ADOPTION OF FISH FARMING: PROMOTING AND INHIBITING FACTORS IN EASTERN PROVINCE, ZAMBIA
|TABLE OF CONTENTS|
Jennie van der Mheen - Sluijer
This report was prepared during the course of the project identified on the title page. The conclusions and recommendations given in the report are those considered appropriate at the time of its preparation. They may be modified in the light of further knowledge gained at subsequent stages of the project.
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations or the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the delimination of frontiers.
The Aquaculture for Local Community Development Programme (ALCOM) is an inter-regional programme executed by FAO and funded by Sweden (SIDA). Its activities are focusing on the SADCC countries of Southern Africa.
The main objective is to develop, test and demonstrate strategies, methods and techniques by which rural populations can improve their standards of living through aquaculture, environmental aspects of aquaculture, involvement of women and youth, and information gathering for national planning and project design. Through development support, assistance is given to participating countries in the preparation and implementation of larger scale projects.
This report is based on a study carried out in conjunction with a pilot project Field Testing of Aquaculture in Rural Development in Eastern Province of Zambia.
|Harare||Mail :||P O Box 3730, Harare, Zimbabwe|
|Telex :||26040 FAO ZW|
|Lusaka||Central Fisheries Research Institute, Chilanga|
|Mail :||P O Box 30563, Lusaka, Zambia|
|Telex :||44510 FAO ZM ZA|
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Harare, Zimbabwe, 1991
Hyperlinks to non-FAO Internet sites do not imply any official endorsement of or responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at these locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. The sole purpose of links to non-FAO sites is to indicate further information available on related topics.
This electronic document has been scanned using optical character recognition (OCR) software. FAO declines all responsibility for any discrepancies that may exist between the present document and its original printed version.
2. STUDY DESIGN
3. COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
4.1 Socio-cultural and economic environment
4.1.2 Social Systems
4.1.3 Introduction of Fish Farming
4.1.4 Knowledge of Fish Farming
4.2 Adopters versus non-adopters
4.2.3 Knowledge and Uncertainties of Fish Farming
4.2.4 Perception of Fish Farming
5. MODEL OF THE ADOPTION OF FISH FARMING
Appendix 1: CHECKLIST VARIABLES SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT INFLUENCING THE RATE OF ADOPTION OF FISH FARMING
Appendix 2: CHECKLIST VARIABLES INFLUENCING INDIVIDUAL'S DECISION ON THE ADOPTION OF FISH FARMING
Appendix 3: BREAKDOWN BY VILLAGE OF NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES CONDUCTED
Appendix 4: TOOLS OF RESEARCH
Appendix 5: SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION RUKUZYE AND MAGWERO AREA
2. RESOURCES RUKUZYE AND MAGWERO AREA
2.1 Land and Water
2.4 Inputs for Fish Farming
3. SOCIAL SYSTEMS RUKUZYE AND MAGWERO AREA
3.1 Kinship Systems
3.2 Type and Composition Settlement
3.4 Interconnectedness of the Social Systems
3.5 Opinion Leadership
4. INTRODUCTION OF FISH FARMING IN RUKUZYE AND MAGWERO AREA
4.1 Fish as a Source of Relish
4.2 Fish as a Source of Cash
4.3 Perceived Newness of Fish Farming
4.4 Drudgery of Fish Farming
4.5 Risks of Fish Farming
5. KNOWLEDGE ON FISH FARMING
Appendix 6: ADOPTERS VERSUS NON-ADOPTERS
1. CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS
2. RESOURCES ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS
2.1 Land and water
2.4 Inputs for Fish Farming
3. KNOWLEDGE AND UNCERTAINTIES OF FISH FARMING
4. PERCEPTION OF FISH FARMING
4.1 Degree of Compatibility
4.2 Degree of Relative Advantage
4.4 Risks in Fish Farming
A pilot project in Eastern Province of Zambia was started in March 1987 by the Department of Fisheries and ALCOM (Aquaculture for Local Community Development Programme). Different reactions were shown on the introduction of fish farming in two areas. A study was carried out to identify the relative importance of the socio-economic environment and the individual's characteristics in the adoption process.
The results from this study were used to elaborate a model on the adoption of fish farming. This model was developed in the field document “Field testing of aquaculture in rural development: pilot project in Eastern Province of Zambia” (FI:GCP/INT/436/SWE.6).
In the area where fresh fish was not available at all and where a high lack of animal protein was felt during the rainy season, fish farming took off. However, the demand for cash appeared to be a more important factor than the demand for fish in the adoption process. Where possibilities for the cultivation of cash crops were limited but consumption needs were equal, households had a higher unmet demand for cash. They had to look for activities to supplement their household's budget. Despite the fact that they considered fish farming a tedious job, it is these households with limited resources which adopted fish farming.
The limited availability of means of production (mainly labour, capital, on-farm byproducts which can be used as inputs for feeding and fertilizing) had repercussions on the technology which could be adopted. This partly explains why those farmers who had seen fish ponds before the start of the pilot project, had not copied the activity. After having seen a pond they had drawn wrong conclusions about the minimum requirements for fish farming and were consequently discouraged. This is an indication for the importance of the extension message and the way it is transferred.
Adoption rates were higher in the area where the social structure was relatively loose. The rules and norms of who is supposed to take up a new activity first, are not too strong in a loose-knit social system. Those who want to start fish farming can do so without endangering his or her situation.
Fish farming was not limited to a certain social category within the population. The only individual characteristics which distinguished adopters from non-adopters were sex and age. Men under 50 years old were providing the necessary labour for pond construction. Data suggest that fish farming fits in certain phases of the life-cycle of a household.