-~. sii
14
t
&
-*~t~-
--. 
A-...
SCM.
International Center for Aquaculture and Aquatic Environments Research and Development Series No. 38
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Auburn University
Lowell T. Frobish, Director Auburn University, Alabama March 1994
' .4-
t-
1
C
It..
I
-4
'S
4-P rn
4
0.W' - , --
Contents
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 5
Sustainable Aquaculture .................................................................................. 5
Objectives ............................................................................................... 5
RESEARCH METHODS....................................................................................... 6
Sample and Data Collection ............................................................................... 6
Active Farmers ......................................................................................... 6
Emulators .......................................................................................... 6
Dropouts ............................................................................................ 6
Analysis .................................................................................................. 6
RESULTS.................................................................................................... 6
Farm and Household Characteristics ...................................................................... 6
Gender and Participation ............................................................................. 6
Location of Respondents ............................................................................. 7
Family Structure....................................................................................... 7
Age and Marital Status............................................................................... 8
Hill Land Tenure ...................................................................................... 8
Marais Land Tenure ................................................................................. 8
Food and Income Enterprises......................................................................... 8
Animal Enterprises.................................................................................. 9
Production and Marketing................................................................................ 9
Pond Visits......................................................................................... 9
Fish Feeding ........................................................................................... 9
Production Problems ................................................................................ 10
Harvesting Practices ................................................................................. 10
Marketing Practices................................................................................. 10
Marketing Outlets................................................ I................................... 10
Marketing Problems ................................................................................ 11I
Extension Assistance...................................................................................11I
Visit Frequency and Helpfulness .................................................................... 11
Perceived Utility of Services ......................................................................... 11
Other Extension Contacts ............................................................... 12
Prospects for Fish Culture ................................................................................ 12
Enterprise Viability .................................................................................. 12
Production Constraints............................................................................... 13
Problems with Fish Farming ......................................................................... 13
Compatibility of Fish Farming ....................................................................... 13
Family Impacts of Fish Farming ..................................................................... 13
Emulator Farmers................................................................................... 14
Why Farmers Become Dropouts..................................................................... 14
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Research supported by a USAID Program Support Grant to Auburn
University; data collection supported by the USAID Collaborative Re-
search Support Program in Pond Dynamics/Aquaculture led by Oregon
State University (Pub. no. 1086); and travel supported by the USAID
Rwanda Natural Resources Management Project-Aquaculture Compo-
nent led by Auburn University. We thank: the Rwasave Research Station
for typing, transport, and the counsel of Eugene Rurangwa and Lieven
Verheurst; the College of Agriculture, National University of Rwanda,
Butare for duplication and computer services; the Department of Re-
search Data Analysis, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station for data
entry services; and Nathanael Hishamunda and Paul Mpawenimana for
translation and interpretation assistance.
SuMAuY
Beginning in 1983, the Rwanda National Fish Culture Project helped farmers
improve their ponds and pond management. It also identified and provided a species
of tilapia better-suited to the high-elevation, cool-water environment. The report
focuses on the experiences of three specific categories of farmers, about which
little systematic information exists.
Interviews were conducted with 115 active farmers including 56 women who were pond
group members or individual operators. Interviews were conducted with 21 dropouts about
their reasons for quitting fish culture. Similarly, 16 emulators were interviewed about their
lack of contact with extension personnel.
The results suggest that aquaculture has become an integral part of the diversification
strategy of Rwandan farmers. Despite a lessening in the intensity of extension assistance,
farmers continue to grow repeated crops of fish. They express positive sentiments about the
activity, its benefits, and the technical support they receive.
The segment of farmers that has stopped growing fish seems to have done so for reasons
other than dissatisfaction with the enterprise per se. Dropouts were slightly more involved in
other farm enterprises, but the problems they identified were more related to circumstances in
their household or in the milieu of neighboring landowners than with fish culture itself. A
narrow segment quit because the water was too cold or otherwise was not conducive to growing
fish. Dropout farmers perceived more time and effort conflicts with other farm enterprises and
household work. They were more interested in the cash proceeds of fish culture than the other
sample segments and less likely to feel that the pond was the best use of the land it occupied.
Women in groups seemed the most satisfied and productive segment of the study respon-
dents. They had larger harvests, they experienced fewer marketing problems, and they were
more attentive to the general practice of fish culture. They also seemed to get better prices.
Women in groups seemed better able to exploit pond bank sales as a marketing channel for
tilapia. Friends, relatives, and neighbors are an immediate network of fish consumers that are
readily alerted and mobilized to purchase fish at harvest. Women in pond groups were
characterized by an overlay of multiple social networks, and seem better positioned to distribute
fish among rural households.
Women in pond groups seem to have most effectively realized the promise of fish culture
to yield benefits for families, particularly children. The access to land, sociability, and perhaps
gender solidarity in a male-oriented society, are major advantages of fish culture for women.
Tumba
Mugambazi
Kayove
Kigali
Gishamvu
25I I25 mi
Figure 1. Map of Rwanda showing sample communes and major river basins, 1992.
SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING THE
TRANSFER AND SUSTAINABILITY OF
AQUACULTURAL TECHNOLOGY IN RWANDA
Joseph J. Molnar, Christopher L. Cox, 
Pelagie Nyirahabimana, Alphonse Rubagumya
I
INTRODUCTION
Beginning in 1983, the Rwanda National Fish Culture Project
helped farmers improve their ponds and pond managment (15,18).
It also identified and provided a species of tilapia better-suited to the
high-elevation, cool-water environment through an extension ser-
vice of approximately 40 agents (19). Important questions pertain
to the amount and quality of technical assistance farmers received,
the degree to which farmers adopted the technical package ex-
tended to them, and the existence of various signs and conditions
that signaled the incorporation of fish culture into the cycle and
mosaic of farm activity (7,8,9).
Previous research obtained data from a sample of 186 active
Rwandan fish farmers taken from project rolls throughout the
nation (20). Several significant questions were not addressed in the
survey of active farmers. Specifically, the economic aspects of fish
culture were not specified in detail nor was the marketing process
examined in sufficient depth to identify intervention points for
extension assistance.
Another shortcoming pertained to gender representation
(1,6,28). Only five women were interviewed in the 1991 study, a
nearly representative number at the time. Recent reports suggest
that fish culture is expanding rapidly among women. Women now
represent about 25% of the fish farmers in Rwanda (14). Given the
conflicts reported by women, the primary role played by women in
food production for household consumption, and the emphasis
placed on gender sensitivity and equity in USAID policy, it is
important to address their experience in aquaculture (13,17).
A third shortcoming in this previous research pertains to the
factors that cause farmers to abandon aquaculture as a farm enter-
prise. Previous research has pointed to the problems associated
with group farming and the division of rewards that are insufficient
for the size of a pond group (21). Young farmers may quit fish
farming for more advantageous endeavors. Some farmers may
drain their ponds to grow other crops. Loss of fish crops to theft,
disease, or poor management may discourage others from starting
a new crop of fish. The reasons underlying dropout decisions
among project participants are not well-understood (20).
Finally, little is known about a fourth category of farmers
termed "emulators." These individuals built and stocked ponds on
their own initiative, relying on hearsay and informal advice for
assistance. Many of these individuals lie outside the normal
circuit of extension workers. Others simply have not developed
relationships with extension workers who make regular calls in
nearby areas. Little is known about the adequacy of the technical
approach used by these individuals, the influence they have on their
neighbors, their relative levels of success, or why they eschew
extension assistance.
This report focuses on selected categories of fish farmers,
particularly women, dropouts and emulators. It summarizes the
data in terms of a typology encompassing the key segments of the
target population (25). Understanding the circumstances and
motivations that shape decision processes will be a significant step
toward designing and maintaining a technology transfer effort that
will be sustainable and effective (4,16).
SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE
Sustainability can be defined in different ways and sought
through different means. The term is usually used in the context of
yield from a renewable resource, such as a fishery, that is maintain-
able over time without depleting the resource. The concept also
implies a broader concern for the overall fit, congruity, and lasting
incorporation of an intervention in a socioeconomic system (3,20).
Sustainable farm activities contribute to a general pattern of
durability or harmony in the relationship between a population and
its resource base. When considered in the context of Rwanda's rapid
population growth and limited land area, sustainability must be
regarded as a dynamic objective for both policy makers and
farmers. Although broader perspectives emphasize the long-term
viability of whole agricultural systems, the focus here is on the
perceived fit of a specific activity in a complex cycle and array of
enterprises (22).
This report documents the ways fish culture is implemented by
different segments of the target population. It diagnoses the ways
fish culture does or does not fit in the lives of Rwandan farm
families. It also profiles the special problems facing women and
other key segments of the clientele population.
OBJECTIVES
1. To establish baseline quantitative information about
women and men who operate fish ponds individually or in groups
in Rwanda.
2. To profile the circumstances and motivations underlying
decisions to discontinue the practice of fish culture in Rwanda.
3. To describe the practices and technical proficiency of
independently established fish farmers who have no regular
contact with extension personnel.
1Alumni Professor and Research Aide of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology; Director of Fish Culture, Aquaculture, and Apiculture, Rwanda Ministry
of Agriculture, Livestock, and Environment; and Postdoctoral Fellow in Sociology, Louisiana State University.
5
RESEARCH METHODS
SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION
Active Farmers. Data were obtained from a sample of active
Rwandan fish farmers randomly selected from National Fish
Culture Service (SPN) rolls in eight local administrative districts
(communes) during the winter and early spring of 1992. Several
districts were chosen to represent agroclimatic diversity in the
nation's regions; others were selected randomly. Interviews were
conducted with 115 active fish farmers, 45 % of whom were
women. Figure 1 shows the location of the sample communes.
To contact respondents, aquaculture monitors (extension rep-
resentatives) were asked to arrange with the farmers to meet the
interviewer at specified locations and times. The Rwandan inter-
viewer conducted individual interviews in the native Kinyarwanda
language using a standardized set of questions and response frame-
works. Approximately 60 minutes were spent with each farmer.
Emulators. Interviews were conducted with 16 individuals
who had independently adopted fish culture as a farm enterprise.
Several techniques were employed to contact farmers who have
built ponds and were growing fish without the benefit of extension
services. Extension staff were asked to identify individuals who
had been growing fish, but with whom they had not had contact, or
who had refused or otherwise discouraged extension assistance.
Similarly, active farmers were asked to identify neighbors who
independently built and stocked ponds. Information specifying the
name and location of these individuals were used by the interviewer
to locate emulators of fish culture.
Fish farmers in areas not receiving extension assistance were
identified through network sampling procedures and local infor-
mants (2). General agricultural extension agents provided infor-
mation about individuals who had constructed fish ponds. Local
residents made referrals to farmers who had ponds. Neighbors also
provided information about the owners of ponds visible from the
roadside.
Dropouts. Interviews were conducted with 21 farmers who
had discontinued fish culture. Several techniques were employed to
contact this segment. Extension staff were asked to identify indi-
viduals who had discontinued fish culture in the past three years.
Similarly, active farmers were asked to identify neighbors who
drained ponds or did not restock after the last harvest. Information
specifying the name and location of these individuals was used by
the interviewer to try to locate the discontinuing farmers. The
interviewer met the farmer at the household or in fields, sometimes
organizing a meeting through a neighbor or other intermediary.
Separate interview schedules were developed for active and
dropout farmers. The active farmer interview schedule was seg-
mented to allow separate lines of questions for individual pond
owners and group pond members. Additional production and
economic information was obtained. Each survey instrument was
developed, translated into Kinyarwanda, pretested with members
of each category, and accordingly adjusted. The schedules were
developed collaboratively with SPN staff members Pelagie
Nyirahabimana, Nathanael Hishamunda, and Paul Mpawenimana.
ANALYSIS
The data were edited then directly entered according to
precoded numerical response categories on the printed question-
naire that did not require translation. The data were tabulated in this
report according to gender, type of pond ownership, and participa-
tion status. This approach reveals the pattern of responses for each
of the major segments of fish farmers and former fish farmers
targeted in the study.
The tables show responses for: all respondents -- data for all
sample segments; active farmers -- excluding dropout farmers;
group members -- active farmers who are members of pond groups;
individual farmers -- operators of ponds on land under their
personal control; and emulators -- active farmers in areas not
receiving extension services. In all cases where active group
farmers are considered, separate tabulations for men and women
are reported. Due to small numbers of cases, individual and
dropout farmers were not tabulated by gender.
RESULTS
FARM AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTCS
Gender and Participation. Table 1 shows the distribution of
sample respondents by gender and pond ownership. This tabulation
is the base for establishing the typology of Rwanda farmers that
will be used for the remainder of the report. Figure 2 shows the
relative size of the target population segments in the sample.
The number of farmers in each sample segment is roughly
proportional to the corresponding population. The 62 group
farmers in the sample represent 3.2% of the 1,950 group ponds in
the country in 1990. The 53 individual pond operators represent
4.6% of the 1,152 individual ponds. Women are 24% of the fish
farmers in Rwanda and 43% of the sample (12). Women were
oversampled to provide sufficient numbers for analysis.
Group pond operators were nearly equally divided between
males and females, but most individual pond operators were men.
As women typically have more difficulty gaining access to land,
participation in one or more pond groups provides a means for
increasing food production and income opportunities for them.
This pattern reflects the traditional Rwandan land tenure system
that inhibits women's access to land.
TABLE 1. TYPOLOGY OF STUDY RESPONDENTS, RWANDA, 1992
Active Dropout
Gender Group Individual Group Individual
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
M ale ............................ 55 91 81 80
Female ........................ 45 91 92 0
(Number) .................... (62) (53) (16) (5)
The dropout farmers were 80% male. Women did not seem to
withdraw from pond groups to the extent that men did. Due to the
small number of dropouts of either gender, dropouts will be profiled
as a single category in subsequent tables.
T r 1 1 1
Although it is not shown in the table,
emulator farmers were nearly all men. They
are aggregated with all active farmers due to
their small number, but are examined sepa-
rately in one section of the analysis. Simi-
larly, results for individual fish farmers of
both genders will be combined, as less than
10% of these respondents were female. 
Group Women
This simplified typology of participation
status and gender is the independent vari-
able used to tabulate the data. It consists of
four categories: active group men; active
group women; active individuals; and drop-
outs.
Location of Respondents. Table 2
shows the distribution of study communes
by participation status. The 141 communes
(or counties) are the basic units of adminis-
tration in Rwanda. The map displays the 
Group Men
location ofthe nine sample 
communes where Figure 
2. Typolo
respondents were contacted (Figure 1).
Table 2 details their participation status. About 65% of the
dropouts were interviewed in three of the study communes
(Gishamvu, Kayove, and Kigoma). Two communes, Mugambazi
and Tumba, did not have formally assigned extension monitors.
Gishamvu was only recently assigned a half-time monitor; in an
earlier period an extension monitor had operated for two years, but
he had not been replaced when he left.
The second item in the table suggests that dropouts tended to
live closer to administrative centers than active farmers. Larger
proportions of the active farmers lived more than one hour's walk
from the commune office. This finding suggests that farmers are
not participating in fish culture because of perceived political or
administrative benefits; rather, the enterprise seems to be pro-
ceeding on its own merits.
TABLE 2. LOCATION OF STUDY RESPONDENTS, RWANDA, 1992
Active Fish Farmers Dropout
Group Individual
Male Female
Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet.
Name of commune
Gishamvu................... 9 7 6 31
Karago...................... 9 7 9 4
'Not served by an extension monitor.
Typology of Study Respondents
Rwanda Fish Farmers, 1992
Dropout
(24A1%)
ts (14. 5%)
Emulators (6.2%)
ividuals (36.6%)
)gy of study respondents, Rwanda, 1992.
Family Structure. Only 15% of the women group farmers
were household heads (Table 3). In contrast, more than 85% of
the other categories headed households. This is a maj or difference
in the composition of the sample.
Young children were present in most other sample house-
holds, as shown in Table 3, although 46% of the active group
women did not have children under age 10. Active individual
farmers were more likely to have young children in their house-
holds.
TABLE 3. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY RESPONDENTS,
RWANDA, 1992
Active Fish Farmers
Group
Male Female
Dropout
Individual
Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet.
Respondent is the household head
No ........................... 3
Yes ......................... 97
Children under age 10
None........................ 33
1 to 3 children ............ 55
More than 4 ............... 12
Children age 10 to 18
None........................ 27
1 to 3 children ............ 64
4 to 6 children............. 9
Children over age 18
None........................ 64
1 to 3 children ............ 15
More than 4 ............... 21
Household size
1 to 5 persons ............. 34
More than 6 ............... 66
(Number).................. (33)
85 9 14
15 91 86
46
42
12
54
42
4
77
15
8
19
63
18
37
49
14
55
21
24
44
30
26
44
52
4
57
26
17
46 31 35
54 69 65
(28) (51) (23)
Active group women farmers were less likely to have chil-
dren aged 10 to 18, while men group farmers were most likely to
have children that age. Similarly, group women farmers were least
likely to have older children. Most households were large, with
six or more people present in the home. Group women farmers
tended to have smaller households because most were young
women with no or few children.
Age and Marital Status. Most respondents were between 35
and 44 years of age, although more than a third of the active
female group fish farmers were less than 25 (Table 4). Group
ponds may be a more accessible avenue to land and economic
activity for young women. More than half the active female group
farmers were not married. About 75% or more of the other
respondents were married.
TABLE 4. AGE AND MARITAL STATUS OF STUDY RESPONDENTS,
1992
Active Fish Farmers Dropout
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
Age in years
Less than 25 years ..........
25 to 34 ...........................
35 to 44 ...........................
45 to 54 ...........................
55 to 64 15 ......................
65 or older ......................
Marital status
Married ..........................
Single ............................
Widow ...........................
Separated or divorced ....
More than one spouse
(Number) .......................
3
18
40
15
7
9
97
3
0
0
0
(34)
37
26
22
8
12
0
46
29
7
18
0
(28)
6
30
30
16
9
6
85
4
2
4
5
(53)
6
18
36
32
5
73
14
13
0
0
(22)
Hill Land Tenure. Table 5 shows that most farmers owned
some land on the hillsides. Hill land comprises the core holdings
of the Rwandan farmstead. Hill land holdings give some indica-
tion of the socioeconomic standing of the household. Hill land is
privately owned and passed on through family inheritance.
Men in groups and dropouts tended to report ownership of
more parcels. More dropouts felt that they owned more hill land
than their neighbors. Women in groups tended to feel they owned
less land than other farmers. They tended to rent more land into
their farmstead and to rent almost none to others.
Marais Land Tenure. Marais lands are largely held by the
government (26). Use rights are allocated to individuals and groups
by the chief communal administrative officer, the bourgmestre
(23,24). Fish ponds are constructed on marais land. Active women
group farmers tended to control fewer parcels in the marais and to
feel they had less marais land than others (Table 6). More than 75%
of the women and individual farmers said they did not rent any
marais plots to others. Nor did active women group farmers rent
any marais plots from others. It should be noted that the renting
of marais plots is an illegal activity, although the exchange of plots
for labor and other considerations is not uncommon.
TABLE 5. HILL LAND HOLDINGS OF STUDY RESPONDENTS, RWANDA,
1992
Active Fish Farmers Dropout
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
Hill land parcels owned
N one ............................... 3 0 0 0
1 to 5 parcels ................. 82 100 96 87
More than 6 parcels ....... 15 0 4 13
Hill land more or less than other farmers
M ore............................... 9 4 16 30
Less ................................ 59 81 54 48
About the same.............. 32 15 30 22
Hill land rented from others
None ............................... 35 32 45 36
1 to 3 parcels ................. 59 68 49 59
4 to 6 parcels ................. 6 0 6 5
More than 6 parcels ....... 0 0 0 0
Hill land rented to others
None............................... 94 96 86 77
1 to 3 parcels ................. 6 4 12 23
4 to 6 parcels ................. 0 0 0 0
More than 6 parcels ....... 0 0 2 0
(Number) ....................... (34) (25) (49) (22)
TABLE 6. MARAIS LAND HOLDINGS OF STUDY RESPONDENTS,
RWANDA, 1992
Active Fish Farmers Dropout
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
Number of marais parcels you control
N one ................................ 12 29 2 4
1 to 5 parcels ................. 73 67 82 74
6 to 10 parcels ............... 9 4 8 9
More than 10 parcels ..... 6 0 8 13
Land in the marais more or less than other farmers
M ore ................................ 10 5 10 45
Less ................................ 71 90 71 55
About the same.............. 19 5 19 0
Marais rented from others
N one ................................ 61 76 76 61
1 to 3 parcels .................. 36 24 20 35
4 to 6 parcels ................. 3 0 4 4
Marais land rented to others
None ............................... 91 100 90 96
to3parcels.............6 0 8 4
4 to 6parcels .............. 3 0 2 0
(Number) ..................... (34) (25) (49) (23)
Food and Income Enterprises. Table 7 shows the farm
enterprises reported as providing most of the respondent's cash
income and most of the food for the family. These data reflect
multiple responses from each respondent. Consequently, the
percentages do not sum to 100. Significantly, no respondent
reported fish as a primary source of cash income.
More than a fourth of male group farmers indicated that
bananas, cassava, livestock, and sweet potatoes produced the bulk
of their cash income. A fourth of the group women also reported
8
TABLE 7. FOOD AND INCOME ENTERPRISES OF STUDY RESPONDENTS,
RWANDA, 1992
Active Fish Farmers
Group
Dropout
Individual
Male Female
Provides cash income:
Cabbage .........................
Sweet potatoes ...............
Bananas .........................
Sorghum .......................
Beans .............................
Livestock .......................
Taro ................................
M aize .............................
Cassava ...........................
W hite potatoes...............
Sweet peas .....................
Provides most food:
Cabbage .........................
Sweet potatoes ...............
Bananas ..........................
Sorghum ........................
Beans ............................
Taro ................................
M aize ............................
Cassava ..........................
W hite potatoes ...............
Sweet peas .....................
0
27
39
6
21
27
3
3
30
24
6
6
85
75
30
82
6
9
64
9
6
0
31
19
19
27
12
8
4
27
0
8
0
89
25
37
74
19
15
67
16
7
2
18
47
6
18
14
0
2
18
39
4
17
79
25
26
62
21
9
62
9
9
13
27
47
13
20
20
0
0
20
47
0
6
94
19
38
94
19
6
69
0
6
TABLE 8. ANIMAL ENTERPRISES OF STUDY RESPONDENTS, 1992
Active Fish Farmers Dropout
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
Types of animals raised
Goats .............................. 74 74 57 69
Chicken .......................... 65 78 61 50
Cows .............................. 56 39 61 69
Sheep ............................. 32 17 24 31
Rabbits ........................... 29 13 31 44
Pigs ................................ 27 22 24 19
D ucks ............................. 3 0 6 0
O ther .............................. 9 0 14 13
(Number of responses)... (100) (56) (141) (47)
Previous experience raising animals in pens or cages?
N o ................................... 0 21 2 0
Yes ................................. 100 79 98 100
(Number) ....................... (34) (24) (51) (23)
cash income from sweet potatoes and cassava. Beans were more
frequently reported as a cash source for the group women.
Women much less frequently reported bananas as a cash
source, reflecting traditional patterns of enterprise responsibility.
Individual and dropout farmers were more dependent on bananas
for cash income (47%). They also relied more heavily on white
potatoes, a cash income source reported by none of the active
women group farmers.
Respondents were asked to profile the main food sources for
their family. None of the respondents reported fish as a main food
source. More than half the sample reported sweet potatoes, beans,
and cassava as main food sources. Bananas were important for 75%
of the active male group farmers, but were important for only a
quarter or less in the other segments. No respondent mentioned fish
or cattle as main food sources for his or her family.
Animal Enterprises. Table 8 profiles animal enterprises main-
tained by the study respondents. Although nearly all the male,
individual, and dropout farmers reported experience growing ani-
mals in pens or cages, 21% of active group women farmers did not.
This is a major difference among the sample segments.
Women farmers were less likely to raise three types of animals:
cattle, rabbits, and sheep. Women more often reported chickens as
an enterprise.
PRODUCTION AND MARKETING
Pond Visits. More than half the active farmers visited their
ponds on a daily basis (Table 9). Another third visited several times
a week. When fish farmers visited their ponds, they tended to spend
less than two hours each time. More women in groups reported
stays of an hour or more, but men in groups spent the most time at
their ponds.
Fish Feeding. Tilapia directly ingest some organic materials
introduced into fish ponds; they also feed on the plankton bloom
induced by these substances. This line of questioning understands
feeding to include the provision of inputs and the stirring of compost.
Both efforts directly or indirectly provide nutrients for the fish.
TABLE 9. POND VISIT FREQUENCY AND DURATION, ACTIVE
FARMERS, RWANDA, 1992
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct.
How often do you visit your pond(s)?
Every day ....................................... 51 55 58
Almost every day .......................... 3 0 9
Several times a week .................... 32 31 23
Once a week .................................. 14 14 8
Several times a month ........... 0..... 0 2
How much time do you spend when visiting your pond(s)
Less than an hour .......................... 33 41 52
An hour or more ............................ 43 52 34
Two or three hours ........................ 16 7 10
More than three hours ................... 8 0 4
(Number) ....................................... (37) (29) (52)
Women reported having sufficient inputs for their fish ponds
most of the time (Table 10). Direct access to slaughter, garden, and
kitchen waste may facilitate feeding practices. Women also seemed
to be more committed to supplying these inputs to their ponds.
Compared to women in groups, more men in groups and individual
pond operators reported problems obtaining sufficient inputs.
Almost half the active farmers furnished inputs, stirred com-
post, or otherwise tended to their fish every or nearly every day. Of
the women in groups, 90% fed their fish several times a week or
more often. Because women are more attentive to their ponds, they
may be more sensitive to inadequacies in the amount or kind of
inputs available for their fish crop.
The three categories of active farmers each provided a similar
profile of substances to their fish. Leaves and manure were the most
commonly applied pond inputs. Women in groups tended to supply
sorghum beer waste and slaughter waste more often than other
9
farmers. Individual farmers tended to use less compost, but rather
employed a more diverse set of substances as pond inputs.
TABLE 10. FISH FEEDING PRACTICES, ACTIVE FARMERS, RWANDA,
1992
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct.
Do you have enough inputs for your pond?
Always ....................................... 27 59 41
Som etim es .................................... 51 38 35
N ever .......................... ................ 22 3 24
How often do you provide inputs for your fish?
Every day ....................................... 46 52 44
Almost every day ......................... 6 3 2
Several times a week ................... 32 35 40
Once a week ................................. 16 10 12
Several times a month ................. 0 0 2
(Num ber) ..................................... (37) (29) (52)
What types of inputs do you use?
Grass cuttings ............................... 27 29 28
Com post ......................................... 47 50 28
Manure ........................................ 65 64 68
Sorghum ........................................ 27 50 32
R ice bran ...................................... 6 0 0
Slaughter waste ............................ 18 46 5
Kitchen remainders ...................... 3 0 0
Leaves .......................................... 77 82 87
Beeswax ......................... 0............... 0 2
Termites or other .......................... 0 0 14
(Number of responses) .................. (91) (90) (145)
TABLE 1 1. PRODUCTION PROBLEMS, ACTIVE FARMERS, RWANDA,
1992
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct.
Problems getting enough water to keep pond full?
Y es ........................... ................... 21 14 31
Problems finding fingerlings for restock?
Y es .............................. ................ 28 18 25
Do you sell fingerlings to other farmers?
Y es ............................. ................. 56 45 49
Did you have any trouble selling fingerlings to other farmers?
Y es .............................. ................ 37 17 31
(Number) ....................................... (33) (29) (51)
Production Problems. Table 11 reports the problems experi-
enced by active farmers while growing fish. About a fourth had
trouble finding fingerlings. Group women were somewhat less
likely to encounter this problem.
Water supply problems were not frequently encountered by
respondents. Individual farmers did experience more difficulties
keeping their pond full (31%). About half the active farmers sold
fingerlings to other farmers. Of these farmers, about a third
reported problems selling their fingerlings to other farmers.
Group women reported the least problems in this area (17%).
Harvesting Practices. Table 12 shows that 71% of active
women group farmers tended to use one complete harvest. In
contrast, male groups and individual farmers more frequently
employed multiple partial harvests. This seems to suggest that
men use the pond more often for meals or limited cash sales than
women.
Male group farmers had the largest harvested pond area, but
women reported harvesting more fish by weight. Individual
farmers tended to harvest fewer ares of ponds than group farmers
(an are is one-tenth of a hectare of surface area and one hectare
equals 2.47 acres). It should be noted that harvesting is more
difficult for women to accomplish. Seining typically requires
actually entering the pond waters, an activity not traditionally
acceptable for women.
For women, harvests may be more of an organized event
involving the recruitment of male labor (sons, brothers, or hus-
bands) to drain the pond and collect the fish. In some cases, laborers
may be paid or otherwise compensated for their assistance.
TABLE 1 2. FISH HARVESTING PRACTICES, ACTIVE FARMERS
RWANDA, 1992
Group
Male Female
Pct.
How many areas of ponds did you harvest?
1 to 5 acres ................................... 74
6 to 10 acres ................................. 23
More than 10 acres ....................... 3
How much fish did you harvest last time?
1 to 10 kilograms .......................... 22
11 to 30 kilograms ....................... 47
31 to 90 kilograms ..................... 22
91 kilograms or more .................... 9
Pct.
85
15
0
14
38
31
17
Do you usually perform partial harvests or one large harvest?
Usually partial .............................. 41 29
Usually one large ......................... 59 71
Why partial harvest?
Never partial harvest.....................
Take fish home ..............................
Marketing is easier ........................
Both reasons ..................................
Other ....................... ...........
(Number) .................................
52
3
23
19
3
(34)
71
11
4
14
0
(28)
Individual
Pct.
92
6
2
36
38
22
4
44
56
52
13
2
29
4
(48)
Marketing Practices. Table 13 profiles the marketing prac-
tices of active farmers. More men than women group farmers
sold fish.
Group women farmers tended to get the best price for their
fish. None reported receiving less than 100 FRW per kilogram.
Almost a third of the men said they obtained more than 140 FRW
per kilogram. A quarter of the individual farmers received less
than 100 FRW per kilogram. (For comparison purposes, the price
of beans, a food staple, is approximately 70 FRW per kilogram.)
Marketing Outlets. Table 14 describes to whom respondents
actually sold their fish. Few sold any of their production to
middlemen. Only a few more said they sold some to owners of
restaurants or bars. No women reported any sales to either outlet.
Organized markets for food and merchandise take place on 
a
regular day or days of the week in most communities. More than
a third of the men in groups sold fish in the public market, but fewer
women and individual farmers took their fish to the marketplace
10
TABLE 1 3. MARKETING PRACTICES, ACTIVE FARMERS, RWANDA,
1992
Group
Male Female
Pct.
Did you sell your fish after your last harvest?
N o ................................................. 9
Y es ................................................ 9 1
How much of your fish did you sell last time?
Did not sell any ............................ 3
Less than half ............................... 37
Half ............................................... 13
M ore than half .............................. 47
What price did you get?
100 FRW/kg or less ......................
101 to 140 FRS/kg ........................
141 to FRW/kg or more ................
(N um ber) ......................................
22
46
32
(32)
Pct.
17
83
11
27
12
50
0
71
29
(26)
Individual
Pct.
23
77
18
44
10
28
25
51
(51)
for sale. Home consumption and pond bank sales seemed to
exhaust their supply. Public markets are disadvantageous for fish
sales because they require transport. Without ice or refrigeration,
the seller is then under pressure to dispose of a perishable
commodity.
Nearly everyone (85%) sold fish to other people. From exten-
sion reports it is known that most fish sales take place on the pond
bank to friends and neighbors. Word-of-mouth precedes an im-
pending harvest. Willing buyers then purchase the fish at under-
stood prices soon after they are seined. Organizing buyers to
purchase the fish at harvest eliminates price risk and transport
problems for farmers.
TABLE 14. MARKETING OUTLETS, ACTIVE FARMERS RWANDA,
1992
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct.
Did a middleman buy any of your fish?
N o ..... ...... ............................... 97 100 98
Yes, some of it .............................. 3 0 2
Y es, all of it .................................. 0 0 0
Did you sell any fish to owners of restaurants or bars?
N o .................................................. 94 100 96
Y es, som e of it .............................. 6 0 4
Y es, all of it................ ................... 0 0 0
Did you sell any fish at the market?
N o .................................................. 63 82 89
Yes, some of it ............................. 34 18 11
Y es, all of it .................................. 3 0 0
Is there anyone else you sold fish to?
N o ................................................... 16 14 17
Y es .................. .. ................. 84 86 83
(Number) ....................................... (32) (28) (47)
Marketing Problems. Almost half (48%) of the male group
farmers reported problems selling their fish (Table 15). Men in
groups tended to expect and receive the highest price for their
fish, explaining some part of their slow sales. A third of the
women and individual farmers reported problems selling fish. In
contrast, about 55% of the group men reported difficulty selling
at the desired price.
TABLE 1 5. MARKETING PROBLEMS, ACTIVE FARMERS, RWANDA,
1992
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct.
Did you have any problems selling your fish?
Y es ............................... .................. 48 32 37
Are you satisfied with the price you sell your fish?
Yes ................................................ 35 57 47
Did you have problems selling fish at price desired?
Yes ................. .. ................. 55 35 45
If can't get price desired, can you sell fish for less?
Y es .......................... ................... 77 89 63
Are there many people who don't like to eat fish?
Yes ........................... .................. 44 36 27
Would a larger type of fish be easier to sell?
Y es ................................................. 75 78 70
(Number) ....................................... (32) (27) (53)
Women were more satisfied with the price they received for
their fish, but only a third of the male group members were
satisfied. Men reported the most problems selling fish at a
desired price, women reported the least.
The major set of problems farmers associated with fish culture
related to the marketing of the product. Most male group farmers
said they could sell their fish for a lower price if they had to
(77%). Only 63% of individual farmers felt this way, compared to
89% of the women growing fish in a group.
More men in pond groups thought that there were many
people who did not like to eat fish (44%). A third of the women
felt this way, but only about a quarter of the individual farmers
agreed. Overall, around 74% thought that a larger type of fish
would be easier to sell.
EXTENSION ASSISTANCE
Visit Frequency and Helpfulness. Most respondents saw their
extension monitor twice a month (Table 16). Individual farmers
saw the extensionist slightly more often.
Respondents gave yes or no answers to a series of questions
about "How is the monitor helpful?" Most thought the monitor was
helpful in learning how to properly feed fish, providing nets for
harvesting fish, and reminding farmers of the importance of regu-
larly stirring up compost.
Almost a third of the women said the monitor was helpful in
marketing. Only six percent of the other respondents mentioned
the monitors assistance in this regard. This reflects a major
difference in opinion between men and women.
Perceived Utility of Services. About half the male group
farmers thought that the monitor gave good advice about garden
crops (Table 17). Less than a quarter of the women felt this way,
compared to three-quarters of the individual farmers. This is a
notable difference in perception between men and women.
Nearly all said that the monitor: provides needed technical
information; is able to help solve problems; is available when
needed; comes when expected; gives good answers to farmer
questions; and is able to bring the net when it is needed. These
----- - ----------------- 1-- r ---, -- r ~---- ----1-- ----------- ---------------
aspects of extension assistance seemed to be uniformly well-
received, but women were somewhat more critical.
Women were less satisfied with monitor performance on
almost every dimension. Women also were more likely to say that
the monitor did not come when expected. Women were not
necessarily dissatisfied with extension assistance; they simply were
less uniformly positive about the nature of the help they were
getting than were men.
TABLE 16. VISIT FREQUENCY AND MONITOR HELPFULNESS, ACTIVE
FARMERS, RWANDA, 1992
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct.
How many times per month do you see the fish monitor?
N ever ............................................. 0 7 2
O nce ............................................... 10 11 5
Tw ice .......................... ................ 76 61 60
Three times .................... 0.............. 14 14
Fourtim es.................................. 14 7 19
(Number)...................(29) (28) (43)
How is the monitor most helpful?
Feeding fish ................................... 93 96 85
Stirring up compost ... ........... 80 48 77
H arvesting .................................... 83 88 59
Getting fingerlings ........................ 13 20 5
Disease problems .......................... 3 0 8
Clean fish before cooking ......... 3 0 5
M arketing .................................... 7 32 5
Preserving ..................................... 0 0 5
Building ponds ............................. 7 4 15
Other ............................................. 17 8 23
(Number of responses).................. (92) (73) (112)
TABLE 1 7. PERCEPTIONS OF FISH MONITOR ASSISTANCE, ACTIVE
FARMERS, RWANDA, 1992
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct.
Does your monitor give good advice about managing garden crops?
Y es .............................. ................ 52 23
Does the monitor provide the technical information you need?
Yes ......................... ................... 100 92
Is the monitor usually able to help solve your prblems?
Y es .............................................. 100 93
Is your monitor available when you need him/her?
Y es .............................. ................ 90 93
Does the monitor give good answers to your questions?
Y es ............................ .................. 100 93
Does the monitor bring the net when needed?
Y es ................................................ 90
(Number) ...................................... (29)
89
(28)
Pct.
76
94
97
93
98
95
42)
Other Extension Contacts. Table 18 suggests that pond groups
had most of their contact with any type of government-sponsored
extension services through the fish culture monitor. Five-eighths of
the group men and three-quarters of the group women reported no
other extension contacts. For about half the individual and dropout
farmers, the fish culture monitor was the only contact.
TABLE 18. VISITS BY OTHER EXTENSIONISTS TO STUDY
RESPONDENTS, RWANDA, 1992
Group Individual Dropout
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
Do other types of monitors visit you?.
N o .................................... 63 75 51 52
Yes ................................. 37 25 49 48
(Number) ....................... (30) (28) (37) (21)
PROSPECTS FOR FISH CULTURE
Enterprise Viability. Table 19 shows responses to a series of
items related to the maintenance and expansion of fish culture as
a farm activity. Tilapia is not the only type of fish that could be
raised by Rwandan farmers, but this was the species selected by
the SPN for culture and propagation. Most male and individual
farmers had heard of species other than tilapia. Only about a third
of the women had heard of other species. Overall, about half the
sample were satisfied with tilapia as a species.
Rwandans can operate their own ponds or participate in group
ponds. Women who wanted additional ponds did not want to be
individual pond owners, but would much rather join another pond
group. Apparently, the sociability and mutual support associated
with group membership, the possibility of independent cash in-
come, and the shared burden of fish farming tasks were advan-
tages particularly valued by women.
Membership in a pond group was not perceived as a particu-
larly useful avenue for receiving credit or marais land. About 18%
of the male group members thought it was easier to obtain credit for
fish culture, but lesser proportions of the other farmers saw the
enterprise as conferring any particular advantages in this regard.
Individual pond operators were more interested in additional
individual ponds than membership in a group. About 7% of the
group farmers thought group membership made it easier to get land
in the marais. Yet no group members thought it was easier to get
land to grow fish than for other crops.
TABLE 1 9. PROSPECTS FOR FISH CULTURE, ACTIVE FARMERS,
RWANDA, 1992
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct.
Are you satisfied growing the tilapia species?
Yes ........ ................ 49 58 56
Have you heard of other fish species?
Y es .............................................. 71 32 88
Do you want other fish ponds?
No ... ...................... 17 26 24
Yes, my own.... ............. 35 6 41
Yes, with a group .............. 37 53 29
Yes, my own and group ............ 11 15 6
Is it easier to get credit if in a group pond?
Yes ........... .............. 8 6 0
Is it easier to get land for fish for than for other crops?
Yes ........... .............. 0 0 4
(Number) ....................................... (32 (28) (49)
12
I
(
Production Constraints. Respondents were asked questions
about the factors limiting their ability to grow bigger fish. (They
gave nearly identical answers to a question about growing more
fish.) Table 20 summarizes the multiple responses given to this
question.
Farmers felt that the main obstacle to growing bigger fish and
obtaining larger harvests is a shortage of inputs. About two-thirds
saw insufficient manure and other nutrients as limiting their efforts
in fish culture. Almost half blamed the species chosen. Around
10% identified cool water as a limit to fish growth and reproduction.
Farmers recognized the material constraints on the outcomes
of fish culture enterprise. They were not necessarily motivated to
abandon fish culture by these limits; they seemed only to have a
realistic appraisal of the possibilities of the activity at present
levels of effort.
TABLE 20. PRODUCTION CONSTRAINTS LIMITING FISH SIZE, ACTIVE
FARMERS, RWANDA, 1992
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct.
Main things that keep you from growing bigger fish and obtaining larger
harvests:
The species..................47 47 47
Not enough inputs ......................... 66 59 57
W ater too cold ............................... 9 7 10
My understanding ......................... 0 0 4
O ther .............................................. 0 4 0
(Number)...................(32) (27) (60)
Problems with Fish Farming. Table 21 reports the affirmative
responses to a series of questions about problems respondents
experienced growing fish in Rwanda. The items were intended to
show the relative position of fish culture in comparison to other
farm activities. Given the dichotomousresponse framework, only
"yes" responses 
are shown.
Most farmers did not think that fish farming made it harder to
care for other crops, although active group women were more likely
to feel this way (15%). Active group farmers reported some conflict
with neighbors over marais property boundaries (12%).
TABLE 21. PROBLEMS WITH FISH FARMING, ACTIVE FARMERS,
RWANDA, 1992
Group Individual
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct.
Does fish farming make it harder to care for other crops?
Y es ................................................. 3 15 4
Do you have conflicts with other farmers over marais boundaries?
Y es ................................................. 12 4 4
Do you have problems with people stealing fish?
Y es ................................................. 2 1 11 30
Are fish easier to steal than other crops?
Y es ................................................. 0 0 6
Do you have problems with animals eating fish?
Y es ................................................. 69 57 76
(Number)...................(32) (28) (51)
Compatibility ofFish Farming. The major difference between
dropout farmers and the active respondents pertained to the
amount of work required by the pond (Table 22). Almost 17% of
the dropouts said there were times when the fish pond was too much
work, versus four percent or less for the others. Apparently the
dropouts experienced more conflicts during peak workload pe-
riods over the labor and time required by the fish crop.
Theft of the fish was a problem for 30%-of the individual
farmers, a higher level than other categories. Active male group
farmers were also somewhat more likely than group women to
report this problem (21% versus 11%). Only a few thought fish
were easier to steal than other crops. Three-quarters of the indi-
vidual pond owners reported problems with predators, primarily
birds. Birds remove a significant amount of fish from ponds in
Rwanda.
More than 60% of the respondents felt that the fish pond was
worth the work. The individual farmers were most likely to think
so (77%). Even 61% of the dropouts agreed, suggesting that other
extenuating factors resulted in their withdrawal from fish culture,
and not the activity itself.
More than 80% of the active farmers thought that fish culture
fit well with other activities. Surprisingly, most of the dropouts
thought so too (77%). More than 85% of the active farmers felt the
fish ponds made the best use of land. Many dropouts also agreed
(61%). This pattern of findings further suggests that other circum-
stances were causing dropout farmers to abandon the practice of
fish culture. Although dropouts more readily recognized each
disadvantage, no one single shortcoming of the activity seemed to
cause farmers to quit.
TABLE 22. COMPATABILITY OF FISH FARMING WITH OTHER
ACTIVITIES, ACTIVE FARMERS, RWANDA, 1992
Active Fish Farmers
Group Individual Dropout
Male Female
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
Is there ever a time when your fishpond is too much work?
Y es .................................. 3 4 0 17
Is your fish pond worth the work?
Y es .................................. 63 71 77 61
Does fish farming fit well with your other farm activities?
Y es .................................. 81 86 83 77
Is your fish pond the best use of the land it occupies?
Yes.................. 93 89 88 61
(Number) ........................ (30) (26) (50) (18)
Family Impacts of Fish Farming. Women were consistently
more likely to cite role conflicts or hardships associatedwith fish
culture as an additional enterprise jn their repertoire of activities
(Table 23). About 11% of the women felt that fish farming made
it harder to take care of the family and to complete household work.
About 16% of the dropouts thought that the cash from fish
farming made it easier to buy things for their children. Less than
10% of the active farmers felt that way. The small cash flow from
fish culture seemed a salient advantage of the enterprise remem-
bered by farmers no longer actively growing fish. About 44% of the
individual operators said that there were times when the fish pond
L
kept them from going
women farmers reporte
TABLE 23. FAMILY IMI
Does fish farming make it h
Y es ................................
Does fish farming make it h
Y es ................................
Does the cash you make from
- L1 1 .....
hungry. Only 18% of the active group Emulator Farmers. All emulator ponds were operated by
d this. individual farmers. More than 90% of the emulator pond owners
PACTS OFFISH FARMIN, ACTIVE FARMERS had some contact with a fish culture monitor in the past 
(Table 25).PACTS OF FISH FARMING, FARMERS
RWANDA, 1992 
About three-fourths would like extension assistance 
to continue.
Many had no contact because they lived in a commune not served
Group 
by an extension monitor. Still, 
43% said that the monitor was not
helpful to them.
Male Female Individual Dropout 
Why Farmers Become Dropouts. Table 26 
suggests that only
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. a few of the pond groups broke up because of inability 
to col-
arder to care for your family? laborate. When asked to identify reasons why their group ceased
6 11 2 10 operating the pond, they 
mentioned several different types of
arder to complete household work? problems. A third of the problems related to group processes of
9 11 2. 10 conflict or leadership. 
Not enough harvest was cited by 27% as
Sfish farming make it easier to buy things for your providing insufficient incentive to continue participation.
cnldren?
Yes ................................. 9 4 4 16
Was there ever a time when fish kept your family from going hungry?
Y es ................................. 28 18 44 28
(Number) ....................... (32) (28) (52) (18)
TABLE 24. POND OWNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS, ACTIVE
INDIVIDUAL FARMERS, RWANDA, 1992
Active Farmers
Item Individual Ponds
Pct.
Also a group pond member?
N o ................................................................................................. 7 8
Y es ................................................................................................ 2 2
Number of ponds you own
O ne pond .................................................................... .................. 84
Tw o ponds.................................................................. .................. 11
Three ponds ................................................................... .............. 5
Size of individual ponds
1 to 3 ares .............. ......... .... .... . .................. 75
3.1 to 6 ares ................................................................. ................. 23
M ore than 6 ares ....................................................... ................ 2
(N um b er) ...................................................................................... (5 1)
TABLE 25. REASONS FOR INDEPENDENCE FROM EXTENSION, ACTIVE
EMULATOR FARMERS, RWANDA, 1 992
Emulator Farmers
Item Individual Ponds
Pct.
Have you had contact with fish culture extension in past?
N o ......................................................................... ........ .. ................ 8
Y es .............................................................................. .................. 92
Would you like to work with a monitor in the future?
N o ............................................................................... .................. 25
Y es ............................................................................................. 75
(N um ber) ................................................................................... (16)
Why did you stop seeing the monitor?
Never have had contact ........................................... ................. 14
Know enough to be autonomous ........................... .................. 14
M onitor is not helpful ............................................ .................. 43
M onitor stopped coming .......................................... ................ 14
We have no monitor in this area ............................ ................. 29
I can get information from other extensionists ........................ 0
I can get information from other farmers .................................. 14
Other ............................................................... .............................. 0
(N um ber of responses) .............................................................. (9)
TABLE 26. FACTORS AFFECTING LEAVING FISH FARMING, DROPOUT
GROUP FARMERS, RWANDA, 1992
Dropout farmers
Item Group ponds
Pct.
Did you quit because your group could not work together?
N o ..................................................................... .... .............. 83
Y es ................................................................................. ............... 17
What were the problems?
Conflicts between members ..................................... ................ 13
Lack of leadership ...................................... . ...................... 20
N ot enough harvest .......................................... ....... .. .................... 27
T heft of fish ............................................................ ..................... 20
O th er ................................................................... ......................... 6 7
(N um ber of responses) ................................................................ (22)
TABLE 27. FACTORS AFFECTING POSSIBLE RETURN TO FISH
FARMING, DROPOUT FARMERS, RWANDA, 1992
Dropout farmers
Item Group Individual
Pct. Pct.
Does your pond still contain water?
N o .................................................................................. 5 6 25
Yes, som e do............................................ .................. 25 25
Yes, all/it do(es) ..................................... ................... 19 50
Do you plan to start growing fish again?
N o .................................................................................. 2 7 17
Y es ................................................................................. 7 3 83
When was your last contact with the monitor?
Never had contact .................................... .................. 7 0
In past 6 m onths .................... . ...................... 40 100
6 m onths to a year ....................................................... 0 0
M ore than a year ......................................................... 53 0
Is another group or individual operating your pond now?
N o ...................... ...... ............... .......... ..................... 10 0
Y es ................................................................ ................. 0
Would you join another group pond if you had the chance?
N o .......................................................... ........................ 18
Y es ...................................................... ... ... .................. 82
(N um ber) ...................................................................... (16)
Why Dropouts Might Return. Most of the group dropout
ponds did not contain water any longer (Table 27). Most group
and individual farmers planned to start growing fish again. About
14
half the group farmers had not seen the monitor for more than a
year, but all the individual farmers had seen an extension monitor
in the past six months. The last two questions in the table were
asked of group dropouts only. None of the ponds they abandoned
were being operated by other parties. Most (82%) would join a
pond group again if given the opportunity.
CONCLUSIONS
Fish ponds make a significant contribution to the well-being
of Rwandan households. Most respondents were married with
children, although many women fish farmers were unmarried and
living in their father's house. Most fish ponds were linked to
households comprising more than six people. The income, diet
variety, nutritional improvement, and food security associated with
the output from the fish pond seemed a valued component of the
array of pursuits that meet family needs.
The results suggest that aquaculture has become an integral
part of the diversification strategy of Rwandan farmers. Despite a
lessening in the intensity of extension assistance, farmers continue
to grow repeated crops of fish. They express positive sentiments
about the activity, its benefits, and the technical support they
receive. Fish culture seems to fit the mosaic of activities that
produces food and cash with minimal risk for farm operators.
The segment of farmers that stopped growing fish seemed to
have done so for reasons other than dissatisfaction with the enter-
prise per se. Dropouts were slightly more involved in other farm
enterprises, but the problems they identified were more related to
circumstances in their household or in the milieu of neighboring
landowners than with fish culture itself. A narrow segment quit
because the water was too cold or otherwise was not conducive to
growing fish.
Group farming remains a popular organizational strategy for
fish culture in Rwanda. More than half the active farmers in the
study grew fish in a group. Most women are engaged in fish culture
through a group, particularly young women. Groups provide
sociability, solidarity, and access to land and farm activity for a
gender that has traditionally experienced many limits to indepen-
dent action. Groups also seem to be a significant step toward life
and participation outside the household for some young women.
Women in groups seemed the most satisfied and productive
segment of the study respondents. They had larger harvests, they
experienced fewer marketing problems, and they were more atten-
tive to the general practice of fish culture. They also seemed to get
better prices. Women in groups seemed better able to exploit pond
bank sales as a marketing channel for tilapia. Friends, relatives,
and neighbors are an immediate network of fish consumers that
are readily alerted and mobilized to purchase fish at harvest.
Women in groups represent an overlay of multiple social networks.
Women seem best positioned to distribute fish among rural house-
holds.
Individual pond owners were mainly men, although a few
widows operated ponds. Individual operators had smaller ponds,
smaller harvests, more marketing problems, and were less satisfied
with the size of the fish they obtained.
Dropout farmers perceived more time and effort conflicts
with other farm enterprises and household work. They were more
interested in the cash proceeds of fish culture than the other sample
segments and less likely to feel that the pond was the best use of the
land it occupied.
Emulators built and stocked ponds on their own initiative. The
small number of emulator farmers included in this study were from
communes that did not have an extension worker. Nearly all
emulators did, however, have some kind of past contact with
extension. Only a small number had actually implemented fish
culture without any contact with extension.
The fish pond was not cited as a major source of food or
income by the respondents in this study. Fish sales yield cash for
school fees and the purchase of manufactured goods. Fish help
meet emergencies, augment diet variety, and improve nutrition
availability in aprotein-short nation. Fishponds also represent food
security in the early part of the year when harvests from primary
rainy season crops are not yet available.
Women in pond groups seem to have most effectively realized
the promise of fish culture to yield benefits for families, particu-
larly children. The access to land, sociability, and perhaps gender
solidarity in a male-oriented society, are major advantages of fish
culture for women.
The number, size, and level of effort applied to fish ponds in
Rwanda is never likely to make fish a major cash commodity or
family staple. Fish have become a fundamental part of the bundle
of activities that farmers undertake to feed their families and
further their household objectives.
The data in this report profile a farm enterprise that has been
widely embraced by the target population. Fish culture is practiced
throughout the country. Fish culture is being autonomously emu-
lated by many individuals in communes receiving extension assist-
ance and in neighboring areas. The emulators are seeking to build
fish ponds based on observation, experience, and word-of-mouth
testimony about the value of fish as a farm activity.
Respondents were largely satisfied with the extension services
they have been receiving. Some dissatisfaction with the species
and other limits of the technological strategy suggest an openness
to more intensive extension assistance. This may involve monosex
cultures, improved fingeilings, closer attention to stocking densi-
ties, integration with animal enterprises, or polyculture with other
species.
The current extension program is not able to refresh the
technical competence of extension monitors at a sufficient rate.
Farmers are not receiving assistance at a level that might increase
fish culture yields using the present technology package. Instead,
most farmers seem to undertake the enterprise largely as a diversi-
fication strategy. They seem willing to accept smaller, more
reliable yields that offer cash and food security with lower levels of
risk and effort. Without additional stimulation, the practice of fish
culture is likely to continue to spread on its own merits, albeit at a
low standard of practice.
The major risk of this strategy is imperfect or partial emulation
that yields markedly less than optimal results. Potential adopters
are discouraged by witnessing the outcome of degraded practices.
The cumulative impact of deviations from standard practice may
undermine the reputation of the enterprise.
This report has profiled basic conditions of acceptance and
practice of fish culture in the Rwandan farming system. It has
15
shown the existence of systematic differences associated with
gender and the auspices of the fish ponds. Individual farmers seem
to approach fish culture with a stronger emphasis on cash flow
and farm diversification.
Fish culture is a popular farm enterprise in Rwanda that is
spreading on its own merits beyond the targeted extension zones.
It is part of the established set of enterprises competing for
agricultural land in the marais. The data suggest that fish culture
will sustain itself at a low level of practice for some time to come.
Government and donor investment in aquaculture in the
coming years must focus on retaining a competent cadre of
extensionists. Their assistance is necessary if farmers are to push
back the yield frontier given the available inputs and species.
Integrated systems will allow farmers to exploit the positive
interactions that fish culture can have with other animal enter-
prises.
The central advantages to fish culture in Rwanda lie in its
ability to confer widespread benefits to rural families, particularly
women, on basic dimensions of income and food security.
Planning to protect and expand these benefits will be a challenge
and obligation for Rwandan officials and sponsors in the present
period of conflicting priorities and budgetary scarcity.
REFERENCES
(1) Balakrishnan, R., K.L. Veverica, and P. Nyirahabimana. 1993.
Rwanda Women in Aquaculture: Context, Contributions, and Con-
straints. Corvallis: Office of Women in International Development,
Oregon State University.
(2) Casley, D.J. 1988. The Collection, Analysis, and Use of Monitor-
ing and Evaluation Data. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
(3) Cernea, M. 1991. Putting People First: Sociological Variables in
Rural Development. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
(4) Clay, D. 1989. Characteristics of Rwandan Farming Systems.
Research in Rural Sociology and Rural Development 4:56-72.
(5) Cross, D. 1991. FAO and Aquaculture: Ponds and Politics in
Africa. The Ecologist 21:79-76.
(6) Engle, C.R. 1987. Women in Training and Extension Services in
Aquaculture. Pages 67-82 in E.E. Nash, C.R. Engle, and D. Crosetti, eds.
Women in Aquaculture. ADCP/REP/87/28. Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
(7) FAO. 1991 a. Peche et Aquaculture au Rwanda: Revue Sectorielle.
Document Technique No 1. FI:TCP/RWA/0052. FAO, Rome.
(8) FAO. 1991b. Contribution au Plan de Developpement des Peches
et de l'Aquaculture. Document Technique No 2. FI:TCP/RWA/0052.
FAO, Rome.
(9) FAO. 1991c. Compte Rendu Final du Project Prepare Pour Le
Gouvernement du Rwanda. FI:TCP/RWA/0052. FAO, Rome.
(10) Ford, R.E. 1990. The Dynamics of Human-Environment Interac-
tions in the Tropical Montane Agrosystems of Rwanda: Implications for
Economic Development and Environmental Stability. Mountain Re-
search and Development 10:43-63.
(11) Green, B.W. 1992. Substitution of Organic Manure for Pelleted
Feed in Tilapia Production. Aquaculture 101:213-222.
(12) Gutpa, M.V., M.P. Bimbao, and C. Lightfoot. 1990. Socioeco-
nomic and Farmers' Assessment of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)
Culture in Bangladesh. Tech. Rep. 35. ICLARM, Manila.
(13) Harrison, E. 1991. Aquaculture in Africa: Socioeconomic Dimen-
sions. A Review of the Literature. School of African and Asian Studies,
University of Sussex, England.
(14) Hishamunda, N. 1989. Project Pisciculture Nationale Rapport
Annuel 1988. Republique Rwandaise, Ministere de l'Agriculture, de
Elevage et des Forets, Kigali, Rwanda.
(15) Hishamunda, N. and J. Moehl. 1989. Rwanda National Fish
Culture Project. International Center for Aquaculture Research and
Development Series No. 34. Department of Fisheries and Allied
Aquacultures, Auburn University, Aubfirn, Alabama.
(16) Huisman, E.A. 1990. Aquacultural Research As a Tool in
International Assistance. Ambio 19:400-403.
(17) Lado. C. 1992. Female Labour Participation in Agricultural
Production and the Implications for Nutrition and Health in Rural
Africa. Social Science and Medicine 34:789-807.
(18) Miller, J.W. 1988. Technical Evaluation of the Rwanda/USAID
National Fish Culture Project. USAID/Kigali.
(19) Moehl, J.F. 1991. Aquaculture Planning and Extension Assess-
ment in Rwanda, December. International Center for Aquaculture,
Auburn University.
(20) Molnar, J.J., V. Adjavon, and A. Rubagumya. 1991. The
Sustainability of Aquaculture as a Farm Enterprise in Rwanda. Journal
of Applied Aquaculture 2:37-62.
(21) Molnar, J.J., N.B. Schwartz, and L.L. Lovshin. 1985. Integrated
Aquacultural Development: Sociological Issues in the Cooperative
Management of Community Fishponds. Sociologica Ruralis XXV:61-
80.
(22) Molnar, J.J., B. Duncan and U. Hatch. 1987. Fish in the Farming
System: The FSR Approach to Aquacultural Development. Research in
Rural Sociology and Rural Development 2:169-193.
(23) Molnar, J.J. and B.L. Nerrie. 1987. Rwanda Fish Culture Project:
Technical, Social, and Institutional Issues Affecting Delivery of Fish
Farming Extension Services. ICA Technical Paper. International Center
for Aquaculture, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
(24) Molnar, J.J. and A. Rubagumya. 1988. Aquaculture and the Marais:
Patterns of Organization, Allocation, and Use of Valley Land Under
Conditions of Resource Scarcity and Ecological Complexity. ICA
Technical Paper. International Center for Aquaculture, Auburn Univer-
sity, Auburn, Alabama.
(25) Roling, N. 1988. Extension Science: Information Systems for
Agricultural Development. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
(26) Sikkens, R.B. and T.S. Steenhuis. 1988. Development and Man-
agement of the Small Marais. WMS Report 79. Department of Agricul-
tural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
(27) Veverica, K. 1988. Rwandan Women in Aquaculture. Women in
Natural Resources 10:18.
16