The study has clearly shown that the market for fish and fish products in Zimbabwe is a rapidly changing one, and per capita fish consumption has increased significantly over the last two years. It also indicates that consumption patterns and behaviour of consumers, within income categories and in both urban and rural areas is remarkably similar. Greater availability of fish has made fish a more familiar and acceptable part of the diet.
Wholesalers and retailers all consider the market for fish to be expanding, mainly because the traditional sources of animal protein (beef, chicken) are becoming increasingly expensive. The recent outbreak of Newcastle disease in the poultry industry has also increased the demand for fish. Given the volatile nature of the market it is therefore difficult to provide accurate projections of demand for different species, although it is clear that demand is increasing and the potential for market expansion is high.
The rate of increase in demand is dependent on a number of factors: availability of product, price and prices of alternatives. The rapid expansion in sales of frozen mackerel was largely price driven as it was considered so cheap. It appears that the demand for mackerel is therefore very price elastic, that is, as the price rises there is likely to be a more than proportionate fall in demand and vice versa. As prices rise for dried kapenta, consumers tend to buy smaller amounts rather than none at all, and some wholesalers noted that sales of the smaller packets of kapenta were increasing.
These observations are supported by the results of the consumer survey. Consumers were asked whether they were buying more fish than a year ago (Question 7). 67% of both urban and rural respondents said they were. When asked which types of fish they were buying, over 50% of rural and 70% of urban respondents said frozen mackerel (Figure 24). Just over 20% of the rural respondents said that they were buying more dried kapenta. More bream was also being bought. The main reasons cited (Question 8) were that it was cheap (for urban consumers) and that it was available (for rural consumers). The reasons given are presented in Figure 25. The respondents who said they did not buy more fish than a year ago, cited variety as the main reason and lack of availability as the second reason.
