9ADR10

Aquaculture CRSP

SECTION A: NEW WORK PLANS

HONDURAS RESEARCH

Training and Technical Assistance for Honduras Institutions Working
with Small- and Medium-Scale Tilapia Producers

Adoption/Diffusion Research 10 (9ADR10)/Activity

Objective
Build capacity of Honduran technical assistance providers through improved understanding of aquacultural technologies.

Significance
The now-expired Peace Corps program of technical support to fish culture probably represents the most focused on-farm assistance most farmers received in Honduras (Cerezo, 1993). Unfortunately, this effort ended in August 1995. Although the national extension effort in aquaculture has been fragmented and underfunded from the beginning, it does have a presence in many parts of the country and has had some relationship to the PD/A CRSP.

The Honduras PD/A CRSP conducted on-farm trials with resource-limited and small- and medium-scale commercial fish farmers in the southern, central and northern regions of Honduras (Green et al., 1992). The results demonstrated that PD/A CRSP production systems were more productive than the traditional tilapia production system used in Honduras. Limited enterprise budget analysis indicated that both PD/A CRSP systems resulted in significant income above variable costs, an indicator of the economic viability of the systems.¹

Green et al. (1992) note that the systems tested in this trial were not developed for subsistence fish farmers, but rather for small-to-medium-scale commercial fish farmers who have the capability to purchase the necessary factors of production. The researchers felt this group of fish farmers would have the greatest likelihood of benefiting from freshwater aquaculture in Honduras.²

Molnar et al. (1996) found that a third of the Honduran tilapia farmers in their survey questioned the fit of tilapia with the other activities of their farm household. About 60 percent of the Hondurans thought that tilapia was less profitable than their other activities. Of the four surveyed nations, Hondurans were most likely to report themselves as planning to build new ponds (39 percent). The perceived profitability of tilapia relative to other farm activities was lowest in Honduras, where 23 percent thought it was more profitable than other farm activities. Overall, Hondurans were least happy with the returns from tilapia.

Molnar and Lovshin (1995) found that many of the farmers they observed had problems attending to the proper feeding and maintenance of tilapia crops. Campesino farming systems tend toward crop production and cattle husbandry. The widespread presence of free-ranging chickens illustrates the passive approach to animal production often taken by producers. Similarly, intensive fishpond management is an unfamiliar production strategy. Feeding also often means a cash outlay, a difficult proposition for risk-averse, cash-short small-scale producers. Most small-scale producers Molnar and Lovshin (1995) visited undertook some level of feeding and manure provision, but intensive production was not widely practiced.

The methods used for reaching different segments of the population of tilapia producers must be diverse and appropriate reflecting the specific needs and barriers they encounter (Huisman, 1990). Small-scale producers may take extra efforts to motivate given their understandable aversion to risk and the extreme difficulties of their day-to-day circumstances and struggle for survival. The use of participatory methods to define research strategies and extension interventions may be particularly important for the latter target category. In particular, it is important to help potential adopters decide if they have the proper resources and interest to make productive use of their time and energies.

Chin and Benne (1976) identify normative - reeducative strategies as a general class of approaches that use social action research as strategy for change. A number of common elements characterize this family of strategies. First, client system involvement where more than just technical solutions are needed. The approach implies mutual and collaborative interventions between farmers and researchers. Many of the problems that constrain the progress tilapia producers are related to the larger context of the nation or region. Nonetheless, the problems and limitations are real to the producers and must be taken into account as we focus on improving the practice of tilapia aquaculture in Honduras.

Second, sometimes nonconscious, nontechnical problems impede solutions and these are a challenge to identify. Such barriers to change prevent the use of improved technical information even when it is readily available (Hatch et al. 1995). Extension methodologies must be selected and implemented in ways that respond to the context and needs of the target category of users (Engle and Stone, 1989; Veverica and Molnar, 1997). We intend to contact international and domestic NGOs to enlist their support in reaching existing tilapia farmers as well as those small- and medium-scale farmers who might also benefit from involvement in the enterprise.

Finally, the methods and concepts of behavioral sciences are resources to be use selectively, relevantly, and appropriately in this effort to link established technical understanding to farmer needs. The goal is improving the problem-solving capabilities of the system, in this case the knowledge system available to tilapia producers in Honduras. Using this strategy implies some level of qualitative and quantitative data collection, data analysis, and feedback. Other elements include training of managers and technicians, communication with research users, and the training of internal change agents. The overarching objective is releasing and fostering growth in the persons who make up the system to be changed, in this case providers of technical assistance to tilapia producers, as well as the producers themselves. Many of the obstacle to achieving this growth in technical capacity are complex and unanticipated (Cernea, 1991).

Anticipated Benefits
Enhanced technical assistance capacity available to small- and medium-scale Honduran tilapia producers from nongovernmental organizations is the primary intended benefit of this activity. Honduran tilapia farmers will benefit from the stimulated and augmented institutional capacity that will be available to meet their needs.

Identification of Beneficiaries
Small- and medium-scale tilapia producers in Honduras.

Collaborative Arrangements
Auburn University and Zamorano will work together to provide a series of farmer meetings and training sessions for technicians and farmers. These field days, demonstrations, and workshops will target NGO technicians and producers with basic information, diagnostics, and the opportunity to influence the PD/A CRSP development agenda. A number of NGOs have been active in fish culture with small-scale producers. CARE and some Swiss volunteers have reportedly developed pond projects, but Save the Children has built and stocked fish ponds in a variety of locations around the country. Investigators will attend and participate in as many of these meetings as scheduling and travel arrangements will allow.³

Experimental Design/Methods
These field days and training meetings for farmers, as well as national and international NGO technicians will be held at various sites around Honduras as negotiated with the NGOs and other organizations. Some events may take place on the Zamorano aquaculture facility. We will rely on the basic array of extension methods to listen to farmers, answer their questions, and provide technical assistance to them (Van den Ban and Hawkins, 1998). The full-time socioeconomic technician to be employed by this project will work with the investigators to organize the activities, contacts, and meetings subsumed under this objective.

Schedule/Time Line
At least ten field days or training meetings will be held over the course of the project. Three meetings will be held by September 2000 and an additional seven by 30 April 2001.

References
Cerezo, G.A., 1993. Honduras Tilapia Technology Knowledge System: Itinerary, Qualitative Interviews, and Trip Report. Mimeo. Auburn, Alabama: International Center for Aquaculture.

Cernea, M., 1991. Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Chin, R. and K.D. Benne, 1976. General strategies for effecting change in human systems. Chapter 1.2 in W.G. Benne, K.D. Benne, R. Chin, and K.E. Corey (Eds.), The Planning of Change. New York: Holt.

Engle, C.R. and N.M. Stone, 1989. A Review of Extension Methodologies in Aquaculture. ADCP/REP/89/44. Rome, FAO.

FAO, 1998. Role of women in agriculture. FAO, Rome. <www.fao.org/docrep/v9650e/v9650e01.htm#P11_734>

Green, Bartholomew W., David R. Teichert-Coddington, Marco I. Rodriquez, Ricardo Gomez, and Luis A. Lopez. 1992. On-farm Testing of PD/A CRSP Fish Production Systems in Honduras. Mimeo. Auburn, Alabama: International Center for Aquaculture.

Hatch, U., T. Hanson, T. Popma, and R. Phelps, 1995. Family-scale fish farming in Guatemala, part II: economic viability. Journal of Aquaculture in the Tropics, 10:57-72.

Huisman, E.A., 1990. Aquacultural research as a tool in international assistance. Ambio, 19:400-403.

Kaimowitz, D., 1993. The role of nongovernmental organizations in agricultural research and technology transfer in Latin America. World Development, 21:1139-1150.

Molnar, J.J. and L. Lovshin, 1995. Prospects for the Sustained Practice of Tilapia Culture in Honduras: Factors Inhibiting Full Realization of the Enterprise. Mimeo. International Center for Aquaculture and Aquatic Environments, Auburn University, Alabama.

Molnar, J., T. Hanson, and L. Lovshin. 1996. Impacts of Aquacultural Research on Tilapia: The Pond Dynamics/Aquaculture CRSP in Rwanda, Honduras, the Philippines, and Thailand. Research and Development Series 40. International Center for Aquaculture and Aquatic Environments, Auburn University, Alabama.

Van den Ban, A.W. and H.S. Hawkins, 1998. Agricultural Extension. Third Edition. New York: John Wiley.

Veverica, K. and Molnar, J.J., 1997. Developing and extending aquaculture technology for producers. In: H. Egna and C.E. Boyd (Eds.), Dynamics of Pond Aquaculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 397-414.

¹More recently, Green (Auburn University, personal communication) maintains that there are few or no sustainable technological packages for profitable tilapia production available to tilapia farmers in Central America. Only 12 of 41 production systems developed during the mid- to late-1980s by the PD/A CRSP were profitable and none yielded the larger-sized fish required by urban and export markets.

²The trials conducted directly by El Carao and PD/A CRSP personnel also involved farmers located in diverse geographic regions of Honduras. Consequently, much time and expense were expended on travel; time spent on travel was time not available to work directly with participant farmers. Green et al. (1992) caution that future trials should be limited to one to two geographic zones, e.g., the Comayagua Valley, at a time, which would allow greater contact with the farmers of each zone and a more efficient transfer of technology. Subsequent trials would then be conducted in a different geographic zone. Thus, the beginnings of a technology transfer program met institutional resource limitations that must be understood before subsequent efforts are undertaken.

³One set of links to existing and potential new farmers could be made though the network of grassroots and communal organizations that exists in Honduras. These include: the Honduran Women Farmer Federation (FEHMUC), the National Association of Honduran Women Farmers (ANAMUCH), the Women Farmers Integrated Development Committee (CODIMCA) and the Secretariat of Women Issues of the Farmer Alliance (SWIFA) with the rural organizations: the National Farmers Union (UNC), the Farmer Alliance of Honduran Organizations (ALCONH), the National Federation of Agricultural Workers (CNTC) and the Honduras Diversified Agricultural Farming Federation (FECADH). <www.fao.org/gender/static/casest/hon/hon-e-04.htm#TopOfPage> PD/A CRSP

Home

Publications

EdOp Net

Data Tools

Projects & People

Links

The Pond Dynamics/Aquaculture CRSP is funded under USAID Grant No. LAG-G-00-96-90015-00 and by the participating US and Host Country institutions. Questions for or about the Aquaculture CRSP? Comments about this site? Email ACRSP@oregonstate.edu.

Disclaimers