SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND MARKETING CONSTRAINTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF AQUACULTURE AND UTILISATION OF SMALL WATER BODIES IN ZIMBABWE TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study was undertaken by the FAO/UNDP project “Support for Rural Aquaculture Extension” (ZIM/88/021) in two pilot zones, Murehwa and Masvingo Districts. The purpose of the survey was to acquire household information that may strengthen the effectiveness of extension messages on fisheries and aquaculture development in Communal Areas.

Fish Farming Development

A questionnaire survey was administered in Murehwa and Masvingo Districts and 160 fish farming households (FFH) and 80 non-fish farming households (NFFH) were interviewed. Of those FFH interviewed, 25 were female-headed and 28 NFFH interviewed were female-headed.

The study found that the potential for aquaculture development was relatively higher in wetter areas like NRs II and III, but because NRs IV and V are relatively dry and a large number of dams have been built there, they are, however, suited to the exploitation of these fisheries.

Fish farming households were generally the wealthier households in the community. FFHs had more land and labour, produced more field and horticultural crops than NFFHs. Integration of fish farming within the farming systems was more likely among farmers with irrigated garden plots than those without; so that concentrating the extension message on this target audience could increase AGRITEX's impact.

The majority of NFFH were aware of fish farming in all NRs implying that the extension project had a significant impact in the pilot zones. Although they were aware of fish farming, they did not have suitable land for siting a pond and failed to hire enough labour to construct the pond.

The proportion of female-headed FFH was relatively high in wetter areas (NR II) but lower in NRs III and IV. Although the average proportion of female-headed FFH was fairly standard, the absolute sample size was too low to permit rigorous examination of socio-economic differences among different gender groups. Wives in male-headed households were responsible for day-to-day pond management but the decisions of their husbands dominated.

Fish farming was considered a sideline activity which required little management. Although no commercial fertilisers and feeds were used, farmers were assured of the availability of a cheap source of protein. Farmers perceived the importance of fish farming more in terms of the nutritional benefits for the household than income benefits.

Human and animal predation and the availability of feeds and fertilisers were the major constraints to fish farming development. Farmers viewed pond construction as the most difficult task to undertake. Technical knowledge, particularly management techniques were poor, and this limited improved management of ponds. Extension could concentrate on improving management knowledge; in this respect, it is important that the messages reach the women, especially fish farmer's wives because they are often involved in feeding and fertilizing fish.

Fishing Activities in Small Dams

Case studies of nine fishing groups and a survey of 160 fisherfolk looked at the management of small water bodies. The survey of fisherfolk was administered in Murehwa and Masvingo Districts.

Investigations on the activities of fisherfolk show that participants were not commercial fisherfolk because the bulk of the catch was for own consumption. Hook and line was the common fishing method as nets are illegal. A small proportion used basket traps. Although fisherfolks used other methods, they did not mention them because it is illegal to use other types of fishing gear except hook and line. Smoke-drying was the most common method of fish processing.

The groups that were studied operated in Communal Area dams in Mashonaland East, Manicaland and Masvingo and in Small Scale Commercial Farming Areas in Mashonaland Central province. Case study results show that problems of social cohesion and poor financial management limited the continuity of groups exploiting small dams. Issuing of permits took more than a year and the process was viewed by the groups as unnecessarily long. (There was a good market for fish such that selling was not a real problem) Improved co-ordination of rural development departments and organisations could assist in developing the fisheries. More sustained support from the extension service could also help groups overcome problems of continuity, as well as improve technical competence and access to equipment.

Consumers and Markets

Rural and urban consumer preferences of fish were investigated. Harare, Masvingo, Chitungwiza and Murehwa towns were selected for the consumer preferences survey administered in the town centres and residential areas.

Both urban and rural consumers preferred fish to most other meat. Over the past five years, a majority of respondents felt they ate less fish. The reason most often stated was short supply although in Harare increased price was important. Urban consumers purchased fish more frequently than rural consumers. Bream was the common type available in all areas and preferred because it was considered meaty and tasty. There was effective demand for fish in rural and urban areas.

Interviews on wholesaler and retailer perceptions of marketing problems showed that price was restrictive in low income household markets but kapenta had a high demand there. In urban supermarkets and butcheries there was less than required quantities of the preferred bream. No real operational problems were expressed in trading fish, however major issues in marketing were not investigated due to lack of time and resources.

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary

List of Tables

Species of Fish and Abbreviations

1: SURVEY AIMS AND RESEARCH METHODS

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Study Area
1.4 Research Methods

2: CHARACTERISTICS OF FISH FARMING AND NON FISH FARMING HOUSEHOLDS

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Household composition
2.3 Socio-economic characteristics of household head
2.4 Main household income sources
2.5 Land ownership and usage
2.6 Livestock ownership
2.7 Equipment ownership
2.8 Input purchasing behaviour
2.9 Utilization of livestock manure
2.10 Water sources for irrigation
2.11 Female headed households

3: KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS FISH FARMING

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Sources of information about fish farming
3.3 Non-fish farming households
3.4 Farmer perceptions of fish farming
3.5 Relative advantages of fish farming

4: FISH FARMING PRACTICES

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Objectives of fish farming
4.3 Siting of fish ponds
4.4 Pond construction and stocking
4.5 Sources and types of fingerlings
4.6 Decision making and implementation of fish farming operations
4.7 Feeding fish and fertilising fish ponds
4.8 Intermittent and complete harvesting

5: UTILISATION OF SMALL WATER BODIES IN COMMUNAL, SMALL SCALE COMMERCIAL AREAS OF ZIMBABWE: THE CASE OF FISHING GROUPS AND FISHERFOLK.

5.1 Introduction
5.2 Fisherfolk
5.3 Fishing groups
5.4 Institutional aspects of fishing groups

6: FISH MARKETING AND CONSUMER PREFERENCES

6.1 Introduction
6.2 Wholesalers and retailers
6.3 Fish consumption habits
6.4 Sources of supply
6.5 Frequency of fish consumption
6.6 Occasions when fish is eaten
6.7 Fish preference compared to alternatives
6.8 Changes in fish consumption over the last five years

7: CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Success of Aquaculture in different natural regions
7.2 Socio-economic differences between fish farming households and non-fish farmer households.
7.3 Extension Coverage
7.4 Perception of fish farming compared to other on farm activities
7.5 Cost and Availability of Fingerlings
7.6 Availability of Equipment
7.7 Availability of on-farm inputs
7.8 Fish Farming Practises
7.9 Division of Labour and Decision-making
7.10 Marketing of fish by fish farmers
7.11 Small water body exploitation
7.12 Marketing Constraints

8: RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Improvements in extension methods
8.2 Marketing Strategies

Selected Bibliography

Appendix 1: Questionnaires

Appendix 2: Background to study area

Appendix 3: Fishing Group Case Studies

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Main Characteristics of Natural Regions

Table 1.2: Proposed (P) and Actual (A) Survey Sample Size, Murehwa and Masvingo

Table 1.3: Survey Households by Type of Household Head (number and percentage of Total Sample), Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.1: Household Characteristics of Fish and Non-Fish Farmers, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.2: Household Composition by Residency of Fish and Non-Fish Farmers, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.3: Educational Levels of FFH and NFFH Heads, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991

Table 2.4: Primary Occupation of FFH and NFFH Heads, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991

Table 2.5: Secondary Occupation of FFH and NFFH Heads, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991

Table 2.6: Main Source of Income for FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.7: Second Source of Income for FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.8: Third Source of Income for FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.9: Land Ownership of FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo,

Table 2.10: Comparison of Crop Production, Retentions and Sales Between FF and NFF households, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.11: Distribution of Crop Growers Among FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991

Table 2.12: Distribution of Crop Sellers Among FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.13: Livestock Ownership of FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.14: Equipment Ownership of FF and NFF Households, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991

Table 2.15: Input Purchases of FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.16: Main Use Cattle Manure Among FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.17: Secondary Use Cattle Manure Among FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.18: Main Use Goat Manure Among FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.19: Secondary Use Goat Manure Among FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.20: Main Use Chicken Manure Among FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.21: Secondary Use Chicken Manure Among FFH and NFFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.22: Water Sources for Irrigation Purposes in Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.23: Demographic Characteristics of Male-Headed (A), de-Jure (B) and de-Facto (C) Female-Headed FFH, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 2.24: Resource Ownership Characteristics of Male-Headed (A), de-Jure (B) and de-Facto (B) Female-Headed (3) FFHs Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 3.1: Sources of Knowledge on Fish Farming, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 3.2: Reasons for Not Farming Fish, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 3.3: Farmer Perceptions of Advantages, Disadvantages and Constraints of Fish Farming, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 3.4: Importance of Fish Farming as a Source of Relish and Income and Perceptions of Possible Alternatives of Increasing Fish Output, Murehwa, Uzumba, and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 4.1: Objectives of Fish Farming and Factors Affecting Their Decision To Site Ponds, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 4.2: Size of Fish Ponds, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 4.3: Sources and Types of Fingerlings in Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe

Table 4.4: Decision Making (DM) and Implementation (IMP) of Feeding, Fertilising, and Harvesting Operations, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 4.5: Feeding and Fertilising of Fish Ponds, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 4.6: Compost Making in Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 4.7: Intermittent Harvesting in Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 4.8: Harvesting Fish in Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 5.1(a) Fishing by Fisherfolk: Scope, Activities and Patterns, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 5.1(b) Fishing by Fisherfolk: Scope, Activities and Patterns, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991

Table 5.1(c) Fishing by Fisherfolk: Scope, Activities and Patterns, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 5.1(d) Fishing by Fisherfolk: Scope, Activities and Patterns, Murehwa, Uzumba and Masvingo, Zimbabwe, 1991.

Table 6.1: Distribution of fish consumption by area (% responses)

Table 6.2: Fish preference profile: Rural Areas (% responses)

Table 6.3: Fish preference profile: Urban Areas (% responses)

Table 6.4: Fish preference profile: Urban Areas (% responses)

Table 6.5: Actual source of fish by area and by fish type (%responses)

Table 6.6: Preferred source of fish: Rural (% responses)

Table 6.7: Actual source of fish by area and by fish type Urban (%responses)

Table 6.8: Frequency of fish consumption: Rural Areas (% responses)

Table 6.9: Frequency of fish consumption by farmer type (%responses)

Table 6.10: Frequency of fish consumption: Urban Areas (% responses)

Table 6.11: Occasion when fish is bought (% of respondents)

Table 6.12: Fish preference compared to other sources of animal protein (% responses)

Table 6.13: Reasons for eating more or less fish than five years ago

COMMON SPECIES OF FISH

ABBREVIATIONS