. . ' «I.
-~ ‘ L - ' N a L u
_ L L ~ , ._ . ,‘ . . , 1. 2 . , :0.
-~-}‘$ ‘1‘“). , ‘ v "9. 2 L . 1 ‘ ' ‘ " ._;s‘\ J2_.~1Lf’é{“:: 1; 'u. ,.
. . , V 7 . ',

= .r.‘ . .‘UG‘ m 527%“
‘C 3'3

“‘1'. 1-. -r
W.‘ 51.1)
..

{

Q ;
‘ :,.n
5.4.. 7tn'.\~. ..

{%.M:,r\.‘exa'i;\ ‘3

. C 34...}; ’3:-
;‘ LBJ: Ami faunfa"! ‘1’} "3
’ :"8 I"? ‘5 .‘_

Xx": " .. V
”.1: , . ~2
2“,“ . x5} 5%
Jim"- < lat-‘1‘
yW'"

.
"“.‘€ 5 ~ ‘5,
.5 4... ,
m»..- . $8.?“
....,

u. “i
.-

51:.
‘ . . w v ah, u
.3? ,. .m ._ 2 ML .::i.:2.xa.-r.;i_ ”t“.-

J... . .
3:: figfiafifig‘ @7352 5.3L
, - 2 . < w
{mew WEE:

501‘ l.’
n.s'
—;1 ~

:1"

 

I"

u; I...”

“.51., i.

L .
v’uv' a.’
«hazy — .. t.“ H

 

 

 

\’ if“? I
.L ., y. .’
4:124 5- 't

‘LJ.’

’
.r
.....§,.

afifik’

b “'1
i.:’.“3’i¥ "7
L31 ~3r a R
“1 {v.- I
.1} .mi‘é‘

..
4'5" 5'4 -\ c3. 4 an
n. 31,“: ' 7' ‘

mil: i‘:

 

““14 .3).

I-1li‘il‘l

u'lh

 

NIESILVRTY

J IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 1293 009014048

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

SEGMENTATION OF FAMILY FARMS
WITHIN TWO ETHNIC GROUPS IN SENEGAL:
THE SERER AND THE WOLOF

presented by

De sire Yande Sarr

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D- degree in W

 

 

71’. $447324
Major professor

Date 17 Mag 1991

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record;
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

I_I_____

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IDL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

I—_II II

MSU In An Affirmative ActiorVEqual Opportunity Institution
ammo-p1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEGMENTATION OF FAMILY FARMS
WITHIN TWO ETHNIC GROUPS IN SENEGAL:
THE SERER AND THE WOLOF

by

Desire Yande Sarr

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

1991

ABSTRACT.

In Senegal. farming is by far the dominant activity through

which rural Serer and Wolof families satisfy one of their
fundamental functions, the economic role of production.
Agricultural production is organized by family labor and
structured under the leadership of the head of the family.
which, in almost all cases is the eldest male. He
coordinates and directs the contribution of all family
members to the process of production and is responsible for
resource allocation.
Such an organization is not static but is in a constant
evolution characterized by changes in family size. changes
in age structure and roles of family members and.
particularly, changes in the structure of families through
segmentation. The contribution of each family member to the
production does not eliminate the diversity of individual
goals and expectations and strategies in pursuit of self—
interest.

This dissertation focusses on the changes of the family
struCture through segmentation among two ethnic groups in
Senegal: the Serer and the Wolof. Interviews were conducted
on two hundred heads of units of production (100 Serer and
100 Wolof). The study has two objectives:

1) Understand the process of segmentation, its patterns. its
causes and its evolution in relation with the deterioration

of agricultural conditions:

"I

5) Identify ways in which such an understanding might
contribute to overall agricultural development in Senegal.
In contrast to segmentation, succession describes a change
in roles within the farm family after a dependent producer
takes over the management of the unit of production from a
deceased or retired father. Segmentation implies the
separation of a farm family into several economic units.
The study differentiates three patterns of segmentation:
personal request when a dependent producer seeks the
authorization to create his own economic unit of production;
recommendation, when the head of the farm family proposes to
a dependent to have a family farm of his; and conflict
resulting from disagreement within the farm family.

Personal request occurs from a desire of economic
independence. Recommendation is dictated by the size of the
farm family.

The establishment of separate units of production does not
mean the vanishing of the joint family as a social unit nor
does it eliminate interactions between the farm family of
origin and the newly created unit of production.

For both Serer and Wolof, a positive association exists
between the size of landholding and the size of farm family.
Also the data support the hypothesis that newly created farm
families have a smaller size of holding as well as lower
level of equipment.

As a result of limited resources, most Serer and Wolof farm

families lack food self-sufficiency which in turn may

accelerate family segmentation. It is a priority to help
these farm families increase their levels of production by
improving the conditions of agricultural production and by
creating opportunities to supplement income from

agriculture.

TO MY WIFE AND MY CHILDREN
FOR THEIR

SUPPORT AND PATIENCE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very grateful to the Senegalese Institute for
Agricultural Research (ISRA) and to the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID) for making possible
the pursuit of my graduate work at Michigan State
University.

I want to express my deepest appreciation to Dr
Christopher Vanderpool who served as my academic advisor
throughout my training. His invaluable assistance and
encouragements never wavered.

I am very grateful to Drs Marilyn Aronoff, Jay Artis,
James Bingen and Craig Harris. Their academic assistance.
suggestions and criticisms were very much appreciated.

Many thanks to my immediate family. friends and relatives
and particularly to Hyacinthe Dioh. MD for so kindly
accepting my children during my absence, to Djibril Diouf.
Ousseynou Diouf and Amadou Ndiaye for their collaboration in
data collection.

Thank to all of you.

vi

ABSTRACT.

TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

LIST OF FIGURES.

LIST OF MAPS.

GLOSSARY OF LOCAL WORDS IN SERER AND WOLOF.

ACRONYMS.
PREFACE.

CHAPTER I -

b)
I-1 -3.

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND CONTEXT OF THE

STUDY OF FAMILY SEGMENTATION.

Context of the Study

Notes on Serer and Wolof Ethnic

Groups

Agriculture Activity in the Senegalese
Context

Family Organization of Agriculture
Production.

Difficulties of Agriculture.

Importance of the Study of Segmentation

CHAPTER II - LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY.

II-l.

II-Z.

II-2-1.
II-2-2.
II-2-3.
II-2-4.
11-2-5.
II-2-6.

CHAPTER III.

III-1.

III-l-l.
III-1-2.
III-1-3.

Literature Review.

Methodology.

Research Questions and Hypotheses.
Research Setting.

Sampling Procedure.

Data Collection.

Data Analysis.

Limitations of the Study.

PROCESSES OF SEGMENTATION OF FARM
FAMILIES.

Causes and Patterns of Access to Farm
Operator Status. .

Overview of Access to Farm Operator Status.

Respondents' Attitude about Segmentation.
Justification of the need to Segmentation.

vii

ii

vi
xviii
xix
xx

xxi

12
12

16

16

24
28
30
31
32
33

35

35
35
47
50

III-1-4.

CHAPTER IV.

IV-l.

IV~1-1.

IV-1-2.

IV-2.
IV-2-1.
IV-2-2.

IV-2-4.

IV-3.
IV-3-1.
IV-3-2.

IV-4.
IV-4-1.
IV-4-2.

IV-5.

IV-S-l.
a)
b)
c)
e)
f)

Evolution of Patterns of Segmentation.

CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM FAMILIES.

Characteristics of Respondents.

Age of Respondents.

Technical Knowledge of Heads of Family
Farms.

Characteristics of Family Farms.
Patterns of Residency of Family Farms.
Size of Family farms.

Active Population of Family Farms.

Landholding.
Size of Landholding for Family Farms.
Determinants of the Size of Landholding.

Equipment of Family Farms.
Level of Equipment of Family Farms.
Strategies For Access to Farm Equipment.

Interactions Between Family Farms.
Interaction Between Related Family Farms.
Patterns of Residency after Segmentation.
Family Visiting.

Support with Food.

Transactions of Equipment.

Support with Labor.

CHAPTER V. FARM CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPACTS

FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.

Determinants of Levels of Production.
Factors of Production External to Farm
Families.

Factors of Production Internal to Farm
Families.

Level of Interaction Among Family Farms as
a Factor of Production.

Distribution of Family Farms by Degree of

Interaction.

Impact of Patterns of Segmentation on the

Degree of Interaction Between Family Farms.

Hypotheses Testing.

Performances of Serer and Wolof Family
Farms.

Food Self-sufficiency of Family Farms.

viii

52

57

57
57

64

69
7O
74
79

83

83

93

98
100
106
109
110
111
113
115
117
120
123

124

128

135

136

139

140

144
144

V-4-2. Food Self-Sufficiency and Patterns of

 

Segmentation. 147
V-5. Food Self-Sufficiency and Farm Operators
Strategies. 153
V-5-1. Strategies in Case of Surplus of Production 153
V-5-2. Strategies in Case of Food Shortage 156
V-5-3 Livestock raising as a Strategy for Food
shortage. 158
a) Importance of Cattle. 159
b) Importance of Small Ruminants. 162
CHAPTER VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 165
VI-l. Characteristics and Food Self-Sufficiency of
Family Farms. 166
VI-2. Significance of Findings. 172
VI-2-l. Importance For Development in Senegal. 172
VI-2-2. Importance of Findings for Social Sciences. 179
NOTES. 181
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 184
APPENDIXES

Appendix # 1.
Appendix # 2.

ix

LIST OF TABLES

 

Chapter 3.

Table 3-1- Distribution of Respondents by Pattern of
Access to Farm Operator Status and By
Ethnicity.

Table 3-2. Perception of Segmentation by Ethnicity.

Table 3-3. Justification of the Perception of
Segmentation by Ethnicity.

Table 4-1. Distribution of Respondentsby Ethnicity
and Category of Age.

Table 4-2. Age Distribution of Respondents at
the Time of Access to farm Operator
Status by Ethnicity.

Table 4-3. Age Distribution of Serer Respondents by
Pattern of Access to Farm Operator Status

Table 4-4. Age Distribution of Wolof Respondents by
Pattern of Access to Farm Operator Status.

Table 4-5. Age at the Time of Segmentation by
Ethnicity and Type of Segmentation.

Table 4-6. Distribution of Farm Operators by.Ethnicity
and Training Institution.

Table 4-7. Distribution of Residency Unit by the
Number of Family Farms and Ethnicity

Table 4-8. Relationship Between Farm Operators Within
the Same Residency Unit by Ethnicity.

Table 4-9. Distribution of Family Farms by Size and
Ethnicity.

Table 4-10. Population size of Family Farms
by Ethnicity.

Table 4-11. Distribution of the Population by Age and

Table

Ethnicity

4-12. .Distribution of Family Farms by
Importance of Active Population.

39

51

58

59

61

62

63

66

71

73

75

76

76

78

80

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Distribution of Family Farms by Status of

Migrants and Ethnicity. 81
Distribution of Family Farms by Size of

Holding and Ethnicity. 87
Size of holding by Ethnicity 88

Distribution of Family Farms
by Size of Holding per Person and Ethnicity. 90

Distribution of Family Farms by Area
Available for Active Person and by Ethnicity
91

Matrix of Correlation Coefficients of Age of
Respondents and Characteristics of Family
Farms. 94

Distribution of Serer Family Farms by Size
of Holding and by Pattern of Segmentation 95

Distribution of Wolof Family Farms by Size
of Holding and Pattern of Segmentation 96

Distribution of Family Farms by

Level of Equipment and Ethnicity. 101
Distribution of Serer Family Farms by Level
of Equipment and Pattern of Access to Farm
Operator Status 103

Distribution of Wolof Family Farms by
Level of Equipment and Pattern of Access to

Farm Operator Status 104
Distribution of Family Farms by Period

of Access to Farm Operator Status and

level of Equipment. 105
Relation to the More Frequent Supplier of
Equipment by Ethnicity. 108
Residency Patterns by Ethnicity. 111
Distribution of Family Farms by Frequency

of Visit and by Pattern of Segmentation. 113
Transactions of Equipment Between Family

Farms and Family Farm of Origin. 117

xi

Table

Table
Table

Table

Table
Table
Table
Table

Table
Table
Table

Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

Distribution of Family Farms by Pattern
of Segmentation and Frequency of Help

with Labor. 119
Matrix of Correlation Coefficients between
Family Farms Resources 120
Distribution of Family Farms by Level of
Available Resources and Ethnicity. 131
Distribution of Family Farms by Level of
Available Resources and Pattern of Access

to Farm Operator Status. 133
Patterns of Segmentation and Degree of
Interaction Between Serer Family Farms. 137
Patterns of Segmentation and Degree of
Interaction Between Wolof Family Farms 138
Matrix of Correlation Coefficients of
Determinants of Farming Performances. 141
Distribution of Family Farms by Frequency

of Food Self-Sufficiency and Ethnicity. 146
Distribution of Family Farms by Frequency

of Food Self-Sufficiency and Patterns of

Access to Farm Operator Status 148
Distribution of Serer Family Farms by

Total Income Fcfa per Person During

Campaigns 1986/87, and 1987/88. 150
Distribution of Wolof Family Farms by Total
Income per Person (Fcfa) During Campaigns
1986/87 and 1987/88. 152
Strategies in Case of Cereal Surplus
Production by Ethnicity. 154
Ethnicity and Use of Income Generated from
Sale of Surplus Production 155
Food Shortage Strategies by Ethnicity. 157
Distribution of Family Farms by Cattle

Owned and Ethnicity. 160
Association of Cattle owning with

Ethnicity 161

xii

Table 5-15. Distribution of Family Farms by
Ethnicity and Number of Small Ruminants. 163

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES.
Figure 1. Patterns of Access to Farm Operator
Status for Serer Respondents. 45

Figure 2. Patterns of Access to Farm Operator
Status for Wolof Respondents. 46

Figure 3. Perception of Segmentation by Serer
Respondents. 48

Figure 4. Perception of Segmentation by Wolof
Respondents. 49

Figure 5. Evolution of Patterns of Segmentation
for Serer Respondents. 53

Figure 6. Evolution of Patterns of Segmentation
for Wolof Respondents. 54

Figure 7. Rainfall Distribution From 1977 to 1987. 125

xiv

Map 1:

LIST OF MAPS

Ethnic Divisions of Senegal

XV

29

Serer

Foulang

Mbind

Yal Mbind

Ngak

Yal Ngak

Ndiatigue

Surga

GLOSSARY OF LOCAL WORDS IN SERER AND WOLOF.

Wolof

Ker

Borom Ker

Ndiel

Borom Ndiel

Ndiatigue

Surga

Mere 1a ber 1a

Gerem la watch la

Mer beru

xvi

English

Represents the space
occupied by each farm
family in a
residency unit shared by
several family farms.
Residency Unit.
Head of the residency
unit.
Daily food for the farm
family.
Head of farm family or
production unit
Person in the farm family
holding economic authority
(decision maker).
Dependent producer.
Free a surga against whom
you have a grudge.
Free a surga who has shown
a capacity to be self-
supporting.
Decision of a displeased

surga to separate from his

ndiatigue.

Saad Saad Paid work
Side Diarga Manager of family cattle
herd
ACRONYMS
I.R.A.T.: Institute of Tropical Agronomic Research.
I.S.R.A.: Senegalese Institute of Agricultural Research.

N.P.A.: New Agricultural Policy.
SO.DE.FI.TEX.: Society for the Development of Textile
Fibers.

SO.DE.VA.: Society for Development and Extension.

xvii

PREFACE

Agriculture in Senegal is based on the cultivation of
groundnut and cereals (millet. rice). In an effort to help
develop agricultural production. the Senegalese government
introduced several programs beginning with the creation of
cooperatives in the early sixties 1/. An important
introduction was the ”Programme Agricole” through which
agricultural inputs: groundnut seeds, fertilizers. equipment
were made available to producers to be paid after harvest
and on an annuity basis. Price support is established and
outreach agencies were created aimed at providing peasants
with agricultural and management training. Also research
activity, particularly research on varieties of groundnut.
was encouraged. Despite these efforts. the role of
agriculture in the country's economy is decreasing. The
statistics show a decrease in the share of agriculture in
the Gross Domestic Product from 25% in 1965 to 22% in 1987
(World Bank Report. 1989).
Three interrelated circumstances combine to create such a
deteriorating situation of agriculture. These are hgmgg
factors. environment factors and policy factors.

Concerning the human factor. rapid demographic increase
(overall Senegal rate of population increase is 2.9%)
translates into high population densities population leading

to a quest for more land for cultivation to feed the growing

1

population. As population increases. the size of holding for
farm families is smaller leading to further pressure on
land. Moreover. inadequate agricultural techniques are
leading to soil degradation.

A hostile ecological environment characterized by sparse
and irregular rainfall. and by a drop in rainfall made
agriculture precarious. In addition ecological destruction
resulted from the introduction of groundnut as a monocrop.
Deforestation was practiced for the expansion of groundnuts
cultivation. This, in turn, led to erosion in the Wolof zone
and wind erosion in the Serer zone. Because of lack of
conservation measures, agriculture land is being lost
through soil exhausted and erosion.

The government decision to stop the Programme Agricole in
1980 indicated a new orientation to the agricultural policy
in Senegal. This orientation was evident in the introduction
of the Nouvelle Politique Agricole (NPA) in 1984 calling for
less state intervention and more responsibility for
peasants. Peasants must rely on themselves for the
acquisition of factors of production needed. This led to a
detrioration of the conditions of production for farm
families that had previously benefitted from the advantages
offered by the Programme Agricole. Thus. farm families
created since the end of the Programme Agricole and farm
families in general may be facing enormous difficulties in

obtaining such factors of production as seed. equipment.

credit. etc.

Changes in the conditions of production do not only affect
the level of agricultural production of Serer and Wolof.
They are causes and effects of the changes of structure of
Serer and Wolof farm families through segmentation. As
effects. the partition of factors such as labor. land and
equipment that follow segmentation reduces the level of
available resources for agricultural production.

As causes of the segmentation, limited resources within farm
families increases the need to look for other alternative
out of the family farm. what pushes segments of families to
separate. As result. the conditions of agricultural
productions are not only causing but also accelerating the
process of segmentation. Also they explain the increase of
the number of cases for patterns of segmentation such as
personal request and recommendation. In other words. the
response to deteriorating agricultural conditions appears to
be the fragmentation of segments of Serer and Wolof farm
families.

Changes in these factors then suggest a deterioration of
the conditions of production for farm families in general.
Also they suggest difficulties that farm families created
since the end of that Programme Agricole and farm families
in general may be facing for the acquisition of factors of
production. The process of segmentation. through the

partition of factors of production it implies. contributes

to increasing problem faced by agriculture in the zone
considered. This leads to the hypotheses:
1) the later a farm family is created. the smaller the
size of holding available:
2) the smaller the size of holding, the higher the
pressure on land and the higher the pressure on
land, the higher the risks of soil degradation;
3) the later a farm family is created. the lower its
level of equipment.
4) the degree of interaction between farm families of
same origin may be affected by the pattern of
segmentation.
The study of segmentation in the context presented has two
purposes:
1) to better understand the process of segmentation
its causes its patterns;
2) to investigate ways in which such and understanding

might contribute to overall agricultural development.

As to the organization of this paper, Chapter one
presents the context of the study and provides useful
information about the Serer and Wolof and about their main
activity of production as well.

Chapter Two refers to the literature review and the

methodology.

Chapter Three describes the patterns of access to farm
operator status among Serer and Wolof. Particularly, it the
causes and patterns and evolution of segmentation as well as
the perception Serer and Wolof have about segmentation.

Chapter Four describes the characteristics of farm families
and their impact on agricultural production. It also
indicates the extend to which interaction among farm
families are developed.

Chapter Five presents the situation of food self-
sufficiency in relation to the characteristics of farm
families and provides information on livestock as a recourse
in case of shortage of food.

Finally. Chapter Six presents a summary of the study as well
as the importance of findings for agricultural development
and for social research on family. It also focus on the
necessity for policy oriented toward helping farm families

to take into consideration farm circumstances.

CHAPTER I - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND CONTEXT OF THE

STUDY OF FAMILY SEGMENTATION

I—l. Context of the Study.

I-l-l. Notes on Serer and Wolof Ethnic Groups.

A former French colony, Senegal is located on the western
coast of Africa. The total area is about 196 thousand square
kilometers. and the population is estimated at 7 million.
The average annual growth of population is 2.9% with a
fertility rate of 6.5 per thousand ( World Development
Report. 1989).

Six main ethnic groups compose the population: The Wolof.
the Serer. the Toucouleurs. the Diola. the Peulh and the
Manding (Map 1).

Ethnic identification is counterbalanced. however. by
relationships that cut across ethnic lines. Among these are
the use of the Wolof language as the ”lingua franca” in
almost all the country. Secondly. there are tolerated
interactions in the form of joking relationships between
Diola, Peul. Serer. and Toucouleur. In the case of Serer and
Wolof. the two largest ethnic groups. a long history of

interaction has resulted in significant mutual adoption of

cultural patterns. To a certain extent, the Wolof might have
adopted the land tenure system developed by the Serer. Such
interactions have been possible since the two groups share
the same proximate geographic space.

The Serer are divided into two groups: those located in the
regions of Fatick and Kaolack, previously the Sine-Saloum
region. Our sample is drawn from this group. The second
group is located in the region of Thies. The Wolof are
located chiefly in the Northwestern part of the country. but
are also dispersed throughout the country.

Concerning family formation, families are organized on the
basis of lineage. Each lineage is composed of several
extended family units which are the basic units of
production. Such family formations still prevail.

As to the residence patterns. scattered farmstead
communities characterize the pattern of settlement for the
Serer ethnic group. The constitution of villages in relation
to the availability of public services (wells, health
centers) is increasingly dominant.

The Wolof live in a cluster village type of settlement. In
each, families live in compounds arrayed around a patio. a
residency unit called ”Mbind” by the Serer and ”Ker” by the
Wolof. Stockades separate family living quarters. "Mbind"
and ”Ker” are primarily units of residency under the moral
authority of the oldest man designated as "Yal Mbind" for

Serer and "Borom Ker” for Wolof. In most cases. "Yal Mbind"

and ”Borom Ker”. also exercise control over economic
decision making. But. in a “Mbind” and “Ker“. several
economic leaders may coexist with one moral authority. This
occurs when several independent production units share the
same residency unit.

Previous studies have identified several differences in
familial relationships between Serer and Wolof. The Serer
are considered more attached to the cohesion of the family.
and more respectful of traditional values. The Wolof. on the
other hand. are described as more open to the outside. and
more independent oriented (Pelissier. 1965; Martin, 1970).
Empirical data on both ethnic groups indicate that the Serer
in rural areas have larger families than the Wolof (Martin.
1970). The Wolof have largely adopted Muslim beliefs
accelerating the shift from a matrilineage to a patrilineage
kinship. Muslims also are dominant among the Serer, but 5.0%
of family farms surveyed are Catholic.

Concerning family formation. Serer and Wolof families are
organized on the basis of lineage. Each lineage is composed
of several families extended and/or conjugal which are the
basic units of production. in other words. they constitute
the level at which agricultural activity is organized. The
structure of these units is not static but changes over
time. These changes follow cultural age rules of age and
circumstances (death or retirement of the father from

agriculture activity). These types of economic groups. are

units of analysis in this study.

I—1—2. Agriculture Activity in the Senegalese Context.

Agricultural production remains the main source from which
a large percentage (70%) of the Senegalese population draws
its living (VII Plan Economic et Social). Agriculture
accounts for 22% of the Gross National Product (GDP).

As indicated, Serer and Wolof respondents are respectively
located at the district of Ngayokheme of the region of
Fatick and the district of Kaymor of the region of Kaolack.
The territory covered by these regions (about 23000 square
kilometers) was known as the Sine-Saloum region. It
corresponds to what used to be called the groundnut basin.
where groundnut cultivation was introduced and expanded.
This region is presently under the influence of human
ecological and policy factors that are progressively
deteriorating the Serer and Wolof systems of production

which in turn affect their family organization.

a) Family Organization of Agriculture Production.

Agriculture is organized in economic decision units called
units of production or farm families in which the farm
operator and his family depend primarily on farming for

living through their labor. The structure of families

involved in agriculture production varies from nuclear
families consisting of parents and their offspring. to
extended families that include several generations and, in
soAgriculture in Senegal is based on the cultivation of
groundnut and cereals (millet. rice). In an effort to help
develop agricultural production, the Senegalese government
introduced several programs beginning with the creation of
cooperatives in the early sixties 1/. An important
introduction was the “Programme Agricole” through which
agricultural inputs: groundnut seeds, fertilizers, equipment
were made available to producers to be paid after harvest
and on an annuity basis. Price support was established and
outreach agencies were created aimed at providing peasants
with agricultural and management training. Also research
activity. particularly research on varieties of groundnuts.
was encouraged. Despite these efforts. the role of
agriculture in the country's economy is decreasing. The
statistics show a decrease in the share of agriculture in
the Gross Domestic Product from 25% in 1965 to 22% in 1987
(World Bank Report. 1989).
Three interrelated circumstances combine to create such a
deteriorating situation of agriculture. These are hgmgg
factors. environment factors and policy factors.

Concerning the human factor, rapid demographic increase
(overall Senegal rate of population 'increase is 2.9%)

translates into high population densities leading to a quest

10

for more land for cultivation to feed the growing
population. As population increases. the of holding for farm
families is smaller leading to further pressure on land.
Moreover. inadequate agricultural techniques are leading to
soil degradation.

A hostile ecological environment characterized by sparse
and irregular rainfall. and by a drop in rainfall has made
agriculture precarious. In addition ecological destruction
resulted from the introduction of groundnuts as a monocrop.
Deforestation was practiced for the expansion of groundnut
production. This in turn led to erosion in the Wolof zone
and wind erosion in the Serer zone. Because of lack of
conservation measures. agriculture land is being lost.
through soil exhausted and erosion.

The government decision to stop the Programme Agricole in
1980 indicated a new orientation to the agricultural policy
in Senegal. This orientation was evident in the introduction
of the Nouvelle Politique Agricole (NPA) in 1984 calling for
less state intervention and more responsibility for
peasants. Peasants must rely on themselves for the
acquisition of factors of production needed. This led to a
deterioration of the conditions of production for farm
families that had benefitted previously from the advantages
offered by the Programme Agricole. Thus. farm families
created since the end of the Programme Agricole and farm

families in general may be facing enormous difficulties in

11

obtaining such factors of production as seed. equipment.

credit. etc.

b) Difficulties of Agriculture.

As indicated earlier. agriculture in Senegal faces enormous
difficulties tied to three interrelated aspects. First. the
lack of access to farm inputs results from the New
Agricultural Policy on one hand and. on the other hand. from
the lack of resources for peasants to acquire factors
needed. Secondly, the ecological constraints imposed by a
hostile environment limit peasant efforts towards increasing
agricultural production. Finally. the continued
deterioration of factors such land which not only is
insufficient but is being being destroyed under population

pressure.

I-l -3. Importance of the Study of Segmentation.

The combination of human, environmental and policy factors
degrades the conditions of agricultural production in
Senegal. Also it contributes to lower peasant economic
expectations, particularly of young peasants who view
themselves trapped in a family system that can no longer
provide economic security and. even less. satisfy their
personal needs. A lack of confidence in the family develops

and a search for other opportunities as alternatives to low

12

production occurs. The deteriorating conditions may lead to
changes in the family processes of segmentation by
accelerating existing patterns and/or introducing new
patterns of structural changes within Serer and Wolof
families. In particular. this translates in the desire of
young people to have their own farm families accelerating
internal changes in families. organizational and structural
changes as well.
Given the difficult conditions agriculture is facing in
Senegal. the study of segmentation is important for two
reasons. First. formulating adequate policy towards
agricultural development fitting conditions facing peasants
and focussing their cooperation will be hazardous (1) unless
farm families circumstances are taken into account. (2)
without an understanding how farm families are structured.
how changes of the organization and structure occur and
without understanding what the impact of theses changes.
Secondly. the study of segmentation addresses such critical
questions as:

- What are the patterns of segmentation?

- How does segmentation occur?

— What variations in segmentation are observable within

the Serer and Wolof ethnic groups?
- What are the patterns of segmentation and how did they
change over generations?

- How does segmentation relate to wider societal changes?

13

will help better understand the nature and causes of changes
occurring within families.

This study also discusses the characteristics of family
farms in terms of the availability of land, labor and
equipment. their capabilities for investment. and finally.
the technical knowledge of the producers.

Hence another important goal of this study is to identify
what agricultural inputs should be made available.
particularly to those newly created family farms. e.g..
training, supply of factors of production to family farms
(seeds. fertilizer. equipment).

Production is organized under the social and economic
leadership of the older active male (not sick or retired) of
the family. All decisions relating to agricultural
production fall under his authority. He is responsible for
resources allocation and the distribution of consumption to
members of the family. Besides operating the production
unit. the production head represents the family farm in its
external relations. e.g.. membership in the cooperatives.
and for groundnut marketing. Despite changes introduced that
give married women and the younger generation of men the
possibility of owning plots of groundnut and controlling the
income generated from them, elder male heads of family farms
still play a preponderant role in the way agriculture is
conducted.

There differences between the Serer and Wolof concerning

14

their involvement in agriculture (Pelissier. 1965). The
Serer are rooted in agriculture and have developed
techniques that generally support a high population density.
that is. using grazing aniamls with cropping effectivily
utilizing manure to preserve soil fertility.

Confronted with population pressure on land (highest rural
density of population in Senegal. 105 inhabitants/square
mile) and facing unfavorable environment, the Serer system.
however. does not seem to be able to maintain itself. On the
other hand. the Wolof are considered to be historically less
tied to land and to have used a much more extensive
technique of cultivation. The introduction of the groundnut.
may have accelerated their conversion to agriculture and
contributed to a rapid and large extension of land

colonization.

15

CHAPTER II - LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOG

II—l. Literature Review.

Succession and segmentation describe changes that occur
within farm families during the family life and which affect
its organization. Changes in the headship of the production
unit. internal changes of the family. changes in the size of
the family and changes in the ages of members of the family
are important because of their social and economic
consequences.

Changes in members' ages lead to variations in duties to
variations in the division of labor. within the family. They
add to changes in family size. to create variations in the
importance. nature of needs and problems of the family.
These changes suggest the interrelations that take place in
the family as a system. They describe a continuous evolution
that suggests that the family is unit in process of
transformation rather than it is a static unit (Hareven.
1974).

The concept of family developmental life cycle describes
the process through which a family moves from its
constitution through marriage and from its extension through
the birth of children to its division. It suggests that each
family has a life story characterized by ”cycles of growth

and dissolution" (Greenhalgh. 1985). Several phases compose

16

this process: 1) constitution, 2) maturation. 3) extension,
and 4) dispersion or division. what we refer to as
segmentation.

Segmentation is not perceived as the final stage of the
process. There is indeed a continual back and forth movement
from joint family to nuclear family. back to joint family
during which fission and fusion are observed. (Desai. 1964;
Pritchard. 1932). Segmentation suggests a dissociation which
does not necessarily exclude interaction between different
segments created as may suggest dissolution.

Several arguments have been made on what has caused and is
still causing segmentation of traditional extended families
from extended to smaller nuclear families. Among these: the
effects of industrialization and the introduction of new
social ideas and values; the effects of demographic
processes and. the effects of land tenure. What is meant by
demographic processes are changes in the size of family
farms as well as changes in the age and status of family
farms members. All three relate to the economic situation
within which families live and evolve.

Urban industrialization. but also new ideas that go along
with it. are seen as accelerating changes in the extended
family structure into smaller nuclear families (Goode. 1963;
Gore. 1968). The industrialization process introduces new
values that determine access to resources. not on the basis

of one's membership to a family. but on the basis of

17

personal qualification. By offering an alternative. real or
perceived. to the security of the extended family. and by
creating a set of opportunities. industrialization has
contributed to greater mobility particularly from localities
facing difficult economic conditions. In response. people.
particularly young people. are said to be attracted to
moving from the village and into residential nuclear
families in the localities to which they migrate. Economic
opportunities in the new location lower their economic
dependence on the extended family. They may benefit from
education opportunities in addition to acquiring new values
and behavior patterns.

Nevertheless, social and economic contacts with the extended
family are maintained through visiting. mutual aid.
including financial aid in the form of remittances, and
emotional support (Parsons. 1965; Sussman. 1982). The
direction of dependence may change. That is. the extended
family may become more financially dependent on members who
settle elsewhere but continue to support relatives in the
home village. Under these conditions. the rule of seniority
which ascribes authority to the eldest may be modified in
favor of young who provide such economic support. that is
economic success may provide with achieved status. Whatever
its role in the changes that affect the traditional extended
family. urban industrialization cannot by itself explain the

break up of families (Greenfield. 1966).

18

In the context of this study. the explanation of
segmentation includes special attention to the demographic
processes. Also. given the dependency of the population on
subsistence agriculture. the effects of land tenure need to
be explored. Land tenure. strongly. affects. basic economic
and demographic processes involved in the transformation of
the family farm structure (Bennett. 1982).

Demographic pressure on available resources may give rise
to conflicts of interest within a family and may encourage
some members to look for economic opportunities outside of
the extended family. The size of the family may lead to
interpersonal frictions between members of the farm family.
Such situations can be very difficult to resolve and.
consequently. may lead to a break—up of the extended family
(Brown and Forde. 1967; Baily. 1959; Greenfield. 1966).

Land tenure describes the method through which operational
rights on land are held and transferred (Raintree. 1987).
that is. the ways in which land is allocated and used. Land
tenure is among the most apparent elements affecting family
life. Land tenure is presented as influencing aspects of
family life as diverse as the age at marriage. the residency
patterns. the cohesion of lineage and. the process of
segmentation. Finally. land tenure seen from the perspective
of demographic transition. explains change in fertility
rates (Stockes and Schutjer. 1984. 1986). Through population

change. land tenure relates to a particularly important

19

subject of this dissertation: the demographic pressure on
land and its impacts on the farming efficiency of production
units. Given the focus of this dissertation. only the
effects of land tenure on segmentation. on the residency
patterns. on the cohesion of the kin and. on the demographic
transformations are considered.

The impact of land tenure on segmentation depends on the
main production activity in a given society. In families
that rely principally on subsistence agriculture. the
availability of land provides a guarantee for the pursuit of
their activity. When land is available and accessible. young
couples separate more easily than when land is scarce and
under family rule. In other words. abundance of land without
too many restrictions makes it easier to set up a farm
household. whereas land scarcity makes separation difficult
at least for those who intend to continue farming
(Lakshminarayana. 1982).

To what extent can people stay in the family when land is
not available? For how long can land produce enough to feed
a rapidly growing population? Responses to these questions
are straight forward. It is likely that the over—
exploitation of small-size holdings reulting from land
pressure will lead to insufficient levels of subsistence
production (Blaikie and Brookfield. 1987). Shortage of
family resources. such as land. will force some members to

look for opportunities outside the family. and encourage

20

separation. (Devanandan and Thomas. 1980: Murray. 1981;
Feder. 1971). Empirical data (Devanandan and Thomas. 1980)
support the idea that land shortage leads to family
segmentation by undermining the extended family. Their
findings indicate that the nuclear family in India is known
especially among the lower castes. most of whom are not
landowners.

Concerning the impact of land tenure on residency
patterns. the argument is made that. where land is abundant.
unilocal residence rules develop. (Collier. 1957; Tambiah.
1952; Ryan. 1958). In other words. families with available
land are less likely to separate. All those who look for a
share of the family holding may stay as long as access to
land is guaranteed.

Closely related to the residency pattern is the cohesion of
the lineage. In agricultural societies. particularly.
families are more likely to be stable and to increase in
size if membership gives rights to land. This leads to the
argument that. when the lineage has control over land. it
will have greater generational depth and. therefore. greater
unity and strength (Gough. 1956: Worsley. 1956; Nayacakalou.
1960: Fallers. 1965). In light of this argument. changes in
the direction of more individual forms of landholding would
weaken the lineage.

In societies which rely heavily on agriculture for living.

an increase in population that results from high fertility

21

while mortality is falling may create greater demand for
food supply as well as pressure on land. Population pressure
on land. in turn. will lead to fragmentation of holdings and
may give rise to the breakdown of redistribution
arrangements. i.e.. practices like pledging land can
develop. The way tenure arrangements are organized
determines significantly the manner in which land is
obtained and used. It suggests also that the extent to which
land may be protected. that is. the right a person has to
land will determine the level of investment he will
undertake to protect it by conservation measures. One must
recognize. however. the limits of land protection when
population pressure increases. In other words. land cannot
be properly cultivated under conditions of high population
pressure. This is the case in most rural areas of Senegal.
Moreover. rural Senegal is witnessing a significant change

in the structure of agriculture characterized not by a
widening of the gap between small and large family farms.
but by a general reduction of landholding and other factors
of production as a result of State policy.

Most of the studies concerning the Serer and Wolof have
focused on social and political stratification (Diop. 1968:
Ralf. 1981: Gravrand. 1983 Gastellu. 1970 Lericollais 1970.
1972). Documentation on specific studies on the causes and
patterns of segmentation has not been available. Yet.

definitions of segmentation are given and its impact in

22

relation with land tenure presented.

Segmentation is defined as one process of change of family
structure from which new family farms are created (Venema.
1978: Cattin. and Faye (1981). It is viewed also as the
process by which new economic leadership is created within a
residency unit (Albenque. 1974).

The impact of segmentation on land tenure is also
considered. Segmentation in the Senegalese context of Serer
and Wolof involves a process of definitive land allocation
to the new head of production unit by his father (Pelissier.
1956). As a result of the fathers' obligation to allot land
to their sons when they become heads of family farms. the
amount of land available for family needs has become in many
cases insufficient (Faye. 1982). None of these studies
explored the causes and differences in patterns of
segmentation. nor did they investigate the interactions that
might exist between new family farms and family farms of
origin.

In conclusion. families present different forms of
structure from the primary nuclear family of a husband. his
wife and children to the stem or extended family. Family
development life cycle focuses on areas such as family
structure. family organization. family size. family
formation. family dissolution. and family economic behavior.
These different aspects are affected by elements internal.

but also external to the family.

23

II—2. Methodology

II—2—1. Research Questions and Hypotheses.

Three expressions describing patterns of segmentation are
locally used: 1) ”Gerem la ber la“; 2) “Mere la ber la”; 3)
”mer beru”.

“Gerem la ber la” occurs when a father. satisfied with his
married son's skills and services. allows him to control a
production unit of his own. ”Mere la ber la” and ”mer beru“
refer to a situation of conflict between a head of a unit of
production and his dependent that ends in the break-up of
the unit of production affecting the residence pattern. In
”Mere la ber la” the head of the unit of production makes
the decision. In "Mer beru" the decision to separate is made
by an angry dependent producer. ”Mere la ber la" and ”mer
beru" may be obstacles for close interaction between the
newly created unit of production and the unit of production
of origin.

Segmentation is a result of different. but related factors:
demographic (size of population). economic (level of
productivity) and interpersonal relationships (degree of
conflict). A family farm with a large population may be
difficult to manage because of differences in goals and
attitude of its members. There may also be a low level of

resources available. potentially leading to difficult

24

 

interpersonal relationships in the family. Conflicting
goals. quarrels among family members. may develop. e.g..
between brothers. fathers and sons. mothers—in-law and
daughter—in-law.. In other words. segmentation of family
units of production can occur as a natural social process of
the family developmental cycle. It can also result from
different goals and strategies linked to new economic. and
political changes in the traditional system. Whatever the
context within which a new production unit emerges. its
establishment is an important decision since its survival
will depend on its ability to meet family needs (food and
other expenses).

Units of production created after the Government's decision
to stop the Programme Agricole (PA) through which farmers
were obtaining equipment. are frequently under equipped.
Second. the approach of the outreach agencies which only
dealt with the heads of units of production for training.
did not directly benefit new heads of family farms.
Consequently. many of those who are becoming a head of unit
of a production may have lower technical skills. Managerial
ability and technical skills in farming may develop as the
number of years in farming increases. It is also likely that
additional labor will be secured as the family grows. The
availability of land remains critical. however. particularly
for those who are newly independent. Indeed. only the

combination of land with other farm resources such as labor.

25

capital and managemen. skills will determine the level of
farm output. These considerations and the conditions within
which segmentation may occur suggest several research
questions and hypotheses:

1) To what extent does segmentation occurring as a result
of conflict affect the readiness of the new head of
production unit to separate?

When segmentation results from a conflict situation. the
new head of a family farm may not be prepared to manage.
This is particularly the case when the new head had no role
in the management of the farm family of origin. Usually. the
eldest becomes more are more involved in farm management
with his father. Also. because of the conflict situation. a
new unit of production and the unit of production of origin
may have low levels of interaction. This will affect the new
unit of production especially since it may have inadequate
means of production. In other words. the conditions under
which a new unit of production emerges will determine its
ability to survive. Only interaction with other related or
neighboring production units will mitigate these
circumstances. Exchanges and mutual support between a father
and his son are more likely to be limited if segmentation
occurs because of conflict.

2) To what extent does a rapid increase in rural population
and the continual fragmentation of ' land affect the

performance of newly created production units?

26

For both the Serer and Wolof. the traditional system of
land tenure makes it possible for a male to be allotted a
portion of land from the family holding. Such a
redistribution suggests that the later a unit of production
is created. the smaller the portion of allotted land. And
the smaller the size of holding available. the lower the
production potential of the farm family. Limited land
holding combined with a rapid demographic increase (about
2.9 per year for the whole country) that characterizes rural
areas of Senegal may lead to over exploitation of land
causing impoverishment. Agriculture being by far the main
source of income and food production. the lack of land
jeopardizes the ability of the head of a new unit of
production to satisfy his family’s basic needs or to
reinvest in production activity.

3) To what extent do different patterns of segmentation
affect the interactions among family farms;

It is important to investigate how the different patterns
of segmentation affect the relationships between the family
farm of origin and the new farm. Also important are the
interactions among family farms that have same origin and.
finally. the relationships among family farms in the
context. of a village.

4) In rural Senegal. taking out loans is not developed out
of the informal sector of villages. People in need of money

or food can only get it from the trader of the village or

27

from other well off 'armers. This category of well off
farmers is diminishing. the need to develop survival
alternatives aimed at providing family members with basic
needs became a necessity. In that respect. we hypothesize
that:

a) Members of units of production with a small size of
land available are more likely to be found in off-farm
activities within or outside their farm. Similarly.

b) Migration from villages is expected to be higher among

landless production units than those with land.

II—2—2. Research Setting

The study occured conducted in two localities (Map. 1)
where the Senegalese Institute for Agricultural Research
(ISRA) has conducted research for many years: the villages
of Sob and Ngayokheme in the district of Niakhar for the
Serer and the villages of Dialacouna. Ndakhar. Ndiba. Ndimb-
Taba and Thysse Kaymor in the District of Medina Sabakh for
the Wolofs were selected. While access to the Serer zone is
relatively easy. the lack of improved roads made the Wolof
zone of Kaymor very difficult to access during the rainy

season .

28

“1'...“
m "M
5:: our.“

C3133!"

4"MJC-s

m“: two... .3
0.... ‘u‘u.

.
o
3

T..- 39.‘. J.
L212} 3.1;."
.5—5 NJ“ I..Q'o'o.. 15".

CARTC |1hmq.1;

     

has”

29

.~... ~.--.‘” ___-_ .- .

II-2-3. Sampling Procedure.

The unit of production is the sampling unit and the unit of
analysis. The unit of production is the most important
recognizable entity for the study of micro level production
processes. It has multidimensional functions composed of the
level of organization of the production. the level of labor
allocation and sometimes. the level of consumption. Several
units of production may share the same residency unit
(Pelissier. 1965: Martin. 1970). Consequently. all
production units composing a residence unit were selected.
Such a choice. we believe. would enable us to determine
interactions that are performed between independent economic
decision making units. It would also show production units
that are under the same moral authority and finally. help
identify the trajectories or historical evolution of units
of production. Production units were randomly selected from
village records available at the district level. Once a unit
of production is selected. all units of production with the
same origin were placed in the sample. Limited logistical
support forced us to limit our sample to one hundred (100)
units of production for each ethnic group. for a total

sample of two hundred family farms surveyed.

30

II-2—4. Data Collection.

Two procedures of data collection were used. First.
interviews were conducted based on a questionnaire (Appendix
2) addressed to all heads of the selected units of
production. These interviews were done by two highly
experienced enumerators who have been working in the area
for a long time. Second. we recorded discussions on the
topic of access to the status of head of production in
general. and on segmentation on its causes and patterns.
Using a guide for discussion (Appendix 1). we held group
discussions in two villages. one a Serer village and the
other. a Wolof village. Two levels of discussion occurred.
one with adults who have gone through the segmentation
process and the other with economically dependents
adolescents. Besides questions on the access to the status
of head of production unit: When does it happen? What are
its causes? What are its patterns. and effects? Our purpose
was to capture the perception each particular group has
about segmentation. its evolution and future.

Data collection in the field lasted five months from March

to July 1989.

31

II—2—5. Data Analysis.

To identify how the Serer and the Wolof compare. we provide
general information for the total population of respondents
and specifics features for each ethnic group is provided.

Frequencies and crosstabulations are used for generating
descriptive statistics. Correlations among variables are
calculated using SPSS.Pc+. The association of the size of
landholding with age of the head of production unit. the
year segmentation occurs. the patterns of segmentation. the
size of the family farm. the level of equipment and the
performances will be considered. Finally. a model focusing
on the impact on the performance of units of production of
variables such as the level of available resources. the
pattern of segmentation. the ethnic group. the year of
segmentation and the degree of interaction is tested using
several indices. Following our hypothesis. we believe that
the year of segmentation has an effect on the pattern of
segmentation. In other words. one pattern can be more
frequent among people who became head of a unit of
production later as compared to those who completed the
process earlier.

Two factors may significantly affect the level of
resources available for newly created units of production.
These are the redistribution of land to people who become

head of a unit of production and the difficulties of access

32

 

' ' nae!" ..:

to factors of production since the end of the Programme
Agricole in 1980. Some rather recent patterns such as “mer
beru” and ”mere la ber la” may limit also the degree of
interaction between the newly created unit of production
with the unit of production of origin. These preceding
variables are determinants of the performances of the units
of production. Finally. low performances may push the units
of production to look for alternatives in migration or in
the practice of off-farm activities.

- By low performance we mean the inability of units of
production to produce enough for food, other family's
expenses and for reinvesting in farming.

— The level of resources available includes labor. size of
land. level of equipment and the level of technical
knowledge.

- The degree of interaction suggests the extent to which
economically independent production units develop mutual
support. Interaction varies by the frequency of visits. the
frequency of exchange of labor. of equipment. of food

support. and financial support.

II-2—6. Limitations of the Study.

The conditions under which the study was conducted have
resulted in certain limitations. It is our conviction that

proceeding to measurements would provide more meaningful

33

information instead of relying in peasants estimations for
determining the size of holding. the degree of interactions.
the frequency of food self-sufficiency. Such measurements
would not only require a longer stay in villages but a
longitudinal study that provides time series data for a an
appropriate analysis of the evolution of farm families
circumstances.

Despite the fact that women are not directly (or very
rarely) involved as actors in the process of segmentation.
their opinion on the subject could have help for a better

understanding of segmentation.

34

CHAPTER III. PROCESSUS OF SEGMENTATION OF FARM
FAMILIES.

III—1. Causes and Patterns of Access to Farm

Operator Status.

III—l-l. Overview of Access to Farm Operator Status.

Group discussions held with both ethnic groups suggest
changes in the pattern of access to the status of the farm
operator. They also reveal differences in the way
segmentation is perceived by young men who have not
experienced it yet on one hand. and on the other hand. by
heads of family farms. For the latter particularly. changes
in the family structure by the creation of new economic
decision—making units or production units have always
existed. What is new. they say. are the circumstances under
which these changes are occurring now and the patterns that
have developed. For older people in villages. two forms of
access to farm operator status have always existed or at
least. have been largely dominant. namely succession and or
retirement and recommendation.

Succession as indicated does not imply the division of the
production unit into several family farms. It describes the
situation when a head of a family farm is dead and is
replaced at the head of the production unit by his brother

35

or his eldest son. It is different from retirement where the
former head of family farm is still alive but does hold
economic leadership anymore because of sickness or because
of advanced age. Another difference between retirement and
succession is that with retirement. factors of production
owned by the former head of family farms such as equipment
are kept by the new farm operator at least as long as the
father is alive. In case of succession. the equipment is
sold and each son interested in buying had a rebate of 10%
on the proposed price whereas land previously exploited by
the father was inherited (divided) among the sons. It is
rare that the family splits among brothers as long as the
father is alive. In both cases. the role of farm operator is
most of the time granted to the oldest son of a former
ndiatigue.

Access to farm operator status as a result of the retirement
of a former ndiatigue represents 15.5% of total cases among
which 8.0% of Serer cases and 23.0% of Wolof cases (Table 3—
1). In comparison. access to farm operator status after the
death of the head of the family farm represents 29.0% of
total Serer cases. It is the most frequent pattern from
which Serer respondents have became head of a production.
45.0% in contrast with 13.0% of Wolof family farms.
Recommendation is considered to be a normal process of the
access to farm operator status. It corresponds to the stage

of family life cycle when the family gets too large to be

36

 

.147..5_ :'

manageable. In such situations. eldest sons are granted the
right to become heads of family farms. In other words. they
are authorized to create their own production unit. If in
the family lived brothers of the former head of production
units. the eldest was granted this opportunity first.
Segmentation of family farm through recommendation was
planned and prepared. The claimant was notified far ahead.
usually at the time of field preparation. that he would
become responsible of his own family farm. At the time of
field clearing. the person to whom farm operator status has
been granted was allotted a field that he and his family
would henceforth hold. Then. a decision was taken in a
common agreement with the head of the family farm of origin
either to provide food to sustain the new production until
the following harvest or to continue subsistence through
sharing of prepared foods until the next crop. Food was
guaranteed to the new family by the production unit of
origin for its first rainy season.

A symbolic ceremonial gathering of close family and
relatives always accompanied the passage from the status of
dependent producer to that of the head of production unit as
economic decision-maker. During that ceremony. the former
head of the family farm presented his best wishes of success
to the new head of production unit. Also. he told the
attendants of the ceremony about the hard working qualities

and abilities of the person promoted to farm operator status

37

and. the extent to which he was confident that the freed
sourga could go his own way. Also a high degree of
interaction was maintained between the newly created
production unit and the production unit of origin during all
the first season. This interaction was in the form of help
with labor from younger brothers. but also help and advice
from the former head of family farm as reported during
village discussions.

Cases of "watch” or recommendation (Table 3-1) represent
19.0% of total cases. This includes 28.0% of Wolof
respondents as compared with 10.0% of Serer. This difference
suggests that Wolof may be more open to letting sons or
brothers to settle on their own. Beside this pattern of
segmentation which occurs as a recommendation by the head of
family farm to one of his dependents. other forms of
production unit division are developed: personal request and
conflict in the family.

Personal request and conflict are not new phenomena in the
view of participants of village discussions. What is new is
the extent to which their frequency is increasing. Personal
request occurs when the son or other dependent producer
demands the right to have his own production unit.
Segmentation as a result of conflict. “mer beru or mere 1a
ber la”. describes the process of access to farm economic
leadership as a result of a conflict in the family farm of

origin.

38

-_-—’ H“... x V—

Table. 3—1- Distribution of Respondents by Pattern of

Access to Farm Operator Status and By Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity
Patterns of Access to Serer Wolof Total
Farm Operator Status
Personal Request 34.0% 29.0% 31.5%
After Recommendation 10.0 28.0 19.0
Retirement of Father 8.0 23.0 15.5
Death of Father 45.0 13.0 29.0
Conflict 3.0 7.0 5.0
total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

Participants to village discussions have provided several
explanations why personal request and conflict occur.

In the case of personal requests. heads of family farms
invoke a change in the value system of the society. Young
people are seen as having lost the sense of commitment to
the family. As a result. youth regard themselves as being

exploited by their parents. They do most of the work and

39

yet. receive very little for their efforts. What they want
is a personalized share of the outcome of the work to which
they have participated. The idea has become so strong that
some young men show no enthusiasm working in family
collective fields for which control of the production is
exercised by the head of the family farm. Rather. they
attach more importance to their own fields for which they
have control over the income generated. A second argument
largely shared by younger heads of family farms concerns the
inability of most heads of production units to guarantee
enough food for their family. When it was possible to
produce enough for family sustenance and still have some
surpluses. heads of production units could deal with
dependent individuals needs such as financing the first
marriage of their son. This is no longer possible and worse.
some heads of family farms have no alternative than to rely
on their dependents income for help.

For young and dependent producers. there are several reasons
for leaving the family farm. All have a common denominator:
economic opportunity. Young people are unwilling to stay in
a family farm for the sake of family solidarity as they
reported during village discussions. Also. they request
having their own production unit when they contest the
economic leadership of their elder brother to whom economic
leadership is being granted. The economic leadership of a

brother is questioned in terms of his ability to operate a

40

production unit efficiently. Half brothers frequently
separate after the death of their father. each creating his
own production unit with his unmarried younger brothers and
sisters and his mother. Such a move is a reaction to the
inheritance system in the patriarchal kinship in which only
sons inherit from their father.

Those who are in the family farm of their uncle or half
brothers cannot inherit anything upon the death of the uncle
or half brother. The impossibility of inheriting things that
you have worked on is a discouragement from staying too long
as a dependent producer in a half brother or an uncle's
production unit. Future security. then. is a major reason
for segmentation. These causes in separation are not
independent from the introduction of groundnut cultivation
which created new expectations. new roles and even new
consumption patterns.

With the cultivation of groundnut. women and dependent
young men began to cultivate fields for themselves in
addition to their contribution to family fields. Income from
those fields was entirely under their control. It could be
used for personal needs without affecting or interfering the
obligation to the head of production unit vis a vis his
dependents. While staying in the family. young men have
became progressively self—supporting at least for buying
clothes. cigarettes and even radios. These opportunities for

personal economic gains also contribute to undermining the

41

cohesiveness of the family. Personal request then occurs as
a result of the competition over scarce resources or goals
and means to achieve those goals between a dependent and his
father or between half—brothers. It is particularly common
in the extended family or in the case of non family
dependent producers who stayed for a long time in the family
production unit. Also it happens among brothers after their
father dies. especially when they have different mothers. In
a few cases is there a personal request from a son to leave
the family farm of his father.
When both Serer and Wolof respondents are considered.
personal request is the most frequent mode of access to farm
operator status (Table.3—1). Of all respondents indeed.
31.5% have became head of family farm after personal
request. Within ethnic groups. personal request is the most
frequent pattern of access to farm operator status for Wolof
29.0%. It represents 34.0% of cases of access to farm
operator status for Serer respondents. Cases of personal
request to separate from brother for Serers total 85.0% as
compared to 12.0% of cases of personal request represented
by a nephew. and only 3.0% from sons to their father. For
Wolof respondents. personal request from sons represent 45%
of cases. request from brothers 35% and from nephew 20%.
Segmentation as a result from conflict occurs when a
dependent producer decides to separate as a result of

disagreement with his Ndiatigue. The decision to separate

42

mfl_m {£363- __

may also be initiated by a head of a family farm. This is
the case when the head of the family farm can no longer
stand the behavior of a dependent producer who does not
comply with his way of managing the family farm. This
happens when a dependent producer shows his unwillingness to
fulfill his obligation to participate in working in
collective fields compared to working in his own plots.
Segmentation as a result of conflict represents 5.0% of all
cases studied. most of them Wolof cases 7.0% as compared to
3.0% of cases of conflict for Serers. For Serer respondents.
all three cases are cases of conflict between brothers. For
Wolof respondents. three cases are conflict between spouses.
two cases are cases of conflict between head of family farm
and the dependent producer and. finally. two cases of
misunderstanding between brothers. It must be indicated that
disagreement between brother still under father's authority
does lead to segmentation as it would be the case after his
death.

The division of units of production which affects most of
the newly created family farm is segmentation as a result of
conflict between a dependent producer and his Ndiatigue.
Here. the new farm operator only receives land if he
separated from his father's family farm and if he stays in
the village. Until the misunderstanding is settled down. he
does not receive any further help from his former

N'diatigue. The logic behind receiving land rests on the

43

right each member (son) has on the holding managed by his
father by virtue of the land tenure system.

Figures 1 and 2 suggest that some patterns of access to
farm operator status such as succession and to some extent
personal request are more associated with Serer and others
such as recommendation and conflict with Wolof. This
indicates that Wolof tend to agree more easily to the
departure of family members than Serer do and even to
facilitate it. One reason could be. the findings by Martin
(1970). that family cohesion seems to be more developed
among Serer. A parallel to this can also be traced in the
implementation of the Program "Terres Neuves Projects” aimed
at reducing the population pressure in the Serer Zone by
opening new land. Despite difficult conditions in their
villages. Serer for the first years resented settlement in
the Terres Neuves. It follows from these observations that
the Wolof may particularly favor segmentation of family
farms more than Serer will. The perception of Wolof and
Serer respondents about segmentation shed light on this

point.

44

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

 

 

M
R
A
F
ms
SW
S
E
C

m
a

m.

m
w

m

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

mm

Re
T

 

 

 

 

m

m.
m

m

 

 

III—l—E. Respondents‘ Attitude about Segmentation.

Beyond the distribution of respondents by patterns of
access to farm operator status this dissertation focuses the
perception Serer and Wolofs respondents have about
segmentation (Table 3-2). Table 3—2 indicates that 60.5% of
all respondents are supportive of segmentation as compared

to 34.0% who oppose it.

Table 3-2. Perception of Segmentation by Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity

Perception of Segmentation Serer Wolof Total
Strongly Support 13.0% 31.0% 22.0%
Support 24.0 53.0 38.5
Indifferent 7.0 2.0 4.5
Oppose 33.0 11.0 22.0
Strongly Oppose 23.0 1.0 12.0
No Response 0.0 2.0 1.0

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

47

Fig. 7 PERCEPTION OF SEGMENTATION BY

WOLOF RESPONDENTS
STRONGLY OPPCEE um

 

49

As indicated earlier. differences are observed by ethnicity
(Figures 3 and 4). While most of Wolof respondents 84.0%
including 31.0% who strongly support and 53.0% who
moderately favor segmentation. only 37.0% of Serers among

whom. 13.0% strongly favor and 24.0% moderately favor

support segmentation. In contrast. 56. % of Serer
respondents oppose segmentation. Some of them. 23.0%.

strongly oppose segmentation and 33.0% moderately oppose it.
As far as Wolof are concerned. only 12.0% reported opposing

segmentation.

III-1—3. Justification of the need to Segmentation

Those who favor segmentation give two principal
justifications (Table 3-3). . First. some. 22.0% of Serer
respondents and 17.0% of Wolofs respondents. consider farm
family size as an important cause for segmentation. The
greater the size of the family. the more likely conflicts
between individuals may develop and the more likely
segmentation will take place. For these people representing
19.5% of total respondents. segmentation is viewed as a
strategy for avoiding conflicts between members. For others.
28.0% among whom 12.0% Serer and 44.0% Wolof. economic
independence makes segmentation attractive. For those who
oppose segmentation. respect of tradition (52.0% of Serer

and 11.0% of Wolof) and the partition of resources (8.0% of

50

Serer and 12.0% of Wolof). are put forward as reasons.
Finally. 11.0% of respondents. 6.0% of Serers and 16.0% of
Wolofs. favor segmentation on the grounds that the claimant
to any form of access to farm operator be ready and able to
assume the responsibility involved. For these respondents.
the time has passed when the former N'diatigue could provide

help.

Table 3—3. Justification of the Perception of

Segmentation by Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity
Justification of Perception Serer Wolof Total
Size of the Family Farm 22.0% 17.0% 19.5%
Economic Independence 12.0 44.0 28.0
Respect of Tradition 52.0 11.0 31.5
Fragmentation of Resources 8.0 12.0 10.0
Readiness of the Claimant 6.0 16.0 11.0
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0
(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

Today no family farm has enough resources for its own needs

and therefore. cannot provide any assistance.

51

III-1—4. Evolution of Patterns of Segmentation.

This section focuses on the evolution of patterns that lead
to the division of the family farm in several production
units: personal request. recommendation and conflict. To
capture this evolution. four periods were differentiated
from the earliest a respondent became farm operator to the
time the study was conducted. The first period concerns
cases of segmentation between 1927 to 1942. the second
period. cases of segmentation between 1943 to 1958. the
third period from 1959 to 1974 and. the fourth period. from
1975 to 1988.

For both Serer and Wolof. there is an increase in the number
of cases of segmentation particularly for patterns such as
personal requests and recommendation (Figure 5 and Figure
6). However. differences are observed in the extent of
increase.

For Serer respondents (Figure. 6). cases of personal
requests have significantly increased from the second
period. In comparison. the evolution of cases of
recommendation that are reported only from the second period
is irregular. Cases of conflict are reported only in the

third period. As for Wolof respondents (Figure. 6) the

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M
...... m

 

 

 

 

 

 

/////

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

222222222222222222
222222222222

W

 

 

second period is characterized by an important increase the
number of cases of personal requests and cases of
recommendation. Two factors explain the rapid increase of
cases of personal requests for both Serers and Wolofs and
the increase of the number of cases of recommendation for
Wolof as well. First. the period from 1958 is characterized
by the introduction of new opportunities in rural areas
aimed at improving agricultural production (equipment.
training. selected seeds of groundnut) and that could be
individualized. By increasing the level of production. such
efforts contributed to lowering the reliance of dependent
producers on their fathers and/or ndiatigue. Also. the
accessibility to factors of production outside the farm
family encouraged dependent producers with strong desire of
economic independence to claim having their own units of
production. People who became head of a farm family could
indeed register to cooperatives and have direct access to
factor of production. The second factor consists in the
pressure on the available resources for family farms
particularly since the end of the Agricultural Program in
1980. In other words. the lack of resources preventing farm
families to effectively play their role of security as a
result of deteriorating condition of agricultural production
is leading to accelerated family segmentation.

The data indicate that while Wolof are open to change and

tolerate more the departure of family members. Serer seem to

55

favor less the fragmentation of the family by recommending
the departure of some members. Such an attitude may lead to
more efforts being put in managing conflict and thus
contribute to lower cases of segmentation as a result of
conflict.

In conclusion. one can argue that reduced resources have
contributed to weakening the faith of young people in the
ability of families to continue providing economic security.
Rather. the dependence to the family leader is seen as an
obstacle to personal economic development. It follows that
having one's own production unit. particularly for Wolof
respondents. is considered to be an alternative to staying
dependent on a head of production unit who barely can feed
his family and at the same time take care of individual
needs. The way such a feeling is expressed and the rapidity
with which one would like ownership of a production unit to
occur lead. in some cases. to misunderstandings within

family farm and to separation.

56

CHAPTER IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM FAMILIES.

The following sections examine: 1) how the patterns of
segmentation are associated with variables such as age of
respondents and age at the time of segmentation: 2) how
patterns of segmentation are affecting the characteristics
of family farms namely size of holding. size of population.
level of equipment. and level of resources available. and 3)
how patterns of segmentation affect the farming performance

of family farms.

IV—l. Characteristics of Respondents.

IV~1-1. Age of Respondents.

Respondents were selected to cover all ranges of age from
those beginning to operate a family farm to those at the age
of retiring from agricultural activities. Observation of the
age distribution (Table 4-1) does not suggest significant
differences between the two ethnic groups. This is confirmed
by the analysis of means from which the average age for
Serer head of family farms interviewed is 49.5 years old
whereas the average age of Wolof is 50 years old. In both
ethnic groups there is a wide range of age of respondents as
indicated by the standard deviations of 13.2 for Serer and

12.6 for Wolof. Differences in age suggest differences in

57

farming management experience. in other words. the ability
to use available resources efficiently.

Table 4—1 shows that 22.0% of Serer respondents are under
forty as compared to 15.0% of Wolof respondents. This seems
contradictory with the idea mentioned earlier that Serer
tend to stay longer in the family than Wolof. The
observation of the age distribution at the time of access to

the status of farm operator (Table 4—2) provides an answer.

Table 4-1. Distribution of Respondents by Ethnicity and

Category of Age.

 

 

Ethnicity
Age Categories Serer Wolof Total
< 28 5.0% 3.0% 4.0%
29 to 40 17.0 12.0 14.5
41 to 50 33.0 44.0 38.5
51 to 60 24.0 23.0 23.5
> 60 21.0 18.0 19.5
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

58

It indicates that 40.0% of Serer respondents as compared to
59.0% of Wolof have acceded to farm operator status by the
age of forty years. The presence of 6.0% of Serer
respondents in the family farm of origin beyond 60 years can
be interpreted as an indicator supporting the longer
presence of Serer in the family farm of origin despite the
fact that the analysis of mean ages gives an average age of
access to head of production unit of 31.7 years old for

Serer and 32.2 years for Wolof 2/

Table 4-2. Age Distribution of Respondents at the Time

of Access to farm Operator Status by Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity
Age at Segmentation Serer Wolof Total
< 28 27.0% 18.0% 22.5%
29 to 40 40.0 59.0 49.5
41 to 50 23.0 18.0 20.5
51 to 60 4.0 5.0 4.5
> 60 6.0 0.0 3.0
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

59

Finally. this table confirms that it is now common to find
people who become head of family farm before age thirty ——
22.5% of total respondents (27.0% of Serer and 18.0% of
Wolof) have risen to the status of farm operator before age
twenty nine.

At the time of access to farm operator status. the average
age of access for each pattern was examined. Tables 4—3 and
Table 4-4 present respectively for Serer and Wolof the
distribution of respondents according to their age at the
time of access to the status of head of production unit.
Concerning Serer respondents (Table 4—3). there is no real
concentration in a given age. Patterns that lead to division
of the family farm (personal request. recommendation and
conflict). occur in a larger range than is the case for
Wolof respondents. Even though becoming head of family farm
at after age fifty may seem extreme nowadays. these are not
isolated cases if one refer to remarks made during village
discussions. Table 4-4 shows a concentration of Wolof cases
in the range of age 26 to 36 years old for all patterns of
access to the status of head of family farm. Also cases of
lowest class of age for which the number of cases is high
(34.9% and 23.1%) are unexpected cases of succession. This
may suggests two things. First. that beyond a certain age.
twenty six years old. people are believed to have

accumulated experience that makes it more acceptable to let

60

them go on their own. Also it can be that by the time people
reach this age. the family farm of origin has enough labor
so that the departure of one dependent and his family will

not seriously affect the family labor.

Table 4—3. Age Distribution of Serer Respondents by

Pattern of Access to Farm Operator Status

 

Age Categories

Patterns of Access 15-25 26—36 37—47 48—58 >58 total

 

Personal request 26.5% 35.3% 32.4% 2.9% 2.9% 100.0%
(34)
Recommendation 30.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 100.0
(10)
Retirement 25.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
(8)
Death 26.7 42.2 17.8 4.4 8.9 100.0
(45)
Conflict 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 100.0

(3)

 

61

Table 4—4. Age Distribution of Wolof Respondents by

Pattern of Access to Farm Operator Status.

 

Age Categories

Patterns of Access 15-25 26—36 37—47 48-58 total

 

Personal Request 3.4% 65.6% 27.6% 3.4% 100.0%
(29)
Recommendation 17.9 53.6 21.4 7.1 100.0
(28)
Retirement 34.9 56.5 4.3 4.3 100 0
(23)
Death 23.1 61.5 7.7 .7 100.0
(13)
Conflict 14.3 57.1 14.3 14.3 100.0

(7)

 

A final illustration of the age at the time of access to
the status of head of production unit is expressed by an
analysis of means which gives the average age for each
pattern of segmentation controlling for ethnicity (Table 4—

5).

62

Table 4-5. Age at the Time of Segmentation by

Ethnicity and Type of Segmentation.

Personal Request.

 

Serer Wolof Total
Mean Age 32.8 33.9 31.9
Std. Deviation 10.3 6.1 9.3
Number of cases 34.0 29.0 63.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation.

Serer Wolof Total
Mean Age 35.0 32.8 33.4
Std. Deviation 12.3 8.3 9.4
Number of cases 10.0 28.0 38.0
Conflict.

Serer Wolof Total
Mean Age 32.0 33.7 33.2
Std.Deviation 14.0 8.6 10.7
Number of cases 3.0 7.0 10.0

 

63

Average age for cases of recommendation 33.4 years old is
higher than the average age for cases of personal request
31.9 and the average age for cases of conflict. 33.2 years
old. The table also indicates that recommendation for Serer
respondents occurs at a later age than for Wolof. The
difference in average age for personal request and conflict

between Serer and Wolof is negligible.

IV-1—2. Technical Knowledge of Heads of Family Farms.

By technical knowledge is meant the ”know—how" of farm
operators which. combined with other factors of production.
may determine farming efficiency. Technical knowledge
includes farm management capabilities. It also includes
practical techniques concerning the use of equipment and
techniques of cultivation. Family experience and training by
state intervention through outreach agencies are the ways
through which technical knowledge is acquired.

As far as family experience is concerned. the time a person
is involved in agricultural activity helps him gain some
experience not only in conducting practical activities but
in managing a production unit. In other words. it is likely
that the longer an individual stays in the family farm of
his father. the more farming experience he builds.

In rural Senegal where formal education is not widespread

64

particularly among older people. different institutions have
integrated a training aspect to their interventions. The
National Outreach Agency for Development (SODEVA) and the
Senegalese Institute for Agricultural Research (ISRA) have
provided farmers with training aimed at improving their
production by use of new techniques of cultivation. By means
of discussion and field demonstrations. farmers were taught
techniques as diverse as the use of fertilizer. use of
animals for cultivation. assembling and use of equipment.
These actions which were supported by facilities offered to
farmers. i.e.. access to equipment and other production
factors needed trough cooperatives. Most of the respondents
of this study benefitted from these programs as indicated in
Table 4-6.

A high percentage of Serer and Wolof respondents 72.5%
have benefitted from direct training through SODEVA AND
ISRA. This gives an indication of the importance put on
improving farmers' conditions of production particularly in
the zone where groundnut cultivation was developed. Table 4—
6 suggests differences among Serer and Wolof. First. most of
the respondents who reported not having received direct
training are Serer respondents. 38.0% as compared to Wolof
respondents 16.0%. The second difference concerns the
sources of training. It appears indeed that Wolof
respondents have had more opportunities provided by the

presence of ISRA. SODEVA. and SODEFITEX South of the Kaolack

65

region where programs were being conducted while in the
North only SODEVA had a program accompanied with a training
part. Concerning the nature of the training. the package of
techniques offered has been similar even though each

institution used different approaches.

Table 4-6. Distribution of Farm Operators by Ethnicity

and Training Institution.

 

 

 

Ethnicity

Training Institution Serer Wolof Total
I.S.R.A. 0.0% 44.0% 22.0%
SO.DE.VA. 61.0 12.0 36.0
I.S.R.A./SO.DE.VA. 0.0 24.0 12.0
SO.DE.VA./SO.DE.FI.TEX 0.0 4.0 2.0
No Formal Training 38.0 16.0 27.0
No Response 1.0 0.0 0.5

Table 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (100) (100) (200)

In comparison to other institutions. the Senegalese

Institute for Agricultural Research (ISRA). through the

66

Experimental Unit Project provided some farm management
training besides the traditional technological package to be
implemented.

As indicated. access to inputs necessary to the
implementation of such programs was facilitated by the
cooperatives where not only family farms could get factors
needed but also where they could sell their production of
groundnut. Membership to these cooperatives was. however.
limited to farm operators. Dependent producers as well as
women were not granted membership to these cooperatives and.
as a result. did not have direct access to factors of
production. A dependent producer who wanted to get his own
factors of production. in preparation of his future role.
had to rely on his father or on the head of production unit
he depended on. Also. the training programs did not directly
address to all heads of family farms because of limited
logistical resources. but also because of the criteria that
had to be satisfied before a family farm was selected for
participation in the program. In this selection. family
farms with large holdings and which had labor available were
advantaged. What this approach suggests is that training
programs have favored those production units that already
had a good level of resources available. leaving aside those
production units that needed help the most. The program
through which ISRA was providing training stopped in 1980.

Similarly. the Cooperatives have disappeared. SODEVA's

67

activities have been reduced and have shifted from outreach
to simply monitoring maize production contracts. Moreover.
the new agricultural policy (NPA) introduced in 1984 leaves
full responsibility to farmers for the acquisition of inputs
necessary for their production.

These gonsiderations suggest a deterioration of the
conditions of production as far as the acquisition of
factors of production is concerned. Also the level of
technical knowledge may be declining as those who are
becoming head of family farms may not have had previous
training but only family experience. Important questions
can be raised for the changes introduced. First. are farmers
sufficiently trained to insure efficient and sustainable
practices of agriculture. that is to say. producing enough
food while protecting the environment? Do farmers have a
level of capital that would guarantee the acquisition of
needed factors of production? Finally. do they have access
to factors of production without government intervention?
This dissertation cannot answer these questions. but they
are of particular importance because of the perception
respondents have of training in agriculture. For 85.0% of
respondents. there is no doubt that training is important.
Yet they say as do the other respondents that technical
training does not really help when conditions are as hostile
as they are: hazardous and insufficient rainfall. lack of

equipment. no fertilizer and so on. As reported during

68

villages discussions. one can hardly differentiate farmers
who have had formal training from those that did not.

Why is there no difference? It is because the conditions of
production are delicately balanced at a survival stage. The
stage at which Serer and Wolof family farms in Senegal find
themselves particularly in the groundnut basin where the
respondents are located. Under such conditions. people tend
to turn toward techniques that have secured subsistence.
They may do so by using improperly introduced tools. By
classifying family farms according to factors of production
available. the following sections give indications about
what their farming performances. their ability to produce
enough for food and for investment in agriculture. might be.
Also we examine the extent to which differences in the
patterns of segmentation are impacting the level of

available resources.

IV—2. Characteristics of Family Farms.

Size of land available and labor are generally considered
as key elements in elaborating typologies of family farms.
Yet. it is the way they combine with such factors as capital
and management. that determine the farming performances.
Capital includes livestock and equipment. and management
suggests the ability to combine available factors

efficiently.

69

The following sections examine all these factors.
Particularly. they examine the extent to which they are
associated with patterns of segmentation and with the

ethnicity of respondents.

IV—2—1. Patterns of Residency of Family Farms.

In the introduction. we have differentiated ”M'bind from
N'gack” for Serer and ”Ker from N’diel” for Wolof. M'bind
and Ker designate the residency unit. the physical
habitation. N'gack and N'diel represent the family
production unit considered in this paper as the unit of
analysis. Within a M'bind or Ker. separate n'gack or n'diel
can coexist. In some cases however. m'bind and Ker
represents the physical residency unit at the same time that
they are the family production unit (Table 4-7). Such cases
where the residency unit corresponds to the family farm are
predominant in both ethnic groups (67.4%). In
village discussions. the farmers reported that more and more
people after they became head of production unit choose to
have their own residency unit. Those who were granted the
status of farm operator used to stay in the same residency
with their family of origin. at least for a given period of

time.

70

Table 4—7. Distribution of Residency Unit by the

Number of Family Farms and Ethnicity

 

 

Ethnicity

Number of Family Farms by Serer Wolof Total
Residency Unit
One Family Farm 70.0% 64.7% 67.4%
Two Family Farms 20.0 26.5 23.2
Three Family Farms 8.6 5.9 7.2
More than Three Family Farms 1.4 2.9 2.2

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (70) (68) (138)

 

With the development of new patterns of segmentation there
is a trend for newly created family farms to settle on their
own. Such a move reflects the desire of independence of
young people vis a vis their parents. The separation of a
residency unit strengthens economic independence vis a vis
the family farm of origin. It also gives social authority to
the production unit head on matters internal to the
residency. In other instances. the new family farm will be

represented by his father. older brother. or uncle living in

71

the same village.

Data collected for residency units with several family farms
show the relationships between heads of family farms (Table
4-8). Residency units with family farms of brothers of the
head of the residency unit are more frequent among cases of
co—residency for the two ethnic groups but particularly
among Serer cases. They represent 86.7% of cases of co—
residency among Serer as compared to 37.5% of total Wolof
cases. In contrast. Wolof have the highest frequency (21.9%)
of residency with production units of sons of the father.
Such cases are rather rare among Serer. Similarly. Wolof
residencies are more open to people outside the family.
i.e.. nephews. and cousins (31.2%).

Concerning the structure of residency units. Table 4-8
suggests different types of family structure composition
indicating that family farms are not necessarily simple
nuclear families but they may be formed around other
important relationships. First. there is horizontal
composition type where the residency shelters family farms
of brothers of the head of residency. Second. there is a
vertical type of family farm composition indicating that

father and sons share the same residency unit.

72

Table 4—8. Relationship Between Farm Operators Within

the Same Residency Unit by Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity
Relation Between Farm Operators Serer Wolof Total
Father and Sons 6.7% 21.9% 14.5%
Brothers 86.7 37.5 61.3
Nephew and/or Cousins 3.3 31.2 17.7
Father Brothers Sons Nephew 3.3 9.4 6.5
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (30) (32) (62)

 

A third mode. that integrates nephews and/or cousins. would
be a combination of both horizontal and vertical types of
demographic composition within the residency unit. Similar
composition of the population exist for cases where the

residency corresponds to the family unit.

73

IV—2-2. Size of Family farms.

The size of Serer and Wolof family farms is examined in
Table 4—9. Serer family farms are smaller than their Wolof
counterparts. First of all. 51.5% of family farms. Serer and
Wolof combined have a total population between one to ten

inhabitants. These include. 57.0% of Serer family farms and
46.0% of Wolof family farms. When family farms of 6 to 10
inhabitants and 11 to 15 inhabitants are taken separately.
no difference is found between Serer and Wolof family farms
size. Wolof family farms with a population size beyond
fifteen inhabitants represent 37.0% as compared to Serer
family farms of the same size 15.0%.

The analysis of means (Table 4—10) indicates that Serer
family farms are smaller than Wolof family farms. The mean
size for Serer family farms seems to contradict the idea
that Serer tend to stay longer in the family farm of origin.
Indeed. the later the division of a family. the larger the
size. In the present case however. one must consider
circumstances that make the Serer family a smaller size than
the Wolof family. Some actions such as family planning

programs implemented in the zone where Serer are

74

Table 4-9. Distribution of Family Farms by Size and

 

 

Ethnicity.
Ethnicity
Size of Family Farms Serer Wolof Total Cum
(Number of Inhabitants)
1 to 5 19.0% 9.0% 14.0% 14.0%
6 to 10 38.0 37.0 37.5 51.5
11 to 15 28.0 27.0 27.5 79.0
16 to 20 8.0 17.0 12.5 91.5
> 20 7.0 10.0 8.5 100.0
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

located may have had an impact on lowering of the size of
family farms. Also. an undeclared epidemic of cholera spread
for two successive years (1987 and 1988) may have had impact
on the size of family farms. The data suggest an association
between the size of holding and the size of family farms.
When both ethnic groups are considered, the data indicate a
positive association r-.431** (Table 3—21) between the total
size of holding and the population size of the family farms.

This suggests that the more land a family farm has. the more

75

likely its population will be high. It must be noted that
the magnitude of the association between population size and

size of holding is different when ethnicity is considered.

Table 4—10. Population size of Family Farms

by Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity
Statistics Serer Wolof Total
Mean Size 10.9 12.3 11.6
Maximum Size 28.0 35.0 35.0
Minimum Size 2.0 2.0 2.0
Standard Deviation 6.5 6.2 6.4

 

Thus. the correlation for Wolof respondents is relatively
high (r=.569**) while it is lower for Serer but still

positive (r-.245*).

76

IV—2-3. Characteristics of the Population of Family

Farms.

Concerning the age distribution of family farm members.
three age classes are differentiated Table 4—11. The age
distribution of the population of family farms suggests a
particularly young population —- 52.0% of the total
population of Serer and Wolof production units are under
sixteen years old. When considered at the level of each
ethnic group. this population under sixteen represent 55.7%
of the total population of Wolof family farms including
32.4% who are less than eight years old and 23.3% between
eight and fifteen years old. As compared. 48.0% of the total
population of Serer family farms are under sixteen years
old. This includes 27.3% who are under eight years old and
20.7% between eight and fifteen years old.

Such a high percentages of youth raise an additional
observation. First. it suggests that fertility rate among
Serer and Wolof is still high. Among Serer. more than
average of the population are in the category over fifteen
years old. 52.0% as compared to 44.3% of the Wolof
population who are in the same category. This may have
resulted from a lowering of the fertility rate. Secondly.
given the unfavorable context of agriculture. it raises for
heads of production units the problem of bringing more and

more land into cultivation in order to accommodate the needs

77

for food of the growing population. Finally. one may ask
what type of future in farming lies ahead for these young

people in terms of available land for establishing their own

farms.

Table 4—11. Distribution of the Population by Age and

Ethnicity

 

Ethnicity

Classes of Age (years old) Serer Wolof Total

 

1 to 7 27.3% 32.4% 30.0%
(297) (400) (697)

8 to 15 20.7 23.3 22.0
(225) (287) (512)

more than 15 52.0 44.3 48.0
(567) (547) (1114)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

(N*) (1089) (1234) (2323)

 

* Number of persons in the age class.

78

IV—2-4. Active Population of Family Farms.

One characteristic of the family farm is that the labor is
primarily provided by members of the family. The active
population then represents the available labor of the family
farms. persons who have reached an age at which their
participation in family collective work is expected. The
active population of family farms differs according to the
norm used 4/. National Norms (NN) used for determining the
active population consider active all persons. male and
female. from fifteen to sixty years old. Table 4-12 presents
the distribution of family farms by the importance of the
active population. The size of the category of population
under fifteen is not considered active by National Norms.
This affects the active population for family farms and
particularly Wolof family farms. This explains why 39.5% of
total family farms have between 1 and 6 active members.
representing 36.0% of Serer family farms and 43.0% of Wolof
family farms. The active population of family farms is
related to the age of the farm operator. In other words. the
younger the farm operator. the smaller the size of the
active population. Such an association does not hold.
however. when the farm operator has replaced his father
without the family farm being divided. All of this active
population is not always available during the period of

agricultural activity as indicated by responses to the

79

question. Did anyone of the family farm members leave for a
relatively long period (more than three months) during these

last two years?

Table 4—12. Distribution of Family Farms by

Importance of Active Population.

 

 

Ethnicity
Importance of Active Serer Wolof Total
Population
1 to 3 33.0% 28.0% 30.5%
4 to 6 36.0 43.0 39.5
7 to 9 18.0 15.0 16.5
10 to 12 9.0 11.0 10.0
> 12 4.0 3.0 3.5
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

Data suggest that 23.0% of Serer family farms and 16.0% of
Wolof family farms have witnessed movement of members for
the period considered. Such movements (Table 4-13) concerns

all status within families. both heads of production units

80

and dependent producers including males and females.

Table 4—13. Distribution of Family Farms by Status of

Migrants and Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity

Status of Migrants Serer Wolof Total
Headship of Family Farm 8.7% 6.3% 7.7%
Married Dependent Alone 13.0 12.5 12.8
Whole Family Farm 13.1 12.5 12.8
Single Dependent Male 26.1 62.4 41.1
Single Dependent Female 39.1 6.3 25.6

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (32) (16) (39)

 

The movement from villages involves primarily single
dependent people. 66.7% of cases of migrants. The movement
is dominated by single dependent people 41.1% including
62.4% of cases of Wolof migrants in comparison to 26.1% of
Serer. In contrast. Serer dominate the movement of females
moving alone. 39.1% of total Serer migrants as compared to

only 6.3% for Wolof migrants. Also. the movement in some

81

cases concerns not only bachelor and/or non accompanied
married people but also whole households. 13.1% of Serer and
12.5% of Wolof migrants.

The period and destination of migration are different.
While men move from one rural area to another and during the
rainy season. most of women move to urban cities from
harvest time to the beginning of the rainy season. As far as
agricultural activity is concerned. the migration of men
which generally begins during the rainy season affects the
level of labor available to some family farms during peak
periods of agricultural activity. Why is it then that. at
the eve of intense agricultural activities people leave
their village for other rural areas where they will be
involved in similar activities as if they stayed home?

One reason frequently given for the migration of single
dependent men is the flight from compulsory work they would
have to do for their n’diatigue and for their step parents
as well if they stayed in their respective village (Sarr.
1983). This alone cannot not explain their movement because
they will very likely integrate into another organization of
agricultural activity where they will be compelled into a
work obligation vis a vis the person who host them. More
importantly. the destination to another rural area where
land is still available suggests that those who migrate may
be also stimulated by shortage of land. That is particularly

the case of migrant heads of family farms moving alone or

82

with their families. In other words. seasonal migration of
males. particularly of married men moving alone or with
their household. very likely relates to the size of
landholding available for production units to which they

belong.

IV-3. Landholding.

Two objectives are pursued in this section. First.
variations of the size of holding between ethnic groups as
well as variations within the same ethnic group are
examined. 5/. Secondly. this section focuses on the
relationship between size of holding and age of
respondents. and on the relationship between size of holding

and patterns of segmentation.

IV—3—1. Size of Landholding for Family Farms.

Both the Serer and the Wolof have adopted similar land
tenure arrangements. In this system. land is distributed
within distinct territorial units called “lamanats” which
are under the authority of a person designated as laman. The
laman assigned to distribute land. had to belong to the
family who first installed the village. (Diop. 1968: Diagne.
1979; Verdier. 1965; Pelissier. 1965). These laman only gave

cultivation rights to families. In this traditional land

83

tenure system. land is lineage owned. Each male family
member when creating a production unit receives part of the
family holding that in turn he will share with his sons and
so on. It follows a squeezing of landholding as the
population increases and as new production units are created
given that family holdings are limited. Borrowing has been a
recourse for families with insufficient land. As a result of
increasing land shortage. some family farms began developing
practices such as pledging land (tayle).

In order to eliminate such practices. the Law of June 1964.
The Law on National Domain was passed g/ is implemented in
cases where land conflict occurs and is not settled at the
level of the village. Moreover. the Law has had some
negative impacts for family farms with or without a very
limited landholding. Indeed. some landholders resent
granting use rights. even on a temporary basis. to someone
else for fear that the tenant or land borrower might take
advantage of the Law to appropriate the land. Because of the
provision of the law which gives authority. at the district
level to the ”Rural Council”. to expropriate land that is no
longer exploited personally by the holder of the right or
that remains idle. landholders have developed the strategy
of occupying all land they range in their holding. This adds
to population pressure by not only eliminating fallows. but
cultivating swamps and extending cultivation to the slopes

of hills. The result is water erosion and reductions of

84

villages animal stocks by elimination of grazing land.

Fo

U1

ubsistence oriented Serer and Wolof family farms. land

*1

constitutes a guarantee for continued farming activity. Yet.
as reported by all respondents. it is becoming more and more
insufficient. Among reasons explaining this evolution. is
the rapid demographic increase which has as a corollary. the
exploitation of larger land areas. A second reason is the
progression of erosion that is attacking fields and villages
as well in the Wolof zone.

As reported. the zone of Niakhar where Serer villages are
located is characterized by the highest rural density of
population in the country. 106 hbts/km2 inhabitants per
square kilometer. §/. The situation in the Wolof zone is far
less dense (62 hbts/km2) but still high. Z/. This also
reflects differences of the pressure on land for Serer and
Wolof as seen in Table 4—14. Five categories are
distinguished: landless family farms including family farms
with a size of holding less than one hectare, small size
family farms from 1 to 5 hectares; medium size family farms
from 5.01 to 10 hectares; large size family farms from 10.01
to 15.0 hectares; and very large family farms. more than
from 15.01 hectares. Landless family farms. 4.0% of total
production units entirely rely on borrowing land from other
production units. This category includes 6.0% of Serer
family fanms as compared to 2.0% of Wolof family farms.

Serer family farms but also Wolof family farms concentrate

85

in categories of small and medium size family farms. Small
size family total 42.5% including 45.5% of Serer family
farms and 40.0% of Wolof family farms whereas medium size
family farms 35.0% is composed of 37.0% of Serer and 33.0%
of Wolof family farms. The percentages of Wolof family farms
in the categories of large and very large farm size are
higher than are those of Serer family farms. They
respectively represent 14.0% and 11.0% as compared to 6.0%
and 6.0% for Serer family farms.

Table 4—14 indicates that in general. both Serer and Wolof
family farms have limited holdings as shown by the high
percentage of family farms with less than 10 hectares. say
88.0% (6.0 + 45.0 + 37.0) of Serer family farms and 75.0%

(2.0 + 40.0 + 33.0) of Wolof family farms.

86

Table 4—14. Distribution of Family Farms by Size of

Holding and Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity
Size of Landholding (ha) Serer Wolof Total

< 1.00 6.0% 2.0% 4.0%
1.01 to 5.00 45.0 40.0 42.5
5.01 to 10.00 37.0 33.0 35.0
10.01 to 15.00 6.0 14.0 10.0
> 15.00 6.0 11.0 8.5

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

The analysis of means size of holding. Table 4—15. suggests
differences in the mean size of holding in favor of Wolof
family farms. The small size of the standard deviation
within each ethnic group reinforces the idea of
concentration of family farms as mentioned earlier. The
situation of landholding particularly in the Serer zone has
largely contributed to destabilizing the farming system of

peasants.

87

Table 4-15. Size of holding by Ethnicity

 

 

Ethnicity
Statistics Serer Wolof Total
Mean (ha) 6.3 7.8 7.1
Maximum 20.0 30.0 30.0
Minimum 0.0 0.0 0.0
Standard Deviation 4.2 5.7 5.1

 

It has resulted in a competition for agricultural land
and also for grazing land to maintain animals that were used
for manuring fields.

When asked about the perception of the size of their
holding compared to family needs. 70.0% of total respondents
affirm not having enough land. whereas 29.0% estimate their
holding sufficient for family needs. Beside asserting
insufficiency of land. respondents also argue that land
shortage has become more of a problem because of
difficulties in borrowing land resulting from the fear of
losing land to a dishonest borrower under the Law on
National Domain. For these reasons it is more and more

difficult for landless families to borrow land for

88

cultivation and for “land poor“ families to make up their
land shortage.

Even the pattern of lending has somewhat changed. one can
obtain land only from someone whom you trust and mainly
someone you can have control over. Also the time frame of
borrowing has been reduced to no longer than two seasons in
order to meet the exigencies of the Law. Yet. borrowing
remains the only way out for many family farms unless they
move to localities where land is still available.
Participants in village discussions noted that it has became
particularly difficult to borrow land from someone living in
another village, what used to be common practice. The survey
supports this argument by indicating that 70.0% of the cases
involve borrowing from a neighbor. Total size of landholding
does not fully reflect the pressure exerted on land. Rather
the ratio landholding to total population reflects the
family farms exercise on land. The ratio landholding to
total population of family farm (Table 4-16). does not
indicate important differences in ratio between Serer and
Wolof family farms. The average ratio for Serer is (.750)
hectares per family member and for Wolof. (.650) hectares

per family member.

89

Table 4—16. Distribution of Family Farms

by Size of Holding per Person and Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity
Size of Holding per Person Serer Wolof Total
(Hectares)
< .50 50.0% 47.0% 48.5%
.51 to 1.00 27.0 39.0 33.0
1.01 to 1.50 13.0 11.0 12.0
1.51 to 2.00 5.0 1.0 3.0
2.01 to 2.50 5.0 2.0 3.5
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

The average holding per active person (between fifteen and
sixty years old) for all Serer and Wolof respondents is 1.54
hectares with a standard deviation of 1.25 (Table 4—16). At
the ethnicity level. the average holding per active member
for Serer is 1.37 hectares as compared to Wolof 1.54
hectares. As shown (Table 4-17) more than 50.0% of all
family farms have a ratio of total holding over active

population less or equal to 1.00 hectare. Such a level

90

obviously cannot sustain a person in the conditions under

Table 4-17. Distribution of Family Farms by Area

Available for Active Person and by Ethnicity

 

 

Ethnicity
Holding by Active Person Serer Wolof Total Cum
(hectares)

\< 1.00 57.0% 45.0% 51.0% 51.0%

1.01 to 1.50 16.0 13.0 14.5 65.5
1.51 to 2.00 16.0 27.0 21.5 87.0
2.01 to 2.50 1.0 3.0 2.0 89.0

> 2.50 10.0 12.0 11.0 100.0

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

which agriculture is conducted in both ethnic groups.
Indeed. 51.0% of total family farms including 57.0% of Serer
and 45.0% of Wolof have less than one hectare of land
available per active person. To what extent will family
farms survive with such a limited size of holding impacted

by unfavorable environmental conditions (irregular rainfall

91

particularly in the Serer zone. extensive water erosion in
the Wolof zone). lack of fertilizer. reduction of livestock
for manuring. varying quality of seeds? What level of
management will be required by these conditions? Have Serer
and Wolof producers reached that level? What alternatives
exist or can be created to help face such difficult
conditions? For 27.0% of Serer family farms and 42.0% of
Wolof family farms that have more than 1.50 hectares for
each active member. the situation seems for now tolerable.
The future. however. for most production units is not bright
unless changes in conditions of production (access to
factors of production) are introduced.

As long as the fear of losing land that is uncultivated for
a given period is associated with the pressure of population
and the misuse of mechanical tools to encourage overuse of
land with fallow periods. the future of many family farms
will remain uncertain. It is also widely accepted that
because of time limitations and. because they may not fully
benefit from their investment. those who borrow land resent
undertaking any action aimed at protecting the land. This
relates to farmers' attitudes considered (Harris. 1988) as
one of the variables acting on the adoption of technique of
conservation. What this suggests is that the lack of
protective measures to restore land productivity will make

land problems still more precarious.

92

IV—3-2. Determinants of the Size of Landholding.

One hypothesis upon which this study is built is that the
later a family farm is created. the smaller the size of
holding.

As indicated earlier. a positively moderate association
exists between the size of holding and the population size
of family farms, r=.431**. (Table 4—18).

This section examines how size of holding is associated
while controlling for ethnicity with variables such as age
of respondents. pattern of segmentation. year of access to
farm operator status. controlling for ethnicity.

Concerning the age of respondents. the Pearson correlation
indicates a weak but positive association between actual age
of respondents and the size of holding available. r=.203*.
This correlation suggests that the older someone is in a
family farm. the more likely he will have a larger size of
holding. For Wolof respondents. The correlation is
particularly weak and not significant r=.111. Age and size
of holding however are significantly associated for Serer

respondents despite a weak correlation r-.302*.

93

Table 4‘18. Matrix of Correlation Coefficients of Age of

Respondents and Characteristics of Family Farms.

 

 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(1) Age 1000 -.548** .054 -.020 .203* .223**
(2) Year 1000 —.112 .044 —.296** —.287**
(3) Pattern 1000 .138 —.035 -.O43
(4) Ethnicity 1000 —.108 -.197*
(5) Total Landholding 1000 .431**
(6) Family Size 1000

1 Tailed Signif: * -.01 ** -.001.

 

The differences in the significance of correlations has to
do with what we described as the propensity of Wolof to let
dependent producers more easily leave the family farm. Also
rules of seniority seem to be followed less.

As shown Table 4-19. and Table 4-20. there is no
significant relationship between the pattern of segmentation
and the size of holding. Pearson correlation r=.035 (Table
4-18) confirms such a conclusion. Such a situation follows
from the tenure system which guarantees access to land where

it is available to heirs.

94

Table 4—19. Distribution of Serer Family Farms by Size

of Holding and by Pattern of Segmentation

 

Size of Holding (ha)
Access to Farm 1—5 6-10 11-15 16—20 >20 Total

operator status

 

Request 8.8% 32.4% 52.9% 5.9% 0.0% 100.0%
(34)

Recommendation 0.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 10.0 100.0
(10)

Retirement 12.5 50.0 37.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
(8)

Death 2.2 53.3 26.7 6.7 11.1 100.0
(45)

Conflict 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 100.0

(3)

 

95

Table 4-20. Distribution of Wolof Family Farms by Size

of Holding and Pattern of Segmentation

 

Size of Holding (ha)

 

 

Access to Farm 1—5 6-10 11-15 16—20 >20 Total
Operator Status
Request 0.0% 44.8% 31.0% 10.4% 13.8% 100.0%
(29)
Recommendation 0.0 53.6 21.4 10.7 14.0 100.0
(28)
Retirement 0.0 21.7 43.5 26.1 8.7 100.0
(23)
Death 7.7 23.1 53.8 7.7 0.7 100.0
(13)
Conflict 14.3 57.1 14.3 14.3 0.0 100.0
(7)
The data for both Serer and Wolof family farms show a
negative moderate but significant correlation. r-—.296**

between size of holding and the year
a production unit (Table 4-18). This
the the

segmentation. smaller the

correlation supports the

96

postulated hypothesis

someone becomes head of
suggests that the later

size of holding. This

that the

latter the year of access to farm operator status. the
smaller the size of landholding. At the ethnicity level.
year of access to farm operator status and size of holding
are not significantly associated for Serer respondents
r=-.153 as opposed to their correlation for Wolof
respondents r=—.428**.

Examining how variables such as age and year of access to
farm operator status affect the size of holding is
important. so is focusing on the extent to which size of
holding affects a variable such as the level of equipment of
family farms. In conclusion. land. the most important asset
for Serer and Wolof agriculture subsistence. has become an
enigma for farm operators. particularly those of the
groundnut basin. Not only is land rare. but the pressure of
population and extensive cultivation of groundnut have
contributed to serious soil depletion. Given the very small
size of land holding available per person in family farms.
the time has come for farmers to seriously consider
alternatives capable of alleviating the disequilibria they
have contributed in creating in their struggle to feed a
rapidly growing population. Not only is the size of holdings
for family farms small particularly for Serer. land is also
not properly managed. In the Serer zone. manuring fields is
now reduced to its minimum because of the lack of animals in
the territory. In the Wolof zone of Kaymor. extensive

techniques of cultivation have contributed to increased

97

water erosion from the hills menacing both fields and

villages.

IV-4. Equipment of Family Farms.

Because of the precarious rainfall conditions. sowing
occurs. as soon as possible after an amount of rainfall that
is considered the minimum necessary for sowing. It is the
conviction of most of ISRA's agronomists that differences in
the date of sowing result in differences in the crop yield.
Whatever the real impact. owning a seeder and weeding
equipment is very important. It provides family farm
operators the possibility of quickly sowing groundnut in
moist soil. Those who rely on borrowing have to wait until
seeder owners finish sowing and or weeding their fields and
those of their dependents. otherwise they have to manually
sow their fields. a practice that has became very rare since
the introduction of the seeder.

Equipment of family farms is principally composed of draught
animals: oxen. horses and donkeys. The type of animal
depends on the resources available to the farm operator to
purchase these animals. Equipment also includes tools:
weeders. seeders. and groundnut lifters. For most family
farms. there is no grouping of fields that is to say fields
of a family farms may be scattered throughout the village

territory. As a result. moving from one field to another may

98

not be very easy and is particularly time consuming.
Therefore. owning a cart for transportation is important.
Carts are also used to transport crops from fields to the
village for storage or to the center for groundnut
commercialization. These different tools used to be
available and accessible through cooperatives. The programs
that provided these tools stopped in 1980. Today. units of
production that farm equipment must acquire them on their
own. They must have available capital to pay for tools.
know where to get them and do everything required to get
them. As a consequence most of the equipment found in family
farms. need repair and in many cases. are not working any
more. To repair the equipment farmers must find spare parts
which means very often that they cannot have it repaired in
their village. As expressed during group discussions. the
end of the Programme Agricole that provided the equipment
package means no equipment overhaul. It suggests
difficulties for renewing equipment acquired before the end
of the PA. It also translates into no access or at best.
very little access to equipment for those who became heads
of family farms after the program stopped. Farmers find it
very difficult indeed. when basic needs of food are hardly
or not at all covered to have the means to invest in farm
equipment. If this analysis is correct. it would suggest
that people who became farm operators after the closure of

the Programme Agricole have less equipment.

99

This section examines the level of equipment of family farms
surveyed. Also it investigates the strategies developed by
farmers with and without a low level of equipment. Finally.
the association between the year of access to farm operator
status. the size of holding. and the pattern of access to
farm operator status with the level of equipment will be

studied controlling for ethnicity.

IV—4-1. Level of Equipment of Family Farms.

Referring to norms establishing sowing and weeding
capacities of family farms. four levels 8/ of equipment are
differentiated (Table 4—21): well equipped. average
equipped. under equipped and without equipment. Well
equipped family farms have at least two complete cultivation
teams and one or several incomplete cultivation teams. A
cultivation team is made of a seeder. a weeder. a draught
animal and a cart. For both ethnic groups. 20.0% of family
farms are well equipped. This includes 18.0% of Serer family
farms and 22.0% of Wolof family farms. Family farms with a
total holding between eight and ten hectares and which have
two complete cultivation teams are classified as having an
average level of equipment. They represent 40.0% of all
family farms and include 37.0% of Serer family farms and
43.0% of Wolof family farms. Wolof family farms also

dominate this category (54.4%). As the data show. 45.0% of

100

erer production units are either under equipped 35.0%. or
without equipment 10.0%. As compared. Wolof family farms of
the same levels of equipment represent 35.0% among which

30.0% are under equipped and 5.0% without equipment.

Table 4—21. Distribution of Family Farms by

Level of Equipment and Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity
Level of Equipment Serer Wolof Total
Well Equipped 18.0% 22.0% 20.0%
Average Equipment 37.0 43.0 40.0
Under Equipped 35.0 30.0 32.5
Without Equipment 10.0 5.0 7.5
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

Under equipped and those family farms without equipment.
must borrow equipment in order to cultivate. Two reasons are
considered that may justify the difference in the level of
equipment for the Serer and Wolof. First. this difference

results from the opportunities offered through the ISRA

101

project of ”Unites Experimentales” which facilitated the
acquisition of equipment by farm family heads of Wolof
villages covered by the study. The second explanation
examines the association between the level of equipment and
the size of holding and the year of access to farm operator
status.

As to the relationship between the level of equipment and
the pattern of access to farm operator status (Tables 4-22
and 4-23) it must be recalled that after the death of a
father. the equipment he owned is not directly inherited. It
is sold and the money from the sale distributed among heirs.
However. if a son was interested in buying the equipment. he
is eligible for rebate of 10% on the proposed price. In the
case of retirement for both Serer and Wolof. as the father
is still alive and the family farm is not divided. the
person who takes over the management keeps the equipment.
Most of farm heads who requested to become independent farms
operators tend to have an acceptable level of equipment
(Tables 4—22 and Table 4-23). This means that they planned
for it. Serer respondents who requested to become farm
operators have either an average level of equipment. 35.3%.
or they are well equipped. 26.5%. As compared. 44.8% of
Wolof respondents who requested have an average level of
equipment whereas 24.1% are well equipped. For other
patterns. recommended and death. Serer respondents tend to

concentrate in the categories of under equipped and average

102

equipped while Wolof respondents are

within categories

farms without equipment.

Table 4—22.

in general except the

rather well distributed

category of family

Distribution of Serer Family Farms by Level

of Equipment and Pattern of Access to Farm Operator Status

 

Level of Equipment

 

Patterns of Without Under Average Well Total
Segmentation Equipment Equipped Equipment Equipped
Request 14.1% 24.1 35.3 26. 100.0%
(34)
Recommendation 20.0 40.0 30.0 10. 100.0%
(10)
Retirement 0 0 37 5 50.0 12. 100.0%
(8)
Death 4 4 42 2 37.8 15. 100.0%
(45)
Conflict 33.3 33.3 33.4 0. 100.0%
(3)

 

103

Table 4-23. Distribution of Wolof Family Farms by
Level of Equipment and Pattern of Access to

Farm Operator Status

 

Level of Equipment
Patterns of Without Under Average Well Total

Segmentation Equipment Equipped Equipment Equipped

 

Request 3. % 27.6 44.8 24.1 100.0%
(29)

Recommendation 3.6 % 28.6 35.7 32.1 100.0%
(28)

Retirement 0.0% 30.4 41.8 21.8 100.0%
(23)

Death 7.7% 38.5 46.1 7.7 100.0%
(13)

Conflict 28.6% 28.6 42.8 0.0 100.0%
(7)

 

Cases where segmentation resulted from a conflict for both
ethnic groups in which they are without equipment or under
equipped account for 60.0% of total cases of conflict (66.6%
of Serer cases of conflict and 57.1% of Wolof cases of

conflict).

104

Finally. this work examines the relationship that would
exist between the year of access to head of a production
unit and the level of equipment. Given that state
intervention aimed at helping family farms acquire factors
of production among which equipment has been stopped in
1980, it is hypothesized that family farms created after the
Programme Agricole was stOpped were more likely to have a

low level of equipment.

Table 4-24. Distribution of Family Farms by Period of

Access to Farm Operator Status and level of Equipment.

 

Number of Family Farms

Level of Equipment Before 1980 After 1980

 

Average and Well Equipped 84 34

 

Under Equipped and

Without Equipment 60 22

 

Total 144 56

 

Yules' Q = .049.

105

Data gathered (Table 4-24) give the distribution of family
farms according to their level of equipment and the year at
which their production unit was created. The Yules'
correlation Q=.049 indicates a negligible association
suggesting no significant difference in the level of
equipment between family farms created during and before the
agricultural program (before 1980) and those created after
the program was stopped (after 1980). One explanation lies
on the argument presented during group discussions according
to which. not only the equipment acquired during the
Programme Agricole is used but most of it needs repair or is
not working at all. Also. facilities given to sons to buy
equipment at a reduced price when their father dies have. to
some degree. aided new heads of family farms to get some

equipment.

IV—4—2. Strategies For Access to Farm Equipment.

Families with or without a low level of equipment develop
similar practices for getting equipment when needed. The
most frequent strategy is borrowing. ”loubind” and ”able”
respectively in Serer and Wolof language. About 85% of
family farms under equipped or without equipment rely on
borrowing. Another strategy is cooperative work between
different production units. In most lcases. it brings

together family farms without equipment and family farms

106

with equipment but with a shortage in labor. This

practice Serer call it “n’damir” and Wolof. “lonko”. It can
take two different aspects. First. it consists of putting
together a draught animal and a tool individually owned to
work successively in each one's fields. It is particularly
developed in transportation as many family farms own animals
without carts. The second form of this practice consists.
for somebody who has equipment but not enough labor, to
associate with someone who does not possess equipment. The
last strategy for access to equipment reported is renting.

i.e.. renting a cart for transporting crop to the village or
to the commercialization point.

The proportion of family farms that rely on either of these
practices is high in both Serer and Wolof family farms.
respectively. 73.0% of Serer family farms and 76.0% of Wolof
family farms. Besides determining the strategies developed
by farm operators of access to equipment. this study has
examined the relationship that exists between borrowers and
the family farm from which they get equipment most often
(Table 4-25). As in the case of land. neighbors are the most
frequent source of equipment. This does not mean that there
is no interaction developed between relatives. Unless a
conflict situation separates members of the same family into
different production units. there is exchange and support as
far as resources allow. Concerning borrowing from a father

in law. there are differences between ethnic groups. Serer

107

are less likely to rely on the father-in-law (2.7%) for

equipment than Wolof (17.1%).

Table 4-25. Relation to the More Frequent Supplier of

Equipment by Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity

Relation to Equipment Supplier Serer Wolof Total
Direct Relatives 30.2 23.7 26.8
Father in Law 2.7 17.1 10.1
Neighbor 67.1 52.6 59.7
No Response 0.0 6.6 3.4

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (73) (76) (149)

 

Even if other justifications may exist. it has been
considered shameful to turn toward parents-in-law for help
when you have to take care of their daughter and grand-
children. It is important to note that though some families
are well equipped. the larger part of family farms in this
study are having problems not only getting equipment but of

finding needed spare parts. When spare parts are available.

108

repairing existing equipment will generate further problems
given the rudimentary equipment available to village
blacksmiths. What this suggests is a more significant
marginalization of production units for making borrowing
more and more difficult. Finally. borrowing land and/or
borrowing equipment is the only recourse to which more and
more family farms are turning to. In other words. this has
led to changes in the relationships between family farms

that we will explore in the following section.

IV—5. Interactions Between Family Farms.

The level of equipment of family farms and the size of
holding suggest that many production units could not survive
unless interactions with other related or neighboring

production units mitigated these circumstances. This section

focuses the extent to which these interactions are
developed.

What is meant by interaction is a reciprocal and
interdependent activity characterized by some

complementarities among the actors. For the purpose of this
work. social interaction is differentiated from economic
interaction. Social interaction describes processes of
visiting. sharing meals and. sharing residency whereas
economic interaction concerns aspects such as support with

labor. support with equipment. cooperative work. financial

109

support and lending land. Social interaction is very much
developed between related families. In some cases. there may
not be immediate response in the form of action yet some
expectations of what the response would be are developed. As
measures of interaction. it is more meaningful to measure
social interaction by recording the time spent in visiting
and. to measure economic interaction for economic
interaction in terms of quantities exchanged in the process.
The conditions under which the study was conducted did not
allow measurements such as those which require prolonged
stays in villages. Interactions between family farms
therefore are expressed in terms of their frequency of

occurrence .

IV—5—1. Interaction Between Related Family Farms.

Are concerned families of respondents who became head of
production unit after segmentation. after they requested for
it (31.5%) of total respondents. after recommendation by
former ndiatigue (19 0) and as a result of conflict (5.0%)

say 55.5% of total respondents.

110

a) Patterns of Residency

Three patterns of residency

(Table 4—26). First. the

accompanied by the decision
other words. the individual
unit leaves the
residence. Some

residency for a limited

operators (19.8%).

pattern.

Table 4-26.

father residence

respondents continued

Finally.

people who become head of family farms

after Segmentation.

after segmentation are reported

decision of segmentation is

to settle on his own (15. %). In

who becomes head of a production

to settle into his own

to live in the same

period after they became farm

and by far the most common

stay

Residency Patterns by Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity

Patterns of Residency Serer Wolof Total
Own residency 12.8% 17.2% 15.3%
Limited Period 12.8 25.0 19.8
Still in Residency 74.4 56.2 63.9
No Response 0 0 1.6 1 6

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (47) (64) (111)

 

111

in the residence of origin (63.9%). This concerns 74.4% of
Serer respondents and 56.2% of Wolof respondents (Table 4—
26). This suggests that. as far as residence is concerned.
Serer tend to have greater family cohesion than Wolof. The
cross—tabulation of residence by the pattern of segmentation
indicates that while most cases of recommendation (71.4) and
of personal request (60.5% are still living in the
residence of origin. those who became head of the family
farm as a result of conflict tend to separate from the
residency of their former n'diatigue. Two out of three cases
of Serer in this category have left the residence after
segmentation occurred. Similarly. four out of seven Wolof
respondents have left the residence of origin as soon as
they became heads of family farms. while two stayed for a
limited period and. one did not provide any response. This
suggests that the pattern of segmentation affects the
pattern of residence even though respondents argue that no
one can be forced to leave the residence. The custom indeed
is for people to be allowed to stay in the residence of
origin unless they voluntarily leave. However. pressure may
be exerted to ”encourage” the person to leave. Separated
residency does not mean that interaction stops. Families
continue. in many cases. to visit each other. to support
each other with labor and, with equipment when resources are

available to allow for such transactions.

112

b) Family Visiting.

Segment:tion dissociates members of the same family into
several families farms. Yet. in villages. people from the
same family of origin keep very close social ties that bind
them together. In this process. mutual visits are important.
In contrast with residence. the pattern of segmentation have
little impact on the frequency of visits (Table 4-27). 75.0%

of respondents who separated from the residence of origin

reported frequent visits to the family farm of origin.

Table 4-27. Distribution of Family Farms by Frequency

of Visit and by Pattern of Segmentation.

 

Patterns of Segmentation

Frequency of Visits Request Recommendation Conflict Total

 

Often 82.1 73.2 71.8 75.0
Sometimes 14.3 9.8 6.3 9.0
Rarely 3.6 7.3 18.8 10.0
Never 0.0 7.1 5.3 5.0
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(63) (38) (10) (111)

 

113

Visits may not be frequent in the first years following
family dissociation after conflict. Most disputes between
family members end in conciliation resolutions. Beside.
visits may not be directed to the person with whom there is

conflict.

c) Sharing of Meals.

The dissociation of a family into several production units
does not always translate into changed patterns of
consumption as long as the residence is shared. Among Serer
respondents who stay in the residence of origin. 50.0% are
in the same consumption unit with the family farm of origin
as compared to 44.1% of Wolof respondents. Two patterns are
differentiated in the organization of the consumption unit
within the residency. In some cases. meals fixed by each
production unit are pooled together. For the second pattern.
cooking is organized in rotation. The size of the population
of the residence determines the organization of meal
preparation. In residencies with a large size of population.
cooking is done at the level of each production unit then
meals are pooled together in front of the house of the head
of residence. In case production units of the same residence
not sharing meals. each spouse must hand in a meal to the
head of the residence unit. This can be interpreted as a

mark of recognition of his authority by all inhabitants of

114

the residence. Sharing residence and. moreover. being of the
same consumption unit can keep members of different
production units closer. It can facilitate exchanges between
farm operators. especial exchanges of factors of production

such as labor and equipment.

d) Support with Food.

Food support seems to be an aspect for which the family farm
of origin and newly created production units are engaged in
particularly in the first years that a production unit is
created.

To determine the level of food support between family farms.
we have considered family farms that were created after
segmentation and which reported sharing meals only
occasionally with the family farm of origin. This represents
respectively 63.8% and 75.0% of Serer and Wolof family
farms. The data show only 36.1% of farm operators
occasionally receiving food from their family of origin.
Among these 43.7% are Serer family farms and 56.3% are
Wolof. This. in the view of participants in village
discussions. does not indicate an unwillingness to help.
reflects of food shortages. However. food support is
associated with the pattern of segmentation. As indicated
earlier. the new head of production receives food support

from his former ndiatigue in case segmentation is

115

recommended. There are no cases of support with food where
cases of segmentation after conflict occurred yet farmers

say is not excluded once the conflict is settled.

e) Transactions of Equipment.

The level of equipment of family farms as described is
particularly low. The data also indicate that only 30.2%
and 23.7% respectively of Serer and Wolof family farms
borrow equipment from their direct relatives described to
include father. brothers. uncles. cousins. Transactions of
material between a new production unit and the production
unit of origin are not affected by pattern of segmentation
(Table 4-28). When ethnicity is considered. 73.4% of Wolof
reported not having received help from the family of origin
as compared to 89.4% of Serer.

A similar situation occurs when financial support and/or
seeds are provided to former dependents. particularly since
the abolition of the "Programme Agricole”. The fundamental
reason why interactions between family farms from the same
origin are not important is the low or lack of available
resources that characterizes most of Serer as well as Wolof
family farms. As opposed. family farms of origin provide
support of labor to the new production units created. Also
former n'diatigues advise new heads of 'production units on

how to deal with their new responsibilities.

116

Table 4—28. Transactions of Equipment Between Family

Farms and Family Farm of Origin.

 

 

Patterns of Frequency of Transactions
Segmentation Often Sometimes Rarely Never total
Request 11.1% 4.8 4.8 79.4 100.0%
(63)
Recommendation 10.5% 13.2 0.0 76.3 100.0%
(38)
Conflict 20.0% 0.0 10.0 70.0 100.0%
(10)

 

f) Support with Labor.

Family farms may not have enough labor during the first
years of existence. In such a situation the support of labor
they may receive will be a determinant of production. The
data show that 64.0% of Serer and 67% of Wolof family farms
have a total population between one and fifteen inhabitants
at their beginning. The average age at the time of

segmentation is 32 years old. and the average age for

117

marriage for men in rural Senegal is approximately 25 years
old. Therefore. family farms at their beginning may not have
enough labor and. as a result. may need help with labor
during bottleneck periods of the active season. One must
recall. however. that one consequence of segmentation is the
division of labor previously available for one family farm
between several production units. This suggests that the new
family farm as well as the family farm of origin can have a
shortage of labor as a result from segmentation. Help with
labor for both Serer and Wolof (Table 4—29) is very much
affected by the pattern of segmentation. The help received
comes mainly from young brothers sent by the former
n'diatigue or after demand from the new farm operator. A
person can also decide to help his emancipated brother
without the consent of his head of production unit on days

scheduled for work in his own fields §/.

118

Table 4—29. Distribution of Family Farms by Pattern

of Segmentation and Frequency of Help with Labor.

 

Frequency of Patterns of Segmentation
Help Request Recommendation Conflict Total

ith Labor.

 

Often 3.2% 10.5% 0.0% 5.4%
Sometimes 74.6 86 9 30 0 91 0
Rarely 20.6 2 6 20 0 4 5
Never 1 6 0.0 50 0 5 4
Total 100 0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (63) (38) (10) (111)

 

In conclusion. there is little interaction between the
family farm of origin and the derived family farm except for
labor. The reason. as indicated. is not unwillingness to do
so. The level of available resources does not allow such
interactions. Because of the generalized lack of resources.
most families can no longer count on related families for
survival. Internal survival strategies are. then. needed
among which animal raising. off-farm activities. and

seasonal forms of migration from villages are important.

119

Table 4—30. Matrix of Correlation Coefficients between

Family Farms Resources

 

 

(1) Total Holding 1000 -.108 .035 .265** -.013 -.035 —.051

(2) Ethnicity 1000 .035 .132 .076 —.049 .015
(3) Pattern of Access 1000 .037 .023 .129 .007
(4) Cattle Ownership 1000 .106 .037 .049
(5) Small Ruminants Ownership 1000 .042 .122
(6) Food Self-sufficiency 1000 .169*
(7) Technical Knowledge 1000
1 Tailed Significance: * —.01 ** —.001

 

In conclusion. three points have been examined in this
chapter: the patterns of access to the status of farm
operator. the characteristics of respondents and the
characteristics of Serer and Wolof family farms.

Access to farm operator status. does not occur as a result
of marriage. For the most common. it follows from the death
of a father or the incapacity of a father to continue his

economic‘ leadership of the family farm. Other forms of

120

access to farm operator status exist. Separation of half
brothers after the death of the father reflects the
resentment of younger brothers in accumulating capital they
or their sons will not benefit from. given the current
system of inheritance. Also important is the lack of faith
more young people have in considering the family as
providing economic security. These two elements contribute
to the increase of cases of segmentation by personal request
and. in some cases. of segmentation after conflict.

As to the characteristics of farm operators. age and
technical knowledge are important. Age here includes age of
farm operators at the beginning of managing a family farm
and the age of retiring from agricultural activities.

In terms of family farms characteristics. Serer and Wolof
families are resource limited. The level of equipment is
particularly low and the size of holding is also small for
most family farms. To that one can add a rapidly growing
population for which more and more food is required. The low
level of equipment and the limited size of holdings put
limits on the interactions between family farms. Family
farms also lack the capital necessary to buy inputs that
would enhance their production. Finally. to reduce risks
associated with uncertainty of conditions of production in
both zones. farmers invest any surplus they have in buying
livestock particularly goats and sheep.

To what extent do farm operators and family farms

121

characteristics affect farming performances and what
strategies are developed in case of food shortage are

examined in the following chapter.

122

CHAPTER V. FARM CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPACTS

FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

An important element of development consists in the
relationship between demographic processes. their impact on
resources and therefore, on agricultural development. Given
the high rate of population increase 2.9%. rural Serer and
Wolof farm families are growing faster than available
resources and land.

The preceding chapter identified the characteristics of
farm operators (age. and technical knowledge) and those of
farm families (size of population. size of holding
equipment). This chapter examines the relationships between
those farms and farm operators characteristics. the patterns
of access to farm operator status with the agricultural
output. In other words. we focus on the determinants of the
performance of farm families. Performance involves the
ability of family farms to produce enough food. meet other
needs of family members and for reinvestment in farming.

Two procedures are used to assess family farm performance.
First. respondents were asked to give estimates of the
frequency the frequency with which they produce enough (from
one crop to the following) to cover family food needs since
they became heads of family production units. Secondly.
estimated production from the two main crops providing

subsistence: cereals and groundnut for the campaigns 1986/87

123

and 1987/88 were considered and converted into local
currency. the Central African Franc (CFA). The objective was
to estimate the annual income for each family farm. This
estimate will be compared to a standard estimate of how much

is needed for a person to sustain him/herself.

V—l. Determinants of Levels of Production.

Agricultural output depends heavily upon the amount of
available resources for production namely land. labor.
capital and management. One characteristic of the
subsistence nature of the Serer and Wolof is that almost all
production is consumed except for groundnut. Capital does
not really enter the system and money generated from this
sole cash crop is transformed into livestock or used for
other farm purposes. Management describes the ability of the
farm operator to efficiently combine these factors of
production. It must be noted that these factors are not
isolated in this sense that other external factors affect
farm operation such as rainfall and governmental policy
decisions that intervene in agricultural production. This
section aims at examining the impact of internal and
external factors on the level of agricultural production of

family farms.

124

V—l-l. Factors of Production External to Farm Families

a) Physical Environment.

Physical limitations. especially rainfall and soil in the
Serer zone seriously reduce the production of certain crops.
The agroclimatic conditions in the zones of the study are
characterized by a relatively short season with low and
highly variable rainfall. Frequent droughts make agriculture
more and more questionable. Concerning the evolution of
rainfall. Figure 8 shows. for both Serer and Wolof zones.
peaks in the evolution with an important one in 1983. It
also suggests differences in the quantity of rainfall for
the two zones. In that respect. one observes a net advantage
for the Wolof zone. Kaymor. For the period from 1977 to
1987. the Wolof zone has received on average 761.1 mm 15/ as
compared to 467.8 mm 16/ for the Serer zone of Niakhar. Such
a difference in rainfall has resulted in the adoption of a
short cycle variety of groundnut in the Serer zone that is
being progressively extended to the Wolof zone in response
to reduction in the rainfall.

Despite the argument of good quality of soil presented by
many peasants. findings indicate a very low natural
fertility due to low organic matter content (<1%) (Sene.

1990).

125

 

 

Figure 7. RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION FROM

1 977 TO 1987

 

,../‘I

TOTAL RAINFALL PER YEAR
(Thousands)

 

 

 

 

D I r I I I I I I I I
annoo 1977 1978 1979 19m 1981 19% 1933 1984 195 1988 1987

YEAR
0 m ZOE + “R ZCNE

 

 

From data gathered at Niakhar and Kaymor District Level.

126

Demograpiic pressures in addition resulted in the
abandonment of techniques of regeneration such as fallow.
and to the extension of fields to marginal soil. Continuous
cultivation. but also tree slashing and destumping. and. to
some extent. agricultural policies. also increase the risks
of soil loss by wind erosion in the Serer zone and water

erosion in the Wolof zone.

b) Policy Environment.

Several governmental agricultural policies have been
implemented that have resulted in far less than the
expectations of the policies. The last implemented policy
termed the New Agricultural Policy (NPA) was aimed at
redesigning and reducing State intervention. This policy
known in Senegal as ”responsabilisation du paysan” advocates
more responsibilities on the part of the peasant (Waterbury.
1983). In practice. this involves cutting down subsidized
agricultural inputs such as groundnut seeds and fertilizer.
This policy follows a trend of State withdrawal that began
with the end of the Programme Agricole in 1980 through which
peasants were obtaining equipment. The New Agricultural
Policy advocates progressive staff reduction of outreach
agencies that used to work on the diffusion of new

technologies and on providing peasants with training and

127

information. Because of this new policy. peasants confront
very hostile conditions for agricultural production. The
lack of fertilizer puts pressure on land that already has
low soil fertility. Equipment that is not overhauled and
spare parts for maintenance are scarce. The new policy adds
to the problem of insufficiency and irregularity of rainfall
is further pushing agriculture to a state of marginalization
rather than contributing its improvement. In other words. as
a result of this new policy. agriculture loses all those
capacities which yield sufficient output for the
satisfaction of peasants' needs. Reinvestment under such
conditions is very unlikely.

Hostile ecological conditions reinforced by inappropriate
policies that do not facilitate the acquisition of factors
of production by peasants. impose serious limitations on the
output of agricultural production. The effects of physical
environment may vary however depending on the limitations it
imposes on the available resources and technology and on the

ability of the peasants as well.

'V-1-2. Factors of Production Internal to Farm Families.

Internal factors to family farm performances include: 1)
characteristics of farm operators: age. technical knowledge.
and 2) characteristics of family farm in terms of available

factors of production.

128

Concerning the age of respondents. the older the farm
operator. the more experienced he may be not only in farming
but also in managing a farm. In family organizatior. father
tend to associate eldest sons to the managing of the farm
family. Yet. age is not necessarily the factor determinant.
Rather. it is the experience which comes with age that
produces an efficient utilization of available resources.

This section classifies farm families head according to
the level of available resources for production. The level
of available resources is expressed in the form of a
computed variable including variables such as the size of
landholding. the level of equipment. and the labor available
for family farms as described in the preceding chapter.
Three levels are differentiated: low level of available
resources. average level of available resources and high
level of available resources.

Family farms with a low level of available resources are
those without land or with insufficient land. with a low
level of equipment and small labor available. Production
units in this category depend almost totally upon other farm
families to cultivate.

Farm families with an average level of available resources
are those that have an adequate level of factors of
production in terms of land. equipment. and labor. Even
though they are involved in transactions of land and/or

equipment (borrowing and/or exchanging). these family farms

129

are much less dependent upon the help they might receive
from other production units as are family farms with a low
level of resources.

Finally. high level of available resources includes family
farms that rely on themselves for labor. equipment. and
land. Land borrowing may exist not because of a land
shortage as it might be the case for the two preceding
categories, but for the purpose of crop rotation. Besides
possessing a good level of production factors, these family
farms can afford to hire labor in case of bottlenecks or for
a whole farming season.

Table 5—1 indicates that only 12.0% of total farm families
including 10.0% of Serer farm families and 14.0% of Wolof
have a high level of resources available to them. In
contrast. 49.5% of farm families and particularly 38.5%
must rely on transactions with other production units to
cultivate. Also differences are observed in the level of
available resources among Serer and Wolof farm families.
Family farms with a high level of available resources
represent 12.0% of total family farms. This includes 10.0%
of Serer and 14.0% of Wolof family farms that can rely upon
their own resources. In contrast. 88.0% of family farms must
depend upon transactions among themselves and with family
farms with enough resources to allow for access to
production factors. This is particularly the case for 38.5%

of family farms including. 44.0% of Serer production units

130

as compared to 33.0% of Wolof. having a low level of
available resources and. to a lesser degree. 49.5% of family
farms. 46.5% of Serer and 53.0% of Wolof . with an average

level of available resources.

Table 5—1. Distribution of Family Farms by Level of

Available Resources and Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity
Level of Available Resources* Serer Wolof Total
High Level of Resources 10.0% 14.0% 12.0%
Average Level of Resources 46.0 53.0 49.5
Low Level of Resources 44.0 33.0 38.5
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

* Level of available resources is computed as the ratio

(size of landholding + level of equipment + labor)/3.

Relying on others farm families for equipment has the
disadvantage of delaying certain activities such as seeding
and weeding that in turn. ma affect the level of production.

The following explains the level of available resources: 1)

131

the patterns of access to farms operator status, 2) the ggg
of respondents and. 3) the period (Year) at which the
production unit was created. Given the elimination of the
Programme Agricole in 1980. it is hypothesized that the
later a family was created. the less likely there will be a
high level of available resources. Also. the land tenure
system of Serer and Wolof which gives right to land to every
man in the family farms. characterized by successive
fragmentations suggests that younger people in families are
likely to receive less land than the older.
As indicates Table 5~2. the pattern of access to farm
operator status affects the level of resources available.
This table confirms that the retirement mode of access to
farm operator status that creates less harm in terms of
availability of production factors to family farms. Indeed.
only 19.3% of Serer and Wolof family farms in this pattern
are in the category of low level available resources as
compared to 58.1% that have an average and 22.6% a high
level of available resources. The reason is that retirement
does not imply the partition of resources as it would be in
case of death of the father through inheritance process.
Another situation that suggests readiness of the farm
operator is implied in the case of access to the status of
farm operator as a result of personal request. Indeed. those
who request to become head of family farms tend to be in the

same category of average to high level available resources

132

than those who have replaced their former head of family

Table 5—2. Distribution of Family Farms by Level of

Available Resources and Pattern of Access to Farm

Operator Status.

 

Level of Available Resources.

 

Patterns of Access Low Average High Total
Level Level Level

Request 34.9% 55. 9. 100.0%
(63)

Recommended 47.4% 39. 13. 100.0%
(38)

Retirement 19.3% 58. 22 100.0%
(31)

Death 43.1% 48. 8. 100.0%
(58)

Conflict 60.0% 30. 10. 100.0%
(10)

Total 38.5% 49. 12. 100.0%
(200)

 

133

farm. They represent 65.1% of Serer and Wolof family
farms. 55.6% with an average level of resources and 9.5%
with a high level of available resources as compared to
34.95% with a low level of available resources.

Personal request suggests a high achievement motivation
therefore. farm operators who request to have their own
family farms tend to be prepared for their new role as
independent producer.

A similar conclusion cannot be drawn for cases of
recommendation for which 47.4% have a low level of available
resources. even less for cases of death and conflict. In
case segmentation occurs following the death of a father.
younger heads of farm family who were not associated to the
managing of the farm not be ready to assume this role.
Furthermore. resources owned by the father are inherited
(land) or sold (equipment) with the money generated divided
among heirs. Given the increasing population pressure on
land and the end of the agricultural program, those who
became heads of production lately are likely to have a lower
level of available resources. The association year of access
to farm operator status and level of available resources
support such an hypothesis. The period of access to farm
operator status is negatively associated with the level of
available resources. r=—.338** (Table 5—7) indicating that
the latter the access to farm operator status. the lower the

level of resources available.

134

Farming conditions of Serer and Wolof family 'arms have
became critical because of the hostile ecological
environment. and because of inappropriate agricultural
policies that did not succeed to create and sustain
incentives for farmers to invest in farming. As reported
during village discussions. many family farms survive in
agriculture because of transactions in production factors
with other production units. The following section examines
the level of interactions among family farms and the ways in

which they affect farming performances of production units.

V—2. Level of Interaction Among Family Farms as

a Factor of Production.

For the purpose of this work. two sorts of interactions are
differentiated: social interaction and economic interaction.
Social interaction has been expressed in the preceding
chapter as reciprocal visits. sharing of meals. and patterns
of residency. In this section. economic interactions are
examined. Economic interactions designate transactions among
and between family farms as they might help in the conduct
of agricultural production. A variable has been computed
named the degree of economic interaction. Economic
interaction expresses the frequency with which family farms
benefit from outside support in terms of labor. land. and

equipment.

135

Similar to the level of available resources. family farms
are classified into three levels of interaction based on the
frequency with which they are involved in transactions
relative to each of the factors mentioned. The first level.
weak interaction. suggests that family farms are rarely part
of economic interactions with other production units in the
village. The second level. moderate interaction. indicates
that family farms are sometimes involved in interaction with
others family farms. Finally. the third level. good
interaction, describes a situation where family farms are
often involved in economic interactions with other family
farms. Given the low level of available resources. many
production units. Serer and Wolof as well. face a great deal
of difficulty if they relied only on themselves. Exchange
and/or help they receive or give contribute to mitigate such

difficulties.

V-2—1. Distribution of Family Farms by Degree of

Interaction.

Few cases of frequent economic interaction between family
farms regardless of ethnicity are reported. This concerns
6.4% of Serer family farms (Table 5-3). as compared to 9.4%
of Wolof family farms (Table 5—4). that reported having a
good degree of interaction with other production units. In

contrast. 46.8% of Serer and 42.2% of Wolof are classified

136

as having a weak degree of interaction in contrast with
46.8% of Serer and 45.4.% of Wolof are fairly involved in
transactions of factors of production. The importance of the
number of family farms with a poor or fair degree of
interaction is not surprising. One element fundamental to
the frequency of interaction is the existence of an adequate
level of resources for family farms. Such a situation. as

indicated earlier. does not really exit.

Table 5-3. Patterns of Segmentation and Degree of

Interaction Between Serer Family Farms.

 

 

Degree of Patterns of Segmentation
Interaction* Request Recommendation Conflict Total
Good Interaction 5.9% 10.0% 0.0% 6.4%
Moderate Interaction 44.1 40.0 100.0 46.8
Weak Interaction 50.0 50.0 0.0 46.8
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (34) (10) (3) (47)

 

* Degree of interaction is computed as the ratio
(support with labor + support with equipment + support with

land)/3.

137

Besides. one must take into account the negative effects of
the Law on National Domain on transactions on land. Also the

nature of equipment considered to be too old or needing

repair does

Table 5-4. Patterns of Segmentation and Degree of

Interaction Between Wolof Family Farms

 

 

Degree of Patterns of Segmentation
interaction Request Recommendation Conflict Total
Good Interaction 10.3% 7.1% 14.3% 9.4%
Moderate Interaction 37.9 57.1 42.9 45.4
Weak Interaction 51.7 35.7 42.9 42.2
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (29) (26) (7) (64)

 

not encourage transactions on material. This. obviously.
does not mean that interactions do not exist.

It confirms. however. the argument that the difficult
conditions of production have contributed to weaken
transactions of factors or production through which low

level available resources family farms were obtaining part

138

of what they needed for production.

Beyond the impact of limited 'actors on the economic
interactions between family farms. it is hypothesized that
different patterns of segmentation can affect in different
ways the level of interaction between a newly created family

farm and the family farm of origin.

V—2—2. Impact of Patterns of Segmentation on the

Degree of Interaction Between Family Farms.

Table 5—3 and Table 5-4 respectively describe the
distribution of Serer and Wolof respondents according to the
degree of economic interaction with other family farms in
villages. The situation among Serer respondents (Table 5-3)
shows no association between the degree of interaction and
pattern of segmentation. Table 5-4 suggests that among Wolof
family farms. recommendation seems to favor economic
interaction. Yet. we think that the degree of interaction
depends more upon the level of available resources rather
than upon any specific pattern of segmentation. Even in the
case of conflict. brothers continue to provide help to the
separated new head of family farm. if not during the days
they must work in fields managed by the head of family farm.
at least during the time granted to them for working their
own fields. Economic interactions are not limited to family

farms of the same origin. Farm operators also turn to

139

neighbors for help and they may themselves be approached for

help.

V-3. Hypotheses Testing.

Given the rapid increase in population and the limited
resources of land, given the Senegalese agricultural policy
stating a reduction in state intervention with more
responsibilities of peasants particularly in the acquisition
of agricultural inputs and. finally. given the ecological
degradation as a result of rainfall shortage and also
pressure of population. several hypotheses are made:

1) The later a family farm is created. the smaller the size
of land allotted from the family holding;

2) The more interaction a farm family can develop. the more
likely it can cope with the low level of available resources
properly owned:

3) The patterns of segmentation may affect the degree of
interaction and therefore. the level of performances of
family farms;

4) Members of family farms with small holding are more
likely to be found in off—farm activities. Chapter three has
focused on farm operators' characteristics and also
attributes of family farms have been classified for
comparison using cross tabulation. frequencies and measure

of relationships such as Yules coefficient and Pearson

140

correlation.

»—I
Q:

U‘
5...:
IT!

LI.“
LII

Matrix of Correlation Coefficients of

Determiiants of Farming Performances.

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 '
(1) Year 1000 -.112 -.338M -.102 .2“2 —.086
(2) Pattern 1000 —.043 .007 .129 —.084
(3) Level of Resources 1000 .086 .263M .078
(4) Degree of Interaction 1000 .303** .025
(5) Farming Performances 1000 —.019
(6) Migration of Men 1000
1 Tailed significance: * .01 **. 001

 

Concerning the first hypothesis. the section on the
determinants of the size of landholding indicated the
existence of a moderate negative association r-—.296**
(Table 4-18) between size of holding and year of access to
farm operator status. Such a correlation supports the
postulated hypothesis that family farms lately created are
more likely to have smaller size of holding. Similarly. the

data show a positive relationship between the degree of

141

interaction and farming performances r=.303** (Table 4-12).

Hypothesis (3) postulating an indirect effect of the
pattern of access to farm operator on farming performances
through interaction hardly holds. r=.007, indicating a
negligible direct effect of the pattern of segmentation on
the degree of interaction.

The purpose of this section is to examine which of the
variables used in the formulation of hypotheses postulated
are important predictors of family farm performances. In
that respect. a causal structure has been set up which
describes potential relationships between variables
concerned. namely: The year of access to farm operator
status; The pattern of access to farm operator status; The
level of available resources; The degree of interaction
among family farms; and. the farming performances of family
farms. Following a causal ordering among variables, a
regression of variables year of access and pattern of access
to farm operator status. level of available resources. and
degree of interaction is run on the variable farming
performances. The objective was to test the null hypothesis
negating any causality of these variables on the
performances of family farms. The result gives a coefficient
of determination R of.17608 indicating that variables
considered positively contribute towards determining farming
performances of family farms. Generally speaking. this

result supports previous conclusions. First. it confirms the

142

 

idea that other factors particularly factor external to

U)

fcrm aperatirs' ch‘racteristics and to production units
characteristics such as rainfall. quality of soil and
agricultural policy. are playing an important role in
determining the farming performances. Second. the percentage
explained but also. the value and level of significance of F
(F=10.418 and signf=0000) suggest that the null hypothesis
that would negate any association of variables considered
with farming performances must rejected. Yet. the
observation of direct effects shows independent variables
with a weak direct effect on farming performances.

A step by step elimination of variables based on their
direct effect on farming performances and using the
procedure of stepwise selection drops variable pattern of
access to farm operator status at a first stage. At a second
stage. the variable year of access to farm operator status
as a determinant of the family performances is eliminated
from the model. The elimination of the variables year of
access and patterns of access does not significantly affect
the value of the coefficient of determination. This supports
the argument that the level of available resources
principally determines the degree of interaction and the

farming performances.

143

V-4. Performances of Serer and Wolof Family

Farms.

A pertinent analysis of performance necessitates a
standard to which results obtained can be compared. In that
respect. the frequency that farm operators reach food self-
sufficiency appears to be an appropriate norm. Food self-
sufficiency describes a situation when a farm family can
live from its agricultural production and supplementary
economic activities (livestock. off—farm activities) from
one crop season to the next.

This section examines the degree to which Serer and Wolof
family farms surveyed perceive themselves to be food self—
sufficient. In addition. it presents the estimated levels of
production for two main cultural crops. millet (cereal) and
groundnut during 1986/1987 and 1987/1988. Finally. this
section examines the strategies developed by farm families
for alleviating food shortages or the use of food crop

surpluses.

V—4—1. Food Self—sufficiency of Family Farms.

In the context of our study. we consider food self—
sufficiency not in terms of quantity of calories but in
terms of the availability of food and or resources to

purchase food all year long.

144

Three levels of food self—sufficiency are differentiated.
The first level includes secure farms family. those that
have always been food self—sufficient. The second level
includes marginal farm families those that occasionally
reach food self-sufficiency. The third level includes farm
families in a critical food situation. that is farm families
that are rarely or have never been food self—sufficient.
(Table 5—6).

Near half of Serer and Wolof farm families. 45. % compose
the category of farm families in critical food situation.
This includes 49.0% of Serer farm families as compared to
42.0% of Wolof. In contrast. only 17.0% of total farm
families (15.0% of Serer and 19.0% of Wolof) are secure.
That is. they are always reaching food self-sufficiency.
Farm families with a marginal food self-sufficiency
situation represent 37.0% of total farm families. This
includes 35.5% of Serer farm families and 39.0% of Wolof.
With the conditions of production deteriorating. this
category of farm families may geared toward the level of
critical food situation.

Food—sufficiency follows a cyclical evolution
characterized by a period when there is enough food for

family farms to sustain themselves

145

Table 5—6. Distribution of Family Farms by Frequency

of Food Self-Sufficiency and Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity
Food Self-Sufficiency Serer Wolof Total
Secured 15.0% 19.0% 17.0%
Marginal 35.0 39.0 37.0
Critical 49.0 42.0 45.5
No Response 1.0 0.0 0.5
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

and a period when family farms have no choice but to rely on
other family farms or get involved in off- farm activities
in order to survive. The period of food self-sufficiency
would last from the harvest of millet in October to the
month of April/May depending upon the amount harvested and
the family food demand which in turn. depends upon the size
of the family farm. The period of food shortage called
”soudure" takes place during the pre-harvest when many
families have used up their food stores. As reported during

village discussions. food shortage in some cases is a

146

serious problem. Some people must work off the family farm
or send their dependents off family farm to work for money
to buy food. Such a practice is known as “saad”.

Can family farms that rarely reach food self—sufficiency or
those that have never reached food self—sufficiency maintain
farming as their main source for subsistence and under what
circumstances? An answer to this question will be provided

in the recommendations from this work.

V-4—2. Food Self-Sufficiency and Patterns of

Segmentation.

Generally speaking. their is no significant difference in
the relationship between patterns of segmentation and food
self-sufficiency except for segmentation resulting from
conflict. In such a case. 80.0% of respondents are in
critical food situation (Table 5—7). In contrast. those who
replace their father as head of a farm family after death or
retirement of this latter dominate the category of secured
food. respectively. 23.0% and 23.7%. They also all other
patterns of access to farm operator status. family farms
that reported reaching occasional food self-sufficiency
dominate. They represent 37.0% of family farms compared to
28.5% that have never been food self—sufficient and 17.0%
that always reach food self-sufficiency and 17.0% that

rarely reach food self—sufficiency. Finally. heads of family

147

farms after ret

irement of their former ndiatigue. and those

after death are less subject to food shortage. Table 5-7

shows 64.5% of

cases of retirement including 41.9% which

sometimes are reaching food self-sufficiency and 22.6% which

are always self

Table 5-7.

—sufficient.

Distribution of Family Farms by Frequency

of Food Self—Sufficiency and Patterns of Access to

Farm Operator Status

 

Patterns of Access

 

Food Self— Request Recom— Retirement Death Conflict
Sufficiency mendation

Secured 13.9% 14.4% 23.7% 23.0% 10.0%

Marginal 43 7 39.3 47.9 45.1 10.0

Critical 42.4 46.3 28.4 30.4 80.0

No Response 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0

Total

(N)

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(63) (38) (31) (58) (10)

 

It also shows

62.1% of cases after death of which 39.7% are

sometimes reaching food self-sufficiency and 22.4% which are

148

always food self—sufficient.

One explanation is th fact that death. when it is not

(I:

followed by the fragmentation of the production unit. and
retirement are the only patterns of access to farm operator
status that do not lead to the division of available
resources for production particularly labor and equipment.
The section on the determinants of family farm farming
efficiency will examine such an association.

Beyond farm operators' perception of food self-sufficiency
an attempt was made to determine the level of total income
generated from crop yields by family farms over the last
two years preceding the survey 12/. This total income has
been calculated using official prices for cereals and
groundnut at which farmers would sell their production 13/
The low levels of annual income per person for both Serer
and Wolof but particularly for Serer family farms. (Tables
5—8 and Table 5-9) support the idea that most of family
farms do not reach food self-sufficiency particularly. did
not during the campaign 1987/88. During both campaigns. the
annual income generated from agricultural activity by most
of Serer farms families was less than 20.000 (Fcfa. $=3OO
Fcfa) per person (Table 5-8). This included for the first
campaign. 75.0% of families among which 39.0% had generated
less than 10.000 (Fcfa) as compared to 90.0% during the

second campaign.

149

Table 5-8. Distribution of Serer Family Farms by
Total Income Fcfa per Person During Campaigns 1986/87,

and 1987/88.

 

 

Income. Fcfa Agricultural Campaigns
Per Person 1986/87 1987/88
Less than 10.000 39.0% 90.0%
10.000 - 20.000 36.0 9.0
20,000 — 30.000 18.0 0.0
30.000 — 40.000 4.0 1.0
more than 40.000 3.0 0.0
Total 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (100) (100)

 

The average income per person in Serer family farms dropped
from 13.812 Fcfa for 1986/1987 to 3.447 Fcfa in 1987/88. In
comparison. Table 5-9 shows 66.0% of Wolof family farms
including 37.0% with less than 10.000 Fcfa and 29.0% between
10.000 Fcfa and 20.000 Fcfa for the first campaign as
compared to 80.0% with less than 20.000 Fcfa composed of
53.0% with less than 10.000 and 24.0% between 10.000 and

20.000 Fcfa. As in the case of Serer family farms. the

150

’Ln

Vt". 1"

Q:

.ge income generated by Wolof has dropped from 17.414
Fcfa during the campaign 1986/198 to 11.558 Fcfa during the
campaign 1987/88.

A person who heavily depends upon agriculture for a living
can hardly survive conditions of low income and. even less.
reinvest in farming. Indeed. investing in farming is too
high a risk. The implementation of the 1984 agricultural
policy calling for the reduction of State involvement in
farming activity by ending subsidization of factors of
production makes this situation more difficult. Continued
falling prices for groundnut also contribute to difficulty
in reaching food self—sufficiency, and make their investment
appear not worthy. In other words. the groundnut prices are
not providing enough return to compensate for the reduction
of cereal production and the investment in seeds of quality
and fertilizer. Cereals are the base for alimentation in
rural Serer and Wolof.

The lack of small industry or non farm employment in rural
area in Senegal does not create opportunities for part—time
work to supplement low income generated from agriculture.

The results shown in these tables as well as the
perception respondents have of the food situation they face
raise the question of how family farms survive these
conditions of low income from their principal activity of
production? Such a question leads to investigating survival

strategies developed by farm operators and. by other members

151

——-TT—w—

 

in family farms as well. that is to say. activities that
provide family farms with supplementary income. It also
leads to examining potential determinants of farming

efficiency.

Table 5—9. Distribution of Wolof Family Farms by Total

Income per Person (Fcfa) During Campaigns 1986/87 and

 

 

1987/88.

Income Fcfa Agricultural Campaigns
per Person 1986/87 1987/88
Less than 10.000 37.0 56.0
10.000 - 20,000 29.0 24.0
20.000 - 30.000 19.0 15.0
30.000 — 40.000 8.0 2.0
more than 40.000 7.0 3.0
Total 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (100) (100)

 

152

V—5. Food Self—Sufficiency and Farm Operators

Strategies.

The purpose of this s-ction is to determine the strategies
developed by family farms in case their production of cereal

exceeded their needs for food. It also investigates the

strategies more commonly used by farm operators in situation
of food shortage.
V—5—l. trategies in Case of Surplus of Production of

Cereal.

From responses to the question relative to the use of
surplus of production. it appears that farm operators adopt
three main interdependent strategies. namely stockpiling.
sale. and help to relatives (Table 5—10). All three. it must
be noted. are not exclusive from one another. only the size
of the surplus determines the action of the farm operator. A
significant difference exists in the strategies adopted in
case of estimated surplus of production among ethnic groups.
In contrast to 25.0% of Wolof farm families. 60.0% of Serer
farm families stockpile at home their estimated surplus of
production. As compared. 30.0% of Serer farm families and
50.5% of Wolof. reported selling their estimated surplus
production. Finally. 10.0% of Serer and 20.0% of Wolof. used

that surplus to provide assistance to relatives. The rest

153

2.1% did not respond.

Table 5-10. Strategies in Case of Cereal Surplus

Production by Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity

Strategies Adopted Serer Wolof Total
Stockpiling 60.0% 25.0% 42.5%
Sale 30.0 50.0 40.0
Helping Relatives 10.0 20.0 15.0
No Response 0.0 5.0 2.5

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (15) (19) (34)

 

When the estimated surplus is sold. (Table 5-11) the income
generated is principally used for buying livestock
particularly small ruminants (goats and sheep). This
concerns 48.3% of total respondents. including 51.0% of
Serer respondents and 45.5% of Wolof. When the size of the
income allows. people buy draught animals. donkeys. horses

and. in the best. oxen.

154

Table 5-11. Bthhldlty anc Use of Income Generated from

Sale of Surplus Production

 

 

Ethnicity
Use of Income from Sale Serer Wolof Total
Reinvesting in Farming 33 0% 36 5% 34.2%
Buying Livestock 51.0 45.5 48.3
Miscellaneous 16.0 18.0 17.0
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (6) (8) (14)

 

Peasants may use the income generated in repairing
equipment or buying spare parts in weekly markets. Such a
use of income from surplus production is considered as
reinvestment in farming. It involves 33.0% of Serer and
36.5% of Wolof. Finally. income from sale of surplus
production is used for diverse purposes particularly during
social circumstances naming. marriages. death ceremonies.

etc by respectively 16.0% of Serer and 18.1% of Wolof.

155

V—5—2. Strategies in Case of Food Shortage.

Family farms which are never. rarely. or sometimes food
self—sufficient. have recourse to different strategies
(Table 5—12). They represent 83.0% of total family farms
including 81.% of Serer as compared to 85 0% Wolof family
farms. 11.0% of farm operators. 8.6% of Serer and 13.4% of
Wolof. reported no specific strategy. For these respondents.
all opportunities to buy food are explored. Sale of animals
is the most frequent strategy in both ethnic groups. 42.9%.
This includes 49.4% of Serer and 36.5% of Wolof family units
of production. For these farms operators. the outcome of the
sale is used for buying food and also groundnut seeds.

Off—farm activities are practiced. particularly during the
dry season that last from February to June, by 22.2% of
Serer in comparison with 17.8% of Wolof. Transportation.
small trade in weekly markets. and any other work outside
agricultural activity used to generate income for food
buying is included. There are 4.9% and 13 4% of Saad
respectively for Serer and Wolof respondents. Saad. as
defined earlier. designates paid work during the rainy
season for the purpose of alleviating food shortages. Other
strategies reported consist in borrowing money and/or
cereal. 3.7% of Serer and 4.7% of Wolof whereas 6.3% and
5.9% respectively Serer and Wolof respondents reported

asking for help.

156

 

 

Table 5—12 Food Shortage Strategies by Ethnicity
Ethnicity.

Food Shortage Strategies Serer Wolof Total
Sale of Animals 49.4% 36.5% 42.9%
Off-Farm Activities 22 2 17.8 20 0
Asked for Help 6 3 5.9 6 1
Practice of Saad 4.9 13.4 9.2
Borrow Money or Cereals 4 9 8.3 6 6
Pawn and or Sale of Equipment 3 7 4.7 4 7
Other 8 6 13.4 11 0

Total

(N)

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(85) (81) (166)

 

V-5—3. Livestock raising as a Strategy for Food shortage.

Livestock. particularly cattle. have played a very important
role in maintaining the farming system of Serer. It remains
that the prestige and the wealth implied by the expression
“0 side yal naak” suggests another role for animals beside
maintaining the fertility of soil. lfl/. Animals.
particularly goats and sheep but also poultry. are kept for
insurance in case of a bad crop yields. They can be
considered as an emergency food reserve in the sense that
peasants in villages rely on these animals in case of food
shortage. Because of the uncertainties tied to rainfall.
because of the lack of banking institutions in rural areas.
and the difficulties of access to banking institutions in
urban cities. Serer and Wolof invest part of their surplus
production in buying animals. Since the decision of the
government to stop providing farmers with seeds. animals are
also sold to buy groundnut seeds (Niang. 1984).

Beyond this economic role. animals are used for social
cultural and religious purposes. As to the social cultural
aspects. animals are used to honor guests. during family
ceremonies: naming. marriages. and deaths. Sheep. in
particular. but also goats. serve religious purposes for the

Muslim Feast of Tabaski 15/.

158

a) Importance of ‘attle.
As far as agriculture is concerned. Serer farming system
differentiated itself from the Wolof system by its
integration of animals and trees. Analysis of the Serer

agricultural activity descr be

p I
U)

a farming system in which
livestock has played a fundamental role of reconstitution of
soil fertility by the manuring of plots (Lericollais. 1970;
Pelissier. 1965). The system has been deeply affected by
hostile climatic conditions but also by the competition
resulting from: 1) the rapid increase of population. 2) the
demand for more land to cultivate to feed the population.
and 3) the necessity to keep a system that has proved to be
efficient by maintaining animals particularly cattle in the
farm. In other words. is animal raising still an element of
differentiation between Serer and Wolof? The distribution of
family farms according to the number of cattle owned
indicates differences between Serer and Wolof (Table 5—13).
Of Wolof family farms. 82.0% do not have cattle as compared
to 55.0% of Serer. The mean analysis gives an average number
of cattle of 5.2 to Serer in comparison to 2.8 heads of
cattle per Wolof family farm. The standard deviation among
Serer owning of cattle is 8.6 and 9.7 among Wolof.

Ownership of cattle is positively associated with the total

size of holding r=.266** (Table 3—36).

159

Table 5-13. Distribution of Family Farms by Cattle

Owned and Ethnicity.

 

 

Ethnicity
Number of Cattle Owned Serer Wolof Total
no cattle owned 55.0% 82.0% 68.5%
1 - 5 17.0 7.0 12.0
6 — 10 11.0 4.0 7.5
11 — 15 6.0 0.0 3.0
16 — 20 5.0 0.0 2.5
more than 20 6.0 7.0 6.5
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

This positive correlation is not significant for Serer.
r=.117. in contrast with Wolof r=.454**. It suggests that
Wolof family farms that own cattle tend to be those with
larger landholding. Table 5-14 suggests a positive
association between being Serer respondent and cattle
ownership. The association expressed in Yules' Q is

moderately significant Q=.58.

160

Table 5-14. Association of Cattle owning with

Ethnicity

Ownership of Cattle

 

 

Yes No Total
Wolof 18 82 100

Ethnicity
Serer 45 55 100

 

Yules’ 0= .58.

The disappearance of fallow land where animals were
grazing during the rainy season has contributed to a change
in the patterns of cattle raising. Animals can only stay a
few months in the area during the dry season because of lack
of dry grass. The risks to damaging fields compel animals
owners to move them away from cultivated areas. Animals are
sent to localities where forests still exist. This
phenomenon of animal transhumance significantly affects the
role animals use to play in the reconstitution of soil
fertility resulting in losses in agricultural production.
With the increasing demand for farm land. new forms of
cattle raising may be adapted. Large herds of cattle can no
longer be maintained in the Serer area. This adds to the

changing mode of ownership of cattle from a lineage type of

161

ownership to a more individualized ownership of animals.
This negatively affects the size of herds. Ownership of
limited number of cattle rather than a herd seems to be the
response. More importantly. it facilitates the fattening of

animals practice that is developing in the Serer zone.

b) Importance of Small Ruminants.

In the introduction of this section we have indicated the
importance of animals for rural Serer and Wolof. Small
ruminants also present an advantage by being less
competitive for space and are less affected by the lack of
dry grass beside being more affordable than cattle. This
explains the high percentage of family farms that own small
ruminants (table 5—15). Only 15.0% of total family farms
including 16.0% of Serer and 14.0% of Wolof do not own small
ruminants. Also. most of family farms have between 1 and 5
animals (39.0% of Serer as compared to 50.0% of Wolof family
farms. In comparison to cattle. there is no significant
difference in the average number of small ruminants by
family farms. Serer families have an average number of small
ruminants of 6.5 as compared to 5.3 for Wolof families.
Ownership of small ruminants as opposed to ownership of
cattle is not significantly associated with the size of

holding r=-.013 (Table 4—30).

162

Table 5-1o. Distribution of Family Farms by

Ethnicity and Number of Small Ruminants.

 

 

Ethnicity

Number of Small Ruminants Serer Wolof Total
No Small Ruminant 16.0% 14.0% 15.1%

1 — 5 39.0 50.0 44.5

6 — 10 24.0 19.0 21.5

11 — 15 14.0 12.0 13.0

16 — 20 3.0 2 O 2 0

More than 20 4.0 3.0 4.0
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (100) (100) (200)

 

As for cattle. small ruminants within family farms are
considered as an important resource for the family food
shortages. Sometimes. they are the only recourse for many
families. In these situations. animals are sold in the
weekly market and the revenue from the sale is used to buy
food.

To conclude this chapter. the situation of food self—

sufficiency as reported has become a very serious problem

163

for rural Serer and Wolof families. While there is a rapid
increase in population. unfavorable ecological conditions.
inadequate agricultural policies are bringing the level of
resources available for family farms to a marginal stage. a
stage at which production insuring food self—sufficiency for
family farms cannot be or is hardly reached. In such a
situation. it is very unlikely that farm operators will find
the means to invest in farming and. if they do. will be
willing to reinvest. This without any doubt will increase
the deterioration of agricultural conditions and as result
will contribute to reinforcing the desire to look outside
the family for more opportunities. Indeed, the existence of
economic interaction particularly. transaction of equipment
that is indispensable to many farm families will became
progressively limited as the equipment gets used and is not
replaced or renewed.

It is then necessary to find ways through which access to
factors of production will be made available to farmers.
ways in which opportunities would be created to reduce the
heavy dependence on an insecure agriculture. This will not
eliminate the separation of families in segments
representing independent units of production. at least it
will help those that plan to stay in farming to be able to

operate.

164

CHAPTER VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

Although differences may occur in the patterns of
segmentatior. Serer and Wolof develop a similar family
organization. Also joint or extended families still are the
dominant structure. The occupation and residential
arrangements and the patterns of access to farm operator
status are practically the same. These families are not
static either in their composition. organization or their
structure. Development cycles of changes in the family are
observed as children grow up and establish new family farms.
In that process. death of a family household head leads to
changes in the organization of the group without necessary
leading to its segmentation. Also. marriage of children does
not cause the division of the family production unit.
Reorganization of the group but sometimes. establishment of
new family farm. may result as well in a change in
residence. When a new family production unit is established.
there is the disassociation of the work team. and the
fragmentation of family landholding. Under the condition of
an lagricultural subsistence economy. the establishment of
new production units raises questions concerning the
availability of resources available for production for the
new production unit. and for the farm family of origin. In
turn. Serer and Wolof respond to the deterioration of

agricultural condition by changes in the ways new units of

165

production were created. Indeed the number of cases of
personal request and recommendation have significantly
increased. In comparison. the increase of cases of conflict
as cause of family segmentation is not significant for both
Serer and Wolof. What this suggests is that the desir of

economic independence whih. in most of cases. leads to

"f.

family segmentation does not vanish people attachment or

the family as a social group.

VI—l. Characteristics and Food Self—Sufficiency of

Family Farms

The analysis of data indicates succession as the more
requent way through which Serer respondents became heads of
family farm. In comparison. most of Wolof respondents became
head of family farms from personal request and
recommendation. Cases of conflict as a pattern of
segmentation are more frequent among Wolof respondents.
These observations show Wolof as more inclined to favor or.
at least. to tolerate segmentation. Data indicate an
increase in the number of cases of segmentation from
personal request and from conflict as well. Even cases of
recommendation have became more frequent. The increase of
cases of personal request especially is the manifestation of
more marked differences between heads of family farms and

dependent producers about goals and means to achieve these

166

l

[u

.. It is the manifestation of an individualistic

(1'

4] C)

I'

attitude reinforced by the inability of the family to
continue providing its members with economic security. The
evolution of cases of segmentation from personal request
between brothers relates to the resentment of claimants to
work towards the accumulation of wealth they will not fully
benefit from because of the inheritance system favoring
sons. Its development then can be considered as a response
to increasing scarcity of resources for agricultural
production.

Resources for agricultural production. the main occupation
through which Serer and Wolof draw their subsistence
include: land. labor. equipment management and capital
investments in livestock. One characteristic of farm
families is that labor is provided primary by family
members. men. women and children. Therefore. the larger the
family. the more likely it will have labor available. The
analysis of means indicates an average family size of 12.3
members for Wolof respondents in comparison to 10.9 members
for Serer farm families. In both ethnic groups. the study
shows a positive association between the size of landholding
and the size of the farm family. In other words. farm
families with a larger size tend to those that have larger
landholding.

Four categories of landholding can be identified. About

half of the Serer and the Wolof family farms have very small

167

(0-1 00 hectares) or small landholdings (1.00- 5.00
hectares). 37.0% of Serer farm families have medium size
holdings (5.00 to 10.00 hectares) compared to 33.0% for
Wolof farm families. Farm families with holdings larger than
10.00 hectares are found among the Wolof (25.0%) and the
Serer. (12.0%).

Individually. Serer tend to have slightly more land per
person (.750 ha) than Wolof family members (.650 ha). Such
small size holdings per person reflects the combined effect
of high level of population pressure on the land and the
system of cultivation that has led to reduced soil
fertility. The size of total landholding for both Serer and
Wolof is positively associated with family size suggesting
that the larger the holdings. the larger the family. In
addition. the age of respondent is associated positively
with the size of the family. This indicates that. despite
the assumed right of equal distribution. land redistribution
is biased by age and younger males are likely t have smaller
size holdings. Since segmentation in most of cases follows
seniority. there is close relationship between the period of
segmentation and size of holdings. The data support the
hypothesis that more recently created farm families have
smaller size holdings.

The data show a limited number of well equipped Serer
(18.0%) and Wolof (22.0%) farm families. Also. Wolof

dominate the category of farm families with average level of

168

VHF
1“. n

(I:
([1

quipm
73-...-- .1. -_ :_ _ _- _ -

Respondents wno personally requested to become farm
operators and those after recommendation. tend to have a

higher level of equipment. Production units created before

IT!

and during the Programme Agricole hav. a relatively high

level of equipment in comparison to those created after the

II

ifficultie~ of

DJ

ent of the Programme Agricole in 1980. Yet.

I

obtaining spare parts and of maintaining the existing
equipment limit the extent of the difference in levels of
equipment. In conclusion. most of Serer and Wolof family
production units are characterized by a low level of
available equipment for production. Smaller farm families as
well as those with little of equipment. borrow from others
to meet their needs. Yet. the conditions of the equipment

(used equipment. difficulties of renewing and repairing)
more and more limit these transactions.

Transactions on land and equipment. support with labor are
designated as economic interactions between family farms as
opposed to social interactions represented by patterns of
residency. reciprocal visit. sharing of meals.

Social interactions are not affected by the pattern of
segmentation that is. sagmentation does not vanish the joint
family as a social group. Even in cases of conflict for
instance. social relations are maintained if not between
members in disagreement at least between actors of the

conflict and other members of the family.

169

Economic interactions. are developed between the family
farm of origin and the newly created production unit. This
means that segmentation of a family farm should not be
viewed as a complete break—up of social jointness. a
dissolution of the family. Therefore. it is not the pattern
of segmentation which determines the level of economic
interactions but the level of resources for production.

Beyond affecting the level of economic interactions.
limited resources add to uncertain and unfavorable
environmental conditions to lower the level of production of
farm families. Moreover. agricultural policies not fitting
peasants circumstances. deeply affect the level of
production. Almost half of all family farms have never
reached food self-sufficiency or are rarely reaching food
self-sufficiency. This includes half of Serer family farms
and over forty percent of Wolof family farms. More than
third of total family farms are occasionally reaching food
self-sufficiency and only one out of five family farms are
always food self-sufficient.

The average annual incomes generated from the cultivation
of millet and groundnut for the last two campaigns preceding
the survey. show the extent to which the situation of Serer
and Wolof family farms has become critical. Serer family
farms have an average income of 13.558 (Fcfa) 16/ in 1987
and 3.447 (Fcfa) for the 1988 campaign. while Wolof

respectively have generated in average 17.414 (Fcfa) and

170

11.558 (Fcfa). This obviotsl implies very low farming

performances that repre ent the inability of family farms to

UI

reach food self—sufficiency and or to reinvest in
agriculture is far from being attained for many production
units. Family farms with food shortages will care less about
investing in farming.

Off—farms employment for to Serer and Wolof families are
also very limited. if not non—existent. Confronted by such a
situation. the purpose of farming has shifted from
maximizing economic growth by increasing the output of
agriculture per unit of resources used, to reducing poverty
and meeting basic needs. In response. Serer and Wolof family
farms develop survival strategies. that are based on
investment in livestock.

Livestock alone cannot solve the crucial problem of food
shortage. Because of the heavy dependency on agriculture.
all solutions to food shortage. among other things. require
creating better conditions of agricultural production but
also the creation of opportunities to rural people. Is such
a goal feasible in the context of the new agricultural

policy? Is such a goal important enough to bring changes in

state intervention?

171

V-2. Significance of Findings.

Findings of the study of Serer and Wolof family units of
production are important in the context of development in
Senegal. They also contribute to social research on the

family and its evolution.

V—2—1. Importance For Development in Senegal.

There are fundamental economic and political reasons that
justify any state effort to help rural people attain food
self—sufficiency particularly when most of the population.
more than 60% in Senegal. reside in rural areas.
Economically. actual conditions and level of production of
Serer and Wolof family farms significantly affect the
contribution of agriculture to the Gross National Product.
It is very likely that peasant's effort will be limited to
producing for their own consumption rather than for the
market. It is also widely agreed that declining rural
conditions which characterize Serer and Wolof family farms.
lead to growth of the urban population through migration. As
a response to reduced income from agriculture. peasants are
attracted by opportunities. real or not. that cities are
believed to provide. This not only contributes to augmenting
the size of unemployment but generates social problems.

i.e.. housing. health.

172

Politically. internal political stability when basic needs
are not met by the majority of the population may not be
easy to reach. Furthermore. the dependence of a country to

outside will be reinforced when the country must rely on

U!

foreign aid for food. For all these reasons. it i the duty
of the state to take part in actions aimed at improving the
conditions of populations.

As to the possibility of reaching food self-sufficiency.

there may not be an easy way. Yet. substantial results can

be obtained with a combined effort accompanied by a strong

will to succeed by both producers and government. Since
independence. there has been an option to increase
agricultural productivity. Several programs and

organizations with the objective of intensifying agriculture
through the provision of credit. seeds. fertilizers were
introduced. Efforts to intensify agriculture through the
introduction of cultivation practices were undertaken. Yet.
policy expectations were not fulfilled and have made only
small contribution to economic growth compared to their
implementation costs. Such results gave rise to the New
Agricultural Policy characterized by “less state
intervention” and “more responsabilisation” of peasants
particularly for the acquisition of factors of production.
Such a policy seems to be in contradiction with the goal
of helping rural people reach food self—sufficiency. There

is a need to raise the level of output from agriculture. the

173

main activity if not the sole activity of production for
most of Serer and Wolof family has became more of a
priority. The level of available resources described in this
work can only have a limited impact in increasing
agricultural output. It is then important for Serer and
Wolof peasants to have access to factors of production. to
be trained to efficiently use available resources. This
obviously may not even be sufficient to insure food security

given unfavorable environmental conditions. periodic drought

irregular rainfall and. lack or limited off—farm
opportunities. that agriculture in Senegal is facing.
Therefore. creating opportunities for both men and women.
that will generate income without interfering with

agricultural activity will play an important role in
securing food self-sufficiency.

Increasing agricultural output will not be possible without
tate intervention aimed at facilitating the access to
factors of production. Peasants who cannot secure food for
their family do not have surplus to invest in farming. In
turn. access to factors of production. creation of new
opportunities will not be enough for increasing agricultural
production. Increasing agricultural production will require
a real participation of peasants as the New Agricultural
policy puts it.

For this to be possible we recommend the establishment of a

new relationship on the part of the state and the peasants

174

h

. _._3 m.-
:.cttu . ll.i

'3'

rUrU.

(In

that mak s possible a real contribution of each

I'

5.-.;

re ationship must based on mutual respect. good will and

combined effort to improve. There is a need for a new
philosophy of state intervention and of the role peasants
must play. The assigned goal of the New Agricultural
Policy:“less but best of state involvement”
“Responsabilisation des paysans” will have a meaning only if
state agents influence reinforced by a top down planning and
resources flow pattern that characterized previous state
intervention changed. Such an approach has, indeed. created
dependency among peasants by enhancing the perception of
“State providence”. that is to say, the belief that
government can do every thing from organizing farm inputs.
subsidizing them transporting them. sending agents for
advise and. finally. can offer loans and take the risk of
failure. In other words. the New Agricultural Policy will
contribute to increasing output if it is based on a
redefinition of the state intervention from a paternalistic
attitude assuming all risks involved to a shared
responsibility role with peasants. Only after peasants
rebuild confidence in themselves and in the state through
its agents (researchers and extension agents). and are
included in the decision-making process. only then can
efforts to create better conditions for increasing

agricultural output be fruitful. Rebuilding confidence of

peasants. real integration and real participation of

175

peasants requires people awareness or consciousness IZ/
about their situation and problems. They must be aware of
their potentialities and overcome the state of fatalism.
helplessness. It can be reached if peasants are given
opportunities to learn. and to express themselves. In that
respect. functional education can play an important role.
Functional education. indeed. will create. develop. and
facilitate the consciousness of peasants on what they do.
should do. and are willing to do. Such an attitude is

RECESS

(I!

ry and important in actions aimed at protecting
available resources as it must be the case in the Wolof zone
where water erosion is rapidly extending. In other words.
the chances of participation of peasants in actions aimed at
limiting the effects of soil erosion that is menacing fields
and villages are likely to be greater: 1) if there is a
realization of the losses by villages themselves; 2) if a
willingness to participate in efforts to resolve or at
least to limit its extension exists and. 3) if awareness and
conscientization lead to an effective organization that will
support and undertake actions decided by peasants
themselves. Functional education will not only raise
awareness and conscientization. it will also contribute to
creating assets that may generate additional income for
family farms and therefore. offer some security in case of
misfortune of agriculture.

The same major issues that cooperatives had to confront in

176

tn.

.he New Agricultural Policy of

‘1’
T.
5....
' ‘5
(II
HI
I'
Q!
T3
'1":
...._a
“<
fl
(3
r+

v ‘HC‘JI-l'

.J

These are the extent to which the

4
I

g.
I

I n

Q)

U
|...l

.. .1
3..)

U1

um

1’1

[.4

O

:1

reforms:

- restore peasant confidence and promote greater rural
participation;
— put more political and economic power in the hands

of the peasantry by giving them greater control over

cooperatives institutions (Waterbury. 1987).
The traditiOia system of land holding allocation results in
fragmentation of family holding suggesting that over time.
many production units will not have adequate farming land.
It is important to provide peasants with more education in
order to create for youth opportunities to compete for non
agricultural employment. raising the possibility of them
becoming more self—reliant. Training should also be directed
toward developing the conditions of productivity. increasing
technologies. It is indeed our belief that the greater. a
peasant's knowledge the greater his/her ability to make wise
choices of assets and product combinations.
Food self—sufficiency will not be secured as long as Serer
and Wolof family farms only take up agriculture. There is a
need for creating off—farm activities that will generate
income. The time of occupation of peasants must be increased
by providing the opportunity of dry season activities to
people. This however may not be possible unless peasants are
helped to develop such alternatives. trained. or provided
with adequate information.

The existence of economic and social interactions not only

177

imply reciprocal obligations but suggests the existence of
some sense of community. It is possible then to find in
these interactions a basis for effective village
organization for collective liability what was missing and
has led to the failure of cooperatives. organization that
could conduct common actions. It is important then to
determine and to take into consideration factors that make
possible and facilitate interactions between individuals and
between families in villages. In that respect. enhancing
locale organization can be very important. Also. identifying
family production units and larger social entities to which
they belong by a process of lineage reconstruction through
genealogies will play an important role. The study of
segmentation of families in a village makes possible such
lineage reconstitution.

Research as well as developmental projects when dealing
with long term orientation need to consider the evolution
family production units are taking. to consider changes that
are likely to occur that will affect the structure of these
units of production. Therefore. understanding the processus
of formation and segmentation of family production units can
help define ways for future development. That is to say. any
attempt to introduce improvements in social and economic
conditions of Serer and Wolof family farms and to engage the
participation of family members in community projects should

take into consideration the stages of family life cycle.

178

V- 5-“)
a." a.“ I

T....-.-.— — .- -'
impoltanCs of

Understanding processes and causes 0

Findings for Social Sciences.

H.
9.

family segment tion

fits the preoccupation of social scientists about family and

the direction of its
different from the idea
from the extended
where marriage
extended families

production units which.

families before splitting again.

family. if it exists. must
family in becoming“ or the
family that was“ to borrow

There is no uniformity.
direction of change of the
As a

no more insure security.

for socially interacting but

esch other whenever the

support. In

evolution.
of a definite

family to the nuclear
occurs as a breaking point.
dissociate

in their

response to economic conditions where

segmentation does prevent

resources available allows

other words.

Findings of this study are
direction of change

or conjugal family
Time and again.
form family

to separate

term. became bigger joint

In other words. the nuclear

be considered as either a “joint
remnants of a ”joint

Desai's (1964) definition.

even within ethnic group. of a

structure of the family.
the family can
families
also from providing supprot to
such a
to note that

it is important

separation of family production units does not mean complete

break up of jointness as

social and economic

parts of the social
relations

each other.

interactions.

considered

indicated by the persistence of

Despite segmentation.

family retain functional relations with

indispensable in the

179

context of limited resources that characterize Serer and
Wolof family production units.

Finally. segmentation. in the view of this work. is a social
event in the course of evolution of families. A social event
on which economic conditions have a great impact in
accelerating the process. Such an acceleration takes on two
forms. First. people tend to become economically independent
at an early age. Second. personal request and recommendation
are becoming the most important patterns through which
segmentation occurs.

Segmentation of farm families should not be viewed as an
obstacle to farming performances rather it is the reflect of

achievement motivation indispensable for development.

180

NOTES.

1/ Among these programs are. the Groundnut — Millet
Productivity Program. the “Terres Neuves” Resettlement Pilot
Project (Nelson et al. 1974) and. the “Unites~

Experimentales” Project.

- The Groundnut-Millet Productivity Program or Agricultural
Program (PA) was initiated in the early 1960's and. by 1972.
had involved more than 80% of the country‘s farmers through
the comprehensive Government cooperative and marketing
system. By distributing improved inputs. it hoped to
increase average yield but it was also designed to increase
the acreage under cultivation for both groundnut and food
grains. Besides supplying fertilizer. seed and equipment on
credit. it provided extension services and instructions in
their use.

- The ”Terres Neuves” Resettlement Pilot Project was
initiated as a program to develop methods and experience for
more large scale resettlement in the future. Over a period
of three years beginning in 1972. it was to resettle some
300 families from the overpopulated area of the groundnut
basin in the project area of Senegal Oriental region. It
would also provide extension and credit services to families
already in the area. It involved construction of feeder
roads. storage facilities and wells. and would establish a
central equipment pool for use by project farmers.

- The ”Unites Experimentales“ Project was initiated in 1969
by the French Institute for Tropical Agricultural Research
(IRAT) taken over by the Senegalese Institute for
Agricultural Research (ISRA). Two Unites Experimentales were
implemented: The Unite Experimental of Koumbidia in the
North-East of the actual region of Kaolack and the Unite
Experimentale of Thysse Kaymor/Sonkorong in the South-East
of the same region where is located a large majority of
Wolof respondents. The Project aimed an increase of the
level of production through the intensification of
agriculture. In that respect. a technological package tested
in station was proposed for implementation. It included
techniques such as ploughing. deep phosphate dressing.
destumping. animal traction. new patterns of crop rotations.
crop diversification. The Project also introduced peasants
to farm management techniques known as ”Conseil de Gestion“.

2/ The mean age of Serer respondents has been affected by 4
cases of young men under age seventeen who became heads of
production unit after the death of their father.

3/ Among methods used to determine the size of active
population of family farms. one can differentiate the norms
established by ISRA from the National Norms. Both present
advantages and also disadvantages. The method used in ISRA

181

has the advantage of taking into account the participation
of young people from 8 to 15 years old to whom is given a
coefficient of (.25) for a girl and (.50) for a boy. The
disadvantage is that the participation of women is in the
view of this work underestimated. Indeed. women from fifteen
years are given a coefficient of (.50) when men of the same
category are given a coefficient of (1).

National norms attach a man labor coefficient of (1) active
to both men and women between 15 and 60 years old. As
opposed to norms used by ISRA. there is no man labor
coefficient for people from 8 to 15.

4/It is important to note that family holdings are not
measured. Rather. farmers estimations of the size of land
they operate is relied upon for the Serer zone (by means of
the number of seeders. they were taught to estimate their
land). For Wolof respondents, most of them have had their
land measured during the grouping of land realized by the
Unites Experimentales Project. Despite redistributions that
occurred in the meantime. farm operators still have a good
sense of the size of their holding.

5/ In June 1964. a Law on National Domain was enacted that
gave the Government the right to use land previously
controlled by peasants. As stated. rights to land would
henceforth legally derive from the State through rural
councils. These rural councils could expropriate land that
is no longer being exploited by the possessor or that
remains idle for a given time. The Law aimed at reforming
some inequalities caused by the traditional system. Its
second purpose was to permit resettlement and development
projects.

6/ Plan de Developpement de la Communaute Rurale de
Ngayokheme. 1988.

7/ Plan de Developpement de la Communaute Rurale de Kaymor.
1988.

8/ Norms of equipment are established (Kleene.1974) in
terms of the nature of the equipment. the size of holding
and the type of draught animal. Thus. a seeder or a weeder
attached to a horse gives an estimated sowing capacity of
3.5 hectares and a weeding capacity between three and four
hectares. It is important to note that animals used by
family farms do not have the same strength than those from
the station that were used to establish these norms. Also.
it is common practice to use an incoherent cultivation team.
that is to say. attaching a light weeder to a pair of oxen
as they do not have the proper equipment.

182

9/ After wing. dependent members of production are given
days to WWDr their own fields. The remaining time they work
in the n 'diat igue's fields.

10/ Plan de Developpement de la Communaute Rurale de Kaymor
(1988).

11/ Plan de Developpement de la Communaute Rurale de Niakhar
(1988).

12/ Only production from collective fields under the
supervision of the heads of family farms are considered as
there is no rule compelling dependent producers to use the
production from their own fields for family food purpose.
Indeed if some dependents. particularly married dependents.
do contribute to family subsistence by giving part of their
production. it is under heads' of family farm responsibility
to insure food for the production unit.

13/ For the period considered. the price of millet (suna) as
well as that of groundnut did not change. They were
respectively 70 Fcfa/kg for millet and 90 Fcfa/kg for
groundnut.

14/ Side in Serer language is the title given to the manager
of a matrilineage owned herd of cattle. This role was given
to the oldest man of the lineage. There is social prestige
and influence tied to Side status besides the fact that the
herd is viewed as a sign of wealth.

15/ This is a Muslim feast during which there is a ritual
sheep slaughtering in commemoration of Abraham's sacrifice
of his son.

16/ s 1 corresponds to about 300 Fcfa.

17/ Paulo Freire (1970).

183

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albenque. D.
1974 “Organization du Travail dans le Carre Wolof.”
C.N.R.A. Bambey. Mai.

Baily. F.G.
1959 Caste and the Economic Frontier.
Manchester:Manchester University Press.

 

Bennett. J.
1982 At a Time of Enterprise North American Family
Farm Management in a Context of Resource
Marqinality“. Minneapolis. University of Minnesota.

Bennet. J.. and Melvin Tumin.
1949 Social Life New York. lfred. A. Knopf.

Blaikie. P. and Harold. Brookfield.
1987 Land Degradation and Society. Methuen: London and
New York.

 

Cattin. M.B and Jacques Faye.
1981 L'Exploitation Agricole en Zone Soudano—Sahelienne.
Montpellier-Gerdat.

Cattin. M.B. (Sous la direction de)
1986 Recherche et Developpement Agricole: Les Unites
Experimentales du Senegal. Montpellier: Cirad.

Collier. J.
1957 ”Photography in Anthropology”. American
Anthropologist. Vol.59, Pp.843—859.

Devanandan. P.D and M. Thomas.
1960 Changing Patterns of Family in India. The
Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and
Society. Bangalore.

Diagne. P.

1979 “Contribution a l'Analyse des Regimes Fonciers et
Systems Politiques Traditionnels en Afrique de
l'Ouest”. Bulletin de l'Institut Fondamental de
l’Afrique Noire. 32. serie 8: Pp. 845—887.

Diop. A.B
1968 La Societe Wolof: Tradition et Chanqement; Les
Systemes d'Ineqalite et de Domination. Paris:
Karthala.

1968 ”La Tenure Fonciere en Milieu Rural Wolof (Senegal):
Historique et Actualite.“ Notes Africaines # 118

184

Pp. 4.3-48.

 

Fallers L. A.
1965 Bantu Bureaucracy. Cambridge: W. Heffer and
Sons.
Faye.

J.
1982 Systems Foncier des Wolofs du Saloum. These de
Doctorat Montpellier/Gerdat.

Feder. E.
1971 The Rape of the Peasantry: Latin America's Land
Holding System : Anchor Books.

Forde. C. Daryll.
1956 “The Integration of Anthropological Studies”.
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
Vol. 78. Pp.1—10.

Forde. D. and Brown. R.
1967 “African Systems of Kinship and Marriage”
International African Institute. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Fortes. M.
1949 ”The Web of Kinship Among the Tallensi”.
International African Institute. New York
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fortes. M.
1962 ”Introduction“ in J. Goody (ed).
The Development Cycle in Domestic Groups“.
Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology. # 1.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Freire. Paulo
1973 Education for Critical Consciousness. New York:
Seabury Press.

Gastellu. J M
1970 ”L'egalitarisme Economique des Sereres du Senegal
Travaux et Documents de L‘OSRTOM.

Goode. W .J.
1963 World Revolution and Family Patterns. New York:
Free Press.

1964 The Family. Englewood Cliffs. N.J: Prentice Hill.

Gore. M. S.
1968 Urbanization and Family Change. Bombay: Popular

185

Prakashan.

Gough. E. Kathleen.
1956 “Brahman Kinship in a Tamil Village“. American
Anthropologist. Vol. 58. Pp. 826—853.

Gravrand. H.
1983 La Civilisation Serer. Cosaan les Origines. N.E.A.

Greenfield. S. M.
1966 ”Industrialization and the Family in Sociological
Theory“. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 67,
Pp. 312—322.

Greenhalgh. Susan.
1985 “Is Inequality Demographically Induced?
The Family Cycle and the Distribution of Income
in Taiwan”. American Anthropologist; v.87.
Pp. 571—595.

Hareven. K. Tamara.
1974 ”The Family Cycle in Historical Perspective:
A Proposal for a Development Approach”. Journal of
Social History. (Spring). Pp. 332—352.

Harold Nelson D.. et al.
1974 Area Handbook for Senegal. Second Edition.
Washington D.C: Library of Congress.
of Congress.

Harris. C.K.
”Farming and the Environment: A Sociologist's view”
to appear in Introducing Agriculture Extension. a
Publication of the Agricultural Extension Committee
of National Taiwan University (forthcoming).

Kault. C. R.
1956 ”Western Apache Clan and Phratry Organization”.
American Anthropologist. Vol. 58. Pp.140-146.

Lakshminarayana. H.D.
1982 ”The Rural Family in Transition”. Pp 41—
56. John. S. Augustine (ed). The Indian Family
In Transition. Christian Institute For the Study of
Religion and Society. Vikas Publishing House.

Lavroff Dmitri-Georges.
1966 La Republigue du Senegal. Paris: Librairie Generale
de Droit et de Jurisprudence.

186

Lericollais A.
1970 “Sob en Pays Serere: Observations Agcicoles”.
ORSTOM

1972 Sob. Etude Geographigue d'un Terroir Serere. Mouton
and Co.

Murray. C.
1981 Families Divided The Impact of Migrant Labor in
Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nayacakalou. R.
1960 ”Land Tenure and Social Organization in
Western Samoa”. Polynesia. Vol. 69. Pp.
104-122.

Tiang. L.. Sarr.D.
1985 “Reactions et Strategies Paysannes Face a La
Nouvelle Politique Agricole”. I.S.R.A.: Document de
Travail. (Janvier).

Parsons. T.
1965 ”The Normal American Family ” in Seymour. M.
Faber. Pierro Mustachi and Roger. H. L Wilson.
(ed) Man and Civilization:the Family's Search for
Survival. New York : McGraw Hill.

Pelissier. P.
1966 Les Paysans du Senegal. Saint-Yrieix. 1966.

Peter. R.K.
1987 The Persistence of Patriarchy Class. Gender and
Ideology in Twentieth Century Algeria. New York
Praeger.

Ralf. W.J.
1981 Development and the Change in the Wolof Social
Formation: Attitude of Primitive Communism
P.A.D.

Ryan. D‘Arcy.
1958 ”Clan Formation in the Mendi Valley”. Oceania.
Vol. 62. Pp. 257—287.

Sarr, D.
1984 ”Analyse de l'Evolution de deux Concessions de 1969
a 1983. ISRA- Secteur Centre Sud (Kaolack).

Sene. M.. M. Badji.
1990 “Sustainable Land Use Systems Research in West
Africa Sahel Countries”. Atelier. Sustainable Land
Use Research New Delhi. (10-12 Fevrier).

187

Tambiah. S. J.
1957 ”The Structure of Kinship and its Relationship to
Land Possession and Residence in Pata Bumbara
Central Ceylan”. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute. Vol. 62. Pp. 21—33.

Venema. L. B.

1978 The Wolof of Saloum: Social Structure and Rural
Development in Senegal. Wageningen. The
Netherlands: Center for Agricultural Publishing and
Documentation.

Verdier. R.

1965 “Chef de Terre et Terre de lineage: Contribution a
l'Etude des Systemes de Droit Foncier Negro-
Africain“; Pp. 323-359 in Etudes de Droit Africain
et Droit Malgache. Jean Poirier (ed) Paris:
Editions Cujas.

Waterbury. J.. Mark Gersovitz
1987 The Political Economy of Risk and Choice in
Senegal. London: Frank Cass and C. L.

World Bank
1981 Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: An
Agenda for Action. Washington DC: IBRD.

Worsley. P. M.
1956 ”The Kinship System of the Tallensi: A
Reevaluation”. Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute. Vol. 68. Pp.37-75.

188

Appendix # 1.

Guide for Discussion

Open discussiors about the different patterns of access to
farm operator status and. particularly. about segmentation
were held. one in a Wolof village. Thysse. and. one in a
Serer village. Sob.
The objective of these discussions was to have opinions
expressed and debated by those who already experienced
segmentation and by young men still dependent producers.
Heads of family farms were invited to describe the process
of family segmentation. its purposes. its patterns. its
impacts in the overall agricultural production and finally.
to describe the evolution it has taken and provide reasons
for such an evolution.
The following questions served as basis for discussion:
- Under what circumstances was segmentation occurring?
- Do you observe any change in:
a) the circumstances causing segmentation;
b) the patterns of segmentation:
c) the age at which people separate from the family farm
of their father.
— Since when are such changes being observed and how would
you explain them?
- What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of family
segmentation?
Discussions with dependent producers were centered on
questions such as:
— Why would somebody separate from the family production
unit of his father or from his brother's production unit?
— What advantages do you foresee that encourage someone to
have a production unit of his own?
- Are there circumstances that may discourage or delay
segmentation of the family farm?

189

Appendix # 2.

QUESTIONNAIRE

190

Cfl
,J
p.)
O
H.
.50
“D
U)
H
D.
(70
:1
l,
<
I" *1
Q.
(I.
:3
I”?
p...)
H:
F. I
IA!
0
I’ f
L—l
C
:3
(‘1
Q!
s
Q

 

l — Date of interview

 

 

2 — First/last name of interviewer
3 — Region

 

4 - District

 

5 — Village

6 - ID Number of the unit of residency in the village —-—
7 - first/last name of the head of the unit of residency

 

 

8 - Ethnic group

 

9 — Number of dependent households

 

10 — Number of units of production in the residency

 

ID Name HPU degree of relation to the

head of unit of residency

 

 

 

 

 

 

HPU. head of unit of production.

b.)

(.0

Unit of Production Card.

 

Date of interview

 

First/last name interviewer

 

ID unit of residency in the village

ID family farm in the unit of residency -————-

 

Name head of the family farm

 

Age head of the family farm
Number of dependent households
When did you become head of family farm? (year)

How did you become head of a family farm?

10 - Why did you decide to create your own unit of

production when you did?

 

 

 

Characteristics of the Unit of Production:

11 —Population Size

 

First/Last name Age Sex Status Relation to the Head

in the of the Unit of
UP Production

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

192

 

Land Holding:

.. .1
LU
s
C).

ed (ha)
i

U’ 1'
(D
rm
0 H.
h:
(D .
U)
(D
(Q
53 0'

after segmentation
total available

13 — Do you or someone else in your family farm

[II] DUI]

receive land temporary [:::J
— from the head of the residency? yes no
— from somebody else? yes[:::]no
if yes. specify the relation to this person ?

 

14 —How would you characterize the type of land allotted to
you?

dior deck - dior hur
.h— .

if other. specify

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 — What do you think of the quality of land allotted?

veryI good Igood [moderate] lmarginalllvery marginal

 

I

 

 

 

 

 

193

Equipment:

16 — Do you personally own any equipment for cultivation?

yes [:3 no [:1

if yes. give specifications:

 

Nature Year Modalities of Working Condition
Acquisition

 

bought borrowed pawn- works needs
ed repair broken

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If borrowed. specify from whom and your relation to
that person:

 

 

If you got it from a pawn not paid. specify from whom
and your relation to that person:

 

 

If no. how do you manage for cultivation?

[ borrow I

 

 

cooperative

cultivate
work

manually

 

 

 

 

 

194

If you borrow material. specify your relation to the
person you usually borrow from:

 

 

Pulling Animals:

17 — Do you personally own pulling animals for cultivation ?

yes [:1 ml:

if yes. give specifications.

 

Nature Year of Modalities of Acquisition

 

Acquisition Bought Borrowed Pawned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If no. do you borrow. and from whom (relation to the

person you borrow from most often)

 

 

195

Cattle:

18 - do you or someone in your family farm own cattle?

yes [:1 no I:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If yes. give specifations:
Nature Number Status of Owner in Mode of
the Unit of Production Acquisition
Off—farm Activities:
19 - Have you or someone of your family farm been

involved in off farm work these two last years ?

yes [:1

no CI)

 

 

If yes. indicate:
nature status person Period locality
activity in the farm outside farm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

196

 

our unit of production
these two last years ?

 

20 — Have you or simeone of y
migration from the village
yes 1:) no I:
If yes. indicate-
ID migrant destination status in the duration activity
family farm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

197

 

Interactions with Other units ofgproduction:

A) With the unit of production of Origin:

21 - Did you and your family continue living in the
residency of origin after you became head of a family
f a r m ?

 

Left Stayed a Still in the
Immediately Limited Period Residency

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 — Why did you decide to immediately create your

own residency ?

 

 

 

23 — If you stayed a limited period. were you and members
of your family farm eating from the same hearth than
members of the family farm of origin?

I never I rarely sometimes I often [very often

24 - Why ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 — If you shared meals for only a limited period

why ?

 

 

 

198

#6 — How often do you and your family visit with the family
of tie origin?

 

 

never rarely sometimes often very often

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27 — After you became head of a unit of production. have you
received any kind of support from the unit of

production of origin ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very
Often
.__—_.I
._____1
Food
Equipment
.u_____. .______ _______
Labor
Seed
Financial
...___. __ ~I———
Fertilizer
I—-—-J —— I—u—uu—
Animals

 

 

 

 

 

28 — If other. specify

 

29 — If none. give the reason (5).

 

 

 

199

30 - After you created your family farm. did the head of
the unit of production you depended upon advise you
or make suggestions in production matters ?

 

 

L..... .F_____1
never rarely sometimes often very often

L.__,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B: Interactions with Other Units of Production:

31 — Since you became head of a unit of production. have you
received support of any kind from a unit of production
other than the one yours originated from?

Yes: NOE]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32 — If yes. nature of the support received:
_____1 ,_____1
Never Rarely Sometimes often Very
Often
._____. L____L.
Advices—
Equipment
Food
Financial
Labor
— (fl‘
Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33 - If other. specify

 

 

 

200

L0
J2;
I

In case you received support from a unit of production
not originating from the same unit of residency. what
are your relation to that unit of production?

 

 

Knowledge Skills:

35 — How and where did you and members of your family farm
learn to farm?

a from personal experience within the family:

 

b through training sessions;

 

c through both personal experience and training
sessions:

 

d other. (specify)

 

 

 

 

 

— If (a). go to question # 40.

- If (b). or (c). continue with question # 35.

36 — Could you specify: the nature of the training. the
Institution which provided it. the period (year) and the

status of the person in the family farm who benefitted:

 

Status Nature Training Institution Period

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

201

NB_ask questions 36 and 37 for each training listed.

37 - What method of training was used?

 

a inside discussions;
I . . .

b demonstrations in the field;
.___.

c both (a) and (b):

 

 

d other.(specify)

 

 

 

38 — At what level of organization was the training done?
I H
a at an individual basis;

I _

b at the level of the family farm;

 

c at the level of farmers group of produce 8:

 

open to everyone in the village:

 

 

other (specify)

 

Ho:

 

39 — When was the last time you and/or someone of your
family farm benefitted from training (year)?

 

40 — How significant would you say the training received
has been in the performance of your family far ?

 

 

 

very
significant

not
significant

slightly
significant

 

 

 

 

moderately
significant

 

 

 

202

 

Justify your answer?

 

 

41 — In case you have personally never participated to a

training session. have you received advices from

someone who participated?
yes(2:) not:

42 - Would you say that with training. you would be more

successful in farming activities?

yeSEZ—J no:

If yes. what do think you would learn?

 

 

 

203

Performances:

 

43 — Were you able to satisfy your family needs of
food the two first years after you became head of
unit of production?

 

 

 

 

 

a never produced enough food for the family;

b produced enough for food only the first ye r:

c produced enough for food only the second y ar:
d produced enough for food the two first yea s;
,L__

e have always produced enough for food for t e family:

If(e) go to question # 45.

If(a). (b). (c).

give the reason(s):

 

 

 

44 — Have you produced
of the family the

produced enough
produced enough

produced enough

HM

 

 

 

enough for food and other expenses
two last years?

only in 1987:
only in 1988;

for the last years;

if (c). go to question # 45.

204

45 - In case you did not produce enough to satisfy your
family needs. what alternatives did you use to get

 

 

 

through?
a asked for food and/or financial support
b borrowed money and/or food from:
c worked for pay in another family farm;
. '——-1
d performed off — farm activities;
e pawn material for money:
f other(specify)

 

 

If (a) specify to whom?
If (b) specify from whom and the relation to this

person.

 

46 - Would say that you produced more than what you
needed for family food and other expenses during

the last two years?
y.SEZIJ no [:3

If yes. what did you do with the surplus ?

 

 

Kept it Sold it Lend it Support Other
at home to a relative

If other. (specify)

 

 

 

 

If you sold it. did you use the revenue obtained to

reinvest in your farm?

yes S no [:1

If yes. when was the last time you invested and what
kind of investment did you do ?

 

Nature of Investment Period

 

Seeds

 

Fertilizer

 

Bought new equipment

 

Paid for equipmemt repair

 

Bought pulling animal (5)

 

Rented land

 

 

Other (specify)

 

 

 

If not. what did you do with the revenue?

206

. - Generally speaking. what do you think about
gmentation:

do you or not support the idea that segmentation is a good

thing?

 

strongly oppose

 

moderately oppose

 

slightly oppose

 

indifferent

 

slightly support

 

moderately support

 

strongly support

 

 

 

Why do you say so?

 

 

 

207

"11111111111?