1

October 2014

West Coast Region Baseline Survey Study of the economic situation of Casamance women migrants residing

in The Gambia, their knowledge of and access to the services of financial

institutions, & knowledge on the ECOWAS protocol on free movement of

persons and goods.

Supported by ECOWAS Spanish Fund for Migration and Development

Written and compiled by: Abdoulie Jabang and Bridget T. Correa

Edited by: Tony Jansen, Ismaila Jarjou and Lamin Sawo

2

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements are like Oscar speeches and meant to express gratitude for a job well done. Therefore, as a novices in baseline data collection as well as data analysis, we have nothing else but to show gratitude to the people herein mentioned but not limited to them only. This is to express my deepest appreciation to all those who assisted us in this study which without their contribution, it would have been very difficult for us to complete the write up of this report. First we would like to thank the wonderful team that assisted in the data collection in the persons of Daniel Dobasin, Ousman Mankara and Nichola Gomez. Special thanks go to Mr. Alpha Sey for his timely assistance in preparing the data analysis within the shortest period of time. We would not also do justice to Jon Eldon for his timely intervention when things were stocked and he paved the way for the analysis. We also want to appreciate Lamin Sawo and Martin Mendy whose contributions were stimulating suggestions and encouragement, helped us to get literature that were very vital for the write up. Furthermore I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial role of the Mr. Ismaila Jarju and Mr. Tony Jansen for editing this document and putting it into perspective. We are proud of all of you and have learnt a lot during the survey period.

Sponsors

3

Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Key findings: ................................................................................................................... 5

2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Specific Objectives: ....................................................................................................... 9

3.0 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Tools used .......................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Survey Sample ...............................................................................................................10

3.3 Research Limitation ......................................................................................................11

4.0 Detailed results .................................................................................................................13

4.1 Respondents’ duration of stay in the Gambia. ............................................................13

4.1.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................13

4.2 Reasons for their migration from Casamance Region to the Gambia. ......................14

4.2.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................14

4.3 Income generating activities .........................................................................................14

4.4 Respondents’ monthly income. ....................................................................................15

4.4.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................15

4.5 Respondents’ usage of services offered by financial institutions and the

effectiveness of such services ...........................................................................................15

4.5.2 Conclusion: .............................................................................................................16

4.6 Services use by respondents .......................................................................................16

4.6.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................17

4.7 The effectiveness of the services being offered .........................................................17

4.7.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................17

4.8 Support to their family members in Casamance .........................................................17

4.8.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................18

4.9 Respondents’ support to their family members in Casamance .................................18

4.9.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................18

5.0 Memberships in Kafos and Federations ......................................................................19

5.0.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................19

5.1 Respondents’ source of information ...........................................................................19

5.1.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................20

4

5.2 Respondents’ preference of radio programs & other sources of information ..........20

5.3 Awareness on the ECOWAS free movement of persons and goods .........................21

5.3.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................22

5.4 Problems encountered in Senegal-Gambia cross border ...........................................22

5.4.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................23

6.0 Findings .............................................................................................................................23

6.1 Livelihood sources ........................................................................................................23

6.1.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................25

6.2 Livelihoods income across the targeted communities ...............................................25

6.2.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................26

6.3 Challenges .....................................................................................................................26

6.3.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................28

6.4 Coping Strategies ..........................................................................................................28

6.4.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................28

6.5 Awareness rate of financial institutions ......................................................................29

6.5.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................30

6.6 Usage of financial services ...........................................................................................30

6.6.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................30

6.7 External agency and Institutional support ...................................................................30

6.7.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................31

6.8 Membership of Kafos ....................................................................................................31

6.8.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................32

6.9 Supports to their families in Casamance .....................................................................32

6.9.2 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................33

7.0 Awareness on ECOWAS policy of free movement of persons and goods ................33

7.0.1 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................33

8.0 Recommendations for the Project and Concern Universal ............................................33

9.0 Reference...........................................................................................................................34

10.0 Annex 1: Acronyms and Abbreviations .........................................................................35

5

1.0 Executive Summary Concern Universal (CU) has secured a one year project funding from ECOWAS Spanish fund on

Migration and Development which is geared towards increasing opportunities for poor

Casamance migrant women’s economic stability in the two border areas of Casamance and the

Gambia, and to increase civil society’s understanding and awareness of the rights to free

movement of persons (particularly women) between Casamance (Senegal) and the Gambia. The

project targets 3000 migrant women along the Gambia Casamance border areas.

The study used qualitative research methods to collect data over six days in selected communities

in Foni, Kombo and KMC regions of the Gambia. A total of 380 women were interviewed for the

study composed of those who did surveys and participated in focus group discussions. Overall,

13% of the total target beneficiaries were sampled in the study.

1.2 Key findings: 1. Most of the women migrants (94%) are not aware of the ECOWAS provision on free

movement of goods and persons.

2. Most women migrants in the Gambia arrived 6 or more years ago and there seems to be

a slowing of migration in recent years – most likely due to the reduced tension in

Casamance. Of those who have migrated they appear to remain in the Gambia for a long

period of time – with many not intending to return.

3. For 75% of migrants, conflict has been the main reason for moving to the Gambia but 25%

come for other reasons: social, economic and in relation to access to services.

4. The income generating activities carried out by migrants in the Gambia enhance the

women’s livelihoods but generally does not take them out of poverty. A diverse range of

16 livelihood strategies are employed with the most common being vegetable gardening

(57-84%), firewood selling (38-57%) & wild fruit collection and trade (36-79%). In urban

areas domestic work is the main livelihood.

5. While there is a higher level of awareness of the existence of financial institutions and

services, 70% of the informants don’t use the services – believing themselves to be too

poor to be of use.

6. Majority of Casamance women do not have access to appropriate financial services - only

9% used savings accounts and none accessed credit. This limits the informants’ ability to

provide support to their relatives in Casamance.

7. The few informants that used the services of financial institutions are generally satisfied

with the effectiveness of these services.

8. 78% of migrants are unable to send any financial transfers to their relatives and family in

Casamance. 22% use hand delivery and none use money transfer services. Financial

transfer services have enormous potential to ease and expand the sending and receiving

of money for women migrants. This has potential to increase the money transfer client

base and enhance cross-border trade.

9. The majority of the informants do not provide financial support to relatives in Casamance

due to their financial situation.

6

10. Women migrants in urban areas (Brikama & KMC) have higher percentage (up to 87%) of

migrants who provide support in form of food and money to their family members in

Casamance as compared to those living in the rural communities. In rural areas in some

locations there is less connection as full families have migrated.

11. All the women are part of ‘kafos’ – women’s groups. Fifty-one percent (51%) of the

respondents demonstrated interest to be part of Kafo which will work with Kafos in

Casamance – while only 9% were actually doing this already through twin kafo

arrangements.

12. 88% of respondents use radio as a source of information – most listen frequently listen to

radio (57% daily). Radio is the best method to provide information to Casamance women

followed by Kanyelengs

13. 4-8% of women are forced to pay bribes or other illegal fees at the Gambia Senegal border

while most respondents (up 96%) do not face any problems at the \ border. Very few

respondents (8%) understand the ECOWAS policy on migration and trade.

14. About 2% of women report experiencing gender based violence or robbery during border

crossings and/or when engaged in cross border trade.

15. Women Migrants in urban areas of Brikama and KMC are engaged more in tailoring and

domestic-paid labor which are not prevalent in the rural communities involved in the study.

In addition to vegetable production, firewood selling, charcoal production, oyster

production, soap making, local broom making, tie & dye and rice production are

predominant in rural communities.

16. Rice cultivation contributed significantly towards the sustainability of the women’s

livelihoods in rural areas when a cash equivalent value is given to rice production. Tailoring

and petty trading livelihoods can sometimes be higher income earners. Firewood selling,

forest products harvesting, soap making and charcoal production are common livelihood

activities in all the nine rural communities and they fall under the low income category.

Housemaid, Tie & dye, local broom making and salt production are less common but also

result in low incomes.

17. Problems confronting these communities in sustaining their livelihoods vary in severity

and quantity depending on the geographical location of communities. Low wages for

maids are a major concern in urban areas while agricultural constraints were the main

problems in rural areas. Rural communities have more sources of livelihoods but also

more challenges compared to urban and peri-urban communities. Limited farm inputs

(9/12), market glut (9/12), inappropriate garden fences (7/12) and lack of capital or

microfinance (7/12) are the most common problems across all villages.

18. The women migrants have limited options for coping strategies for the many problems

they face. For instance, all relied heavily on their physical hard labour in order to address

numerous problems – many of which probably cannot be adequately solve with the use of

hard labor alone. In addition group work and hired labour were coping methods for 33%

while lending, bribery and rental of farm land were used by 8% as a coping strategy.

19. NAGUUG, VISACA and Reliance Financial Services are the institutions the respondents

used in 6 communities (VISAVA has closed down). The other 6 did not use any. The

usage level of financial services, especially microfinance is higher in rural communities

when compared to urban centers. While 50% of communities use financial services, the

7

level of usage is generally very low (3 of the 6 under 16%).This is a result of wrong

perception held by the informants that these institutions are meant for rich people.

20. Strong social protection safety nets exists in the form of Refuge Saforia Kafos (groups) in

the rural areas but social protection and group support is much weaker for women

migrants in urban areas.

Recommendations are made for the Project and Concern Universal at the end of the report.

8

2.0 Introduction Concern Universal (CU) has secured a one year project funding from ECOWAS Spanish fund on Migration and Development which is geared towards increasing opportunities for poor Casamance migrant women’s economic stability in the two border areas of Casamance and the Gambia, and to increase civil society’s understanding and awareness of the rights to free movement of persons (particularly women) between Casamance (Senegal) and the Gambia. The aim is to expose them to some improved economic opportunities and in particular services in order to live a life of dignity whilst residing outside their home country and create some networks between women in the Gambia and in Casamance, Senegal their home country which can contribute to overcome poverty and free movement. Senegal has been a model example of democracy with strong institutions and guaranteed basic freedoms which includes freedom of speech, free press and assembly (Gehrold & Neu 2010). The country’s military continue to play an instrumental role in peacekeeping services in the Sub-Saharan Africa and beyond (Gehrold & Neu 2010). Senegal continue to battle with longstanding conflict in the south-west of the country which lasted nearly 30 years with the Movement for Democratic Forces of Casamance-MFDC as the leading insurgent group (Gehrold & Neu 2010). Several thousands of people have been killed with an estimate of 60,000 people fled the country (Gehrold & Neu 2010). In 2009, the incidence of fighting in this region increased which impelled foreign offices to issue travel warnings (Gehrold & Neu 2010). Casamance has a land size of 30,000 kilometers with rich fertile soil and abundant natural resources free from drought as articulated by Jean Claude (Gehrold & Neu 2010). The region is situated in south-westernmost part of Senegal, bordering Guinea Bissau to the south and separated by the rest of the country by Gambia to the North (Grehrold & Neu 2010). Many victims of this deeply rooted conflict migrated to the Gambia and this study is focus on economic situation of these migrants (Grehrold & Neu 2010). The survey process started October 2014, during which data was collected on beneficiaries’ economic activities, their earning capacities, their knowledge and access to the services of financial institutions, their relationship with other groups in Cassamance as well as their knowledge on the ECOWAS policy of free movement of persons and goods – in this case between Cassamance (Senegal) and the Gambia. The findings of this survey will guide the project implementation and also function as a resource for other interventions in support of Casamance women migrants. The survey is a first of its kind and according to the feedback from the field, this could be shared

to other stakeholders and donors who might intend to work with migrants in the near future. Most

of the people who are interviewed are “refugees” in a sense that they have come from their

comfort zone to the Gambia due to the conflict in Cassamance. Many (90%) of them have no

intention to go back to Cassamance because is a safe and peaceful environment. Another reason

is that most migrants don’t want to pay alien fee and therefore, prefer to hold on to their refugee

status.

2.1 Objectives Overall Objective: To establish benchmarks on the economic situation of the migrants and their

knowledge of and access to the services of financial institutions as well as their knowledge on the

ECOWAS protocol on free movement of persons and goods.

9

2.2 Specific Objectives: 1. To establish a comprehensive database on the situation of migrant women along the

Gambia-Cassamance border region in terms of their skills, economic status, freedom of movement between Gambia and Senegal, knowledge and access to financial services, how they render support to the rest of their family members in Casamance.

2. To outline other CSOs and CBOs working with the target group by linking them with them.

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Tools used The study used qualitative research methods to collect data over six days in selected communities in Foni, Kombo and KMC regions of the Gambia. These communities are situated along the geographical borders between the Gambia and Senegal There was an initial sensitization to inform the targeted communities the purpose of the research before visiting these communities. The respondents were first briefed on the purpose of the research. Nonetheless, some informants misconstrue this exercise, which led some of them to portray their living conditions in a deplorable manner with the hope of receiving assistance from the researchers. Questionnaires were administered and focus group discussions were also conducted using a checklist and the respondents are all women. Observation was among the tools employed during data collection process which helped to study the body languages and ensure that all the informants participate fully in the discussion.

Photo: Questionnaire interview with informant.

10

3.2 Survey Sample A total of 380 women were interviewed for the study composed of those who did surveys and

participated in focus group discussions. Survey questionnaires were administered in 9 districts

and 118 persons were interviewed. Out of 118 persons interviewed, 32 are from Foni Berefet

which represents 21% of the respondents; followed by KMC where 21 were interviewed which is

(18%) and 2 respondents were also interviewed in Kombo East District (1.7%). Figure 1 below

shows the distribution of questionnaires in various locations. The sample size varies due to

population size of these communities and who was available at the time of visits.

Figure 1.Representation of respondents by district

In addition, 19 FGDs were also conducted in 12 communities where the questionnaires were

administered. Sibanor community was divided into three clusters, which involved Sibanor itself,

Sicon and Manyina, and one FGD was conducted in each of these clusters as well. Two FGDs

done in Arrangalleh, Jalookoto, Ndemban Jola, Brikama and four FGDs in KMC region. FGDs

were also conducted in 12 communities where the questionnaires were administered – leading to

a total of 262 informants as shown in the table 1 below.

1532

12 9 716

4 221

118

020

406080

100120

140

Distribution

Distribution

11

Photo: FGD discussion with informants.

Table 1. Representation of number of participants from 12 communities

Regions Communities # of FGDS # of informants Foni Bintang Bullengat 1 5 Foni Berefet Kanfenda 1 10 Foni Bintang Arrangalleh 2 21

Foni Bintang Sibanor 1 10

Foni Bintang Sicon 1 17

Foni Bintang Manyina 1 16

Foni Berefet Jalookoto 2 25

Foni Berefet Ndenbang Jola 2 17

Foni Berefet Bullock 1 12

Kombo South Kartong 1 18

Kombo Central Brikama 2 34

KMC KMC1 4 77

Total:12 12 Total: 19 Total: 262

The project targets 3000 migrant women along the Gambia Casamance border areas. A total of

118 questionnaires were distributed and 262 informants participated in FGDs in 12 communities.

Overall, 13% of the total beneficiaries were involved in the study; 4% of the target beneficiaries

responded to questionnaires and 9% of the total beneficiaries participated in FGDs.2

3.3 Research Limitation Three attempts were made to conduct FGDs in Darsilami and all were unsuccessful. Fewer

individual questionnaires were administered in Darsilami because there was a funeral ceremony

1 KMC comprised of Manjai, Bijilo, Koto, Sanchaba, Kerrsering, Brufut, Fajikunda, Kunujang, Sukuta, Serrekunda

and Bakoteh. 2 Sample size calculation: questionnaires—262/3000*100=4% and FGDs—118/3000*100=9%. The total sample size

is—262+118=380/3000*100=13%

12

of a prominent member of this community which makes it impossible to administer the required

questionnaires. On the other hand, respondents sometimes concealed the truth about their

financial status, which analytically is sensed - they see it as confidential and personal. In addition,

some women don't want to reveal the true financial status based on the fear that they might lose

their refugee status, which may cause them not to get any assistance directed to the refugees in

the future. The inability of some of the respondents to give accurate (based on recall) information

regarding their income and expenses pattern is among the constraints encountered during data

collection process since they have no proper records of it.

13

4.0 Detailed results

The findings from FGDs and questionnaires are presented under the sections outlined below.

� Respondents’ duration of stay in the Gambia.

� Reasons for migration from Casamance region to the Gambia.

� How respondents generate income and the income generating activities they are involved

in.

� Respondents’ monthly income.

� Respondents’ knowledge of financial institutions.

� Respondents’ usage of services offered by financial institutions and the effectiveness of

such services.

� The support respondents rendered to their remaining family members in Casamance

region.

� Respondents’ membership in Kafos and Federations

� Respondents’ sources of information regarding things happening outside their vicinities.

� The kind of radio programs respondents’ are mostly interested and other sources of

information they usually access.

� Awareness on the ECOWAS free movement of persons and goods.

4.1 Respondents’ duration of stay in the Gambia. The findings indicate that just over half (54%) of those interviewed have lived in the Gambia

between 6 &15 years. A further 20% of respondents spent between 16 & 25 years and 7% lived

in the country for 26 to 35 years. Only 10% of the respondents arrived in the last 5 years or less

in the Gambia.

Figure 2. The length of stay of the migrants

4.1.2 Conclusion: Most women migrants in the Gambia arrived 6 or more years ago and

there seems to be a slowing of migration in recent years – most likely due to the reduced

0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 2.5 0.857.6

54.2

20.3

6.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

14

tension in Casamance. Of those who have migrated they appear to remain in the Gambia

for a long period of time – with many not intending to return.

4.2 Reasons for their migration from Casamance Region to the Gambia. The graph below demonstrates the reasons why women from Casamance migrated to the

Gambia – with the main reasons being Conflict, marriage and financial.

Figure 3.Reasons for migration

The study found that 75% came to the Gambia due to the continuing conflict in Cassamance. 15% of the respondents migrated from Casamance because of marriage. Thereafter, 10% of the respondents migrated to the Gambia due to unfavorable economic livelihood conditions in Casamance brought about by the conflict. 1% of the respondents moved to the Gambia in order to have access to medical services and land for cultivation of crops.

4.2.2 Conclusion: For 75% of migrants the conflict has been the main reason for moving to

the Gambia but 25% come for other reasons: social, economic and in relation to access to

services.

4.3 Income generating activities The table below shows the detail of the income generating activities the respondents are involved in, in order to meet their basic needs. Figure 4. Income generating activities

75.4

10.11.7 1.7

15.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

The conflict Financial Medical Land Access Marriage

Reasons for migration

56.8

10.1

35.6 38.1

14.424.6 18.6 22

3.4

23.7

1.7 0.85 0.85 0.85 2.5

0102030405060

Income generating activities

15

Women rely on 16 different income generating activities ranging from vegetable gardening to charcoal production. Only (4%) of the respondents claimed not to be involved in any income generating activities. Vegetable gardening is the main source of livelihood with 57% of the informants engaging in it. Firewood selling, with 38% is the second source of livelihood activities and is followed by wild fruits collections which accounted for 36%. Similarly, the focus group discussions conducted across twelve communities also rated vegetable production (at up to 84%) as the second main source of livelihood. Forest products and firewood selling are among the common livelihood activities that most communities are involved in—with an average of 79% and 57% respectively.

4.4 Respondents’ monthly income. Below is a graph that shows the distribution of monthly income Casamance women receive from the income generated from their economic activities. Figure 5. Monthly Income

It is strenuous for a typical family of ten people to survive on less than D2000 per month. Based on the findings, 39% of the informant falls under low income category (which income between D1000 to D2600 per month), while 1% of the respondents are rated as high income earners (which is D5000 per month)3. The remainder did not provide responses.

4.4.2 Conclusion: The income generating activities carried out by migrants in the Gambia enhance the women’s livelihoods but generally does not take them out of poverty. A diverse range of 16 livelihood strategies are employed with the most common being vegetable gardening (57-84%), firewood selling (38-57%) & wild fruit collection and trade (36-79%). In urban areas domestic work is the main livelihood.

4.5 Respondents’ usage of services offered by financial institutions and the

effectiveness of such services The graph below shows the respondents’ awareness of and access to financial institutions.

Figure 6. Knowledge on Financial Institutions

3 The income category is set to make easily analysis of the data and see Table 2 where income categories are

defined. (Low income ranged D1000-2600, mediun-D3000-4000 and High income-5000 and above).

0

10

20

30

40

50

Less than

2000

2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 More

Monthly Income

16

Overall, 77% of informants are aware of the existence of financial institutions and financial

services they provide. Twenty three percent (23%) of the informants are not aware of the

existence of financial institutions. Thirty (30%) of the respondents have used the services offered

by financial institutions. On the other hand, 70% of the informants do not use the available

financial services. The main reason being that most of them believe that these financial institution

can only be used and access by the rich people. As a result, the number of people that make use

of loans and saving services provided by financial institutions in these targeted communities are

very low as shown in the figure 7 below.

4.5.2 Conclusion: There is a higher level of awareness of the existence of financial

institutions and services. In as much as the financial services are available, 70% of the

informants don’t use it. According to the informants, they do not have adequate financial

means to engage with financial institutions whose terms and conditions are unfavorable

to the respondents.

4.6 Services use by respondents

Figure 7. Services they used

Figure 7 illustrates that 78% of the respondents believe they lack enough money to use the

services provided by financial institutions. Also, 13% of the respondents are not aware of the

products being offered by these financial institutions. Only 9% of informants used savings account

services provided by financial institutions. None of the respondents used money transfer services

and none had access to credit.

77.1

22.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No

Knowledge of the financial services

9.3

78

13

0

20

40

60

80

100

Savings Credit Money Transfers Not enough

money

Not aware of

their of

existence

Not available in

their community

Services usage

17

4.6.2 Conclusion: Majority of Casamance women do not have access to appropriate

financial services - only 9% used savings accounts and none accessed credit. This limits

the informants’ ability to provide support to their relatives in Casamance.

4.7 The effectiveness of the services being offered The graph below shows the informants level of satisfaction of the services offered by financial

institutions.

Figure 8. The effectiveness of the services being offered

The findings shows that 78.8% of the informants cannot evaluate the effectiveness of the

aforesaid financial services because they have not used it (as indicated in figure 5 above).

However, 8.5% of the respondents rated the financial services as very effective and 11% rated it

as very good. A total of 19% of the respondents seems to be satisfied by the services. Additional,

1.7% stated that the services are satisfactory. Therefore, it is clear that most of the respondents

haven’t use these financial services.

4.7.2 Conclusion: The few informants that used the services of financial institutions are

generally satisfied with the effectiveness of these services.

4.8 Support to their family members in Casamance The graph below shows the percentage of the respondents who send money to their families in Casamance. Generally, 78% of the informants who have relatives in Casamance do not send any money to their relatives. Conversely, 22% of the respondents usually send monies to their relatives in Casamance through hand delivery. 4% take it to their relatives by themselves. None has ever tried sending money through transfer services.

8.5 111.7

78.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Very

effective

Effective Good Satisfactory Can't say

The effectiveness of the financial services offered

18

Figure 9. Support to their family members in Cassamance

4.8.2 Conclusion: 78% of migrants are unable to send any financial transfers to their relatives and family in Casamance. 22% use hand delivery and none use money transfer services. Financial transfer services have enormous potential to ease and expand the sending and receiving of money for women migrants. This has potential to increase the money transfer client base and enhance cross-border trade.

4.9 Respondents’ support to their family members in Casamance Figure 10. Type of support given to family members in Casamance

Generally figure 10 show that 77% of the respondents do not provide any form of support (food, clothing and cash) to their remaining family members in Casamance. In addition, 52% of the respondents do not have enough money and food to feed themselves which makes it impossible for them to provide support to their family members in Casamance. However, 24% migrated to the Gambia with their entire family. As a result, they have no relatives in Casamance to provide support to. Nonetheless, 5% of the respondents usually send money to their remaining family members in Casamance through reliable people that are going to Casamance. However, 1% of the respondents stopped sending monies to their family members due to the bad experiences they had with unscrupulous people who do not deliver their monies to their relatives.

4.9.2 Conclusion: The majority of the informants do not provide financial support to relatives in Casamance due to their financial situation.

0

50

100

Yes NoMoney

TransferHand

deliveryGoing

there

Sending money to family members in Casamance

52

26.3

0.85 0.85 5.117

77

0

20

40

60

80

100

Not having

money to

render help

Entire

family

migrated

Send

foodstuff

instead of

money

someone

once

tempered

with my

money

By sending

money only

Food stuff

and money

Don’t give

support

Providing other forms of supports to family members in Casamance

19

5.0 Memberships in Kafos and Federations Figure 11. Networking

Figure 11 shows the level of networking between women migrant Kafos in the Gambia and Kafos in Casamance region. Overall, all the respondents in both rural and urban communities are part of Kafos. However, 93% of the informants are not part of any twin Kafo. On the other hand, 8.5% of the respondents are part of Kafos that have working relationship with Kafo(s) in Casamance. Additionally, 99% of the informants have no experience in Kafo exchange visit while 1% had Kafo exchange visits with the twin Kafo(s) in Casamance. Informants in Kartong for instance, are part of a networking Kafo which collaborates with another Kafo in order to build the road that connects the other bank of the river of Kartong to Casamance.

5.0.2 Conclusion: All the women are part of ‘kafos’ – women’s groups. Fifty-one percent

(51%) of the respondents demonstrated interest to be part of Kafo which will work with

Kafos in Casamance – while only 9% were actually doing this already through twin kafo

arrangements.

5.1 Respondents’ source of information Figure 12. Sources of information

Figure 12 illustrates that 79% of the informants get information from radios. Additionally, the

findings further indicated that 23% of the informants get information from the traditional

0

50

100

11) Are you

part of a kafo

with a twin

group in

Casamance

12) If yes, have

there been

exchange visits

8.5

93

0.85

99.2

Cross border network and media

79

23 2114

4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Radio Kanyelengs Television From people

and

telephone

Do not listen

to the news

Source of information

20

communicators (Kanyelengs), 21% watch the television and 14% obtain information from phones

calls and people. Furthermore, 4% of the informants don’t get access to information.

Figure 13a. Estimate of respondents that listen to radios

Figure 13a shows that 70% of the respondents listen to the radio. This indicates that most of the

respondents listen to radio as their source of information. However, 24% of the respondents do

not listen to the radio but access information through other means as stated in figure 12.

Figure 13b.Usage of radios

Figure 13b shows that 57% of the informants listen to the radios every day, 1% of the informants

listen to the radio only once a week, 30% of the respondents listen to it at times and 5% listen to

the radio once in a while.

5.1.2 Conclusion: 88% of respondents use radio as a source of information – most listen

frequently listen to radio (57% daily). Radio is the best method to provide information to

Casamance women followed by Kanyelengs.

5.2 Respondents’ preference of radio programs & other sources of information The graph below shows the kind of radio programs respondents are interested in. Forty-eight (48%) of the informants listen to social events, 51% are interested in health issues, 44% are interested in peace issues, 42% are interested in Agricultural and Economic development, and

76

24

0

20

40

60

80

Yes No

% of informants that listen to radio

57.42

1.04

36.65

4.89

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Everyday Once a week At times Once in a while

% of frequency of listening radios

21

27% are engrossed in to news. In addition, 3.4% often listen to news that is broadcasted in Jola language. Figure 14. Programmes of interest

Regarding radio programmes on education and awareness and women empowerment and religious preaching, 2.5% of the respondents usually listen to these programs. Therefore, it can be infer that most respondents are interested in health programs, social events, peace issues and agricultural and economic development and they are less interested in education and awareness program, women empowerment and religious programs. Furthermore, 30% of the respondents have another sources of information whilst 68% have no

other sources of information excluding radio. 13.1%, out of 29.7% acquired information from

Kanyelengs and 5.1% from television and 6.1% receive information from people.

5.3 Awareness on the ECOWAS free movement of persons and goods Figures 15. Problems faced at the Senegal-Gambia border

Figure 15 shows the cross-border problems experienced by the informants. It shows that most of them (95.8%) do not encounter any problems at the Gambia- Senegal border. On the other hand, 4.2% of the respondents encountered problems such as being stopped by the Senegalese authorities who charged them with reportedly illegal fees on their commodities which they were

48 5144 42 42

27

3.4 2.5 2.50.851.70.852.50.85

29.7

67.8

16.113.65.1

01020304050607080

So

cia

l

He

alt

h

Pe

ace

Ag

/De

ve

lop

m…

Eco

no

mic

Ne

ws

Jola

Cu

ltu

ral…

Ed

uca

tio

n &

…

Wo

me

n…

Sp

ort

Ne

ws

No

thin

g…

Wa

ter

an

d…

Re

lig

iou

s…

Mu

sic

Ye

s

No

If y

es,

sp

eci

fy…

Ka

ny

ele

ng

s

Te

lev

iso

n

Types of Programmes of interest

4.2

95.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Yes No

Cross border problems

22

not able to quantify, and some reported running into problems with the insurgents in Casamance. In the FGD 8% of respondents mentioned the need to pay bribes when moving goods across the border. The findings shows that 93% of the informants (see the excel data summary in the annex) do not have knowledge on the ECOWAS policy of free movement of goods and persons. Only, 8% are aware of the ECOWAS policy on migration mentioned above. However, in the FGDs findings from all the twelve communities studied, showed that 94% of the respondents’ lack understanding on ECOWAS policy on free movement of goods and persons. However, 20% and 6% of the respondents in Arrangalleh and Kartong respectively have a basic understanding of this policy.

Photo: Questionnaire interview with informant.

5.3.2 Conclusion: 4-8% of women are forced to pay bribes or other illegal fees at the Gambia Senegal border while most respondents (up 96%) do not face any problems at the \ border. Very few respondents (8%) understand the ECOWAS policy on migration and trade. However, among those who did face problems at the border, the graphs below shows the kinds of problems respondents encountered when traveling from Gambia to Casamance region.

5.4 Problems encountered in Senegal-Gambia cross border

The problems according to the respondents include payment of laissez passé fee, being asked

to provide ID cards – both legal requirements that the women poorly understood through to illegal

activities such as gender based violence (<1%) rebel intimidation (<1%). The survey indicated

that all the respondents usually comply with Senegalese authorities and pay the required laissez

passé fee when entering Senegal without identity. In addition, 1.7% of the informants were asked

to verify their identities and were asked to wait for long hours before their identity cards were given

to them and 0.85% experienced robbery by the Casamance insurgents on their way to the

Gambia.

23

Figure 16. Problems encountered during travelling

5.4.2 Conclusion: About 2% of women report experiencing gender based violence or

robbery during border crossing and cross border trade.

6.0 Findings Focus group discussions were conducted in twelve communities in communities along the Gambia-Senegal border. The result of this findings across all the communities studied are presented below.

6.1 Livelihood sources The table 2 below shows the main sources of livelihood across the communities surveyed. Based on the findings, salt production have the highest average percentage (100%) of sources of livelihoods but only two rural communities that have (V4 and V6) access to the river, engage in this economic activity. This is followed by vegetable production (84%) which is mostly done by all the communities. Brikama and KMC which is represented as V11 and V12 have low percentages of 39% and 9% of the informants respectively involved in vegetable production. Table 2. Source of livelihoods

Livelihoo

d source V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10

V1

1

V1

2 AV R.

Salt

Producti

on - - -

100

% -

100

% - - - - - -

10

0 1

Vegetabl

e

producti

on

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

% 67%

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

35

% 9% 84 2

Tailoring - - - - - - - - -

81

% - 81 3

Forest

products

100

%

100

% 87% 70% 88% - 42% - 67% - - - 79 4

0.85

1.7

0.85 0.85

1.7 1.7

0.85

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Asking me to

pay laissez

passe alone

Apprehended

for the

authenticity

of my ID Card

Insecurity

and Gender

based

violence

Rebels

robbed them

on their way

to the

gambia

Complied Nothing Waiting for

over an hour

before was

called

Problems encountered between Gambia and Casamance

24

Rice

producti

on

100

% - - 90%

100

%

100

% - - - - - 5% 79 4

House

maid - - - - - - - - - -

81

%

69

% 75 5

Soap

making 90% - - - - - - 27% - - - - 59 6

Firewoo

d selling - 90% 80% 80% 82% 33% 58% 31% 56% 33%

23

% - 57 7

Petty-

trading 90% 90% 67% - 41% - 50% 23% 44% 44%

48

% - 55 8

Tie &

Dye - - 47% - - - - - - - - - 47 9

Local

Broom

Making - - 40% - - - - - - - - - 40

1

0

Oyster

producti

on - - - - - - - - - 39% - - 39

1

1

Charcoal

Producti

on - - 40% - - - - 15% 44% - - - 33

1

2

Average 5 4 7 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 3

One community (Brikama) out of twelve studied are engaged in tailoring with an average of 81%.

Additionally, two community situated in the urban areas depend on domestic-paid chores with a

total average of 69%. Findings show that 59% of informants depend on soap making as a vital

source of income. Tie & dye and oyster collection are also done in V3 and V10 which are rural

and peri-urban communities. Forest product collection is also a significant livelihood source with

overall average of 79%. The study further revealed that rice production is a major livelihood

activity in four rural communities with a total average of 79%. Charcoal production is also carried

out by three rural communities with a total average of 33%.

Photo: Rice field.

25

Firewood selling and petty-trading are common livelihood activities as 10-9 communities mostly

located in the rural communities are involved in this activity with a total average of 57% and 55%

respectively.

Findings revealed that Arrangalleh which is represented as V3 in the table above has 7 sources

of livelihoods out of the 12 livelihoods even though it is a rural community while KMC being the

major city in the country has the lowest source of livelihoods with 3 out of 12. There is a significant

difference in terms of the kind of livelihoods available between rural and urban communities. For

instance, domestic-paid chores is the main livelihood in Brikama and KMC where 81% and 69%

of the informants depend on this kind of work respectively as a source of income while 0% of the

respondents from rural communities engaged in domestic-paid chores. The rate of domestic

workers in Brikama is also higher than that of KMC as well.

Some of the communities like Arrangalleh (V3), Ndenbang Jola (V8) and Bullock (V9) concentrate

on charcoal production with a percentage of 40%, 15% and 44% respectively. On a larger scale,

Local broom making, oyster production, tie & dye, and domestic paid chores are not important

livelihood activities because these activities are carried out only in 1-2 communities out of the 12

communities studied. At community level, these source of livelihoods are significant because 69-

39% of the informants are engaged in these activities as shown on the table above.

6.1.2 Conclusion: The location of each communities (rural or urban) determines to a large

extend the types of livelihoods each community depend on. The number of sources of

livelihoods are higher in rural communities compared to urban centers. However, almost

all the communities in both rural and urban areas engaged in vegetable production,

firewood selling and petty-trading. On the other hand, communities in urban areas of

Brikama and KMC are engaged more in tailoring and domestic-paid labor which are not

prevalent in the rural communities involved in the study. In addition to vegetable

production, Firewood selling, charcoal production, oyster production, soap making, local

broom making, tie & dye and rice production are predominant in rural communities.

6.2 Livelihoods income across the targeted communities Table 3 below show an estimated income generated per-community based on the source of livelihoods. The figures are a bit unreliable and are therefore, categorized into three levels; low income, medium and high income. The level 1 represent low income which is between D1000-2600 per month or season, while 2 stands for medium with a range of D3000-4000 and 3 indicates high income ranging from D5000 and above. The purpose of this income classification is to make analysis easier and provide accurate range within which each of the livelihoods per-community falls. Rice production in all the communities surveyed is based on subsistence and as a result, figures on rice are calculated based on the cash value of a 50Kg bag of paddy rice. The findings indicated that rice production and tailoring are the most lucrative livelihoods across

all the communities surveyed because it falls under a higher income range from D5000 and above.

Tailoring and petty trading can sometimes be high income. However, tailoring is only done by

respondents in Brikama which is represented as V11 in the table 3 below.

Table 3. Livelihoods income range

Livelihoods income range V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 Av. R

26

Rice production 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1

Tailoring - - - - - - - - - - 3 - 3 1

Petty-trading 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 3 1 - 1 2

Vegetable production 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

Firewood selling - 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 2

Forest products 1 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 2

Soap making 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 2

Charcoal Production - - 1 - - - 1 1 1 - - - 1 2

Tie & Dye - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 2

Local Broom Making - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 2

Salt Production - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 2

Oyster production - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 2

House maid - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 2

Average 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1

The remaining livelihoods are all below low income range (D1000-2600) as shown in table 3

above. The study shows that; Tie & dye, local broom making and salt production are low income

livelihood activities most carried-out in few communities situated in the rural areas. In addition,

oyster production and domestic-paid chores are also among the least livelihoods activities carried-

out by few communities predominantly located in the urban areas with low income. Additionally,

petty trading and vegetable production in almost all the communities studied. The study further

shows that firewood selling, forest products harvesting, soap making and charcoal production are

common livelihood activities in all the nine rural communities and they fall under low income

category.

6.2.2 Conclusion: Rice cultivation contributed significantly towards the sustainability of the

women’s livelihoods when a cash equivalent value is given to rice production. Tailoring

and petty trading livelihoods can sometimes be higher income earners. Firewood selling,

forest products harvesting, soap making and charcoal production are common livelihood

activities in all the nine rural communities and they fall under low income category.

Housemaid, Tie & dye, local broom making and salt production are less common but also

result in low incomes.

6.3 Challenges The table 4 below summarizes date on challenges. Inappropriate garden fence as a major challenge in most communities with a total average of 91%, followed by market glut (82%) and inadequate skills (78%) which caused low returns and restrict the informants’ abilities to enhance their living situation. It also shows that low profits, food shortage, limited farmlands, transportation problems, inflation of basic commodities, salt water instruction into rice fields and lack of storage facilities are challenges that exist in few communities ranging from 1-3 communities. In terms of how often they were referred to, limited farm inputs (9/12), market glut (9/12) and inappropriate garden fences (7/12) and lack of capital (7/12) are the most common problems across all villages.

27

Table 4: Challenges

Challenges V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10

V1

1

V1

2 Av R

N

o

Limited

farm

inputs -

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

% -

100

%

100

%

14

% 90 3

9

Market

glut - -

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

44

% -

81

%

33

% 82 4

9

Inappropri

ate garden

fences - -

100

% - -

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

35

% - 91 2

7

Inadequat

e capital

100

% -

100

%

41

%

100

%

48

%

33

% 70 6

6

Low

profits

100

%

100

%

100

%

10

0 1

3

Food

shortage - -

100

%

100

%

100

% - - - - -

10

0 1

4

Inadequat

e skills

100

%

100

% - - - -

33

% 78 5

3

Limited

farmlands

100

% - - -

100

% - -

10

0 1

2

Transporta

tion

problems - -

100

% - - - -

100

% - - - -

10

0 1

2

Insufficien

t

microfinan

ce

100

% - - - - - - - - -

10

0 1

1

Inflation of

price of

basic

commoditi

es - - - - -

100

% - - - - -

10

0 1

1

Salt water

intrusion

into rice

fields - - - - - - -

100

% - - -

10

0 1

1

Lack of

storage

facilities

100

%

10

0 1

1

Limited

boats for

oyster

collection - -

33

% - - - -

39

% - 9% 27 8

3

Low wages

for maids

69

% 69 7

1

28

Average 100 100 89 100 85 100 100 100 86 85 55 32

Limited boats for oyster production (927%) and low wages (6%) affected sparsely a range of 1-3 communities mostly situated in the rural areas. In addition, there are significant differences in terms of challenges faced by communities in the rural areas when compared to communities located at urban and peri-urban areas. For instance, limited boats for oyster harvest and low wages for domestic-paid workers affected communities in the urban and peri-urban areas, specifically, in Kartong, Brikama and KMC areas. Although, the data also shows that limited farmlands, insufficient microfinance, inflation of basic commodities and lack of storage facilities are the least common problems existing in very few rural communities which requires further findings to establish the outcome of this findings.

6.3.2 Conclusion: Problems confronting these communities in sustaining their livelihoods vary in severity and quantity depending on the geographical location of communities. Low wages for maids are a major concern in urban areas while agricultural constraints were the main problems in rural areas. Rural communities have more sources of livelihoods but also more challenges compared to urban and peri-urban communities. Limited farm inputs (9/12), market glut (9/12), inappropriate garden fences (7/12) and lack of capital or microfinance (7/12) are the most common problems across all villages.

6.4 Coping Strategies

Below is the scoring table of strategies employed by the targeted communities in order to curb the challenges that confronted these communities encountered. Based on the findings, 10 out of 12 communities studied relied mainly on physical hard labor in order to address the numerous challenges which confront these communities in sustaining their livelihoods activities. Four communities (33%) depend on group work to support each other in their farms. Table: 5 Strategies

Strategies Scores out of 12

villages % Ranking

Hard work 10 83% 1 Group work 4 33% 2 Hired labor 4 33% 3 Lending 1 8% 4 Giving bribes to Senegalese border authorities

1 8% 4

Rent farm plots 1 8% 4 The remaining strategies which includes lending money and food items from colleagues, giving bribes to Senegalese border authorities in or order to smuggle their goods and renting farms to each other was employed by 8% of the informants. Finding further suggests that these communities lack sufficient mechanism to address problems of limited farm inputs, inappropriate garden fence, and limited capital among others.

6.4.2 Conclusion: The women migrants have limited options for coping strategies for the many problems they face. For instance, all relied heavily on their physical hard labour in

29

order to address numerous problems – many of which probably cannot be adequately solve with the use of hard labor alone. In addition group work and hired labour were coping methods for 33% while lending, bribery and rental of farm land were used by 8% as a coping strategy.

6.5 Awareness rate of financial institutions Generally, an average of 93% of the informants in all the communities studied have a basic understanding of the existence of financial institutions and the services they offer to their customers such as savings account, loans and transfer of money. The ‘awareness’ in this context is limited to the knowledge of the mere existence of financial institutions and the common services they offers. Table 6. Awareness rate Communities Awareness of financial institutions by

% V1 100% V2 100% V3 100% V4 100% V5 100% V6 100% V7 58% V8 77% V9 78% V10 100% V11 100% V12 97% Average 93%

Photo: FGD discussion with informants.

30

However, Jalookoto (V7) community scored very low as only 58% of the informants in this village are aware of financial institutions and their services compared to other remote villages like Bullengat that are higher on the awareness scale. Overall, the awareness level of financial institutions and there services is a bit higher in most rural communities as compared to urban communities.

6.5.2 Conclusion: There is a need for further research in order to firmly establish the reasons for difference of awareness levels of financial institutions in rural and urban areas.

6.6 Usage of financial services The table 7 below show the level of usage of financial institutions by each community. The three financial institutions namely: NAGUUG, VISACA and Reliance Financial Services are the institutions the respondents used in 6 communities. The other 6 did not use any. It is also essential to point out that there was financial mismanagement in Kartong VISACA which led to the closure of this institution with 11% of the respondents’ savings. Table 7. Usage of financial services

Averagely, 56% of the informants predominantly living in rural communities surveyed used NAGUUG. In the rural communities like Bullock (V9) and Arrangalleh (V1) 78% and 33% of the informants respectively, have used NAGUUG. While 0% of the respondents use the services offered by other financial institutions. This is followed by VISACA with an average of 11% and Kartong community (V10) where 11% of the respondents use the services offered by VISACA complained that VISACA closed down with a good amount of their savings, and were never refunded.

6.6.2 Conclusion: NAGUUG, VISACA and Reliance Financial Services are the institutions the respondents used in 6 communities. The other 6 did not use any. The usage level of financial services, especially microfinance is higher in rural communities when compared to urban centers. While 50% of communities use financial services, the level of usage is generally very low (3 of the 6 under 16%).This is a result of wrong perception held by the informants that these institutions are meant for rich people.

6.7 External agency and Institutional support The table below shows the development support communities studied, benefited from other non-governmental organizations. Based on the findings, GAFNA and UNCHR (responsible for food and nutrition and issuance of refugee identity cards to migrants in the country), provided support to 10 communities out 12 twelve surveyed which represent 83% of the overall communities that benefited from this kind of support. Findings indicated that these two institutions are considered

Use of financial institutions by % V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 Av R

NAGUUG 33% - - - - - - 78% - - - 56 1

VISACA - - - - - - - - 11% - - 11 3 Reliance Financial institution - - 1% - - - 1% - - 16% -- 6 2

Average 11 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.3 26 3.7 5.3 0

31

to be the most supportive ones in terms of provision of food, farm inputs, skill trainings and issuance of refugee card. Table 8. Summary of institutional support

Interventions Support provided Total # of communities benefited Average Ranking

GAFNA Food supply, farm inputs & skills trainings 10 1 1

UNCHR

Refugee registration & issuance of refugee identity card 10 1 1

Gambia Red Cross First aid provision & rice and oil supply 7 1 1

SJFF Trainings on vegetable production 1 1 1

AFET Trainings on horticulture and rice production 1 1 1

FFHC Trainings on horticultural production. 1 1 1

This is followed by the Gambia Red Cross, which also supported 7 communities out of 10 studied. SJFF, AFFET and FFHC also provides assistance to one or more of these communities on vegetable and rice production trainings which contributed in enhancing the living conditions of migrants by reducing their vulnerability to poverty.

6.7.2 Conclusion: Findings suggests that 83% of communities where migrants reside benefited from food supply, trainings on basic livelihoods sources like vegetable and rice production and legal registrations from various development organizations. GAFNA, UNHCR and Red Cross were the most commonly mentioned support organizations.

6.8 Membership of Kafos “Kafos” is a Mandinka word which means social organizations or federations. The informants across all the communities surveyed belong to Kafos. The most common Kafo in these communities include Refuge Saforia. It is an organization that brings together all the refugees from Casamance in order to collectively confront problems they continue to encounter in their respective communities in the Gambia. It is widely agreed among the respondents that these Kafos enhance social cohesion and also enable them to assist each other in their farms.

32

Photo: FGD discussion with informants.

Additionally, members of this Kafos also contribute significant resources in the form of cash or kind when any members of the Refugee Saforia Kafo have social and religious ceremonies like naming and funeral. Monthly contributions to this Kafo is a fundamental responsibility for each of the members. The respondents unanimously agreed that this monthly contributions is essential in addressing unexpected problems like fire outbreak in the community or farms that a member or the entire community might encounter.

6.8.2 Conclusion: Strong social protection safety nets exists in the form of Refuge Saforia Kafos in the rural areas but social protection and group support is much weaker for women migrants in urban areas. Kafos/Refuge Saforia are an important form of social support and safety nets for all the rural Casamance women migrants. In Brikama (one of the biggest metropolis in the country) 25% belong to Kafos, while in KMC all the informants belong to Kafos but the degree of social organization is limited compared to rural areas with only the financial benefits from contributions made to each member. There is a lack of strong interest groups for domestic workers and other urban based skill workers in order to lobby for their interests and protect themselves from any form of exploitation.

6.9 Supports to their families in Casamance Overall, an estimate of 27%, which represent six out of twelve communities, provides supports to their family members in Casamance. Fifty percent (50%) of the respondents from the twelve communities where FGD was carried out lack sufficient food to feed their immediate families in the Gambia, which makes it impossible for them to assist their relatives in Casamance. At community level, there are significant differences between communities regarding the level of support migrants offers to their families in Casamance. In Bullengat community, 67% of the respondents provided support in form of vegetables and food items to their family members in Casamance. The level of support in Bullengat community shapely contrast with that of Kafenda and Sibanor where all the informants migrated with their entire families to settle in these communities. However, 87% of respondents residing within the communities in KMC, provides support in form of money and food items to their family members in Casamance and the rest of the respondents have all their family members in the Gambia. Conversely, 81% of the respondents in Brikama

33

have families in Casamance and provides support to them in form of food items and money. The remaining 19% have all their family members with them in this community.

6.9.2 Conclusion: It is evident that women migrants in urban areas (Brikama & KMC) have higher percentage (up to 87%) of migrants who provide support in form of food and money to their family members in Casamance as compared to those living in the rural communities. In rural areas in some locations there is less connection as full families have migrated.

7.0 Awareness on ECOWAS policy of free movement of persons and goods Based on the findings, an average of 94% of the respondents lack understanding on ECOWAS policy on free movement of goods and persons. However, 20% and 6% of the respondents in Arrangalleh and Kartong respectively have a basic understanding of this policy.

7.0.1 Conclusion: Most of the women migrants (94%) are not aware of the ECOWAS provision on free movement of goods and persons.

8.0 Recommendations for the Project and Concern Universal

The following are the recommendations for project implementation: 1. Trainings should be organize for women migrants on ECOWAS provisions that

promotes free movement of goods and persons. Trainers should be trained on the ECOWAS provisions especially on free movement of persons and goods and develop content for a radio program for the beneficiaries.

2. Work out modalities to improve their economic status because it seems like the incentives women migrants receive from other organizations in the Gambia outweigh the intention to go back. Some migrants’ family members are affiliated to MFDC which makes it impossible them to return until there is some kind of amnesty.

3. There is a potential for them to improve the management of their income from these livelihood activities.

4. Discuss and collaborate with cross-border associations and other stake holders working with these migrants who can potentially handle cross-border bribery, harassment and other forms of intimidation.

5. Discuss with organizations specializing in the area of gender-based violence and find out their opinions regarding this.

6. Business training should be organize and encourage other Kafos to open saving accounts. Kafos and individual migrants should be provided with information with accessible financial services with reasonable fees.

7. Further survey should be conducted on money transfer services to identify the financial institutions that will be able to transfer money to Cassamance, with easy accessibility and affordability. Findings on Western Union and money gram regarding

34

financial transfer to Cassamance. The financial institutions should be studied to know if they would not make the women poorer due to the interest rate charges on loans.

8. Organize exchange visit between the kafos in the Gambia and those in Cassamance and learn best practices

9. There is need for regular radio programs to sensitize women migrants on ECOWAS provision of free movement of persons and goods, money transfers services and cross-border problems.

10. Explore the possibility of organizing the domestic paid workers into interest groups to fight their cause with regards to violence and intimidation from their employers and encourage them to use financial services.

11. The interest groups should be introduce to Farming as a Business. 12. Linking the Financial institutions to the target communities in order to encourage the financial

institutions to reach out to people to open an account for the beneficiaries. 13. Encourage the target groups in urban areas to have their community kafos (groups) with

common interests to them.

9.0 Reference Gehrold, S & Neu, I (2010). Caught between two fronts: in search of lasting peace in Casamance.

KAS international Report.

35

10.0 Annex 1: Acronyms and Abbreviations

CU Concern Universal

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

FFGC Freedom From Hunger Campaign

GAFNA Gambia Food and Nutrition Agency

NAGUUG National Association of Credit and Cooperative Unions of the Gambia

SJFF St. Joseph Family Farm

UNCHR United Nation High Commission for Refuges

36

Annex 2: Focus Group Discussion checklist

SPANISH FUND SURVEY ON MIGRANT WOMEN

FIELD WORK PLAN AND DISCUSSION GUIDE

FGD QUESTIONNAIRE GUIDES

Key FGD questions with Migrant women

1. Why did you migrate from Casamance to the Gambia?

2. How long have you stayed in the Gambia

3. How do you generate income for your livelihood (sources)?

4. What challenges do you face in meeting your livelihood needs?

5. How do you cope with that situation?

6. Do you send money home to support your family members in Casamance?

7. If yes, how do you send it?

8. Are you aware of any financial service institution around here?

9. What services do they offer?

10. Have you tried using the services they offer?

11. How do you rate their services?

12. What requirements do you need to meet in order to use their services?

13. What challenges do you encounter in using their services?

14. Do you work with CBOs and CSOs in this area?

15. What services do they offer?

16. What are your reasons for being a member of a kafo?

17. Are you aware of the ECOWAS policy on free movement of persons and goods?

37

Annex 3: Individual Questionnaires

SPANISH FUND Baseline Survey, The Gambia

Village Name:…………………..………….. Region ......................................................................

District:……………………………..……….

Surveyors Name:……………………………. Date:………………. Time:……………… to…………………

Organisation: …………………………….

Section 1 – Individual information

1. Name of Respondent: ___________________________________ Male/Female

2. How long have you been here? □ 2 years □ 3 years □ 4 years □ 5 years

□ Others ___________________________

3. Why did you migrate?

□ The conflict

□ To improve my financial situation

□ Other specify

Section 2 – Income generating activities

4. What income generating activities do you embark on?

□ vegetable Gardening

□ Sheep raring

□ Wild fruit collection & sales

□ Firewood sales

□ Beekeeping

□ Tye & Dye

□ Local Omo (Soap)

□ Other (please specify)

5. How much money do you generate from this on a monthly basis?

Estimated amounts

38

Less than 2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 More

• *Please tick one

Section 3 – knowledge on Financial Institutions and access to services

6. Are you aware of any financial service institutions around here?

□ Yes □ No

7 a. If yes, have you made use of any of their services?

□ Yes □ No

7 b. Which of the services have you used? Tick as many as it affects you.

□ Savings

□ Credit

□ Money transfers

□ Other specify

7c. If no why have you not been using the services?

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

8. How effective are the services being offered?

□ Very effective

□ Effective

□ Good

□ Satisfactory

□Poor

9. Have you been sending money home to Casamance.?

□ Yes □ No

10 a. If yes, by what means?

□ Money transfer

□ Hand delivery through someone

39

□ Going there physically

10 b. If no why?

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

10c. How do you support the family in Casamance?

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

Section 4– Cross border networking and media

11. Are you part of any kafo which has a twin group in Casamance?

□ Yes □ No

12. If yes have you been having exchange visits?

□ Yes □ No

13. What experiences did you learn from the exchange visits?

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

14. If you had not, will you be interested to do so?

□ Yes □ No

15. What are the medium of information sources you have access to?

□ Radio

□ Kanyelengs

□ Television

□ Others (specify)

16. Do you listen to the radio?

□ Yes □ No

17. If yes, how often do you listen to the radio?

40

□ Everyday □ Once a week □At times □ Once in a while

18. What kinds of programmes do you like best?

□ Social programs □ Health programs □ Peace building programs

□ Agriculture and development issues □ Programs on economic issues

□Other (please specify)________________________

19. Apart from the radio do you have other sources of information?

□ Yes □ No If yes specify

Section 5 – knowledge on Ecowas policy on free movement of people

20. Are you aware of Ecowas policy on free movement of people and goods?

□ Yes □ No

21. Have you ever had problems in your movement to and from Casamance?

□ Yes □ No

21a. If yes what form?

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

21b. What did you do?

......................................................................................................

......................................................................................................

......................................................................................................

Annex 4: Livelihood income

Liveli

hood

s

inco

me in

Dalas

i

V1

V2

V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V1

2

Av

.

41

Petty-

tradin

g

<2000/

month

<1000/

month

<2000

/mont

h

<1000

/

month

<2100

/

month

<2000/

month

<2000

/

Month

<3

00

0/

mo

nth

<5000

/mont

h

2000/

month

18

42

/

m

on

th

Fores

t

produ

cts

<2000/

month

<2000/

month

<2000

/mont

h

<2000

/mont

h

<2000

/mont

h

<1

50

0/

mo

nth

- 79

5/

m

on

th

Veget

able

produ

ction

<2000/

harves

t

<2000/

harves

t

<2000

/

harve

st

<2000

/

harve

st

<2000

/

harve

st

<2000/

harves

t

<2500/

harves

t

<2300

/

Harve

st

<2

50

0/

har

ves

t

<2000

/

harve

st

<2500/

harves

t

26

00/

har

ves

t

22

00

/

m

on

th

Rice

produ

ction

6500 7000/

harves

t

5000/

harve

st

6000/

harve

st

8000/

harve

st

7500/

harves

t

6700/

harves

t

7000/

harve

st

80

00/

har

ves

t

6500/

harve

st

5000/

harves

t

-

Soap

makin

g

<2000/

month

- - <1000

/mont

h

- <1500/

month

- 1500/

month

- 2000/

month-

- 66

7/

m

on

th

Firew

ood

sellin

g

- <2000/

month

2000/

month

<1000/

month

<1500

/

month

<1

50

0/

mo

nth

<2000

/mont

h

2000/

month

- 10

00

/

m

on

th

Tie &

Dye

- - <2000

/

month

- - - - - - - - - 16

7/

m

on

th

Charc

oal

Produ

ction

- - 3000/

month

- - - <2500/

month

<2000

/mont

h

<2

50

0/

Mo

nth

- - - 83

3/

m

on

th

Local

Broo

m

Makin

g

- - <1000

/mont

h

- - - - - - - - - 83

/

m

on

th

42

Salt

Produ

ction

- - - - 1200/

month

- - - - - - 10

0/

m

on

th

Oyste

r

produ

ction

- - - - - - - - - <2000

/mont

h

- - 16

7/

m

on

th

Hous

e

maid

- - - - - - - - - - 1500/

month

69

%

13

1/

m

on

th

Tailori

ng

- - - - - - - - - - >5000/

month

- 41

7/

m

on

th

Total

(Dala

si)

6000 7000 12000 6000 6100

Excel summary of questionnaires and FGD summary on Microsoft word document