Abstract of Overview Background Paper
Abstracts and Discussions of Background Papers
Concluding Discussion
1 This overview document was not intended for discussion.
OPTIONS FOR SMALL-SCALE AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT
by Elizabeth Harrison
The paper highlights key issues which are critical to the development of small-scale rural aquaculture and synthesizes recent attempts at implementation. Although there remain diverse technical constraints to aquaculture development, less attention has been paid to the interaction of these with social, economic, and political factors. The focus is smaller scale, low input and output aquaculture. For many of the adopters of this kind of aquaculture, it is a secondary activity, providing a supplement of incomes, a source of extra food and a diversification strategy.
Despite the existence of a thriving sector in some areas, particularly parts of Asia, optimism about the prospects elsewhere has waned in recent years. In Africa south of the Sahara and Latin America, problems in small-scale rural aquaculture development are especially marked. There are parallels in many other aspects of rural development.
Data on aquaculture production should be treated with extreme caution. However, it is clear that the contribution of aquaculture to aggregate food supplies in Africa south of the Sahara and Latin America is minimal when compared to that of Asia. The great increases in aggregate aquaculture production in southeast Asia and parts of Latin America largely reflect the development of higher value species. The effects on the well-being of the poorest are uncertain.
Over the last thirty years, the promotion of small-scale rural aquaculture by international development organizations has often replicated early approaches. A principal criticism has been that production was subsidized from government and donor funds without creating the stimulus required to ensure autonomy. Recent changes in the political and economic environment have led to a change of approach. The role of the state has been reduced, and the emphasis is now on decentralization and privatization.
The Thematic Evaluation of Aquaculture (1987) assessed FAO assistance to aquaculture between the period 1974-1984. A central finding was that there had been insufficient attention to the economic viability and social acceptability of culture practices. Recently, a number of attempts have been made to learn from the Thematic Evaluation. Although diverse, this work has produced a number of common findings. These concern: clarity about objectives and the means for the achievement and measurement; the place of aquaculture within rural development as a whole; the importance of the institutional context; and the need to strengthen research-development linkages. The paper discusses these findings and their implications.
As with many other technologies, those most likely and most able to become productive fish farmers are not the most needy. Policy makers face a dilemma: whether to focus development efforts on the resource poorest or to concentrate on technology development which may be viable in the long term but which is unlikely to be closely related to the needs of the poorest, at least in the short term. The intensification and consolidation of the activities of model farmers is increasingly seen as the key to sustained fish farming. However, these are not always easy to identify, because a strict dichotomy between commercial and subsistence orientation cannot be maintained. A further argument is that in addition to the characteristics of individual farmers, the status of the agricultural economy should also influence intervention. Factors likely to be important include population density and the availability of land. Decisions about target groups should be accompanied by awareness of potential costs to non adopters. These include changes in the value of land and access to resources. Aquaculture is also likely to have an effect on labour relations and the value of labour. These occur both within and between households. The majority of aquaculture adopters are likely to have certain characteristics in common. They are more likely to be men, better off and better educated.
In order to improve small-scale rural aquaculture development, consideration of the institutional context is critical. The relationship between external donor and host institutions is important. It is often characterized by divergent expectations and priorities. In addition, in many places the stability of the institutional framework has generally been poor. Since the Thematic Evaluation of Aquaculture, there has been a change in focus away from the provision of tangible inputs towards capacity building. For example, in the context of Africa it is recognized that government supply of fingerlings is hindered by both technical difficulties and a lack of transport. The situation is less straightforward in many Asian countries where fingerling supply from government farms succeeded in popularizing aquaculture. Regarding the provision of credit, caution is warranted; small-scale rural aquaculture generally requires inputs that are available on-farm, and there are many cases of credit becoming a tool to be manipulated by those least in need of it. Privatization is also not a simple solution because the private sector is made up of a diverse range of individuals and associations with different motivations and potentials which need to be properly understood.
Recognition that small-scale aquaculture is an aspect of farming rather than fishing may have a number of implications for the organization of extension. Suggestions have been made that the functions of a specialized aquacultural extension service should be integrated into the agricultural extension service. For donors, there is a need for better collaboration between fisheries departments with responsibility for small-scale aquaculture, and those dealing with other aspects of rural development.
Concern has been expressed that the relationship between research and development activities should be closer and better coordinated. In many countries, collaboration could be much stronger. There has been a tendency for researchers to concentrate on their technical speciality rather than development needs and constraints. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that many development constraints for small-scale aquaculture cannot be alleviated by research. Geographical information systems (GIS) have a potential for predicting viable sites for small-scale aquaculture development. Such data is useful as a starting point and obviously needs to be supplemented with political, institutional and social analyses.
Disenchantment with both the approach and the results of earlier rural development has led to more participatory approaches. These aim to enable local people to define their own agendas and to be active in the establishment of their needs. The application of these approaches to aquaculture is relatively recent. Examples exist in the work of ICLARM in Asia and Africa, and ALCOM in Africa. Participatory approaches have their critics. They may be construed as politically dangerous, because they are associated with independent decision making, self determination, and empowerment. Also, requirements of flexibility and adaptability are difficult for some organizations to meet. Development organizations thus face a challenge: how to give meaningful content to the participation they espouse.
Theme 1: Objectives and Indicators for Aquaculture Development
Theme 2: The Place of Aquaculture in Rural Development
Theme 3: The Institutional Context
Theme 4: Research-Development Linkages
by Richard Pretto
Abstract
The paper analyzes the short, medium and long-term goals of small-rural aquaculture development projects as well as the most commonly associated problems.
The main issues of aquaculture are discussed and criticized. In the past, fish culture was promoted without taking into consideration the other needs of the farmer, his family and rural community as a whole, such as roads, housing, latrines, wells, stoves, domestic supplies, medicine, clothes, education, and also infrastructure facilities for meetings, sports and religious activities, etc. These aspects should be analyzed at the time production plans are conceived.
New trends such as integration of small-rural aquaculture with other in and off farm activities, innovative extension methodologies and marketing survey strategies, are still in their early stages in Latin America. More recently, governments and NGOs are promoting demonstration farms for sustainable agriculture so that farmers may be self sufficient in such aspects as seed production, grow out, diet diversification and marketing. However, in general, these efforts are still considered small.
It is necessary to establish "Sustainable Development Committees" organized in provincial federations and national confederations to really ensure a sound technical assistance to the farmers. When farm by-products are utilized as fish feed, yields tend to be lower than those obtained when concentrated feed is given. However, when the quality and quantity of bio-fertilizer given is appropriate, high yields are reported. The important point is that production systems depending on local resources tend to be more sustainable. This paper stresses the importance of using bio-fertilizers and green manure in this type of aquaculture as well as the need to develop and adopt a series of standards in relation to organic fertilization, taking into consideration the specific situation of each region.
It is widely accepted that conventional methods for socio-economic rural diagnosis have not been very effective in determining the real needs and aspirations of people when development projects are formulated. In this context, new diagnostic methods have appeared, such as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), that incorporate community members in the identification, analysis and evaluation of their limitations and possibilities, according to their own perceptions, so that together with institutional facilitators priorities are established.
Factors affecting the sustainability of small-rural aquaculture such as seed production, fish feed, fish species, fishing gear, etc., are analyzed within the framework of the lessons learnt during the last years.
The economic feasibility of Small-Scale Rural Aquaculture activities is strengthened when, in addition to components that directly influence the cost and current income, other elements, such as species diversification and integration within the context of multiple water users, the optimal use of family labour, processing crops, nutrient recycling, etc. are considered. The interaction of aquaculture with the environment is also discussed. Some general conclusions are taken from the paper and some related recommendations are made.
Organization of session
The session involved discussion of both the thematic paper and an information paper, Rapid rural appraisal, participatory rural appraisal and aquaculture, by Philip Townsley (Annex 2).
Discussion
The discussion revolved around two main areas: (i) the value of participatory approaches in target identification and monitoring/evaluation and (ii) the question of the choice of farmers with which to work. Underlying both of these was the more fundamental issue of how to set objectives for aquaculture development. In this initial discussion, the extent of agreement was partly determined by conceptions of the role of the Consultation. While for some participants, the Consultation constituted a forum in which the more effective promotion of small-scale aquaculture was the focus, for others the appropriacy of aquaculture over other technologies was itself in question. As one participant put it 'the reason these are poor farmers is not that they don't have access to fish'.
It was agreed that the success or failure of aquaculture development activities can be determined in two main ways: whether the activities succeed in the terms set by promoters; and whether they make sense for the farmers. Notwithstanding the importance of accountability to donors, it was agreed that farmers' own acceptance or rejection of the technology should ultimately be the most important criterion. Thus, adoption and retention are important indicators. These need to be supplemented by a range of other indicators, both qualitative and quantitative. Examples suggested included:
· improvement in farmers' management skills,
· species diversity;
· resource recycling;
· improvement in incomes;
· improvement in nutrition.
It was pointed out that there is sometimes a need to disaggregate the interests of different members of the household, for example when incomes and resources were not pooled and shared between all members.
Regarding the use of participatory approaches to monitoring and evaluation, it was pointed out that there is a difference between rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA). The former is useful for extracting information. It involves simplification and systematization and is thus a tool for developers. It may enable people involved in promoting aspects of development to get information more accurately and more quickly. Its greater accuracy lies in a methodology which involves the information givers identifying the key issues themselves to a certain extent. RRA is more limited in its scope and implications than PRA, which embodies notions of empowerment and local people defining their own solutions. PRA is thus ideally about much more than information extraction and may have political and resource control implications which are unlikely to be acceptable to all institutional actors.
From this, it was agreed that the notion of 'participatory planning for aquaculture' is in a sense a contradiction in terms; if it is decided in advance that one technology is most appropriate, then the intended beneficiaries have already been excluded from a vital part of the decision-making process. The acceptance of this fact does not however, preclude the use of less radical approaches in order to ensure the appropriacy of technology development.
In particular, participants agreed that it is important to use techniques of RRA in both the formulation and the implementation of aquaculture support activities. Doubts about the accuracy of RRA techniques were expressed by some participants. It was felt that they are more subject to error and bias than conventional survey techniques, particularly because of rapidity. The idea of 'triangulation' aims to address this worry, through cross-checking from at least three sources.
Moving on to the issue of whether 'target groups' should be identified in advance, initial discussion focused on the use of communal or group promotion. In Panama, according to the thematic paper, communal groups were used for education. Farmers then undertook productive activities on an individual basis. Farmers were also taught a wide range of skills and activities including rice cultivation and water management generally. Fish culture was secondary to these activities and the production of fish seen as a welcome by-product. Participants agreed that this approach appears to be appropriate for Panama, but caution is required in attempting to apply it elsewhere. In Africa in particular, group-based aquaculture has only been successful where there was a prior and well established history of collective practices.
Participants agreed that early adopters of aquaculture are unlikely to be the resource poorest in a community. Even very simple small-scale aquaculture involves a minimum of physical strength and access to resources to which the poorest of the poor simply do not have access. A number of participants stressed the importance of working with those farmers who show evidence of capacity to succeed. The constituents of this capacity were the subject of some debate. While there was general consensus about minimum capacity in terms of land and water availability, there was more disagreement as to whether it is justifiable, appropriate, or possible, to attempt to identify in advance those farmers with 'progressive' or 'entrepreneurial' attitudes. Some participants suggested that these are a necessary prerequisite for successful adoption, while others maintained that promoters should not impose such criteria. Participants agreed that although early adopters are likely to be better off than many others in rural communities, the promoters of aquaculture should ensure the continuing availability of low-input and low-cost technology.
Where aquaculture is practiced at relatively low levels and by few people in rural communities, such as in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, there is little evidence of negative side-effects for non adopters. However, more intensive cultivation by many people has led to problems for poorer people in parts of Asia. These include loss of resource control and environmental degradation. Some participants stressed that acceptance of the fact that small-scale rural aquaculture will not necessarily benefit the poorest of the poor should be accompanied by sensitivity to these potential wider ramifications. Promoters of aquaculture should not focus on the technology alone, but should see it in its wider social context.
by Sevaly Sen, Henk van der Mheen and Jennie van der Mheen-Sluijer
Abstract
Sub-Saharan Africa is characterized by rapid population growth, declining food production, stagnating per capita calorie consumption and environmental degradation This has affected both productivity and resource sustainability. The small-scale farmer experiences difficult trade-offs between a number of goals which usually include higher farm outputs, increased cash, greater food security and less family labour time in farm work. Risk avoidance, rather than profit maximization dominates household decision-making.
Small-scale aquaculture is a relatively new technology in southern and eastern Africa. As with many other new agricultural technologies, it is characterized by low rates of adoption, less than optimal productivity and poor sustainability of projects. Small-scale aquaculture and agriculture compete with each other in specific ways: with horticulture for land and water and with other on-farm activities for feeds and fertilizers. With regard to labour and capital, small-scale aquaculture does not compete with other on-farm activities.
Structural Adjustment Programmes in sub-Saharan Africa have led to a reduction in government extension budgets and rationalization of extension services, and the privatization of input supplies including the supplies of fingerlings for fish farming. Changes in credit availability are unlikely to directly affect the development of small-scale aquaculture as little capital is required.
Small-scale aquaculture offers good potential for income generation. Fish from small-scale aquaculture can contribute to improved food security, especially transitory food; insecurity. This is because fish is consumed not only when the pond is completely harvested but also throughout the year, through intermittent harvesting. Small-scale aquaculture can therefore contribute to the alleviation of poverty amongst the rural poor. Studies have shown that it is not always the better-off farmers who adopt fish farming, provided the extension approach and message are appropriate.
It is clear that aquaculture integrated with agriculture can contribute to rural development, but experience has shown that the most important critical factor is the extension approach, particularly whether adequate and appropriate information is made available to farmers. Existing extension approaches are characterized by "top-down" approaches, such as the Training and Visit System (T&V system) which is found in many countries in southern and eastern Africa. In most countries in these regions, a separate aquaculture extension service exists which is normally hierarchical and relatively small. Although integrating aquaculture into existing agricultural extension services is considered a good idea, the practical aspects of this integration are difficult. There may be problems of system overload, institutional barriers and a requirement to reverse the roles of current extension personnel. These problems are accentuated when government budgets to extension services are being reduced.
There is an increased awareness that conventional approaches to research and extension are inadequate, and participatory extension approaches have been advocated to be more effective. Participatory approaches require significant changes in current extension services. These include: improvement of the capacity of small-scale rural farming households to analyze problems and identify opportunities, and encouragement of the development of local networks to disseminate information combined with monitoring the quality of knowledge transferred in order to avoid significant distortion of information. Also there is a need for training of field workers in communication and motivation skills, in addition to technical knowledge. Current indicators to monitor staff performance are not well suited to the implementation of a participatory extension approach to extension.
In conclusion, aquaculture extension should be integrated with agriculture extension and should be part of the overall rural development. The extension approach should change and become participatory. In rural development the challenge is not to ensure that farmers adopt certain activities or techniques, but to ensure that they are aware of the specific opportunities that exist in their situation.
Organization of session
The session involved discussion of the thematic paper and three information papers:
· Socio-economic Analysis of Aquaculture in East Africa: An Asian Point of View by Dilip Kumar (presented by Ulf Wijkstrom);· Rural Aquaculture Framework for Country Reviews by Peter Edwards;
· Agricultural Extension by Abdallah Gaaya;
Discussion
The discussion highlighted the problem of trying to achieve rural development objectives in the context of a great reduction in resources. However, the participants agreed that the purpose of the Consultation was not to make recommendations on how to resolve these conflicts but to identify key issues which should be considered when taking into account small-scale aquaculture development.
The role of aquaculture in contributing to the achievement of rural development objectives within the changing macro-economic climate was discussed. There were three main areas of focus:
· extension approaches
· type of small-scale aquaculture
· role of the private sector
Participants agreed that a participatory approach to extension was more appropriate than a strictly technical focus. The challenge is to find a way of adapting the needs of a participatory approach to curtailed resources. A participatory extension approach requires a change in the present training of extension workers. Because of the complexity of integrated aquaculture systems, there is a need that extension workers understand the principles of aquaculture and are able to give site specific advice. This should be instead of predetermined extension messages.
In agriculture, the services try to overcome the problem that extension services are asked to do more with less resources by training extension workers more as facilitators who can assist the farmers in obtaining the needed information from the right sources. Extension is no longer just the transfer of technology. The agricultural extension services use other channels than their own service for disseminating information.
The observation was made that the participatory extension approach was much more suitable to farmers needs than the transfer of technology approach, but that at the same time there would be a need to empower the farmers to assist in the design of the extension messages and systems. The application of a participatory extension approach at the policy and planning level was identified as a problem for the full implementation of this approach. Furthermore, there is a lack of linkage between the jargon of participation among planners and rural reality, both that of farmers and their institutional counterparts.
A number of further issues and suggestions were raised:
· Instead of increasing aquaculture extension to a wide area, it would be more effective to concentrate the effort on those areas where there was a real potential for aquaculture development;· farmers should participate in identifying problems and solutions;
· effectiveness of the approach depends on many conditions. No project has tested different extension approaches to enable comparison between approaches;
· there has been a change in attitude since the Thematic Evaluation. It is now recognized that there is a need for participatory approaches to extension and that "cookbooks" of technological solutions are not successful. The process has to be a problem solving iterative process between farmers, extension agents and researchers;
· participation should also work at the policy level.
The issue of production increase was raised. Small-scale farmers in most cases do not have the means to purchase farm inputs, and therefore integration of aquaculture into the farming system would provide the best option for maximizing production. The importance of different options for farmers was highlighted. Farmers should be able to choose the option that would fit best under their specific conditions. There are two broad categories of small-scale aquaculture based on input usage:
· culture using only on-farm resources;
· culture using on farm and low unit cost off-farm inputs.
The discussion focused on the target farmers for these two types of systems. Some of the participants felt that for small-scale aquaculture to evolve and produce sufficient quantities for both livelihood requirements, the use of off-farm inputs was the way forward, albeit incrementally. Other participants noted that many farmers do not have access to any off-farm inputs and it was therefore better to concentrate on optimizing uses of on-farm inputs. It was pointed out that viewing aquaculture as a separate activity without looking at the trends on agriculture development in a particular area was a mistake. Some participants agreed there was a need to define the types of farmers projects should be working with (poorest of the poor, rural middle class) whilst others thought that this was not possible. There was general agreement that there was a need for some criteria to identify potential target groups, although such a process was in conflict with a participatory approach.
Participants noted that fish competes with other crops for water and space. It is important to compare the production of fish with other crops, and to integrate. Multiple use of water should receive more attention.
Participants noted that the 'private sector' covers a wide variety of individuals and organizations. There is hence a need for care in specifying at any time which element of the private sector is being referred to. All participants acknowledged that fingerling supply should no longer be within sole control of governments, and that this was a common and successful trend. However, the role of technical assistance in this process needs to be discussed and clarified. It was hoped that these issues would be covered during the discussions for Theme 3.
There was some disagreement as to the negative effects of structural adjustment programmes. Some participants suggested that the greater emphasis on the private sector would have long term benefits, and that positive effects could already be seen, especially in the fisheries sector. Others argued that a sectoral understanding of the effects of adjustment policies gave an incomplete picture.
2 This paper was produced subsequently to the Consultation to reflect the thematic discussion.
by Arne Andreasson:
Abstract
The aims of the paper are to describe the institutional context of small-scale rural aquaculture and to indicate areas of current institutional changes and adoption of new strategies/approaches to the development of the sector. The legal and macro-economic frameworks for aquaculture development, policies and plans are also discussed. However, a rather narrow understanding of the concept of institutions is applied, close to the formal definition of organizations: a structure within which people cooperate according to accepted and recognized roles. No attempt is made to venture into theories of organizational or institutional development. Further, the focus is on governmental institutions and their interaction with the private sector (producers, associations, companies, non-governmental organizations, etc.), international organizations, in this case mainly FAO, and donor agencies.
The role of governmental institutions is changing rapidly. This is partly a result of changes in the macro-economic environment. Consequently, aquaculture development institutions need to find new, more effective means to reach their objectives and target groups. They also need to sharpen their arguments for funds for aquaculture development. Institution building, institutional development and strengthening of institutions were important aspects of development work in the 1960's and are again in fashion although with mixed results. Institutional constraints have in the past been attributed to lack of or limited "resources" such as trained staff, infrastructure and operational funds. Recent work on organizational and institutional development pays more attention to issues of motivation, incentive, reward and sanction.
There is a strong recent focus on private sector development. This is a wide concept which encompasses small-scale producers, farmers' associations, fish farming companies, companies producing seed, feed, tools and materials, and traders, as well as non-governmental organizations. Important issues for private sector development include the organization of fish seed development, marketing, and private sector extension.
The mode of operation of development aid projects is also changing. Projects, with expatriate personnel, working closely with counterparts in direct contact with the target groups are being replaced by indirect interventions. The focus on institutional development occurs at the same time as aid is increasingly being channeled through NGO's, which often are believed to be in a better position to support grass-root development than the governmental institutions.
Recent developments are changing the traditional mode of operation of FAO. Budgets have been cut which have resulted in reduction of headquarters staff. The field programme has been drastically reduced. It is unlikely that this reduction is compensated by increases in bilaterally funded and executed projects. The effects of the changes have not yet been fully reviewed but are likely to lead to an increased focus on the normative role of the organization.
Organization of session
The session was led by Sunil Siriwardena. Because of a lack of adequate information provided by the commissioned background paper, the session leader presented a set of issues that had arisen from previous presentations to establish a base for discussion for the institutional context. In addition, one information paper was presented, 'Use of macro-economic information in policy formulation and planning for government support to small-scale rural aquaculture', by Pierre Justin Kouka.
Discussion
There was a consensus that institutional strength is crucial to the success of small-scale rural aquaculture development. However, what this means in practice was less clearly agreed. Some participants focused on the problems and weaknesses facing partner governments, while others were more concerned with the FAO's own organizational context and the critical relationship between the FAO and governments.
Participants agreed that in many parts of the world, there is a lack of government-commitment and capacity and low priority for the development of rural aquaculture. This is accompanied by an increasing trade-off between government and private sector activity. Nevertheless, participants stressed that there is still an important role for governments, particularly in the effective regulation of the private sector.
The need for credit was discussed. It was agreed that credit includes not only financial aspects but also include many types of in-kind, informal arrangements. While mixed feelings arose from the discussion on the subject, it is understood that some type of credit availability would certainly help small-scale farmers to achieve their goals, especially at early stages of production (pond construction and fingerling stocking).
While there was a consensus on the redefining of the role of extension, the idea was mentioned that there should be a distinction between two types of extension: general extension aimed at addressing a variety of questions related to agriculture and aquaculture in general and specialized extension aimed at addressing questions specific to a given area of aquaculture such as water quality, fish health, and so forth. Participants agreed that there are currently serious problems facing existing extension - for agriculture as well as aquaculture. These include the tendency for better qualified people to move from the 'front-line' of extension and not be replaced.
A number of participants stressed the need to address the organizational context of FAO itself, both in terms of its internal structure and functioning and in its relationship and approach to partners. Regarding internal functioning, it was noted that despite prior invitation, very few participants from services other than fisheries had found the time or the inclination to attend the meeting. A primary aim of the Consultation had been to build communication and discussion between diverse sectors, especially because of the importance of small-scale aquaculture as part of rural development in general. This aim was only partially achieved, possibly because of the sectoral priorities and commodity focus within the organization.
Regarding links with partners, it was generally felt that in the context of reduced governments intervention, it is important for the FAO to rethink its relationship with host governments and find a different way of operating. The lack of national representatives at the Consultation was noted.
Over the last few years many international organizations have prioritized non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as the best vehicle for the delivery of aid. Participants agreed that there was a need for more concerted coordination between the various institutional actors, including NGOs. In the context of increased decentralization, national governments and international organizations such as FAO still have a role to play.
by Randall Brummett and Boyd Haight
Abstract
Rural small-scale farmers carry out their farming activities in a complex physical and socio-economic environment, the elements of which have been addressed in the context of rural aquaculture by other thematic papers. Research and extension provide methods and tools for understanding this environment, developing improved farming technologies and promoting their adoption by farmers.
Research in developing countries is hampered by many of the same constraints as extension. Education of researchers is focused on techniques and methodologies which are not always appropriate to their situation. While numbers of scientists have risen over the last decade, overall funding by national programmes has decreased, dramatically reducing the availability of funds per researcher. In the longer term, revitalization of the scientific establishment in developing countries is essential if these are to keep pace with the rapidly changing global economy. Addressing the immediate needs of small-scale farmers is, however, not a highly capital-intensive activity. Thus, in the short-term, directing research at the problems faced by small-scale farmers might actually help reduce the conflict between the desire to produce quality results and the imperatives imposed by shrinking budgets.
Researchers too often work at intellectual levels and reside in physical locations which are difficult for farmers to access directly. Traditionally, the extension service has been given the task of acting as an intermediary between researchers and the farming community. The extension agent is supposed to go out to the farm, collect information about both perceived and unperceived needs of farmers, and transmit it to scientists. The system seldom works as designed. Extension often fails to accurately perceive the situation of the farmers and transmits to researchers misinformation or none at all. Researchers consequently drift off course and begin concentrating on topics which they find personally interesting, but for which there may be no practical application in small-scale fanning systems. Unfortunately, extension and research are often housed separately, often in entirely different government departments and hence seldom interact with each other. Extension agents are not invited to research meetings and vice versa. Researchers tend to scorn the more poorly educated extension agents, just as the extension agents scorn the farmers. None of these conditions creates an atmosphere conducive to the flow in information.
In the traditional view, extension is the key to information flow both to and from researchers and farmers. Extension agents are expected to be half scientist and half farmer, able to pick up and understand a technical journal article, put it into the specific context of his or her target community, and then communicate the information effectively to farmers. An institutional framework in which field work is viewed as unprestigious and a sump for unproductive or junior staff must be revised.
Since it was largely based on the erroneous assumption that aquaculture innovation could be evaluated independently of other farm activities, most aquaculture research has been aimed at the fish pond in isolation. While such research is perfectly valid for commercial fish-only agrobusinesses, there is little demand for the data it generates among resource-poor, small-scale farmers who employ mixed-cropping systems. Farming systems analysis and farmer participatory research are potential ways forward. New methodologies for conceiving and conducting research have evolved from field trials, in which the farmer's perspective is fully appreciated and farmers are incorporated into the research process from the beginning. Farmer-participatory approaches aim to capitalize on the strengths of both modem science and traditional knowledge bases.
Organization of session
The session was led by Randall Brummett. No additional information papers were presented.
Discussion
The discussion in this session revolved principally around the issue of how to make research more iterative and responsive to farmers' needs and the links between this and extension.
Participants agreed that a good indicator of the appropriacy of research was farmer satisfaction, and that it is important not to 'push' one form of technology over another. However, doubts were raised about the linkage between this sort of research and extension. Some participants suggested that farmer-to-farmer extension is the most effective way of transferring information. Others expressed concern that if this were relied upon as the main method of extension, it would be impossible to control for side effects. These might include the conveyance of inaccurate or misleading information and the consolidation of inappropriate practices.
A number of participants felt that these side effects were not a serious problem. They argued that farmers' decisions, not those of aquaculturists, should be prioritized. If these decisions did not always make sense to the promoters of aquaculture, it did not mean that they were not logical and valid so far as farmers were concerned, even if they did not result in the production of more fish. This position was contested by those who pointed out that for aquaculture research to be funded rather than any other, there was a need to illustrate its greater value and usefulness. Thus, there may be a trade-off between the political and accounting needs of development support and the needs of farmers.
1. Organization of session
The session was led by Elizabeth Harrison who began by reviewing the principle issues which had been raised in discussion over the preceding three days. These issues were initially grouped under nine headings. During the course of subsequent discussion among the consultation participants these were modified to 11 headings (see below). Discussion of these key issues was organized in five small groups of three to four people, with two facilitators assisting in the recording of discussions.
The discussion was carried out in two phases. During the first, the issues suggested by the session moderator were reviewed and prioritized and any important issues not included in the initial list were identified. This led to the addition of issues 10 and 11 and the modification of some of the other points. In the second phase, groups were asked to consider the implications of the Consultation findings for the FAO. Following the group discussion and submission of written reports, a brief review of the issues raised by various groups was prepared by the moderator and a plenum discussion of key points held. Most of the discussion groups consolidated the issues into groups and the reporting of the discussion is also organized in this fashion.
2. Key issues arising from the Consultation
2.1 Objectives and indicators - Difficulties in establishing development objectives as well as appropriate indicators for the relative success of small-scale aquaculture given the variability of the objectives held by different potential target groups in different locations.
2.2 Target groups and "adopters" - The rural poor, or other groups, frequently targeted for rural aquaculture in order to improve their food security are often not the best target groups from the point of view of adoption rates as they may lack access to the basic resources and knowledge required for rapid adoption of aquaculture technology.
2.3 Implications of participatory approaches - While the need for higher levels of "target group" participation in the planning and implementation of rural aquaculture (and rural development in general) is recognized, there are potential problems regarding fitting such participatory approaches into existing organizational, administrative and planning structures.
2.4 The integration of aquaculture into rural development and farming systems approaches - For the purposes of rural development activities, aquaculture should not be regarded as a separate discipline but has to be fully integrated into a holistic approach to development and improvement of farming systems. This requires a wider use of genuinely interdisciplinary approaches to rural development which include aquaculture.
2.5 Interdisciplinary and interdivisional links within the FAO - The current organizational structure of the FAO does not encourage such interdisciplinary work.
2.6 The role of the State - macro-economic policy and structural adjustment - The effects of changes in the macro-economic environment in many less-developed countries on the development of small-scale rural aquaculture is not clear and needs to be better understood.
2.7 The role of the State - encouraging the private sector - Changes in the resources available to aquaculture development and extension programmes have resulted in a greater emphasis on private sector involvement in the sub-sector without any proper understanding of the full implications of this.
2.8 Similarities and variations between regions - The insufficiencies of a "blueprint" approach to rural aquaculture development seem to be widely accepted but there are nevertheless important similarities between regions which need to be understood, as do the key variations from one part of the world to another.
2.10 Sustainability - Some of the factors which are important to ensure sustainability now seem to be better understood but they often conflict with the time constraints and planning requirements of national and international development organizations.
2.11 Levels of intervention for the FAO - regional, national or local? - Given the acute pressure on resources available to the FAO, there is debate regarding at which level its interventions should focus - the regional level through specifically established bodies, the national level to assist governments in planning and policy development, or at the local level to assist in the identification of real needs at the community level.
3. Findings of Working Groups
3.1 ISSUES 1-3: Concerned with the Objectives of Rural Aquaculture and how they are ascertained
It was widely agreed that even small-scale rural aquaculture is far more readily adopted by relatively wealthier groups in rural communities. The "poor", who have often been targeted by rural aquaculture programmes in the past, frequently face considerable problems in effectively making use of aquaculture technology or gaining access to the resources required to make it work. Inappropriate targeting of this kind has often led to the "failure" of aquaculture programmes in the past in the sense that benefits did not reach predetermined target groups.
While recognizing this problem, other participants expressed concern that the poor could be ignored as a potential target group for aquaculture. There may be a need to differentiate between the "poor", who may be able, in certain circumstances, to take up small-scale aquaculture activities, and the "poorest of the poor", who are likely to be extremely marginalized groups such as the old, the sick or refugees and who are unlikely to have access to the sort of resources required for fish farming of any kind.
As a result it seems to be agreed that, while every effort should continue to be made to develop low-input, low-cost aquaculture technology accessible to poorer strata of the rural population, a deliberate emphasis on the "poor" as a target group may not always be appropriate.
New approaches to needs identification, objective setting and development planning, such as RRA and PRA were seen as means to improve the appropriateness of the aquaculture solutions being proposed. As they generally incorporate multidisciplinary approaches they can also ensure better incorporation of aquaculture into rural production systems.
However, some of the risks in using participatory approaches "out of context" were also highlighted. Development approaches which aim at empowerment of local communities require adaptive political, social and institutional frameworks which are not always available. The need to regard RRA and PRA as options which can be combined with other approaches as appropriate was highlighted.
Particular mention was made of the problems in incorporating participatory planning approaches at the field level with the more traditional "top-down" modes of planning commonly used in governments and development institutions. Means of linking participatory planning in the field into mechanisms for policy formulation and national planning were felt to be generally lacking.
Participants' perceptions of the importance of these problems regarding participatory approaches were not all the same. It was mentioned that greater attention paid to the "ground rules" for use of participatory approaches and the sort of limits likely to be encountered in different contexts could remove some of the perceived difficulties.
3.2 ISSUES 4-5: Concerned with the integration of aquaculture into rural development as a whole
The importance of small-scale rural aquaculture being approached as one component or option for rural development was emphasized by many participants. The need for a more widespread adoption of holistic fanning systems approaches was seen as of key importance in ensuring that aquaculture is adopted as a development option only where it is genuinely appropriate and where it addresses specific needs recognized by intended beneficiaries themselves.
The risk of aquaculture losing its identity during the process of integration into "rural development" was also highlighted. Examples were given of how, once aquaculture is incorporated into a more integrated development approach, it can easily end up being given such low priority that it is practically ignored as a potential solution to problems of rural income-generation and food supply, especially in areas of the world where it is not yet widely practiced. The very limited attendance at the consultation of staff from the agricultural sections of the FAO, in spite of prior invitation, is also indicative of the generally low importance attached to aquaculture in relation to other rural production systems.
In this connection, the need to promote aquaculture and its potential, as well as analyze past problems and failures, was also mentioned. However, one fanning systems specialist participating in the consultation noted the need for proper demonstration of aquaculture's usefulness as an option, with well-documented proof of its current and potential contribution. While such documentation is available from many parts of Asia, information and cases from Africa and Latin America need to be made more readily available. Materials promoting aquaculture clearly need to show how it compares to the range of alternatives generally available.
The structural inadequacies of many development organizations to accommodate the kind of multi- and inter-disciplinary work which more integrated rural development approaches require was also noted by many participants. The FAO itself was felt to have considerable difficulty in ensuring the proper incorporation of different disciplinary skills and knowledge into its rural development activities. Poor communications between units and divisions, excessive compartmentalization and inappropriate budgeting arrangements were all seen to contribute to the persistence of single disciplinary approaches in spite of the setting up of more holistically-oriented units such as the Sustainable Rural Development Division and the Extension Division.
At government level, participatory approaches require new mechanisms and planning procedures which can link participatory planning efforts at the field level with the policy formulation processes at higher level. Techniques for doing this are not always available.
3.3 ISSUES 6-7: Concerned with the role of the State in Aquaculture Development
The effect of structural adjustment programmes and changes in the macro-economic environment obviously have complex, and sometimes paradoxical, impacts on the formulation processes at higher level. Techniques for doing this are not always available.
3.3 ISSUES 6-7: Concerned with the role of the State in Aquaculture Development
The effect of structural adjustment programmes and changes in the macro-economic environment obviously have complex, and sometimes paradoxical, impacts on the development of rural aquaculture. The need to assist governments in analyzing these effects was identified by several participants as a possible role for the FAO.
One generally recognized impact of these economic changes is the reduction of resources available for government programmes of all kinds and the consequent withdrawal of governments from many development, promotional, extension and support programmes which they engaged in previously. For aquaculture development, this clearly means that the role of government in providing key support services such as extension and fingerling supply has to be reconsidered and alternative channels identified.
The possible role of the private sector, particularly in fingerling production and supply was repeatedly mentioned as of great importance, but it was also pointed out that the current trend to encourage co-operation between development institutions and the private sector has greatly expanded the range of possible counterparts for rural aquaculture development programmes.
The implications of decentralization processes undertaken by national governments need to be taken account of and understood. Some participants noted the confusion between decentralization on the one hand, and the devolution and delegation of authority on the other.
3.4 ISSUES 8-11: Concerned with Regional and Site-to-Site Variation, Research Implications and the Role of FAO
Variations (and similarities) between regions and individual sites are significant. A generalized, blueprint approach to aquaculture technology development was accepted as being generally inappropriate but lessons from one area need to be communicated to others. Some disagreement arose over the way in which research feeds into development in the field. Participatory approaches to development emphasize the need for research to be reactive to the needs and problems encountered at the field level. On the other hand, the representatives of research institutions clearly feel that prior research to develop viable technical options is of key importance. Compromise solutions which combine the two elements need to be worked out according to local conditions.
This highlights the need for both global and regional co-ordination of research efforts and the collection and diffusion of information, this being an important role for the FAO. The FAO's "bird's eye view" of world-wide developments can be of great assistance to governments trying to refine and develop new policies for rural aquaculture development. While the weaknesses of transferring techniques developed in one area directly to another was widely recognized, the FAO can make important contributions by developing and diffusing methodologies, whether for research, extension, needs analysis, development planning or policy formulation.
Other potentially important contributions of the FAO would be in assisting governments in developing appropriate research strategies and techniques and in balancing adaptive and technical approaches to aquaculture research. Assisting governments in the decentralization of research activities might also be important.
The relative level of intervention of the FAO was also discussed. While generally the FAO's role as a global and regional focal point for information collection and diffusion was recognized, there was also concern expressed over the possibility of the FAO becoming isolated from the realities of the field, particularly as the funding for field projects is steadily reduced. The need to keep open channels to the "grass-roots" was felt to be important and, while the FAO will inevitably continue to deal primarily with governments, contacts with properly recognized, more locally-based institutions, such as NGOs or local administrations need to be maintained in some form.
3.5 GENERAL ISSUES
The role of the consultation itself was discussed at some length. On the one hand, some participants were anxious to see concrete and workable recommendations produced by the meeting while others were emphatic that the consultation was a "first step" in analyzing the issues facing rural aquaculture development and further discussion and research would be required before recommendations or proposals could be produced. In particular, given the emphasis placed by participants on the incorporation and integration of aquaculture into more generalized rural development processes, the importance of greater involvement of agricultural and extension specialists in the discussion was highlighted.
