4.1 Centralized Versus Decentralized Control Over Extension Activities
4.2 Direction of Information Flow
4.3 Appropriate Extension Strategies
4.4 Case Studies
Strategies of aquaculture extension are as diverse as national political philosophies and goals. The following chapter is a discussion of several of the predominant approaches to agriculture extension programmes. The discussion will focus on (a) centralized versus decentralized control over extension activities, (b) selection of extension agents, (c) direction of information flow, and (d) specific techniques of extension appropriate for different target groups for different levels of extension involvement.
Axinn (1988) identified 8 different approaches to extension work. These are briefly summarized below:
(a) The general agricultural extension approach. The purpose is to help farmers increase their production. Planning is done on a national basis by the central government "which knows better than farmers". This is a typical case of top-down planning. Field personnel tend to be large in number and high in cost, with the central government bearing most of the cost. The rate of adoption of important recommendations and increases in national production are the measures of success. A survey of agricultural extension programmes indicated that agricultural extension generally was part of the Ministry of Agriculture, with field extension officers at the bottom of the hierarchy and a minister at the top (FAO, 1971). This approach lacks a two-way flow of information. It fails to adjust messages for each different locality. Only farmers who seek advice benefit, and these tend to be large-scale wealthier farmers. This approach does provide farmers with information on a number of production alternatives from one single source.(b) The commodity specialized approach. All functions related to a particular commodity are grouped together, including extension, research, input supply, output marketing, and prices. Planning is controlled by a commodity organization for the purpose of increasing production of a particular commodity. Highly trained scientific personnel equipped with expensive vehicles and field scientific apparatus are employed. Techniques recommended must produce financial benefits for farmers, and be demonstrable on a farmer's own field. New inputs must be accessible, a credit scheme established, and the ratio between farm-gate inputs and commodity prices considered. Technology tends to be appropriate and distributed in a timely manner because it focuses on a narrow range of technical concerns. Interests of farmers, however, may have less priority than those of commodity production organizations.
(c) The training and visit approach. The purpose of the training and visit approach (often called T & V) is to induce farmers to increase production of specified crops. Planning is controlled centrally and field personnel tend to be numerous and dependent on central resources. There is a rigid pattern of visits to farmers and in-service training of field staff. Success is measured in terms of production increases of the particular crops covered by the programme. The training and visit approach is another top-down approach. The emphasis is on disseminating unsophisticated, low-cost improved practices, and teaching farmers to make best use of available resources. There is pressure on the government to reorganize into a more integrated service, and to send extension officers into the field to meet with farmers. It provides closer technical supervision and logistic support, but at a high cost. Actual two-way communication is lacking and there is little flexibility.
(d) The agricultural extension participatory approach. This approach assumes that farmers are skilled in food production from their land, but their levels of living could be improved by additional knowledge. Active participation by farmers themselves is necessary and produces a reinforcing effect in group learning and group action. Much of the work is through group meetings, demonstrations, individual and group travel, and local sharing of appropriate technologies. Success is measured through numbers of farmers actively participating, and the continuity of the programme. There is much to be gained by combining indigenous knowledge with science. Expressed needs of farmers are targeted. The system requires that extension workers, who are also animators and catalysts, stimulate farmers to organize for group efforts. Local people evaluate their own programmes and play a role in establishing research agendas.
The agricultural extension participatory approach costs less, fits needs well, and is more efficient. However, it is more work for extension agents to organize and motivate farmers. It requires agents to live and to socialize with farmers. Where a government job is seen as a reward for good friends, the "hardship" implied by this approach dooms it to failure. The agent will be there only "part time" and have no personal stake in the outcome.
(e) The project approach. This approach uses large infusions of outside resources for a few years to demonstrate the potential of new technologies. Control is at the central government level and there is often considerable financial and technical inputs from an international development agency. Short-term change is the measure of success. In the aquaculture project in Nepal, for example, a loan from the Asian Development Bank was used by the Ministry of Agriculture to support extension work by fisheries officers in many different locations throughout the country. They were able to introduce pond fisheries through an effort which combined the project approach with the specialized commodity approach. One problem with this approach, however, is that a flow of ideas outside the project rarely occurs.
(f) The farming systems development approach. This approach assumes that technology which fits the needs of farmers, particularly small-scale farmers, is not available and needs to be generated locally. Planning evolves slowly and may be different for each agroclimatic farm ecosystem. This approach is implemented through a partnership of research and extension personnel using a systems approach. Analyses and field trials are carried out on farmers' fields and in homes. The measure of success is the extent to which farm people adopt technologies developed by the programme and continue to use them over time. Control of the programme is shared jointly by local farm families, extension officers, and researchers. Advantages of this system include strong linkages between extension and research personnel, and the commitment of farmers to using technologies they helped to develop. Costs can be high, and results can be slow in coming.
(g) The cost sharing approach. This approach is based on local people sharing part of the cost of the extension programme. Control and planning is shared by various entities and is responsive to local interests. Success is measured by farmers' willingness and ability to provide some share of the cost, be it individually or through local government units. Problems may arise if local farmers are pressured into investing in unproven enterprises.
(h) The educational institution approach. In the educational institution approach, planning is controlled by those determining the curriculum of the educational institution. Implementation is through nonformal instruction in groups or individuals through a college or university. Attendance and the extent of participation by farmers in agricultural extension activities are the measures of success. Ideally researchers learn from extension personnel who, in turn, learn from farmers. However, this rarely occurs in practice. The advantage of this approach is the relationship of specialized scientists to field extension personnel.
Extension services world-wide are organized on different principles. In some countries extension programmes serve to transmit national directives to rural areas. Rural areas are perceived to be highly traditional, resistant to change, and unaware of technological advances. What research work is done is often conducted by the government or by universities located in urban areas. Thus the centre of technological development lies in urban settings, and extension agents are responsible for transmitting this information to rural areas. The educated elite of many countries generally reside in urban areas. They are the few who possess language skills, and have access to libraries and other sources of information unavailable to inhabitants of rural areas. Given this base of information in the urban areas, decision-makers often feel better qualified to set national priorities and establish directives to carry them out. Under this scenario there is very little feedback from rural areas in terms of technology development, or the extension process itself.
Many extension approaches and strategies rely on technology transfer with top-down development without having a framework for feedback from farmers (Axinn, 1988). For example, Avault (1984) believed that "any viable fisheries program must be built from the top down". In more recent years the shift has been towards greater farmer participation, although it is difficult, especially with a new technology, to have the patience to elicit farmer response. It is far too easy to assume the farmer does not understand.
Feedback is essential for adapting production practices to local conditions. Technologies developed in other countries or by universities may not be applicable, or may conflict with established farming practices tested over generations under specific conditions of the rural areas of that particular agroecological system. Farming systems research is based on the premise that research developed at experiment stations must be adapted to farm conditions and realities. The emphasis in farming systems research is on developing farmer collaborators which conduct field trials on-farm, and work in close collaboration with researchers. This type of approach to research has resulted in important observations and feedback to researchers which, in many cases, has resulted in modifications of the original technology implemented. Many development experts feel strongly that, without feedback from producers during the development process of the technology, the technologies transmitted have little chance to be successful.
Table 3 presents results from the survey on centralized versus decentralized control over extension activities. When asked the extent to which extension programmes were initiated at the local level, only Rwanda and Thailand responded that this occurred often or frequently. Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, and Uruguay respondents indicated that this happened rarely, while the rest said "sometimes". The respondent from Jordan indicated that this never happened. Respondents from different institutions in the same country had different responses to these questions.
The Cameroons, Rwanda, and the Philippines indicated that producers were frequently involved in planning aquaculture extension programmes. Respondents from Zaïre, Zimbabwe, Jordan, Thailand, Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, and Peru said that this sometimes occurred, while those from Tanzania and Mexico said that this never or rarely occurred.
Survey data indicated that extension offices were most often located in cities other than the capital, and/or in rural areas. Eight of the respondents indicated that the extension services were located in the capital cities, while nine others indicated that extension offices were located in rural areas. Most countries seemed to have offices located in both cities and rural areas.
Where extension services are located in cities, agents travel daily from the city to visit farmers in rural areas, with occasional overnight trips. The range of activity is extremely limited, and there is little or no involvement with local or even regional officials.
One important problem with locating extension offices in rural areas is the difficulty of encouraging extension personnel to relocate. If extension agents are relatively well-educated, they will generally prefer to reside in the capital cities where there are more social amenities, and may consider it a demotion to be assigned to a rural office. Even if they work in an urban setting, transportation difficulties and a general lack of interest in rural areas are obstacles to developing a strong extension programme.
Extension offices located in rural areas may decrease the miles travelled by extension agents, but in many cases the local transportation budget is not increased concomitantly. As transportation budgets of rural offices are invariably lower than those of the city offices to begin with, rural offices cannot afford to buy fuel. Many rural offices have no telephones or other communication systems necessary for extension efforts.
Table 3. Centralized Versus Decentralized Control Over Extension Activities
|
Region/ Country |
Programme Initiated Locally |
Producer Involvement |
Funding Control |
Office Location(*) |
|
AFRICA | ||||
|
Cameroon |
sometimes |
frequently |
national |
C,O.R |
|
Rwanda |
frequently |
frequently |
nat/local |
O,R |
|
Tanzania |
sometimes |
never |
reg/nat |
O |
|
Zaïre |
sometimes |
sometimes |
national |
O,R |
|
Zimbabwe |
sometimes |
sometimes |
national |
C,O,R |
|
ASIA | ||||
|
Jordan |
never |
sometimes |
US grants |
C |
|
Philippines |
sometimes |
sometimes |
regional |
C,O,R |
|
Thailand |
frequently |
sometimes |
loc/reg/nat |
C,R |
|
LATIN AMERICA | ||||
|
Colombia |
never |
sometimes |
none |
none |
|
Ecuador |
sometimes |
never |
local |
O |
|
Guatemala |
rarely |
sometimes |
reg/nat |
R |
|
Mexico |
rarely |
rarely |
local |
C,O |
|
Panama |
rarely |
sometimes |
reg/farm |
O,R |
|
Peru |
sometimes |
sometimes |
regional |
C,R |
|
Uruguay |
rarely |
- |
- |
C |
(*) C = capital cityO = other cities
R = rural areas
There have been efforts to decentralize extension programmes in several countries, such as Panama and Nicaragua. In the case of Nicaragua the extension agents must work with representatives of other agencies, and their respective representatives, in each community. In Panama the aquaculture extension agents are responsible directly to the local Ministry of Agriculture officials and not to the centralized National Aquaculture Directorate. This type of arrangement makes the programme more responsive to local initiatives and allows more local input into programmes and activities. It also provides a mechanism for collaboration with branches of other agencies which provide extension services as well. On the other hand, this arrangement removes control from aquaculture specialists in other cities. People in decision-making positions in outer regions or provinces are less likely to be knowledgeable about the requirements of aquaculture, and are more likely to respond to purely political rather than technical pressures.
If funding for aquaculture extension efforts is controlled locally, aquaculture funding may be subverted to other programmes which are more politically expedient. If aquaculture is given a high priority in that region, local control of funding may be advantageous in that funds can be directed toward those areas and projects with the greatest chance of success. People living in those particular areas will have the best ideas of which areas are likely to be most successful.
Funding control of all African programmes was predominantly at the national level. In Thailand and the Philippines, and countries of Latin America, funding was controlled more often at the local or regional level. Respondents from different institutions in each country had differing responses to this question (see Table 3).
The direction of information flow is intimately related to the structure of the extension service. In many areas, directives are passed down to area extensionists from centralized offices which develop national directives based on national priorities. In countries with readily available and efficient communication services, and homogeneous populations, this type of system may work well if the national policy-makers are in touch with needs of aquaculture producers. In many countries, however, urban planners and policy-makers are far removed from the realities of rural areas. Plans and policies may be drastically different from the crucial problems of rural areas to the extent that producers cannot understand the importance or relevance of the policies. Without producer support and enthusiasm for new programmes and policies there is little chance of success.
Some of the more successful development efforts are those which have involved producers in the planning and development of programmes as well as in implementation and evaluation (Engle, 1986). These types of programmes have greater likelihood of success because local producers can incorporate local priorities and concerns into a programme which also addresses national priorities and concerns. Problems arise when local and national concerns are sharply at odds, but institutionalizing a dialogue between the two groups may provide mechanisms for resolving differences and arriving at some workable compromise.
An important indicator of the potential for a successful aquacultural extension programme is the attitude of administrators towards extension. Extension is often not well understood or appreciated by administrators and programme planners. Pay scales for extension workers may be lower than for other comparable positions, and the post of extension worker often is considered of lower status than that of researcher or enforcement officer. Extension programmes commonly are attached to projects to justify project expenses without any real concern for the success of the extension phase. Administrators without extension experience may themselves be afraid to deal with farmers, and may be resentful of extension agents.
Extension agents may not understand the importance of providing central administration with sufficient documentation to justify the programme and continue its funding. The importance of a good understanding between extension agents, administrators, and programme planners highlights the need for two-way communication. Involvement of extension personnel in project planning will help in setting realistic goals. Respect and attention paid to extension agents by administrators provides essential motivation.
Project monitoring efforts may or may not include feedback mechanisms to ensure a two-way flow of information. Often project evaluations are conducted based on objective indicators of project accomplishments, without including target group evaluation of the success of a particular project.
In many regions of the world, such as Africa and Latin America, aquaculture is a new technology and a novel concept. In these situations, much investment in training, demonstration, and infrastructure development is necessary to support the introduction and spread of aquaculture as a farm enterprise (Molnar and Duncan, 1989). Raising animals in an aquatic environment has specific constraints quite different from those involved in raising land-based livestock or crops. It takes time for farmers to adapt to the aquatic environment, and the technology transfer process is lengthier than it would be to transfer a technology more similar to traditional crop and livestock enterprises.
It appears that the best means for achieving success in working with subsistence farmers in rural areas is through the use of "promotores", "link workers", or "moniteurs" from that local area. There also needs to be a local source of fingerlings, and farmers need to group and associate. Transferring technology to subsistence farmers requires a long-term sustained effort with relatively few farmers. The emphasis must be on quality, not quantity. The process involves intensive training and effort, but less capital in station construction. For medium-scale producers college graduates may be the best agents. For large-scale commercial operations producers will look directly to university researchers, government officials, and private consultants for technical advice.
Some aquaculture specialists have promoted a theory of development called the "oil drop" method to transfer aquaculture technology to countries without a history or tradition of culturing aquatic organisms. This method consists of constructing an infrastructure of fish culture stations which serve as demonstration, research, and seed production facilities. The basic concept is to practise fish culture techniques and hope that other farmers will emulate and spread the technology by word of mouth. The technology would then spread out from fish stations, like a drop of oil on water.
Table 4 provides information on the existence of and plans for developing training and/or demonstration centres for aquaculture. While this list is by no means complete or comprehensive it provides a picture of the importance of training and demonstration centres.
Table 4. Training and Demonstration Centres
|
Training Centres |
Demonstration Centres | ||
|
Existing |
Planned |
Existing |
Planned |
|
Bangladesh |
Central African |
Bolivia |
Colombia |
|
Malaysia |
Republic |
Costa Rica |
Costa Rica |
|
Mexico |
El Salvador |
Mexico |
Côte d'Ivoire |
|
Nepal |
Ghana |
Panama |
El Salvador |
|
Panama |
Kenya |
Peru |
Ghana |
|
Philippines |
Nigeria |
Philippines |
Kenya |
|
Rwanda |
Paraguay |
Rwanda |
Nigeria |
|
Singapore |
Sri Lanka |
|
Sri Lanka |
|
Sudan |
Uruguay |
|
Sudan |
|
Tanzania |
|
|
Tanzania |
|
|
|
|
Uruguay |
Sources: Survey Data & Chakroff (1982)
These centres are seen as particularly important in countries where aquaculture is a new technology and where fish does not constitute a major item in the consumer diet. In these cases the viability and feasibility of aquaculture must first be demonstrated. The assumption is that farmers will observe the success of the centres and begin to implement aquaculture technologies on-farm.
Critics of this system, however, say that it is an approach only concerned with building facilities which function just as long as external funding is available. When the external funding ends the host government is often unable to meet the costs of operating a major aquaculture facility, and it begins to deteriorate. They also state that the technology rarely expands outside the facility by passive osmosis. Transfer of aquaculture technology requires a sustained long-term effort working directly with farmers through the development of an efficient extension system. Simply having a demonstration fish culture station is not sufficient. It can be an effective component of a larger extension effort, but it is still only one component.
There is a constant temptation to turn these centres into full time research stations. Research investigators may actually hinder the development of a viable aquaculture industry by tying up scarce capital resources in research at the expense of extension and production efforts. Without farm production, it is difficult to convince government administrators of the value of research results which are small and long-range in nature.
Another approach to introducing aquaculture is to develop demonstrations with model farmers. In this approach the primary emphasis is placed on organizing an effective extension system through intensive training of extension agents, feedback from agents and farmers, and constant monitoring of progress. Fish culture stations, whether research or demonstration, are used as a supplement to extension efforts and not the reverse.
Most successful aquaculture programmes have used the latter approach. The final criterion for project success is farm production.
4.4.1 General considerations for aquaculture development in Africa and Latin America
4.4.2 Rwanda
4.4.3 Zaïre
4.4.4 Liberia
4.4.5 Panama
Aquaculture was seen 20 years ago as the perfect solution to the growing protein shortage in much of Africa. Small subsistence ponds could be constructed by hand on marginal land, fish could be fed household and agricultural wastes, and even a small pond could substantially increase the dietary protein of a single rural family (Torrans, 1989). Unfortunately in only a few years many programmes collapsed and hundreds of ponds were abandoned.
Most programmes failed because they were based on single-pond subsistence farming operations. Ponds were constructed poorly, often with sandy soil or seasonal water, or were located great distances from the farmers' homes. Farmers received only superficial guidance in proper management, and production was consequently much lower than the farmers expected. Many ponds were so small that they could never produce a significant amount of fish even with good management.
In general group or institutional ponds did not work. In Tanzania some did work, but 90-95% of community, cooperative, and institutional ponds did not. No one wanted to feed, but everyone wanted to harvest. The only successful ones were those in which an individual took charge, but if that person left then the project fell apart.
Farmers were dependent upon the government for fingerlings. With only a single pond, they had to buy fingerlings for restocking once they drained their pond.
The new approach is the Zaïre model in which government§§stations produce the initial fingerlings, but encourage development of private fingerling producers. In order to have a successful independent industry, the technical management must employ appropriate technology and use resources available in the village or region. The use of outside fingerlings, feed, equipment, markets, or materials can result in a dangerous dependency on factors beyond the farmers' control, and should be avoided. Fish culture must result in yields of marketable fish which are great enough to reward a farmer adequately for his or her efforts.
Torrans (1989) listed a number of recommendations for successful tilapia production. For extension to be successful the production system being promoted must work. Ponds should be harvested twice a year to prevent stunting due to over-reproduction. However, it is often difficult to get farmers to harvest twice a year because (a) farmers believe that fish grow all the time and, given enough time, small fish will grow large, (b) farmers are reluctant to harvest a pond when the supply of fingerlings from a government station is uncertain, and (3) farmers often view their fish as "money in the bank". They can maximize production by harvesting each pond at six-month intervals. Fish should be grown only to the minimum size at which the entire crop can be sold locally with a fair profit to the farmer.
Many observations have been made on the current state of aquaculture extension in Africa. Among the most frequent are the following:
- Ponds which cannot be drained completely are unsuitable for tilapia culture, as they cannot be managed properly. As labour is cheap, most ponds in Africa are small enough to drain by hand and dry, and the small tilapia which are harvested can usually be sold.- Farmers only learn by harvesting and seeing the effects of their management. It is therefore important for a farmer to own many ponds. Moreover, each pond represents a "bank account" to be harvested once a year. With many ponds, one can be harvested and the farmer still has others as bank accounts.
- As with many other activities, free gifts for the farmers are usually counterproductive. Many farmers feel that, if they wait long enough, the government will come to help them.
- Subsidized prices for fingerlings, while useful in the short-term, take potential profits away from private fingerling producers.
- It is important to promote the concept of maximum production and profits as the measure of a farmer's success, rather than fish size. Unfortunately in some agricultural shows awards are made for the largest fish displayed. These emotional rewards for producing a few large fish are often more important to a farmer than the tangible economic rewards of high production.
- Aquaculture projects have often been seen as ways to expand the budget of a particular institution. Often there is no concern over whether people like to eat fish or not. No target group is identified, but a general goal of "Let's get people to grow fish". Project success is measured by numbers of ponds and farmers.
- Extension agents are selected through politics and often are either not trained, poorly trained, or wrongly trained. Farmers do not trust agents who offer poor advice, and the extension agents themselves get readily discouraged if they are not accepted.
- The approach to extension often taken is to attempt to blanket the country. Consequently resources are taken from one area to disburse thinly nationwide, and the programme is evaluated on growth, not on sustained efforts.
After several fish culture extension efforts had failed in Rwanda, a new approach was initiated in 1982 which focused on intensive training and extension in addition to research.
The earlier projects failed primarily because they did not address the constraints, specifically the lack of inputs to fertilize the water, low air temperatures, lack of fingerlings, lack of technical know-how at the farmer level, and poorly selected and trained extension agents. Little effort was made to adapt fish culture technologies and extension programming to local conditions.
While the overall effort included both research and extension components, the research project was not operational until 1985, whereas the extension project began training extension agents in 1983. Feedback from extension agents to project administrators was an essential component of the new approach. Agents were trained in several standard tilapia culture techniques and encouraged to improve pond management to maximize the efficiency of the few inputs used. This played an important role in technology development. National directors continue to seek opinions and observations from farmers. The Fish Culture Extension Service helped identify appropriate aquaculture technologies by supervising a series of production or yield trials at various project-operated fish stations.
The extension methodology was based on the premise that, to ensure an effective transfer of ideas from agent to farmer, an intimate relationship must develop between the two. This can only happen if they are in frequent contact. Quality of the service was stressed in favour of quantity. Extension agents were instructed to spend highly constructive time with a few farmers and not become overextended by working with many people.
Agents worked in a zone with a 15 km radius, which they covered on bicycles. Within the zone the agent had to visit 10-15 sites. The zone was arranged so that the sites were situated on five major axes like the spokes of a wheel, with the agent's home as the hub. Each day of the week the agent travelled along one axis, and the schedule was repeated weekly, with the same axis being followed the same day of each week. Each axis was set out for the agent by the Extension Service so that it touched two or three sites where functioning fishponds were located.
Renovation of existing fish ponds was a prime objective, and an agent's schedule and programme was determined by the location of fish ponds in his or her zone. Often more than one fish pond was located in a given "marais", or wetland valley. Two or three marais could be visited on a given day (Moehl and Veverika, 1988).
One of the key elements of achieving the project's goal was to have qualified field personnel able to transfer appropriate technical knowlege to fish farmers to obtain the desired improved yields. A training service was established to train extension agents (or "moniteurs") and regional supervisors (or "agronomes"). A training center was constructed during the project at the National Fish Culture Center at Kigembe.
Agent training was not an isolated event but a continuous activity. The moniteurs were the foundation of the extension service and worked at the county level. They underwent a three-month applied technical training programme at Kigembe. The candidates were chosen from the prefecture where they were needed, and sent to Kigembe for training. Criteria for selecting trainees included: (a) verifiable residency in the area to which the agent was to be assigned after training; (b) completion of at least three years of post-primary education, and (c) passing an entrance test which ensured a basic level of reading, writing, and arithmetic.
Bürgermeisters of recipient communes were asked to propose two or three candidates, from which one would be selected. Each trainee was assigned a fishpond to manage during the course of the training programme. Trainees attended 2-3 day sessions, where they would visit exemplary rural fishponds and participate in coursework designed to expand their understanding of the basics of fish production. The training service distributed basic equipment which included a bicycle for transport, a backpack to carry equipment, and field materials, such as a minnow seine, dip net, spring scale, hand level, thermometer, and rubber boots.
Workshops played an important role in determining the efficiency of field staff. They provided technical guidance and allowed field personnel a chance to interact with administrative staff. By this means the "esprit de corps" created during training was sustained. Moniteurs were expected to participate in two workshops a year for the first two years they were in the field.
University graduates (agronomes) provided technical backstopping to the extension agents. Those who had received training elsewhere (such as in the FAO Training Center in Côte d'Ivoire) received country-specific orientation upon their return. Caucuses for regional agronomes were given periodically to encourage an exchange of ideas, and to inform them of new techniques or developments. Short courses for project station managers were given to upgrade and standardize technical levels, and to coordinate techniques with other stations. Field workers were given short courses in pond construction. Seminars were held for government officials, administrators, and technicians to present principles of aquaculture.
The extension service in Rwanda has been concerned primarily with regulating the growth of the aquaculture industry, rather than achieve dramatic expansion. Exceedingly rapid growth has probably contributed to the demise of many extension programme in other countries.
The Peace Corps Fisheries Project in Zaïre began in 1975, with early funding from Oxford Famine Relief, or OXFAM (Morrison, 1988). The original goals were to develop a core of self-reliant, progressive fish farmers who would derive a regular income from raising fish. The theory was that a long-term continuous extension effort by Peace Corps Volunteers would produce autonomous, self-sufficient farmers. The objective was to create an organized, efficient, and cohesive group of fish farmers who worked together to tackle common issues and problems.
In the early years incentives for participation were offered, such as the provision of wheelbarrows, shovels, and picks, but later such gifts were discontinued. Project buttons were distributed, and served the important function of identifying progressive project farmers without creating a sense of dependency. It was also decided to standardize the extension methodology to prevent duplication of effort, and to facilitate subsequent evaluation.
Social criteria established for location of Volunteers included the interest of the local population, and the population density in the area. Technical criteria for site selection included privately owned land for farm construction, a year-round supply of good quality water, soil with an adequate clay content for making ponds, and suitable drainage. The area also had to be readily accessible, and capable of supporting Volunteers.
It was estimated that it required a minimum of six years of Volunteer time and inputs to achieve the goals of the project. As each Volunteer has two years of service this required three Volunteers per area.
The emphases of the project were community animation, active promotion, and involving as many interested people as possible. The key was to identify dynamic individuals who had greater potential for success than the average villager. These lead fish farmers were groomed to become counterparts to the Volunteer on an informal and voluntary basis. They were to be role models and, by their example, encourage others to join the project and to farm. It was intended also that they would form the core of a fish farmer association in the area.
It was important that, in the shortest time possible, the Volunteer trained the leaders to function well enough to use them for the benefit of others. This was to be achieved by visual demonstration, as it is more effective than oral or written presentations. These experienced lead fish farmers were more effective in transferring fish farming technology than either the Peace Corps Volunteers or through written educational materials (United States Agency for International Development, 1988).
The plan of the project was that the first Volunteer spent two years making as many contacts as possible, identifying promising sites, constructing and stocking ponds, introducing intensive management techniques, and getting a number of farmers well established. The typical work day of the Volunteer was 6-8 hours on the road visiting perhaps 2 or 3 farmers. The second volunteer at the post continued to make new contacts and conducted site inspections, but the major focus became the management of existing ponds. During this period modern intensive techniques and the importance of good record keeping were stressed. Most farmers lacked formal education and, for this reason, methods were kept simple.
With each harvest increasing emphasis was placed on profitability and cost efficiency of fish farming. Group development was also stressed so that eventually it led to the formation of farmer associations, and a sense of identity with other fish farmers. Villages which had several years of Volunteer input had large numbers of project farmers formed into "Fish Farmers Associations" (United States Embassy, 1984). Member farmers also sold fingerlings to each other and to non-project farmers, and were encouraged to provide technical assistance to other farmers.
Emphasis on group formation did not begin suddenly. From the beginning Volunteers used farmers as models and teachers in numerous seminars, meetings, and field trips before any mention of forming a group. Through this process farmers became acquainted and then relied upon each other for advice and assistance. A sense of trust and common cause developed. The fish farmer associations were encouraged to become independent of continuous outside advice and material inputs. The result was a local private infrastructure to take over the Volunteer's responsibilities when the Peace Corps post was finally dropped. This programme in Zaïre is the first in Africa to produce farmers with this level of expertise.
There was no risk to the farmer by joining the association. Unlike some cooperatives there was no money involved and no cause for jealousy. Cash or equipment subsidies have often resulted in divisive conflicts. The associations were formed to meet individual needs for fish, and to provide encouragement, advice, and protection against theft and extortion.
Formal farmer training sessions began when farmer associations were formed and meeting. These sessions were led by nationals, with Volunteers taking a passive role. A positive result of these sessions was an improvement in each farmer's self-image and motivation. Training sessions of a shorter duration were organized in villages, held in the local church or schoolhouse, and visits were made to pond sites near the village.
The third Volunteer applied the finishing touches to construction activities and focused more intensively on record keeping and continuity of the association. Many opportunities were provided for farmers to visit research and demonstration fish stations, as training was a continuous process to provide each farmer with the necessary expertise. During the final two years before a post became autonomous, the Volunteer became more of a contributor than an organizer of functions of the association, and the direction was gradually handed over to the farmers themselves.
Peace Corps/Zaïre has been funded by grants from USAID. Regional farmer training stations have been constructed in all five regions serving as model farms. All sessions were conducted in the local languages. A recent addition was the creation of a mobile extension team (Equipe Mobile), which made visits to farmer asociations on a bimonthly basis. The Equipe Mobile presented "leadership seminars" to advanced Volunteer posts to help farmers organize themselves into associations, as they provide the most effective support mechanisms. Bimonthly newsletters in the local language were sent to project farmers to inform them of project activities and important events.
Factors which accounted for the success of the Peace Corps/Zaïre project included: (a) self-motivation, and access to land, tools, and labour by participant farmers, (b) restriction of the Volunteer to technical and not material assistance, and (c) simplicity and low cost of equipment which made it an activity accessible to all.
The Zaïre project demonstrated that a large government bureaucracy was not necessary for development to occur. By focusing on the individual farmer, a system was developed by which most services normally provided by the public sector were provided by farmers and their associations. Fingerlings were produced and distributed locally; experienced farmers advised new farmers on site selection, construction, and management; and farmers met regularly as a group to discuss management issues and problems (Bossard, 1987).
Government fishery services in Liberia are undertaken by the Fishery Division of the Ministry of Agriculture. The nucleus of the Inland Fisheries Section is the Central Agricultural Research Institute (CARI) at Suakoko, where a fish farming research and extension centre was established in 1952.
The Liberian extension programme began much like fisheries programmes in other countries. Peace Corps Volunteers and Liberian technicians covered large areas of the country trying to work with farmers who were interested. The drive was to build ponds to introduce fish culture to as many people as possible. Fingerlings of tilapia for stocking and restocking initially came from CARI at Suakoko, and later from hatcheries built in Lofa and Nimba Counties. The Inland Fisheries and Marine Fisheries Sections of the Division were subsequently established to conduct supporting research. However, this approach met with little success. Few farmers built a second pond, and many project farms were abandoned.
A new approach to fish culture extension began with the Nimba County Rural Development Project (NCRDP) in 1979 (Beck, 1986). The project, which was supported by the Government of Liberia and the Federal Republic of Germany, was conceived as a multisectoral integrated approach to development. The pilot project in fish culture began as a component of a larger agriculture development programme.
The project objectives were to increase rural fish supply and to improve rural cash income. The outputs included training farmers and extensionists, providing extension and advisory services, and establishing district fish hatcheries. The beneficiaries of the project were rural communities of noncoastal counties in the hinterland (Ministry of Agriculture, 1979).
Extension and advisory services were delivered jointly by the NCRDP Agricultural Extension and Training Section and the Peace Corps/Liberia. The project was administered by the counterpart senior fisheries officer. The extension programme in Liberia was based on the six-year cycle tested in Zaïre (see 4.4.3).
In the project Volunteers worked with less than ten farmers each. The task was to develop small fish farms made up of several large ponds, rather than work with many farmers and their isolated small ponds as in the past. A core of successful independent fish farmers was to be developed which would serve as a nucleus for future growth of the industry.
The extension programme was designed around support for clusters of farmers within reasonable distance, as it was anticipated that several farmers within an area would give each other moral support, fingerlings, advice, and physical help with construction and harvesting. Friendly competition also encouraged better management and production.
Material (but not technical) support was gradually withdrawn. Fish hatcheries built and operated by NCRDP were turned over to private individuals. While government ponds usually are necessary to begin an extension programme, continued operation of government ponds as fingerling sources in many countries generally resulted in financial losses which tended to retard development of a fish farming industry.
Emphasis was placed on multiple-pond production systems which constituted an economically viable production unit. It was found that if pond harvests did not constitute a significant percentage of farm income then labour was diverted to other farm activities. Farmers in Liberia treated multiple pond systems as a productive farming enterprise, whereas a single pond was only considered to be a "living bank account".
Criteria for the selection of project farmers in Liberia included:
(a) Non-traditional farmers with some prior format training in agriculture.(b) Farmers who had developed swamp rice and had located on the farm. The work of clearing swamp and forming paddies, and controlling water, were all experiences which provided a sound basis for fish farming. If the farmer did not reside on the farm then it was unlikely that ponds received the management attention required to produce acceptable crops.
(c) Capital was available to hire workers for pond construction.
(d) The farm had a diversity of crops, such as cash crops as well as traditional food crops.
(e) Practical experience with livestock.
(f) The farm was located near a town, for proximity of feed (rice bran), labour for construction, and markets for fish. The emphasis of the project was on fish production directed at markets rather than autoconsumption (subsistence).
(g) The farm ponds had a year-round water source.
(h) The topography and soil were suitable for a multi-pond system, and there was room for expansion.
One excellent practice of the project was the utilization of good farmers to communicate technology and information to other farmers in the local language. These lead farmers were much more effective than Volunteers or other technicians.
The overall Panamanian strategy has been to demonstrate the importance and potential of aquaculture systems in Panama through implementing viable production systems on private and community fish ponds. Technologies were selected based on technical, biological, economic, and cultural feasibility.
In light of the urgent need to reduce malnutrition in rural Panama, existing culture technologies were selected which could be readily implemented. The emphasis was on developing farm production as quickly as possible before initiating research on native species. Some Latin American nations, such as Colombia, regulate the introduction of exotic species to avoid endangering native species, and have adopted policies of developing technologies to culture indigenous species. The basic research required for the culture of native species, however, is expensive and time-consuming, as little has been done before.
Panama's policies placed greater importance on development of rural communities than on preservation of natural resources. Introductions were made of tilapias (Tilapia spp.), Chinese carps (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, Aristichthys nobilis, and Ctenopharyngodon idellus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), and freshwater prawns (Macrobrachium rosenbergii).
Traditional crop and livestock systems in Panama were complemented, not replaced, by the new technologies introduced. Rural ponds (150-300 m2) were stocked in polyculture systems which varied according to interests of farmers and specific site characteristics. The systems were designed to meet their needs of improved nutrition. The projects were located in inland areas without access to seafood, where inexpensive animal protein was lacking, and where the inhabitants suffered from protein malnutrition.
As it is known that technologies which increase yields but are risky may not be attractive to small-scale farmers, who are generally averse to taking risks (Scott, 1976), the projects were designed to minimize production risk by diversifying the types of economic activities undertaken (Lovshin et al., 1986). This also helped to avoid fluctuating yields from year to year, which is known to conflict with the needs of small-scale farmers to provide continuous subsistence to the family (Morss et al., 1976).
Fish production in larger ponds (greater than 300 m2) was integrated with livestock husbandry, so that cattle, hog, chicken, or duck manure fertilized the pond daily to support productivity. This reduced the need for cash purchases of chemical fertilizers and other inputs. Traditional crops of bananas, yucca, oté, and name, and other nontraditional fruit and vegetable crops, were irrigated with pond water.
These integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems focused on harvesting water for multiple on-farm uses. The water storage capacity of the fish pond provided significant benefits to farm production and well-being of the family. In addition to being a source of fish, the ponds provided a control against land erosion, a reservoir of water for irrigation of horticultural crops, and a source of water for animal and poultry husbandry.
An economic analysis of the project indicated that the net returns for the integrated chicken-fish, hog-fish, and cattle-fish combinations contributed positively to net farm income (Hatch and Engle, 1987). Fish produced in association with ducks achieved the highest rates of return to aquaculture production (23%), followed by chickens (14%), hogs (13%), and cattle (9%). The returns for fish-ducks, fish-chickens, and fish-hogs are all above the 12% established as the opportunity cost of capital in Panama.
Although the original focus of the project was the semi-subsistence sector, efforts were made to encourage commercial production of freshwater fish. Analysis of freshwater shrimp, tilapia, and colossoma (Colossoma macropomum) production in monoculture and polyculture on a commercial scale indicated that all systems were profitable. Rates of return before financing ranged from 3-23%, and 9-17% after financing (Engle, 1987a). Net returns per hectare of water ranged from US$ 644-3 291. The polyculture systems were consistently more profitable than monoculture.
Before 1976 the Republic of Panama had a total of 7 freshwater fishponds. By the end of 1984 the number had Increased to 566. Freshwater ponds have been constructed in all nine provinces of Panama, and include subsistence, commercial, and semi-commercial enterprises (Engle, 1985).
In Panama local farmers were involved in project development, beginning with the initial search for project sites. In the early years of the project, extension agents initiated contacts with people in communities which had potential resources. The agents presented talks and slide shows to local residents of selected communities to explain aquaculture, and its benefits and requirements. As the aquaculture project expanded and became more well known, interested communities initiated contacts with extension agents. Any decision to undertake a project was made jointly by farmers and extension agents. Farmers participated in the construction of ponds, and in the selection of livestock, feeds, and fertilizers. The farmers had total responsibility for the organization of local groups, and scheduling harvests and maintenance activities. This substantial involvement by the farmers themselves played an important role in the rapid transfer of aquaculture technology which took place (Morss and Gow, 1985).
A prime strategy of the extension programme in Panama was the training of middle-level personnel to strengthen the extension/technology transfer component of the project (Lovshin and Pretto, 1983). On-the-job-training has been essential in developing junior-level expertise. Many Panamanian aquaculture extension personnel have gained the greater part of their knowledge from practical experience in the field working with fish, pond systems, and farmers to develop their skills, albeit by trial and error. While this type of training may be criticized as inefficient, in-country training produced greater numbers of active personnel, and training was carried out under local conditions with locally available materials. Time was not lost in experimental application of principles developed in countries under different conditions.
In 1979 a university course for aquaculture extension technicians was initiated at the regional centre of the University of Panama in the Province of Veraguas. The course was based on a 2.5-year curriculum directed by aquaculture personnel of the Ministry of Agriculture. On completion of the course all 20 graduates were employed as aquaculture extension officers in the National Directorate of Aquaculture.
Subsequent courses and workshops have included postgraduates, extension workers, and farmers. This emphasis on education and training has created a staff of well-trained and Capable middle-level technicians in the country. While most Latin American countries have national aquaculture programmes with about 20-30 trained aquaculture technicians, Panama has 146 trained personnel in the National Aquaculture Directorate. Scholarships for advanced degrees were not sought until the national programme of Panama had reached a critical mass in terms of producers, extension agents and other middle-level personnel, and infrastructure.
The approach in Panama has been to use extension personnel in conjunction with farmers in farming systems research. Both farmers and extension agents increased their knowledge and experience together, as well as increased marketable production.
