The development mechanisms of groundnut cultivation 1885 – 1970

/

UNITED NATIONS

AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMie DEVELOPMENT AND P LANNING

DAKAR

.

'

\ .

IDEP/REPRODU CTION/207

Original in French Tempprary Translation

TllE

DEVELOPMENT MECHANISMS OF GROUNDNUTJ

~L~'

CULTIVATION 1885 - 1970

/

::-.··.

BY

Mr ..

- s..

AXU

-·.

:p_

.:.:_~..!._ 970··

DECEMBER 19 70

', '

'·

IDEP/REPRODUCTION/207 . ,,Page. 1

,;_ .

. . . ^{; ~}

Tll~ , r~con~mic devèÎ~pment

ef Senegal

unde~

the coloniâl adnÎilhf3i±, t.ion

, ~ ~ ^{• • , , - • ; , • ·-. ·: • •.} ·," ·; ;· : : •• r • • , ' , ~ ^{: , : • • ,. ' J} • • : • ' • , • ' •

caLle ~v:r~ -decadaà .a.head. of that of thëf othe~ Franch

Weét .

.Afrtcan ier:I'i to:ries •

• , . . ' _,, .. . •.-·L ·-.. '··-' ·, • ..... . · .:·. .. : . . . . . .· : .... ;.- . . -~ _, · ·- :

We already know that the remarkable expansion of groundnut

: cul

^ti

va

t'ion was

··. · ... -.:: > :_ ::·:r . . . .: . ·, . ~. :_···. ·.• .: ~ . -· . . .. . . . . . ., . -. . . . . . --. . . ^{= : . . • . • .}

at j;he ;root. of ^t~i13 development. Large scala production of grouhdhüts ·star-

t.~d." i_~ , t~~ ~ ~~·éts se~ed

^by

raü~oads

^since

^{1 . 88S}

(the 18B4-8s

~~-6~ ··at~éaey:

^pro-

•. ··' . .: .. '·· ' .. :. ..:..-. . ' : . : . ~ .1. • •· •. :. ·' :. . ' • . . . • • . . ·. ,. "' •. ' . .

duced 45,000 tons of urishelled groundnuts), This increased, to

ovêr

260,000 tons in the good years preceding. 1914 and bëtween the t~o world ·~~rs; ·new aréa~

liera ^{: put}

under dul tivation, namely· .that. of the Sine. SaJ.Oitin re sul ting int~ a i-ecord ·brop of 6oo,Ocio· tons in ·1936-37.· ·· •From 195.0 enw.ards'' .cultiva- tfd:t{ was exterided

·ta

'the Casamance and East_erl:vSenegal .giving .the 're.oord c-:t'op of over one mi 'illi-oh tons i:h 1965-66. The growth curve for· .the years

1885. to 1914, after adjus1l1nent·, ·:ahews

· a.n

annual grow-th :I'~te. Pf

8..8%

w.L~ch, for

· th~"~e-ars,.19-~8 to 1940, wa.s 2.7%~ There

wM

n6 change until 1950, whenvarvery

high grewth rate (7~

7%)

was recorded ·for the ensuing decade, falling

.:to

41'o

in'

^{thè :196~-69 ·deè'Me ~} · This growth, ·as we already know, not only-a.ppaared

··~)

· ii: o '

^{h<i~e stop'ped}

a few

years

: ago,

bÜ.t also .. shows

. a.

d;enden.y to fall··,~:.a fact rE!vê:al;ed ±il" tlie· ieducti9r1 of the

aréa

^{ùnder -}cùl!tivation~ _; Suqh a clecrease .. ~ · .iS happening: for :t~he (fi.rSt time· 'irl the :-couritry' a. ~his tory, with .t'he ~xception

"Ôf thé war ye·ars;. · · .:, · · :.:.- · · _

Are producers

~i~~ng

up grounfulut

a~itivatiori

:..be'causë of :thé ·decrease in their real

purchasi~ po~ér ' ?

Th:Ï.s .fall

in rèai ' ~~êhasi~ ; pdwer

is due

p~tly

·

~~· ~h~ ·_·dèteri~i~ti~n

^ê

i~ :

-bhe .·

te~ms

of

t~ad.e

on "the

'IJ~rld

rhài'ket

in

recent yea.:rs. This is maae evèn worse f~r the grotindnüt pi-Odub~r by ~~c

· ±ncf.ea.se

in tiie

'·prides of·· importéd'goods, due to the, rise ,_in:.±mport duties w:b.iie; ori·· 'thé other · hanct; the I)urc·hase-·'cprice · i:n Dakar .. for,·. à kilogramme ..,f gro~dnut :fixed at

22.75

:f·r'àriés ·between ·19·59· ana·· 1965., · has been gradualiy reduced until i t reached 18 francs last year. How far is this .deterioration in the rurE!.l income connected wi th the problem of marketing organization,

·.· ' :

. ..

^;

. :

. ... ^; •..

·' .•

IDEPjREPRODUCTION/207 ,.

Page 2

and to what extend. d6es "collective ownershipi' of the latter account for the decline in production

?

Anfré "f,Jni.AEVERBEKE was qui te right when he said that "the initial increase in ,i;.L'Oduo.ti.c>Ji W~S:..:b.~s~~ Qp ]P,e ut~J.i:~~~;~O_If ?f _BU!';IÜ\]..S production

' -- -·.· ^{' .}

.

capaci ty•. The tradi

ttoriaf ~e-r~· .;a.s: - ~-~~a

wi tll ê- situation of "forced

le]_F~l.O:'e "• His abili ty to work, the land available and the agricul tural

'

.

^{' '}

.

^{' '}

techniques at his ,disposal would in fact have enabled him to produce more

th~

^he

.: d~d • .-

^{Once he}. had. produced enoÜgli food to satisfy his needs, he had no r_easo~ to,. pr~duce' more • The development of a transport ·and marketing

infra~truèt~e ·in the coloniai eu provid~d. ·a pote~1tial. outl~t for the -farmer*s produce, and th~.s brought about this ·initial growth without a

decrease in food production.

This type of growth could only be achieved as ~ong as land was

·-·.".

: available. ~ut, accordi~ t-c;> calculatip~s made, the full E3mployment of

one "unit of.labour" require·s -an area of land of 3• 75 hec1ares in the northern part of the groundnut growing a.rea, 2 hectares in :the Central paî-t and 1

.66

hectares in the Sererei a.rea, l:l,llowance being made for the

. . . ..

ddc.reasing average yi_elds _d~ to low.er_ ra~:flf~~ ~ one ~ov~~ so'uthW!U'ds.

In tradi tiona.l fa.rming_,_ the~.e yields would amoUll;t .. to 900 kg/hectare in

. ^' -- . __

. .

^{- ' .:. '}

.

^-

the South_, 700 in the Central area and 500 in.- the North • . _ ~ssuming 100 inhabi tants t~ be ~quiva.lent to 80 tiuni ts of lab_our" ànd one square kilt- metre to p,rovid_E}: ~0 he.ctares of land for cul tivation (account taken ef

· the foll6w-tea;rs ~~~ssary in tradi tional farining), i t does mean that_ the maximum rural population density that the country could support in tra- . di tion,al. :fa.rming is 27 people per square kilometre in the Nbrth, 50 in

the ée,ntral are a

and

50 in .the

Ser~re

^{area. -}.The se saturation points were reach~d in. the-H~rth between-1900 and 1910, 'in the central area, between 1920 and 1930

and

in the Serere a.rea bètween

1930 artd

^1940.

' . . ^~ .

The opening up of nerr a.rea~ relieved the bottleneck caused by land shortage. In the new are as, o.:pened up in the hinterland of the Saloum reg.ion b.etw.een the .two worl~ wars, labour was sca.rce and workers were

..

^~.·

^{•.. ; ...}

IDEP/REPRODUCTION/207 Page .3 ·

recrui ted. seasonally to cope with this situation. The annual figures fer

-.· . . ·.·

this seasonal ,l.apour we.re 6o~poo l)et:ween 1935 an~ 1940, 40,00<?_between 1949.a.nd 1958, fal~i~:Jg, ~he lowlevel of 11,000 between 1959, ~nd 1962 •

. . ... .

This type· .of lÇtbour d,isa;ppe.ared almost co~pletely when the permanent lee al

' -~ .1, -- • '. ' . •• ' ' • ~ •• ~-

··-.. :·. . ..

populatipn_. . of. the se_· new_ land~ _' >re.acped _{•. ..:} .ft _!.:. h.igher level. This l_{, . . . ,} abour contri-.. . buted:.

8%

of the grpundnut output ef Senegal between 1935 .and

between_ 1949 ·an,d 1958.

. '• ' ~-. --~ . . . . . : • ! . !, . -~ : ·. . . . . •

. -·-;_ ''!,.,. ·.f.

·. · ~bstit:ut.i:ng .the product-_{. ·-}- ^-~-ion of, gJ:ou.ndnut for that of mill. -. . . ^{. '} . ^. . . . et is ano.t;ll.er .. llie.fl.lls •of.·ensuring the full u.se of·the facto~s of _production. ·If

. . ^. . ^.. . .... ^. . _{. :::.}

"W.è' :tâke. into consideration th~ ratio of the average yield.·.::per hec_~are of

groundnuts ·to that of millet, which is 1.85 (850 kgjhe<?tare for

_ gro~dnuts .

. 1 .

and •460 f.or millet), _and the ratio of the amount of lap()~ the farmer should

. . ,_. ,

provide in order to cul tivate 1 l;lectare of groundnuts .to· that of millet -which. is. 1.28 (480

-~k~ng

- ^{~ .} hours for the

gr~undnuts

^{and 375}

f~r .

the millet), . .

the .subs-titution of groundnu1?s for _millet_ is. worthwhile if the ratio of

the priee par kilogramme of millet. (or a cereal.substitute) t9 the pri<?e per kilog;ramme of groundnuts. is below 1 .45. In other word?, · if the. f~rmer

· is paid

1..8

francs par k;i.logramme of groundnuts for i~stance, he. ma1i_ be·· tempted to substitute this crop i'or millet if the _rica sold_ t~-him (~

eq~aJ.

weight of rio.e and millet having the same nutri-tive

v~lue

^{- 3,600}

, calories to the kilogramme) costa lesa than 26 francs. If^·.- 'the farmer

. .

shoùl'd

. pau .

a higher priee for his rice (at :Present·_ the priee i s 45 francs)

....:• . ^{. .}

,; ''- it, is qui te rational for him to give up this substitut ion, that is, to

. ^. . . ·. . . ^. ... '

.

'

give prioriity~: t.o_;:t_P,e~_:;sa-t~~fa~ti~n of llis food_ reg_uiremènts.

Very little is known about the growth rate of millet and sorghum production. Between 1950 and 1960 however,

i

^t appe~r'ed that production reflf mained constant at around 320,000 tons (in an average year) resulting at best into a yearly growth rate of 1%, that is, a rate below that of the population. It would therefore seem that there had actually been a sub- stitÙtion of groundnuts for millet during this decade. This substitution did not seem to have occurred on a l arge scala before the second world war,

... 1

^~

. .

IDEP /REPRODUCTION /207 , .. Page 4

•<to

the growth in millet production b~ing apparently the same as the growth .of tho rural population • ..

0~

the other· hand'; if the figures

~~vail<ible

^·are

tp be."believed, the growth:rate of.millet production .would have been 8% a year ODe:nuaœ;Jge, be:tween 1960 and 1968. This certainly accounts f,or the

\

return to food pro~uction, clearly not~ceable these last few years.

:~

Improvement in yields became necessary as population densities reached their. highest levels. Until 1950, farming techniques r~mained

practically the same •. The effort made since .then, consistê·d in reducing the labour ·forée: oy malçing use of animais apd by rais.-ingl, th~ yieid per' .··

.hectare through a more extensive u~e of better quality seéds and of fer:...

tilizers. Theoretically, the éorrect use of the sowing-machilif3 ··and the animal drawn plugh enables the same labour fdrcé to increase the amount of

•

land cultivated from 1 to . ~ ' .. .1.5 hectares. Thèse implementa were widely used during the last ten yea.rs, azid the same applies· to selected seeds. Wïth the rational·. use of fer·tilizërs whfch has :i.nc±-eased froiii 21 '000 tons in

.· . . ''• ; : . _.t.

1962 to 48,000 tons in 1967, it would.be possible to increase the average '

.

yield per hectare by

5o%·

shouid land be available

1

the Senegalése farmer could increase the area of his fal:'m from _{'i .} 3 to 4·5 hectârés· while the annual expanses resulting from the modern:i.zation of farming'methods would he

18,000 francs if he extendshis farm and 13,000 if he cannat do so. From this, it follows that, if aki.logramme of

gr~'imdnuts

^{sella at} 18 francs, modernization is a really al tractive propo~ition to farmers. oniy if lands are availabl.e in are as of adequate rainfall (Central and Sou the rn regions) as shawn by the follo~ to.bl~l-ë~~ff.tiHiH~dœEIŒ:

,''::·.

,·! f;\ . .: _{:., .}

\_,· . .

·., ·.

·' _.,·'

... 1 ...

'

•

•

"'Il

• '

IDEP/REPRODUCTION/207 Page 5

Yield per Gross

income

Expenditure

hectare

(kg.)

(000 fr) (000 fr)

Tradi- Moder-

~ional

nized Assump- AssumP- AssumP- Assump- AssumP- farming farming ti on ti on ti on ti on ti on

I II III II

III

Nort hern

region 500 750 28 61 40 18 13

Central.

region 700 1,050 38 85 56

18

13

Sou the rn

region 900 1,350 49 110 72 18

13

Ass~ption

I: Tradional furming - a farm of 3 hectares

Assumption II: Modernized farming - (optimal agricultural programme)- a farm of 4·5 hectares

Assumption III: Moderntzed farming - a farm of 3 hectares.

The benefit of modernization is measured by the difference between the increase in mncome (in relation to that accruing to traditional farming) and the e.xpendi ture. This bene fit which is not

al

ways obtained, varies between 13

and

88% of the income from traditional farming, as the case may be.

Profits as a percentage of traditional income:

~en-v::r:::J

fl<mtral Region

·

Southern Region

Assumption II 53%

76%

8~

Assumption III loss

... 1 ...

'

1 . .'

IDEP/REPRODUCTION/207 Page 6

On the other l;l.and,_ i t is .. worth not~ng that a . change :from tradj, tional to moder,rufa.rming_ :requires

;;m

.l,.ilcf~ase in the man-hours worked, and this

... ~ :, . . . ' . :. .

.

^{. '}

would qe at least. .35% for a farm of _{, ..} 3 h~ct~es and 5o% if it covers 4·5 hec-

-. . ':. . ~ . ^{' '·.} . .

t.ares (weedi~,a.Ildspre~ing_ of·,fertilizer~, 1,1pkeep of aniq1als et~!). Owing to the. deorease in the_.m~ginal ,,Productivity of labour.in changing .t:~om the extensive methode to :the r.elat~vely m()re. intensive methode o:f modern.farming,

. . ' •.• ' ~ ••. , • . • . . • ~ ~ :. ; . • .. " ' . < ;

.the real·wage·pe:r day in the northern area falls, in the case whe:re an exten-

·-. ··-~' . ' . . . ' .

sion of .the farm i~ not possible (due to the rural population pr'essura)' and

. . . ..•. : . . ,· :. .· /. . .

r,e~a:~~ ]lract:ic~ll! ~~h~:ed eyen if thi's erlenaion.~is, .possible •, :In:· the ' eentral. .and southern areas, ,moderniz.ation, in the :be.st P.oasible cases, brings about .. a.n improvement of onl;y 20% to 25% in the dail;y wage rate.

.. " . . ~ . . ., .

Economie incen:t;ives t.o ad.opt ·modern method,s Sfe, therefore, relatively mild. Modernization, however, became essential once the objective was to expand· production of the country, that is, once it was affirmed that the

"development" of Senegal ahould be based on groundnut P,roductio:n. The resulta of this modernization are therefore debatable. In a welr' watered 2.nd sparsely populated region, that is in the newly cultivated regions, mechanization has

. ) . .. -

unquestionably brought about an increase in per capita outpuiJ (~.LÜ., .~v~n a modest increase in wages}. However, in the densely popu1àted arèâ, this

increa~e

in pDoductinty has either caused the fallow sYstem of. oultivation to be ignored (and has thus compromised the future) ôr celse has ~eleased

surplus labour and.caused a swelling in the ranks of the ürban unemployed.

Besides, as we ghall see later, it has constituted a powerful force of social change towards a concentration, of farms, .. in the hands of big land- oWriers.

In fact, the decisive factor

in

the: eitension bf, gr .. o'Wldnut cul ti va- t ion has been the development and th~ improvement of the transport. system.

Sea freight ..

oha+g_~s

which, between 1890 and 1900,

amoun~e.d

to 11% of the CIF value of the

gro~~~~s r~achi~ :

^a

~op~~ p~rt ~ h~a ·

^been':gradually b·rought -down to

5%

ⁱⁿ 19.27~28 and t.o 3.5% in 1958-59. The,._real oost o:f

inland transport has also be.en oonsiderably ,~educed (sinçe 1925), by ::3Ub- sti tuting lorries in the place of pack animals :t:or the transp~.r_i; _of the

... 1 .. ..

'

IDEP/REPRODUCTION/207 Page 7.

; .

i ...

;g.tbt.mdri~ts

from the fa.rms to thé inarke;!;ing.

ceritr~

(this cost 'was 'reduced

... ..

by more tha.n half l:lâtwë'en

192.5

^ènd

1935:

frbm

2<1%

^to:9%

of ' -tfè -JEU.ue

^of'the

gr6und.imts at the nia;kêti:ng

~~rttre

^for.

an ' a;eraJ~ ' dùrt~ce

^·.of

2o

^.kilométras) • Cost were further reduèed by

the

^{cc\nst~t ..} improve~érlt ~f th~ ro~d ~·network and the' better sérvicing of t:b.è "Îofries ·.: (r~a\ibtiÔn

· 6;

^{the real cos~ by}

^8Cf/o

/ between

1935

^and

1965), arta

^:finaliy,

by

imp:roving .the r~lway

lhiéa · ·

'(reduction. in the real · cost of.hi.Ù

transpo~t

^by

4s%

between 1900 drid ·1"962) •

. . Jt'Ji-p;~- ~~s'~d.·

^{iri the CIF .value · of the}· e:Jr.ilorted product ....:

Eur~pean

po;rt, the ·real costs ·of·

±rtrdila

't;ranspo:rt have 'been

~iri~d.

^hetween

1890

and

196s;··~l:>y"6o

·tn 80'fo1 dèpen<li~Q:'

on

^{the ·a.re~s:of} p:r:odlic-tion.: "

Ini~d tr~apo~t

^an0.

"'~~fre:i.ght chaxéiës (

^aa

~ -p~~c~rit13€e

^{v ...}

· - · · · CIF

^{Y.alue of}: the exported prod-uct - .!!it.<X-opcail/ port}:

.':.:.-' .

. Area of product:i,op

~ ne ar . the. rail wey.

station ·

r .i <

at 20 kilometree

· · ·from the :r~üt~a;y

s-tation · . . ... at :1.QO

kilomatre:s

.. from_ .t.h~ .ra:i..lwa:y

· ·

-~-tàt1àn

· · · ·

. :::_~L ..

189~1900 '

16

35

56 ·

t...· ;. ... : . . • 7 .

:.: ··.·;

1965

10

25 . .10·5

_..:

1·5

35

^{... 10.5}

. '

U~der

thesè ;boriditions groundnut'cultivation, which oquld hardly be carried out in areaa not liriked by ra'ilway in the nineteenth ce~:tw::-y,

hai:l'' beeri prac.tically e~i;~nded

t.o

all. pa.J;'ts of the country, even,. the remote ones ...

. UN.BALANCEb TRADE ID

·THE DETERIORATION IN THE SENEGMESE· .

. ]'ARMER'· S WAGE

The senegaXe~è- fàrmèr¹ s effort· t'o satisfy the .t"équi.re.ment~:L of' -'F_he

"wor ld m·ârketit-has bee ri very ·;po orly re"'farded by the l-atter. The_: priee of groundnuti:l _;~x~&ssed in constant v~üue . did · ~ot :de·teriorate in: a_, clear and consistent way as it is sometimes rather hastily said. This real priee has

• ,

• •

^f

~ . ·~ ·'·:

IDEP/REPRODUCTION/207 Page 8

been relatively stable between

1885

and

1914,

allowances made for the normal flu:cturati.ons in the world economie conditions •

. There was a· hea,y depression between

192.5 ·

and

1940,

followed by a

strict. control ··~f ^·priees until

1950,

correspondirig to a very law level of

th~ ~e~ ·ms oi t~ad~

.:(1anging between

50

and,

66%

^of· what they

viere

in the

· ~ear

_.

é ~etweEm· 188o·:

Md

19J8,

The guarant'eed priëe system instiiïute'd in

1952

..,. '.· . '

; an,d mâl.ntained 'i.mtil recently, resülted in France,. paying, .from

1952'

to

1965,

. . ^{' ·. \~,:} ' . . ' :_' : : •' ·-· : ' . ^; . . : ...

. ^.:,, ,:·· ~-

àn "exoë"ss prioeii in relation to world priees,. this 'alinciunting to 4'~2 billons

CFA :' f:~:~~s· a

^{year on· average.}

Howev~r·/

^thiS''

a~2lint

was partlaliy oountere . bai~ced \iy an "excess priee ¹¹ paid by Seriegal on i ta imports from ·France,

e~~iÏnated at 2".2 billions a year on average. This system of relat'ive-ly }:i.~e·d noniinal priees paid to the fariner· (fixed ·at

21

francs in

1953,

in:- .

c;;·~as~d

^to

21.76

ⁱⁿ

1955,

^to

22 .. 75

^iri.

1959

and reduced to

18.40

ⁱⁿ

1967)

:-· : .. ·: f· -.• ' 1 ·: : • • • • . • • • • : •• •

' c.~rtailily. d'id not preverit a.· marked deterioration ·'in the terms of trade ''d.1fr.i.ng the last decade, sirice priees of Senegalese i'mports increased at the

same rate as French priees did. But we started with worid priees in the

f~f~ies,

whioh were

3à%

to

·5~

higher than those of

1938.

This deteriora- . tiori. in the terms of trad.e was about

2C/fo

between

1957

and

1966

anci· will

. ;-~ .. ;: :i .. : .. · . . .

probablyworsen when the European Economie Cominunity (EEC) decide!i! ·to

.'.:, ... ,;

bring

it.e

priees in line wi th "world prfces". Howeve·r, the tendenoy for the terms of trade to get worse in recent years was probably concE)aled by the difficul ties which Nigeria, Senegal' s'.major rival on the worlO.. market, had to face during the civil war which':r:uined.. her. Therefore, thè'·deterio- ration in the commodity terms of trad(:f was

'oniy 2a{o

between

1880

and

1968

(the trend showing a slight decrease ·

o:f-0,.2% ·

per annum).

1:... . .. • ..

But i f .the, relative_ pri.ce of grou~d.nuts has b.een; roughly stable

· ... ^:... ... . ;~: _;.

during. th~.

90

ye.ar~ this. produci;ion, has be en going on, there !1as. been a

cpns;i~enttY

^{.s ..} trong deterioration .in .the double

f~~'tori~l t~;~~ of'

^trad:e

·

.:(~ol!lmodity.: t~:rml:l

^of

t~ad-e

x the lab,o:ur

productiv~ ty

^,index;

i~ , .s~~egal/

^the

laboUr prod~ctivl.ty index in France) which measure the chaDges in the . amount of la.hour used in the production of an "imported basket¹¹ •• of g~o.ds

·in 'axc}f~~ .~O:t;' the variable quantity of grotindnuts obtained "Ytith a cons- tant amount of Senegalese labour.

1

IDEP/REPRODUCTION/207 Page . 9

•

l

•

While in France, labour

productivity

increased regularly and con- siderably, in

·

Senegal; the only positive achievement j,.n groundnu,.t production up to 1950, was in the field of transport •

.

However· , later

: .on,.

there was a slight improvement in the labour

productivity

ofthe ground.nut farmer.

According

_

to the calculations of VANHAEVERBEKE, the double factori

al terms

of trade for

. Sanegal ("the real wage rate obtai,nQ..Qg in the rural are

a is used as the basie") -base year 1'935 = 100 ... deteriorated at the very high rate of 4.2% a year on average betwoen 188o and 1968, the

.

index faliing f;rom 320 in 1911, to 186 in 1929 and 53 in 1957. This deterior&tion

shows a.n

ever•inceasing imbalance in trade, the .latter proving detrimentA.

l

to the

. :. .

Senegalese farmer who hardly receiv:ed,

in

terme of the value of the commo- dit;ies e.xchanged, one seventh of what he used to receive lesa than

a

cen-

... '

-'··

t'IJXY ago. Wi thout this ever-increasing imbalance in trade, that is..,._

wi

th-

. . . . . ' . 1

out thQ constant devaluation

.of the Senegaleae labour, the co~~odity

terme

· . of

trade of Senegal

.

should have imprqved considerably, and the groundnut priee paid to the prçducer (in terme of real purchasing power) ought to be

&bout six times higher

tb.S.n w)la.t~.it ~s

at present. Although this result may seem surJ:>risi,ng, i t

.

is not at all

.. etrange. .

If the unshelled grmmdnu.ts were bought from the farmer at 100 francs (instead of 17 francs)

and de~

livered to the oil producers at 105 francs

~transport

and marketing costs

.

being 4.25

fr~cs)

instead of 32

franc~,

the priee of groundnut

oil

would

increase

.two and a ha~f

times,

~he

groundnuts representing 65% of the priee of the oil and ether expanses (wnges gross profits etc.) :-remaining un- changed at 35% of. thiS

:

J?,rice •

. This readjustment would simply bring the

priee of gro}llldnut_.

o~l

in

_

line wi th that. of olive oil and walnut ail.

Axe

there, in t.h. e

_ comp~ativ~.

intrinsic

_

value or

thE~se a.:t:r.r~J.·•:mL GCL't.l.0 OJ...l.s a.ny

reasons to justify the present differences in priees ? That is what econo- mie "the ory" attempts to make us bele ive, the argument being purely a tan- t.olOgica.l one, since c6nsumers

·¹¹

agree" to pay for these differences in priees, it is be-cause the ''value" of

'th~se'

commodities di'ffer. Of coU.rse; it is

not alw8\}'a added that the French consumer in 'the nineteenth centu.ry used

i. · •.. 1 ...

:. : ·.·

•

• •"

IDEP/REPRODUCTION/207 Page 10

walnut oil and thàt. :he .. was: :pex.suaded.:.

t . o .

use _gro:u.ndnut ..

qiJ.. . .

(aince

~ : :.. ~· ·, . ~ . ' -~. . .. : : . . , ~ . 't ': • . r

this could be obtèJ.:n:ect"'chèâ.ply iri ·afr"ica 'whera··rju.ni~~s

were

made to work at a much lower wage rate) by being .told that there lias nothing. 'ibetter" thun

~roundnut oil. ~~~ay, h~ is beingmade to believe, in the S2J'Ile manner, thau olive oil ~a much.,~tt~?r··· In fact, .olive oil sella .deaner because the

Europ~an fa.rmer has to ·be paid a mo_re satisfe.ct()rY wage than the Af;rican p~o-

ducer.

.. :·· We only have to ma.ke a ~ough estimat.e of the volume of Senegalese farmers' income transferred to France as a result of this deteriorat~on,

in order to realize the e:x:tent to which the "world market mechanism" can in fact, _be regarded as an instrup1ent of robbery~ For, if the total output of g?oundnuts l:t.aa a :present day valué of about 15 billions CFA Francs to the

' '.

producer, in 90 years, Senegal will have tranaferred about 1_,800 billJ.ons CFA francs at current value$! This re:presents the difference between the amount ~e was paid and that he should have been paid if the commodity terms

. of trade had al tered in such a 1-Jay as to remunera te the comparative incr~asse

. i~ labour productivity (graph and calcul~tion attached). This vory l arge · amount representa an averuge of 20 billions a yea.r at current value spread

. ' . .

ove~ the given period, for a population which, in the middle of that period, hardly exceeded 2 m,illion. This gives a figure of 10,000 CFA Fr1mcs at

·'·

.cu;rrent value per Senegalese. This astronomical sum of 1,

800-

billions CFA Francs forbids any conclusion other than the following: groundnut c1.Ù tivation can never contribute to the devolopment of Senegal. It has rather brought about her spoliation, leaving her in a state of under development.

·i.

t

IDEP/REPRODUCTION/207 Page 11

,,-:•,'!\'.ll¹R.ANSFORMATION OF THE .SOCIAl! ,§TRUCTURE AND.:.::·

. . !!T!ONALIZATION OF COMMERCIAL EN~ERPRISES,

. . .. . ^{. . ;} :, ~ ., . ' ~ '

··· The.;

ë~~st âht

deteiioration in the real wag0' of

the

Sénegalése ...

.. fa~mè~ ià~·· dÊÙayed >the':· establishDo.nt of. real capite.list ~:r'icuitU:ry;Fei1te:r-=-.

prises~ This·'wils sb, because the minimum '-rage paid to workel''s

in

^the

agfi-

'btirti.iral sectO:r~· ^{absorbed,· 'undèr ' the'} condi tions;of déterioràtiari•

lZl .

the; re_;;

lative priee of groundnuts, all the revenue which could be derived f;rom modernizat-i6~. · This obviously remàv~d the profitability' of' capital invest- menif iri' ~rièdit·Üre. ^{" ··-·· -,_, -:, ···}

·.- ' · .. ^{·., '}

, In this_ res;pe~t, i t is often claimed that the development of 'moderiî .

struct-q:re~ -

ⁱⁿ

~agricui

^ture 'have been made impossibie by too high w'agb's • . it

\.. :;., • • •. .;. ~ ^{• .:.. • . . . . • ·''. • ; •• • : ., ; ••• - :·".. • •• :} : •, ... • • • • : ' • ·; ,. ~-- ^_; ~ ^{' • !. • • •}

~. •' ' t.'

•

is. a ,fac,t . ~l:Lp,t th.(;)_ d_evelo~ment of a proletaria~ class has boen hindored by the

presë~c~ -o~

^{st,rorlg .sqcia:i}

st~uctures

which, untii' the'

: ~~es e nt

^tiino,

haa

... .: . -'· . . .. .

maintained the right for overy village_:member,-eve:ri ror·-thdSè

whù

h~.,;,e b)'ft "

,

' t~~JF 'vii~~e,, ~o .'culti~~~e

a plot of ,land. Aware of the

- pos~ibilÙy

^of

re.t'lU'ning to the village, the A.frican peas_a.nt has ·been better able fo resist

~-· • • ~v . •'· •

the. threat of unemployment than his feilow worker i'n ~ther regionl ;of th~'.·

··' . -· ·. .

_Third World.. Be cause of th.e soliu. tradi tionaJ. structures, t:hè ·w-orke;s of

•.. . ,. -. ,. ~ .

.

^{. . '·._;}

Black l~frica haye.largely escaped the starvation wagea common in th·e·-_Jirab, Asian .. and, L11ti:ç.

:Al!Jeric~

^world. This is certainly not '.'a -bad

th~ng"

^for

Africa.

9n

^the

~~ntél,cy,

it has worked in its favour • . Without this ·,i:lim'i-i;ir i~;posed on capitaL domination, candi ti ons would. h~ve bee n'' the

sa.nle - -

·hêré as e1sewherEL.in the Third World. Following the deterioriation -ip-thë real earnings

~ :~f exports~

wages would

~ave

been reduced to 1

~ l~~ei w~lf

^be1ow

subsistance rate, in other words, wages would have been at starvation leval.

The road being barred to a capitalistic form of development, it is not surprising that the new structures of social organization which accom- panied the development of the groundnut industry have been of the "feudal"

type. The taxable surplus being small, the only possible distinct form

.... 1.

^{~ ~}

i

•

• •"

!:DEP/REPRODUCTION/207 Page 12

of social or.ganization.-. is one .. that would ensurè the spreàdi.ng ·of thé ta:x: · over a .large. rural pop~lation. The organization of the Marabout· brother- hoqds fulfils t~is conditions" D~spite the widespread neture of this -type · of soqia.l o;rganizatio~, a belated and restricted group of small câpitalist land.;..o-vmers has appaa:r;-ed..-· Modernization .. has followed in this directiotL. ·

. . . . ·.· ... . ... ,~.4. , .. .l-:~ ... -~-· · -··-·· . . ,. -· ........ - .• ·' ···•· ... • ... _. -~ .... -

'

Tlie ·faèts have

r~futed.

the iialidi ty of' the ¹¹ideal'¹ of'

equ~l :P~ ~gro ss

throughout the rura.i ¹ebonomy;: ·a na:i:lte fè·at'Îlre

~ot=; thé·;_, c·o!Ilffion: · lci~-61·6~y · o:ç;: whi~h

rur.arl devel9pmemt programmes have been based in Senegal; as elsewhere in Afri.c.a, . p~t~.culq.r_ly . in French-speaking · Africa •.. Here, as elsewhere, real···

pr~gre~s.. has :been.· followed by distortions and has been ablê to niake a hèad-

way qnly,.;thr.Qtl.gh i>P:e -development of .agrarian c.api'talism. In Senegal~ this: ·

capitalism ~.J!péars ,to h<we only superficially contributed to the iné'q-Ua.li- ··

ties :ï:.n the ac.tual ownership of land .and in the development of a proletariat class. • .. ·This. ·pattern, which ·appears to be very similar to the agrarian ·. capi:t;4if;lm c:whioll developed in the· coast al forest zones· (Ivory Coast, .Ghana, · Gulf· of Benin, Cameroon and the Cdng), is tot ally different from tliat which : developed in the islamic, dominated savannah lands stretching fl'om · Sê:itègtü to the -Red ·saa. , .In the ground.nut growing ··area here in Senegal·, there· :tas been more concentration of wealth in the- forni of ownership of the mearis of produo.tion (tractors·and other equipment) which .the principal beneficiaries

o:f:-moderni:aation have accumulated nnd .which they hire out to the less for--

tunâ.te. How could the co~operative:s, fulf:tlling . their :true function; have favoured this concentration 'Of 'wealth ? Who are the beneficia,ries afid --how do modern forms of class distinction differ from t:r?aditiona.l struotùree· ;-~

(castes, tri be~, marabouts, et?,,~:·.),? " The se are in fact,, import~~t-,ques-

tions. _:'

Al thotigh little is k:rlown .. ;aqout the quantitative aspec.t of>big -lri.nd··· · ownership, theTe.is no doublt.that ,the.latter exista. The·agricultura.l survey of·.19.60-61J! ·although 'o:.ttdg.ted, indicat.ed the close relationship

••. 1·

Studied, amongst others, by C.DIARASSOUB.A .(in his thesis) and

by

B. DELBARD ("Les dynamismes sociaux au Sénégal¹¹~ IsEA, DlùCJlR 1966, pp.19 to 30-and 102 to 110).

IDEP/REPRODUCTION/~07 Page 13

betwéeh the concentration of farms (:i?.a.ticularÏy on lands 'newly brought under cul tiva.tic)n)-and equ:lpinent and ca.ttle; ·as a measure of wea.l th and the appanrance of a semi-salaried labour force

(25%

of the labour. force on farms of more than 15 hectares..:. which a.lready co"')"er about 14%.of the le-nds under

. .

cultivation) ·since then, even within the co-operative' system, the inequali- ties .have greatly inoreased,_ .since the. co-operatives' _pbjective is to _pro- mate the .:i.wl~v~dua.l ownership of egU:ipment by the farmers.

At the eame · time as co-operatives have been estabiished the goverh-·

ment has -:set· about bringing marketing under i ts own coritroi. There is · :O:o · doubt that the establishment of the 0

.c

^.A~ (.Agricul tural Marketing

Bure au)

ans"rered the · expectations of the farmers. The European-owtied coimnercial enterprises had alwàys, be'en the main instrument of colonial expilwi t"ation of :the rural are as. This was effBctively the channel through which was achieved the sizeable deterioration in the relative priee of groùnanuts.

However, the establishment of a gO'vernmental orga.nizations for the train- ing of rural superVisory staff, the allocation of CTedito and the markuting of products brought about, at an early stage, an ambiguous situation. The objective of the organiiation was two-fold but contradictory, on the one · hand, the liberation of. the farmer from colonial exploitation, but on the

other, the transfer to the Senegalese goverhment, of that part of the sur- ··

plus: which had not been squeezed out by private commercial firrns' (ool,onial;:

to a very large extent), with a view to finéincing the over-all devel opmont of the country, in other words, make the ·rural areas pay for this 1evelop- ment a.t least partially.

However, government control of markéting wàs carried out too late in fact, when the latter had already lost most of its one-time substantial profitability.E" :till fa.ct, u:P to the fifties, the late development of French capitàlism

had

^resulted•in the control and domination of the "colonies"

\: ~· .

by very ordinary groups of me-tropoli t"a.n capi iia.J.ists, partîctiié!i-ly by the old trading companies of Bordeaux and Marseille. This trading ca.pi tal

. ^~

.

^.

... 1 ..

~

• •

IDEP /REl':RbDUCTION/20L \-.. ···:

Page 14

was--allowed t9 · rp.a~e 1a.rge profits in the cqls:mies. But. ~ince. t1:J.e fiftief:l, the modernizat~s>P of France as li~ll as. the sl:J.arp compati tion between French capital and th.~j; of the other much more advanced members of the European Coi!UP-on Market (~specially Germany).caused France to become the dominant fin.a.ncial centre. ·The old colonial co)ll.panies hnve gr~~dually lost their relatively f?rge ·importance • The ir profit margina hcve been c~.t deWI) by the more d.yp.amic sectors, a faqt rofloctl)ddilnnthQ'='raccnû1ida.llioïBio!tl;;:.t.t::,~YJi;o;."~

the terms of · trade ("thé adjustmerr:t; to WÇ>rld priees ¹¹) • In order to faou 11P to this adjustment, attempts to raise produc~ivity in groundl;lut production and tra.ns·port, have been systema:tically undertaken since 1950 ( through modernization; and infràstructure development projects).

By the time it was nationalized, marketing had already lost its one-time profitability. This explains why the colonial companies allowed the business to be taken so eaJ?;i.ly: o.ut of t.heir hands. The government has neverthel.ess freely taxed,: tb,e rural -q.x:eas -thro~h the public marketing

organizations. At .. present;; tr:ansport and. !ll8fketing costs amount to 4•25-·_, francs per kilogramme of -unshell~d, ~oun.dnuts, whereas the priee paid to the farmer has gradually be en reduced. from 20 to 17 francs. But groundnuts

: \ . : . ~'

· are sold to the oil produc~;r-s at p~ioes which vary according to "world trends" ra.nging from ?_6

t~32 , : fran6s\n ~ec~nt ye~s

(world market priees

. . . . . . .: ^{-.; ~} : ... ~ .. . . . . ..

hay~pg be_~n particularly ,"advantageous" during the ·last few years as a re-

: · .. '. . '· ··:.; . -. --^{... .:} . -\. ~- .· ^' ,;_, ' ' . ^.•

sul

t

of. the. difficul t.ies experienced by Nigeria - main cvmpeti tor to Senegal

<i~e -~~ - ~~~ ' ~ivi·i _ ~ar i~ th'~t - ~ountry).

^The

Grou~ùln~t ·.-·st~bilizati ~ n Fund ·

' ;'. ··-; _.· ~ ~. . : : . -... ::~ ·. /. ~ . . · .. -. . .:' .. : ~ i. , * : .. . . ··::. ~~ y ~ ' . . . .~ . ) ~ ...

has thus had a profit marg~n varying between 2 und 10 francs, depending on t}le year.-·

h-o~

^1965-66

t~

^;1'9·68-69 the Fund thus

:.~~, c~ulate·ir'· ^{6 : .5} ,b.:Ï.i1:i:'6~~

·~~1~. ~~:Piil~ -~ ~idéli .iL~s ·

^be'9n

J~e:d

to support the pub;i.ic

Trea~ury,

^·is1

~uite

su~s~ant.ial -, h_a:Vi~ ·~-~de ' :{-t'p~:ssible

to finance

26%

··;/public invGstrnent (IBRD

H~~ort

197o,'··' !>.54:..5.5). ··

. ! ' -. ~-.. ' ' .··_, . . . . .. ·•

. ^...

However, i>he contradiction betw~_en the natio:pal objective anq. the candi tions im~osed by~ foreign capital _d9mination ( ·res~ting , in· ,thG F~fl~ction o.f the priee of groundnuts) could only l_f3ad to an imppesib~e._. situation. ·

.... 1 .. .

IDEP/REPRODUCTION/207 Page 15

Sùch a pol±cy'of taiation of the rural areas is always difficult to im- plement • It;-' is evéri more s6 ·in Africa, · fragmented as i t iii and most of all in Senegal: ·the "accident of history" wi th respect to the Ganibia. makes it impossible to carry out this l>olicy if,· intheGambia, groundnuts are bought a.t ahigh·price, In fact, auch is the casé: it is·quite natural · for the Senegalese farmer to refuse to sèll.his ·groundnut at

17

francs if he ·can sell it' a.t

30

francs on the other aide of thè border, which is '

:P:ra.ctically impossible to control, It is a.lso qui te natural that he should prefer to crush part of th~ groundnut himself, by using primitive :utJLlivd.t.:,

and to sell.his·oil directly to customere. This is more advantageousto the extent that the savings'onthe tax paid to the government moi-è than compensate for. the losa sustained by using primitive methode in ccntrast to indl:lStrial processing,

The oil producers; having based their policy on the emphasis plu.ced on "groundnut specializati0l'l¹¹·in Sénegal and having brought·their c:tushing capaci ty up to ··a million tons; ·thus fall ¹¹victim" to this rational refusal of "the Sene'galese peasants • . The re sul t is the present cr isis.

In addition, the natio.nalization of marketing has attered social relationships in the country-aide. Under the "private enterprise ¹¹ syste.m

. . .

of ma+k~ting, big landownership was tostered

by

intermediate African trad9rs who acted as colleotors on behalf of the colonial commercial houses, the Lebaneee and the uaurers, often working in oo.:..operation w'ith the village

notable~ {marab~~ts,

traditional chie:fs, etc • ."). \iith the

~overnmet

^taking

..

over marketing, old relationships were replaced by new ones and the

~fu~ini. strative

body (for ailocati.ng credits, collecting the

prod;u~ts,

^etc)

: ~ .

took t.he place. _of private traders.

. ·~t - ''·· •..

The ~ministrative body and the big land-~wners. both co-operated and competed with each ether in sliaring the

. '

surplus. Thus, it is not surprising that there is a general opposition to the governmerit contr~l · of the marketing systein. Having grown rich 1'ri th the hèlp of the àdminis'ti-ative body, the big land-owners thought i t was time ta' gat. rid.

df

the yoke placod upon them by. the r~.t:t:9:t'o ·:~ nave alread.y

"t-r:i.tnessed such situations in the Third World, in Tunisia for example •

. . . 1 ...

• •

r . ^{• ••}

_IDEP

jREPRonÙCTION /207 \

Page 16

But in auch si~uat~ons, "the return.to private ~nt~rprise" runa

tho .risk of bei~ a "false .solution". Either the re-established private

,. ~-.. · ..... i... ;· ., .

enterprise can buy tha gpoundnuts at a higher priee than that paid by the

• ·: . 1 •'. ..: ••.• : ~~-• f. . ' . . •

government at present, in which case, the g~vernment leses the prcfit mar- gin which·now goes t6 the Treasurjr, or elsa ·the·'fit margin is reta±ned (by speci<tl indirect taxation or ·a:ny other method) and the farmers continue to

"boycott ¹¹ the aBle of grol.mdnùts.

TlΠRE.AL AGRICULTURAL SCOPE IN SENEGAL

Colonisation instilled the belief that the soil in Senegal was only suitablè for the production of groundnuts. ·For a whole century, all

attempts at developrnont were centred almost entirely on grouridnùt proouc- tion which was provid~d witli an infrastructure that does riot· have its equal ·a.nY'where elsa ·.in Tropical Africa. All agriculturB.l. resea.rch '(thè

IRaQ· centre.: at Bambey . is a ole ar· example) has been concentrated

on

grouriCl..;,

nut.

It is however quite_ ole ar that real agricul tural soopo . ~n Senegal lies. ~-J,sewhere • . In fact,. three regions in

11he.

country hava -real agricul-

. ^~~~~~ . ^.

tural scope: the Hiver valley are, the Niavrelll and the Lower. and Central. Casamance. If .. the billions inve~:~ted. in infrastructure' for groundnut pro- duction

had

been used for. the development . of irrigation infrastructure _in the three ~egions referred to, intensi~e cultivation and modern farms

••• •• • • ..J ••

could have been daveloped on a very large . scale iri the se regions: .rico, suga.r cane .and cotton (u~ing modern inten~~ve cultivat~ot:t ·methoqs~ giving high .;r,ie~ds) rich crops (vegetabiE?s and fr.ui ta and oil palm trees in thE(. .

Casamance). lUth regard t9 the presen~ gro~dnut growing _nrea, the :),.and is not especially sui table for groundnuts.. It could be used instead for inte~siva modern stockbreeding (including the growing of fodder cropi

. : . . . . . '· ..•.

beetroots etc., rotating these crops with the cultivation of millet and

gro~~uts'

making use of. the by-products auch as oilcakes' and i"b.o'

~aste

products from flour-milling o.nd fishing which, at present, are .. wo.stes}..-.···

.... 1 ..

~

.. . . . .. 1

IDEP/REPRQDUCTION/207 Page 17

In addition to these activities~ there is the important sea~fishing

industry for-~hich the co~sts of Senegal offer exceptionally great scope.

. . . ^·, . ~

There are certainly technical problems related to these, but they have so far never been seriously stud.ied.

~ .. '"

Nothing h.::.s been done with,respect· to these alternatives simply b.ecause. the ~other country did not envisage the development of. the colony but rather used it for her own needs: that is, to provide the French con- sumer with extraordinarily chaap oil which involved underpaying the labour of the African farmer • ' ...^• .... ""~-·^• . ^J ~ ^• ... . ^•

The mistake has been to carry on wi th specié1lization in g:t'oundnut production which continued even after independenqe. In.fact, for 10 years the main effort has been in this direction. Foreign technical assistance he..s largely influenced this strategie choice and Senegal has f,_,iled to .

giv~ due priority to the training of proper economiste, capable :of pr~pu.r­

ing a. development. strategy. To-day, the country is p13-ying heavily_;for ·:., this short sightedness.

The result has been

an

^extremely low real growth rate which the I'BRD has estimated, for agriculture proper, at ~ per annum'~. ( a-t-~-eenstant priees) between 1959 and 1969. In contrast to this, the rate of growth

for stockbree·d.ing and fishing was 6.1% par annum, and for all three together$

agriculture, stoèkbreeding and fishing, the growth rate was

3.o%

^{per ~~um}

(or 3 ~-':!fo per · annum ·at ourrent priees).. Taking into account ·the demographie growth thé~pèr capita growth rate turne out to be practically zero (0.5 to 0.8% a year )Jjstill, t-he Third Plan mairite..ins grbundnut production as a

priority and proposes-for 1974 the target 1 ,450,00o·tons of grbundnuts.Toda.y t :üs target appears, ·more· than ever~ ·impossible.

Howevor, attempts have been made to develop other fields, giving promi~ing resulta in spi te· of meagre resources • . Ther~ have· bée~ attempts to follow-up tra.di tional efforts in stockbreeding (~a ter deve.lopment 'tor

./

j}

IBRD SuriJey on Senegal 1970 Table 9

' .

. _.,

• •

·"~~ ..

~

. -

-~

. IDEP/REPRODUCTION/207

.

Page 18

cattle, vaccination, etc.) which have resulted in a rather high growth rate. In addition, the fishing industry has doubled its production

(1959: 73,000 tons, 1967: 133,000 tons) without too muoh efforts. But the development of the regions in which irrigation is

~ossible

has rema ined inadequate in relation to the needs and the potentials. On the c

ontrary

"diversification" ia taking rather different and debatable aspe ct, namely cotton-growing, introduced in Senegal in 1963 and yielding

about 10,000

tons in 1969. But this is the kind of crop that can be compared to ground- nut in that it is "poor", ita priee depending on the "world market" demand, and its prospects falling (competition from synthetic textiles, etc.).

Countriea "speoializing" in this crop (Tchad., C .A.R., etc.) toda.y have much the same problems as Senegnl with her groundnute.

Stagnation in agriculture, which hae been

develp~d

along lines un-

auited to the natural resources of the country but in aooordance with the

needs of the metropolies and the "world market", has constituted the main

drawback to industrialization and development of the whole c

ountry during

the last 10 years.