OBSERVATION OF FAMILY FARM DYNAMICS...OBSERVATION OF FAMILY FARM DYNAMICS in 13 CoUNtRIeS oF WeSt AFRICA during the 2014E - 2016 agricultural campaigns ReGIoNAl FAMIlY FARMS oBSeRVAtoRY

OBSERVATION OF FAMILYFARM DYNAMICS

in 13 CoUNtRIeS oF WeSt AFRICAduring the 2014 - 2016 agricultural campaigns

ReGIoNAl FAMIlY FARMS oBSeRVAtoRY(oFF/RoPPA)

JANUARY 2017

2016

REP

ORT

OF

ROPP

A’S

REG

ION

AL

OB

SERV

ATO

RY O

F FA

MIL

Y F

ARM

SBo

ok

let

Executive Summary of the Report:.................................................................................4Presentation.....................................................................................................................7

Chapter 1 : The 2015/2016 agricultural campaign........................................................9(1) The 2015/2016 AGRICULTURAL CAMPAIGN: better than campaign

2014 / 2015 as a whole ........................................................................................................................10(2) Comments on the agricultural campaign results and first findings...................................15

Chapter 2 : Approaches and results of family farms during the past agricultural campaign..19(3) Approaches and results of family farms in the Sahelo-Sudan countries

(NIGER, BURKINA FASO, MALI)...........................................................................................................24(4) Approaches and results of family farms in coastal countries of the West

Atlantic Facade SENEGAL, GAMBIA, GUINEA BISSAU) ..............................................................27(5) Approaches and results of family farms in forest-rich countries recently

affected by Ebola (GUINEA, SIERRA LEONE, LIBERIA)................................................................33(6) Approaches and results of family farms in the coastal countries

of the South Atlantic Facade (CÔTE D'IVOIRE, GHANA, TOGO, BENIN ................................37

Chapter 3 : The Strategies of Family Farms....................................................................43(7) Types of information produced by the ROPPA national platforms

on family farm strategies ....................................................................................................................44(8) The driving force of family farm strategies...................................................................................44(9) Approaches of family strategies......................................................................................................45(10) Terms of family strategy implementation.....................................................................................48

Chapter 4 : Conclusions drawn by ROPPA on the observation of family farfeatures during the 2014-15 and 2015-16 agricultural campaignsHOW TO STRENGTHEN THE VIABILITY of family farms?...............................................49

(11) The multifunctional dimension of FFs as the basis for their viability and resilience....50(12) Perception of family farm viability by ROPPA platform members:

a conditioned viability ........................................................................................................................51(13) FFs' contribution to national economies and national companie

justifies the interest of States ............................................................................................................52(14) To sustainably improve the viability of FFs, they should be made

more attractive to young people and women............................................................................54

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ..............................................................................56

Tables:

COMPARATIVE TABLE A : THE 2015/2016 CAMPAIGN (indicative data accordinto the platforms analysis)....................................................................................................................10

COMPARATIVE TABLE B : TRENDS IN THE EVOLUTION OF OF FAMILFARM RESULTS (2015/2016) ...............................................................................................................22

Summary

4

The 1st Report of the ROPPA REGIONAL OBSER-VATORY OF FAMILY FARMS (OEF / ROPPA) ad-dresses four issues that successively deliver (i) afarmer’s interpretation of West African familyfarm features over the past two agriculturalcampaigns; (ii) a table of local advisory supportreceived by these FFs; (iii) an analysis of the po-licies these FFs and their central organizationshad to face; and (iv) the OEF perspectives. At thesame time, ROPPA took advantage of the infor-mation generating process that documentedthis first report to analyze its current family farmmonitoring practices. For convenience of use,this report is broken down into four BOOKLETSand one SUMMARY and CONCLUSION docu-ment. The part of the report dealing with the obser-vation of family farm features on the 2 agricul-tural campaigns constitute the core of thisbooklet (BOOKLET 1: OBSERVATION OF FAMILYFARMS). From this observation, it can be noti-ced from one year to another that, dependingon climatic patterns, but also on the intensityof public support, family farms are able tomake significant progress and thus improvethe food security and sovereignty of the re-gion. Thus, 8 countries in the West African re-gion improved their yields for the 2015 - 2016agricultural campaign compared to the pre-vious year. These include Niger, Mali, Senegal,Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leoneand Liberia. For most of these 8 countries, foodshortage was more efficiently dealt with thisyear as family and community granaries werewell provisioned, yields from harvest / coun-ter-season activities were substantial, marketswere well stocked, and prices remained stable.In these 8 countries, the good rainfall in 2015and favorable public policies (especially onsubsidies), coupled with family farm strategiesand the action of FOs, generally favored theseresults. In some areas, natural disasters, civil in-security and shortcomings in the implemen-

tation of public actions have limited the resultsof the agricultural campaign. On this point, thereport concludes that, alongside natural fac-tors, human action (FF strategies, State action)remains equally decisive. It also concludes thatFOs should develop the monitoring of agricul-tural campaigns in order to strengthen theirrole in the setting and implementation of po-licies.This part of the report also lays down an as-sessment of the yields from family farms pergroup of countries that share more or less thesame eco-geographical and socio-culturalcharacteristics. So in the Sudan-Sahel coun-tries (Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger), FFs have beenrather self-sufficient and often in surplus re-garding food production, with an increase inlivestock production, a good marketing, an in-crease in revenues, and a contribution to eco-nomies. The coastal countries of the westernAtlantic seaboard (Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Se-negal) have also had an increase in food andlivestock production and improved marketingconditions, except in one country (Guinea Bis-sau). In the forest-rich countries recently affec-ted by the Ebola epidemic (Guinea, Liberia,Sierra Leone), there has been a distinct in-crease in food production but a slower in-crease in animal and fishery production andthe supply hardly keeps pace with market de-mand. Finally, in the coastal countries of thesouthern Atlantic seaboard (Benin, Côted'Ivoire, Ghana, Togo), there is, on the contrary,a downward trend in food production even iffood security is not threatened. However, lives-tock farming is in progress.The report identifies, for the 4 groups of coun-tries, the factors that have favored or constrai-ned the yields of FFs and provides informationon the strategies implemented by the familyfarms to achieve the objectives they pursuegiven the opportunities and constraints thatarise. Finally, the report concludes that section

Executive Summary of the Report:

OBSERVATION OF FAMILY FARM DYNAMICS

5

with an analysis of the sustainability of FFs inWest Africa, which will progressively dependon their ability to transform themselves so asto always be more attractive to young peopleand women. Several arguments point to thefact that FFs should draw the interests ofStates in view of their substantial contributionto national economies and businesses.

The observations in BOOKLET 2 (OBSERVA-TION OF FARMER ADVISORY SUPPORT TO FA-MILY FARMS) give an overview of the currentservices offered by FOs regarding advice andsupport to family farms. Outcomes show thatmajor farmer based support systems to FFs existin 5 countries (Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, Gui-nea, and Benin), partially functional or under de-velopment farmer systems in 4 countries (Niger,Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana), and that there arenot yet farmer support systems to FFs in 4 coun-tries (Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone,Togo). This booklet also describes and makes acomparative analysis of the practices and sys-tems of farmer support, and an identification ofthe conditions under which farmer practicesand support systems to FFs are developed.Eventually, after a first assessment of the out-comes of these farmer systems, the report sug-gests progress perspectives in this 2nd Booklet,particularly the promotion of a national supportand advisory system to family farms (SNAAP /EF) in each country, based on the FO / Statepartnership, and making it possible to reinforcethe adaptation and proximity of advisory ser-vices to family farms. It should be noted herethat, in this view, 5 countries (Burkina Faso,Gambia, Guinea, Mali and Senegal) already haveproposals jointly developed by the national far-mer platform and the supervisory ministry ineach country. BOOKLET 3 (MONITORING OF PUBLIC POLI-CIES WITH REGARDS TO FAMILY FARMS andEFFECTIVENESS OF FARMERS ACTIONS) givesthe analysis and appreciation by the farmer or-ganizations of the main current public policiesfrom the point of view of their effects on the FFs.This analysis focuses on the main public policiesknown to POs in each country. They are identi-

fied and the effects of their implementation areassessed by area. Six areas were identified: theuse of seeds and other inputs, building facilitiesand infrastructure, support for animal and fishproduction, support for marketing, access to fi-nance and credit, and access to land). The posi-tive effects of recent policies on family farms inmost States are significant in terms of improvedaccess to inputs; they are more mitigated regar-ding product marketing; there are problems forsmall-scale family farmers, for women, for lives-tock farmers in several countries in terms of landsecurity and access to managed land. The pea-sants watch also highlights many policy imple-mentation problems and analyzes the recentwork of national platforms on policies and itsmain results. The second part of this Booklet outlines themain regional policies which ROPPA is involvedin, their instruments and regional implementa-tion programs (regional food security reserve,development programs of UEMOA priority sec-tors, PRAPS - Sahelian pastoralism PRIDEC - far-ming in coastal countries, GAFSP, Sahelirrigation, PAPROSEM, rice offensive). The politi-cal positioning of ROPPA is presented in colla-boration with networks of FOs and CSO partnersand an assessment is made of the results obtai-ned through their lobbying and their expectedeffects on family farms. Significant progress inthe participation of POs in political dialogue ishighlighted. Based on the internal reflections of ROPPAprompted by the results of its policy watch atthe time of the validation of its first report, thisbooklet highlights nine cross-cutting issueswhich ROPPA is and will remain particularly sen-sitive to: (i) the temptation to focus on industrialagriculture to the detriment of family farming;(ii) spatial management and land use planning;(iii) renewal of natural resources and anticipa-tion of climate change; (iv) fisheries and aqua-culture; ; (v) management of pastoralism inpolicies; (vi) inclusion of women in policies; (vii)inclusion of young people in policies; (viii) secu-rity in the rural world; (ix) the definition and im-plementation of policies.


BOOKLET 4 (MONITORING PRACTICES OFROPPA PO MEMBERS ) presents the picture ofcurrent monitoring practices of agriculturalcampaigns, monitoring practice of family farmbehaviors and results, advisory support prac-tices and the political watch practices of ROPPAplatforms that gathered the information used toproduce the first ROPPA OEF report. This inven-tory, mainly for internal use, should serve as abasis for improving these practices in the pro-cess of progressive consolidation of this obser-vatory.

Finally the REPORT SUMMARY shows the cha-racteristics of this first report, summarizes the

knowledge produced by farmer organizationson the dynamics of family farms, how to followand support them, and the assessments of far-mer organizations on policies relating to familyfarms, as developed in all 4 Booklets, and out-lines the prospects of the ROPPA family farm ob-servatory, particularly in terms of disseminationof this report (which for ROPPA is only the firstof a series), and in terms of the progressive im-provement of its observation and consolidationmechanisms of the ROPPA Regional OEF.

6


The observatory of family farms gradually built byROPPA seeks to inform on the behavior of familyfarms over the agricultural campaigns. It is fed bythe information provided by the monitoring of thecampaigns carried out by the PO of each countryand those from the various monitoring systems offamily farms, which remain unevenly developedaccording to the PO.This booklet includes four chapters:• Chapter 1 presents the overall characteristics

of the last agricultural campaigns (2014 /2015 and 2015/2016) retained by ROPPAbased on observations made by its nationalplatforms.

• Chapter 2 presents per country the main ap-proaches and results of family farms duringthese campaigns.

• Chapter 3 : presents the observations made bythe national platforms on the family farmstrategies

• Chapter 4: presents the first critical assessmentof ROPPA based on the observation of the be-havior of farms on the issue of conditions ofthe current viability of family farms

Depending on the nature of the information givenby the PO, the choice was made to present the be-havior of family farms during the last agriculturalcampaigns in a geographical empirical groupingof 4 sets of countries which have some natural orsocio-political features in common:– Countries of the Sahel Sudanian zone

(NIGER, BURKINA FASO, MALIThese three countries do not have coastal ac-cess. They have two to three major agro-eco-logical zones (Savannah, Sahel, Sahara - butthe inputs of Niger and Mali do not deal withthe Saharan areas), and are all affected by theterrorism. These countries are traditionally ce-real growing zones where pastoralism or agro-pastoralism play an important part, butunevenly populated in this report.

– Coastal countries of the west Atlantic fa-cade (SENEGAL, GAMBIA, GUINEA BISSAU)This grouping is due to its reference to theEbola fever epidemic (MVE) , but seems signi-ficant on the last two campaigns (the disorga-nizing effects of the epidemic are stillperceptible in 2016). What these countrieshave in common is that they benefit from na-tural favorable conditions (strong potential).The share of tubers is important in their agri-cultural production. In Guinea, the rearing oflarge ruminants is very limited by theconstraints of climate. The effects of civil warsare still perceptible in Sierra Leone and in Libe-ria. Space competition with the FF of industrialplantations and the action of companies is im-portant

– Coastal countries of the south Atlantic fa-cade (GUINÉE, SIERRA LEONE, LIBÉRIA)Ce regroupement est conjoncturel par rapportà sa référence à l’épidémie de fièvre Ebola(MVE)1, mais paraît significatif sur les deux der-nières campagnes (les effets désorganisateursde l’épidémie sont en effet encore sensibles en2016). Ces pays ont en commun de bénéficierde conditions naturelles favorables (fort po-tentiel). La part des tubercules est importantedans leur production agricole. Outre pour laGuinée, l’élevage des grands ruminants est trèslimité par les contraintes climatiques. Les effetsdes guerres civiles sont encore sensibles enSierra Leone et au Libéria. La concurrence surl’espace avec les EF des plantations indus-trielles et l’action des firmes y est importante.

– pays côtiers de la façade Atlantique Sud(COTE D’IVOIRE, GHANA, TOGO, BENIN))

1 This epidemic has also had an impact on the agriculture andthe food situation in the southof Senegal because of the closure of the land borders of thecountries affected, which has particularly affected certain weekly and regional markets in thesouth of Senegal, as that of Diaobé

Presentation

7


These countries are the umbilical cords of thecountries without coastal access. They have astrong natural potential conducive to diversi-fication, and are attractive for migration andtranshumance, and are therefore areas ofspace tension (land problems) and conflicts(farmers/producers). In these countries withstrong economic and commercial dynamism,family farm is not politically supported. Theissue of the "modernization" of agriculture andlivestock is very sensitive, and the model ofAgribusiness not much discussed

This non-conventional order of presentation willbring us to scan the region in a circular way fromthe North East to the West and going back to theSouth East which is reminiscent of the trajectoryof some large population movements in the his-tory of West Africa, and to revisit the data of its cur-rent History (rise in extremism, epidemic outbreaksof Ebola fever…). Although the priority target of the information col-lected by the platforms is subsistence crops, cashcrops are addressed in an indirect way

Three forms in which cash crops are addressedindirectly in the inputs of platforms :1. The orientation of the FF cash crop stra-

tegies: according to the agro-ecologicalzones where they exercise their productionactivities, some FF can specialize in subsis-tence crops or cash crops, but this choice isnot definitive: it can change according tothe campaigns. In the areas where thechoice is possible, the FFs consider bothfood crops and cash crops, with conse-quences on sown areas: "should they ensurethe food security of their family through ce-real availability? Or should they dispose ofmonetary income?" The trends discussed inthe exchanges at the country level describein some areas a tendency to an orientationtoward cash crops at the expense of subsis-tence crops. These trade-offs are less binding if thechoice spans over one agricultural cam-paign (trade-offs between the millet andpeanut in Senegal). They are much morebinding when it comes to long-term choice(several years): this is the case of the deve-lopment of the cashew tree in Guinea Bissauand in Liberia, or even of the rubber tree inCôte d'Ivoire.

2. These trade-offs are also made by Statesin the framework of public subsidies bet-ween cash crops and subsistence crops. Thisis the case in Mali, between the dry zoneand the area of cotton or in Benin where thedistribution of imported fertilizers till thenreserved for cotton has been extended tosubsistence crops. The orientation of thesegrants or the conditions of access can alsoinfluence the trade-offs at the family level.However the States are evolving in their po-licies and are looking to diversify agro-silvo-pastoral and fishing production whichguarantees national food security2

3. The threat of agro business to familyfarms, oriented toward cash crops, is anissue raised in Senegal, Sierra Leone, Liberia,Togo (risk of an extension of the land codefrom urban to rural regions, concerns aboutagro poles), in Benin (hoarding of land bypublic servants), Ghana (concerns about thecoastal zone), etc. with direct implicationson land tenure and social stability

The monitoring approach of agricultural campaigns and family farm dynamics which have al-lowed the national platforms to achieve these results are described in Booklet 4 (MONITORINGPRACTICES OF ROPPA PO MEMBERS).


Presentation : Agricultural campaigns constitute the backdrop against which one can ob-serve the behavior of family farms in relation to the climatic conditions andthe state of natural resources, the evolution of markets as well as the imple-mentation of public policies. The follow-up of the campaigns by the PO allows them to both adjust theirsupport for family farms and supplement the data provided by the nationalmonitoring campaign systems - which they participate to in most countries,and to call on public authorities. Their practices in this area are unevenly advanced depending on the country,and the revival of the Observatory of ROPPA must enable them to graduallyimprove. We will present in the first section of this chapter the main data provided bythe platforms on the characteristics of the last campaign. In the second section we will comment on the presented results

The agricultural campaign 2015/2016

Chapter

01


10

Coun

trie

s of

the

Sahe

lo-S

udan

zon

e

NIG

erB

Ur

KIN

a F

aSO

Ma

LI

rem

inde

r on

the

2014

/ 2

015

cam

paig

n

Unp

rodu

ctiv

e ca

mpa

ign

- Del

ay in

rai

ns/s

udde

n st

op-P

est

atta

cks

- Des

pite

impr

ovem

ent

of p

astu

res

fo

dder

bal

ance

in d

efic

it-P

ress

ure

on t

he la

nd li

nked

to

peop

le

and

herd

mig

ratio

n (C

onfli

cts/

inse

curit

y)

→ F

ood

cris

is

Fair

ly g

ood

resu

lts

- lSl

ight

dec

reas

e in

cer

eals

com

pare

d

to t

he 2

013/

14ca

mpa

ign;

del

ays

in

rain

s, g

rani

voro

us b

irds)

, but

in

crea

sed

by 7

% c

ompa

red

with

the

fiv

e-ye

ar a

vera

ge- O

ver

45 p

rovi

nces

, 13

rem

ain

in d

efic

it

→ F

ragi

le fo

od

situ

atio

n (a

lmos

t ha

lf of

the

FFs

hav

ece

real

def

icit

acco

rdin

g to

the

estim

ates

of t

he P

latf

orm

)

Goo

d C

ampa

ign

- Inc

reas

e in

cer

eal p

rod.

22%

co

mpa

red

to 2

013/

14 (

81%

of

the

cam

paig

n ob

ject

ives

- G

ap ←

ra

infa

ll) +

24%

cot

ton

prod

.

→ S

urpl

us o

f cer

eals

com

pare

d to

nee

ds

Obs

erva

tion

sm

ade

at t

he e

ndof

the

2015

/201

6ca

mpa

ign

Bett

er c

ampa

ign

- Abu

ndan

t ra

ins

- Phy

tosa

nita

ry s

ituat

ion

unde

r co

ntro

l- G

ood

reac

tion

of p

ublic

aut

horit

ies

and

farm

ers

stra

tegi

es- S

urpl

us o

f ce

real

s- R

educ

ed a

vaila

bilit

y of

pas

ture

and

w

ater

by

the

end

of t

he d

ry s

easo

n →

af

fect

ed r

esul

ts o

f liv

esto

ck fa

rmin

g

→ F

ood

situ

atio

n im

prov

ed, b

utvu

lner

abili

ty r

emai

ns (

stru

ctur

al fo

odcr

isis

))

Less

goo

d ca

mpa

ign

- A

bund

ant

rain

fall,

but

bad

spa

ce-

time

dist

ribut

ion

(flo

ods,

wat

erst

ress

) - D

ecre

ase

of 6

% in

the

cer

eal

prod

uctio

n- D

ecre

ase

of 1

1% in

the

pro

d. o

f ca

sh

crop

s- 2

0 pr

ovin

ces/

45 in

def

icit

- FFs

ten

denc

y to

incr

ease

cu

ltiva

ted

area

s- S

atis

fact

ory

supp

ly o

f m

arke

ts

→ F

ood

situ

atio

n im

prov

ed th

anks

tosu

bsid

ized

sal

es p

rice

s of

cer

eals

and

pick

ing

prod

ucts

Goo

d ca

mpa

ign

- Goo

d ra

infa

ll- P

hyto

sani

tary

situ

atio

n un

der

cont

rol

- Eff

ectiv

e pu

blic

act

ion

- FFs

Inte

nsifi

catio

n tr

end

(jud

icio

us

use

of s

ubsi

dize

d in

puts

)- I

ncre

ase

in c

erea

l and

ani

mal

pr

oduc

tion(

Goo

d A

vaila

bilit

y)- R

esul

ts h

owev

er li

mite

d by

in

secu

rity

and

bad

tech

n.se

rvic

e pr

actic

es

→Fo

od s

itua

tion

sat

isfa

ctor

y, e

xcep

t in

area

s af

fect

ed b

y flo

odin

g or

inse

curi

ty.

(1)

The

2015

/201

6 A

GRI

CULT

URA

L CA

MPA

IGN

: be

tter

tha

n 20

14 /

201

5 ca

mpa

ign

as a

who

leCO

MPA

RATI

VE

TAB

LE A

: TH

E 20

15/2

016

CAM

PAIG

N (

indi

cativ

e da

ta a

ccor

ding

to

the

Plat

form

s an

alys

is)


11

Coas

tal c

ount

ries

of t

he W

est A

tlan

tic

Faca

deSÉ

NÉG

aL

Ga

MB

IeG

UIN

Ée B

ISSa

Ure

min

der

on t

he20

14 /

201

5ca

mpa

ign

mau

vais

e ca

mpa

gne

-Lat

e an

d er

ratic

rai

ns- D

ecre

ase

in d

ry c

erea

ls,

grou

ndnu

t, co

tton

, and

tom

ato

prod

.- I

ncre

ase

in r

ice,

oni

on, m

ilk

prod

. and

pou

ltry

prod

ucts

- Dro

p in

res

ults

com

pare

d to

th

e pr

evio

us c

ampa

igns

→ F

ood

safe

ty c

riti

cal i

n 24

depa

rtm

ents

out

of 4

2 dé

part

emen

ts s

ur 4

2

poor

cam

paig

n:pr

oduc

tions

of

cere

als

(incl

udin

g ric

e) a

ndpe

anut

s in

dec

line

com

pare

d to

the

ave

rage

of t

he la

st 4

yea

rs.

poor

cam

paig

n -P

oor

spac

e-tim

e d

istr

ibut

ion

of r

ain

- Cer

eals

: dec

reas

e in

see

ded

area

and

yie

lds;

de

crea

se o

f 38

% o

f th

e pr

od.

-Ric

e: d

ecre

ase

of 3

6%

Obs

erva

tion

s m

ade

at t

he e

nd o

f th

e20

15/2

016

cam

paig

n

Bet

ter

cam

paig

n-E

noug

h ra

in (

at r

egul

ar

inte

rval

s)- I

ncre

ase

in c

ultiv

ated

are

as- I

ncre

ase

of 7

2% in

cer

eals

and

ric

e pr

oduc

tion

- mor

e im

port

ant

surp

luse

s co

mpa

red

to p

revi

ous

cam

paig

ns (

cere

als

stoc

ks)

incr

ease

in p

eanu

t pr

oduc

tion

(57%

), ho

rtic

ultu

ral

prod

ucts

(+1

9%)

-Bet

ter

avai

labi

lity

of p

astu

res;

m

ilk: +

4%

-A

dvan

tage

ous

Prot

ectio

n

Polic

y fo

r on

ion

-Diff

icul

ties

in m

arke

ting

pean

uts

(low

pur

chas

es b

y in

dust

ries,

low

off

icia

l pric

es)

- pu

rcha

se b

y A

sian

s

→N

utrit

iona

l situ

atio

n:im

prov

ed, b

ut s

till p

reca

rious

Bet

ter

cam

paig

n-I

ncre

ase

of y

ield

s an

d

prod

uctio

n (+

10%

), - I

ncre

ase

of c

ultiv

ated

ar

eas

(but

dow

nwar

d tr

end

in d

ry c

erea

ls a

nd r

ice)

-Pub

lic s

uppo

rt-L

imite

d yi

elds

due

to

flood

s an

d la

nd g

rab

-Fa

rmer

app

rais

als

rath

er

nega

tive

→N

utri

tion

alsi

tuat

ion:

sat

isfa

ctor

y

Bet

ter

cam

paig

n- (

hurr

ican

e, f

lood

s)- S

uppo

rt f

rom

the

Sta

te- I

ncre

ase

in c

ultiv

ated

are

as a

nd y

ield

s- I

ncre

ase

in c

erea

l pro

duct

ion

(rem

ains

insu

ffic

ient

), tu

bers

, leg

umes

-V

ery

low

ric

e pr

oduc

tion

(flo

oded

ric

e pa

ddie

s)-

Pers

iste

nt d

efic

it fo

od c

rops

→si

tuat

ion

alim

enta

ire

diff

icile

pou

r les

plu

s

pauv

res

)

(1)

The

2015

/201

6 A

GRI

CULT

URA

L CA

MPA

IGN

: be

tter

tha

n 20

14 /

201

5 ca

mpa

ign

as a

who

leCO

MPA

RATI

VE

TAB

LE A

: TH

E 20

15/2

016

CAM

PAIG

N (

indi

cativ

e da

ta a

ccor

ding

to

the

Plat

form

s an

alys

is)


12

Fore

st-r

ich

coun

trie

s (af

fect

ed b

y th

e Eb

ola

feve

r)G

UIN

EASI

ERRA

LEO

NE

LIBE

RIA

rem

inde

rca

mpa

ign

2014

/20

15

Ver

y st

rong

neg

ativ

e im

pact

of

the

ebol

a ep

idem

icD

espi

te b

ette

r w

eath

er c

ondi

tions

com

pare

d to

the

201

3/14

cam

paig

n - U

npro

duct

ive

cam

paig

n (d

iffic

ulty

to

acce

ss in

puts

, ine

xist

ent

and

expe

nsiv

e la

bor,

no m

utua

l as

sist

ance

) de

clin

e in

yie

lds

- Str

ong

impa

ct o

n liv

esto

ck (

bord

er

and

mar

kets

clo

sure

s, c

onta

inm

ent)

→ ⇒

30%

pop

ulat

ion

in fo

od in

secu

rity

(70%

in ru

ral a

rea)

Unp

rodu

ctiv

e ca

mpa

ign

Ver

y st

rong

neg

ativ

e im

pact

of

the

EVD

-4.0

00 d

eath

s-4

7% o

f ag

ricul

tura

l act

iviti

es

impa

cted

-Sud

den

inte

rrup

tion

of t

he g

radu

al

rela

unch

of

agric

ultu

ral a

ctiv

ities

si

nce

the

Civi

l War

-Los

ses

and

mod

ifica

tion

of e

cono

mic

an

d ag

ricul

tura

l act

iviti

es

→iF

ood

inse

curi

ty

Unp

rodu

ctiv

e ca

mpa

ign

Very

stro

ng n

egat

ive

impa

ct o

f the

EVD

+ ra

infa

ll is

sues

- Spr

eadi

ng o

f the

epi

dem

ic

durin

g th

e pe

riod

of a

gric

ultu

ral

activ

ities

-Ver

y lo

w y

ield

s; d

ecre

ase

of 8

%

in th

e pr

oduc

tion

com

pare

d to

20

13 (-

12%

for r

ice)

; -I

n so

me

area

s, lo

ss o

f 25%

in

padd

y pr

oduc

tion

⇒in

crea

sed

food

insu

ffic

ienc

y(2

4% in

crea

se in

impo

rts o

f cer

eals

:25

0.00

0 pe

ople

in fo

od in

secu

rity)

Obs

erva

tion

sm

ade

at t

he e

ndof

the

201

5/20

16ca

mpa

ign

Bet

ter

cam

paig

n-E

DV

res

urge

nce

cont

rolle

d-P

rodu

ctio

n an

d ex

chan

ge r

esum

ptio

n-B

ette

r ac

cess

to

inpu

ts, b

ut t

o lim

ited

prod

ucer

s

→N

utri

tion

al s

itua

tion

rem

ains

prec

ario

us, b

ut d

ropp

ed b

elow

the

thre

shol

d of

"cri

tica

l sit

uati

on"

(Acu

te m

alnu

triti

on: 8

%, o

f w

hich

2%

seve

re. C

ritic

al m

alnu

triti

on p

ocke

ts in

Hig

h G

uine

a

reco

very

of

the

situ

atio

nD

espi

te p

oor

clim

atic

con

ditio

ns (

flood

s,ex

trem

e he

at-P

ost-

Ebol

a su

ppor

t fr

om t

he G

vt a

nd

inte

rnat

iona

l ass

ista

nce

-Inc

reas

e in

the

qua

ntiti

es p

rodu

ced

→Si

tuat

ion

is n

ot y

et s

atis

fact

ory;

huge

impo

rts

of fo

odst

uff

Aver

age

resu

ltsD

iffic

ult t

o as

sess

bec

ause

of t

hein

put o

f Lib

eria

(see

ms t

o fe

ar th

atth

e 20

16 ca

mpa

ign

won

’t be

ver

ygo

od b

ecau

se o

f del

ays i

n th

epr

ovis

ion

of su

ppor

t (in

puts

,eq

uipm

ent)

(1)

The

2015

/201

6 A

GRI

CULT

URA

L CA

MPA

IGN

: be

tter

tha

n 20

14 /

201

5 ca

mpa

ign

as a

who

leCO

MPA

RATI

VE

TAB

LE A

: TH

E 20

15/2

016

CAM

PAIG

N (

indi

cativ

e da

ta a

ccor

ding

to

the

Plat

form

s an

alys

is)


13

Coas

tal c

ount

ries o

f the

Sou

th A

tlant

ic F

açad

e

CÔTE

D'IV

OIR

E G

HA

NA

TOG

OBE

NIN

rem

inde

rca

mpa

ign

2014

/ 20

15

Slig

ht in

crea

se in

a b

road

dow

nwar

d tr

end

(impo

rtan

t yi

elds

in 2

015,

desp

ite a

slo

wdo

wn

in t

heve

geta

tive

grow

th d

ue t

oth

e ea

rly a

rriv

al o

f th

e dr

yse

ason

)

Bet

ter

cam

paig

n

Des

pite

of

the

cam

paig

nfin

anci

ng is

sues

→Fo

r sev

eral

yea

rs, t

here

isa

tend

ency

to th

eim

prov

emen

t of t

he fo

odsi

tuat

ion

Goo

d ca

mpa

ign

Des

pite

the

dow

nwar

d tr

end

and

the

irreg

ular

ity in

rai

nfal

lsi

nce

4 ye

ars.

-Wel

l-pre

pare

d ca

mpa

ign

- Inc

reas

e of

pro

duct

ion

for

all

prod

ucts

, exc

ept

yam

, sw

eet

po

tato

es a

nd s

oybe

ans

- Mar

ketin

g pr

oble

ms

→G

ood

food

ava

ilabi

lity

for

seve

ral y

ears

, but

30%

pop

.in

food

inse

curit

y

Slig

ht in

crea

se in

the

prod

uctio

n of

cor

n,tu

bers

, cott

on; d

eclin

e in

rice

and

sorg

hum

prod

uctio

n (r

ainf

all

varia

tions

). St

agna

nt a

nim

al p

rod.

, fish

prod

. in

slig

ht in

crea

se.

→Se

lf-su

ffici

ency

inve

geta

ble

prod

., bu

tde

crea

sing

; nee

ds in

anim

al a

nd fi

sh p

rod.

are

not c

over

ed

Obs

erva

tion

sm

ade

at t

heen

d of

the

2015

/201

6ca

mpa

ign

Dec

line

in p

rodu

ctio

n(a

div

erge

nce

of o

pini

onbe

twee

n St

ate

serv

ices

and

the

farm

ers)

-Clim

atic

dis

turb

ance

s (h

eavy

but

sho

rt r

ains

, to

rnad

oes)

-See

d in

suff

icie

ncy

-Bet

ter

supp

ort

for

cash

cr

ops

com

pare

d to

food

cr

ops

→Th

e qu

anti

ties

pro

duce

dw

ill n

ot b

e en

ough

toen

sure

food

sec

urit

y

Less

goo

d ca

mpa

ign

-Del

ays

in s

owin

g du

e to

ba

d ra

infa

ll- I

ssue

s w

ith s

uppl

y of

ca

ssav

a cu

ttin

gs- P

ost-

harv

est

loss

es

- Dec

line

com

pare

d to

the

pr

evio

us c

ampa

igns

→D

eclin

e in

the

supp

ly o

fag

ricu

ltur

al p

rodu

cts

(incr

ease

in th

e pr

ice

offo

odst

uff

pret

ty g

ood

cam

paig

n, b

utsl

ight

dec

line

Bad

rai

nfal

l, pe

st a

ttac

ks(A

fric

an a

rmyw

orm

) an

dan

imal

hea

lth is

sues

(pla

gue

and

Avi

an f

lu)

- Ove

rall

prod

uctio

n su

rplu

s - d

eclin

e of

cer

eal s

urpl

uses

→Fo

od s

ecur

ity

ensu

red,

but

less

impo

rtan

t sur

plus

rese

rves

for 2

017

Less

goo

d ca

mpa

ign

-Ins

uffici

ent

rain

falls

(le

ss

rain

y se

ason

, del

ay in

so

win

gs)

- Low

cov

erag

e of

fert

ilize

r ne

eds

- Red

uctio

n of

yie

lds

and

prod

uctio

n of

the

mai

n cr

ops,

incl

udin

g fo

od

crop

s.

→Fo

od b

alan

ce re

mai

ns in

surp

lus

for c

orn,

yam

,ca

ssav

a

(1)

The

2015

/201

6 A

GRI

CULT

URA

L CA

MPA

IGN

: be

tter

tha

n 20

14 /

201

5 ca

mpa

ign

as a

who

leCO

MPA

RATI

VE

TAB

LE A

: TH

E 20

15/2

016

CAM

PAIG

N (

indi

cativ

e da

ta a

ccor

ding

to

the

Plat

form

s an

alys

is)

The overall trend seems better compared to theaverage of the past five campaign 1.

1. Better results in the majority of countriesTable A compares the 2014/2015 campaign andthe 2015/2016 campaign. From a farmer pers-pective, the 2014/15 campaign was bad in 7countries due to poor rainfall and the impact ofthe Ebola epidemic (NIGER, SENEGAL, GAMBIA,GUINEA BISSAU, GUINEA, SIERRA LEONE, and LI-BERIA). For the 2015/16 campaign, 8 countries had abetter campaign than the previous year (NIGER,MALI, SENEGAL, GAMBIA, GUINEA BISSAU, GUI-NEA, SIERRA LEONE, and LIBERIA). In CÔTED'IVOIRE, official data show a good campaign,though from the farmer perspective this datadoes not reflect the state of affairs in familyfarms. In TOGO and BENIN where a slight dropin production compared to the previous yearhas been recorded, there were surpluses andfood security remains guaranteed

2.A relatively well handled food shortageThe duration and the severity of the periodwhen the granaries are empty (food shortage),constitute, for the farmer, a tangible indicator tomeasure the success of his cropping season. Forthe 8 countries that provided information(NIGER, BURKINA FASO, MALI, SENEGAL, GUINEABISSAU, GUINEA, CÔTE D'IVOIRE, TOGO), shor-tage in the 2016 rainy season (which coincidedwith the month of Ramadan) has had in the Sa-helian countries, a similar duration to that of theprevious year (3 to 4 months depending on theagro-ecological zones); it was shorter in TOGO(2 months). Most families could have two mealsa day (except in some cases in NIGER, where theseverity of the 2016 shortage is however consi-dered moderate).

Defaulting products during the shortage periodare not exactly the same according to the agro-ecological zones of each country, but these aregenerally cereals (NIGER: millet, sorghum, corn;BURKINA FASO: sorghum, corn; MALI: corn, mil-let; in GUINA BISAU, CÔTE D'IVOIRE and TOGOas well) and rice (MALI, GUINEA BISAU, CÔTED'IVOIRE). There has also been shortage of yamsand bananas in some areas of CÔTE D'IVOIRE. InSENEGAL, there has been scarcity of off-seasoncrops (conservation issue) and fish. In livestockfarming areas, good milk production has redu-ced the nutritional consequences of the shor-tage, except NIGER where there has beenshortage of milk and derivatives (butter,cheese).There has been no exceptional movement ofcattle during the 2016 shortage.The analysis of the shortage carried out by theROPPA national platforms highlights six factorsthat helped in mitigating the severity:a) The filling rate of family and community

granaries: where family farms have been insurplus (see Chapter II), there was no shor-tage issues..

b) The availability of harvested products(BURKINA FASO) or off-season cultures

c) The good supply of market allowed fami-lies to buy the products they needed. Withthe exception of areas of insecurity (NIGER)and Guinea where there have been supplydisruptions, the supply of markets has beensatisfactory because stocks had been consti-tuted by the FFs which marketed their sur-plus, by traders (except MALI ) andimporters (NIGER in particular), and by thegovernment.

d) The stability of market prices:Apart fromthe usual increases during Ramadan (GUI-NEA) and Tabaski (SENEGAL), seasonal in-creases have been moderate and similar tothe five-year average in BURKINA FASO; inMALI prices of dry cereals were inferior tothe average price of shortage periods of thelast 5 years; they have been (as well as thoseof fruits) inferior or equal compared to pre-vious years in SENEGAL; there has been aslight increase in TOGO. On the other hand,

1 En ce qui concerne la production céréalière, ces résultats sontselon le RPCA supérieurs à la moyenne quinquennale dans 10pays sur 13 (GHANA : + 2%; GUINÉE : + 13%; TOGO : +15%; NIGER : + 16%; LIBERIA : + 17%; SIERRA LEONE etGAMBIE : + 18%; MALI : + 28%; SÉNÉGAL : + 56%; CÔTED’IVOIRE : + 88%). Ils sont par contre en baisse par rapport àla moyenne quinquennale dans trois pays (BÉNIN : - 1%; BUR-KINA FASO : - 7%; GUINÉE BISSAU : - 8%)


14

these prices remained higher for some cropsin SENEGAL (vegetables, fish, and meat) aswell as in GUINEA BISAU, and increased by50% in NIGER compared to the 2015 shor-tage, and thus jeopardizing FFs access tobasic food. Livestock product prices havegenerally increased giving an advantage tolivestock farmers (exchange terms of lives-tock/ cereals in favor of livestock farmers -BURKINA FASO).

e) Government intervention : this had posi-tive effects in NIGER, BURKINA FASO (foodsecurity pilot shops, subsidy to cereal prices)in MALI (assistance to populations in diffi-cult food situation) and CÔTE D’IVOIRE(shortage funds). In GUINEA BISSAU food aidintervention also helped in mitigating theseverity of the shortage.

f ) Family adaptation strategies : these stra-tegies are defined according to the resultsof family production, but also according tothe market (GUINEA - over 75% of FF ex-penses monitored by FOs are affected tofeeding).

- Though families did not generally reducetheir daily meals (except NIGER), they havehowever consequently changed their fee-ding habits during shortage periods byconsuming "exceptional food" (NIGER: cas-sava flour, tubers, off-season crops, BURKINAFASO: rather millet than corn in the Sahel,rice imported in the south Sahelian zone;MALI: unusual millet and sorghumconsumption in rice production area; GUI-NEA-BISAU: consumption of products sup-plied through food aid). .

- Moreover FFs have tried to generate in-come to buy the food stuff they needed ei-ther by destocking - their cereal surplus orothers (cowpea, groundnut in TOGO ), butespecially small ruminants and poultry (NIGER , BURKINA FASO, MALI, GUINEA-BIS-SAU, TOGO ) - or by intensifying their non-agricultural activities (crafts, gold mining,woodcutting... ) or by resorting to familysolidarity, including that of emigrants(BURKINA FASO, MALI ) through donations

during Korité (end of Ramadan) and Ta-baski (Muslim sheep celebration) (SENE-GAL) or intensifying exodus and migration( NIGER) .

- Some families could not escape debtwhich occurred in more or less favorableconditions (MALI: debt with cereal produ-cers: 1 bag refunded with1.5 to 2 bagsafter harvest; NIGER: with Nigerian traders;however in TOGO, small borrowings withthe National Inclusive Finance Funds areeasily refundable) .

However, some events have worsened the diffi-culties of the shortage: floods (center of BUR-KINA FASO and Mopti, Segou and Sikassoregions in MALI and also GUINEA BISSAU ); po-pulation displacements related to political un-rest (BURKINA FASO: 29,000 Malian refugees inthe provinces of Soum and Seno, displaced Ivo-rians departing from the Noumbiel province;MALI: emergence of new armed groups in theMopti region resulting into the displacement offamilies of farmers , confrontation between her-ders and farmers around Téninkou). Strong mal-nutrition is recorded in armed conflict zones(MALI, NIGER). .

(2). Comments on the agricultural cam-paign results and first findings

3. Four key factors explain the good results ofthe past campaign• Pluviometry: except Ghana and BENIN

where rainfall deficits have been recordedand some pockets in the other countries, theamount of rainwater was generally sufficientin all countries. The effects of climate changehave been rather significant during the2015/2016 campaign compared to the distri-bution of rainfall which was often disturbed.

• Measures taken by the statesThey are part of the commitments taken byStates in Maputo and the priorities of ECO-WAP / CAADP. They were mainly translatedinto support measures to family farm produc-tion means.


15

In some countries, the Government has alsostrengthened its advisory system to bringtargeted advisory support to producers (forexample in BURKINA FASO).

The country analysis of these public inter-ventions is presented in Booklet 2 of theOFF report ("OBSERVATION OF FARMER ADVI-SORY SUPPORT: state of affairs in the 13 ECO-WAS countries")

• High Reactivity of FFsIt is illustrated by the important leaps madeby the FFs between 2 agricultural cam-paigns, in particular concerning cereal pro-ductions in Côte d'Ivoire (+88%) andSenegal (+56%), and on the production ofsheep meat in Niger (+31%). In chapter III,we will comment on the strategies of familyfarms that help explain this reactivity.

• Action of the FOs The FOs have often provided services to fa-cilitate access of FFs to public support. So inNiger, the FUCOPRI (organization of rice pro-ducers) used OPVN sales contracts to getcredit in order to facilitate access to inputs;in MALI, the national platform of rice produ-cers gave their moral support to the MalianOffice of Agricultural Products (OPAM) to di-

rectly sign contracts with organizations ofrice producers in order to build the country’sstock (25 000 tons); in SENEGAL agriculturalproducts consolidation and marketing ser-vices developed by the FOs throughcontracting with various sector industries(peanut, rice, tomato...) have partially com-pleted public interventions concentrated onupstream production. In GUINEA, FPFD hasguaranteed the refund of loans granted forthe campaign.

4. Different factors in the country have limitedthe trend of improvement in results :• Natural disasters : :

Persistent consequences of the Ebola epide-mic: GUINEA, SIERRA LEONE, LIBERIA; floods,poor distribution of rains BURKINA FASO,GAMBIA, GUINEA BISSAU; insufficient rain-fall: GHANA, BENIN; pests attacks (not glo-bally important, but locally reported inNIGER, in BURKINA FASO (granivorous birds)and TOGO (African armyworms), diseases(swine fever and avian influenza in TOGO).

• Social disasters:Terrorism related insecurity, insecurity rela-ted population movements: NIGER, BURKINAFASO, MALI; persistent aftermaths of war:SIERRA LEONE, LIBERIA, and CÔTE D'IVOIRE.

• Failures in the implementation of policies :limited access to support related to inputs


16

• Seed grants: BENIN (free corn and rice, ve-getable seeds); TOGO (536 tons); SENEGAL(groundnut, rice, cereals, potatoes); GUI-NEA BISAU (rice and vegetables), GUINEA,SIERRA LEONE (rice), BURKINA FASO.

• Fertilizer grants: TOGO (decrease from 16000 to 11 000 CFA francs/ bag, for 40 000tons); GHANA (chemical fertilizer subsidyprogram); SENEGAL (fertilizer grants);MALI, BURKINA FASO, THE GAMBIA.

• Agricultural equipment grants: BENIN(tillars); TOGO (Agricultural Equipment),

GHANA (subsidy program to heavy agricul-tural equipment); SENEGAL (agriculturalequipment grant); MALI (tractors), NIGER(tractors), BURKINA FASO (plows and carts)

• Improved animal race grant for livestockfarming: BENIN (3000 cocks of improvedrace); BURKINA FASO (6000 draught ani-mals)

• Grant for livestock food: SENEGAL, NIGER;

A FEW EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC SUPPORT MEASURES

and equipment (available quantities, quality,price, and supply/distribution: GUINEA,SIERRA LEONE, CÔTE D'IVOIRE, GHANA,BENIN) )

We will come back on these limiting factors bygroups of countries in Chapter II of this booklet("Orientations and results of family farms duringthe last agricultural campaign"). ).

5. Main observations It is observed that :• On the whole, pest attacks and phytosanitary

risks have been well controlled (which hadnot been the case in 2014/15).

• Unstable variations in rainfall have destabili-zed farming practices (impact of climatechange), but their negative effects have beenovercome when appropriate support hasbeen given by the Government and led to agood responsiveness of family farms.

• Unlike 2008, farmers have not endured signi-ficant consequences related to the fluctuationof agricultural products on the international

market (they have just suffered the deprecia-tion of naira on trade to Niger and Benin).

• The food situation remains precarious in se-veral countries (Niger –due to the inaccessi-bility of the deficit areas, Mali in besiegedareas, Burkina Faso, Guinea Bissau, Guinea,Sierra Leone, Liberia), but there has been nomajor food crisis. Deficits have often been ad-dressed by imports and food aid.

• In the majority of countries, Government anddevelopment agency actions have helpedamplify the favorable trends and to mitigatethe effects of unfavorable factors, which ledto a good outcome of this campaign. It is ho-wever noted that government efforts to sup-port production are for the most partconcentrated upstream (inputs) and littledownstream of the production (price sup-port).

These observations are similar to those made bythe FAO and the RPCA when the2015/2016campaign was ending.


17

(FAO, January 2016)The main 2015-2016 agricultural campaign is over and cereal production is estimated to be12 percent higher than the five-year average and 5 percent higher than in 2014-2015 for theWest African region and the Sahel. This is positive for the entire region; however, the dryspells and early end to rains in Chad, northern Benin, Togo and Ghana have caused cerealproduction to decline in these countries. The effects of this fall in production could lead toprice increases in the markets in affected areas. Despite good production forecasts, the foodand nutrition situation of the most vulnerable people in the region could deteriorate duringthe next lean season (June to August 2016) owing to the deterioration of their livelihoods,the early depletion of their stocks, localized increases in food prices and deteriorating termsof trade. In addition, a growing number of the poorest households does not always dependon agriculture and livestock for food and access to income and was not able to profit fromgood agricultural production. The agricultural off-season campaign has started in the regionand could help fill production deficits from the main agricultural season.RPCA (FOOD CRISIS PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT NETWORK/CILSS – (RPCA, April

2016) With mitigation measures implemented by governments and their partners, the numberof people needing food assistance declined from December 2015 to March 2016. However,the region has to deal with 6.7 million people in food and nutrition insecurity of which nearly4.2 million people are displaced due to insecurity in the Lake Chad Basin, in northern Mali, Libya,Central African Republic and Sudan. The mitigation measures implemented since December,allowed to reach about 1.2 million people previously affected by food insecurity. The Networkwelcomes the efforts of States and their partners, and encourages them to continue theiractions.


18

6. Conclusions> The first lesson that ROPPA draws from

this campaign is that the positive effects ofnatural factors can be valued or their nega-tive effects mitigated by the action of far-mers and government, and it is appropriatethat the Observatory provides ways to mo-nitor this action. Therefore, ROPPA findsuseful that the Observatory monitors theprogress of family farms and advisory sup-port strategies that can strengthen them.We will come back on it in the last chapter(Chapter III on FFs strategies). It is also ad-dressed in Booklet II of the report (" OBSER-VING FARMER ADVISORY SUPPORT TOFAMILY FARMS" and in sections I and II).Fur-thermore, Government action is also cru-cial to facilitate the success of a season and

improving outcomes for farmers: the mo-nitoring of public policies by FOs is the sub-ject of Booklet 3 of the OEF report ("MONITORING PUBLIC POLICIES RELATED TOFAMILY FARMS AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OFFARMER ACTION ")..

> The second lesson that ROPPA draws fromthis first regional campaign analysis fo-cuses on the importance of developing thistype of monitoring for agricultural cam-paigns in different countries as countrysidefeatures enlighten us both on FF resultsand policy impacts. It already appears thatone of the Observatory’s objectives is therefinement of campaign monitoring prac-tices by FOs.

Presentation: In all countries, family farms account for most of the agriculture, forestry,pastoral and fish production. Their results are both determined by the condi-tions in which the season unfolds, and determine the outcomes of the cam-paign. The monitoring of family farms, which is the main purpose of the FFO,thus helps refine and complete that of the campaigns.For each of the groups of countries in this report, the major results attainedby family farms from the viewpoint of food security (crop and livestock pro-duction) and marketing will be presented by country. Then the summary ofthe information provided by the platforms on the factors that explain theseresults (positive, negative, ambivalent).

Guidelines and results of familyfarms during the past agriculturalcampaign

ChapItre

02


20

NIG

erB

Ur

KIN

a F

aSO

Ma

LI

Food

pro

duct

ion

Self-

suff

icie

ncy,

and

oft

en s

urpl

uses

Cere

al s

urpl

uses

Miti

gate

d re

sults

Goo

d yi

elds

, sur

plus

es,

inte

nsifi

catio

n

Ani

mal

pro

duct

ion

Incr

easi

ng

Hig

h Pr

oduc

tion

ofca

ttle

/she

ep –

slow

eddo

wn

at t

he e

nd o

fth

e dr

y se

ason

Rela

tivel

y sa

tisfa

ctor

yre

sults

Milk

incr

ease

Fish

cat

ch in

crea

se

Mar

keti

ngG

ood

mar

keti

ng, r

even

ue in

crea

se

Nai

ra d

epre

ciat

ion

rela

ted

issu

es

In p

rogr

ess

in S

ahel

ian

area

s an

d So

uth

Suda

nian

zone

Impo

rtan

t in

cot

ton

prod

uctio

n ar

eas

Favo

rab

le f

acto

rs

No

maj

or c

limat

ic d

istu

rban

ces,

effe

ctiv

e su

ppor

t to

fam

ily a

gric

ultu

reO

rgan

izat

ion

of m

arke

ts in

pro

gres

s

Civ

il in

secu

rity

ten

ds t

o ex

pand

Diffi

cult

y in

acc

essi

ng fe

rtile

land

s (

land

issu

es)

unsk

illed

or

unav

aila

ble

wor

kfor

ceD

efici

enci

es in

ser

vice

del

iver

yN

atur

al h

azar

ds

Unf

avor

able

or

ambi

vale

nt fa

ctor

s

Coun

trie

s of t

he S

ahel

o-Su

dani

an z

one

COM

PARA

TIV

E TA

BLE

B: T

REN

DS

IN T

HE

EVO

LUTI

ON

OF

FAM

ILY

FA

RM R

ESU

LTS

(201

5/20

16)


21

SeN

eGa

LG

aM

BIa

GU

INÉe

BIS

SaU

in p

rogr

ess

Glo

bal i

ncre

ase,

inte

nsifi

catio

n.10

% in

crea

se

Inte

nsifi

catio

nRi

ce: +

28%

Dry

cer

eals

: + 2

6%

In p

rogr

ess

in a

t le

ast

1 co

untr

y

Milk

incr

ease

94%

cov

erag

e of

mea

t ne

eds

have

been

met

Info

rmat

ion

not

avai

labl

eN

o sp

ecifi

c da

ta

tend

ency

to

impr

ovem

ent

noti

ced

in 1

cou

ntry

Ver

y go

od fo

r on

ions

and

hort

icul

tura

l pro

duct

ion;

Goo

d fo

r th

e FF

tha

t se

ized

the

oppo

rtun

ity g

rant

ed b

y A

sian

mar

kets

Satis

fact

ory

grou

ndnu

t m

arke

ting

FFs

rem

ain

cons

trai

ned

by in

term

edia

ries

Bet

ter

rain

fall

easy

acc

essi

bilit

y to

inpu

ts a

nd e

quip

men

tFa

cilit

ies

and

Infr

astr

uctu

reSu

ppor

t-ad

vise

to

FFs

Coas

tal c

ount

ries o

f the

Wes

t Atla

ntic

Fac

ade

Qua

lity

seed

sIn

put

and

equi

pmen

t su

bsid

ySu

ppor

t/ad

vise

ext

ensi

on

Low

er p

rices

for f

ertil

izers

Dik

es a

nd b

ridge

sCo

oper

ativ

e re

lay

Soil

fert

ility

Supp

ort

to a

few

hitc

hed

cultu

reFa

cilit

ator

s an

d te

chni

cian

s

Fert

ility

deg

rada

tion

Low

leve

l of e

quip

men

tSp

ace

satu

ratio

n an

d la

nd g

rabb

ing

Defi

cien

cies

in s

ervi

ce d

eliv

ery

Insu

ffici

ent

gran

ts t

o re

new

equi

pmen

t,D

elay

s in

gra

nt im

plem

enta

tion,

Land

sat

urat

ion

in t

he g

roun

dnut

basi

n

Lack

of

equi

pmen

t,La

nd g

rabb

ing,

Del

ays

in s

eed

supp

ly

Une

qual

acc

ess

to e

quip

men

t,La

nd g

rabb

ing,

Abs

ence

of

a se

ed p

olic

y,

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

of

cash

ew t

ree

de-

velo

pmen

t

COM

PARA

TIV

E TA

BLE

B: T

REN

DS

IN T

HE

EVO

LUTI

ON

OF

FAM

ILY

FA

RM R

ESU

LTS

(201

5/20

16)


22

GU

INea

SIer

ra

LeO

Ne

LIB

erIa

Not

icea

ble

prog

ress

Agr

icul

tura

l pro

duct

ion

high

erth

an th

e fiv

e-ye

ar a

vera

ge;

enou

gh s

tock

s in

FFs

Qua

ntita

tive

and

qual

itativ

epr

ogre

ssio

nSu

rplu

ses

in 3

agr

o-ec

olog

ical

zon

es. D

efic

it in

1 A

EZ

Slow

er p

rogr

ess

Not

spe

cifie

dM

argi

nal l

ives

tock

Stro

ng p

rogr

essi

on in

1 A

EZ, a

vera

ge in

2, d

rop

in 1

.

the

dem

and

may

be

high

er t

han

the

offe

r

Nor

mal

res

umpt

ion

ofin

tern

al a

nd c

ross

-bor

der

trad

e

Still

aff

ecte

d by

the

EV

DV

aria

ble

depe

ndin

g on

the

reg

ions

Favo

rabl

e na

tura

l con

diti

ons,

few

haz

ards

in 2

015/

16B

ack

to h

ealt

h se

curi

typo

st-e

bola

reh

abili

tati

on m

easu

res

Fore

st d

omin

ated

coun

trie

s (aff

ecte

d by

the

Ebol

a fe

ver)

Post EVD deficiencies

Unf

avor

able

to

vuln

erab

le F

FsSp

ace pressure

Plot

aba

ndon

men

t, po

pula

tion

and

li-ve

stoc

k di

spla

cem

ents

Post

eV

D d

efici

enci

esLa

ck o

f eq

uity

in s

ervi

ce d

e-liv

ery

Spac

e pr

essu

reD

ifficu

lty fo

r vu

lner

able

peop

le t

o ac

cess

land

Post

EV

D d

efici

enci

esD

elay

in s

ervi

ces

deliv

ery

Spac

e pr

essu

reCo

mpe

titio

n of

larg

e in

dust

rial

plan

tatio

ns

Dow

ntur

n ca

used

by

the

epid

emic

Failu

re t

o im

plem

ent

resu

mpt

ion

mea

sure

sU

nder

-equ

ipm

ent

Insu

ffici

ent

labo

rpr

essu

res

on s

pace

and

land

dis

pute

s

COM

PARA

TIV

E TA

BLE

B: T

REN

DS

IN T

HE

EVO

LUTI

ON

OF

FAM

ILY

FA

RM R

ESU

LTS

(201

5/20

16)


23

CÔ

te D

’IVO

Ire

Gh

aN

atO

GO

BeN

IN

ass

ured

food

sec

urit

y, b

ut d

ownw

ard

tren

d

Dec

reas

e in

yie

lds,

com

petit

ions

of

cash

crop

sFa

rmer

s do

not

expe

ct s

urpl

uses

In s

urpl

us b

ut s

light

decr

ease

Gen

eral

ly g

ood

resu

lts

for

lives

tock

, dec

reas

e in

cat

ches

for

fish

erie

s

Larg

e liv

esto

ck s

tagn

atio

n,pr

ogre

ssio

n of

pou

ltry,

cris

is in

the

trad

ition

al f

ishi

ng s

ecto

r

Cris

is in

the

trad

ition

al f

ishi

ngse

ctor

Incr

ease

in c

attle

and

poul

try

farm

ing

Cris

is in

the

tra

ditio

nal

fishi

ng s

ecto

r

Incr

ease

in c

attle

Dec

reas

e in

aqua

cultu

reCr

isis

in th

e tr

aditi

onal

fishi

ng s

ecto

r

Abs

ence

of

mar

keor

gani

zatio

nw

hen

ther

e ar

e bi

gm

arke

tsG

ood

(som

e is

sues

with

cer

eals

Land

pb.

Regu

lar c

onfli

cts

Land

pb.

Opa

que

land

mar

ket

Land

pb.

Land

gra

bbin

g

Resu

lts m

ay v

ary

depe

ndin

g on

the

cultu

res

Coas

tal c

ount

ries o

f the

Sou

th A

tlant

ic F

acad

e

Land

pb.

Conc

erns

in c

oas-

tal z

ones

Low

pro

duct

ivit

ySp

ace

mis

man

agem

ent

and

land

dis

pute

sLa

ck o

f ap

prop

riat

e St

ate

supp

ort

Satis

fact

ory

(cro

ss-b

orde

rm

arke

t)

Var

iabl

e m

arke

ting

Food

prod

ucti

on

ani

mal

prod

ucti

on

Mar

keti

ng

Favo

rabl

efa

ctor

s

Unf

avor

able

or a

mbi

vale

ntfa

ctor

s

COM

PARA

TIV

E TA

BLE

B: T

REN

DS

IN T

HE

EVO

LUTI

ON

OF

FAM

ILY

FA

RM R

ESU

LTS

(201

5/20

16)

Goo

d qu

alit

y la

nd, s

eem

s av

aila

ble

to F

FsIm

prov

emen

t of

ski

lled

labo

rD

ynam

ic e

cono

mic

env

iron

men

tpe

acef

ul s

ocia

l clim

ate

or b

eing

pac

ified

(3) Approaches and results of family farms inthe Sahelo-Sudanian countries (NIGER, BUR-KINA FASO, MALI)

A. Generally positive results from FFs

7. from the perspective of food crops tendency toself-sufficiency often with surplus, eUnlike theprevious campaign, this general tendency is noti-ced by the platforms of the three countries. This isespecially observed with cereal production, whichwas generally good.• We know that on the whole, family farms in

NIGER have produced excess of cereals, butno detailed information on the FFs of thiscountry is available. In this country, the pro-duction is focused on agriculture (72 % of na-tional production, better yields for millet,sorghum, groundnut and sesame) and agropastoral production (26 % of national produc-tion, higher yields for rice, Bambara ground-nut, nut edge, onion and tomato; good yieldsfor okra). It may be noted that although theFFs of the pastoral production account foronly a small part in the national production offood crops (0.8%), they record the best yieldsfor corn and cowpea, and yields similar tothose of the agro pastoral zone for most pro-ducts.

• In all surveyed areas (cotton areas, irrigatedareas, dry crops areas) in MALI, the FFs haverecorded an increase of production (average+ 15 % higher compared to the past cam-paign). Yields have been higher (includingrice), and excesses frequent.

• In BURKINA FASO, where national statisticsshow an overall decline of around 6% of ce-real and cotton production, the results of FFsare more in contrast depending on the agroecological zones. More simplified, FFs in Sa-helian zones have improved their results com-pared to the past season and recordedsurplus (+ 19 % in the North Sahel with cerealbalances set between 90% and 120%, + 18 %in the South Sahel with cereal balances howe-ver inferior to 90%). These areas remain, ho-wever the areas where malnutrition rate is the

highest. Besides, the FFs in Sudan zones haverecorded bad results and are often in deficit(average decrease of 12 % in the northern Su-danian zone, and 17 % in the southern Sudanzone). Some FFs have recorded losses in theirharvests due to irregular rains in the South Sa-helian zones (5 % of production) and SouthSudanian zones (8 % of production).

8. from the perspective of animal production inFF : increasing • in NIGER, in all the studied areas (agricultural,

agro pastoral and pastoral) the production ofruminants increased. National statistics indi-cate that cattle, sheep and goat productionhave been particularly large and increasing(in particular for sheep: + 31% between thetwo campaigns in the agricultural zone) inagricultural and agro pastoral areas. Niger's foreseeable feed balance for2015/2016, on the other hand, was negative,regardless of whether the influx of refugeeswas taken into account. The difficulties offood shortage, which started early with lives-tock farmers, confirmed these predictions(poor livestock feeding conditions in pastoralareas).

• in BURKINA FASO, where 80% of FFs breed, li-vestock farmers benefited from favorable li-vestock / cereal terms of trade (1 Saheliangoat for 130 kg of millet on the Gorom-Gorommarket, for 171 kg of millet on Dori market,187 kg on Djibo market - normal: 1 goat = 150kg). Prices of rams and goats increased, butbull prices declined (demand for Nigeria andGhana declined - livestock is the country'sthird largest export destination after gold andcotton).

• in MALI, a big livestock producer, the produc-tion of controlled meat in 2015/16 was65,000 Tons out of an available potential of220,000 Tons, and 9,400 Tons of milk out of anavailable potential estimated at 625,000 Tons.The increase in animal production is noticea-ble on family farms; it is reflected in large ru-


24

minants with a particular increase in milk pro-duction and animal sales. This increase is par-ticularly important for poultry (layers andbroiler chickens).

Fishing information is available only for MALI,where an increase in catches (river and lake fi-shing) and fish products is noticeable, but thereis a downward tendency in the size of the spe-cies and in BURKINA FASO, national needs areonly met at 20%.

9. rom the perspective of marketing : : good mar-keting, and a higher incomeProduction surpluses in all three countries sti-mulated the marketing of food crops (includingcereals) and livestock from family farms, and in-creased family cash income.The monitoring systems of Mali’s FOs havemade it possible to observe this in the cottonzone, as well as in BURKINA FASO where this wasobserved in an accurate way in the Sahelian andSouth Sudanian agro-ecological zones.In BURKINA FASO, according to the Federationof Professional Farmers of Burkina (FEPAB) thecereal market is clearly in progress from theviewpoint of the sales over the last three years.But access to different markets remains difficultfor producers under current conditions: stronginfluence and / or competition from traders, col-lectors and resellers; low bargaining capacity ofproducers and their organizations, lack of infor-mation on markets, etc.In the area of the Mouhoun Union of Agricultu-ral Products marketing groups (UGCPA-BM), themajor producers of Burkina’s granaries, each ofthem farming tens of hectares, expressed to thehead of government their concerns related tothe sale of their products although governmentservices such as the Public Company for SecurityStock Management (SONAGESS) buy their ce-reals. New opportunities also exist for poultryand livestock feed manufacturers.In Niger, the depreciation of the naira competedadversely with the domestic FF, favoring the im-port of food from Nigeria.

B. External factors that contributed to thesegood results

10. natural factors : no major problem On the one hand, farmers benefited in generalfrom good rainfall enabling them to producemore. In addition, there were no major attacksfrom pests. Several indicators show that the FFincreased their production not only by exten-ding the cultivated areas (case in BURKINAFASO), but also by intensifying them (in MALI,production has increased by 2% more than theproduction of the cultivated areas). .

11. Input subsidy and supply : Governmentsplayed the role of stimulation In the three countries, the Government imple-mented a subsidization policy of agricultural in-puts (especially for fertilizers and seeds), a policyto which the FF reacted very quickly, as espe-cially shown by the intensification trend obser-ved • in NIGER, 8, 135.51 tons of selected seeds

were distributed to the populations of vulne-rable areas ; 47,294 tons of fertilizers were dis-tributed among several points of sale orcommunal fertilizer provision centers throu-ghout the country; 239, 063 liters of phytosa-nitary products were made available to theFFs to cover 314, 000 hectares.

• in MALI, the subsidy was applied to fertilizers(sold at F 11,000 the bag instead of F 12,500)and to seeds. The Government also grantedsubsidy in cotton areas and in dry crop areasthrough the acquisition of tractors.

• in BURKINA FASO, where seeds were also sub-sidized (provision of 4, 000 tons of enhancedseeds) and where 16,000 tons of NPK fertili-zers and urea were provided, in addition wenotice the effect of individual initiatives of theFFs in using the organic compost (agricul-ture/livestock association, compost and ma-nure pits) and actions of community defenseand soil restoration.


25

12. prevention of crop attacks : efficientThe efficiency of plant protection services wasparticularly appreciated by the FF and the FO ofNIGER. In BURKINA FASO, local attacks fromseed-eating birds and locusts and crop diseaseaffected however the results of the FFs in theNorthern Sahel

13. Market organization : improvingThe FFs were able to commercialize their pro-ducts owing to the development of three typesof markets:• Local markets that are growing in the three

countries (effect of decentralization).• institutional markets: related to the constitu-

tion of security stocks (WFP, SONAGESS inBURKINA FASO, OPAM in Mali)

• cross-border and sub-regional markets (exam-ple of the export of products from the irriga-ted area of MALI to Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal,Guinea and BURKINA FASO).

The practice of group sales organized most ofthe time by the FOs also improved the sellingconditions of the FFs products (BURKINA FASO).

14. Support actions for the FFs : : improved far-ming practice Dissemination, training, recommendation to fa-mily farm guaranteed by the FOs, the Govern-ment, the NGOs or international assistanceprojects….., the effects of which are being noti-ceable on the improvement of qualifications wi-thin the FFs (noticed in BURKINA FASO in theSouthern Sahel, North and South-Sudaneseareas). ¬See. Booklet 2 (OBSERVATION OFFARMER ADVISORY SUPPORT TO FAMILYFARMS)

C. Factors that limited the production ofgood results Except for the general problem of workforce,these factors are most of the time localized anddid not affect all the family farms.

15. insecurity: tends to spread With the rise of terrorism : • insecurity is directly affecting the North of

MALI and is spreading through the rest of thecountry (attacks in cotton areas)

• in NIGER it is affecting more specifically theChad lakeside and the Diffa region.

• in BURKINA FASO, it is noticeable in the Nor-thern Sahel; armed attacks and livestock theftare increasing in the Southern Sahel.

16. difficulties in gaining access to arable lands orthe shrinking of the space usable by all or some ofthe FFs : the combined effects of fertility pro-blems and land pressure This problem of pressure on the land is raised indifferent terms according to the contexts:• overpopulation : in the refugee reception

zones (NIGER)• soil poverty and/or inadequacy of usable spaces

(areas of dry crops of MALI, sahelian areas andnorthern Sudan in BURKINA FASO)

• reduction of the possibilities to gain access toland (BURKINA FASO: sales /land grabbing inthe northern Sudan area ; withdrawal by thetraditional owners, of the lands formerly lentto foreign-born occupants in the two Suda-nese areas).

17. agricultural workforce : problems related toqualification or availability Mentioned espe-cially in BURKINA FASO: either the family work-force can be mobilized, but is poorly qualified(Northern Sahel) or it is inadequate (exodus/mi-gration, lack of interest of youth – other areas). The development of gold mining in new goldsites diverts the agricultural family workforce inthe 3 countries:• In NIGER : in the areas of Til-labery, Agadez, Northern Zinder, Northern Ma-radi

• in BURKINA FASO : more than 600 sites spreadall over the national territory; about 1 millionof people in the gold mining informal sector)


26

• in MALI : the closure in 2015 of gold sites inthe cotton region had favored the return ofthe "manpower " in the FFs, but their reope-ning is causing a new loss of the family work-force.

18. service provision : some weaknessesThese weaknesses limited the efficiency of thesupport brought to the FFs by the Government::• in NIGER : delay in the provision of inputs, • in BURKINA FASO : bad quality and bad use

of seeds, non-implication of FOs in their dis-tribution.

• in MALI: bad quality of hybrid seeds (cereals,cotton); insufficient provision of the subsidi-zed fertilizers with respect to the sown areas(in Sikasso area, 42,000 T provided against120,000 T expected

19. natural hazards : localizedLocal problems related to the rainfall mentionedmainly: : • in NIGER (the late arrival of rain which delayed

the beginning of the campaign and causedsome losses)

• in BURKINA FASO (unfavorable distribution ofrainfall and the sudden interruption of rain

leading to the water stress mainly in the Nor-thern Sahel ; flood in the province of Tapoa,Gnagna, and Komandjari, in the East region,the provinces of Nayala and Banwa in theBoucle du Mouhoun and the provinces ofHouet and Kénédougou in the Hauts Bassins

Damages to crops caused by locusts or seed-ea-ting birds also occurred in BURKINA FASO in theprovince of Oudalan.

(4) Approaches and results of family farmsin coastal countries of the West Atlantic Fa-cade (SENEGAL, GAMBIA, GUINEA BISSAU)

A .The FFs results better than those of the lastcampaign

20. From the food-crop production perspective:improvingIn the three countries, the results of the FFs wereexpected to be higher than those of the2014/15 campaign.• in SENEGAL, where the ROPPA platform has

database supported by the monitoring of2000 agricultural and agro-pastoral FFs andfishermen over 3 campaigns (2010 to 2013),the FOs have a benchmark in order to appre-ciate the results of the FFs.


27

CLASSIFICATION OF THE FFS ESTABLISHED BY THE CNCR (2013)


28

• Consistently from a campaign to another,20% of them are not safe (heavily in defi-cit from the point of view of their agro-pas-toral and/or fish production); they arefarms with poor factors of production (landavailable : an average of 6 ha for 9 active,but that most of the time they cannot fullyoperate due to the fact that they are under-equipped) which cannot live relying on thesole fruit of their agro-pastoral, forestry andfish production (these farmers can onlyfeed their family for less than 3 months outof 12) and are frequently indebted.

• between 10% and 14% (depending onthe campaign) have a surplus production,covering and generating surpluses. These

are FFs that are well-equipped with factorsof production (an average of 11 ha for 9 ac-tive, good equipment). They have the ca-pacity to invest.

• between 66% and 70% (depending onthe campaign) are in an intermediary si-tuation due mainly to the inadequacy ofthe factors of production and they mayfind themselves in one or the other of thepreceding groups depending on the deve-lopment of those factors. 38% of them arelike FFs with surplus, and 29% of them likethe FFs which are not safe.(see : CNCR, "libérer le potentiel des exploi-tations familiales", 2014, 126 pages)

For the 2014/2015 campaign, the farmswith surplus were dominating the NIAYES (ve-getables, with an average covering rate of 15months) and the sub-region of the LOWERVALLEY RIVER (rice/onion irrigated farming,average covering rate of nearly 16 months)and one part of the forest and pastoral Region(Bas Ferlo and Kooya, livestock farming, witha rate of 17 months). The intermediary farms were dominant in EAS-TERN SENEGAL (groundnut, cereals, cotton,positive results, rate of nine months and half )and CASAMANCE (groundnut, rice, fruit, cot-ton, very positive results, rate of 11 months),that nearly reached self-sufficiency ; in theMIDDLE VALLEY area (irrigated farming, floodrecession farming and livestock farming, ave-rage results, rate of 7 months) and in the HI-GHER VALLEY area (same profile as in themiddle valley area, bad results, covering rateof 4 months, the FFs situation was more fra-gile ; in the GROUNDNUT BASIN, the FFs wereclose to insecurity in the North, with poor re-sults and a rate of 3 months, better secured inthe South, with good results and a rate ofmore than 6 months.)

The farms in insecurity were dominating in onlyone sub-region of the FOREST AND PASTO-RAL REGION; the Ferlo (agropastoralism, rateof 1 month and half.) For the 2015/1016 campaign, the exploita-tion of the results of the 2,300 monitored FFs(of which 600 in the groundnut basin) is stillpartial, but shows nonetheless for the BASINand the RIVER VALLEY, an increasing trend ofthe FFs production of rice (which should helpreduce importations), groundnut and localcereals, but a drop of the industrial tomato. These observations are confirmed by officialstatistics showing an increase of 72% of thecereal production (+61% compared to thethree-year average), 57% for rice (+87% com-pared to the four-year average), an increaseof +19% for fruit and vegetables as comparedto the 2014/2015 campaign. As in Mali, theseincreases are not only due to the extension ofthe sown areas by the FFs, but also to the in-tensification (for the cereals, the sown areashave increased by +39%, and the productionby about +72%).A

• in GAMBIA, where the production of local ce-reals represented for the 2015/16 campaign,46% of the domestic agricultural production,the production of groundnut, 32% and thatof rice, 20%, the family farms have increasedtheir agricultural production by 10% (+9% forcereals ; + 22% for paddy rice, 28% for ricegrown in the highlands; + 14% for ground-nuts, 73/33; + 10% for the late millet, but adrop of 2% for the early millet; + 269% for thefonio). This increase is partly justified by thefact that the FFs have extended the farmlands (+7% as compared to the previous cam-paign), but also to the increase of the results(noticeable for the late millet, sorghum,paddy rice grown in the highlands and to alesser extent for the groundnut 73/73) due tothe use of the enhanced seeds and fertilizers.This explains the intensification trend.

• in GUINEA BISSAU, where rain-fed farming isimplemented with only one annual cycle offarming, the family farms have also increasedtheir production noticeably as compared tothe previous campaigns for most crops. Rice(58% of the domestic cereal production ; 38%in the maritime area of the Northern province,44% in the wet area of the Southern province,17% in the Eastern part of Sudan for irrigated

crops) has increased by +28%, but has decrea-sed as compared to the years 2000 (decreaseof rice from the mangroves). Dry Cereals, theproduction of which covers ¾ of the domesticcereal needs (55% of the production guaran-teed in the Eastern area) have increased by26%. Meanwhile, the results have been de-creasing for ten years. Legumes (niébé : +28%, groundnut : + 39%) and tubers (cassava: + 59%, sweet potato: + 61%) have witnessedthe highest increase. Furthermore, the FFshave also suffered some losses (especially inthe wet area of the Southern province) due toerratic rainfalls or to the problems related tothe sale of products (poor conservation ofproducts). The suburban vegetable farming, practicedessentially by women (tomatoes, sorrel, okra,and sweet potatoes) has been increasing for20 years (increase of farm lands and the num-ber of vegetable farmers).

21. From the animal production perspective • In SENEGAL, the analysis made of the

2014/2015 campaign also provides a clear in-sight into the contribution of the livestock far-ming in family farms depending on the areaor the sub-area:


29

CONTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCk FARmING IN THE pRODUCTION OF THE SENEGALESE FFS(2014/2015)

NYAYESGROUNDNUT BASIN

CASAMANCERIVER VALLEY FOREST AND

PASTORAL AREA EASTERN SENEGAL

SouthNorth Centre Lower Mid FerloHigher Bas Ferlo

7% 32% 18% 13% 24% 10% 15% 22% 92% 64% 13%

The 2015/2016 campaign is characterized byan increase of +5% of the livestock farmingsub-sector..

• The industrial maritime fishing had increasedby 22% to the detriment of the traditional fi-shing practiced by families that had slightlydecreased. Problems related to fish supplyduring the 2016 lean period show that therehas been no improvement in traditional fi-shing.

• For GAMBIA, no data on livestock and fishingare available.

• For GUINEA BISSAU, the predominantly bo-vine and ovine livestock farming hasconstantly increased since 1970 and isconcentrated in the Eastern and Northernareas (95% of the total ruminants); we knowthat it does not cover the domestic needs ofmeat and milk (imports), but we have little in-formation about the breeders’ family farms inthis countryThe most important fishing and maritime re-sources of the country are mainly exploitedby the citizens of neighboring countries or in-dustrial fishing units. There are few domesticfamily fishing units earning their living withtraditional fishing (3,500 traditional fishermenin the Southern and Northern area). Aquacul-ture is poorly developed.

28. From the trading point of view : : improvingin the trading conditions in 2 countries out of 3

• In SENEGAL, the monitored FFs have marke-ted on average 60% of their production du-ring the previous campaign (from 35% in thecentre of the groundnut Basin to 92% in theNiayes and the area of the large irrigated sur-faces of the lower Valley). This rate was higherfor the 2015/2016 campaign which enabledsome surpluses. Onion producers have takenadvantage of the domestic market protectionpolicy; the producers of fruit and vegetableshave been able to sufficiently serve the mar-kets, meat supply has simply been insufficientduring the festivals (import of sheep, but alsoonions for the Korité and Tabaski festivals).Only the groundnut sale has witnessed someproblems, except for the FFs that have seizedthe opportunity of the Asian markets in orderto sell at a price higher than the official price.

This good rate of commercialization is stimu-lated by the domestic policy that favors thecreation of many weekly markets (loumas),most favorable to the producers than thefarmgate sale. In addition, the institutionalmarkets have favored the marketing of riceand the practice of contract markets has de-veloped (tomato, cotton, rice, maize, ground-nut, seeds, milk) ; however, the crisis of thetomato processing industry will have in2015/2016, negative consequences on theFFs of the Valley who produce these crops).


30

• In GAMBIA, groundnut has been wellcommercialized and paid cash at a satis-factory price (the equivalent of 150F/kg).The improvement of trade conditions isincluded in the domestic policy perspec-tives ("Vision 2020"), and the future prio-rities of Gambian FOs.

• IN GUINEA BISSAU, family farms are vic-tims of intermediaries who impose theirprices and do not guarantee a regularsale. (no warehouses).

B. Factors which favored the production ofgood results at the family farm level

29. Natural factors : have globally played apositive role but differently, depending onthe areas• in SENEGAL and GAMBIA : good rainfall • in GUINEA BISSAU : soil fertility (despite

the over-exploitation – contribution of ar-tificial fertilizers in the lowlands and com-post in vegetable farms)

30. access to inputs for FFs (seeds, fertilizers :has been facilitated• SENEGAL where the "rice self-sufficiency"

program has deeply mobilized the pro-ducers and the Ministry of Agricultureand Rural Equipment (MAER) asserts thatas far as the rice, groundnut and maizesectors are concerned, the quantities ofthe subsidized seeds have reached recordlevels over the past 5 years (but the far-mers’ opinion is more mitigated on the si-tuation)

• GAMBIA: drop in the price of fertilizers,contribution of high-yield rice and maize– PPAAO, FAO, NARI, ADB/FASDEP contri-bution: seed banks, innovation/seed plat-forms, AU-CRAB project. ASPRODEB supports; FOs (AFET, FAN-DEMA) support in the constitution ofseed stocks, the creation of seed coope-ratives and the implementation of seedprograms.

• GUINEA BISSAU : no support

31.Public investments made in infrastructuresand support for the FFs equipment : havebeen effective• SENEGAL : the creation of marketing in-

frastructures, construction – equipmentsubsidies (according to official sources,expenditures related to the mechaniza-tion have increased by 60%, compared totheir value in 2014, a result of the effortsmade by the government these pastyears for the modernization of agricul-ture)

• GAMBIA : construction of dikes andbridges (NEMA/IFAD and GCAV/ADB pro-jects)

• GUINEA BISSAU : some supports to theFFs for the animal drawn cultivation pro-vided by the Government or projects

– Support/assistance guaranteed to theFFs : have intensified• SENEGAL: supports/assistance of the FOs:

grouped provision (inputs, equipment),production of certified seeds, supportand guidance (cotton, rice, global), andmarketing support.

• GAMBIA : program relayed by the coope-ratives

• GUINEA BISSAU: provision of facilitatorsand technicians for the monitoring/assis-tance of the FFs by the Regional Directo-rates of Agriculture and NGOs.

2En terme d’allocation budgétaire, les dépenses d’inves-tissement absorbent plus de 80 % des crédits alloués ausecteur (86% en 2011, 84% en 2015), confirmant ainsil’option du Gouvernement d’orienter les ressources du sec-teur vers l’investissement productif agricole. Comparé auBudget Consolidé d’Investissement global de l’Etat, lesdépenses totales d’investissement allouées au secteur ruralpassent de 15% en 2011 à 19% en 2015, confirmant ainsile choix d’appuyer les segments à haute productivité dusecteur.


31

C. Factors that have limited the FFs progresscapacities 32. The fertility degradation: generalizedIt is different in the three countries dependingon the agro-ecological areas. In Senegal, thecurrent data show that almost 2/3 of the arablelands (WB, 2009), that is 2.5 million of hectaresand about 34% of the country surface (CSE,2011) are affected by diverse forms of degrada-tion. Out of the 34% of degraded lands, only 5%present a high density of degradation, less than24% is moderate and 4% is poor.

33. The equipment level of the family farms : remainpoor• SENEGAL : this equipment level is rudimen-

tary or worn out in the groundnut Basin, Ca-samance, the forest and pastoral area and inEastern Senegal ; subsidies are insufficienteverywhere in order to improve and renewthis equipment.

• GAMBIA : lack of adequate equipment • GUINEA BISSAU : use of traditional equipment

in the village FFs, difficulties in getting accessto better equipment ; use of modern equip-ment in the farms of ponteiros (major farmowners).

34. The size of the usable areas and land issues :tendency to saturation intensified by landgrabbing • SENEGAL: land saturation in the groundnut

basin, insufficiency of constructions in the Val-ley where the poor capacities of Governmentin supporting the hydro-agriculturalconstructions lead to the privatization oflands in favor of private investors (PDIDAS).

• GAMBIA : land grabbing (especially the trans-border arable lands by foreign firms and in-vestment funds) ; absence of land rightsprotection (evasive and inefficient regulatoryframework)

• GUINEA BISSAU : land is owned by Govern-ment that gives the best lands to ponteiros

(award of concessions from 20 to 3,000 ha re-presenting 27% of the cultivable lands to2,200 farmers equipped with modern meansof production, but who are most of the timeabsent – only 1,200 are really installed).90,000 small village farmers ensure 90% ofthe domestic agricultural production by cul-tivating small surfaces (about 2ha/FF) andhave to rent lands.

35. Political support and provision of services tothe FFsF : some lacks• SENEGAL : subsidies are appreciated by the

FFs, meanwhile, their efficiency is limited dueto the insufficiency of the subsidies quotas(seeds and fertilizers), the delay in their pro-vision and to the fact that private storers takeadvantage of this situation more than vulne-rable families that do not benefit from themechanisms of prioritization. Concerning the amelioration of the rural po-pulation access to basic social servicesthrough the implementation of socio-econo-mic infrastructures the rural families are sup-posed to benefit from, programs have existed(PNDL) or exist (PUDC), but their realizationsare less visible.

• GAMBIA : delays in the provision of seeds (rice– PPAOP program)

• GUINEA BISSAU: absence of seed policy andlegislation in this area; absence of the controlof production, multiplication and certificationof seeds. Some problems in providing the FFswith enhanced and certified seeds.

36. Some natural hazards : even for a good year,the FFs are exposed to natural risks The main climate hazard in these countries hasbeen related to the rainfall: the excess of rains(heavy rains that have affected the productionof the early millet, the salt intrusion into fresh-water in GAMBIA, the passage of the hurricanein GUINEA BISSAU) and floods that have resul-ted from this hurricane and that especially haveaffected rice production.


32

Attacks from grasshoppers have also affectedthe production in GUINEA BISSAU. We also notice in SENEGAL (Casamance, Niayes)and in GAMBIA, the effects on salinization ofwater on the irrigated crops (rice, market gardening).

D. Ambivalent factors At least two factors contribute to the improve-ment of the financial results of the family farms,but they have adverse effects:

37. lhe lower cost of workforceMentioned in the contribution of GAMBIA, infact it applies to the FFs of all the countries andenables them to limit the cost of production.Meanwhile, there is an obvious problem of so-cial equity and it contributes to moving theyouth away from agriculture and forcing themto emigrate.

38. The development of cashew exploitationMentioned in the contribution of GUINEA BIS-SAU (main producer and exporter of cashewwhere 2/3 of farmers plant cashew trees that in-crease their incomes). The extension of theseplantations is done on the surfaces previouslyoccupied by food-crop production and to theirdetriment. The cashew tree has in addition,some negative effects on fertility. This ambiva-lence of crops is found elsewhere, namely in LI-BERIA, with other speculations (rubber tree,palm oil trees…)

(5) Approaches and results of family farms inthe forest-rich countries recently affected byEbola fever (GUINEA, SIERRA LEONE, LIBERIA)

A. A resumption of the FFs contribution afterthe epidemic

39 . From the food-crop production perspective: :a net increase • GUINEA: the main food-crop produced by the

FFs are as follows in order of importance: (1)

rice, (2) cassava, (3) maize, (4) fonio, (5)groundnuts, (6) yams, (7) potato, (8) banana.Salt production is important.Situation during the 2014/2015 campaign

⇢ in the 2 regions affected by the EVD epidemic (MARITIME GUINEA and FOREST GUINEA)

- The FFs have on average ensured a cover of7 months out of 12 (difficult lean period, fre-quent indebtedness of the FFs)

- They have contributed to half of the domes-tic rice production with good results (MG:34% of the production with a yield of2.8T/ha; FG: 17% with a yield of 2.3 T/ha) andvery few losses (respectively 8% and 7%).

- They have contributed to 37% of maize do-mestic production with a yield of 1.15 T/ha(MG) and 1.05 T (FG) and lower losses (2%)

→ in the 2 regions that have not been affected byEVD (MIDDLE GUINEA and HIGH GUINEA)

- The FFs have ensured on average a coveringof 9 months

- They have contributed to 63% of the maizedomestic production with better results thanMG and FG (MG: 32%, 1,37T/Ha; HG: 31%,1,23T/Ha), with more losses (5%).

- They have ensured the other half of rice do-mestic production, with poorer yields andmore losses (MG: 10% of the prod., 1,2T/ha,10% of losses; HG: 38% of the prod., 1,28T/ha,losses: 15%)

Such detailed data are not available on the re-sults of the FFs during the 2015/16 campaign,where the FFs have benefited from the mea-sures taken in order to revive plant produc-tion, but the collected indications show thatthe FFs have really reacted to the encourage-ment and that resumption has effectivelytaken place. Agricultural production has beenabove the five-year average and vegetablecrops have enabled the FFs to store food upand increase their incomes.

• SIERRA LEONE: main food-crop produced bythe FFs are as follows: rice (produced by 85%of the FFs), cassava (consumed in variousforms, higher urban demand), maize, sor-ghum, sweet potato and groundnut. Other


33

products: palm oil (main forest product), ci-truses, cocoa, coffee, coconut, sugar cane. The results of the 2015/16 campaign thatcame from the farmer survey carried out bythe platform on an UP LANDS (plains) site andon two LOW LANDS (shallows) sites are notquantified, but show progress in terms ofquantity and quality (considered as aboveaverage), meanwhile, the yield remain ave-rage and losses have increased. Food-cropproduction does not cover domestic needs(significant imports, namely for rice).

• LIBERIA: food-crop production is essentially afamily affair, predominantly rice-growing(basic food produced by 71% of the FFs accor-ding to traditional techniques – slash-and-burn farming; poor results: 1.1T/ha) andlegumes, supplemented by tree crops. 87% ofagricultural lands are dedicated to rice and le-gumes. The field survey carried out by the FOswith the farmers who have benefited from anassistance (leading farmers) for the2015/2016 campaign shows that:

- In the 3 agro-ecological areas, the monitoredFFs have accumulated surpluses: NORTHERNSAVANNAH: very good rice and cereal quan-tities (the highest surpluses), average resultsfor legumes. LOWER TROPICAL FOREST: verygood legume quantity, good rice and cerealsquantities. UPPER HIGHLAND TROPICAL FO-REST (agricultural belt): very good legumequantities, good rice and cereal quantities. Ingeneral, farmers estimate that the resultshave been good (especially in the LOWERTROPICAL FOREST area).In the COASTAL PLAINS area, family farmshave remained in deficit with bad results forrice and cereals, slightly better for legumesand very poor results.

40. from the animal production and fishing pers-pective : very slow increase • GUINEA: livestock farming, bovine predomi-

nantly, ranks second among the most exten-ded activities in GUINEA family farms,especially in the Fouta Djalon. In terms ofvalue, bovine production ranked third beforethe epidemic as far as contribution to the do-

mestic agricultural production is concerned.According to information coming from far-mers, livestock farming, still in 2014/15, en-abled them to ensure the agropastoral FFs, acovering of up to 10 months. However, si-gnificant losses have been witnessed duringthis campaign, especially for aviculture. Dueto prevention measures taken in order to res-train the epidemic, livestock farming has slo-wed down throughout the whole nation. - Bovine losses : in the areas directly affected

by the EVD : MG : 8%, FG : 10%; in non-af-fected areas: MG : 12%, HG : 10%

- Poultry losses: areas directly affected : MG :60%, FG : 70%; other areas: MG : 55%, HG :60%Where fishing is concerned, the2014/2015 agricultural campaign as theother sectors, has also been affected bythe epidemic mainly on landing sites onthe coastline (Forécariah, Boffa, Dubrékaand Boké) leading to the desertion of thefishermen villages

• SIERRA LEONE: livestock farming is relativelymarginal and is not sufficient to cover the do-mestic needs. Cattle breeding is concentratedin the North, with very low rates of parturitionand a high mortality rate. On the nationallevel, poultry represents the greatest part oflivestock farming (depending on the areas,71% to 75% of the interviewed FFs are invol-ved in poultry breeding, 40% in small rumi-nants). According to the platform, products of river,lake and maritime fishing as well as aquacul-ture constitute the main source of proteins forthe majority of Sierra-Leone people (theircontributions to the domestic economy aremore important than those of livestock far-ming). Fishing is an important source of em-ployment and income for the rural familyfarms. Small-scale maritime fishing practicedby families of fishermen is in competitionwith the capital-intensive industrial fishinglead by foreigners. The fishing situation has not been reported inthe contribution of Sierra Leone for the2015/16 campaign.


34

• LIBERIA: the contributions of livestock far-ming are marginal and even lower when weconsider those of meat from hunting. For cli-matic reasons, cattle breeding is very rarelypracticed, but rather the breeding of small ru-minants (goats, ranked twentieth among thedomestic agricultural, forest, pastoral and fi-shing production before the EVD epidemic,pig breeding (ranked 9th), and the poultrybreeding (ranked 7th). It is in the area ofLOWER TROPICAL FOREST that livestock far-ming is most developed. According to the in-formation collected from farmers in 2006: - For the county of Lofa (NORTHERN SAVAN-NAH) : 3% of the domestic animal produc-tion (3% of the prod. of poultry, 4% ofsmall ruminants, 3% of pig) – average in-crease

- For the county of Nimba (LOWER TROPICALFOREST) : 29% of the domestic animal pro-duction (31% prod. of poultry, 34% ofsmall ruminants, 14% of pig) – stronglyprogressing

- For the county of Bong (UPPER HIGHLANDTROPICAL FOREST) : 7% of the domesticanimal production (5% of the poultry, 8%of small ruminants, 6% of pigs) – averageincrease

- For the county of Bomi (COASTAL PLAINS):3% of the domestic production (3% of thepoultry, 4% of small ruminants, 3% of thepig).- drop.

Where fishing is concerned, it highly contri-butes to food supply and GDP, informationcollected from farmers comes from the areasthat have no maritime access and have to dowith the continental fishing (practiced mostlyby women) and this ensures additional re-sources to FFs. In the four counties taken into

account, the results are down compared tothe previous campaigns. The traditional maritime canoe fishing or fi-shing from the beach along the coastal strip,mainly in the counties of Cap Mount, GrandKou and Montserrado, creates direct or indi-rect employments (fish processing). It has todeal with competition from traditional fisher-men of the neighboring countries and indus-trial fishing.

41. from the product marketing perspective :supply hardly follows demand • GUINEA: for the 2014/15 campaign: whereas

the sale of rice has been affected by the EVDepidemic, this epidemic has mostly affectedthe production of other products rather thantheir commercialization . 2. The scarcity of fishing products has led to the2014/15 fish price boom.

• SIERRA LEONE: over the 3 surveyed sites, thecommercialization of products has been limi-ted and has not fully satisfied the farmers.

3It is estimated that after the border closure in 2013/2014, (in-dividual and group) producers of potatoes would have lostabout 45, 600, 000, 000 GNF (6, 514, 286 USD) of their inco-me that is an average of about 4, 000, 000 GNF per active far-mer in the sector during the rainy season and off-seasoncampaign. The closure of these markets is a loss for the produ-cers, traders, transporters and tax services.


35

MARKETING2014/15 MARITIME GUINEA GUINEA FOREST REGION

AREAS AFFECTED BY THE EPIDEMIC UNAFFECTED AREAS

MIDDLE GUINEA UPPER GUINEA

30% 40% 45% 70%Rice

Maize

Cattle

80% 85% 45% 40%

95% 97% 98% 97%

85% 60% 95% 80%poultry

• LIBERIA: according to the survey on farmers,marketing of products has been good inNimba (LOWER TROPICAL FOREST), good inLofa (NORTHERN SAVANNAH) and Bong(UPPER HIGHLAND TROPICAL FOREST), butbad in Bomi (COASTAL PLAINS).

B) External factors that favored the resump-tion

42.Natural conditions : favorable in generalIn the three countries, water is abundant and,except in certain areas where lands are poor(Sierra Leone), fertility is good, which favors therelaunch of production. The access of the threecountries to coastal areas with important fish re-sources also gives the fishing industry a goodpotential for growth.

43. Return of security : peace has returned butconflicts still subsistIt especially concerns LIBERIA and SIERRALEONE where the specter of civil war has goneaway. However, new insecurity factors appeararound conflicts related to the access to space(reported especially in Sierra Leone). .

44. Rehabilitation measures post Ebola epidemic :structural measures tend to replace humani-tarian aid• GUINEA : priority is given by the Government

to the support of plant production for the2014/15 and 2015/16 campaigns ; input im-port (fertilizers, phytosanitary products,equipment) sold at subsidized prices ( 45%).

• SIERRA LEONE: support of international Aid;provision of rice seeds, fertilizers, tools anddistribution of food against work (food forwork) – 100,000 beneficiary families. Creationof health centers, free Mother and Infant Pro-tection (PMI) health system.

• LIBERIA: several programs financed by the in-ternational aid (among which we have the re-habilitation program of the agriculturalsector), but it is difficult to measure their im-pacts on the FFs because agriculture and its

monitoring by government services are notpart of the Government priorities.

45.Access to space usable by the FFs :where access is possibleThroughout the Guinean territory, the FFs donot have major problems of access to land. Ac-cess to land is also possible for the FFs of Liberiain the NOTHERN SAVANNAH and the UPPERHIGHLAND TROPICAL FOREST areas. However,access is more difficult in the other regions of Li-beria and in Sierra Leone

C. Factors that have limited the effective re-sumption

46. The epidemic of Ebola fever : continues tohave "delayed effects"On the one hand, the epidemic has led to a losswithin the rural population that deprives todaysome FFs of their valid workforce and increasesthe cost of workforce (noticed by more than80% of the interviewed Guinean farmers), andon the other hand, this epidemic has led to thedisorganization of the rural world that has notrecovered its balance yet (cessation of commu-nity assistance at the time of ploughing and har-vesting, desertion of the affected areas andconcentration of people and herds in the spareareas, interruptions of the supply chains, disrup-tion of services and markets due to some pre-ventive measures forbidding the movement ofpersons and herds).

47. Application of the stimulus measures in theprovision of services to the FFs : some weak-nesses • GUINEA: inadequate system for the provision

of the inputs managed by the National Cham-ber of Agriculture and the decentralized pu-blic services: cash transfer that does not takeinto account the poor economic situation ofthe FFs impacted by the EVD; the cost of thetechnical package (inputs, support-guidance)has discouraged a significant portion of FFs,which in turn reduced the impact on the re-sults.


36

• SIERRA LEONE: insufficient and limited accessto seeds and fertilizers; poorly supported dis-semination, absence of fairness in the provi-sion of services to the FFs. Difficult access tothe health centers created.

• LIBERIA: delays in the provision of inputs, littlesupport by the government due to the poorinterest in agriculture, absence of financialsupport expected by the farmers in order togrow on larger surfaces. Poor quality of theservices provided for family farms.

48. The under-equipment of family farms: : re-mains an obstacle to improvement This problem is strongly reported in the threecountries and prevents the FFs from improvingtheir farming practices.• GUINEA: demand of equipment by FFs, but

their provision is difficult, existence of com-munity equipment but difficulty in gettingthem.

• SIERRA LEONE: rudimentary family equip-ment (hoes, machetes, poor level of mecha-nization); very poor mechanization ofcommunity equipment and absence of spareparts.

• LIBERIA: rudimentary family equipment; in-sufficient community equipment and infra-structures ("main challenge")

49. workforce: : inadequateThis inadequacy is related to the exodus or mi-gration of young people; it is reported in GUI-NEA (for the areas affected by the EVD (MaritimeGuinea, forest Guinea) and in SIERRA LEONE (mi-gration departure, high costs).

50. Space management and resulting conflicts :pressures on lands and land conflicts • GUINEA: these tensions are one of the conse-

quences of the Ebola epidemic. On the onehand, in the areas affected by the EVD, someplots are abandoned, which reduces thespace used by the FFs; On the other hand, theepidemic has forced major herds to set up onthe lands intended for intensive farming, lea-

ding to an overexploitation of water, grazingand community equipment resources whichresults in conflicts between farmers and bree-ders.

• SIERRA LEONE: land access is difficult for vul-nerable people (women, young people), fre-quent conflicts related to unclear nature ofthe limits of family lands; multiplication ofconflicts between farmers, breeders and landowners, which compromises security.

• LIBERIA: strong space competition betweenthe FFs and the main industrial plantations(rubber tree, oil palm …).

51. Natural hazards : not significant • They are reported in SIERRA LEONE, where

production has been affected by extremeheat eruption and flood. Some landslideshave caused the destruction of homes anddamages to rice fields in Lower Guinea.

(6) Approaches and results of family farmsin the coastal countries of the South Atlan-tic Facade (CÔTE D'IVOIRE, GHANA, TOGO,BENIN)

D. Some relatively stable results

52. from the food production perspective : : Evenif food security is not threatened, some de-cline is observed • CÔTE D'IVOIRE : the government services fo-

recast before the end of the campaign, an in-crease of 9% of the global agricultural, forest,pastoral and fishing production, but farmersnoticed on their farms, based on the analysisof weekly results that food production has fal-len (about 40% for cassava, 30% for plantain).For them, competition from cash crops (espe-cially rubber production) seems to be one ofthe causes of this decline. Losses related tothe difficulties in getting access to plots oflands are important (sometimes ranging from30 to 50%).

• GHANA: Production was delayed due to thelate arrival of rains (the results of the surveys


37

THE RESULTS RECORDED BY A MAJOR PRODUCER IN DJIDJA (ZOU)

are therefore not definitive). In the coastal sa-vanna area, production appears to have re-mained unchanged in quantity and qualitywhen compared to the previous campaign. Inthe transition area, the quantity and qualitywere very good and good in the Guinean sa-vanna area; in both areas, there were nolosses and the FF’s debt is low. However, far-mers do not expect any surpluses.

• TOGO: Food production has generally been insurplus, with some fairly satisfactory results,(however, productivity remains poor). This haspermitted to ensure domestic food security.Meanwhile, except for legumes, production isslightly decreasing when compared to the2014/2015 campaign, and the sorghum andmillet have witnessed severe poor perfor-mances (decline of more than the two-thirdsof the production).

• BENIN: the rainfall problem and the lower co-vering of the needs for fertilizers have resul-

ted in the global decline of food production(especially rice, millet/sorghum, cowpeas,groundnut; only maize, yam and cassava areexpected to be in surplus). The farmers’ obser-vations on the results (decline of the resultsfor rice in Atacora and for soya in the foodcrop area of the South Borgou, but we noticea fairly good performance of the cereal pro-duction – sorghum, maize, small millet- , le-gumes - groundnuts, cowpeas – and tubers -yams, potatoes, sweet potatoes) made themmore optimistic in rural areas than the go-vernment services that were expecting a ge-neralized decline of food production (maize :-5%; rice : -13%; millet : -9%; tubers : -11%;market gardening: -8% …). The losses due tothe delayed rains (especially for maize) or toservice provisions (collection of products, forexample seeds from farmers suppliers ofseeds), as well as the important financiallosses due to the sale of products at slashedprices


38

« Of the 40 ha of maize I grew, I did not harvest even a single maize cob, although I had already putin the fertilizer. I also grew yam for 20 ha, while I was expecting 40 tons, I only got 20 tons. For cotton,I grew 15 ha but instead of the 2 tons I used to harvest per ha, I only got 1T200 per ha »

53. From the animal production and fishing pers-pective : good results for livestock farming,lower fishing catches

• Livestock farming : has been little analyzed bythe platforms of this group ; In TOGO where90% of the FFs practice livestock farming as-sociated with agriculture and satisfy two-thirds of the domestic needs, the number ofruminant heads is increasing. The same situa-tion is observed in BENIN, but it is stagnatingin CÔTE D'IVOIRE. The CTOP notices that thepoultry farming is increasing in TOGO and forthe ONAPACI, it is slightly increasing in CÔTED'IVOIRE where despite this situation, it doesnot meet the demand.

• Fishing: the effects of global warming on ma-ritime fishing seem to be more perceptible onthe South side of the Atlantic than on theWest side (migration of fish to colder waters),and the decline of traditional fishing is repor-ted in CÔTE D'IVOIRE, in TOGO and in BENIN.As in the other coastal countries of WestAfrica, maritime traditional fishing is sufferingfrom the growing competition of industrial fi-shing which is taking advantage of the situa-tion and is showing increasing nationalresults. The traditional fishing crisis is reflec-ted in the fish processing, essentially carriedout by women (reported in GHANA).The decline of continental fishing and fishproduction is reported in BENIN. In TOGOwhere fishing covers 58% of the domesticneeds, fish production, still less developed,has increased by 15% from 2011 to 2014,whereas fishing production has increasedonly by 1.5% (a downward trend over a four-year average due to the reduction of thecontinental shelf and the illegal industrialoverfishing).

54. From the commercialization perspective: va-riable marketing depending on the country,in a context of growing integration of FFs tomarkets.

• CÔTE D'IVOIRE: product marketing is one ofthe main concerns of the farmers because in-termediaries take advantage of the absenceof market organization. Production and fi-nancial losses are therefore important for thefamily farms and affect the profitability of thefarms. This is a factor of indebtedness and thediscouragement of young people who arethen obliged to go elsewhere in order to getbetter incomes (exodus, working in rubberplantations for a salary…).

• GHANA: product marketing has been good inthe coastal area (opportunities guaranteed bythe market of Accra). Product sale is fast in thetransition area where consumers buy goodson the farms and where there are main mar-kets (some of them are cross-border markets).But it is bad in the Guinean savanna area.

• TOGO: the FF’s production has led to the pro-vision of rural markets with sufficient andgood quality food at generally satisfactoryprices for the producers and the consumers(except for the peak in May and June). Thesale of cereal products has therefore facedsome problems (less competitive maize, fewpromising domestic markets, poor capacity toresearch foreign markets)

• BENIN: the sale was satisfactory. It is based ona good network of local and trans-borderfood markets, and the multiplication of lives-tock markets. It particularly benefits from theopportunities offered by large urban centersand Nigeria (under more or less favorableconditions due to the fluctuation of the Nairaand the handicap of movement of personsand goods that subsist despite the ECOWASlegislation). Most of the times, the FFs actthrough some traders who remove their pro-ducts from the farms and carry them to themarkets. Through their FOs (FUPRO), institu-tional and contract markets also offer someopportunities for the FFs. (National Office forFood Security, National Company for Agricul-ture Promotion, WFP, HCR, Caritas, local go-vernment…).


39

B. Several factors potentially favorable to fa-mily farming

55. An important space usable for farming: qua-lity space accessible to family farms in prin-cipleFarmers know that the agro-ecological condi-tions are suitable for their activities and there isthe presence of fertility bases (GHANA, TOGO;BENIN: 60% of agricultural lands, very fertile val-leys – the basin of Ouémé is the most fertile inAfrica after the basin of the Nile). The traditionalland system makes lands accessible to familyfarmers under some conditions (GHANA; TOGO:54% of the lands acquired by inheritance, 13%by grants; 26% of the lands for loan or rental).

56. The existence of a family workforce : the qua-lification level of which is increasingThis workforce has a strong female component(29% of the FF’s workforce in TOGO), and is in-creasingly receiving an attention in the area ofcapacity building for product processing(GHANA). When they have access to capacitybuilding (that is particularly the case of the far-mers, members of the FOs), the qualification ofall the members of the family farm is enhancedby training and guidance offered to them, par-ticularly by the FOs (GHANA, BENIN)

57. An economic dynamism and a relative security :thatshould be promising for the family farmingStimulated by port activities (Ports of ACCRA,ABIDJAN, LOME, COTONOU) and trans-borderexchanges, this dynamism favors the develop-ment of urban centers and business opportuni-ties. The network of large markets and localmarkets that exists in each of these countriesconnects the rural producers to the rich basinsof consumption. The intensity of communica-tion and exchanges puts the rural populationinto contact with innovations in the area oftechnologies and ideas.The social climate is sufficiently peaceful so asto allow the farmers to carry out their businesswithout any problem (return of social peace in

CÔTE D'IVOIRE, disappearance of thefts inGHANA). C. But these positive factors are impeded The main impeding factors are:

58. FF’s difficulty in taking advantage of the natu-ral opportunities : poor productivity For the platforms, this first difficulty is due to fivemain factors:• The accentuation of the climatic variations af-

fecting the rainfall. The delays in the arrival ofthe rain and its irregularity have impacted theproducers farming calendar of the year. Thesowing has been delayed, the emergence andgrowth rates were poor, water stress was fre-quent, especially for rice (BENIN, CÔTED'IVOIRE, and TOGO). In GHANA, droughtshave disrupted crops.

• A trend in fertility reduction and depletion ofsoils and generally in the deterioration of thenatural capital of production. This may be re-lated to :- Access to quality inputs (the supply is less

than the demand and the use of seeds "co-ming directly " from CÔTE D'IVOIRE; 15%of the seeds used in TOGO are enhancedor certified seeds; in BENIN, the needs forrice and maize seeds are covered at about50%, and the needs for fertilizers and phy-tosanitary products at less than 70%)

- bad practices: abusive use of artificial fer-tilizers and treatment products in order toproduce more or compensate the inade-quacy of the workforce, the ageing andnon-regeneration of the orchards, aban-donment of farms and their maintenancedue to the discouragement caused by thefall of the prices (CÔTE D'IVOIRE).

- decapitalization: sale of livestock duringthe lean season (GHANA)

• the deficiencies of the family workforce, a por-tion of which remains unskilled (GHANA),whereas young people tend to leave the farm


40

in order to get better incomes elsewhere(they escape to rubber plantations where themonthly salary equals one year of incomefrom food crops – CÔTE D'IVOIRE). The FFs areobliged to use hired labor (CÔTE D'IVOIRE,BÉNIN).

• The inadequacy of farming equipment. Thisequipment remains rudimentary (poor me-chanization) in the majority of FFs of the fourcountries, and working is highly painful.

• The inadequacy of credit which limits the in-vestment capacities. in GHANA, in order toavoid indebtedness, many FFs have refusedthe grant of production credit because of thebad granting conditions (delayed approvalwhich compromises the use of credit in timein order to get good results, high rates), andpreferred to used their personal funds. InCÔTE D'IVOIRE, some FFs that have borrowedmoney in order to enhance their farms wereunable to pay it back and became indebted

59. The FFs difficulties in taking advantage of theusable space and risks of social tension : poormanagement of space and land- relatedconflictsThe dispersal of lands and the difficulties in gai-ning access to these lands can justify productionlosses (CÔTE D'IVOIRE). But above all, there is avery strong competition of space between foodproduction and cash crops (CÔTE D'IVOIRE), orbetween farmers and herdsmen (BENIN), andthe increasing land conflicts are factors of inse-curity and social tension

• in CÔTE D'IVOIRE land conflicts are recurrent(land conflicts between food producers andrubber plantation owners, conflicts about thereturn of the people that have been chasedfrom the classified forests and who find theirformer lands occupied by other people).

• In GHANA: land is available under someconditions in the transition area and the Gui-nea savanna area, meanwhile, small farmersdo not possess lands and have to negotiatecontracts before they can farm. On the otherhand, in the coastal area, small farmers fearthe disturbing developments related to thepossibilities of gaining access to lands (landgrabbing).

• In BENIN, small farms do not have lands dueto their grabbing by wealthy nationals (civilservants, traders).

• in TOGO, the land market is opaque. Landsbelong to communities or individuals butthey do not have any legal document. Theland code which is being elaborated is not fa-vorable to farmers (assimilated to the urbanland code). The government’s policy is to de-velop agricultural centers, which will directlyresult in the grabbing of large farmlands.

60. Farmers feeling excluded from the economicprosperity :

Lack of adequate Government support

• Precarious viability

Under the above-described conditions, theprofitability of the family farms is very low,and farmers are right to worry about their fu-ture when they notice as in Côte d'Ivoire thatthe incomes earned in the industrial farms areconsiderably more important than those theyget from their food production.

The farmer from Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Togo orBenin feeds his country, but does pay a highprice for it.


41

• A badly assisted farmer

Except for the case of GHANA, where the natio-nal program for the subsidy of fertilizers hasbeen reintroduced in 2016 after its interruption,there is no consistent subsidy policy to familyfarms. In TOGO, the targeted subsidy policy forvulnerable farms is a problem. In BENIN inputsubsidies have been promised in vain in 2016.In CÔTE D'IVOIRE, nothing has been done in thisarea. Observations made by the other ROPPAplatforms show however, that such policieshave been successful in the countries wherethey have been implemented.

The FOs can legitimately ask themselves whe-ther in this last group of well-endowed coastalcountries, public authorities do not simply focuson industrial farming and fail to make farmingtheir priority. See. Booklet 3 (MONITORING OFPUBLIC POLICIES WITH REGARDS TO FAMILYFARMS and EFFECTIVENESS OF FARMERS AC-TIONS).

61. Farmers’ solutions• First solution: farming experience “"It is by using their traditional knowledge thatfamily farms created their plantations, produce,keep and sell their products. (…) Throughoutthe [agricultural] chain value, policies and pro-grams are tacit"(according to the CÔTED'IVOIRE platform contribution).It is on their knowledge and own experiencethat family farms first rely upon in order toelaborate some strategies and develop initia-tives enabling them to survive. So, for exam-ple, the contribution of the platform of Togois aware that 70% of these family farms, theproblems of which it is depicting, are seekingthe improvement of farming productivity byassociating livestock farming to agriculture.This point will be discussed further in chapterIV on family farms’ strategies.

• second solution : les organisations paysannesSince they have been set up by farmers them-selves, they are best placed to support theirstrategies through appropriate neighbo-rhood outreach services. This will be discus-sed later in the second part of this report..


42

TOGOLESE FARMERS’ PROBLEMS

Generally, farmers are not able to cover the costs (except for cash crops) of food production, espe-cially maize which is largely produced. Productivity is very low in Togo (lower rate of use of the en-hanced seeds, problems in gaining access to artificial fertilizers, increasing infertility of lands, fewpromising markets) about 1,5 t/ha, which leads to the very high cost of production and this situa-tion cannot enable them to cover the expenditures incurred in the production. As a result, in the majority of cases, they cannot cover the family basic needs (health, education,social needs, etc.). On the other hand, some farmers of the wet and dry agro-ecological areas fa-vorable to cotton farming prefer this crop to provide for their needs. In the forest area too, coffeeand cocoa are the choices adopted to cover the family needs".(contribution of the CTOP – TOGO)

the strategies of family farms

Chapter

03

ADAPTATION OF BENIN’S FF TO OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

(7 The types of information produced by theROPPA national platforms on family farms’strategies

62. "Family farm strategies" refers here to thetypes of paths and approaches they chose toachieve the objectives they pursue, in view ofthe opportunities and constraints they are fa-cing. A farmer’s observatory is in the best posi-tion to provide its contribution to theknowledge of these strategies which is essentialto develop appropriate approaches for gui-dance, assistance and support.

63. Each national platform of ROPPA organized inJune 2016 analysis workshops which helped gene-rate three types of information:

• the driving forces of family strategies,

• their approaches

• and their implementation procedures.

(8) The driving force of family farm strategies

64. Platforms identified three main types of drivingforces :

- first driving force: main family motivationAs the case may be, securing family liveli-hoods ("Crops are first grown to ensure foodfor own consumption and then the surplus issold to meet social needs" - CÔTE D'IVOIRE),improving income, or conveying property(SIERRA LEONE). Those motivations maychange and sometimes be combined.The main motivation will determine the basicoptions for family strategy. "They choosespecialization within the framework of cashcrops (increase in income, access to institu-tional support) and diversification as part offood security" (GUINEA).

- second driving force : adaptation to opportunitiesor to constraintsOpportunities and constraints are positiveand negative sides of the same coin. Familyfarms (FF) combine their choices dependingon fluctuations in climate (climate change)and rainfall, market trends and possibilitiesfor access to supports. Those opportunitiesmay also influence family trade-offs betweenfood crops and cash crops.


44

"In the SOUTHERN and CENTRAL Areas of Benin characterized by two rainy seasons, (a shortone and a long one) a year, growers vary crops according to season (they grow in priority duringthe short season, corn, beans and groundnut, and rice during the long rainy season). As chemicalfertiliers are less used by growers from southern and central regions, crops from the short season(bean, corn, groundnut etc.) are used to fertilize the soil through decomposition of leaves forthe benefit of crops of the long rainy season. In addition to those main reasons, some growersdiversify depending on trends in prices of farm products. Thus, there are years during which it iscorn price that is more profitable than the one of bean or it is cassava price that is more cost-ef-fective than the one of potato. If it turns out that a farmer grows nothing but corn and that it isbean price which has increased in that year, that grower would have lost a very great deal ». In the NORTHERN areas of the country where cotton cultivation leads the market, growers per-form diversification to make sure that food crops (corn, bean) benefit from post-effects of fer-tilizers used to cure cotton farms" (BENIN)

- third driving force : solidarity mechanisms

Through mutual help (GUINEA) or contribu-

tions from migrant workers and migrants

(GUINEA BISSAU), this solidarity, "although it

is very strong among the FFs, does not pre-

vent them from suffering" (SIERRA LEONE)

and tends to crumble due to rising individua-

lism (CÔTE D'IVOIRE).

(9) Approaches of family strategies

65. Two major approaches that may be adjustedby a family depending on market conditions :

- Securing family farm

This is the basic approach, and it is the onewhich first prompts family farms to seek toincrease their production. A whole range ofsub-strategies may be implemented, most ofwhich are based on a form of diversificationand may be added up in variable proportionsdepending on constraints and opportunities.


45


46

diversification ofspeculations

Multiplication of speculations, combinationof crops, combination of perennialcrops/horticulture or irrigation farming (todeal with lean season), combinationdepending on circumstances of cashcrops/food crops…

The most common is the combination ofagriculture and animal husbandry (small andlarge animal breeding);agriculture/arboriculture; hunting andgathering (forest areas); agriculture/fishfarming. Some fishermen are involved invegetable farming.

upward trend. Often carried out by women(trade, handicraft, product processing,catering) and youth (provision of service,alluvial gold mining, unskilled worker,motorcycle taxi driving, coal production), butincreasingly by men (livestock trade,transport, logging, wage-earning, sale ofgasoline and spare parts, operation of videoclubs…)

Exodus may lead to urban areas(e.g.Motorcycle-taxi in Sierra Leone) or ruralareas (seasonal employment, mining –Senegal, Liberia). The analysis made inSenegal shows that this mechanism is verydifferent depending on areas and EAZ; inMali one emphasizes the fact that decisionof departure for migration is collective: thewhole family contributes to its financing(sale of animals). In Guinea Bissau, it isreported that migrants’ money transferstend to increase

Combination ofagricultural,fishing andbreeding activities

Parallel conduct ofnon-agriculturalactivities

use of exodus andmigrations

BURKINA, MALI, SENEGAL,GAMBIA, GUINEA BISSAU,GUINEA, LIBERIA, COTE D'IVOIRE,TOGO

SENEGAL, GUINEA, TOGO, andmore particularly for animalhusbandry : GUINEA BISSAU,GHANA, TOGO, BENIN

URKINA, MALI, SENEGAL, GAM-BIA, GUINEA BISSAU, GUINEA,SIERRA LEONE, CÔTE D'IVOIRE,GHANA, BENIN

MALI, SENEGAL, GUINEABISSAU, SIERRA LEONE, LIBERIA

MAIN SECURING STRATEGIES REPORTED BY THE PLATFORMS


47

management ofproduction andconsumption

Management of harvests and stocks(management of granaries, part of grainsreserved for own consumption – 100% in someFFs), reduction in family consumption (portionreduction).

anticipation in relation to disasters(agricultural insurance –cotton area), todisease (health mutual scheme) or childeducation (piece of land or speculationdedicated to payment of tuition fees, schooltontines)

In Mali, the use of loan takes place at thebeginning of the lean period (with usurersor MFIs) and is repaid during harvest (lowprices)→ imbalances forecasts. Indebtedness is insome cases very high (Sierra Leone’s FOconsiders that 98% of FFs get loans withtraders, members of their family orneighbors).Difficulty in access to MFIscompel them to borrow money in poorconditions and does not allow them to savemoney in order to invest (Ghana’s womenfish processors)

Thinking ahead

Loan (indebtedness

BURKINA, MALI, SENE-GAL, GUINEA BISSAU,GUINEA, CÔTE D'IVOIRE

BURKINA, MALI, GUINEA,CÔTE D'IVOIRE

MALI, SIERRA LEONE,GHANA

When all the strategies have failed, the family leaves farming (reported in CÔTE D'IVOIRE)

- Increase in FF revenue

This objective is pursued by the FFs when security is guaranteed, or depending on opportunities.

PRINCIPALES STRATÉGIES DE SÉCURISATION SIGNALÉES PAR LES PLATEFORMES

(10) Terms of family strategies’ implementation66. Two main terms of implementation of FF stra-tegies are highlighted by the platforms. They worktogether..- Decision-making within the family

Decisions are related to campaign strategies(choice of production - diversification/spe-cialization, especially when food insecurity isin sight; planning for needs – MALI, BURKINAFASO), family organization of work (divisionof tasks between farm manager, women andyouth, use of external unskilled workers,planning – BURKINA FASO, GUINEA, CÔTED'IVOIRE), satisfaction of the family needs(nutrition, health, schooling – GUINEA). Theissue of work compensation within the FFs isnot clarified ("the FF survival depends inlarge part on unpaid use of women and chil-dren’s work. This dimension is not taken intoaccount by farm managers; they spendmoney lavishly" –SIERRA LEONE).Different decision-making methods are des-cribed. Traditionally, the head of family takesthe main decisions and he is himself respon-

sible for supply and activity monitoring (BUR-KINA FASO), but a change toward collectivedecision-making methods involving all theFFs members is noted (MALI, SENEGAL).

- Backup of farmers’ organizationsIt involves the FFs which are members of anorganization. They rely on their farmers’ or-ganization by using their services, by partici-pating to experience sharing betweenfarmers, and by enjoying the fruits of theiradvocacy actions (mentioned in MALI, GAM-BIA, LIBERIA and GHANA).The use of farmers’ organizations outreachservices complies with family farms’ strate-gies and supports the two strategies pre-viously described (securing the FFs andincreasing income). It depends on the oppor-tunity provided by the existence of those ou-treach services. Those services enable the FFsto better achieve their own objectives.

67. Provision of support and advisory service byfarmers’ organizations will be efficient if it is basedon those family strategies.


48

increasingproduction toaccumulate surplus

Specialize inprofitable andincome-generatingproducts oractivitiess

by either extending the areas (Burkina Faso,Guinea Bissau) or by intensifying the use offertilizers ( Mali).

agricultural products (according to agro-ecological zones and market opportunities) :in general terms, cash crops, as long as theyare profitable (cotton; coffee, cocoa, rubbertree, palm tree in wet areas); food crops :grains not consumed (cassava, corn sold forlivestock feed in maritime Guinea, rice),arboriculture, animal fattening, poultryfarming… non-agricultural activities: charcoal, logging, trade etc.

Add value to the products by processingthem, by improving their packaging(processing may be done in family or ingroups, especially for women)

In general, strategies are supported by FOs orprojects: adjustment of marketing with pricetrends, group sale, negotiation of contractdeals

Value addedproducts

Improve marketing

BURKINAGUINEA BISSAU MALI

BURKINA, GAMBIA,GUINEA, LIBERIA, CÔTED'IVOIRE, TOGO

SENEGAL, GUINEABISSAU, GUINEA, TOGO

BURKINA, MALISENEGAL, GHANA

MAIN STRATEGIES REPORTED FOR INCREASING REVENUE

Overview : Each commission in charge of FFOs in each national platform, examined inJune the data collected on family farm features in order to validate and drawconclusions from them at ROPPA’s request on the issues of viability of familyfarms and attractiveness to farmers. In November 2016, the Board and theExecutive Secretariat took up those platforms’ contribution to draw conclu-sions at regional level and over 4 points. They are consecutively presented inthis chapter and deal with: 1) multifunctional dimension of FFs as base oftheir viability, 2) perception by national platforms of FF viability and of theconditions that determine it, 3) the analysis of FF attractiveness for Govern-ments, women and youth in rural areas, 4) constraints to be removed so asto make FFs more attractive to youth and women, and ensure a sustainedimprovement of their viability

Conclusions drawn by ROPPA on theobservation of family farm features duringthe 2014-15 and 2015-16 agriculturalcampaigns: HOW TO STRENGTHEN THEVIABILITY of family farms?

ChapItre

04

(11) The multifunctional dimension of FFsas the basis of their viability and resilience68. The analysis particularly dwells on the pro-duction function of family farms. But it shouldbe emphasized that the latter fulfill many otherfunctions which contribute to strengthen theirviability and resilience, and allow farmers to "livedecently" and safely by meeting his basic socialneeds. 69. Farmers’ work highlight 5 main inseparablefunctions when referring to " family farm" :1) Crop, plant, livestock and fisheries produc-

tion which, depending on agro-ecologicalzones and farm categories, contribute in dif-ferent proportions to families’ food securityand to their income building. In general, it isbased on family workforce (or wage-earningworkforce often for cash crops, less for foodcrops), and is generally managed under theauthority of the head of family who makesdecisions concerning production, use of pro-duction factors and production. Those deci-sions have direct impacts on the other fourfunctions of family farms.

2)Consumption and nutrition: they representthe basic needs of family farms, and the firstlevel and socialization of the income of theirmembers: The members of a FF have thesame level of access to food and nutrition. Ingeneral, the management of consumptionand nutrition is the responsibility of women,but it strongly depends of the results obtai-ned by the family on the other functions (pro-duction, natural resource management andconduct of non-agricultural activities), the so-cially responsible nature of consumption andthe principle of production diversification inFFs form a protection against malnutrition inrural areas.

3)Conduct of non-agricultural activities: ithas been described in the family strategies.Depending on agro-ecological zones and

farm categories, its contribution may belower, equal or higher, than that of produc-tion in the management of family consump-tion and nutrition. The conduct ofnon-agricultural activities is observed amongwomen and youth, and may be carried outdepending on environmental opportunitiesand constraints in various areas, especiallypara-agricultural sector (product processing,trade) or services connected with urbaniza-tion in rural areas (transport, handicraft,construction, ...). It may also be performed ina continuous manner, or seasonally in tempo-ral alternation with crop, plant, livestock andfisheries production.

4)Natural resource management: natural re-sources are the base of crop, plant, livestockand fisheries production. The production me-thod of those family farms values biodiversity,through diversification of plant and livestockproductions and their integration. Theconservation and valorization of resources isa natural concern for FFs but they take it intoaccount in varying degrees depending on se-veral factors: location (especially cultural as-pects), industrial or non-industrial characterof agricultural crops (cotton/ dry grains), com-mercial or non-commercial character of theproducts (vegetables/ dry grains), the in-fluence of the guidance of public services andassistance.

5) Transmission and preservation of culturalvalues: :the cultural values belonging to anentire society are owned by each family farmwhich considers them as a critical factor for itsown reproduction and perpetuation. There-fore, cultural values influence the decisionsand behaviors of the different family mem-bers (farm managers, women and youth), andthe possible directions that those decisionsand behaviors may take will be critical to fa-mily farms’ viability and attractiveness.


50

(12) Perception of family farm viability byROPPA platform members: a conditionedviability70. The first motivation of family farm, as notedin the previous chapter, is to ensure a sustaina-ble provision of food and health needs with theincome earned from crop, plant, livestock andfishing activities. The food balance sheets per-formed in Mali and Senegal by Farmers’ Orga-nizations (FOs) affiliated with ROPPA, and inother countries by other FOs, show that familyfarms combine their needs with other ex-penses (especially the educational ones). Theyalso suggest that FFs capacity to meet theirfood and health needs depends on the types(internal factors) as well as the opportunitiesand constraints of agro-ecological zones (ex-ternal factors) – see Box at point 24, page 28 re-lated to the typology of FFs in Senegal.The 13 national farmers’ platforms that aremembers of ROPPA gave their views on the via-bility of family farms, and consider that it re-mains possible but conditioned . The platformsparticularly consider that viability of familyfarms depends on how attractive they will befor youth and women on the one hand and forthe Government on the other hand.

71. The views of the 4 groups of countries pointout the factors that allowed to achieve goodresults or that limited them and that there are5 types. Excerpts from the platforms’ discus-sions illustrate their points of view..a) NATURAL factors that determine family farmviabilityThese are agro-ecological conditions, cli-mate hazards, or disasters. They fluctuate de-pending on period and areas. They arecurrently exacerbated by climate changes,and the FFs have little control over them.

4During the debates organized in the platforms, one third oforal contributions expressed concern, but two thirds of theleaders who expressed themselves in the national platformsthink that FFs are or may be viable if external factors (natu-

ral, economic, technical, politi-cal)and internal factors (dy-namism and strate gies of families) on which that viabilitydep-ends are present.

Testimonies from platformsFood balance sheet is very different from anarea to another because of weather condi-tions (MALI)In 2015/2016 the viability of agricultural FFsremains a challenge due to the consequencesof Ebola epidemics, worsened by adverse wea-ther conditions (SIERRA LEONE).FF results are weakened by climate hazards(GHANA)

b)ECONOMIC Factors that determine family farmviabilityThese are access to markets (price fluctua-tions of raw material and consumer foods-tuffs, existence or not of market outlets),access to credit and its terms, or access toeconomic infrastructures likely to facilitateaccess to markets (roads, warehouses, etc.).

Testimonies from platformsThe selling prices of their products are low. Inaddition [FFs] have neither production costsnor selling price under control (COTE D'IVOIRE)Except for cases where there is no market, pro-ductions provide value and returns and arecost-effective (LIBERIA)Few growth markets(TOGO)FFs are weakened by difficulties in gaining ac-cess to credit (GHANA)

c) TECHNICAL FACTORS that determine familyfarm viability:The issue of level of equipment and accessto appropriate technical and technologicalinnovations is raised at this stage. Theunder-equipment of family farms compelthem in many cases to practice manual cul-tivation only (GAMBIA, GUINEA BISSAU,SIERRA LEONE, LIBERIA, GHANA), or todelay the start of agricultural campaign be-cause one waited for the neighbor to finishin order to borrow his material", Senegal.


51


52

Testimonies from platformsEven if growers progressively use more modernagricultural inputs such as improved seeds, hoeand machetes remain the most used farmingtools. GAMBIA

d) POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FA CTORS that deter-mine family farm viability: These are mainlypublic policy guidelines and the quality oftheir implementation (especially subsidyprograms, commercial policy (opening/pro-tection of markets for sensitive products),and civil security.

Testimonies from platformsSome factors such as provision by the Govern-ment of subsidized inputs to FFs, outreach sup-port/guidance of FOs to FFs contributed toincrease some productions. (BURKINA FASO)The viability of crop, plant, livestock and fisheriesFFs in 2015/2016 still depends on governmentand partners’ assistance within the frameworkof post-Ebola recovery programs (SIERRALEONE).The areas where studies were conducted indica-ted that the equipment provided by agriculturalsponsors and donors most of time come withdelay ; this is an obstacle to farming activities,since the latter are based on season. They alsopointed out that if inputs are not available ontime, increased productions will not be possible(LIBERIA).Public expenditures for the agricultural sector in-creased from 3% in 2006 to 5% in 2012, but arestill far from the Maputo Commitments(GHANA).

e) INTERNAL FACTORS that determine FF viabi-lity : THE FAMILY STRATEGIESThe family strategies developed in the pre-vious chapter reflect initiatives and optionsthey may take at their own level on practicesof crop, plant, livestock and fisheries produc-tion, management and valorization of pro-duction factors (natural and technical) and

family human resources, or consumptionchoices. Those options are taken to push backthe constraints or to take advantage of theopportunities, generally related to the exter-nal factors mentioned above.

Some testimonies from platformsFood balance of sheet is very different from anarea to another because of climate conditions,access to production amenities and also becauseof strategies deployed by farmer families. (MALI)Viability is different according to areas¬¬, and isvery dependent on rainfall and family strategies(SENEGAL).FFs have no rational management method. Thisexplains marketing inefficiency (COTE D'IVOIRE)Some growers emphasized that their difficultiesare due to their lack of rigor as regards manage-ment and family charges they assume. If havingmany wives and a great number of childrenhelps to better attend the family farm, inducedcosts do not allow the farmer to place his familyand himself at an ambitious level of social life(BENIN).

(13) FFs’ contribution to national economiesand national companies justifies GOVERN-MENTS’ interest72. In generalPlatforms agree that their Governments havefour main reasons to be interested in familyfarms, which represent the most common pat-tern of production in countries where they areestablished:- they bring a key contribution to national nu-

trition (rural areas and towns) and improve-ment of their performances may providefood self-sufficiency, through their self-consumption (on average 52% of crops,plant and livestock productions in Senegal)and marketing of their productions (on ave-rage 48% of productions, Senegal);

- they contribute to stability and social equi-librium by providing jobs in rural areas andby limiting rural migration toward towns (on


53

average 9 working people / FFs in Senegal);- they contribute to national wealth and coun-

try’s GDP (14 and 15% of GDP made by pri-mary sector in Senegal in the past 2 years)

- they improve public revenues, especiallythrough collection of foreign currencies as-sociated with exportation of crop, plant, li-vestock and fishing products.

Platforms’ testimoniesThrough their work, FFs succeed in providingfood for the population and cater for the familyneeds; they contribute to stability and socialequilibrium by fighting unemployment and ruralmigration towards towns, they contribute to po-verty reduction and enable youth and ruralwomen empowerment, they also contribute toreduce frequent food insecurity in rural areas(GUIEA BISSAU)They allow the Government of Burkina Faso toimprove the country’s food security, reduceunemployment rate; increase the country’s GDPand increase revenues through levies, direct andindirect taxes on their activities (BURKINA FASO)

73. last agricultural campaign (2015/16Family farms’ contribution to economies has in-creased during the last agricultural campaign. Itcan be assessed based on the monitoring of fa-mily farms in terms of increased food security(no major food crisis), supply of towns (rise insales of food surpluses), but also in terms of es-timation of family production value (gross valueof family crops, plant, livestock and fisheries pro-duction during the campaign). In BURKINAFASO, where accurate calculations have beendone, it is noted that although that country isone where family farm outputs are the mostmixed, the gross value of family crops, plant, li-vestock and fisheries production has increasedon average by 6.5% in the three areas where ithas been calculated (North Sahelian, North andSouth Sudan areas).As mentioned in Chapter 1 related to results ofthe last 2 agricultural campaigns, the significantleaps forward made by family farms in somecountries within one year show their strongreactivity to more favorable conditions. Theirstrong resilience to adverse conditions (climatechange, drought …) should also be emphasized.

75. Subsectors which are developing can respondto the youth and women expectations in ruralareasThese are off-season vegetable farming whichenables to both diversify/increase revenues andimprove nutrition, as well as poultry farming or

sheep fattening that are also regular incomegenerating activities (swift cash flows), and pro-duct processing (milk, fish products, grains,groundnut, forest products) which in mostcountries represents a self-employment nichefor rural women.

(14) To sustainably improve the viability of FFs, they should be made more attractive toyoung people and women

74. Conditions required for FFs to retain the youth and womenThe six following conditions are mentioned in the debates of one or many platforms:

CoNDItIoNS FoR FFs to RetAIN tHe YoUtH Mentioned by the NPF of :

Access to land, herd and canoe

Adequate income, access toremunerative markets

assistance, effective guidance, technicaland financial assistance, access toequipment and access to loans

Training adapted to farming realities,training on farm mechanization,information

Recognizing and valuing the profession

Access to healthcare and socioculturalinfrastructures

1) Access to familyproperty

2) Income

3) Support andassistance brought

4)Access to qualifiedtraining

5) Recognition ofstatus

6) Improvement of theliving environment

SENEGAL

SENEGAL, GUINEA,SIERRA LEONE,GHANA, TOGO

NIGER, SENEGAL,GUINEA, CÔTED'IVOIRE, GHANA,TOGO, BENIN

CÔTE D'IVOIRE,BENIN

GUINEA

LIBERIA, TOGO

Platforms’ testimonies

The youth and women are attracted to cash crops as sources of income (vegetable farming, rice, pi-neapple, palm tree, rubber tree, potato, poultry farming and integrated rice-fish farming, short- cycleanimal husbandry…). (GUINEA)The types of assets to which young people are sensitive and which would encourage them to comeand settle in agriculture or remain in it are the enhancement and improvement of the quality andefficiency of public services provided by the Government, modernization of FFs, farmer status andmaking sure that the market becomes more attractive (GUINEA) Enthusiasm of the youth for agricultural sectors most connected to the market (vegetable farmingin the Niayes and groundnut Basin; banana in the Eastern Senegal; irrigated rice in the Delta; fruitgrowing in the Niayes, groundnut Basin and in Casamance; animal fattening in all the agro-ecolo-gical areas (SENEGAL).

5454



76. But constraints are to be removed to make FFsmore attractive to the youth and women and im-prove their viability in a sustainable manner Concerns about the future of family farms ex-pressed by the platforms are related to the issueof their attractiveness to women who ensurethrough their activities (production, processing,marketing, non-agricultural activities, foodconsumption, child upbringing…) a criticalcontribution to family farms’ outputs, and toyoung people who are deemed to take over thefarm when their parents could not manage itanymore.- Women have difficulties accessing land, and

when they have access to it (female house-hold head), a problem arises about how to se-cure it. Actually, in rural areas, women areseldom land owners, and when they have anowner status their land property tends to besmaller and less fertile than that of men .

- The conditions required for family farms to re-tain the youth are often not met.

Platforms’ testimoniesMost young people are not attracted to farmingactivities in Liberia for they think that the latterdo not bring any significant improvement totheir living conditions. In general, the youth is at-tracted to the mining sector. (LIBERIA).Young people are not attracted to FFs for it is notsufficiently remunerative so as to enable them tolive a decent life. (COTE D’IVOIRE).As far as women are concerned, they have diffi-culties accessing land. (COTE D'IVOIRE)In Togo, the agricultural sector is unattractive totoday’s youth. The main problems of the sectorare in particular the arduous nature of the work(low level of mechanization), difficulties in gai-ning access to loans, slowdown in the sale ofgrains, attractiveness of urban life (lack of socialinfrastructures in rural areas, etc.). As a result, fewyoung people dedicate themselves to agricultureand in particular very few undertake to settle inrural areas. (TOGO).

1According to FAO, “in terms of land property, West Africais the most unfavorable area forwomen globally” (8% of owners on average, versus 25 % inEast Africa and 26% in Europe).

Talks with young people both in rural and urbanareas suggest that agriculture has little attract-veness for the youth. Difficulties in gaining ac-cess to financial resources, lack of training andinformation are pointed out by the young peopleas factors which do not encourage them to jointhe farming profession. However, many youngpeople consider that agriculture is a solutionunemployment. BENIN).

77. Platforms and ROPPA focus on the impor-tance of governance of family farms, decision-making processes and their implementationwhich determine the choice of production, oraccess to and control of productive resources,particularly difficult for women. Several exam-ples show how FF governance methods, poorlycombined with other factors, may be an obsta-cle to FFs attractiveness to youth andwomen.ttractivité des EF pour les jeunes et lesfemmes.

78. For ROPPA and its platforms, in addition tothe efforts needed to improve control over ex-ternal factors (natural, economic, technical, po-litical), further approaches and tools should bedeveloped to improve FF governance in orderto enhance their attractiveness to youth andwomen, for beyond current issues, there is theone of future FF takeover by the youth.

79. Outreach assistance and advice may helpthe FFs to better cope with external factors andimprove their internal governance. In this re-gard, the ROPPA Observatory Center has under-taken to draft the guidelines on farmingpractices concerning outreach assistance andadvice. The results of that observation are pre-sented in Booklet 2 of its 2016 report ("OBSER-VATION OF ASSISTANCE AND ADVICE TOFARMERS").

5555



56

List of acronyms and abbreviations

Association of farmers, educators and tradersNational association of professional farming organizations of Côte d’IvoireRegional agency for food and agricultureSenegalese association for the promotion of grassroot development

AFETANOPACIARAAASPRODEB

African Development BankWorld Bank

BADBm

Board of DirectorsEconomic Community of West African StatesPermanent inter states committee for the fight against drought in the Sahel regionNational agricultural credit fund of SenegalNational council for rural dialogue and cooperation of Senegal

Ecological monitoring centerCoordination of farmers’ organizations and agricultural producers of Togo

CACEDEAOCILSSCNCASCNCR

CSE

CTOp

A

B

C

E

Regional Agricultural Policy for West AfricaFamily farm

ECOWApEF

Farmers’ association for naturaldevelopment and environmental managementFood and Agricultural OrganizationFood and agriculture sector development projectProfessional farming association of BurkinaInternational Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentFouta Djalon Farmers’ AssociationFederation of the unions of rice producers’ cooperatives of NigerFederation of Benin producers’ unions

F

Guinea Forest RegionEconomic Interest GroupMaritime GuineaGuinean francGovernment

GFGIEGmGNFGVT

G

FANDEmAFAOFASDEpFEpABFIDAFpFDFUCOpRIFUpRO



57

H

High Commissioner for RefugeesHCR

m

Ministry of agriculture and rural equipmentEbola virus

National Institute for Agricultural ResearchNational agriculture land and water management developmentproject

mAERmVE

N

NARINEmA

Monitoring center for family farmsFarmers’ organizationOffice of agricultural products of MaliOffice of food crops of NigerCivil society organization

O

OEFOpOpAmOpVNOSC

Support Project for the production and distribution of sustainable certifiedseed in West Africa

Detailed program for agricultural development in Africa

Inclusive and sustainable agribusiness development project in SenegalPlatformGross Domestic ProductNational Program for Local DevelopmentAgricultural productivity program in West AfricaRegional support program for pastoralism in the Sahel regionRegional investment program in favor of livestock farming in the coastalcountriesEmergency program for community development

p

pApROSEm

pDDAA

pDIDASpFpIBpNDL ppAAOpRApSpRIDEC

pUDC

RWest African Network of Peasants and Agricultural ProducersNetwork for the prevention and management of food crisis

ROppARpCA

SExecutive SecretariatNational outreach guidance and support systems for family farms

SESNAAp-EF

UWest African Economic and Monetary UnionUnited states dollar

UEmOAUSD

Z

Agro-ecological areaZAE


Rue Kanti Zoobré,09 BP 884 Ouagadougou 09

Burkina FasoTel : 00226 25 36 08 25

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Facebook : roppawestafricaTwitter : roppainfo

www.roppa-afrique.org

Documents

OBSERVATION OF FAMILY FARM DYNAMICS...OBSERVATION OF FAMILY FARM DYNAMICS in 13 CoUNtRIeS oF WeSt AFRICA during the 2014E - 2016 agricultural campaigns ReGIoNAl FAMIlY FARMS oBSeRVAtoRY