• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Preface
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Farm household characteristics
 Level-of-living indicators
 Land and land distribution
 Production and production...
 Government services to small...
 Reference






Group Title: Working document series Caribbean region
Title: A profile of small farmers in the Caribbean region
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087124/00001
 Material Information
Title: A profile of small farmers in the Caribbean region Antigua, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Is., Cayman Is., Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts-Nevis-(Anguilla), St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Turks & Caicos Is.
Alternate Title: Working document series, Caribbean region, no. 2
Physical Description: 101 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Zuvekas, Clarence
Publisher: Rural Development Division, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, Agency for International Development
Place of Publication: Washington
Publication Date: September 1978
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural laborers -- Caribbean Area   ( lcsh )
Farms, Small -- Caribbean Area   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Economic aspects -- Caribbean Area   ( lcsh )
Genre: federal government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Antigua
Barbados
Belize
Cayman Islands
British Virgin Islands
Dominica
Grenada
Montserrat
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Turks and Caicos Islands
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Clarence Zuvekas, Jr.
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 99-101.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00087124
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 06279583
lccn - 79603217

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Preface
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
        Page vi
    Farm household characteristics
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Level-of-living indicators
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
    Land and land distribution
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    Production and production technology
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
    Government services to small farmers
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
    Reference
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
Full Text























GENERAL WORKING DOCUMENT #2


A PROFILE OF SMALL FARMERS IN THE
CARIBBEAN REGION*


Antigua, Barbados, Belize, Brit-
ish Virgin Is., Cayman Is., Domi-
nica, Grenada, Montserrat, St.
Kitts-Nevis-(Anguilla), St. Lucia,
St. Vincent, Turks & Caicos Is.


Clarence Zuvekas, Jr.

Sector Analysis Internalization Group
Office of International Cooperation
and Development
U.S. Department of Agriculture


September 1978








USAID/3 R'u;':-. DEVELOPMENT
LIBRARY SL.i i ,N )

SIGO- ALL PUBLICATIONS OUT


WORKING DOCUMENT SERIES: CARIBBEAN REGION





GENERAL WORKING DOCUMENT #2


A PROFILE OF SMALL FARMERS IN THE
CARIBBEAN REGION*


Antigua, Barbados, Belize, Brit-
ish Virgin Is., Cayman Is., Domi-
nica, Grenada, Montserrat, St.
Kitts-Nevis-(Anguilla), St. Lucia,
St. Vincent, Turks & Caicos Is.


Clarence Zuvekas, Jr.

Sector Analysis Internalization Group
Office of International Cooperation
and Development
U.S. Department of Agriculture


September 1978





























Tnis document does not bear the approval
(nor imply such) of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, the United States Agency
for international Development, or any of
their offices. In view of its nature as
a working paper, it should not be quoted
without permission of the originating
off.ce. Any comments wouid oe appreci-
z:ec, .Gc can. De addressed to the auzhor


1'i2 "ncitors .; ing
Lzhn & :.-.epencence Avenue, S.W.
Wasn.ngtor., D.C. 20250











PREFACE


This document brings together statistical information on the

characteristics of small farmers and small-farm agriculture in the

Caribbean Region, defined operationally by U.S. AID as comprising the

smaller English-speaking states in the Caribbean, viz.:


Antigua Grenada
Barbados Montserrat
Belize St. Kitts-Nevis-(Anguilla)
British Virgin Islands St. Lucia
Cayman Islands St. Vincent
Dominica Turks and Caicos Islands


Little effort will be made in this document to analyze the data

reported herein, though the reliability and usefulness of the data will

be evaluated. A subsequent document, focusing on income distribution

and the provision of basic human needs, will discuss the implications of

the data and make recommendations for research to improve the data base.

Most of the information in this document is taken from the 1970

Population Census of the Commonwealth Caribbean, agricultural censuses

taken between 1971 and 1975, and the following small-farmer surveys

(see References for the full citations):


Author Countries
Antigua (1977) Antigua
Brierley (1974) Grenada
Mills (1974) St. Kitts
Momsen (1970) Barbados, St. Lucia
Weir's Ltd. (1976) Dominica, Montserrat, St. Vincent
Yankey (1969) Dominica


Other sources were also consulted to the extent that time permitted.








TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

PREFACE i

LIST OF TABLES v

I. Farm Household Characteristics 1

1. Number of Small Farmers and Farm Workers 1
2. Age Distribution of Farmers and Farm Workers 6
3. Sex Distribution of Farmers and Farm Workers 9
4. Household Size 10
5. Multiple JobholdinR 12

II. Level-of-Living Indicators 14

1. Income and Income Distribution 14
2. Employment 28
3. Education 31
4. Housing 36
5. Water Supply 38
6. Toilet Facilities 43
7. Electricity 47
8. Infant Mortality 48
9. Life Expectancy 50
10. Nutrition 52

III. Land and Land Distribution 54

1. Distribution of Agricultural Land 54
2. Fragmentation of Holdings 57
3. Land Tenure 59

IV. Production and Production Technology 63

1. Crop and Livestock Activities 63
2. Machinery, Fertilizers, and Chemicals 72
3. Family Labor and Hired Labor 81

V. Government Services to Small Farmers 84

1. Extension and Information Services 84
2. Credit 89
3. Marketing 94


REFERENCES








LIST OF TABLES


Page

I.1 Employed Farmers and Farm Workers, by Sex, 1970 2

1.2 Estimated Mean Age of Employed Workers in Agriculture,
1970 7

1.3 Age Distribution of Farm Managers, Supervisors, and
Farmers, 1970 8

1.4 Average Household Size, 1970 11

II.1 Rates of Growth or Real Per Capita GNP, 1970-75, Real
Per Capita GDP, 1976, and Per Capita GDP at Market
Prices, 1976 15

11.2 Estimates of Remittance Income, Various Years, 1961-1977 24

11.3 Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment, 1970 29

11.4 Agricultural Employment, 1970 30

11.5 Level of Education Attained by Head of Household, by
Country and Major Subdivision, 1970 32

11.6 Distribution of Dwelling Units by Number of Rooms, 1970 37

11.7 Type of Household Water Supply, by Country and Major
Subdivision, 1970 39

11.8 Type of Household Toilet Facilities, by Country and
Major Subdivision, 1970 44

11.9 Infant Mortality Rates, 1972 49

II.10 Life Expectancy at Birth 51

II.11 Nutritional Status of Children Less than 5 Years Old 53

III.1 The Distribution of Agricultural Land 55

111.2 Percentage Distribution of Land Area, by Farm Size
Category 56

111.3 Fragmentation of Farm Holdings, Census and Survey Data 58

111.4 Land Tenure Patterns, Latest Agricultural Census Data 60









I. FARM HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

1. Number of Small Farmers
1/
Data on the number of small farmers in the Caribbean Region

are conflicting. Table I.1, taken from the 1970 Population Census of

the Commonwealth Caribbean, classifies 17,641 persons as "farm managers,
2/
supervisors, and farmers." An additional 45,713 persons are classified

as "other agricultural workers." In Barbados, Antigua, and St. Kitts-

Nevis, the great majority of those in latter category worked on sugar-

cane estates. Elsewhere, agricultural workers were employed on farms

and estates devoted to a variety of crops and, to a much lesser extent,

livestock production. Most agricultural workers--probably more than

90 percent--also farmed small plots of their own or kept several head

of livestock. Thus perhaps 60,000-63,000 persons were engaged in

farming for their own account to one extent or another. The number

of farm households, however, was less, since some households provided

two or more persons to the agricultural labor force. One might guess--

and it is only a guess--that the number of farm households in 1970,

according to this census-based definition, was approximately 50,000.

Of these, all but about 4,000 could be considered small farm house-

holds (see below). Outside of Belize there were perhaps only 1,200

medium-and large-scale farm units.






1/
For the definition of the "Caribbean Region," see the Preface.
2/
2- In addition, perhaps several hundred persons in Antigua should be
placed in this category (see the note to Table 1.1).











Table I.1

Employed Farmers and Farm Workers, bv Sex, 1970


Farm Managers, Super-
visors, and Farmers
Male Female Total


Barbados


51 708


Windward Islands
Dominica
Grenada
St. Lucia
St. Vincent

Leeward Islands
Antigua
Montserrat
St. Kitts-Nevis


2,400
1,434
3,450
1,246


2,782
1,891
4,183
1,400


Other Agricultural
Workers
Male Female OGyer

7,368 4,569 11,937


3,572
3,875
4,480
2,786


a 1,702a
161 415
323 2,502


1,740
2,630
1,908
1,297


577a
205
1,280


5,312
6,505
6,388
4,083


2.279a
620
3,782


5,729


276 6,005 4,257


Other
British Virgin Is.
Cayman Is.
Turks & Caicos Is.


15,416


2,225 17,641


250
70
112


125 4,382


260
74
121


31,389 14,354 45.743


Source: UWI/CRP (1976: Vol. 4, Part 16). Data for Antigua are from a
separate survey conducted by that country. Classification by economic sector
yields somewhat different totals (see Table 11.4).

aThese are the figures for the total agricultural labor force, including
the unemployed (whose numbers were probably small). Farmers, farm managers.
and supervisors are not separated from farm workers. Using the definitions
employed in other countries in the region, most of the agricultural labor
force in Antigua in 1970 would be classified as farm workers (primarily in
sugarcane, the production of which ceased the following year).


Belize


Total









Agricultural census data, collected between 1971 and 1975,

show a larger number of farm households: 82.512, excluding

the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and the

Turks & Caicos Islands. This does not mean that the number of

farm households increased after 1970. Indeed, the downward trend

in agricultural employment that began in 1960 most likely has
3/
continued into the 1970s. At the same rate of decrease agricul-

tural employment in 1978 would be about 25 percent lower than in

1970. Insufficient data are available to ascertain whether such

a decline has actually taken place. It is also unclear what has

happened to the number of farm households: if agricultural workers

per household has declined, as seems possible, then the number

of farm households has not fallen as fast as farm employment.

The agricultural census data include a sizable number of so-

called "landless" farm households, i.e. those who keep a few head

of livestock but obtain most of their income from non-farm sources.
4/
Approximately 17,575 households, or 21 percent of the total,

fall into this category. It is questionable whether these house-

holds should be considered part of the target population for agri-








/ Between 1960 and 1970 agricultural employment in the Caribbean
Region (excluding Antigua and the Turks and Caicos Islands, for
which comparable data were not available) fell by 32.4 percent,
from 91,221 to 61,676. Only in Belize was there an increase,
amounting to a modest 5.5 percent (Abdullah 1977: 114-115).
These data refer to employment by occupational group, and include
a small number of workers in mining and quarrying. Data classified
by economic sector show a decline in agricultural employment.
32.1 percent.

/ Including an imputed figure of 761 for Grenada, based on figures for
the other Windward Islands (see Table III.1, footnote d).












cultural planning and policy purposes. It is also not clear how many of the

29,774 households with less than one acre of land should be included

in the target population. Unpublished data from the 1971 agricul-

tural census in Barbados show that 57 percent of those farming 0-1

acres were employed primarily in a non-agricultural occupation.

If we exclude both the landless households and those with less than

one acre of land, the number of farm households would be only 35,923.

Of these 35,923 households in the early 1970s (the number would

be even lower now) the great majority would be considered small farmers

by almost any definition. Selecting the most appropriate definition,

however, is always a problem. Ideally, land quality and physical

capital, as well as acreage, should be taken into account; but

adequate data for doing so do not exist. One must therefore fall

back on the acreage criterion. Recent surveys in the region have

used widely differing upper limits in defining small farms:

Brierley (1974), for Grenada, and the Ministry of Agriculture in

Antigua (1977) set the limit at 15 acres; a regionwide study

prepared for the Caribbean Development Bank by Weir's Agricultural

Services, Ltd. (1976) uses 25 acres; and Yankey (1969), for

Dominica, includes all farms up tp 100 acres. The 25-acre criterion

seems to be a reasonable one, though it should be recognized that

(1) it is a low limit for small livestock producers and (2) intensive

farming of fertile, irrigated land near the upper limit can enable

a farmer to obtain a net income that is relatively high by regional

standards. Using the 25-acre criterion as the upper limit, and 1

acre as the lower limit, there were 31,948 households in the early













1970s which received a sizable proportion of their income, if not

most of it, from farming (see Table III.1). The number of such

households in 1978 is almost certainly lower, probably fewer than

30,000.

It might be useful for policy and planning purposes to separate

crop producers with less than 25 acres into two categories: those

with less than 10 acres and those with 10-25 acres. The 3,799

farmers in the latter group (early-1970s data) may well have needs
5/
that differ from those with less acreage.

































5/
-It is possible that 5 acres is a more appropriate dividing line
than 10. Additional research is necessary to clarify this
matter. Brierley (1974) suggests that the dividing line in
Grenada is 7 acres.










2. Age Distribution of Farmers


Table 1.2, based on data from the 1970 popular; ion census, shows that

the mean age of those classified as farm managers, supervisors, and farmers

ranged from 41 in Belize to 55 in Montserrat. Except in Belize, the

"typical" farm operator was in his/her late 40s or early 50s. Only 3,578

farm operators, 20 percent of the total, were less than 30 years old, and

nearly half of these (1,729) were in Belize. If we exclude Belize, the

proportion of under-30 farmers falls to 16 percent. The proportion of

farmers 60 years of age and older is actually higher: 22 percent, or 25

percent excluding Belize (see Table 1.3).

Other agricultural workers, most of whom also can be considered

small-scale farm operators, were younger. The mean age ranged from 32 in

Belize to about 45 in Barbados and the Leewards and 51 in the British Virgin

Islands (see Table 1.2).

Recent surveys confirm the population census findings of high mean

ages for farm operators:


Author

Antigua (1977: 3)
Brierley (1974: 75)
Mills (1976: 155)


Country

Antigua
Grenada
St. Kitts


Date of
Survey

1977
1969
1973


Sample
Size

100
292
66


Approximate
Mean Age

55
54
54


Montserrat (n.d.)
Weir (1976: I(b), 8)
Weir (1976: I(b), 55)
Weir (1976: I(b),107)
Yankey (1969: 235)


Agricultural census.
Agricultural census.


Montserrat
Montserrat
St. Vincent
Dominica
Dominica


1972
1975
1975
1975
1966


51
97
100
96


Age Distribution

85% were 40+
92% were 46+
77% were 46+
70% were 46+
54% were 45+










Table 1.2

Estimated Mean Age of Employed Workers in Agriculture, 1970a


Farm Managers, Super- Other Agricultural
visors, and Farmers Workers
Male Female Total Male Female Total

Barbados 47.5 46.7 47.4 43.8 46.6 44.9

Windward Islands
Dominica 45.4 48.5 45.8 39.6 41.3. 40.2
Grenada 53.0 52.7 52.9 41.6 42.4 41.9
St. Lucia 43.6 43.8 43.6 37.9 39.2 38.3
St. Vincent 50.3 50.3 50.3 40.0 42.5 40.8

Leeward Islands
Antigua n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Montserrat 55.7 53.2 55.0 47.1 47.5, 47.3
St. Kitts 53.0 49.5 52.2 44.3 45.2 44.6

Belize 41.0 40.4 41.0 31.7 29.8 31.6

Other
British Virgin Is. 54.4 54.4 50.8 46.2 50.6
Cayman Is. 52.5 52.0 52.5 43.0 32.0 42.4
Turks & Caicos Is. 51.4 45.5 47.8 33.9 40.0 34.4


Source: UWI/CRP (1976: Vol. 4, Part 16).
a
For the 15-19 through 60-64 age groups, the mean age of each group is
assumed to be at the mid-point; for the 65-and-over age group, the mean age
is assumed to be 68.










Table 1.3


Age Distribution of Farm Managers,
and Farmers, 1970


14-29


Barbados

Windward Islands
Dominica
Grenada
St. Lucia
St. Vincent


Leeward Islands
Antigua
Montserrat
St. Kitts

Belize

Other
British Virgin Is.
Cayman Is.
Turks and Caicos Is.


Totala


129


492
142
910
121


n.a.
6
27


1,729


2
8
12


3,578


Age Groups
30-59

395


1,723
1,005
2,565
856


n.a.
94
182

3,247


19
40
37


10,163


Supervisors,





60+

184


567
744
708
423


n.a.
61
114

1,029


3,900


Source: UWI/CRP (1976: Vol. 4, Part 16).


aExcludes Antigua.


Total


2,782
1,891
4,183
1,400


n.a.
161
323

6,005


17,641










3. Sex Distribution of IFarmers

Data from the 1970 population census (see Table I.1) show that women

accounted for 13% of those classified as farm managers, supervisors, and

farmers in the region. In four countries, more than 20% of this group were

women: Grenada (24%), Montserrat (30%), St. Kitts-Nevis (24%), and the Turks

and Caicos Islands (61%). The same source indicates that 31 percent of other

agricultural workers were women. These data, however, do not indicate whether

part-time employment in agriculture was more prevalent among women than men.

The same is true of the agricultural censuses conducted in subsequent years.

Other studies found that women headed 25% of the farm households surveyed

in Antigua (Antigua 1977:2), 19% in Grenada (Brierley 1974:74), and 43% in

Montserrat (Montserrat n.d.).










4. Household Size

The 1970 population census showed that average household size ranged

from 3.5 in Montserrat to 5.2 in Belize (see Table 1.4). Small-farm

households appear to be larger than the national averages, as indicated

by evidence from the following studies:


Author


Country


Date of
Survey


Sample Average House-
Size hold Size


Antigua (1977:2)
Brierley (1974:77)
Mills (1976:155)
Momsen (1970:84)
Momsen (1970:84)
St. Lucia (1975:14)
Weir (1976:I(b),8)
Weir (1976:I(b),55)
Weir (1976:I(b),107)
Yankey (1969:195)


Antigua
Grenada
St. Kitts
Barbados
St. Lucia
St. Lucia
Montserrat
St. Vincent
Dominica
Dominica


Agricultural census; all farm households.

Estimated by assuming the average number of persons in the 2-3, 4-7, and
8-10 dependent categories to be at the mid-point; for the 11+ category
the average number of dependents was assumed to be 12.


1977
1969
1973
n.a.
n.a.
1974
1975
1975
1975
1966


100
292
66
c.200
c.200
*
51
97
100
96


5.2
5.7
6.0
5.2
6.5
4.8
5.0
6.9t
6.4
5.4











Table 1.4

Average Household Size, 1970
(number of persons)


Total
Population

235,229


Barbados


Number of
Households

58,596


Persons per
Household

4.0


Windward Islands
Dominica
Grenada
St. Lucia
St. Vincent

Leeward Islands
Antigua
Montserrat
St. Kitts-Nevis

Belize

Other
British Virgin Is.
Cayman Islands
Turks & Caicos Is.


Total 850,041 191,272


Sources: IUWI/CRP (1976:Vol. 9)
tion, 1970.


and the Antigua census of popula-


69,549
92,775
99,806
86,314


64,794
11,458
44,884

119,934


9,672
10,068
5,558


15,148
19,642
21,753
16,940


15,405
3,291
11,236

23,065


2,445
2,469
1,282


4.6
4.7
4.6
5.1


4.2
3.5
4.0

5.2


4.0
4.1
4.3









5. Multiple Jobholding

Small farmers in the Caribbean Region typically engage in other

economic activities, mainly because their holdings are too small to

provide adequate incomes. Only a minority are full-time farmers, and a

large proportion earn less than half their income from farming. As Comitas

(1973:158-159) has pointed out in connection with Jamaica, and Marshall

(1968:252-253) for the Caribbean generally, most people engaged in

agricultural activities do not neatly fit traditional definitions of

"plantation workers," "farmers," or "peasants." Comitas defines a

plantation worker as "a landless wage employee who is attached to a

large-scale agricultural organization geared to the production and

marketing of an export crop for profit"; a farmer is "an agricultural

entrepreneur who owns land, hires wage labor or depends on sharecroppers

or tenants for the cultivation of commercial crops"; and a peasant is an

agricultural producer . who retains effective control of land and who

aims at subsistence not at reinvestment."

Comitas (1973:162) argues that reliance on the "peasant" concept is

unrealistic in anthropological research. Indeed, he argues that "no

viable peasant subculture exists in Jamaica." To a large extent this

statement can be applied to the rest of the English-speaking Caribbean,

though it is somewhat extreme for the Windwards and even less applicable

to Belize. Comitas' plea for a multi-occupational model in anthropological

research in the Caribbean should be heeded by economists. Instead of

speaking of "small farmers," perhaps we should use some other term ("rural

residents"?) to describe the target population. Comitas (1973:172)

believes that uni-occupational assistance programs in the Caribbean have

"limited chances for success" because multiple jobholders "find it








impractical to develop fully one aspect of their economic life to the

detriment of others." In a similar vein, economist Michael Lipton (1976:

547ff), in reviewing worldwide evidence on rural credit programs, argues

that multiple-purpose loan programs are likely to be more successful

than traditional, uni-dimensional, agricultural production credit

programs.

Evidence regarding multiple jobholding in the Eastern Caribbean

includes the following data from small-farmer surveys:

a. Handler (1965:17), who studied workers on small sugar plantations

in the Scotland District of Barbados, found that 80% of the men working on

these plantations had at least three other income-producing activities.

These included raising livestock, growing cash cr ps on small garden plots,

working as wage laborers on other small farms, working in the local

pottery industry, and miscellaneous activities unrelated to exploitation
6/
of the land.

b. Momsen (1970:81) found that 62% of the 200 or so small farmers

she interviewed in Barbados, and 36% of a similar number in St. Lucia,

worked off their farms.

c. Brierley (1974:65-66) found that 39% of the 292 small farmers

he interviewed in Grenada obtained at least half their income from off-

farm activities.

d. Mills (1976:155-156), who surveyed 66 smallholders in St. Kitts,

found that almost all of them were employed as laborers on sugarcane

estates during the 5-month harvest period.

e. The Government of Antigua's (1977) survey of 100 small farmers

found that 48 of the 92 farmers responding to questions on off-farm

employment spent at least half their labor time on such activities.



For additional comments on multiple jobholding in Barbados, from a
sociological-anthropological viewpoint, see Greenfield (1964).














II. LEVEL OF LIVING INDICATORS

1. Income and Income Distribution

a. National Data

In 1976 per capital GDP at market prices in the Caribbean Region

(excluding the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and
1/
the Turks and Caicos Islands) ranged from US$320 in St. Vincent

to US$1,530 in Barbados (see Table II.1). Between 1970 and 1975

per capital GNP rose only in Barbados and Belize, at a mediocre

annual rate of 1.3-1.5%. In the Windwards and Leewards, per capital

income declined. The Windwards made a modest recovery in 1976,
2/
but in the Leewards the decline continued.

Data on income distribution are scarce and of poor quality.
census
The 1970 population/shows income distribution by occupational and indus-

trial group disaggregatedd in the latter case by parish or other subdivi-

sion), but the data are for individuals rather than households and thus

constitute a relatively poor indicator of welfare. Also, the data measure

gross rather than net income; the percentage in the "no response" category

is high; and the mean of the open-ended category is difficult to guess.

Household income distribution data for 1970 are available for Dominica,

but since 33% of the households did not state their income these data

are of little use (see Dominica 1976: 61-62). Income data for Dominica



1/
Per capital GDP in the Cayman Islands is believed to be higher than
in Barbados; in the British Virgin Islands, greater than the regional
average; and in the Turks and Caicos Islands, less than the regional
average.


2/
- The quality of the national accounts data is poor.












Table II.1

Rates of Growth of Real Per Capita GNP, 1970-75,
Real Per Capita GDP, 1976, and
Per Capita GDP at Market Prices, 1976



Real Annual Per CaDita Per Capita
Rates of Growth GDP at
(percent) Market
GNP GDP Prices.
1970-75 1976 1976a

Barbados 1.3 3.6 1,530

Windward Islands
Dominica -1.3 1.7 330
Grenada -7.3 11.2 420
St. Lucia -2.2 0.8 510
St. Vincent -2.3 0.5 320

Leeward Islands
Antigua -2.3 -8.4 690
Montserrat n.a. n.a. 820
St. Kitts-Nevis -1.5 -0.7 640

Belize 1.5 n.a. 740c

Sources: World Bank Atlas 1977 (1970-75); preliminary GDP estimates
for 1976; population data as reported in Fiester et al. (1978: 1-2).

aFor the Windward and Leeward Islands, the U.S. dollar figures are
based on the exchange rate of EC$2.70 = US$1.00 adopted in July 1976.

Estimate of GDP at factor cost.

CEstimate based on a per capital GNP figure in 1975 of US$670 (1975
prices).









were also collected in a sample survey during 19'7(, but the rcsultts .are in,.

available. Income distribution data for Montserrat are based on taxpayers'

returns and thus exclude lower income households who file no returns. In

summary, there seem to be no usable data on income distribution, either at

the national level or for rural areas.

Impressionistic evidence suggests that incomes in the Eastern

Caribbean are distributed more equally than in most Central and South

American countries. The decline (and in some cases disappearance) of

plantation agriculture has tended to reduce the size and incomes of the

more affluent rural groups, and government policies have consciously

sought to provide a more equal distribution of income (or consumption

of basic goods and services). Sugarcane workers in Barbados, St. Kitts-

Nevis, and perhaps elsewhere have a guaranteed minimum annual income.

The degree of inequality in the distribution of land varies, but especially

if government-owned lands are excluded from the data Gini coefficients

tend to be lower than in Central or South America (see Part III.1).

Other level-of-living indicators, summarized below, also suggest a

relatively high degree of equality.

A number of surveys and other studies provide data on farm income,

but in general there are two serious problems with these estimates.

First, farm income is usually reported on a gross cash basis, thus not

taking into account production costs (which should be subtracted) and

the imputed value of food produced and consumed on the farm (which should

3/
be added). Secondly, non-farm family income seems to be underestimated,



3/
SOther imputations, of course, should also be made in estimating total
household income. But the only other imputation generally made in
national income accounting is for the rental value of owner-occupied
housing.









often significantly so. This is especially true for remittance iicoile,

an important soulrct' I icomIe Ior l r ion i whole', to hI) di:: ::::'d

separately below. It also appears that some studies do not take into

account earnings by family members other than the head of the household.

b. Farm Household Data

We present below, by country, income estimates for farm households

collected in various years and sometimes by different methods. The

limitations of these data, which will be pointed out, should be borne

in mind.

(1) Antigua

The Antiguan government's small farmer survey in 1976 (N=100)

provides the following information on farm and off-farm income and

income distribution (Antigua 1977: 3):-

Gross Farm Off-Farm
Income Level Income Income
(EC$) (number of households)

0 500 39 41
501 1,000 31 12
1,001 2,000 16 12
2,001 3,000 4 10
3,001 4,000 7 11
5,001 10,000 3 3
No response 0 11

Total 100 100


The fact that 70 percent of the farmers in the survey have gross
5/
cash incomes from farm operations of EC$1,000 (US$370)-or less suggests

that part-time farming in Antigua is much more important than full-time

farming. It is important to know if off-farm income tends to be higher

the lower is gross farm income, but this information is not provided and

the only way to obtain it would be to go directly to the questionnaires.

It should be noted that 11 percent of the farmers provided no information on

4/
Since these data refer only to small farmers, they cannot be used to
indicate income distribution patterns in agriculture generally.
5Based on an exchange rate of EC$2.70 US$1.00 (beginning July 1976).
Based on an exchange rate of EC$2.70 t US$1.00 (beginning July 1976).








off-farm income, though all of them were willing to provide data on

farm income. The latter, as we have noted, is unfortunately on a gross

cash income basis, with production costs not deducted. No imputations

are made for on-farm consumption and housing.

(2) Belize

Cacho (1967: 126) refers to a 1966 survey which found that average

family income in rural Belize was TT$576, or about TT$115 (US$67) per

capital, compared with a national average of TT$524 (US$306) per capital
6A
in 19647 Unfortunately, there is no indication of (1) how the rural

income estimate was made, (2) whether it includes imputed income and

off-farm income, and (3) whether farm income is computed on a gross or

net basis.

(3) Dominica

A survey of small farmers by Weir's Ltd. (1976:I(b),125) in November-

December 1975 (N=100) provides the following data on gross (cash) farm

income and non-farm income:

Gross Farm Income Off-Farm
Income Level Total Crops Livestock Inccme
(EC$) ----------(number of households)-----------

Less than 250 13 13 21 16
251 500 10 12 2 5
501 750 17 13 3 1
751 1,000 10 12 2 0
1,001 1,500 12 8 1 1
1,501 2,000 8 7 0 1
2,001 3,000 10 11 0 0
3,001 5,000 7 7 0 1
5,001 10,000 3 3 0 0
More than 10,000 2 1 0 1

Can't say/no answer 8 11 48 2
None 0 4 22 20

Total 100 100 100 100*

*Note that the figures in this column add only to 48. Apparently
the remaining 52 farmers either had no off-farm income or provided
no information.


6 Based on an exchange rate of TT$1.71 US$1.00 in 1966.
Based on an exchange rate of TT$1.71 = US$1.00 in 1966.










There is good reason to believe that farmers overstated the extent

of their losses.

(4) Grenada

Summary data from the 1974-75 census (the questionnaires from

which were destroyed in a fire before much analysis was done), show

that nearly 60% of the country's farm operators received most of their

income from non-farm sources:

N %

All income derived from farm holding 4,398 35.0
Income derived mainly from farm holding 699 5.6
Income derived mainly from non-farm
activities 7,468 59.4

Total 12,565 100.0


No information was obtained on income amounts, and it is not clear

whether farm income refers to gross cash income or some other measure.

(5) Montserrat

Unpublished data from the 1972 agricultural census show that

slightly more than half of Montserrat's farm operators (N=1,232)

derived most of their income from farming:

Number of
Source of Income Farmers Percent

Own farm 628 50.9
Working on other farm 14 1.1
Non-farm activities 590 48.0

Total 1,232 100.0


As would be expected, landless farmers and those with less than one

acre were more dependent on off-farm income than farmers with more

land:









Size of Holding Number of Percent Deriving Most
(acres) Farmers Income from Own Farm

Landless 88 2 .)
Less than 1.00 548 40.3
1.00 4.99 489 64.4
5.00 9.99 66 72.7
10.00 24.99 26 61.5
25.00 49.99 6 83,3
50.00 99.99 2 50.0
100.00 199.99 2 0.0
200.00 499.99 3 33.3
500.00 and above 2 0.0

Total 1,232 50.9


No income data are provided, and the definition of income used is not

clear.

The Weir survey (1976:I(b), 29-32) provides these data on gross

(cash) farm income in 1975:

Gross Farm Income
Income Level Total Crops Livestock
(EC$) (percent of households)

Less than 250 15 41 23
250 500 8 16 15
501 750 38 25 0
751 1,000 15 9 8
1,001 1,500 8 0* 0
1,501 2,000 8 0* 0
2,001 3,000 0 0* 0
3,001 5,000 0 0* 0
5,001 10,000 0 0 0
More than 10,000 0 0* 0

Can't say/no answer 8 9 31
None 0 0 23

Total 100 100 100

*The breakdown by size of farm, however, shows some
farmers to be in these categories. Unfortunately,
the data are in percentages (by size of farm); the
number of farmers in each cell is not reported, and
it is sometimes not clear how the numbers were
rounded off to obtain percentages.










These data show that 76% of the farm households surveyed received

no more than EC$1,000 (US$500) from farming in 1975. Given an average

household of 5.0 persons, gross per capital cash income from farming

would be $US100 or less for three-fourths of the farm households. Note,

however, that 31% of those surveyed provided no information on earnings

from livestock operations. Few farmers were reported to have any off-

farm income, though 2(?) of the 7 in the 5-10 acre category reported

off-farm incomes between EC$750 and EC$1,500. The data have the same

limitations as those collected in the authors' survey in Dominica,

discussed above.

Farmers surveyed in the Weir study (1976:I(b), 128) attributed crop

losses primarily to the following factors:

Percent of Farmers
Citing Various Causes

Drought 54
Insect pests and diseases 39
Rats and untethered animals 23
Market surplus 15


Livestock losses were attributed principally to these reasons:

Percent of Farmers
Citing Various Causes

Praedial larceny 16
Drought 15
Disease 8
Inadequate security 8


(6) St. Vincent

The Weir survey of St. Vincent (1976:I(b),84) provides these

data c- gross cash income and income from other sources (N=97):









ross .aT nr.onTe Off-Farr
Jicome L.e-ve-l 'lal Crops Livestock Income
(EC$) ------(percent of households)--------

Less than 250 7 13 29 7
250 500 16 17 5 1
501 750 10 9 4 0
751 1,000 15 12 2 1
1,001 1,500 16 18 2 0
1,501 2,000 6 6 0 0
2,001 3,000 13 9 1 0
3,001 5,000 5 2 0 0
5,001 10,000 2 2 0 0
More than 10,000 1 1 0 0

Can't say/don't know 9 10 33 6
None 0 0 24 12

Total 100 100 100 100*

*The figures actually add to only 27 percent. Presumably the
remaining 73 percent reported no off-farm income.


These data show that 48% of those surveyed--and 61% of those with

only 1-5 acres, received gross cash incomes of no more than EC$1,OCO

(US$500) from farming. Given an estimated average household size of

6.9, this amounts to no more than US$72 per capital. One-third of the

farmers, however, provided no information on income from livestock

operations, and the number of households having off-farm income is

probably significantly higher than reported. These income data have

the same limitations as those for Dominica and Montserrat.

Farmers surveyed in the Weir study (1976:I(b),85) attributes crop

losses primarily to the following factors:

Percent of Farmers
Citing Various Causes

Drought 55
Insect pests and diseases 34
Hurricanes, storms, winds 21
Rats, untethered animals 13
Poor roads, poor access 10
Market surplus 10









Livestock losses were attributed principally to these reasons:

Percent of Farmers
Citing Various Causes

Disease 17
Praedial larceny 16


c. Emigrants' Remittances

The sociological and anthropological literature on the Caribbean

Region, as well as estimates by economist Carleen O'Loughlin (1968),

suggest that emigrants' remittances are important components of income

that farm-level surveys generally record incompletely, if at all. Data

on remittances, it is true, are usually aggregate national figures, and

little is known about the distribution of remittance income among house-

holds within a country. It is likely that a large percentage of farm

households receive income from their relatives overseas, and that these

transfers tend to make the distribution of income more equal. This is

only a hypothesis, however, based on (1) evidence in the sociological

and anthropological literature, (2) statistical evidence provided by

level-of-living indicators other than income, and (3) casual observation

of living conditions in rural areas. Research is needed to test this

hypothesis by obtaining more comprehensive data on household income than

hitherto has been collected.

Table 11.2 presents estimates of remittance income derived from

various sources. Usually, the estimates are based on data on the volume

of postal and bank money orders and other bank transfers. Remittance

income transferred in other ways, e.g. in person, during return visits

by emigrants, is thus not recorded. Also not recorded are pension

checks received by returned migrants from the U.K., U.S., Canada, and

elsewhere. These transfers, shared with family members and other relatives,

turn to p. 27








Table 11.2


Estimates of Remittance Income, Various Years, 1961-1977


Country and
Source of Estimate

Leewards and Wind-
wards (combined)
O'Loughlin (1968:87)

Anguilla
Fiester et al.(1978:ANG-1)


Barbados
Manners (1965:190)

Carriacou (Grenada)
Richardson (1975)


Montserrat
Lowenthal-
Comitas (1962)
Manners (1965:191)

St. Kitts-Nevis-(Anguilla)
Manners (1965:191)
Frucht (1968)
Fiester et al.(1978:I-13)


St. Vincent
Manners (1965:191)


Remittances
Year of as a % of
Estimate Total Income


1964


1977


1962


1972


1961?
1962


1962
1966
1977


1962


a
3.7


Aggregate
Remittances


Per Capita
Remittances


(local currency units)


EC$5,500,000


n.a.


33.3b


6.7c


n.a.




20-25
14.7d


7.7d
n.a.
16+e


BWI$7,900,000


n.a.


n.a.
BWI$530,000


BWI$1, 652,000
BWI$ 330,000
EC$13,900,000


Per Capita
U.S. Dollar
Equivalent
(current prices)


Comments


EC$12


n.a.


n.a. Qualit..: ive judgement


BWI$34


n.a.


n.a.
BWI$44


BWI$34
BWI$27
EC$290


n.a.
25


20
16
107g


Quality: : ve judgement




All 3 1-Lands
Nevis ".Lv
St. Kit:- and Nevis


6.5d BWI$1,521,000 BWI$19










Notes to Table 11.2



Sources: As indicated in the table.

aAs a percent of national income.

Aggregate income concept not clear. In Montserrat remittances were
reported to be "almost one-quarter" of income.
c
As a percent of personal income.

As a percent of GDP at market prices, as reported in O'Loughlin (1968:
94).
e
Based on partial (7-month) unpublished data for bank transfers
identified as remittances.

Accouding to Manners (1965:191) Frucht found that remittances in
Nevis had reached a high of EC$512,000 in 1961.

Converted at the 1977 exchange rate of EC$2.70 = US$1.00.









These data show that 50% of the farm households in the survey

--and 63% of those with only 1-5 acres--had gross cash incomes from

farm operations of EC$1,000 (US$500) or less, or no more than

US$78 per capital, based on an average household size of 6.4 as esti-

mated from data in the survey (see Part 1.4). However, these data are

subject to all the limitations of those collected in the Antigua survey

(see above). In addition, an examination of the questionnaire suggests

that no information was requested on remittance income or on income

received by family members other than the head of household. On balance,

the income estimates in this survey, and in companion surveys in

Montserrat and St. Vincent, seem to significantly underestimate small

farmer household income.

The Weir survey (1976:I(b),127-128) reported that 69% of those

surveyed experienced losses in their crop operations in the preceding

3 years. Farmers attributed these losses primarily to the following

factors:

Percent of Farmers
Citing Various Causes

Hurricanes, storms, winds 30
Drought 23
Insect pests and diseases 21
Market surplus 17
Poor roads, poor access 12


Losses were reported by approximately 25% of the farmers keeping livestock.

The principal reasons reported were:

Percent of Farmers
Citing Various Causes

Inadequate security 11
Drought 7
Praedial larceny 7

return to p. 19

Based on the exchange rate of EC$2.00 = US$1.00 prevailing at the
time. The current rate is EC$2.70 = US$1.00.










can be regarded as delayed remittances. Iow important these, other forms

of transfers might be is not known. But it seems reasonable to conclude

that remittance income is almost always underestimated.


d. Summary

Data on rural incomes in the Caribbean Region are of poor quality,

and they tend both to underestimate total income (cash and imputed) and

to give a misleading impression of levels o:f well-being. To present a

more complete picture, we present in the following pages data on a

number of other level-of-living indicators. In general, these show

that rural levels of living in the Caribbean Region are higher than in

Central and South America.










2. Unemployment and underemployment

In 1970 the economy-wide unemployment rate in the Caribbean Region

was 7.9% (see Table 11.3). National unemployment rates ranged from only

1.5% in the Cayman Islands to 12.5% in Antigua. Since 1970 unemployment

rates appear to have risen in most, if not all countries. In Barbados,

where quarterly employment surveys were begun in late 1975, the unemploy-

ment rate averaged 15.3% in the four surveys taken between December 1976

and :September 1977. In Dominica, a survey of 670 households in 1976

found the unemployment rate to be 22.7%; an additional 11.9% were found

to be underemployed (to an unspecified degree). A recent OAS survey of

Grenada (OAS 1977) estimates the unemployment rate in that country to

have been 15-20% during 1976.

Unemployment is very heavily concentrated among the younger age

groups. Census data for 1970, for all countries in the Caribbean Region

except Antigua, show that 67% of the unemployed men and 66% of the unemployed

women were between the ages of 14 and 19. An additional 16% and 21%,

respectively, were in the 20-24 age group.

Open unemployment rates in agriculture, as shown in Table 11.4,

were very low in 1970, averaging less than 1% of the agricultural labor

force. Since most rural youth migrate from farms to urban areas, or

seek employment overseas, these very low rates of open unemployment are

not surprising.

There appear to be no good data on rural underemployment. One

suspects that it may be relatively high in some countries, despite the

widespread incidence of multiple jobholding.









Table 11.3


Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment, 1970
(number of workers 14 years of age and above)


Total

Barbados 62,553

Windward Islands
Dominica 15,012
Grenada 19,409
St. Lucia 21,479
St. Vincent 17,259

Leeward Islands
Antigua 16,319
Montserrat 2,996
St. Kitts 9,217

Belize 29,183

Other
British Virgin Is.. 3,116
Cayman Is. 2,647
Turks & Caicos Is. 1,211


Total 200,401


Source: UWI/CRP (1976: Vol. 4, Part


Male Population, 14+a

Unem-
Employed played

50,412 3,242


12,293 807
16,086 1,266
16,975 1,509
13,509 1,427


12,203 1,336
2,409 80
7,657 336

25,192 1,284


2,808 79
2,220 36
966 89


162,730 11,491


16). Data for Antigua


Not in
Labor
Force

8,899


1,912
2,057
2,995
2,323


2,780
507
1,224

2,707


229
391
156


26,180


are from


Female Population, 14+a
Not in
Unem- Laborb
Total Employed played Force

76,645 32,074 3,646 40,925


18,795 7,159 652 10,984
24,800 9,713 1,371 13,716
27,345 9,095 1,111 17,139
22,372 7,266 1,070 14,036


19,952 6,882 1,384 11,686
3,699 1,267 100 2,332
11,839 4,598 327 6,914

29,460 5,684 228 23,548


2,458 1,007 54 1,397
3,232 1,186 16 2,030
1,542 492 25 1,025


242,139 86,423 9,984 145,732


a separate census conducted by that country.


Unemployment
Rates (2)
Male Female Total

6.0 10.2 7.7


6.2 8.3 7.0
7.3 12.4 9.3
8.2 10.9 9.1
9.6 12.8 10.7


9.9 16.7 12.5
3.2 7.3 4.7
4.2 6.6 5.1 o

4.8 3.9 4.7


2.7 5.1 3.4
1.6 1.3 1.5
8.4 4.8 7.3


6.6 10.4 7.9


Excludes those attending schools, except for Antigua, where the total refers to all males and females 15 years of age
and above.

Includes the following categories: wanted work and available, home duties, student (apart from those in school),
retired/disabled, other, and not stated.







Table 11.4


Agricultural Employment, 1970
(workers 14 years of age and above)


Barbados


Windward Islands
Dominica
Grenada
St. Lucia
St. Vincent

Leeward Islands
Antigua
Montserrat
St. Kitts

Belize

Other
British Virgin Is.
Cayman Is.
Turks & Caicos Is.


Total


Male

8,327


5,732
5,504
7,833
4,357


1,709b
484
2,809

10,610


47,935


Total Employment
in Agriculture
Female

4,907


1,947
3,097
2,526
1,676


740b
262
1,386

451


12
7
82


17,093


Total

13,234


7,679
8,601
10,359
6,033


2,449b
746
4,195

11,061


294
141
236


65,028


Agriculture's Share of
Total Employment (%)
Male Female Total


16.5


46.6
34.2
46.1
32.2


12.0
20.1
36.7

42.1


10.0
6.0
15.9


15.3


27.2
31.9
27.8
23.1


8.4
20.7
30.1

7.9


1.2
0.6
16.7


16.0


39.5
33.3
39.7
29.0


10.6
20.3
34.2

35.8


7.8
4.1
16.2


Agricultural Unem-
ployment Rate (%)
Male Female Total


0.5


0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5


n.a.
0.2
0.2

0.4


1.4
0.0
0.0


0.1
0.3
0.3
1.2


n.a.
0.4
0.1

2.8


0.0
0.0
0.0


0.8


0.2
0.3
0.4
0.7


n.a.
0.3
0.2

0.5


1.3
0.0
0.0


Source: UWI/CRP (1976: Vol.
country.


4, Part 16).


Data for Antigua are from a separate census conducted by that


aAccording to classification of employment by economic sector. Classification by occupation group (farm
managers, supervisors, and farmers; other agricultural workers) yields different figures.

Total labor force in agriculture.










3. Education

Educational levels in the Caribbean Region are high in comparison

with those in other developing countries. Data from the 1970 census,

presented in Table 11.5, show that 75-90% of the heads of household

had completed at least 5 years of school in all countries except St. Lucia,

where the figure was only 37%. Disaggregation of the national totals

by parish or other subdivision shows that functional literacy is not just

an urban phenomenon. While educational levels are higher in urban areas

than in predominantly rural subdivisions, the differencesare not great:

with the exception again of St. Lucia at least 70% of the heads of

households in all but a few rural subdivisions had completed 5 years of

school or more. In St. Lucia, the exceptional case, only 21-36% the heads

of rural households had attained this level of education.

Farm-level surveys also show a relatively high degree of functional

literacy, though it appears that small farmers sometimes have less education

than rural residents generally.

Brierley (1974: 61-63 and passim) found a mean of 4.3 years of

educational attainment among small farmers in Grenada, with the parish

figures ranging from 3.3 in St. John's to 5.4 in St. David's. Educational

attainment was lowest among what Brierley call "commercial" farmers (those

deriving more than half their income from farming), and highest among the

operators of "miniature estates" (7-15 acres).

Momsen (1970:81-82) reports that all of the 200 or so small farmers

she interviewed in Barbados were literate, while in St. Lucia 37% could

neither read nor vrite. Momsen's analysis found literacy to be "the

single most important element in determining the efficiency of small

farming."








Table 1.5


Level of Education Attained by Head of Household,
by Country and Major Subdivision, 1970
(percent in each category)


< 5 5 Years
Years or More


Not
Stated


<5 5 Years Not
Years or More Stated


Barbados
St. Michael
Christ Church
St. George
St. Philip
St. John
St. James
St. Thomas
St. Joseph
St. Andrew
St. Peter
St. Lucy

Dominica
Rcseau
St. George
St. John
St. Peter
St. Joseph
St. Paul
St. Luke
St. Mark
St. Patrick
St. David
St. Andrew


13.2
9.7
8.5
9.9
16.4
24.4
16.9
24.8
19.1
25.6
23.8
18.6

19.1
8.1
19.0
14.1
3.5
22.1
20.8
15.1
24.0
32.3
21.5
20.9


85.3
88.7
90.4
88.5
82.6
74.7
81.0
74.2
79.5
71.6
75.6
79.0

80.7
91.6
81.0
85.8
96.5
77.9
79.2
84.9
75.8
66.8
78.5
78.8


1.5
1.6
1.1
1.6
1.0
0.9
2.1
1.0
1.4
2.8
0.6
2.4

0.2
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.9
0.0
0.3


Grenada
Town of
St. George
Parish of
St. George
St. John's
St. Mark's
St. Patrick's
St. Andrew's
St. David's
Carriacou


St. Lucia
Town of Castries
Suburbs of
Castries
Marchand
Anse-La-Ray e
Canaries
Soufriere
Choiseul
La Borie
Vieux-Fort
Micoud
Dennery
Gros Islet


12.2 84.5


5.3

6.3
14.6
26.3
16.0
18.7
7.0
13.5


92.1

87.7
78.2
73.1
81.0
78.2
91.4
82.5


62.2 37.4
28.4 71.1


39.9
63.4
79.0
65.6
63.9
72.7
65.9
67.9
71.7
75.0
64.5


59.4
35.8
20.9
34.4
35.6
27.1
33.9
31.8
28.1
24.9
35.1


3.3

2.6

6.0
7.2
0.6
3.0
3.1
1.6
4.0









Table 11.5

(continued)


< 5 5 Years
Years or More


Not
Stated


< 5 5 Years
Years or More


St. Vincent
Kingstown
Rest of Area
Calliagua
Marriagua
Bridgetown
Colonarie
Georgetown
Sandy Bay
Layou
Barrouaille
Chateau Belair
North
Grenadines
South
Grenadines


18.2
12.3
21.7
14.3
22.2
35.1
28.2
16.6
20.4
14.9
27.7
26.1

2.4

7.9


79.5
85.2
75.9
82.3
76.8
62.0
70.3
80.3
78.7
82.5
72.1
71.7

96.6

89.0


2.3
2.5
2.4
3.4
1.0
2.9
1.5
3.1
0.9
2.6
0.2
2.2

1.0

3.1


Antigua


not available


Montserrat
Plymouth
St. Anthony's
St. Peter's
St. George's


St. Kitts-Nevis
Basseterre
Rest of
St. George
St. Paul
St. Anne
St. Thomas
Trinity
Christschurch
St. John's
St. Mary
St. Peter
St. Paul-Nevis
St. John-Nevis
St. George-
Nevis
St. Thomas-Nevis
St. James-Nevis


Not
Stated


15.8
7..1
16.3
12.9
25.5


9.3
8.4

4.0
11.2
5.2
14.0
4.4
15.8
7.1
9.8
13.2
9.6
12.9

6.2
13.9
8.1


2.6
1.4
1.0
1.3
8.5


1.7
2.9

0.0
2.6
1.5
1.2
0.0
2.7
0.4
1.0
1.0
3.1
0.3


81.6
91.5
82.7
85.8
66.0


89.0
88.7

96.0
86.2
93.3
84.8
95.6
81.5
92.5
89.2
85.8
87.3
86.8

92.3
85.7
91.5









Table 11.5

(continued)


< 5 5 Years
Years or More


Belize
Belize City
Belize
District
Corozal
Orange Walk
Stann Creek
Toledo
Cayo
Belmopan


British Virgin Islands
Tortola
Anegada
Virgin Gorda
Jost Van Dyke
Other Islands


22.4
6.1

25.7
34.2
29.7
16.3
48.4
36.5
9.8


13.2
12.0
2.9
17.2
60.5
32.0


77.0
93.4

73.8
65.7
69.9
83.0
51.0
61.8
86.9


84.9
85.9
97.1
82.0
39.5
68.0


Not
Stated


0.6
0.5

0.5
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.6
1.7
3.3


1.9
2.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0


Cayman Islands
Grand Cayman
Cayman Brac
Little Cayman



Turks & Caicos Is.
Grand Turk
Salt Cay
South Caicos
Middle Caicos
North Caicos
Blue Hills


< 5 5 Years
Years or More


11.2
10.6
13.3
58.3




9.7
2.2
1.5
4.4
21.6
23.5
22.4


86.8
87.1
86.4
41.7




88.6

98.5
92.9
78.4
74.7
75.4


Source: UWI/CRP (1976:


Not
Stated

2.0
2.3
0.3
0.0


1.7
1.6
0.0
2.7
0.0
1.8
2.2


Vol. 9, Parts 2-4).













Yankey (1969:235),who surveyed 96 small farmers in 1966, reports

the following distribution of educational attainment in Dominica:

N %

No schooling 12 12.5
Less than 3 years 27 28.1
3-5 years 33 34.4
More than 5 years 22 22.9
High school 2 2.1


Total 100


100.0








4. Housing

The quantity and quality of housing is an important component

of welfare. In this section we examine one measure of the quantity

dimension, the number of rooms per household. These data, which are

available only at the national level, are presented in Table 11.6.

For the region as a whole the average number of rooms per dwelling unit

is 3.2. For the individual countries, the range is from 2.7 in St.

Lucia and Belize to 4.1 in the Turks & Caicos Islands. These figures

may be compared with an average of 2.1 rooms per dwelling unit in
8/
Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. -
The limitations of this indicator should be kept in mind: it

tells us nothing about the quality of construction or the size of

rooms. In addition, the census data do not indicate how small farmers'

housing differs from the national average. Other evidence, though,

suggests that the average small farmers' dwelling unit does not differ

much in size from the national average.

The Weir Survey (1976:I(b), 12, 59, 108) reports the following

data on number of bedrooms per dwelling unit on small farms in Dominica,

Montserrat, and St. Vincent:


Number of
Bedrooms


Dominica


Montserrat


1 19 9
2 41 40
3 23 40
4+ 18 9

Total* 100 100

*Columns do not add to 100 because of rounding.


St. Vincent

20
48
27
7

100


These data show that at least 80% of the farm households in the survey

had at least two bedrooms. No information is provided on other rooms.

8/ Average household size in Haiti is 4.5, about the same as that for
the Caribbean Region (4.4., as shown in Table 1.4). The average number
of persons per room is 1.4 in the Caribbean Region and 2.3 in Haiti.







Table 1I.6.


Distribution of Dwelling Units by Number of Rooms, 1970
(number of dwelling units in each category)


Total Estimated
Number of Rooms Number of Average
Not Dwelling Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Stated Places of Roons

Barbados 1,433 8,678 11,144 22,068 9,242 2,551 1,292 2,190 58,596 3.8

Windward Islands
Dominica 2,337 6,423 1,577 3,120 749 433 293 217 15,149 2.8
Grenada 1,275 7,078 3,350 3,719 1,049 499 411 1,763 19,644 3.0
St. Lucia 2,989 8,904 2,991 4,242 1,070 514 301 742 21,753 2.7
St. Vincent 1,421 6,857 4,086 2,365 912 374 334 591 16,940 2.8

Leeward Islands
Antigua 1,735 4,66 1,760 3,144 2,259 1,505 S36 15,405 3.6
Montserrat 246 1,062 444 824 295 161 84 175 3,291 3.2
St. Kitts-Nevis 1,928 3,295 1,576 1,834 1,001 578 626 398 11,236 3.1

Belize 3,032 9,286 5,813 2,722 1,052 393 339 423 23,065 2.7

Och.rr
British Virgin Is. 389 503 330 .33 328 192 160 112 2,447 3.5
Cayman Is. 156 254 513 721 440 133 61 110 2,469 3.9
Turks & Caicos Is. 47 189 228 340 197 120 116 45 1,282 4.1


Sources: UWI/CRP (1976: Vol. 9, Paris 2-4), and the separate population census conducted by the Government of Antigua.

Assumas that the mean in the 7- category is 8 rooms. The calculations exclude dwelling units for which the number of rooms
is not stated.










5. Water Supply

Table 11.7 provides data on household water supply systems at

the national and parish level. In Barbados and St. Kitts-Nevis,

more than 55% of all households had public water supplies piped into

their dwellings or yards. Elsewhere the figures ranged from virtually

zero in the Turks and Caicos Islands to 48% in Montserrat. If private

piped and catchment systems are added to these figures the percentage

of households having their own water supply rises to 82-83% in the British

Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands; jumps from 14% to 38% in Belize

and from zero to 37% in the Turks and Caicos Islands; and increases

by 3-10 percentage points in the other countries. In addition, a

substantial number of households obtain water from public standpipes:

at least 74% of all households in 1970 had access at least to this type

of water supply except in St. Lucia (66%), Belize (64%), and the Turks

and Caicos Islands (56%).

The disaggretated data in Table 11.7 show that rural households

are less well served with water supply systems than urban households.

Still, of the 105 parishes or other subdivisions in the 12 countries

surveyed, only in 13 does the percentage of households not served at

least by a public standpipe exceed 50%. Of these. 4 are sparsely

populated islands in the Turks and Caicos; another 4 are in Belize and

3 are in St. Lucia, the two countries where small farm households have

the poorest access to water supply systems. Also poorly served are

Nevis and some parts of rural Dominica.







Table 11.7


Type of Household Water Supply,
(percent in


Private
Public Piped or
Piped Catchmentb


Public
Stand-
pipe


by Country and Major Subdivision, 1970
category)


Public
Other Pipeda


Private
Piped or
Catchment


Barbados
St. Michael
Christ Church
St. George
St. Philip
St. John
St. James
St. Thomas
St. Joseph
St. Andrew
St. Peter
St. Lucy

Dominica
Roseau
St. George
St. John
St. Peter
St. Joseph
St. Paul
St. Luke
St. Mark
St. Patrick
St. David
St. Andrew


55.6
63.2
64.7
45.4
51.3
51.5
49.5
40.6
38.2
21.7
41.1
38.4

15.7
32.2
33.2
8.9
5.1
12.3
8.6
10.8
12.3
5.2
4.6
11.7


5.3
5.9
4.3
3.2
6.4
3.2
6.6
1.8
2.7
10.1
9.2
1.7

7.3
7.4
15.8
12.4
3.8
9.7
8.1
5.6
5.8
2.3
4.2
2.6


36.6
28.8
27.9
46.3
39.1
44.2
40.5
53.6
57.0
67.2
48.9
59.0

51.1
59.2
38.7
62.4
51.1
71.6
61.1
82.5
81.4
43.0
15.3
43.4


2.5
2.1
3.1
5.1
3.2
1.1
3.4
4.0
2.1
1.0
0.8
0.9

25.9
1.2
12.3
16.3
40.0
6.4
22.2
1.1
0.5
49.5
75.9
42.3


Grenada
Town of
St. George
Parish of
St. George
St. John's
St. Mark's
St. Patrick's
St. Andrew's
St. David's
Carriacou

St. Lucia
Town of
Castries
Suburbs of
Castries
Marchand
Anse-La-Raye
Canaries
Soufriere
Choiseul
La Borie
Vieux-Fort
Micoud
Dennery
Gros Islet


32.2

80.6

37.3
21.0
30.4
27.0
31.2
25.3
0.9

17.6

63.6

27.6
18.4
4.5
9.3
17.5
4.3
11.6
27.2
7.6
7.6
7.1


10.0

1.9

9.4
9.6
5.5
4.4
3.5
4.6
62.5

7.8

5.5

8.0
13.1
13.1
3.1
5.9
3.3
3.2
3.8
2.6
2.1
16.2


49.7

13.9

46.7
62.4
60.4
60.4
59.4
61.8
6.8


8.1

3.6

6.6
7.0
3.7
8.2
5.9
8.3
29.8


40.6 34.0 o


22.2

59.8
29.4
38.3
68.9
37.3
20.8
25.9
35.5
37.8
71.1
47.2


8.7

4.6
39.1
44.1
18.7
39.3
71.6
59.3
33.5
52.0
19.2
29.5


Public
Stand-
pipe


Other






Table II.7

(continued)


Private
Public Piped or
Pipeda Catchment


Public
Stand-
pipe


Private
Public Piped or
Other Piped a Catchment


St. Vincent
Kingstown
Rest of Area
Calliagua
Marriagua
Bridgetown
Colonarie
Georgetown
Sandy Bay
Layou
Barrouaille
Chateau Belair
North
Grenadines
South
Grenadines

Antigua
St. John's City
St. John's N
St. John's S.
St. Mary
St. Paul
St. Philip
St. Peter
St. George
Barbuda


22.1
55.7
12.5
25.5
15.1
4.7
11.1
17.4
0.9
16.2
6.8
8.8

1.5

0.6

21.0
33.2
28.4
13.7
9.9
14.5
6.0
4.1
13.9
0.0


8.0
5.1
4.0
4.8
4.9
5.1
1.9
3.4
0.7
1.7
5.4
4.0

60.8

42.4

5.1
2.4
12.4
5.1
3.1
6.2
6.6
6.6
5.8
0.0


62.0
36.3
80.0
63.7
67.0
79.9
80.9
75.4
66.5
79.9
85.7
82.5

23.9

10.4

64.4
59.7
54.8
73.6
75.3
66.3
77.1
70.4
71.8
0.0


7.9
2.9
3.5
6.0
13.0
10.3
6.1
3.8
31.9
2.2
2.1
4.7

13.8

46.6

9.5
4.7
4.4
7.6
11.7
13.0
10.3
18.9
8.5
100.0


Montserrat
Plymouth
St. Anthony's
St. Peter's
St. George's

St. Kitts-Nevis
Basseterre
Rest of
St. George
St. Paul
St. Anne
St. Thomas
Trinity
Christchurch
St. John's
St. Mary
St. Peter
St. Paul-Nevis
St. John-Nevis
St. George-
Nevis
St. Thomas-
Nevis
St. James-
Nevis


48.2
75.5
50.7
53.0
16.8

x55.5
29.3

41.4
11.9
24.3
24.4
26.2
15.6
15.3
10.4
20.2
45.7
17.1

16.6

9.8

18.2


3.3
0.0
3.9
2.3
5.6

5.7
5.9

23.5
2.9
3.3
4.5
3.6
3.3
4.2
2.6
11.2
5.9
9.6

5.0

7.5

2.9


36.5
19.5
32.5
32.0
63.4


12.0
5.0
12.9
12.7
14.2


53.3 11.7
37.6 5.4


33.9
75.8
66.5
64.1
68.4
76.1
79.0
74.8
66.1
43.7
23.0


1.2
9.4
5.9
7.0
1.8
5.0
1.5
12.2
2.5
4.7
49.7


48.8 29.6

59.1 23.6

38.4 40.5


Public
Stand-
Pipe


'there








Table 11.7

(continued)


Private
Public Piped or
Pipeda Catchmentb


Public
Stand -
pipe


Private
Public Piped or
Other Pipeda Catchmentb


Belize
Belize City
Belize
District
Corozal
Orange Walk
Stann Creek
Toledo
Cayo
Belmopan

British Virgin Is.
Tortola
Anegada
Virgin Gorda
Jost Van Dyke
Other Islands


13.5
7.7

2.6
15.1
4.0
39.4
1.4
28.9
13.1

4.3
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


24.3 25.7
39.1 51.0


25.9
18.0
23.5
10.5
7.7
12.0
32.8

74.9
73.6
81.2
83.1
65.8
92.0


17.4
2.9
14.4
5.3
22.9
16.7
8.2

3.1
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0


36.5
2.2

54.1
64.0
58.1
44.8
68.0
42.4
45.9

17.7
17.6
18.8
16.9
34.2
4.0


Cayman Islands
Grand Cayman
Cayman Brac
Little Cayman

Turks and Caicos
Grand Turk
Salt Cay
South Caicos
Middle Caicos
North Caicos
Blue Hills


Source: UWI/CRP (1976: Vol. 9, Parts 2-4), and Antigua (1976: 15).

apiped into dwelling or yard. For Antigua the figures included private piped systems.

Private system piped into dwelling or private catchment system, unpiped (public catchment in Antigua).


Public tank, other, or not stated.


Public
Stand-
pipe


Others


0.6
0.1
0.9
0.0

Is. 0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7


81.0
82.1
74.4
75.0

36.6
41.0
82.4
33.3
38.6
19.0
28.4


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

19.0
44.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


18.4
17.8
24.7
25.0

44.3
14.5
17.6
66.7
61.4
81.0
70.9











Several small farmer surveys also provide data on household water

supplies. In Grenada, Brierley (1974:79) found that 44% of the farmers

he surveyed had piped-in water. The figures by parish were as follows:

Sample Percentage of Houses
Size with Piped-in Water

St. George's 52 54
St. John's 38 32
St. Mark's 21 57
St. Patrick's 46 35
St. Andrew's 86 44
St. David's 49 47

Total 292 44

More recent data for Grenada were obtained in that country's

agricultural census of 1974/75. These data show that 68% of all farm

households had water either or their farms or no more than a half-

mile away. Seventeen percent had piped-in water and an additional

9% obtained water from catchments, wells, or springs on their farms.

Another 30% had access to piped water within a half mile of their farms.

The Weir survey (1976:1(b), 13, 61, 108) in Dominica, Montserrat,

and St. Vincent reported the following data:



Percent of Households Surveyed
Piped-in Water Public Standpipe

Dominica 44 19
Montserrat 77 15
St. Vincent 49 39

More recent data for Dominica are provided in that country's

new agricultural sector plan (1977:4), which reports that water is

supplied to approximately 83% of the population through 36 separate

water supply systems. Of the amount of water supplied, 84% is

chlorinated.











I,. l'J 't ; i < t it";

Table 11.8 provides data from the 1970 census on household

toilet facilities by country and parish (or other subdivision).

At least 75% of the households in all countries had some type of

toilet facility (usually a pit latrine) except in Dominica, where 51%

were reported to have none. Paradoxically, Dominica also had the

highest percentage of households with a W.C. attached to a sewer,

though this figure (9%) is still relatively low.

If the national figures are disaggregated we find that in some

parts of rural Dominica 70-90% of the households have no toilet

facilities. The figures are also relatively high in rural St. Lucia

and in scattered parts of other countries.

The only other data found on toilet facilities are from

Brierley's (1974:79) study in Grenada. Of the 292 small farmers

interviewed in 1969, 19% were found to have sewerage facilities.

Some of the remaining 81% presumably used pit latrines. The data

by parish are as follows:

Sample Percentage of Houses with
Size Sewerage Facilities


St. George's 52 25
St. John's 38 16
St. Mark's 21 29
St. Patrick's 46 9
St. Andrew's 86 21
St. David's 49 16

Total 292 19






Table 11.8


Type of Household Toilet Facilities, by Country and Major Subdivision, 1970
(percent in each category)


Barbados
St. Michael
Christ Church
St. George
St. Philip
St. John
St. James
St. Thomas
St. Joseph
St. Andrew
St. Peter
St. Lucy

Dominica
Roseau
St. George
St. John
St. Peter
St. Joseph
St. Paul
St. Luke
St. Mark
St. Patrick
St. David
St. Andrew


Pit
La-
trine

70.5
(68 5
54.3
82.8
77.1
82.9
67.9
80.1
75.9
89.2
77.6
84.3

33.5
3.5
29.5
19.5
5.5
13.1
22.2
10.1
5.6
63.2
64.1
66.4


W.C.
with
Sever

1.5
1 1
2.0
1.5
2.5
0.3
2.9
0.5
1.8
0.2
2.3
0.8

8.8
21.5
29.4
1.6
1.3
2.1
3.0
0.9
9.6
2.0
1.3
2.0


W.C.
No
Sewer

25.0
29.0
39.5
14.0
15.5
14.6
23.4
13.7
13.1
8.1
17.2
10.1

3.5
3.8
7.2
6.3
1.1
2.6
4.7
7.6
2.9
1.5
0.3
1.6


Other/
Not
Stated


2.3
0.7
1.8
1.0
2.1
1.8
2.9
5.1
8.2
1.6
2.4
0.3

3.1
4.7
1.7
13.9
1.8
0.7
0.8
10.2
0.3
1.6
1.1
1.1


None

0.7
0. :
2.4
0.7
2.8
0.4
2.9
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.5
4.5

51.1
66.5
32.2
58.7
90.3
81.5
69.3
71.2
81.6
31.7
33.2
28.9


Grenada
Town of
St. George
Parish of
St. George
St. John's
St. Mark's
St. Patrick's
St. Andrew's
St. David's
Carriacou

St. Lucia
Town of
Castries
Suburbs of
Castries
Marchand
Anse-La-Raye
Canaries
Soufriere
Choiseul
La Borie
Vieux-Fort
Micoud
Dennery
Gros Islet


Pit
La-
trine

66.5

11.8

70.3
55.6
52.9
55.7
83.5
78.8
81.1

54.4

5.1

54.1
76.2
37.4
12.0
40.8
60.5
55.4
60.2
50.4
48.0
56.3


W.C.
with
Sewer

8.0

62.6

6.0
5.4
1.3
1.7
1.6
4.5
0.4

5.1

59.5

8.6
2.0
0.0
0.7
2.2
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.4
0.8
3.6


w.C.
No
Sewer

15.0

20.3

17.4
20.6
10.4
31.4
8.3
6.5
3.5

5.9

1.5

8.4
10.3
2.9
2.4
10.2
1.2
1.7
4.6
2.6
2.1
5.8


Other/
Not
Stated


1.5

1.8


1.0
1.8
2.7
1.4
1.2
1.1
2.6

10.2

20.3

10.7
4.5
5.0
14.2
21.6
4.8
6.3
4.6
4.5
29.2
9.5


None


9.0


5.3
16.6
32.7
9.8
5.4
9.1
12.4

24.4

13.6

18.2
7.0
54.7
70.7
25.2
33.3
36.4
29.7
42.1
19.9
24.8






Table 11.8
(continued)


St. Vincent
Kingstown
Rest of Area
Calliagua
Marriagua
Bridgetown
Colonarie
Georgetown
Sandy Bay
Layou
Barrouaille
Chateau Belair
North
Grenadines
South
Grenadines


Antigua
St. John's
St. John's
St. John's
St. Mary
St. Paul
St. Philip
St. Peter
St. George
Barbuda


City
N.
S.


Pit
La-
trine

77.5
48.8
91.1
81.1
90.5
89.9
86.7
81.2
91.9//
75.6
82.7
86.8

80.5

93.9

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.


W.C.
with
Sewer


1.4
2.3
0.6
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.4
0.2
0.5
1.2
0.6

2.9

1.0


W.C.
No
Sewer

12.4
31.9
5.2
16.2
5.5
2.5
4.1
6.5
0.5
6.9
3.1
3.3

11.2

3.5


-17.0-
-21.9-
-31.6-
-12.8-
- 3.1-
- 9.4-
-10.3-
- 8.2-
-18.4-
- 7.1-


Other/
Not
Stated


2.1
10.1
0.6
0.8
0.5
2.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.3
1.0

2.1

1.0

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.


None

6.6
6.9
2.5
0.8
2.3
4.2
8.0
10.5
7.2
16.5
12.7
8.3

3.3

0.6

16.1
15.5
8.6
10.9
28.5
23.3
12.6
10.2
16.6
27.9


Montserrat
Plymouth
St. Anthony's
St. Peter's
St. George's

St. Kitts-Nevis
Basseterre
Rest of
St. George
St. Paul
St. Anne
St. Thomas
Trinity
Christchurch
St. John's
St. Mary
St. Peter
St. Paul-Nevis
St. John-Nevis
St. George-
Nevis
St. Thomas-
Nevis
St. James-
Nevis


Pit
La-
trine

48.7
35.1
48.6
53.1
51.3

52.8
35.9

61.0
75.6
57.2
39.0
67.6
75.5
67.6
74.3
60.6
51.9
45.0

46.2

77.8

62.4


W.c.
with
Sewer


0.7
1.4
0.7
0.3
1.0

2.2
5.4

2.4
0.2
0.7
1.6
0.4
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.4
0.0
0.8

0.2

1.8

1.2


W.C.
No
Sewer


24.7
45.6
27.6
21.1
10.3

29.6
51.9

32.3
14.1
38.4
20.6
19.6
10.5
20.9
12.7
27.2
36.4
20.6

6.2

6.9

8.3


Other/
Not
Stated


2.8
1.0
1.4
2.4
7.1

6.6
6.1

3.5
1.5
2.6
0.8
1.1
2.1
1.4
0.7
1.3
5.0
18.0

35.4

1.3


None

23.1
16.9
21.7
23.1
30.3

8.8
0.7

0.8
8.6
1.1
38.0
11.3
11.9
10.1
11.3
9.5
6.7
15.6

12.0

12.2


2.5 25.6
















Belize
Belize City
Belize
District
Corozal
Orange Walk
Stann Creek
Toledo
Cayo
Belmopan

British Virgin Is.
Tortola
Anegada
Virgin Gorda
Jost Van Dyke
Other Islands


Pit
La-
trine

47.1
0.9

76.3
88.2
92.0
41.8
18.8
91.0
57.4

29.3
23.3
50.7
67.8
68.4
4.0


W.C.
with
Sewer


1.2
0.7

1.2
1.1
0.3
3.8
1.1
0.7
29.5

1.2
1.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.0


W.C.
No
Sewer

12.9
28.2

5.0
6.5
3.4
5.2
3.3
5.1
1.6

48.9
53.9
23.2
21.8
5.3
60.0


Table 11.8
(continued)


Other/
Not
Stated None

23.2 15.6
56.5 13.7


5.0
0,4
0.8
22.6
6.3
0.9


12.5
3.8
3.5
26.6
70.5
2.3
i--

16.6
18.1
21.7
1.9
21.1
32.0


Pit W.C. W.C.
La- with No
trine Sewer Sewer


Cayman Islands
Grand Cayman
Cayman Brac
Little Cayman

Turks & Caicos Is.
Grand Turk
Salt Cay
South Caicos
Middle Caicos
North Caicos
Blue Hills


39.1
39.1
38.0
75.0

68.6
75.5
91.2
81.3
62.5
43.0
53.7


0.9
1.0
0.0
0.0

1.6
1.1
2.9
0.9
2.3
0.0
6.7


46.3
47.1
42.9
0.0

11.0
21.4
1.5
5.8
0.0
0.5
6.7


Other/
Not
Stated None


5.5
4.6
10.7
8.3

2.3
1.5
1.5
2.2
5.7
3.1
3.0


8.2
8.2
8.4
16.7

16.5
0.5
2.9
9.8
29.5
53.4
29.9


Source: UWI/CRP (1976: Vol. 9, Parts 2-4), and Antigua (1976:15).









7. Electricity

In reviewing the literature on Grenada, the Weir study (1976:

l(a), 288-289) states that "the electricity system covers nearly

the whole island except the North-West parish of St. Mark and Carriacou

also has an electricity generating plant." Most small farmers in
9/
Grenada, however, are not served by this system.- Brierley (1974:

79), whose field work was conducted in 1969, found that only 22%

of the 292 small farmers he interviewed had household electricity.

The distribution by parish was as follows:

Sample Percentage of Houses
Size with Electricity


St. George's 52 37
St. John's 38 26
St. Mark's 21 29
St. Patrick's 46 11
St. Andrew's 86 12
St. David's 49 33

Total 292 22

Surveys conducted by the Weir group in Dominica, Montserrat

and St. Vincent found that the percentages of small farm households

having electricity were higher than in Grenada (1976:1(b), 13,

61, 108):

Dominica 47%
Montserrat 69%
St. Vincent 52%









9/ In 1976 only 35% of all households were served by electricity,
and the percentage was higher in urban areas than in rural areas
(Grenada, UNPPU, 1977:52).










8. Infant Mortality

Infant mortality rates in the Caribbean are relatively low in comparison

with those in other regions in the developing world. Data are available from

several sources, and unfortunately the figure for a given country may vary

considerably according to the source and the year. This suggests either that

the data are poor or that they are subject to significant annual fluctuations

because of a relatively small number of observations. Table 11.9 presents

data collected by the Pan American Health Organization. These show that infant

mortality rates in 1972 were generally less than 50 per 1,000 and in three

cases less than 20 per 1,000. In St. Kitts-Nevis and St. Vincent, however,

the figures were nearly 70 per 1,000.

Among small farmers, infant mortality rates are most likely higher than

the national averages. But there is no clear indication of how much higher

they might be.










Table 11.9

Infant Mortality Rates, 1972
(deaths per 1,000 live births)

Infant
Mortality Rate

Barbados 33.9

Windward Islands
Dominica 32.0c
Grenada 16.0
St. Lucia 52.3
St. Vincent 69.6

Leeward Islands
Antigua 19.1
Montserrat 31.4
St. Kitts 69.6

Belize 38.5c

Other
British Virgin Is. 44.9c
a
Cayman Is. 11.0
Turks and Caiccs Is. 47.4


Source: PAHO (1976: 505).

a1970.


C1973.










9. Life Expectancy

Data on life expectancy from the latest (1976) United Nations Demographic

Yearbook are presented in Table II.10. Even though these data are at least

15 years old (and more than 30 years old in a few cases), they show that

life expectancy in the region is relatively high. In countries for which

the data are for the late 1950s and early 1960s (Barbados, the Windwards,

and the Leewards except for Montserrat), life expectancy is reported

to be from 57 to 65 years. In Montserrat, the Cayman Islands, and Belize,

where the data are for the mid-1940s, the figures range from 47 to 52

years.

It is believed that life expectancy in the Caribbean Region now exceeds

60 in all countries, except perhaps Belize. No estimates are available

for political subdivisions below the national level. One would expect

life expectancy for small farmers to be below the national figures, but

given the high average age of the small-farmer population (see Part 1.2)

the difference probably is not great.











Table II.10

Life Expectancy at Birth



Country Year(s)

Barbados 1959-61

Windward Islands
Dominica 1958-62
Grenada 1959-61
St. Lucia 1959-61
St. Vincent 1959-61

Leeward Islands
Antigua 1959-61
Montserrat 1946
St. Kitts-Nevis-
(Anguilla) 1959-61

Belize 1944-48

Other
British Virgin Is. 1946
Cayman Islands n.a.
Turks & Caicos Is. n.a.


Male

62.7


57.0
60.1
55.1
58.5


60.5
49.5

58.0

45.0


49.5
n.a.
n.a.


Female

67.4


59.2
65.6
58.5
59.7


64.3
54.8

61.9

49.0


54.8
n.a.
n.a.


Source: United Nations, Demographic Yearbook 1976 (New York, 1977),
pp. 131-132.










10. Nutrition

The results of various nutritional studies are summarized in Table II.11.

These show that for children under 5 the incidence of severe (third-degree)

malnutrition is less than 2% in all countries except Dominica, where it was

3.4% in 1970. The percentage of young children with second-degree malnutrition

ranges from 3.5% in Montserrat to 18% in Belize.

The incidence of malnutrition is likely to be greater in small-farm

families than in the population generally, but data to test this hypothesis do

not seem to be available.










Table II.11

Nutritional Status of Children Less than 5 Years Old
(percent in various Gomez-scale categories)


Nutritional Status


Number
of Obser-
Date vations


Normal


Malnourished
II


III Total


Barbados


Windward Islands
Dominica
Grenada
St. Lucia
St. Vincent


Leeward Islands
Antigua
Montserrat
St. Kitts-Nevis-(Anguilla)


Belize


1969


1970

1974
1967


1975
1971
1974

1973


48.8


117

363
2,490


535
372
1,209

3,546c


Other
British Virgin Is.
Cayman Is.
Turks and Caicos Is.


39.0 11.0 1.2 100.0


71.8 19.7 5.1
n.a.
56.1 33.0 9.0
37.5 47.0 14.0


56.9
63.1
61.2

40.8


n.a.


35.5
28.0
33.3


3.4 100.0

1.9 100.0
1.5 100.0


6.8 0.8 100.0
3.5 0.0 100.0
5.4 0.1 100.0


40.0 18.0 1.2 100.0


d.
n.a. -- 5.0-


100.0


n.a.
n.a.


Source: Various studies, as reported in PAHO (1976: 503).

aDegree I (mild) malnutrition is characterized by body weights that are 75-90% of
standard weights by age; Degree II malnutrition occurs when body weights are 60-75% of
the standard; and Degree III malnutrition is characterized by body weights less than 60%
of the standard.

Includes 5.4% who were overweight by 10% or more.

c51-year-olds only.

d
Estimate.















III. LAND AND LAND DISTRIBUTION

1. Distribution of Agricultural Land

Except in Belize, the great majority of farmers in the Caribbean

Region have holdings of less than 5 acres (see Table III.1). The

predominance of smallholdings is particularly striking in the two

principal sugar exporting countries, Barbados and St. Kitts, where

more than 95% of the holdings with land are less than 5 acres and
1/
60-72% are less than one acre (see Table 111.2), -

The number of medium-sized holdings is relatively small. In

the Eastern Caribbean no more than 2.5% of all farm units are between

25 and 100 acres, and in at least 4 countries the figure is less than

1.0%. Only in Dominica and St. Lucia do medium-sized holdings account

for as much as 10-15% of all land in farms. In Belize, where medium-

size holdings may be considered as those having 50-200 acres, 11.5%

of all farms, accounting for 15.1% of all farm land, can be so classified.

The percentage of land in large holdings (100 acres and above

in the Eastern Caribbean, 200 acres and above in Belize) ranges frcm

42.2% in St. Kitts-Nevis to 82.9% in Barbados. In general, the distri-

bution of land in the Caribbean Region countries is not as skewed

as in the Andean countries of South America, though in all cases the

Gini coefficient exceeds .70. If only private land were considered the

distribution of landholdings would be less unequal than indicated in

Table III.1. Unfortunately, complete data on landholdings by private

and public ownership are not available.


1/ In examining the distribution of land, it is not realistic to con-
sider the "landless" farmers as part of the farm population, since
farming is not their primary activity.






Table III.1


The Distribution of Agricultural Land
(number of farm units, by size of farm)



Size of Farm (acres)

No Less than 1.00- 5.00- 10.00- 25.00- 50.00- 100.00- 200.00- 500.00 All
Land 1.00 4.99 9.99 24.99 49.99 99.99 199.99 499.00 or More Farms

Barbados (1971) 13,159 9,298 3,170 161 68 23 16 31 80 46 26,052

Windward Islands
Dominica (1972) 462 1,921 3,556 1,170 601 91 58 38 45 26 7,968
Grenada (1974/75) d 5,959 4,938 741 343 75 51 27 30 8 12,172
St. Lucia (1973) 502 4,730 3,828 1,082 475 199 58 19 26 19 10,938
St. Vincent 1972/73) 706 3,032 3,171 659 161 28 10 7 11 9 7,794

Leeward Islands
Antiguaa (1973/74) 461a 1,098a 729a 81a 23a 7a 12a 13a 12a 13a 2,449c
Montserrat (1972) 88 551 496 66 28 6 3 3 4 2 1,247
St. Kitts-Nevis (1975) 999 2,036 1,222 125 26 10 25 28 25 28 4,524

Belize (1973/74) 437 1,149 1,553 1,401 2,074 1,498 688 342 145 80 9,367

Total 16,814 29,774 22,663 5,486 3,799 1,937 921 508 378 231 82,511

Sources: Agricultural censuses of the respective countries.
a
Data by farm size from the 1973/74 census are not available. According to a source in Antigua, farmers
engaged in crop production had an average of only 1.5 acres. No figure was provided for livestock producers.
The figures we use for Antigua are imputed figures based on the percentage in each farm-size category in the
other Leeward Islands.
households having no land but keeping a few head of livestock.
C1970 population census data.
Households classified as "landless" in other Caribbean countries appear to be classified in the "Less than
1.00 acre" group in Grenada.












Table III.2

Percentage Distribution of Land Area, by Farm Size Categorya


Barbados
(1971)
% of % of
Farms Area


Dominica
(1972)
% of % of
Farms Area


Grenadab
(1974/75)
% of % of
Farms Area


St. Lucia
(1973)
% of % of
Farms Area


St. Vincenc
(1972/73)
% of % of
Farms Area


Antigua
(1973/74)
% of % of
Farms Area


Montserrat
(1972)
Z of % of
Farms Area


St. Kitts-
N-vis (1975)
% of % of
Farms 'Area


Belize
(1973/74)
% of % of
Farms Area


0.01- 0.99
1.00- 4.99
5.00- 9.99
10.00- 24.99
25.00- 49.99
;0.00- 99.99
-00.00-199.99
200.00-499.99
500.00 and over


72.1
24.6
1.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.4


4.4
7.2
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.7
6.4
33.5
43.0


25.6
47.4
15.6
S.0
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.3


1.2
11.4
10.2
11.4
4.9
5.4
7.1
17.8
30.6


45.3
36.7
10.4
4.5
n.a. n.a. 1.9
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.2


2.4
11.8
9.8
8.9
8.7
6.0
3.7
11. 3
37.4


42.8
44.7
9.3
2.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1


3.8
19.7
11.8
6.0
3.0
2.1
2.8
10.4
40.4


n.a. n.a.


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


100.0 100.0


100.0 100.0


100.0 100.0


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Source: Agricultural censuses of the respective countries.

Excludes farmers with no land.

complete data on land distribution were not available. It is reported, though, that 56% of the farm land is held by 1% of the farmers,
while at the other extreme 89% of the farmers hold 24% of the land.


n.a. Not available.


Farm Size
Category


Total


47.5
42.8
5.7
2.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2


3.7
16.1
7.5
7.3
3.2
3.6
6.2
17.5
34.9


60.2
35.0
3.3
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1


8.2
31.8
8.1
3.2
0.4
6.1
12.6
23.1
6.5


12.9
17.4
15.7
23.2
16.8
7.7
3.8
1.6
0.9


0.i
0.8
1.5
6.1
8.6
7.6.
7.5
9.1
58.7









2. Fragmentation of Holdings

Census data show that the average number of plots per farm holding,

in the five countries for which data are available, ranges from 1.1 in

St. Lucia to 1.6 in Grenada. Small farmer surveys, however, have tended to

show a greater degree of fragmentation. Except in Antigua, where a

recent survey found only 1.2 plots per holding, the average number of plots

reported by the various surveys ranges from 1.5 in St. Lucia to 2.4 in

Grenada (see Table III.3).

The issue of farm fragmentation is the subject of considerable

controversy. Brierley (1978: 135) argues for Grenada that "there is

little economic or agricultural justification for the degree of frag-

mentation that exists." But Hills, Iton, and Lundgren (1972) maintain

for the Commonwealth Caribbean generally that "there is little doubt

that under certain circumstances fragmentation of the farm is a necessity

and may be economically and socially advantageous." Fragmentation is

usually justified on the grounds that it spreads a farmer's risk. Moreover,

if farmers cannot purchase land contiguous to their existing holdings,

it is the only means by which they can expand their operations. A

disadvantage of fragmented holdings in the Eastern Caribbean, though,

is that the reportedly high incidence of praedial larceny restricts

crop choices on land away from the farmer's home to low-value crops.












Table 111.3

Fragmentation of Farm Holdings, Census and
Survey Data


A. Census Data


Date of
Census


Barbados


Windward Islands
Dominica
Grenada
St. Lucia
St. Vincent

Leeward Islands
Antigua
Montserrat
St. Kitts-Nevis


Belize


1971


1972
1961
1973
1972/73


1973/74
1972
1975

1973/74


Average
Number of
Plots per Farm

n.a.


1.4
1.6
1.1
n.a.


n.a.
1.6
1.3

n.a.


B. Survey Data


Average
Sample Number of
Size Plots per Farm


Antigua(1977)
Brierley(1974:103)
Mills(1976:155)
Momsen(1970:84)
Momsen(1970:84)
Weir(1976:I(b), 15)
Weir(1976:I(b), 65)
Weir(1976:I(b), 111)
Yankey(1969:178)


Antigua
Grenada
St. Kitts
Barbados
St. Lucia
Montserrat
St. Vincent
Dominica
Dominica


Sources: Agricultural censuses of the respective studies and farm-level
studies as identified in the References at the end of this document.

Assumes that the average number of plots in the 4+ category is 5.


Author


Country


Date of
Survey


1977
1969
1973
n.a.
n.a.
1975
1975
1975
1966


100
292
66
c.200
c.200
51
97
100
96


1.2
2.4
1.6
1.6
1.5
2.1a
2.0a
2.2a
2.0











3. Land Tenure

Land tenure patterns in the Eastern Caribbean are not uniform. In

Barbados and the Windward Islands individual ownership predominates, with

recent agricultural census data showing that about 70-75 percent of the

holdings are wholly owned. In the Leewards rental arrangements are dom-

inant, and governments have become the principal landowners through purchases

of estates from private owners for whom production of sugar and cotton

had become unprofitable. In Antigua the government now owns an estimated 70

percent of the agricultural land, and some 75 percent of the crop producers

are renters (Fiester et al. 1978:ANT-5-6). The Antiguan government is also

renting land to small livestock producers. Land tenure data for indivi-

dual countries are presented in Table III.4.

It appears that the rationale for leasing land to small farmers,

rather than offering it foi sale, is based on a lack of government

confidence in small farmers' decision-making abilities. One of the argu-

ments used against freehold tenure is that small farmers might not devote

their energies to productive farming but rather will keep much of their

land idle, holding it for speculative purposes (particularly tourism or

foreign retiree housing development.) Beckford (1972) argues that the

distribution of landholdings under freehold tenure inevitably will become

very unequal. Thus he favors government ownership of existing estate lands

and their distribution to farmers under long-term lease arrangements. In

Dominica, leases given to farmers under three recent resettlement schemes

are only for 3-5 years, while elsewhere renewable leases of up to 20 years are

granted. Farmers can be evicted, or their leases not renewed, if they do not







Table 11.4

Land Tenure Patterns, Latest Agricultural Census Data


Number of Farm Holdings with Land, by Tenure Category


Number of Acres by Tenure Category


Cash Share
Owned Rental Tenancy


Mixed Other Total Owned


Cash Share
Rental Tenancy Mixed


Barbados(1971)

Windward Islands
Dcnminica(19l1)
GrnadJa(1974'75)
St. LLcia(1973)
S.. Vincent(1972/73)

Leeward Islands
Antigua(1973/74)j
Montserrat(1972)
St. Kit:s-Nevis(1975)

3eli ;l(1973. 74)


8,986 3,126


6,614 1,390 -b
n.a.
7,563 2,001 400
n.a.


b n.a.
553 261 -
1,763 763 190

n.a.


293 12,893 69,516


580 83 8,667

469 10,433





345 1,159
399 411 3,525


1,736


n.a.
45,193 2,420 183
66,667 2,049 874
29,918 1,320 1,640


- 688-
1,966 303


Total


114 2,366 265 73,995


701 46,576c
2,411 72,001
1,477 34,355



1,348 5,880
2,246 469 41,909


n.a.



i.a.


Sources: Agricultural censuses of the respective countries.

a:ostl!y r;.nt-free.

bMo; of these farmers are probably cash renters.

CTot.il area held by farmers in various tenure categories minus owned area rented out.

The -overnm.nc:'. of Anti;ua reportedly owns about 70% of the country's agricultural land. It is believed
75- c .th crop prodleurs rent their land frnm the government; most of the remainder, especially in the
are c.;ners. Most livestock operators also rent their land from the government.

eApproximately 60% of the agricultural land in St. Kitts is government-owned.


Other


1


1


3,844
36,894e








work the land to the government's satisfaction. The power of eviction or

non-renewal may or may not be used, but in any event it appears that farmers

generally do not regard even 20-year leases as providing sufficient security

for making long-term investments. Some governments are willing to consider

alternatives to present leasehold arrangements, but others--particularly
2/
St. Kitts--seem strongly committed to this form of tenure./

Governments in the Eastern Caribbean have shown very little interest

in encouraging the development of small-farmer cooperatives or in promoting

other forms of group farming. A recent effort in Dominica to form a

cooperative among young farmers has encountered serious difficulties, pro-

bably due largely to poor government administration.

A form of land tenure that appears to be an obstacle to small-farmer
3/
development in St. Lucia, and to a lesser extent in some other islands,-/

is the so-called "family land system," based historically on French land

legislation under which all heirs have equal rights to inherited land, which

is not formally subdivided and for which legal titles are not issued.

This system gives family members the right to claim a share of the harvest

even if they have done nothing to prepare the land or cultivate it (Finkel

1964: 171-172; Mathurin 1967). Investment in the farm enterprise by

entrepreneurial-minded family members thus seems to be discouraged, though

how strong this disincentive might be is open to question (Momsen 1972).

About 20% of all holdings of all holdings in St. Lucia, four-fifths of them

with less than 10 acres, are believed to have multiple owners. Lacking

a clear title, farmers on these holdings have had virtually no access to

2/
In St. Kitts, unlike some of the other islands, agricultural workers on
the sugar estates seem to have little interest in landownership (Finkel
1964:166).
3/
Family-land systems have also been reported in Barbados (Greenfield 1960),
Dominica (O'Loughlin 1968:102), and Grenada (Brierley 1974:88-99). Brierley
estimates that about 10% of the land at the disposal of small farmers in
his survey was held in this form.








4/
credit through official channels. The Government of St. Lucia has

talked about land tenure reform to overcome the obstacles imposed by the

family land system, but no action has yet been taken.

Small farmers in the Eastern Caribbean find it difficult to purchase

land, despite the decline of the private estate system and the exodus of

farm operators from the countryside since 1960. Part of the problem is

availability: though some private land continues to be subdivided and made

available as small plots, much of the estate land has been passing into

government hands and is not available for sale. Where land is available

the cost is often high, particularly in areas where there is tourism

potential. In Grenada, Brierley (1974:66-67) found that former estate

workers and skilled laborers were usually at least 50 years old before

they had money to buy enough land to become independent farmers. Even

skilled workers did not save enough money until their late 30s or early

40s. The average age of the 292 farmers interviewed by Brierley was 54 years.

Governments, of course, could promote more widespread landownership by

selling former estate lands they hold at favorable prices and with long

repayment periods. Some sales have been made, but ofren the parcels have

been too small to permit the buyers to engage in farming on a full-time

basis. In addition, small farmers--renters as well as potential buyers--

have not always had access to good quality land.








This situation is changing, though, because the CDB's new Agricultural
Production Credit scheme permits borrowers to use crop liens as security.















IV. PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

1. Crop and Livestock Activities

a. Antigua

National accounts estimates for 1975 show that livestock activity

accounted for 5.9% of the GDP in that year, considerably more than crop

production, whose share of the GDP was only 1.1%. The latter figure,

however, is probably underestimated. Unpublished Ministry of Agriculture

data for 1976 show that small farmers produce a variety of field crops,

the most important of which are sweet potatoes, tomatoes, pumpkins,

cucumbers, carrots, and yams (in descending order of importance, by vol-

ume rather than value of production).

The Government of Antigua's small farmer survey (1977) provides

the following data on the principal crops and livestock operations of the

farmers interviewed:

Number of Farmers, by
Degree of Importance
Crop or Type
of Livestock First Second Third

Cotton 33 2 6
Vegetables 25 21 19
Root Crops 16 46 21
Tree Crops 11 7 4
Dairy Cattle 11 3 2
Beef Cattle 3 3 0
Small Livestock* 0 12 18
Other 1 6 30

Total 100 100 100


*Sheep, goats, pigs, poultry.








On the island of Barbuda, cattle raising is by far the most important

agricultural activity (Berleant-Schiller 1977).

Ministry of Agriculture data for 1974 (reported in Weir 1976:

I(a), 197) show that small farmers accounted for most of the output of

a number of food crops:

Percentage Produced
Crop by Small Farmers

Corn 82.8
Sweet potatoes 44.2
Cassava 93.5
Yams 94.7
Tomatoes 70.2
Cabbage 95.0
Carrots 27.9
Onions 5.8
Eggplant 59.1
Pumpkins 88.3


(2) Barbados

Ingersent (1969) reported that small farmers were growing most of

the carrots, cabbage, string beans, lettuce, beets, shallots, and other

minor vegetables in the late 1960s, while most tomatoes were grown on

estates. Momsen (1970:80) referring to the same period of time, re-

ported that small farmers grew almost all of the vegetables and ground

provisions. More recent evidence, though, indicates that the estates are

now important producers of onions, carrots, yams, and perhaps other field

crops.

(3) Belize

Data from the agricultural census of 1973/74 (reported in Weir 1975:

I(a), 263-265) show that small farmers produce about 80% of the total

production of red kidney beans, 30% of the corn, and almost all of the

vegetables. Rice was produced almost entirely by smallholders in the

early 1960s, but by 1970 Mennonite farmers on larger holdings were producing








about the same amount as the smallholders.

(4) Dominica

Of the 96 small farmers interviewed by Yankey (1969: 247-248), 93

grew bananas, attracted to this crop because it provided a guaranteed

source of (year-round) income.

The Weir survey (19/6:I(b), 113) found that bananas were a major source

of income for 47% of the small farmers interviewed. Other important cash

crops were ground provisions, a major source of income for 44%; citrus

fruits, 18%; and plantains, 16%. Livestock operations were less import-

ant than crop production, with 51% of the farmers not selling or keeping

livestock. The principal types of livestock sold were goats, pigs, and

cattle, listed as a major source of income for 15%, 14%, and 12%, res-

pectively, of those interviewed.

Unpublished Ministry of Agriculture data for 1976 show that the

principal domestic food crops in 1976, in descending order by value of

production, were dasheen, tannia, yams, plantains, cucumbers, cabbages,

tomatoes, and sweet potatoes.

Most of the bananas, bay oil, cocoa, root crops, and vegetables are

produced on small farms. Large farms are dominant in the production

of coconuts and citrus fruits.

(5) Grenada

The Weir study (1976:I(a), 304-305) reports that farmers with less

than 5 acres grew 55% of the 1970 nutmeg crop. About 20% of the cocoa

is grown on farms of less than 5 acres. One-fourth of the banana crop

is reportedly grown on small farms; but "small" is not defined in this

case, and if farms of up to 25 acres are included the percentage is

probably much higher. Most coconut production, and almost all production








of cotton and limes, is reportedly on small farms. Root crops, fruits

and vegetables, meat, and milk are also reported to be produced mainly

on small farms.

Brierley's study of small farmers in Grenada (1974) found that

production patterns varied with the type of farm:

Non-Commercial Farms (N = 42)


Principal
Field Crops

Pigeon peas
Dasheen
Yams
Tannias
Corn
Tomatoes
Sweet potatoes
Okra
Lettuce


Number
of Farms

30
22
22
21
20
17
16
15
13


Livestock

Pigs
Goat
Sheep
Beef cattle
Dairy cattle

- Semi-Commercial Farms (N = 96)


Principal
Tree Crops

Bananas
Coconuts
Breadfruit
Mangoes
Cocoa
Citrus(exc.
Nutmeg


Number
of Farms

33
21
19
17
14


Principal
Field Crops

Pigeon peas
Yams
Tannias
Okra
Tomatoes
Dasheen
Corn
Peppers


Number
of Farms

68
63
52
39
38
38
34
34


Principal
Tree Crops

Coconuts
Bananas
Breadfruit
Mangoes
Cocoa
Citrus(exc. lime)


Livestock

Pigs
Dairy cattle
Beef cattle
Sheep
Meat Goats


Number
of Farms

38
26
24
23
22
16
14


lime)


Number
of Farms

81
79
67
66
56
53


'!umber
of Farms

45
27
24
23
22









Semi-commercial farms, like non-commercial farms are highly diversified.

Livestock operations are of lesser importance, while tree crops are of

greater relative importance. The principal cash crops on the semi-

commercial farms were primarily export crops:


Crop

Cocoa
Bananas
Nutmeg
Sugarcane
Ground provisions
Beans, corn, peas


First

32
20
16
8
5
5


- Commercial Farms (N = 118)

Principal Number
Field Crops of Farms

Pigeon peas 83
Yams 78
Tannias 71
Tomatoes 52
Dasheen 50
Corn 47
Okra 47
Sweet potatoes 45
Peppers 43


Number of Farms,
by Degree of Importance

Second

15
11
26
2
9
6




Principal
Tree Crops

Bananas
Coconut
Breadfruit
Cocoa
Mangoes
Avocados
Citrus(exc. lime)
Nutmeg


Number
Livestock of Farms

Pigs 48
Dairy cattle 33
Beef cattle 20

The pattern of field crop production is similar to that on semi-commer-

cial farms. There is a further shift toward tree crops and away from

livestock. Export crops, particularly cocoa and nutmeg, are of even great-

er importance as sources of cash income:


Third

9
14
10
1
6






Number
of Farms

105
93
82
82
77
62
61
57








Number of Farms,
by Degree of Importance


Crop


Cocoa
Nutmeg
Bananas
Sugarcane
Salad vegetables
Ground provisions
Beans, corn, peas


- Miniature Estates


First


41
31
12
10
8
6
6


(N = 36)


Principal
Field Crops

Dasheen
Pigeon peas
Yams
Tannias
Lettuce
Okra


Number
of Farms


Principal
Tree Crops

Bananas
Cocoa
Breadfruit
Coconut
Mangoes
Nutmegs
Avocados
Citrus(exc.


Number
Livestock of Farms

Pigs 16
Dairy cattle 12
Milch goats 8
Meat goats 7

Field crop production on the miniature estates is of considerably less

importance than on other types of small farms, and the relative importance

of tree crops is greatest. Cash income from farm operations comes almost

entirely from export crops. Cocoa is the principal source of income

for more than half of these farmers:
Number of Farms,
by Degree of Importance

Crop First Second Third
Cocoa 56 30 8
Bananas 19 30 33
Nutmeg 16 24 33


Second


30
33
20
2
3
6
6


Th I rd


16
17
22
3
3
15
10


Number
of Farms


lime)








(6) Montserrat

The 1972 census (Montserrat n.d.) shows that virtually all crops

are produced overwhelmingly on farms of less than 10 acres. The most

important field crops, in descending order by acreage, were sweet potatoes,

cotton, dasheen, hot peppers, yams, and carrots. Bananas are the most

important tree crop, followed at a considerable distance by coconuts,

mangoes, and breadfruit. Livestock operations were also dominated by

small farms, with farms of less than 10 acres accounting for 84% of the

pigs, 69% of the cattle, and more than half of all other types of live-

stock except for horses, the number of which was neglibible. According

to Arthurton and Henry (1975), small farmers prefer livestock production

to crop production.

The principal cash crops are ground provisions, listed as a princi-

pal source of cash income by 62% of the farmers interviewed in the Weir

survey (1976:I(b), 19). Other major cash crops were cotton (31%),

bananas (23%), vegetables (23%), and tomatoes (16%). Cattle were a major

source of income for 23% and sheep for 16%.

(7) St. Kitts-Nevis

For all food crops, most production is on farms of less than 5 acres.

Root crops, particularly sweet potatoes, are by far the most important type

of crops grown. Farms of less than 5 acres also dominate cotton production

(all on Nevis), all tree-crop production except mangoes and coconuts, and

all types of livestock holdings, except for a negligible number of draft

animals (St. Kitts 1977:11, 12, 30).

(8) St. Lucia

Data from the 1973/74 agricultural census (summarized in Weir 1976:

I(a), 45) show that farms of less than 10 acres account for most of









tne production of almost all crops:

Percent of Total Production
by Small Farms

Crop 0-10 acres 10-25 acres

Green corn 79 12
Dry shelled corn 96 0
Pigeon peas 95 4
Red kidney beans 88 9
Other peas and beans 55 1
Tannia, dasheen, eddoes 89 9
Yams 79 15
Cassava 94 5
Sweet potatoes 90 6
Ginger 68 21
Peanuts 88 7
Oranges 47 19
Grapefruit 58 24
Limes 11 4
Breadfruit 67 17
Export bananas 57 13
Other bananas 76 12
Plantains 62 18
Coconuts 26 9
Nutmeg (export) 33 0
Coffee 73 16
Cocoa 56 7

Bananas are the principal cash crop for small farmers. Livestock sales

are also a principal source of cash income for small farmers, as indicated

by the following unpublished data from the 1973/74 census which appear to

refer to the gross value of marketing:

Income (EC$000)
All 0-10
Type of Activity Holdings Acres

Permanent crops 11,151 5,786
Other crops 1,951 1,627
Cattle, sheep, goats 6,184 4,314
Pigs, poultry 436 341


Total


19,722


12,068









(9) St. Vincent

Data from the 1961 agricultural census show that farmers with less

than 10 acres accounted for 57% of the acreage in bananas, and it is

believed that their share of production was even higher (Weir 1976:I(a),

408). Their share of other crops was as follows:

Arrowroot 32%
Sweet potatoes 72%
Coconuts 1%
Sugarcane 24%

Unpublished data from the 1972/73 census was not located, but it is

believed that farmers with less than 25 acres now produce about 85% of

all bananas (by far the leading export crop), and also produce most of the

ginger, yams, sweet potatoes, and carrots (which also are exported). Large

farmers dominate the production of arrowroot and coconuts (Fiester et al.

1976:STV-6).

Bananas were listed as a major source of income by 49% of the farmers

interviewed in the Weir study (1976:I(b),70). Also reported as major

sources of income were ground provisions (66%) and cattle (22%). No other

crop or type of livestock was a major source of income for more than 12%

of the farmers.








2. Machinery, Fertilizers, and Chemicals

a. Agricultural Techno!logy: Sonmc Getnral Comme.nts

The level of technology employed by small farmers in the region is

relatively low. Poor farming practices include use of varieties that are

not appropriate for local soil and climatic conditions; inappropriate

applications of fertilizer (used mainly in the production of bananas);

poor plant spacing (low density and irregular planting); poor weeding;

and inadequate pest control, either through lack of attention or by the

use of dangerous chemicals applied by unskilled operators.

Technological levels usually are higher for export crops than for

domestic food crops. Most small banana growers use fertilizer, purchased

on credit from their producer associations and often applied also to

other crops. The Weir survey (1976:I(b), 75, 117) found that 65 percent of

the small farmers interviewed in St. Vincent used fertilizer on bananas

and 59 percent applied it to root crops; in Dominica 67 percent fertilized

bananas and root crops and 23 percent fertilized their citrus trees.

Many of these farmers reported that they also used other agricultural

chemicals for banana production, but for other crops use of chemicals

was not widespread. The productivity of banana production on smallholdings

is thought to be lower than on plantations (reliable estimates do not

seem to be available), but the difference may not be great. Moreover,

it probably can be explained largely by land quality (higher on the estates)

and by the greater incidence of intercropping on smallholdings. Yields

generally are very low in comparison with other producing countries.

Production costs in the Eastern Caribbean tend to be relatively high

because of soil fertility limitations, the high cost of imported fertilizers

and chemicals, and what appears to be an unfavorable relationship between








labor costs and the physical productivity of hired labor. Compounding

these problems is what the AID Survey Team (Fiester et al. 1978:II-16)

referred to as a "fascination with advanced technology." Survey Team

members visited livestock projects where the investment costs of pasture

development, fences, and water storage tanks could have been reduced

significantly by using less sophisticated but still productive technology.

Tractors are very much in demand, very likely because of an aversion

to the hard physical labor that historically was associated with the

plantation system. The availability of subsidized land-clearing and other

machinery services artificially stimultates the substitution of capital

for labor. Low (and in some cases zero) rent on government-owned land

artificially encourages farmers to substitute land (not always of good

quality) for labor and other production inputs. In both cases the result

is higher production costs which must be absorbed directly by the govern-

ment or by consumers in the form of higher product prices.

b. Machinery and Equipment

(1) Antigua

Small farmers may obtain tractor services from the government at

nominal cost (Weir 1976:I(a), 198). No information was found on the

extent to which small farmers use these services. The number of tractors

in Antigua declined from 190 in 1966 to 130 in 1970 (Weir 1976:1(a), 197),

but unpublished Ministry of Agriculture data for 1976 show a figure of

228, roughly one tractor for every 10 farm households However, small

farmers own few tractors, and the recent increase is probably attributable

both to government purchases and to imports by a subsidiary of a U.S.

corporation renting 10,000 acres of land from the government, with about

3,000 acres now being used for corn and sorghum production.








(2) Barbados

Unpublished data from the 1971 census show that there were 584

tractors in Barbados in that year. Among the other machinery and

equipment inventoried were 113 plows, 60 rotary tillers, 125 harrows,

78 cultivators, 159 crop dusters, and 930 crop sprayers. Momsen's survey

of small farmers (1970:84) found that 48% used some machinery.

(3) Belize

The 1973/74 census (Belize n.d.) reported that farmers owned 968

tractors. It was also reported that 896 tractors were rented. Farmers

with less than 25 hectares, however, accounted for only 5% and 13%,

respectively, of these totals. Similarly, they accounted for only 4%

of the plows owned and 20% of the plows rented. The data are as follows:

Acres

Less than 10.00- 25.00- 100.00
10.00 24.99 99.99 & over Total

Tractors owned 10 43 331 584 968
Tractors rented 40 74 444 333 896

Plows owned 10 11 214 299 534
Plows rented 52 48 302 88 490

(4) Dominica

There appears to be relatively little use of machinery and equipment

by small farmers in Dominica. Yankey (1969:189) found that only 15%

of the small farmers he interviewed in 1966 used their savings to purchase

such tools as hoes and machetes (though a much higher proportion apparently

used these tools). The Weir survey (1976:I(b), 124) found that only

3 of the 100 small farmers interviewed purchased mechanical inputs.

(5) Grenada

Very little farm machinery is used in Grenada. Unpublished data

from the 1974/75 census show that there were only 9 tractors, 15 plows,

and 3 harrows in the country. Farmers owned only 19 crop dusters and









135 crop sprayers. Among the 100 "operators of miniature estates,"

the small farmers with the largest operations (7-15 acres) covered in

Brierley's (1974: 239) study, only 5 had portable sprayers and 3 had

irrigation equipment. Most farmers used only small tools (machetes,

hoes, etc.) the incidence of which Brierley records by type of tool,

type of farm, and parish.

(6) Montserrat

Unpublished data from the 1972 agricultural census show that only

2 of the 1,159 holdings with land had tractors, plows, and harrows,

the numbers of which were 11, 13, and 6,respectively. Seven holdings

reported having a total of 12 crop sprayers. Small farmers, though, can

rent tractor services at very low cost from the Ministry of Agriculture,

which also provides equipment for land clearing, crop spraying, and plant-
1/
ing.- The 1972 census data show that 144 holdings used mechanical power

exclusively, and an additional 38 employed both animal and mechanical

traction. The Weir survey (1976: I(b), 28) found that 38 percent of the

51 small farmers interviewed incurred some expenses for mechanical inputs.

(7) St. Kitts-Nevis (Anguilla)

The sugar industry in St. Kitts has been characterized by a

moderately high degree of mechanization. The number of tractors varied from

183 to 202 between 1966 and 1972, though the current number may be somewhat

smaller.-' The government provides free plowing services to sugar industry

workers growing food crops and charges other farmers only a nominal fee


-/ The Weir study (1976:1(a), 112) reports that the total number of
tractors in the country averagedl9 between 1966 and 1972. Most were
government-owned.
2/
The 1975 agricultural census (St. Kitts 1977:28) reported 152 tractors
on farm hodlings, but this figure may not include all tractors owned by
the government.








(Weir 1976:I(a), 158). The 1975 census (St. Kitts 1977:28) shows

that there is little use of other agricultural equipment.

(8) St. Lucia

The 1973/74 census of agriculture (St. Lucia 1975:88) reports that

there were only 43 tractors in the agricultural sector. Eight of these

were on holdings of 10-25 acres and the rest on holdings of 100 acres

or more. Six of the 10 rotary tillers were on farms of less than 25

acres, but all of the 9 harrows were on holdings of at least 200 acres.

Of the 174 plows reported, 164 were on holdings of less than 5 acres,

suggesting that these are relatively simple pieces of equipment. The

census reported 337 crop sprayers, of which 110 were on farms with less

than 25 acres.

(9) St. Vincent

Unpublished data from the 1972 agricultural census show that farm

holdings had a total of only 35 tractors, 13 plows, 7 rotary tillers,

9 harrows, 5 cultivators, and 159 crop sprayers and dusters (Weir 1976:

I(b):83). The Weir survey (1976:I(b), 41) found that 14% of the

97 small farmers interviewed rented machinery or equipment from the Mini-

stry of Agriculture.

c. Fertilizer and Chemicals

(1) Antigua

No information was found on use of fertilizers and chemicals by

small farmers, though it appears to be very limited. The Central Marketing

Corporation, which has a near-monopoly on the sale of these inputs,

sold only 32,480 pounds of fertilizer, for approximately US$16,000,

in 1974. The value of pesticide sales was about US$13,000.

(2) Barbados

Momsen (1970:84) found that 96% of the small farmers she interviewed








used fertilizer. Unpublished data from the 1971 Census of Agriculture

show that 46,080 acres, or 84% of all arable land, was fertilized. Total

fertilizer consumption in 1971 was 24,471,000 pounds.

(3) Belize

The 3,000 or so farmers engaged in milpa (shifting cultivation)

agriculture use very few modern inputs. Small sugarcane farmers, who

produce about 80% of the country's production, can obtain fertilizers

and pesticides on credit from the Sugar Board. A few small banana

growers also use fertilizer and chemicals (Weir 1976:I(a), 261-264).

(4) Dominica

Most small farmers use fertilizer for bananas. Of the 96 small

farmers interviewed by Yankey (1969:189, 230), 58% sought (and presumably

received) credit for fertilizer, and 38% purchased fertilizer out of

their savings. The Weir survey (1976:I(b), 117) found that 67% of the

100 small farmers interviewed used fertilizers on bananas. Except per-

haps for bananas, fertilizer applications were thought to be inadequate.

Percentages reported for other crops were : ground provisions, 67%;

plantains, 34%; citrus, 23%; and vegetables,16%. Chemical use was high

(45%) only for bananas, though a government spraying program protects

most banana trees from leaf spot. Only for one other crop (plantains,

18%), did more than 10% of the farmers use chemicals.

(5) Grenada

Brierley (1974:147, 180, 212, 238) found fertilizer use among the

various categories of small farmers to be as follows:








Percentage of Farmers Using:

Chemical Chemical Ferti- Manure
Type of Farm Fertilizer lizer & Manure Only

Non-commercial 19 16 12
Semi-commercial 17 56 21
Commerical 12 55 20
Miniature estate 22 78 0

Except for the non-commercial, "weekend" farmers, at least two-thirds of

the small farmers interviewed used chemical fertilizer.

(6) Montserrat

Unpublished data from the 1972 Census of Agriculture show that only

8.6% of the farm holdings used fertilizer. Fertilizer use varied consider-

ably by size of farm:

Percentage of Farmers
Acres Using Fertilizer

Less than 1.00 5.6
1.00 4.99 8.9
5.00 9.99 18.0
10.00 24.99 50.0
25.00 49.99 0.0
50.00 and over 50.0

The Weir survey (1976:I(b), 20-21) found a higher incidence of fertilizer

use among small farmers: 31% used fertilizer for cotton, ground provisions,

and vegetables; 23% for bananas, and 15% for tomatoes, onions, and carrots.

Twenty-three percent used chemicals on vegetables and 15% on cotton,

ground provisions, and tomatoes. Chemicals were not used on citrus

fruits, carrots, or plantains.

(7) St. Kitts-Nevis

Fertilizer use in 1975, according to that year's agricultural census

(St. Kitts 1977:30), was 2,698,000 pounds, considerably less per acre than

in Barbados, the other country in the region where agriculture is still

dominated by sugar. Virtually all fertilizer was used in St. Kitts,

with Nevis accounting for only 0.7% of the national total. Very little

fertilizer was used on small farms: holdings of less than 25 acres









accounted for just 2.5% of total consumption (66,200 pounds). Among

the small farmers studied by Mills (1976), fertilizer use was negligible.

(8) St. Lucia

Fertilizer is widely used in banana production in St. Lucia, even

by small farmers. Momsen (1970:84) found that 78% of the small farmers

she interviewed used fertilizer. Persaud (1967:16, as cited in Weir

1976:I(a), 39) found that fertilizers accounted for 24% of banana

production costs on farms of less than 10 acres and 31% on larger farms.

A survey conducted in 1975 (cited in Weir 1976:I(a), 40) found that 90%

of the banana growers used fertilizer, with 49% applying it 4 times a

year in accordance with the recommendations of the Windward Islands

Banana Growers' Association (WINBAN). The same survey found that 30%

of the growers used chemicals for weed control. Fertilizer applications

were greater on large farms than on small farms, but even on large farms

they tended to be less than WINBAN recommendations (Weir 1976:I(a), 55).

For small farmers generally, including those not growing bananas,

the 1973/74 agricultural census (St. Lucia 1975 94) reports the following

adoption rates by size of farm for artificial fertilizers and soil

dressings:

Acres Adoption Rate (%)

Less than 1.00 27.8
1.00 4.99 51.4
5.00 9.99 48.5
10.00 24.99 71.8
25.00 49.99 37.7
50.00 99.00 32.8
100.00 and over 32.8

All farms* 40.8


*Excludes 502 holdings without land.






80


(9) St. Vincent

The Weir survey (1976:I(b), 75) found that 657 of the 97 small farmers

interviewed used fertilizer for bananas, 59% for ground provisions, and

11-15% for plantains, peanuts, tomatoes, and carrots. For other crops

the percentage using fertilizer was lower. Sixty percent of these

farmers used agricultural chemicals for bananas, but the adoption

rate for all other crops was less than 10%.








3. Family Labor and Hired Labor

a. Barbados

Momsen's survey of small farmers in Barbados (1970:81, 84) found that

33% of the "work force" (labor time?) was provided by the farm family,

4% by unpaid non-family workers, and 63% by hired labor. Hired labor was

used by 83% of the farmers surveyed; the average number of hired workers

was 1.78.

b. Dominica

Yankey's survey of small farmers in Dominica (1969:194) found that 60

of the 90 farmers with families used family labor. No data are provided

for hired labor, but apparently little was thought to be used.

The Weir survey (1976: I(b), 118-119), conducted nearly 10 years later,

reported that family labor was used regularly by 42% of the small farmers

interviewed and irregularly by another 9%. Thirty-two percent of the

farmers used up to 100 work-days of hired labor annually; 9% used between 101

and 250; and 23% used more than 250 work-days.

c. Grenada

Brierley (1974: 149, 182, 212-213, 239-240) provides quantitative

data only on the labor time of small farmers themselves, but he does provide

qualitative information on family labor and hired labor for the four

types of small farms he identified:

Non-commercial farms: Farmers spend an average of 7.6 hours per week on

their plots. Family members assist in planting, and male farmers wives'

often do the weeding, a task that may be neglected by unmarried farmers.

"Hired labor is uncommon and is engaged usually by female farmers or the

aged when strenuous tasks, such as digging, are necessary."

Semi-commercial farms: Farmers spend an average of 16 hours per week

on their plots. Both hired labor and exchange labor are used at planting

and harvest times.









Commercial farms: Farmers spend ;ni average of 28 Ihliurts )per wefk on

their plots. Wives often work in the kitchen garden for an hour each day

and sell food crops at the Saturday markets. Most commercial farms

do not use hired labor, though some of the older and more affluent farmers

employ workers for cutting bananas or preparing vegetable beds. Ex-

change labor is sometimes used for urgent, seasonal tasks.

Miniature estates: Farmers spend an average of 26 hours per week on their

plots, though full-time farmers in their fifties usually work 35-45 hours.

"On all these farms regular assistance is found, usually in the form of

a regular hired hand although occasionally a diligent wife [sic.] or grown-

up son provides help. During the cocoa and nutmeg harvest further assistance

might be employed." For status reasons, exchange labor is not common.

d. Montserrat

The Weir survey (1976: I(b), 24) reported that family labor was used

regularly by 38% of the farmers interviewed and irregularly by 8%.

The data on hired labor are confusing,but it appears that about 60% of the

farmers used hired labor. In most cases, however, small farmers contracted

for no more than 25 work-days of labor.


e. St. Lucia

The 1973 Census of Agriculture (St. Lucia

lowing data on various types of labor on farms
Less than 1.00-
1 acre 4.99

Family workers 10,400 9,392
Male 5,925 4,986
Female 4,475 4,406

Other unpaid workers 806 828
Male 473 591
Female 333 237

Paid workers 401 1,120
Male 319 876
Female 82 244


1975:86) provides the fol-

of less than 25 acres:

5.00- 10.00-
9.99 24.99

2,749 1,260
1,583 681
1,166 579

421 78
290 58
131 20

706 585
549 350
1 -7 235





83


f. St. Vincent

The Weir survey (1976: I(b), 78) found that family labor was used

regularly by 44% of the farmers interviewed and irregularly by 12%.

Approximately 75% of the farmers used wage labor: 27% for up to 50 work-

days, 17% for 51-100 work-days, 16% for 101-250 work-days, and 15%

for more than 250 work-days.










V. GOVERNMENT SERVICES TO SMALL FARMERS

1. Extension and Information Services

Agricultural extension services in the Caribbean region directly

reach a higher percentage of small farmers than in most developing

countries. Information obtained by an AID Survey Team in the fall of

1977 (Fiester et al. 1978) found that the ratio of field instructors to

farmers in the Eastern Caribbean was often quite favorable:

(1) (2)
Ministry of Agri-
culture Field
Instructors Farmers* (1):(2)

Antigua 9 2,449 1: 272
Barbados 12 26,052 1:2,171
Dominica 20 7,968 1: 398
Grenada 24/14' 12,173 1:507/1:870
Montserrat 5 1,247 1: 249
St. Kitts-Nevis 12/9t 4,524 1:377/1:503
St. Lucia 14 10,938 1: 781
St. Vincent 27 7,794 1: 289

*Data from the 1971-75 agricultural censuses (see Table III.1).

tin some cases the number of extension instructors actually on
the job (second figure, which is not always exact) is known to
be fewer than the number of budgeted positions (first figure).

Since the above data include the so-called landless farmers and

others for whom farming is a secondary activity, and since the number of

farmers has probably declined since the early 1970s, the ratios of Ministry

of Agriculture field instructors to half- to full-time farmers are even

more favorable than the above data suggest. In addition, many small

farmers have access to extension services provided by government corpora-

tions (e.g. NACO, the sugar corporation in St. Kitts-Nevis) and producers'

associations (e.g. those for bananas in the Windwards and sugar in

Barbados). In short, lack of sufficient numbers of extension personnel

is not a serious problem.










There is a problem, however, with the quality of the services

provided. Though senior extension officers appear to have good basic

training, a survey of extension in the Windward Islands in 1971

(Henderson 1973: 105) found that

of a total of 85 extension workers only two possessed a
university degree or its equivalent on first joining
their respective department. Of the others eleven pos-
sessed a farm institute diploma, the remaining 72 having
no training from a formal agricultural education institu-
tion. Furthermore over 70 per cent of the extension
officers in the Southern Caribbean expressed the opinion
that training in extension principles and methodology
before their having been assigned to a district would
have resulted in their performing much more efficiently.

While the AID Survey Team noted in the fall of 1977 that some

progress had been made in upgrading the average level of training for

extension workers, extension services on the whole were still quite

weak (Fiester et al. 1978). In the Leewards, many older extension

workers whose only training or experience was in sugar and cotton had

not been retrained to work in food crops following the abandonment or

sharp decline in production of these crops.

Several farm-level surveys have provided information on farmer

contacts with extension personnel. The results of these studies are

summarized below.

a. Antigua

The Government of Antigua's 1976 survey of 100 small farmers

(Antigua 1977) found that more than three-quarters (77%) had had some

contact with an extension instructor, and most also dealt with at least

two other government agricultural agencies. Of those receiving assis-

tance from government agencies generally (information was not reported

separately for extension assistance), 30% said they were "completely









satisfied"; 26% were "fairly satisfied"; 17% were "not satisfied"; and

the remaining 27% gave no answer. When asked where they would go to

receive information on improved practices, 59% listed the extension

instructor, a higher percentage than for any other category. This is a

fairly high figure, but considering that the Ministry of Agriculture

conducted the survey the results should be interpreted cautiously.

Fifty-eight percent of the farmers reported that they listened to

agricultural information programs on the radio, especially the Ministry's

"Agriculture on the Move." Only 7 farmers, however, said that they

listen to these programs "every time they are on"; 49 said that they

listened "occasionally." Almost all who listened found the program

either "very useful" (18) or "of some use" (37).

b. Dominica

Yankey's 1966 survey revealed that small farmers had little contact

with extension instructors, even though the instructor/farmer ratio of

1:300 was relatively favorable. Most extension workers were described

as more than 40 years old, possessing only a primary education, and

having little technical training. The 96 small farmers surveyed obtained

most of their technical information from neighbors. In addition, Yankey

(1969: 198) reported that "the demonstration effect of progressive estate

management has influenced small scale farmers to adopt certain proven

practices established on these estates."

The survey by Weir's Ltd. in 1975 also found that the extension

service had little contact with farmers. Of the 100 farmers surveyed,

only one reported "regular" exposure to field demonstrations, and only

3 others said that they "occasionally" went to field demonstrations.

Twenty-two percent said that they regularly used printed materials to










obtain information, while a very high 63% said that they listened

regularly to radio informant ion programs (Weir 1976: 1(h), 1134).

c. Grenada

Brierley's 1969 survey of small farmers in Grenada revealed that

extension instructors were a relatively minor source of information,

with radio broadcasts, friends and neighbors, and MacDonald's Farmers'

Almanac all being much more important (Brierley 1974: 68):

Use by Farmers
Source of Information N

Radio broadcasts 230 79
Friends and neighbors 225 77
Tradition (family) 219 75
MacDonald's Farmers' Almanac 217 74
Estate experience 77 26
Extension instructors 70 24

Total 292 -

Farmers' contacts with extension personnel tended to increase

significantly with the degree of commercialization (Brierley 1974:

145, 178, 210, 236):

Percentage Having
Number of Contact with
Type of Farm Farms Extension Personnel

Non-commercial 42 12
Semi-commercial 96 54
Commercial 118 67
Miniature estates 36 91

Total 292 58

It may be noted that the percentage of farmers relying on extension

instructors for information (24%) is much lower than the percentage

having contact with extension instructors (58%).

d. Montserrat

The Weir survey in Montserrat (1976: l(b), 39-43) found that a

substantial proportion of the 51 small farmers in the sample used the









Mini:t;ry of Agri culture ;s a source of plants and seeds (apparently

more than half) and advance market information (46%), and 14% rented

equipment from the Ministry (for a very low, subsidized fee). However,

none of the 51 farmers surveyed said that they were exposed to demon-

strations or printed materials even occasionally, let alone regularly.

Only a handful (15% and 8%, respectively) said that they "seldom"

received technical information from these sources, and the great majority

received none at all. On the other hand, 47% said that they obtained

information from the radio, and all of them claimed to be regular

listeners.

e. St. Vincent

Small farmers in St. Vincent were found to have even less contact

with the Ministry of Agriculture than those in Montserrat (Weir 1976:

l(b), 92). Fewer than half of the 97 farmers interviewed appear to

have obtained seeds from the Ministry, only 12% obtained advance market

information, and 12% rented equipment. Only 27%, 12%, and 6%, respectively,

were even aware of information available from radio broadcasts, printed

materials, and demonstrations. Most who were said that they used these

sources regularly (22%, 10%, and 4% of all farmers, respectively).









2. Credit

Agricultural credit institutions in the Caribbean Region are

relatively new: except for the three public credit agencies in Barbados

(now being combined into a single institution) the development finance
1/
corporations (DFCs) were established between 1965 and 1973. Their

resources come both from government contributions and, more importantly,

from funds borrowed from the CDB. With the partial exception of two of

the credit institutions in Barbados, and perhaps the one in Belize (with

which this writer is not acquainted), the DFCs share a number of serious

weaknesses. These include: (1) inadequate--sometimes nonexistent--

training and experience of managers and other key staff members in

development banking, (2) insufficient loan documentation and poor loan

supervision, (3) inadequate accounting systems, (4) weak loan recovery

procedures, and (5) low interest rate policies which preclude the

possibility of institutional viability and growth without continued
2/
government subventions. In some countries political considerations

seem to play an important role in the selection of beneficiaries.

The number of small farmers receiving credit from the DFCs is

relatively small, fewer than 100 in some countries. And where it is
3/
relatively large, as in Montserrat, the amount received by most




1/
The DFCs also provide credit for manufacturing, housing, and other
economic activities.
*2I
Many observers also believe that low-interest-rate policies are not
even in the best long-run interest of small farmers. See
Lipton (1976:543-553).
3/
Of the 372 loans made by the Development Finance and Marketing Corpora-
tion in fiscal year 1976-77, 241 (65 percent) were for less than FC$100
(US$37).








farmers is so small that it does not permit them significantly to

improve production technology. Until this year small farmers not

owning their land were unable to apply for loans under the CDB/AID

Farm Improvement Credit program (US$ million) because collateral in

the form of land was required. Loans under the new Agricultural

Production Credit program (USS4.0 million) can be made against crop

liens, thus permitting cash tenants, sharecroppers, and other non-owners

to participate. Unless the quality of management in the DFCs improves,

though, expansion of DFC operations is likely to be slower than

anticipated.

Alternative sources of credit in the Caribbean Region are

(1) commercial banks, (2) producer associations, and (3) private money-

lenders. Small farmers have little access to credit from commercial

banks, for which small loans are unprofitable, and there are few viable

cooperatives of small farmers which would give them access to this

source of credit. Many small farmers, though, receive short-term

production credit from producers' associations, particularly the banana

growers' associations in the Windward Islands. There is reason to

believe that producers' associations are more efficient vehicles than

the DFCs for providing credit to small farmers. This possibility

deserves investigation.

Little is known about the activities of private moneylenders.

Almost no "non-institutional" credit for agricultural purposes is

reported, but more research is needed to determine the accuracy of

these observations. It should also be pointed out that borrowed funds

are fungible, and consumer credit obtained in the non-institutional

market can free other household resources for use in farming (lipton

1976). This phenomenon may be more widespread in the Eastern Caribbean


than is commonly believed.









Several farm-level surveys conducted in the region provide some

information on small farmers' use of credit. These findings are

summarized below.

a. Antigua

The Government of Antigua's 1976 survey (Antigua 1977) reported

that 14 of the 100 small farmers interviewed "had dealings with" the

Antigua and Barbuda Development Bank, and 4 dealt with commercial

banks. Also, 16 farmers dealt with the Antigua Sugar Estates Development

Board, which in effect also provides credit to promote agricultural

diversification. No information was obtained on the amounts and types

of credit received.

b. Dominica

Yankey's 1966 survey of 96 small farmers found that 58, or 60.4%,

sought (and presumably obtained) credit. Sources and uses were as

follows (Yankey 1969:230):

Number of Farmers, by Use of Credit

Farm Tools & A1
Construc- Ferti- Equip- Chemi- Borrowers,
tion lizer ment cals by Source

Commercial banks 1 7 2 2 7
Credit unions 1 9 3 1 9*
Producer
associations 0 41 0 0 41
Other 0 1 0 0 1

Total 1 58 5 3 5P


Yankey (1969:147-149) estimates that only 27 of credit union
savings were channeled into agricultural activities.


These data show that producers' associations (principally the Dominica

Banana Growers' Association) were the principal source of credit, most

of which was for fertilizer. Typically, fertilizer was obtained




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs