SIERRA LEONE maq 4ª.indd - agrilife - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3 The Agricultural Sector 48 and in the districts of Bonthe, Moyamba and Pujehun in the Southern region. 3.3 Chiefdoms & Farm Households: Institutional and Technical aspects The average farm household in Sierra Leone cultivates 1.56 hectare. 56% of the farms have less or equal to 1 ha and the majority of holdings range from 0.5 to 2 ha operating as basic subsistence food production units (FAO, 2005). There is however, a group of medium-sized farms, typically of 4 to 15 hectares, usually owned by chiefs or local notables where food production is complemented by (cash) tree crops, and in some districts, by large scale livestock rearing or fishing activities. As stated previously, large estates of plantation tree crops or mechanised field crop production, ranging from 20 to several hundred hectares, are mostly government owned, but are all nearly now defunct or in an advanced state of dereliction (Sesay et al., 2004). Following Grigg (1974), the two distinctive features of plantation crop production in tropical Africa are the lateness of its development and the relative unimportance of the plantation both in the past and in the present. In West Africa peasants have dominated the production of export crops and the plantation (i.e. large private/public estates operating monocropping systems) was and still is of lesser importance as argued by Frankema (2011) and Martin (1991). Although currently there appears to be a new wave of land acquisition/leasing agreements (Oakland Institute, 2011) In most of cases small farmers (who represent the majority of the agricultural sector) manage different plots, of which 60-80% is located in the upland according, and 20-40% is in the lowlands (NSADP, 2009). Consequently, farms can include tree crop cultivation, usually in a larger upland plot, and a smaller plot in the lowlands. Farmers thus attempt to meet immediate household food requirements and sell any surplus to the local community. According to Sesay et al. (2004) farm size is determined mainly by the limitations of household labour availability, the soil fertility in the framework of the rotational slash and burn land use system, and the acreage that can be managed by manual methods based on the hoe and cutlass. These productive constraints are often associated to the shortage of cash income and indebtedness; the non-monetary nature of the household economy; and the remoteness and paucity of social and welfare services available in rural areas. 3.3.1 Land Tenure Among shifting cultivators land tenure is usually considered communal (i.e. land belongs to the tribe rather than to individuals) and there are frequently cooperative elements in working the land, particularly in clearing the vegetation. Boundaries with neighbouring groups are well defined physical features (Grigg, 1974). In the case of Sierra Leone private land tenure systems are only common in the Western region (near the capital city) where land is largely traded. In the rest of regions, a more traditional land tenure system (typified by holdings and leasehold of communal land) and under the control of chiefdoms is widespread. Land tenure in Sierra Leone is held in communal ownership under customary tenure and is regulated by traditional rules. Land is a heritage entrusted to the community of a village. The belief that land exists for the following three categories: the dead, the living and the unborn. Consequently, land cannot be permanently alienated. This is a fundamental feature of the culture, which has a strong impact on landholding in rural Sierra Leone influencing current land tenure, food security and investment (Unruh and Turray, 2006). This concept is directly correlated to the need of possessing idle land in order to support the shifting cultivation system prevalent in the country. In other words, the need to shift fields frequently requires a great deal of land, and decreases the willingness of landowning farmers
to grant land to others on a secure basis, due to the need to have those lands available for their own shifting cultivation needs. Consequently, out right sale is forbidden within chiefdoms24 , but in principle rental for long periods is possible. The Sierra Leonean State authorises leasing for a maximum of 60 years (MAFFS & MFMR, 2004). Yet, in practical terms, individuals not belonging to a land-owning family (also denominated as “strangers”) are usually only allowed access to land on an annual basis and cultivating beyond this one year time period is forbidden. Rent payment is usually made in the form of a token which is a part of the harvested output; mainly annual staple crops as there are also prohibitions against tree planting. This is because in Africa, trees are seen as a sign of permanent occupation and de facto ownership (FAO, 1999). The restriction also includes any permanent or semi-permanent improvements (such as investment in irrigation system) which could later be used to claim ownership. Individuals in rented lands are also subject to capricious decisions on the part of the customary landholder whenever there is a desire to retrieve land from temporary allocation. According to Salazar (2004) these “strangers” constitute 20 to 40 percent of chiefdom populations and they usually have to “frequently re-beg for land in the same or other locations each year”. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to record many of these informal transactions or arrangement. Indeed, landowning families seem to transact land and the cost in time, money, and difficulties to formalise such transactions with the State (Ministry of Lands) are beyond what many landowning families are willing to consider, even if benefits increase from such registration (Unruh and Turray, 2006). 24 According to Unruh and Turray (2006) it is impossible to get all family members together to agree to a transfer or sale, given that most of them are not yet born, or death. Lastly, the current land holding system (and the absence of official property titles) also makes it rather difficult for banks and other financial institutions to provide farm credit. This is mainly because the individual’s right only to usufruct does not provide the needed security. Even within landowning families, the individual cannot mortgage the land on which he works without the consent of the family leader and the authorities of the chiefdom. Moreover, even if the farmer gets the consent, the financial institutions, in case of default in payment, cannot sell the land to any purchaser, unless this person is a member of the same family (NRDS, 2009). Consequently, there is an obvious lack of land market in rural areas in Sierra Leone. Still, whenever grants are given, these are meant to support annual crops; loans for irrigation, drainage facilities, levelling fields, tree crops, construction of processing facilities, farm equipment are generally not considered (Unruh and Turray, 2006). To this situation it must be added the point of view of landowning family members who believe that using land as collateral for a loan is too great a risk. Besides, according to the principles which guide their communal access to land, any given loan to improve a parcel of land is expected to benefit the entire extended family and not only the individual in question. 3.3.2 Social Structure. Traditional Chieftaincy Structure and Role of the Paramount Chief Rural lands in Sierra Leone are owned by families, under a chieftaincy structure (i.e. chiefdoms), that plays an important administrative and custodian role. The family is difficult to define because there are paternal and maternal associations qualifying a set of people to have land rights in more than one village territory. In addition, the family includes extended families or lineages composed of the ancestors, the living, and the unborn generations (MAFFS & MFMR, 2004). The chiefdoms of Sierra Leone (149) are the third-level units of administration in the country (after the provinces/regions and districts). The chiefdoms as institutions have a colonial Rural poverty reduction and food security: The case of smallholders in Sierra Leone 49
Page 3 and 4: Rural poverty reduction and food se
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents Acknowledgments 2
Page 7 and 8: 7 Conclusions 157 7.1 Surveyed Smal
Page 9 and 10: Table 31. Different output values a
Page 11 and 12: Figure 34. Local participation in t
Page 13 and 14: Figure 96. Change in income as a re
Page 15 and 16: Executive Summary Agriculture is es
Page 17: attention needs to be paid to the i
Page 20 and 21: 1 Introduction 18 Box 1: Food Secur
Page 23 and 24: 2 Description of the Context in Sie
Page 25 and 26: Figure 2. Structure of the populati
Page 27 and 28: Diseases such as malaria and tuberc
Page 29 and 30: to energy supplies 8 , a low-skille
Page 31: Figure 4. Composition of exports fr
Page 34 and 35: 3 The Agricultural Sector 32 agrari
Page 36 and 37: 3 The Agricultural Sector 34 Figure
Page 40 and 41: 3 The Agricultural Sector 38 3.1.2
Page 42 and 43: 3 The Agricultural Sector 40 scale
Page 44 and 45: 3 The Agricultural Sector 42 absorb
Page 48 and 49: 3 The Agricultural Sector 46 availa
Page 52 and 53: 3 The Agricultural Sector 50 origin
Page 54 and 55: 3 The Agricultural Sector 52 The us
Page 56 and 57: 3 The Agricultural Sector 54 crops
Page 58 and 59: 3 The Agricultural Sector 56 • Se
Page 60 and 61: 3 The Agricultural Sector 58 severe
Page 64 and 65: 3 The Agricultural Sector 62 Table
Page 66 and 67: 3 The Agricultural Sector 64 Table
Page 68 and 69: 3 The Agricultural Sector 66 post-h
Page 70 and 71: 4 EU Support Programmes for Rice an
Page 72 and 73: 4 EU Support Programmes for Rice an
Page 75 and 76: 5 Survey Methodology In this sectio
Page 77 and 78: sampling techniques were employed t
Page 79 and 80: up an agrarian system. The househol
Page 81 and 82: Farm Net Income per working unit: D
Page 83 and 84: price, which is higher than the mar
Page 85 and 86: stock or exchanges at the village l
Page 87 and 88: = 0.72) for non-food requirements.
Page 89 and 90: 6 Survey Results This section addre
Page 91 and 92: 6.1.2 Main activities and income so
Page 93 and 94: Figure 24. Average acreage under cu
Page 95 and 96: Table 24. Resources of smallholders
Page 97 and 98: Figure 30. Total acre per household
Page 99 and 100: harvesting period (Sesay et al., 20
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 34. Local participation in t
Page 103 and 104:
improved management strategies at p
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 41. Crop mix categories in t
Page 107 and 108:
when analysing the smallholder viab
Page 109 and 110:
Table 27. Economic results of the s
Page 111 and 112:
Table 29. Economic results of the s
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 47. Farm Net Income for an a
Page 115 and 116:
hired labour costs for self-subsist
Page 117 and 118:
Figure 52. Output value of rice per
Page 119 and 120:
Figure 57. Distribution of tree cro
Page 121 and 122:
Figure 60. Farm viability of smallh
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 63. Farm viability per farm
Page 125 and 126:
Table 32. Percentage of farms per r
Page 127 and 128:
Figure 69. Poverty level per farm t
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 72. Cocoa and coffee output
Page 131 and 132:
Figure 76. Total labour productivit
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 80. Labour productivity per
Page 135 and 136:
Figure 83. Labour productivity per
Page 137 and 138:
6.4 Evaluation of the influence of
Page 139 and 140:
Table 33. Evaluation Matrix for Sup
Page 141 and 142:
Figure 87. Adequacy of support prov
Page 143 and 144:
Figure 91. Adequacy of support prov
Page 145 and 146:
Figure 95. Change in income as a re
Page 147 and 148:
Figure 97. Impact of support on dif
Page 149 and 150:
Figure 100. Expected sustainability
Page 151 and 152:
Figure 103. Average farm net income
Page 153 and 154:
Figure 107. Cultivated area of non-
Page 155 and 156:
Figure 111. Revelance of income sou
Page 157:
Figure 115. Number of tractors hire
Page 160 and 161:
7 Conclusions 158 Table 34. Basic C
Page 162 and 163:
7 Conclusions 160 Under the Peasant
Page 164 and 165:
7 Conclusions 162 In the Eastern di
Page 166 and 167:
7 Conclusions 164 may actually bene
Page 168 and 169:
7 Conclusions 166 determining the d
Page 170 and 171:
8 References 168 Crowley, E.L. (199
Page 172 and 173:
8 References 170 GoSL and EC Govern
Page 174 and 175:
8 References 172 Moreau P., F. Mabo
Page 176 and 177:
8 References 174 van Wesenbeeck C.F
Page 178 and 179:
9 Appendices 176 HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAP
Page 180 and 181:
9 Appendices 178 COMMUNITY LEADERSH
Page 182 and 183:
9 Appendices 180 Planting materials
Page 184 and 185:
9 Appendices 182 Could you explain
Page 186 and 187:
9 Appendices 184 Externality Please
Page 188 and 189:
9 Appendices 186 Infrastructure/com
Page 190 and 191:
9 Appendices 188 LABOUR INPUT- FOOD
Page 192 and 193:
9 Appendices 190 OTHER INPUTS QUANT
Page 194 and 195:
9 Appendices 192 YIELD LOSSES Now w
Page 196 and 197:
9 Appendices 194 Figure: % of farms
Page 198 and 199:
9 Appendices 196 Figure: Average fa
Page 200 and 201:
9 Appendices 198 Labour productivit
Page 202 and 203:
9 Appendices 200 Labour productivit
Page 204 and 205:
9 Appendices 202
show all

SIERRA LEONE maq 4ª.indd - agrilife - Europa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?