Meso level (interview-based surveys): Use of one-time interviews and

The first interviews (survey 1) were carried out in villages that were suggested by the local extension service. Besides a high importance of aquaculture in those villages, the personal relations between the extension workers and the village headmen probably served as selection criteria. This could have similarly been the case when the village headmen

7 Discussion ₁₂₅

recommended farmers for interviewing: often these were either relatives or important members of the village society (e.g. heads of unions). In order to avoid the description of “the pond system of the richest”, the pond management of other farmers in the region was observed and farmers were selected randomly for the questionnaire survey (survey 2). Survey 2 was required to quantify the collected information on a broader and more standardized level. The high importance of the upland ponds, for example, which was described in the previous chapter, would have probably not emerged without the questionnaire survey.

Major difficulties during the interviews were issues such as the association of information with the individual ponds. Due to the fact that most farmers own several ponds, confusion arose when associating fish stocks or fish yields with the individual ponds. Therefore, the ponds had to be “named” with the farmers’ terminology but further inquiries were usually necessary to associate the information with the right pond. Also, misunderstandings between researchers and farmers arose either as a result of the translations or due to the local terminology, which was referenced in chapter 5.1.2. All of this required some extra time for clarification.

The case study farms were selected after the completion of survey 1. One of the criteria for the final selection of a farmer as a cooperating partner was the predictability of long-term cooperation assessed according to the farmer’s interest in fish production and research. In this way, farmers were evaluated in a relatively subjective manner. Thus, progressive farmers with a heightened interest in their ponds as well as research were predominantly selected. That aquaculture plays a relatively important role for the selected farmers was clear when the average numbers of ponds owned by them (2.7) is compared with those from the interviewed farmers (1.6); this is also the case when observing the proportion of income from fish sales in 2004 (17% as compared to 12% in interviews). It is likely that farmers with a higher interest in their aquaculture activity also put more effort into their ponds, which may be reflected in above average fish yields. However, the overall pond as well as farm management of the case study farms did not differ from that of the farmers in the survey.

The total period of the present study lasted over two years. By personally observing the farming practises and regularly interviewing the case study farmers year round, a clear understanding of the pond and farming systems in the region was obtained. Problems and occurrences that were not noticed during the formal one-time interviews were identified and recorded.

7 Discussion

126

Often, the season in which farmers were interviewed influenced their answers. When asking farmers about typical fish feeds during the maize production period, they would state maize leaves as being a very important input, but they might not even mention this feed item in an interview during the other times of the year. Other answers that were probably influenced by the season include the time when farmers were asked to rank potential problems connected to fish production in the summer of 2005. In that respective year, a shortage of water was a severe problem, which resulted in a high ranking of this problem. In contrast, fish mortalities caused by low water temperatures were ranked low in the summer interviews since it is typically a winter problem. Besides the fact that the seasons as well as current activities influenced the answers in the interviews, farmers sometimes described the “optimal” situation rather than the “typical” situation. It occurred, for example, that farmers mentioned lime as being an important input to their ponds, but it appeared later that farmers had no access to it.

In order to gain further insight into local fish production, observations in addition to the interviews during several seasons in the year were necessary. Upon asking farmers whether they usually have enough fish feed during the year, they typically affirm this. In the winter, it could be observed that some farmers did not apply feed to the ponds over the course of several days since the amount of leaves and weeds used as fish feed were limited. Additionally, some farmers stated that they avoid feeding duckweed that has been sprayed with pesticides; however, it was observed that duckweed was collected from shared canals. Thus, it cannot be excluded that this duckweed was not contaminated prior to its collection.

By means of long-term cooperation with farmers of the case study farms, mutual trust developed, which enabled access to information that is usually off the record. This includes information about illegal practices, such as the use of well water for pond watering purposes, use of officially banned rodenticides or illegal use of paddy fields as ponds. Long-term communication also reduced the number of biased answers that researchers obtained from farmers.

Both the long-term cooperation as well as the one-time interviews were necessary in order to adequately understand the aquaculture system. The interviews on a broader basis (survey 2) provided information concerning the representation of the case study farms (e.g. pond location), whereas the long-term cooperation with the farmers assisted in being able to better evaluate certain topics that came up in the interviews (e.g. ranking of problems).

7 Discussion ₁₂₇

7.1.3 Micro level (measurement-based survey): Potentials and limitations in gathering