final workshop report march 29, 2011

Conseil des Organisations Non Gouvernementales d'Appui au Développement
Christian Aid
Sicap Liberté III, Allées Khalifa Ababacar SY-Villa n° 1983-BP : 4109Dakar –Sénégal
Téléphone : (221)33 824-41-16 / (221) 33 824-44-13
Fax : (221)33 824-44-13.
E-Mail : congad@sentoo.sn – Site web : www.congad.sn
Survey of agricultural financing in Senegal
from 1980 to 2010:
Advocating increased budget appropriations
Final Report
by
Daouda Diagne
April 2011
1
Contents
Introduction
I.
PRESENTATION OF THE SURVEY ........................................................................... 7
A.
B.
THE CONTEXT .................................................................................................................. 7
THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY..................................................................................... 7
1. The overall objective .................................................................................................. 7
2. The specific objectives ................................................................................................ 8
C. THE EXPECTED RESULTS .................................................................................................. 8
1. A main result .............................................................................................................. 8
2. Other results ............................................................................................................... 8
D. METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................... 9
1. The framework for analysis ........................................................................................ 9
2. The approach.............................................................................................................. 9
E. CONDUCT OF THE SURVEY ............................................................................................. 10
II. SUPPORT TO AFRICAN AGRICULTURE – A POLITICAL WILL EXPRESSED
IN MAPUTO IN 2003 ............................................................................................................ 11
A.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL OF MAPUTO .................................................................. 11
The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) ............. 11
NEPAD ..................................................................................................................... 13
B. THE MAPUTO DECLARATION (2003) ............................................................................. 13
1. Allocating more than 10% of national budgets to agriculture................................. 14
2. Achieving a 6% growth rate in agriculture .............................................................. 14
1.
2.
III.
THE MAPUTO COMMITMENTS: WHERE DOES SENEGAL STAND? ....... 15
A.
OFFICIAL SOURCES INDICATE THAT SENEGAL HAS EXCEEDED THE 10% RATE ............... 15
Senegal is one of the Top 8 (best ranked) ................................................................ 15
Focus on 2006 .......................................................................................................... 16
B. OFFICIAL SOURCES INDICATE THAT SENEGAL HAS REACHED THE 6% GROWTH RATE .... 18
C. ANALYSIS OF THE FIGURES BY ACTORS ......................................................................... 18
1. Analysis of the growth rate from official statistics ................................................... 19
D. FAILING BUDGETARY CONTROL ..................................................................................... 20
1.
2.
IV.
FINANCING OF AGRICULTURE: ANALYSIS OF EVOLUTION BY MAJOR
PERIODS ................................................................................................................................ 21
A.
A REMINDER OF THE SITUATION BEFORE 1980............................................................... 21
The State finances rural development through an “agricultural program” ............ 21
Establishment of a mentoring system ....................................................................... 21
Structuring investments ............................................................................................ 22
Mitigated results ....................................................................................................... 22
B. FROM 1980 TO 1997, THE WEANING PERIOD .................................................................. 22
1. Withdrawal of state funding for agriculture ............................................................ 23
2. Farmers left to themselves........................................................................................ 24
3. The era of letters of sectoral policies ....................................................................... 25
4. Low and unstable Growth rates ............................................................................... 26
C. FROM 1997 TO 2000, THE REVIVAL OF AGRICULTURE ................................................... 28
1. The return of the agricultural program.................................................................... 28
2. A Funding Mechanism for Agricultural production ................................................ 29
3. Diversified products ................................................................................................. 31
4. Constraints and opportunities identified by CNCAS................................................ 32
5. A banking system still failing ................................................................................... 33
1.
2.
3.
4.
2
D.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
V.
FROM 2000 TO 2010, THE RETURN OF PUBLIC VOLUNTARISM ........................................ 34
Developing agricultural business to replace family farming ................................... 34
Interventionism in the financing of agriculture........................................................ 35
A series of special programs .................................................................................... 35
The Great Agricultural Offensive for Food and Abundance (GOANA)................... 35
The desire to establish a rural bank or green bank ................................................. 36
Analysis of the results ............................................................................................... 36
STAKES AND CHALLENGES OF THE FINANCING OF AGRICULTURE ...... 39
A.
B.
A DESIRE TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL FUND FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT ...................... 39
FUNDING THE NAIP ...................................................................................................... 39
1. To be mobilized ........................................................................................................ 39
2. A NAIP focused on production and productivity ..................................................... 40
3. The need to take gender into account....................................................................... 41
4. The need to increase official development assistance in the agricultural sector ..... 41
C. CHALLENGES TO TAKE UP.............................................................................................. 42
1. Demographic Transition and job creation ............................................................... 42
2. Water control............................................................................................................ 42
3. A financial system adapted to local realities ........................................................... 42
VI.
MAIN LINES FOR STRATEGIC ADVOCACY ................................................... 43
A.
MORE AND BETTER INVESTMENT IN THE AGRICULTURE ................................................ 43
1. Invest more resources ............................................................................................... 43
2. Better investment ...................................................................................................... 44
3. To reduce poverty ..................................................................................................... 44
B. TO PROMOTE AN INCLUSIVE DIALOGUE ON THE FOLLOWING STAKES............................. 45
1. Strategic Challenges ................................................................................................ 45
2. Resources to be mobilized ........................................................................................ 45
3. What steps to follow? ............................................................................................... 46
Conclusion
3
LIST OF TABLES
Tab. 1 : The different levels of institutional commitments of Senegal .............................. 12
Tab. 2 : Key macroeconomic indicators, 1960-2000 ........................................................... 26
Tab. 3 : The financing of the crop year by CNCAS (1997 - 2002) ..................................... 30
Tab. 4 : Financing of agricultural production campaign by CNCAS (2001-2007) .......... 32
Tab. 5 : The macroeconomic indicators from 2001 to 2003 ............................................... 34
Tab. 6 : Breakdown of the Investment plan costs by program .......................................... 40
Tab. 7 : Breakdown of investment Plan costs by sub-sector .............................................. 41
LIST OF FIGURES / DIAGRAMS
Fig. 1. Development Process of NAIPs ................................................................................. 12
Fig. 2. The 8 countries that allocate over 10% .................................................................... 16
Fig. 3. Compliance with the AU / MAPUTO Declaration on the 10% .............................. 17
Fig. 4. GDP structure by sector ............................................................................................. 19
Fig. 5. Structure of primary sector GDP (% of GDP at current prices) ........................... 19
Fig. 6. Comparative evolution of the growth rate of agricultural productivity and the
rate of inflation ............................................................................................................... 20
Fig. 7. GDP growth, 1960-2000 ............................................................................................. 27
Fig. 8. Variances between applications and achievements of CNCAS funding ................ 30
Fig. 9. Comparative development of areas and grain production ..................................... 36
Fig. 10. Ever increasing imports of cereals in Senegal, from 1997 to 2008 (CFA F) ........ 37
Fig. 11. Evolution of agricultural products exports and food products imports from and
into Senegal, from 1999 to 2008 (CFAF) ...................................................................... 38
4
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BSD
CAADP
CERP
CNCAS
CNCR
CSOASP
DARC
DERBAC
ECOWAS
FONGS
GIE
ISRA
LOASP
NAIPs
NEPAD
NGO
NLL
PAS
NPA
BNDS
OCA
ONCAD
OP
PASA
PBDD
ASIP
PNVA
PREF
PRIMOCA
PRSP
PSAOP
RAIP
REC
SAED
SODAGRI
SODEFITEX
SODESP
SODEVA
SOMIVAC
SONACOS
WAEMU
WAEMU
WB
WTO
Senegalese Development Bank
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program
Polyvalent Rural Development Centre
Caisse nationale de crédit agricole du Sénégal
National Council for Consultation and Cooperation among Country Dwellers
Board guidance agro-silvo-pastoral
Centre regional development assistance
Rural Development Project in Lower Casamance
Economic Commission of West African States
Federation of NGOs of Senegal
Economic Interest Group
Senegalese Institute for Agricultural Research
Guidance on agricultural forestry and pastoral activities
National Agricultural Investment Programs
New Partnership for Africa's Development
Non Governmental Organization
New Lands League
Structural Adjustment Programs
New Agricultural Policy
National Development Bank of Senegal
Agricultural Product Marketing Board
National Board for cooperation and assistance for Development
Farmers’ Organization
Sector Adjustment Program for Agriculture
Statement of agricultural development policy
Agricultural Sector Investment Program
National Agricultural Extension Program
Economic and Financial Recovery Plan
Integrated Program for the Modernization of Casamance
Poverty Reduction Strategic Paper
Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations Program
Regional agricultural investment plan
Rural Development Centre
Senegal river delta development company
Agricultural Development Company
Textile Fibers Development Company
Development Corporation in forest grazing areas
Development and Agricultural Extension Company
Corporation for the development of Casamance
National Company for the Marketing of oilseeds of Senegal
West African Economic and Monetary Union
West African Economic and Monetary Union
World Bank
World Trade Organization
5
Introduction
This work is part of an initiative taken by CONGAD for a participatory advocacy campaign
on the financing of agriculture in Senegal. The survey benefitted from the technical and
financial partnership with Christian Aid. Moreover, the conduct and monitoring of the survey
were performed by a steering committee composed of various actors.
The mission is presented through the context, objectives, expected results, methodology, and
conduct (I).
The second part presents the context in which commitments were made in Maputo in 2003 by
African governments to support African agriculture (II).
The third part sums up the situation as to what extent Senegal has met its commitments (III).
Then an analysis shows the three major periods of significant changes in the financing of
agriculture in Senegal from 1980 to 2010: from 1980 to 1997, the period of weaning from
1997 to 2000, the return of agriculture and from 2000 to 2010: the return of public
voluntarism (IV).
Afterwards, the stakes and challenges of agricultural financing are presented in an analytical
form (V).
Finally, based on the previous analysis, recommendations are made in the form of two main
lines for strategic advocacy (VI).
6
I. PRESENTATION OF THE SURVEY
This survey was conducted from the end of May to the end of June 2010. The various aspects
of the mission are presented briefly: the context, objectives, expected results, methodology
and process.
A. The context
This survey falls within the scope of a CONGAD initiative in partnership with Christian Aid
for a participatory advocacy campaign for increased budgetary appropriations by at least 10%
of the State Investment Budget, in accordance with the Maputo commitments.
It should be recalled that the Heads of States and Governments of the African Union (AU),
meeting in Maputo, Mozambique, from 10 - 11 July 2003 have pledged to provide support to
agriculture in order to ensure better investments. In West Africa such a promise can be
fulfilled on condition that a regional investment program and national investment programs
are elaborated and implemented.
A steering committee was set up to ensure proper progress and monitoring of the survey. The
committee consists of officials of various institutions including Conseil National de
Concertation et de Coopération des Ruraux [CNCR (the National Concil for Consultation and
Cooperation among Country Dwellers)], Forces Paysannes, Fondation rural de l’Afrique de
l’Ouest [FRAO / WARF (the West Africa Rural Foundation)], Action – Aid, etc.
The advocacy campaign must have as its backbone a set of relevant and realistic proposals
that will be made to the following stakeholders: farmer’s organizations, civil society
organizations, members of Parliament (especially those seating in the Agriculture
Development and the Environment Committees), Government, technical and financial
partners, funding institutions. That is the reason why this survey was conducted in order to
provide a baseline and an analysis and relevant proposals on which the advocacy will be
anchored.
The advocacy is justified in many aspects. The majority of Senegalese farmers are
smallholders. They face a climate that is a factor of insecurity. They are excluded from the
banking system and are underpaid. Exogenous shocks amplify an already difficult situation.
Rural areas are becoming depopulated.
Smallholders must be better supported and any limitations on government funding of
agriculture would be an important vector of weakness. Indeed, the state investment budget is
the main instrument for financing agriculture. It is, therefore, essential to conduct a plea based
on an analytical baseline and strategic pathways.
B. The objectives of the survey
1. The overall objective
Under the terms of reference the objective of the survey is «to establish a baseline on public
financing of agriculture in Senegal from 1980 to 2010." The survey should enable CONGAD
to "undertake advocacy based on relevant and realistic proposals addressed to the stakeholders
(producers organizations, civil society organizations, parliamentarians (in the Agricultural
7
Development and Environment Committees), Government, technical and financial partners,
funding institutions."
To this end, several specific objectives were defined.
2. The specific objectives
Are as follows:




Specific objective 1: Identify and analyze the financing needs of the agricultural
sector from 1980 to 2010 ;
Specific objective 2: Identify public and private mechanisms for financing agriculture
and analyze their actual contribution levels to cover the financing needs of Agriculture
from 1980 to 2010 ;
Specific objective 3: Establish a baseline on the financing of agriculture in Senegal by
budgetary appropriations from the state investment budget from 1980 to 2010 ;
Specific objective 4: Identify advocacy areas and make operational and realistic
proposals and recommendations for increased budgetary appropriations from state
investment budget in favour of agriculture.
C. The expected results
They are of several kinds.
1. A main result
A main result is expected from the survey and it reads:"a report which will update
consistently on different aspects related to specific objectives".
2. Other results
The other results are successively broken down:
 Result of the overall objective: Advocacy conducted in partnership with farmers'
organizations, local elected officials and parliamentarians as well as dialogue for
allocating to agriculture at least 10% of the State investment budget of Senegal are based
on a reference document.

Result of specific objective 1: The analysis of funding needs and their coverage generates
disaggregated information and gender-specific needs, mechanisms and deficits for proper
consideration of stresses in areas of advocacy.

Result of specific objective 2: Lessons learned from the analysis of practices, strengths
and weaknesses of the public and private financing of agriculture on a sequence
characterized by re-adjustments related to the political contexts and a change of regime
with the alternation, which occurred in 2000, are capitalized and reflected as well in
identifying areas of advocacy as in the recommendations and proposals related thereto.

Result of specific objective 3: The analysis of the evolution, in both absolute and relative
terms, of budgetary appropriations from the State investment budget of Senegal in favour
of agriculture takes into account the impact of structural adjustment programs and changes
in public policies characterized by re-adjustments related to the political contexts and a
change of regime with the alternation which occurred in 2000.
8

Result of specific objective 4: The Main lines for advocacy are defined, with relevant and
realistic proposals and recommendations, with a view to inducing policy makers to
allocate at least 10% of the State investment budget to agriculture in Senegal.
D. Methodology
The proposed approach will make it possible to determine main lines for advocacy following
a strategic analysis of the financing needs of agriculture, rates of coverage, strengths and
weaknesses of the financing mechanisms, taking into account the changes in context. And
recommendations can be made to arrive at the formulation of relevant and realistic proposals
addressed to the various stakeholders targeted by the advocacy. The methodological approach
combines different approaches: a literature review, field surveys, an analytical overview
followed by recommendations and faithful reporting.
1. The framework for analysis
Different lines of analysis are selected and by bringing them together it will be possible to
highlight the major trends in funding from 1980 to 2010. The analysis will be carried out in
connection with the changing political context, adaptation or non – adaptation of funding
mechanisms, majors trends and strategic issues for the financing of agriculture in Senegal.
a) Different lines of analysis of the financing of agriculture in Senegal
Are as follows:
-
Funding needs of the agricultural sector from 1980 to 2010 ;
Funding mechanisms ;
Levels of actual contribution to the financing of agriculture ;
A baseline on budget allocations for state investment.
All stakeholders will be consulted to know their views, positions and vision regarding the
future of agricultural financing.
b) The developments, trends and challenges of agricultural financing
Lines of analysis will be brought back in their political and socio-economic context. They are
to identify changes, trends and different challenges for the future based on ambitions,
institutional commitments, current policies and prospects.
c) An advocacy strategy for agriculture in Senegal
From there, main lines for advocacy are identified and realistic operational proposals and
recommendations are made for increased budgetary appropriations from the State investment
budget in favor of agriculture.
2. The approach
The methodological approach combines different approaches including work sessions with
the Steering Committee, a literature review, an analytical synthesis followed by
recommendations. The survey consisted of four (4) phases:
 1. A preparatory phase ;
 2. A literature review phase ;
 3. A consolidation phase through investigations ;
 4. Synthesis and recommendations phase (writing, discussing and finalizing the
report).
9
A FOUR-PHASE APPROACH
1.
PHASES
2.
3.
4.
Preparatory
Literature Review Consolidation through
investigations
Synthesis and
Recommendations
 Interviews with the
Steering Committee.
 Identification of the
 Surveys: Analysis of
material ;
practices, strengths and
weaknesses of the public and
 Analysis of the
private mechanisms for
literature on financing
agricultural financing;
needs, the public and
private financing
 A situation of
mechanisms and
coverage of financing needs
coverage of financing
for agriculture from 1980 to
needs for agriculture
2010
from 1980 to 2010 ;
 A consideration of
 Taking into account budget allocations from state
the changing political
investment budget
and socio-economic
situation.
 Pieces of
 An analysis of practices,
information
strengths and weaknesses of
disaggregated and
public and private financing
gender-specific are
of agriculture;
collected:
- funding requirements  Information is collected
and their coverage
and processed.
- the needs,
mechanisms and
 A briefing note is being
deficits ;
prepared
 Synthesis of perceptions
of different categories of
stakeholders;
ACTIVITIES
 The understanding
of the mission is
aligned ;
 methodology and
tools for collecting
thereon are validated
RESULTS
 The areas for
consolidation are
identified
 A baseline on the
financing of agriculture in
Senegal through budgetary
appropriations from the
State investment budget
from 1980 to 2010
 Establishing of a
baseline on the financing of
agriculture in Senegal
through budgetary
appropriations from the
State investment budget
from 1980 to 2010;
 A report is prepared and
the syntheses and
recommendations for
valorization in the advocacy
campaign
E. Conduct of the survey
Period
Monday, May 31, 2010
in June 2010
in June 2010
July-August 2010
Step
Activities
1.
Preparatory Phase
2.
Literature Review
3.
Investigations

Interviews with the Steering Committee

Identification and analysis of literature

Inquiries
4.
Summary and recommendations


Summary and recommendations;
Preparation of1 draft preliminary report
10
II. SUPPORT TO AFRICAN AGRICULTURE – A POLITICAL
WILL EXPRESSED IN MAPUTO IN 2003
The year 2003 is now a reference to African agriculture as it marks the adoption of a major
initiative, the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP). Upheld by
sub-regional and continental organizations such as ECOWAS and NEPAD, the program has
implications for all African countries including Senegal, which have committed to better
support their agriculture.
A. Background to the Appeal of Maputo
1. The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development
Program (CAADP)
The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) was developed
under the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) to focus investment on three
interdependent "pillars" likely to change things in Africa: (i) extending the area under
sustainable land management and reliable water management systems, (ii) improving rural
infrastructure and trade capacity to improve market access, and (iii) increasing food supply
and reducing hunger.
Adopted in 2003, in Maputo, the CAADP gave further impetus to the process of formulation
of the agricultural policy for West Africa. The CAADP is a collective vision of the African
continent, placing agriculture at the center of the food security strategy and the fight against
poverty. With a stated goal of 6% growth in agricultural productivity and financial
commitments of at least 10% of national budgets, CAADP aims to be the basis of policies set
at national level, and subsequently at the regional level. For this, it offers states a common
methodology based on a diagnosis of the situation, an analysis of blocking factors, an
identification of sources of growth and their impact on poverty alleviation, and finally an
estimate of funding needs . To operationalize the ECOWAP and the CAADP, a regional plan
of action 2006 - 2010 was developed in 2005 by ECOWAS.
The implementation of the CAADP through national agricultural
investment programs (NAIPs)
In West Africa, the CAADP is implemented through the Common Agricultural Policy of the
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAP) which identified the priority areas
shared between member states.
A regional plan of action 2006 - 2010 was developed in 2005 by ECOWAS. This will include
the formulation of national agricultural investment programs (NAIPs) in each country and a
Regional Agricultural Investment Program (RAIP).
The process is finalized by the Government's submission of a charter to all partners of the
agricultural sector: the private sector, farmers organizations, civil society, technical and
financial partners. The signing of this charter, called the ECOWAP / CAADP Pact, "confirms
the commitment of the Government and its partners to make the NAIP, the role crucible of the
set of strategies for agricultural development at country level.
After signing the RAIP in November 2009 in Abuja, the National ECOWAP / CAADP Pact of
Senegal was signed at the National Roundtable on the NAIPs in February 2010 in Dakar.
Source: the Regional Agricultural Policy of West Africa: ECOWAP - Making Agriculture the
lever of regional integration, ECOWAS, December 2008, 12 p.
11
See the document: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/01_ComCEDEAO.pdf.

See the ECOWAP / CAADP National Pact of Senegal : http://www.interreseaux.org/IMG/pdf_Pacte_PNIA_Senegal.pdf
See Regional Partnership Pct for the implementation of ECOWAP / CAADP signed :

http://www.bureau-issala.com/Fichiers/Pacte-fr.zip
Source: /
Fig. 1. Development Process of NAIPs
Source: Benkahla A., / Oxfam, 2009.
See the document: http://www.interreseaux.org/IMG/pdf_Oxfam_OP_dans_construction_Ecowap_fr.pdf
It should be recalled that in addition to Maputo commitments, Senegal has made other
institutional commitments at different levels
Tab. 1 : The different levels of institutional commitments of Senegal
Level
Texts
Frames
Global
WTO (Agreement of agriculture)
ECOWAS
African
NEPAD / CAADP
African Union (AU)
●
●
WAEMU Committees
●
ECOWAS Task Force
Sub-Regional:
●
WAEMU
●
ECOWAS ● Agricultural Policy of ECOWAS (ECOWAP)
National
agricultural policy on WAEMU (APW)
LOASP
National authorities
D. Diagne, 2010
12
The agricultural policy of WAEMU (APW)
Senegal is a member of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), which
was established in 1994, following the devaluation of the CFA franc. WAEMU has adopted its
agricultural policy (APW) in December 2001. The objectives of the APW are to:
•
Achieve food security;
•
Increase agricultural productivity and production;
•
improve living conditions for producers.
Agricultural policy of ECOWAS (ECOWAP)
Senegal is also a founding member of the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS), founded in 1975 and whose treaty was revised in 1993. The overall objective of
ECOWAS is to integrate the economic activities of its Member States.
ECOWAS adopted its agricultural policy (ECOWAP) in January 2005. Among its objectives
are to:
•
ensure food security of the rural and urban population of West Africa;
•
reduce dependency on food imports, giving priority to food production; to promote fair
trade and economic integration of farms across all markets;
•
develop human capacities, create jobs and guarantee income upstream and downstream
production, and contribute to the development of rural services in order to improve the living
conditions of the rural populations;
•
contribute to providing the West African agriculture with funding mechanisms well
adapted to the diversity of holdings.
It should be noted that the ECOWAP is a nodal point for implementing the agricultural
component of NEPAD (CAADP) in West Africa.
2. NEPAD
Senegal is a member of the African Union, successor to the Organization of African Unity
(OAU). The African Union aims to eventually create an economic and monetary union. It
should be noted that in 2000, Heads of States of South Africa, Nigeria, Algeria and Egypt,
joined by President of the Republic of Senegal, gave birth to a final document called New
Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).
NEPAD has the ultimate goal to bridge the gap between Africa and developed countries. It is
a pledge by African leaders to place their countries, individually and collectively, on a path of
growth and sustainable development, while participating actively in the global economy and
politics.
Since 2002, the West African Heads of State have given ECOWAS a mandate to coordinate
and monitor the implementation of NEPAD in West Africa. Thanks to this decision, NEPAD
has contributed to the emergence of a single center from programming regional development
in this region
B. The Maputo Declaration (2003)
Major partners in the agricultural sector have approved the Comprehensive African
Agricultural Development Program (CAADP) as contributing to reducing food insecurity and
13
poverty in Africa, and one of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which is to halve
poverty and hunger by 2015.
1. Allocating more than 10% of national budgets to
agriculture
to ensure the availability of appropriate resources for such a project, the Maputo Declaration
(2003) of the African Union has urged all AU member states to increase their investments in
the agricultural sector, up to at least 10% of the national budget before 2008.To assess
progress in this regard, the AU and the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD)
have all agreed to adopt the expenditure in the agricultural sector as a proper variable for
evaluation.
2. Achieving a 6% growth rate in agriculture
Still according to the report, rising public investments will have to be supplemented by the
private sector, NGOs and investments from donors. It is expected that these investments
produce a minimum growth of 6% per annum in the agricultural sector.
It may be recalled that the Maputo Appeal stands in a series of commitments made on the
international level with respect to agricultural recovery.
A series of international commitments




2000 - UN Summit: to halve the rate of poverty and hunger in developing countries ;
2003 - NEPAD: Achieving agricultural growth rate of 6%;
2003 - Maputo Summit: Commitment of Heads of States of the African Union to allocate,
within 5 years, at least 10% of national budgets to agriculture ;
2008 - Heads of States Regional Offensive for food production and the fight against hunger
Source: the National Pact ECOWAP / CAADP Senegal: http://www.interreseaux.org/IMG/pdf_Pacte_PNIA_Senegal.pdf
14
III. THE MAPUTO COMMITMENTS: WHERE DOES
SENEGAL STAND?
With the signing of the Pact in February 2010, in Dakar, the Maputo commitment was
renewed and confirmed by Senegal.
A reminder of the Maputo commitment
African Ministers of Agriculture, meeting in at the XXII Regional Conference for Africa on 8
February 2002 in Cairo, adopted a resolution on the key steps to consider in the agricultural
sector within the framework of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). To
implement this resolution, they approved on 9 June 2002, the Comprehensive African
Agricultural Development Program (CAADP).
The Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security in Africa, ratified by the Assembly of Heads
of States and Governments of the African Union (AU), meeting in Maputo on 10 and 11 July
2003, provided strong political support to the CAADP. On this occasion, the Heads of States
and Governments undertook to adopt specific policies for agriculture and rural development and
to devote at least 10 percent of their national budgets thereto.
The CAADP is at the heart of efforts by African governments through the NEPAD initiative of
the AU. It aims to accelerate economic growth, eradicate poverty and hunger in African
countries and promote agricultural development in order to improve food security and increase
exports.
Source: The National Pact ECOWAP / CAADP Senegal (p.1):
http://www.inter-reseaux.org/IMG/pdf_Pacte_PNIA_Senegal.pdf
The Maputo commitment is reaffirmed
The Government of Senegal has confirmed its commitment to promote economic and social
development in the long-term to reduce poverty and achieve long-term food security, as defined
in the Guidance on agricultural, forestry and pastoral activities (LOASP) and outlined in the
Poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP)…
It will seek to ensure efficiency and competitiveness in furthering the implementation of the
NAIPs Agenda as its strategy to achieve and exceed the target growth rate of 6 percent of
CAADP at the 2015.
It agrees with a view to materializing the decision of AU Heads of States and Governments
made in Maputo in July 2003 to allocate at least 10 percent of national budgets to agriculture
during this period, thus contributing to security of investments required to achieve program
results within its NAIP.
Source: The National Pact ECOWAP / CAADP Senegal (p.5):
http://www.inter-reseaux.org/IMG/pdf_Pacte_PNIA_Senegal.pdf
A. Official sources indicate that Senegal has exceeded the 10% rate
1. Senegal is one of the Top 8 (best ranked)
The African Union / NEPAD poll conducted in 2007 revealed that 50% of the countries had
spent less than 5% of their national budgets in agriculture. This represents a decrease
15
compared with the rate of 57% reached in 2003. Senegal is among the countries that have
made progress and are doing well in the standings.
The 10% budget
Senegal is one of the 8 (eight) countries that have been
allocating over 10% of their national budgets to
agriculture from 2004 to 2007.
Source: CAADP, "Maputo Declaration: Where do these countries
stand? Report on Policy. June2009.
Fig. 2. The 8 countries that allocate over 10%
of their national budgets to agriculture
Source: CAADP, "Maputo Declaration: Where do these countries stand? Report on Policy.
June2009.
See the document:
http://www.caadp.net/pdf/Policy%20Brief%20on%20the%20CADDP%20targets%20French.
pdf
2. Focus on 2006
The AU / NEPAD poll conducted in 2007 showed that 50% of countries had spent less than
5% of their national budgets in the agricultural sector. This represents a decrease compared
16
with the rate of 57% reached in 2003. The number of countries that spent more than 10% in
agriculture raised from 11% in 2003 to 22% in 2006. Senegal is one of them.
The 10% budget (2006)
In 2006, Senegal is one of the 8 (eight) countries that
exceeded 10% of their budget allocation to agriculture
Source: CAADP, "Maputo Declaration: Where do these countries
stand? Report on Policy. June2009.
Fig. 3. Compliance with the AU / MAPUTO Declaration on the 10%
in countries that have provided data in 2006
CAADP, 2009.
See the document:
http://www.caadp.net/pdf/Policy%20Brief%20on%20the%20CADDP%20targets%20French.
pdf
According to the report among the constraints affecting compliance with the decision of the
AU, is the inadequate capacity within ministries of agriculture to provide solid evidence (what
is more, proof that rely on impact) to show that agriculture can make an important
contribution to national economic goals.
17
B. Official sources indicate that Senegal has reached the 6% growth rate
According to the report still, rising public investment will need to be supplemented by the
private sector, NGOs and investments from donors. It is expected that these investments
produce a minimum growth of 6% per annum in the agricultural sector. The World Bank
reported that only six countries - Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Nigeria and Senegal
- have reached 6% growth in agriculture (id).
A growth rate> 10%
Senegal is one of 6 (six) countries that have achieved 6%
growth in agriculture.
Source: CAADP, 2009
Although investments in agriculture give rise to long gestation periods, four of these countries
have allocated more than 5% of national expenditure in the development of agriculture in
2006, which showed a strong link between investment levels and sectoral growth. Estimates
of the Institute of International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI 2006) suggest that a $ 1
increase in income from agriculture gives rise to an increase of $ 1.5 to $ 2.5in the incomes of
rural households. Therefore, maintaining high levels of investment and sectoral growth is
critical to achieving the MDGs (ibid.)
The report concluded by stressing that it is obvious that the targeted year 2008 deadline for
compliance proved optimistic. Although there are limited progresses, the estimated impact of
greater investment in growth and incomes sufficiently justifies a recommitment on the part of
countries in respect of the AU decision (id).
C. Analysis of the figures by actors
According to Action Aid, a NGO, the actual figures are far below what is officially declared.
Al Hassan Cissé, Coordinator of the Right to Food project within Action Aid states that
"Direct spending in investments in agriculture represents only 48%. This means that globally
only 2.5% of national budget is devoted to agriculture".
The 10% of the national budget
In Senegal, 4.87% of the national budget is allocated to
agriculture and only 2.5% is actually devoted to this
area.
Source: Action Aid (quoted by the daily Walfadjri of October 14,
2009)
In the coordinator’s opinion, public support to agriculture in Senegal has declined
substantially and it is important that government and development partners increase their
ODA to this sector which is, according to him, the basis of food self-sufficiency and the key
to economic development of Senegal. In order to ensure food security it is imperative that the
18
state implement a policy of food sovereignty, which alone can help fight food insecurity, "said
Mr Cissé.
1. Analysis of the growth rate from official statistics
a) The share of GDP is declining
According to the Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie (ANSD), Senegal
has experienced an economic situation characterized by a slowdown of activities with a
growth rate of 3.3% in 2008 from 4.9% in 2007 and 2 , 5% in 2006, despite good performance
in the agricultural sub-sector driven by the effects of the Great Agricultural Offensive for
Food and Abundance (GOANA) and good rainfall ANSD Note on the Analysis of National
Accounts: final for 2006, semi-final for 2007 and preliminary for 2008, p. 45).
Because of the continuing difficulties in the agricultural sub-sector (5.2% of GDP in 2007
compared to 6.6% in 2006 and 8.1% in 2005), the share of the primary sector in the gross
domestic product is lower than 13% for the first time since 1980. The other areas in this sector
(farming, forestry, fishing and mining) have not experienced a significant evolution of their
weight in GDP between 2006 and 2007 (ANSD, 2008).
Fig. 4. GDP structure by sector
ANSD, 2009.
Fig. 5. Structure of primary sector GDP (% of GDP at current prices)
ANSD, 2009.
19
b) A growth rate of agricultural productivity lower than 10%
The agricultural sector recorded an average growth rate of 0.5% in the 1990-2007 period with
an average contribution of 0.1 point to GDP growth. This average growth rate of GDP hides
wide disparities from one year to another (see Table B-6 in Appendix B). After a decline of
15.6% in 2006, the crop sub-sector has registered new counter-performance in 2007 (-15.8%).
This decline is linked to insufficient rainfall combined with poor spatial and temporal
distribution (occurrence of dry spells) during the 2007 rainy season. Other constraints related
to seed quality, lack of soil fertility and the lack of marketing structures, especially for
groundnut, are also mentioned. Consequently, the agricultural sector fell behind by 5.5% in
2007 despite the growth of livestock (5.9%) and forestry (5.8%) and the recovery that began
in the fishing area (6.7%). (DAPS, 2009, p. 52).
The average rate of growth of agricultural productivity (progress in added value per asset)
over the 1991-2007 period is -0.8% against 3.5% inflation rate (DAPS, 2009, p. 53).
Fig. 6. Comparative evolution of the growth rate of agricultural
productivity and the rate of inflation
DAPS, 2009.
D. Failing budgetary control
It is imperative to respect the budget cycle that began with the preparation of budget estimates
by the government and ended with in the adoption of the Act of Settlement by the National
Assembly following the control exercise carried out by the Revenue Court. Today, this cycle
lasts more than 7 years in Senegal! According to the WAEMU directive relating to the
Finance Act, which provides for the tabling of the draft settlement bill no later than the end of
the year following the year the budget is implemented, it should not exceed 3 years!
(Mamadou Ndione (Economist) and Jacques Morisset (Lead Economist for Senegal)). Article
from the magazine "The Voices of the World Bank." Number 8 - July 2007). According to the
2008 report of the Revenue Court, the Settlement Bills 2004 to 2007 were completed and
there remains the adoption process. The Settlement Bills from 1999 to 2003 have only been
passed in 2010.
20
IV. FINANCING OF AGRICULTURE: ANALYSIS OF
EVOLUTION BY MAJOR PERIODS
(1980-2010)Analysis of financing needs of agriculture and their rate of coverage can be
achieved through three main periods characterized by developments and different results.
 from 1980 to 1997, the weaning period ;
 from 1997 to 2000, the return of agriculture ;
 from 2000 to 2010, the return of public voluntarism
To highlight the changes it is necessary to recall first what existed before 1980.
A. A reminder of the situation before 1980
After unsuccessful attempts to supplant the trading economy with a socialist economy from
1958 to 1962, the Government of Senegal decided to implement a productivist policy and
opted for a managed economy model. A mentoring system is in place through institutions
across the country. Various instruments were used to achieve the objectives.
1. The State finances rural development through an
“agricultural program”
The agriculture program is the primary means of financing the Senegalese agriculture. It is
funded by the state budget through funds deposited in national banks. The agricultural
program makes it possible for farmers to be supplied on credit with agricultural inputs. From
1964 to 1984, the system is built around the National Development Bank of Senegal
(BNDS),which funds public corporations such as the National Board for Cooperation and
Assistance for Development (ONCAD) and regional development companies.
2. Establishment of a mentoring system
After several successive adjustments, a mentoring system in rural areas is implemented
through different structures.
a) The agricultural technical services
Are constituted by national technical directorates and their services at different levels of
territorial organization (Agricultural Production Directorate, livestock, water and forests,
agricultural engineering, plant protection, facilitation and rural expansion Directorate,
Regional and, Departmental Services Polyvalent rural development centres, etc.).
b) Agricultural research
It is regrouped within the Senegalese Institute for Agricultural Research (ISRA).
c) The regional rural development societies
They have public service status. These are: the development and agricultural extension
company (SODEVA), The Senegal river delta development company (SAED), the
Corporation for the development of Casamance (SOMIVAC), the League of New Lands
(STN), the Development Corporation in forest grazing areas (SODESP), etc…
d) The National Development Bank of Senegal (BNDS)
It provides credit and participates with other local banks in the financing of the marketing of
agricultural products.
21
e) The National Board for Co-operation and Assistance for development
(ONCAD)
It is a structure responsible for supplying producers with subsidized inputs on credit, and for
offering guidance and assistance to producers’ cooperatives. It has a monopoly on the
marketing of major agricultural products (groundnuts, cereals, rice).
f) The producers' cooperatives
They serve as intermediaries between producers and ONCAD. Farmers are forced to join if
they want access to inputs and take advantage of subsidies and credit.
g) Equalization and price stabilization Fund (CPSP [Caisse de
péréquation et de stabilisation des prix] )
The CPSP organizes equalization between cash crops and imported food products. It serves as
an instrument of pricing and subsidies for agricultural products and inputs to purchase food
for consumption.
3. Structuring investments
Public investments are made to provide for infrastructure and agricultural hydraulic
engineering that have become increasingly important since the droughts of the early 1970s:
the Senegal River Valley, the Anambé Valley, the Guidel and Affiniam dams, small anti-salt
dams in Casamance. It should also be noted that beyond the Agricultural Program, the Rural
Development Mutual Fund is a funding mechanism used by the mentoring system.
4. Mitigated results
Despite the constraints of the system, farmers were able to access the inputs, agricultural
equipment through loans. Training and supervision were provided. However, the objectives of
public authorities were far from being achieved.
Thus, despite the productivist policies conducted throughout the national territory and the
huge investments made through external aid and state funding, the 1970’s ended in a serious
crisis affecting the Senegalese agriculture and well-know governance problems.
The ONCAD is the symbol of the system’s dysfunction. Recurrent shortcomings are noted in
the management of the institution, the main supervising structure. Here are examples:

In 1975 - 1976 the ONCAD’s expenditure was higher than total expenditure under the
operating budget of the State of Senegal ;

Disorderly management with operating expenses representing 87.2% of turnover ;

overstaffing (4500 people where a workforce of 1609 people would have been
sufficient) ;

a budget deficit of 72 billions of which over 90% are related to bank charges.
On 23 August 1980, the government decided to dissolve the ONCAD. (Mbow, 2009)
http://www.over-blog.com/profil/blogueur-620776.html.
B. From 1980 to 1997, the weaning period
The 1980-1997 period is characterized by the end of public voluntarism in the financing of
agriculture.
22
1. Withdrawal of state funding for agriculture
In 1979, Senegal is committed to a policy of structural adjustment. The period is characterized
by an increase in the prices of imported agricultural inputs combined with lower agricultural
commodity prices, the effects of droughts during the 1969-1973 period and the oil shock of
1972.
The views of the French agronomist and recommendations made in the report submitted by
Eliot Berg in 1981 sponsored by the WB and the IMF will provide the basis for the Economic
and Financial Recovery Plan.
Structural adjustments
Faced with the deteriorating situation of public finances and external accounts, Senegal has
established a short-term stabilization program in 1978/79, relayed over the 1980-1985 period by
a five-year economic recovery plan.
 The short-term stabilization program: 1979 - 1980
It’s major goal was to stop the heavy drain on the Senegalese economy.
 The medium-term economic and financial recovery plan (PREF): 1980 - 1985
The priority of the PREF is financial stabilization.
 The Structural Adjustment Program in the medium and long terms (PAMLT.): 1985-1992
There are two aspects to be organically linked: a stabilization component that aims to halt the
deterioration of economic aggregates and a economic recovery component through a new
impetus.
One major feature of the Senegalese public and parastatal sector lies in its management
characterized by inefficiency and misallocation of resources. It follows that this sector generates
for the state budget costs which are gradually becoming intolerable and a source of exacerbation
in the search of a better allocation of public resources, the alternative, therefore, is extremely
simple: from now on, the State must undertake what the market cannot do, even though the
objective conditions of a developing country like Senegal, where the market is still in the
constituting stage, compel this country to keep on controlling and monitoring for some time the
conduct of certain sectors of the economic activity that are fundamental and critical, especially
agriculture.
Source : Aidtransparency
http://www.aidtransparency.org/at/images/docs/resarch_results/analyse_macro_economique_
au_senegal/Analyse_de_levolution_des_politiques_macroeconomiques_du_Senegal_de_1980
_a%20_nos_jours.pdf
a) Break with past policies
For the first time, the climatic factor, often cited to justify the agricultural failures, is not put
forward in experts’ explanations. The Adoption of the New Agricultural Policy (NPA) in
1984 stems from a desire to break with past policies.
Stopping the farm program
In fact, structural adjustment policies began in 1978 with the stabilization plan, then the
economic and financial recovery program (PREF) of 1979 signed with the IMF, which will
remove the agricultural program.
23
2. Farmers left to themselves
The New Agricultural Policy (NPA) is built around guiding principles of the market
economy. To this end, it is all for state withdrawal from the agricultural sector.
a) Removing the subsidy on inputs
Supply of subsidized farm inputs is removed. Fertilizer use is in sharp decline with the
exception of cotton farmers and rice growers who are still enjoying input supply from
SODEFITEX, the textile fiber development corporation and SEAD, the Senegal River delta
development company.
b) Resizing the groundnut seed stock
With the resizing of the groundnut seed stock, farmers must keep their seeds or buy outright.
c) The era of the minimum service
Between 1980 and 1985 through SONAR, the state-owned company entrusted with the
supplying of rural areas, the State ensures a minimal continuity of agricultural credit program
for the supply of inputs (fertilizers, seeds) and distribution operations of farm equipment.
State assistance is limited and all forms of subsidies were removed. In short, the State no
longer provides seeds and agricultural machinery, fertilizers or any other input but rather
content itself with making them available for cash purchases.
d) Disinvestment in rainfed agriculture
The state has disinvested massively in rainfed agriculture, especially in the Groundnut Basin.
The idea that rainfed agricultural was no longer a priority imposed itself gradually all the
more since it was supported by optimistic speeches on the post-dam (built on the Senegal
river) and food self – sufficiency as a result of extensive rice cultivation. Comprehensive
programs are funded by partners such as AFD.
Develop irrigated agriculture in the fight against food insecurity
Senegal is highly dependent on the outside: 80% of rice consumed is imported. And yet the
strong hydro-agricultural potential of the Senegal River Valley (240,000 ha) could cover a large
proportion (70%) of national needs. The total area developed and under exploitation (60,000 ha)
covers only part of the consumption requirements and forced Senegal to depend mostly on
imported Asian rice. In a region where over 40% of the population live on the threshold of
poverty, market conditions and efforts made during the last decade, however, have helped
restore the competitiveness of local production (yields of 6t/ha) and create conditions for new
investment in irrigated agriculture.
These data demonstrate the potential role of irrigated agriculture in the fight against poverty and
in the contribution to food security. The development of agriculture, especially irrigated
agriculture, is an ongoing priority of government. With other donors, AFD has been supporting
the efforts of the Senegalese government for many years. AFD leads various projects which, all
related, are aimed at establishing the optimal conditions and sustainable conditions, for the
management and development of irrigated agricultural areas in the river valley.
Source: AFD
See document: http://www.afd.fr/jahia/Jahia/site/afd/lang/fr/pid/18901
e) Mitigated results in irrigated area
In the Senegal River Delta, irrigated rice is the main component of production systems. All of
the potential area for irrigation is not being exploited. Producers are increasingly using
agricultural credit to finance production costs, to purchase equipment and pay for agricultural
hydraulic engineering. Since 1987, these operations are handled by the Caisse Nationale de
Credit Agricole du Senegal (CNCAS) which took over from the National Development Bank
24
of Senegal (BNDS). In four years, the amounts injected in the form of loans have increased
significantly, contributing greatly to regional economic development. But in 1990/91 lower
rates of reimbursement undermined the viability of this credit system.
f) The breakdown of the mentoring system
Following the dissolution of ONCAD in 1980, the New Agricultural Policy (NPA) of 1984
confirmed state disengagement from the agricultural economy. The NPA is primarily a
liberalization and privatization process. The NPA results in dismantling and the rural areas
management system. Some development companies such as SOMIVAC, the Company for the
development of Casamance and STN (League of New Lands) were dissolved. The ones that
are maintained in activity include SODEVA, the development and agricultural extension
company and the SEAD, the Senegal river delta development company, have gone through
some restructuring and their mission, financial resources and staff have been curtailed
significantly.
3. The era of letters of sectoral policies
The NPA and behind it, the PASA, the adjustment program in the agricultural sector of 1995
were meant essentially to dismantle the system and administration policies in the agricultural
economy. The PISA, the agricultural sector investment program (1995), which was supposed
to regroup the selected development programs to boost agricultural production has not been
approved by donors. The government of Senegal has finally opted for the development and
approval of letters of sectoral policies that, in principle, are strategic frameworks. Thus,
various letters of sectoral policies on rural areas (rural development, decentralization,
environment, etc.) serve as a reference for programs negotiated with donors. It should be
noted that the devaluation of the CFA franc in 1994 was the single most radical structural
adjustment.
25
Tab. 2 : Key macroeconomic indicators, 1960-2000
Diagne and Daffé 2002, extract Daffé, 2005.
See the document:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTABCDEWASHINGTON2005/Resources/GDaffe.pdf
4. Low and unstable Growth rates
From the early 60s to the mind 90s, the GDP growth is marked by large fluctuations (Figure
below). From 2.2% per annum in the period 1960-69 to 3% in 1970-79, the rate fell to 1.8%
in 1980-84 before rising again to 2.2% in 1985-93 (tables below ).
Until the mid-70s, the dynamism of the Senegalese economy was based mainly on agriculture
with groundnut as the major product. Groundnut production punctuated most of the economic
activity by infusing dynamism in many branches of the secondary and tertiary sectors. The
weight of agriculture was all the more important that the overall growth of the economy was
largely dependent on agricultural production, its pace closely following fluctuations thereof.
But from the late 70s, the share of the primary sector in the GDP has constantly been
26
declining. A few figures reflect perfectly the continuing decline in agricultural production;
from nearly 25% during the first two decades after Independence (in 1960) it dropped to less
than 20% since the 80's. As for agriculture, its contribution to GDP fell from 16.9% in the
1960-69 period to only 10% in 1994-2000 (Gaye 2005).
Fig. 7. GDP growth, 1960-2000
The evolution of agricultural and food production is closely linked to the structure of the
primary sector, comprising agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry. The rate of growth of
the sector, which is 2.5% per annum between 1960 and 2003, remained lower than that of the
GDP.
The growth rate
The rate of growth of the sector, which is 2.5% per year
between 1960 and 2003, remained lower the that of the
GDP
Source: id,
27
C. From 1997 to 2000, the revival of agriculture
The State and its partners revive agricultural production with the establishment of a funding
mechanism through the Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole du Senegal (CNCAS), but the
results still remain mitigated.
1. The return of the agricultural program
a) The agricultural rehabilitation program (1997)
From 1997, the government and donors are trying to boost agricultural production. The
stimulus package is negotiated each year since 1997 between the Government and farmers'
organizations. From 1979 it illustrates for the first time a concrete desire to improve farmers'
access to agricultural inputs.
b) Improved access to credit and inputs
The conditions for access to credit and input costs for farmers have improved through bonus
measures applied to interest rate of agricultural credit and total exemption from import duties
on agricultural inputs. On the other hand, moratoriums are granted to producer groups for
outstanding credit. A series of activities are undertaken by the State :



A bonus interest rate which increased from 13% to 7%. ;
Spreading the repayment of outstanding debts of cooperatives and GIEs (Economic
Interest Groups) over a 5-year period.
Exemption from the agricultural equipment import taxes.
However these efforts are insufficient. Indeed, many sections of village cooperatives and
Economic Interest Groups (GIE) have not been able to negotiate a sprawl of their outstanding
debts towards the CNCAS, mostly because the amount of those arrears exceeds their
repayment capacity. Note that the European Union (EU) has put a lot of resources on the
groundnut sector and over time.
c) A program of capacity building
The strengthening of State capacities and the establishment of the new family farming support
system of are partly defined in the PSAOP, the Project of agricultural services and support to
producer organizations. Implemented in May 2000, the PSAOP funded by the World Bank, is
the first of three phases of a 10-year program whose long term goal of which is to increase
sustainable productivity, output and incomes of small producers through, among other things,
technological changes that take into account the protection of the environment.
d) Recognition of the role of farmers' organizations by the World Bank
The World Bank recognizes more and more the role of farmer organizations (FOs) in the
agricultural and rural development, with two basic assumptions:
 One of the conditions for sustainable agricultural development which reduces poverty
is that producers get organized so that through their organizations, they are effective
partners, capable of making their voices heard in decision-making bodies and to
provide their members with services that enable them to improve their production.
 The public services will actually be working for the producers if they have the ability
to exert influence through their technical capacities to express their needs and to fund
or help fund these services.
28
2. A Funding Mechanism for Agricultural production
In 1997, followings Lengthy Negotiations Between the Various stakeholders, Ministry of
Economy and Finance (MEF), the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAE),
representative of Producers, Other Partners in Rural Areas, and CNCAS, it was agreed to
establish a funding mechanism best suited to the realities of the rural areas in order to revive
agricultural production. This device is anchored on instruments of security and alleviation of
financial conditions enabled CNCAS to significantly increase its assistance for the financing
of agricultural production (average of about 12 billion FCFA per year) CNCAS,12002.
a) Enhanced group performance
To enhance the performance of groups in credit management, CNCAS based its approach on a
number of stakes:
●
●
●
●
●

Strengthening equity groups : the notion of blocked personal contribution replacing
self-financing allows group members to have a sense of belonging to a structure with a
patrimony
to support initiatives of social and professional organizations can strengthen the
functioning of grassroots organizations. Thus an important function as the bulk supply
of inputs was strongly supported;
Consultation and the accountability of social and professional organizations
symbolized by their participation in advisory credit committees particularly in the
Senegal river valley;
Encouraging the formation of professionals guarantee funds: experienced in the
Senegal River region with the tomato industry,
Funding networking initiatives among umbrella organizations (example of the rice
network between the National inter professional Committee of the local rice industry
(CIRIZ) and the National Federation of Women Producer Groups (FNGPF)
Cooperation with decentralized financial systems (DFSs) in three areas (refinancing,
management of cash surpluses and empowerment).
b) A series of commitments by various partners
The program to boost the agriculture relies on a partnership (Producers, CNCAS, state) with
specific commitments in the following areas:
 A commitment by CNCAS to great credit under the following conditions :
o self-financing: 10% of the amount earmarked for the program,
o interest rate 7.5% per annum;
o credit term: 9 months (short term), 3 to 7 years (medium term);
o moratorium on a case by case basis: annual rate of 1% over 5 years.
 A government commitment to establish securization funds domiciled at CNCAS
(bonus fund, guarantee fund, disaster relief fund) for:
o the payment of a charge differential on loans,
o the coverage of unpaid resulting from such funding in the tune of 75%
o coverage of potential major disaster.
 A strong commitment from producers to break with past practices in compliance with
the new rules, based on adequate payment of debts.
1
Financing family agriculture in the context of liberalisation: how can microfinance contribute? Seminar in DAKAR / 21- 24 January 2002 /
Executive summary.
29
c) A tripling of average levels of funding
The effects of these measures were immediate. The average levels of funding have been
tripled (average of 12 billion CFA francs per year against a previous annual average around 4
billion francs CFA).
Tab. 3 : The financing of the crop year by CNCAS (1997 - 2002)
Source: CNCAS, 20022
d) Variances between funding applications and achievements
Credit authorizations account for 66% of the applications on average while the achievements
stand at 56%. This variance between authorization and achievement is not justified by the
non-fulfillment of the conditions or withdrawal of application for various reasons.
Fig. 8. Variances between applications and achievements of CNCAS
funding
(1997 - 2002)
Source: id.
Financing family agriculture in the context of liberalisation: how can microfinance contribute? Seminar in DAKAR / 21- 24 January 2002 /
Executive summary.
2
30
The system was relatively efficient with repayment rates exceeding 85% with peaks of 98%
over the first two years, 1997-1998.
e) A more efficient system
Implementation of this scheme made it possible to meet financing needs of producers in terms
of proven performance more than other types of government intervention so far implemented.
Indeed, the accumulated allocations of approximately 3 billion FCFA per year or fifteen
billion over five years have enabled CNCAS to achieve 59 billion in loans for production and
about 70 billion FCFA in marketing credit.
f) A system to improve
This partnership “State – producers – Bank partnership” is a realistic option and can help
structure effective financing for large agricultural channels. Still, the effort of producers
should be more visible with the establishment of professionals guarantee funds to complement
the device.
3. Diversified products
The CNCAS offers its customers credit and savings products as well as derivatives or related
products:
a) “Credit” products
 Production financing: agriculture (all speculations), livestock, fisheries,
 Financing agricultural product processing and fisheries;
 Financing of paddy processing: loan to farmers organizations to pay for the millers /
processors services (Senegal River Valley )
 Financing purchasing groups to facilitate the acquisition of inputs (seeds and
fertilizers)
 Rural Trade Financing: village cereal banks, fruit and vegetables (women are very
active in this market), marketing of marine products (fish traders and women
processors).
b) Savings Products
The mobilization of rural savings is a concern all the more nagging to governments, monetary
authorities and financial institutions that it largely escapes official channels.
 Individual savings account (CSL) or group savings account.
 Time deposits (DAT) are used to manage the sinking fund for investments in
agriculture (engineering work and equipment to be renewed in irrigated areas).
 Strengthening of equity capital: personal contribution frozen in a special savings
account to avoid the reconstitution of the contribution under some future credit
facility.
31
Tab. 4 : Financing of agricultural production campaign by CNCAS (20012007)
ENTRIES
PROCESSED BY FILES CNCAS
Crop year
Amount applied for
Authorized credit
Credit
Achievements
Total 2001/2002
22 048 602 755
13 716 115 722
11 306 711 509
Total 2003/2004
12 650 085 586
10 655 969 753
9 157 093 177
Total 2004/2005
12 650 085 586
10 655 969 753
9 157 093 177
Total 2005/2006
25 300 171 172
21 311 939 506
18 314 186 354
Total 2006/2007
50 600 342 344
42 623 879 012
36 628 372 708
Total 2007/2008
101 200 684 688
85 247 758 024
73 256 745 416
Total 2008/2009
189 751 283 790
159 839 546 295
137 356 397 655
Source: CNCAS contribution to the survey 3
4. Constraints and opportunities identified by CNCAS
They are at different levels.
a) Constraints at “grassroots level”



Downward trend of rural producers income and consequently narrowing of their
borrowing capacity,
High prevalence of poverty in rural areas ;
Low professionalization of producers ;
b) Constraints at the bank




Lack of long-term resources ( the bulk of savings in the short term)
regulatory constraints (processing coefficient set at 25% by the Central Bank of West
African States -BCEAO-);
high systemic risks: natural disasters (locust invasion)
Lack of a security system for agricultural risks (security funds).
c) Market – related constraints



quality and traceability of products on the market;
High volatility of agricultural product prices on the international market
up to European standards binding on African producers
d) Constraints related to sectoral policies

3
Low productivity of agricultural channels;
CNCAS contribution to the survey the financing of agriculture sponsored by CONGAD, April 2011.
32


Policy Choices (subventions. controversial distribution of seeds and fertilizers and
even farm equipment);
Low structuring of markets for agricultural products.
e) Opportunities do exist, however




Despite the immense difficulties, the development of financial services in the rural
sector has great underutilized potential. Despite efforts to open bank accounts on rural
areas of Senegal, much of the population remains excluded from income and basic
financial products and services;
To avoid the rural population being excluded from the formal systems, development
partners lend their support in order to maintain structures against high systemic risks
and the absence of appropriate hedging instruments;
Investing in training and strengthening of technical and organizational capacities of all
stakeholders: Promote structuring non-financial services;
Establish infrastructure investments to open up rural areas and ensure the delivery of
basic social services (source: CNCAS contribution to the study, April 2011)
5. A banking system still failing
Commercial banks are not interested in the agricultural sector. The decentralized financing
system (SFD) plays a role but it is to be strengthened and joints need to be found between the
two systems.
a) Mistrust in the banking system
The only time those banks come in is when there is an opportunity for exports and marketing
of major agricultural commodities for which financing is already secured by way of the
mechanisms of BCEAO with respect to conventional financing or through the transactional
approach (domiciliation of export contracts). This mistrust in the banking system is related to
the limited solvency in the sector.
b) A linkage between decentralized financial systems (DFSs) and banks
specialized in the primary sector
It is necessary to seek complementarity between the different systems as it is true that their
distinctive skills and capabilities complement each other. Unanimity is made on the necessary
link between DFSs and banks so that each segment brings in its distinctive competence to
serve the construction of performing rural financial systems which is the only way to
sustainably meet the varied and substantial financing needs of family farms. Generally,
relations are based on the following lines:




Offering good return conditions on DFSs deposits and
the refinancing of credit programs on preferential terms;
support for management training and counseling in developing procedures and
monitoring their application,
support with equipment and services in information processing.
c) Recognition of the specificity of the rural sector
In the economic sphere it is undeniable that family farms have real disabilities and their
activities present special risks. The delay in the accumulation process is even more
pronounced with rural producers. It is, therefore, necessary to bring to this sector and the
33
stakeholders the necessary institutional protection. We must develop agriculture at two
speeds, one of which can be assimilated to companies that must work like those of other
sectors and another constituted by farmers, which needs support.
Tab. 5 : The macroeconomic indicators from 2001 to 2003
Apix, extract Daffé, 2005.
See the document:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTABCDEWASHINGTON2005/Resources/GDaffe.pdf
D. From 2000 to 2010, the return of public voluntarism
A series of initiatives characterized this period.
1. Developing agricultural business to replace family farming
Government’s options are clearly moving in the direction of developing of agricultural
business which would replace small-holding and family farming. The Government believes
that entrepreneur ship is essential to the competitiveness of Senegalese agriculture and to
revitalize and diversify agricultural exports. This focus on corporate agriculture is inserted in
a vision of an emerging Senegalese economy increasingly based on services, particularly in
the areas of new information technologies and transportation and, in agriculture, on food
processing and exports of fresh products (horticulture and fish products).
This agricultural business is distinguished from farming by a systematic use of improved
technologies: motor chains, irrigation, land ownership. Capital owners and beneficiaries of
vocational skills will be expected to implement it. In the light of the political will expressed at
national (professionalization of agriculture) and international (reducing agricultural divide
34
between the north and south / Dakar agriculture), Senegal aims to modernize its agriculture
and beyond its4peasantry.
2. Interventionism in the financing of agriculture
Decisions made and programs implemented are not always consistent with those options. The
government has intervened repeatedly in the fixing of agricultural prices (groundnut, cotton)
and in granting credits to producers. The Administration is again directly involved in seed
production in input distribution and in the organizing of agricultural marketing.
3. A series of special programs
Several special programs have been implemented: maize, sesame, cassava, hibiscus etc. The
process of formulating an agro-forestry-pastoral framework law (LOASP), passed in 2004,
gave rise to an opposition between Government and farmers' organizations regarding the
respective importance of family farming and land5tenure. Despite the implementation of new
agricultural policies, structural problems remain in the Senegalese agriculture: the crisis in the
groundnut sector, low yields, erratic rainfall, permanent climate hazards, persistent food
insecurity, etc.
4. The Great Agricultural Offensive for Food and Abundance
(GOANA)
This initiative launched by the President of the Republic, seeks to take up the challenge of
food sovereignty, to eliminate risks of famine and starvation, and to produce in
abundance.6For the 2007-2008 crop year significant support was granted to various sectors,
particularly in terms of subsidies or assistance in the following areas:






4
Support for the groundnut sector by subsidizing the producer price to the producer at 40 f /
kg. Thus, for a collection of 165 918 628 tonnes, the amount of state subsidy, totaling to 6
billion FCFA 700 million, helped maintain the income of the groundnut producer despite
unfavorable market conditions. In addition, 5 billion FCFA 22 million as a grant for the
establishment of a capital of 53 000 tonnes of seed have been allocated;
Grant fertilizers and plant protection products for all industries through a contribution to
the tune of 50% to 70% on sale price to producers, corresponding to a financial volume of
8.276 billion FCFA;
Continuing programs to diversify agricultural production by way of a subsidy on seeds for
special programs (corn, sesame, cassava, biofuel, etc..) for 2 billion 800 million F CFA
Extending the rural development equipment program by providing producers with
irrigation equipment for the sake of achieving rice self-sufficiency in the country for $
13.5 billion;
Strengthening of crop protection and the fight against predators for a $ 1 billion 200
million cost;
Support to rural credit with an allocation of a bonus fund applied to interest rates on loans
to rural production to the tune of 800 million FCFA.
Thierno Idrissa MBOW : http://kothie.net.over-blog.com/article-34417846.html
5
T. Niang, « Étude d'un processus national de définition et de mise en œuvre d'une politique publique sectorielle : le cas de
la Loi d'orientation agro-sylvo-pastorale (Loasp) du Sénégal » in Réseau Impact, Modalités de dialogue entre société civile et
État pour l'élaboration, la mise en œuvre et le suivi des politiques publiques de réduction de la pauvreté et des inégalités,
Paris, Document de travail, octobre 2007, p. 46.
6
http://www.goana-senegal.com/html/images/PDF/1_Presentation.pdf.
35
5. The desire to establish a rural bank or green bank
This is an initiative by the President of the Republic. He believes that the agricultural
financing system focuses on cropping season credit to producers with interest rates considered
to be high. His initiative aims to change the inadequacy of credit facilities with local
rural7needs.
Such a bank should enable rural producers to benefit from an assistance in the management of
financial resources with the support of the state. This, in view of their integration into the
international financial channels. Insufficient resources made available to the agricultural
sector in view of many potentialities in this sector that provides livelihood to 75% of the
population on average also challenges the Head of State. The agricultural financing system
focuses on producers’ needs for the crop year which are characterized by high interest rates.
He said the traditional system with conventional banks showed its inadequacy as proximity
credit structures much needed by the rural population.
6. Analysis of the results
a) Impact of public investments
The return of investments in agriculture failed to reverse the heavy trends in domestic
production. Some analysts speak of abandonment of rural Senegal and major elements of
fragility: low yields on almost all the productions under consideration, small family farms
weakly supported by the State in terms of credits, provision of better quality seeds
and8fertilizer.
Fig. 9. Comparative development of areas and grain production
Source: DAPS, 20099
b) Limits of a model
The model of agriculture based on a strong dependence on rainfed farming and low level of
investment has reached its10limits. Way out options proposed by the government are
7
verte_a2756.html
8
http://www.lemessagersn.info/FINANCEMENT-DU-MONDE-RURAL-De-la-necessite-de-creer-la-banque-
Alain ANTIL, Les "émeutes de la faim" au Sénégal : Un puissant révélateur d'une défaillance de gouvernance
DAPS, « Rapport de l’étude sur l’évolution du secteur agricole, des conditions de vie des ménages et de la vie chère au Sénégal», DAPS / RESAKSS
/ IITA, mars 2009.
9
10
IPAR 2
36
fragmented (the Return to Agriculture Plan or REVA, the Big Push for agriculture, food and
abundance or GOANA) and do not reverse the trends of country's dependence on imports
(over 60% of needs) and poor integration of youth in agriculture.
There is still a strong increase of imports for a modest increase in domestic production. This
situation is fostered by a lack of support and poor protection of domestic production. Customs
duties on imported milk bring in a return of 48 billion CFA annually to the state; share of
funding for the breeding of all products within the GOANA is estimated at 53 billion CFAF
for 4 years. Milk is not a priority in the PRSP survey of 2006 which established the list of
products most consumed by 20% the poorest who should benefit from emergency social
interventions11.
Fig. 10. Ever increasing imports of cereals in Senegal, from 1997 to 2008
(CFA F)
Source: Based on figures CountrySTAT, 2010
http://www.countrystat.org/sen
11
CNCR, Compte rendu de l'atelier international sur « la crise alimentaire : les voix paysannes vers les voies de la souveraineté
alimentaire », janvier 2009.
37
Fig. 11. Evolution of agricultural products exports and food products
imports from and into Senegal, from 1999 to 2008 (CFAF)
Source: Based on figures Country STAT, 2010
http://www.countrystat.org/sen
The latest on the evolution of agriculture conducted in122009, gives mitigated results.
The rate of 10% is exceeded ... but!
Three key findings emerged from this survey.
(1) The target of 10% of the budget allocated to agriculture in keeping with the Maputo
Declaration is exceeded both under the Finance Bill and as far as the implementation is
concerned. The share of actual agricultural spending on in total actual expenditures is 16.2%
while that of agriculture in the overall budget earmarked in the Finance Act rises to 16.4% for
the period under scrutiny.
(2) The response of the supply to higher agricultural and / or cereal prices is not always in the
direction of increased agricultural and / or cereal production. However, pricing policies can help
to boost production in general, but to be effective they must be sustainable.
(3) Poverty remains overwhelmingly rural. In all the administrative Regions of the country,
rural areas are poorer than urban areas, except for the region of Dakar, where the indicator
shows that the index calculated for the rural area of this Region corresponds to a very high level
of well-being. However, poverty has generally declined in all the Regions of Senegal.
Source: DAPS, "Survey Report on the development of agriculture, living conditions of
households and the high cost of living in Senegal, "DAPS / ReSAKSS / IITA, March 2009. P. 121.
12
DAPS, «Rapport de l'étude sur l'évolution du secteur agricole, des conditions de vie des ménages et de la vie chère au Sénégal», DAPS /
RESAKSS / IITA, mars 2009.
38
V. STAKES AND CHALLENGES OF THE FINANCING OF
AGRICULTURE
The food crisis of the late 2000s helped to learn a few things:
1. Agriculture returns to the heart of national and sub-regional policies;
2. Donors are revising their ultra-liberal doctrine and accept the principle of investing in
a structured way in agriculture;
3. Return to the pre-adjustment State and to the concept of food self-sufficiency;
4. Return of the agronomic vision of agricultural development based on the massive use
of production technical packages (fertilizers, seeds, equipment),
5. Rehabilitation of family farm as the basis of the process towards food13sovereignty.
A. A desire to establish a National Fund for Rural Development
In 2002, the State responded favorably to the CNCR’s request by establishing the National
Rural Development Fund (FNDR), a financing tool intended for actions aiming at developing
agriculture; such fund is intended to be jointly managed by the State and producers’
organizations. The feasibility study conducted in 2004 suggests that: the range of activities to
be financed by the FNDR be restricted only to (i) agricultural research and agri-food,
agricultural and rural council, (ii) supporting producers’ organizations and (iii) eventually to
the acquisition by producers’ organizations of an interest in companies deemed strategic. This
restriction is a prudent measure to ensure the sustainability of the Fund. The FNDR should not
deal with the following problems: (i) financing investments, (ii) production / marketing, (iii)
guarantee funds, disaster relief funds, bonus funds. Funding levels involved in these areas are
such that the viability of the FNDR would be compromised in the medium term. Indeed, the
combined annual funding requirements for the production of the entire primary sector can be
estimated to an amount which is around 70 billion CFA francs14.
B. Funding the NAIP
1. To be mobilized
According to the Ministry of Agriculture, the financial requirements of the National
Agricultural Investment program NAIP amounted to some 2.015 billion CFA francs. The
Government of Senegal undertakes to mobilize 767.7, or 38% of the total.
For the agricultural sector, the Ministry informed that the overall funding is estimated at
1.4413 billion CFA francs. The State undertakes to mobilize up to 606.1 billion CFA francs,
or 42% of the total. The gap to be seeked amounts to 835.2 billion CFA francs.
Thanks to the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), part of this funding was acquired to the
tune of 94 billion CFA francs and plans are underway for rehabilitation and agricultural
hydraulic engineering works, land reform and the implementation of special programs in the
Senegal River Valley and in the southern part of the country. In addition, cooperation with
India has mobilized some 270 billion CFA francs in support of the National Rice Self13
Cncr, id.
14
CNCR.
39
Sufficiency Program (PNAR). This support will cover the agriculture hydraulic engineering
works and agricultural equipment earmarked in the RAN. Ultimately, Senegal will have to
find an envelope of 471.2 billion CFA francs, or 33% of the budget for agriculture 15 (see
information on the MCA: http://www.congad.sn/spip.php?rubrique94).
However, according to the Ministry16in 2011, notable progress can be reported because many
financial partners have begun to invest in the financing of the NAIP, these include USAID,
Spain, Italy. Additional funding is also expected later in the year 2011, the first year of
implementation of the NAIP.
2. A NAIP focused on production and productivity
In the NAIP document public expenditure needs are estimated at 2 015 billion CFA francs of
which 81% are investments or 1 632 billion CFA francs. Thus, the investment Program (IP)
has a budget of 1 346 billion CFA francs, the difference corresponds to expenses already
incurred on projects under implementation, which are not taken into account in the IP but the
effects of which will contribute to the achievement of formal objectives for the sector
by172015.
The bulk of resources is devoted to program 3, which includes components for "Increased
production and improved productivity ": over 59% of total IP and nearly 800 billion CFA
francs.
Tab. 6 : Breakdown of the Investment plan costs by program
(in thousands CFA francs)
Source: DAPS, PNIA
15
http://www.seneweb.com/news/article/29034.php
16
Ministère de l'agriculture, lors de l'atelier de restitution du pré rapport, mars 2009.
17
DAPS, PNIA, Plan d'investissement 2011-2015.
40
Analysis of the breakdown of Investment Plan costs by sub-sector shows that agriculture
accounts for the bulk of resources (69.18%), far ahead of livestock (10.95%) and fishing
(4.69%).
Tab. 7 : Breakdown of investment Plan costs by sub-sector
(in thousands CFA francs)
Source: DAPS, PNIA
3. The need to take gender into account
It is difficult to find a specific analysis to the consideration of gender in the budget for
agriculture. However, it appears that the decentralized financing system puts in place specific
programs for women that allow them to access a certain number of supports generating
significant revenues. It is nevertheless necessary to practice the will of taking gender into
account when preparing18budgets.
4. The need to increase official development assistance in the
agricultural sector
The President of the Republic stressed that the share of agriculture in development assistance
has dropped by 22% in 1980 and by 3.8% in 2006 and observed the same trend in national
budgets. Hence the need to shift focus increased allocation of resources for agriculture in our
countries. He recalled that the African Heads of State committed themselves under the
Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) to allocate 10% of their
budgets.
However, he noted that the endogenous and exogenous factors are preventing our countries
from moving forward to reach that goal. He, therefore, calls on Africans to have a sustainable
approach to food security, particularly by consuming what they produce and producing what
they consume.
18
"Comment intégrer le genre dans le processus budgétaire du Sénégal", Mme Khady NDAO DIAGNE, Adjointe au Directeur
du Budget, Ministère de l'Economie et des Finances. Atelier d'évaluation du programme genre et budget, Rabat.
41
"But that does not mean at all that we must consume all of our production. Today, for
products such as groundnuts, the demand is satisfied. Our industries are looking for clients
outside. What was inconceivable," said the President of the19Republic.
C. Challenges to take up
They are of several kinds.
1. Demographic Transition and job creation
The Senegalese population will grow from nearly 13 million today to 20 million in 2030. The
rural population will continue to grow until 2040. Yet 70% of the workforce is still active in
agriculture (80% in 1960). Agriculture maintains a major weight by its place in the structure
of economic activity and related activities. It is the basis of part of industrial processing and
occupies a central position and trade in the transport and trade business. Because of its
economic structure, Senegal is facing a lack of opportunities for active people leaving the
agricultural sector20.
Thus, various arguments are in favour of priority to be given to family forming, especially in
areas endowed with good rainfall. Three reasons can be mentioned: economic efficiency,
equity and sustainable management of natural resources.
2. Water control
The option for valorization of rainfed agriculture raises against the backdrop the issue of
water control which is not limited only to the option of irrigation as practiced hitherto.
3. A financial system adapted to local realities
It is necessary to the establish a financial system adapted to the realities and particularities of
different localities of the country. This can be done at the instigation of the State, in
partnership with producers’ organizations and donor support.
19
verte_a2756.html
20
http://www.lemessagersn.info/FINANCEMENT-DU-MONDE-RURAL-De-la-necessite-de-creer-la-banque-
IPAR, 2010.
42
VI.
MAIN LINES FOR STRATEGIC ADVOCACY
Identify strategic stakes and challenges, agree on resource mobilization and finally agree on
approaches and steps to implement the options chosen. This pattern is expected to constitute a
major advocacy line for the financing of Senegalese agriculture to match its ambitions on the
basis of the mobilization of state budget resources.
A. More and better investment in the agriculture
Presently, the context is favorable for promoting the financing of agriculture. The subregional stakes (Regional Agricultural Investment Program - PRIA) and its variation in NAIP
in Senegal is an opportunity to mobilize stakeholders around increased and more efficient
funding for the agricultural sector.
1. Invest more resources
a) Creating Jobs in rural areas
The growth rate of urban population stands at 4% while rural population continues to grow by
2% per year. The urban economy cannot absorb rural migrants hence the development of
poverty in cities. It is, therefore, necessary to create jobs in rural areas to fight poverty and
inequalities in a structural manner.
b) Increasing agricultural productivity
Improvement of living standards of rural populations, more than 40% of whom live below the
poverty line, and procurement of a large increase in urban population require an annual
growth rate of agricultural production higher than 3% per year. It will take a long time before
irrigated agriculture can ensure profitably such a growth rate.
This growth can not be obtained with capital-intensive agriculture. Only a tiny proportion of
wealthy peasants, with high non-farm income levels can access this type of agriculture. This
agriculture probably has a place in the Senegalese economy and can play increasingly
important part in agricultural product exports. However, it does not solve the problem of a
large a growing rural population. The same goes for irrigated agriculture. The production
model chosen, a large consumer of imported energy and very costly in terms of investment
can only be profitable with export products with high added value. Only a small percentage of
farmers can have access to irrigation in view of available water resources, but the model itself
rules out the vast majority of peasants.
c) Put back in the production chain as many people as possible who
have been excluded from it
The third reason is that, given the extent of poverty, the only effective way to fight it - is in
the short and medium terms, to bring back to production as many people as possible who have
been excluded from it and to allow those whose production is too low to increase it. Food aid
policies or "food in exchange for work" can only have a limited effect on the fight against
poverty. It is a necessary safety net for the poorest, but it does not solve the core of the
problem which is that more and more farmers are excluded from the economy.
The main question of Senegalese agriculture and rural society is twofold: what to do for
farmers and particularly for the vast majority of farmers who have no access to irrigation?
43
What to do for rural people who want to abandon farming or make it a sideline? This is what
may be called the peasant question in21Senegal.
An exponential growth in agriculture is needed to meet the demographic challenge. The
extent of population growth and rapid urbanization require Senegal to set a target of
exponential growth in agricultural production in order to ensure minimum food security and
ensure the competitiveness of its agriculture in national and international markets.
We need to target a rate of agricultural growth that is sustained and high enough to lay the
foundations for sustained human development in rural areas.
d) Investing in rural infrastructure and public services
The absence or shortage of production infrastructure is a major constraint to agricultural
development in Senegal. To remove this constraint, provision rural infrastructure, production
equipment and efficient public services are required: civil status, education, health, vocational
training, literacy, etc... The absence, lack or poor quality of services and infrastructure put a
strain on rural production costs and on the cost of access to urban markets.
2. Better investment
a) Investing for proper management of the triangle
Investment "divided in portions" which are limited solely to production, for example, without
taking into account other segments namely processing and marketing will have limited scope.
Funding must be at the heart of the triangle-production processing, marketing.
b) Investing efficiently!
Investing in rural areas is not a sufficient condition to achieve the strategic objectives of
struggle against poverty and achieving sustainable development. Over and above the amounts
to be allocated, it is necessary to reflect on strategic issues that motivated the choice of
Investment, the portion of domestic budgetary resources in the amounts raised and the
approaches used in the implementation of selected options. Given the analysis of several
decades of practice, this, in our opinion, is a condition for an efficient and durable financing
of agriculture in Senegal.
c) Concertation
Senegalese producers’ organizations want a regular and sustained dialogue with the
government and development partners, in the spirit of the LOASP for the establishment of
agricultural policies that are inclusive, equitable and that place family farming in the heart of
public policies. The dialogue is institutionalized through the implementing decree signed in
2006 on the agro-forestry-pastoral Guidance Board, but whose implementation is not effective
yet.
3. To reduce poverty
a) Investing where the poor are
Fighting against poverty implies to support to poorest farms wherever they are located. The
map of poverty in rural areas is in conflict with the map of the geographical distribution of
public investments which are concentrated in the Senegal River delta (which accounts for less
than 3% of the rural population) and the Anambé Valley. Between 1980 and 1995, irrigated
21
Ipar, 2007.
44
agriculture has received between 60 and 70% of public investment for less than 10% of rural
population and those populations are mostly above the poverty line.
The Casamance region has also received substantial public investment. She received 20% of
public investment while accounting for 10% of the rural population. But most of these
investments were made in mangrove rice (the Guidel and Affiniam dams, and small anti-salts
dams). It should be noted that the mangrove areas were reduced considerably as a result of
drought periods. In addition to this constraint there is a migration of assets, the consequence
of which is impossibility to maintain agricultural hydraulic engineering facilities.
In general, studies, including those of the IPAR show that the poorest rural populations, who
are the priority of the economic and social policy of the government, are located in the forest
grazing areas in the groundnut basin and in the southern region of the country. They are in
rainfed farming and herding areas.
b) Creating wealth in the rainfed agriculture sector
The share of investment earmarked for rainfed agriculture should increase sharply. It can be
more profitable for a much lower investment per unit of area and per asset in areas of good
rainfall (south of the groundnut basin and southern part of Senegal). Indeed, the production
model that is favoured (motorized rice cultivation and complete control of irrigation) is too
costly and unlikely to be profitable in the short to medium terms. The Senegal river valley
which is home to 4.4% of farm households below the poverty line receives 40% of total
investment in agriculture. Irrigated rice has received an investment amount five times greater
than their total production value.
B. To promote an inclusive dialogue on the following stakes
1. Strategic Challenges
A number of national challenges on the socio-economic agenda to be addressed are identified
and can be lines of analysis in relation to the agricultural sector and its place in the Senegalese
national economy:







Demographic transition and job creation;
Water control,
Rural infrastructure and public services,
The fight against poverty and inequity;
A financial system adapted to local realities;
Mastering the production triangle;
The need to increase public investment in rural areas;
2. Resources to be mobilized
The mobilization of internal public resources (national budget) and official development
assistance must be linked to strategic challenges, including the construction of sustainable
human development in rural areas and economic growth based on a sustainable and
competitive agriculture.
45
3. What steps to follow?
This is the most important because it relates to the effective operationalization of the two
previous points to achieve the desired results. It was the sticking point over many decades of
investment and is in the current context a source of discussion related to failures in the
agricultural sector.
Linking the three lines is a major challenge that involves all stakeholders: the legislative,
executive, technical and financial partners, civil society, including farmers' organizations.
Thus, advocacy will be to target all stakeholders, not just the Senegalese authorities.
APPENDICES
INTERVIEWEES
Farmers’ organizations
1. Baba NGOM
2. Diery GUEYE
3. Nadjirou SALL
4. Touba SECK
5. Moustapha SYLLA
6. Aliou DIA
Secretary General of the CNCR
Board member of the CNCR, horticultural producer
Secretary General, FONGS
Technical support - Forces Paysannes
President Movement for Solidarity and Development (MSD)
President - Forces Paysannes
Development Partners
6. Emmanuel SENE
7. Christophe LESUEUR
World Bank
Hub Rural
Public Institutions
8. Mame Ndiobo DIENE
9. Demba SOW
Technical Adviser, Ministry of Agriculture
Chairman of the Rural Development Economic and Social
Council
Commissioner for Economic Investigation
Bureau Chief "Agricultural Trade Policy", Rapporteur of the
Sub Committee on Trade in Agricultural Products,
Department of Foreign Trade / MCOM
Engineer Statistician Economist / Accountant National
Agency for National Statistics and Demography (ANSD)
10. Babacar SEMBENE
11. Moussa THIAM
BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Aidtransparency, « Analyse de l’évolution des politiques macroéconomiques du Sénégal
de 1980 a nos jours ». 2002, 43 p
46














http://www.aidtransparency.org/at/images/docs/resarch_results/analyse_macro_econom
ique_au_senegal/Analyse_de_levolution_des_politiques_macroeconomiques_du_Seneg
al_de_1980_a%20_nos_jours.pdf
ANSD, « Note d’analyse des comptes nationaux définitifs 2006, semi-définitifs 2007 et
provisoires 2008 », Agence nationale de la statistique et de la démographie (ANSD),
2009, 45 p.
ANSD « situation économique et sociale du Sénégal, 2007. », Agence nationale de la
statistique et de la démographie (ANSD), octobre 2008, 280 p.
Benkahla A., « Les Organisations de producteurs dans le processus de construction de
l’Ecowap. Quelle place dans la concertation ? Quel rôle pour les OP? Quelles
propositions? », Oxfam International, 2009, 12 p.
CAADP, « Déclaration de Maputo : où en sont les pays concernés : Rapport sur les
Politiques? », Grad / Présence Africaine, CAADP, Juin 2009, 5 p.
CEDEAO, « La politique agricole régionale de l’Afrique de l’Ouest : l’ECOWAP Faire de l’agriculture le levier de l’intégration régionale », CEDEAO, décembre 2008,
12 p.
CEDEAO, « La politique agricole régionale (ECOWAP) et l’Offensive pour la
production / Séquence opérationnelle : État d’avancement de la mise en œuvre de
l’ECOWAP et de l’Offensive régionale pour la production alimentaire et contre la
faim », Note introductive soumise par la Commission de la Cédéao, Réunion de Paris, 9
décembre 2008, 18 p.
CNCAS, « "L’expérience de la CNCAS dans le financement de l’agriculture familiale
au Sénégal", Le financement de l’agriculture familiale dans le contexte de
libéralisation : quelle contribution de la microfinance ? », Séminaire de Dakar, 21-24
janvier 2002.
CNCAS, « "L’expérience de la CNCAS dans le financement de l’agriculture familiale
au Sénégal", Le financement de l’agriculture familiale dans le contexte de
libéralisation : quelle contribution de la microfinance ? », Séminaire de Dakar, 21-24
janvier 2002.
DIENE, Charles Gaïky, « Sénégal: Part du budget allouée à l'agriculture - Etat et ONG
ne parlent pas le même langage », Walfadjri, 14 octobre 2009
DAPS, « Rapport de l’étude sur l’évolution du secteur agricole, des conditions de vie
des ménages et de la vie chère au Sénégal », DAPS / RESAKSS / IITA, mars 2009.
DAPS, « Programme national d’investissement agricole (PNIA) - Plan
d’investissement 2011-2015», DAPS, Processus de mise en œuvre de
l’ECOWAP/PDDAA, nd.
DAPS, « Programme national d’investissement agricole (PNIA) - Bilan diagnostic du
secteur agricole : Revue des Politiques, Stratégies et Programmes ; Performances du
secteur», DAPS, Processus de mise en œuvre de l’ECOWAP/PDDAA, janvier 2009.
Gaye Daffe, « Profil de la croissance au Sénégal », Janvier 2005, 13 p.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTABCDEWASHINGTON2005/Resources/GDaf
fe.pdf

Ministère de l’agriculture, « Cadre stratégique décennal du secteur de l’agriculture au
Sénégal 2011-2020 : Résumé analytique », STRADEVE, nd.

MBOW, Thierno Idrissa, « Une revue critique des politiques agricoles au Sénégal »,
Séminaire de recherche du master « Développement agricole durable », C.E.I./
Université Paris-Sud 11, 2009.
http://www.over-blog.com/profil/blogueur-620776.html
http://www.resakss.org/
47
•
Brève 1 : Programme National de Développement Agricole
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42483
•
Brève 2 : La Grande Offensive pour la Nourriture et l’Abondance
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42484
•
Brève 3 : Plan d’Action Forestier
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42485
•
Brève 4 : Plan National de Développement de l’Elevage
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42486
•
Brève 5 : Plan d’Action pour le Développement de la Pêche et l’Aquaculture
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42487
•
Brève 6 : Le Programme Transversal
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42488
•
Brève 7 : Coordination et Suivi-Evaluation
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42489
•
Brochure 1 : Revue des efforts de développement dans le secteur agricole
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42500
•
Brochure 2 : Croissance agricole, réduction de la pauvreté et sécurité
Alimentaire : Performance récente et perspectives
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=425001
•
Brochure 3 : Options stratégiques et sources de croissance agricole, de
réduction de la pauvreté et de sécurité alimentaire
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=425002
•
Brochure 4 : Financement à long-terme du secteur agricole pour une
croissance soutenue, la réduction de la pauvrete et la sécurite alimentaire
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42503
•
Brochure 5 : Système National d’Analyse Stratégique et de Gestion des
Connaissances (SAKSS) pour informer et guider le processus de mise en oeuvre du PNIA
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42504
•
Charte du Sénégal
http://www.inter-reseaux.org/IMG/pdf_Pacte_PNIA_Senegal.pdf
http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42993
48