Casamance Migrants in Gambia Baseline Report

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 1

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

2

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 3

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

4

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.

5

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 6

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.

7

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 SubSaharan 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.

8

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.

9

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 Distribution 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

118

32 15

12

9

7

16

21 4

2

Distribution

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.

10

Photo: FGD discussion with informants.

Table 1. Representation of number of participants from 12 communities

Regions Foni Bintang Foni Berefet Foni Bintang Foni Bintang Foni Bintang Foni Bintang Foni Berefet Foni Berefet Foni Berefet Kombo South Kombo Central KMC Total:12

Communities Bullengat Kanfenda Arrangalleh Sibanor Sicon Manyina Jalookoto Ndenbang Jola Bullock Kartong Brikama KMC1 12

# of FGDS 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 4 Total: 19

# of informants 5 10 21 10 17 16 25 17 12 18 34 77 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%

11

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.

12

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

54.2

60 50 40 30

20.3

20 10

0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85

2.5

7.6

6.8

0.85

0

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

13

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

Reasons for migration 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

75.4

15.5

10.1

The conflict

Financial

1.7

1.7

Medical

Land Access

Marriage

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

Income generating activities 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

56.8 35.6 38.1 10.1

14.4

24.6 18.6

23.7

22 3.4

14

1.7

0.85 0.85 0.85

2.5

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

Monthly Income 50 40 30 20 10 0 Less than 2000

2000-3000

3000-4000

4000-5000

More

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).

15

Knowledge of the financial services 100 77.1

80 60 40

22.9

20 0 Yes

No

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

Services usage 100 80 60 40 20 0

78

13

9.3 Savings

Credit

Money Transfers

Not enough money

Not aware of Not available in their of their community existence

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.

16

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 effectiveness of the financial services offered 100 80 60 40 20 0

78.8

11

8.5 Very effective

Effective

Good

1.7 Satisfactory Can't say

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.

17

Figure 9. Support to their family members in Cassamance

Sending money to family members in Casamance 100 50 0 Yes

No

Money Hand Transfer delivery

Going there

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

Providing other forms of supports to family members in Casamance 100 80 60 40 20 0

77 52 26.3 0.85 Not having Entire money to family render help migrated

0.85

17

5.1

Send someone By sending Food stuff Don’t give foodstuff once money only and money support instead of tempered money with my money

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.

18

5.0 Memberships in Kafos and Federations Figure 11. Networking

Cross border network and media 93

100 50 0

99.2

8.5 0.85 11) Are you part of a kafo with a twin group in Casamance

12) If yes, have there been exchange visits

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 Source of information 100 80 60 40 20 0

79

23

Radio

Kanyelengs

21

Television

14

4

From people Do not listen and to the news telephone

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 19

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 % of informants that listen to radio 76

80 60 40

24 20 0 Yes

No

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 % of frequency of listening radios 70 60

57.42

50 36.65

40 30 20 10

4.89

1.04

0 Everyday

Once a week

At times

Once in a while

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

20

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

Types of Programmes of interest 67.8 48 51 44 42 42 29.7

Televison

No

Yes

Music

Religious…

Nothing…

Water and…

Sport News

Women…

Education &…

News

Jola Cultural…

Economic

Peace

Ag/Developm…

Social

Kanyelengs

16.113.6 5.1

3.4 2.5 2.50.851.70.852.50.85

If yes, specify…

27

Health

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

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

Cross border problems 120 95.8

100 80 60 40 20

4.2

0 Yes

No

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 21

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.

22

Figure 16. Problems encountered during travelling

Problems encountered between Gambia and Casamance 1.7

2

1.7

1.7

1.5 1

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.5 0 Asking me to Apprehended Insecurity Rebels pay laissez for the and Gender robbed them passe alone authenticity based on their way of my ID Card violence to the gambia

Complied

Nothing

Waiting for over an hour before was called

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 Salt Producti on Vegetabl e producti on Tailoring Forest products

V1

-

V2

-

100 % -

V4

100 %

100 %

V5

V6

100 % -

-

100 %

V3

100 %

100 %

V7

100 % -

100 %

-

-

-

87%

70%

88% 23

-

100 %

67%

-

V8

V9

-

100 %

V10

-

100 %

V1 1

-

100 %

-

-

42% -

67% -

V1 2

AV

R.

-

10 0

1

84

2

81

3

79

4

35 % 9% 81 % -

-

-

Rice producti on House maid Soap making Firewoo d selling Pettytrading Tie & Dye Local Broom Making Oyster producti on Charcoal Producti on Average

100 % -

-

100 %

90%

100 % -

-

-

-

81 %

5% 69 %

79

4

75

5

-

59

6

57

7

55

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

90% -

-

-

-

-

-

27% -

-

-

90%

80%

80%

82%

33%

58%

31%

56%

33%

90%

90%

67% -

41% -

50%

23%

44%

44%

-

-

47% -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

47

9

-

-

40% -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

40

1 0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

39% -

-

39

1 1

-

-

40% 7

-

-

-

15% 5

44% 5

-

33

1 2

5

4

5

5

4

4

-

23 % 48 % -

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.

24

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 6939% 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 D10002600 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 25

Rice production Tailoring Petty-trading Vegetable production Firewood selling Forest products Soap making Charcoal Production Tie & Dye Local Broom Making Salt Production Oyster production House maid Average

3

3 -

1 1

3 -

1 1 1 1

3 -

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 -

3

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

3 -

3 -

1 1 1 -

1 1 1

-

3

3 -

2 3 1 1 1 1 1 -

1 1 1 1 1 1 2

-

1 -

2

3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

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 carriedout 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 womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 informantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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.

26

Table 4: Challenges Challenges Limited farm inputs Market glut Inappropri ate garden fences Inadequat e capital Low profits Food shortage Inadequat e skills Limited farmlands Transporta tion problems Insufficien t microfinan ce Inflation of price of basic commoditi es Salt water intrusion into rice fields Lack of storage facilities Limited boats for oyster collection Low wages for maids

V1

V2

V3

V4

V5

V6

V7

V8

-

100 % -

100 % 100 %

100 % 100 %

100 %

-

100 % 100 %

100 % 100 100 % %

V9

V10

100 100 % % 44 % -

V1 1

V1 2

81 %

14 % 33 %

Av

N R o 9

90 3 9 82 4 7

100 % 100 100 % %

100 % 100 %

100 %

41 %

100 % 100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

35 % 48 33 % %

100 %

100 100 % % 100 % -

100 %

100 %

100 % -

33 %

6 70 6 10 0 1 10 0 1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100 % -

-

78 5 10 0 1

-

100 % -

-

10 0 1

-

-

91 2

3 4 3 2 2

-

-

100 % -

-

-

-

-

1 100 % -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10 0 1 1

-

-

-

-

-

100 % -

-

-

-

-

10 0 1 1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100 % -

-

-

10 0 1 1

100 %

10 0 1 3

-

-

33 % -

-

-

-

27

39 % -

9% 69 %

27 8 1 69 7

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 Hard work Group work Hired labor Lending Giving bribes to Senegalese border authorities Rent farm plots

Scores out of 12 villages 10 4 4 1 1

%

Ranking

83% 33% 33% 8% 8%

1 2 3 4 4

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 28

order to address numerous problems â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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 â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;awarenessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 Average

Awareness of financial institutions by % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 58% 77% 78% 100% 100% 97% 93%

Photo: FGD discussion with informants.

29

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 respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; savings.

Table 7. Usage of financial services

Use of financial institutions by % NAGUUG VISACA Reliance Financial institution Average

V1 V2 V3 33% -

11

0

1% 0.3

V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 -

0

0

0

0

1% 0.3

V9 V10 V11 78% 11% -

26

3.7

16% 5.3

V12 Av R 56 1 11 3

-0

6

2

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 nongovernmental 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 30

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

Total # of communities benefited

Support provided

Food supply, farm inputs & skills trainings Refugee registration & issuance of refugee UNCHR identity card First aid provision & rice Gambia Red Cross and oil supply Trainings on vegetable SJFF production GAFNA

AFET FFHC

Trainings on horticulture and rice production Trainings on horticultural production.

Average Ranking

10

1

1

10

1

1

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

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 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Kafosâ&#x20AC;? 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.

31

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 32

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 migrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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

33

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.

34

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

35

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.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Why did you migrate from Casamance to the Gambia?

How long have you stayed in the Gambia How do you generate income for your livelihood (sources)?

What challenges do you face in meeting your livelihood needs?

How do you cope with that situation?

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

If yes, how do you send it?

Are you aware of any financial service institution around here?

What services do they offer?

Have you tried using the services they offer?

How do you rate their services?

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

What challenges do you encounter in using their services?

Do you work with CBOs and CSOs in this area?

What services do they offer?

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

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

36

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

□ 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

37

□ 5 years

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

7 a.

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

□

Yes

7 b.

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

□ No

□ No

□ 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

10 a.

If yes, by what means?

□ No

□ Money transfer □ Hand delivery through someone

38

□ 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

12.

If yes have you been having exchange visits?

□

Yes

13.

What experiences did you learn from the exchange visits?

□

□

No

No

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

14.

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

□

Yes

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

17.

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

□

□

No

No

39

□ Everyday 18.

□ Once a week

□At times

□ Once in a while

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

21.

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

□

Yes

21a.

If yes what form?

□

□

No

No

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

21b.

What did you do?

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

Annex 4: Livelihood income Liveli hood s inco me in Dalas i

V1

V2

V3

V4

V5

V6

V7

40

V8

V9

V10

V11

V1 2

Av .

Pettytradin g

<2000/ month

<1000/ month

<2000 /mont h

<1000 / month

<2100 / month

<2000/ month

<2000 / Month

<3 00 0/ mo nth

Fores t produ cts

<2000/ month

<2000/ month

<2000 /mont h

<2000 /mont h

<2000 /mont h

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

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

Soap makin g

<2000/ month

-

-

<1000 /mont h

-

<1500/ month

-

1500/ month

Firew ood sellin g

-

<2000/ month

2000/ month

<1000/ month

<1500 / month

<1 50 0/ mo nth

Tie & Dye

-

-

Charc oal Produ ction

-

Local Broo m Makin g

-

<1 50 0/ mo nth <2 50 0/ har ves t 80 00/ har ves t -

<5000 /mont h

2000/ month

-

<2000 / harve st

<2500/ harves t

26 00/ har ves t

6500/ harve st

5000/ harves t

-

2000/ month-

-

<2000 /mont h

2000/ month

-

<2000 / month

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3000/ month

-

-

-

<2500/ month

<2000 /mont h

-

-

-

-

<1000 /mont h

-

-

-

-

-

<2 50 0/ Mo nth -

-

-

-

41

18 42 / m on th 79 5/ m on th 22 00 / m on th

66 7/ m on th 10 00 / m on th 16 7/ m on th 83 3/ m on th 83 / m on th

Salt Produ ction

-

-

-

-

1200/ month

-

-

-

-

-

-

Oyste r produ ction

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<2000 /mont h

-

-

Hous e maid

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1500/ month

69 %

Tailori ng

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

>5000/ month

-

Total (Dala si)

6000

7000

12000

6000

6100

Excel summary of questionnaires and FGD summary on Microsoft word document

42

10 0/ m on th 16 7/ m on th 13 1/ m on th 41 7/ m on th