Worldfish: Nutrition Sensitive Fish Agri-Food Systems Workshop, presented by Pamela Marinda, Kathleen Ragsdale, Mary Read-Wahidi, Robert Kolbila, Lauren Pincus, Elin Torell, Feed the Future, The University of Zambia, University of Rhode Island, USAID, Mississippi State University,

1. Photo Credit Goes Here
RESEARCH TO CLOSE FISH CONSUMPTION AND
NUTRITION GAPS IN ZAMBIAPamela Marinda, Kathleen Ragsdale, Mary Read-Wahidi, Robert Kolbila, Lauren Pincus, Elin Torell
Nutrition Sensitive Fish Agri-Food Systems Workshop, February 24 – 25,
Lusaka Zambia
Fish4Zambia

2. Undernutrition in Zambia
 Fish provide essential micronutrients and contributes to
diversified diets for millions of Zambians
 Yet undernutrition is a serious problem in Zambia
 35% of children under age five are stunted
1
 Daily intake of energy, calcium, iron, and vitamin A by Zambian
infants/young children is below recommendations
 Reflective of inadequate feeding during this life stage
2
1 CSO, MOH, & ICF International, 2018
2 Hoffman, Cacciola, Barrios, & Simon, 2017

3. To increase quality/quantity of
fish benefitting nutrition and food
security in Zambia, especially for
women and children in the first
critical 1,000 days of life.
Fish4Zambia: Project aim

4. • Assess the current state of small fish capturing, processing,
and trading activities from point of catch through processing
to markets;
• Identify the social and gender barriers to entry and/or
participation in the fish value chain activities for the different
actors, particularly women and youth;
• Assess how small captured fish are accessed by different
consumer groups and consumed within households;
Specific Objectives

5. Specific Objectives -2
• Explore the potential of upgrading the small fish value chain
via improving processing, storage, and trading methods to
reduce post-harvest losses and improve food safety;
• Explore the use of small dried fish for further processing into
fish powder and incorporating into locally appropriate foods
for enhanced nutrition of women and children in the first
1,000 days of life.

6. Study site & design
Survey: 12 Fishing
Camps
 Mixed methods
approach
 Purposive sampling

7.  WEFI (Women’s Empowerment in Fisheries Index)
 Collected 397 WEFI surveys in fishing camps at
Lake Bangweulu over 7 days
 WEFI survey included the Household Hunger Scale3
 FGD (Focus Group Discussions)
 Conducted 20 separate FGD among men, women, youth
 KII (Key Informant Interviews)
 Conducted 3 interviews with Ministry of Health and
Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock senior staff
3Ballard T, Coates J, Swindale A, Deitchler M. (2011). Household Hunger Scale: Indicator Definition and Measurement Guide. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance II Project, FHI 360.
Data collection

8. Research questions
1. When disaggregated by gender, how do responses of males
and females compare across the three Hunger Events on
which data is collected using the Household Hunger Scale
(Ballard, Coates, Swindale & Deitchler, 2011)?
2. When disaggregated by gender, how do responses of males
and females compare across WEFI modules including
sample demographics, productive activities, decision-
making, ownership of assets, community leadership, and
gender norms?

9. Fish4Zambia
Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Fish
The Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Fish (FIL) is supported by the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), under award number 7200AA18CA00030 (M. Lawrence, PI). Fish4Zambia is supported
by sub-award number 322547 012200 027000 199040 (K. Ragsdale, PI; L. Pincus, PI)
Pamela Marinda PhD1, Kathleen Ragsdale PhD2, Mary Read-Wahidi
PhD2 , Robert Kolbila MA2,3
Lauren Pincus PhD4
Elin Torell PhD5
1 University of Zambia
2Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University
3 Department of Sociology, Mississippi State University
4 WorldFish, Malaysia
5 University of Rhode Island
EXPLORING HOUSEHOLD-
LEVEL HUNGER AMONG FISH
VALUE CHAIN ACTORS IN
ZAMBIA
Photo: K. Ragsdale / MSU

10.  Measures 3 Hunger Events:
 Hunger Event 1. No food to eat in household due to lack of resources
to get food
 Hunger Event 2. You or any household member went to sleep at night
hungry because there was not enough food
 Hunger Event 3. You or any household member went a whole day and
night without eating anything because there was not enough food
 Categorizes household-level hunger as:
 Occasional hunger ─ 1-2 times in past 4 weeks
 Moderate hunger ─ 3-10 times in past 4 weeks
 Severe hunger ─ >10 times in past 4 weeks
Household Hunger Scale3
3Ballard T, Coates J, Swindale A, Deitchler M. (2011). Household Hunger Scale: Indicator Definition and Measurement Guide. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance II Project, FHI 360.

11. Demographics (N=397)
M
% (n=193)
F
% (n=204)
Total
% (N=397)
Gender 48.6 (193) 51.4 (204) 100 (397)
Age 18-29 years
Age >30+ years
32.6 (63)
67.4 (130)
43.8 (86)
57.8 (118)
34.5 (149)
65.5 (248)
Married 90.7 (175) 86.8 (177) 86.8 (352)
No formal schooling 9.3 (18) 23 (47) 16.4 (65)
Occupation
Fishing
Selling/trading fish
Other (e.g., farming)
Processing fish
86.5 (167)
8.3 (16)
5.2 (10)
—
31.4 (64)
46.6 (95)
14.2 (29)
7.8 (16)
48.2 (231)
28 (111)
9.8 (39)
4 (16)

12. Hunger Event 1
How often in past 4 weeks: Was there no food to eat of any kind in your
house due to lack of resources* to get food? (N=397)
M
% (n)
F
% (n)
Total
% (n)
No hunger (0 times) 45.6 (88) 32.8 (67) 39.0 (155)
Occasional hunger (1-2 times per month) 30.6 (59) 23 (47) 26.7 (106)
Moderate hunger (3-10 times per month) 21.8 (42) 27.9 (57) 24.9 (99)
Severe hunger (>10 times per month) 2.1 (4) 16.2 (33) 9.3 (37)
*Includes resources to purchase or barter for food, gifts of food, and food from a household member’s garden or farm plot
.

13. Hunger Event 2
How often in past 4 weeks: Did you or any household members go to sleep
hungry because there was not enough food? (N=397)
M
% (n)
F
% (n)
Total
% (n)
No hunger (0 times) 53.9 (104) 35.3 (72) 44.3 (176)
Occasional hunger (1-2 times per month) 21.2 (41) 18.1 (37) 19.6 (78)
Moderate hunger (3-10 times per month) 23.3 (45) 31.9 (65) 27.7 (110)
Severe hunger (>10 times per month) 1.6 (3) 14.7 (30) 8.3 (33)

14. Hunger Event 3
How often in past 4 weeks: Did you or any household members go a whole
day and night without eating because there was not enough food? (N=397)
M
% (n)
F
% (n)
Total
% (n)
No hunger (0 times) 68.9 (133) 51.0 (104) 59.7 (237)
Occasional hunger (1-2 times per month) 14 (27) 16.2 (33) 15.1 (60)
Moderate hunger (3-10 times per month) 15 (29) 21.1 (43) 18.1 (72)
Severe hunger (>10 times per month) 2.1 (4) 11.8 (24) 7.1 (28)

15. Research question 2
When disaggregated by gender, how do responses
of males and females compare across WEFI modules
including
 sample demographics,
 productive activities,
 decision-making,
 ownership of assets,
community leadership, and gender norms?

16. Productive activities & decision making
• There were significant differences in education level among
males and females (p = .005), with females (23%) more likely
than males (9.3%) to report non-completion of any years of
school.
• Males were significantly more likely to report engaging in:
fishing (p = .000) and selling / trading fish (p = .034) in the
past 12 months.
• Males were more likely to report having a large amount of
input into decision-making for all four FVC activities

17. Asset ownership
• Males were significantly more likely to report being sole
owners of;
– locally produced fishing equipment (p = .004),
– externally produced fishing equipment (e.g., synthetic nets, line,
hooks) (p = .000),
– fish processing equipment (p = .001),
– canoes (p = .000), and
– basic mobile phones (non-smart phones) (p = .000).
• Females were significantly more likely to report being sole
owners of fish storage equipment (p = .004).

18. Asset ownership
• Few males (n = 9) and fewer females (n = 3) reported
smartphone ownership.
• Males were significantly more likely to have met with a
fisheries extension officer in the past 12 months (p = .002).

19. Speaking in public
• There were significant differences in males’ and females’
comfort levels in speaking up in public to help decide on;
– projects and issues affecting their fishing camp or village (p = .000),
– on decisions related to governing the fishery (p = .000), and
– to protest the use of illegal or unsustainable fishing practices (p =
.000).
• Females were more likely to report they were not at all
comfortable speaking up in public for all three of these
situations.

20. Conclusion
 Hunger Event 1 No food to eat in house due to lack of resources
 Moderate hunger 22% of men vs. 28% of women
 Severe hunger 2% of men vs. 16% of women
 Hunger Event 2 You or any household member went to sleep hungry
 Moderate hunger 23% of men vs. 32% of women
 Severe hunger 2% of men vs. 15% of women
 Hunger Event 3 You or any household member went whole day and
night without eating
 Moderate hunger 15% of men vs. 21% of women
 Severe hunger 2% of men vs. 12% of women

21. Conclusion
• These HOUSEHOLD HUNGER SCALE results suggest a need to
explore what factors make women in this sample more likely to
report food insecurity than their male counterparts.
• The disaggregated data highlights the importance of taking
gender into account in order to provide a more complete
picture of;
 how food insecurity impacts different groups across the fish value
chain and
 need for more data on variations of and how gender norms impact
“household coping strategies to food shortage”

22. Fish4Zambia
Photo: K. Ragsdale / MSU
ROBERT KOLBILA, MA
GRADUATE RESEARCH ASSISTANT
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTER
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY
Robrt.Kolbila@ssrc.msstate.edu
MARY READ-WAHIDI, PHD
ASSISTANT RESEARCH PROFESSOR
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTER
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY
Mary.Read-Wahidi@ssrc.msstate.edu
ELIN TORELL, PHD
DIRECTOR–INTL COASTAL PROGRAMS,
EVALUATION, LIVELIHOODS & GENDER
COASTAL RESOURCES CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND
ElinTorell@uri.edu
LAUREN PINCUS, PHD
VALUE CHAIN SCIENTIST
WORLDFISH
L.Pincus@cgiar.org
KATHLEEN RAGSDALE, PHD
RESEARCH PROFESSOR
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTER
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY
Kathleen.Ragsdale@ssrc.msstate.edu
This presentation is made possible by the generous support of the American people provided by the Feed the
Future Innovation Lab for Fish through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The
contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United
States Government
PAMELA MARINDA, PHD
LECTURER
DEPARTMENT OF DEPT OF FOOD SCIENCE
AND NUTRITION
UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA
Pamela.Marinda@unza.zm

23. www.feedthefuture.gov