Nimba Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme 2011-2015
A Preliminary Study of
Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in
Northern Nimba
Adam Manvell
VERSION DATE: JULY 2014
ArcelorMittal Liberia Ltd.
P.O. Box 1275 Tubman Boulevard at 15th Street Sinkor, Monrovia Liberia T +231 77 018 056 www.arcelormittal.com
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1.1 Methods ...... 5 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURVEYED LOWLAND FARMS ...... 7 2.1 Hydrological Characteristics ...... 7 2.2 Soil Characteristics ...... 10 2.3 Swamp Farm Sizes ...... 11 2.4 Tenure Characteristics ...... 12 2.5 Location Characteristics ...... 13 3. SWAMP FARMING ...... 15 3.1 Swamp Farming Phases ...... 16 3.1.1 Vegetation clearance ...... 16 3.1.2 Rice Planting ...... 19 3.1.3 Weeding Swamp Rice ...... 21 3.1.4 Swamp Rice Pests and Diseases ...... 22 3.1.5 Swamp Rice Harvests ...... 25 3.1.6 Other crops grown in swamps ...... 25 4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SWAMP FARMING IN NORTHERN NIMBA ...... 27 4.1 Historical Overview of Swamp Farming Development in Northern Nimba ...... 27 4.2 Swamp Farming Changes in the Study Area ...... 29 4.3 Evidence of Individual Swamp Development ...... 32 5. CONCLUSIONS: OPPORTUNITIES TO ENCOURAGE SWAMP FARMING...... 33 REFERENCES ...... 34 APPENDIX A: SWAMP VISIT QUESTION GUIDE ...... 37 APPENDIX B: LOCAL SOIL TERMS ...... 40 APPENDIX C: LIST OF AGRO-CHEMICALS ENCOUNTERED ...... 41 APPENDIX D: NAMES OF RICE VARIETIES GROWN IN SWAMPS IN 2013 ...... 42 Variety Details (Etymologies, durations and other notes) ...... 44
List of Abbreviations
AML ArcelorMittal Liberia ARS Agricultural Relief Services Inc. BCP Biodiversity Conservation Programme CF Community Forest GIS Geographical Information System GPS Global Positioning System ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment IRDP Integrated Rural Development Project LAMCO Liberian American Swedish Minerals Company LD Liberian Dollar NCADP Nimba County Agriculture Development Project NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PDP Partnership for Productivity RYMV Rice Yellow Mottle Virus USAID United States Agency for International Development
Page 2 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This preliminary study reports on findings from a non-random survey of 71 farmers in 15 towns in northern Nimba who had made swamp rice farms in 2013. Swamp rice is grown in two types of lowlands, true swamps that are permanently or almost permanently wet, and drier, seasonally inundated areas, typically alluvial terraces. Many swamps contain elements of both hydrologies. A key agronomic difference between the two swamp types is that only the drier ones can be exploited in the dry season for gardening, often for peanuts, chilli pepper, corn and bitterballs. A more refined hydrological characterisation of swamps would be useful, not only to improve understanding of different soil-water regimes, but also in terms of gaining a watershed perspective to understand how swamps are impacted by land use changes in their catchments.
The surveyed swamps ranged in size from 0.06 to 1.3 ha (average 0.3 ha) and the majority were on family land. Nine farmers had however arranged to make their farm on somebody else's land, but not necessarily through landlessness. Most of these arrangements were free or on soft terms in relation to the harvest. Swamplessness among the local population (as opposed to strangers) probably only exists at low levels, with the exception of Camp 4. Though it is expected to increase in the future, the more immediate concern is the likelihood of tenure conflicts as more and more swamps are brought into production.
Informants indicated that there has been a marked trend towards increasing farming in swamps since the end of the war. Several factors are driving this, notably exposure to swamp farming in exile in Guinea or Ivory Coast during the conflict, and issues around finding labour to prepare upland farms each year. Swamp rice farming is generally acknowledged to be easier and more productive than upland rice farming. Swamps can be farmed continuously for a variable number of years before being rested in fallow. There was however a great deal of diversity in the fallow histories of the surveyed swamps and how this relates to their soil fertility remains to be deciphered. Many households farm swamps in conjunction with another type of farming, typically upland rice, and this can have implications for the allocation of labour to swamp farms. While women are clearly heavily involved in swamp farming, a sharper lens than gender alone is needed to understand who does this as their sole agriculturally activity. Well-being, age and marital status are thought to be important and capital in both financial and social terms is often vital in shaping farming options.
Swamps are typically burnt the first year they are brought back into production but many are not in subsequent years of farming. The need to clear swamp vegetation annually is often a major expense and the options until recently have been limited to the use of household, reciprocal or paid manual labour. In the last few years non-selective herbicides, which are not necessarily suitable for clearing all swamps, have started to be used. The chemicals used generally come from Guinea and this method is seen as attractive because it is cheaper and less time consuming than manual labour. To a lesser extent, selective herbicides are also starting to be used instead of weeding, but needs vary depending on different weed ecologies and rice planting dates among other factors. Detailed research on swamp farm weeds and their management could improve farmers options.
Swamp rice farmers were typically using only one or two rice varieties in 2013. Though three varieties among the 35 different named ones were widely reported in the sample, the range of choice individuals have to try new varieties, or re-acquire ones previously used, appears to be limited. Access to varietal characteristics farmers might want, such as time to harvest, soil and hydrological suitability, bird damage protection and taste, could be improved. In recent years there have been several outbreaks in the area of what is probably rice yellow mottle virus (RYMV) and at least one of the popular varieties is reported to susceptible to this. Improving access to a wider range of varieties could help reduce losses to this disease. Other important factors reducing rice yields come from four pests in particular, groundhogs, birds, mole- crickets and rats. Specific research on these is required, especially as some of these species are likely to proliferate as the lowlands are increasingly farmed.
The study ends by examining how swamp farming has previously been promoted in Nimba County. Much effort has been focussed on group-farming and/or high input, water-control models with limited success. As swamp farming becomes increasingly popular, farmers are investing in their swamps and though the classic signs of investment such as bunds and channels are few and far between their smaller, less visible, incremental investments in for example managing their swamp vegetation remain to be fully appreciated. Pre-war, large scale development initiatives were on the whole blueprint orientated and generally failed to take into consideration the opportunities and constraints farmers faced in their own ways of swamp farming, preferring instead to promote their agronomically justified swamp farming models. The key recommendation of this study is that swamp farming can best be encouraged through working with the grain of what farmers are actually doing in their swamps through a tailored approach.
Page 3 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Figure 1: Overview Map of the Surveyed Farms and Study Area. Surveyed swamps are mapped in blue.
Page 4 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
1. INTRODUCTION
Lowland farming has a long tradition in Liberia though the historical record detailing this activity is scant, particular in inland counties such as Nimba. In the mid-twentieth century an agronomic vision of lowland rice production began to be promoted by the government and foreign donors. The suitability and uptake of these so-called improved lowland farming methods and the development approaches taken in Liberia were questioned pre-war (e.g. Kellemu, 1971, Westphal et al. 1987, Whalen, 1983). In the post-conflict development rush however these critiques appear to have been widely over-looked and many of the 'swamp1' development projects that have been implemented across the country have ceased upon project closure.
As part of ArcelorMittal Liberia’s (ArcelorMittal’s) long-term Biodiversity Conservation Program (BCP), supporting the development of lowland farming opportunities is under consideration as one means of reducing the encroachment of shifting upland farming into four forested areas in northern Nimba. In order to ensure both the suitability and sustainability of possible interventions in this domain, this initial study was commissioned to look at current lowland farming practises in 15 settlements in and around the four forest areas—see Figure 1.
1.1 Methods
Given the exploratory nature of the study and large number of settlements to cover in the time available (fieldwork was conducted from the 7th April to 14th May, 2014), it was not considered feasible to try and representatively sample the lowland farms in the area. Instead, emphasis was placed on trying to understand both the biophysical diversity of lowland farms and the social diversity of the contexts within which they are farmed. This information should help guide the selection of meaningful stratification variables if a representative population wide survey is required in the future.
In the larger settlements, I attempted to visit with their farmers six lowland farms that had been used to grow rice in the previous season (2013) and three or more in smaller settlements. Having already conducted research in the majority of the 15 settlements, in several towns I2 was able to engage someone from the community who I had successfully worked with previously as a research assistant. Otherwise I worked with people who had been recommended to me or presented themselves as interested in the research topic. All the assistants who helped me bar one were male. Assistants helped in the identification of suitable swamp farms, coordinated visits to them and translated at the follow-up interviews. I tried to insist on visiting different types of swamp farms (watery and dry, continuously used and newly opened, close and distant) and in different compass directions around the settlement, but this was not always possible. Table 1 illustrates the distribution and type of the final sample of 71 surveyed swamps, the location of which can, with difficulty given the size of the study area, be made out in Figure 1.
During swamp visits an indication of the area sown with rice in 2013 was obtained through walking around the perimeter with a Garmin 60Cx GPS unit. The surface area figures were then derived from the track files once cleaned of any irregularities such as switching back to cross a stream. It is important to bear in mind that regardless of the precision of the GPS unit, the final surface area figures used in this report are more often likely to overestimate the sown rice area because lowland farms are typically comprised of spots that cannot be or are not sown, such as along flowing watercourses and around both fallen and standing trees.
1The term swamp farming is typically used in Liberia English to describe all areas of lowland rice production but this masks differences made in local languages and may confuse the reader familiar with the greater precision of the term swamp as used elsewhere. Unless otherwise stated, swamp will be used in its Liberian English sense, which is interchangeable with lowland. 2In four towns I continued using an assistant from another town since they had good social connections in these places. In Camp 4, I conducted the interviews on my own and in Leagbala, the interviews were carried out by Linda Dolo from the AML Environment team and an assistant already familiar with the research having worked with me in three other towns.
Page 5 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Table 1: The Surveyed Swamp Farms NB: The sample includes five farms made up of more than one contiguous swamp. In these instances the swamp category is assigned across them all. In one case, only one of two of the farmer's swamp was surveyed and the type is assigned to this one, even though the unvisited one was said to be different.
Swamp Type Settlement Watery Drier Mixed TOTAL Swamps Swamps Swamps Camp 4 2 2 2 6 Bonlah 2 1 3 6 Gbapa 3 - 2 5 Kahnla 1 1 2 4 Leagbala 1 - 1 2 Lugbayee 1 1 4 6 Makinto 2 - 1 3 Sey Geh 2 - 4 6 Vanyanpa 2 - 1 3 Zolowee 3 1 2 6 Dulay 4 1 1 6 Geipa 3 - 3 6 Sehtontuo 1 - 2 3 Yolowee 1 1 1 3 Zortapa 2 - 4 6 TOTALS 30 8 33 71
Soil samples were collected on the basis of the farmer's classification of the different soil types she or he identified within the farm. For each soil category, three handful size samples from approximately the top 5 cm of the soil were taken from different spots across the farm and placed within the same sample bag. These were then delivered to the AML Geochemistry Laboratory in Yekepa where they were kiln dried and 12 variables measured from a small sub-sample of each. These results are not reported here as it is hoped more plant-orientated analyses will be conducted with the remnant samples in the near future. Approximately half-way through the fieldwork a very basic soil probe was made available in order to obtain soil pH readings and these were taken at each of the different soil sampling spots.
After the swamp visit and more often than not within the vicinity of the farm itself, an interview was conducted with one of its farmer's. Swamp farms are rarely if ever farmed by one person alone, and particular swamp farming activities are often, but not always, determined by gender. Thus, who the respondent is can have a bearing on the depth of their knowledge concerning the different activities. Just under a third of principle respondents were female (n = 23) but in several instances both the husband and wife were present during the interview and both participated. The interviews were based around a structured list of questions (see Appendix A) to ensure that the same basic information was obtained from each informant. The final version of this was developed through testing in the early swamp visits and consequently these did not always generate the same range of information as the later ones as return visits to fill any gaps were not always possible. Depending on the rapport struck up with the interviewee, some answers were probed and additional questions asked. One disadvantage however of regularly changing research assistants between settlements is variance in how they understood and translated some of the questions.
Page 6 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURVEYED LOWLAND FARMS
The 71 surveyed swamp farms differed in numerous ways and in this section five major characteristics of them that have an important bearing on how they are, or could be exploited, will be examined.
2.1 Hydrological Characteristics
In Liberian English, an area suitable for 'swamp' farming can range from a permanently waterlogged lowland to a well-drained but seasonally inundated alluvial terrace. Greater distinction is made in the three languages3 spoken in the study area to reflect the different agronomic potentials of the continuum between these two hydrological regimes as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Main Local Swamp Terminology in the Study Area NB: These languages can all show dialectic differences at sometimes quite small geographical scales. No attempt has been made to unravel how the terms are said in different speech communities, but the reader should be aware of differences.
Drier, Seasonally Language Watery Swamps Inundated Swamps
Maawe (Mano) blayee-zaye dín-dìn là
Dan (Gio) gbo-eza deina
Kpelle para gbo
Table 1 shows the breakdown of the 71 surveyed lowland farms into three categories in order to include those containing areas with both characteristics, however small. Though more refined than the generic terms lowlands/swamps, these distinctions still fail to fully capture the hydrological differences observed or reported between the surveyed swamps. Whilst it is difficult to effectively capture images of these in the dry season, the collage in Figure 2 attempts to show some of the topographic and vegetation differences that can contribute to hydrological differences. A watershed perspective would be more useful as for example, watery swamp terms were used to describe some farms in the Dayea river floodplain, which regularly over-spills in the rainy seasoning bringing in mud and fish, and higher catchment level swamp farms which do not experience such events. Likewise, drier swamp terms were used to describe both farms or parts of farms along the floodplains of the St. John and Yah rivers as well as possibly relict sand bars along higher catchment streams. Going forward it will be important to find a means of classifying swamps in terms of their water regimes.
3Maawe, the language of the Mah people (Mano), is the most widely spoken and predominates in Yarmein and Sey Clans. The Dan language is closely related to Maawe and though Zor Clan is nominally Dan, the five towns from here in the sample are either all Maawe speaking or mixed. The third language, Kpelle, is spoken by a section of the Camp 4 population.
Page 7 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Figure 2: Examples of Differences between Swamp Farms Top Left to Bottom Right: i) A watery swamp at Gonokollie, Camp 4 (9th April) ii) a mainly watery swamp at Gbapa (21st April) iii) a mainly drier swamp at Vanyanpa (24th April) iv) a drier, previously improved swamp at Bonlah (29th April) v) a watery swamp at Dulay (1st May) vi) a mainly watery swamp at Geipa, but note the raised drier section (6th May).
i ii
iii iv
v vi
Page 8 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Any attempt to refine the hydrological classification of swamps in northern Nimba will need to take into account their dynamic nature. Changes in the vegetation cover in a swamp's catchment can have significant effects. For example, the soils in one swamp visited in Makinto were said to have changed from black to red after an up-catchment landslide in 2005 brought down material. In a similar vein in the same community, another swamp's soils were said to have changed more recently because of AML's activities on Tokadeh starting around 2011. The legacy of LAMCO era mining impacts is still evident in parts of the local landscape, perhaps most notably along the Yeaty Creek southwest of Dulay where mining on the Nimba ridge lead to washed down material disrupting the drainage pattern and creating a series of lakes which over-spill and influence the hydrology of swamp farms in the area. The altered flooding patterns along the Dayea river and its heavy sediment loads are another example. At a smaller scale, increased swamp development along upper catchment valleys could alter water regimes downstream.
Figure 3: Monthly Rainfall Totals for Yekepa, 2011-13 Source: AML Environment Department
The other main driver of dynamism effecting swamp farm hydrologies is climatic variability. Figure 3 illustrates the extent of inter-annual rainfall variability at Yekepa in recent years. To what extent this variability is normal and holds across northern Nimba, especially on the eastern side of the Nimba ridge is not known. Whatever the case, farmers are obliged to deal with the hydrological surprises the weather brings to their swamps, such as an unseasonal flood in January 2014 which wiped out a peanut crop on a dín-dìn là swamp in Zortapa. Though future climate predictions for the Nimba mountain area remain uncertain (Met Office, 2012), it is important that any landscape level planning of swamp farm development in the area factors in local recollections of hydrological vagaries at the individual watershed level.
Page 9 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
2.2 Soil Characteristics
There is still much to be learnt from how farmers in northern Nimba classify and assess their swamp soils and though this study has only scraped the surface of this important topic, its initial findings should prove to be informative.
Farmers named their swamp soils by generally drawing on two variables, their colour and texture, which has been a common finding in ethno-pedology studies around the world (Barrera-Bassols & Zinck, 2003). Looking at the breakdown of soil terms encountered (see Appendix B), the most notable feature is the predominance of the name category blah-tee. This category suggests that integral to Maawe soil terminology is a third but inseparable cognitive variable, their location in the landscape, which can be illustrated with data from my earlier Agriculture and Tenure study in the same area (Atkins, 2008) which focussed mainly on upland farms:
Soil Colour Upland Soils Swamp Soils Black sɛlέ-tee blah-tee Red sɛlέ-zolo blah-zolo
Though widely given in my earlier study, the pedological term sɛlέ appeared in the categorisation of swamp soils only to name sandy soils (nyέɛ-sɛlɛ-sɛlέ). Blah is the core term to describe one of the major swamp types (blah-yií-zéi: Lit: 'swamp-water-place') and it would seem—but verification is required—that blah type soils are found only in lowlands. The significance of this is that if as it appears, farmers only discriminate by name two types of blah, black and red, to gain a deeper understanding of their soil assessment, it is necessary to more specifically ask how their particular blah soil properties vary under different conditions e.g. burning, drought, after various fallow durations etc. One farmer clearly stated that he did not consider his soil to be blah-tee at the time of our meeting because he had not yet brushed his swamp and let the vegetation rot. In what was probably a similar vein, another farmer named his blah-yií-zéi soils as blah-tee and his dín-dìn ones as blah-zolo despite the lack of any colour differences between the samples taken. Without a more refined and dynamic understanding of how swamp soil properties are perceived, there is probably little benefit to be gained from comparing the names provided with the chemical properties so far revealed in the soil samples. Analysis of texture and particle size may be more revealing.
Swamp farmers in northern Nimba currently have limited options to improve the fertility of their soils beyond two short term methods, burning or letting the brushed vegetation decompose and one longer term option, fallowing. A particular swamp's prior history of these measures is likely to have a bearing on its soil properties. Whether scientific soil analysis will be able to make a distinction between inherent soil fertility properties and those influenced by these management practises remains to be seen. As regards fallowing, how farmers decide when, from a soil-yield only perspective,4 their farms need to be rested will be an important research issue to address in the future. When asked about their future farming plans for their swamps, some farmers appeared to hold faith in a formulaic approach such as farm for two years, rest for two years, whereas others were inclined to make their decisions on the back of yield observations. With time farmers build up specific knowledge about the qualities of the soils in their swamps which informs them in their fallowing decisions. However, it is important to point out that since for various reasons to be discussed, swamp farming is both on the increase and changing, the amount of time-based swamp soil knowledge may be quite constrained within the population. By way of illustrating the diversity of fallow histories within the surveyed swamps, which it should be recalled is not a representative sample, Figure 1 illustrates the unbroken length of their previous status (farmed or fallowed) prior to being farmed in 2013. Though Figure 4 provides some idea of the length of fallows or years of continuous farming in the landscape, it can also be deceptive since one year of farming or fallowing may have been preceded by a very different duration of events.
4Decisions to farm or fallow swamps are of course also contingent on other factors such as labour availability, financial constraints, other opportunities and crop pest experiences. In other words, to paraphrase Endre Nyerges (1997), there is a social life of fallows to also consider.
Page 10 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Figure 4: Pre 2013 Farming Histories of the Surveyed Swamps N = 71, of which 38 farms were previously fallowed and 33 previously farmed
Ahead of a professional review of the soil-plant properties of the swamp soil samples, it is worth noting that the pH readings taken in 41 swamp farms indicate a range of only 6-7, i.e. mildly acidic to neutral, which suggests that one the most severe lowland rice yield-limiting stresses in West Africa, iron toxicity (Audebert et al. 2006) may not be a problem in the area. This however requires further investigation as it has been reported as a frequent problem elsewhere in Nimba county (Westphal et al. 1987: 33) as well as just over the borders (see Fig 1 in Chérif et al. 2006: 147).
2.3 Swamp Farm Sizes
Table 3 provides information on the size of the swamp farms surveyed. The data includes fives instances where the farmed swampland is made up of two or more discontinuous areas and in this case, their respective areas have been summed. In all these instances the constituent areas shared the same water course and the maximum distances between them was only 80 metres. The data however excludes one farm in Dulay where only one of the two more separated swamps farmed by the informant could be visited. It also excludes the two farms surveyed at Leagbala where a different measuring approach to the one instructed was followed and the size calculated for one of them (2.47 ha) is suspiciously large, especially given the quantity of seed rice said to have been sown.
Carter & Mends-Cole (1982: 90) cite a study, as yet unseen, by Jenne (1982), which claims that "most of the swamps in Liberia are long, narrow, and relatively small (1 to 4 acres) and are not suited to economical and efficient use of even small scale mechanization". Whilst it should be recalled that the measurements given here are of the area sown to rice and are therefore more a measure of labour force capacity and seed availability than the swamp's possible physical size, the surveyed swamps are smaller than Jenne's (0.4 to 1.6 ha), but most are indeed narrow and linear. The three largest swamps, all over 1 ha, at Geipa, Dulay and Lugbayee, have been expanded incrementally over the years and probably still have further room to do so. Many other swamp farmers probably have room for expansion up or down their watercourses and though much depend on their incentives to do so, a critical limitation will be their tenure limits.
Page 11 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Table 3: Surveyed Swamp Farm Sizes (hectares)
Swamp Type Measure Watery Drier Mixed All Swamps Swamps Swamps Swamps Number 28 8 32 68 Largest 1.28 0.97 1.32 1.32 Smallest 0.09 0.17 0.06 0.06 Median 0.35 0.53 0.38 0.36
2.4 Tenure Characteristics5
Replies to the question whose land is this swamp on, depended in part on the gender and age of the respondent, since land is generally, but not always, acquired through patrilineal inheritance. Thus a young male household head with a father still alive is likely to reply his father's land even though he is likely, probably more so than any of his sisters, to inherit at least part of his father's estate upon which he farms. A more generic answer is family land in which case, whether or not the husband or wife replies, it can generally be assumed that the family in question is the husbands. In a couple of instances women replied that they had inherited the swamp from their late husband, but whether this meant they were holding it in trust for their children or actually had full disposable rights over it was not asked.
An interesting difference with my 2008 study around Mount Tokadeh is that nobody replied that the swamp was on 'quarter' (lineage) land. Though this might be a reflection on translation differences, with family and lineage conflated, it could also be that because swamps are now becoming more frequently cultivated year after year (see later), individual households may identify more strongly with particular swamps than they do with the lineage uplands over which they have membership rights to make farms. This however requires more detailed examination, but is an important dynamic to consider as ultimately the total land area in local landscapes available for swamp farming is constrained, competition and/or control over access can be expected to rise, especially if it becomes an increasingly attractive activity.
Of the 71 surveyed swamp farms, nine were on land that the farmer did not have traditional access rights to, i.e. on non direct family land. Negotiating land access outside of the family's estate is in no way unusual as found in my earlier upland farming study (Atkins, 2008) and what motivates people to do so varies. In some instances it is simply down to lack of options and this is perhaps especially true for the particular land constraints of Camp 4 residents (two of the nine) but also applies to strangers who wish to farm (two cases, one at Gbapa and another at Lugbayee where somewhat unusually, a women's stranger husband had come to live in her town). With the information currently available, it is impossible to assess levels of 'swamplessness' in northern Nimba, but it reportedly exist at low levels and is to be expected as the population increases and landholdings become more fragmented. Certainly some informants when asked about their experience of farming other types of swamp (mainly drier swamps), reported that they did not have these on their land, or did not have any other swamps apart from the one we had visited. In some cases borrowing swamps may be down to some unfavourable characteristic of the individual's own swamp holdings, such as their distance, or need to fallow them. One swamp farmer at Lugbayee was farming on someone's else land because his own fertile swamp has leeches which makes it unpleasant to farm and get labourers.
Of the nine cases of farming in someone else's swamp, five were said to involve free loans from people they were related to, and three involved an agreement to give some part of the rice production to the owner, but with caveats such as if the production was good or only if the whole swamp was exploited. These later arrangements were all with non-family individuals. The final arrangement is
5For a general overview of customary and statutory tenure in the area, which will not be repeated here, the reader is encouraged to read my 2008 study around Mount Tokadeh (Atkins, 2008).
Page 12 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
interesting despite its uniqueness, because it is said to be quite a common situation over the area's borders, perhaps more so in the more heavily population districts of Guinée forestière (where noted by Bidou & Toure, 2002) since it may presage changes in the future. Furthermore it is something that has been experienced by, or is certainly known to many north Nimba households from their own over the border experiences as refugees. It involved a stranger paying US $50 to a swamp owner at Gbapa before starting farm work.
As things currently stand we have a very limited understanding of the spatial configuration of individual land holdings in northern Nimba6. It can however be safely assumed that the double hand of settlement and family history has dealt some households larger landholdings, richer in lowlands than others. To what extent landholdings are in contiguous blocks or dispersed is unknown, though this study suggests some evidence of the latter—see following section. The pattern of distinct lineage land blocks as illustrated by the Kpelle village of Nienh in Guinea, 42 km north-west of the Bololewee Liberian border (Delarue, 2007: 119), may not be the case in all northern Nimba settlements. This is probably especially true in the cases of settlements that have historically re-located, voluntarily or otherwise, such as Gbapa, New Yekepa and Dulay. The significance of this lacuna is that the promotion of lowland farming, could, unless handled sensitively, stir up land conflicts as the significance of hitherto vague boundaries between and within lineages (quarters) becomes increasingly important as the value of bottomland farming locations increases. Sentient in this regard is the observation by Delarue (2006: 145) from Guinée forestière that an important reason for participation in lowland development schemes was to affirm tenure rights. Given that watercourses are known to be the most frequently used type of boundaries in Liberia (see Wily, 2007: 166), there is a very real potential for conflicts to emerge7 through encouraging the development of these areas.
2.5 Location Characteristics
Whilst the location of an individual's swamp farming options in relation to their home is very much tied up with the particularities of their landholding histories—or ability to negotiate access to somebody else's land—the implications of location are worth considering in terms of development opportunities. As geographers, among others have long noted, distance to field constraints can have a significant bearing on crop choices, yields and farming styles (e.g. McCall, 1985). Swamp farming may or may not be combined with other farming activities and among the surveyed farmers, 51 were doing so in combination. How effort is distributed between two different farming activities is partly influenced by the physical distance separating them. Table 4 provides some indication of the range of distances between farms in terms of travel time estimates. Though not a representative sample, the data suggest that the separation of swamp farms from other farms is not unusual, which begs the question why. Whilst distances under 15 minutes can perhaps be explained by the fact that the bordering uplands might be being rested, the longer distances in combination with what is known about their swamp tenure suggests that dispersed upland and swamp farm access options may not be unusual. It is worth recalling in this regard a finding from my earlier upland farming study around Tokadeh that most inter-annual shifts in upland farm location are less than 500 metres (straight line distance) (Atkins, 2008) which in part reflects practical advantages in turns of re-using the 'kitchen' and harvesting the previous year's cassava.
6Though it is likely something could be learnt from AML's on-going resettlement activity around Mount Tokadeh, given the problems encountered, caution would be required in generalising from it, especially as the area has something of a unique history of population influx during the diamond mining boom and LAMCO era. 7It is worth noting that land tenure conflicts already exist around lowlands in the area as illustrated by the case of one informant in Bonlah who said they finished clearing their swamp late because a land dispute occurred when he first started. In perhaps a similar vein a swamp farmer on the Dayea river floodplains recounted how his farm was in the middle of a disputed area between New Bapa and a Camp 4 landowner. It is also worth noting that since customary land tenure is typically based on the rights acquired by the first occupants of an area, claims of descent to an initial swamp clearer are important to maintain. It is therefore not surprising that in reply to the question about their parent's swamp farming in the past, several informants chose to note that this is why they are farming that swamp today.
Page 13 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Table 4: Time Distance Estimates Between Swamps and Other Farms (n = 51).
Travel Time to Other Farm No. of Farmers 0 (farms border each other) 24 < 15 minutes 14 15-30 minutes 2 30 minutes to 1 hour 9 > 1 hour 2
When two or more types of farming operation have competing labour demands, synchronising them is likely to be easier when they are on adjacent rather than separate farms unless there is a clear division of labour between them. How labour allocation decisions between different farms are made were not examined but are undoubtedly contingent on various and often dynamic factors such as intra-household bargaining and crop development status. A good example of the efforts made to improve the combining of activities between separated farms is the practice of making dry nurseries for the swamp rice on the upland before swamp clearance starts. In two instances subsequent transplanting then necessitated a 30 minute walk to the swamp.
Another locational factor to consider in swamp farming is the distance between the swamp and the settlement. Whilst labour intensity decay issues with distance to the farm are often overcome by inhabiting nearby farm villages during peak labour periods, the problem remains in terms of mustering extra-household labour. As will be seen in the next section, this type of labour is often an important element in swamp farming and though only one informant clearly stated that the distance of his farm was a problem in hiring such labour, it is likely that it is felt by others. Table 5 gives a tentative idea of some of the distances involved just within the surveyed farms, which certainly did not cover the most distant swamps in each settlement. A solution for some distant farmers is to hire labour from other settlements instead and in two cases, cross-border options were closer.
Table 5: Straight Line Distances from Home Settlements to the Furthest Surveyed Swamp Farm
Settlement Distance (km) Camp 4 4.8 Bonlah 2.4 Gbapa 4.1 Kahnla 0.9 Leagbala 1.3 Lugbayee 4.1 Makinto 2.2 Sey Geh 1.6 Vanyanpa 2.4 Zolowee 1.6 Dulay 3.4 Geipa 1.7 Sehtontuo 0.8 Yolowee 1.3 Zortapa 1.7
Page 14 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
3. SWAMP FARMING
Swamp farming takes place in individual social contexts, and though the household describes the most common framework in which resources are allocated to it and decisions made, it is important to be aware of other contexts and different intra-household arrangements.
One of the surveyed swamps at Vanyanpa was said to have been jointly farmed by two first cousins who also had their own separate uplands. Though this is probably an unusual arrangement, getting individuals to come together to farm outside of their household has been the main vehicle of swamp farming promotion in the area by NGOs—pre-war the Ministry of Agriculture did likewise (see later). To what extent these organisations expect that the individuals they help draw together via the incentives they provide, such as tools, food and cash, will persist to farm in the same group way post-project is unknown. Their intentions may be predominantly relief as opposed to development orientated. Though the reality is that few if any do, individuals cooperating with others outside of their households to share the burden of their respective swamp farming tasks in reciprocal work groups, is far from unusual. A critical difference between this and NGO-inspired group farming is the retention of control by the individual over their own farm.
Among the surveyed swamps, 51 had been farmed in conjunction with another type of farming activity within the household. How labour and resources are partitioned between different farming activities depends on intra-household arrangements. Understanding the complexities of these processes was beyond the scope of this study and the finding that the majority of the households doing swamp farming along with another type of farming are doing so as a shared endeavour between husband and wife needs to be handled cautiously. Though in only eight mixed farming cases was the swamp explicitly said to be for someone, and in seven of them it was the wife or mother, a few replies that women control the rice kitchen, i.e. have control over the use of rice harvests, suggests there is much more to be understood. Though a neat distinction between individual and joint harvest control incentives in household farming may not always be evident, in some cases it was clear that swamp farming had been motivated by particular objectives. Sometimes this may mean part or whole of a swamp is designated for this intention. In Bonlah, one farmer described his swamp that was destined to finance a house construction project as gbor tain or pot taboo which hints at the complexities of competing demands on the harvest. Whether the swamp rice harvest is destined for sale or household consumption is contingent on various changeable factors, such as other income sources, rice prices and taste preferences. The key point though is that household swamp farming is typically conducted within the arena of intra-household negotiation. Though the same can be said of other household farming activities, the fact that many if not all of the various tasks involved in swamp unlike upland farming, can and are performed by women without men, adds a critically important angle. Though the data are not available to do justice to examining this issue, any future swamp development initiative must be mindful of gender issues8, especially given the dominance of male land ownership.
Having briefly covered the social context of swamp farming, the different activity phases involved will now be considered especially in turns of the variety of ways they are performed. Whilst only a preliminary study, it is hoped that by emphasising the diversity of these practises, it will be possible to start thinking about them in terms of swamp farming styles with the implication that any promotion of lowland farming will need to tailor its cloth accordingly.
Having looked at the broad organisation of marketing channels in northern Nimba in the previous sections, it is time to turn to the specifics of the perennial crops examined to see how their production, transformation and storage characteristics inter-relate to the opportunity and constraints of these channels.
8It would however be better to avoid simplifying the issue of who might gain or lose from swamp development only in terms of gender since factors such as age, marital status and health also influence who farms swamps, particularly as a sole farming activity. Understanding the importance of such farming for the elderly, widows, unmarried women and the disabled, all of whom were encountered in this study, would best be accomplished with a representative sample study.
Page 15 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
3.1 Swamp Farming Phases
3.1.1 Vegetation clearance
The prior history of a swamp farm determines the nature of the vegetation to be cleared—recall Figure 4 earlier illustrating the diverse histories of the surveyed farms. Some farms previously in fallow may need trees to be felled, which is a strongly gendered task performed by men. Others may only require 'brushing' of the shrubby and grassy vegetation a task women often perform, and this was a frequently cited reason why they are so engaged in this type of farming compared to that in the uplands which almost always requires felling.
The vegetation in a swamp not only shapes the nature and extent of the work required to clear it, but can also inform the farmer about its fertility potential through the presence or absence of indicator plants. How the vegetation is read, may also influence the choice of clearing method. Plant identifications are still outstanding for some of these names and more research is required to understand their precision. The regular presence of two rich soil indicators during swamp visits, Impatiens villo-socalcarata and Cyclosorus dentatus or/and C. striatus, perhaps implies their tolerance of a broad spectrum of fertility levels. Given the problems that weedy grasses can cause swamp rice farmers, understanding the ecology of, for example, the infamous fahn fahn leh, could generate practical extension messages on how to keep it in check or discourage it. A couple of informants at Bonlah and Dulay believed that burning their farms would encourage weeds so desisted from it.
Figure 5: Swamp Clearance Dates
There are two traditional methods of clearing swamp vegetation: cutting and burning the trash or cutting and letting the trash rot down. Swamps that are cleared by burning are called blah-tié (hot swamp) in contrast to those which are not burnt blah-drou (cold swamp). Some informants believed that farms should be burnt the first year they are brought back into production after being in fallow and thereafter it is not necessary. Though the data suggests this pattern is often to be found, perhaps indicating that the advantages of non-burning to reduce weed growth are well known, they also indicate that other clearance method choices are made. Of the 36 surveyed farmers who did burn their farms in 2013, 25 did so in swamps that had previously been fallowed. In comparison, only 11 of the 33 who said they had not burnt, concerned previously fallowed swamps.
Page 16 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
In recent years, a third method of swamp clearance has started to become popular in northern Nimba, namely spraying with non-selective herbicides—see Appendix C for a list of those encountered. This method was used on 11 of the surveyed swamps in 2013, of which only three had previously been in fallow. Interestingly, however three of the sprayed farms were also said to have been burnt as well, though in one this was only in some areas of it.
Figure 5 illustrates the extended period from December to August over which swamps in 2013 were reported to have been cleared. Though there is a discernible peak in May, there is no evident pattern according to whether swamps are combined with upland farming or according to swamp type. When asked why they cleared when they did, a wide range of responses was given. Quite a few related to combination strategies with their upland farms, e.g. after 'scratching' (sowing) it. Others to the specifics of their swamp, e.g. because in a high bush fallow, needed to start early or needed to do it early to avoid the flood water from the St John river. Whereas others related to labour issues, such as illness or problems getting a work group to do it. This latter example highlights a key element of swamp work scheduling, namely the importance of extra-household labour and both the time and financial implications of acquiring it.
As can be seen from Figure 6, only a minority of the surveyed swamp farms were cleared only with household labour. The other three options, in which household labour is also typically involved, require finance and getting this is probably an important limitation on the size of swamps that are cleared and their work scheduling. Reciprocal kuus involve a set number of people coming together to work on somebodies farm on the understanding that every member of the work group will benefit from the kuu visiting them in turn. Though a couple of informants said they were in large kuus (27-30 people), which may require commitment to a long payback period, most were said to have been smaller (< 15 people). To what extent reciprocal kuu sizes are determined by the length of the return commitment period is unknown, but perhaps more important is the cost of hosting the kuu the day it comes round. Kuu members expect to be fed a good meal and provided with extras such as cane juice and cigarettes. Unless these are provided to an acceptable but hard to quantify standard, the kuu will not be encouraged to work efficiently. Several informants were members of reciprocal kuus and also hired in additional labour to complete the clearance work. Sometimes these additional hires were from the farmers own kuu group, which may allow for a better day rate to be negotiated.
Figure 6: Type of Labour Used for Swamp Clearance in 2013
Page 17 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
As hired farm labour requires being provided with a good meal plus extras, as with a reciprocal kuu, it is still a challenge to calculate its true cost. However, figures reported for the daily rates and numbers of persons hired, do start to provide an indication of the financial outlay involved in making a swamp. Figure 7 shows the relationship between reported labour hire costs (minus their food and sundries) and swamp size for the 28 surveyed farms where data were available9. Though there is something of an expected positive relationship between cost and farm size, the data also reflect variation in the number of labourers hired, in part a reflection of household labour contributions, and probably more significantly, variation in daily hire rates which ranged from 100-200 LD. This latter point hints at a significant hidden cost that was noted earlier in relation to distance constraints, finding potential hires and negotiating their price.
Figure 7: Swamp Clearance Costs Relative to Farm Size. Costs do not include feeding the workers.
The blue data points in Figure 7 represent the two cases where the farm was cleared by a hired sprayer without any additional extra-household labour. Their cost includes the purchase price of the chemicals, which in both instances were sourced by the hirer. On a per hectare basis, Figure 7 indicates that the cost of this sometimes alternative option (not all vegetation can be cleared by spraying) is competitive, and that is without the inclusion of the feeding costs of daily hires. As several informants pointed out, spraying is becoming popular to clear swamps because of the economies it offers. Should spraying become a major form of swamp clearance in the future, it will be interesting to see if farm sizes and their work schedules change.
9Several informants, unsurprisingly, had problems recalling the number of labourers they hired the previous year and the accuracy of all data given the length of the recall period must be born in mind. Of the 38 farms that reported only using hired labour, cost data for ten of them was uncertain, incomplete or included a combination of spraying and manual labour hire.
Page 18 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
3.1.2 Rice Planting
A majority (51) of the surveyed swamp farmers reported that they had planted their rice in a nursery10 before transplanting. A further 13 used this method along with broadcasting primed seeds, with the latter method often reserved for the drier part of mixed type swamps. Thus only seven farmers broadcast all their swamps, which as will be discussed later, suggests a significant degree of adoption of a relatively recently introduced methodology. My suspicion is that this has become popular because of the greater flexibility it allows in work scheduling. What however is not yet clear is to what extent, if at all, ideal swamp rice harvest dates are envisaged in these schedules. To be able to schedule the harvest according to a desired time frame means knowing the duration of the variety(ies) of seed rice available, which is only one variable among many that farmers use in their selection of their seeds.
In Maawe, lowland rice is called zor in contra-distinction to kpona gbu, upland rice. Among rice scientists, it is thought that in West Africa, lowland rices varieties are mainly of a long-grained sub- species of Asian rice (Oryza sativa var. indica), whereas upland rices are made up of a short grained Asian rice (O. sativa var japonica), as well as African rice (O. glaberrima) and hybrids between them (Mokuwa et al. 2013). The extent to which a clear species/varietal distinction exists according to topographic position of the farm remains to be genetically verified in northern Nimba. The differing hydrologies of swamp farms in the sample would perhaps suggest caution, and certainly one farmer reported growing an upland variety on their drier swamp portion and another reported formerly having a variety which could be used in both locations. Another variety with the same plasticity was reported in my 2008 study (Atkins 2008).
As rice is a self-pollinating crop, varieties maintain their distinctiveness. Worldwide, farmers tend to name their crop varieties but how consistent this is can vary considerably. A study of rice naming in The Gambia found that a variety can have different names and different varieties can share the same name all within the same village (Nuijten & Almekinders, 2008). The authors show however that there are also elements of naming consistency, especially for lowland rices and within villages. The median number of reported rice varieties sown in 2013 according to their distinct names was just two, and as Table 6 shows, there is no evident distinction according to swamp type. In total 35 distinguishable names for the rices grown in 2013 were given for the 71 swamp farms across 15 settlements and these are shown in Appendix D along with details on their etymologies. Whilst not a representative sample, there are two notable features of this data: 21 names were only cited once, some of which are likely to be synonyms, and only three names were listed across more than half the 15 settlements (nuhn zor, 24 times in 12 towns, zor pulu, 17 in 11 and zor zolo, 17 in 9). Looking at the only characteristic that was collected about the named varieties, their duration, the data for nuhn zor indicate responses ranging from two to six months, with 18 in the 3 to 4 month range. Whilst this might suggest some variation within the named variety, akin to one of Nuijten and Almekinders (2008) aforementioned findings, it may equally relate to recall issues and different understandings about the time period asked about and how it is measured11.
Since farmers do not always make a swamp farm every year and rice seeds are not thought to remain viable for more than one year, a break compels them to search for seed. Farmers who farmed a swamp the previous year may also be obliged to do likewise if their seed stock was lost, sold or consumed. Table 7 indicates that only a minority (18) of surveyed farmers used their own seed supply from the previous year and highlights the various ways in which seeds were acquired. One method of seed acquisition not shown in Table 7 was mentioned during an explanation of why an appreciated variety was not used in 2013: the farmer had not been in a harvest kuu on a farm with this rice and thus didn't have the opportunity of getting it through payment in kind. Yet another method of getting rice that was missed by only questioning about seed acquisition was also mentioned in Zortapa12, namely being given a portion of the rice nursery after helping to transplant out the seedlings.
10A distinction was not asked between wet and dry nurseries, but it was clear in many cases they were dry. 11The duration of a rice variety is standardised by plant breeders in terms of measures such as the number of days from which 50% of the trial sample emerge to harvest. Farmers use more practical estimates from different start points such as from the time of transplanting or broadcasting. Furthermore, their time measures may be different. Richards (1996: 215) reports how farmers in Sierra Leone count the number of clear lunar months seen between planting and harvesting, so a so-called 3 month variety actually ripens within up to 120 days. 12It was only in Zortapa that I worked with a female assistant and I don't think it is any coincidence that I learnt of these two methods there as women are far more involved than men in seed management, transplanting and harvesting.
Page 19 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Table 6: Number of Named Rice Varieties in 2013 Swamps
No. of All Swamp Type Varieties Swamps Dry Watery Mixed 1 24 4 10 10 2 32 2 15 15 3 13 2 3 8 4 2 0 2 0
If the finding in Table 7 that most swamp farmers need to acquire new seeds by means other than their own supply is generalisable, it is important to consider what this might mean in terms of the range of choice of genetic material available to them. One supposition is that it both provides opportunities to experiment with new varieties and hinders the re-acquisition of previously used but lost ones. Though 24 farmers claimed they had never used any other varieties previously than the ones they used in 2013, some of the responses were considered dubious and answers probably depended on who was asked, e.g. the husband rather than the wife. Certainly some respondents noted that it was difficult to find zor seeds and it would seem that in many instances it is a question of getting whatever is available. One woman in Geipa reported how she simply asked to buy zor seeds in Zualay market and was informed by the vendor it was a three-month variety and she knew no more about it. In Sey Geh an informant said that he had once unwittingly used a 10-month variety he had been given in his town.
Table 7: Methods of Swamp Rice Seed Acquisition in 2013
Method of Acquisition No. of Farmers
Borrowed 2
Bought in Town 12
Bought out of Town 13
Bought in and out of Town 1
Credited 2
Exchanged for a Service 1
Gifted 5
Own Supply 18
Swapped for Upland Rice 3 Mixed Methods 12
Unknown 2
Acquiring seeds through diverse personal networks is probably the norm. Nine of the out of town rice purchases were in towns known to have marketplaces, but this does not mean they were necessarily impersonal purchases at the market. Though some marketplaces are seed source options sometimes, it is not thought that they offer much in the way of varietal choice, but this requires investigation. The importance of personal networks may thus be a reflection of limited choices albeit one that may enable confidence or knowledge about what is being got. Some seed sourcing options, notably gifting and borrowing were reported to be often through family members, which hints at some of the counter factors that despite limited choice may stabilise, or restrict, the varieties sown. Women sourcing seeds through their networks to their natal settlements was mentioned and is likely to be an important factor in explaining variety diversity within settlements. The particular history of many Camp 4 residents is certainly responsible for some unique seed sourcing options back to their original home towns in Bong County.
Page 20 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
No past studies on the use of swamp rice varieties in northern Nimba have yet been located. Informants were however asked about their recollections of the varieties their parents had used and/or what their varietal choice was like pre-war. One analytical issue with these recollections is that swamp farming was, as will be seen in the next section, different in the past and thus seed exchange stimuli are not comparable. Whilst some people said they had the same varieties in the past as they have today, others recalled lost ones, with fleeing from the war sometimes clearly given as the causal factor, and presumably this was an important context for varietal change. In a study of the impact of conflict on genetic resources in Sierra Leone, Richards & Ruivenkamp (1997) stress the importance of altered social cooperation patterns on local seed systems. Some people in northern Nimba observed that individual seed management practises had changed and people more often sell or eat their seed supply these days. In short, it is difficult to discern the changes that have occurred. The data do however suggest that whilst seed acquisition is not an even playing field today, it is not yet possible to say whether it was any more egalitarian pre-war.
3.1.3 Weeding Swamp Rice
Weeding is often an important element of swamp farming to ensure that the rice is not smothered by emergent vegetation. Table 8 shows the number of times swamps were reported to have been weeded in the 2013 season. When respondents were asked about their experience of farming different types of swamps and the pros and cons of each, several replied that watery ones required less weeding. The number of times a swamp is weeded is dependent however on more variables than weed growth alone. The seemingly high number of watery swamps which were not weeded masks the fact that weeding was not carried out for various reasons ranging from an inability to do so through ill health or because of prioritising work on the upland farm, to use of selective herbicides. At least six farmers did not weed their swamps because they felt there was no need, and for three of these, they attributed this to the thoroughness of earlier brushing and cleaning. Individual swamps have their own particular weed ecology which can shape the weeding task and prior management actions such as burning or fallowing may influence weed growth patterns. One farmer also mentioned another key element, the properties of the rice itself, when he noted that the popular zor zolo variety covers the grass after one weeding. To what extent this reflects a characteristic of the variety or a reflection of weeding time in relation to the rice growth stage is not known.
Table 8: Number of Times Swamps Weeded in 2013
Swamp Type No. of Weeding Periods Watery Drier Mixed All Swamps Swamps Swamps Swamps No weeding 9 1 4 14 Once 19 5 23 47 Two Times 2 2 5 9 Three Times - - 1 1
Table 9 highlights the period from May to November over which swamp farms are weeded. The extent of this period, which here shows a peak around July to August, is probably a reflection of factors such as differences in farm preparation and planting times, use of different duration rices, different hydrological characteristics as well as variables related to the farmers ability to get on with weeding.
Table 9: Swamp Rice Weeding Months in 2013 NB: No data were available for 7 informants which accounts for 10 missing weedings
Weeding May- June- July- Aug- June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Round June July Aug Sept First 1 1 1 14 1 15 5 8 5 Second 2 3 1 Third 1
Page 21 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Table 10 shows the different types of labour that were used to remove weeds from swamps in 2013. Weeding is often, but not always a female activity. Reciprocal kuus are an important form of labour for this activity and groups of up to 25 people were reported. How these are organised in terms of the time worked and differences in swamp sizes and weed infestation levels is not known. The daily rates reported for hired weeding groups varied from 80-225 LD, with 100 LD the most frequently cited. Some informants clearly stated that the rate was relative to the weeding task. One of the few farmers who had a laid out swamp said that the weeders he hired were paid per 20 x 20 span plot. Reported total weeding direct labour expenses ranged from 500 to >5,000 LD, but there were often recall problems of the number of people involved and it seems that hires can sometimes come on their own accord or in small groups. How this organisation influences their additional food costs is unknown.
Table 10: Forms of Labour Used to Remove Swamp Weeds in 2013 NB: Data were not available for 11 farmers and a further 11 were no weeding was done
Type No. of Farmers
Only own labour 1
Self sprayed 1
Kuu 15
Hired labour 21
Hired a sprayer 2
Kuu & hired labour 8
Hired a sprayer & labour 1
Table 10 shows four cases of the use of selective herbicides instead of manual weeding. Like the use of non-selective herbicides for swamp clearance, this is a new technology and indeed one of the cases was described as an experiment that was considered successful, though the task was nevertheless completed by hand. As pointed out by this farmer, the success of spraying depends upon it being preceded by a dry spell of weather but the recommended rain delay periods for the products used in northern Nimba are not known. Not included in Table 10 is an unfortunate case where something went wrong during spraying, perhaps the dosage, and some of the rice was killed, and weeding was completed by hand.
3.1.4 Swamp Rice Pests and Diseases
When farmers were asked an open question about the main problems they face making a swamp farm, unsurprisingly a wide range of responses were given, sometimes mentioning labour mustering difficulties (14 times) and weeds (11 times). As a category, animals that either damage their crops and/or hinder workers were the most frequently cited problem group and these are shown in Table 11. The groundhog stands out as an important pest of swamp farms. One means of reducing their predations is to construct a fence around the farm, but this is an additional task that needs to be done at a busy time before the rice is established. Some comments suggest that fencing is more often a male task but women are known to do it. Among the surveyed farms only 28 were fenced in total or part and half of these concerned swamps with an attached fenced upland, which reduces the additional length required to include the lowland. As swamps farms are typically irregularly shaped, their perimeters can be long. Of the 77 separate measured swamps, perimeters estimates ranged from 119-974 meters (average = 351m, median = 316m). Though shortcuts would reduce required fencing lengths, the work is nonetheless clearly significant. As several comments indicate, it is also not a fail- save solution and for some farmers, the effort of fencing is probably not deemed worthwhile. Factors such as whether the farm is surrounded or not by secondary bush, where groundhogs proliferate, and whether the swamp is particularly watery, which apparently they do not like to enter, probably influence the fencing decision. Apart from fencing, one farmer at Dulay mentioned another method to control groundhogs, through hunting them with dogs.
Page 22 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Table 11: Crop Pests Cited by Swamp Farmers
Name of Pest No. of Liberian English Maawe Common Name Scientific Farmers Groundhog sorbaye Greater Cane Rat Thryonomys swinderianus 47 Ground Itch fleh-fleh African Mole Cricket Gryllotalpa africana 28 zein Mannikin spp. Spermestes spp. Birds 27 sia Weaver spp. several different spp. Rat vom ? Muridae 15 Red Deer zolo Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus 5 Termites gbele-bor 4 weney Worm ? ? 4 norn Fish 3 Leeches nenpa (?) ? Hirudinea 2 Squirrel Sciuridae 1 Red Ants 1 Black Ants 1 Caterpillar 1 Water Roach yebagogo ? ? 1
Unknown Insect 1
The frequent citation of fleh-fleh as a swamp rice pest is interesting because the mole cricket is generally considered more prevalent in upland fields when damp (Heinrichs & Barrion, 2004: 21). When they are found in lowlands, they apparently evacuate the rice field levees when the water rises (ibid.). A better understanding of their distribution in swamps in relation to the hydrological patterns would be useful. Curiously they were not reported as a pest by any drier swamp farmers though one of the mixed swamp farmers who mentioned them had swamp which was predominantly dry. Farmers reported that fleh-fleh cuts the rice stems but how damage relates to rice growth stage and cricket movements remains to be determined. Another problem with this pest is the nasty bite it gives field workers.
Birds of several species are well known rice pests in Liberia (Bashir, 1983). Though the name zein seems to be used quite narrowly for the mannikins, the Black and White Mannikin (Spermestes bicolor) and the Magpie Mannikin (S. cucullata), my ethno-ornithological enquiries in the area suggest that sia is used for a wider range of species. A preoccupation of several informants when discussing the rice varieties they use and when they plant them was to ensure that they ripen at the same time as other farmers to avoid the risk of heavy predation in early maturing fields. The foraging ranges of the major rice bird pests are not known, but Bashir (ibid.) notes that damage is less on farms located 10- 20 km from nesting and roosting sites but also indicates that nest sites may change between years. A finer understanding of the movement patterns of 'rice birds' in relation to food resource availability across the landscape could help inform the design of potential control measures. This could help determine the extent to which current swamp farming practises in the area maintain or limit rice bird populations, such as the infrequency of second harvesting—see later—and the degree of synchronisation in rice phenology at the landscape level through swamp work scheduling patterns and varietal choices.
The main direct measure to combat bird damage to the first rice harvest is through scaring, mainly by children with sling-shots, but this demands a permanent daytime presence during vulnerable growth stages. At Bonlah, one farmer linked rice variety duration changes to the decline of bird-scaring because children today are now going to school. One farmer at Makinto said he hung cups with stones inside to make noise and another at Camp 4 had strung up a long net to try and catch the birds. Indirect measures relate to morphological characteristics of the rice varieties used, for example the
Page 23 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
long awns of the appropriately named zein nyer wee zor, literally "mannikin eye bust zor". The frequency of such bird deterrent traits in swamp rice varieties, and the selective pros and cons of these, remains to be properly examined.
The Phase II ESIA work of Ara Monadjem suggests several candidate species captured under the name vom. Identifying these will be an important step to working out their ecology and designing control measures. There is a very real possibility that as farming in the lowland landscape continues to develop, it will continue to favour the growth of vom populations. Several farmers considered vom as their worst crop pest but unlike the larger rodent they are familiar with, the groundhog, they have limited control measures against the pre-harvest damage they cause13.
Whilst more work is needed to identify the preliminary list of swamp rice pests in Table 10, and quantify their significance, it is useful to make a distinction between those that were listed predominantly for the hindrance they cause workers: the two worms, the two ants, leeches and the water roach. Though they were mentioned only a few times, that may simply be because they were considered of lesser importance to the actual crop pests. For those unfortunate to have these invertebrates in their swamps, they can contribute to real problems in getting labourers to work there. In a related vein, it should be noted that an important factor that has often been noted in dissuading swamp farming in the past, health concerns, do persist in the area. Whilst specific research on this topic is required, it is worth noting that unconfirmed reports from the health clinic at Lugbeyee indicate that people rarely present with schistosomiasis14 symptoms. This is of course just one disease among several that is potentially transmitted through working in swamps. Perceptions of diseases within these environments may be bound up with etiological understandings that differ from those of bioscience and these will need to be better understood.
During the survey, the only lowland rice disease explicitly mentioned was yah bah 15 and from seeing an infected farm and discussion of its symptoms, Rice Yellow Mottle Virus (RYMV) is strongly suspected. This is considered one of the most damaging lowland rice diseases in Africa and is on the increase (Kouassi et al. 2005). A very simplified description of the transmission pathway of this virus is that it often resides in wild rice species which act as reservoirs from which insect vectors, mainly beetles, spread it to cultivated rice, from which secondary infection takes place via contact between infected and healthy leaves. The main symptoms of RYMV are leaf yellowing and stunting, which can induce significant yield losses.
Yah bah was reported in five settlements, Gbapa, Sey Geh, Zortapa Leagbala and Kahnla and suspected in Camp 4, but may well have been experienced more widely. Its appearance seems to be episodic, e.g. mainly in 2011 in Zortapa (but accounts differed) and 2012 in Kahnla. To what extent farmer responses to the disease are responsible for any patterns of occurrence are unknown. Swamp abandonment the following year was mentioned twice. Kouassi et al. (2005) note that the destruction of virus reservoirs by fire in the dry season and removal of rice regrowths can be effective. Management guidance will need to be based on understanding local perceptions of disease causation. Two farmers linked the disease to particular weeds (fahn-fahn leh and zein tou leh) that they thought attracted it. As some farmers believe the prevalence of the first of these weeds is promoted by clearing farms through burning, this could inadvertently preserve the virus reservoir. Two other farmers believed it was caused by a caterpillar or an insect. Medicine (agro-chemicals) for yah bah were said to be available in Guinea and these are presumably insecticides that can limit the population of virus vectors. One woman at Kahnla said she had sprayed her rice nursery with what sounded like a herbicide the year after experiencing it in order to limit it. A farmer at Leagbala reportedly consulted the town elders when he experienced yah bah on his swamp and followed their advice to use gele kele or sasswood (Erythrophleum ivorense), which he claimed worked.
The main control method being developed for RYMV is the promotion of resistant strains based initially on the screening of natural resistance found in certain varieties (ibid.). Two farmers at Zortapa noted that yah bah particularly affected nuhn zor and yor wele zor, both popular varieties (see Appendix D)
13The importance and causes of post-harvest rice losses are unknown, but here at least some small rodent control methods exist such as storage structure design and keeping cats around them. 14Yet in the LAMCO era, the Swedish Institute for Tropical Medicine apparently had a team at Yekepa working on this disease under the Liberian Institute for Biological Research (USAID, 1979: 304). 15Meaning unclear (yáa means sickness and ya to sit down and both were given). Some informants made a distinction between upland and lowland variants of yah bah.
Page 24 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
but one also noted it did not affect zouh zor. In order to limit the impact of this disease in northern Nimba more research is needed to understand perceptions about its pathways, details of its ecology and potential mitigation methods as well as resistance within rice varieties.
3.1.5 Swamp Rice Harvests
Swamp rice yields are difficult to quantify. Six farmers said they did not count the bunches that they put in the rice store. Even those that did have a recollection of the quantity they harvest sometimes pointed out that an additional but unknown amount was given to the harvest kuu or eaten around the time. These unaccounted but not necessarily negligible subtractions from yield estimates may well be quite widespread. They would certainly have to caveat any attempts to standardise the three main rice grain measures used (un-threshed bunches and two main bag sizes for threshed 'seed rice', 50 kg and the 100 kg ones commonly known as ballawalla16). Though not attempted with the available data, it would be useful in the future to get some idea of yields in relation to the areas sown and the quantities of seed rice used. Several units were given for the latter measure (cups, buckets, dishes, kengayes and pans as well as bags, all of not necessarily uniform sizes), and despite the challenges of standardising them, planting densities need to be understood, and may be an important means of buffering yield losses from crop pests.
After the first harvest, swamp rice tillers may enable a second harvest, though the incomplete data suggests this often goes unexploited, with a common response being that the birds ate it. Weed growth and presumably swamp hydrology and variety characteristics are likely to influence this potential harvest. Thirteen respondents did however say they had harvested it and curiously it was particularly prevalent among respondents in Dulay (all 6) and Zortapa (5 out of 6). Though some of the reported quantities from this harvest were significant, with 5 x 50kgs sacks and 1 ballawalla being the two largest, albeit from swamps on the larger end of the spectrum, the potential importance of smaller quantities for some people should not be ignored. Two respondents said that their elderly mothers had exploited this harvest and another two observed that children could use it to make country bread. An improved understanding of the second harvest would be useful when considering the importance of old rice plants for harbouring RYMV, the benefits of tillering vigour in varietal preferences and the potential that the unharvested grains sustain bird pest populations.
In lieu of any quantification of swamp rice yields, responses to a simple question about the perception of swamp productivity are worth bearing in mind. When asked which was more productive for rice, a swamp or an upland farm of the same size, 45 replied swamp, 20 said it depended on factors such as the soil, three wouldn't be drawn to answering and only three thought the upland. This finding can perhaps be seen as an endorsement of the agronomic position that swamps are generally more productive. However, as the foregoing discussion on rice growing practises has hopefully emphasised, understanding these type of factors is vital to avoid the error of thinking that the yields obtained on asocial experimental plots can straight forwardly be achieved in the real world.
3.1.6 Other crops grown in swamps
One drawback to swamp farming that is often considered a disincentive to its development in Liberia, is the lack of opportunities it offers to grow other crops apart from rice (e.g. Westphal et al. 1987, Whalen, 1983). During the survey, some farmers mentioned this as an advantage of upland farming, though sometimes this was expressed only in terms of cassava growing opportunities, rather than the usual gamut of upland intercrops. An interesting finding of this study is that only 13 respondents said they had not grown any other crops in their swamps, and ten of these added caveats that implied they could of had they had seeds, time, etc.
A significant difference between the agronomic potential of watery and drier swamps is that the latter lend themselves to dry-season gardening. Typical crops grown after the rice in such swamps are groundnuts (peanuts), maize (corn), chilli pepper, okra, bitterballs and various leafy greens.
16The name apparently originates from an episode of a popular 1980s Liberian TV series of the same name in which a woman's lover hides himself in such a sack with comic consequences when her husband returns.
Page 25 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Sometimes double-cropping is possible in March-April and May-June before rice planting begins. The dry season potential of a swamp depends not only on its specific soil and hydrological characteristics, but also the means and disposition of the farmer.
Once a workable hydrological characterisation of swamps is defined, a specific study of the opportunities and constraints they offer for these crops would be very useful. This would obviously require a sound social perspective. In some circumstances they may well turn out to be more important for some actors than the rice crop. Labour arrangements for their cultivation probably differ from swamp rice farming ones. Before leaving this topic to such a study, it is worth drawing attention to one of the ways in which watery swamps are currently exploited for other crops.
During swamp clearance, the trash vegetation is often piled up into kpu kuu lah (literally, dirt packing places17) which creates rich organic mounds above the swamp waters. Though only absent from 15 of the surveyed swamps, they remained unplanted on a further 11. A typical crop grown on them is a variety of taro (Colocasia spp.) that thrives in humid soils and is commonly known in Maawe as bhelé mun kah ("eat the head") or in English, swamp eddoe in contrast to the country eddoe, which grows mainly in the uplands and is actually a different genus of aroid (Xanthosoma spp.). In Lugbayee it was said that swamp eddoes had been introduced by people from the Inland Mission in the 1970s, but its history in the region remains obscure. In Sey Geh, another variety or species of Colocosia, called gbia- tii, or black eddoe, was seen growing on one such mound. Some people are reported to maintain taboos against eating this eddoe and Zetterström (1976: 77) reports this for two quarters (gbing) in Lugbayee. Though swamp eddoes seem to be locally appreciated as an occasional household food source, it was reported that they do not have the same market demand as country eddoes, some of which at least in Zor Clan are exported to Monrovia. Whether a niche market for them could be carved out, remains to be seen. Apart from swamp eddoes, kpu kuu lah sites are often planted in the rains with the same vegetables cited earlier, though some of these, notably chilli peppers are said to be less tolerant of soil humidity, so actual crop choices may depend on local hydrological conditions, but time and seed availability are also important.
17The same term is used for the trash dump grounds behind houses that have recently been studied in Liberia as the source of anthropogenic dark earths (Leach et al. 2012). Discussion with one farmer at Lugbayee about swamps mounds suggests that there is more to be learnt about their construction and management than meets the eye: some apparently get hard and compressed and need to be broken up and scattered.
Page 26 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SWAMP FARMING IN NORTHERN NIMBA
As the preceding section has hopefully emphasised, swamp farming as an activity embraces a range of diverse practises which relate both to the different possibilities presented by specific swamp environments and the individually shaped opportunities and constraints which influence how it is conducted. Understanding this diversity is essential to formulate an effective approach to their development. This section reviews how swamp farming has been promoted in Nimba County, then moves to look at the specific changes in practise that were reported in the study area before finishing with a brief review of some individual swamp development initiatives.
4.1 Historical Overview of Swamp Farming Development in Northern Nimba
Improved swamp farming techniques have been promoted in Nimba County for just over sixty years and it is important to understand something about the approaches taken and their outcomes. Unfortunately this brief review has not been able to consider the histories of such promotion over the borders in Lola, Nzérékoré and Yomou Prefectures in Guinea and Danané Department, Côte d'Ivoire, but given the significant socio-economic linkages with these areas, the influence of swamp farming promotion there must be born in mind. If this research moves to the project design stage it would certainly be useful to investigate lessons from these areas.
In 1953, when there was still very limited government interest in agricultural development, the United States Economic Mission to Liberia initiated a swamp rice project at Gbedin, 15 km southwest of Sanniquellie, in conjunction with an extension programme. The principle motivating factor for this was concern around the steady decline in national rice production which necessitated increasing imports (Johnson, 1964: 5). The project also intended to test the feasibility of growing rice in swamps continuously to see whether this could replace upland rice cultivation and save valuable forest (ibid.). The data collected over two-years were apparently18 found to validate the logic that swamp farming was the way to increase rice production in Liberia (Anon, 1956: 8) and this has become a central tenet of national rice production policy ever since.
The Americans were proud of their achievements and Frank Pinder, the Chief Agriculturist of the US Economic Mission from 1944-1957 was eulogised for single-handedly (or so it would seem from the account) convincing Liberians to grow rice in their swamps (Department of State, 1951). In 1955, the U.S. Foreign Operations Administration published a document on the Gbedin project experience, unabashedly called "Liberian Swamp Rice Production: a Success" (Meaux,1955). This contains some interesting information about the extension methods used in the 'interior' of Sanniquellie District and also alludes19 to the coercion that was involved. All Clan chiefs were 'urged' to put in a Clan swamp rice farm and 19 out of the 20 clans20 in the District did, with the exception being Yarmein whose non- participation was "...because the Clan is located in the extremely hilly section of the district, bordering on French Guinea and does not have suitable swamps" (Meaux, 1955: 43). The demonstration value of the Clan swamps was considered a success, particularly as regards one technique:
"Through this program, native people even those deep in the interior have learned for the first time, how to transplant rice in swamps. They are also learning by watching the results in these swamps, the advantages of transplanting rice in the deep and very wet swamps, which are so numerous in Liberia. Heretofore rice had been broadcast and oftentimes in wet swamps. This resulted in a very poor stand and loss of valuable seed. By transplanting rice in deep swamp at the right time, weeds are easier to control while a good stand is assured with less seed used." (Meaux, 1955: 44). Whilst it might be possible to accredit the Gbedin extension work for ushering in the adoption of transplanting techniques in 'traditional' swamp farming, the actual means of implementing modernised water-controlled swamp development at the Gbedin site is difficult to consider a success, yet the
18The results of this study are said to have been reported in (Suakoko) Station Bulletin No. 1 "Studies to Determine the Most Economical System of Rice Production in Liberia" (Anon, 1956: 8) but this has not been seen or located. 19E.g. on page 34 "Often when the work would slacken or the Chiefs would lose interest it became necessary for the Rice Specialist to inform the District Commissioner who would put pressure on the Chiefs." 20Zor Clan's swamp was at "Gewee Headquarters", presumably Zorgowee, and Sehyi Clan is not listed and might not have existed under this name at the time.
Page 27 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
model used remained in vogue for many years afterwards. The original Gbedin project was discontinued after just five years for various reasons of which the "lack of support of the local people is believed to have been the greatest contributing factor to the failure of the project to take hold" (Johnson, 1964: 13). Given that a large area of land was taken away from the three neighbouring communities by the government and a new form of agriculture imposed on them, this is not surprising. Regardless of this experience, the project was re-vamped by the government in late 1961 with the assistance of 15 Taiwanese farm technicians. Its objectives were to develop 1,200 ha of swamp and to relocate and train 600 families in swamp cultivation (Monke, 1981). A key element was the establishment and training of the Dokodan21 Cooperative to provide the necessary credit, access to materials and water control needed (Johnson, 1964: 24-5). The project however experienced manifold problems and fell far short of its objectives (Monke, 1981: 122). Today the cooperative structure still limps on without being able to supply many of the inputs and services it used to and the government draws on the area to supply seeds for its favoured improved rice varieties.
In 1972 the government initiated a second approach to swamp rice development, the Expanded Projects, which aimed to help individual farmers develop their own swamps. Where this worked in Nimba and the actual nature of the support provided to swamp farmers is not known but, by 1975 though, about 1,000 ha of small swamps had been identified nationally, only half of this area was developed and the project was abandoned in 1977 (ibid.).
In the mid to late 1970s, Integrated Rural Development Projects (IRDPs) came into fashion and according to Monke (ibid.) these partly took over where the Expanded Projects had left off in the development of small scale swamp farming. One critical difference however is in terms of the focal point of IRDPs. Whereas the Expanded Projects allegedly worked with individual swamp farmers, at least the larger of the two IRDPs in Nimba County worked uniquely with groups.
In 1980, Partnership for Productivity (PfP), who had hitherto been funded by LAMCO to develop sustainable communities around Yekepa post ore depletion, received a five years grant from USAID to implement an integrated project in Yarmein, Zor and Sehyi clans. An important focus of PfP's proposal was to concentrate on encouraging farmers, either individually or in groups, to develop rice production in small swamps and floodplains (USAID-Liberia, 1979: 36). Who it favoured is not known22 and unfortunately no documentation has been located detailing its achievements beyond the note in a baseline document from 1982 that at the beginning of its USAID grant, there were only 13 swamp farmers (PfP, 1982: 26). Whilst presumably it managed to increase this number, the project experienced numerous problems (PfP, 1982:8) one of which was its relationship, especially in Zor Clan, with the much better-funded other county IRDP, the German financed, Nimba County Agriculture Development Project (NCADP) which had started in 1979.
Details of NCADP's approach to swamp farming development are not known, but by 1986 when its remit had expanded to the whole county, including PfP's three clans, and it had been renamed the Nimba County Rural Development Project (NCRDP), it had a very clear group focus. The overall objective of the NCRDP was to improve the living and working conditions of small farmers by a self- help approach via farmer groups called Farmer Development Associations (FDAs) to which all project activities and extension were geared (Westphal et al. 1987: 1).
Following the on-set of the civil war, aid to Liberia became more relief focussed and swamp farming projects formed part of this. More often than not these were group-farming efforts working on a negotiated site often close to the town belonging to an influential landowner, with the aid organisation providing technical oversight, tools and incentives such as food for participants to lay out and farm the swamp. Almost invariably work on these swamps ceased once the projects closed. Examples of this can be found at Bonlah where Catholic Relief Services did this in the catechist's swamp and in Geipa where Agricultural Relief Services did likewise in a swamp belonging to probably the wealthiest person in the town.
21According to Johnson (1964: 24) this name means "Let us try" in Maawe. 22The grant document has a description of its proposed loan procedures, which though they clearly could provide finance for farmers to develop their swamps with loans of up to $1,000 at any one time, to be eligible, they had to be members of an Area Cooperative (USAID-Liberia, 1979: 335-7).
Page 28 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
4.2 Swamp Farming Changes in the Study Area
When the surveyed farmers were asked about how swamp farming had changed, the typical response were that their parents only made a blah tii (burnt) swamp farm attached to their upland, which was farmed for one year before abandoning it (like the upland farm) and rice seed was broadcast. The majority of informants were of the opinion that swamp farming had become more important in recent years.
During an interview at Geipa, the research assistant identified a more subtle but potentially more significant insight into swamp farming changes when seen in the longue durée. He recalled that swamp rice use to be planted very early so that it was ready before June. However this rice really attracted birds, which had nowhere else to go, so this discouraged people from the activity. The key discovery that got people into swamps, according to him, was learning to plant zor later. To understand the significance of this, a historical detour is necessary.
In 1928, Mr & Mrs Schwab undertook an expedition to Liberia for the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, and this brought them as close to the present study area as Sanniquellie. The results of their trip were eventually published with enrichment from Dr. G.W Harley, who from 1926, had lived among the southern Maa (Mano) around Ganta. This provides probably the most detailed early account of life in the interior of Liberia. Two observations from this publication (Schwab, 1947) help ground the Geipa observation:
Page 55: "Rice, the principal crop, is planted twice during the year practically everywhere except in Sapā. The first planting is for a small, tide-over crop; this is planted in low, moist places. In Gio, seed from the dry-time swamp crop is used to plant the upland, rainy-season farms23."
Page3 57-8: "This is particularly true in the Mano country where some people make dry-time farm in the swamps. When the season is at its driest the swamp is cut and burned, then planted without waiting for the rains. There is enough moisture in the soil to mature a crop before the rains flood the area. As soon as this patch of swamp rice is up, a small patch will be planted at the edge of the swamp in time to benefit by the first rains. Still higher land will be only when the real rains are expected. In this way the Mano man has a succession of crops and is seldom without rice to eat."
The role of swamp rice farming in Geipa may then have gradually shifted from a tide-over crop to a more integrated addition to upland farming. Whether birds alone are the drivers of this is unlikely. In Yarmein clan, Zetterström's discussion of agriculture makes no mention of swamp farming—recall Meaux's remark above about no swamp farming in this clan—and though this is perhaps an oversight, he makes the interesting point that in comparison to Liberia as a whole, because local upland farms were usually larger and a smaller proportion of the harvest was sold, most families still had old rice at harvest time (1976: 47). Though this historical change requires further research24, the very real possibility that the complementarity between swamp and upland farming may have manifested itself in at least two different ways in the not so distant past, highlights the importance of considering diverse change pathways. As Richards (1987) has pointed out for Sierra Leone, reading a transition from upland to swamp farming as a simple evolutionary progress towards a more 'advanced' form of permanent agriculture, and one advocated by the colonial politics underpinning agronomy, is to deny the evidence that farmers adjust the complementarity between the two according to the opportunities and constraints presented by both their labour and environmental settings.
Westphal et al's study of farming in 20 towns across the centre of Nimba County slips into simple evolutionary analysis when noting that frequency of swamp farming varied between towns, though admittedly they do call for further research: "It must be assumed that population pressure resulting in short fallows and low soil fertility for upland field has lead already to a higher use of swamps" (1987: 34). Whilst the personal perspectives offered by the surveyed swamp farmers in northern Nimba cannot be added up to form a systematic analysis of the drivers of change, they nonetheless provide
23Such a practise presumably favours rice varieties with plasticity between uplands and lowlands. 24Very tentatively I suggest that a potential difference between swamp and upland complementarity in Zor and Yarmein clans could relate to different forms of social adjustment to the imposition of head tax in the wake of pacification c.1920. Whereas most Yarmein towns were founded before the 19th century, those visited in Zor are mainly younger and have a mixed Maa-Gio population.
Page 29 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
revealing insights into the multidimensional factors that underlie changes in both techniques and the popularity of swamp farming in recent years.
Farmers linked changes in their particular swamp farming practises to diverse sources of exposure to new ones. The use of seed nurseries was often said to have started pre-war25, sometimes through formal extension channels through 'agriculture people', projects or at school. One woman in Zortapa said the idea had come, along with making blah drou swamps, both from people being sent to Gbedin for training and via local women who had married there. Peer-to-peer learning of new methods is clearly a vital adjunct to formal dissemination as well as an essential means of adapting new knowledge to local settings. The recent26 and on-going uptake of agro-chemicals in swamp farming, with Dulay perhaps claiming the longest experience (only from 2010), and which has still not reached all the surveyed towns (e.g. Sehtontuo), seems to have been spread entirely by informal peer-to-peer learning. Whilst it is not surprising that adoption pathways are different and unsynchronised, the refugee experience of swamp farming presumably forced a quicker adoption rate, as well as a greater reliance on swamp farming as a source of livelihood, and hence why it stands out in recollections27.
The increasing popularity of swamp farming in general was typically expressed in terms of push factors away from upland farming. The type of factors mentioned connect to an array of complex and heterogeneously experienced change processes. For example, male labour availability for upland farming clearance may be limited in some towns through alternate local employment opportunities such as working for AML contractors (e.g. at Kanlah, Gbapa and Zolowee) yet in others, the same effect is due to out-migration for schooling or artisanal mining as noted at Zortapa. Together both these factors could be seen as altering the economics of local labour supply and lie behind suggestions that the driver is the general unaffordability of farm labour. Whilst there is no doubt that local daily hire rates have gone up since my 2008 study, and may well have doubled—precision on the matter is difficult given their negotiability—the causes of this may or may not relate to mine-induced local inflation, since cost of living expenses and farm gate rice prices have also gone up nationally.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the labour issues stimulating swamp farming are not all about male labour. Though the question ―who does this type of farming most in the town? was variably translated and understood, and consequently drew a range of answers, women were generally acknowledged to be most involved. When clarification was asked about which women, the involvement of unmarried women was sometimes noted. Though this topic requires more systematic examination, the hypothesis can nonetheless be put forward that if marriage practises are changing, and the number of women who are unable to draw on male labour through conjugal obligations is on the increase, these circumstances could also contribute to increased levels of swamp farming.
Accepting labour issues as central to swamp farming changes, whatever the stimuli behind their price and availability, draws attention to the relevance of understanding changes in its organisation. As hinted at in an earlier section, motivating a group of labourers to apply themselves to the task they are paid for is vital. In this regard an interesting change in the format of paid kuus has occurred in some places in recent years. This is the adoption of what is known as a ticket, lottery or portion format, whereby the hirer divides up the task into equally sized blocks for the number of workers who then draw lots to find out their assigned area. This format apparently overcomes the problem of people slacking off when clearing in a line and complaining their area is more difficult. It was reported in Bonlah and Dulay, but may be more widespread, and apparently the idea came from over the border as recently as four years ago in the latter locality and perhaps earlier in the former. It is also particularly suited to clearance work in open swamps, because they are easier to mark out than uplands, especially in the still rare instances where swamps have been laid out in bunded plots.
Even though respondents were asked about their rice selling behaviour it is unwise to draw too much from the numerical weight of particular answers as what encourages or discourages a household to sell rice depends on a range of factors that were not examined, such as other income streams,
25Westphal et al (1987: 36-7) found it was done 'surprisingly' frequently pre-war. 26There is however an earlier history of the use of such products during the PfP USAID grant period (1980-5), but a key difference now is the ease of availability of the products on Guinean, and to a lesser extent Ivorian markets. For Guinea, this was said to be have started quite recently (c. 2010). 27Whereas Black & Sessay's study of Liberian refugee shaped environmental changes in Yomou Prefecture, Guinea, notes that it was the refugees who brought swamp farming knowledge and experience (1997: 600) the inverse seems to have been very much the case where the northern Nimba sample farmers sought refuge.
Page 30 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
strength of need, and size of harvest. Probably the most interesting revelation from some answers about rice sales was the existence, sometimes, of a premium on swamp over upland rice. Rice markets are likely to be especially complex in the northern Nimba region given the presence of two international borders and three currency exchange rates, and this issue requires further examination. In Bonlah, this zor premium was said to be driven by demand from Guinea and apparently emerged around 2011. In Dulay, there was some contradiction over which had a higher price but interestingly the demand was said to be coming from NGOs, such as ARS (Agricultural Relief Services) and DRC (Danish Refugee Council) buying seed rice. These claims have not yet been verified with these organisations. In Geipa it was pointed out that different prices were not available in town but could be obtained at Zualay market. It was also noted there that timing is critical for any difference in price, firstly because the upland harvest comes in before the main swamp rice one (November-December as opposed to December-January) and when rice is scarce in the hungry season, there is said to be a preference for zor because when it is parboiled at harvest, it swells up more than upland.
The latter suggestion that a culinary property of swamp rice gives it a higher market demand chimes with what the survey results suggest might well be a significant change in rice taste preferences given earlier statements. With specific reference to Yarmein Clan, Zetterström (1976: 137) noted that, ―Most tribal people seem to agree that upland rice tastes better and that it has "more substance" than the swamp-rice. Among many LAMCO workers, imported rice is, however, preferred." Elsewhere in pre- war Liberia, the taste preference for upland was suggested to be a factor holding back the acceptance of swamp farm development, e.g. Kellamu, (1971: 6), Jenne (1982) cited in Frankenberger et al. (1985: 28) and Whalen (1983: 240). In this survey only six respondents stated a clear preference for upland rice, four of whom cited reasons similar to the one noted by Zetterström. Though 13 respondents said both varieties, a clear majority of 52 said they preferred swamp rice, albeit with a few caveats from four of them. To what extent culinary and taste properties of swamp rice affect varietal choice is unknown, but it is perhaps worth noting that the most frequently cited swamp rice variety, nuhn zor, is named after its aroma qualities (see Appendix D) and these were frequently brought up when it was mentioned.
In relation to rice sales, a couple of informants pointed out that they would rather sell their swamp rice than any upland they had first because, not only was it more valuable, but its harvest coincided with the payment of children's school fees for the second semester. School fees along with associated expenses (books, uniforms and food and lodging if schooling away from home) are one of the largest periodic household expenditures in Liberia. An interesting hypothesis to test is whether the post-war increase in school enrolment levels has stimulated swamp rice farming and more particularly, whether varietal duration choices are in any way influenced by the financial demands of the educational calendar. Such an analysis would need to be tempered by consideration of farm labour losses through increased school enrolment, particularly for bird scaring and for male teenagers, in upland farm clearance.
The foregoing discussion has hopefully stressed the need to understand the myriad factors that shape swamp farming decisions in northern Nimba, both whether to engage in it and how to practise it. Some additional contextualising factors could perhaps pertain in particular settings, e.g. lack of individual upland farming options where the land holding has instead been given over to a rubber plantation. Whatever they are, the key point is that these types of decisions are made in individualised contexts and though change trends may be discernible over time, swamp farming at the individual level can be quite episodic and alternate between periods of combining with upland or abandoning for several years. In other words, the stimuli shaping people's engagement with swamp farming and their style of doing it are subject to constant adjustment28. Within this context, individual swamps are still being developed and invested in, and though there might be fewer such swamps at this end of the swamp use spectrum, a glimpse of what is being done on them and how is useful.
28A good example of this is the case of a farmer at Makinto who had converted his only swamp over to rubber. Exceptional as this may be, it highlights the importance of understanding the range of possible individual-level swamp farming decisions.
Page 31 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
4.3 Evidence of Individual Swamp Development
The various activities that could be captured under the notion of individual swamp development range from the gradual removal of large trees in successive rounds of fallow clearance, to levelling and the installation of a water control system. Developing a standardised typology to identify different possible investments works, including maintenance, according to swamp type would be very useful. Variant options are likely to exist for them. For example, bunds are often made from peaty swamp soils, but are perhaps more durable and less appealing to mole crickets if made from clay that might not be found in the vicinity. Another is tree clearance where alternate uses for them need to be factored in, for example the palm wine yielding opportunities of yor (Raphia hookeri) or the valuable timber of gbor (Mitragyne stipulosa), which goes under the trade name abura.
Table 12 lists the numbers of swamps showing different investments that were encountered during the survey. Problems were sometimes encountered in the field determining the use and usability of some earthworks, e.g. single bunds as boundary markers or water control structures. It could be argued that soil turning is not an investment, but this needs to be examined in more detail. Analogies with soil puddling in Asia that facilitate transplanting and reduce weeds should be considered. One farmer who practised it in Sehtontuo thought that it helped reduce mole crickets. Another had done it in 2011 but because it brought too many worms up, which may or may not be positive for soil fertility, he stopped as it apparently made women scared to work there.
Table 12: Numbers of Surveyed Swamps with Investments NB: N= 71 except for soil turning where there was no data for 4 swamps
Investment No. of Farmers Channels 9 Bunds 18 Turned Soil 5
Some of the bunds and channels shown in Table 12 were constructed with the facilitation of NGO projects, as mentioned above. Case studies of private swamp investments are required to understand what motivates these and how they are operationalised. Some preliminary discussions suggest that they are often made with the paid labour of resident strangers or outside labourers who are brought in especially. This is not necessarily because these people have the requisite skills, but rather because they may be a more dependable labour force. The work is typically paid as piecework in contrast to the more usual daily hire arrangement for local farm labourers. At Bonlah it was suggested that local piecework labourers would risk derision for doing someone else's work. In the absence of people in the area who offer swamp improvement work as a profession, these type of constraints need to be fully explored. Whether such a profession could find a sustainable work stream in the area also remains to be seen.
For its exceptionalism, the case of a substantial and early private investment in the modern water- controlled swamp model at Bonlah is worth mentioning. The instigator was the late John Flomo who had moved from his hometown to seek work at Camp 3 during the LAMCO years and eventually headed the Dokodan Cooperative at nearby Gbedin. Circa 1980, he paid with unknown means for PfP to bring earth moving equipment onto his land and set out a modern swamp29 replete with sluices. John and his family had access to all the necessary inputs (improved rice varieties, fertilisers, a power tiller and threshing machine) and were able to double crop for several years. For whatever reasons the sluices broke down in 2010 before John passed away, and have not been repaired or the place farmed in the same way since, the question has to be asked whether this is the most appropriate vision for swamp farm development in northern Nimba? Hopefully the findings of this study have highlighted the merits of considering instead the benefits of supporting the multiple paths of lowland farming currently being pursued.
29One of his widows, Yeh Flomo, is shown in Figure 2 beside the portion of this farm that she has inherited. She was contemplating fallowing this in 2014 because of weed infestation problems.
Page 32 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
5. CONCLUSIONS: OPPORTUNITIES TO ENCOURAGE SWAMP FARMING
Back in 1979, PfP calculated that six percent of its project area (Yarmein, Seyhi and Zor clans), was occupied by swamps (USAID-Liberia, 1979: 318). It proposed a five year project to bring into cultivation 1,500 acres (607 ha) of undeveloped swamp and floodplain and train 42% of traditional swamp rice farmers in improved techniques (ibid. p. 5). Whilst there are probably some lessons to be learned from PfP's experience in implementing these targets, 35 years down the line, development projects and thinking has changed considerably. More importantly, local livelihoods have changed significantly in the intervening years and this study has shown that swamp farming has in recent times increased in popularity. Efforts to support and encourage swamp farming today in northern Nimba would therefore seem to have a greater opportunity to work with the grain of local agricultural endeavours than in the past. The challenge remains in designing an appropriate means of supporting these as a one-size fits all approach is clearly not suitable.
Alternatives to a blueprint approach to lowland farming development will need to address both the environmental diversity of swamps as well as the diversity of factors shaping individual swamp farming styles. Perhaps the most effective way to encourage farmers to improve the agronomic properties of their own swamps, especially in terms of soils, water and pest control is for them to discuss options on-site with an experienced technician. This has been done in the past in Liberia but to what extent it has incorporated hybrid, incremental approaches remains to be seen. Knowing who is swamp farming where and their swamp development potentials and investment ambitions could form part of a Geographical Information System (GIS) to provide watershed level perspectives in support of landscape level planning initiatives with local stakeholders. Mechanisms to resolve existing and avoid potential conflicts over land through swamp development are a prerequisite. The architecture of the financial mechanisms to encourage swamp development opportunities will need to be researched. However, unlike pre-war where PfP itself provided loans to help farmers develop their swamps—which is just one finance option among others including grants and subsidies—today some private rural financial service providers are now operating in Liberia.
Beyond the specifics of individual swamp development options, there are potential avenues to support swamp farmers in general through the assimilation, sharing and learning of knowledge to help them improve their harvests. Four promising entwined pathways for this stand out around farmer management of their soils, weeds, pests and diseases and crop varieties. Detailed studies on these topics will be required. To complement these, specific studies are also needed to better understand local swamp hydrologies and the social organisation, and the roles and future opportunities of non-rice crops grown in lowlands.
Page 33 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
REFERENCES
Anon (1956) Fifth Annual Progress Report of the Cooperative Program in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries under the Joint Liberian-United States Commission for Economic Development. Monrovia: Department of Agriculture and Commerce. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDAAY686.pdf
Atkins (2008) "Agriculture and Land Tenure around Mount Tokadeh, Liberia." Pp 6-45 in Environmental Baseline Studies, Volume 4, Communities. Arcelor-Mittal Liberia. Monrovia. Available at: http://www.arcelormittal.com/liberia/documents/AMNimbaEnv-BaselineVol4.pdf
Audebert, A. Narteh L. T. Kiepe P. Millar D. & Beks B. (2006) Iron Toxicity in Rice-based Systems in West Africa. Cotonou, Benin: Africa Rice Center (WARDA). Available at: http://www.warda.cgiar.org/publications/irontoxicity.pdf
Barrera-Bassols, N & Zinck J. A. (2003) "Ethnopedology: a worldwide view on the soil knowledge of local people." Geoderma 111(3-4): 171-195.
Bashir, E.A. (1983) An assessment of bird pest problems to rice in Liberia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome.
Bidou J-E. & Toure, J. B. (2002) "Problèmes fonciers et environnement en Guinée forestière." Cahiers d'Outre-Mer 217: 119-138. Available at: http://com.revues.org/1066
Black, R. & Sessay M. (1997) "Forced Migration, Land-Use Change and Political Economy in the Forest Region of Guinea." African Affairs 96(385): 587-605.
Carter, J. E. & Mends-Cole J. (1982) Liberian Women: Their Role in Food Production and Their Educational and Legal Status. Profile of Liberian Women in Development Project. Monrovia: University of Liberia. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAN413.pdf
Chérif, M., Fofana, M., Audebert, A. & Zouzou, M (2006) Significant aspects of iron toxicity in West Africa. Pp 141-148 in Audebert, A. Narteh L. T. Kiepe P. Millar D. & Beks B. (Eds) Iron Toxicity in Rice-based Systems in West Africa. Cotonou, Benin: Africa Rice Center (WARDA). Available at: http://www.warda.cgiar.org/publications/irontoxicity.pdf
Delarue, J. (2007) Mise au Point d'une Methode d’Evaluation Systemique d’Impact des Projets de Developpement Agricole sur le Revenu des Producteurs: Etude de Cas en Région Kpèlè (Republique de Guinée). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. L’Ecole doctorale ABIES, AgroParisTech: Paris. Available at: http://pastel.archives-ouvertes.fr/pastel-00772023
Delarue, J. (2008) "Innovations et aménagements des bas-fonds en Guinée forestière." Pages 137- 151 in Défis Agricoles Africains. Edited by Devèze, J-C. Paris: Editions Karthala.
Department of State (1951) Point Four Pioneers: Reports from a New Frontier. Frank Pinder, Albion W. Patterson, Horace Holmes. Department of State Publication 4279, Economic Cooperation Series 28. Washington: Division of Publications, Office of Public Affairs, Department of State. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAA456.pdf
Frankenberger, T.R., Lichte, J.A., Gedeo, A.S., Jallah, J.K. & Sherman, M.J. (1985) Farming systems research in three counties in Liberia: a reconnaissance survey in Grand Gedeh, Nimba, and Bong counties. Gainesville, Florida. Farming Systems Support Project. University of Florida. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAS248.pdf
Jenne, T. (1982) Agriculture in Liberia: Realities, Problems, and Potentials. Institut fur Regional Wissenschaft der Universitat Karlsruhe, Germany.
Johnson, W.F. (1964) End of Tour Report prepared and submitted by William Frederick Johnson, Agricultural Economics Advisor, Acting Chief, Agriculture Division. Available at http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDAAY687.pdf
Page 34 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Heinrichs, E. A. & Barrion A. T. (2004) Rice-Feeding Insects and Selected Natural Enemies in West Africa: Biology, Ecology, Identification. Los Baños (Philippines) & Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire): International Rice Research Institute & WARDA–The Africa Rice Center. Available at: http://books.irri.org/9712201902_content.pdf
Kellemu, J. (1971) "Swamp Rice Cultivation among the Kpelle." Liberian Research Association Journal 3(1): 1-17.
Kouassi, N. K., N'Guessan, P., Albar, L., Fauquet, C. M. & Brugidou, C. (2005) "Distribution and characterization of rice yellow mottle virus: a threat to African farmers." Plant Disease 89(2): 124- 133. Available at: http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/PD-89-0124
Leach, M. Fairhead J. & Fraser J. (2012) "Green grabs and biochar: Revaluing African soils and farming in the new carbon economy." Journal of Peasant Studies 39(2): 285-307.
McCall, M. (1985) "The significance of distance constraints in peasant farming systems with special reference to Sub-Saharan Africa." Applied Geography 5(4): 325-345. Available at: http://doc.utwente.nl/69394/1/McCall85significance.pdf
Meaux, G.C. (1955) Liberian Swamp Rice Production: a Success. Washington: U.S. Foreign Operations Administration.
Met Office (2012) Climate Change Scenarios. ESIA ArcelorMittal Western Range Concentrator Project (Phase 2), Volume 3 Part 4. AML: Monrovia. Available at: http://www.arcelormittal.com/liberia/documents/Volume_3_Part_4_Climate_Change_Scenarios_M etOffice.pdf
Monke, E.A. (1981) ―Rice Policy in Liberia,‖ Pages 109-140 in Pearson, S., Stryker, J. D. and Humphreys, C. P. (Eds) Rice in West Africa: Policy and Economics. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABB800.pdf
Mokuwa, A. Nuijten E. Okry F. Teeken B. Maat H. Richards P. & Struik P. C. (2013) "Robustness and strategies of adaptation within farmer varieties of African rice (Oryza glaberrima) and Asian rice (Oryza sativa) across West Africa." PLoS One 8(3): e34801. Available at: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0034801
Nuijten, E. & Almekinders C. J. M. (2008) "Mechanisms explaining variety naming by farmers and name consistency of rice varieties in The Gambia." Economic Botany 62(1): 148-160. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12231-008-9012-0/fulltext.html
Nyerges, A. E. (1997). The social life of swiddens: juniors, elders and the ecology of Susu upland rice farms." Pp 169-200 in Nyerges, A. E. (Ed) The Ecology of Practice: Studies of Food Crop Production in Sub-Saharan West Africa. Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach.
Partnership for Productivity (PFP) (1982) Baseline Socio-Economic Analysis of Upper Nimba County. Partnership for Productivity.
Richards, P. (1987) "Upland and Swamp Rice Farming Systems in Sierra Leone: An Evolutionary Transition?" Pages 156-187 in Comparative Farming Systems. Edited by Turner, B. L. & Brush, S. B. New York: Guilford Press.
Richards P. (1996) "Culture and community values in the selection and maintenance of African rices." Pages 209-229 in Valuing local knowledge : indigenous people and intellectual property rights. Edited by Bush, S. & Stabinsky D. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Richards, R. & Ruivenkamp, G. (1997) Seeds and Survival: Crop Genetic Resources in War and Reconstruction in Africa. Rome: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Available at: http://www.bioversityinternational.org/uploads/tx_news/Seeds_and_survival_245.pdf
Page 35 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Schwab, G. (1947) Tribes of the Liberian Hinterland. Report of the Peabody Museum Expedition to Liberia. Edited and with additional material by George W. Harley. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum. Available at: http://archive.org/details/tribesofliberian00schw
Westphal , U. Clemens M. Gaesing K. Grossmann U. Kunze D. & Weiskopf D. (1987) Baseline survey on smallholders in Nimba County: to facilitate decision taking in project planning. Seminar für Landwirtschaftliche Entwicklung (SLE) Publication No. 109. Berlin: Fachbereich Internationale Agrarentwicklung, Technische Universität Berlin.
USAID-Liberia (1979) Nimba rural technology; OPG with Partnership for Productivity. Project No 669- 0154. USAID Grant Agreement. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDAAL497.pdf
Whalen, I. T. (1983)"Social and Agricultural Change in Liberia: The Adoption of Improved Swamp Rice among the Kpelle." Cornell University, Unpublished PhD.
Wily, L. A. (2007) So Who Owns the Forest? An Investigation into Forest Ownership and Customary Land Rights in Liberia. Monrovia: Sustainable Development Institute/ FERN. Available at: http://www.sdiliberia.org/sites/default/files/documents/So%20Who%20Owns%20the%20Forest_full %20report.pdf
Zetterström, K. (1976) The Yamein Mano of Northern Liberia. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Page 36 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
APPENDIX A: SWAMP VISIT QUESTION GUIDE
Date: Location: Informant: #
Other farming last year? How far to other farm?
Fenced? Canals? Bunds? Trash Mounds?
1. Characteristics. Swamp Category: How does the water get in this swamp? Is it different in different areas? How would you call this type of swamp?
Soils: What type of soils are found here? (local names)
Vegetation Indicators: Do you have a leave or stick here that that made you think it would be a good or bad place to grow rice?
2. Tenure & Clearance Whose land is this swamp on? If not your family land, how did you get permission to make farm here?
How did you clear this swamp? Cut Burn Spray
Did you turn the soil over (plough) it?
What month did you clear it? Why then?
Who helped you clear this swamp? Own, with husband/wife, kuu, day boy?
Had the place been farmed in 2012? If YES, how many years had rice been grown there without a break? If NO, how old was the vegetation here when you cleared it?
Will you make farm here this year? If not, why not? If yes, when will you rest this swamp?
Page 37 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
3. Crops: Rice varieties used:
Name Meaning of Name Where in swamp?
Duration
How do you plant the rice, broadcast or nursery? Why? For all varieties? When did you learn nursery?
What month did you sow the rice? Same for all varieties?
What quantity of seed rice you use last year?
Where did you get the seeds from? If bought, why and from whom and where?
Have you ever used other varieties? Why did you stop using them?
How many times did you weed the rice? Why & When?
How much did you harvest? Was this a good, average or poor amount? Explain why?
Do you ever harvest the second rice?
What are the main problems you face making swamp? How did you deal with these?
Have you ever used chemicals in your swamp? If yes why? If not, why not?
What produces more rice, swamp or highland farm if same area?
What tastes better, swamp or upland rice?
Can you grow any other crops in this swamp, if yes, what, where and when?
Page 38 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
4. Discussion
Have you other types of swamp on your land that you have farmed in? How did they compare to this one? What one do you prefer to make farm in?
What are the crops for in this swamp? Who in the household are they for?
Do you ever sell rice? If yes, what do you sell first, swamp or upland?
Do you make swamp farm every year? What made you do swamp farming every year/ some years?
In this town, who today makes more swamp farms, men or women? Why?
Were you born in this town? When? If yes, when you were growing up, did your parents make swamp farms? Were people more in to swamp business then or now? What has made this change?
What else has changed with swamp farming? Rice varieties, chemicals, frequency of use, ploughing, trash mounds etc.
Page 39 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
APPENDIX B: LOCAL SOIL TERMS
Swamp Type Terms given for soils types found TOTAL in farmer's surveyed swamps. Watery Drier Mixed Swamps Swamps Swamps Blah-tee* (black swamp) 25 1 7 33 Blah-zolo (red swamp) 2 1 3 Blah-tee & blah-zolo 1 6 7 blah-tee, blah zolo & blah kun 1 1 kar zay (mixed up soil) blah-tee & ti-wah-plu (black & 1 1 white mixed soil) nya zele-zele (sandy) 1 1 nya zele-zele & Blah-tee 5 5 nya zele-zele, Blah-tee & blah- 1 1 zolo gbo-lah/gbo (clay) 1 1 2 gbo-zolo (rd clay) 2 1 3 Gbo & nya zele-zele 3 3 Gbo-zolo, gbo-pulu & blah-tee 2 2 gbo, blah-tee & blah-zolo 1 1 gbo yee zaye 1 1 blah-yee-zaye & nya zele-zele 1 1 No Information Available** 1 2 3 6 TOTALS 30 8 33 71
* Though this is the Maawe term, included within the totals are the Gio terms (gbo-tii/gbaye-tii). Also included is one classification of a soil as nascent blah-tii. An important point to note is that whereas gbo-tii in Dan equates to blah-tii in Maawe, the Maawe term gbo means clay.
** Four of these are due to the fact the informants, all from Camp 4, were Kpelle speakers.
Page 40 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
APPENDIX C: LIST OF AGRO-CHEMICALS ENCOUNTERED
Trade Name Compositions Importer Use EIS/Woudou- Etablissement Ibrahima SACKO Lambda-cyhalothrin Insecticide Matrine-Sako et Fils International (Guinea) EIS/2,4D Sel Etablissement Ibrahima SACKO d'amine Sako 720 2,4D Sel d'amine Herbicide (selective) et Fils International (Guinea) SL Sénésamôkô Etablissement Ibrahima SACKO Glyphosate 480g/L SL Herbicide et Fils International (Guinea) 480 gr/L de sel Herbi-Total isopropylamine de Post-emergent SAREF International (Guinea) Glyphosate, 18% de herbicide
surfractant Etablissement Conde Mamady Fasodemena Glyphosate 480g/L SL Herbicide et Fils (ECMF)-Guinea
Page 41 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
APPENDIX D: NAMES OF RICE VARIETIES GROWN IN SWAMPS IN 2013
* = No. of Informants who Name/No.of Settlements in Which Named. Town Codes: C4 = Camp 4, Bon = Bonlah, Gba = Gbapa, Kah = Kahnla, Lea = Leagbala, Lug = Lugbeyee, Mak = Makinto, Sey = Sey Geh, Van = Vanyanpa, Zol = Zolowee, Dul = Dulay, Gei = Geipa, Seh = Sehtontuo, Yol = Yolowee & Zor = Zortapa.
Variety TOWN C4 Bon Gba Kah Lea Lug Mak Sey Van Zol Dul Gei Seh Yol Zor TOTALS* Farmers 6 6 5 4 2 6 3 6 3 6 6 6 3 3 6 71/15 nuhn zor 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 1 4 2 3 24/12 blay yorn 1 1 2 1 1 2 8/6 Gbaytonwee lee 3 1 4/2 yor wele zor 1 2 2 1 1 3 10/6 zor zolo 1 1 2 4 2 1 4 1 1 17/9 Mawe-Leh 1 1/1 Zor pulu 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 17/11 Ton zohr 1 1/1 kah zor 1 1 1 3/3 kor pelle zor 1 1/1 zor tii 1 1 1 1 2 1 7/6 la ya kah zor 1 1 2/2 Gbatuah 1 1/1 zor tia-tia/gbee-tii leh 1 1 2/2 zor kay bor 1 1/1 nyun panawi zor 1 1/1 Suakoko 8 1 1 2/2 Suakoko 9 1 1/1 Coughton 2 2/1 We la luu 1 1/1
Page 42 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Variety TOWN C4 Bon Gba Kah Lea Lug Mak Sey Van Zol Dul Gei Seh Yol Zor TOTALS* zouh zor 1 1 2 4/3 Cuttington 2 5 7/2 Gissi 1 1/1 grand-pa 1 1/1 Yung'un 1 1/1 Joeg 1 1/1 jou jemaine 1 1/1 yii-ta 1 1/1 Checko-checko 1 1/1 zein nyer wee zor 1 1/1 kor-kor zor 1 1/1 glor (upland) 1 1/1 gbor ne lepas zor 1 1/1 bah zor 1 1/1 3-month 1 1 1 3/3 Name unknown 1 1/1 No. of Names 8 7 7 4 3 5/6 4 10 6 5 6 10 5 4 6 133
Page 43 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Variety Details (Etymologies, durations and other notes)
1) nuhn zor: [bamboo worm zor]. Duration responses ranged from two to six months, with 18 in the 3 to 4 month range. This variety was frequently scent to have a sweet scent and the name apparently derives from the similar odour said to emanate from the bamboo (piassava) worm, a palm-weevil larvae, when cooked. One informant at Sey Geh thought that this variety was also called 'deux bieres' as it had the same scent and another at Makinto said that a synonym for it was gaa zor, guinea-fowl zor. 2) blay yorn: [swamp push]. One informant thought this variety was the same as zor pulu, but as another said they had planted both, perhaps only similar. Durations given ranged from 3 to 6- 7 months. One farmer noted it doesn't like drier swamps and another that it has a strong seed against birds. 3) Gbaytonwee lee: [Gbaytonwee woman] a.k.a Nor Kona zor [the name of the woman ?]. Said to be a 4 month variety (or 3 months after coming out the nursery). Said not to get too tall, so can't fall down. 4) yor wele zor: [The infructescence of Raphia hookeri zor]: Durations said to range from 2-3 months to 6-7. 5) zor zolo: [red zor]. Named after the colour of the husk, not the grain. Durations said to range from 3 to 5-6 months, with the median being 4. 6) Mawey lee: [Mawey mother]. Said to be a five month variety. 7) zor pulu: [white zor]. Though responses ranged from two to six months, most durations were four months. 8) ton zor: [bamboo worm zor (synonym) but different from nuhn zor]: Said to be five month variety. Grains yellow, compared to the black and yellow grains of nuhn zor. 9) kah zor : [reed/wild cane zor] a.k.a Yonkor [a legendary Kpelle (?) long-necked woman]. Durations given ranged from 3-4 months to 6. 10) kor pelle zor: [short man zor]. Said to be a three month variety. 11) zor tii: [black zor]. Apart from one informant who though tot was an eight month variety all others said it took from three to four months. One informant at Gbapa said it has the same scent as nuhn zor and another at Vanyanpa that it was also called 'deux bieres' a synonym that has also been used for nuhn zor. 12) la ya kah zor: [fanner standing place]. Said to be a four to five month variety. 13) gbatuah: [just a name]. Said to be a four month variety. 14) zor tia-tia: [fast zor] or gbee-tii leh [black lipped mother]. Said to be a four month variety. 15) zor kay bor: [take one year]. Despite the name, said to take 10 months 16) nyun panawi zor [frying oil zor]: Said to be a four month variety. 17) Suakoko 8: An improved variety. Said to be four to five month variety. 18) Suakoko 9: An improved variety. Said to be both 4 and 5 month duration 19) Coughton: Reported to be both a three and six month variety 20) whee lah lu: [animal in the bush]. Said to be a five month variety. 21) sóo zor: [horse zor]. Said to be a four to five month variety. Name derives from its tall stature like a horse's neck. An informant at Camp 4 said it grows in both lowlands and uplands. 22) Cuttington: Cuttington is a private university not far from CARI (the Central Agricultural Research Institute), the national rice breeding station, and this name may be used for more than one varietal release from here. A range of durations were given under this name, from an improbable one month to six. 23) Gissi: This could be an improved variety, though the duration given was long (8 months). 24) grand-pa: unknown Kpelle name. Duration unclear. Apparently has no awn. 25) Yung'un: unknown Kpelle name. Said to be a four month variety. 26) Joeg: unknown Kpelle name. Said to be a four month variety with a reddish colour. 27) you-kamaye: [perhaps a corruption of Mandingo (Mandinka) name jou jemaine "tillers well"]. Said to be a four month variety. 28) yii-ta: [water close, because the plants grow and bunch up well stopping water]. Said to be a five month variety. 29) Checko-checko: [unclear, said to mean "surely will produce" but also to be an unclear corruption of a 'French' name, which could also mean a Guinean or Ivorian name]. Said to be a seven month variety.
Page 44 of 45
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
30) zein nyer wee zor: [mannikin bird (Spermestes spp.) eye bust zor]. Said to be a four month variety. 31) kor-kor zor: [meaning unknown]. Said to be a four month variety. 32) glor (upland): meaning not asked, said to be a four month variety. 33) gbor ne lepas zor: [pot small foot zor: small grain but swells when you beat it]. Said to be a three to four month variety. 34) bah zor: [black duiker (Cephalophus niger) zor]. Said to be a two to three month variety. 35) 3-month. One informant said it looked like a short upland variety called kokoli
Page 45 of 45