central African Republic complained that the farmers had not finished the construction of the pond (although it had been pegged and advice provided), as they have been working in their fields (Van der Mheen-Sluijer 1989).
Another problem facing the aquaculture/fisheries extension service in many countries is that their workers also have to carry out monitoring and enforcement activities (Satia 1989). These duties often have a negative impact on the extension activities. For example, in Benin, Gabon and the Central African Republic extension workers are game or forest wardens; in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and Zambia they enforce fisheries regulations.
The Thematic Evaluation (FAO, NORAD, UNDP 1987) pointed out that governments often do not have the financial means to maintain aquaculture extension services initiated by donor funded projects. It concluded that a T&V System for aquaculture should, wherever it is not absolutely necessary, be avoided because of its high cost.
Previous sections often referred to the poor performance of extension services. What needs to be said is that the performance and morale of extension staff are largely structurally determined. It is important to identify these issues at this stage since an alternative extension approach can only make a difference to small-scale farmers if successfully implemented by extension services. If positive results of pilot projects are to be replicated on a larger scale, some of these elements within extension organizations need to be redressed.
Some of the frequently heard problems which apply to both agriculture and aquaculture extension organizations are the following.
· Nearly all extension services are government-run, thus bound by the standard procedures, rules and precedents of public administration which tend to lead to slow response to field needs and to inflexibility. Departments are bureaucratically structured because of the need to allocate, financially control, and account for a wide range of items to a large number of individuals (Jiggins 1977).· The fisheries officers are generally responsible for administration, policy and planning, while technical officers are specifically responsible for operations (Satia 1989).
· Extension services are typically not involved in the planning of resource allocation or policy priorities. They tend to be regarded solely as the executive arm of decision-makers located elsewhere or at a higher level. Priorities and financial allocations are thus handed down to the districts for implementation, however well or ill they suit the particular needs of farmers in the area. Such centralization parallels the attempt to extend packages across the board, disregarding both geo-climatic and socio-economic variation within the locality.
· There tends to be confusion between the regulatory (enforcing fisheries regulations, see section 8.2), educational (demonstrations, etc.), and service (fingerling distribution) functions of the extension services; and there is a corresponding weakness and confusion of management styles and structures. Management within extension services tends to be inward-looking rather than directed toward servicing staff in the field, or providing necessary support, encouragement, or supervision.
· Traditionally, field staff are controlled and their performance evaluated by measuring the measurable (i.e. number of visits made, total pond area, fingerlings distributed). These quantitative tasks can be most easily met by visiting larger farmers. Moreover, fish production figures are hard to obtain and it is therefore common practice to multiply the pond area with an assumed average yield of fish per hectare per year (often around 2,000 kg/ha/yr). Whether or not farmers actually produce fish in a sustainable way cannot be assessed. Operationally, these are not very useful measures of either effort or impact, the indices that should be of real concern to supervisors.
· An important impediment to reaching the remote, scattered, invisible small-scale farmers is that prospects for junior staff are usually governed by paper qualifications rather than field competence and experience. Promotion criteria tend to relate to seniority, length of service, office-based skills, visibility to the superior management. It becomes more important to please immediate superiors than to carry out immediate field tasks, to fulfill 'paper' objectives than to achieve results on the ground. A regional survey of the aquaculture sector in Africa South of the Sahara carried out in 1989 mentioned that extension agents, particularly field workers, have limited opportunities for career advancement (Satia 1989). This was being attributed to the lack of training institutions in many countries and to the lack of basic qualifications to pursue training outside the country. Even those who had the opportunity to train externally, failed to further their career advancement because of a lack of follow-up by the institutions concerned; for example, the failure to issue the trainees with transcripts of their results, and diplomas or certificates of qualification.
· Salary structures are governed by nationally, or regionally, determined norms and grading; individual effort and competence is not directly, or even often, related to reward. Monetary compensation is not necessarily the prime component in job satisfaction and motivation. Yet where financial resources are scarce, very little effort is usually made to seek alternative material benefits for junior extension workers that might at least ease resentment and dissatisfaction at seeing effort and application go unrewarded (Jiggins 1977).
· Terms of service are often as unsatisfactory as remuneration and promotion. Though junior staff usually have a considerable degree of security of employment, staff transfers can be very frequent. The constant movement of staff is damaging to the morale of the staff and to the achievement of objectives (Jiggins 1977).
· Expectations and motivations of field staff are rarely adequately considered. Most efforts and resources provided by either government or donors, tend to concentrate on the provision of physical inputs and the mobilization of technological resources, rather than in the review of field staff management. Yet if the organization fails at this level, all the prior effort is wasted.
9.1 Opportunities
9.2 System Overload
9.3 Institutional Barriers
9.4 Current Extension Approach
The previous section described the problems of maintaining a separate aquaculture extension service. Indeed, it has been acknowledged by many governments that the unification of extension services (agriculture, livestock, aquaculture) is a good idea, but the difficult issue is to determine the scale and level of this integration. This section discusses the opportunities and constraints of integrating the aquaculture extension service with agriculture.
As has been illustrated, sustainable small-scale aquaculture implies the integrated use of farm resources so as to meet both productivity and sustainability goals. Yet, most external agencies, both governmental and non-governmental, are organized along sectoral lines. Aquaculture research and extension professionals tend to be narrowly trained and tend not to work in a multi-disciplinary fashion. Hence it is difficult for farmers and extension staff to discuss and effectively improve upon their farming systems as a whole.
The farmers have to contact many points to get their permits and information (e.g. agriculture, animal husbandry, forest, aquaculture, fisheries). However, it would be more practical if an extension organization would look more outward to the client system and try to "service" the farmers' total requirements.
It has been recognized that it is possible to identify the various elements of the farming system and decide what skills are needed, but there is also the problem of overloading the system (Bagchee 1994). This overloading is especially obvious at the level of the extension worker. The extension worker is often poorly trained, not well equipped for his/her tasks and has to give advice on many different aspects of agriculture. In many countries the system does not provide incentives or promotion prospects for taking up extra responsibilities.
Aquaculture extension and research are often independent from agriculture extension and research. In most countries aquaculture falls under a separate department and sometimes even under different ministries. Although a more integrated extension approach towards rural development may be beneficial, collaboration between departments and ministries is often difficult. The institutional barriers preventing aquaculture from becoming an integrated part of agriculture extension may be difficult to overcome. Staff fear loosing their jobs and the existing power structures are threatened by the change. The fact that extension becomes more effective and efficient is not always a sufficient incentive to accept collaboration and integration with other institutes. As one senior aquaculture staff in Zambia argued against this integration: the collaboration with the Department of Agriculture will provide you with transport to go into the field, but they will never buy you a vehicle.
In addition, the integration of existing development projects with other rural development projects faces the same resistance. The fear that the amalgamation of aquaculture and agriculture will lead to the neglect of aquaculture may, in some cases, be justified. It can only work when there is a clear commitment from both sides to collaborate.
Since many countries use the T&V system, the development of small-scale aquaculture through this system will face the same problems as presently experienced by agriculture extension. It is therefore argued that, rather than integrating aquaculture into a system with serious shortcomings, a new extension approach must be found and implemented by a different type of extension service
The previous sections have shown that sustainable small-scale aquaculture can only be achieved if it is integrated within existing farming systems, increasing the diversity of the enterprises within the small-scale farms, and reducing risks. Whilst the importance of effective research and extension is acknowledged as being critically important for agricultural and rural development, the previous sections show that existing extension approaches and services have not been effective. Top-down approaches, separate aquaculture extension services and the promotion of pre-determined packages of so-called integrated aquaculture are clearly not working. For the potential of integrated small-scale aquaculture to be fully realized and positively contribute to the attainment of rural development objectives, there have to be changes in the extension approach, message, methods and organization. This section proposes a new extension approach.
Small-scale aquaculture cannot be conceptualized as a purely technical activity. Opportunities available to different people for aquaculture not only depend on environmental conditions, access to means of production and their farming systems but also on their social relationships within and beyond the household. This will influence the interest in aquaculture as perceived by the various target groups. For example, an adoption study carried out in Zambia revealed that villagers felt morally obliged to participate in the construction of a village pond after the village headman had proposed to build a communal pond. However, they themselves did not see any benefits so they started looking for excuses for their absence since they could not openly let him down. Likewise, farmers who wanted to construct a family pond felt it was indecent to do so before the village headman had built his own since it would have been interpreted as challenging the headman (Van der Mheen-Sluijer 1991a).
It may also explain that not all farmers' priorities are production-oriented as is sometimes believed. Aquaculture technology should be reworked to fit the farming production strategies, resource imperatives and social desires of a farm family. For example, it is often stated that farmers lack the knowledge concerning a six months' production cycle. However, findings show that farmers often do have the knowledge but do not necessarily apply this knowledge because they may see aquaculture as a 'savings account', i.e. sell fish when they need money or to 'save' fish for times when relish is in short supply, or do not want to drain the pond because of a lack of fingerlings, water or inputs to fertilize the pond (personal observations in Zambia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe). Some farmers have also expressed concern that a batch harvest attracts many people and they are expected to distribute part of their harvest amongst relatives and friends. Another reason why farmers may not see the need to harvest after six months is that although they were always taught that there is a risk of overpopulation after six months which may lead to a reduction in productivity, they knew they were regularly fishing in their pond and thereby decreasing the stocking density. During many years this practice of intermittent harvesting by fish farmers has been discouraged by extension services so that farmers were often reluctant to give accurate details on catches and fishing frequency.
Therefore, if aquaculture is to be integrated into farming systems one must also understand its interactions with the surrounding physical, socio-cultural and institutional environment. This analysis as well as the planning of improvements should involve farm families and rural communities. This process will also expose the multiple objectives of the people concerned (FAO 1989). Working with people or facilitating them to work with each other requires a fundamentally different approach to research and extension. The methodological challenge is not necessarily that of how to produce more or better information. The idea is to improve the capacity to analyze and learn from each other. To do so, the emphasis must shift from expanding the repertoire of methods to convey predetermined aquaculture production techniques to establishing a basis for dialogue, through which ideas are shared and learning occurs. This creation of a shared perspective on the problem, and help in developing decision-making capacity to deal with it, is perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of facilitation. Collaboration between researchers, extensionists and farming households is regarded as a process of mutual learning between colleagues with different contributions to make.
Participatory programmes also focus on facilitating exchange between farmers and enhancing their organizational capacity to diagnose and solve problems themselves. Previously, transfer of knowledge between farmers was discouraged because it was assumed that farmers were unable to provide the correct knowledge to each other. For example, farmers were told to wait for extension workers who would come and peg a pond for them because the procedure of the extension service was that farmers could not select a suitable site for their ponds. Likewise, extension workers would deliver the right number of fingerlings to stock a pond without explaining how to calculate the 'exact number'. Nevertheless, experience has shown that fish farmers do transfer a lot of information to other farmers. In Tanzania, knowledge about fish farming was most often obtained from other fish farmers (Nilsson & Wetengere 1994). In Eastern Province of Zambia the majority of the fish farmers (93%) had received advice from other fish farmers, while only a minority received advice through the official extension channels (van der Mheen-Sluijer 1995). Another study carried out in Zambia found that, although fish farming extension had been intense in an area, and the project was an important source of information, most fish farmers identified an other fish farmer in the area as the most important source of information.
With all the problems extension services are experiencing in reaching small-scale farmers, farmer-to-farmer extension is now receiving considerable attention because it has proven to be an important multiplier in the number of recipients that can be reached. In spite of this advantage, there are shortcomings of this communication channel. When people pass on messages it is likely that some distortion will occur which will worsen as one goes along the chain. Furthermore, if the first fish farmer in an area adopts 'wrong' practices, others are likely to follow the 'wrong' example. In Eastern Province, Zambia, it was found that farmers copy what they see without necessarily knowing why things are done in a certain way. One would expect that an opinion leader discusses more or less the same topics (e.g. details of pond construction, composting) with all the farmers who ask him/her for advice. However, several people who had talked about fish farming with the same opinion leader, but did not live in the same villages, had adopted different practices. If the first fish farmer had a well constructed pond, others in the same village would also build their ponds correctly. If the first fish farmer had no compost crib in the pond, it would be less likely for fellow villagers to practice composting. The situation in neighbouring villages could be completely different despite the fact that they had received advice from the same person (Van der Mheen-Sluijer 1995).
Two conclusions can be drawn from these studies. Firstly, whether intended or unintended, farmer-to-farmer extension is taking place on a large scale and is very effective in reaching remote, small-scale farmers. The development of local networks to disseminate information should thus be encouraged. The quality of the knowledge transferred should be carefully monitored since distortion of information may lead to adoption of wrong practices which may be counterproductive in the long run. Secondly, one could infer, based on the results of the above-mentioned studies, that to have one well-constructed and well-managed fish pond per village is enough to trigger the multiplier effect. Even if the 'introduction of this first fish pond' is done through a careful process of exchange of information with the farming household so that it fits within their farming system and is in line with their resources and objectives, it does not necessarily mean that others will be able to copy the right practices. Farmers should also understand the basics of aquaculture, e.g. know the why's of a sloping site, sloping and compacted dikes, stocking densities, composting, production cycle, etc. This knowledge will enable them to adapt aquaculture to their own situation. It thus requires (a) discussion partner(s) who is (are) willing to share this knowledge with the community to which he/she belongs.
An example in Eastern Province, Zambia can be used to illustrate this point. A school teacher had been envied by many people for his fish. Since he had used hired labour for pond construction and cement to line his dikes, small-scale farmers who had seen his ponds were discouraged to copy his fish farming experiences (hence the study's outcome that seeing a fish pond had a negative effect on the adoption of fish farming). When the project introduced fish farming encouraging people to use only locally available resources, people started discussing fish farming issues with the teacher, while before they had only looked at the ponds. His position as an opinion leader gave him status in the community but at the same time he was afraid that the uptake of fish farming by others might interfere with his own enterprise and he started to convey incorrect information.
This example shows the importance of the social context and power relations in patterns of knowledge transmission. If an extension service wants to build on social networks for information exchange, it is important to know how the sharing, spreading, and transformation of knowledge takes place. This can be done through network analysis. It tries to expose patterns of communication by checking whether farmers obtain all the necessary information on aquaculture from one or several sources and how they are related to these sources (e.g. belong to same village, clan, age-grade association, church, youth or women's group, informal beer-brewing group, labour-exchange societies, farmer groups and so on). An important aspect in this analysis is to relate these networks of information exchanges to the potential users of this information. For example, it has often been stated that women and children are usually responsible for the feeding of the fish. Do they discuss these issues with others who are responsible for the same tasks? In other words, can this informal extension system overcome the pitfalls of formal extension systems which more often than not address men and expects them to pass on the information to their wives and children?
These social networks can be taken as an entry point for a field worker when introducing aquaculture. Local groups or organizations have in common the prevalence of face-to-face interpersonal relationships, which are more frequent and intense within small groups. They are thus an ideal forum for discussing farmers' opportunities to integrate aquaculture into their farming systems. However, an important shortcoming of traditional institutions is that in highly stratified societies, the existing institutional arrangements are inequitable. Therefore, it may not be the best representative of local people (Pretty 1995). If it is found that local elites or the better-off farmers dominate these existing local groups, it is better to form entirely new ones. Another reason why it may not be suitable to build upon already established groups, is that uptake of aquaculture will be scattered. Existing groups may not be able to cope with this wide distribution of members. This is an important difference with agriculture where many farmers grow the same type of crops.
New groups may thus have to be formed for the purpose of exchanging information on aquaculture. Care must be taken that these new institutions are not imposed on local people. The usual approach to establishing rural organizations, calling a meeting, passing a constitution, electing officers, etc.- does not yield sustainable local capabilities. Uphoff (1994) identifies several distinct elements in the group formation and development process. These were slightly adapted here to suit our purposes.
The creation of communication channels stimulated by field workers who have been appropriately recruited, trained and deployed.
· Start with an informal organization. Let farmers develop fish farming first, then focus on solving particular problems, like the supply of fingerlings. Especially in areas with seasonal ponds, it is important that farmers secure their supply of fingerlings. If the farmers live within walking or cycling distance and the market for fingerlings is large enough, someone may want to specialize in the production of fingerlings versus table-size fish.· Importance of small groups at the base. The fact that people know each other creates opportunities for collective action and mutual assistance, and for mobilizing resources on a self-sustaining basis.
· Make provision for horizontal diffusion. As fish farmer organizations get involved in research and extension and in other means for improving their situation, it is important that horizontal, farmer-to-farmer channels of communication and learning be established. Visits of fish farmer-representatives to other fish farming groups can be very beneficial.
A working collaboration between field staff and, either already established local groups or newly formed 'fish farmer groups' systems seem likely to offer the most widespread and durable opportunity for extending extension. An extension service should send out a field worker to consult with farmers, identify aquaculture potential, and build groups. Whether extension staff will have to deal with groupings of farmers directly or through some intermediary at village level depends on the local situation.
If the extension staff work with a farmer representative, care should be taken when mobilizing this type of 'leadership'. Farmer representatives should be chosen by their groups not by election but by consensus. If the representatives must be acceptable to all members, factional leaders are less likely to come forward. If groups have already started working informally, everyone will know who within their group is serious about improving fish farming performance. Those selected will feel accountable to every member, as all had assented to their selection. Representatives should rotate on a regular basis, so that many farmers get the experience of facilitating groups. It also limits the risks of one person trying to control the group and thereby trying to boost his/her status. The terms of reference should be prepared by the members of the group.
An additional advantage of group extension is that it is culturally more accepted that the dominantly male extension services, only 3% of extension staff in Africa are female and are usually found in the junior ranks (van der Mheen & Sen 1994), use group methods when discussing (fish) farming with women than individual extension methods. It is impossible to say, without knowledge of the particular local circumstances, whether men and women want to have separate or mixed groups to discuss fish farming issues.
The collaboration between extension staff and farmer groups should include the identification, implementation, and evaluation of relevant trials. For example, a rapid rural appraisal carried out in Luapula Province, Zambia, revealed that farmers had experimented to feed Tilapia rendalli with several types of 'bush leaves' and compared growth performance. A farmer also explained how he had experimented with different types of polyculture, comparing Oreochromis macrochir growth rates for different combinations of, Tilapia rendalli and sparrmanii (Van der Mheen-Sluijer 1991b). Farmers often conduct their own research and compare results. The problem is that researchers sometimes do not understand or even accept that farmers are experimenters.
In conclusion, a participatory use of extension methods in itself is not enough to bring about sustainable aquaculture or agriculture. Flexible and long-term extension approaches that build upon local knowledge and skills, reinforce local village organizations, involve villagers in technology generation and use of local farmer representatives for appraisal, planning, implementation and monitoring are needed.
Given such grassroots organization, extension could make use of a great variety of group extension communication methods. Instead of being primarily responsible for providing technological information, the extension agent should teach farmers how to analyze their situation, how problems can be solved and how the appropriate institutes can be contacted for assistance. But developing methods for setting up the grassroots organizations itself is still a matter of uncertainty. Actual experience is scarce. The institutional development at farmers level should become an important aspect of rural development.
One must admit from the preceding sections that most extension organizations are not exactly suited for implementing our alternative extension approach.
To implement a participatory approach successfully, the field workers should have considerable communication and motivation skills, in addition to some technical understanding of agriculture and aquaculture. They need to be supported by a network of specialists. They need training to help rural people to organize, to formulate priorities, and to 'pull down' required assistance from a network of specialists and local experimental stations.
A re-organized extension structure should thus use a smaller but much better qualified staff than is currently the case. This staff will have to use the local social network of the farmers to further disseminate the extension messages, and will need extension material appropriate for such an approach.
Such attempts to introduce decentralized, 'bottom-up' approaches must be complemented by strong 'top-down' commitment and a very clear, shared view of the mission of the organization, filtering through its culture at all levels. Discretion over policy adjustments, choice of local organizational forms, allocation of financial resources at the district level would allow the extension organization to respond to the multiplicity of farmer needs. The decision on what kind of research will be carried out and what extension messages will contain will be no longer determined by the departments but is decided in discussion with the farmers.
In order to be able to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the work of the field staff, rather than report on quantitative tasks executed by them, supervisors will have to work much more closely with individual staff, should spend a lot of their time in the field with their junior staff and their clients, to know what is possible for each staff member to do within the local conditions, to help them draw up a realistic work plan, to encourage them when they feel inadequate and reprimand them when they fail to keep to work plans. It means that supervision will have to be an active process of leadership, not a paper procedure, and that evaluation be made against mutually discussed and established standards of required performance.
In short, a far more personal, in-the-field management and support of staff and a review of recruitment, training and promotion procedures combined with a raise in status of extension work and field staff would considerably assist the problem of 'motivating junior staff'.
A participatory extension approach also requires a rethinking of conventional project programming procedures. Instead of leaping into project formulation from the start, the process must start with a slow and patient building up of village-level capacity through skills training and institutional support. This phase requires an initial investment in human resource development. It must precede formal project planning and then be followed by participatory planning, implementation and evaluation. Physical and financial targets should be drawn up in detail at this stage. Conventional tools of appraisal and economic analysis can be used in conjunction with analysis of institutional development.
Although some of the design criteria for an alternative extension organization could thus be formulated, much work remains to be done in this respect, while there seems to be considerable reluctance in this matter.
The integration of aquaculture within existing farming systems, implies that field workers are expected to cope with a range of farm level problems, though most often they have been taught only a narrow package of technical advice and inputs. Moreover, they were taught to take a known technology to rural communities and enlist their co-operation.
The alternative extension approach requires professionals to act as facilitators and trainers rather than working in isolation in their own field of expertise. This requires a willingness and ability to learn from and work with people and thus a major reversal in the attitudes of professionals. Starting a two-way communication process with farmers means that field workers integrate information from farmers with the aquaculture production techniques known to them. This requires more knowledge and skills of an extension agent than simply transferring a technical package to farmers; more skills than many extension workers possess at present.
Field workers must also be well acquainted with techniques of 'mobilizing farmers', and how to make best use of farmers' initiatives, how to go about stimulating and organizing farmers' groups, how to communicate effectively with groups.
Section 10.2 has explained that the task of a supervisor should be managerial and executive rather than bureaucratic. Their functions should be open rather than closely defined, responsive as well as directive. This entails more careful training of field supervisors as well, for 'bad bosses create bad workers'. Supervisors will need to learn the methods and philosophy of field control while junior field staff become involved in, and more responsible for the planning of their work, encouraged by closer supervision and in-service technical training to feel that their work is recognized as being of value.
Governments provide support for aquaculture through the educational establishment. However, they focus on teaching (teaching implies the transfer of knowledge from someone who knows to someone who does not know) rather than learning. Participatory learning implies mutual learning - from farmers, from students' own learning and from colleagues (Pretty 1995). To bring about the desired change in attitude and extension methods of field workers requires a change in 'teaching' methods. The field workers should have a chance to experience themselves that a good educator must in the first place be a good learner (Van der Mheen-Sluijer 1995).
The education system thus needs transformation in the style of teaching and learning. Training courses should not be lectures; instead institutions will need to provide creative learning environments, conditions in which learning can take place through experience, and through personal exploration and experimentation. Training and capacity building in the use of community development and participatory methods should occur in the field because field tasks require staff whose experience and competence are practical rather than academic.
Hence, sustainable aquaculture implies collaboration between several disciplines to develop a more systemic and integrated curriculum and training materials.
Finally, it should be noted that the development of participatory extension methods are unlikely to have an effect in the short term. This is because training, capacity-building and institutional support require considerable investments in time. However, in the medium to long term, when results will begin to take effect, it is more likely that such approaches will be sustainable.
The place of small-scale aquaculture in rural development has been discussed in the context of the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, central and southern Africa. The region is faced with stagnating agricultural production, a worsening food security situation, increased poverty levels and environmental degradation. In an effort to stimulate economic growth, many countries are following economic restructuring programmes, often on the recommendation of the IMF/World Bank.
Studies indicate that risk avoidance, rather than profit maximization, dominate household decision making for these farmers. Given the uncertainties in the macro-, micro-economic and political climates which farmers have to operate within, this is a rational response. Small-scale aquaculture and agriculture compete with and complement each other for on-farm resources. It is argued that in areas where small-scale aquaculture occurs, it is already integrated into the farming system and furthermore, this is the only feasible way to develop small-scale aquaculture.
The current state of the macro-, micro-economic and political environments in many southern and eastern Africa countries effect the development of integrated small-scale aquaculture, some effects may be negative and some may be positive. Possible negative effects include the reduction in government budgets and the promotion of the private sector in the short term. Positive effects include the contribution of small-scale aquaculture to rural development, more specifically, rural income generation, improvement of food security, food poverty alleviation and environmental degradation.
Integrated small-scale aquaculture might be negatively affected by the reduction in government budgets due to the implementation of SAP. Extension services are being reduced and it is likely that the small-scale fanning sector, which is diverse, geographically scattered, and has a relatively low contribution to export earnings, will be the worst affected. As part of the liberalization process, in some countries the privatization of input supplies may have a negative effect on the development of small-scale aquaculture as farmers cannot access fingerlings. This will occur in countries where there is a need to develop entrepreneurial capacity.
Whilst changes in the macro-economic climate are likely to produce some negative effects in marketing and credit provision, it is concluded that small-scale aquaculture will not be significantly affected. This is because most fish produced from small-scale aquaculture is sold either at the pond or locally and is usually not subject to any marketing restrictions. With regard to credit provision, it is concluded that credit is not required for the development of small-scale aquaculture, and in cases where it has been introduced, has had a negative effect.
Small-scale aquaculture can make a positive contribution to rural income generation. Studies indicate that cash income generation is an important incentive for farmers to take up fish farming and that it can, under some circumstance, generate relatively substantial cash incomes compared to other activities. As fish produced from a pond can be harvested throughout the year, it is an important and easily accessible source of animal protein for the household, especially during times when other household food resources are low. However, it is concluded that small-scale aquaculture is unlikely to have a significant impact in areas of chronic food insecurity as production levels are too low.
In the past, there has been a tendency for aquaculture extension services to target better off farmers. This has led to the belief that it is a technology not suitable for the rural poor. However, studies indicate that small-scale aquaculture can contribute to poverty alleviation provided that extension approaches and methods are appropriate and flexible.
Environmental sustainability is becoming an increasingly important issue in southern and eastern Africa. Research indicates that integrated small-scale aquaculture can have a positive impact on the ecological sustainability of farming systems.
It is concluded that the critical factor which influences the contribution of integrated small-scale aquaculture to rural development is the use of appropriate extension approach. Current extension approaches used in agriculture and aquaculture are considered inappropriate for the majority of small-scale farmers. Existing aquaculture extension services are under-resourced and suffer from many of the problems facing the larger, agricultural extension services concerning staff motivation. Although integrating aquaculture into existing agricultural extension services is considered a good idea, the practical aspects of this integration are more difficult as there may be a problem of system overload, institutional barriers and a requirement to reverse the roles of current extension personnel. Integration is only worthwhile if the existing agricultural extension system has proved effective in reaching small-scale farmers.
In response to the obvious need for a more appropriate extension approach to reach small-scale farmers, and in particular, to develop small-scale aquaculture, a participatory extension approach is proposed. This requires a change in existing attitudes and approaches to extension. Farmers and extension workers have to be equal partners in the development process. The methodological challenge is not necessarily how to produce more or better information but to improve capacities of both farmers and extension agents to analyze situations and learn from each other. This is likely to lead to a reworking of aquaculture technologies to fit the farming production strategies, resource imperatives and social desires of the farm family and not the other way around.
To make more efficient use of the limited resources of extension organizations, it is proposed to utilize social networks in the communities. Extension workers can either build on already existing groups or form new groups to discuss fish farming.
One of the greatest constraints for promoting wider use of participatory extension approaches, lies in the quality of available extension staff. They must be well acquainted with the farmers; they must know about the different systems and practices present in the various communities; they must be able to facilitate discussions; and they must be able to stimulate the discussion while not dominating it.
To bring about this desired change in attitude and use of extension methods, new thinking about teaching and learning is needed. Instead of giving lectures to trainees, which is a one-way communication process, training courses should also be an experience of a two-way communication process.
Most extension organizations are presently not well suited to implement such a participatory approach. Indicators for monitoring and evaluating the performance of field staff, other than the quantitative tasks usually set for them, will have to be developed. Because it is not the number of field visits and kg. of fingerlings distributed that counts but the use of the aquaculture system and its impact on the community. Supervisors need to give a lot more support to field workers and actively follow the developments in the field.
All these changes require much engagement from all parties; extension workers, researchers, government departments and donors. The institutional barriers one may encounter while working towards this change in extension methodology may be substantial.
In areas where small-scale aquaculture is practiced, it is already integrated with agriculture. Where it is not, it has failed. Small-scale aquaculture clearly can make a contribution in rural development, but this contribution should not be overstated. Small-scale aquaculture can be one of the many activities a small-scale farming household can adopt to minimize risks. The challenge is not to ensure that farmers take up aquaculture but to ensure that they are aware of the opportunities and constraints of aquaculture. This is essentially an extension issue, and one which is best resolved through discussion and exchange of information between extensionists and farmers.
* Apart from the layout, the references are as presented by the author
Aase, H. and C.A. Mumba 1987. Fish Farming in Zambia: an Overview. FAO Field Document GCP/INT/436/SWE Lusaka, Zambia. 22 pp.
Bagchee, A. 1994. Agricultural Extension in Africa, World Bank Discussion Paper 231.
Binali, W. 1996. Aquaculture Extension in Zimbabwe. In Report of the technical Consultation on Extension Methods for Small-holder Fish Fanning in Southern Africa by H.W. van der Mheen. FAO ALCOM Report 21 Harare, Zimbabwe. 46 pp.
Campbell, D. 1995. The Impact of the Field day Extension Approach on the Development of Fish farming in Selected Areas of Western Kenya. FAO TCP/4551 Field Document no. 1. Kisumu, Kenya. 26 pp.
Cleaver, K.M. 1993. A Strategy to Develop Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa and a Focus for the World Bank. World Bank Technical Paper 203. Africa Technical Department Services.
Cleaver, K.M. and W.G. Donovan, 1995. Agriculture, Poverty and Policy Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Discussion Paper 280.
Duncan, A. and J. Howell (ed.), 1992. Structural Adjustment and the African Farmer. ODI. London. 214 pp.
Ellis, F. 1992. Agricultural Policies in Developing Countries. Wye Studies in Agriculture and Rural Development, University of Cambridge. 357 pp.
FAO 1989. Farming Systems Development-Concept, Methods, Applications. FAO Rome. 44 pp. FAO, NORAD, UNDP, 1987. Thematic Evaluation of Aquaculture. FAO Rome. 85 pp. Fulconis, R. 1988. Le Crédit Piscicole en République Centrafricaine. FAO Rome.
Gaiha, R. 1991, Structural Adjustment and Households Welfare in Rural Areas: a Micro-economic Perspective. FAO Economic and Social Development Paper, 100 p.
Galbreath, pp.F. and A.D. Ziehi 1992. Practique de l'elevage de Tilapia nilotica en milieu rural en Côte d'Ivoire. In Aquaculture Systems Research in Africa. Proceedings of a Workshop held in Bouake, Côte d'Ivoire 14-17 November 1988. by G.M. Bernacsek and H. Powles. IDRC p 337-357.
Harrison, E. 1994. Digging Fish Ponds: Perspectives on Motivation. Report to the Overseas Development Administration, School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, U.K., 20p.
Harrison, E. 1993. Fish Farming in the Lake Basin, Kenya. School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, U.K., 33 pp.
Harrison, E., J.A. Steward, R.L. Stirrat, and J. Muir 1994. Fish Farming in Africa. What is the Catch. Summary Report of ODA-supported Research Project Aquaculture Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, U.K., 51p
Institute for African Studies. University of Zambia. 1995. Sector Performance Analysis of the Agricultural Sector. 19 pp.
Janssen, J. and H. Randrainmiarana 1993. Compte-rendu de la Campaigne Rizipiscicole et Piscicole 1991-1992 sur les Hautes-terres de Madagascar. FAO Technical Document FI:DP/MAG/88/005 No 10, Ansirabe, Madagascar. 104 pp.
Jensen, A. 1994. Perspectives sur la privatization de la vulgarisation et l'intensification de la (rizi) pisciculture dans la région de Fianarantsoa, Madagascar. FAO. 22 pp.
Jiggins, J. 1977. Motivation and Performance of Extension Field Staff. In Extension, Planning and the Poor. Agricultural Administration Unit, Occasional Paper 2. (ODI),. pp. 1-19.
Kamp, K., R. Gregory and G. Chowhan 1993. Fish Cutting Pesticide. ILEIA Newsletter 2/93, pp. 22-23.
Kapoor, K. (ed.), 1995. Africa's Experience with Structural Adjustment. Proceedings of the Harare Seminar 23-24 May 1994. World Bank Discussion Paper 288.
Lietar, C. 1985. La Pisciculture Rural en République Centrafricaine. Enquête préliminaire sur la Rentabilité. FAO, Bangui, 42 pp.
Lightfoot, C. and R.S.V. Pullin. 1994. Why an Integrated Resource Management Approach? In Aquaculture Policy Options for Integrated Resource Management in Sub Saharan Africa. Extended abstracts from a workshop held in Zomba, Malawi by R.E. can be drawn ICLARM. 45 pp.
Lightfoot, C. and R.S.V. Pullin. 1995. An Integrated Resource Management Approach to the Development of Integrated Aquaculture Farming Systems. In The Management of Integrated Freshwater Agro-Piscicultural Ecosystems in Tropical Areas Brussels, 16-19 May 1994, Proceedings edited by Symoens, J.J. and J.C. Micha. CTA Brussels, pp. 145-167.
Micha J.C. 1995. The Management of Integrated Freshwater Agro-piscicultural Ecosystems in Tropical Areas. In The Management of Integrated Freshwater Agro-Piscicultural Ecosystems in Tropical Areas Brussels, 16-19 May 1994, Proceedings edited by Symoens, J.J. and J.C. Micha. CTA Brussels. pp. 573-581.
Murnyak, D. and G. Mafwenga 1996. Extension Methodology Practiced in Fish Farming projects in Tanzania. In Report of the technical Consultation on Extension Methods for Small-holder Fish Farming in Southern Africa by H.W. van der Mheen. FAO Harare, Zimbabwe. 46 pp.
Nilsson, H. and K. Wetengere. 1994. Adoption and Viability Criteria for Semi Intensive Fish Farming: a report on a socio-economic study in Ruvuma and Mbeya regions, Tanzania. FAO ALCOM Field document 28. Harare, Zimbabwe. 44 pp.
Prein, M. 1995. Farmer Participatory Development of Integrated Agriculture-Aquaculture Systems for Natural resource Management in Ghana. In Aquaculture Policy Options for Integrated Resource Management in Sub Saharan Africa. Extended abstracts from a workshop held in Zomba, Malawi by R.E. ICLARM. 45 pp.
Pretty, J.N. 1995. Regenerating Agriculture-Policies and practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance. London Earthscan Publications Ltd., 320 pp.
Rolings, N. 1982. Alternative Approaches in Extension. In: Progress in Rural Extension and Community Development by G.E. Jones and M.J. Rolls (eds.), Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. pp. 87-115.
Satia, B. 1989. A regional Survey of the Aquaculture Sector in Africa South of the Sahara. FAO Rome. 60 pp.
Scholtz, U. and S. Chimatiro. 1996. The Promotion of Small-Scale Aquaculture in Southern Region of Malawi. In Report of the technical Consultation on Extension Methods for Small-holder Fish Farming in Southern Africa by H.W. van der Mheen. FAO ALCOM Report 21 Harare, Zimbabwe. 46 pp.
Seki, E. And Maly, R. 1994. A Pilot Socio-Economic Survey of Aquaculture in Ruvuma Region, Tanzania. ALCOM Field Document No. 20. FAO, Harare, Zimbabwe. 107 pp.
Spooner, N.J. and L.D. Smith, 1991. Structural Adjustment policy sequencing in sub-Saharan Africa. FAO Economic and Social Development Paper 104
Tembo, S, A. Nkomeshya, H. Ntalasha, and J. Kalumbi. 1995. Pre Asip study of the status of small holder faring and agriculture services in Sinazongwe and Zimba, Southern province of Zambia. Institute for African Studies. University of Zambia. 36 pp.
Thomas, M, N. Hishamunda, D. Brown, C. Engle and C. Jolly. 1995. A Comparative Enterprise Budget Analysis of Small-Scale Fish Culture in Rwanda. 65 pp.
Uphoff, N. 1994. Local Organization for Supporting People-based Agricultural research and Extension: Lessons from Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. In Beyond the Farmer First, by I. Scoones and J. Thompson (eds.). London IT Publications Ltd. pp. 213-220.
Van den Ban, A.W. and H.S. Hawkins 1988. Agricultural Extension. Longman, Essex, England. 328 pp.
Van der Mheen-Sluijer, J. 1995. Aquaculture Extension Guidelines for Small-Scale Farmers. FAO ALCOM Report No. 16, Harare, Zimbabwe. 63 pp.
van der Mheen-Sluijer, J. 1991a. Adoption of Fish Fanning: Promoting and Inhibiting Factors in Eastern Province, Zambia. FAO Harare, Zimbabwe, Field Document GCP/INT/436/SWE.13, 41 pp.
Van der Mheen-Sluijer, J. 1991b. Rapid Rural Appraisal in Luapula Province, Zambia. FAO ALCOM unpublished. 34 pp.
Van der Mheen-Sluijer, J. 1989. The Human Side of Fish Farming. Study Tour to Bangui, Central African Republic. FAO, Chipata, Zambia, unpublished 24 pp.
Van der Mheen-Sluijer, J. and H.W. van der Mheen. 1988. Field Testing of Aquaculture in Eastern Province of Zambia. FAO Field document 6. Chipata, Zambia. 63 pp.
Van der Mheen-Sluijer, J. and S. Sen 1994. Meeting information needs on Gender Issues in Aquaculture. FAO ALCOM Harare, Zimbabwe. 36 pp.
Wijkstrom, U.N. and R. Larsson 1992. Fish Farmers in Rural Communities: Results of a Survey in Northwestern province of Zambia. FAO Field Document ALCOM No. 8, Harare, Zimbabwe. 40 pp.
Wijkstrom, U.N. and H. Aase. 1989. Fish Farmers in Rural Communities. Results of a Socio-Economic Pilot Survey in Northern Province of Zambia. FAO Field Document GCP/INT/436/SWE.5, Lusaka, Zambia. 27 pp.
World Bank, 1989. From Crisis to Sustainable Growth: A Long Term Perspective Study.
World Bank, 1993. Adjustment in Africa: Reform, Results and the Road Ahead. Policy Research Dept.
