NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON CAPACITY

NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF EXTENSION AND

ADVISORY SERVICE PROVIDERS: 6 -7

OCTOBER 2015, HYDERABAD

EXTENSION AND ADVISORY SERVICES IN

FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE

S. N. OJHA

CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES EDUCATION, MUMBAI

MARINE RESOURCE OF INDIA

INLAND WATER RESOURCES OF INDIA

EXPECTED

CAPACITY

Fishers need ( possible institutions that can address the issues) of Gorai and Colaba fishing villages of Mumbai

Fishers Needs F F %

Restrict overfishing (DOF) 15 23.4

Ban purse-seiners 11

Ban trawlers (overfishing) 4

Restrict Pollution (DOF & MOEF) 15 23.4

Treat industrial effluent discharge 9

Ban plastic use 6

Promote Marketing (DOF & BMC) 9 14.1

Improve market hygiene to stop disease spread 9

Transfer know-how (DOF) 7 10.9

Inform about modern techniques and schemes 6

Establish schools to teach new techniques 1

Enhance Assistance (DOF) 7 10.9

Reduce diesel price 4

Build adaptive capacity to climate change/diversified fisheries/predict disaster 2

Assist "BPL" . 1

Regulate Boats and Fishing Areas (DOF & CO) 6 9.38

Restrict fairy boats that destroy fishing nets 5

Mark and allocate local fishing areas 1

Develop Infrastructure and Institutions (DOF & MOEF) 5 7.81

Improve landing centers 2

Up-storey construction should be permitted 1

Initiate allied occupation for community in non-fishing seasons 1

Ensure good leaders for fisher-community 1

64 64 100

MARINE FISHERIES POLICY

Need index of fishers (n=90)

Category Category range Needs

High Above 0.5 Marketing

Medium 0.3-0.5 Environmental, Safety, Financial, Legal

Low Upto 0.3 Technical Training needs, Information and

communication needs

Need index of shrimp farmers (n= 40)

Category Category range Needs

High Above 0.5 Environmental, Safety, Legal

Medium 0.3-0.5 Marketing, Socioeconomic, Information and

communication

Low Upto 0.3 Financial, Technical Training

COASTAL FISHERIES

NEED ASSESSMENT OF FISHERS AND SHRIMP FARMERS OF KERALA

ICAR-CIFE MFSc thesis

INLAND FISHERIES POLICY

Expectations of fishers from government and non - government organizations, fellow farmers, seed suppliers and marketing agents(n=60)

Public Partners Community Partners Private Partners

Government NGO Fellow Fishers Seed SuppliersMarketing

Agents

% % % % %

(1) Better use of resources

by connecting Beel with

the parent river;

converting the low lying

area of beels into ponds;

allotting lands for

agriculture; and

restricting

encroachment.

96 Advocating for

traditional

fishers in

relevant

departments.

11.7 Knowledge sharing

about cooperatives.

8.3

PRESENTLY NO EXPECTATION FROM

SEED SUPPLIERS AND MARKETING AGENTS

WAS RECORDED AS THERE WAS NO

AUACULTURE ACTIVITY IN THE AREA.

HOWEVER, IF

PEN/CAGE/FISH CULTURE ACTIVITIES,

INVOLVING NGOs,

SEED SUPPLIERS AND TRADERS,

ARE INITIATED,

EXPECTATIONS FROM THEM MAY EMERGE.

(2) Implementing poverty

related welfare

programmes

42.9 Organising

fishers.

5 Raising the issues of

traditional fishers.

8.3

(3) Abolishing the present

leasing system;

restricting non-

traditional fishers from

fishing.

40 Facilitating

community

action against

the drinking of

alcohol.

3.3 Facilitating

community action

against alcohol.

6.7

(4) Providing craft and gear. 16 Raising voice against

irregularities in

government

schemes.

5

ICAR-CIFE MFSc thesis : Prospecting Public Private Community Participation in Inland Fisheries of, Assam

Kamrup district of Assam was selected as its fish production was similar to the state of Assam. From this district two Community

Development (CD) blocks, one having highest and the other having lowest fish production were purposely selected. Thirty fish farmers and

the same number for fishers were randomly selected from each block. Thus, from both the blocks a sum total of 120 samples were chosen

for the study.

ICAR-CIFE MFSc thesis : Prospecting Public Private Community

Participation in Inland Fisheries of Kamrup District, Assam

PPCP

Kamrup district of Assam was selected as its fish production was similar to the state of Assam. From

this district two Community Development (CD) blocks, one having highest and the other having lowest

fish production were purposely selected. Thirty fish farmers and the same number for fishers were

randomly selected from each block. Thus, from both the blocks a sum total of 120 samples were

chosen for the study.Expectations of fish farmers from government and non -government organizations, fellow farmers, seed suppliers and marketing agents (n=60)

Public Partners Community Partners Private Partners

Government NGO Fellow Farmers Seed Suppliers Marketing Agents

% % % % %

(1) Regulating seed

quality.

8.3 Facilitating

training;

farmers’

organization;

bank loans; and

marketing.

15 Sharing knowledge

about sales and

purchases.

13.3 Providing seeds

produced from

quality brooders

6.7 Ensuring purchase at

farm gate and linking

with distant markets.

11.7

(2) Developing the

market

infrastructure;

arranging market

information.

6.7 Popularizing

welfare

programmes,

conservation

and technology.

6.7 Sharing knowledge

on seed purchased.

10 Ensuring species-

proportion and

quality of seeds.

6.7 Preventing price

fluctuation.

5

(3) Augmenting

diagnostic facilities.

6.7 Providing

assistance to

government

6.7 Sharing knowledge of

farming.

3.3 Providing seed

on credit for at

least 150 days

5 Augmenting

procurement and

storage.

3.3

(4) Regulating

Common Property

Resource.

6.7 Linking farmers

with

government

departments.

3.3 Facilitating

conservation and

restricting banned

species.

3.3 Assuring seed

count.

5 Ensuring integrity in

dealings.

3.3

Distribution of Self Help Groups according to enterprise adopted in Kerala.Sl No Enterprise Kasargod

(n=6)Ernakulam(n=6)

Kollam(n=6)

Total(n=18)

1 Mussel farming 66.67 50 38.92 Ready to cook fish products 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 Ready to eat fish products - 33.33 - 11.104 Oyster farming - 33.33 - 11.105 Cage culture - - 16.67 5.6

Three districts of Kerala each representing North (Kasargod), South

(Kollam) and Central Kerala (Ernakulam) were selected. Two villages from

each district in which Self Help Groups were actively engaged in fishery

based entrepreneurial activities were selected. Three SHGs from each

village were selected randomly. In this way, total sixteen SHGs were

selected for the study. Ten members from each SHG were selected for the

study. Thus in total, there were 180 respondents

ICAR-CIFE MFSc thesis : Empowering Women through Entrepreneurship in Fishery Based

SHGs of Kerala

Fisherwomen Entrepreneurship through Community

Organization(MTSYAFED) and DoF, Kerala

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Factor analysis of the selected variables in Kerala (N = 225)

Rotated Component Matrixa

Components

One Two Three Four

Convergent Extension Approach

Market ledExtension Approach

Elementaryand Commodity Extension Approach

ICT/Media Facilitated Extension Approach

% of Variance 15.27 14.25 10.19 7.72Cumulative variance % 15.27 29.52 39.71 47.43

TOTAL INCOME .802

INCOME from AG .722

EXPENDITURE in AG .687

INCOME from AQ .631 .553

General SUPPORT in AG .621

EXPENDITURE in AQ .617 .563

Number of AGRI CROP .609

Numbers of Workers employed .543 -.514

Assessment of Farm Information .933

MARKETING .760

EXPERIENCE .674

Number FISH SPP grown .636

Training Attended in ATMA .633

Area brought under AQ .542

Numbers of TrgTop attended .643

Types of AQ ( Mono/poly culture) .637

Ownership of the pond .617

Specific SUPPORT to AQ .559

MME .726

EDU .609

Communication Facilities Used .565

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

EXISTING

CAPACITY

ICAR-CIFE PROJECT: AN APPRAISAL OF

PUBLIC SECTOR EXTENSION DELIVERY

SYSTEM IN FISHERIES

Data were collected from 24 staffs ofthe Department of Fisheries(Maharashtra) and 72 fishermen fromfishing villages with the help of wellstructured interview schedule.

Constraints faced by DoF staff (N=24) Percentage

1. Less staff

2. More area of jurisdiction

3. Poor training facilities

4. Inadequate in-service training

5. Illiteracy of the fisher

6. Lack of funds for training

7. Villages are too remote

8. No incentives for achieving target

9. Poor linkage with line departments

72.33

68.00

55.00

55.00

54.55

45.00

36.00

30.00

9.00

20 NGOs working on fisheries for last 3-4

yrs were selected, 2 each from 8 maritime

states and 2 inland states. 6-8 field

functionaries (technical and supervisory)

staff as per availability in a block/Taluka

level of the selected

ICAR-CIFE Project: Performance

Appraisal of NGOs in Fisheries

Development

Constraints faced by NGOs ( N=112) Ranks

Poor training facilities I

Inadequate in-service training II

Lack of funds for training III

More area of jurisdiction IV

Poverty of the farmers V

Poor knowhow about the fishers VI

Poor linkage with line departments VII

Illiteracy of the fishers VIII

Poor participation of fishers IX

Investments on para-extension, ICT and training is needed to cover large area with minimum

staff to improve the extension and advisory services

FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE EXTENSION

Fisheries Sector

Capture

Inland Capture

Oxbow lakesReservoirs

Rivers

Marine Capture

Culture

Fresh water Aquaculture

Brackish water Aquaculture

Cold water aquaculture

Marine Aquaculture

Existing Capacity:

TOT, Welfare

Expected Capacity: CO, EDP, Marketing Extn, etc.

Community Based Management

Existing Capacity:

TOT, Welfare

Expected Capacity: CO, EDP, Marketing Extn,

etc.

Individual/Community Management

GAP: Institutional

Framework Needed

for Social Innovations:

POLICY,

TRAINING,PPCP and

EDP with

FF, FS & ICT support

AQ U A T E C H N O - O R G AN I Z AT I O N A L - P O L I C Y

AD V I S O RY C O N S O R T I U M ( A - T O P - A C )

STATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AGENCY

POLICY: Strategic policy planning, Governance &

Management, HR, Finance, ICT and learning environment

STATE FISHERIES TRAINING CENTER

CAPACITY/TRAINING:Institutional Environment,

Organizational capacity, Individual capacity,

Knowledge base

DISTRICT FF,FS & ICT NETWORK

Issues: Institutional Arrangement, Leadership, Knowledge, Accountability

DISTRICT PPCP & EDP NETWORK

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION: Engaging

stakeholders, Existing situation, Policy Formation, Strategy and programmes,

Budgetary process, Implementation, M&E.

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK