ecological organic agriculture initiative - · pdf file3/17/1993 · ecological...
TRANSCRIPT
1
REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL
=o=o=o=
ECOLOGICAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
INITIATIVE - SENEGAL
Strategic and Prospective Orientation
Note for an Agricultural Policy in Favor of
Ecological Organic Agriculture in Senegal
MARCH 2017
Ibrahima SECK FENAB COORDINATOR
2
SUMMARY
I. Problematic
1.1 The Action of the State
1.2 The People’s Formulation
1.3 The Emergence of an Autonomous Farmer’s Movement
II. The Facts about Small Farm Agriculture in Senegal
III. Traditional Systems of Agricultural Production
IV. Cultural Identity and the Development of the Agricultural Sector
V. The Orientation of Agricultural Policy Called “Modern”
5.1 Conventional Agronomic Research
5.2 An Alternative: the Participative Approach to Research
VI. FAMILY ECOLOGICAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AS MODEL:
63. Family Agriculture or Capital-intensive Agriculture:
64. Short-term policies: clean up and revitalize agro-ecological family farming:
65: Medium-term policies: strengthening institutional capacities and developing human resources:
66. Long-term policies: transforming and modernizing agro-ecological family farming:
67. Agroecology in the face of the Globalization of the Economy:
68: Green Economy, an integral part of Agroecology:
VII. Conditions of Sustainability of the Ecological Organic Family Farm (EAOFF):
3
I. Problematic
1.1 Action of the State
From independence up until 1984, the Senegalese rural areas were marked by a kind of “gag
order” of populations through a policy of development in organizational forms inherited from
doctrines foreign to their cultural identity. In effect, ignoring the rural voice and government-
rural dialogue aided, during this period, in perpetuating ignorance, among policy makers, of all
the traditional forms of organization, including the profitability of cooperatives, which must
constitute the unique framework of the economic evolution of the rural areas.
These cooperatives, organized throughout the whole country and for all professions must prompt
rural development to leave from a strategy of activity, thought up by the General Administration,
which kept to itself the prerogatives of conception and execution of rural development.
During this period, the State put in place management staff and assistance operations in the rural
areas. Each technical or economic function followed a consistent approach for each
homogeneous ecological zone, but with a particular emphasis in the production of revenue.
Thus, was put in place:
- In the North: the SAED for rice
- In the Center: the SODEVA for peanuts
- In the South: the SOMIVAC for rice
- In the East: the SODEFITEX for cotton
This structure was completed downstream by an office of commercialization (O.C.A.S. evolving
to O.N.C.A.D.)
For the most part, the farmer no longer had even to think. The State regulated everything for
him, following in this its conviction that only a state centralized plan permitted the development
of the country.
The great repeated droughts constituted the “drop of water” which made the vase overflow and
constituted the prod to the grip of conscience by the State of the impertinence of its choice of
development.
Realizing that the farmer was now aware of his “passive irresponsibility,” the State undertook a
set of reforms which have for their object to reinforce the potential of development by the
unlocking of private initiatives and the decentralization to bring the advantage of structures near
to the base.
The state recognizes, thus, that the policy of centralized staffing was unable to engender effective
participation of civil society in the development of the country.
Today, on the foundation of democratic trends, it appears there are the germs of change, which
could favor an entrepreneurial dynamism within civil society, and a repositioning of the State in
its essential duties of administration of public services, of general organizing and of arbitration.
1.2 The Popular Response
The first reactions to the impoverishment of the rural world and to the repeated phenomena of
drought, which led to food shortages, have manifested themselves by the phenomena of flight
4
and escape to the cities where one could earn a living by becoming apprentices in small trades
and in commerce.
But very quickly, the city became “too full” and rejected those who were coming from the bush.
It is necessary to cross over to other alternatives.
It is in this context that, little by little, there developed, in the rural milieu, small initiatives of
“salud” (expected success) in the form of small projects sustained by western NGO’s with the
complicity of certain functionaries of the State.
These initiatives come together to increase quickly the extent of solidarity spreading from village
to region wile passing through the arrondissement and the department.
Their denomination is often significant and conveys the willingness to overcome a difficult
situation: thus, such association is called “Tenons Les Coudes” (Linking Arms), “Ensemble,
Nous Grandirons” (Together, We Will Grow Stronger), or “L’Espoir Est Pour Demain” (Our
Hope is for Tomorrow), etc.
Each of these associations institutes a new power of which the mechanisms of functioning are
essentially inspired by traditional forms of village organization. Several of these associations
have already been recognized as useful agents, in their territory, of economic, cultural and
political development.
Thus, since the great drought of 1973-74, farmers have begun, more and more, to reflect on their
problems and on the changes which have occurred in nature. More and more, they organize
themselves in their own milieu of life to develop strategies, finally, to struggle in concert against
the obstacles to their development. The efforts concentrate themselves on the constitution of
village organizations of development, research and rehabilitation of Cultural Identity,
improvement of production, commercialization of products, the regeneration of soils, the
construction of barriers to erosion, the construction of dikes to limit salinization, the valorization
of functional literacy among the population, technical training of women and giving them
responsibility, reforestation, the protection of gardens, of fields and of young saplings of trees by
the installation of hedges, the construction of wells and of retainers for water, the mobilization
of internal savings accounts and grants of credit among members.
It is thus that farmers’ movements and their networks (eg.: FONGS, FNGIEP, FNGIEH, FNGIE,
UNCAS, FNGPF, FAFD), to cite only a few of them, have grown and have developed
themselves in the country. They are supported by aid organizations for development (NGO’s) on
the basis of a true partnership. The motivations of these popular movements have for origin the
conviction that “Union builds power” and that, for the local milieu, it is necessary to make local
effort for local development. Self-sufficiency, self-responsibility, self-management and global
autonomy are their principle goals.
Thus, a new dynamic, with new actors, has emerged in the terrain of development; these are the
Farmers’ Organizations. They begin to adopt the idea that they must exceed from an informal
embryonic state, to one of a local enterprise of development which will seek profitability for its
members through the mobilization of savings, the granting of credit and the creation of activities
to generate revenue for attaining internal self-financing, auto-independence, and self-
development.
5
They are beginning by adopting also the idea of the conservation of nature, of careful
management of natural resources and the protection of the environment. But establishing an
alternative agriculture that takes account of protection of the environment, supposes that it is
necessary to find, not only equilibrium between economy and ecology, but it is necessary, first
and above all, to respect and protect the survival of small farmers. In that, farmers’
organizations are the conveyors of hope.
For the farmers’ movement, the door of entry for sustainable development is sustainable
agriculture. For sustainable agriculture, it is necessary to achieve systems of agricultural
production permitting a self-perpetuation of plant and animal species, offering to the farmer, in
each period of the year a production with remunerative prices, with an economic approach
utilizing renewable energies available for direct use while limiting external additives, thus
keeping solid protection of natural resources. This form of agriculture will permit farmers the
assurance of food security, a constant revenue flow and the achievement of qualitative
improvement in their standard of living. Together, they will participate in the advent of a
“Project of Farmer’s Society,” that is to say a flowering of the farmer under a cultural, social,
economic, ecologic and political plan.
1.3 The Constitution of an Autonomous Farmers’ Movement in Senegal
From the 18 to the 21 of January 1993, the Federation of Non-governmental Organizations of
Senegal (FONGS) organized a Forum on the theme “What is the Future for Senegalese
Farmers?” The objective was to unite different constituents of the rural Senegalese world in
order to analyze of agricultural policies and to make proposals to encourage them to take
responsibility for their enterprises and build a power base at the national level.
For the first time, farmers, from diverse perspectives and regions, met together, felt their
combined force, and became negotiators with the State and with other actors invited to this
conference. This forum put into evidence the necessity for rural people to organize strategic
reflection in a manner permanent and profound concerning the stakes of national development.
“This approach aimed, among other objectives, to equip rural people and their organizations,
with the means to improve their comprehension of the policies of rural development to the end of
making more judicious choices and instituting more pertinent actions in regard to the emergence
of civil society (as a new gift of Senegalese democracy). Before positioning themselves at the
heart of Senegalese society as one of the economic, social and cultural forces essential to
national development, the federations of farmers’ organizations affirm that the strengthening of
their capacities in all respects is indispensable, beforehand, to their recognition as a principle
partner of State in the definition and the institution of the policy of rural development. They
together intend a greater cohesion through the development of networks of solidarity, the
placement in common of resources, and a democratic administration of power and of knowledge.
The principle result of this forum was the creation, in Thies, on March 17, 1993, of a National
Council for Consultation and Cooperation of Rural Peoples (CNCR) which is sub-divided today
into nine federations of farmers’ organizations with nearly 3,000,000 members (farmers,
ranchers, fishers, horticulturalists, foresters, women, etc.) CNCR has been the origine of the
creation of the “Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et des Producteurs de l’Afrique de Ouest”
(ROPPA) (translation : Network of Farmers’ Organizations and Producers of West Africa).
6
II. The Rationale for Family Farm Agriculture in Senegal
While conventional agronomic research aims above all for one aspect of an agricultural system,
that is to say the increase in production a single species by utilizing abusive chemical additives,
family farm agriculture aims for long term equilibrium of the whole system (diversity of
production, fertility of the soils, management of territories, etc.)
In effect, in observing carefully traditional agricultural practices, one notes a multi-stage and
synergistic agriculture. It is marked by an associative cultural system utilizing a diversity of
species with different characteristics including perennial or semi-perennial, seasonal or multi-
seasonal.
The different plants utilized in the intensive native cultural system join together and complete
themselves in an extraordinary morphological and physiological diversity conducive to a
diversity of production contributing altogether to food self-sufficiency. One notes that the tree is
considered as being an element of the agricultural system rather than being solely relegated to
the forest.
Like the trees with Wolof nomenclature of “Kad” or “Nguer du Cayor,” or “DIMB du Saloum,”
participate in the fertility of the soil with other multiple uses (food for human and beast,
traditional medicine, etc.)
The presence of several stages of trees adapted to local ecological conditions, establishing itself
in perfect harmony with associative plant cultures (millet, beans; acacia or millet; beans,
zucchini, hibiscus, DIMB; or other associations), has a fundamental role to play in the long term
viability of family farm agricultural systems.
The rationale of family farm agriculture has several advantages:
- the struggle against the terrible erosive impact of the first rains of the season;
- the great utility of a multitude of plants (biomass) covering the soil in reducing the high
temperatures due to the sun’s rays;
- greater efficacy in the photosynthetic coefficient;
- slower coefficient of mineralization of organic matter;
- a succession of plantings in order to utilize water efficiently and keep the soils fertile and
well constituted;
- efficacious accrual of evapo-transpiration;
- reduced costs for production’
- multi-stage and synergistic diversity of productions;
- intermittent fallow fields;
- plant culture rotations;
- integration of agriculture and animal husbandry;
- utilization of organic manure to fertilize the soil;
- a natural struggle against the enemies of plants;
7
- natural conservation and utilization of the varieties of seeds adapted to the ecological
conditions of the local milieu;
- etc.
The rationale of family farmer agricultural systems is, in fact, the reflection of traditional
systems of agricultural production.
III. Traditional Systems of Agricultural Production
Formerly, in Senegal, the modes of exploitation and the cultural methods were centered on the
“possibilities and the constraints of the environment.” As a general rule, traditional systems of
agricultural production make responsible and sustainable use of natural resources (soils,
vegetation, light, water, nutritive substances, biomass, etc.)
These modes of exploitation correspond so well to local situations that even during relatively
poor seasons one was able to produce sufficiently to survive. The harvests were guaranteed to a
higher degree and the risks of losses were reduced to a minimum; also food security was
guaranteed by this subsistence agriculture.
Not only did agricultural systems correspond to the possibilities and constraints of the
environment, they responded equally to the possibilities and constraints of the farmers. The
agricultural systems responded to the norms and customs, to hierarchical relationships, to the
structure of the market, to specific areas and tours; and, norms and customs, the structure of the
market, systems of mutual assistance and solidarity, the pricing of goods, etc., likewise, were
adapted as agricultural conditions changed over time.
Traditional agricultural systems had certain flexibility and guaranteed as much as possible a
natural environment and sound agriculture, food security so that there was a relatively good
standard of living for rural populations. Equilibrium existed always between agriculture and the
capacity of the natural environment (possibilities offered and constraints imposed).
Today, will there not be actions of rehabilitation, improvement and complementarily between
traditional systems of production and modern techniques appropriate to reach an economical
agriculture keeping account of both people and their environment?
IV. Cultural Identity and Development of the Agricultural Sector
Our cultural identity has been a determinant element in the management of natural resources and
the sustainability of systems of agricultural production. The Agriculture called “Modern” has
come to break apart this dynamic as this little historical analysis shows us:
- Period before colonization (ourselves)
- Colonization (enculturation)
- Period following colonization (cultural alienation)
- Globalization (crisis)
The time of our ancestors
8
We know that all life functions upon concepts. The most important concept which permits the
management of space, is the occupation of space. The occupation of space was by clans who
existed, who partitioned out space for living, and who, in a zone so determined, organized their
activities for self-sufficiency.
Moreover, activities were organized to permit people to live, to eat, to construct their places of
habitation and to protect themselves against nature in a challenging natural environment.
Equally, this period was characterized by professional jobs. There were farmers who raised
plants and those who raised animals. This was a period where, in Senegal, there were Serer and
Peulh who raised animals and the other ethnic groups cultivated plants. They were in the rural
milieu and together represented 90% of the population.
There were evidently nobility who were charged with managing the populations.
Among these two groups, on could not say that plant farmers were more numerous than animal
raisers or vice versa.
One knew that there were two activities which commingled and the breeders put their animals in
the fields of the farmers who gave them, in counterpart, some grain. There was thus an exchange
between organic manure and grain.
There were conflicts from time to time during the rainy season when the breeders who lived
between the villages let their animals graze in the fields.
What can retain of this period is that there was a formal or informal contract between these two
groups. They were complementary.
The breeders exchanged milk, meat, organic manure for cereal, protection of their animals by
those who stayed at home, for it is necessary to remember that this is the period where there was
nothing of what we call “money” today. Rather we would call it “barter.”
What was also characteristic in the course of this period was that the whole space was managed
by the people.
There were feudal laws but the great responsibility of management of natural resources was
incumbent upon the people in the majority.
Thus at the village level, of the zone, there were levels of responsibility; the very great majority
of the population was implicated and had charge of the management of natural resources.
There was equally a small group of foresters. One could call them trades people:
- Those who make the materials for agriculture: the beaming and the . It was necessary;
- Those who fabricate the mortars and pestles for the grinding of grain. One called them
“laobés.” The represented the forestry farmers. With the wood, they fabricated
indispensable tools for the preparation of food, farming enterprises and also mangers and
drinking troughs for the animals.
There was, finally, a last group:
- Fishermen.
They were not very numerous during this period, but they existed none-the-less. These were
people who lived on the shores of courses of water, by the seashore, on the coast of rivers.
9
They exchanged their products for others’ products (milk and grain). As one might state it,
during this period, the fishermen, the breeders or the farmers exercised only one activity and did
not have other annexed activities.
During this period, there were, effectively, some traditions which developed concerning the
management of natural resources.
- There were trees that one did not cut; they were utilized for healing.
- There were trees which existed as totems that everyone respected.
- There were some sacred forests, some pools where the crocodiles live whom the people
venerate.
There were thus folkways that developed over time.
For example, there were some moments to light or not to light the fire and all these explanations
were communicated from father to son, mother to daughter.
One found, very often, a community management of certain natural resources.
For example, when there was a large pond between several villages, it was a council of wise
leaders that was charged with deciding the moment when the animals could go to drink and the
times when they could not go.
This is why, in the course of centuries, the people developed PRINCIPLES which became
sacred and which everyone respected in all the ethnic groups and in all the sub-Saharan zones
and particularly in Senegal.
The people reflected, invented principals and actions in the sense of sustainability knowing that
therein was their true wealth.
They did not wish that this would be limited to themselves and this is why there were all these
principles, all these mechanisms, in order to permit a transmission of this natural wealth to
future generations.
Colonization
One meets thus a NEW POWER which appropriates these responsibilities. One created
services: for example, the services of agriculture, of water, of forests and of fish.
Thus one took the force of responsibility of the people to hold them in trust by these structures.
Now, for all the questions which are placed on natural resources, one is obliged to refer to these
structures (when there is a problem which formerly was settled in place, one was obliged to
address to the authority who is going to inform one second instance of an authority who is going
perhaps towards a third instance: meanwhile the problem could become aggravated.).
Some new professions were born. On created, with the colonial occupation, new needs, the
culture of rent, of new equipment. On gave more capacity to the materials of production.
It is at first by forced labor that one imposed the cultures of rent and gave equipment.
One later created money, one created the French school. The connection of these different
elements trained new habits and responsibilities.
10
The colony was under the control of whites who had assistants. There were local governors and
forest guards.
They were the masters, now, gave the orders and attended only to their interests, not knowing or
caring to know the indigenous people’s customs; that which is entirely the norm in colonization.
They came not to reinforce our values, but to acculturate us to their ways.
We had our properties sheared of trees, our forests placed off limits, reserves which were placed
under colonial administration and which, often, were confiscated from people whose families
had occupied them over hundreds of years. There were even populations who were displaced
because they lived in these newly appropriated forest reserves.
There were also the roads for transportation and communication.
Railroads were constructed, cut in large swaths of land, forests burned, routes cleared.
Cultures of leased land were developed; machines for planting and the plow were invented or
introduced. It was necessary to clear the land, even to displace human populations, and then to
plant. The prevailing intent (especially of the French who had the greatest power) was to
produce more and more to the maximum extent possible. Little by little, there was a change in
agricultural culture.
The new techniques were not bad in themselves, but at the moment when they were introduced,
they did not take care to protect THE ENVIRONMENT.
There was an intense exploitation of the forest. Not only was there a culture of leasing but also
wood of better quality was used for export for the profit of the colonizers.
Independence
The period was that of 1960. The colonizers bequeathed to us their language, their culture, their
way of doing things and these were inculcated into our spirits.
The Senegalese leaders of the movement for independence had been trained in French
universities and were subjected to a sort of cultural mix-up. It was the period when our
government defined agricultural policies to help the farmers to have a better standard of living.
Self-evaluations were not done. Everything was simply amplified; all that had been imposed on
us during the colonial period was further accelerated.
Agricultural services, agricultural technicians and research were developed, as initiated
originally by the French, to augment productivity and production.
It was necessary to call for European trainers, at the moment of independence, as Senegalese
farmers, under French rule, had not yet achieved the new skills.
This course was taken in order to fill the cash reserves of the State. Peanuts were sold at a good
price on the market. It was deemed necessary for the State thus to accelerate the process which
took responsibility for the line of peanut production away from the farmers.
New professions were created, forestry to produce lumber for export, the transformation of trees
into charcoal to utilize the residue of dead wood, thousands of farmers converted to the use of
the new agricultural equipment and fertilizer. All was done to increase the capacity to produce
better and always more.
11
For 25 years, from 1960 to 1985, Senegalese agriculture focused in this way. They then found
themselves in the situation where the production of the peanut basin decreased with soil
depletion and erosion, and rice production decreased as the resulting salinization of the
Casamance River increased.
A considerable sum was allotted to the rural world, construction of dams, roads, and railroads
was completed, activities were diversified, but the manner in which this was done did not permit
the results anticipated.
Globalization
With independence, and with the new techniques, farmers began to conjoin plant and animal
production.
Producers began to organize themselves: one met everywhere associations of both producers
and of consumers.
There was a new preoccupation: “drought.” It has even become endemic. Desertification was
installed through climatic factors but even more was the fact of massive deforestation by the act
of man. Forest fires amplified this condition by an aggression against vegetal and animal
biodiversity. The agriculture called modern arrived to sever definitively the dialectical
interdependence between the different constituents of nature.
V. The Orientation of the Agricultural Police called “Modern”
Since colonization, the government always favored and popularized monocultures be it peanuts,
be it cotton, to the detriment of vegetables and grains for consumption which were often left out.
The results are well known: overexploitation of the soils with the use of equipment pulled by
animals (not just by hand) allowing non-stop planting, degradation, deforestation in order to
increase arable land, the necessity of fertilizer with chemical input to defend against infestations
more common with monoculture than with diversity. Demographic pressure had serious
repercussions on cultivatable lands. A failure to properly educate farmers in the use of
pesticides, dumped on them by the eager government, led to many accidents. Agricultural
production decreased, erosion by wind and rain began, the revenues of farmers decreased more
and more, natural resources disappeared at an anxious rhythm. Desertification intensified year to
year.
In the popularization of agricultural techniques, the State always attributed more importance to
techniques which augment the quantity of agricultural production. The hypothesis utilized was
always that the revenues of farmers will increase more and more with the augmentation of their
production. The privileged method was the augmentation of the land being used at the same
time as the intensification of production.
Thus, for small farmers, production became more and more difficult to control. Before, they had
control of all the means of production of the land by work of the hand: the tools and the capital.
More and more, they were becoming dependent upon means out of their control. Farmers
needed improved modern seeds in order to augment their production. By the fact that these
modern seeds were less resistant to drought or the attacks of insects, farmers needed fertilizer
and chemical pesticides. All these needs translated into the necessity of capital.
12
Even if farmers happened to satisfy these needs, they then remained continually dependent upon
providing these inputs, ad if one of the inputs was not available at the precise moment, it was the
farmers who suffered the consequences.
In addition to all of these considerations, there was the problem of the fluctuation in the costs to
the producer. And the question is posed of knowing, “Would the farmer have the possibility to
sell all of his production at a good price?” In comparing the price paid for nearly stable
products to the height of prices for inputs, the interest on credit, the inflation aggravated by
devaluation of currency, the Senegalese farmers see, at present, a net loss for which it is difficult
to compensate by an increase in the quantity of production. This situation became more and
more difficult with globalization which demands competitiveness and blind concurrence.
(Selling only with comparative advantage)
V.1 Conventional Agronomic Research in Senegal
Since Senegalese independence, conventional agronomic research has been fixed on the
objective to increase the agricultural productivity of a few crops for export and to intensify
agriculture in order to eliminate food shortages in the country.
All actions of this research were oriented toward the introduction of new cultural techniques, the
use of fertilizer and pesticides, and the use of selected seeds.
Thus, all actions of this research located inside research stations, were centered on the analysis of
the behavior of high quality seeds of selected varieties and on the study of careful doses of
fertilizer and pesticides on the impact of a modern technique of cultivation.
The results from this agronomic research were positive, because varieties of species of high
productivity, adapted to local climatic conditions, were identified and tested. The research
examined modern techniques of cultivation and types of fertilizer and pesticides adequate to the
development of these varieties.
Unfortunately, this approach failed to identify applicability of these results in the farmer’s
milieu. In effect, the results thus found were not in agreement with the needs and the ways of the
farmers. For example, the research was concentrated on monocultures like peanuts, but ignored
the local diet of farmers of millet and vegetables, and ignored the difficulty in providing
sufficient irrigation in rural areas or the economic wherewithal to maintain adequate supplies of
high quality seeds and chemical inputs.
Therefore, a reality-based analysis of this conventional agronomic research needs to be done. A
well-supplied research station peopled by agro-scientists is not the same as a farmer’s field and
cultural milieu. Further the research had:
- too superficial knowledge of farmers’ structures and systems of production, of their
needs and functions;
- marginalization of farmers in the solution of their own problems; in effect, the socio-
economic dimension provided by the research must be introduced from the start and not,
like the classic, conventional method, after the new technical dimension has been put in
place;
- the techniques proposed are not adapted to the reality of the farmers, but are the
conception of theoreticians or politicians and are not the problems felt by rural
populations;
13
- insufficient active participation of farmers in the definition of their path to development.
The list is not exhaustive, yet is intended to emphasize the degree to which the farmers, who
were intended to be the beneficiaries of the research, were excluded from the planning and
process.
Therefore, to state the truth, a real gap separates conventional agronomic research and the
farmers who, in most cases, have similar fields, but with sometimes different techniques.
Faced with this situation, agronomic research must recognize a new orientation. The objective
of this new strategy will be to do research at the level of the farm in association with the farmers
through the whole process from the identification of the subject of the research, the conception
of the research process, the execution of the project and the evaluation of the programs of
research.
V.2 An Alternative: The Participative Approach for Research
By building on the vision and inspiration of traditional small farmers, the scientific research
could well add benefits which would be accepted by the farmers.
- the bio-socio-economic milieu of the farmer would be taken into account;
- the farmer would be considered a researcher;
- the research will originate in and will take into account all the elements of the farmer’s
agricultural system;
- the farmer is called to participate in the validation of methods, to reject certain
agricultural practices and to appropriate others;
- the farmer becomes an element of application and of diffusion of the results of the
research to other farmers in his milieu.
Thus, the research could help to fill out the existing techniques in order to better clarify the
notions of the yield of the land, the associations between plant species, and the best species
succession for planting, etc., and instead of looking by example to find only one variety of corn
with high yield, to look also to see the possibilities of plant culture associations for lessening the
cost of production, the maintenance of fertility of the soil, the defense of the environment and of
the health of the human population.
VI. FAMILY ECOLOGICAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AS MODEL:
The agriculture of tomorrow will necessarily have to adapt to the cultural, social, ecological,
economic and political realities of Senegal. This is a technological challenge that decision-
makers, researchers, private sector operators and industry players will have to lift.
The gradual saturation of arable land, due to population growth, on the one hand, and the
degradation and decline in fertility of the land currently cultivated, make agro-ecological
intensification an unavoidable requirement.
Advances in science and technology now offer new research tools and biological material that
offer great prospects for improving agricultural productivity. Combined with endogenous
knowledge and techniques, we can find agroecology which alone can bring sustainable
agricultural and rural development to family farms and local communities.
14
63. Family Agriculture or Capital-intensive Agriculture:
Two modes of agricultural production coexist in Senegal: family agriculture and agricultural enterprises
based on capital infusion. Family agriculture is the reality of peasant societies and of agrarian societies
of the Southern Hemisphere. Ninety percent of the farmers of Senegal are doing family farming. They
are responsible for most of the agricultural production and most of the products available for export.
The revenues produced by family farming are the predominant contributor to the economy of Senegal.
Only sugar cane entirely produced in a region by one agro-industrial enterprise is the exception. In spite
of the current dominant character of family agriculture, more and more, the idea, promoted by urban
intellectuals, is that family farming is not capable of being competitive in the global marketplace and
must be replaced by industrial agriculture led by trained agricultural technicians. Family farmers would
become farm laborers or be replaced by mechanization. This perspective is being promoted without
reflection on the evolution of systems of agricultural production.
The Priority of Family Agriculture in the Pluvial## Zone:
The reasons for which family agriculture must be the priority of the politics of development are solid.
Any agro-economic system, today, must achieve economic efficacy, socioeconomic equity and the
sustainable management of natural resources.
First, there is no economic alternative to the maintenance in the rural milieu of a majority of Senegal’s
population. In spite of the growth rate of 4% of the urban population, many of whom immigrate to the
cities from the rural areas, the rural population also continues a growth rate of 2% per year. (There are
education programs in family planning and birth control, now promoted by farmers’ organizations and
NGO’s with some success, but large families are still the cultural norm.) The urban economy is already
no longer capable of absorbing more rural immigrants. It leads only to increased poverty in the urban
zone with shanty towns, unemployment and disillusionment, especially of young men and women
looking for a chance in life. Given current economic priorities and scarcity, there is little hope for a
reversal of this trend in the near term. It is essential to find good ways for the rural population and
culture to remain largely intact.
The second reason follows from this. Given that it is necessary to maintain a rural population of
considerable numbers, (and knowing that 40% of the rural population is already living below the poverty
line at less than $1 per day) and, given that increased rural and urban populations require more food
and sundries, it is necessary to increase local employment to provide rural family income. This can be
done through stepped up agricultural productivity of more than 3% per year to meet the growing need
plus work opportunities diversified into jobs other than in agriculture, but located in rural areas.
This accommodation cannot be obtained with agriculture based on capital intensification one of whose
aims is a reduction in the workforce. Only a minute proportion of farmers, who have a comfortable
income augmented from non-agricultural income, can support this type of agriculture. This agriculture
has, without doubt, its place in the Senegalese economy and could play an increasingly role in
agricultural exportation. However, it does not solve the problem of the rural population, both
intrinsically valuable and still growing.
15
The third reason is that, taking account of the broad extent of poverty in rural Senegal, the only
efficacious method to combat it is, in the short and medium term, not to finance a few, already solvent
farmers, but to return to employment and agricultural productivity the majority of small farmers who
have been excluded from such investment and do not have the wherewithal to improve their
productivity on their own.
The principal question confronting Senegalese agriculture and the rural world is double: what to do for
small farmers and, in particular, what to do for the large majority of small farmers who do not have
access to irrigation; and, what to do for rural people who must abandon agriculture or develop a
complementary activity in order to stay in their community. This is what one could call the farmer’s
question in Senegal. It is posed in unique historical terms.
Western countries, which have succeeded in modernizing their agriculture, have done it in the context
of the strong growth of industry and the resources of the State, of population control, and in a political
context where it was possible to protect and subsidize agriculture.
Senegal, like the majority of sub-Saharan countries in Africa, must make a success of the transformation
of its agricultural system and develop non-agricultural activities in the rural milieu in a context of
liberalization and globalization, of rapid demographic growth and with a State which has, at its disposal,
limited financial resources.
The policies of rural and agricultural development, specifically, must give a priority to the family
agriculture and take into account the new national and international context of this agriculture. This
politic does not exclude other forms of agriculture but it replaces them in an order of priority
corresponding to criteria of efficacy and of equity concerning the distribution of public resources.
64. The Politicies of the Short Term: to Clean Up and Reenergize Family Agriculture:
Principal objectives of agriculture policies: The principal objectives of the agriculture’s policies are the
struggle against poverty, the improvement of food security in both rural and urban milieus, the
augmentation of revenue in the rural areas, and the augmentation of production and exportation of
agricultural products.
For rural peoples, the three primary agricultural objectives, in particular the struggle against poverty, are
certainly priorities while, at the same time, the State cannot neglect the necessity of improving the food
security of its citizens, nor the augmentation of agricultural exports to improve the balance of payments
in the international marketplace. It is therefore important to try to find as many strategies as possible
which permit the reconciliation of these factors.
16
To Target the Most Profitable Pluvial# Cultures: In the zone of pluvial culture, the strategy must be to
concentrate investments on production for which it is possible to obtain rapid results with a minimum of
investment, and which affects the most farmers. Thus, it is on peanuts, cotton, millet, corn and beans,
necessary for local food security and diet preference, but with surplus available for export, that it is
necessary to concentrate these efforts. Simple technologies are available to effect this and are easily
mastered by the farmers (seed selection of improved varieties, natural fungicides and insecticides,
manure, smoke, compost, intermittent cover crops to renew the soil, indigenous farm equipment as well as that purchased from monetary profit from agricultural production. Increased agricultural production is the most effective method, with the least cost, to increase the
availability of materiel for animal fodder including the mulch residue of peanuts and the straw from
grain which are the greatest resources for raising cattle, sheep, goats, and chickens especially for semi-
intensive animal husbandry in the Northern zone and in the center of the peanut basin. Nevertheless, it
is concurrently necessary that farmers’ organizations organize themselves more and more to plan ways
to commercialize their products. Studies are necessary to confirm these strategies, but there are already
many indications supporting this path, assets available for their rapid realization.
Agricultural research and statistics show that the principle constraint for farming in these zones is initial
access to agricultural inputs like seeds, gasoline, water pumps, natural fertilizer, etc. But this necessity is
divided into three aspects: the price at sale of their agricultural products, the price of agricultural inputs
and the cost of credit with which to allow the commencement of the production process
The state decided in 1997, in the context of a new agricultural program, on an improvement in interest
rates which fell from 13% to 7.5%. It also decided to spread the repayment of those debts of
cooperatives and of GIEs (small business partnerships), still in arrears, over 5 years. Agricultural materiel
was also exonerated for import taxes. These efforts were revealed to be insufficient. Many village
cooperatives and GIE have not been able to negotiate the repayment of their debts over a period of
years with the National Bank of Agricultural Credit of Senegal (CNCAS) most often because the
appreciation of the arrears surpassed their capacity for reimbursement. The State could go even farther
in taking measures to reduce these debts. That could be done by adjusting the interest rate charged for
these debts and by partial annulment of the debts. It is not necessary to state precisely these
modalities. That must be the object of a negotiation between the state and the farmers’ organizations.
The State must go farther still in reducing interest rates for credit in order to lead by example from 7.5%
to, at most, 5% for a limited period. This question merits being examined above all if one wishes to have
a rapid and important impact in the struggle against poverty by a stimulation of production. This
reduction of interest rates could besides be reserved to credit for agricultural materiel in order to permit
a rapid updating of equipment which is becoming more and more obsolete. That would avoid the
poorest agricultural enterprises falling back into manual agriculture.
Lenders will be, undoubtedly, reticent to accept this decision and it is probable that they will not want to
contribute financially. The government could institute it by transferring certain grants (subsidies) of
which everyone agrees on the inefficacy.
17
The measures described above aim to rectify the situation of indebtedness of the poorest farmers and
to permit them to be, anew, eligible for credit at a reasonable interest rate in order to reliance
agricultural production for the maximum number of farmers. That is a reminder of past decisions to
erase the debts of farmers which did not have the counted on effects. But this proposal is not expunge
the debts but to reduce them and spread their repayment in order to make them manageable by small
farmers.
The State could also verify that the sale price of agricultural inputs, in particular, of fertilizer, chemical
products and of agricultural materiel are not raised egregiously by action of the monopoly of Chemical
Industries of Senegal (ICS) and of SISMAR. In the acts, in the sectors upstream (production and
commercialization of inputs) and downstream (transformation of peanuts and cotton), there is not
sufficient competition to lower the price of inputs and augment the price of sale of agricultural
products. The measures above have the advantage of concerning all farmers and all regions.
To create and strengthen interprofessional committees: The creation and the reinforcement of a
committee in which all the stakeholders in the agricultural process from seeds to sale of products meet
regularly to confer must be one of the prioritized strategies in the short term. Liberalization requires
that all the economic actors in this agricultural process, particularly including the producers,1 take more
and more charge of its politics, with the support of the State, to negotiate, among other things, a fair
division of the benefits. Some efforts have been done, in this sense, but they are largely insufficient.
The influence of the organizations of these producers is still very weak compared to that of agro-
industrial enterprises, both public and private.
To develop micro-credit: In the short term, always within the objective of the struggle against poverty,
one must increase the funds available for micro-credit. This small credit, (often the equivalent of $50 or
less) has a very positive effect on non-agricultural activities which play a role more and more in
determining the revenues and the food security of the poorest farmers, fishers, foresters, etc. It
concerns, above all, women, and the rate of repayment of micro-credit loans has been shown to be
high.
To develop small irrigation installations and vegetable gardens: The funding of small, easily managed
installations for irrigation channels, in any zones where this is possible (like the river valleys in the south
and southeast of Senegal, eg., the valley of the Senegal River) and irrigation by deep drilling to the water
table for small vegetable gardens in arid villages could complete effectively and at low cost the
strategies presented above.
To develop animal husbandry: One could also support a technically advanced, low cost plan to finance
raising animals in rural areas, particularly in the center and the north of the Peanut Basin, zones where,
on account of low rainfall, raising plants and animals is very difficult. One such strategy is certainly more
efficient and less costly than the method of artificial insemination, previously attempted, which have not
given the expected result.
1 Producers, in this case, refers to farmers of plants and animals, fishers, foresters at the front of the line of
production.
18
To protect cultures: One other complementary strategy is to increase the investments of the State in
the phytosanitary struggle in order to reduce the high losses of production due to diverse insect
infestations in the course of the growing cycle (for example, grasshoppers and white flies).
To sustain animal breeding in the sylvan-pastoral zone: Because of its characteristics, the sylvan
pastoral zone requires more specific measures, because the majority of its ethnic Pular population is
below the poverty level and they are almost entirely reliant on raising animals but without family
gardens for food security and the garden’s residue for the animals. Investments in farming equipment,
training, and installations to drill for, and pump water to drink and irrigate gardens could have a good
effect. For example, this would permit investments to create and maintain fire lanes, realizable in the
short term. Some actions of this type are already running in the cadre of programs for the organization
and management of pastoral areas.
The strategies for the short term proposed above present the advantage of attacking the problem of
poverty by greater reliance on agricultural production. They are coherent with other objectives of State
policy so that the accent is to reinvigorate this sector by investment in agricultural inputs. All portions of
production would benefit from this. In particular, peanuts, pluvial grains, horticulture and cotton would
see augmentation of their production. Rural revenues, farm community food security, and agricultural
exports would increase as would products available for urban populations.
To improve the value of existing irrigation installations: The sector stimulation, presented above,
would not be sufficient for rice culture irrigation. The farmers of the delta who are, by far, the most
indebted would benefit more than the others by measures to restructure their debt into long term
repayment at lower interest. They could then diversify themselves into horticulture, and production of
two varieties of peanut seed. New model techniques of production, the reduction of the costs of
irrigation, the drainage of the waters of irrigation, the resolution of the land question and the training of
farmers are necessary before massive investments in private and public irrigation would be profitable.
While waiting, the State, the private actors and the partners of development must concentrate on
increasing the value of the one hundred thousand hectares already being farmed and on family
agriculture in the valley.
To invest in the infrastructures and public services in rural areas: The Agricultural strategies above will
be more effective if the State institutes rapidly policies of investment already ordered in the domain of
rural infrastructures and large equipment (paved roads, graded roads, water, electricity, telephone and
internet access) and in the domain of public services in the rural milieu (education, health, civil
government, etc.). The Program of Rural Investment (PNIR) has begun to do things in this sense but it is
still very limited.
65. Policies for the Mid-term: to reinforce institutional capacities and to develop human resources
Strategies in the short term must be continued, in their essence, into the mid-term. The priority of the
mid-term policies must be such that one can call for an institutional new components and restructure. It
is necessary thus to build institutions necessary to an agricultural economy liberalized and subject to
international competition.
19
To reinforce the capacities of the State in the matter of agricultural policy: The State must give itself
the capacities and competences indispensable to elaborate, negotiate, put into work and to evaluate
the effective and equitable policies of agricultural and rural development in partnership with private
stakeholders and farmer’s organizations. It is necessary to affirm more clearly the priorities chosen by
the State, to define a coherent collection of policies and to deduce the programs and projects. This
work must be done in a rather short period.
To put in place a system of information, research and a support council in the rural areas: The
establishment of a system of information, training, research and a support council in rural areas is also
indispensable if on wishes to support farmers in the adoption of improved technologies and thus the
growth of agricultural productivity. This system must permit all rural peoples to have access to
information, to training, to improved technologies and to necessary counsel in order to make decisions
concerning their economic activities. The reinforcement of the capacities of the State and the institution
of a new system of support for family agriculture is in part defined in the cadre of the Project of
Agricultural Services and the support of the Organization of Producers (PSAOP).
Agricultural and rural training was not taken into account. The responsibilities of the private sector
upstream and downstream of production have not been well defined. Only the project of stimulating
peanut production takes into account satisfying the needs of interprofessional committees, representing
all the stakeholders, in the definition and direction of the policies for the whole stream of peanut
production and marketing. It anticipates the strengthening of a national interprofessional committee
for peanut production, the establishment of an observatory for the whole peanut production process
and the strengthening of farmers’ organizations. These measures must be generalized at least to the
principle agricultural processes for rice, cotton, horticulture, animal husbandry, grains, etc…
The work of conception must thus be followed to integrate these aspects. The new components and the
institutional restructuring of the agricultural sector will take time. It will be necessary at least to follow
and readjust as it goes along. Nevertheless, some important progress has been realized in this domain.
To insure the success of the policy of decentralization: In the government plan of institutional policies,
decentralization has a capital importance for the family agriculture. It has been launched with the law
of 1996 making regions of new autonomous territorial collectives with large responsibilities for rural
communities. Success supposes that the territorial collectives will be given the necessary human and
financial resources and that they will apply principles of good governance and of good administration.
To strengthen the capacities of farmers’ organizations: The policy of liberalization and the policy of
decentralization multiply the economic and political stakeholders of development. They obligate the
economic stakeholders, including farmers’ organizations, to take these policies into account in their
organizations and their partnerships. It is necessary for them to dialogue with the State, but also with
the regional councils and rural councils that have responsibilities in the matter of planning and of
establishing actions of development, of management of natural resources, of public services, of
professional formation, of infrastructures and equipment. This dialogue exists with the State and with
20
the partners in development and begins to give results. It requires of farmers’ organizations more
competencies and capacities at all levels. It is necessary for them also to affirm a greater autonomy
through rapport with political stakeholders if they wish to defend the interests of their members in
creating their appropriate political structures in conformity with the Law in Senegal.
To invest in rural infrastructures and public services: The strategies must also concern rural
infrastructures, major equipment and public services already enumerated and whose access has very
high costs for them: the civil state, education, health, professional formation, literacy training, etc… The
absence, the insufficiency or the poor quality of these services and infrastructures put a strain on the
costs of production in the rural milieu and the costs of access to urban markets. There is no longer any
doubt that rural peoples are not treated equitably in comparison to city dwellers.
67. Long Term Policies: To Transform and Modernize Family Agriculture:
The definition of policies for the long term raises arduous questions for which it is difficult for farmers’
organizations to provide immediate answers in the form of direction and strategies. Some studies, some
reflections and some large debates are indispensable. In effect, it is important that this prospective
reflection be the occasion of rethinking the statements between the agricultural economy and the rest
of the economy and between the rural and urban worlds.
Exponential agricultural growth in order to meet the demographic challenge:
The size of the growth of the population and its rapid urbanization obliges Senegal to set for itself an
objective of exponential growth of agricultural production if it wishes to assure itself of a minimum of
food security and to assure the competitiveness of its agricultural products in national and international
markets. Our rate of demographic growth being near to 3%, we must envision a superior agricultural
growth of 4% and even more if we wish to halt the further development of poverty. One must not
meanwhile forget that the efficacy of this rate of growth could be improved if efforts are made to
reduce inequality.
The choice of an agriculture based on intense capitalization does not constitute an effective and
equitable solution. It is necessary thus to opt for a profound transformation of family agriculture on the
plan structural and technological. This means that, to be successful, the current small plots of land must
be expanded in order for family farmers to master and benefit from modern techniques of production.
Reformation of land policies in order to transform family agriculture: The transformation of family
agriculture supposes a land policy which permits the growth of their size. For that, it is necessary to
encourage the exit of people from agriculture who cannot even survive with supplementary activities
and revenues. A broad land policy, understanding the need for new land legislation, allowing sale of
agricultural land, and the creation of institutions charged with implementing it, is indispensable. This
policy must contain rules preventing rural people from being dispossessed of their land by urban
investors with disposable capital, able to buy land at very low prices from farmers desperate for a
modicum of income to feed their families. Rather the policy must make it possible for other farmers,
within the same community, to buy neighboring hectares at a price fair to the seller. The creation of a
21
transparent land market and the institution of a right of preemption for farmers at the level of the rural
community are, without doubt, necessary.
This policy will accelerate the departure of a more and more significant number of farmers. It is not a
question here of saying what must be the size of farms, nor at what rhythm must their departure be.
These are decisions to examine carefully. By contrast, it is essential to accompany this policy by policies
of support for the creation of economic activities and employment in the rural milieu so that rural
people leaving their land can stay in nearby small villages with other employment. It is not possible for
all leaving their farms to insert themselves in the larger cities and find there an economic activity. And,
many would prefer to remain near their home communities. This policy necessitates important ways in
which, at the end of ten to fifteen years, the majority of the rural population will no longer be
agricultural nor practice agriculture as a secondary activity. The policy advocated above does not aim to
oblige small farmers to leave, either voluntarily or by force, from agricultural production. It no longer
acts to reduce the agricultural population to less than 5% of the national population as has been done in
western countries. It is necessary to put in place mechanisms permitting small farmers to choose from
knowledge of their true alternatives the best economic future for themselves and their families. Taking
account of the possibilities of the urban economy and of economic alternatives in the rural milieu, the
majority of them may choose, for reasons of food security, to continue agriculture part of the time.
The formation of family agriculture for the future: The systematic professional formation of rural
peoples for some agricultural activities but more and more for non-agricultural activities must also be a
priority. It is not possible to limit themselves to form cadres and technicians to form cadres of farmers.
The economic competition, at the global level, requires farmers capable of repeated innovation and to
master information in order to seize opportunities offered by the markets. It is necessary so that future
Senegalese farmers will be educated and trained. In a global economy, there will e less and less place
for illiterate small farmers. Basic education and the professional training of farmers and non-farmers
constitutes one of the conditions for the long term survival of family agriculture.
The organization of national space and a better insertion in sub-regional and international spaces
are essential for Senegal. The policy for the organization of land must be one of the major levers
of transformation of family agriculture. It must aim to have several objectives.
The first objective, which concerns directly family agriculture, is to incite a better apportionment
of agricultural space. More than two thirds of the rural population of Senegal are in the West,
the length of the maritime coast and, more particularly, in its central part. By contrast, the
Eastern part of the territory, above all the Southeast part which is moreover the most favorable
for agriculture, is less populated. Investments in the infrastructures and equipment, and also in
public services could reverse this situation.
The second objective would be to favor the emergence of what one could call a “new rurality”.
Senegal includes more than forty thousand villages. Only with difficulty can one imagine
equipping them with all the infrastructures and services to which these populations aspire. The
policy of organization of the territories must favor the development of a fabric of rural burgs
which would offer to the farmers the ensemble of services and basic infrastructures which could
stimulate the development of economic and social activities in the rural milieu. This, at the same
22
time, would redress the inequalities between rural and urban populations concerning access to
these services.
The fourth objective concerns the integration of Senegal in the sub-region. Senegal is very
poorly connected to neighboring countries, which constitutes a handicap for the whole of the
national economy, which includes the agricultural economy. The development of infrastructures
for railroads, highways and telecommunication with neighboring countries would permit
agriculture to compete with that of countries in the sub-region. UEMOA, which is an important
step in economic integration of the sub-region, is not, nevertheless, sufficient and it is necessary
to try to create a Free Trade Zone within the countries of ECOWAS.
The long-term policy for land management must permit improvement in the linkage of the
agricultural and rural economy with national and external urban markets in order thus to
construct a “new rurality”. These structural policies will be effective if policies of sustainable
intensification complement those of the diversification of agriculture in favorable zones: the
south of Senegal and the peanut basin, the valley of the Senegal River.
Elsewhere, in the center and the North of the peanut basin, the zone of sylvan-pastoral, an
interdependent agriculture and extensive, but sustainable animal breeding must be able to be
maintained, if necessary by subsidizing, in part, the rural people living in these zones.
These policies of intensification and diversification suppose a national system of information, of
training, of research and of support-counsel in favor of rural people. They suppose agreement
along the whole line of production thus to permit farmers to offer products responsive to market
demands for quality and which are integrated, effectively and competitively, into the end
processes of transformation and packaging. Experience shows that industries of transformation
and societies of commercialization play an essential role in this sense. It is p to them to have a
good knowledge of the demands of the markets and to orient the producers. It is also in the
segments of transformation and commercialization where, more and more, the benefit is realized.
The strategies above must not, however, imply that long term questions are simple to resolve.
What model of agriculture? Within liberalization and globalization, woven through the
policies of structural adjustment, the World Trade Organization (WTO), but also, one often
forgets, the treaty of the Monetary Union of West Africa (UEMOA), are two models which
challenge or marginalize family agriculture.
The agro-industrial model of the West is at the eve of a technological revolution. The
combination of biotechnologies, information and techniques of positioning by satellite are going
to permit an agricultural enterprise to be conducted like a factory.
New varieties containing genetically modified organisms (GMO) are going to permit an increase
of yield, but with heavy consequences for life and for the environment.
The experiences which one calls “the agriculture of precision” confirm that it will be possible,
tomorrow, to automate the majority of the work of cultivation in large farms. Family agriculture
again risks being marginalized.
23
In order to define this agricultural policy for the long term, the country needs to have a reflection
on the models of agriculture which it wishes to promote and on the place and the importance of
each model.
What model of food consumption? Another model is carried by the policies of liberalization
and of globalization, the model of western consumption under the pressure of agro-industry and
of multinational corporations. More and more one sees it cannot be generalized to most of the
planet, that it is a model made for the billion consumers of the western countries. To imply to
the five billion poor that they could catch up with the wealthy and consume like them is
politically and socially dangerous. In effect, the inequalities between rich and poor and between
developed countries and underdeveloped countries have never been as great as now. In leaving
the only market to regulate the economy, one will never close the gap. There are thus political
choices to make.
Senegal cannot by itself change the course of things, but it has at least the obligation to
contribute to it. For the farmers’ organizations, it is first at the national level that it must struggle
to convince the ensemble of their partners that family agriculture has a future and that it can
contribute to national development. Without a consensus on this plan, it will be difficult to
mobilize a majority in favor of the above proposed modernization of family agriculture. The
farmers’ organizations cannot win a majority on the basis of their discourse alone. It is
necessary to develop a knowledge and a proper reflection, but also to equip themselves with a
capable expertise to support them in this sense.
It is necessary also for them to push the State to develop sub-regional and international alliances
and solidarities in order to defend these ideas. The Farmer’s Movement promotes “Sustainable
Family Agriculture which is Ecological Organic Agriculture”.
67. Agroecology in the face of the Globalization of the Economy:
Since the end of the Second World War, international trade has always been a powerful engine
of growth in most countries.
The growing interdependence between markets and the production of various countries through
the exchange of goods and services but also of international movements of capital and
technology is characteristic of the process of globalization. This phenomenon of globalization
has been markedly reinforced since the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, which
precipitated the opening of the countries of the East to the winds of liberal reform and the
International Market. It became even more so with the conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the
creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995.
It thus appears that the international market transcends borders and inevitably propagates within
it the impact of decisions and policies sovereignly adopted, particularly at the level of its most
dynamic poles.
This is especially the case when, for example, growth in the United States, Europe or Japan
occurs where, for whatever reason, prices are rising in industrial countries, the shock wave
relayed by The market is inevitably felt at the level of the whole planet. Disruptions arising from
a sharp change in US interest rates or the exchange rate of the US dollar are also felt around the
world.
24
The rise of foreign direct investment in the 1980s and the development of intra-firm trade
through the play of multinationals are also signs of the phenomenon of globalization.
Ultimately, once the process of globalization has finally taken hold, leaving other alternatives
only the search for competitiveness to adapt to the competition which is the golden rule, how to
insert it Under penalty of being entrusted to the periphery of the system? How can we avoid
being reduced to the exclusive status of a simple country - a client, in addition to being insolvent
or heavily indebted? The adequate response to this kind of questioning necessarily refers to the
need to understand the stakes of globalization. It is therefore important to understand the
essential characteristics of the global economy through its organization and dynamics. It is also
essential to understand the place and prospects of the developing countries and especially of the
African region in the international economy. Finally, it would be useful to analyze the potential
opportunities offered to developing countries in general and Africa in particular, which is
resolutely open to the world by highlighting the constraints and demands of an in-depth and
harmonious integration of its economy into sub-regional trade And regional level which must in
itself be invigorated and beyond international trade
Beyond the gigantic size and the opacity of the borders, the international economy has in fact the
main determinants of a national economy. It has its market, a geographical space for meeting
offers and demands for goods and services, but also for factors of production, notably the capital
factor. It has its organization and its rules to ensure and discipline the competition between the
different actors. It secretes its poles of growth and a periphery that adapts as best it can. It is
becoming increasingly transparent with the development of means of communication and
satellite observations.
In general, the benchmarks for a more efficient international trade are codified by the WTO.
Integration into world trade in compliance with the liberal and competitive rules that the WTO
aims to strengthen in the monitoring of national trade policies therefore requires, in particular in
P.V. Such as those in Africa, a determined effort to increase the export base and competitiveness
of production. The export sector, whose relative costs must be reduced more and more, would
thus be promoted as the driving force of the economy.
Such an orientation towards large-scale exports implies an improvement and diversification of
production and requires, for its financing, the mobilization of financial resources generally
exceeding the possibilities of domestic saving; Hence the need for any country to have good
external credit, guaranteeing free access to capital markets
The global capital market, which is articulated with goods and services, also has binding access
rules. The scarcity of official development assistance (ODA) shows that financial resources,
whether public or private, foreign or national, will increasingly be channeled to countries
deemed to be at lower risk. These can be described as those who, while progressing in economic
liberalization, successfully implement sound macroeconomic policies.
Access to the capital market is thus necessarily dependent on satisfactory performance by the
institutions that govern the international monetary and financial system. At the heart of this
system, the IMF and the IBRD, in a complementary and coordinated manner, ensure rigorous
multilateral surveillance. They condition their financial aid as well as that of other donors (very
attentive to their diagnosis and commitment) to the adoption and relentless pursuit of a process
of reform and structural adjustment of economies. The guidance provided by these institutions in
25
the areas of macroeconomic stabilization, poor countries' debt servicing, and enhanced growth
and development are part of the process of globalization. The lifting of all trade barriers and the
elimination of any foreign exchange restrictions is thus established as a condition of access to the
capital market and even of international financial assistance.
The criteria for the assessment of medium-term stabilization and economic adjustment strategies
are known: they include fiscal consolidation and the sustainability of external accounts, firm
monetary policy to fight inflation, The adoption of a realistic exchange rate, the opening of the
economy to international trade, capital movements and competition.
The organization of the world economy, however, is in its multipolar essence. The unequal
exchange in a world of competition therefore results in the emergence of more or less hegemonic
blocs and the periphery of the system cannot escape the need to regroup to adapt better. The
industrial countries still set the tone in this regard. Already dominant, they nevertheless group to
optimize their chances against the competing blocks. The EU (European Union) and NAFTA
(North American Free Trade Agreement) are just a few examples.
This correct analysis of the phenomenon of globalization that we take up, is that of many
Senegalese and African economists.
68: Green Economy, an integral part of Ecological Organic Agriculture:
How to produce (by companies, by households): taking into account the environmental
dimension, workers' rights, respect for human and animal health, ethics.
How to consume: should we continue to watch 20% of the world's population consume 80% of
the world's resources while poverty and hunger kill millions of people?
How to allocate wealth: within and between countries, Official Development Assistance, what is
the future for the 0.7% of the GDP of the rich countries?
The Market: is it not the "law of the fittest" nuanced by multilateral trade agreements? The
market cannot become the supreme value of mankind. The market must be guided and governed
by the principles of humanity, dignity, citizenship, responsibility, solidarity, prudence,
precaution, safeguarding and cultural diversity for the benefit of the entire human community?
An agrécological vision of the green economy rests first on a different conception of the
economy: an economy of promotion and not of exploitation for the sole purpose of seeking
profit: the economic actions to be promoted must first allow Rural communities to live properly
in the villages and to have prospects for the future in a secure rural world. To restore hope to the
rural population, the conditions for a more balanced development between cities and countryside
guaranteeing the long-term future of the national community must be ensured.
There is also a need to work towards the development of a profitable economy that ensures a
sufficient volume of activities and income for the rural population by making the best use of the
basic resources of the terroirs, adding value and diversifying Agricultural and non-agricultural
activities through the reconstruction of production / processing / marketing / service "chains" that
will help revitalize the rural economy. Such an objective also implies the promotion of a
sustainable economy concerned with the reconstitution of natural resources and the maintenance
of social mechanisms to manage a solidarity "living together"; Finally, a fair economy
26
(addressing the causes of poverty and reducing inequalities), which should ultimately ensure that
the peasant enjoys a socio-economic status, security and living conditions at the same level as for
all peoples citizens.
The advent of this renovated economy is possible if one takes into account the logics and
dynamics of local actors. Its construction must not be based on the "product" (as in the chain
approach), but on the "producer" and be based on the family which forms the basis of the social
structure in rural areas.
The Peasant Movement proposes here an approach that it has already tried to support the
evolution of the family farm. This revival of the agro-ecological family farm must be part of the
reconstruction of a rural economy at the different levels (local, regional, national, subregional)
ensuring upstream and downstream of agricultural production conditions for its valorization .
The diversification of production (agricultural and non-agricultural), local processing of
products, improvement of marketing conditions, price control and market expansion by
respecting the rules of fair competition and First, closer peasant-to-peasant exchanges based on
zonal and subregional complementarities, better access to information, technology and credit
must enable quantitative and qualitative improvement in production, creation of a value Added to
ensure better direct and indirect remuneration of the real actors of the rural world, and the
creation of green jobs to retain the living forces in the village.
This revival of the rural economy must at the same time be underpinned by a long-range vision
of local and regional development based on land tenure security, the creation and maintenance of
basic infrastructure, (Training, health, recreation and culture) and the maintenance of social
peace. For this new rural economy to become a reality, a number of political conditions must be
met. Political guidelines must be put in place to counter the excesses of uncontrolled
liberalization and the slippage of non-transparent competition and to support the initiatives of the
rural people while preserving their interests at international, state and decentralized levels. in
place. Framework conditions for the development of agroecology, sustainable availability of
natural resources, appropriate regulation, adherence to good investment priorities, rural access to
financing systems, the development of an appropriate research, information system, training and
advice, good governance, must be created.
Each actor must take responsibility for controlling the drift resulting from current trends in six
areas that are decisive for the future of the rural world: the trend towards privatization of basic
resources and the risk of monopolizing the management of land and resources Naturalization,
tendency to spin-off production and privatization of services and the risk of a decline in the
quality of services in the field of production, a tendency to relocate investments and activities in
the Loss of surplus value, a tendency towards opening up to the world market and total
liberalization of prices, and the risk of new monopolies in the field of seed marketing and
production, a tendency to reduce the notion of public interest And risk of marginalization of the
most vulnerable in the area of local economy and development The risk of failure to take over
the credit for productive investment and climatic risks in the area of financing the
transformations to be carried out.
Farmers' leaders with the support of NGOs have a decisive role to play in constructing,
defending and supporting a form of re-foundation of rural Senegalese and African society. In
relation to the definition of the political orientations at the different levels, the peasant leaders
will try to influence through lobbying the decision-makers in the interest of the rural world and
27
to provide their members with useful information on these policies to know and understand what
can influence the evolution of their condition, and possibly mobilize to defend their interests.
In relation to the implementation of the framework conditions, the peasant leaders will propose
certain measures to be taken, monitor their respect and act within the frameworks created.
Finally, work of political watch and economic initiatives or support for grassroots farmers is
their own responsibility in the field of action. But these peasant leaders (at different levels:
village, rural community, nation) must evolve and adapt, keep their autonomy of reflection and
action, ally with others if necessary, strengthen their capacity to mobilize to play their role. The
National Platform for the Development of Agroecology will play a decisive role in supporting
them.
The Farmer Movement in Senegal with the support of the Platform must answer three questions
today: 1) How can the peasant live and develop his ecological organic family farm? 2) How can
the farmer face liberal policies? 3) How can the peasant rebuild and consolidate the basic
structures that constitute his "security perimeter" (family, village community and inter village)?
The green ecology within the framework of the ecological organic agriculture, must make it
possible to reach to the development of the local populations on the Cultural, Social, Economic,
Ecological and Political development which mean sustainable development.
VII. Conditions of Sustainability of the Ecological Organic Family Farm (EAOFF):
Development of a policy to support ecological organic family farms and integration of
young people (graduates and non-graduates) in the agricultural sector.
Establishment of rural promotion centers for young people: education, training and
apprenticeship in ecological organic agricultural trades.
Recognition, appreciation and respect for the cultural, social and economic, ecological
and political dimensions of the FFA.
Promotion of favorable conditions for the viability of the agro-ecological family farm,
particularly the fight against illiteracy.
Development of technical and economic support services.
Improvement of the rural environment.
# pluvial – a climate characterized by an annual prolonged period of abundant rain, different from the rest of the year
which is arid.
Supply Inputs (crop and livestock production): • Accessibility, availability (distribution network) and variety. Guaranteed quality and affordable. • Develop proximity services for production and conservation of inputs (seeds and organic inputs) • Establishment of control services and legislation on standards and quality control of inputs. • Implementation of a fiscal and customs policy to lower the prices of factors of production • Establishment of one-stop shops to shorten administrative costs and procedures for production factors. • Establishment of central purchasing offices.
28
• Opt for the production of specific organic fertilizers related to the crop and soil types (inputs adapted to soil quality and ecological organic production methods). Production: • Promotion, diversification and integration of ecological organic sectors (fight against famine, poverty, food insecurity), • Quality and quantity training. • Development of water and land resources (water control wherever possible). • Implementation of an agricultural insurance policy to contain the various risk factors that weaken producers and their production systems. • Promotion of the control of product quality standards (recognition of the Organic Farming Standards in Senegal). • Mobilization of the non-agricultural private sector (suppliers, industrialists, bankers, transporters, researchers, etc.) to support the family farm. • Promotion of "NEW SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS THROUGH ECOLOGICAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE".
Used farm equipment: • Availability, accessibility and costs (reducing the high cost and access difficulties) of productive equipment in general. • Reduction of taxes or exemptions on agricultural equipment and other factors of production (tax and customs facilities). Environment: • Management and protection, restoration of ecosystems (restoration and protection of productive capital and above all of soil) • Regional policy for soil fertility management (improvement of cultural practices) • Promotion of the use of alternative energy to wood (solar, wind, gas, etc.)
Land: • Securing of land ownership (establishment of codes and registration). • Secure agro-land policy for ecological organic owners and family farms. • Land reform for the access of smallholders, women, migrants and young people to land ownership. • Updating pastoral codes. • Problems of cross-border transhumance: consultation and negotiation between the actors. Financing: • Reduction of lending rates and creation of medium and long-term intervention mechanisms and structures adapted to the financing of ecological organic family farming. • Incentives for the installation of young ecological organic farmers. • Establishment of a regional agricultural bank and the establishment of a fund to guarantee and improve agricultural borrowing, with financing approaches adapted to ecological organic family farms and crop calendars. • Establishment of a UEMOA / ECOWAS regional fund for rural modernization and maintenance of ecological organic family farming and local development. • Marketing credit for the purchase and storage of agricultural products.
29
• Participation of farmers' organizations and ecological organic agricultural producers in the capital of the industrial units of the subsector. • Partial withdrawal of the levies for the development of the ecological organic sectors. Storage: • Support for the establishment and / or rehabilitation of storage infrastructures, in particular against the problems of considerable post-harvest losses (a policy of storage and conservation of crops). • Establishment of mechanisms for the storage and marketing of agricultural agro-ecological products. • Establishment and rehabilitation of cereal banks, in particular to ensure the security of producers and to help empower Ecological Organic Organizations (EAOO). Transformation or Processing: • Creation of agro-ecological agricultural processing units in rural areas, on the initiative or by participation of EAOO. • Valuation of organic local raw materials by existing industrial units. • Promote the versatility of industrial structures. Marketing: • Promotion of internal agro-ecological exchanges in the sub region. • Organization of flow channels and markets and reasonable producer prices for agro-ecological products. • Promotion of non-taxes on ecological organic agriculture factors of production. • Organization of trade between EAOO (ex: for gari vs.onion) and networking of markets (stock exchange). • Promotion of the comparative advantages of each country (Strengthening the advantages of each country). • A price policy for agro-ecological producers taking into account both production costs and income improvement.
Trade and transport: • Strengthening of supervision in the implementation of the texts governing the movement of persons and their property in member countries (stoppage of police and customs harassment restricting the free movement of products both within the country and between Countries of the sub region). • Free movement of people and goods within and between states (North to South and South to North). • Opening up of production areas development of road networks (organization of carriers and development policy of high-quality railways at the subregional level, a policy of opening up access to rural roads). • Development of the interstate maritime, railway and air transport network. • Opening up of production areas through the development of communication infrastructures. • Joint organization of air cargo. • Promotion of agro-sylvo-pastoral fairs and crafts. Communication: • Development of West African sub-regional networks to intensify exchanges between farmers' organizations, consultation and negotiation for the establishment of support services, including procurement, applied research, advice, transformation / storage , Marketing, price. • Development of regional "rural radio" programs.
30
• Regional program of access to the New Technologies of Information and Communication. • Establishment of a regional market information system (availability and production).
Training and Information:
• Training and information in ecological organic agriculture of managers, staff and members of farmer’s
organizations, particularly on the requirements of economic liberalism and the need to change it.
• Support for strategic reflection and strengthening institutional, technical and management capacities
of AFEs.
• Policy to reduce the magnitude of illiteracy, lack of control over the management of farms and
producer organizations and the lack ecological organic agriculture technological information.
• Management and management of takeover bids (Elected officers / Executives).
• Strengthening and improving national policies and regional Research & Development programs to
encourage the creation of more appropriate technologies and the enhancement of endogenous
knowledge and practices.
• Production and dissemination of economic information.
• Ecological organic technological exchange between EAOO networks, agricultural research centers in
the sub region.
• Public subsidies for the continuing training of producers in agroecology.
• Co-management of development projects to take into account the creation and governance of local
authorities as a catalyst for local development and participatory democracy.
• Reorganization of support for producers on the basis of an agricultural consultancy program
(agricultural advice and research specifying the responsibilities and performance obligations of each
partner (public agricultural and research consultancy services, NGOs, producers).
Monitoring and evaluation :
• Systematic involvement of EAOOs in the monitoring and evaluation of all agricultural and rural sector
programs and projects in order to integrate ecological organic agriculture.
31
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Projet de Renforcement des Capacités Techniques et d’Analyse des Organisations paysannes
(Gvt.Sen/FAO/CNCR/FONGS 1997-99. Accompagnement du Mouvement Paysan par Mr Jacques FAYE
Chercheur sur la définition des Politiques Agricoles, La Question Paysanne au Sénégal)
Les Accords de l’Uruguay-Round du GATT. Impacts sur les Pays en Voie de Développement (Ibrahima
SECK 1994).
Programme de Renforcement des Capacités des Organisations Paysannes au Sénégal (FAO/CNCR 1996).
ROPPA Atelier Régional Ouagadougou Octobre 2001)