@article{10.11648/j.stpp.20220601.11,
  author = {Mahmud Emkay Sesay and Marion Macorthor Maltina Sesay and Victor Patrict Bagla and David Panda-Noah},
  title = {Animal Management Practices and Problems Leading to Crop Animal Conflict in Kamajei, Moyamba District and Kissy Tongi Chiefdoms, Kailahun District, Sierra Leone},
  journal = {Science, Technology & Public Policy},
  volume = {6},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1-6},
  doi = {10.11648/j.stpp.20220601.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.stpp.20220601.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.stpp.20220601.11},
  abstract = {This survey was carried out between January and March 2021 in two chiefdoms in Sierra Leone, namely Kamajei chiefdom, in Moyamba district, in the South and Kissi Tongi chiefdom, Kailahun district in the East. Both share boundaries with our major sources of livestock supply (Northern Province and Guinea). Kamajei chiefdom had long been involved in livestock farming, with a very large number of worehs and a well-established Management system and structure. Unlike Kissi Tongi chiefdom, there were very few worehs and no structures in place to guide the farmers in preventing conflict. All livestock, crop farmers, and chiefs, form the sampling size. Information was collected in Local languages on land acquisition, management Systems, causes of conflict and how conflict should be resolved. Results showed the following, firstly, 100% of animal rearers acquired land within Kamajei chiefdom by agreement from Land holding families with yearly Payment of Le1,500,000, while in the Kissi Tongi, 60% acquired land by agreement and 40% do not go into any form of agreement. In Kissi Tongi, 80% of the land belongs to the community people and 20% to land holding families. In the Kissi Tongi Chiefdom, 75% of animal rearers were found not to pay for grazing areas, while 20% payed yearly and 5% after every two years for land ultilization. In Kamajei chiefdom, on the other hand, 100% of their animals were kept under semi-intensive. While in Kissi Tongi, a100% extensive system was employed. In both chiefdoms, damage to crops was the first cause of conflict between farmers and herders. Crop damage was not limited to damage done to growing crops but included unauthorized grazing of crop residues after harvest. Other causes of conflict reported were access to watering points, expansion of crop fields across corridors for animal passage and thefts of animal. Finally, in Kamajei chiefdom, all crop farmers reported animal farmers for damages done to their crops to authorities to settle damage caused by animals to crops with huge compensation paid, while in Kissi Tongi, 50% don’t report any damage to authorities and don’t pay for damage while 30% do report to town chiefs and 20% to animal owners for peaceful resolution of the conflict. Moreover, payment for damage done is either directly to crop owners or town chief. In conclusion, although sporadic conflicts were reported, the potential for them to escalate is high if guideline are not instituted within these communities.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Animal Management Practices and Problems Leading to Crop Animal Conflict in Kamajei, Moyamba District and Kissy Tongi Chiefdoms, Kailahun District, Sierra Leone
AU  - Mahmud Emkay Sesay
AU  - Marion Macorthor Maltina Sesay
AU  - Victor Patrict Bagla
AU  - David Panda-Noah
Y1  - 2022/02/25
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.stpp.20220601.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.stpp.20220601.11
T2  - Science, Technology & Public Policy
JF  - Science, Technology & Public Policy
JO  - Science, Technology & Public Policy
SP  - 1
EP  - 6
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-4621
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.stpp.20220601.11
AB  - This survey was carried out between January and March 2021 in two chiefdoms in Sierra Leone, namely Kamajei chiefdom, in Moyamba district, in the South and Kissi Tongi chiefdom, Kailahun district in the East. Both share boundaries with our major sources of livestock supply (Northern Province and Guinea). Kamajei chiefdom had long been involved in livestock farming, with a very large number of worehs and a well-established Management system and structure. Unlike Kissi Tongi chiefdom, there were very few worehs and no structures in place to guide the farmers in preventing conflict. All livestock, crop farmers, and chiefs, form the sampling size. Information was collected in Local languages on land acquisition, management Systems, causes of conflict and how conflict should be resolved. Results showed the following, firstly, 100% of animal rearers acquired land within Kamajei chiefdom by agreement from Land holding families with yearly Payment of Le1,500,000, while in the Kissi Tongi, 60% acquired land by agreement and 40% do not go into any form of agreement. In Kissi Tongi, 80% of the land belongs to the community people and 20% to land holding families. In the Kissi Tongi Chiefdom, 75% of animal rearers were found not to pay for grazing areas, while 20% payed yearly and 5% after every two years for land ultilization. In Kamajei chiefdom, on the other hand, 100% of their animals were kept under semi-intensive. While in Kissi Tongi, a100% extensive system was employed. In both chiefdoms, damage to crops was the first cause of conflict between farmers and herders. Crop damage was not limited to damage done to growing crops but included unauthorized grazing of crop residues after harvest. Other causes of conflict reported were access to watering points, expansion of crop fields across corridors for animal passage and thefts of animal. Finally, in Kamajei chiefdom, all crop farmers reported animal farmers for damages done to their crops to authorities to settle damage caused by animals to crops with huge compensation paid, while in Kissi Tongi, 50% don’t report any damage to authorities and don’t pay for damage while 30% do report to town chiefs and 20% to animal owners for peaceful resolution of the conflict. Moreover, payment for damage done is either directly to crop owners or town chief. In conclusion, although sporadic conflicts were reported, the potential for them to escalate is high if guideline are not instituted within these communities.
VL  - 6
IS  - 1
ER  - 

Copy | Download