Pd/a Crsp Seventeenth Annual Technical Report

The study evaluated the status of fish pond projects initiated in the 1980s on resource-poor farms in Guatemala and Panama. In both places, the host country and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) provided financial assistance and Auburn University provided technical support to the respective governments. The study examined the impact of aquaculture technology, extension services, and local socioeconomic conditions on the projects. The evaluation team (an aquaculturist, an agricultural economist, and a social anthropologist) had a rare opportunity to evaluate sustainability of two different types of fish farming projects. Other ex-post evaluations of aquaculture projects occur shortly after external support has ended, rather than after 14 and 9 years as was the case in Panama and Guatemala. In both Guatemala and Panama, the projects were designed to improve the nutrition and increase the income of poor farmers, and participants were to become selfsufficient pond managers by the end of the project. The critical difference between the two projects is that in Guatemala fish ponds were managed by individual families on their farms, while in Panama more complex fish pond modules were managed by organized groups of farmers. In central and eastern Guatemala, the team visited 37 family and 2 cooperative fish pond projects between 9 and 19 June 1998. After the team left, a household survey was administered to these 37 families and another 9 families. So far as was possible, households were randomly selected from a list of 651 farm families known to have had functioning fish ponds when external financing was withdrawn in 1989. The team found that 39% of the ponds were abandoned, 48% were under-utilized; and 13% were well-managed. The fish did not have the intended impact on household nutrition and income for a combination of technical, domestic, economic, social, and broad political reasons. These include problematic water supplies to the ponds, lack of sufficient nutrients entering ponds to increase fish yield, theft, inconsistent technical assistance because of civil unrest and changing policy environments, and changing participant priorities linked to changes in household needs over the years. In Panama, the team visited 21 cooperative fish pond projects between 20 June and 3 July 1998. After the team left, a household survey was administered to 115 current or former project members. The team found that 6 projects had been completely abandoned, and 15 were being used to grow rice and/or fish. Only two projects still in use were well-managed. Fish did not have the intended impact on household nutrition and income for a combination of technical, domestic, economic, social, and broad political reasons. These include too little water to maintain pond water level during the dry season, lack of sufficient nutrients entering ponds to increase fish yield, inconsistent technical assistance related to changing government strategies, a lack of managerial and business skills on the part of project group leaders, overdependence on local elites and/or government for various types of assistance, and macrosocial and political changes. Typically, abandonment or poor performance results from a combination of technical, economic, and social factors, each playing on and amplifying the others. In both countries, many project participants who maintained their ponds did so to irrigate gardens, water animals, or serve as flooded rice paddies. Thus, although the projects did not meet intended goals related to fish culture, participants found ways to profit from the existence of the ponds. In Panama 15 of 21 cooperatively managed pond projects and in Guatemala 28 of 46 individual household pond projects were still used at some level of proficiency. SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT 158 In Guatemala the integrated fish pond project was initiated in 1982 and external funding ended in 1989 (Castillo et al., 1992). The project was a collaborative effort, involving the National Directorate for Livestock Services (DIGESEPE), Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), USAID, and the Peace Corps. Auburn University provided technical assistance in fish culture to the government of Guatemala and CARE. The budget for the project was US$953,000, not including Peace Corps contributions and the salaries DIGESEPE paid for 32 local promoters (extension agents) and 7 part-time supervisors. DIGESEPE also provided logistic and administrative support. The Peace Corps assigned 73 volunteers to the project, though not all were in the field at the same time. Volunteers worked directly with project participants and identified local people who could be employed by DIGESEPE as local extension agents (Castillo et al., 1992). The project was designed to improve nutrition and income for poor farm families in eastern, coastal, and northern Guatemala. To do so, the project promoted small-scale fish culture on small, individually owned farms. On many farms, 100to 200-m2 hand-dug ponds were integrated with livestock. The manure was used to fertilize the pond waters to increase fish yields. The nutrientrich pond mud also could be used to fertilize gardens adjacent to the ponds. New ponds were initially stocked at no cost to participating farmers, but later they had to buy their own fingerlings. Most ponds were stocked with mixed-sex Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, and common carp. Participants were taught to produce their own tilapia fingerlings by retaining offspring, spawned in the fattening pond, at harvest for restocking to produce the next crop. Common carp fingerlings were purchased from government hatcheries for restocking ponds (Castillo et al., 1992). By 1989, 1,200 ponds had been built or renovated, about 15% of the ponds were integrated with animals (usually poultry in enclosures suspended over the ponds), and 21% were integrated with vegetable gardens. On average, a pond of 120 m2 produced about 48 kg (4,000 kg ha-1) of fish annually, of which about 48% was consumed by the household, 42% sold, and 10% given to neighbors or used for restocking ponds (Castillo et al., 1992). In Panama the integrated fish pond project was initiated in 1980 and external funding ended in 1984. USAID granted the Government of Panama US$1,420,000 to mount a four-year pilot fish culture project in 21 communities. The Panamanian National Directorate of Aquaculture (DINAAC), a bureau in the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MIDA), implemented the project. Auburn University provided technical assistance in fish culture to DINAAC. All the extension persons were government employees, most of them from DINAAC. The project was designed to teach organized groups of poor farmers how to manage integrated modules— assemblages of two, three, or four machine-dug ponds and animals and, in some places, gardens and trees—by themselves. Project participants were trained to produce their own Nile tilapia seed in small spawning and nursery ponds for stocking into the grow-out pond. Most projects were stocked with male tilapia, but some ponds were stocked with mixedsexes and the predacious guapote tigre, Cichlasoma managuense, to control offspring in the grow-out ponds. Various types of carp were added to the fish ponds to increase fish production. Because carp are difficult to reproduce, fingerlings were obtained from government hatcheries. Average annual fish yield from grow-out ponds averaging 2,600 m2 and fertilized with pig, chicken, duck, or cattle manure was 2,177 kg ha-1. External technical support was to continue for about 24 months, after which the groups were to be largely selfsufficient, with minimal support from extension. Production of fish, garden produce, livestock, and trees benefited the groups by improving their nutrition and by providing them with additional income (Lovshin et al., 1986; Schwartz et al., 1988). METHODS AND MATERIALS During June and July 1998 the authors visited 37 family and 2 cooperatively managed fish ponds in Guatemala, and 1 church-managed and 20 cooperatively managed fish pond projects in Panama. Host country personnel who had been involved with the projects in the 1980s coordinated the on-site visits. In Guatemala, families with fish ponds were selected from a list compiled by CARE of 651 families known to have had functioning fish ponds when the project ended in 1989. The Guatemalan extension person in charge of providing technical assistance to fish pond owners in each province assisted with the selection of families visited. The evaluation team made a rapid evaluation of the pond site and attempted to interview either the husband or wife at each site to obtain information on species cultured, source of small fish for stocking, fish care, harvest and utilization, and reasons for pond and animal husbandry abandonment. Ponds were classified as abandoned, under-utilized, or well-utilized for fish culture in Guatemala. Abandoned ponds had no water and bottoms overgrown with grasses and weeds, or were partially filled with water but full of aquatic weeds. Under-utilized ponds contained water and a few fish but were poorly cared for as evidenced by clear or muddy water color, pond banks overgrown with weeds, little noticeable fish activity on the water surface or along the pond margin, and general lack of interest in the pond voiced by owners during the visit. Wellutilized ponds had a green water color, generally well-kept pond banks, observable fish activity in the pond, and the pond owner showed pride and a knowledge of fish culture during the interview. Other observations included the integration of animal husbandry and vegetable gardens with the fish pond and secondary utilization of the pond water for irrigating crops or watering livestock. In Panama, the team made a rapid evaluation of the pond sites and attempted to interview at least one, and often more, participants or ex-participants to obtain information on fish species cultured, source of small fish for stocking, fish care, harvest and utilization, and reasons for pond abandonment. Projects were classified as abandoned or utilized. Abandoned ponds contained no water and their bottoms were overgrown with grasses and weeds or were partially filled with water but full of aquatic weeds. They were considered utilized if at least one pond was used for growing fish or an agricultural crop, even if remaining ponds were abandoned. Utilized ponds were further classified into three groups: a) culture of rice only in at least one pond, b) culture of fish only in at least one pond, and c) fish culture integrated with animal husbandry. The number of fish harvests and weight of fish harvested was not recorded by farmers or extension agents in either Panama or Guatemala. Thus, neither a comparison of fish yields at project termination and at the time of this evaluation nor an analysis of economic benefits to project participants was possible. ADOPTION/DIFFUSION RESEARCH 159 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION