Action Research in Partnership for Developing the Small-Scale Commercial Fish Farming In

8th International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture 2008 109

ACTION RESEARCH IN PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPING A SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL FISH FARMING: A PROMISING START-UP IN CAMEROON

MIKOLASEK O.1, LAZARD J.1, POUOMOGNE V.2., TOMEDI-EYANGO M.3 AND CHIA E.4

1 : UPR Aquaculture, CIRAD ; TA B-20/91 BP 5095 – 34196 Montpellier Cedex 05 - France 2 : IRAD BP 139 Foumban 3 : Département de Foresterie, FASA, Université de Dschang, BP 383 Dschang 4 : UMR Innovation, CIRAD, TA C-85/15 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5 - France *: Auteur correspondant : Olivier MIKOLASEK, [email protected]

Abstract Fish farming currently represents the major alternative to cover national the animal protein need in a sustainable way for most African countries South of the Sahara region. This activity also constitutes a new source of income for the rural farmers. However, the fish farming systems that have been put forward are not efficient enough on the biotechnical and economical levels to launch commercial dynamics. Several approaches to the development of fish farming have been applied since the nineties: after a systemic agronomic approach implemented in development projects, a participatory approach emerged. This article introduces the Action Research in Partnership (ARP) paradigm, a new approach implemented by CIRAD in Cameroon through the CIP project, and present the preliminary results achieved so far by the project. Keywords: Fish farming, Action-Research in Partnership, Cameroon

INTRODUCTION

Fish is the staple animal protein of populations and notably the most underprivileged strata of society (Tambi, 2000). Fish remains the sole alternative to filling the fish deficit and curbing imports (FAO, 2007). It is also a source of revenue diversification for rural producers. Fish farming was introduced in Sub Saharan Africa back in the 1940s under the colonial era (Lemasson, 1953), and development activities continued throughout the independences (1960s) in the form of development projects. However, at the dawn of the 21st century, the sector in this region is yet to get off the ground. Against this backdrop, Sub Saharan Africa saw the emergence in the 1990s of two key options for a better understanding and development of rural fish farming (Stomal and Weigel, 1998): Local development using a systemic agronomic approach; and a farmer-scientist research partnership premised on a participatory approach. These options are slightly developed in part two of the paper. 110 ACTION RESEARCH IN PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPING A SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL FISH FARMING: A PROMISING START-UP IN CAMEROON

We are putting forth the hypothesis that action research in partnership (ARP) is the best suited tool to address the technical, economic, cultural and social aspects of fish farming, thereby helping to trigger a process of socio professional and organizational innovation. In this respect, a project entitled: “Building the Fish farming Innovation through Partnership” (French acronym “CIP”) was set up and implemented in Cameroon as from 2004. This project incorporates local expertise rooted in the Mbo tradition of management of fish resources within the Nkam valley, and fish farming experience garnered by Fokoué and Penka Michel producers through participation in development projects and also through their own activities; both localities are situated in Menoua division, West Cameroon. After presenting the rationale of the ARP in part one, the set-up and preliminary results of this experience are respectively developed in parts three and four of the paper. ACTION-RESEARCH IN PARTNERSHIP The action research approach (Chia 2004, Liu 1992) has a dual objective: Finding solutions to problems identified with and for stakeholders; and by means of experiments, generating local (contextual) and generic knowledge. This dual objective is to foster training and empowerment of stakeholders particularly through collective action (Scoones and Thompson, 1999). As progress is made, new questions may crop up within a cycle that would trigger a new cycle. The concept of cycle refers to an annual succession of problem-defining phases, of formalization of activities through experimentation and assessment protocols. By describing action research as a form of partnership (Action Research in Partnership, ARP), the participation of stakeholders is highlighted not only at the experimentation or validation phase, but also at all phases of research including its management (Chia et al., in press).

This approach is based on the fact that the innovation building process draws on successive translations, experiences, representations and issues raised by various players in a common language shared by all (Akrich et al., 1988). Those translations should lead to the convergence of individual and collective strategies and of various representations of the problem towards a compulsory transit point that would ease participation in a common project (Callon, 1986). This process of translation and construction of a common language is a means of provoking the interest of and engaging various stakeholders in the achievement of shared goals (Akrich et al., 1988). Innovation construction and the restructuring of social relationships are interlinked concepts hence the need to consider innovation construction from a collective perspective. Engagement and interest in the process on the part of stakeholders are key to obtaining quality and enriching the co-construction process MIKOLASEK O. et al. 111

and the corollary learning process. With focus on a complex research subject, the ARP process mobilizes skills and methods drawn from the agro-bioecological and socio-economic sciences to serve as tools in building a sociotechnical network in partnership with stakeholders. The sociotechnical network comprises human entities (researchers, institutional players, producers) and non-human components (fish, hand net, buckets, etc), either of an individual or collective nature, depending on their projects or identities, interacting with each other (Callon, 1986). The network searches out and draws from local physical, economic and social specificities (Bureth and Llerana, 1992) to craft an economically viable fish farming system. PREVIOUS APPROACHES Systemic types In the 1990s, the Association for Fish Farming and Rural Development in Humid Tropical Africa- France (APDRA-F) adopted an agronomic approach based on a systemic model (Oswald and Chamoin, 2000). Fish farming models deemed reliable are proposed in consideration of the type of land tenure system and availability of factors of production: The input semi-intensive periurban model versus the input-poor rural model. The latter model was historically developed with marked success in Cote D’Ivoire (Stomal and Weigel, 1998) and further promoted in the humid forests of several countries including Guinea and more recently Cameroon (Centre province). The proposed transfer system follows mutual individual and collective contract signing between the project and aspiring fish farmers. Candidate selection is based mainly on the characteristics of the site and the candidate's skill in fish pond management. Participation in training sessions and facilitation of learning are areas that actively engage project stakeholders. The terms of the contract require strict respect of the model by fish farmers in exchange for participation of the project as a means of obtaining technical-economic results. This does not however preclude the need to make requisite changes to adapt the fish farming system to the local context. Farmer-scientist research partnerships The farmer-scientist research partnership models developed by the WorldFish Center and its partners aim to ease the appropriation of techniques through simultaneous control tests conducted in farming areas and research stations (Brummett and Noble, 1995, Brummett et al., 2004). In Africa, it was first developed in Malawi, in Ghana and more recently in Cameroon. It builds on participatory approaches and particularly on a graphic representation of flow patterns of biological resources within fish farms. Participatory evaluation of resources serves as a basis for dialogue between scientists and farmers on possible integration options and available 112 ACTION RESEARCH IN PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPING A SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL FISH FARMING: A PROMISING START-UP IN CAMEROON technology. The choice of appropriate technology is left to the producers while the scientist is in charge of avoiding experiments with a high likelihood of failure. Till date, the capability of this approach to generate a sustainable profitable commercial fish farming sector derived is still to be established. THE SET-UP OF THE ARP PROCESS IN CAMEROON Researchers of the Centre for International Cooperation in Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD), of the Institute of Agricultural Research for development (IRAD), of the University of Dschang and of Yaounde University are currently conducting a research project to test the feasibility of setting up a lucrative fish farming system in the West province of Cameroon, the CIP. From diagnosis to formalization of social demand The project was launched in June 2004 with a diagnostic study of the level of integration of fish farming on family farms in Menoua Division (West Cameroon). 134 farmers were surveyed during an “exhaustive” study spanning the entire Menoua division (Table 1), followed by indepth interviews of 17 farmers (and their families) through repeated visits in a bid to understand the overall functionning of their farming systems (Dufumier, 1996; Chia, 1992). Table 1. Current situation of fish farming in the Menoua division in 2004, (PNVRA data, unpublished) Subdivision Number of Number of Total Average % farmers fish number of pond surface abandonned farmers ponds (m²) ponds Dschang 9278 43 84 236 36,9 Nkong-Ni 13281 20 32 206 50,0 Penka Michel 17355 16 26 243 23,1 Fokoué 7080 23 53 221 56,6 Santchou 7356 31 268 44 64,9 Total 54330 133 463 55,5

Following these diagnostic-analyses, several result validation/ graphic representation sessions were held with 98 producers divided into 3 groups according to geographical proximity and convenience in 3 localities of Menoua: Dschang, Fokoue and Santchou. Those meetings led up to the first mutual agreements. In January 2005, fresh negotiation meetings were held with two of the three groups organized into Common Initiative Groupings (GICs). The negotiations resulted in a first endeavour to translate stakeholders’ concerns (Table 2) into problems to be solved by each of the two Common Initiative Groupings consisting respectively of producers of the Fokoue and Penka Michel sub-divisions (Association of Intensive Fish Farmers of Fokoue and Penka Michel, COPIFOPEM) on the one hand, and of Santchou (Fishers and Fish Farmers of Santchou, PEPISA) on the other hand. MIKOLASEK O. et al. 113

Therefore, the project is not driven by producer demand but rather is built on initial diagnosis derived from dialogue between a research proposal and a commitment to change on the part of the producers (Chia 2004, Liu 1992). The partners are called upon hereto define a common problem which is broken down into research topics to be studied as a group. Table 2. Social demand (expressed in % of the number of fish farmers evoking the problem)

Difficulties Reasons for pond Expectations abandon Fry mortalities 22,4 14 - Lack of fingerlings 11,2 - 18,3 Insufficient technical support 16 31 (*) 19,6 Lack of funding 21,6 33 (**) 36,1 Difficulties in selling the fish 9,6 13 1 production Fish theft 8 2 Miscellaneous 11,2 7 16,9 (***)

( - ) not evoked by any farmer; (*) including unsatisfactory pond design and construction; (**) including poor economic return compared to effort invested, and lack of time; (***) including fish feed. The action plan was designed based on the formulation of a common structuring research topic for each GIC: In Fokoue, what are the ways of obtaining quality fry and making the fish farming sector viable? In Santchou: What are the ways of enhancing sustainable collection of catfish fry from the wild and making more money? These general questions would later be converted into research topics to be studied during a cycle. Their duration takes into account fish production cycles in relation to the seasons and strategies employed by producers. Each of these questions formed the subject of an experimentation and subsequent protocol negotiated and formalized by project stakeholders.

An ethical framework for defining the concept of co-construction of joint action research In October 2005, negotiations for a common ethical framework led to the signing of tripartite convention between the two producers' associations grouped into GICs and the scientists' association. 10 to 15 persons from each association are directly involved in the ARP process. The convention defines mutual agreements (table 3). It lays down the creation of a steering committee and of a scientific committee, as well as the regularity of partners’ meetings (once in 15 days) and the duration of the project (3years). 114 ACTION RESEARCH IN PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPING A SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL FISH FARMING: A PROMISING START-UP IN CAMEROON

Table 3. Mutual agreements (extracted from the contract signed by the members of the steering committee)

Article 4 : Commitment of producers Article 5 : Commitment of researchers 4.1. Facilitate collective initiatives and take 5.1. Contribute to the development of part to meetings within respective common action-research themes as collectively initiative groupings identified with all actors 4.2. Share your know-how favouring all the 5.2. Put at the disposal of the project GIC members and over-all partners of the all information available ARP 4.3. Share with all actors technical, financial 5.3. Feedback the research results of and socio-ethnological information viewing a the ARP project using a common smooth development of project goals language accessible to fish farmers 4.4. Facilitate the implementation of all 5.4. Insure bi-monthly farm visit so as protocols set-up by putting into practice all to keep active relationship with rules suggested in common producers 4.5. Apply all research results validated 5.5. Facilitate the linkage of producers following the termination of action-research with other institutions capable of activities providing them other form of support 4.6. Authorize the researchers to publish the 5.6. When publishing the project results of the common works in scientific and results in review, acknowledge the development journals origin of the data From sharing of fish farming practices to experimentation With a view to designing first cycle experimental protocols, seminars on breeding practices were conducted during semimonthly meetings. In the wake of these seminars, a range of demonstration or knowledge-sharing activities were organised. Tasks under these protocols are distributed between GIC members and the association of scientists. Besides the semimonthly meetings between scientists and producers, the results were studied during intermediate graphical representations and debates. An assessment was to be conducted at the end of the first cycle with a view to renegotiating a new cycle. Co-construction of new pathways for research and action. Implementation of new protocols is enhanced by the recruitment of students, lecturers and researchers in multidisciplines. Hence, over time, research has witnessed growing diversification and increasing complexity of research problematics. This trend is reinforcing and fueling the expansion the research community. Furthermore, partners have also been inspired to forge ties with other stakeholders of the region: Technical services officers, mayors, development projects, NGO, etc. MIKOLASEK O. et al. 115

These budding alliances will help to hedge against the withdrawal of scientists which is slated for the end of the 3rd cycle and promote the renegotiation of a new project if necessary. LESSONS FROM THE CIP PROJECT Diagnosis confers stakeholder legitimacy A nascent partnership is usually marked by a multiplicity of uncertainties both from a technical and a social perspective. Diagnosis quality is key to mitigating those uncertainties. Particularly when dealing with a research proposal, it is important to verify that there is a genuine desire for change, that strategic groups and challenges facing society have been clearly identified and that stakeholders have the requisite resources to achieve the common objective. Some of the setbacks to the CIP project are partly associated with inadequate integration of individual engagement strategies (reasons motivating stakeholders’ involvement) like for instance achieving the ambition of accession to power or prospects of reaping benefits from the project (Olivier de Sardan, 1998). Partnership, a productive form of friction The common objective is the result of the various rationales of the stakeholders. These rationales are reflected and negotiated through practices, representations and beliefs. The ARP system, particularly the ethical framework by formalizing mutual agreements, establishes indispensable safeguards without completely negating all forms of friction between stakeholders (Soulard et al., 2007) given that numerous and substantial uncertainties remain both at the practical level and in regard to the environment. Controversies and conflicts between partners (table 4) serve as a basis to redefine the situation, to reappraise the project and thus can be put to constructive use: Misunderstanding of funding requests from producers, for instance, is a potential source of conflicts right from the start of the project but this raises the issue of the need for their empowerment. In fact, progressive appropriation of the project and its targets would lead to a shift in perspective: e.g. from “what incentive do you provide in view of obtaining my full contribution towards the success of the project?” to “how do we organize ourselves to ensure the success of our project? This productive friction speeds up changes in representations and practices of all stakeholders and thereby fosters knowledge production in and for action. 116 ACTION RESEARCH IN PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPING A SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL FISH FARMING: A PROMISING START-UP IN CAMEROON

Table 4. Forms of the emergence of the main controversies within the Action Research in Partnership in Cameroun

Origins of Constrains Actors Actions Results Controversy controversy topics Diagnosis Unavailability of Researchers Surveys, Acknowledge the The fish phase social scientists Surveying interviews, reality of the farming activity technicians feedback, activity; is declining Producers negotiation traducing because of a farmers concerns lack of into research profitability, need among others reasons Diagnosis Unfair Anthropologist Survey Farmers current Place of phase communication Producers within the practices are ancestors and limited time Nkam valley characterised practices while frame dealing with changes Negotiation of The approach is Researchers Meetings, Signature of The partnership the rules new and does Producers Seminars mutual is favouring governing the not involve Practical agreement researchers, ARP project subsidies work governing the Producers are partnership ok with project except the absence of subsidies to meet their actual need While The producer is Graduate Elaboration Obtaining big Fish density at implementing behaving like student of commonly size fish; stocking the action- an executor (agronomy) validated changing former whether you research topic Producers techniques empirical target big on how to for representations marketable size produce big improving fish or not size fish fish farming remain practices questionable By project The CIG is not Graduate Using net The need of Place of social ending, how to functioning student and water better sciences in facilitate conveniently (sociology) pump to organisation problem solving collective farmers stimulate within the GIC dynamism group become more dynamism acute Experimental protocols: Changing practices and representations to generate new expertise in actions endorsed by stakeholders Controversies arising from partnership, action protocols and graphic representations of results help to modify stakeholder’s representations of their technical and organizational techniques and thereby initiates cross and joint learning processes (Hatchuel, 2001). Characteristics of the first two cycles of ARP include: a) satisfaction of GIC COPIFOPEM producers (Fokoue and Penka Michel) with fish MIKOLASEK O. et al. 117

harvests during draining of ponds (table 5). Table 5. Characteristics of harvests during the second Partnership-based-Action- Research cycle

Producer Pond Growth Initial Final Weight Output Final identification surface period biomass biomass gain (kg.ha.yr1) average (m²) (days) (kg) (kg) (kg) weight (g)* 1 350 382 18,5 112,7 94,2 2571 143 2 193 395 6,5 83,4 76,8 3678 198 3 180 320 3,5 41,2 37,7 2389 182 4 108 389 7,8 39,6 31,8 2763 161 5 160 391 3,1 122,8 119,7 6981 225 6 153 390 5,9 50,0 44,1 2698 209 7 108 390 5,6 37,6 32,0 2770 220 8 150 387 5,8 50,0 44,2 2781 191 * Mix sex tilapia; confidence interval varying from 17 to 86 g (p<0.05, Student table) The first cycles were highly rich in terms of production and knowledge shared for the formulation of rules governing local fish farming systems. Producers see fish farming as a potential large-fish producing and income-generating sector. b) the commitment of a cluster of GIC PEPISA producers (Santchou) to organizing the collection, conservation and marketing of catfish fry drawn from the wild to serve as seed for fish farms. c) the emergence of new issues to be addressed during the next cycle which will centre on organizing producers, fish consumption practices and forms of coordination leading up to professionalisation.

CONCLUSION

The ARP process presented here seeks to address complex issues (Chia, 2004; Liu, 1992) relating to rural fish farming perceived as the construction of a localized production model and of a sociotechnical and organizational network (Da Silva et al., 2005). The ARP process taken as an approach though applied for purposes of local development, aims to produce generic skills drawing from “localized” skills and serves to enrich discussions on the “take-off” of fish farming in Sub Saharan Africa and particularly in Cameroon. ARP builds stakeholders capacities and empowers them. At the end of the first two ARP cycles, producers were more apt to engage jointly with scientists in designing of experimental protocols and in a broader sense, to chart the course of research work. 118 ACTION RESEARCH IN PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPING A SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL FISH FARMING: A PROMISING START-UP IN CAMEROON

However, the timeline of 3 years is too brief to determine the ARP’s primacy in setting up a profitable fish farm. The ARP process requires scientists to operate a posture shift which would translate into an array of functions and/or skills: Translator, facilitator, mediator, spokesperson…., these skills do not come naturally and must be learned fast in the action process. Yet the training of scientists and the evaluation system are not conducive to the participation of scientists. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We acknowledge with gratitude the financial support of the Project for Strengthening of Partnerships in Agronomic Research in Cameroon (REPARAC), and the various contributions of the COPIFOPEM and PEPISA Common Interest Groupings and all our other partners.

REFERENCES

1. Akrich M., M. Callon, B. Latour. 1988. A quoi tient le succès des innovations? Premier épisode : l'art de l'intéressement. Deuxième épisode : l'art de choisir les bons porte parole. Gérer et comprendre 2. Brummett R. E. and R. P. Noble. 1995. Farmer-Scientist Research Partnerships and Smallholder Integrated Aquaculture in Malawi. In: eds. J-J. Symoens and J-C. Micha. The Management of Integrated Freshwater Agro-Piscicultural Ecosystems in Tropical Areas Wageningen. The Netherlands: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation; and Brussels, Belgium: Royal Academy of Overseas Sci- ences ; pp 479-502 3. Brummett, R. E., D. Jamu, J. Jere and V. Pouomogne. 2004. A farmer- participatory approach to aquaculture technology development and dissemination. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences; 9, 530-536. 4. Bureth, A., P. Llerena. 1992. Système local d’innovation: approche théorique et premiers résultats empiriques. In : Actes du colloque Industrie et territoire : les systèmes productifs localisés. 21 et 22 octobre 1992. Grenoble : Institut de Recherche Economique sur la Production et le Développement, pp 369–393. 5. Callon, M. 1986. Eléments pour une sociologie de la traduction: la domestication des coquilles Saint-Jacques et des marins-pêcheurs dans la baie de Saint-Brieuc. L’Année Sociologique ; n° 36, 169-208 6. Callon, M., P. Lascoumes, Y. Barthes. 2001. Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. La couleur des idées, Ed. du Seuil 7. Chia, E. 1992. Une "recherche-clinique" : proposition méthodologique pour l'analyse des pratiques de trésorerie des agriculteurs (étude de cas en Lorraine). Etudes et Recherches sur les Systèmes Agraires et le Développement. INRA SAD ; MIKOLASEK O. et al. 119

N°12 8. Chia, E. 2004. Principes, méthodes de la recherche en partenariat : une proposition pour la traction animale. Revue El. Méd. Vet. Pays Trop. ; 57 (3-4), 9. Chia, E et M. Barbier. 1999. Gestion et qualité de l’eau : apprentissage collectif et rôle des prescripteurs. Cah. Agr.; 8, 109-117. 10. Chia, E., B. Barlet, M. Tomedi Eyango, V. Pouomogne and O. Mikolasek. 2008. 8e Symposium Européen de l’IFSA, Favoriser et accompagner les initiatives des acteurs locaux, Clermont Ferrand (France) 6 - 10 Juillet 2008, in press. 11. David, A. 2000. La recherche-intervention cadre général pour la recherche en sciences de gestion. In : David A., Hatchuel A et Laufer R, Les nouvelles fondations des sciences de gestion, Paris : Vuibert 12. Dufumier, M. 1996. Les projets de développement agricole. CTA-KARTHALA 13. FAO. 2007. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006. Roma: FAO Fisheries Department; 162 14. Hatchuel , A. 2001. Rapports de prescription et conception collective du travail, in Les ergonomes, les prescripteurs et les prescriptions, Collections Actes, 2001 Bordeaux : Editions du Laboratoire d'Ergonomie des Systèmes Complexes, Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2. 15. Lemasson, J. 1953. Chronique piscicole. La pisciculture dans l’Ouest Cameroun. Revue Bois et Forêt des Tropiques, n°30, p 38 16. Liu, M. 1992. Présentation de la Recherche-action : Présentation, déroulement et résultats. Revue Int. Syst.; 6,293-311. 17. Olivier de Sardan J. P. 1995.Anthropologie et développement Essai en socio- anthropologie du changement social, APAD-KARTHALA, Paris 18. Oswald, M. et J. Chamoin. 2000. La réponse à la demande ivoirienne d’aménagement piscicole : un exemple d’outil d’aménagement d’une campagne d’Afrique forestière. In Colloque international de l'eau, l'aménagement du territoire et le développement durable, 10-11 février 2000 : Académie de l'eau et l'Agence de l’eau, Paris, France: pp 413-421 19. Soulard, C. T., C. Compagnone et B. Lémery. 2007. La recherche en partenariat : entre fiction et friction, Natures Sciences Sociétés : 15, 13-22 20. Scoones I. et Thompson, J. La reconnaissance du savoir rural. Savoir des populations, recherche agricole et vulgarisation. Paris : Karthala, 1999 21. Silva, N. J. R., J. E. Beuret, O. Mikolasek, G. Fontenelle, L. Dabbadie, M. I. E. G. Martins. 2005. Dynamiques de développement de la pisciculture et politiques publiques dans la vallée du Ribeira, État de São Paulo (Brésil). Cahiers Agricultures ; v. 14, n. 1, 59-63 22. Stomal, B. et J. Y. Weigel. 1998. Mythes et réalités des Aquacultures africaines. Afrique contemporaines : N°187, p. 60-76 23. Tambi, N. E. 2001. "Analysis of household attitudes toward the purchase of 120 ACTION RESEARCH IN PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPING A SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL FISH FARMING: A PROMISING START-UP IN CAMEROON

livestock products and fish in Cameroon." Agricultural Economics; 26: 135-147.