128 Kitojo Wetengere and Aubrey Harris
farming (Wetengere, 2010b; Wetengere, 2010c; Wetengere and Madalla,
2011).
The above findings imply that the technological characteristics of
aquaculture determining profitability, immediacy of reward, marketability and
risk need to be improved.
GROUP OWNED AQUACULTURE PONDS/CAGES
Aquaculture can be carried out by an individual farmer, a family or a
group of farmers (Balarin, 1985; Wetengere, 2008; Wetengere, 2011).
Operating aquaculture activities in group was a result of advice from some
projects (Balarin, 1985; Michielsens, 1998) or from farmers’ own initiatives.
Farmers may decide to operate aquaculture in groups for the following
reasons: firstly, as a way to mobilize labour or funds particularly in doing
labourious or time consuming or money demanding activities like pond or
cage construction. Secondly, lack of suitable land for fish farming may force
interested farmers to join other farmers with suitable land (Wetengere, 2008,
2011). Thirdly, the risk involved for each individual member in a group-
owned pond/cage is minimal (Michielsen, 1998). Similarly, advocated for
groups in aquaculture for the following reasons: firstly, more farmers could be
reached during extension activities. Secondly, an aquaculture group could act
as a demonstration entity in order to reach individual farmers. Thirdly, some
development agencies and government institutions often promised to provide
loan to farmers only when they operated in groups.
This review found that aquaculture groups experienced a number of
problems. Firstly, there was poor attendance and sluggishness among members
which often resulted in prolonged pond or cage construction (Michielsens,
1998; Wetengere, 2000; Wetengere, 2011). Secondly, some organizational
problems such as quarrels, misunderstanding, difficult of agreeing what to do
and conflicting interests were noted particularly when groups were too big
(Wetengere, 2011). Thirdly, there was often a lack of commitment or
willingness for some farmers to invest their time and inputs in the group
activity. Fourthly, low returns from group-owned ponds/cages/farms
discouraged members to participate actively. Fifth, most farmers joined groups
expecting cash or material gain and once this was not realized they kept on
complaining or dropped from the group or put less effort. Finally, it was
difficult to compensate members who quit the group after or before harvest.