Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LVFRP/TECII/99/02
Technical Document No. 2
Marketing Study
LAKE VICTORIAFISHERIES RESEARCH PROJECT
PHASE II 't
The coic!usions arid recommendations given in this and other reports in the LVFRPseries are those considered appropriate at the time of prcparation. They may bemodified in the light of further know'edge gained at subsequent stages of the Project.The designation emp'oyed and the presentation of the material ici this publication donot imply the expression of any opinion on the part of the EU. the EDF. the LVFRP.FIRI. KMFRI nor TAFIRI concerning the lega! status of countries, territories, cities orareas or concerning the determination of their frontiers or boundaries.
VICTORIA FISHERIESRESEARCH PROJECT
PHASE H
MA
FisheriesResearch Institute
(Uganda)
J. GongaM. Kyangwa
C. NyamwengeA. Nyapendi
K. O. Odongkara
Socio-economie data working group(SEDA WOG)
Kenya Marineand Fisheries
ResearchlLlStitUtC
R. AbilaC. Lwenya
OmwegaF. Ornwenga
OseweE. Yoiigo
TING STUDY
TanztniaFisheriesResearchInstitute
M. MedardE. Mlahagwa
1999
University of Hull UNECIAInternational
Fisheries Institute
G. A. Rodriguez K. Geheb
Table of Contents
Page number
iixeeutive iuminary i
IntroductionResults i
The survey of consumers 2
The survey of fish traders and processors 2
The survey of industrial processors 3
The survey of fishers 4
Conclusions 4
Recommendations 6
Chapter 1: introduction 7
1.1 Preamble 7
1.2. Methodo1oy 8
1.3. Sampling 9
1.4. Questionnaire design 10
1.5. Data collection 10
1.6. Data analysis io1.7. Report structure 11
Chapter 2: the survey of consumers 12
2.1. Summary of findings: a profile of a consumer of fish from Lake Victoria 12
2.2. Objectives of the survey of consumers 18
2.3. Conceptions and misconceptions relating to fish consumers 19
2.4. Detailed analysis 21
2.5. The survey of consumers: sampling strategies, fielddifficulties, possible areas of bias and recommendations 31
2.5.1. The sample selection strategy 31
2.5.2. The sample selection strategy and the dynamics of field work 31
2.5.3. Fieldwork 322.5.4. Respondents' typical reactions to the survey questionnaire 32
2.5.5. Possible field biases 322.5.6. Questionnaire testing 322.5.7. Questions which were ineffective 322.5.8. Words & phrases which caused difficulties 33
2.5.9. Sensitive areas for questioning 33
2.5.10. Recommendations for future survey design 342.4.11. Interview Sites for the survey of consumers 34
2.6. Consumers questionnaire 38
I
II
Chapter 3: the survey of traders and processors 42
3.1. Summary of findings: a profile of a trader/processor of fish fromI iake Victoria 42
3.2. Objectives of the survey of traders and processors 483.3. Hypotheses for the survey of fish traders and processors 493.4. Detailed analysis 503.5. The survey of traders and processors: sampling strategies,
field difficulties, possible areas of bias and recommendations 62
3.5.1. The sample selection strategy 623.5.2. The sample selection strategy and the dynamics of field work 623.5.3. Fieldwork 623.5.4. Respondents' typical reactions to the survey questionnaires 633.5.5. Possibleareasofbias 633.5.6. Questionnaire testing 643.5.7. Questions which were ineffective and phrasing difficulties 643.5.8. Sensitive areas for questioning 643.5.9. Recommendations for future survey design 653.5.10. Interview sites for the survey of fish traders and processors 65
3.6. Traders and processors questionnaire 68
Chapter 4: the sun'ey .f industrial processors 73
4.1. Summary of findings: a profile of a typical Nile perch industrialprocessing company 73
4.2. Objectives of the survey of industrial processors 814.3. Detailed analysis 824.4. The survey of industrial processors: sampling strategies,
field difficulties, possible areas of bias and recommendationsfor future survey design 87
4.4.1. Sample selection strategy 874.4.2. Sample selection strategy and the dynamics of fieldwork 874.4.3. Fieldwork 874.4.4. Respondents' typical reactio'is to the survey questionnaires 874.4.5. Possibleareasofbias 884.4.6. Questionnaire testing 884.4.7. Questions which were ineffective 884.48. Recommendations for future survey design 884.4.9. Interview sites for the survey of industrial processors 89
4.5. industrial processors questionnaire 91
Chapter 5: the survey of fishers 96
5.1. Summary of findings: a profile of a boat owner/renter from Lake Victoria 965.2. Summary of findings: a profile of a crew member from Lake Victoria 975.3. Objectives of the survey of fishers 995.4. Areas for testing in the survey of fishers 9955. Detailed analysis 1035.6. The survey of fishers: sampling strategies, field difficulties,
possible areas of bias and recommendations for future survey design 115
5.6.1. Sample selection strategy 1155.6.2. Sample selection strategy and the dynamics of fieldwork 1155.6.3. Fieldwork 1155.6.4. Respondents' typical reactions to survey questionnaires 1155.6.5. Possibleareasofbias 1165.6.6. Questionnaire testing 1165.6.7. Questions which were ineffective 1165.6.8. Words/phrases which caused difficulties 1165.6.9. Sensitive areas for questioning 1165.6.10. Recommendations for future survey design 1175.6.11. Interview sites for the survey of fishers 117
5.7. Fishers questionnaire 120
Chapter 6: concluding remarks 125
References 128
'IL
List of tables
Chapter 2: the survey of consumersPage Number
Table 1: Consumers' gender and age 12
Table 2: Consumers' reasons for eating more fish at sonietimes than others 14
Table 3: How consumers rate the fish that they buy 14
Table 4: Species of fish normally consumed by unit in which itis normally purchased 17
Table 5: Manner in which fish prices are normally determined 17
Table 6: Interview locations for respondents who blamed poor catchesas the reason for difficulties obtaining fish 20
Table 7: Grams of fish eaten per member of consumers' familiesby family size 20
Table 8 Grams of fish eaten per member of consumers' familiesby interview location 20
Table 9: Fish format normally purchased by interview location 20
Table 10: Age arid gender combination by country 21
Table 11: Age and gender combination by number of fishpurchases per week 21
Table 12: Species normally bought by favourite species in Uganda,Kenya and Tanzania 23
Table 13: Age and gender combination by consumers with apreference for Nile perch or tilapia 23
Table 14: Age and gender combii1ation by amount of fish boughtper week (kg. range) 24
Table 15: Mean number of fish-eating family members per consumer andmean amount of fish (kg) purchased per year per family member 26
Table 16: Mean kilos of fish purchased per respondent per householdmember per year by interview location 26
Table 17: Mean US Dollar expenditure on fish per family member per week 27Table 18; Consumers' difficulties obtaining fish by country 28Table 19: Consumers' difficulties obtaining fish by species
normally consumed 29Table 20: Consumers' first and second choice for alternative food
stuffs if fish is unavailable 29
Chapter 3: the survey of fish traders and processors
Table 21: Respondents' second activities to fish trading/processing 42Table 22: Whether or not respondents trade in a second species and if
they would like to change to trading an alternative one 43Table 23: Estimated weekly quantity ranges (kg) of fish dealt in by
respondents and number of trips to market per week 45Table 24: Flow respondents judge the quality of the fish that they buy
by fish format normally traded 46
iv
Table 25: Respondents' reasons for fish spoilage by whether or notthey take any additional steps to maintainlimprove thequality of their fish products 46
Table 26: How respondents rate the quality of the fish they deal in bywhether or not they are troubled by fish spoilage 46
Table 27: Factors respondents consider when setting their prices 47Table 28: Respondents' reasons for wanting to trade in ari
alternative fish species 47Table 29: Primary and secondary problems experienced by traders
and processors 47Table 30: Interview locations by respondent's status 51
Table 31: Respondents status by time spent trading main species 52Table 32: If respondents have ever changed the species in which
they trade by main species traded 52Table 33: If respondents want to change to trading an alternative species 53Table 34: Format in which fish is traded by country 55Table 35: Reasons for fish spoilage from respondents dealing in fresh,
smoked and sun-dried fish products 56Table 36: Quantity of fish respondent takes to market by distance
to market 58Table 37: Respondents' problems with the facilities available
to them by country 59Table 38: Factors affecting respondents' incomes during 'peak' periods 59Table 39: Factors affecting respondents' incomes during 'low' periods 60
Chapter 4: the survey of ¡ndustrial processors
Table 40: Relationships which factories have with their suppliers 73Table 41: The survey of industrial processors: summary table of findings 79Table 42: Factories' sources of advice on the import regulations
of their markets 80Table 43: Factories' problems implementing the import regulations
of their markets 80Table 44: \Vays in which factories have contributed to national
development 80Table 45: Factories' problems 80Table 46: Taxes paid by the region's fäctories 85
Chapter 5: the survey of fishers
Table 47: Respondents' age by country 103Table 48: Spouses' activities by country 104Table 49: Other activities in which respondents are involved. 105Table 50: Where respondents would invest their surpluses by status 108Table 51: Crew size by gear type 110Table 52: How respondents' prices are deiermined by country 112Table 53: Flow respondents' prices are determined by species 112Table 54: Types of sales arrangements that fishers have with
their buyers by species 113
V
VI
Table 5$: Types of sales arrangements which fishers have withtheir buyers by country 113
Table 56: Reasons for price increases by country 113Table 57: Reasons for price decreases by country 114Table 58: Respondents' main marketing problems 114
List of Figures
Chapter 2: the survey of consumersPage number
Fig. I Breakdown of consumer sample by national ethnic group 12Fig.2 Family size by country 13
Fig.3 Number of times per week consumers purchase fish 13
Fig.4 Do consumers' fish consumption patterns vary over the year? 14Fig.5 Consumers' favourite fish species 15
Fig.6 Species of fish consumers normally buy by favourite species 16
Fig.7 Format in which consumers normally purchase their fish 16Fig.8 Consumers' favourite fish species (by country) 22Fig.9 Species of fish normally consunied (by country) 22Fig.10 Format in which fish is normally purchased (by country) 24Fig.1 1 Percentage of consumers purchasing different ranges (g) of
Nile perch per consumer per family member per week 25Fig. 12 Percentage of consumers purchasing different ranges (g) of
Tilapia per consumer per family member per week 25Fig. 13 Consumers who normally buy Nile perch spending different
ranges of US$ per family member per week 27Fig.14 Consumers who normally buy Nile perch spending different
ranges of US$ per family member per week 28Fig. 15 The distribution channel for Lake Victoria fish products to regional
consumers 30Fig.16 Map of study sites for the survey of consumers 37
Chapter 3: the survey of fish traders and processors
F'ig.17 Percentage of respondents who trade andlor processdifferent species of fish 42
Fig. 18 Respondents' suppliers 43Fig. 19 Reasons for irregular supplies given by respondents (%) dealing
in various species 44Fig.20 Respondents (%) dealing in various fish formats by species traded 44Fig.2 i Respondents (%) travelling various distance ranges between
fish source and markets 45Fig.22 Respondents' gender by country 50Fig.23 Proportion of males and females trading in fresh, smoked and
sun-dried fish (weighted in favour of males by 1.19) 50Fig.24 Respondents' gender by time spent trading (weighted in
favour of males by 1.19) 50
Fig.25 Main species traded by countryFig.26 Species traded by respondents' genderFig.27 Regional fish formats traded by respondents by countryFig.28 Proportion of respondents who experience fish spoilage by countryFig.29 Ranges of respondents' trips to market by main fish format tradedFig.30 Respondents' fish suppliers by fish format normally tradedFig.3 i 'Whether or not respondents have regular suppliesFig.32 Map of study sites for the survey of traders and processors
Chapter 4: the survey of industrial processors
Fig.33 Year factories were establishedFig.34 Factories' suppliers by countryFig.35 Whether or not factories have supply problemsFig.36 Factories' reasons for supply problemsFig.37 Regional daily factory capacity (m.t.) by countryFig.38 Ranges of factories' rejection rates by countryFig.39 Factories' export marketsFig.40 Regional factory productsFig.41 The industrial distribution channel for Nile perchFig.42: Map of study sites for the survey of industrial processors
Chapter 5: the survey of fishers
Fig.43 Respondents' level of education by status 101Fig.44 Respondents' marital status 101Fig.45 Ranges of children by respondents' status 102Fig.46 Age ranges of respondents by status in the fishery 103Fig.47 Regional methods of labour remuneration for crews 104Fig.48 Ranges of estimated earnings in 'good' months 105Fig.49 Ranges of estimated earnings in 'bad' months 106Fig.50 Ranges of estimated earnings in 'good' months by status 107Fig.51 Ranges of estimated earnings in 'bad' months by status 107Fig.52 Fishing gear used to target Nile perch, tilapia and dagaa 109Fig.53 Main gear types by country 109Fig.54 Main target species by country 110Fig.55 Buyers to whom fishers of Nile perch, tilapia and dagaa sell 112Fig.56 Map of study sites for the survey of fishers 119
VII
5353545657575867
737474
75767677788690
Abbreviations
FIRI Fisheries Research Institute (Uganda)KMFRI Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research InstituteLVFRP Lake Victoria Fisheries Research ProjectTAFIRI Tanzania Fisheries Research institute
The following currency conversion rates have been used in the text:
Uss i = Tanzanian shillings 625/-Kenyan shillings 60/-Ugandan shillings 1,200/-
The marketing survey of the Lake Victoria Fisheries Research Project is acomponent of the project, 'Social and economic impacts of management strategieson groups dependent on the aquatic resource: Marketing, processing and retailingsystems' eziunciated in the UNECIA project proposal document for DUVUI/G3(UNECIA, 1996). During a meeting held in Mwanza from June 23rd to 26th, 1997,the project document was further articulated to create a working document inwhich the Marketing Survey comprises its first, integral component. Specificdetails of this latter document and the objectives of the Marketing Survey areprovided in Chapter 1 of this report.
VIII
Executive summary
Introduction
This report attempts to fill the void of comprehensive fish marketing data for the entireregion of Lake Victoria. The marketing survey is the first research programme within theEU Lake Victoria Fisheries Research Project, carried out by a regional team of socio-economists. The results of this phase comprise a base-line data set which will facilitatefurther research, analysis and management decision-making in relation to stakeholders ofthe lake's resources.
Fish marketing plays a vital role in the lives of much of the lake basiif s population, both interms of employment and nutrition. The research has concentrated on consumers,trader/processors serving local markets, industrial processors serving mainly internationalmarkets, and fishers.
Each of the two broad distribution channels from the lake to either local or internationalmarkets, posses quite different characteristics. External trade is concentrated in terms ofspecies, product formats and markets, consequently suffering significantly if trade to acertain market is disrupted. By comparison the local market is comparatively diverse innature, and rich in terms of species variety, product formats and retail locations.
Respondents for all of the surveys were se1cted within a boundary of 35km of the lakeshore'. Resulting from the analysis of primary data collected the report presents theregional stakeholder' s perspective of fish marketing around Lake Victoria.
Results
1. The survey of consumers
The survey sought to ideiitif' consumption habits, purchasing patterns and consumer preferences inrelation to fish products. An understanding of the pricing systems, preferred substitutes for fishand purchase problems was also achieved,
The region's most popular fish is tilapia preferred by 70% of consumers. The region's leastfavoured fish species is the small pelagic dagaa' Rastrineobola argentea). The lowestconsumption rate in the region for this fish species is in Uganda.
68% of the region's consumers prefer to eat fresh fish rather than processed forms of fish.Kenyan consumers eat more processed fish than their regional neighbours.
Regionally, 61% of consumers eat fish between three and seven times a week. Tanzanianconsumers purchase fish more ftcquently than Kenyans and Ugundns.
Fish consumers within a 35 km radius from the lake shore eat an average of 45 kg of fishper year, although with wide differences between survey locations. Tanzanian consumerswithin this area eat the most fish in the region almost 65 kg of fish per capita per annum,
The exceptions are two industrial processing plants, located in Nairobi.
compared to 38 kg in Uganda and 42 kg in Kenya.
Despite eating the least fish per capita, Ugandan consumers spend more on fish than theirregional neighbours. On average, Ugandans spent US$ 0.69 per family member per weekon fish. Kenyans spend least ou fish: USS 0.53 per family member per week.
Most consumers in the Lake Victoria region do encounter difficulties in obtaining fishsupplies. For the largest proportion of these (45%) the main obstacle encountered is thehigh price of fish. 24% of consumers mention low catches as the primary obstacle.
The survey of fish traders and processors
The survey of traders and processors aimed to gain an understanding of the nature oftrading in terms of the individuals, products, quantities and activities involved. The surveyalso sought to define any seasonal or other problems experienced by fish traders andprocessors.
Regionally, most traders and processors are female: 56% of those involved in the trade arewomen. There are, however, vide national differences. In Kenya, just 16% oftrader/processors are men, compared to Tanzania where just 22% are women. 56% of theregion's traders and processors have been involved in the business for less than five years.
Half of fish traders and processors obtain their supplies directly from fishers, followed by athird who purchase from wholesalers at markets. Three quarters offresh fish traders obtaintheir supplies directly from fishers.
Trade in species other than Nile perch, tilapia and dagaa is negligible. Traders andprocessors tend to be highly specialised: only 17% of traders and processors deal in morethan a single species of fish.
Over half (63%) of those traders and processors dealing in Nile perch deal in processedproduct. 95% of dagaa traders deal in a sun-dried product, while 53% of tilapia traders alsodeal in a processed product.
Over half of fish traders and processors identify fish spoilage as a problem. Rain is themain hazard for traders of smoked or sun-dried fish. For those dealing in fresh fish, 'poorstorage facilities' (such as refrigeration) are identified as the major problem.
Two-thirds of the region' s fish traders and processors encounter irregular fish supplies. Outof this latter set, half are Nile perch traders.
Throughout the year, traders and processors' incomes fluctuate for diverse reasons. Thelargest proportion of responses gained concerning income increases indicate that fish salesimprove just before farm harvests when granaries were empty and consumers have noalternative food supply other than fish. The highest proportion of reasons obtained fordeclines in LHCOIflB relate to low fish catch periods when traders and processors wereunable to obtain sufficient supplies to trade.
The survey of industrial processors
2
The survey of industrial processors aimed to exam the the fish export marketing channel, tolook at factories' supply sources, volumes and capacity, roduct formats and destinationmarkets.
Of the factories currently operating, the mijority commenced operations after 1990, anindication of the region's relatively recent entry into the global fish market.
For most factories, fish supplies arc obtained from agents vith whom they havc long-standing relationships. In Tanzaiiia, more factories obtain their fish irectly from fishers.
Most of the region's factories suffer from fish supply problems. Just four claimed not toencounter such problems. The main reasons given fo! these ae low citches andcompetition with other fish factories.
The region's highest beach-side prices for Nile perch arc in Uganda, where a kilo of perchfetched over US$ 1.21 in 1998V The region's lowest fish prices ure in Tanzania where mostthctories report a maximum beachside price of less than US$ 0.87 a kilo.
Average regional pktnt processing capacity is 823 tonnes of whole fish a day, a dailyaverage of 33 tonnes of fish per factory. Combined capacity is highest in Tanzania, wherethe cight factorics have a capacity of 402 tonnes of whole fish daily. Full capacity,however, is -ry rarcly achieved. Tanzanian factories operate at.9% of capacity, thehighest in the region.
Predominant l)oduct types from the region are chilled fish fillets and frozen fillets. Theregion's main markets are the 13tiropan Union, th Far East and the Middle East. AllTanzanian factories seit to the EU, as (lo most Ugandztn factories. The main Kenyan marketis the FatS 1ast.
Fifteen out of thc twenty-five factories surveyed within the region have been obliged toclose down at least once between 1997 and 1998 to carry out niodfications so as to complywilli EU import regulations.
Byproducts from the factories arc numerous kind include skins, off-cuts ('chips'), swimbladders and carcasses ('frames'). Swim bladders are th most valuable of these productsmid arc exported to the Far Enst.
The ìveragc regional price for Nlc perch wis USS 3A i 1998. The rgon mostexpensivc fillet is from Uganda (nii avcragc of USS 3.35 in 1998). Thc value of theTanzanian exports arc the highest in 1h region at USS 103 million, while Kenya's are thelowest at US$ 35 million. Uganda's fish cxports value USS 82 million.
The survey of fishers
The fisher's survey sought to examine the relationships affecting supply flows of rawmaterial into the market, and to examine the characteristics of fishing activities and theireffects on fish quality and distribution. Due to severe logistical problems, only a sampleselected from the whole of the fisher's survey is utilised in this report. The completedfisher's survey will be released later in 1999.
All of the regions fishers are male, although some boat owners are female. Regionally,fishers spouses are not normally engaged in fisheries-related activities.
Gill-nets are the most commonly employed gears in the fishery, utilised by 64% of fishers,followed by 24% who use purse seines (for the capture of dagaa).
Two-thirds of the region's fishers target Nile perch, followed by dagaa and tilapia. Just20% of the region's fishers target an additional fish species.
Fishers sell their catch to a variety of outlets: 33% to factory agents, 27% to residentbeach-side traders and processors and 25% to bicycle traders. Of those selling to factoryagents, 78% sell Nile perch and 14% sell dagaa (to fishmeal factory agents).
Regionally, fishers do not typically have agreements to sell their catch to single buyersexclusively (just 23% do). Such agreements were most common in Tanzania, where fishershad arrangements with processing factories in return for loans and/or credit.
Conclusions
There is very little, earlier, comparative data on the subject of this report. As such, thisreport breaks new ground in providing an authentic insight into stakeholders' interactionswith the lake's resources.
In the past, most of the discussion on the lake has focussed on the Nile perch. It is perhapsrefreshing to reveal, therefore, that the region's consumers prefer the Nile tilapia (also aintroduced species) over the Nile perch.
With most of the lake-side's consumers eating fish every other day, fish comprises a vitalcomponent of the regional diet which appears only to be constrained by consumers' limitedpurchasing power.
Most of the region's fish traders and processors are male, This is more true for Uganda andTanzania than it is for Kenya. The large numbers of traders and processors who have beeninvolved in the industry for less than five years suggests that it remains dynamic andcontinues to attract new-corners.
Fish traders and processors typically specialise in one species only. Their knowledge ofquality preservation, however, is minirnal, resulting in frequent instances of fish spoilage.
4
Incomes and activity levels within fish trading and processing are closely linked to eventswithin the agricultural sector. The latter contributes to the definition of prices and regionalrates and patterns of consumption.
The international export market for Nile perch is truly global and no longer defined by thetraditional EU and Middle Eastern markets. Regionally, most fish is obtained by thefactories via agents, except for in Tanzania where an altogether different purchasingregime i s in place in which direct transactions between factories and fishers prevail.
While the fishery provides employment for many of the region's males, it is somewhatdifferent from many other fishing cultures in that males' spouses are rarely engaged infisheriesrelated activities, Agriculture occupies most fisher's families and hence raisesquestions as to whether or not lakeshore communities can in fact be viewed as fishingcommunities'.
The very large biological and ecological changes that have affected Lake Victoria arereflected in the typically low diversity of targeted species. This is not only due to lowspecies diversity within the lake, however, but also due to high regional and internationaldemand for the lake's dominant species.
Scarcity is an issue that penneates this report, and affects all components along thedistribution chain. Whether these are merely seasonal or not is not clear from the data.Almost certainly, however, they arise as a result of a combined process of fishing pressureand increasing demand.
s
6. Recommendations
The quality and reliability of much of the data presented in this report is limited by thelack of current and complete population lists for the groups surveyed (except industrialprocessors). In order to draw a tmly representative sample and have confidence thatresulting data indeed represent the whole population under study, then statisticalinformatìon on the industry must be collected, maintained and regularly updated. Asprimary data collection is vital to research and development, the research institutes,FIRI, TAFIRI and KMFRI must work with Fisheries Departments to develop databases for all related populations which are designed in such a way as to be regionallycompatible and capable of facilitating lake-wide analysis. The data set shouldeventually be expanded to include pricing data. Certain key findings from thesesurveys undertaken must be extracted and recorded to comprise this regional data set.The same questions should be asked every five years. In this way time series data maybe developed and marketing trends detected. The research institutes should take acoordinated responsibility for this activity.
u The study of the biology of the lake does not provide complete infonnation on thefishery. Similarly, studies on fish distribution do not provide a complete picture ofstakeholders' consumption and employment activities. This report has shown thestrong link between the local fishery and agricultural activities, both in terms ofseasonal employment trends, as well as seasonal nutritional variations. This importantrelationship requires further study. There are temporal characteristics of farming whichimpinge on fish related activities, and hence have direct relevance to management.Such a research topic could be the subject of an MSc thesis.
Building upon the consumption patterns identified in this survey, a more focusednutritional study should be undertaken on a lake-wide basis, for different types ofconsumer, to establish the roles played by different fish species in local diets. Thestudy should focus on the price of different food items, and substitution effects,together with behavioural aspects of food choice.
c The lack of understanding of fish quality preservation issues, and the near absence ofrelated equipment, is typical of many developing countries. Costs involved withassociated quality improvements may take the cost of fish out of the reach of manylocal consumers. Hence, quality preservation of fish destined for the export marketmust be analysed differently from quality preservation within local and regionalmarkets. These parallel quality streams should be flirther researched, as should theincidence of fish rejection by industrial processors. Fish handling procedures need tobe analysed with a view to encouraging quality improvements, and a financial analysisof improved handling must be undertaken to persuade fishers and industrial processorsof the requirement for change. This reseanh could be the subject of an MSc thesis.
u The surveys undertaken in this study do not cover all populations involved in the on-shore industry, which may be characterised by their high degree of specialisation.Systems analysis may be used to provide a fuller understanding of beach-basedemployment, and hence obtain a wider view of this fishery's dynamics. This researchcould be the subject of an MSc thesis.
6
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1. Preamble
1.1.1. Marketing exists in any society where exchange takes place. The process is thesame in developed and developing countries although there may be qualitative andquantitative differences, such as fewer products moving through the system.different kinds of products, and generaUy a smaller variety (Kinsey, 1988).Furthermore, marketing is useful in countering non-economic obstacles such aspeople's values, attitudes and ways of life which do not alter in the face ofeconomie opportunity but instead can prevent the pace of development beingmaintained. In the area of social marketing, the design, ìmplernentation and controlof socia' ideas offer a powerful tool (Kotler and Zaltman, 1971). Marketing cantherefore both devise the best method of economie development and reduceobstacles, given the resources and cultural conditions of the country. As well asthis developmental role, rnarketing also has a societal role to play in economicdevelopment. Since there is no broad agreement on what are the desirable aspectsinvolved in social and economie transformation, marketing can ensure that asocietys values are taken into account.
1.1.2. It has been said that Africa's agricultural revolution failed because strategy ignoredmarketing, but emphasised prestige, modernism and niechanisation and paid littleor no attention lo individual farmers who produce the bulk of its food (The Times,27 May 1986). Similarly much of the research into fisheries in Africa refers toproduction techfliques, or biological aspects of fish rather than consumption of fishand the market. The present study aims to elicit information on the wholedistribution chain from consumer to fisher.
1.1.3. The provision of marketing duta from the Lake Victoria region allows somedefinition of the social system interacting with the Lake and its resources. The datawill enable the identification of opportunities for development which correspond tosocietal values. The versatility of the marketing approach permits the achievementof this despite the heterogeneity of natural resources, population, culture, politicsand level of development, both between and within the three riparian countries.
1 .1 .4. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a fishery without fishers (McGoodwin,1990). Tiiditionally, Lake Victoria's management institutions have consideredbiological nnd stock assessment data as central to the management of the lake andits fisheries. 1-lowever, the engine that drives production from this fishery is itsmarket. The presence of a large market for its fish also encourages entry into thefishery, plays a role in determining what gear is used, influences the migrationpatterns of fishers ande ultimately, contributes to the definition of the socialrelations of production that characterise its communities.
7
1.1.5. There are wide gaps in the literature on the marketing of fish from Lake Victoria.Liftie of the research that has been carried out on this lake has treated the trade asregional in scope. The trade in fish from Lake Victoria, however, appears to bethree-tiered. At the most localised level, intense fish trade occurs along the lakeshores and markets within its hinterland, the area this study focuses on. At thesecond tier, there are also high levels of intra-regional trade not only between theriparian states of the lake, but between Uganda and Tanzania and their westernneighbours. Between 1986 and 1989, for example, exports of fish from theTanzanian sector of the lake to the (then) Zaire, Burundi ard Rwanda rose from anestimated 5.2 tonnes to 870 tonnes (Maembe 1990), Reynolds et al. (1995)estimated that the sum of Uganda's fish trade with Kenya and the Congo came to5,000-10,000 tonnes a year from 1989-1991.
1.1.6. Finally, the trade in Nile perch has also exploded internationally with increaseddemands for high quality white fish as other fish populations around the worldfalter (Harris et al. 1995). Gibbon (1997) estimates perch exports from Tanzania in1996 to come to some 15,000 tonnes of fillet, while Abila and Jansen (1997)estimate that a similar amount was exported from Kenya to destinations abroad in1995. The international trade in Nile perch, however, differs markedly from thetrade of fish domestically. Whereas the former exhibits high levels of verticalintegration by attempting to control every stage of the fish chain between captureand foreign wholesalers, and also shows low product diversity, confining itselfmainly to either chilled or frozen fillets, the domestic trade in fish exhibits almostthe exact opposite. The diversity of both fish species and fish processing forms onlocal markets is comparatively high.
1.1.7. These three marketing tiers represent a landscape upon which the marketing of fishfrom Lake Victoria, and all of its associated transactions, takes place. Identifyingthe characteristics of this landscape can assist fisheries managers to determine theindices that drive fish production from the lake, and provide possible avenues alongwhich fish production might be controlled through the use of economic constraints.As such, this marketing landscape represents the background upon which allsubsequent socio-economie surveys under the LVFRP will be considered, andwhere management suggestions, policies and implementation will occur.
1.2. Methodology
1.2.1. In the report that follows, the market for fish from Lake Victoria is traced from theconsumer to the producer, and seeks to include as many components of this streamas possible. The need for a marketing study on the fisheries of Lake Victoria hadalready been identified in the national research priorities of the three riparian statessharing the lake, and which were articulated during the first LVFRP workshop heldin Mwanza, Tanzania, between June 23rd to 26th, 1997. The requirement for thestudy was additionally amplified by the wide-spread acknowledgement thatmanagement needs to be involved in the marketing of the lake's resources, as wellas to be informed as to the type of intervention that should take.
8
1.2.2. At the Mwanza meeting the objective of the marketing sub-project was defined tobe:
the description, analysis and evaluation of marketing channels for fish and fishproducts in each of the riparian countries.
1.2.3. The principal target groups for the study were identified during the Mwanzameeting and at subsequent Socio-economie Data Working Group (SEDAWOG)workshops held in Kisumu (October 8th to 9th, 1997) and in Jinja (February 27thand March 13th, 1998), The target populatìons were defined a:
FishersTraders and processorsIndustrial processing factoriesConsumers.
1.2.4. Specific research objectives for each of these target groups were then assembled,and are provided in the relevant chapters.
1.3, Sampling
1.3.1. It soon became apparent to the research teams that population lists have not beencompiled or were very out of date. In terms of sampling over a wide geographicalarea, market sites and landing sites were similarly not listed reliably, some of thesebeing pennanent and some not. As a result, the sample drawn could not be trulyrandom.
1.3.2. Given that sorne field work for the fishers' survey had been completed, the teamsknew what rate of interviews that could be achieved per day. The number of fielddays available was used together with this figure to develop a quota samplingstrategy.
1.3.3. Efforts were made to ensure that sampling covered the entire ripariau regionwithout concentrating in certain arcas. To this end the lake shore was divided into 9zones (which extend up to 60km inland) between which efforts were divided.
1.3.4. Consumer and Trader/Processor interviews were to be carried out concurrently atthe landing site, and at small and large inland markets. Some information wasobtained from District Offices to allow categorization and selection of these sites.
1.3.5. The number of industrial processing factories within the region is low, and the teamaimed to conduct interviews at all of these. For various reasons however, not allfactories within the region could be visited. 23 factories were visited within thesurvey area, and two more in Nairobi.
1.3.6. Maps show the survey sites in detail (Fig.s 16, 32, 42, 56) The table below detailsthe number of interviews per survey per country.2
Z The Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI) was only able to field two members of staff toundertake this work, compared to at least four from FIRT and KMFRI. It was agreed that they could onlyfeasibly attempt to cover 50% of the field work interviewing whioh would be undertaken in Kenya and
9
1.4. Questionnaire Design
1.4.1. The fishers questionnaire and data collection phase was partially complete by thetime of the Jinja workshop in March, 1988. During this workshop the threeremaining questionnaires were designed and sampling strategies developed.Questionnaire testing took place after the workshop.
1.4.2. Coding and coding sheets for questionnaires were developed along side thequestionnaires in readiness for data input into SPSS.
1.5. Data Collection
1.5.1. 'i'he data collection phase was successfùl in obtaining a large number of completedinterviews. Researchers were cut off from some areas by rains and impassableroads, cholera outbreaks and lack of vessels. Nonetheless, a comprehensivecoverage of the riparian area was achieved.
1.5.2. Most of the data had been cleaned and input by January 1999. Different researchinstitutes took responsibility for the input of different complete surveys.
1.6. Data Analysis
1.6.1. The Kisumu workshop in February 1999, resulted in primary analysis of data andpresentation of results.
1.6.2. The results provide a broad description of the typical members of the populationschosen to survey, their activities as part of the distribution channel, as well as theiropinions on certain key themes. The broad nature of the research enables, for thefirst time, some certainty in discussing marketing issues. It provides a base fromwhich more detailed and specialised research cari develop.
1.6.3. The use of frequencies allows the identification of common features and sub-groupings within the sample of each population. These were used to compile aprofile of a typical member of each population under study.
Uganda. This was an unsatisfactory solution, particularly given the large proportion of the lake shore withinTanzanian boundaries. This also has the effect of under-representing Tanzania in the summary sections ofthis report.
The chapter on the survey of fishers is based on a sample from a much larger survey carried out ¡n 1997.Due to very grave cleaning difficulties with the whole data set, a sample was randomly drawn and usedherein. The results from the entire fishers survey will be released later in 1999.
10
Survey Uganda TotalsFishers3 157 157 159 473Traders/processors 390 259 168 817Consumers 300 308 158 766Industrial processors 9 8 8 25Totnls 856 732 493 2081
1.6.4. Cross tabulations and Chi squared tests allow for the association between largelynominal variables to be measured. The large samples obtained enabled validresults to be gained with Chi squared. Occasionally categories gaining fewresponses were merged. This approach allowed for the testing of keyconceptions/misconceptions about the industry.
1.6.5. Charts were developed for presentation purposes to give a rapid visualunderstanding of much of the data collected.
1.6.6. The interviewer's knowledge and experience of the (lata collection phase andits faults is summarised by a section in each chapter which details possibleareas for bias and questions which were ineffective. These statements qualifythe data and should be borne in mind by anyone using the results herein.
1 .6.7. The desire to take up the quantitative results collected and presented here and feedthem in to qumtitative models in order to produQe solutions, must be resisted. Thissurvey method is limited, not least by local respondents' unfamiliarity with therequirements of the process, but also through the procedures of questionnairedesign in which results are predicted early on in the survey design. The reader isadvised to consult a series of papers developed by the research team after thecompletion of the marketing survey and which give a range of alternative andcomplimentary perspectives on the themes within this herein.
1 .7. Report structure
1 .7.1. Chapter 2 comprises the consumer's survey, Chapter 3 the survey of traders andprocessors, Chapter 4 the survey of industrial processors and fina!1', Chapter 5, thesurvey of fishers, Each section is integral, and comprises a profile of a typicalconsumer/trader-processor/industrial processor/fisher (the main findings of thesurvey), a list of survey sites, a map showing these locations, a note on potentialbiases within the individual survey, a list of hypotheses or study topics for allsurveys except the survey of industrial processors, detailed analyses, and, finally,the pertinent questionnaire. The latter enables the reader to see the scope anddiversity of variables that were considered during this study.
11
Chapter 2. The survey of consumers
2.1. Summar of findin_s: irofile Qf a consumer of fish from Lake Victoria
2.1 .1. A fish consumer in the Lake Victoria basin is a male or female between 18 and 40years old (Table 1) Ugandan consumers will normally be from the Buganda etlrnicgroup, Kenyan consumers from the Luo ethnic group and Tanzanian consumerseither from Haya or Sukuma ethnic groups (Fig. 1). S/he will have a family ofbetween 6 and 7 members all of whom eat fish (Fig. 2). Most consumers (6 1%) willbuy fish 3 or moie times a week (Fig, 3).
Table 1: Consumers' gender and age
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fig. 1: Breakdown of consumer sample by national ethnic groups
12
I'
45
tLuo Sukuma DHaya Kerewe iGanda Soga DNyarwanda i' Others
Gender Age Total18-40 years 41 plus
Male 250 111 361Female 306 99 405
766Total 556 210
Uganda Kenya Tanzania
Tanzania 44 69
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fiq.2: Family size by country
Fig.3: Number of fimes per week consumers purchase fish
13
51
Kenya 119 101
Uganda 109 67
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% respondents
Eh-4 members L15-7 members 8 pIus members
Uganda
I 1-2 times
Kenya
3-4 times
Tanzania
5-7 times
2.1.2. Consumers have typically stable rates of fish consumption throughout the year -61% of onsumers do not alter the amount of fish they consume during the year(Fig. 4). Of the 293 consumers who do eat more fish at certain times, the largestproportion (16%) do so during the rainy season when fish are plentiful andcheaper (Table 2). 97% of respondents rate the fish that they buy as either of'acceptable' or 'good' quality (Table 3).
Fig.4: Do consumers' fish consumption patterns vary over theyear?
100%90%
70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
0%
14
IYes N
Table 2: Consumers' reasons for eating more fish at sorne times than others
TaMe 3: How consumers rate the fish that they buy
Reason Frequency %End of month 14 1.8
Dark season 19 2.5Weekends/holidays 19 2.5Rainy season 34 4.4Others 207 27.0No time when more fish caten 473 61.8Total 766 100
Rating Frequency %Gôod 581 76.5Acceptable 155 20.5Poor 23 3.0Total 759 100
Kenya
Country
TanzaniaUganda
2.1.3. The regions consumers overwhelmingly prefer tilapia with Nile perch a distantsecond favourite. Out of 706 consumers interviewed, 70% claim tilapia as theirfavourite fish, 26% c'aim Nile perch as their favourite, and just 4% claim dagaaas their preferred purchase (Fig. 5).
Fiq.5: consumers' favourite fish spec(es
ç
Tflapia70%
2.1.4. Consumers may not always be able to buy their favourite fish species. Hence, of494 consumers for whom tilapia is the favourite fish species, 39% do notnormally eat it, and 30% of those who prefer tilapia will normally buy Nileperch (Fig. 6); Of the 1.1 consumers who favoured Nile perch, 91% wereusually able to buy it. Dagaa is preferred by a minority. Fresh tilapia and Nileperch are preferred to smoked (Fig.7).
2.1.5. Typically, tilapia and Nile perch are bought by size and dagaa is purchased instandard volume measures (tins). 94% of consumers interviewed purchase fish ata price agreed upon through negotiation. Consumers are generally satisfied withthis method of price determination (Tables 45).
Dagaa40
Nile perch26%
l5
100%
90%
80%
70% -CL) pjo/
- o
? 30%
20%
10%
0%
Dagaa
Titapia
Nile perch
0%
302
16
JFresh OSmoked OSun-dried DFried
100%
Nile perch Titapia Dagaa
Species normally bought
Nile perch OTitapia ODagaa
Fiq.7; Format in which consumers normally purchase their fish
20% 40% 60% 80%
% respondents
Fig. 6: Species of fish consumers normativ buy by favourite
3species
Table 4: Species normally consumed by unit in which it is normally purchased
Table 5: Manner in which fish .rices are normali determined
2.1.5. Consumers will spend US$ 0.60 on fish per week per family member, sorne US$33.0 a year. Within 35 km. from the lake shore, consumer's families will eat 45kilos of fish per person per year, although there are wide differences dependingon where consumers were interviewed (see Fig.s 11-12 and Tables 15 and 16below).
17
iercu iLfla igaut iuuiuKilos 91 11 3 105
Tins - 5 53 58
Heaps/bundles 32 66 1 99Per head/size 212 267 1 480To 335 349 58 742
Method normally used Preferred methodPrce kterinmed by F euency % Frequency %Negotiation 712 93.7 703 92.6Auctioning 3 0.4 2 0.3Fixed pricing 23 3.0 33 4.3Weighing 5 0.7 8 1.1
Others 17 2.2 13 1.7Toi 760 100 759 100
Unb Scies úO,tally consumed
2.2 Objectives of the survey of consumers
To identify the species and fish products preferred by consumers.
To identify the ways in which fish is transacted between traders and consumers.
To assess the degree of accessibility to fish and problems consumers are facedwith in the cvcnt of obtaining fish.
To investigate consumers' dislikes in relation to fish and fish products.
To cxaminc the nain characteristics of fish consumers.
18
2.3. Conceptions and misconceptions relating to fish consumers
The survey findings are shown in relation to general statements which have been ¡nadewitho ut foundation
Many people do not like fish
736 respondents provided details on 4,854family members, of which just 2% did noteat fish.
Most consumers express a preference for Nileperch over any other species
Of 706 consumers expressing a preference,70% favoured tilapia, followed by 26%who preferred Nile perch (Fig. 5).
Consumers experience problems with fishavailability.
Of a total of 766 respondents, only 22%indicated that scarcity was the mainproblem in respect to obtaining fish forconsumption (Table 18).
Consumers buying inland have the greatestproblems with sh availability.
Of 169 respondents indicating scarcity asthe main problem in respect to obtainingfish 47% were interviewed at beaches and53% at inland markets (Table 6).
There are particular availability problemswith iVile perch because so much of it goes toprocessing fr ctories.
Of 164 respondents indicating scarcity asthe main problem in respect to obtainingfish for consumption 49% normally boughtNile perch (Table 19).
Most consumers would prefer to buy pricedfish (Y. e. not arrive at a price through aprocess of ncgoti'ation,).
Of 759 respondcnts, 93% said theypreferred to determine fish prices throughnegotiation (Table ).
19
Most consumers caimot afjòrd to eat fishmore than one or two times per week.
Of 755 respondents, 61% purchase fish:more than twice a week (Fig. 3).
People cannot afford to achieve acceptablenutrition levels through fish consumption.
Combined, the sample comprised 4,753
fish-eating family members. Of 693consumers buying for these familymembers, 31% bought less than 430g perweek per family member, while the:remainder all purchased more than 431g:per week per family member (Table 7).
People living near ¡he beach purchase more:fish than those inland.
Of 237 respondents buying their fish frombeach-side markets, 83% buy 431g andover per family member per week. Out of,456 respondents purchasing fish from¡itiand markets, 61% bought 431g and overper family member (Table 8).
Most people inland prefer processedfish
Of 504 consumers interviewed at inlandmarkets, 63% preferred fresh fish whilst37% preferred processed fish. Out of atotal of 240 respondents normally buyingprocessed fish, however, 78% were:interviewed at inland markets (Table 9).
Consumers feel that the quality offish whichis available to them is poor.
1 759 consumers, 77% were of the opinionthat the quality of the fish that they bought'was good, 20% said it was acceptable and3% said that it was poor (Table 3).
Table 6: Interview locations for respondents who blamed poor catches as the reason fordifficulties obtaining fish
Table 7: Grams of fish eaten per member of consumers' families by family size
Table 8: Grams of fish eaten ser member of consumers' families b interview location
20
Table 9: Fish format normally purchased by interview location
Fish format
Beach market 80 47Small inland market 55 33
Large inland market 34 20To 1 69 100
iram rangeFamily size range <430 431-910 > 911 Total1-4 42 86 85 2135-7 101 76 83 2608+ 75 74 71 220oa 218 236 239 693
Lntervew Jocaflon <'LW 4iJ.-91U > ?i1 lotalBeach market 41 76 120 255Small inland market 76 89 72 257Large inland market 101 71 47 2477J 218 236 239 759
LIflleIvIew tocanon resn moea un-aneø FrLeU i ouiBeach market 202 17 12 24 255Small inland market 166 53 23 15 257Large inland market 151 35 29 32 247
519 105 64 71 759
Gram range j
2.4. Detailed analysis
2.4.1. Young' respondents are those under 41 while 'older' respondents are over thisage. 50% of(308) consumers interviewed in Kenya were young females, while16% were young males. Conversely, most of the young males interviewed forthis study (250) were encountered in Uganda (5 5%). Most (62% of 99) of theolder females were also encountered in Kenya (Table 10).
Table 10: Age and gender combination by country
2.4.2. These gender/age distributions are also significant against other variables. Of293 respondents who bought fish once to twice a week, 47% were youngfemales, while 39% of young males bought fish three to four times a week(Table 11).
Table 11: Age and gender combination by number of fish purchases per week
2.4.3. Regionally, all consumers prefer tilapia over all other species of fish (70% out of712 respondents: Fig. 5). The bulk of this figure, however, is made up ofUgandan and Kenyan consumers: for 78% (n=297) of Kenyan consumers and80% of Ugandan consumers (n206), tilapia was the favourite fish species. 54%of Tanzanian consumers favoured Nile perch, followed by 39% who favouredtilapia (n=157; Fig. 8). The favourite fish species is not necessarily thatconsumed, however. 35% of consumers do not normally eat their favourite fishspecies (n=724; Table 12). In Tanzania, most consumers were able to eat theirfavourite fish species - just 15% of consumers did not normally eat theirfavourite fish species (Table 12). 45% of Kenyan consumers, do not normallyeat their favourite fish species (Table 12), while in Uganda, 67% of consumerswill normally eat their favourite fish species (Table 12).
21
Age anti gender Uganda Kenya Tanzania TotalYoung male 138 50 62 250Young female 101 154 51 306Older female 23 62 14 99Older male 38 42 31 111
Total 300 308 158 766
No. times fish purchased per weekAge and gender 1-2 3-4 5-7 TotalYoung male 74 108 64 246Young female 138 98 64 300Older female 45 32 21 98Older male -D 39 36 111
Total 293 277 185 755
100%
90% -
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% -
20% -
10%
0% I
Fig.8: Consumers' favourite fish species
Fig.9: Species of fish normally consumed
Nile perch
22
Dagaa Tua pia
Uganda Kenya Tanzania
Uganda Kenya Tanzania
Nile perch Dagaa Tilapia
2.4.4. Amongst those 183 consumers who favoured Nile perch, 9% did not normallyeat it, suggesting that this fish is generally more easily obtainable than tilapia.Out of the 491 consumers who favoured this species, 39% did not normallypurchase it (Table 12). Regionally, of those who give their preferences as eithertilapia or Nile perch, almost 76% of 273 young females favour tilapia (Table
Table 12: Species normally bought by favourite species in Uganda, Kenya andTanzania
Table 13: Age and gender combination by consumers with a preference for Nileperch or tilapia
2.4.5. Regionally, most fish consumed was fresh, with 68% of consumers purchasingthis format (n759), 7% of tilapia is purchased fresh (n=348), as is 67% of Nileperch (n336). 75% of dagaa bought is sun-dried (n=59; Fig. 7). 83% ofconsumers in Uganda normally buy fresh fish, followed by 16% who normallybuy smoked fish (n294). 55% of Kenyan consumers normally buy fresh fish,followed by 19% who buy fried fish (n=307). Tanzanian consumers also favourfresh fish (67% of 158), followed by 20% who normally buy it smoked (Fig.10).
23
Favourite species Species normally boughtNile perch Tilapia Dagaa Total
UgandaNile perch 44 7 - 51Tilapia 57 147 - 204Others 14 18 - 32Total 115 172 - 287KenyaNile perch 42 2 3 47Tilapia 74 U2 42 228Dagaa 5 7 6 18Total 121 121 51 293TanzaniaNile perch 80 5 - 85Tilapia 17 42 - 59Dagaa - -
Total 97 47 144
Age/gender combination Nile perch Tilapia TotalYoung male 71 149 220Young female 66 207 1 273Older female 14 74 88Older mak 33 66 99Total 184 496 680
Tanzania
Kenya
Uganda
Fig. 10: Format in which fish is normajjy purchased
24
2.4.6. When buying fish, 44% out of 243 young men and 52% of 287 young womenwill buy between 1 and 1.5 kg of fish per trip to market. 59% out of 107 oldmen, on the other hand, will purchase 1 .6 kg of fish per trip to market (Table14).
Table i 4:Ae and gender combination by amount of fish bought per weekjkgrange)
2.4.7, In Kenya most consumers who normally purchase Nile perch wíl.l buy over911g per family member per week (56%, n=41), while those buying tilapia willusually buy less than 910g per family member per week (72%, n205). InTanzania, 52% of those consumers who normally buy Nile perch will buy over911g per family member per week (n83), while 60% of those who normallybuy tilapia will purchase over 910g per family member (n50: Fig.s 11 & 12). IiiUganda, the largest proportion of those consumers who normally buy Nile perchwill buy less than 430g per family member per week (42%. n=19), while thoseshopping for tilapia will generally buy less than 910 grams (78%, n1 84).
27 51 59
Age/gender combination Amount of fish (kg) bought per week<0.99 1 - 1.5 > 1.6 Total
Youngmale 46 108 89 243Young female 59 148 0 287Older female 20 40 29 89Oldermale 10 34 63 107Total 135 330 261 726
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent
O Fresh D Smoked DSun..dried D Fried
Il lo
FLci.1 1: Percentaqe of consumers purchasing different ranges (q)of Nile perch per consumer per family member per week
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
25
Under430g 431-910g ftc911gp)us
90% 41 5880% IL
70% 35
60%- 737450%
40%
30% lo20%- 70 7310%- 13 I
0%
Uganda Kenya Tanzania
L" Under 430g 431-910g 911g plus
Fiq.12: Percentage of consumers purchasing different ranqes (cj)of tilapia per consumer per family member per week
2.4.8. Regionally, there were a total of 4,753 family members who ate fish, andon average, each ate 45 kg of fish a year1. Ugandans ate least fish.Consumers there had an average of 5.8 family members who ate fish,and each ate, on average, 38 kg of fish per year. Consumers in Tanzaniahad an average of 7.8 fish eating family members, who ate, on average,65 kg of fish a year (Table 15). In Kenya, consumers' householdscontained an average of 6.4 fish-eafing members, who consumed anaverage of 42 kg of fish a year.
Table 15: Mean number of fish-eating family members per consumer and meanamount of fish (kg) purchased per year per family member.
2.4.9. Within 35 km of the lake shores, the consumption figures described above arehigh. There are large differences in consumption rates between interviewlocations. Consumers interviewed purchasing fish at beach-side marketsconsumed an average of 66 kg. of fish per family member per year, while thosepurchasing at inland markets (irrespective of size) consumed an average of 36kg. per family member per year.3 These differences were particularly marked inUganda where consumers purchasing fish at markets inland from the lake shorepurchased an average of 28 kg of fish per member of family per year (comparedto 37 kg. in Kenya and 52 kg. in Tanzania: Table 16).
Table 16: Mean kilos of fish purchased per respondent per household memberper year by interview location.4
5/ trimmed mean2 5% trimmed mean
5% trimmed mean5% trimmed mean
26
Country Mean no. fish-eatingfamily members
Mean kg. per familymember per year2
Uganda 5.8 37.5Kenya 6.4 42.1Tanzania j 7.8 65.1
Regìonal means 6.6 45.2
Country Interview locationBeach mkt Small
inland inktLarge inland
mktInland mkts
combined1Uganda 63.0 31.1 25.4 28.2Kenya 61.9 40.9 38.4 36.8Tanzania 87.3 54.2 46.7 51.6Regional means 65 6 47 9 31 8 35 8
2.4.10. Regionally, consumers spent US$ 0.60 per family member per week. Onaverage, Ugandans spent more on fish per week than their regional neighbours -US$ 0.69 vide US$ 0.53 per week in Kenya, and US$ 0.57 per week in Tanzania(note high deviation: Table 17).
Table 17: Mean US Dollar expenditure on fish per family member per week
2.4.11. Ugandans spend more on fish per family member per week irrespective ofspecies normally purchased. Flence, 44% of those Ugandans who normally buyNile perch spend US$ 0.62 and over (compared to 36% of Kenyans and 32% ofTanzanians spending the saine amounts); while 42% of those Ugandans whonormally purchase tilapia will also spend USS 0.62 and over (compared to 27%of Kenyans who normally purchase tilapia and 28% of Tanzanians whonormally purchase tilapia: Figs. 13 and 14).
Fig. 13: % of consumers who normaUv buy Nile perchspendinq different ranges of US$ per family member per week
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
27
Country Average (USS) Standard de uttion NUganda 0.69 056 265Kenya 0.53 0.57 304Tanzania 0.57 0.60 153
Rçgional means 0 595 0 58 722
Uganda Kenya Tanzania
Less than US$ 0.30 0us$ 0.30- 0.61 D More than uss 062
Fig. 14: % of consumers who normally buy tilapia spendinq differentranges of US$ per family member per week
100%
90%-80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
64
51
38
28
34
48
42
Uganda Kenya Tanzania
Less than US$ 0.30 US$ 0.30 - 0.61 U More than US$ 0.62
2.4.12. Regionally, the largest proportion of consumers purchase fish once or twice aweek (39% of 755). 52% of Tanzanian consumers, however, purchase fishbetween five and seven times a week (n158), while the largest proportion ofKenyans (46% of 308) and of Ugandans (43% of 125) purchased fish betweenonce and twice a week (Fig. 3). Generally speaking, more fish was purchasedduring the rains (when it was more plentiful and therefore cheaper), when therewas no moon (when dagaa catches are at their best) and during weekends andholidays (Table 2).
2.4.13. Consumers sometimes encountered difficulties obtaining fish which relatedlargely to access limited by cost. The main reason provided was low income (i.e.having too low an income to buy fish as often as they wished) mentioned by45% of the regions respondents, followed by poor catches, mentioned by 25%of respondents, and the high price of fish, mentioned by 19% of respondents(n69O). Of the 128 respondents in the latter group, the least affected by highprices were Tanzanians (19%: Table 18).
Table 18: Consumers' difficulties obtaining fish by country
Problem Uganda Kenya Tanzania TotalLow income 137 105 71 313Distance to fish source 11 11 8 30Low catches 67 67 35 169High fish prices 60 49 19 128Others 18 9 23 50Total 293 241 156 690
2.4.14. Out of 124 respondents who complained of high fish prices, 58% normallybought tilapia, while 38% normally purchased Nile perch. Of 164 respondentswho complained about poor catches, 49% normally bought Nile perch, while43% normally bought tilapia (Table 19).
Table 19: Consumers' difficulties obtaining flsh by spçies normallypprchased
2.4.15. In the event of fish being unavailable, consumers will buy beans as a firstalternative (53% out of 759 responses) and vegetables as a second alternative(47% out of 624 responses: Table 20).
Table 20: Consumer's first and second choices for alternative food stuffs if fishis unavailable.
29
Nilc perch Tipia Dagaa TotLow income 144 145 19 308Distance to fish source 15 12 3 30Low catches 81 70 13 164High flsh prices 47 72 5 124Others 25 22 3 50
312 321 43 676
Mtertivejst a1tFre uccy
2d a1t ative%Frequency
Beans 400 52.7 9 1.4Vegetables 298 39.3 292 46.8Meat 48 6.3 176 28.2Chicken 3 0.4 25 4.0Others 10 1.3 122 19.6III 759 100 624 100
FIG. 15 THE DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL FOR LAKE VICTORIA FISHPRODUCTS TO REGIONAL CONSUMERS
WHOLESALERS
BEACH-SIDE?ROCESSO?S
CONSUMERS ATINLAND M ETS
TRADER!PROCESSORS
WHOLESALERS
FTSUER.S
30
BEACHSIDECONSUMERS
2.5 The survey of consumers: sampling strategies field difficulties,possible areas of bias and recommendations
2.51. The sample selection strategy.
Survey sites were identified from lists held at the offices of district officials,who assisted with the identification of suitable survey sites on the basis of (a)the area covered by the market itself (b) the size of the population served by themarket (e) the area the market served (d) number of vendors and stalls at themarkets (e) whether or not the market was open daily (f the infrastructuraldevelopment of the market - such as the presence of piped water, electricitypublic lavatories etc. (g) the estimated amount of fish handled by the market and(h) the importance of the market as a fish market within the region.
All districts on Lake Victoria were visited. Initially, it was anticipated thatKenya and Uganda would carry out some 300 interviews each and Tanzaniawould carry out 150. Final interview counts were 300 for Uganda, 308 forKenya and 158 for Tanzania.
Respondents who were over 18 and within a 60 km radius of' the lake shore wereselected for the survey. Some respondents may have come from beyond the 60Jun radius, but were interviewed at markets within the radius.
Sorne respondents did not consume fish, and were not able to adequately answerquestions relating to fish consumption, even if they did come from families whoconsumed fish.
The sample was not based on formal techniques of random sampling: Itcomprised a total of 766 individuals.
2.5.2 Sample selection strategy and the dynamics offleidwork.
Respondents at fish stalls were more cooperative than other respondents.
Not all respondents approached were interviewed as they did not have time to beinterviewed. Respondents therefore comprise individuals found willing tocooperate.
e. Due to time constraints and logistical problems, the survey of consumer in theBukoba Region of Tanzania was administered along with the survey offishermen and the survey of traders and processors. As a result, there were fewinland markets visited in Bukoba, and most of the surveying occurred on beachlandings.
31
2.5.3. Fieldwork
a. Some markets that had initially been targeted for survey visits had to be droppedbecause they were inaccessible - the roads leading to them had been ruined byheavy rains. Alternative survey sites were chosen from district market lists.
2.5.4. Respondents' typical reactions to the survey questionnaire.
a. Respondents sometimes tired from the interviews or got bored of the questionsbecause they did not receive any material benefits from being interviewed.Nevertheless, very few interviews were discarded, although they sometimes hadto be hurriedly carried out.
2.5.5. Possible field biases
Sometimes females did not want to mention their age, irrespective of whether ornot they were offered answers in year ranges or asked for their exact age. In theevent that potential respondents proved unable or unwilling to be interviewed,they were replaced by someone who was willing and able. Bias in favour of theunemployed or those interested in the survey's work was possibly introducedhere.
Similarly, where questions were phrased in such a way that respondentsmisunderstood them, or where respondents felt that questions were insensitivelyphrased, re-phrasing or having to explain the question may have introducedbiases. The latter problem was compounded by the high diversity of languageswithin the lake region which often resulted in questions having to be explainedto respondents.
2.5.6. Questionnaire testing
a. With hindsight, questionnaire testing was inadequate. As a result, somequestions were ineffective, although this was not apparent until after the surveyexercise had begun
2.5.7. Questions which were ineffective.
a. Q18. Are there times when you eat more fish? For those respondents who livedat haches and also fished, this question was ineffective because they ate fishdaily. It was, however, effective for consumers at inland markets.
019. Quality rating of fish products. Respondents sometimes felt it waspersonally degrading to admit to buying poor quality fish, This may explain thevery positive ratings achieved on quality.
32
Q21 (b) What is the main problem you experience in obtaining adequate fishsupplies? The question did not have a 'none' option, and resulted in potentiallymisleading 'default' categories being created or over-used (such as others'options, or 'not applicable' being inserted as a response
2.5.8. Words/phrases which caused dfficulties.
010 (a): What is your favourite fish species to serve on special occasions?Respondents had difficulty understanding the answers being sought because theyoften would not serve fish on special occasions, but chicken, goat or beef. Thequestion sometimes caused discomfort to those respondents who did not eat fish.
Q12 (a) What is your main source of income? Respondents had difficultiesunderstanding this question because options like farming or petty trade were notconsidered by respondents to be 'main income earners' unlike salariedemployment' which is an income source perceived as worth mentioning. Inaddition, some family members did not know what the sources of income ofother family members were.
015: How much fish (kg) do you buy per family meal? Many respondents haddifficulties with this question because they did not normally buy fish in kilos,but by sorne other measure. Estimates were therefore used by enumerators. A'goro goro' (a empty 2 kg cooking fat tin) of fish was estimated to weigh a kilo.Fish caught in a 5 inch mesh net was estimated to weigh a kilo, while dried fishfrom the same net was estimated to be half a kilo.
021 (b): Explain the main problem you encounter in obtaining adequate fishsupplies. This question was sometimes ineffective because some respondents didnot have supply problems and no option was provided for this. Sometimesrespondents gave answers that related to other problems of theirs, but which, insome way, iinpingd on their ability to buy fish. For example, several talked ofhaving to find funds for school fees (and so were unable to afford fish), whileothers complained that their spouses no longer contributed to household income(and so fish could not be bought).
2.5.9. Sensitive areas for questioning
Q 11 (a): Do you have a family? The question was sometimes consideredoffensive by the barren or unmarried and those who came from families whichhad suffered from deaths. It should have been phrased as follows: Do you siaywith other people? Yes/No. If yes, how many?
019: How doyou rate the quality of the fish you buy? Many respondents did notwant to rate the quality of their fish as 'poor' because they were worried that theinterviewer would judge thcm as lowly for purchasing 'poor' fish. It is difficult,however, to suggest a way around the problem of sensitivities associated withthis question.
33
34
Zone 1i Lwamagwa Large inland market2 Rakai central market Small inland market3 Masaka central market Small inland market4 Namirembe beach Beach marketZone 25 Kitoro market Small inland market6 Ki'jansi market Small inland market7 auriako market Large inland market8 Katosi fish landing Beach marketZone 39 Bugembe market Small inland marketIO Buwenge market Small inland marketli Bwondha beach Beach market12 Busia central market Large inland market
C. 011 (b'): No. family members/no, who eat fish/no, who don't eat fish. Somepolygamists may have inflated the numbers in their responses for reasons ofprowess. The latter figures should be treated with caution. Remedial action maybe to offer respondents with ranges instead of asking them for numbers.
012: What are your household members' main sources of income? Somerespondents were sensitive to this question because they were afraid of beingtaxed.
Questions on age (Q 9), income sources (Q12 a) and numbers of familymembers (Q i lb) were considered sensitive by respondents.
2.5.10. Recommendations for future survey design
Careful pilot testing of questionnaires should be an important phase of surveypreparation.
More time should be allocated to questionnaire testing in the futhre.
Consumer surveys should also target institutions such as schools, prisons etc.
'Consumption' should also be related to industries who use fish as raw materiale.g. fish meal factories.
Focus group discussions may be a useful testing ground for consumer-basedsurveys.
2.5.]]. interview sites for the survey of consumers
Site i.d, Survey site I DesignationUganda
35
KenyaZone 413 Busia Large inland market14 Sisenye beach Beachmarket15 Funyala Small inland market16 Osieko beach Beach market17 Bondo Large inland market18 Akala Small inland marketZone 519 Nyakwere Small inland market20 Sondu Large inland market21 Oyugis Large inland market22 Miti-mbili beach Beach market23 Balarawi beach Beach market24 Nyangweso Small inland marketZone 625 Rongo Large inland market26 Ndiwa Small inland market27 Son Beach market28 Matoso Beach market29 Namba Kodero Small inland market30 Migori Large inland marketTazanhZone 731 Juakali beach Beach market32 Shirati market Small inland market33 Nyang'ombe beach Beach market34 Busanga beach Beach market35 Tarime Large inland market36 Mgango beach Beach market37 Bwai beach Beach market38 Suguti beach Beachmarket39 Kiabakari market Small inland marketZone 840 Rugezi beach Beach market41 Nansio beach Beach market42 Nansio market Small inland market43 Ihale beach Beach market44 Mahaha market Large inland market45 Magu market Small inland market46 Kayenze beach Beach market47 Igombe beach Beach market48 Kirumba market Beach market
36
Zone 949 Mugaaza beach Large inland market50 Kifungu beach Beach market51 Kyamkwikwi beach and market Beach market52 Jeshi market Small inland market53 Kemondo market Large inland market54 Igabilo beach Beach market55 Malahe beach Beach market56 Luhanga beach Beach market57 Kemondo beach Beach market58 l3iharamolo (not on map) Large inland market
FIG. 16 MAP OF STUDY SITES FOR THE SURVEY OF CONSUMERS
ZONE 2 1211
KampalaL' .1Jc_-J'-
-J Entebbe3
ZONE 1?
1/ LAKE
VICTCRIA
j:1k11JaIii
ZONED
fiicaiiza io -
J 4;
L
ZONE 8
--
KeyNational frontier lines -Survey zone littesSc ale 2 4 cm: 60km
hijaZONE 3
fi
37
)r
I
--
Muomaç, 37
rTl :_j394ZONE 7
[J
2.6. Questionnaire
Consumers Questionnaire
Basic Information
Date
Enunierator' s name
District
Country Code
5 Zone Code
Location
Tribe
Sex (1) Male(2) Female
Age: (1) 18-40(2) 41 above
SECTION A
0. (a) What is your favourite fish species to eat on specialoccasions (Give one oplion) ?
NilepercliTflapiaDagaaHaplochrominesDon't eatOthers (supo/ate)
(b) (If he/she doesilt eat fish) What is it that you don't I ike about flsh? (Record o//emain reason)
TabooAllergySmellOthers (Stipula/e)
38
TabooAllergySmellOthers
12. (a) What are your household members' main sources of income?(Give two most important)
FarmingSalaried employmuntTradingFishingOthers (Specify)
Note: Terminate interview for non-fish eatingfamily.
SECTION B.
13. Where do you usually buy fish? (Record only one)
BeachMarketSuper MarketOthers (Specif;')
39
11 (a)
(1)(2)
(b)
(e)
Do you have a family?
YesNo
1f Yes, fill in the table below on infonnation concerning no. of familymembers who eat and those who don't eat fish.
No. familymembers
Those who eat fish Those who don't eat fish
Why don't they eat fish 7 (Record only one)
14. Fill in the following: 2 main species usually consumed; unit of measurement for buyingand the form of fish product bought indicate number of units of measurement andforms against corresponding fish species). Give reasons why you prefer that particularform.
1.5. (a) How is the price determined? (Record one most commonly used)
NegotiationAuctioningFixed PricingWeighingOthers (Specfy)
(b) Which of the above method do you prefer?
16. (a) How much fish do you buy for a family per meal? (record in kg.)
(b) How much money do you spend on average?
17. How often do you buy fish in a week?
1-2tirnes3 4 times5 -7 timesOthers (Spec/v
18. (a) Are there times when you eat more fish?
YesNo (Go to question 19).
If yes, when.?
If yes, why? (Indicate one reason)
40
Species (record 2) Unit ofmeasurement
Form Reason why you preferthat form
1. Nile perch (adultand juvenile)2. Tilapia3. Dagaa4. Fulu5. Others (specify)
1. Kilograms2. Tins3. Heaps/bundles4. Per head/Size5. Others (Specify)
1. Fresh2. Smoked3. Sundried4. Fried5. Salted6. Roasted7. Others (specify)
1. Taste2. Availability3. Shelf life4. Cheapness5. Divisibility6 Others (Specify)
(Record one in each row)
19. FilI in the table below on only two species, the rating of the quality aiid onecorresponding coiiiment if the rating ¡s poor.
20. If you cannot buy fish for aiiy reason, which other two main products would you buy assubstitutes?
BeausVegetablesMeatChickenOthers (spec5i)
21 (a) What is the main problem you cxperiellce in respect to obtaining fish forconsumption (One option only)?
IncomeDistanceScarcityPricingOthers (specify)
(b) Explain
41
Species Rating Comment (Only jf rated ipoor')
(1)Nile perch
(2) Tilapia
(3) Dagaa
(4) Haplochrornine
(5) Others (specify)
1. Good2. Acceptable3. poor
1. Finds maggots2. Finds mould3. Fiiids stones/sand.4. Fish is dusty/dirty5. Poorly processed.
record one in each row record one record one
