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)