Senegal farmer networks respond to COVID-19 / Les réseaux de producteurs du Sénégal font face à la COVID-19

Demographics

In terms of demographics, 71 percent of respondents identified as male and 29 percent as female. Most respondents fell into the 35–55 age range. The average household size—13 people—was higher than the 2013 household sizes available from the Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie [Sénégal] (2016) for the same regions (Kaffrine = 10, Kaolack = 10, Kolda = 9, Ziguinchor = 7), reflecting the presence of additional family members who had been restricted from or had chosen not to return to urban areas. In terms of education level, the majority of respondents either had attended some Koranic school or had no education at all. However, 30 percent of respondents had received some schooling, and of those, an average of 13 percent of respondents had reached a secondary (high school) level. Of those aged 35 years or less 23% had achieved a secondary education, compared with 14 percent of the 35–55 age group and just 5 percent of the 55+ group; similarly, 27 percent of the under-35 group had a primary education, compared with 16 percent in each of the other two groups. According to the sample, growing proportions of younger generations were accessing and achieving higher education levels, an encouraging sign of new levels of digital literacy to come.

Food Security

Food security was a major focus on the COVID-19 action questionnaire, which we approached using three types of questions: food insecurity status, cereals stocks in the household, and expectation of receiving food aid (see graphs in Figure 1). We used the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) to identify levels of food insecurity among respondent households (International Dietary Data Expansion [INDDEX] Project, 2018). The scale asks a series of nine questions about an event related to food security, with follow-ups related to frequency—for example, how often household members may have gone without a meal for a day over the past 30 days. Responses are tabulated and assigned a score ranging from 0 to 27, which is then converted into a food insecurity category ranging from food secure (green) to severely food insecure (red).

When comparing the HFIAS results by network and by round, on average, all the networks except Saxemi saw the percentage of their sampled membership decrease in the severely food insecure category. Kissal Patim had the largest share of severely insecure households in both rounds, but that share decreased between the two rounds as households entered the maize harvest season. A few explanations for the levels of food insecurity arose from our post-survey discussions with network leaders. Entente noted that the border closures caused by COVID-19 affected households’ access to food; in addition, the lower-performing production season in 2019 meant there was less harvest available to store. The Kissal Patim manager expressed surprise that the percentage of severely food insecure households in Round 1 (76 percent) was not in fact higher due to the high level of vulnerability in her zone. However, with the harvest in her zone starting at the end of September and early October for green maize as well as for peanuts and rice, more households shifted into a moderate category of food security. Because the COVID-19 action survey instrument remained available on the network agents’ devices, Kissal Patim manager decided to conduct a third round from December 2020 to January 2021 and expected to see the proportion of members in the severely food insecure decrease significantly.

Beyond the HFIAS, the amount of cereals that households had available for consumption provided a second data point to understand food security. As of 2017, cereals stock consumption per person in Senegal was, on average, approximately 8 kg/month (IPAR & RTI International, 2017). With an average of 13 members in sampled households, those with 100 kg or less in stock were likely to be especially concerned about running out of food in the coming months. As mentioned previously, the first round of data collection took place during the peak of the lean season, just before harvest; for some networks, the second round occurred after harvesting had begun.

We can see a few shifts in the household stocks between the rounds. Saxemi and FEPROMAS households experienced decreases in the amount of cereals in stocks, with more households shifting from the 101–200 kg and 200+ kg groups into less than 100 kg and less than 50 kg, because the harvest season had not yet begun for those networks. Kissal Patim, however, experienced both an increase in stocks between rounds and higher levels of cereals on hand; before data collection, many of their members had received food aid from the government. Without the food aid, the Kissal Patim network leader expected that their stocks would have been closer to the levels of Entente, which experienced small increases between rounds.

We also asked households about their expectations to receive food aid. The network leader discussions of the household responses illuminated several cultural dynamics. For example, the household data showed that during both rounds, most households expected to receive food aid in some form, although the numbers were slightly lower in Round 2 overall. Saxemi’s leaders confirmed that 70 to 75 percent of their members had received about 100 kg worth of cereals for food aid as of Round 2. In the Entente network, any member who did not receive official aid from the national government received aid from local sources instead. Kissal Patim members had also received food aid, as noted previously. However, FEPROMAS detected a cultural norm of negative stigma attached with receiving food aid, which may explain the disconnect between the high proportion of members who were experiencing moderate food insecurity but who said they did not need any food aid. By contrast, Kissal Patim’s leaders indicated that even when the enumerators were network agents with trusted relationships, members would respond in the affirmative that they needed food aid if they thought that Kissal Patim might be investing in new programs, even when they had already received aid. For this reason, the networks saw HFIAS scores and the cereals stock responses as more important indicators of the food security status of their member households than the food aid questions.

Access to Finance

Access to finance is a critical need for farmers and is one of the primary services that farmer networks provide to their members (Figure 3). The majority of households in Saxemi and FEPROMAS indicated that they had borrowed in the form of cash or in-kind credit in the past year, with most of that credit used to support agricultural production, followed by food purchases. As less financially connected networks, Entente and Kissal Patim had fewer members accessing finance; those in Entente who said they had accessed credit likely were using it for seed production. Most respondents who had received credit reported receiving it from the networks. During the follow-up sessions, the network leaders validated these results. They said that because the networks were playing a strong intermediary role for accessing finance, most of their members who borrowed did not perceive that the original source of the credit was the banks.

COVID-19 Challenges and Responses

Households were asked to select constraints that they were experiencing or expected to experience as a result of COVID-19 (Figure 3). Across the board, most households indicated that field preparation and access to equipment were constraints, followed closely by access to seeds and finance. Most respondents did not indicate that household food stocks during the winter months would be a constraint, with the exception of members of Kissal Patim, which reflected the higher levels of vulnerability of households in the Casamance region, a post-conflict zone. Similar to the questions about access to finance, the constraints noted by the network members reflected the resource levels of the networks themselves. For example, FEPROMAS is well-resourced in terms of maintaining connections with financial actors and assuring farmers’ access to seed and equipment. In Casamance, Entente is better resourced than Kissal Patim; Kissal Patim is a newer network, and Entente benefits from access to development aid that is concentrated in the Ziguinchor conflict zone.

In response to the constraints, we also asked households to report their response strategies. Most households reported shifting their cropping strategy to short-cycle crops (such as cowpea and maize) and favoring cereals and food crops. Market gardens were another popular strategy, particularly with farmers in the Entente network. Kissal Patim’s leaders noted that they were benefiting from engagement with the USAID-funded Feed the Future Kawolor Project as a reason that farmers were pushing into market gardens and horticulture crops; with the Kawolor Project’s support, Kissal Patim staff made telephone calls and sent messages to farmers via rural radio stations to produce as much foodstuff as possible in preparation for a potential second wave of the pandemic, while paying attention to household nutrition in the process. The data also showed that some households reduced their area cultivated whereas other households increased their area cultivated. Farmers in Saxemi and FEPROMAS in the Saloum region were more likely to decrease their land area; those in Entente and Kissal Patim in the Casamance region were more likely to increase their area. Kissal Patim provided some additional context in terms of youth returning to the land from urban areas in a loose back-to-the-farm movement driven by COVID-19. They were reclaiming land they had formally rented out, choosing to go into horticulture and higher-value crops and providing agripreneurial services.

Finally, households were also asked about their livestock selling activities, with the hypothesis that households might have been choosing to sell livestock as a coping strategy to access more funds to purchase food. However, most households reported not selling livestock, with the exception of male respondents from FEPROMAS; network discussions provided context that fattening sheep is a common side business for men in the Saloum region and particularly where FEPROMAS is active, so when the travel ban was lifted, business picked up. Because this is a largely local and accessible market, sales were likely less of a destocking response and more a resumption of regular business activity. In Casamance, networks indicated that it was quite uncommon to sell sheep or goats. Instead, farmers might “exchange up” to a cow or sell livestock only because of a major traumatic or celebratory life event. COVID-19 had not yet risen to the level of a serious event that would merit livestock sales.

Humanitarian Responses Designed to Preserve Network Cohesion

Networks took the initiative to modify systems inherited from Feed the Future to protect their assets and to limit backsliding of development gains. As an example, Saxemi opted to reserve a portion of the 2019 harvest to respect key commercial contracts while freeing the limited remaining surpluses for internal network households, rather than speculating on the open market. This decision demonstrates a will to protect valuable established markets yet provide for the food security of more vulnerable members. In the same vein, Entente de Diouloulou took immediate measures to mill lower-grade seed stocks, which were then distributed as food to 1,000 households to assuage initial fears, while securing the seed program for the following year by accelerating the procurement of bagging supplies and planning for an early harvest. Kissal Patim made sure that members could access fertilizer subsidies for the 2020 season but distributed these inputs with the expectation that members would repay the network at the end of the season to rebuild internal capital for subsequent input lending.

Maintain and Leverage Systemic Linkages

Farmer networks quickly took measures to preserve the integrity of the systemic linkages built during the Feed the Future programs. Even though the lockdown made planning for the 2020 season more difficult, the networks supplied their field agents and lead farmers with personal protective equipment (PPE) so that they could continue their work in person, and they used phone-based WhatsApp links to communicate remotely with their members as needed. Finally, they produced their annual input procurement plans using Excel-based templates. They took bold, transformative action to bridge communication and logistics barriers and to extend services to communities. This response contrasts with the prevailing expectation that farmers would rely on negative coping strategies (such as destocking livestock or consuming their seed stocks) to face the COVID-19 shock unless input firms, processors, buyers, and banks took the initiative. Instead, the four farmer networks participating in this study bridged the last mile to their rural members and activated linkages with private firms, partners, and banks to renegotiate or adjust contracts and to keep value chains functioning despite COVID-19 barriers. That said, the networks did not achieve these results in a vacuum. Each network mentioned reaching out to institutional aid and development partner initiatives, such as the Feed the Future Kawolor Project, to channel coping resources and to fund future transformation plans that would benefit their members.

Adapting Financial Instruments

The questionnaire responses highlighted the farmers’ perception of the central role that the networks played in accessing seasonal credit. Networks adapted existing integrated credit mechanisms developed under Feed the Future to deal with the exceptional situation of COVID-19. Several of them co-designed financing mechanisms with local financial institutions or introduced their own. FEPROMAS, one of Feed the Future’s early success stories, co-created a financial instrument with the Banque Agricole that relied on promissory notes to temporarily capitalize outstanding 2019 loan balances, which then allowed FEPROMAS members to access 2020 lines of credit. Saxemi and Entente resorted to allocating their internal capital reserves to cover outstanding balances and were able to extend credit for the upcoming season to their members accordingly. This ability to innovate and adapt in the face of adversity by relying on internal cohesive bonds and external trusted linkages demonstrates the powerful social capital these networks built through their successful value chain activities.

Dependence on Labor Mobility and Skills

Challenges reported around access to labor were twofold. First, the closure of the Gambian and Guinea Bissau borders prevented laborers from migrating into Senegal’s agricultural zone at the outset of the growing season. Second, the rescheduling of school exams because of lockdowns during the sowing season meant that students who typically would have been at home by then could not participate, increasing the cost of land preparation and activities such as manual weeding. In Casamance, travel bans and roadblocks kept some villages from linking with network services. In-person extension trainings and technical assistance were not held as usual. Using less-skilled personnel likely impacted 2020 yields, and the increased demand for mechanized services pushed up costs, leading some farmers not to use them.

Ensuring Inclusion, an Acknowledged Blind Spot

The household survey showed the vulnerability of the network membership. One issue was limited literacy, given that only 30 percent of members had attended elementary (17 percent) or secondary (13 percent) school. Also, with women comprising only 29 percent of network members]and 13 percent aged younger than 35, we hypothesize that the benefits stemming from adult men’s network memberships are not fully trickling down to women and youth in their households. Specific crop diversification measures promoting small-scale horticulture and home gardening were put in place with support from external projects that targeted women and youth specifically, which were well accepted. However, the network leaders recognized that the crisis highlighted the urgency to deliberately introduce income-diversification strategies within households and in the community, particularly for youth and women with limited access to land.

Recognizing the Value of Extension and Advisory Services

The networks recognized the importance of maintaining extension services to ensure that their farmer members applied best practices. Prioritizing the supply of PPE to network agents facilitated their safe access to communities to plan and advise members during the 2020 season. Educated youth were prevented from returning to the fields because of the lockdown, which highlighted their role in oversight, sound practices, and service delivery— and is expected to impact yields negatively. The focus group results also demonstrated that, despite the pandemic, climate and short-term weather information was considered a priority value-added service for which network members demonstrated a willingness to pay, even during these difficult times. The questionnaire showed that more mature networks such as FEPROMAS and Entente de Diouloulou were able to address the land preparation constraints by coordinating mechanization services within their zone to cover their members’ needs.

Shock Responses: A Data-Driven Process

The data-driven processes that the networks used to manage their responses were less visible to external observers. Networks were confident in the accuracy of their member listings, and they used procurement planning and forecasting tools. They managed these systems locally, resorting to trusted Excel-based templates and using the open-source CommAgri platform during this study to facilitate field tracking in addition to administering the household survey. The networks’ ability to manage data made it possible for Kissal Patim to ensure that the food aid allocations were sufficient to meet the needs of its members and for FEPROMAS to provide trusted estimates of input requirements to its suppliers and bankers, which allowed their leaders to negotiate procurements and lines of credit remotely. The value of these systems, which extended well beyond their value during Naatal Mbay, was confirmed during the pandemic.

Resilience Varies and Evolves Over Space and Time

All four networks were able to develop context-specific responses. The survey data showed varying food insecurity and shock responses driven by history, geography, and the organizational maturity of the networks as market-system agents. The food insecurity profiles varied from one organization to the next, as did their capacity to access credit or manage livestock assets. Therefore, there was not a one-size-fits-all delivery package for resilience but rather a series of strategic drivers that the networks adjusted and activated.

Transforming the Systems to Prepare for Future Shocks

Despite these challenges, the networks were expecting a good harvest in 2020 given the adequate rainfall and their ability to maintain most of their farming activities, particularly seed multiplication and input programs. For 2021, networks said they intended to diversify their seeds and crops in the off-season into a more balanced mix of food security and cash crops such as rice, cowpea, and maize, as well as horticulture and tree crops. This adjustment should result in additional income for farming households, give them access to food earlier, and hopefully protect against an overreliance on food purchases. Consequently, the networks also indicated that they intend to expand and diversify their seed programs beyond cereals in response to anticipated increased demand from members. Previously, networks accepted a loan repayment period that could extend to the following pre-season activities. Now, they will seek to “tighten” the repayment window and include the new unpaid balance notes as a standard clause in their contracts with banks. Entente de Diouloulou saw financial autonomy as critical to resilience and entered into advanced negotiations with three banks to adopt credit practices similar to those used by FEPROMAS, where farmer credit is integrated into commercial trading loans managed by the networks. Finally, the networks had recognized a need to expand their internal communications channels to collect and transmit data in case of physical roadblocks and other impediments.