Traditional production systems:
Originally, the slash-and-burn method of agriculture was predominant
in sparsely populated Gambia. Besides the growth of indigenous crops
such as sorghum, millet, fonio, rice and Bambara
groundnut (as opposed
to the American groundnut grown today), the keeping of livestock was
essential to rural households. Involvement in livestock and degree of sedentarisation varied between the different ethnic groups. Outside
the various empires, farmers were fairly mobile, responding to attacks
from slave raiders, ravaging warlords and shifting ecological
circumstances. A general low population density implied that free land
resources always were available. There was, on the other hand, a
chronic labour shortage. From the 8th through the 18th century,
several crops of Asian origin, and later on American crops, such as
maize and groundnut, were introduced and quickly assimilated into
local food production systems in West Africa. The American groundnut
was introduced by Portuguese agencies in the sixteenth century.
Rice as a cash crop:
West Africa is believed to be one centre of indigenous rice species,
and rice was grown on the annually flooded banks of River Gambia long
before Europeans arrived. As rice production is rather labour
intensive, it presupposed some degree of political stability and
labour supply, and it is thus no coincidence that the Wuli Empire was
centred in an area well fitted for rice production. Rice provided a
high yielding and nutritional food staple and a trade commodity, while
the empire could provide political stability and a labour force of
slaves. Long before the arrival of the Europeans, rice was traded
throughout the western Sudan. With the emergence of the transatlantic
slave trade, demand for rice and other cereals increased. These
products were sold to slave raiders and traders, slaves and European
merchants and slave ship crews.
This made the coast-near Gambia a more important production site,
boosting the demand for slaves for rice production locally. By 1800,
the agricultural labour force was almost exclusively composed of
slaves, and the slave population of The Gambia is estimated to have
been over 50%.
Groundnuts and slavery:
The American groundnut was introduced to West Africa by the Portuguese
in the 16th century, and spread slowly as a fairly drought resistant
diet supplement. Demand for kitchen oil and industrial oils and fats
(for lubricants and production of soap and candles) was booming in the
early 19th century Europe and America, making it necessary to import
groundnut and palm oil imports from the tropics. Groundnut overseas
trade was introduced by the British in the 1820's, and found immediate
response amongst African growers, including the indigenous building up
of a system of middle men and a transport system.
This slowly led to a commercialisation of the agricultural sector in
The Gambia during the 19th century. The groundnut trade replaced the
slave trade after 1805. In 1830, ten baskets of groundnuts were
exported from The Gambia. Five years later, 47 tons of groundnuts were
traded. By 1857 export production had already reached 13 544 tons and
represented more than 70% of The Gambia’s trade. Most of the nuts were
bought by British and French traders. Production stayed within the
context of slavery.
Groundnuts and strange farmers:
Between the 1880's and the 1920's, dramatic structural changes
occurred in the social organisation of labour in The Gambia. As in
other African colonies, colonial government had no active policy to
combat domestic slavery worth mentioning before WW2. Unlike other
African societies, however, an indigenous process started in The
Gambia, resulting in the marginalisation of slavery by 1930. Actually,
colonial legislation forbidding slavery had been introduced in 1894
and 1906, but there is no evidence that it was ever enforced.
Slavery simply became too expensive for the producers within the new
colonial conditions. Groundnut-producing slaves had to be fed by their
owners all year round. Enhanced groundnut production at the expense of
food production, and an ever-increasing population, deepened the
dependency on imported food. As the traditional trade routes were
blocked, and food import and trade was monopolised by
government-licensed Europeans and Lebanese, food prices increased.
Food retailers demanded cash or granted credits (at unfavourable
interest rates) tied to sales of groundnuts to themselves. Thus,
producers got even more dependent on cash-raising groundnut
production. The slavery-based production system, however, with its
seasonal demand for labour, but all-year obligations to the labour
force, was becoming too expensive as food prices were increasing.
Hence, in a transition period of ca 50 years, the organisation of
labour changed from slavery to strange farmers (hired, seasonal
labour). The advantages were obvious. Producers' food obligations
lasted only during the five months of the agricultural season. More
labour could be hired in the critical periods, and the system enabled
even ordinary peasants to gain extra labour. The regional availability
of labour was relatively high.
The strange farmers system was, however, not based on a monetarised
market economy. Strange farmers were paid in kind, and were fed by
their hosts during their stay. Thus, the existence of this system
depended on food availability, i.e. sufficient local food production
or food imports.
As food demand chronically exceeded food production, food imports
continued to grow, to the colonial government's great distress. Cash
crops production did not promote a large scale monetarisation and
capital accumulation in the Gambian rural society. For the average
farmer, cash income was limited and often exceeded by the expenses of
farming. Capital accumulation was next to impossible, due to
government taxation and the need to purchase food (i.e. imported rice)
and seed nuts. Local merchants provided (unfavourable) credits, to be
repaid when the groundnut harvest was sold (to the same merchant). In
bad years, mostly related to low precipitation or low market prices,
incomes were insufficient for repayments. In good years, some was left
for consumption. Thus, farmers in general saw little of their cash
income.
As the general restraint in agricultural production was seasonal
labour shortage, Gambian farmers, however, were more or less forced to
hire strange farmers. In an environment of abundant land resources,
labour-intensive agriculture and exposure to natural disasters
(drought, locusts, etc.), and where every additional labour unit
produced more than he/she consumed, strange farmers were vital to food
security. Furthermore, government taxes, to be paid in cash, forced
the farmers into producing cash crops. In this perspective, it is an
open question whether the Gambians now entered the market economy, or
actually adjusted their subsistence economy to the new colonial
preconditions.
The 1920's, moreover, were marked by turmoil in the market situation.
After substantial post-war price increases, groundnut market value
tumbled from £ 22 to £ 8 a ton within the year of 1921. There seemed
to be insufficient capital amongst the producers to purchase seed nuts
and imported food, needed both by the producers and the strange
farmers, for the following season. The colonial government responded
by subsidising rice and canceling parts of debt repayments. These
actions had to be repeated on several occasions in colonial times,
particularly during the 1920's. Subsidies, debt cancellations and
increasing food imports and thus foreign dependency (especially
problematic to uphold during WW2) distressed the colonial government.
Action
was taken by the government to promote food production, particularly
rice production. Heavy customs duties on food imports were imposed,
farmers were required to produce minimum quantities of cereals and to
spend the first fortnight of the rainy season to plant cereals, rice
irrigation projects were initiated. Periodical increases in food
production were achieved, but this was not enough to cut imports, and
did not take place at the expense of groundnut production. Groundnut
production and sale had become institutionalised within the Gambian
society, and neither fluctuating market prices nor colonial government
policy could in general force producers to increase food production at
the expense of cash crops. Only during WW2, when international trade
was hampered, did groundnut production decline.
|
Thus, a rather surprising discrepancy between government policy
and farmers behaviour occurred in the last half of the colonial
era. Colonial government pushed for more subsistence, while
farmers sought to uphold cash crops production. Farmers were, in
several ways, dependent on their cash crops production.
Government taxes had to be paid, accumulated credits repaid and
demands for Western commodities had increased.
There is, therefore, reason to believe that market relations
were perceived as a burden, inflicted on farmers by external
actors. However, the farmers' dependency of cash income probably
made them ignore, and even counteract, government policy for a
shift in production towards food staples.
POST WAR PERIOD - 1945-65
The post-war colonial period saw a more active government policy
as to increase both cash crops and food production, coupled with
large investments. Large-scale rice irrigation and mechanisation
development projects (mostly failures) were to provide food
security. Nonetheless, food imports fluctuated around the same
numbers throughout the period. Basically, food production kept
up with population growth. However, enhanced subsidies on
imported rice succeeded in keeping food prices at a lower level.
This, in turn, enabled producers to hire more strange farmers
and increase groundnut production, but contributed to the
failure of the various rice irrigation projects. Further, the "oxenisation
programme", introducing draught animals in a nationwide campaign
starting in 1955, somewhat reduced the labour shortage.
Oxenisation, cheaper food and population growth contributed to a
larger area of cultivation. Higher livestock numbers gave more
manure, and contributed to higher yields. World market prices
for groundnuts were high in the post-war years, but started to
drop in the early 1950's. Even rainfall was sufficient and
fairly stable. All in all, therefore, these were relatively
prosperous years for the Gambian farmers.
Some wealth accumulation became possible. Better housing, diet
improvements, health care and prestigious Western consumption
goods were now available. Besides that, the new wealth could be
displayed in a larger number of wives and children, in
accordance with tradition. Investments tied directly to
production mostly included livestock herds and drought animals.
Bigger herds, it must be noted, contributed little to
productivity or turnovers, but were a traditional way of
displaying wealth and increasing food security. In general, it
therefore seems that economic surpluses entered into the
traditional value sector, where concepts of easy displayable
wealth and gift economy prevailed.
The post-independence development
The economic development after 1965 was more ambiguous than in
the preceding decades. New, serious problems emerged. Pressure
on the land resources began to make its impact as population
kept rising steadily. The traditional fallow period of ca thirty
years, essential to keep soil fertility when fertiliser or
manure availability was low, shrank towards two years or zero at
present. Deforestation and agricultural intensification laid the
land open for widespread erosion. Precipitation fluctuated
dramatically, and The Gambia was severely affected by the Sahel
droughts in the 1970's and 1980's. In addition, groundnut prices
kept falling on the world market, with a short-lived exception
during the mid-70's.
On the other hand, several blessings of modernisation made their
impact during the same period. Labour shortages were further
neutralised by enhanced oxenisation, the sine-hoe-package (a
ploughing, seeding and harvesting devise tied on to drought
animals), new roads (simplifying access to the fields) and new
wells. New varieties of plants were introduced, including a more
pest resistant millet and a more drought resistant and higher
yielding groundnut. Moreover, chemical fertilisers became
widespread, usually doubling yields and making fallow periods
superfluous. This trend, however, came to an abrupt end when
government fertiliser subsidies were halted in 1987. Fertiliser
sales have dropped significantly, alongside with yields, and
fertiliser is now a seldom sight amongst the Gambian farmer. In
total, these conditions led to the peaking of groundnut
production in the late 1980's and a slight downwards trend
thereafter. Trends tend towards increased food production
(mainly millet) at the expense of groundnuts, seemingly ending
the Gambian farmers' experimentation with the capitalist
production system.
The ERP (Economic Recovery Program) from the mid 1980's did
little else than enhance these trends. While it helped cleaning
up state finances and the budget situation through cuts it
subsidies, it meant less incitements for the Gambian farmer to
intensify his/her contacts with the market. The cut of
fertiliser subsidies gave too high prices to make it available
to farmers with a low liquidation - which is to say, farmers in
general. Rising consumer prices, especially on food products,
have driven these costs out of range, and led to a renewed
emphasis on food production. The privatisation of former state
and corporative institutions (such as the GPMB) have lead to
even less trust in the market.
The question remains open, whether the Gambian farmers at any
time actually involved themselves in market capitalism. Of
course, they were linked to the capitalist world economy through
their trade with groundnuts. There are even signs of enthusiasm
in the relation to this market in middle third of this century.
However their perception of, let alone their belief in, this
system remains doubtful. Several responses indicate the
predominance of the traditional value system to the market
economy amongst the farmers. Failure to reinvest surpluses in
good times, a fundamental ground rule of capitalism, constitutes
one vital example. Another indicator is the recent response to
higher fertiliser prices. Even with present day prices, the use
of fertiliser is highly profitable to the farmer. Still, this
does not seem to be an option, as it would involve an
intensification in the relation with the market (larger credits
or sale of livestock), as farmers do not possess the required
capital/savings. Short-term food security is preferred, but of
course also a necessity. Finally, even pro-market responses can
be interpreted in the sense of lacking options for the farmer,
as government taxes and labour scarcity demanded an involvement
with the market.
On the other hand, structural preconditions for capitalist
development were somewhat lacking. The prevailing land tenure
system, with the village as formal proprietor of the land,
restricted private property rights. Obliquities in the world
trade system have further tended to under-price developing
countries' export products or creating trade barriers for them.
Obstacles to "development", thus, are many.
Conclusively, the parallel economies of African countries it
must be underlined. There is the "modern" economy, practiced by
the links to the international market and by policy-making
officials and donors and to a certain degree by the state as an
entity and some local traders and capitalists. Then there is the
"traditional" economy, practiced by the rural population at
large and to a certain degree by government officials. Mind the
conflict of ideas when policies are developed in one economic
rationality and is set to be practiced by a population with a
foundation in another economic rationality. This is very much
the essence of the history of colonization and development
thereafter. |
|
