Aspects of aquaculture extension were reviewed in five papers (EXT/CON/7 - EXT/CON 11).
Mr. Henrik Nilsson elaborated how identification of the target group for a given extension service was important in order to develop a proper extension package. A thorough description of various aspects of the farming system and related economic and social issues helped to understand the conditions and capability of the target groups. This should form the basis for making decisions about the extension messages and methods used to reach a targeted group of farmers.
Mr. Cleopher Bweupe presented an overview of the different levels of aquaculture technology, ranging from extensive pond systems to highly intensive tank and cage culture systems. He concluded that pond culture offers the most advantages for all types of farmers in southern Africa, because pond culture was the most flexible aquaculture system, allowing for a wide variety of management intensities. It could therefore be adjusted to the specific conditions of the area, and to the capability and situation of the farmers.
Mr. Christopher Chimfwembe described the agriculture extension system used in Eastern Province of Zambia as an example of the advantages of integrating aquaculture extension within agriculture extension services. He emphasised that since the agriculture extension service was very decentralized in the whole country, it was in a position to disseminate fish farming messages down to grassroots levels. Within diversifying farming systems, fish could become a common crop and advice on its culture should be transferred in collaboration between extension services and technical departments.
Dr. Randall Brummet described the partnership between farmers and researchers that could participate identifying research topics and carrying out research. Classical methods of technology development and transfer had generally failed. Farmer-led participatory research had been fused with methods of rapid rural appraisal to identify constraints to technology adoption. He pointed out that this approach resulted in technologies that were much closer to those that the farmers could actually achieve, and the adoption was therefore much higher.
Mr. Henk van der Mheen explored the main extension methodologies used in aquaculture, how these have affected the audience reached and their impact on the sustainability of aquaculture. He concluded that the traditional approach of technology transfer had not been successful for several reasons, and that a participatory approach would give much better results. The introduction of this approach however had major implications on all levels of the extension service, since its role and functions would change. This required retraining of staff. It could be expected that the institutional barriers, while working towards this change in extension methodology, would be substantial.
The aquaculture extension approaches used in the various countries were presented in twelve presentations (EXT/CON 12 - EXT/CON 23) and 7 posters. Important issues from these presentations and discussions were incorporated into the findings and recommendations of the three working groups.
Three working groups were formed to discuss and formulate recommendations, each group considered one main topic. Each working group was requested to prepare a document which included a brief overview of the topic, statements on central issues and problems with a focus on Southern Africa, and priorities for action.
The benefits and drawbacks of the integration of aquaculture into the agriculture extension services as currently practised were described, and additional benefits which could be realized through this integration were identified. Actions to alleviate the drawbacks and improve the benefits on this integration were recommended.
Current situation
Although rather imperfect, links between agriculture and aquaculture extension already exist in most of the countries of Southern Africa. The current organisation for aquaculture extension, according to administrative level and degree of specialization of professionals, can be described as follows:
Province ----------------> District --------------------> Block ----------> Camp
Specialized professionals ---------------------> Generalist professionals ----------------> Field Staff
The main drawbacks of aquaculture extension operating alone are:
The integration with agriculture extension services is therefore justified. The principal obstacle for such an integration resides in the administrative nature of ministries and departments, very often with separate planning and budget allocations.
The main advantage of integrating both departments is the fact that in many cases agriculture already has a well established operational network.
New trends
The results of the traditional set up described above have been in general below expectations. This, in addition to new worldwide trends in economic development, is likely to demand totally innovative approaches for the development of specific sub-sectors such as smallholder fish farming.
The new scenario is characterized by a diminished intervention of the State, increasing privatization and liberalization of the market.
National development policies are strongly affected by these changes and so are specific sub-sectors such as aquaculture. Fisheries Departments have less resources and staff, and therefore new strategies have to be designed to meet the new conditions.
Recommendations
The need for a new strategy is justified, not only based on the experiences gained but also due to the existence of a new scenario and its implications in terms of limited resources.
The integration of smallholder fish culture into the other agriculture practices is consequently stressed but its implementation, from institutional to field level, call for important conceptual changes in the agriculture/aquaculture set up.
Down to district level, the training of the field staff by the specialists should be based on the concept of farming systems. The field staff is the link between the whole organization and the farmer. The training given to these field staff and their terms of reference should be significantly widened beyond the traditional bio-technical assistance and encompassing the areas of decision making and problem solving. The proposed strategy does not imply the supply of inputs but the training and advice regarding these and other matters such as credit, market, etc.
The field staff should be capable of acting as a catalyst for the creation of associations of farmers and the promotion of private fingerling producers and possible motivators, the ultimate objectives being the building up of a managerial capacity within these associations.
Other alternatives to solve the problems posed by the extension process are in the line of farmer to farmer contacts, joint ventures with the private sector or any other arrangements resulting from innovative consideration of the problem as a whole.
The circumstances under which institutional extension mechanisms, farmer to farmer mechanisms, or a combination of these mechanisms were appropriate were described, with their benefits and drawbacks. Recommendations were made which could lead to better use of each mechanism in aquaculture development.
Institutional Extension
Circumstances used which the approach of institutional aquaculture extension can be considered suitable are:
The benefits of the institutional extension approach are:
The drawbacks of the institutional extension approach are:
Farmer to Farmer Extension
Circumstances under which the approach of farmer-to-farmer extension can be considered suitable are:
The benefits of the farmer-to-farmer extension approach are:
The drawbacks of the farmer-to-farmer extension approach are:
Problems in aquaculture in Southern Africa
The main problem for not achieving the expected goals in aquaculture extension is a failure of the extension delivery mechanisms. This is a result of:
These central problems are generated by a variety of causes like:
Recommended actions for improved use of extension mechanisms
The overall goal of extension is to improve the living standards of the population. The intermediate goal is to increase the knowledge of the farmers in such a way that it will lead to improved management of their resources and thus increase their income, being cash or in food. Three outputs were identified which would lead to this increased knowledge, each with a number of concrete activities which were recommended to be implemented.
Output 1: National aquaculture policy clearly developed, budgeted and followed with mechanisms for up-date.
Recommended activities:
Output 2: Donor coordination improved.
Recommended activities:
Output 3: Cost-effective extensive service relevant to government and farmers situations developed.
Recommended activities:
The current status of research extension linkages, the constraints encountered, and the potential for improvement were described. Recommendations on how these linkages could be practically enhanced were made, and a proposal for a modified relationship presented.
Overview
The objective of aquaculture research has traditionally been to maximize the production of fish. Topics commonly addressed by aquaculture research are:
More recently the objective has included the maximizing of production through the integration of fish farming into the small scale farming system and a diversification of farming activities, with the main objective being to raise the standard of living of the rural population. New research topics were:
Knowledge and information dissemination channels
The intended flow of aquaculture information had always been from the research institutes via the extension to the farmers.
The academic institutes mainly carried out basic scientific research, the knowledge collected went to the Government ministries and the government research institutes. The academic institute itself, other similar institutes, the government, as well as donor policies decided what kind of research was carried out at the academic institutes.
The research carried out by the government research stations was strongly influenced by the research carried out at the academic institutes, the ministries, by donors and NGOs and to some extent by the extension services. The knowledge gathered went to the extension services.
The extension service often has access to some farms, generally in the form of demonstration farms, where fish is produced and where more adaptive research is carried out. The types of research are influenced by the research carried out on the government research stations, by donors, and sometimes by information obtained from the farmers. The information flow from this service is directed towards the farmers.
Farmers themselves also carry out experiments whereby they decide themselves, sometimes with assistance for extension workers or other farmers, what kind of trials they carry out. The information obtained is of course directly available to the same farmer and is sometimes directed to other farmers as well.
Central issues and problems in Southern Africa
Even when all the communication channels would function well, it is clear that there is no major information flow, not even indirectly, from the farmer or the extension service to the academic institutes, and the ministries. At the same time, important decisions are made at that level about the research being carried out at the academic institutes, which in return have a great influence on the research being carried out by other research entities.
The link between farmer and extension worker is often weak. The extension workers are often only trained in the delivery of messages, which are in many cases standard packages. These packages are not always adapted to the needs of the farmers but extension workers are not in a position to change these packages. This is because they do not have the required skills for it, and sometimes fear disapproval by their superiors when they change information.
In general it can be said that very little information goes upwards in the system. Extension workers are not interested in the knowledge of farmers, researchers not in the knowledge of extension workers, and academics not in knowledge of lower level researchers.
The communication between extension and research is often very weak in both directions and research results are not always included in extension advice. This is because:
There are cases where both research and extension organisations are disseminating their own information, which is sometimes conflicting. The problems of the farmers are perceived differently by these two organisations.
Researchers sometimes doubt the extension workers capability in technical aquaculture, and at the same time the extension workers doubt the relevance of the research being conducted.
In this system there is a clear one way communication whereby the farmers are seen only as receivers of information. In fact, the knowledge gathered at the various levels seldom reaches the farmers, and when does it is often in a form or package that they can not use.
Factors that influence effective knowledge dissemination and linkages between farmers, extension workers and researchers are:
Priorities for action
To reduce the gap between research and the farmer, the farmer should exert more influence on the research being carried out. The communication between the extension service and the farmer and between the research station and the extension service should be much more intensified and should become a two-way communication. Because of the different background of a researcher and an extension worker they may analyze the problems of the farmers differently. It is therefore necessary that there is a direct information link between the farmer and the researcher. The research staff and the extension staff should then jointly decide on the topics to be studied.
At the applied level, research should not stop after obtaining interesting results and enough information to satisfy a researcher. Applied research must be directed at real farm situations and research findings that lead to innovations which are not adopted by the farmers should not be evaluated as positive results. Researchers should be more involved in the technology testing and development and in the production of extension material that is suitable to bring the results to the farmer.
Otherwise, extension activities should concentrate on farm-level impact. Methods and messages which are not appropriate must be quickly modified through consultations with research and farmers.
Training of extension and research personnel should make them much more aware of the farmers situation. Training of extension staff should focus on basic agriculture principles and message formulation and transmitting, and communication with farmers.
Researchers at all levels should be brought more into direct contact with farmers and extension personnel. During training, both academic and technical, contact with farmers and learning from farmers should be part of the curriculum.
Recommendations
Content of extension and training programs should be modified to include basic principles of aquaculture, rather than simple technology packages.
Training for extension and research must include communication and interpersonal skills. The essential role of the farmer's perspective must be emphasized and made apparent to researchers and extension personnel.
Institutional mechanisms should be put in place to facilitate communication between research and extension (e.g., monthly staff meetings, joint field days, etc.).
A direct link between research and the farming community should be established through the conduct of farmer-participatory research.
Responsibility for the translation of research into extension messages should be taken by researchers. Development of appropriate materials should be done primarily by extension but in direct consultation with research and farmers.
Problems of motivation of field and technical staff must be addressed through a restructuring of job descriptions, evaluation procedures and the establishment of a more interactive relationship with supervisors.
Based on a prioritization of aquaculture relative to other research and development activities at the policy level, institutions must be reformed to be more cost-effective and self-sustaining.
In a plenary session the findings and recommendations of the working groups were presented and discussed. The participants of the consultation agreed that for the development of aquaculture, aquaculture should become part of the agriculture extension. At the same time it was necessary for the agriculture extension service to undergo an important conceptual change in set up and approach. The approach should put much more emphasis on assisting farmers in the process of problem solving and decision making. The monitoring and evaluation of the service should be carried out in participation with the farming community.
The organisation of the extension service should become much less top down in the sense that a promotion meant a move further away from the farmers. Instead of a hierarchical set up farmers, field extension workers, supervisors and researcher should operate on a basis of equal footing. They should also jointly decide on the research to be carried out.
The extension workers in the field would have to change from those who only transfers technology to staff who could assist farmers in analyzing their situation and in making decisions on how to solve problems. The extensionist has to be practically oriented with good analytical skills who can adapt technology to the local situation of the farmers.
The involvement of local extension staff or motivators should be encouraged, and information should be channelled through existing media at village level. The selection of the motivators was considered of crucial importance for the success of this approach.
On behalf of ALCOM and FAO, Mr. Boyd A. Haight thanked the participants for their hard in work in synthesizing the presentations and making their contributions to the working groups. The findings and recommendations of the working groups would be published by ALCOM, brought to the attention of ALCOM's collaborating partners, and used to improve ALCOM's extension activities. They would also be forwarded to FAO Rome for use at an expert consultation on small scale aquaculture development planned for 1996.
Mr. B.J. Mkoko, Director of Fisheries, Malawi, on behalf of the Government of Malawi, congratulated the participants for conducting a successful meeting. He urged them to take back what they had learned and apply it in their work with farmers, the ultimate beneficiaries of the meeting. With those words, he declared the consultation officially closed.
