actual transfer of the technology or innovation (hardware). These
extensionists should be able to provide technical information as
well as motivate the target group towards adoption of the innova-
tion. Perhaps training programs for extension agents should have
priority over the wholesale importation of "packages" of
technology.
 Very often extension personnel are required to have an educa-
tion and to work among the poor of rural communities. These
two facets of extension work tend to operate in opposition. Exten-
sion workers usually come from a different social level and
background than the target group. Spaulding (1977) points out
that the most effective charge agents are similar to their target
audience in salient social and personal characteristics but are
different fom the target group in terms of their technical com-
petence with the innovation they are promoting.

Technology Transfer for Aquaculture
 Sainsbury (1977), Spaulding (1977), and Pollnac (1978),
quoting Rogers and Shoemaker (1971), discuss the elements of a
practical and effective program of technology transfer in relation
to aquaculture and small-scale fisheries. This is described as the
innovation-decision process which involves the four steps of
knowledge, persuasion, decision and confirmation.
 Following the initial assessment of the socio-economic and
cultural environment of the target group, a technology is selected
to meet a need as perceived by the target group. In the Lesser An-
tilles, where capital is scarce, simple, labor-intensive aquaculture
technologies may be most appropriate.
 The effective communication of the aquaculture innovation re-
quires the establishment of organizational structures for
technology transfer. This delivery system should be oriented
toward and require the participation of the target group. An ef-
fective organizational structure will be able to effect, support,
and continuously monitor and manage the transfer to a self-
sustaining level.
 The delivery system should make the fullest use of local skills
and resources for development. This includes the use of "counter-
parts" to donor-agency "experts" as well as extensionists who can
train and motivate the target group. An effective delivery system
requires clear commitments from governments and donor agen-
cies regarding funding for personnel, equipment, and supplies.
 If the delivery system is effective, the target group will perceive
that the technology can or will fulfill a basic need and can be
reconciled with the existing system of beliefs, values, attitudes,
status, and role relationships. The innovation then undergoes a
trial period after which the technology may be flatly rejected,
adapted to better suit the requirements of the target group, or
adopted as introduced. Adoption or confirmation occurs when
the technology is no longer perceived as an innovation but
becomes part of the socio-cultural milieu.
 Innovations of any kind have five major attributes of
significance (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). These are complexi-
ty, compatibility, advantage, trialability, and observability.
These will be discussed below in terms of the aquaculture innova-
tion (Fig. 2).
Complexity. Aquaculture technology can be quite sophisti-
cated, but is relative to the level of technical development. The
complexity of an aquaculture technology should be viewed in
terms of the availability of local skilled labor or management.
Compatibility. Small farmers everywhere pursue a strategy of
"minimaxing," that is, minimizing the risk while maximizing
gain. This is accomplished primarily by allocating effort to a
diversity of activities. The chosen aquaculture technology must fit
into this scheme of labor utilization. The technology must also be
compatible with the sexual division of labor in food production.
Other personal and cultural attributes will have a bearing on the
acceptance of the innovation.


142


FIG. 2. Sociocultural factors influencing adoption of aquaculture technology.


Advantage. These include any perceived benefits and their
value. These perceptions vary from one group to another. The
target group may perceive advantage in terms of financial gain,
enhancement of social status, or an increase in the time available
to engage in other activities. Negative impacts such as the threat
of theft, the breakdown of cooperative work groups, and prior
failures of aquaculture projects all influence perception of relative
advantage.
Trtilability. Subsistence level producers usually do not have the
free capital available to invest in an innovative technology. Indivi-
duals prominent in the socioeconomic hierarchy are those who have
the capital and the access to information concerning the innova-
tion. In most cases, the effects of technical change lead to increased
socioeconomic stratification (Pollnac, 1978). It may be possible to
circumvent this tendency through the introduction of the
aquaculture innovation to groups of subsistence level producers.
Observability. The results of aquaculture operations are not so
visible during production, but quite so at harvest. Pilot-scale
aquaculture operations coupled with information dissemination
to and motivation of the target group can clearly show the advan-
tage of the innovation.

SUMMARY
 1. Marine fishery resources in the Lesser Antilles are at, or
 near, maximum sustainable yield or they are overfished
 and show limited prospects for further exploitation.
 2. A two-pronged strategy for revitalizing the capture fishery
 will involve:
 a. effective management plans and imaginative ap-
 proaches to marine resource utilization, and
 b. the mariculture of certain fish and invertebrates.


 PROCEEDINGS of the CARIBBEAN FOOD CROPS SOCIETY-VOL. XX


 Projected Attributes
 a. Complexity
 b. Compatibility
 c. Advantage
 d. Trialability
 e. Observability
CONTACT
Aquaculture technology
communicated to target
group.
INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES
a. Education
. cial status PERCEPTION OF AQUACULTI
c. Aspirations TECHNOLOGY
d. etc. Perceived Attributes
 a. Complexity
SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES b. Compatibility
 c. Advantage
a. Social stratification d. Trialability
b. Social stability e. Observability
c. Educational opportunity
d. etc.


SINSTIUTIONALIZATION OF AQUACULTURE
_I TECHNOLOGY I