43176 v2 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR IN LIBERIA (CAAS-Lib) Volume 2.1 - Sub-Sector Reports Liberia 2007 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 TABLES OF CONTENTS I. FOOD CROP PRODUCTION, POST-HARVEST HANDLING, PROCESSING, MARKETING AND CONSUMPTION WITH A FOCUS ON SMALL HOLDERS AND TRADITIONAL FARMING AND FOOD SECURITY ..........................................1 Acronyms.........................................................................................................................................3 1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................5 2. Review of Past Experience in the Sub-Sector......................................................................6 3. Analysis of the Current Situation.........................................................................................7 3.1 Liberian Agriculture....................................................................................................7 3.2 Status of food crops ..................................................................................................13 3.3 Vulnerabilities...........................................................................................................21 3.4 Food Crop Sector Assessment Survey......................................................................22 3.5 Findings of the Survey and SWOT of Areas visited.................................................22 3.6 Field Data Analysis of Core Commodities ...............................................................23 3.7 DRC Calculations and SWOT Analysis ...................................................................27 4. The Way Forward ..............................................................................................................31 4.1 Supporting Structures to Establish Comparative Advantage....................................31 4.2 Government Policy ...................................................................................................32 4.2.1 Policy on food imports..................................................................................33 4.2.2 Policy on Tariffs on Imported Goods (machinery, other inputs)..................33 4.2.3 Current Policy on Agro-Industry ..................................................................34 4.3 On-going and Planned Activities and Interventions of Other Partners.....................34 4.4 Policy Options, Interventions and Investment..........................................................34 4.5 Proposals for Institutional Reforms, Policy Options ................................................35 4.5.1 Policy Options...............................................................................................35 4.5.2 Investment Options (Programmes and Projects) ..........................................36 4.5.3 Indicative Costs, Returns and Risks .............................................................38 5. Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................40 5.1 Conclusions...............................................................................................................40 5.2 Recommendations.....................................................................................................40 ANNEX 1 List of Documents Reviewed...............................................................................44 ANNEX 2 People Met ...........................................................................................................46 ANNEX 3 Methodology and Key Findings...........................................................................48 ANNEX 4 Value Chain Survey ­ Questionnaire Examples..................................................55 ANNEX 5 Case Studies.........................................................................................................59 ANNEX 6 DRC Calculations (US$)......................................................................................61 II. TREE CROP SUB-SECTOR................................................................................................67 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................69 2. Methodology and Data.......................................................................................................70 2.1 Survey Methodology.................................................................................................70 2.1.1 Selection of Counties, Buying Centres, Villages..........................................70 2.1.2 Selection of Survey Participants and Interviews ..........................................72 2.2 Data...........................................................................................................................72 3. Agriculture and Economic Development in Liberia..........................................................73 4. Rural Households...............................................................................................................77 4.1 Demographics ...........................................................................................................80 4.2 Income.......................................................................................................................82 4.3 Inputs.........................................................................................................................85 iii CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 5. Land Use, Availability and Tenure....................................................................................86 5.1 Land Tenure for Agricultural Crops .........................................................................91 5.2 Land tenure and tree crop development....................................................................91 6. Agricultural Production .....................................................................................................93 7. Tree Crops..........................................................................................................................97 7.1 Rubber.....................................................................................................................100 7.1.1 History of Rubber Concessions ..................................................................101 7.1.2 Rubber Tree Stock ......................................................................................102 7.1.3 Rubber Production ......................................................................................103 7.1.4 Liberian Rubber Marketing System............................................................106 7.2 Cocoa ......................................................................................................................109 7.2.1 Trends in Cocoa Supply and Export...........................................................110 7.2.2 Cocoa Tree Stock........................................................................................110 7.2.3 Cocoa Production........................................................................................111 7.2.4 Liberian Cocoa Marketing System .............................................................113 7.2.4.1 Price Determination .....................................................................118 7.2.4.2 Liberian Cocoa Prices..................................................................119 7.2.4.3 Quantity .......................................................................................120 7.2.4.4 Quality .........................................................................................120 7.2.4.5 Credit Availability .......................................................................122 7.2.4.6 Market Information......................................................................123 7.3 Coffee......................................................................................................................124 7.3.1 Coffee Tree Stock ..........................................................................................124 7.3.2 Coffee Production..........................................................................................125 7.3.3 Liberian Coffee Marketing System...............................................................127 7.4 Oil Palm ..................................................................................................................127 7.4.1 Trends in Oil Palm Supply and Export.......................................................127 7.4.2 Oil Palm Tree Stock....................................................................................128 7.4.3 Oil Palm Production....................................................................................129 7.4.4 Liberian Oil Palm Marketing System .........................................................131 8. The Way Forward ............................................................................................................132 8.1 Tree crop rehabilitation and expansion...................................................................134 8.2 Research..................................................................................................................135 8.3 Establishment of a replanting fund for smallholders ..............................................135 8.4 Marketing and export promotion ............................................................................135 ANNEX 1 People Met .........................................................................................................137 ANNEX 2 References..........................................................................................................138 III. LIVESTOCK SECTOR....................................................................................................141 Acronyms...............................................................................................................................143 Overview......................................................................................................................................145 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................148 2. Methodology employed ...................................................................................................148 3. Current status of liberia's livestock sector.......................................................................149 3.1 Physical Context .....................................................................................................149 3.2 Farming systems .....................................................................................................149 3.3 Major Livestock Product Chains in Liberia............................................................150 3.4 Participants in the Livestock Sector........................................................................151 3.5 The institutional, legislative and infrastructure environment .................................152 3.6 Major Constraints in the Livestock Sector..............................................................152 iv CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 3.7 Major Liberian Livestock Assets............................................................................154 3.8 Synthesis and conclusions.......................................................................................155 4. Strategic Orientations and Priority Programmes .............................................................157 4.1 Recommended Major Strategic Orientations and Priority Programmes.................157 4.2 Tabular Recapitulation of Major Proposed Strategic Orientations, Priority Programmes and Activities.....................................................................................159 4.3 Programme to promote animal production poles in support to the modernization of the Liberia livestock sector .....................................................................................160 4.4 Programme to reinforce veterinary services and assistance to zootechnique research ...................................................................................................................161 4.5 Programme to strengthen the capacities of livestock product chain actors ............162 4.6 Programme of assistance to the development of pastoral areas..............................163 ANNEX 1 Bibliography .......................................................................................................164 ANNEX 2 Note d'information sur l'approche par micro projet dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pauvreté, l'insécurité alimentaire et la modernisation de l'élevage................165 ANNEX 3 Animal resources division...................................................................................168 IV. THE FISHERIES SUB-SECTOR....................................................................................169 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................171 1.1 Background Information.........................................................................................171 1.2 Institutional and legal frameworks for sustainable fisheries and aquaculture ........172 2. Review of past experience in the sub-sector....................................................................173 3. Analysis of the current situation ......................................................................................174 3.1 Artisanal Fishery.....................................................................................................175 3.1.1 Artisanal Fleet Structure ............................................................................175 3.1.2 Catch/Production ........................................................................................175 3.1.3 Value Chain ................................................................................................175 3.1.4 Market Chain ..............................................................................................176 3.1.5 Price structure .............................................................................................176 3.1.6 Cost of fishing inputs:.................................................................................176 3.1.7 Situational analysis .....................................................................................177 3.2 Industrial Fishery ....................................................................................................178 3.2.1 Fish Production...........................................................................................178 3.2.2 Value Chain ................................................................................................178 3.2.3 Market Chain ..............................................................................................178 3.2.4 Situational analysis .....................................................................................179 3.3 Aquaculture.............................................................................................................180 3.3.1 Production...................................................................................................180 3.3.2 Value Chain ................................................................................................180 3.3.3 Market Chain ..............................................................................................181 3.3.4 Situational analysis .....................................................................................181 4. The way forward..............................................................................................................181 4.1 Sub-sector policy objectives for sustainable fisheries and aquaculture management and development .....................................................................................................182 4.2 Fisheries Legislation ...............................................................................................182 4.3 Improve Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS)..........................................183 4.4 Capacity Building ...................................................................................................184 4.5 Fisheries Scientific Research ..................................................................................184 4.5.1 Baseline Surveys.........................................................................................185 4.6 Sustainable Fisheries Conservation and Management............................................186 v CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 4.7 Development of Artisanal Fishery..........................................................................186 4.8 Quality management programmes in post-harvest fisheries, value addition and export opportunities ................................................................................................187 4.9 Promote sub-regional, regional and international cooperation in fisheries management ............................................................................................................188 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................189 ANNEX 1 Investment Proposal............................................................................................190 ANNEX 2 Person met...........................................................................................................197 ANNEX 3 Organigram the ministry of agriculture ..............................................................199 ANNEX 4 Fisheries sector review ­ artisanal fisheries........................................................200 ANNEX 5 List of licensed industrial fishing vessels ...........................................................201 ANNEX 6 Fish farmers.........................................................................................................203 vi I. FOOD CROP PRODUCTION, POST-HARVEST HANDLING, PROCESSING, MARKETING AND CONSUMPTION WITH A FOCUS ON SMALL HOLDERS AND TRADITIONAL FARMING AND FOOD SECURITY By Paul Schoen Consultant, FAO Liberia 2007 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ACRONYMS AGOA African Growth and Opportunity Act ASR Agricultural Sector Review (World Bank term for CAAS-LIB) CAAS-LIB Comprehensive Assessment of the Agricultural Sector-Liberia CARI Central Agricultural Research Institute CBO Community Based Organisation CDA Cooperation Development Authority (of the GoL) CFSAM Comprehensive Food Security Assessment Mission CFSNS Comprehensive Food Security and Nutrition Survey DFID Department for International Development DRC Domestic Resource Cost ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Office EU European Union GAA German Agro Action GDP Gross Domestic Product GoL Government of Liberia Ha Hectare IDPs Internally Displaced Persons IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture IFC International Finance Corporation (of the World Bank) IMF International Monetary Fund LD or L$ Liberian Dollar LEAP Liberian Employment Action Programme LEEP Liberian Emergency Employment Programme LWS Lutheran World Service JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency MFI Micro-Finance Institution MoA Ministry of Agriculture MPP Micro-Projects Programme NIC National Investment Commission NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NPFL National Patriotic Front of Liberia NSAs Non-State Actors NTGL National Transition Government of Liberia MFI Micro-Finance Institution MT Metric Tonne Policy Analysis Matrix (World Bank tool for showing comparative PAM advantage and competitive advantage status of a sub-sector or industry) SARA Southeastern Agricultural Relief Agency SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats TOR Terms of Reference UNMIL United Nations Mission in Liberia USAID United States Agency for International Development US$ United States Dollar WARDA Africa Rice Centre I. Food Crop Production, Post-Harvest Handling, Processing, Marketing and Consumption 3 with a focus on Small Holders and Traditional Farming and Food Security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 WB World Bank WFP World Food Programme WVI World Vision International (NGO) I. Food Crop Production, Post-Harvest Handling, Processing, Marketing and Consumption 4 with a focus on Small Holders and Traditional Farming and Food Security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 I. FOOD CROP PRODUCTION, POST-HARVEST HANDLING, PROCESSING, MARKETING AND CONSUMPTION, WITH A FOCUS ON SMALL-HOLDERS AND TRADITIONAL FARMING AND FOOD SECURITY 1. INTRODUCTION This document forms a contribution chapter to the Comprehensive Assessment of the Agricultural Sector (CAAS-LIB) in Liberia and is designed to assist in indicating and specifying the potential role of specified agricultural commodity value chains in achieving the priority objectives of the government by focusing on small holders, traditional farming and food security and forms an input for the preparation of a strategic orientation framework to achieve sustainable food security, nutrition and agricultural development. It presents a number of short, medium and long-term investments proposals for the sector and discusses targeted policy options that could be considered. The basis for this chapter was a mission1 undertaken in September 2006 by the international consultant to gather and analyse information regarding the food crop sub-sector of Liberia through existing documentation (Annex 1), interviews, field observation and a survey involving work of a national consultant and enumerators. Meetings were held with a wide range of interested parties including Government and Non-State Actors (NSAs) (see Annex 2 for a list of people met). Hard data in the form of documentation or survey results are limited both inside and outside of Liberia2. A number of NGOs have however, conducted rapid appraisal and assessment surveys of the agricultural sub-sectors but these are few and far between. Even national statistics are approximates providing little concrete evidence of income, production, productivity and imports and exports. FAO statistics whilst available online and generated through crop assessment studies began only recently, although remain as broad estimates. Following the initial mission, which involved work in Monrovia as well as visiting two counties, Bong and Nimba, a survey was organised and commissioned in six identified counties to gather information on selected food crops as well as input suppliers and marketing agents. The enumerators interviewed just under 3003 farmers, traders and input supply sellers of. The core findings of this survey are presented in Annex 3 and two examples of the questionnaires used are presented in Annex 4. A number of case studies have also been developed and are included in this Chapter as Annex 5. 1 Mission conducted in September 2006 by Paul Schoen, Agricultural Economist ­ Food Crops. Field Survey managed by Franklin Henries. 2 Commonly articulated in the literature reviewed and from interviews in Monrovia, is the issue of sourcing reliable data and up to date information. See also Prof. F. K. Fianu, February 2006 "Liberia: Short-Medium Term Action Plan for Crop-Livestock Rehabilitation". He states that, "There is a huge void for basic data for planning in Liberia. No detailed weather data, soil map, data on soil types and their properties, on vegetation and details of floristics, etc. could be found. This vacuum makes planning difficult and will hold back agricultural development if it remains unaddressed. Some demographic data have been assembled and mapped by the UN Agencies, however, and are available at the Offices of Humanitarian Information Centre (HIC), UNDP, Monrovia" page 27. 3Although 300 interviews were conducted only 152 interview sets were uncorrupted. This 152 formed the core for the database. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 5 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Following the data collected during the field visit a number of farm budgets were developed covering rice, cassava and vegetable production. These were analyzed and some crude domestic resource cost ratios were generated indicating comparative advantage of each sector and the use of scarce domestic resources. Six models are provided in Annex 6. 2. REVIEW OF PAST EXPERIENCE IN THE SUB-SECTOR 4 Liberia continues to be in transition from a 14-year national civil war to peace, consolidation and economic recovery. A new Government, elected into office at the start of 2006, has been trying to establish a series of measures through which it will address urgent problems and priorities of the country and lay the foundations for sustainable consolidated peace and security leading to recovery and development. The agriculture sector is central to this strategy and is looked upon as meeting access to nutritious food, employment, and income and of course foreign exchange reserves. With a population of just over three million people, the vast majority are involved in agricultural production for subsistence purposes, producing little surplus either for the home market or for export. Commercial cash crops on the other hand, such as rubber and oil palm, attract different players and are operated at a different level. The agricultural sector is estimated to employ over 70% of the entire labour force although its contribution to GDP is only around 20%5. In 1980, GDP per capita in Liberia exceeded US$1,200 (in 2005 prices) or about US$ 3.2 per day. After 25 years of political instability, poor governance and economic underperformance, culminating in the 15 years of intermittent conflict to 2003, it had fallen to $1636 (or about US$ 0.50 per day) making it one of the poorest countries in the region. Poverty is estimated at 76%7 with 80% of the poor located in rural areas and over half the population living in extreme poverty8. Many households are food insecure, with it being estimated that 49% of the population are malnourished and 40% of children are stunted. Over 1.7 million people (half the total population) are identified as vulnerable and eligible for humanitarian assistance and food aid.9 The Government of Liberia (GoL) identified the following overarching objectives for agricultural recovery and natural resource development including: · Sustainable resettlement of all vulnerable groups (Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), returnees and conflict affected host communities); creation of employment for youth. · Enhancing food security and achieving self-reliance in the main staple crops particularly increased and stable supply and availability of food products. 4Drawn from "Liberia Agriculture Sector Review in a Post Conflict Country, World Bank, Concept Note, pag 1. 5 GoL, Ministry of Economics and Planning, Liberia Medium Term Reconstruction and Development Plan, 2001-2006, page 55. 6 The beginnings of the civil war in Liberia are typically traced to the cross-border incursions of National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) from neighbouring Cote d'Ivoire, of which Charles Taylor became leader on December 24th 1989. However, some observers point to the army coup of 1980, which overthrew the one-party regime of the True Whig Party. Others argue that it is merely the latest episode of the struggle, begun in the Nineteenth Century, between the settlers from America and the indigenous communities of the interior. 7This is the proportion of the population living on less than one US$ per day. IMF, (2006). 8NTGL (2004:7) 9 FAO Food Security Statistics, March 2006. The extent of vulnerability is difficult to discern because of conflicting assessments reported for the same township. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 6 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Improvement of access to food for the most vulnerable social groups and enhancement of the nutritional absorption capacity of the population. · Increasing income of small holders through improved production, marketing and value addition with emphasis on gender issues in agriculture. · Rejuvenating the commercial and plantation sector. · Restocking of livestock and rehabilitation of the fisheries sector. · Institutional and policy reforms directed at addressing the main pillars of governance including decentralisation, economic management, and food security. · Increasing investment, both private and public, to jump-start the sectors' contribution to overall economic development. In order to assess the performance and potential of the agricultural sector, and subsequently develop an effective strategy for agricultural development that contributes to achieving national priority objectives, particularly food security, employment and investment, the value chain of important agricultural commodities have been examined. What is shown confirms that the food crop sector is weak, primary based and almost exclusively oriented towards subsistence production, which explains the low contribution to GDP. The vast majority of Liberians depend on food imports, which substitute for local production. It is also held back by a combination of factors including poor infrastructure and input use, limited support services either privately available or from government and limited access to credit at attractive rates10. Given the fact that Liberia had been in a severe state of conflict for long over a decade until only recently, agricultural production not surprisingly continues to operate at very low levels of productivity as well as output. GoL has not been able to provide farmers, input suppliers or marketing agents with advisory services, inputs or marketing support. Government offices and facilities set up in Monrovia have had poor out reach facilities. Although an "enabling" policy environment is absent which acts as a break to development it is nevertheless a market oriented policy, even if more passive than actually active11. 3. ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION This section presents a general overview of the agricultural sector, provides a number of simply maps of land use patterns and discusses some of the key characteristics of Liberian agriculture. 3.1 Liberian Agriculture General situation. Liberia's economy was traditionally based on agriculture. Subsistence agriculture was and remains predominate amongst 60% of the population. Of the remaining 40%, who are employed in the "formal" sector, 43% of these people have strong connections 10 See Chet Aeschliman's Chapter on "Rural Finance and Agricultural Marketing Sub-Sectors" prepared for the CAAS-LIB initiative. November 2006. 11 There was some agricultural research conducted in centres such as CARI in the central counties, but these were suspended until only recently when some very small-scale work has commenced (CARI has a number of commercial crop production fields for cassava and rice but this remains very much embryonic in nature).There is some research starting up again but this appears to be limited to exploration of cassava for industrial use in the main. Agricultural development has not been a vehicle for poverty alleviation although it has the potential to do so. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 7 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 to the agricultural sector, typically in the plantation industry12. Agriculture has always been the backbone of the Liberian economy with subsistence production, rubber and timber accounting for significant shares of GDP, export earnings and employment. Subsistence agriculture, which has focused on rain-fed food crop production, has however, been characterised by its low productivity. Commercial tree crop production for export has been undertaken by large-scale plantation also includes smallholder and outgrower production systems. Table 1 shows the broad division of the economy over the 1972 to 2005 period. Table 1: Structure of GDP 1972-74 1979-81 2003-05 Agriculture 10% 11% 50% Rubber 6% 5% 18% Forestry and other 3% 9% 32% Mining/Manufacturing 36% n/a 10% Other Formal 45% n/a 40% Traditional Economy/Subsistence agriculture 15% 20% n/a Source: 1972 ­ 74 data from World Bank (1978). 1979 ­ 81 values estimated based on data from World Bank (1984). 2003 ­ 2005 data from IMF (2006). General character of Liberian agriculture. Four production systems have been identified that characterise Liberian agriculture. These are: · Foreign commercial plantations producing perennial export crops (rubber, palm oil). · State owned plantations run by the Liberian Palm Products Corporation and the Liberian Cocoa and Coffee Corporation. · Domestically owned, medium-sized commercial farms producing industrial crops for export and livestock for the local market (although these are extremely small in number). · Small traditional household farms using primitive production techniques with extremely limited use of modern inputs, which make up the majority of all farming and therefore the livelihoods of the rural population. Maps A number of maps shown overleaf and produced by FAO further help illustrate the general farming areas. These maps illustrate land cover, land use and the farming systems that are practiced. They demonstrate a heavy concentration of agriculture (tree crops and vegetable in the main) in the central belt region and root crops in the northern quadrant13. There are a few areas where commercial production has been explored such as in cassava and rice production (upland) but this is still in its infancy when compared to other parts of West Africa including Ghana for example or Cote d'Ivoire. The Liberian agricultural sector is broadly characterised by many farmers producing close to subsistence levels with little surplus for sale in the market place or for further processing and then sale (See also Annex 3 of this chapter for some summary findings from the survey conducted, which illustrates some core characteristics of farming practices in Liberia, lack of processing that takes place before commodities reach the consumer and the level of subsistence based activities that are evident for rice, root crop and vegetable producers). 12"Liberia Agriculture Sector Review - In A Post Conflict Country ­ Concept Note", September 2006, World Bank, pages 1-2. 13The consultant identified no other detailed agricultural production maps and felt that these should be presented despite their clear limitations. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 8 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 In terms of real GDP growth for Liberia, Table 2 shows that this has dramatically declined between 2000 and 2005 although suggestions are that it will pick up in the next few years. The contribution of agriculture however is shown to have been small, and even in decline. Forestry is equally a poor contributor to GDP although it had been a substantial player in 2000. Mining clearly had made a large contribution although this too has fluctuated grossly in this five-year period. Table 2: Real GDP growth estimates between 2000-2005 (% change)a Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Real GDP 25.7 2.9 3.7 -31.3 2.6 5.3 Agriculture and Fisheries 6.2 6.4 -4.3 -38.2 11.5 2.7 Forestry 70.6 5.0 22.4 -36.8 -34.4 4.9 Mining and Panning 49.8 -74.9 -12.8 56.7 49.5 -14.9 Manufacturing 127.5 -22.0 -17.4 -11.8 97.7 7.9 Services 15.0 3.2 7.0 -8.3 4.5 9.5 Source: International Monetary Fund, Liberia: Statistical Appendix, April 2006. a IMF estimates According to the multilateral and GoL's "Comprehensive Food Security and Nutrition Survey" (CFSNS) conducted between February and June 2006 a summary of the situation suggests that the: "...majority of Liberians rely heavily on agriculture production, both on a subsistence and commercial basis. Thus, the agriculture sector consists of both small farmers and [a few] larger commercial producers. Small farmers tend to rely more heavily on food crop production, while commercial farmers rely on cash crops such as palm nuts and rubber trees. The largest and most well known commercial farms include Firestone, Guthrie and Cavalla. While these are large- scale commercial farmers, some commercial farmers tend to be smaller. For instance, cocoa and coffee are produced on a very small scale. Liberians in the rural areas tend to work on plantations or farms. Before the war, the northern and central areas of Liberia were effective food crop producers. Theses areas (including Lofa, Bong and Nimba Counties) were able to produce enough excess food to supply other parts of the country. However, since the end of the civil war, many farms have not returned to pre-war productivity levels14. Furthermore according to the survey the average size of landholding for the survey was [only] 3.3 acres (ca.1.3 hectares)15. Although many rural people have access to land it appears that the size of holding has changed somewhat from before the war until now. Whilst land tenure has not been a critical problem in the past it is becoming more important in the context of access to land at the moment16. Limited access to land will undoubtedly contribute to community tension and be a course of conflict in the years to come. 14WFP and FAO CFSAM 2006, page 22. 15WFP and FAO CFSAM 2006, page 40. 16In general, land tenure arrangements are based on tribal tradition. These traditional arrangements are well adapted to the bush fallow cropping system. WFP & FAO CFSAM 2006, page 40. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 9 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Map 1: Permanent Crops and Arable Land (Percentage Intensity) for Liberia* Sparsely Vegetated Undetermined (0 - 30) 30 ­ 40 40 ­ 60 > 60 Water No Data Map 2: Land Cover for Liberia* Cropland/Grassland Cropland/Woodland Grassland Shrubland Shrubland/Grassland Savanna Evergreen Broadleaf Forest Evergreen Needle leaf Forest Mixed Forest Water *Source: FAO ­ Country Profiles and Mapping Information Services (website: http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/maps.asp?iso3=LBR&lang=en), 2006 I. Food Crop Production, Post-Harvest Handling, Processing, Marketing and Consumption 10 with a focus on Small Holders and Traditional Farming and Food Security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Map 3: Broad Farming Systems for Liberia* Farming Systems Tree crop including vegetable production and some upland rice Root crop (principally cassava and some upland rice) Coastal artisanal fishing and some swamp rice Source: FAO ­ Country Profiles and Mapping Information Services (website: http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/maps.asp?iso3=LBR&lang=en), 2006 I. Food Crop Production, Post-Harvest Handling, Processing, Marketing and Consumption 11 with a focus on Small Holders and Traditional Farming and Food Security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Core crops. Table 3 shows the level of Liberia's dependency, low production levels and fluctuating import and export levels experienced in the agricultural sector particularly for the major items of natural rubber and paddy rice. Cassava productivity, on the other hand, appears to have grown substantially from a low of 300,000 MT in the 1979 to 1981 period to a high of 490,000 MT in 2003. The value of agricultural exports has however gone down from a high of US$135 million to a low of US$34 million. Agricultural imports on the other hand have also declined but more slowly. Table 3: Basic Statistics of Agricultural Trade, Production and Fertilizer Use Land Use UNIT 1979-81 1989-91 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total Land 1000 HA 9,632 9,632 9,632 9,632 9,632 -- Arable Land + 1000 HA 576 612 595 600 600 Permanents Crops Arable Land 1000 HA 371 397 380 380 380 - Irrigated Land 1000 HA 2 3 3 3 3 - Agricultural Production Major Items Natural rubber 1000 MT 81 55 105 107 109 110 Cassava 1000 MT 300 33 441 480 480 490 Rice, paddy 1000 MT 254 191 183 145 110 100 Foreign Trade ­ Exports Total MLN US$ 555.4 376.7 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 Agricultural MLN US$ 135.6 61.6 65.5 69.3 77.5 34.0 Major Exports (share in Agriculture) Rubber, natural (dry) percent 68.0 86.4 91.5 94.5 98.1 85.2 Cocoa beans percent 8.7 4.9 5.2 1.2 1.3 11.6 Coffee, green percent 19.5 5.0 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.0 Foreign Trade - Imports Total MLN US$ 505.9 267.3 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 Agricultural MLN US$ 97.3 83.0 87.6 66.0 71.8 77.4 Major Imports (share in Agriculture) Rice, milled percent 34.9 53.8 17.4 24.7 27.9 25.8 Breakfast cereals percent 0.3 0.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 8.7 Maize percent 0.5 0.0 6.9 9.1 9.1 8.4 Agriculture trade balance Exports-Imports MLN US$ 38.3 - 21.4 22.0 3.4 5.7 - 43.4 Lands & Inputs Total Population/ Inhab/HA 5 5 8 8 9 - Arable Land Fertilizer Use/Arable kg 12 3 - - - - Land nutrs./HA Tractors/Arable Land No/1000 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 - HA Source: Various sections taken from FAOSTAT: World Bank - World Development Indicators, 2005 20It is unclear from the statistics whether these refer to industrial cassava production or simply home grown subsistence. If the latter this would be understandable at a time of civil war given its food insecurity and the ability to leave cassava in the ground until needed. Such increases may not continue in the future- correspondence with AGSF, FAO January 2007. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 12 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 3.2 Status of food crops Tables 4 and 5 illustrate the rapid decline in area harvested for rice paddy and cassava production over the war period from 1990 to 2004. Rice area farmed has averaged around 114,000 hectares with an average yield of 1 tonne/ha over this period. National production swung in this period erratically from 180,000 tonnes in 1990 to a low of 50,000 tonnes in 1994 averaging over the longer period to 2004 to around 125,000 tonnes. Cereal imports have correspondingly filled the short fall. Table 4: Core Statistics for Rice ­ Paddy Production and Imports Year Area Average National National Rice Imports ­ harvested Yield per hectare in Production Imports ­ Value $'000 (1000 Ha) Tonnes (1000 tonnes) Qty Mt US$ 1990 175.00 1.03 180.00 70,328 25,145 1991 110.00 0.91 100.00 171,945 64,200 1992 120.00 0.92 110.00 141,392 51,715 1993 60.00 1.08 65.00 178,473 48,650 1994 45.00 1.11 50.00 120,895 44,130 1995 50.00 1.12 56.20 155,169 35,100 1996 75.60 1.25 94.450 195,443 46,900 1997 135.20 1.25 168.40 147,657 24,800 1998 161.90 1.29 209.40 170,571 25,700 1999 153.70 1.28 196.30 136,091 20,800 2000 143.50 1.28 183.40 221,420* 37,000 2001 130.00 1.12 145.00 100,000 20,000 2002 120.00 0.92 110.00 100,000 20,000 2003 120.00 0.83 100.00 100,000 20,000 2004 120.01 0.92 110.00 100,000 22,000 Average 114.66 1.08 125.21 125,864 33,742 Source: FAOSTAT *Note: Combined milled paddy rice, wheat, flour maize and maize. FAO Estimate. In terms of cassava and vegetable production (non-disaggregated by type) FAO estimates show that a steady increase in the area devoted to cassava20 took place whilst the area set aside for vegetable production has been rather static. Production in both cases has also hardly changed in the 14-year period over which these statistics are available. Rice and Cassava21. Rice is the staple food of Liberia with an estimated annual consumption of 300,000 tons yet Liberia only produces about one third of this. This means there is local market potential. Although the world market price is currently depressed it sells at a fairly high price in Liberia, so making rice production for the local market profitable. Swamp rice is more profitable than upland rice production, as long as it is reasonably well managed. Poor management though, results in yields of 15 bags per acre, and a lower gross margin than upland rice. Although upland rice is low yielding there are benefits from the inter-crops grown with it. Cassava is second in importance to rice as a staple food, and important for food security with returns to cassava production quite good. A critical factor, when it comes to marketing, is the distance of the plot from the farmstead and the road, as cassava is a bulky low value and 21Based on material in David Parker's report on "Farm Management Survey of Liberian Smallholder Tree and Food Crops", June 2001, page 6-7. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 13 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 perishable crop. Developing the markets for various products that can be made on the farm from cassava could improve its prospects as a cash crop. Table 5: Core Statistics for Cassava and Vegetable Production Cassava (fresh and dried) Vegetables Year Area Quantity Yield per Area Quantity Yield per Harvested produced has Harvested produced hectare (1000 Ha) (1000 (tonnes/h (1000 Ha) (1000 t) (tonnes/Ha) tonnes) as) 1990 55.00 380.00 6.91 17.00 70.00 4.12 1991 42.00 270.00 6.43 17.00 70.00 4.12 1992 40.00 280.00 6.67 17.00 70.00 4.12 1993 40.00 245.00 6.13 17.00 70.00 4.12 1994 29.00 250.00 6.25 17.00 75.00 4.41 1995 32.81 175.00 6.03 17.00 75.00 4.41 1996 43.30 213.26 6.50 17.00 75.00 4.41 1997 47.00 282.20 6.52 17.00 75.00 4.41 1998 55.50 307.00 6.53 17.00 75.00 4.41 1999 67.00 361.30 6.51 17.00 75.00 4.41 2000 72.50 440.50 6.57 17.00 75.00 4.41 2001 72.50 480.00 6.62 17.00 75.00 4.41 2002 75.00 480.00 6.62 17.00 75.00 4.41 2003 75.00 490.00 6.53 17.00 75.00 4.41 2004 75.00 490.00 6.53 17.00 75.00 4.41 Average 54.77 342.95 6.49 17.00 73.66 4.33 Source: FAOSTAT, 2006 Markets23. The Liberian market is very small although it does have the advantage of being concentrated in Monrovia, yet its effective demand is weak due to the poverty level of most Liberians. There is a need to look to develop products that require a minimum of capital but also allow produce to be processed on the farm, extending their shelf life and enhancing their value. Examples would include dried fruit, pureed fruit and fruit leathers. These products would first be developed for the local market and as quality improves and a critical mass obtained, eventually for export. Production systems. The FAO/WFP Crop and Food Security Assessment For Liberia conducted in February 2006 indicated the very weak production systems in the country. It stated that: "Although rice and cassava is largely consumed by most Liberians, it is not grown on a large scale by any individual or entity. Subsistence farmers who use rudimentary tools and traditional methods of cultivation mostly carry out production of these crops. Moreover, there are no current available statistics describing the performance of these two crops. The only available statistics are those produced by the Bureau of Statistics of the Ministry of Agriculture in November 2001. According to this baseline survey, average rice farm size per farmer is 1.18 ha compared to 0.48 ha for cassava. The report also shows that estimated average rice and cassava yields are 1.3MT/ha for rice and 7.8MT/ha for cassava24. 23Ibid. 24This is close to the general FAO statistics found in Table 1 and 2 of this chapter. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 14 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Relative to the baseline25 estimates yields of cassava and rice [the FAO/WFP assessment] mission observed a gloomy picture of the current situation. Yields of rice and cassava are extremely low. The mission estimated that less than 30% of the baseline figure is produced in 2005 season for rice and 76% for cassava"26. According to another FAO report also in 2006, "Most food crops in the country (probably about 90 %) are produced by means of an age-old subsistence system whereby the land is cropped by slash-and-burn with bush fallowing. Rudimentary implements like hoes, machetes and axes are used and the farmer and his or her household can only till about half to one hectare"27. The three or four targeted areas identified for the purposes of this report (cereals principally rice, root crops (including cassava and yam) and vegetables) are at early stages of development with none showing huge potential in the short term for change and none having really reached a level of potential sophistication attractive for external commercial investment based on the evidence identified28. Value Chains and Value Adding. Figures 1 to 3 in the adjacent pages present a schematic overview of some of the value added processing within the food crop sub-sectors for vegetables, rice and cassava based on fieldwork conducted and interviews with farmers and market traders. Very little value adding in the chain appears to take place with the chains being limited, very short and often confined to only two or, at best, three rings along the chain. There is little value being added29 in most cases whilst at best a simple trading relationship seems to take place. Some conversion of cassava into fufu or gari takes place (to permit marketing over distances or time without deterioration) but the value increase is marginal ­ purchases appear more for convenience than anything else. There is very little difference between small-scale farming and subsistence-based farming with little surplus in both cases available for sale. Figures 1 to 3 show that differences between trading, production and selling are small and prices between the farm gate and the point of sale to the end consumer in most cases is also low30. Given that most rice produced is for subsistence purposes it is not surprising that very little domestic production finds itself on the open market. Of the amount of produce that gets onto the market a substantial amount of this is lost through wastage. This does not mean that these commodities cannot become more important commercially but the investment in training, in infrastructure, in setting up factories which convert the products into a higher value commodity, in food quality assurance and food handling, storage and transport and packaging would need to be made. With much of the farming remaining at 25Sub-reference to the Baseline Survey of the Ministry of Agriculture carried out in 2001. 26FAO/WFP Crop And Food Security Assessment For Liberia February 2006, Section 8, page 18. 27"Liberia: Short-Medium Term Action Plan For Crop-Livestock Rehabilitation", Prof. F. K. Fianu, February 2006, page 36. 28There is a conspicuous absence of medium to large-scale agro-processing plants in the country. (See FAO- RAF Multidisciplinary Mission to Liberia. March 2005. Page 28). 29The survey results for this chapter show that 80% of all farmers interviewed do not undertake processing of any sort. The remaining 20% of farmers interviewed indicated they might conduct some gari preparation, grinding of pepper and okra, milling and par-boiling. There is also little value being added at the smallholder level in the tree crop sector of rubber and the dwindling production of coffee and cocoa production systems as observed by David Parker in 2001 (See David Parker's report of 2001) Pages 17, 22 and 23. 30This is also confirmed by the food crops survey undertaken in October-November 2006 for this chapter. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 15 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 subsistence level, increasing production and productivity will be difficult. Limited amounts of excess produce were seen in the vegetable and cassava production sub-sectors but where this takes place wastage and spoilage could be as high as 50%31 which impacts negatively on availability and incentive to over produce. Value chains are extremely short with very little value actually being added to the product. It might be safer to view these as marketing chains rather than value adding chains for now. Identifying areas in the food crops sub-sector showing comparative advantage or the potential for economic return, without heavy investment in the supporting physical as well as economic environment, were few if any at this stage. Household consumption pattern. Household farms are based on family labour with an estimated average size of 1.5 ha32 according to the 2001 Bureau of Statistics Baseline Survey. Output is largely consumed by household members and consists of food crops (rice, roots, tubers, legumes), small livestock (chickens, goats) and small plots of cash crops (coffee, cocoa). The predominant character of the traditional small farm is one of low productivity of land and labour. Shifting cultivation on the uplands is still the main technique and the family constitutes a large part of labour on farms with little hired hand permanently or even on a causal basis33. Agricultural Input Suppliers. Input suppliers are those who supply items to farmers such as seeds and tools. Many will also be smallholders themselves. In practice though, the scale of these operations are extremely small and limited in scope, range of product and services provided. Some do provide credit to farmers although the majority do not34. They deal directly with both farmers and other buyers and employ one or two staff to help run their business. Located in small villages and towns their shops are often small and under-stocked. Important also to note is the low or even zero use of fertilizer over a 20-year period as shown previously in Table 3. 31Based on mission interviews with farmers and traders. 32The food crops survey conducted for this review showed that the over 90% of those farmers interviewed farmed land that was 2 hectares or less. 33Again drawing on the food crop survey 92% of all farmers interviewed indicated that labour came from within the family. 34The survey conducted for this review showed that two thirds of all input suppliers interviewed (admittedly the group was small to be begin with at only 9 interviews), no advisory services were provided. Thirty per cent however did extend some form of credit to the buyer. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 16 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Figure 1: Vegetable Value Chain35 5% of crop Consumes goes to pay 15% of total 80% of total vegetable production goes to market unchanged loan production Seeds/Tools Input Supplier Farmer/ Local Market Small Trader Possibly to Smallholder outside Liberia Loan Sales in Repayment route to ($)/ in form of market 5% of total production Household/ Buyers Urban Market Buyers Family ­ Households Households Consumption Sales at homestead Distance to input supplier will Distance to market will be Distance to urban markets will be short ca 3km to 15km be very short ca 3km less. very short ca 3km Post Harvest Losses as high as 45%: no storage, post harvest handling and transportation losses 35 Compiled from data in: October 2006 Survey for this chapter and from Compendium of Food Security and Nutrition Survey, Liberia, June 2006, and from James Tefft, "Agricultural Policy and Food Security in Liberia", ESA Working Paper, March 2005, FAO. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 17 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Figure 2: Cassava Value Chain36 2% of crop 43% of total goes to pay production/ seed for 55% of total Cassava production goes to market unchanged ­ some conversion to fufu and gari loan next year Seeds/Tools Input Farmer/ Local Small Other Supplier Smallholder Market Trader ­ market Loan pack into Repayment ($)/ in form of 50kg bags 5% of total production Buyers Household/ Buyers Urban Household Family ­ Household s Market Consumptio s Buyers Household s Distance to input supplier Distance to market will be Distance to urban markets will be short ca 3km to will be very short ca 3km very short ca 3km 15km Post Harvest Losses as high as 25%: no storage, post harvest handling, and 36 As for figure 1. transportation losses. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 18 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Figure 3: Rice Value Chain37 (mainly upland) 2% of crop 77% of total goes to pay production/seed for 21% of total rice production goes to market unchanged loan next year Seeds/Tools Input Supplier Farmer/ Local Market Small Trader ­ Other Smallholder pack into 50kg bags market Loan Repayment ($)/ in form of 5% of total production Buyers Household/ Buyers Urban Household Family ­ Consumption Household Market Buyers Household Distance to input supplier Distance to market will be Distance to urban markets will be short ca 3km to will be very short ca 3km very short ca 3km 15km Post Harvest Losses as high as 25%: no storage, post harvest handling, and transportation losses. Rice losses include poor drying and moisture. 37 As for figure 1. I. Food Crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 19 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Markets. Most county capitals and some secondary urban centres have daily markets. The exceptions are Barclayville in Grand Kru and Fishtown in River Gee that hold markets weekly. Markets in the southeast generally offer a rather limited, homogeneous and costly set of food and non-food commodities, with the exception of those closely located to the border with Cote d'Ivoire. Women are mainly responsible for marketing. Difficult access to markets, particularly in the rainy season, has a negative influence on production and income, as well as on the availability of foodstuffs. For commercial crops such as rubber, cacao and coffee the existing poor transportation network also affects them. Producers have to pay for transport to buyers' substations or sell to middlemen at lower prices at the farm gate. Poor infrastructure dampens production, limits the marketing network, and constrains people's access to goods and cash or credit38. There is less trade between the south-eastern counties and Monrovia than between the central region and the capital. This is because there is no direct, main road along the coast from Harper to Monrovia. Heavy trucks and buses have to travel from the south-east to Monrovia via Zwedru taking two days in total and adding to the cost39. People living in communities close to Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Cote d'Ivoire cross the borders to trade in food and dry goods. The traders bring goods such as rice, soft drinks, beer, salt, soap, kerosene, laundry soap, onions, cloth etc, and some farm implements. This trade is profitable because the price of the above items is much higher in Liberia based on the fact there is limited manufacturing locally.40 Crop Losses and Wastage. On the whole whilst rice, either upland or swamp, is grown almost exclusively for home consumption it is often supplemented by purchased long grain variety, itself imported from China or the USA, about 50% the vegetable crop production leaves the homestead for the market. Many farmers mill their own rice using pestle and mortar resulting in many broken grains and a poor milling out-turn of some 50%41. However, in the case of vegetables almost 50% of these go to waste due to poor handling, damage in transport, rot or other loss. This was also recorded in the recently completed FAO/WFP Food Security Assessment Survey in February 2006 and verified by field observation42. 38Prof. F. K. Fianu, states that, "Foodstuff marketing in Liberia, as elsewhere in the sub-region, is fraught with high wastage and high risk of food contamination. Women are the ones who trade in foodstuffs but the marketplace environment is not friendly to nursing women and those with frisky toddlers. Places of convenience are often not provided and the market sheds and stalls are not enough to go round so when it rains much foodstuff damage occurs beneath the sheets used to cover the wares. Sellers are frequently forced to stand in quagmire to sell". February 2006 Liberia: Short-Medium Term Action Plan For Crop-Livestock Rehabilitation. 39For example, from Barclayville in Grand Kru, the cost of transport to Monrovia in the dry season is LD2,500 and more than LD 4,000 (between US$ 40 to US$ 66) during the peak (rainy) season. 40For example, one kg of rice costs LD30 in a community close to Cote d'Ivoire compared to LD 20 for a very small cup (approximately 250 grams) in Barclayville market (Grand Kru). Source: FAO food and Security Assessment for Liberia February 2006. 41See David Parker EU study of 2001. Page 36. 42According to the Food Assessment survey conducted in early 2006, "Across all counties [surveyed] the rice harvest for 2005 was mainly household produced and consumed. Only 7% was sold nationally, however reaching peaks of 17% in Nimba, 14% in Grand Cape Mount and 11% in Montserrado. Overall the second main use was preservation as rice seeds with 13%. Cassava is also mainly consumed (57%), however was overall more marketed than rice (35%). 70% or more of cassava was consumed in River Cess, Grand Kru, Grand Bassa and Sinoe. It was mainly sold in Grand Cape Mount, Monserrado and River Gee (50% or more). The selling or consumption of vegetables varies greatly between counties while overall it is more common to sell vegetables than to consume them". Page 42. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 20 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Cereal Dependency and Food Aid. Liberia's cereal import requirement, mostly rice in 2006 was estimated at 204,000 MT. Of this, 90,000 MT was estimated to be imported commercially, 74,000 MT was nationally produced and the balance (some 40,000 MT) made up from food aid by donors but managed by the World Food Programme (WFP). Table 6 shows the weakness of Liberian food crop production over the period 2000-2002, and significant dependence on imported food, which continues to be the case. Table 6: Food Balance for Liberia (2000-2002 in `000 tonnes) Food Crops Production Exports Imports (+) Seed, Feed, Consumption (-) (+ve) (-) other (-) Cereals 97 1 212 52 256 Vegetable Oils 47 4 9 4 48 Sugar 4 - 12 0 16 Roots and Tubers 529 - 2 6 525 Meat 21 - 5 0 26 Milk 1 - 6 0 7 Source: FAO Country Profiles 2002, Liberia. 3.3 Vulnerabilities There are a number of vulnerabilities, which are faced by small farmers. These are briefly listed in the section below: Markets. Market access is not always easy or close by and distances needed to travel can be enormous especially if the only means is by foot. Many county markets are open, exposed to the elements and ad hoc in management. Access to water, electricity and even functional stalls are also limited. Infrastructure. Related to marketing but also the purchase of inputs and supplies is the absence of infrastructure which can facilitate movement of goods in and out of production areas. There is also limited storage for commodities and poor food handling appears to contribute to large food wastage and loss43. In some cases, such as vegetables, this can be as high as 50%. Knowledge Sharing and Research. The absence of any technical support for farmers from extension agents or private sector non-cash crop buyers is also limited. Knowledge sharing is informal, local and indigenous which may contribute to improved production levels but is, again, limited in nature. In addition, knowledge of input use is poor at the local level and sources of information to supplement this are weak. Enabling Policy. The position of GoL in terms of providing and supporting an enabling agricultural environment is benevolent but passive in practice. Although there are no policies that subsidize farm inputs or encourage improved performance in the food crop sector, there are none equally that act against it. Credit. The availability of credit and access to finance remains problematic. The accompanying chapter on finance and marketing reports that, "the infancy of rural 43Supported by statements made by Prof. F. K. Fianu, February 2006 "Liberia: Short-Medium Term Action Plan For Crop-Livestock Rehabilitation" although he did not attempt quantification. Page 37. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 21 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 microfinance in Liberia, the rarity of bank branches outside Monrovia and the conservative approach of commercial banks mean that for the foreseeable future, at least for the next 5 to 10 years, rural financial services will not be available to the vast majority of creditworthy farmers, at least through currently-available channels. Even when the MFIs [Micro-Finance Institutions] finally arrive in a majority of villages, most will be reluctant to invest large sums of money in agriculture because of the perceived high risk of doing so"44. Natural environment. Farming in Liberia is also under threat from the problems of flooding, water control, pests and other natural elements although this is not countrywide. Irrigation and water management potential exists but this would require huge investment in infrastructure and training in operation and maintenance. 3.4 Food Crop Sector Assessment Survey A survey was undertaken between September and November 2006 to identify value chains that were perceived to be important. Just over 150 significant interviews were conducted over a six-week period with farmers, traders and farm input suppliers. The data derived from this was sufficient to profile the production system and also lead to the identification of a number of areas of intervention that could be attractive for future investment. Five questionnaires were developed and used in the process of data collection (three food crop specific and two dealing with input supply and trading). These are described below: · Commodity Survey: The core agricultural sub-sector surveys included rice, root crops and vegetables (e.g. bitter ball and pepper). Additional information generated included data on farm production, financial returns of farming, what farmers were selling and what they were producing for home consumption. · Input Supplier Survey: A small number of input suppliers were interviewed to determine what is sold and their prices and what inputs are available on the market as well as ease of access marketers have to farmers selling produce. · Trader Survey: Traders were also interviewed to determine if there was any value adding taking place between the farm gate and end consumer. It was also intended to elicit costs of transportation, processing and marketing. A number of Gross Margin Analysis were planned to be undertaken on selected focal food crops such as rice, cassava, cowpea, maize and vegetables (e.g. cabbage and chilli peppers) based on existing enterprises in agricultural group projects such as Nimbabian Bangladeshi Friendship Agricultural Project (NIBAFAP) and the Dokodan Farmers Cooperative in Nimba County but it was agreed that this would be conducted by the consultancy on agricultural extension. 3.5 Findings of the Survey and SWOT of Areas visited Based on the survey results the following SWOT Analysis in Table 7 provides a summary of all areas visited. Flooding interestingly appears to restrict production in the counties of Grand Kru and Maryland only whilst poor road infrastructure and limited transport is a major weakness in nearly all areas with the Southeast the worst hit generally and Grand Kru the hardest hit in particular. The findings reinforce the issue of vulnerability, isolation and 44Draft Report for CAAS-LIB - "Liberia's Rural Finance and Marketing Sub-Sectors", FAO- Ghana. Chet Aeschliman et al, November 2006. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 22 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 remoteness of producers accessing markets. The incentive to produce for a local market is, significantly reduced with farmers preferring to concentrate on subsistence practice rather than food crops for sale. Table 7: Summary SWOT of Areas Visited Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Food Security Lack of technical support Abundant arable land Pest infestation Family Labour Drudgery in post harvest Good Market Some Flooding work potential Self sustainability Health hazards Relative peace Source of income Lack of trapping High market demand materials Good sales profit Lack of farm inputs Self employment Good health Lack of road infrastructure Lack of transport 3.6 Field Data Analysis of Core Commodities The following section draws on the data results of the survey and is made with reference to the three tables shown overleaf. Farm sizes across the three-food crop sub-sectors were recorded as low with an average in each case of 1.5 ha for rice, 0.8 ha for cassava and 0.7 ha for vegetables. Table 8 shows low agricultural rice production yields in Bong and Grand Kru Counties. On average 64% of rice harvest is consumed at home whilst 36% is sold. In Grand Kru, food is mainly exchanged for other foodstuff under a system of barter due to limited cash, high poverty and lack of commercial trade opportunities. Some farmers paid for inputs either in- kind or in-cash. For comparative reasons the in-kind payment has been converted into cash and the value expressed in the Table 8. Limited fertilizer use was seen in lowland areas, mainly in and around Cape Mount and Nimba Counties. Table 9 indicates data for root crop producers cultivated on average as little as 1 ha and consumed about 42% of the harvest. The major cassava consumption areas include Grand Kru, Maryland and Nimba Counties. Cassava consumption is consumed mainly in raw form, but is on occasion eaten boiled or in pounded form. In both Bong and Grand Cape Mount Counties, the highest income from the sale of cassava was recorded. 59% of root crop farmers hired labour to assist in the cultivation, which suggests that labour costs are lower than elsewhere. Table 10 confirms that vegetable producers are the most profitable in the farming sector. In Bong and Nimba Counties, vegetable production is carried out commercially and represents the largest number of producers and the highest return from sales. Profit from vegetable production was nearly three times that of rice production. Fertilizer use is also highest in this group. Subsequent analysis of the database confirms the profitability of vegetable production. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 23 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 8: Production Data for Rice45 %of farmers Average % of % of farmers who who employed % of farmers Farm farmers % of farmers Rice seed rented land and labour and Average % of produce % of who reached Size in from from sample Sale Price cost per average price at average rate Output Kg/ha consumed at produce Profit level Hectares sample who who bought US$/Kg kg (US$) which they rented paid per per county home sold per farm per used home fertilizer land per county county for a (US$) county grown seed piece of work Bong 1.4 50% 0.2 None 28% paid $16 50% paid 588 79% 21% 0.2 39% @$166 $37.45 Grand Cape 1.5 5% 0.3 11% None 76% paid $33 1,122 55% 45% 0.26 33% @$129 Mount Grand Kru 1.9 100% 0 None None Family labour 2,46 48% 52% 0.6 Barter Sales Maryland 1.5 100% 0 None None Family labour 1,042 78% 22% 0.36 95% @ $82 Nimba 1.4 39% 0.32 6% 17% paid $21 6% paid 1,033 59% 41% 0.28 77% @$136 $45.64 Average 1.5 59% 0.27 8% 23% paid $18.50 44% paid 806 64% 36% 0.34 61% @ $103 $39.00 45Tables 8, 9 and 10 have been complied on data collected during the field survey conducted in October 2006. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 24 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 9: Production Data for Root Crops County % of farmers Average % of % of % of farmers who who employed % of farmers Farm farmers farmers Cuttings rented land and labour and Average % of produce % of who reached Size in from from Sale Price Purchased average price at average rate Output Kg/ha consumed at produce Profit level Hectares sample who sample who US$/Kg per bundle which they rented paid per per county home sold per farm per used home bought land per county county for a (US$) county grown seed fertilizer piece of work Bong 0.6 77% $0.55 None None 94% paid $11 7,369 31% 69% 0.08kg $263 Grand Cape 1.4 None $1.00 None 22% paid $6.00 94% paid 6,365 32% 74% 0.15kg $203 Mount $95.00 Grand Kru 0.8 $2.13 None None 12% paid 1,836 56% 44% 0.15kg $26 $16.00 Maryland 0.5 $2.34 None None 29% paid 3,857 47% 53% 0.17kg $48 $19.00 Nimba 0.6 38% $3.19 None 38% paid $29.00 67% paid 7,188 45% 55% 0.06/kg $76 $29.00 Average 0.8 58% $1.84 None 30% paid $18.00 59% paid 5,323 42% 59% 0.12/kg $123 $34.00 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 25 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 10: Production Data for Vegetables County % of farmers Average % of who % of farmers who Farm farmers Cuttings % of farmers employed Average rented land and Average % of produce % of Size in from Purchase from sample labour and Sale Price Profit per average price at Output Kg/ha consumed at produce Hectares sample who d per who bought average rate US$/Kg farm per which they rented per county home sold per used home bundle fertilizer paid per county (US$) land per county county grown seed county for a piece of work Bong 0.8 33% $7.00 61% paid 16% paid $22.00 77% paid 2,704 12% 88% 0.96 $678 $37.05 $27.00 Grand Cape 0.8 11% $9.11 67% paid 5% paid $26.00 95% paid 1,418 20% 80% 0.72 $162 Mount $13.46 $23.00 Grand Kru 0.4 13% $2.93 None None 25% paid 344 47% 53% 0.67 $17 $6.00 Maryland 0.3 None $3.36 None 5% paid $3.45 14% paid 1,200 41% 59% 0.78 $28 $17.00 Nimba 1 None $7.00 56% paid 28% paid $46.00 100% paid 2,145 17% 83% 0.84 $602 $34.80 $26.00 Average 0.7 19% $5.88 61% @ 14% paid $24.00 62% paid 1,562 27% 73% 0.79 $297 $28.43 $20.00 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 26 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 3.7 DRC Calculations and SWOT Analysis Initial Domestic Resource Calculations (DRCs46) of domestic production are presented in Table 11 covering the three food crop sub-sectors these being rice, cassava and vegetables. Six models have been developed. This Table also includes a set of data on the size of farm examined showing that they are all very small in scale and practice mixed subsistence and commercial farming as a norm. Table 11: DRC Comparisons for Rice, Root Crop and Vegetable Production Size of Social smallholding and Private Profit DRC Comparative Production System percentage used Profit (Shadow (ratio) Advantage for commercial (in US$) Prices ­ production US$) Model 1: Upland Rice 1.4 has (of which 7.27 -16.63 1.43 Some (Bong) 21% produce is sold) Model 2: Lowland 1.6 has (of which 17.29 340.89 0.30 High47 Rice (Nimba) 89% produce is sold) Model 3: Root Crop ­ 0.6 has (of which 99.90 168.36 0.16 Very High Cassava (Nimba) 55% produce is sold) Model 4: Vegetable 0.8 has (of which 465.48 1,160.40 0.04 Very High Production (Grand 80% produce is Cape Mount) sold) Model 5: Bitterball- 0.8 has (of which 25.79 43.93 0.19 Very High Plantain-Other 40% produce is Vegetable (Maryland) sold) Model 6: Bitterball- 0.4 has (of which 3.43 10.07 0.47 High Plantain (Maryland) 50% produce is sold) 46Definition of DRC: "The Domestic Resource Cost ratio, or DRC, measures the ratio of domestic factors used to produce one unit of rice (e.g. labour and capital invested in the production) to the added value generated by this unit of rice (i.e. the value of the production minus all the investment costs, e.g. seed, fertilizer, energy). The DRC is estimated using social prices--that is, prices that would prevail in the absence of government intervention on input and output markets (e.g. subsidies on fertilizer sales price, duty on rice imports) or market failure (monopoly). If the ratio is greater than one, more domestic resources are invested in producing the commodity than the added value generated by the production activity--there is no comparative advantage in producing the commodity and the domestic resources would be more efficiently utilized if allocated to another productive activity. Conversely, if the ratio is below one, the commodity is produced using less domestic resources than the added value generated--rice producers do have a comparative advantage. Source of definition: WARDA's "Annual Report 2001-2". 47The results of the DRC analysis and comparison between lowland and upland (or swamp) rice are important. Lowland rice production shows higher potential with good management than upland rice production offering higher yields and returns to labour, capital investment and general efficiency. David Parker evens goes as far saying that, "The development of the swamp is the key to producing a marketable surplus". (See David Parker, EU Study 2001, page 37-38 and 42). I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 27 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 11 also shows calculations that indicate upland rice production has little comparative advantage as it stands at present and has a suggested DRC ratio of about 1.43. Its use of domestic resources is too high and better use could be made of finances to grow other commodities for the market. However, since private profit is just positive, producers have an incentive to produce domestic rice for home consumption. Lowland rice production also shows a good DRC ratio at 0.30, which suggests that further research into its comparative advantage, needs to be undertaken. Lowland rice production is very much more labour intensive and could provide employment for men and women whilst at the same time responding to the staple food insecurity needs of the country. Vegetable growing is by far the most profitable, with cassava the root crop representation being relatively profitable. As is perhaps to be expected, Liberia has high comparative advantage in producing cassava and vegetables for its urban markets whose reliance on fresh produce is currently only met by domestic production. The full calculations are shown in Annex 6 for each of the sub-sector crop models developed using data collected from the survey. In contrast, Table 12, developed by WARDA in 2002, illustrates the DRCs for a number of West African and shows the changes between 1973 and 1996 that can be achieved in comparative advantage. In all cases DRC for rice improved between 1978 and 1996 where they were calculated showing that production systems can change if there is a concerted effort and policy support to realise this shift. Table 12: West African DRC Comparisons for Rice Country 1978 1993 1995 1996 Cote D'Ivoire 1.68 1.02 0.73 Nc Mali 0.69 Nc Nc 0.40 Senegal 1.66 Nc Nc 1.12 Sierra Leone 0.89 Nc 0.55 Nc Sources: CERDI Université d'Auvergne; Stanford University; WARDA. Annual Report, 2001-2002. Calculations produced by a Stanford University Study of selected West African countries. An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the value chains of the selected commodities and assessment of the comparative advantage is presented in Table 12 generated during the initial mission. This Table also covers fruit production, a fourth sub-sector, which theoretically should have high market value although this mission has not investigated its potential. Original thoughts on the state of play of the food sector have been confirmed by the survey results. Table 13 presents a SWOT of the sectors reviewed and shows that there are a number of opportunities to commercialise sub-sector activities although investment will be needed in terms of education, agricultural research and pilot testing on farms to narrow down support in the identified sub-sectors. High wastage and loss of produce through poor handling, rot or storage are areas of concern. As all sub-sectors suffer equally from this, some are likely to suffer more from their perishable characteristics than others. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 28 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 13: Strengths, Weaknesses and Comparative Advantage of Selected Crops Value Chain for: Strengths Weaknesses Demonstration of Comparative Advantage to meet domestic household food security, nutrition, incomes as well as for regional and international exports Cereals (especially There are two types ­ upland and Processing is by hand, production mainly for Production of local rice is not seen as a boost to rice ­ upland) lowland. Most farmers cultivate home consumption and little opportunity for income but rather to contribute to food security as a upland. There is a strong farming surplus as imports (from China and USA) are staple food source. Currently there is no comparative awareness of rice and some potential readily available (even if expensive). The number advantage seen either regionally or internationally for for growth in this area. Demand is of harvests achieved per year is few - currently it upland rice. The production is to satisfy subsistence high as rice is a staple crop of Liberia. is estimated that only one crop per year is needs rather than market needs, and supplemented by achieved when in fact this should be at least twice rice imports. No government policies are in place yet that. Productivity per hectare is also too low at to provide an incentive to reverse this. A possible about 25% that achieved outside Liberia. area is organic rice production in the future but this Currently about 1 tonnes per hectare. (Based on would need substantial investment in infrastructure, several interviews with rice/paddy farmers and food handling and packaging to reach certification verified by the national consultant in food crops). stage (very little fertilizer and pesticide application takes place currently). Calculations shown by this mission suggest that upland rice has a relatively low DRC suggesting that use of limited domestic resources should be channelled to other efforts. Root crops (the main As with rice production, cassava Industrialisation of cassava production and post- The current production of root crops shows some crop considered is growing is popular and meets some harvest value adding is limited and would require comparative advantage and the potential exists to cassava) food security needs and some cash investment in hardware, training and promotion. industrialise the sub-sector. Further research would needs production. Value adding need to be conducted into the sub-sector to explore potential exists converting the Production losses are high from pests and plant local and industrial demand and undertake feasibility commodity possibly into bio-fuel or diseases. studies to examine viability. Calculations by the other product such as starch. Low mission suggest good DRC ratios. technology would be a possibility meeting local market demand. Vegetables (the main A market exists for a number of Almost no value adding was observed. Some There would seem to be scope for expansion of the crops possibly are vegetables although items such as vegetable leaves were cut for the consumer at the vegetable sector through both reducing post harvest items such as bitter tomatoes and cucumber for example point of sale. Generally poor handling, storage loss and increasing production and productivity. ball and peppers but it were not seen at points of sale. Half of and packaging incurring large post-harvest loss. Improved transportation and other infrastructure, as I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 29 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Value Chain for: Strengths Weaknesses Demonstration of Comparative Advantage to meet domestic household food security, nutrition, incomes as well as for regional and international exports is difficult to be sure the vegetable production is for sale in well as training and increased access to competitive because of the limited markets, whilst the other half is for lines of credit could provide an incentive for an variety in markets. home consumption. The markets are increase in vegetable production, handling and more likely to be urban centres. marketing. The production system would need to substantially changed and some specialization would There is the potential to focus on have to take place. Currently large volumes of female-headed vegetable garden and vegetables are coming into Liberia from across the production systems. borders with Guinea and Cote d'Ivoire or, as seen in Monrovia, as frozen produce from Europe, USA or the Middle East. DRC calculations show that vegetable production has reasonable comparative advantage with a DRC ratio approaching 1. With greater effort and investment it may be possible to bring the DRC even further down. Other Observations ­ Liberia has the potential as with other As with many places fresh fruit availability is The potential for setting up juicing plants and fruit the fruit sector (this warm climate regions to grow high limited and under-developed. The investment conversion into dried products or into another value was not examined in value fruit crops which could if needed to bring the sub-sector to an industrial and added item seems to be large and could offer early this mission but seems sufficient investment took place, be therefore economically interesting stage would be gains. to present itself as a exported or converted into higher value enormous. The Liberian palate seems to dictate potential area for products such as juices and tinned fruit. against development of this sector. Current data on fruits is scanty although this would economic growth in be an area that could be investigated further. Even the agrarian sector) the FAOSTAT has very little information on this and a more detailed fruit study would need to be conducted.48 48 A study conducted by David Parker for the EU in 2002 suggests that, "Banana and citrus look to have the highest returns per hectare and good potential returns. Both products are for the domestic market though and demand is therefore limited." Page 16. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 30 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 4. THE WAY FORWARD 4.1 Supporting Structures to Establish Comparative Advantage In order for the food crop sector to establish itself and become a supplier of food as well as generate paid employment and increase its contribution to the local and national economy a number of supporting structures need to be put in place. These will also contribute to establishing comparative advantage and will contribute to creating competitiveness. Turning a suitably agro-ecological region into a higher economic driver is not easy although when coupled with a population that has good indigenous knowledge may make the transition easier. These initiatives should be driven by GoL in the first instance and supported by donors such as UNDP and the EU as well as bilateral agents of change where they operate in the country such as DFID, USAID and JICA for example. Technical support can be met by FAO and other technical agencies. Production Systems. Production systems need to receive legitimate focus from both technical and managerial agents of change. Improved farming techniques and practices, such as better seeds, better land husbandry management and pest management should be the focus of MoA in particular. The measures that will contribute to achieving this include policy focus from MoA, collaboration efforts and joint activities with research and extension services. Markets. Market places should be identified and improved including the supply of stalls, water and electricity and management systems for their operation. This could also assist in generating new employment and alternative income activities. A number of the urban areas could be selected as pilot programmes of support to markets in centres such as Monrovia, Harper and selected centres inland. Credit. Micro-finance credit schemes need to be encouraged through the creation of products held with existing banks and the generation of appropriate attitudes towards farming as a viable business proposition. Access to credit is important for smaller farmers or cooperatives that are beginning to face the challenges of future growth49. Infrastructure. Necessary infrastructure such as roads and communication systems need to be considered in the long term. Immediate infrastructure could include market places50, feeder roads and water points. Knowledge Sharing and Research. Local, as well as international, knowledge on sectoral changes need to be made available to enable improvements to take place in terms of production, productivity, efficiency gains, marketing, food processing and handling and where possible value adding without pricing the commodities beyond the reach of most people. Agricultural research should recommence allowing an incremental increase in output 49See chapter on Draft Report for CAAS-LIB - "Liberia's Rural Finance and Marketing Sub-Sectors", FAO-Ghana. Chet Aeschliman et al, November 2006. Page 33. 50See the examples of micro-project programmes where market construction is an important element of economic generation, employment generation and where women have the opportunity to become market sellers and market masters e.g. Micro-Project Programmes of the EU, in Nigeria, Ghana and Malawi. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 31 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 if it can be taken up by farmers' organizations, NGOs and other civil based organizations (CBOs) whose role would be to act as centres of information and exchange of knowledge. Enabling Policy. From a policy point of view GoL needs to be more proactive in terms of it support to agricultural change. This includes GoL support to MoA and increased budgetary allocation for extension, and service provision to farmers. There needs to be an emphasis on production, productivity and a general move towards establishing food security, which includes access including purchase or production of food. 4.2 Government Policy The Government of Liberia has two policy position papers these being, "Statement of Policy Intent" and "Strategy for the Agricultural Sector" but neither provides sufficient detail on what government will actually be doing or supporting in the short term let alone the medium and long term. The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) is small, understaffed and lacking skills needed to develop and support agricultural change. It is assumed therefore that MoA's role will come in the form of legal statue and in providing the legal boundaries of commercial activity rather than undertaking agricultural research, direct extension and training. Government's role will be in developing an enabling environment for economic stability and growth51. Public and private partnerships might provide an initial opportunity for investment. Government will also need to consider a programme of incentives that allow small or even micro agro-industrial business to be established employing people and generating income. Forms of contract farming and off-farm work and even non-farm work should also be examined (e.g. in the transportation sector or packaging sectors). Given a policy vacuum however, the entrepreneurial sector cannot be relied upon to substitute for Government nor visa versa but as a provider of services, which can be delivered in a way, which generates economic return efficiently and effectively. The MoA has no policy on market information gathering, pricing (from input through to last point of sale) or on ways and means of monitoring agricultural sector behaviour. A continuous process of reviewing, analysing and fine tuning the understanding of the agricultural sector needs to take place and tools such as the Policy Analysis Matrix (PAM) need to be adopted internally so that the impact of public support and private sector activities can be monitored and adjustments made. Given the limited resources available such quick and relatively reliable indicators of return to investment and economic support could be adopted. They are not at present. Overall the government's economic policy centres on the principle of the "Free Enterprise System" with the market as the principal determinant and which translates into a minimum involvement in the economy. Where the Government is involved, this is limited to joint ventures to achieve national goals and to stimulate the private sector. The Government's 51David Parker report in 2002 showed this even then when he stated that, "The government has a very limited revenue base and little source of borrowing. It therefore has no operational agricultural research or support services. The government appears to have a "hands-free policy" of entrusting as much agricultural development to the private sector or the NGO sector. For smallholder farms, agricultural support is being given piecemeal through a battery of NGOs with short term funding horizons, often supported by multi-lateral donors, with similar short-term funding. There does not appear to be any coherent guiding policy." Page 10. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 32 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 policy places major reliance on individual and private initiatives52. The National Investment Commission (NIC), which spearheads the investment drive focuses on medium and large businesses, and has little interest in micro-business or small agro-industrial concerns. It therefore misses the opportunity to contribute to agricultural change. It would be important that NIC therefore reconsider its focus to include small-scale farming and activities upstream and down stream of production in its portfolio as a special area of interest requiring smaller amounts of capital investment and shorter realisation periods. Liberia's liberal business climate is designed to attract foreign investment and support economic growth and development. Through a liberal Investment Incentive Code, Liberia offers several physical benefits, including exemption from custom duties, income tax, stamp fees and other benefits, to new and expanding business enterprises for approved investments projects including agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining. Other potential areas for investment incentives include building, construction, transport and communication and approved investment projects may also be eligible for support in securing loans and guaranteeing credit by the Central Bank. 4.2.1 Policy on food imports There are no statutory foreign exchange controls in Liberia, and funds generally are freely remitted in and out of the country.53 Liberian governments have consistently maintained a liberal policy towards food imports and exports and the current situation remains the same. Unfortunately Liberia also remains rather dependent on food aid, which has come under the directive of the World Food Programme (WFP). Whilst Government remains concerned with the importation of rice coming freely into the country and views the commodity strategically it maintains a zero monetary and fiscal policy towards it. Late in 2006 there was a concern that importers had been holding off on a large consignment of rice in order to speculate for higher prices. Government intervened charging the importer with "economic piracy" and placing him under arrest. Although this charge was subsequently dropt it demonstrates the importance the current Government places on rice as a staple food for consumers. It did not however, lead to the introduction of any law or policy to protect the country from this happening again but rather, demonstrated the vulnerability of Liberia to forces of commercial interest and possible speculation. Importantly engaging in dialogue with importers would be a good step in the right direction to develop an enabling environment and improving productivity and production for more access to food. 4.2.2 Policy on Tariffs on Imported Goods (machinery, other inputs) Imports of machinery and other goods are subject to tariff duties, ranging between 2.5% and 25%, which constitute a major source of government income. Import duties are specific (based on weight for example) for some commodities and ad valorem (based on cost, insurance, and freight value) for others. Specific duties apply to foodstuffs (rice though is a special case and exempt from this), beverages, petroleum products, and certain rubber and textile products. All exports and some imports require licenses. Customs duties are 25% on luxury items such as alcoholic beverages, apparel, cosmetics, electronics and jewellery. 52National Investment Commission, www.libnic.com 53Source: http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/liberia/jlacfir.html I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 33 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Although the Free Port of Monrovia was closed in 1999, goods up until that time could be landed, stored, sorted, manufactured, repacked, re-forwarded, or transhipped without payment of customs duties. 4.2.3 Current Policy on Agro-Industry GoL has no current policy on agro-industry beyond an awareness of the main cash crop sectors of rubber and oil palm. These industries do not receive particular assistance or incentive other than that they are free to conduct their business in a close to tax free environment. 4.3 On-going and Planned Activities and Interventions of Other Partners NGOs. The NGO sector is extremely active in Liberia. They range from large, international and reasonably well-funded organisations to small, local and limited funded actors and civil based type organisations. Many NGOs and others classified as Non-State Actors (NSAs), have agricultural programmes related to training and some input supply support (including the supply of starter packs covering seeds and basic tools). Mercy Corps and German Agro- Action (GAA), for example, have community based organisation programmes to support peace building, youth activities and agricultural recovery improving both the business and agricultural management skills of farmers, small businesses and entrepreneurs. MercyCorps is supported with USAID funding, whilst Agro-Action receives funding from the EC's Humanitarian Office (ECHO). Multilateral Agencies. UNDP is also involved in agrarian support. Its current effort is geared towards promoting the "Establishment of a Songhai-Liberia Initiative for the Promotion of Rural Growth within the Liberian Government Programmes LEEP and LEAP". This programme is based on the Benin model of clustering enterprises (SMEs) that can be linked together for higher efficiency and the promotion of rural growth and employment generation. The programme is targeted at all 15 Liberian counties and each having an identified agricultural commodity at its core. Funding comes from UNDP, USAID and ILO and is supported by FAO54. The World Bank has focused on agro-forestry and the forestry sector in general as its intervention policy and this is set to continue for a number of years to come. Prime support is given however, to infrastructure and road construction and this too is likely to continue. This is an invaluable contribution, as it will provide channels along which trade can take place. Donors, such as DFID, are only just beginning to venture into Liberia but this is limited for the moment. Their Liberian development programme is managed from Freetown, Sierra Leone. 4.4 Policy Options, Interventions and Investment This paper presents below a number of policy options, interventions and investment scenarios, which GoL could consider for implementation with support from the international community. These would go someway to improving food security and an improvement in 54This programme is due to commence in early 2007. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 34 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 nutritional status, provide income and employment. These also target the food crop sub- sectors identified earlier. It is clear that investment other than in general terms, needs to be made in infrastructure (e.g. roads, storage, processing and pack-houses), training, market research and market information gathering and form an important programme of change in the rural economy. These have been well articulated by the 2005 FAO agricultural policy and food security mission, which emphasised that: "Reducing the real cost of food to the rural and urban consumer is an important objective for the Liberian government in the medium term as it works to rekindle the production potential of its agricultural sector. Achieving this objective depends on inputs in several areas, notably productivity-driven increases in production, better roads for reduced transport costs, market information, greater participation and competition in import and domestic marketing systems (traders, cooperatives), transparent and favourable import policy (food, fuel and spare parts), application and enforcement of regional trade regulations and reinforced economic governance to reduce transaction costs and enforce contracts. Each of these factors contributes to establishing a reliable, lower cost supply of food at less variable prices. Competition and proper incentives for traders, farmer organizations, cooperatives and other private actors to become involved in agricultural marketing are particularly important issues to address to reduce the cost of food. Lebanese and Mandingo importers, wholesalers and transporters have historically played important roles in Liberia's mercantilist system of trade and economic control, in agricultural marketing as well as in financing farmers' crop production. Liberia needs to find a delicate balance between establishing a level playing field and competitive environment for all participants (with safeguards against monopoly power) with a supportive policy and regulatory framework that provides incentives for the private sector to make productive investments that are critical to the long-term development of Liberia's agricultural sector" 55. 4.5 Proposals for Institutional Reforms, Policy Options A general strategy across commodities to develop value-addition can effectively be applied in traditional farming systems, leading to real income generation, employment and food security for small holders by concentrating on small changes at the point of post harvest and prior to onward transportation. Currently farmers/sellers make little if any changes to the produce they make available on the market. Essentially produce is sold in a raw state, often unwashed and poorly presented. The opportunity to alter this seems obvious and training and awareness rising of the potential to increase margins and the sales price is therefore high. The following policy and investment options are designed to assist in this process. 4.5.1 Policy Options It is suggested that GoL consider identifying areas where there is high opportunity focusing on improved productivity in high potential areas (such as small, middle and large farmers although it is recognised most farmers fall under the small category) and addressing food security concerns in vulnerable areas where production will still take place for self sufficiency reasons and local markets (as identified in existing data and from the food crops survey). This would cover both food staple production and horticulture crops. Identification 55James Tefft, "Agricultural Policy and Food Security", FAO/ESA Working Paper 05-11, March 2005, page 10. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 35 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 of areas could be based on historically important productive areas and those with favourable agro-climatic advantages. 4.5.2 Investment Options (Programmes and Projects) The investment options outlined below are designed to narrow the gap between domestic food requirement and production over the next 10 years, improving incomes and support seed distribution, agricultural inputs, micro-finance credit systems and investments in marketing infrastructure, road networks, irrigation, research and extension. Furthermore it is recommended that some basic services for farmers such as soil testing, pesticide and fertiliser quality control and management including certification for food quality could be considered. Investment by Government in regulatory issues and facilitating public and private partnership in provision of services to farmers at least in the medium to long term is necessary and encouraging the National Investment Commission (NIC) to include in its focus small agricultural business would be a way forward. There is a clear need to strengthen the agricultural information systems of MoA and the statistical wing of the agriculture ministry for regular crop assessment, monitoring and record keeping. In terms of food crop exports it is known that Liberia will have received African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) status on 1st January 2007 and is in discussion with EUROGAP. However for Liberia this is not enough for a successful future. International markets for Liberia's food crops will demand quality, reliable supply and high food safety standard at prices that are competitive. The field visits undertaken indicate that the state of play of Liberia's food crop production is a long way from ensuring any of these criteria if investment is not made in the areas of basic education, good agricultural practices, market awareness for the quality of crops being sought, transport, storage and post harvest handling to name a few. The following sections detail a number of proposal options covering the priority areas. An estimate of the cost of these is presented alongside the brief proposal although these will have to undergo significant review. The discussion is briefly presented in three sections: a) immediate term, b) short term and c) medium to long-term (5-10 years) periods. a) Immediate Term: Investment in Studies, Sector Analysis and Monitoring Short term or immediate investment (over the next one to two years) includes discrete sub- sector studies and setting up monitoring systems capturing such items as market data, players in the sector, input and output prices regularly. In particular it is important to consider undertaking the following sub-sector studies: · The impact of the WFP programme in Liberia on the local economies. · A study on transport and haulage of agricultural produce and commodities. · A study on infrastructure including markets, communication, input supply. · A detailed study on the impact of Government's agricultural policy with respect to imports (in particular Rice from overseas). · A number of PAM Studies could be undertaken of various sub-sector operators in the food crops sector e.g. juicing or processing. · The study of micro-businesses and SMEs in Liberia. · A number of detailed sub-sector studies e.g. for rice and vegetables. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 36 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 · A number of case studies need to be undertaken for illustrative purposes (some will have been undertaken in the follow-up section below) including cooperative arrangements, or following the transport of certain food crops from producer to final market and end consumer. · A review of the seed sector should be undertaken. · Putting in a place a monitoring system for market information (e.g. prices, quantities, production). Immediate Term: Investment in Studies, Sector Analysis and Monitoring cost: ca. US$ 1,000,000 b) Short Term: Two-to-Five Year Investment Proposals Education and Targeted Training56. In terms of the next investment level there is a real need for education and specific training including literacy and numerical proficiency before moving into business training and marketing, and encouraging entrepreneurial activity. These are important because they carry producers to the next level of business activity57. Appropriate Technology for Increased Productivity and Production. Investment could include training in improved farming techniques to increase productivity and output as well as in simple technologies to allow small processing houses or factories to be established using appropriate and affordable machinery. Limits to this however include good quality seed stocks, fertilizer (whether organic or chemical), guaranteed power supply, inputs for the processing activity and relatively reliable transport from the farm gate to the market trader and end consumer as well supply of produce. Basic Services. As discussed above some basic services for farmers need to be considered including soil testing, pesticide and fertilizer quality control and management including certification for food quality could be considered once the supply side has been fully studied and examined. Data Collection and Statistical Services. Agricultural information systems of MoA are very weak and support for data collection, and in particular the statistical wing of MoA for regular crop assessment, monitoring and record keeping is a priority. Although very difficult to achieve even in the intermediate term, developing a marketing information service is nevertheless very important to alert farmers to market opportunities. It might be possible as a starting point to encourage NGOs to disseminate market information with technical support from FAO's AGS office but this would need further development58. 56 See World Bank commissioned study: The Evolution of Agricultural Education and Training: Global Insights of Relevance for Africa, Carl Eicher, Michigan State University, August 2006 in which the author states that over the next 15 years at least US$1 billion will need to be invested in agricultural education and training alone. 57 It is noted that FAO-AGSF has a range of training materials that could be used to develop training programmes. Information on these can be found by the consultant at: http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/subjects/en/agmarket/agmarket.html; http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/subjects/en/ruralfinance/index.html; www.ruralfinance.org; and soon to come on-line: http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/subjects/en/farmMgmt/index.html. 58 Comments by Andrew Shepherd, FAO, AGS on an earlier version of this report suggest an interesting initiative of encouraging NGOs to act as conduits for market information in collabouration with radio stations and mobile phone service providers (see http://www.nextbillion.net/node/1694). Further comments from him suggest that the experience of FAO in Africa and elsewhere, that NGOs trying to work in agricultural marketing have an inadequate appreciation of what needs to be done and that FAO could organise a training programme for NGOs (and Ministry extension staff). I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 37 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Short-Term: Two-to-Five Year Investment Proposals cost: ca. US$ 5,000,000 c) Five-to-Ten Year Investment Proposals Processing and Packaging. In the five to ten year time frame investment should take place to improve both processing and packaging of commodities on offer. Concentration could take place on the vegetable sector in particular leading to improvement in handling, storage and sale of the more perishable items. It is also anticipated that the fruit sector may attract attention and be a focus of investment given the potential for such value adding activities such as juicing and further processing. Small scale juicing plants and cleaning houses are envisaged which would allow local juices to substitute for expensive imports. Infrastructure. There is a clear need in the next five to ten years for public and private investment in supporting infrastructure. Initially this could be in the form of, for example, small-scale markets with water services included. If individuals/communities can appoint market "masters" to manage the markets as an enterprise this may lead to sustainable continuation of the project. There is strong linkage with the Micro-Projects investment option described below. In addition the World Bank and possibly African Development Bank could be approached to support road and market project construction incorporating market development and upgrading in those locations benefiting from the improved road system. Micro-Projects Programme (MPP) and Micro-Credit System. The micro-projects programme (MPP) can be used as a means to support numerous small-scale projects where the need is highest. In some cases these can be community driven or if credit related, privately targeted. However, setting up such programmes is not easy although the target population in Liberia is rather small and therefore this option seems feasible. The establishment of a Micro-Credit Fund to support local initiative and fill temporarily an absence of reliable banking lines of credit for small and micro-enterprises could be opened up and information shared more widely and transparently while commercial banks take on board the possibility of developing micro-credit as part of their every day portfolio of products on offer. Five-to-Ten Year Investment Proposal cost: ca. US$ 25,000,000 (probably 50% of this will be for infrastructure and 50% for MPP type activities) 4.5.3 Indicative Costs, Returns and Risks A summary of indicative costs is presented in Table 14 together with identified risks. Returns to investment will need to be calculated although at this stage they have been qualitatively assessed. Full feasibility cost-benefit analysis will need to be undertaken to develop and review the individual proposals. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 38 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 14: Summary Investment Table Cost Return Risk or Proposal (US$) Assumption a) Immediate Term (1 to 2 years) Studies 1 000 000 High return in terms Low risk of information gap filling Sub-total: 1 000 000 b) Short Term (2 to 5 years) Education and Targeted 2 500 000 High return in terms of Overall Low risk Training information gap filling Appropriate technology 1 000 000 High return potential Overall Low risk Basic Services 1 000 000 High return potential Overall Low risk Data Collection and 1 000 000 High return potential Risk of Statistical Services limited skills in country to carry through the work and sustain the services Sub-total: 5 000 000 c) Medium to Long Term (5 to 10 years) Processing and Packaging 6 000 000 Good return in the Risk of long run limited production without some form of guarantee such as contract farming Infrastructure 10 000 000 Good return in the Clearly a long run public investment with private sector benefits Micro-Projects Programme 8 000 000 Good return in the Payback of (MPP) and Micro-Credit medium run loans, System investments are made in projects supported Sub-total: 24 000 000 Overall total: 30 000 000 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 39 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions Liberian agricultural production is weak and undeveloped. The vast majority of Liberians rely on agriculture for their livelihoods or as the prime source for their food. Having emerged from a 14 year long civil war the Liberian agrarian economy is very much hindered by an absence of sustained investment either by Government or the private sector and entrepreneurial activity is at an infant stage. 5.2 Recommendations Analysis of the current food crop sector and a review of the potential gains from investment suggest that investment is needed in a number of core areas these being education, market information and support to improving productivity of a number of core food crop sub-sectors. Whilst rice and root crops including the staple cassava crop are favoured the vegetable sector shows highest profit potential although lowland rice production has promise as well. It is recommended that three investment phases be considered covering the immediate, short term and medium to long-term periods. Investment is estimated at around US$ 30 million in total over the next five to ten years. · Immediate investment is required to undertake detailed research in a variety of areas, which are both private sector (e.g. market studies) and public sector oriented (e.g. Policy Analysis Matrix (PAM) review and study). · Short Term investment is considered important to build local education in numeric management and literacy whilst also moving into farm and business planning, budgeting, and gross margin analysis. Basic field-testing kits and other rapid impact activities are also considered in the short term, as is the improvement in data collection, data management and analysis. · Medium to long-term investment will be required in infrastructure, micro-projects programming and micro-credit support including support for micro-businesses and SMEs in the agro-sector. The investment options are summarised in tables 15, 16 and 17, please see next pages. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 40 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 15: Immediate Term Investment (1 to 2 years) Name of Activity Studies, Sector Analysis and Monitoring Institutional Development agencies allocated on the basis of strength to conduct the Responsibility work ­ MoA, FAO, possibly IFC for SME work. Aim(s) of Activity The aims of these activities will fill in gaps in knowledge of key areas and act as inputs to decision-making and resource allocation. Description of Main Suggested studies and reviews: Activities · The impact of the WFP programme in Liberia on the local economies; · A study on transport and haulage of agricultural produce and commodities. · A study on infrastructure including markets, communication, input supply. · A detailed study on the impact of Government's agricultural policy with respect to imports (in particular Rice from overseas). · The study of micro-businesses and SMEs in Liberia. · A number of PAM Studies could be undertaken of various sub-sector operators in the food crops sector e.g. juicing or processing. · A number of sub-sector studies e.g. for rice and vegetables. · A number of case studies need to be undertaken for illustrative purposes (some will have been undertaken in the follow-up section below) including cooperative arrangements, or following the transport of certain food crops from producer to final market and end consumer. · A review of the seed sector should be undertaken. · Putting in a place a monitoring system for market information (e.g. prices, quantities, production and output and input usage) ­ could be undertaken by FAO marketing section). Expected Result(s) It is expected that the results of these activities will dramatically increase the knowledge base of decision-makers in Government and its development partners, guiding them as to which areas of investment are needed and identifying and fine tuning agricultural policy. Impact on Food Greater information as to economic activity will assist in allocating limited Security, Poverty physical and financial resources to where the needs are greatest. Reduction and Economic Development Period of Execution Immediate Term (1 to 2 years) Estimated Cost US$ 1 000 000 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 41 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 16: Short Term Investment (2 to 5 years) Name of Activity Short Term: Two-to-Five Year Investment Proposals Institutional Development agencies allocated on the basis of strength to conduct the Responsibility work ­ MoA, FAO Aim(s) of Activity The aim of the two-to-five year investment proposal is to raise the level of understanding of agriculturalists, increasing production, productivity and output. Description of Main · Education and Targeted Training Activities · Appropriate technology · Basic Services · Data Collection and Statistical Services Expected Result(s) Training: It is expected that the through training and education productivity, production and quality increases will be seen in the agricultural sector and that output will reach a level that can compete successfully on the open market and food security will also become more certain. Basic services will eventually develop and to a point where farmers and other agriculturalists are able to practice land husbandry more effectively, reducing wastage and other inputs. Local technology: Examination and promotion of appropriate local and regional technology will increase production but using simple machinery, which can be easily constructed, implemented and maintained. Data and Statistics: Data collection and statistical services will be developed to a point whereby information is reliable and forms a basis for sound decision-making and policy formulation by Government but also by the private sector on which to make investment decisions. Impact on Food Greater information as to economic activity will assist in allocating limited Security, Poverty physical and financial resources to where the needs are greatest. Reduction and Economic Development Period of Execution Short Term (2 to 5 years) Estimated Cost US$ 5 000 000 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 42 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 17: Intermediate Term Investment (5 to 10 years) Name of Activity Medium-Term: Five-to-Ten Year Investment Proposal Institutional Development agencies allocated on the basis of strength to conduct the Responsibility work ­ MoA to lead, FAO, World Bank, EC (based on their experience of Micro-Project Programming) Aim(s) of Activity The aim of the five-to-ten year investment proposal is to dramatically improve the handling, processing and value adding of commodities grown in Liberia. This will increase the worth of the commodity and start to industrialize production, leading to employment, skill enhancement, and general sophistication of the sector. Description of Main Processing and Packaging: Concentration on the vegetable sector, which Activities would leading to improvement in handling, storage and sale of the more perishable items. Value adding activities such as juicing and further processing. Small scale juicing plants and cleaning houses are envisaged which would allow local juices to substitute for expensive imports. Infrastructure: Initially this could be in the form of small-scale markets with water services included. If individuals/communities can appoint market "masters" to manage the markets as an enterprise this may lead to sustainable continuation of the project. Micro-Projects Programme (MPP) and Micro-Credit System. A micro- projects programme (MPP) can be used as a means to support numerous small-scale projects where the need is highest. In some cases these can be community driven or if credit related, privately targeted. The establishment of a managed Micro-Credit Fund to support local initiative and fill temporarily an absence of reliable banking lines of credit for small and micro-enterprises could be opened up and information shared more widely and transparently. Expected Result(s) It is expected that with substantial investment some of the basic industrial activities associated with agriculture can kick-start a higher economic turnover much needed to act as a point of interest for entrepreneurs, investors and start to reduce poverty, food insecurity and unemployment. Impact on Food Building processing factories, infrastructure and making funding small Security, Poverty projects in communities will employ people, increase the amount of money Reduction and available in the local economies and generally lead to a feeling of hope for Economic Development a better future. Period of Execution Medium Term (5 to 10 years) Estimated Cost US$ 24 000 000 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 43 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED CAAS Liberia Programmes. 2004. Situation Report, Humanitarian Coordination Section of UNMIL 8-14 October 2004. Back to Office Reports. · Dunstan S. C. Spencer ­ Team Leader - Launching Mission - Back To Office Report, August 8, 2008. · Chet Aeschliman, Rural Finance and Marketing Officer, RAFA, 30 July - 13 August 2006. · Sampson Agodzo - Land And Water Management Study ­ August 2006. · Ousman K.L. Drammeh - International Fisheries Consultant, 1 - 15 August 2006. · Zakary Rhissa, Livestock and Animal Production component - Livestock Policy Officer, RAFP/AGA, 30 July ­ 13 August, 2006. · Peter Smith - Institutions Consultant ­ 27 July - 12 August 2006. · Thomas Lovell - Mechanization And Post Harvest Study, 30 July - 18 August. FAO. 2006. Strategic Objective: Ensure Food Security. FAO. 2006. Strategic Objective: Support the Transition from relief (Emergency) to Recovery. FAO. 2005. Agricultural Policy and Food Security in Liberia, James Tefft, ESA Working Paper No: 05-11. Agricultural and Development Economics Division. FAO. Country Profiles and Mapping Information System: http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles FAO. Statistical database: www.FAOSTAT.fao.org FAO/WFP. 2006. Crop and Food Security Assessment for Liberia, 27 February 2006. FAO. 2006. Comprehensive Food Security and Nutrition Survey (CFSNS), Liberia 2006, Stakeholders: MOA, MOH, MOE, MPEA, LISGIS, Ministry of Internal Affairs, FAO, HIC, UNICEF, UNMIL, WFP, WHO, CRS, GTZ, World Vision, Draft. FAO-RAF. 2006. Draft - Report on Liberia's Rural Finance and Agricultural Marketing Sub- Sectors, Aeschliman, Rural Finance and Marketing Officer, RAFA. FAO/WORLD BANK. 2006. Liberia Agriculture Sector Review in a Post Conflict Country - Concept Note World Bank/FAO. Fianu, F. K. 2006. "Liberia: Short-Medium Term Action Plan For Crop-Livestock Rehabilitation", FAO Ghana. Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy (iPRSP). 2006. First Draft, Republic of Liberia, July 2006. Ministry of Agriculture. 2006. "Liberia ­ Statement of Policy Intent for Agriculture", "Action Plan to Enhance Agricultural Sector Contribution to Economic Recovery and Food Security in Liberia". Mary Morgan. 2005. BDS Consultancy Report, "Cowpea Sub Sector Approach", MercyCorps ­ Liberia. National Transitional Government of Liberia. 2005. National Budget, for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2004 June 30 2005. "Blue Book" ­ Agricultural Strategy Sector Plan. National Human Development Report. 2006 ­ UNDP, Mobilising Capacity for reconstruction and Development, Monrovia. Parker David. 2001. Programme Adviser, European Commission, Resettlement and Reintegration Programme, of the Second Liberia Rehabilitation Programme, "Farm Management Survey Of Liberian Smallholder Tree And Food Crops". I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 44 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Sturgeon Timothy J. 2001. How Do We Define Value Chains and Production Networks, Industrial Performance Centre, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, sturgeon@mit.edu, Published in IDS Bulletin, Vol 32, No 3, 2001. Syrulwa Samah. 2003. Short paper: "Promoting Agricultural production in the New Liberia", Dr, A&T State University, North Carolina. Tracy Gerstle. 2006. Market Development Approach: CPBD Program Fresh and Dried Hot Pepper Value Chains, Economic and Enterprise Development, June 2006, MercyCorps ­ Liberia. UN/World Bank. 2004. Liberia ­ Joint Needs Assessment ­ Sector Working Paper: Livelihoods and Employment Generation, February 2004, UN/World Bank ­ Unofficial Draft Document. World Bank. 2006. World Bank commissioned study: The Evolution of Agricultural Education and Training: Global Insights of Relevance for Africa, Carl K. Eicher, Michigan State University. World Bank. 2006. "Liberia Agriculture Sector Review - In A Post Conflict Country ­ Concept Note". I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 45 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 2 PEOPLE MET Name Organisation Position Government Dr Christopher Toe Ministry of Agriculture Minister for Agriculture James Logan Ministry of Agriculture Deputy Minister L. Kandakai Ministry of Agriculture Deputy Minister, Regional Development, Research and Extension Alfred F. Kotio Forestry Development National Authorising Officer, Commissions Authority James Zayzay National Investment Acting Head Centre (NIC) William Q. Menyen MoA, Nimba County District Agricultural Officer, Gertre Soluntea, MoA, Cuttington, Bong County Agricultural Coordinator, County Daniel S. Gbigbi CARI-Seed Officer in Charge, Multiplication Project John Woods Forestry Development Managing Director Authority Jangar S. Kamara Forestry Development Technical Manager Designate for Authority Commercial Forestry Garmai Wolokollie Forestry Development Acting Head Authority Haris Wennie Cooperation Deputy Registrar Development Authority (CDA) CAAS-LIB Team Members Dr Othello Brandy CAAS-LIB National Coordinator Dr Dunstan Spencer CAAS-LIB Team Leader Franklin Henries CAAS-LIB Counterpart - Food Crops Jallah Kennedy CAAS-LIB Counterpart - Institutional Development Paul Jallah CAAS-LIB Counterpart - Institutional Development NGOs, Farmers and Cooperatives Lucia Bass Independent Farmer on Farmer, Bong County WFP Food-for-Work Programme MacArthur M. Pay- International Institute of Project Manager ­ Sustainable Tree Crop Bayee Tropical Agriculture Program (IITA) Arthur Flomo Dokodan Cooperative President Thomas Gbuabaye, Africare Liberia Agricultural Production Offerce N. Kpokolo NGO - Nimbaian Project Manager Bangladeshi Agricultural Project, Kapain District James Jiazoli World Vision Agricultural Manager ­ Food Security Tom Ewert MercyCorps Country Director I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 46 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Donor Staff and Donor Funded Projects Joseph Boiwu FAO ­ Liberia Assistant Resident Representative (Officer In Charge) ­ Operations Thomas Palmer FAO ­ Regional Office Senior Policy and Programme Officer Ghana Chris Jackson World Bank Consultant ­ Policy Analysis Chet Aeschliman, FAO Regional Officer Rural Finance and Marketing Officer for Africa, Accra, Ghana Kay Schwendinger UNDP ­ Liberia Strategic Partnerships Officer ­ Liberia Mohamed Khaled FAO ­ Liberia Emergency Coordinator Robert Krech World Bank Consultant Emmet Watson UNDP ­ Liberia Assistant Resident Representative Indu Bhushan UNDP Programme Reintegration and Participatory Gautam Development Manager ­ Community Based Reintegration Recovery Programme Robert Krech World Bank ­ Liberia Consultant Liam McGuire EU ­ Community Team Leader Development Programme Paul Woods EU ­ Community Contracts, Finances and Administration Development Programme I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 47 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 3 METHODOLOGY AND KEY FINDINGS Methodology Two teams of six enumerators and one supervisor conducted the survey. The survey was designed before hand. Given poor road conditions at the time of this survey it made impossible to visit all counties. The survey instead covered a number of significant agricultural producing counties to derive a balanced view of production from low to high producers within each county. Bong and Nimba counties were chosen to represent high production areas. Grand Cape Mount County represented one of the counties with intermediate food production whilst Grand Kru, Grand Gedeh and Maryland counties displayed low productivity and whose foodstuff comes mainly from Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea. The six enumerators were divided into two teams of three as shown in Table 1 and 2 below: · Team One consisted of Sam Guwor (Vegetables), Toe Williams (Root Crops) and David Vienn (Rice). They visited 36 towns in Bong, Grand Cape Mount and Nimba Counties. The Table below shows the towns visited. · Team Two consisted of James Newman (Root Crops), Alex Mulbah (Vegetables) and Henry Bundor (Rice). They visited the southeast region and covered 19 towns. Due to poor roads, many towns were reached only by walking. Table 1 - Counties and Towns Visited by Team One County Town Bong Balayeamah, Dulimue, Duta, Gbonota, Gbonoyea, Gowhua, Kpalainta, Lehleh, Naama, Suakoko, Warta, Yatala Grand Cape Mount Dowula, Gohnzodua, Kpeneji, Madina, Njagbacca, Sinje, Torsor, Vonzuanla Nimba Duowine, Gbedin, Karnplay, Kpaituo, Kpankatuo, Karnplay, Layee, Manbor Gbe, Nengbehn, Sanniquellie, Suazua, Voley, Yarsonnoh, Zaanpea, Zogowee, Zontuo Table 2 ­ Counties and Towns Visited by Team Two County Towns Visited Grand Gedeh Pouh Town, Zai Town, Zwedru Barclayville, Chanakalle, Filoken, Kayken, Picnic Cess Grand Kru Setor, Topoe Barraken, Bishop Hill, Easy Town, Fish Town, Gbolobo Harper East, Maryland High Wood, Philadelphia, Plebo, Sawonken, Seldeken The enumerators were not able to reach Grand Gedeh County because of transportation difficulties. The Supervisor supplemented the above survey with interviews with traders and input suppliers and met with farmer groups in three towns in Grand Gedeh County. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 48 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Findings The following tables present key findings generated by the survey for each commodity and in each county visited. Out of the total number of farmers interviewed, 64% were engaged in upland rice farming while 28% cultivated in the lowlands. 8% of farmers cultivated both upland and lowlands (a practice usually employed to safeguard against adverse weather conditions and by farmers who had a late start in the season). Farmers in the South Eastern region were also seen to carry out parboiling of rice after harvest to reduce the percentage of broken grains when milling. Table 3 (a) below shows distribution per county for rice production. Table 3 (a) ­ Rice Production Lowland/ County Lowland Upland Upland Parboiling Trader Bong 44% 56% 0 22% 0 Grand Cape Mount 35% 65% 0 17% 0 Grand Gedeh* 0 0 0 0 2 Grand Kru 12% 59% 29% 76% 0 Maryland 22% 67% 11% 71% 2 Nimba 28% 72% 0 39% 2 Total 141% 319% 40% 225% 6 Mean 28% 64% 8% 45% Table 3 (b) shows that 80% of root crops farmers grew cassava (the second staple crop after rice), while 16% were engaged in the production of plantain, and 4 in cocoyam cultivation. Some value addition in the form of cassava flour processing, fufu and gari was seen, with the production of gari being the major product produced by 35% of farmers, followed by fufu at 19% and only 1% of farmers in Nimba County producing cassava flour. Table 3 (b) - Root Crop Production County avassa mayoco ruolF ufuF ira G redar C T C niatnalP Bong 72% 6% 22% 0 5% 17% 0 Grand Cape Mount 100% 0 0 0 0 73% 1 Grand Gedeh* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Kru 94% 6% 0 0 38% 44% 0 Maryland 90% 10% 0 0 50% 40% 1 Nimba 44% 0 56% 5% 0 0 0 Total 400% 22% 78% 5% 93% 174% 2 Mean 80% 4% 16% 1% 19% 35% As shown in Table 4 below, 54% of the vegetable farmers interviewed grew bitter balls and pepper in mixed stand with upland rice during the rainy season, followed by 37% of pepper and 9% bitter balls grown in pure stands. The Table also shows Nimba and Bong Counties as the highest producers of these commodities ­ 72% and 67% respectively. Bitterballs are grown by 61% of farmers in Maryland county. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 49 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 4 ­ Vegetable Production County Bitterballs Pepper/ Pepper Trader Bitterballs Bong 33% 67% 0 0 Grand Cape Mount 0 39% 61% 1 Grand Gedeh* 0 0 0 3 Grand Kru 0 31% 69% 0 Maryland 10% 61% 29% 2 Nimba 0% 72% 28% 0 Total 43% 270% 187% 6 Mean 9% 54% 37% Summary of Survey a) Number of Interviews by County and Sector a) Farmers Number Interviewed % Bong 31 23% Maryland 24 18% Grand Cape Mount 25 19% Grand Kru 16 12% Nimba 39 29% Total 135 b) Input Suppliers Number Interviewed % Maryland 6 67% Nimba 1 11% Grand Gedeh 2 22% Total 9 c) Traders Number Interviewed % Maryland 3 38% Grand Gedeh 4 50% Cape Mount 1 12% Total 8 Overall Total Number of Interviews 152 Note: Numbers have been rounded. b) Size of farms of Commodity Producers (135 farmer respondents) Farm size in Has Number % Up to 2 has 120 88.9% 2 to 3 has 12 8.9% 3 to 4 has 2 1.5% > 4 has 1 0.7% Total 135 100% I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 50 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 c) A few key Characteristics of Farmers Interviewed (135 farmer respondents) Commodities being farmed Labour Source Number % Number % Upland Rice 35 26% Family 124 92% Bitterball/Plantain 28 21% Casual 8 6% Plantain 21 16% Hire 1 1% Lowland Rice 19 14% None 1 1% Cassava 15 11% Family/Hire 1 1% Bitterball 8 6% Total 135 100% Bitterball/Plantain/Other Veg. 7 5% Other Vegetable/Plantain 1 1% Other Vegetable 1 1% Total 135 Processing Does the farmer do any processing? Number % Number % Gari Preparation 9 7% Yes 27 20% Ground pepper 5 4% No 108 80% Ground okra 1 1% Total 135 100% 2 and 3 0 0% Milling 7 5% Parboiling 4 3% Cassava dough 0 0% Cassava flour 0 0% None 109 81% Total 135 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 51 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Where do you sell? Number % Farm gate 28 21% Market 22 16% Direct Trader 0 0% Farm gate/Market 2 1% Market/Direct Trader 10 7% Direct Trader/Farm Gate 45 33% None 28 21% Total 135 Who do you sell to? Number % Another farmer 63 47% Trader 35 26% Another farmer/Trader 8 6% None 29 21% Total 135 Do you take to market? Number % Yes 75 56% No 58 43% N/A 2 1% Total 135 100% Transportation Means Number % Walk 40 30% None 62 46% Other 33 24% Total 135 Future Plan Number % Continue Farming 40 30% Expand Farm 66 49% Uncertain 1 1% Plant Cassava & rice 1 1% Plant Cassava 2 1% Tree crops 4 3% Education 14 10% Improve production 2 1% Support Family 2 1% Build home 2 1% Marketing 1 1% Total 135 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 52 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Summary Table of Sales/Home Consumption % of commodity for Home % of commodity for Sale Lowland Rice 62% 38% Plantain 58% 42% B - P - OV* 56% 44% Upland Rice 46% 53% Bitterball/Plantain 43% 55% Cassava 37% 63% Bitterball 32% 68% Total (average of total) 48% 52% *Bitterball/Plantain/Other Vegetables. d) Input Supplier Questions and Findings (9 respondents) Who do you deal with when selling items? Number % Farmer directly 2 22% Other 1 11% Both farmer and other 6 67% Total 9 Do you provide any other services? Number % Credit 3 33% Advice 0 0% Other 0 0% No 6 67% Total 9 Other competition? Number % Other local traders 3 33% National travelling sales 0 0% Foreign traders 1 11% None 5 56% Total 9 How many employees do you have? Number % 0 3 33% 1 1 11% 2 4 44% 3 1 11% Total 9 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 53 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 e) Trader Questions and Responses (8 respondents) How many employees do you have? Do you buy in bulk? Number % Number % 0 5 62.5% Yes 7 87.5% 1 2 25.0% No 1 12.5% 2 1 12.5% Total 8 Total 8 What do you buy? Number % Processed* 2 25% * fufu or gari Fresh vegetables** 4 50% ** e.g. okra Rice 2 25% Total 8 Do you do any form of processing? Number % Yes* 1 13% *packaging. No 7 88% Total 8 Plans for the Future One Year Hence Number % Expand 4 50% Expand Volume and range 3 38% Continue business 1 13% Total 8 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 54 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 4 VALUE CHAIN SURVEY ­ QUESTIONNAIRE EXAMPLES VEGETABLE SURVEY SECTION 1: PRODUCTION ENTERPRISE Vegetable Type: Date: Name of Farmer: Location (Village, County): Size of farm: Hectares Production Inputs: Seed price: (Lib $)/kg Qty bought (kg) Other inputs and cost: Fertilizer Lib $/kg Units bought Pesticide Lib $kg Units bought Other Lib $kg Units bought Lib $kg Units bought Other costs: Land rent Hire Labour Lib $/day Number of days Storage Lib $/day Number of days Outputs: Production Total Kgs How much is for home % consumption? How much is for sale? % Sale price Lib $ Profit Lib $ SECTION 2: VALUE ADDITION/PROCESSING Processing Is there any processing? What processing takes place? What are the costs of Lib $ (also list item) processing? What inputs are required for Inputs processing? What price do you sell after Lib $/kg or per item processing? I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 55 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 SECTION 3: SWOT ANALYSIS OF THE ENTERPRISE Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats SECTION 4: MARKETING QUESTIONS Where do you sell your e.g. farm gate, market, direct to vegetable? trader Who do you deal with? e.g. another farmer? Trader? How many times do you sell? Do you take the produce to market? What are the transportation costs SECTION 5: PLAN FOR THE FUTURE What plans are there for the future? One year: Two years? I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 56 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 INPUT SUPPLIER SURVEY SECTION 1: PRODUCTION ENTERPRISE Date: Name of Trader: Location (Village, County): Number of employees: SECTION 2: BUSINESS RELATED What do you sell? E.g. tools, seeds, fertilizers, other List a few items and their costs: Tools Lib $ per item e.g. spades Seeds: Lib $ per kg (or 50 kg bags) Rice Seed Lib $ per kg (or 50 kg bags) Vegetable Seed Lib $ per kg (or 50 kg bags) Cassava cuttings Lib $ per kg (or 50 kg bags) Fertilizer Lib $ per kg (or 50 kg bags) Other inputs e.g. insecticides/pesticides? SECTION 3: SWOT ANALYSIS OF THE ENTERPRISE Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats SECTION 4: MARKETING QUESTIONS Do you advertise your Posters, word of mouth etc shop? Who do you deal with? e.g. direct with farmers? Other traders? Cooperatives? Do you provide any support services to farmers? Do you sell commodities for farmers? What competition do E.g. other traders in the village or you see in your area? town I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 57 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 SECTION 5: PLAN FOR THE FUTURE What plans are there for the future? One year? Two years? I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 58 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 5 CASE STUDIES Case Study 1: Maryland County - Philadelphia Swamp Rice project - Harper The Philadelphia swamp rice project commenced in 1964, with assistance from the Governments of Taiwan and Liberia. Initial development work covered 100 acres out of a total of 190 acres. 31 farmers were trained in lowland rice cultivation. Seed stocks were lost as a result of the war, but donors (such as the EU, LWS and WFP) have donated seeds to these farmers and supported by the WFP Food-for-Work-Programme. The rice variety grown here is "Suakoko 8" which is able to combat the high iron toxicity in the soil. FAO emergency assistance implemented through the Southeastern Agricultural Relief Agency (SARA), a local NGO, had some setbacks including seeds that did not germinate, and poor quality of tools distributed to them. Current yield figures are quite low as these fields are cultivated without the application of fertilizer. Crop yield is between 1,500-2,000kg/ha as compared to the 3,000-4,000kg/ha in the pre-war years. This group of farmers provide milling services to the community as well as satellite towns and villages. The Philadelphia farmers were equipped with one rice mill, three power tillers, four threshers and two hand-operated winnowers. Sickles were used for harvesting. Government initially provided maintenance and spare parts. Farmers provided fuel and a small fee L$12.00/acre for two ploughing operations or $6.00 per single operation. All equipment was stolen during the war, although recently a rice mill has been donated to the group by the Lutheran World Service (LWS) to reactivate post harvest activities. Normal post harvest activities are beginning to take place, although little value addition (parboiling) is generated. Major problems faced by the farmers include bird damage and weed control (the dam is not functioning well and as the paddy fields cannot be flooded at some part of the season, weeds have become a problem). Case Study 2: Grand Gedeh County - Work and See Farmers Cooperative Society ­ Zwedru The Work and See Farmers Cooperative Society was established in 1973 primarily to produce swamp rice and vegetables. This cooperative has nine members on the Board of Directors as well as a management team. It is structured in a way that each farmer is given several plots according to their ability to utilize the land. They are assessed as their proper use. In cases where plots are not utilized, adjustments are made and excess land is given to either new members or members with spare capacity to expand their cultivation. This is done mainly to ensure vacant space in not left in the field. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 59 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Payment to the cooperative is made in the form of in-kind as opposed to cash. Proceeds accrued from the sales of the in-kind dues, are used to purchase tools and other inputs and which are then stored in a "tools bank", which members can access on a sign-and-return basis. The cooperative also provides seeds to new members to get them started. Payment of dues was suspended during the war, but there are plans to reactivate this before the end of 2006. In the past the cooperative had one rice mill (which provided service to the members and the general public), one mini tractor and two power tillers (donated by GoL). Farmers sold rice to the immediate community and kept some for household consumption. The civil war disrupted farming until only this year. The cooperative has a current membership of 373 farmers (comprising 230 men and 143 women). Currently, German Agro Action (GAA) is assisting to rehabilitation of canals and floodways. Initial clearing was carried out by AGRIMECO (approximately 500 acres of lowland was cleared and 85% of which is currently under cultivation). GAA donated a new rice mill to the cooperative, which, will be supervised and monitored by a committee comprised of MOA, GAA and the cooperative. WFP has also contributed a food-for-work ration to the cooperative. Since the war no fertilizer has been applied. If the harvest is successful, the members will consider strongly the introduction of fish farming and beekeeping. Case Study 3: Pouh Town: NAWOCOL NAWOCOL is female run CBO established in 1999 to help returnees with agricultural planting materials and assistance to the vulnerable in the community with local food (cassava and vegetables). The organization has been operating on a self-help basis and charges no membership fees. Contributions made by members to the organization are used to purchase office stationery. The organization worked well up until 2001; and has since 2001-2006 it has been dormant due to the civil conflict that engulfed the southeast. After a 6 year lag period the member resumed operation in August 2006, cultivating 5 acres of vegetables for this dry season, and base upon the success of this cropping cycle, the membership intend to engage into the cultivation of 200 acres of assorted food crops. Membership stands at 80. The organization lacks farm inputs (tools, equipment, and seeds/planting materials) and technical support but is able to pay for some technical assistance. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 60 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 6 DRC CALCULATIONS (US$)59 59The data on which these matrixes have been compiled have been based are tables 8, 9 and 10 in the body of this report as well as the database of the survey undertaken. I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 61 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 62 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 63 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 64 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption 65 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 I. Food crop production, post-harvest handling processing marketing and consumption 66 with a focus on small holders and traditional farming and food security II. TREE CROP SUB-SECTOR By Dr Michael D. Wilcox Consultant, World Bank Liberia 2007 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 II. TREE CROPS SUB-SECTOR REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION Agriculture has played a predominant role in the Liberian economy in terms of livelihoods, export earnings and employment. Since the mid-nineteenth century when coffee was introduced in Liberia, tree crops (together with natural resources such as timber, iron ore and other minerals) have been the prominent feature in the dualism that has characterized to date the country's economic development. 60 Tree crops in Liberia have been cultivated across a range of production systems and marketed through private and public entities. The purpose of this report is to examine the current status of the Liberian tree crop sector and attempt to shed some light on how the sector continues to evolve after more than a decade of conflict that significantly impacted the people, institutions, economy and infrastructure of Liberia. As Liberia recovers from the political unrest and destruction of the civil war, and moves from a relief and rehabilitation mode to a development phase, the tree crops sector presents both challenges and opportunities as an engine for growth. In general, the challenges involve formulating and prioritizing policies and building new institutions in order to provide the incentives to smallholders and other private investors for rehabilitation of the tree crop sector in the face of a secular downward trend in international agricultural commodity market prices. Despite these challenges, opportunities exist to rebuild the sector in an 61 equitable manner so that it contributes to growth, development and poverty reduction. A significant gap lies between the pre-war Liberia of the past (pre-1989) and the post war Liberia of the recent past, present and future (post-2003). This gap directly affects all aspects of Liberian life including information, business channels, political priorities, and the livelihoods of all Liberians. This report attempts to use archived secondary data from pre- war Liberia together with primary data recently collected in three counties (Bong, Lofa and Nimba) that were traditional strongholds of the smallholder tree crop sector, to provide a baseline of information from which to move forward. This report consists of seven sections. Section 1 outlines the survey methodology used in the primary data collection and the main sources of data and information. Section 2 takes a macroeconomic perspective and discusses the traditional and current role of agriculture in the Liberian economy. Sections 3, 4 and 5 examine rural households in Liberia, land issues, and the current status of their primarily agrarian economy, respectively. Section 6 takes an in-depth look at each of the four primary smallholder tree crop sectors (rubber, cocoa, coffee and oil palm) by discussing world market trends, current tree stock and production, and the evolution of the marketing chain and its effects on market outcomes. Section 7 considers the way forward as the tree crop sector continues to re-orient itself to the post-war marketplace. 60Production systems have included smallholder (palm oil, coffee and cocoa, and to a limited extent rubber), commercial farms (rubber, palm oil, and to a lesser extent coffee and cocoa), and plantations, both private and parastatal (rubber and palm oil). 61For further detail on the current challenges and opportunities facing the Liberian cocoa sector, please see Toe, Wilcox (2006). II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 69 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 2. METHODOLOGY AND DATA 2.1 Survey Methodology In general, the tree crop sub-sector is comprised of a range of production systems and therefore marketing chains through which the produce is marketed. The prominent concession system of Liberian rubber involves large-scale production and essentially intra- firm transactions. On the opposite end of the spectrum, smallholder tree crop producers market their relatively small-scale production through marketing chains that range from multinational dominated rubber to chaotic and cross border cocoa/coffee transactions. Given the motivation of this report, survey data from a parallel study conducted by the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture's Sustainable Tree Crop Program (IITA/STCP), along with the University of Tennessee (UTK), is used to provide a snapshot of the current situation for smallholder tree crop production. Many studies have examined the world trade of tree crops. These studies are typically performed using annual data aggregated to a national level. Studies that examine the particulars of a domestic tree crop marketing chain are less prevalent, partly due to the lack of appropriate data. Tree crop marketing data is collected by governments, nongovernmental organizations and private entities, but is not widely available for analysis by third parties. As discussed in Section 2.2, years of civil conflict in Liberia have created a void of primary and secondary data from which to connect the pre-war status of smallholder tree crop production and marketing and the current situation. To acquire such data, a household survey methodology was selected to facilitate an analysis of the Liberian tree crop sector. STCP, a public/private partnership between the cocoa industry and governmental/non-governmental entities, was particularly interested in the cocoa sector. STCP is also concerned with how cocoa production/marketing relates to other aspects of the agriculturally oriented household's portfolio of income generating opportunities. As such, the IITA/STCP/UTK baseline survey specifically targeted cocoa producing households while also capturing the economic activities and household characteristics of non-cocoa producing households. A significant limitation of the survey is a complete lack of village-level population and cocoa production data. In fact, recent aggregated county-level data does not exist. The paucity of such secondary data, that otherwise could have aided in the formation of survey weights, limits the representativeness of the sampling procedure and resulting analysis. In an effort to address this limitation, randomness and industry consensus were used to arrange survey logistics. 2.1.1 Selection of Counties, Buying Centres, Villages In the past, significant cocoa production in Liberia was spread across at least three counties (in order of production from greatest to least: Nimba, Lofa, and Bong) or the "cocoa belt" (see Section 3). These counties continue to be the epicentre of cocoa production in Liberia as other counties (e.g. Grand Cape Mount) have abandoned their cocoa to the bush due to a complete lack of market and price incentives. Since one aim of the IITA/STCP/UTK study was to elucidate the current cocoa marketing situation, these three counties were chosen and surveyed between October 2006 and March 2007. Prior to the war, cocoa produced by smallholder farmers in these counties, and others, was purchased and exported by the parastatal Liberian Produce Marketing Company (LPMC). LPMC warehouses were scattered across the countryside in larger towns where cocoa from the hinterlands was aggregated and shipped to Monrovia for export. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 70 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 With the demise of LPMC, these traditional buying centres continue to serve as a base of operations for the private Liberian-based buyers who now buy and sell cocoa. In theory, these centres serve as focal points around which the Liberian cocoa markets operate. In previous studies (Wilcox, 2006; Wilcox and Abbott, 2006), buying centres have been designated as large (cocoa amassed in the buying centre is shipped directly to Monrovia as buyers have relatively high capacity to procure and transport the relatively large quantities of cocoa produced in the area) or small (cocoa often passed on to a second buying centre before it is shipped to Monrovia as farmers are more remote, produce less and the buyers have correspondingly lower capacity). Buying centre size may be associated with scale economies, availability of market information, quality of infrastructure and a particular market environment driven by barriers to entry that result from the institutional history of the market. These prospects suggest that size of the buying centre could influence the magnitude and variation of farmgate prices. Unfortunately, the lack of cocoa production and marketing data does not allow particular buying centres to be easily stratified by these factors. Instead, a list was assembled of potential buying centres in each if the three counties (Table 1). The final list was considered the best representation of all the major and minor cocoa buying focal points found in the selected counties based on professional opinion and anecdotal evidence. Given the chaotic nature of the current cocoa marketing channels, two buying centres were chosen per county, with assistance from STCP-Liberia, the Liberian Ministry of Agriculture and members of the Liberian cocoa industry. An attempt was made to include one of each designation while ensuring that each buying centre was currently active. Table 1: Cocoa Buying Centres in Bong, Lofa and Nimba Counties Bong Lofa Nimba Belefanai Bolahun Bahn Gbarnga Kolahun Butuo Gbatala Salayea Ganta Gbeilay Kokoya Voinjama (Beo) Palala Zorzor Karnplay Zoweinta Loguatuo Mehnla Saclepea Tappita Zikepa NOTE: Buying centres in bold and italics were chosen for IITA/STCP/UTK survey Village selection followed Wilcox and Abbott (2006). Administrative maps (1:150,000 scale) were used to develop a comprehensive list of villages within the anticipated buying centre market area. The market area was assumed to have a radius of 30-40 kilometres based on infrastructure quality and proximity to other buying centres. When possible, cocoa buyers and farmers were asked to assist in the demarcation of market boundaries. Given the timeframe of the project, six villages were chosen at random for each buying centre. Villages were considered any settlement name listed on the maps. Cartesian quadrants (originating from the buying centre) were used to separate each buying centre market into four regions. Villages were selected under the criteria that at least one village from each quadrant was randomly selected to create a sample of four villages. A sample of six villages was desired per buying centre (one village per day during a six-day workweek), so the II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 71 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 remaining two villages were selected randomly from the master list of villages surrounding the buying centre, regardless of quadrant. The result was six villages randomly drawn from each of the six buying centres, or thirty-six villages in total. Once villages were chosen (see Table 2), the villages were visited before the scheduled surveying date to discuss, face-to- face, the research agenda and logistics with village leaders. This likely enhanced participation and allayed fears or concerns of ulterior motives. The pre-visit meeting also allowed the research team to discern village layout and cocoa marketing institutions that were currently in-place. On several occasions, the selected villages were found to have been destroyed/abandoned during the war or devoid of any person actively producing and marketing cocoa. In these instances, the nearest village with active cocoa farmers was chosen to replace the original village as market institutions and production practices were likely quite similar given the close proximity. 2.1.2 Selection of Survey Participants and Interviews At the scheduled arrival time, enumerators would meet with village leaders and assemble potential participants at the previously identified meeting place. The vast majority of the meetings occurred in the morning to limit the meeting's impact on daily activities and assure maximum participation. Once the meeting commenced, one or several team members would introduce themselves and explain the research agenda in the appropriate language(s). A village-level survey was completed with input from participants. Once the village-level survey was completed, village leaders completed a list of the names of general audience members and cocoa farmers that were not in attendance. Every effort was made to include all cocoa farmers in the potential participant pool. Once the final list had been compiled, every name was assigned a corresponding number and individual interview participants were chosen randomly. Since obtaining cocoa marketing information was of paramount importance, the next randomly selected participant on the list served as an alternate and replaced chosen participants who had not sold cocoa during the 2006/07 season. Once a sample of ten cocoa farming households and approximately six non-cocoa farming households was obtained, participants were randomly assigned to numerators. Enumerators conducted the interviews individually or as group depending on language constraints and the comfort level of participants. The survey instrument consisted of 16 pages and gathered information about household demographics and income in addition to agricultural/tree crop production and marketing (see Section 2.2). Villages were visited twice, once at the beginning of the cocoa season (October/November) and once at the end (January/February/March) to facilitate the collection of transaction level marketing data. 2.2 Data Relevant secondary data on the Liberian agricultural sector is scarce and often fragmentary. IMF and World Bank reports fill some of the data gaps. Macroeconomic data from IMF and World Bank is based on estimates derived from collaboration with their staff and Liberian agencies. Similarly, data from FAOSTAT is broadly consistent with national data (from which it is predominantly derived) on production, area harvested and exports during the period from the 1960s to the end of the 1980s. National production estimate data was collected on a sample basis and shows considerable variation year-to-year. Production data from the 1990s to the present time is understandably either unreliable or missing. Export data for smallholder tree crops such as coffee and coca needs to be treated with some caution since cross-country transfers (in both directions) reflect, at different times, price differentials and market access in neighbouring countries ­ Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 72 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Leone, and more recent rubber export data may include rubber produced in Sierra Leone. Data on yields is also problematic since national data was collected on a sample basis during the 1970s to late 1980s, and is invariably reported in terms of a simple division of production by area harvested, which lends itself to inaccuracies, and moreover smallholder food and tree crops are normally intercropped and rarely planted in pure stands. There is little information on regional differences in commodity production, or based on different farming systems. Similarly, there appears to have been no attempt to collect information systematically on farm budgets or to calculate gross margins ­ and little information on these topics is available with the exception of basic financial analysis in project appraisal reports and stand-alone studies (the latest for tree crops in 2001). At times during the 1970s and 1980s pricing policy analysis was undertaken to examine the margins between export and producer prices of tree crops, and a market analysis was carried out for cocoa in 2005 by Pay-Bayee (2005) and followed-up with the systematic collection of primary data by IITA/STCP/UTK presented in this report. There is little data on farm size either for food or tree crop production, and this is a significant constraint. Likewise, there are major information gaps with regard to land tenure systems, and how these may have evolved since the 1960s as tree crop production has increased and land-population ratios have changed in different parts of the country. There is, however, some time series data on household numbers at a county level and across commodity groups from the 1970s to late 1980s, and more latterly in 2001. While all of these caveats on secondary data should be borne in mind throughout this study, the IITA/STCP/UTK survey attempted to address some of these information gaps. Though the study area was limited to the primary smallholder tree crop counties of Bong, Lofa, and Nimba, it is believed that the situation in these counties is, in a general sense, broadly representative of the situation throughout the regions where tree crops play a role in the local rural economies. The IITA/STCP/UTK survey resulted in the completion of 794 surveys in 40 villages located around two buying centres per county (Table 2)62. The survey instrument consisted of twelve sections: Locational Details, Household Characteristics, Household Demographics, Farming System Characteristics, Perennial Tree Crop Investments and Production, Hired Labour Use for Tree Crop Production, Tree Crop Marketing (cocoa, rubber, oil palm and coffee), Rural Services and Rural Credit. Data from each of these sections is dispersed throughout the report to provide context to the current situation of the Liberian tree crop sector. 3. AGRICULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN LIBERIA Table 3 presents some key indicators for the Liberian economy. Examining Liberia's economic performance on the basis of decades is somewhat arbitrary, but the division does reflect the broad political regime changes over the past 45 years: the 1960s saw the fruits of Tubman's "Open Door Policy" approach not least in terms of the impact of the concession policies for minerals and rubber, and the consolidation of the dualism in the structure of the 62 Several other buying centres were encountered in the field that are closely related to those in Table 1. In general, these centres represent the exact location of a particular buyer who stores cocoa purchases in a town (village) adjacent to a traditional buying centre (e.g. Bahn is a few kilometers from Saclepea). II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 73 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 economy; the 1970s was the decade of Tolbert "From Mat to Mattress" (his death ended 100 years of one-party rule) and an incipient program towards broader based growth; the 1980s the military coup and the increasing repression and economic mismanagement of the Doe regime, and the 1990s until 2003 the anarchy of the civil war years during which at least 200,000 people died and the majority of the population displaced. Table 2: Number of Surveys Completed by Village in IITA/STCP/UTK Survey No of Buying Date Village Clan District County Surveys Centre 25 11/4/06 & 3/6/07 Weinsue Jorpolu Jorquelleh Bong Gbarnga 8 10/28/2006 Cooper-Ta Jorquelleh Jorquelleh Bong Gbarnga 23 10/28/06 & 2/26/07 Melekie Jorquelleh Jorquelleh Bong Gbarnga 16 10/31/06 Galai Suakoko Suakoko Bong Gbarnga 16 3/7/07 & 3/8/07 Gwenima Suakoko Suakoko Bong Gbarnga Jimmy 16 10/3/2007 Suakoko Suakoko Bong Gbarnga Korkollie 21 10/24/06 & 2/25/07 Nai Suakoko Suakoko Bong Gbarnga 16 9/3/2007 Benneh Yeanawon Suakoko Bong Gbarnga 16 11/3/06 Kpoe Zota Zota Bong Gbarnga 22 11/2/2006 Boepa Bonwein Kokoyah Bong Zoweinta 24 11/1/06 & 2/3/07 Gbalorkpalar Soe Panta-Kpai Bong Zoweinta 24 11/1/06 & 3/1/07 Malonkai Soe Panta-Kpai Bong Zoweinta 24 11/2/06 & 3/4/07 Mileenta Wolota Kpai Bong Zoweinta 23 10/16/06 & 1/31/07 Betibah Bondi Voinjama Lofa Voinjama 16 10/16/06 Kennedy Farm Bondi Voinjama Lofa Voinjama 16 10/17/06 Kpakumai Bondi Voinjama Lofa Voinjama 24 10/15/06 & 2/1/07 Bolongoidu Quadu-Bondi Voinjama Lofa Voinjama 16 10/18/06 Nassadu Quadu-Bondi Voinjama Lofa Voinjama 24 10/17/06 & 01/02/07 Bazzagizzia Upper Walker Voinjama Lofa Voinjama 16 2/21/07 Mehmeh Gbalein Salayea Lofa Zorzor 23 10/25/06 & 2/18/07 Yeila Gizemai Zorzor Lofa Zorzor Kokolu- 16 2/22/07 Palama Salayea Lofa Zorzor Zazay 23 10/25/06 & 2/20/07 Gbanway Vavala Salayea Lofa Zorzor 25 10/2/06 & 2/19/07 Sucromu Vavala Salayea Lofa Zorzor 16 2/23/07 Nikebozu Zeyema Zorzor Lofa Zorzor 20 10/24/06 & 2/17/07 Kpassagisia Zeyema Zorzor Lofa Zorzor 25 10/23/06 & 2/16/07 Wakesu Zeyema Zorzor Lofa Zorzor 24 10/23/06 & 2/15/07 Zelemai Zeyema Zorzor Lofa Zorzor 21 10/3/06 & 1/22/07 Mlintontuo Boe-Quellah Tappita Nimba Bahn 20 10/3/06 & 1/20/07 Fiaplay Gbor Zoe Geh Nimba Bahn 16 9/06/06 & 9/29/06 Bayleglay Zoe Zoe Geh Nimba Bahn Miaplay 16 10/1/2006 Zoe Zoe Geh Nimba Bahn Yeazlay 18 10/7/06 & 1/26/07 Zahn-Boie Zahn Saclepea-Mah Nimba Ganta 18 9/27/06 & 1/15/07 Duoplay Sango-zoa Gbelaygeh Nimba Karnplay 18 9/6/06 & 1/18/07 Slangonplay Sollay Gbelaygeh Nimba Karnplay 20 9/6/06 & 1/17/07 Gbeh-Bonnah Sroh Gbelaygeh Nimba Karnplay 25 9/6/06 & 1/15/07 Zualay Zor Gbelaygeh Nimba Karnplay Yarwin- 23 10/04/06 & 1/24/07 Ganwee Mehnsonoh Nimba Saclepea Mehnsonoh 21 10/6/06 & 1/7/07 Loyee Wee Saclepea-Mah Nimba Saclepea Yarwin- 20 10/5/06 & 1/23/07 Beinglan Mehnsonoh Nimba Zoweinta Mehnsonoh II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 74 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 3: Basic Economic and Social Indicators for Liberia by Decade (1960-2000) Indicator 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000-2005 GDP per capita (Constant 1980 US$) US$ 673 898 495 21 34 GDP growth rate % p.a. 4.7 3 -4.5 1.2 1.5 GDP per capita growth % p.a. 1.9 0 -6.2 -3.2 -0.7 Agriculture GDP share % 23 27 33 66 69 Tree crops as % export value % 24 18 23 60 Total population 1.05m 1.37m 1.87m 2.14m 3.06m Population growth rate % p.a. 2.7 2.9 1.8 3.0 2.0 Rural as % total population % 78 70 60 51 44 Rural population growth rate % p.a. 1.8 1.7 0.1 1.2 0.3 Life expectancy yrs 40 42 44 43 42 per 1,000 Infant mortality live births 190 180 157 157 Adult literacy % 39% Total aid US $m 280 276 857 1,116 477 Aid as share of GNI % 13 4 12 26 24 Aid per capita US$ 24 17 46 50 Source: World Development Indicators (WDI) World Bank and FAOSTAT. Study estimates NOTE: GDP per capita, GDP growth rate & per capita growth rate, agriculture share of GDP: simple averages Tree crops as percentage export value is the dollar value of rubber, coffee, cocoa and palm exports (FAOSTAT) as a proportion of total exports of goods and services in current dollars: simple averages Total population is population at start of decade Rural as percentage total population, rural population growth rate: simple averages Life expectancy & infant mortality: start of decade Adult literacy is figure for 1990 Total aid, aid as share of GNI & aid per capita: simple averages . Over the period of the past four decades, the majority of households have experienced little, if any improvement in terms of income; and the civil war years brought for 15 years widespread destruction and appalling loss of life. The trend in per capita income is shown in Figure 1. The economy has never achieved sustained growth for a sufficient amount of time required to lift the country from the low income and high incidence of poverty by which it is characterized. The growth in average income in the 1960s and 1970s was lost by the early 1980s, prior to the collapse of the economy in the 1990s. The poor economic performance has been largely caused by the intransigence of political elite, which has levered political power and public office to generate private wealth at the expense of the well-being of the Liberian people. This in turn, affected the ability of the government in the 1970s and 1980s to undertake its basic functions, expand public services into the interior, and monitor the capacity of monopoly marketing board, and other parastatals, to operate according to their mandates. It also introduced an ambiguity with regard to those private sector enterprises not owned or controlled by the political class. The economy is also characterized by a high degree of inequality. Wide income disparities reflect the differences between the monetized and non-monetized ("traditional") sectors. For example, in the late 1960s it was estimated that per capita income was US$218 but subsistence economy incomes were about US$70 per year (World Bank, 1969). By the mid- 1970s per capita incomes in the monetized and the traditional sectors were US$900 and US$120 respectively, with per capital incomes for the foreign concessions estimated at US$2,400. At this time, about one-quarter of GDP each year was repatriated abroad as factor payments (World Bank, 1978). II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 75 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Figure 1: Trend in GDP per capita, 1960-2005 From 1960-80s the share of GDP from agriculture was quite low at 30-40%. This reflected the dominance of the natural resource sector primarily from timber and minerals, and low levels of value added in smallholder production, rather than any structural change in the economy (Figure 2 and Table 4). With the collapse of the formal economy, agriculture's share of GDP has risen to over 70%, including forest products (IMF, 2006). Given agriculture's current share of Liberian GDP, it is important to understand how each sector contributed to the overall economy. According to IMF estimates (IMF, 2006), agriculture and fisheries, excluding forest products, represented between 46-51% of Liberian GDP since 2000 at current prices. In 2005, tree crops (rubber, cocoa, and coffee) represented 22% of Liberian GDP. The two main staples, rice and cassava represented 14%. Figure 2: Percentage Shares of GDP, 1964-86 II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 76 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 4: GDP, Agricultural GDP and rubber (US$mil) Item 1971 1976 1980 Total GDP 429.9 761.8 1055.4 Agriculture 40.2 78.2 159.0 --Rubber 24.0 39.5 61.5 --Forestry 6.4 18.2 47.0 --Other 9.8 20.5 50.5 Mining 124.8 182.6 131.4 Traditional economy 57.5 130.2 214.0 Source: World Bank, 1982 In addition to contributing to Liberian GDP, tree crops have been a significant element of export earnings, especially rubber (Table 5). While timber's share has been eliminated due to sanctions, cocoa's share of earnings has increased, due to reclamation of smallholder farms and the likely influx of Ivorian cocoa (a by-product of the Ivorian civil war that began in 2002 and effectively split the country in half) that presently continues to cross the border into Nimba County. Table 5: Estimates of Liberian Export Earnings by Product from 2000 ­ 2005 Product 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Rubber 47.5% 42.2% 35.6% 40.3% 90.0% 88.0% Timber 50.7% 54.1% 60.3% 50.1% 0.0% 0.0% Cocoa 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.8% 3.4% 5.1% Coffee 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Other 0.9% 3.4% 3.8% 8.7% 6.7% 7.0% Total exports ($US millions) 120.3 127.9 166.5 108.9 103.8 112.2 Source: IMF, 2006 In contrast to agriculture's relatively low share of GDP during the 1960-80s, the agricultural sector represented about 80% of employment, both formal and informal. Historically, rubber has been a major source of formal employment with 24,000 jobs on concessions in the late 1960s (World Bank, 1969) and approximately 18,500 at present plus workers on commercial rubber farms (MOF, 2006). Though census figures are not available, it is likely that a greater number of Liberians participate, formally and informally, in the entire tree crop sector providing income opportunities to thousands in the rural areas of Liberia. FAO/MOA (2001) estimates that almost 40,000 households produce cocoa in Liberia. 4. RURAL HOUSEHOLDS The Liberian population has tripled since 1960, and with relatively high rates of population growth, the population is projected to reach about 5 million by 2020 and double again by 2050. This implies that an economic growth rate of at least 3% per year will be needed for per capita incomes to be maintained, and an annual 9% growth for per capita income to double by 2015. The rural population as a proportion of the total population has fallen to below 50%, as rural population growth rates have been consistently less than overall population growth rates. Economic dualism has created a demand for (predominantly unskilled male) labour to work on the mineral, timber and rubber concessions. As a corollary, concession policies have also resulted in labour shortages in rural areas. Lack of public education and health services in II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 77 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 rural areas and latterly the reluctance of some displaced groups to return to rural areas have also contributed to the rate of urbanization. Perhaps the rural/urban dichotomy is unhelpful, since there is a high degree of mobility between household members, including temporary and seasonal migration, in addition to children being sent to urban areas, primarily Monrovia, for schooling. Human development indicators suggest that there has been no improvement in life expectancy and (at best) a marginal improvement in child mortality, albeit from an appalling high rate. Due to a lack of data, Liberia is currently not ranked in the human development reports of the UNDP. Adult literacy is also low by sub-Saharan standards. In the absence of household income and expenditure surveys, the incidence of poverty has not been quantified. However, the recent Comprehensive Food Security and Nutritional Survey (CFSNS) indicates that half the population is either food insecure (11%) or highly vulnerable to food insecurity (40%), and stunting affects 39% of children under five years of age. The number of agricultural households has risen from about 150,000 (World Bank, 1975) to 180,000 in the late 1980s, and to a range of 150-200,000 in 2006. Table 6 provides a summary of national level rural and agricultural household characteristics from sources. Secondary data suggests that there are slightly more women than men working on farm, and there is quite a high proportion of the agricultural population working off-farm (about 30%). In 2001, 18% of those working on farm were paid (FAO/MOA, 2001, Table 1.4). Table 6: Rural and Agricultural households Item 1986 1987 1988 2001 Rural households 216,300 218,000 219,100 179,800 Rural population 1,285,500 1,294,200 1,303,840 994,930 Agricultural households 178,600 179,600 180,290 151,940 Agricultural population 1,107,200 1,111,900 1,114,440 881,400 Non agricultural rural households 37,700 38,400 38,810 27,860 Population working on farm 760,400 776,100 801,770 Agricultural farm size (members) 6.2 6.2 6.2 -- male 371,750 384,140 -- female 404,350 417,630 Farming reported as main income source 160,200 160,700 -- % Agricultural households 89% 89% Agricultural population working off farm 346,800 335,800 312,670 113,530 --% 31% 30% 28% Source: MOA Production Estimates (1988), FAO/MOA (2001) - Does not include Lofa County. Interestingly, the highest number of rice producing households and some of the highest levels of population are also located in counties that are traditional centres of tree crop production (Table 7). It seems reasonable to assume these are areas of high agricultural productivity. Tables 8 and 9 show the households producing coffee and cocoa by county. The highest numbers of coffee and cocoa households are found in Nimba, Bong and Lofa counties. At least 45% of households produced palm oil in the mid-1970s, (World Bank, 1984) with again the highest proportion in Nimba, Bong and Lofa. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 78 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 7: Rural Population and Number of Rice Farms by County Rural/Semi-urban Population (2005) Rice Farms County (2001) Bomi 126,006 5,090 Bong 180,703 29,300 Cape Mount 76,000 6,130 Grand Bassa 123,317 13,690 Grand Gedeh 64,727 13,460 Grand Kru 41,117 5,010 Lofa 177,810 - Margibi 119,881 9,240 Maryland 80,036 6,180 Montserrado 319,680 4,450 Nimba 238,360 41,150 Rivercess 84,236 3,330 Sinoe 56,074 7,210 TOTAL 1,687,947 144,240 Source: FAO/MOA 2001 Study. Note: Population data reflect 2001 county status therefore River Gee is included with Rivercess and Gbarpolu is included with Bomi. Monrovia and its environs are not included. Table 8: Coffee producing households by County % agric 1976 1977 1978 1981 1988 h'holds 2001 in 1988 Bomi 140 2 50 Bong 3,800 4,700 5,500 4,000 4,850 17 4,450 Cape Mount 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,000 1,890 25 370 Grand Bassa 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,000 1,890 12 320 Grand Gedeh 700 1,000 1,200 2,170 1,700 13 380 Grand Kru 200 4 30 Lofa 12,000 12,700 13,700 12,180 14,800 54 nd Margibi 440 4 60 Maryland 400 500 500 300 200 3 30 Montserrado 700 700 700 890 100 1 20 Nimba 17,000 17,100 17,600 15,000 22,100 57 5,970 Rivercess 110 2 10 Sinoe 300 400 400 500 100 2 70 Total 38,400 40,600 43,100 37,040 48,520 11,760 Coffee holds % all agric 25% 26% 27% 19% 27% 8% h'holds As reflected in the data in tables 7-9, it is obvious why Bong, Lofa and Nimba were chosen as the study site for the IITA/STCP/UTK survey. Sections 4.1-4.3 discuss the general household characteristics of survey participants. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 79 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 9: Cocoa producing households by County % agric 1976 1977 1978 1981 1988 2001 h'holds in 1988 Bomi 320 Bong 5,300 6,500 7,300 5,575 5,930 Cape Mount 600 700 800 300 220 Grand Bassa 3,100 3,100 3,300 1,765 790 Grand Gedeh 3,900 4,500 4,800 24,0006 1,700 Grand Kru 240 Lofa 8,600 9,300 10,400 8,800 - Margibi 250 Maryland 2,200 2,400 2,600 4,250 550 Montserrado 1,500 1,700 1,800 1,360 40 Nimba 6,800 7,200 8,100 5,000 9,140 Rivercess 80 Sinoe 700 800 900 950 260 Total 32,700 36,200 40,000 52,000 19,520 Cocoa holds % all agric 21% 23% 25% 27% 13% h'holds Source: MOA Production Estimates (1988) and FAO/MOA 2001. 4.1. Demographics Of the 792 households surveyed for the 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Survey, 80.3 percent of the households surveyed had a head of house that was male, and 19.7 percent had a female head of house. Rural villages in Liberia often follow cultural traditions of male-headed households, with extended families. However, in cases where the male dies, widows may inherit the house and work the farm. The average age for a male head of household was 44.8 years old and the average age for a female head of household was 44.8 years old. Household size ranged from single adults living alone to extended families that counted up to 19 members (Figure 3). The majority of households had 4-6 members. Formal education often starts earlier in Liberia as compared to the U.S or Europe for those rural families that have the means to send children to pre-school ("as soon as the children begin talking"). Children take a variety of subjects, including but not limited to reading, writing, math, and science. While the government will pay the school fees for elementary school and former young combatants, school fees serve as a barrier for rural families whose limited means and daily tasks take precedence. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 80 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Figure 3: Frequency of Household Size 160 140 120 100 ycneuqerF 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Number of Household Members Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Figure 4 provides the highest level of educational attainment of all surveyed household members by age cohort. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of those household members that were born before 1956 did not receive any formal education. The level of educational attainment increases for the next generation up to the 21-30 year old age cohort. This is the age group that was arguably most affected by the war as they were the primary source of soldiers and schooling was intermittent throughout the conflict. A significant emphasis has been placed on education for the current youth by all segments of Liberian society. This is reflected in the data as more than half of pre-school aged and, roughly 80% of 8-20 year olds, have achieved some level of formal education. Overall, 22% of all surveyed household members over the age of 14 were full-time students. Despite the current push for education, access to formal education past elementary school is limited for most rural households, even in regard to supplemental agricultural training. Only 16 survey participants indicated that they had received any formal agricultural training. The Sustainable Tree Crops Program- Liberia is working on filling this void for tree crops, especially cocoa, through the creation of Farmer Field Schools (FFS) in Bong and Nimba counties with a planned future expansion into Lofa. Through the 15 farmer field schools created in Nimba County, 349 people have already been trained in integrated crop and pest management as well as cocoa quality improvement. Forty-one female cocoa farmers were among the graduates. The training also included topics on responsible social behaviour (HIV/AIDS and child labour). Currently, 24 new FRS have been established and they should reach up to 700 direct beneficiaries and a farmer-to-farmer (indirect beneficiaries) of 2,100 new trainees throughout Bong and Nimba counties. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 81 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Figure 4: Educational Attainment Levels for All Surveyed Household Members by Age Cohort 61 + (n=236) 51-60 (n=227) 41-50 (n=371) Pre-School Elementary School troho 31-40 (n=564) Middle School C High School eg 21-30 College A (n=670) Technical School 15-20 No Formal Education (n=639) 8-14 (n=872) 3-7 (n=866) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Frequency Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices 4.2 Income Income sources for the rural inhabitant are limited by available resources and markets. The principal economic activity for survey participants over 14 years old was, not surprisingly, agriculturally related (64%) (Figure 5). Interestingly, only 1% of those sampled worked primarily has hired farm labour and 2% of household members relied on petty commerce. Four percent of those sampled identified homemaking as their primary activity. Six percent of those sampled were completely unengaged or unemployed. Directly related to the fact that the principal economic activity of the majority of respondents was agriculturally related, nationally, 75% of surveyed household income was derived from food and tree crop sales as well as cash generated by working as on-farm labour (Figure 6). Across the three counties, the relative proportion of income sources was similar except in Nimba where a larger proportion of income was derived from tree crop sales. Other less prominent sources of income included petty commerce, non-agricultural enterprises and remittances from relatives in larger towns or living abroad. As food and tree crop sales generated almost 60% of household income, respondents were asked to rate the agricultural products that were most important, in terms of total sales, by gender (Figures 6 and 7). Forty percent of males reported that tree crops were the most important product produced versus 3% for females. This gender bias in tree crops has been found in other West African countries as well (see Gockowski, 2001). As was expected, female household members identified a variety of foods crops as being the most important. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 82 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Figure 5: Principle Economic Activity for Members of the Households Surveyed Over Age 14 4% 1% 2% 6% None 22% Self Employed Ag Hired Labor Ag Salaried Non-Ag Salaried Retired Student 0% Petty Commerce 1% Homemaker 1% 63% Other Figure 6: Sources of Income All Participants Ag - Food Crop Sales Bong Ag -Tree Crop Sales Ag - Farm Labor Non-Ag Enterprise Other Nimba Petty Commerce Remittances Lofa 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 83 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Figure 7: Importance of Agricultural Product, by Total Sales. Produced by Males in Households Surveyed Cocoa Other Plantain Most Important (n=789) Cassava Rubber Oil Palm Coffee Rice Palm Oil - finished Second Most Important Pepper (n=791) Leaf Vegetables Oranges Charcoal Beans Pigs Third Most Sweet Potatoes Important Colanut (n=790) Ducks Maize Cocoyam 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yams Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices. Figure 8: Importance of Agricultural Product, by Total Sales, Produced By Females in Households Surveyed Other Cassava Plantain Most Important Pepper (n=521) Leafy Vegetables Vegetable Pepper, Bitterball Beans Rice Bitterball Second Most Palm Oil Important (n=269) Oil Palm Cocoa Maize Sweet Potato Ducks Colanut Third Most Important Pigs (n=115) Coffee Poultry Goats Cocoyam 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yams Oranges Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices. Survey participants were also asked to identify one agricultural product (food crop, tree crop or livestock) that they wish to produce in the future (Figure 9). Goats led all possibilities with 22% of those surveyed. Tree crops (rubber, oil palm and cocoa) combined for just over 45%, with rubber being the most popular tree crop of choice. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 84 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Figure 9: Crop or Livestock Surveyed Household Would Choose to Produce Goats Rubber Oil Palm Cocoa Poultry Pigs Sheep Plantain n=777 Rice Coffee Other Leafy Vegetables Oranges Colanut Ducks Cocoyam Beans Fish 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices. 4.3 Inputs Access to a wide range of inputs typically used in an agricultural production setting, such as tools, seeds, tree and animal stock, chemicals and fertilizers is extremely limited. Most farmers do not have the opportunity to purchase them, due to lack of availability, nor can they afford them. Of the 792 households surveyed in the 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Survey, only two people indicated that they had used any type of agro-chemical or improved animal or seed variety. Of the two that indicated some kind of input, one used fertilizer on their rubber, 1 used insecticide on non-specific trees. Whereas, the number of tree crop farms with improved tree stock was 166 out of 1015 farms over the three counties. While chemicals and fertilizers are extremely scarce, some farm implements were commonly found in surveyed households. Machetes, hoes and axes were all found in relative abundance. The majority of these common tools were in fair to good condition and ranged in quantity from 1.5 (axes) to 2.7 (hoes) per household for those who reported owning them. In regards to tree crop production, there were no oil presses, only and three knapsack sprayers. Particular to cocoa and coffee, 191 households had cocoa harvesting poles and raffia drying mats. In direct relation with the currently poor quality cocoa being produced by Liberian cocoa farmers, only 43 households reported having fermentation baskets. Tarpaulin appears to be a less frequently used drying method as only 53 households had them available for drying (this is not surprising given the number of households who are currently using tarpaulin from the UNHCR camps as roofing material). Finally, jute bags were not commonly found (1 household). Though ubiquitous through out the major West African cocoa producing countries, much of the Liberian cocoa is sold in plastic "double bags" and other recycled containers rather than the industry standard jute bag. Lastly, labour availability is an issue (see Section 6 for labour currently available for tree crops). In Bong, Lofa and Nimba, the most common source if labour is from the immediate and extended family. Given that peace has prevailed for the most part since 2003, people are beginning to feel that they will be at their homesteads for a long period time and more food crop farms are being created or taken out of fallow. One significant source of farm labour to achieve this task is village level work groups (Kuu). Kuus are communal/rotational labour II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 85 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 farming groups which help prepare and harvest farms, exist in many places. Participants of the Kuu are often fed by the owner of the farm that they are working on that day. Monetary compensation is not common; however there is an in-trade value that is gained by participating. The concept being that a group works faster than an individual and it help members to cultivate larger farms than a single person would be able. Table 10: Available and Current Condition of Tools Found in Households Surveyed Average # of % in Good % Fair % % Item n= Qty Per Households condition condition Poor Unknown House a. Cutlasses/machetes 773 1907 43.6% 40.4% 15.7% 1.2% 2.5 b. Axes 567 868 46.7% 17.0% 7.3% 0.3% 1.5 c. Hoes 645 1735 42.0% 34.2% 16.6% 1.9% 2.7 d. Pruning shears 15 25 40.0% 0.6% 0.1% 0.05% 1.7 e. Oil press 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 f. Chainsaw 2 2 50.0% 0.0% 0.05% 0.0% 1.0 g. Knapsack sprayer 3 3 66.7% 0.0% 0.05% 0.0% 1.0 h. Irrigation pump 1 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0 i. Cocoa harvesting 191 253 61.3% 3.8% 0.8% 0.5% 1.3 poles j. Jute bags 81 190 62.1% 2.9% 0.1% 0.7% 2.4 k. Tarpaulin 53 58 51.7% 1.2% 0.2% 0.1% 1.1 l. Raffia drying mats 191 287 55.8% 5.1% 1.1% 0.5% 1.5 m. Fermentation 44 63 63.5% 0.9% 0.2% 0.1% 1.4 baskets n. Dibble planting stick 5 5 60.0% 0.05% 0.05% 0.0% 1.0 o. Other 89 103 42.7% 1.7% 1.3% 0.1% 1.2 Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices. 5. LAND USE, AVAILABILITY AND TENURE Land issues have captured the minds of many Liberians who are just recently returning after years of civil conflict or have found proof of ownership tenuous as others have tried to lay claim. Traditional inheritance of land falls within the members of the extended family, regardless if the inheritors are members of the village. In addition, land issues such as availability may serve to constrain future growth in the agricultural and tree crop sectors as the population continues to rise and congestion in the larger towns may dissuade some rural- urban migration. Farm size data is often of limited use as it is rarely done systematically using precise measuring tools. Instead, farmer hearsay/belief/guess is often the only available information if the interviewing process is performed at the homestead and no time allotted for field measurements. This affects yield estimates, spacing pattern estimates and other commonly used agricultural production variables. The main two staples in the Liberian diet are rice and cassava. Only the 2001 FAO/MOA study provides farm size distribution (a) for rice and cassava farms (Table 11), and (b) by county (Table 12). The average farm size for rice 1.18 ha (and 60% of farms are equal or less than this average farm size). Cassava production is skewed towards the smaller farm size classes. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 86 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 11: Rice & Cassava Farm Size Farm Size Class Rice Cassava Number % Number % Less Than 0.2 hectare 11,390 7.9 23,610 23.8 0.2 - 0.69 hectare 22,210 15.4 45,830 46.2 0.7 - 1.19 hectares 55,100 38.2 14,190 14.3 1.2 - 1.69 hectares 38,370 26.6 8,930 9 1.7 - 2.19 hectares 9,090 6.3 6,650 6.7 2.2 hectares & Over 8,080 5.6 Total 144,240 100 99,210 100 Source: FAO/MOA 2001. Data did not include Lofa County. Assuming equal rice yields (1,200kg per ha) across farm sizes, and an equal number of household members (6), 25% of households are rice-deficit; a reduction in yields to 900kg per ha increases the number of rice deficit households to 60%. Table 12: Size class distribution of rice farms by county Proportion of rice farms in size classes (ha) County Total <0.2 0.2 - 0.7 - 1.2 - 1.7- >2.2 0.69 1.19 1.69 2.19 Bomi 5,090 5% 20% 22% 29% 17% 7% Bong 29,300 12% 14% 37% 21% 11% 5% Cape Mount 6,130 11% 19% 33% 24% 7% 6% Grand Bassa 13,690 2% 13% 29% 46% 2% 8% Grand Gedeh 13,460 5% 8% 47% 36% 2% 2% Grand Kru 5,010 4% 23% 46% 15% 8% 4% Lofa - Margibi 9,240 18% 26% 33% 13% 5% 5% Maryland 6,180 9% 11% 35% 23% 11% 11% Montserrado 4,450 11% 30% 32% 9% 7% 11% Nimba 41,150 7% 9% 45% 34% 3% 2% Rivercess 3,330 8% 16% 50% 8% 10% 8% Sinoe 7,210 14% 19% 46% 11% 5% 5% Liberia 144,240 12,460 20,330 56,710 39,060 8,830 6,850 Source: FAO/MOA, 2001. These figures indicate a high level of monetization, i.e. the number of paid agricultural workers, the proportion working off-farm63, the number of rice deficit households (presumably purchasing food staples, or selling their labor to cover food deficits) ­ and the relatively high numbers of households involved in production of export tree crops. The data 63 Fifteen percent of households report members that are labor migrants (average of 1.5 migrants per household), with an equal division between those within own district and county. Ninety five percent of migrant laborers are male. CNSFS. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 87 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 brings up a number of conundrums: why have food staple households not cultivated more land? Is there a land constraint, particularly for upland farming, or is labor a limiting factor? Without an apparent marketed surplus for many smallholder farms, is investment in tree crops limited to `better off' households?64 The land market is small ­ only 2% of the population rented or leased land in 2006 ­ 67% reported having a plot or community land without a deed (Table 13). Unlike tree crop production in Cote D'Ivoire and Ghana share cropping arrangements are exceptional rather than the rule. Table 13: Population and Land Tenure by County Type of tenure Personal plot Personal plot or community Rented or Population % Squatter Other with deed land without deed leased Bomi 79,398 5% 33% 55% 1% 11% 0% Bong 180,703 11% 22% 62% 6% 10% 0% Cape Mount 76,000 5% 60% 24% 2% 14% 0% Grand Bassa 123,317 7% 6% 78% 0% 14% 2% Grand 64,727 4% 10% 78% 2% 9% 0% Gedeh Grand Kru 41,117 2% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% Lofa 177,810 11% 0% 97% 0% 2% 0% Margibi 119,881 7% 52% 24% 7% 17% 0% Maryland 80,036 5% 5% 83% 1% 9% 1% Montserrado 319,680 19% 26% 43% 4% 25% 1% Nimba 238,360 14% 48% 46% 2% 5% 0% Rivercess 38,916 2% 6% 79% 0% 15% 0% Sinoe 56,074 3% 3% 91% 0% 5% 0% River Gee 45,320 3% 1% 89% 0% 9% 0% Gbarpolu 46,608 3% 17% 70% 0% 13% 0% 1,687,947 100% 20% 67% 2% 10% 0% Source: GoL (2006) CFSN Survey. NOTE: In CFSNS report, Population: Table 3 - Population estimate based on voter registration 2005 and Tenure Type: Annex Table 2.4 - data refers to rural and semi-urban populations but does not include Monrovia. Of the households surveyed for the 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Survey only four people indicated that they had ever sold land, but in the same regard 99 people have the official title to their land. When explaining how they can farm land without having ownership 338 survey respondents said that it was their traditional/ancestral land, 13 responded that the land was communally owned, 2 responded that they had an arrangement with the village elder and only 1 person was renting their land. Given the expansion of the area under tree crops, what has been ­ and what could be their potential role in transforming agriculture? It has been recently estimated based on satellite imagery that there are approximately 5.7 million ha of agricultural land65 out of a total land area of 9.6 million ha of which 3.0 million ha (class 2.2) has 10% or greater forest cover (Table 14). This is an expected result in an agricultural system that is dominated by a bush 64About 25% of households cultivated coffee and cocoa in the late 1980s ­ see tables 8 and 9 above. 654.7 million hectares of agricultural land (class 2) plus 0.9 agricultural frontier (class 3.1) plus 0.2 million agro-plantations (class 8). II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 88 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 fallow cultivation. Class 3.1 represents land not only recently cleared as part of the fallow but also the dynamic of the agricultural frontier. Table 14: Current land cover in 2004 Class Description Area (ha) % 1 Urban 46,047 0.5% 2.1 Predominantly rural agricultural domain 436,747 4.6% 2.2 Agricultural area with small forest presence 3,042,091 31.7% 2.3 Mixed agricultural and forest area 1,317,873 13.7% 3.1 Agriculture degraded forest 949,615 9.9% 3.2 Open dense forest 1,013,993 10.6% 3.3 Closed dense forest 2,424,078 25.3% 5 Free water 7,649 0.1% 6 Savanna or bare soil 13,312 0.1% 7 Coastal ecosystem complex 161,390 1.7% 8 Agro-industrial plantation 178,294 1.9% Total 9,591,088 100.0% Source: FRM The FRM study also includes the results of a comparison of land cover over a 25-year period, between 1979 and 2004. Making due allowances for (a) differences in area (the 1979 estimates are based on an aerial survey, and covered only 90% of country missing some areas of the south-east) and (b) the lack of precise comparable land use definitions, the study estimates that 17% of the forest cover was lost over the period (see Table 15). The results seem to indicate an expansion in the extensive margin (at the cost of a loss in natural forest). But this requires more detailed analysis at a county level, as cropping patterns change for in response to demand for land and market opportunities (input and output prices) and constraints (availability of labor and land). Establishing tree crops does confer a degree of `proprietorship' to land, and if established in tribal communal land areas would imply either a displacement of the bush fallow (extensive margin) or an inducement for further agricultural intensification. The comparison of the 1979 and 2004 data suggests that 50% of class 2.2 is under a more intense (shorter) fallow or - to the extent that some (unknown) proportion is under tree crops or swampland rice - is now permanently cultivated. This might be expected in areas where land pressure is highest. This is supported by the IITA/STCP/UTK survey results which took place in high population counties and the data suggests that average fallowing has been reduced to less than six years, from the "rule of thumb" 10 years (Table 16). Globally, if it is assumed that there are 200,000 agricultural households with on average 2 hectares per household and the fallow period is 10 years, then about 4 million hectares is occupied. Locally, the availability of arable land could be already constrained. Increasing population pressures will either result in a further loss of natural forest and/or land use intensification. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 89 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 15: Change in land cover, 1979-2004 Land use 2004 Land use 1979 Area (ha) % Class Forest Extensive Intensive Other Plantations, Savannah Towns & Water& Area (ha) shifting shifting cultivated Tree Crops settlements marsh agriculture agriculture areas 46,047 <1% 1 n.s. n.s 20,823 n.s 5,053 -- 13,554 n.s. 42,370 436,747 4.6% 2.1 15,857 30,092 297,313 3,241 21,184 n.s. n.s. n.s. 369,082 3,042,091 31.7% 2.2 275,987 585,088 1,827,877 13,302 27,118 17,103 n.s. 2,134 2,749,141 1,317,873 13.7% 2.3 366,432 415,440 378,341 n.s. n.s. n.s. -- n.s. 1,162,018 949,615 9.9% 3.1 395,204 305,310 101,180 n.s. n.s. -- -- n.s. 804,247 1,013,993 10.6% 3.2 879,294 75,412 9,877 -- -- -- -- -- 964,582 2,424,078 25.3% 3.3 1,846,147 204,749 27,946 n.s. n.s. n.s. -- n.s. 2,080,636 7,649 <1% 5 -- n.s 2,033 -- n.s. -- n.s. n.s. 3,212 13,312 <1% 6 5,391 n.s 3,329 -- -- n.s. -- n.s. 11,377 161,390 1.7% 7 n.s. 6,939 40,236 n.s. 2,565 -- n.s. 11,514 62,613 178,294 1.9% 8 6,804 3,250 69,844 n.s. 83,378 -- -- -- 163,878 9,591,088 100.0% 3,791,608 1,630,066 2,778,800 19,549 142,104 19,553 15,300 16,175 8,413,155 45% 19% 33% <1% 2% <1% <1% <1% Source: FRM. Totals may not sum because of rounding errors. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 90 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Table 16: Average Number of Years of Field Cropping and Fallowing By County Average Cropping Average Fallowing County (years) (years) Bong 1.083 5.625 Lofa 1.107 5.742 Nimba 1.48 5.66 Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices 5.1 Land Tenure for Agricultural Crops Despite the traditional means of land distribution and tenure in the rural areas of Liberia, the conflict years have brought land tenure issues to the fore in some areas of the country. While taking rural land through eminent domain by the government for economic development purposes doesn't currently appear to be on the horizon, many returnees are taking stock of the land tenure situation. Obviously, is there is ant perceived risk regarding land tenure, rural household will be less likely to make any kind of long term investment or attempt to sustain productivity. Land tenure for food crops in the Bong, Lofa and Nimba regions appears to be strongly rooted in traditional means of land acquisition (inheritance and communal land arrangement) (Figure 10). Though the source of land acquisition varies across food crops, 80% were acquired through traditional means for all food crops. As was mentioned for tree crops above, sharecropping is not common. Very few households reported using legal means of obtaining rights through purchasing or renting. Even fewer attempted to secure rights through informal arrangements such as borrowing or squatting. This generally conforms to the data presented in Table 13 however, not as many respondents in Bong and Nimba mentioned having a deed as might have been expected. 5.2 Land tenure and tree crop development What impact has land tenure policy had on tree crop development? Liberia has a dual tenure regime, with private rights granted under the statutory "fee simple" tenure system established by the settler elite for the purpose of cash crop production primarily in the coastal lowlands on concession and private farms, together with mining and timber concessions in the interior, and with customary tenure governing the indigenous populations in the hinterlands. The descendants of the settler elite initiated indirect rule through local chiefs, reinforcing a rural elite who have used customary law including obligatory labor (voluntary, unpaid) and enforced labor (involuntary, paid), marriage arrangements and other arbitrary fines control the labor of rural youths through labor debt payments (Richards and Bah).66 Enforced labor, which superseded domestic slavery (which itself was only legally abolished in 1930), has been used to accumulate land holdings and to supply labor for plantation development. Concurrently traditional land holdings have been lost to forest, 66 Customary and religious law governs family issues. Such laws do provide an instrument that provides women with access to land (customary usufruct rights), but there has been a tendency for their application to discriminate against women, especially in the areas of marriage and inheritance. Revealingly, the passing of a new marriage law was one of first actions taken by the National Legislature in 2003. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 91 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports mining and plantation concessions, and private land has been allocated (deeded) on customarily managed land (tribal areas).67 Figure 10: Sources of Land Acquisition for All Food Crops Produced by Surveyed Households (n=775) Bitterball Cassava Eggplant Maize Inherited from parents Communal land arrangement Okra Purchased Rented from landowner Pepper Sharecropped Plantain Borrowed from neighbors Squatter Rice/Cassava Not specified Swamp Rice Sweet Potato Upland Rice 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Historically, tenure regime and related labor practices has favored the establishment of the rubber sector, permitting foreign investors to lease large tracts of land, and Liberian farmers to purchase land. Subsequently the development of infrastructure (particularly roads) has led to tribal land purchases and speculation. Consequently, the relative cheapness of land has encouraged some localized areas to be unutilized and inaccessible to smallholders. The high proportion of smallholders who have engaged in coffee and cocoa production suggests that for these households the customary regime has facilitated and not hindered tree crop development. But questions remain about the accessibility to land for those households who have not engaged in tree crops, the extent of any possible displacement effects, and the impact of policies on the intensification of production, and the expansion of the agricultural frontier. Currently, perennial tree crops provide an interesting situation as much of what was left during the war is still there (though in desperate need of rehabilitation), thus possibly leaving stake in ownership or providing impetus for another to rehabilitate for their own uses. As with the food crops, the vast majority of land in tree crops is owned through traditional means (Figure 11). There is some variation across counties as virtually all of the land in tree 67 A recent request by FDA for deed holders on forest areas to present their deeds has revealed 3.3 million hectares has been claimed (an area equivalent to the permanent forest estate). John Woods, Managing Director (FDA), personal .communication. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 92 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports crops in Lofa is traditionally owned (as would be expected from Table 12), while 5% was purchased in Nimba and nearly 10% in Bong. Figure 11: Sources of Land Acquisition for Perennial Tree Farms Produced in Surveyed Households All Farms (n=1021) Inherited from parents Bong Communal land arrangement (n=252) Purchased Rented from landowner Sharecropped Lofa Borrowed from neighbors (n=354) Squatter Other Nimba (n=415) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices 6. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION The performance of smallholders' tree crop production is determined in part by the imperative to produce food crops for own-consumption and if possible for the market, and by the incentive effect of government policies with regard to tree crop marketing and pricing, international commodity prices, and tenure regimes (statutory and customary). Surveyed farmers indicated in some circumstances, that they would sacrifice own- consumption in order to sell food crops in the market for cash in hand. Trends in production of tree crops and the two main staple food crops are shown in Table 17. Table 17: Change in per capita production (kg) of major food and export crops Product 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Rice 112 145 136 52 Cassava 212 171 152 121 Rubber 43 53 44 18 Coffee 3.6 3.9 4.0 1.2 Cocoa 1.1 1.8 2.3 0.4 Oil palm 9.0 8.2 3.5 3.2 Source: FAOSTAT Study estimates: simple averages Per capita rice production rose steadily through the 1960s and 1970s before declining slightly in the 1980s (albeit still at a level above minimum requirements). Cassava production shows a downward trend, but less than rice in the 1990s (reflecting its role perhaps as a poverty crop). Food crop production therefore seems to have kept pace with the rise in population, at least until the late 1980s, but not with the rise of urbanization (including the population on concessions), as shown in Figure 12. Of the tree crops, cocoa II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 93 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports made progress in the 1960s and 1970s with per capita production doubling by the 1980s.68 Rubber and oil palm fell slightly in the same period. Production trends reflect, to a large extent, the pattern of international prices for these tree crops over the same period (see Section 7). As has been mentioned previously, rice and cassava are by far the most common staple crops in Liberia, with rice being the very base of the Liberian diet. Acquiring such staples is a very important part of overall household food consumption. So much so that rice prices are determined by the government. Currently, rice production has dwindled, relative to years past, due to the war and arguably the influence of an influx of cheap rice from Asia. Despite this, survey participants reported that over 50% of the rice consumed at home is grown on their own farms (Figure 13). However, another 35% of consumption is purchased. This necessitates a deviation from the traditional subsistence consumption in rural areas and requires rural families to have a source of cash income, in order to supplement lower rice production. Other, less prevalent means of securing rice for home consumption includes purchasing on credit and accessing what food aid continues to enter Liberia. Though far fewer families identified cassava as their main staple (n=21), the relatively same proportions apply. Figure 12: Per capita rice production and consumption 160 140 120 100 atipacrep 80 gk 60 Implicit consumption per capita 40 Implicit production per capita 20 0 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 Source: FAOSTAT Study estimates 68 It is interesting that there were about 7,000 hectares of both coffee and cocoa in the early 1960s ­ in spite of the lack of government services (inputs, extension or credit programmes), and presumably with a poor road network. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 94 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Figure 13: Share of Staple Food Acquisition Method by Staple for Survey Participants Cassava (n=21) elpatS Produced on Farm Cash Purchase yra Credit Purchase mirP Gift/Food Aid Rice (n=745) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of Households Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices As mentioned previously, tree crop production appears to be a relatively male dominated enterprise. In contrast, women are traditionally tasked with tending food crops for household consumption and surplus sales. Interestingly, when asked, most food crops appear to be the responsibility of each family member, regardless of gender. Field observations lead one to believe that not all of this work is done side by side. Tasks are often metered out by gender, but some of the larger tasks, such as preparing a new farm for production, are a family affair. This suggests that the lack of market incentives discussed in Section 7, coupled with increasing household consumption pressures, may work against the wholesale adoption of tree crops as a significant income source as males are drawn toward the food crop and other sectors. Table 18: Field Responsibility by Gender Total No Field Type Women Men Both Households Response Upland rice field 114 25.44% 2.63% 68.42% 3.51% Sweet Potato Field 14 14.29% 7.14% 71.43% 7.14% Swamp rice 233 21.03% 4.72% 67.81% 6.44% Rice/Cassava/Mixed Food 508 12.80% 3.35% 83.86% 0.00% Crop Fallow Rotation Plantain field 164 10.37% 19.51% 67.68% 2.44% Pepper field 156 19.23% 1.92% 77.56% 1.28% Okra field 37 16.22% 0.00% 83.78% 0.00% Maize field 7 0.00% 0.00% 85.71% 14.29% Eggplant field 11 18.18% 0.00% 63.64% 18.18% Cassava field 214 17.76% 0.47% 79.44% 2.34% Bitter Ball field 108 18.52% 0.00% 81.48% 0.00% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices As food crop production is re-established in Bong, Lofa and Nimba, rural households are also trying to re-establish livestock endowments that were completely decimated during the war. Livestock holdings provide an opportunity for rural households to generate income through meat, breeding stock and young livestock sales. Not only is livestock production an important source of protein for the household, it can also take the pressure off sources of II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 95 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports bushmeat that have been under distress for some time. Not surprisingly, chickens represent the most common livestock holding among survey participants (Table 19). In an effort to maintain a flock, a large majority of household have at least a breeding pair. Ducks are also another common animal as both chickens and ducks are expert scavengers and readily accept free-range conditions. Pigs and goats are also fairly common. Ruminants, such as sheep are less common and cattle are very rare among rural households in the three counties surveyed. Table 19: Animals Owned by Households Surveyed # of Average Per Ratio Households Livestock # of Households Sum House F/M that have at least a pair Female ­ Chickens 522 3228 6.2 2.0 457 Male ­ Chickens 462 1463 3.2 Female ­ Pigs 112 349 3.1 1.3 81 Male ­ Pigs 85 199 2.3 Female ­ Goats 148 338 2.3 1.5 90 Male ­ Goats 96 143 1.5 Female - Sheep 61 132 2.2 1.5 39 Male ­ Sheep 40 59 1.5 Female - Guinea Fowl 20 36 1.8 1.2 16 Male - Guinea Fowl 18 27 1.5 Female ­ Ducks 158 566 3.6 1.5 118 Male ­ Ducks 121 280 2.3 Female ­ Other 4 5 1.3 1.3 91 Male ­ Other 3 3 1 Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Though livestock production is relatively established, management practices remain rudimentary and are almost exclusively free-range in both feeding and housing (Figures 14 and 15). Apparently, only semi-intensive pig production has taken even the slightest foothold in the rural tree crop producing areas. This suggests that livestock production may serve as an income source without current competing with other agricultural ventures with regard to available capital or labor resources. However, with free-range management the farmer risk is higher to losing livestock to thieves, cars and predators. Figure 14: Farm Animal Feeding Practices Employed by Surveyed Households Chicken Ducks No feeds are given Goat Supplementary feeding Guinea Fowl conducted at least part of the time Other Animals feed daily using a complete ration. Pig Sheep 0% 50% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 96 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Figure 15: Livestock Housing Management Practices for Households Surveyed Chicken Ducks Free range production Goats Free range part of year and Guinea Fowl tethering/corralling of animal other Other Tethering/corralling/housing animals all of year. Pigs Sheep 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices 7. TREE CROPS Tree crops have been grown on a range of production systems in Liberia: smallholder farms with food and export-crop production (predominantly coffee and cocoa and more recently rubber), plus oil palm (both for own-consumption and for the market) and to a lesser extent coconut; commercial farms mainly established for rubber, but also diversified into coffee, cocoa, and oil palm; parastatal corporations, namely the Liberia Produce Marketing Corporation (LPMC), the Liberia Coffee and Cocoa Corporation (LCCC), and the Liberia Palm Products Corporation (LPPC); and rubber production on foreign-owned concession plantations. Table 20: Change in primary commodity world prices Tree Crop 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000-2005 Rubber -5.4% 11.8% -1.6% -2.7% 14.8% Cocoa 1.7% 19.6% -7.5% -0.6% 6.5% Coffee 1.4% 17.4% -6.4% 0.8% -5.7% Oil palm -1.1% 12.6% -4.6% 3.9% 1.3% Source: IMF, Financial Statistics Study estimates: simple averages World market prices for tree crops have shown a high degree of volatility over the period of the past four decades, around a long-term secular decline in prices (Table 20 and Figure 16). These trends reflect both oversupply in agricultural commodity markets, and the more recent concentration in supply chains (State of Agricultural Commodity Markets, FAO). Liberian tree crop producers have experienced a roller-coaster ride in terms of nominal export unit prices, but present nominal prices for rubber and oil palm are similar to those prices of 30 years earlier, whilst relative coffee and cocoa price trends have reversed (Figure 17). The domestic Liberian rubber market has been largely determined by Firestone, with the other concessions following its lead, therefore pricing policy has been described as oligopsonistic. For all other tree crops the LPMC has had a marketing and export monopoly and followed a pan-territorial pricing strategy. How has pricing policy managed these II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 97 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports international price effects? In an unregulated market producers would receive the international prices less marketing and transport costs. Changing and unpredictable prices would be expected to discourage those producers seeking to reduce risk and uncertainty. Given the volatility of prices in the 1970s and 1980s tree crop producers would have been expected to adjust their output accordingly, and from the 1980s, to switch resources from these crops. However, switching costs and the perennial nature of tree crops meant that after more than a decade of civil strife during which the trees were abandoned, many of the pre- war trees still stand today. With LPMC setting prices and purchasing produce, there was little, if any, built-in shock absorbers to ensure commensurate pricing for smallholder farmers and LPMC's position allowed them to take a lion share of the marketing margin. Figure 16: World market price indices for tree crops, 1960-2005 (1980=100) 250 200 150 100 50 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 COCOA BEANS COFFEE RUBBER PALM OIL Source: IMF, WDI. Study estimates. Nominal prices by deflated by US GDP deflator One aspect of tree crops that inherently aids farmers with price risk is the capacity to diversify their tree crop holdings. Currently, many farmers have branched out into farming more than one perennial tree crop system (Figure 18) according to the IITA/STCP/UTK survey. Although, approximately 35% of all farmers surveyed farmed only cocoa, it is important to note that cocoa is often associated with secondary food crops interspersed among the stand, while other tree crops (esp. rubber) are mostly monocultured. Lofa had the highest proportion of cocoa only tree crop portfolios while farmers in Nimba were much more likely to have multiple tree crops, especially a combination of cocoa/rubber or cocoa/rubber/oil palm. Bong had the largest proportion of rubber-only farmers. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 98 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Figure 17: Liberia nominal export unit prices, 1962-2005 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 US $ per ton ne 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1962 1972 1982 1992 2002 Rubber Coffee Cocoa Palm Oil Source: FAOSTAT Figure 18: Tree Cropping Systems for Households Surveyed Cocoa Only Bong (n=173) Coffee Only Oil Palm Only Rubber Only Cocoa /Coffee Cocoa/Oil Pam ytnuo Cocoa/Rubber Lofa Coffee/Oil Palm (n=255) C Coffee/Rubber Rubber/Oil Palm Cocoa/Coffee/Oil Palm Cocoa/Coffee/Rubber Cocoa/Rubber/Oil Palm Nimba Coffee/Rubber/Oil Palm (n=223) Cocoa/Coffee/Rubber/Oil Palm 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Household tree crop portfolio diversification can assist farmers with market fluctuations provided one market has an upward trajectory that can offset any downturns in another market. Market prices for both rubber and oil palm have seen significant increases over the past 5 years; in both cases the immediate forecast is for prices to soften (see Table 20). Rubber prices are expected to average US$1.92 per kg, and oil palm US$425 per tonne in 2007. Natural rubber markets are closely related to the price of crude oil and therefore synthetic rubber prices. Similarly, oil palm prices are related to its oil and oilseed substitutes II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 99 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports for food, in particular soybean oil. Palm oil also has a variety of uses which vegetable oil cannot satisfy. New markets are emerging for oil palm as a biofuel, but the extent of these markets is unclear and there will be competition from both temperate and tropical crop substitutes. Expected short-term coffee prices are not encouraging, even maintaining current (low) price levels is forecast to be unlikely. Robusta prices are expected to average US$1.26 per kg during 2007 and fall to US$1.21 per kg in 2008. Cocoa prices continue to fluctuate largely in response to the political uncertainty in the Cote D'Ivoire. Cocoa prices are expected to average US$1.62 per kg in 2007, but in the medium-term face a slow downturn due to oversupply. Cocoa and coffee producers also face continuing pressure on their share of the final retail price of these commodities. Liberia will continue to be a price-taker for all these tree crops and, at the same time, will struggle to command even these average prices due to its present inability to meet the standards for high grades. The longer-term outlook is not encouraging with all the major commodities traded by Liberia under price pressures (Table 21). However, tree crops still represent an opportunity for rural Liberians to diversify their income streams while satisfying food security needs through intercropping. Table 21: Commodity price forecast (2005-2015) Product 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2015 Cocoa, c/kg 144 140 140 140 140 128 Coffee, robusta, c/kg 104 120 111 107 90 104 Coconut oil, US$/mt 576 543 500 475 429 441 Palm oil, US$/mt 394 398 385 384 364 370 Rice, Thailand, 5%, US$/mt 267 281 288 269 232 216 Logs, Cameroon, US$/cum 0 0 301 303 304 320 Rubber, RSS1, Singapore, c/kg 140 204 183 172 151 147 Iron ore, c/dmtu 61 70 67 56 43 33 Source: World Bank Development Prospects Group (October 31 2006). 7.1 Rubber Rubber has become synonymous with Liberia since the first concession agreement was signed by the Government with the Firestone Company in 1926. Production began in 1935. The plantation is the largest in Liberia, and it is also the world's largest contiguous industrial rubber plantation. There was a hiatus in the development of rubber plantations until the 1950s when seven additional concessions were granted. These were all initially owned and operated by foreign business interests. Firestone supported an outgrower scheme during and after the Second World War, which became the nucleus of the Liberian owned rubber sector. Other concessions, along with Firestone, also promoted commercial Liberian companies and individual farmers.69 The contribution of Liberian farms has been significant through the concession-driven provision of planting materials on credit and exclusive purchasing agreements. However, because of the military coup in 1980, and later the civil war, only three of the plantations were left with uncontested ownership and management. A 69 The Liberian commercial rubber farms are "owned almost exclusively by the urban elite" (World Bank, 1975). As evidenced by the IITA/STCP/UTK survey, rural smallholders are now entering the market as indicated by the recent expansion in rubber tree stock discussed in Section 7.2.2. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 100 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports number of private farms were also confiscated by the state in 1980, and their present ownership status is unknown.70 Table 22: Trends in the Rubber Industry Item Unit 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Area harvested ha 85,167 101,383 100,533 46,367 Production tonnes 54,429 82,219 90,934 45,487 Export value US$ m 27.0 52.4 83.9 30.2 Source: FAOSTAT With all the concessions in production by the mid-to-late 1960s the rate of growth in the area planted slowed. The increase was shared between concessions and private farms even though in the former this represented a small proportion of the total concession areas leased. The increase in output was also due to marginal increases in yields, due to availability of improved planting materials; although the yield on Liberian farms improved it remained below that of the concessions (Table 23). Table 23: Comparison of planted area & yields on plantations and rubber farms, 1960-80 Planted area ­ Concessions Planted area ­ Liberian farms Yield Yield Mature Immature Total (kg/ha) Mature Immature Total (kg/ha) Total area 1960 28,100 13,600 41,700 1,306 22,300 24,300 46,500 286 88,200 1970 39,700 15,600 55,300 1,378 33,600 26,200 59,800 641 115,100 1980 44,200 15,300 59,500 1,319 36,300 26,600 62,900 722 122,400 Source: World Bank (1984) 7.1.1 History of Rubber Concessions Given the importance of the rubber concessions it is appropriate to appreciate their long history before considering other factors. The following is a brief history of the rubber concessions, from the start of the Firestone plantation in 1926. The Firestone Plantation Company (located in Harbel, Margibi County) was granted a 99-year concession for one million acres (approximately 416,670 ha) in 1926. Originally the company was subject to a land tax of 6 cents per acre, and Liberian corporate income tax (a maximum of 45% of net profits). The Firestone is at present owned by Bridgestone. The National Transitional Government of Liberia (NTGL) renewed the concession agreement in 2005. This agreement was reviewed in 2006. The Cavalla Plantation in Maryland County was initially part of the Firestone concession, but was passed on to the Doe government in 1981, and the concession was awarded in 1983 to a Belgian company SIPEF under which the government maintained a 50% stake in shares of the company. When MODEL rebels occupied the plantation during the civil war, SIPEF withdrew. Since then a number of unsuccessful attempts have been made to manage the plantation. In 2006 an interim management team was installed under the supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture. 70 As of May 2007, it is generally recognized that all of the major concessions have been returned to their rightful owners after many were occupied by squatters. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 101 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports The Cocopa Plantation (Nimba County). The original lease agreement was signed in 1949 for 40 years with the Liberia Company (LIBCO), and renewed for a further 40 years in 1967 from the date of its expiry under the condition that LIBCO had cultivated a certain percentage of the lease area by 1987. In 1996, LIBCO sublet the management of the plantation to a Liberian company owned by the then Minister of Agriculture Roland Massaquoi. In January 2007 the government suspended the agreement citing poor management. The Sinoe Rubber Corporation. The original concession agreement was concluded in 1953 with the African Fruits Company for a period of 80 years, initially for the planting of bananas and plantains. In 1973, AFC sold out to Ernest Dennis, but another company claims that Ernest Dennis sold the rights and obligations to its subsidiary Mesurado Plantation Industries. In 1983 Mesurado leased the plantation to the Government-owned Sinoe Rubber Corporation for 20 years. Whilst the property of the plantation remained in doubt while under the de facto control of an ex MODEL rebel leader, it has been reported that UNMIL has since secured the plantation. B.F. Goodrich now popularly known as the Guthrie Rubber Plantation is located in Bomi County, and was established in 1954 and production commenced in 1963. Goodrich was granted tax exemption up to 1973, and then paid corporate tax rate of 25% of net profits for the next 10 years, after which the company would pay the then normal corporate tax rate). In 1981 the plantation taken over by the government following the military coup, and the Guthrie Rubber Company of Malaysia negotiated a management contract with the government. Guthrie withdrew when LURD rebel forces occupied the plantation. Although the transitional government entered into a 45-year management agreement with Agro Resources Corporation Liberia Ltd in 2005, the plantation is currently under interim management. The Salala Rubber Corporation in Bong County (40,000 ha) was established in 1959. The Liberian Agriculture Corporation (LAC). The70-year lease for 70 years 125,000 ha in Grand Bassa County was signed in 1959, originally by a construction company to whom the government was indebted, and then sold to Uniroyal. The second largest plantation, a processing plant for producing latex for export was installed in 1968. The plantation was ransacked in 1989. In 1998 a Luxemburg company Socfinco bought the leasehold rights to LAC and Weala. 7.1.2 Rubber Tree Stock Rubber trees of the unimproved variety become economically viable after seven years and production peaks at approximately 30 years. The latest rubber tree cultivars begin producing at 5 years at have roughly the same economic lifespan. In general, trees are tapped throughout the year. Trees will have a shorter lifespan of only a few years, if they are harvested improperly. Much of the rubber cultivation in households surveyed in Liberia is of the unimproved variety (Figure 19). II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 102 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Figure 19: Planting Material on Rubber Farms of Surveyed Households Bong (n=96) Improved germplasm developed by research Unimproved local variety Lofa (n=9) Other Doesn't Know Nimba (n=124) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices According to the IITA/STCP/UTK survey results, some households have been investing in new rubber trees over the last ten years. Not surprisingly, the majority of this investment has been in Bong and Nimba, as these areas were relatively calm after 1996/7 (Lofa was essentially evacuated for much of the time) and rubber is more common to these two counties (Figure 20). This also reiterates the findings illustrated in Figure 19 where rubber was identified as one of the primary opportunities that surveyed households wanted to pursue in the future. Recently high rubber prices have likely promoted this trend. Figure 20: Age of Rubber Tree Stock by County for Surveyed Households 45 40 35 ycneuqerF 30 Nimba 25 Lofa 20 Bong 15 10 5 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 41 44 47 136 Age (years) Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices 7.1.3 Rubber Production In the period between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s as rubber production and export earnings doubled, the contribution of Liberian farms rose from 21% to 36% of output (Figure 21). There were about 4,000 rubber farms by the mid-1970s. Nearly 80% of the farms are greater than 20 ha in size (Table 24). The static nature of average plantation yields reflects the variation in planting material and age structure of plantations between II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 103 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports concessions, and between private farms. Moreover, the intensity of tapping is manipulated in response to market conditions. On the concession plantations, yields were comparable with those obtained in Southeast Asia at the time. Average yields on commercial farms were half of that achieved on concession plantations, reflecting a higher proportion of over-aged trees, the initial use of poorer quality planting material, and less intensive management (World Bank, 1975 and 1984). Figure 21: Relative rubber output on concession and commercial farms 140000 120000 100000 80000 T M 60000 40000 20000 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 Concession Liberian farms Table 24: Farm size classes and tapped area of Liberian rubber farms in 1974 Size class (ha) % Total area % Tapped % Immature 0-10.1 10.9 44 26 10.1-20.2 11.6 54 12 20.2 ­ 50.6 43.6 50 27 > 50.6 33.9 87 5 Source: World Bank (1984). The percentage tapped includes areas previously tapped; the remaining areas of mature tree are untapped. Coinciding with the IITA/STCP/UTK survey tree stock findings, over 75% of the smallholder farms owned by surveyed households were found to be newly planted (Figure 22). However, it is not known if the past yield disparity between smallholder and concession rubber will continue. Traditionally, there is a wide difference between the large rubber plantations and the smallholder tree farms. With better planting strategies and the introduction of improved varieties, perhaps the trend will not continue. However, if the characteristically overgrown tree clusters of smallholders continue, the major push to plant smallholder rubber may have limited impact. Of those few farmers that indicated that their rubber farm had been abandoned, 80% said that they were planning to rehabilitate (Figure 23). Certainly, with relatively high prices and the multinationals encouraging farmers to produce by facilitating sales at the farmgate, it is not a surprise that few farmers have abandoned their rubber to bush. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 104 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Figure 22: Status of Rubber Farms All (n=229) Bong Don't Know (n=96) Newly Planted In Production Lofa Being Rehabilitated (n=9) Abandonded Nimba (n=124) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Figure 23: Future Plans for Abandoned Rubber Farms Convert to Food Crop Bong(n=0) Rehabilitate existing farm Convert to another perennial crop system. Lofa (n=0) Leave idle for the time being Other Nimba(n=5) No Answer 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Rubber tapping is a time consuming process that is often done in the early morning hours. Once the rubber tree has been tapped and the sap is flowing into the cup, collection of the coagulum could reasonably be done by any member of the family. Tables 25 and 26 breakdown the household labor force that is currently engaged in some aspect of rubber farming by age, gender and primary economic activity. Table 25: Household Rubber Labor by Gender and Age Cohort Age Cohort Male Female (years) (n=366) (n=147) 3-7 2.73% 9.52% 8-14 8.74% 10.20% 15-20 11.20% 11.56% 21-30 18.85% 22.45% 31-40 19.13% 25.17% 41-50 19.40% 12.93% 51-60 10.66% 3.40% 61 + 9.29% 4.76% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 105 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Table 26: Rubber Farm Labor by Gender and Primary Economic Activity Men Women Principle Economic Activity (n=369) (n=155) None 5.96% 9.68% Self Employed Ag 65.04% 52.90% Hired Labor Ag 1.63% 0.00% Salaried Non-Ag 2.44% 0.00% Salaried Retired 0.54% 0.00% Student 22.22% 25.81% Petty Commerce 0.81% 3.87% Homemaker 0.54% 7.10% Other 0.81% 0.65% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices According to the IITA/STCP/UTK survey findings, the household members that are currently engaged in rubber farming are primarily men and women between the ages of 21 and 50 whose primary economic activity is farming. It is interesting to note that younger family members, who are also going to school, assist their families with tasks associated with rubber production. 7.1.4 Liberian Rubber Marketing System Liberian rubber pricing is intrinsically related to concession policy. By the mid-1960s, when all the plantations were in production, there were concerns that the benefits in terms of employment and government revenues were small and that the companies were transferring a large proportion of gross taxes overseas. The generous tax arrangements - with tax liabilities based on net profits (but with transfer pricing and high debt equity ratios the actual contribution was kept to a minimal level) ­ led the World Bank to conclude that concessions should have been major contributor to government revenues but "tax receipts represent a smaller proportion of gross value added than the remainder of the economy" (World Bank, 1969). This contributed to the already regressive nature of the then prevailing tax system.71 Liberian farmers delivered latex and coagulum at the buying stations of the rubber concessions with whom they were tied through contractual arrangements. A study in the in the early 1970s revealed a number of anomalies ­ resulting in a low share of world prices being received by Liberian rubber planters. Firestone based its buying prices on the average Singapore price rather than New York prices (the implication being that transport costs are higher and the final producer price lower). The costs of company administration, processing, and declared taxes on profits were double the deductions made for comparable operations in Southeast Asia (despite Firestone and other companies enjoying a range of duty exemptions). Margins below fob prices for different grade rubber were officially agreed upon in the late 1970s (Table 27). "The marketing and pricing system pursued by rubber concessions must be considered unsatisfactory. It has denied Liberian producers a fair return and the low price incentive has discouraged many from tapping or replanting plantations" (World Bank, 1975). 71 "Taxes press hard on the rural people from whom according to various estimates 30 to 50 percent of annual monetary income is taken in the form of various levies such as the education levy, hut tax, and assessment by counties and local chiefs" II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 106 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Table 27: Margins on fob prices for Liberian rubber Grade % fob Latex 69-74 Specification coagulum 53-72 Non- Specification coagulum 49-63 Source: World Bank, 1984 Rubber was arguably the one agricultural commodity or natural resource whose marketing chain was least affected by the years of civil unrest in Liberia. Important exports such as diamonds, timber, cocoa, coffee and oil palm sought other outlets, primarily through cross- border trade and illegal smuggling. In contrast, rubber was being exported by multinational concession owners, primarily Firestone, virtually throughout the conflicts. This is not to say that supply was not disrupted. According to IMF statistics (IMF, 2000), the Firestone concession was the sole source of measurable production from 1996 ­ 1999 that was marketed. Presumably, smallholder rubber production and marketing was stymied by the unstable environment up-country. At the end of the conflict, several of the large concessions could not resume formal ties to the sector due to occupation by former rebel forces (e.g. Sinoe). Since then, arguably all of the pre-war concessions have resumed/continued operation and smallholders have once again rejoined the marketing chain as a supplemental source of rubber for the multinationals who rely mostly on concession rubber (see Section 7.2.3.) Currently, smallholder rubber farmers have limited options when trying to sell their coagulum or latex rubber (Figure 24). Essentially there are three direct outlets for their product, two of which are directly tied to the multinational exporters. Smallholders who are facing extreme cash flow constraints may look to fellow smallholders or village-level entrepreneurs who have the capacity to pay cash for the rubber at the farmgate (likely in $LD) as an immediate source of income from rubber. The option of immediate payment from these agents may be preferable to waiting for the opportunity to sell to the multinationals whose payment is in the form of a "weigh bill" in US$mt that is paid at a latter date. Though the US dollar is commonly used as legal tender throughout Liberia, $LD is more commonly used in the small rural economies up-country so obtaining a convertible currency is less of an incentive than trying to meet immediate household needs. These small-scale buyers are presumed to be self-financed and likely receive the prevailing farmgate or regional buying center price that the rubber farmer would have otherwise. In order to make this profitable, the small-scale buyer must therefore pay the farmer a price that is below that of prevailing prices in order to assure a margin. The second and third option available to smallholder farmers is through the multinationals either though their mobile agents who roam the countryside collecting rubber or directly through one of their field offices which are located in many of the larger towns throughout the "rubber belt" of Liberia. It is believed that the farmgate price that agents pay to farmers is lower than that received at the buying center, as agents must cover all transaction costs associated with the procurement of the rubber, including the agent's margin. Otherwise, farmers themselves recoup these costs/margins to provide some incentive for them to transport their own product to the buying center. Once the rubber enters the multinational owned segment of the chain, each step downstream is an intra-firm transaction. Currently, all of the rubber produced in Liberia is presumed to be exported. Rubber is reportedly loaded for export in Harper, Greenville, Buchanan and Monrovia for sale in the overseas export markets or simply transported for further processing or use as an input in a wide II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 107 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports variety of rubber products. Figure 24 supposes that there may be some domestic infant industry forming around domestic rubber production but no evidence of this has been found so far. Figure 24: General Schematic of Current Liberian Smallholder Rubber Marketing Chain The marketing information on rubber collected from the 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK survey indicated that there were 226 surveyed households that have a rubber farm. Of those farms, only 44 respondents indicated that they produced rubber for sale, all coagulum, in the last year. This result could be in part due to the fact that a majority of the tree stock is newly planted and not yet in full production. The farmers that had sold indicated that local buyers purchased the product, but did not specify if the buyer was working for a multinational or not. For these limited number of observations, the average quantity sold per transaction was 127.2 kilograms. Much of the rubber market information used by farmers is gathered simply from buyers, who arguably have a conflict of interest. In addition, friends and neighbors were identified as a common source of prevailing price information but this is likely second-hand information from buyers (Figure 25). However, factory centers often publicly post prices. Current factory buying center prices are listed in Table 28. These prices reflect the price setting by Firestone and the fact that other companies that are interested in securing smallholder rubber follow similar trends but do not compete directly on prices. Price differentials may be driven by transaction costs that are sensitive to scale economies, proximity to supply and other factors. Presumably, spatial price differentials are simply driven by transactions costs that increase during procurement as the rubber source's distance to port increases. This phenomenon could easily be seen in May 2007 by driving the Monrovia ­ Ganta highway. Prices dropped from US$850/mt in Montserrado and Margibi counties to US$825/mt in Bong (Gbarnga) and even further along branches off the highway in Nimba (Saclepea was at US$800/mt). II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 108 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Figure 25: Frequency of Rubber Market Information Use by Source for Households Surveyed Unable To Respond Government/Extension Newspaper Sometimes Often Radio Always Farmer Org. Never Hearsay Friends/Neighbors Produce Buyers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices To determine the actual competitiveness of the sector, in regard to alleged market power issues, requires information that is much more detailed then is currently available. Table 28: Price Information for Rubber per metric ton for 2007 Factory Price Month (US$/mt) Firestone Weala January 2007 750 720 February 2007 800 770 March 2007 850 820 May 2007 850 820 Source: Author's field observations and personal communication with MacArthur Pay-Bayee 7.2 Cocoa As was discussed in Section 1, cocoa was the primary concern of the IITA/STCP/UTK survey. Of the 794 surveys collected, 337 indicated that the household had sold cocoa (active cocoa farmers) in the last year (Table 29). These percentages roughly conform to the findings presented in Section 4. The distinction of active cocoa farmer is important as many farmers self-identify as cocoa farmers but have not found the time, nor perhaps have the incentive, to rehabilitate or effectively manage their existing cocoa holdings which are likely trapped in more than 15 years of over/under growth. Table 29: Number of Cocoa Farmers Surveyed by County % Of Number of County Household Farmers Surveyed Bong 78 9.9% Lofa 112 14.1% Nimba 147 18.6% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 109 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports 7.2.1 Trends in Cocoa Supply and Export Current Liberian cocoa export volume has been directly affected by smuggling and cross- border trading to and from Ivory Coast and Guinea. Due to a lack of market infrastructure and fluctuations in international prices, markets for Liberian cocoa have stagnated and have been replaced (or left unmanaged) by marginally more profitable agricultural ventures. However, according to the rapid assessment survey done in Nimba County for the Sustainable Tree Crops Program, "income obtained from cocoa and coffee by smallholder farmers more than offset income from other sources and accordingly serves as the best alternative to other related farming activities" (Kennedy 2005). Farmers are hindered by a deficient transportation structure, lack of knowledge concerning prices and quality standards, limited credit resources and legal protection from corruption and fraud (Pay- Bayee 2005). Though cocoa does play an important role in the rural economy of Liberia, especially in counties along the borders of Guinea and Ivory Coast, one should keep in mind its position internationally. Liberia typically exports no more than 6000mt per year versus the exports of Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon who collectively constitute roughly 70% of the world market for cocoa. In addition, Liberian cocoa is heavily discounted on the world market due to quality concerns. 7.2.2 Cocoa Tree Stock The available tree stock for cocoa is limited mostly to what is available from seed plantings from harvested cocoa pods or sapling tree shoots that can be transplanted. Improved germplasms arrived in the seventies; however, very few people are using the improved variety (Figure 26). Improved varieties under proper management are intended to increase production yields and renewed interest in the variety coincides with the STCP farmer field schools. Figure 26: Planting Material Found on Cocoa Farms of Surveyed Households Bong (n=118) Improved germplasm developed by research Unimproved local variety Lofa (n=202) Other Doesn't Know Nimba (n=195) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Cocoa trees of the unimproved variety become viable after six years, and have a productive lifespan of 20-25 years, after which the economic productivity decreases. Farmers can increase productivity and decrease the incidence of disease (mainly a high occurrence of II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 110 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports black pod) through proper farm management. Chemicals and fertilizer are expensive and rarely used and the opportunity cost of brushing is high. War affected the availability of farmers to plant new trees. Heavy fighting occurred in the counties of Bong and Lofa and remained dangerous for many of the war years and villagers started returning to the areas as early as 2003 and 2004. Fighting in Nimba subsided early on and was relatively safe after 1991. The age of the cocoa tree stocks can be seen in Figure 27, this result coincides with the relative safety of the counties. Figure 27: Age of Cocoa Tree Stock by County for the Surveyed Households 30 25 ycneuqerF 20 Lofa 15 Bong Nimba 10 5 0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 50 53 59 Age (years) Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices 7.2.3 Cocoa Production During the conflict years, many people were forced to escape to other countries and bide their time as refugees, some had the ability to return but only remained for a short period of time. Other individuals and families were internally displaced to refugee camps in Bong, Margibi and Montserrado counties. Some villages were able to hide in the bush close to their village. Due to this displacement many farmers had varying access to their farms, and the incentive to manage the farms was low. As such the current status of their farms is also varied (Figure 28). Figure 28: Current Status of Cocoa Farms Owned by Surveyed Households All (n=513) Bong Don't Know (n=119) Newly Planted In Production Lofa Being Rehabilitated (n=200) Abandonded Nimba (n=195) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 111 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Farmers who indicated that the status of their farm was abandoned were then asked what their future intentions were for the farm. A majority indicated that they were planning on rehabilitating the current crop (Figure 29). Theoretically, this would suggest that there is marginally enough of a price incentive to motivate farmers to reinvest in their farms. Figure 29: Future Plans for Abandoned Cocoa Farms Convert to Food Crop Bong (n=17) Rehabilitate existing farm Convert to another perennial crop system. Lofa (n=68) Leave idle for the time being Other Nimba(n=17) No Answer 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Cocoa was originally planted as part of a multi-crop system, so it is common to see a variety of crops interspersed with a cocoa stand. There is cultural significance to the kolanut tree, and hence a worthwhile crop to own. The variety of crops associated with cocoa can be seen in Figure 30. Figure 30: Secondary Tree Crops Planted with Cocoa Avocados Breadfruit/jackfruit Bong (n=118) Colanut Dessert bananas Food crops during establishment Lofa Mangoes (n=202) Oil palm Other Plantain Nimba (n=195) Plum Timber trees None 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Proper farm management techniques of brushing and planting are labor and time intensive. The breakdown of economic activity of active cocoa farmers that use family a source of II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 112 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports cocoa farming labor can be found in Table 30. The breakdown of the age of these household workers can be found in Table 31. Table 30: Cocoa Farm Labor by Gender and Primary Economic Activity Men Women Principle Economic Activity (n=546) (n=525) None 2.38% 4.38% Self Employed Ag 62.82% 61.90% Hired Labor Ag 0.00% 0.00% Salaried Non-Ag 0.92% 0.76% Salaried Retired 0.37% 0.00% Student 31.68% 28.00% Petty Commerce 0.18% 0.76% Homemaker 1.47% 4.19% Other 0.18% 0.00% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Table 31: Cocoa Farm Labor by Gender and Age Cohort Male Female Age Cohort (years) (n=521) (n=547) 3-7 1.73% 2.01% 8-14 12.28% 12.61% 15-20 17.85% 17.37% 21-30 25.14% 18.83% 31-40 20.35% 14.81% 41-50 13.63% 15.54% 51-60 5.95% 11.33% 61 + 3.07% 7.50% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Farmers unable to sell their cocoa, after the harvesting and drying period is complete must store their cocoa in a secure location, in order to prevent theft. Those that stored did so for 10 ­ 45 days. The most common place for cocoa storage was the house (Table 32). The average quantity stored was 100.51 kg. Good quality (well dried) cocoa can be stored for long periods of time without rotting, however, with little emphasis on proper drying techniques, cocoa in the tropical climate only lasts a few weeks. Table 32: Storage Places for Cocoa Percent of Place Households (n=271) House 92.99% Field shed 1.85% Warehouse 0.00% Attic 1.11% No Response 4.06% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices 7.2.4 Liberian Cocoa Marketing System The LPMC monopoly marketing and pricing policy was established in the LPMC law: "the LPMC will buy produce...and pay prices to producers, fixed periodically on the basis of world market prices after deducting expenses for freight, insurance, handling, warehousing, II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 113 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports shipping, and any other charges incurred (i.e., Government inspection fee) and 10 percent of the fob value to cover overhead expenses and remuneration." To what extent was smallholder tree crop performance (output) affected by the LPMC pricing policy - given the international price trends? Table 33 shows the export and purchase prices for coffee, cocoa and palm kernels (over a limited period of the 1970s). The data shows that the purchase price for these crops reflected changes in world market prices, but that the margin between the export and purchase prices for coffee and cocoa is wider than that of palm kernels, and for a number of years the purchase price was 50% less than world market price. Whilst the LPMC passed on changes in world prices, the purchase prices were in fact fixed buying prices for designated agents; the actual farm-gate prices were discounted further by traders' margins and local transport costs. Moreover, LPMC's high management and administration overhead costs, and profit margins, have been criticized.72 Though there had been a disincentive effect insofar as the LPMC had kept farmgate prices low in relation in world prices, the smallholder response was to increase the harvested area during the 1980s (Table 34). This suggests that at the very least the actual prices received were sufficient to provide relative returns to household land, labor and capital. According to Pay-Bayee (2005), "when LPMC resumed operation in 1997/98 it could not operate through the established channels ­ cooperatives to farmers. Additionally, in the face of deterioration of its own facilities ­ storage, burners, graders, etc ­ as well as extreme financial difficulties, its functions were reduced to "regulatory" activities, and it could neither purchase nor export cocoa. With the near demise of LPMC, there are five exporters of cocoa, the extent to which LMPC collaborates or even oversees the operations of these businesses is not clear. In 1990, Liberia's membership with the ICCO was suspended, and the exports of cocoa and coffee were de facto transferred to Lebanese and other business houses. Presently, there are five such exporters, each with several agent/buyers and subagents. The current marketing chain, post-LPMC, has its own significant problems. As in the past, current Liberian farmgate prices do not encourage smallholders to improve yields or adopt better drying or fermentation methods. In fact, survey participants indicated that the opportunity cost of managing cocoa is high, making subsistence farming and other tree crops more attractive when the price of cocoa is low and the cocoa market persists in its underdeveloped and chaotic state. A comparison between cocoa prices in Liberia with that found in other African countries provides some indication of the current market conditions (Table 35). These differences are driven by many factors (some of which are discussed in further detail below) including low quality beans, very few exporters (all local), relatively miniscule production, and the underdeveloped marketing chain. 72"Pricing policies which have been pursued in the past by LPMC and sanctioned by the Government were primarily dictated by profit motivation" (World Bank, 1975). II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 114 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 33: LPMC purchases, export & purchase prices 1967-1981 (US$ per tonne) Coffee Cocoa Palm kernels Purchase Export Purchase % Purchase Export Purchase % Purchase Export Purchase % (clean) price price price price (dry price price (dry kernels) beans) 1966/67 678 416 61% 551 364 66% 135 94 70% 1967/68 693 409 59% 626 364 58% 170 104 61% 1968/69 665 359 54% 787 388 49% 135 94 70% 1969/70 760 376 49% 849 409 48% 149 100 67% 1970/71 861 302 35% 612 416 68% 136 102 75% 1971/72 4100 868 478 55% 2632 479 341 71% 11568 126 93 74% 1972/73 4635 1001 569 57% 2290 625 409 66% 11786 1973/74 3635 1036 569 55% 3165 1044 591 57% 15486 1974/75 3950 1277 699 55% 2730 1705 734 43% 13797 1975/76 4320 1843 894 49% 2772 1310 615 47% 12399 1976/77 10566 2570 1565 61% 2757 2770 1185 43% 9181 1977/78 10108 3174 1743 55% 3351 3599 1296 36% 8779 1978/79 8458 319161 1743 55% 3594 3487 1743 50% 7389 1979/80 10240 1593 2048 129% 5142 1273 2048 161% 6593 1980/81 2535 1921 76% 2085 1739 83% Source: LPMC quoted in World Bank, 1975 and 1984 II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 115 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 34: Trends in Liberian coffee and cocoa production and trade Cocoa Area harvested ha 7,610 11,700 25,310 -- Production tones 1,330 2,840 4,800 -- Yield kg/ha 170 285 190 -- Export quantity tones 1,330 2,840 4,400 -- Export value US$ m 0.65 4.98 9.38 -- Source: FAOSTAT Table 35: Farmgate and Port Prices for Cocoa Beans in Selected African Countries (US$kg) Main Cocoa Crop 06/07 Farmgate Price Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Liberia 0.33 0.32 0.35 0.37 0.39 Cameroon 1.28 1.13 1.23 1.25 1.33 1.46 Nigeria 1.24 1.32 1.48 1.55 1.52 Cote d'Ivoire 0.44 0.53 0.61 0.75 0.75 0.82 Port Price Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Nigeria 1.33 1.43 2.91 1.62 1.68 Cote D'Ivoire 0.67 0.72 0.78 0.87 0.92 0.97 It is apparent that Liberian cocoa farmers are not receiving market signals to produce quality cocoa and are often at the whim of the buyer's price setting (see Section 7.2.4.4). Generally, farmers will sell (possibly) dried and fermented beans to any available buyer that comes along to the farmgate or head-carry the load to a nearby market. At the farmgate, buyers may be agents for a local/regional buyer who finances village-level sales but is located in the nearby local/regional buying center. Alternatively, the buyer may be an intermediate village-level buyer with limited personally financed capital. These small-scale buyers take advantage of a farmer's pressing cash constraint and offer same day cash-on-hand along with prices that are less than the prevailing farmgate price from buyer's agents. There are also village-level buyers, looking to collect enough cocoa to make a trip to the regional buying center or to Guinea worthwhile. If the farmer chooses to take the cocoa directly to the buyer, located in a buying center or in Guinea, they may receive a better than farmgate price or open access to credit through informal, but direct arrangements with the local/regional buyers in Liberia. Buying centers at the local level are assumed to transport any of their accumulated cocoa to the regional buying centers. Regional buying center buyers on the other hand, can benefit from the economies of scale they have created through aggregation of smallholder cocoa and have access to motorized transport to evacuate the cocoa to either Monrovia or deeper into Guinea's territory, possibly to the Guinean regional buying center (Nzérekoré) If the cocoa has remained in Liberia, the regional buyer transports the cocoa to Monrovia to sell to an exporter, perhaps Bridgeway or Tutex. It is believed that there is no domestic industry currently processing cocoa or using it as an input to production. Therefore, any chocolate or finished cocoa that is consumed within country is imported. The likelihood of Liberia being in a position to foster the development of a cocoa processing industry is highly suspect given the extremely limited domestic throughput and other factors that have plagued the successful pursuit of such ventures in Ivory Coast and Ghana which require subsidies from the state. Local consumption of Liberian cocoa is apparently limited to artisanal II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 116 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 production of the fermented liquid produced during fermentation or simply eating the raw unfermented beans. However, the consumption is insignificant as far as the marketing chain is concerned. Cocoa that has been traded in Guinea will have a somewhat similar path. Buyers in border towns likely transport the cocoa to the main regional buying/conditioning center (Nzérekoré) for the cocoa to be sorted and repackaged. Then the cocoa is transported to the port city of Conakry and exported to the world market. It is also believed that there is no internal cocoa industry in Guinea. Figure 31: General Schematic of Current Liberian Smallholder Cocoa Marketing Chain A large part of the ability to market cocoa in Liberia is determined by infrastructural constraints, like distance, quality of roads and accessible methods of transportation. Villages that are far from buying centers or that are located in remote areas of the countryside face a limited or non-existent market in which to sell their cocoa (esp. outside of Bong, Lofa and Nimba). Farmers that live in border towns (esp. Guinea) often can travel across the border to neighboring countries to sell their cocoa in adjacent towns or more distant buying centers. Those options, though nominally illegal, may have lower transportation costs than traveling to Monrovia on poorly maintained roads and the risk and cost of being caught, or paying the necessary "fees", may still be low enough to make cross-border trading profitable. Liberian cocoa is harvested primarily during and at the end of the rainy season so transportation infrastructure, and the limited time devoted to properly drying sets up a situation where the cocoa is transported down the path of least resistance and hopes for greater profit. One must II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 117 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 note that direct cross-border trade with any of the adjacent countries creates the need for currency exchange and these markets are primarily parallel in nature and can be rather volatile. In fact, most buyers that were interviewed by the IITA/STCP/UTK team admitted to selling all of their pre-February cocoa to Guinea. Buyers also explained that cocoa reversed direction in February and went to Monrovia after political instability in Guinea began to increase risks and move exchange rates unfavorably (and a mandate was passed by the Government of Liberia). This was also made possible by an infusion of investment capital (of likely public origin) in Monrovia that permitted the purchase of cocoa for export (at a reportedly season high Liberian port price of US$1.02/kg which included transport and buyer's margins). A majority of the cocoa transported from the farm is done by head loading. Means of transportation with wheels is limited. For all the active cocoa-farming households interviewed (300+), there were only at total of 13 bicycles, 4 mopeds/motorcycles, and 1 pickup truck owned by household members. Buyers are also limited in transportation means and the scale of their operations often depends on their access to rented vehicles. Most buyer's agents collect small amounts of cocoa and transport it by motorcycle to their local collection point (often their home or seasonal residence). Once cocoa purchases have reached a reasonable quantity, the agent or buyer will hire transportation to evacuate the cocoa from the village (agent's collection point). Field observations point to the fact that very few buyers own even a pickup truck. Some buyers, especially in Bong and Nimba, dry their purchased cocoa and then transport 2-3 tons at a time to Guinea (one bag = 100-120kg and each bag is $LD300-350 to transport across the border to Nzérekoré, including all of the `border fees', transport costs and driver's margin). 7.2.4.1 Price Determination Wide margins between domestic (African) and world commodity prices are often attributed to high transport costs and low domestic quality (Kherallah et al 2002), policy reforms, marketing board influence, risk aversion, and exogenous influences, like labor organization, weather and world price fluctuations (Townsend 1999; Fold 2001). When monopsony or oligopsony practices exist, farmers are often forced to sell at discounted prices and market information has little influence. However, theory supposes that as the number of buyers and sellers increase, price information and market information may serve to provide additional limits on agents' ability to exert market power (Timmer, Falcon and Pearson 1983). In Liberia, buyers and their agents may have the ability to exert such power against farmers.73 Further downstream, the reverse might be true for buyers when selling to exporters. However, all margins need to be examined rigorously if agents up-stream are to benefit from policies and actions that are aimed at increasing market efficiency. Limited data availability has constrained a rigorous analysis of the Liberian cocoa marketing chain. Pay-Bayee (2005) and others have provided some anecdotal insight. The IITA/STCP/UTK survey sought to add additional detail. While a time series of farmgate prices has been obtained, limited cooperation from buyers downstream has led to an inability to determine conclusively the marketing margins throughout the Liberian cocoa marketing chain. This means, at this time, a true value chain analysis (e.g. Gilbert, 2006) is impossible, since the series of downstream prices in Liberia and Guinea have proven to be 73The information on the extent at which the few farmer groups in Liberia may be able to negotiate price is limited. But such ventures in other cocoa producing countries have been hugely successful. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 118 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 unobtainable. Theory indicates that in a competitive market, the margin between the farmgate price and the ICCO price (Figure 32) should be explained by the addition of commodity producer prices, internal transportation and transaction costs, exchange rates and other export costs (Gilbert 2006). While explicitly measuring the influence of each on market outcomes is not possible at this time, a preliminary estimation of price determinants has been performed. Preliminary results indicate that location and the marketing chain level, quality, quantity, credit, and market information variables may impact farmgate prices. The following sub-sections attempts to examine these determinants. Figure 32: Average Monthly Prices Weighted by Quantity Sold by County Compared to ICCO Price 1.60 1.40 )g K/ DS 1.20 U( ecirP 1.00 ICCO Nimba ylhtno 0.80 Lofa Bong M egarev 0.60 A 0.40 0.20 0.00 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan ICCO 1.569 1.525 1.578 1.726 1.699 Nimba 0.344 0.361 0.395 0.446 0.486 Lofa 0.316 0.297 0.320 0.327 0.361 Bong 0.302 0.340 0.347 0.333 7.2.4.2 Liberian Cocoa Prices The difference between farmgate prices within Liberia at any given time is limited to only a few $LD/kg on a county average level. This is quite different from the findings in Cameroon where provincial differences can be quite significant (Wilcox, 2006) or in Ivory Coast where weekly buying center prices are reported by the BCC and are rather variable spatially. Despite a lack of wide regional price differences at the farmgate, location of sale and the level of the marketing chain at which the sale took place may play a role in farmgate-level market outcomes. As mentioned previously, preliminary evidence from the IITA/STCP/UTK survey suggests that farmers may be receiving better prices across the Guinean border than in the local Liberian buying center or, most certainly, at the farmgate. However, the farmers that choose to sell in Guinea pay high transaction costs, compared to selling locally, as they are required to pay entrance fees at both borders. Transporting cocoa across the border does not necessarily guarantee a better price since in either case the farmer rarely has the ability to negotiate prices. A risk factor is also involved when transporting the cocoa to Guinea, for both farmer and buyer. The prevailing prices in Guinea are often unknown to farmers from Liberia (buyers typically have `customers' and cell service in the larger towns where they reside) and they must navigate parallel exchange channels. Both transactions are often held II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 119 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 in the farmer's rudimentary French or the Guinean buyer's rudimentary Liberian English. Despite this, it is often worth the uncertainties. Farmer's reported in interviews that they would often get the equivalent of $LD5-15/kg more for their cocoa after accounting for transactions costs, compared to the farmgate. Of course in the villages that border other countries, the option may exist to bring the cocoa to a local/regional buying center Liberia but true border towns are often close enough to Guinea to head-load their production. Until February 2007, these farmers took advantage of favorable exchange rates and local Guinean prices to return load goods from Guinea paid with their earnings from cocoa sales thereby further enhancing the incentive of cross-border trade. Even at the buyer-level, estimates of 75 percent or much more of the cocoa purchased by buyers in Liberia is currently sold in Guinea as buyers search out the difference of $LD15-25/kg (or more) from the Monrovia port price. Differences across location appear to be driven by quantity (see next section), infrastructure and possibly the number of buyers. Farmgate prices were relatively constant throughout the season despite fluctuations in the world market. Preliminary evidence points to price transmissions, from downstream upwards, that rapidly decay as the level in the marketing chain increases. Low, but significant, price transmission elasticities between the buying center and the farmgate suggests that even arm's length transactions bare little resemblance to one another in regard to price variability and movement. Insignificant price transmission between the farmgate and world prices suggests that there is currently a disconnect between the farmgate and the world market. This may be driven by the buyer's ability to limit the responsiveness of prices and compounded by the fact that cocoa of Liberian origin is heavily discounted on the world market and margins downstream from the farmgate may fluctuate while farmgate prices remain relatively constant (reminiscent of the seasonal pan-territorial pricing strategies of the essentially defunct LPMC). 7.2.4.3 Quantity Preliminary evidence shows that economies of scale are at work, in a limited sense. There is some indication that the quantity of cocoa that is sold impacts the amount of refraction taken. Buyers are looking to minimize search costs and maximize throughput, therefore the larger the sale, perhaps better off the farmer and the buyer. Almost all the cocoa grown is sold during the main season which falls between September and January. The largest lots are sold during the months of October, November and December (Figure 33). Individual transactions are typically less than 100kg and rarely over 200kg. 7.2.4.4 Quality Farmers interviewed indicated that good quality cocoa is of less importance than quantity when selling either to Liberian buyers or directly in Guinea. Buyers will purchase quantities that are wet (and reportedly sometimes even moldy) with minor quantity refractions taken. Refractions are discounts paid to buyers through a weight deduction that is taken off of the final sale weight. This effectively lowers the price received by farmers. Often a kilogram is also deducted from the total amount sold reportedly to account for the weight of the sack holding the cocoa. Liberian buyers may be relatively more concerned with quality during the transaction and will discount the cocoa or refuse to buy it if it does not meet their needs. Despite this, a majority of the refractions found in the survey were taken for the weight of the bag alone and did not reflect quality issues (Table 36). II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 120 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Figure 33: Percentage of Sales by Quantity per Month Month Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan 0.18% (n=1) 0.36% (n=2) 1.07% (n=6) 5.16% (n=29) 16.37% (n=92) 21% (n=118) 21.17% (n=119) 4.63% (n=26) 001-100 kg gnitekra 0.18% (n=1) 0.18% (n=1) 1.6% (n=9) 1.96% (n=11) 7.12% (n=40) 9.43% (n=53) 1.25% (n=7) 101-200 kg M aoco 0.71% (n=4) 1.42% (n=8) 1.25% (n=7) 1.6% (n=9) 0.71% (n=4) 201-300 kg C 0.36% (n=2) 0.53% (n=3) 301-500 kg 0.18% (n=1) 1.07% (n=6) 0.36% (n=2) 0.18% (n=1) 500+ kg II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 121 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 36: Cocoa Marketing Refractions Nimba Lofa Bong Item (n=286) (n=169) (n=108) % of Sales with Any Type of Refraction 70.3% 85.8% 83.3% % Sales with Quality Refraction (Wet or Moldy) 18.9% 10.1% 5.6% Average Size of Refraction (kg) 3.0 2.9 2.3 Average Refraction per transaction ($LD) 68 55 46 Quality is determined during the fermentation and drying stages. If the beans are not allowed to dry sufficiently they will mold, if they are dried too quickly then the beans taste acidic. Fermentation of cocoa in Liberia occurs in hanging banana leaf covered baskets or in a pile wrapped in banana leaves on the ground. Farmers reported fermentation duration ranges from two days to a week. Drying times ranged from three days to a week. Methods of drying used by survey farmers can be found in Table 37. Table 37: Drying Methods for Cocoa Percent of Material Households (n=336) Concrete Slab 1.19% Road 0.30% Bamboo mats 69.94% Tarp 8.33% Attic with fire 0.89% Other - Raised platform 0.30% with mat Quality is often measured by obtaining a sample of beans to ascertain, rudimentarily, bean moisture level (by breaking open beans or rolling beans in one's hand) and level of fermentation (through color differences). Measuring quality and determining discounts or premiums is highly subjective and depends on the buyer's/farmer's knowledge of good quality and the honesty of the buyer's assessment, since no instruments are used. Farmers, for their part, may be improperly fermenting and drying the beans as a means of saving time or lack of knowledge. Buyers are willing to buy wet beans as they can buy them at a discount and add value by drying the beans at the collection center. 7.2.4.5 Credit Availability Another dimension of the cocoa markets that affects the price for cocoa is the accessibility of credit and its source. There are currently very few sources of credit or loans in Liberia. As such, a farmer's capital constraints becomes an opportunity for buyers to either offer lower prices at the time of sale to take advantage of the farmer's pressing needs or offer the farmer loans/credit that can be paid back in cocoa at harvest. Such loans help the buyer limit search costs as they typically only make loans to farmer's whose production capacity is known and this contractually, albeit informally, obligates the farmer to sell to that buyer to repay the loan. Loans are often made directly by the cocoa buyer in a regional buying center to the cocoa farmer. Buyer's agents may also have this capacity though on a small scale. These loans are usually given in the form of cash or food during the starvation months of the rainy season. Typically, the farmers will pay back loans in cocoa but it is currently unknown if these farmers receive lower than average farmgate prices (thereby paying interest on the loan). For the cocoa farmers surveyed, the average length of loan was 3.3 months. Loans were used primarily for II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 122 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 farm cleaning and maintenance. Motivating or enabling farmers to complete these farm management tasks is one way that the private sector is actually helping to increase production as farmers begin to rehabilitate their farms. Several buyers that were interviewed identified proper farm management, which increases throughput, and infrastructure, which lowers transportation costs, as the two most important things that need to be rectified at the village level. Figure 34: Sources of Credit for Active Cocoa Farmers Surveyed 8% Bank/Credit Union 3% Family and Friends 85% Local Cocoa Buyer 1% Local Money Lenders 3% Susu, Esusu, Njangis Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices 7.2.4.6 Market Information Rural Liberia, has limited access to communication tools that might be effectively used to transmit price information. Cell phones have limited signal availability and few people have access to one. In fact, only 38 people of the 792 people surveyed had a personal cell phone. Much of the information for prices is gathered from non-reliable or nonobjective sources, such as buyers, who have a conflict of interest. Friends and neighbors also play a role but they may also be poorly informed or getting their information from buyers. Figure 35: Sources of Market Information for Cocoa for Households Surveyed Unable To Respond Government/Extension Newspaper Sometimes Often Radio Always Farmer Org. Never Hearsay Friends/Neighbors Produce Buyers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practice II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 123 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Currently, given the complete lack of market information it is impossible to estimate if informed sellers are actually able to negotiate significantly higher prices. Evidence from other countries, such as Cameroon, suggests that the dissemination of accurate market information can have a positive effect on market transactions for farmers. 7.3 Coffee 7.3.1 Coffee Tree Stock International prices for coffee have discouraged farmers from planting new coffee tree stock, since the 80s (Figure 36). The available tree stock for coffee is limited mostly to what is available from seed plantings, very few people are using or have access to the improved variety, which can be seen in Figure 37. Figure 36: Age of Coffee Tree Stock by County for Surveyed Households 16 14 12 ycneuqerF 10 Nimba 8 Lofa 6 Bong 4 2 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 49 58 Age (years) Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Figure 37: Planting Material for Coffee Farms Bong (n=12) Improved germplasm developed by research Unimproved local variety Lofa (n=105) Other Doesn't Know Nimba (n=34) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices The majority of the coffee tree stock is between 20 and 40 years old. This means that while the Liberian coffee tree stock is due for replanting, it is currently languishing in the bush. The II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 124 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 unavailability of improved varieties and projected low prices will likely hamper any resurgence of the sector. In addition, finding buyers has proven difficult for those few Liberian coffee farmers who decide to spend their time harvesting, drying and storing their coffee production. 7.3.2 Coffee Production Coffee was the first tree crop introduced as an export crop (together with sugarcane) in the mid-19 century. Both coffee and cocoa saw a large expansion in area harvested during the period of the 1960s to 1980s (Table 38). In spite of extension programs under various agricultural development projects, yields for both crops have remained low, and appear to show a greater response to falling world prices than the area planted. Export earnings can reflect cross-border trading in both directions: for example it was estimated that in late 1960s at least 50% of cocoa exported from Liberia originated in neighboring countries (World Bank, 1969). By the end of mid-to-late 1980s coffee export earnings fell sharply ­ to less than US$10m, and cocoa was replacing coffee as the dominant smallholder tree crop. Table 38: Trends in Liberian Coffee Production and Trade Coffee Unit 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Area harvested ha 8,670 18,180 21,310 -- Production tones 4,410 6,180 8,250 -- Yield kg/ha 510 350 385 -- Export quantity tones 4,420 6,170 7,600 -- Export value US$ m 3.0 12.9 17.0 -- Source: FAOSTAT Liberian coffee, without having an internal marketplace for the finish product, faces a large competitive international marketplace with extremely limited ability to enter let alone compete. Downturns in coffee commodity prices and the opportunity cost of growing another more profitable agricultural venture being high, the desire to grow coffee tree stands is limited. This can be seen in Figure 38, hardly any new trees have been planted and 40% of existing farms have been abandoned to bush. Figure 38: Status of Coffee Farms All (n=153) Bong Don't Know (n=12) Newly Planted In Production Lofa Being Rehabilitated (n=107) Abandonded Nimba (n=34) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 125 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 The farmers surveyed were asked what their intentions were for the abandoned farms. A majority said that they were looking to rehabilitate the farm, while a large portion said that they were going to leave the farm idle (Figure 39). Figure 39: Future Plans for Abandoned Coffee Farms Convert to Food Crop Bong(n=6) Rehabilitate existing farm Convert to another perennial crop system. Lofa (n=50) Leave idle for the time being Other Nimba(n=5) No Answer 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Coffee is known to be a very particular tree crop, which is sensitive to intercropping and overgrown bush. However, with very few people growing coffee for sale and the need to subsistence farming high, coffee is interspersed with a variety of secondary crops (Figure 40). Figure 40: Secondary Crops Planted with Coffee Avocados Breadfruit/jackfruit Bong (n=12) Colanut Dessert bananas Food crops during establishment Mangoes Lofa (n=105) Oil palm Other Plantain Plum Nimba (n=34) Timber trees None 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 126 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 7.3.3 Liberian Coffee Marketing System Many aspects of farming coffee are similar to those of farming cocoa. The harvest season for coffee falls within the same period that cocoa is harvest. The marketing system for coffee is identical to the marketing system for cocoa, except for the fact that coffee can be stored for greater amounts of rime if it has been properly dried, thus extending it's on farm shelf life. See Section 7.2.4 and Figure 31 for more details on the cocoa marketing chain. Production and sale is limited in Liberia, although there were 147 households surveyed that had a coffee farm, only 37 respondents indicated that they produce coffee for sale. Survey respondents indicated that they had sold to the local buyer, but were not asked to specify the buyer's origination point. Twenty-two of the sellers indicated that they sold Arabica and the other 15 indicated that they sold Robusta varieties of coffee. The average minimum monthly sale was US$35.17 and the average maximum monthly sale was US$45.37. With the limited response an average price could not be calculated. 7.4 Oil Palm 7.4.1 Trends in Oil Palm Supply and Export Oil palm is a ubiquitous crop for smallholders, produced from wild (natural) groves primarily for own-consumption, but also as a cash crop (cooking oil, soap), together with palm wine. Palm oil continued to be imported in small quantities in late 1960s, and more sporadically in the 1970s and 1980s. The installation of processing mills saw the substitution of palm kernel exports with palm kernel oil, and the establishment of oil palm estates by parastatals and private companies resulted in an increase in oil palm exports (Tables 39 and 40). Table 39: Trends in palm oil production and trade 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Area harvested ha 12,670 14,950 10,900 -- Production (palm kernels) mt 10,900 12,675 7,200 -- Export quantity (palm kernels) mt 10,850 4,500 595 -- Export value (palm kernels) US$ (mil) 1.36 0.65 0.17 -- Export quantity (palm kernel oil) mt -- 4,620 1,850 -- Export value (palm kernel oil) US$ (mil) -- 2.48 1.10 -- Export quantity (palm oil) mt -- 990 4,600 -- Export value (palm oil) US$ (mil) -- 0.64 2.29 -- Source: FAOSTAT Although there are 119 households that have an oil palm farm, only 47 respondents indicated that they produce palm oil for consumption or sale (Table 41). Processing oil palm kernels into palm oil is a laborious process. Even, if the village has a dedicated processing area where a drum of kernels can be pounded, boiled, and cleaned, the process takes a full day to complete with several individuals working at the same time. None of the survey respondents indicated a means of processing other than the traditional method of hand pounding the kernels. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 127 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 40: Oil palm estates established by parastatals LPMC County Area (ha) Foya 2,300 Ziah Town Oil Palm Grand Gedeh 830 Kpatawe Oil Palm Farm Bong 560 Voinjama, Lofa 23 Gbarnga 70 LPCC Butow Oil Palm Company (BOPC) Sinoe --Nucleus 2914 --Smallholder 124 Dube Oil Grand Gedeh 1214 DOPC Decoris Maryland --Nucleus 890 --Smallholder 210 Total 8,000 Source: World Bank (1984) and EC Table 41: Oil Palm Usage in Surveyed Households (n=47/792) Percent of Use Households Home consumption only 55.32% Sell bunches to oil processor 6.38% Pay a fee or percentage for processing 4.26% and then sell oil Process into oil on farm and then sell oil 29.79% Other 4.26% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices The finished product is used in a variety of applications, from cooking to making soap. 7.4.2 Oil Palm Tree Stock Oil palm has such a variety of household uses that although few people sell it, the benefit of growing it may be high. Most of the current tree stock was planted throughout the war years but not in such a way that it would be viable for large-scale production (Figure 41). Figure 41: Age of Oil Palm Tree Stock by County for Surveyed Households 20 18 16 ycneuqerF 14 Nimba 12 10 Lofa 8 Bong 6 4 2 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 34 Age (years) Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 128 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Of all the tree crops observed in this study, oil palm leads the group in using improved varieties of tree stock (Figure 42). This is a direct result of the availability of these varieties. Figure 42: Planting Material For Oil Palm Farms Bong (n=16) Improved germplasm developed by research Unimproved local variety Lofa (n=31) Other Doesn't Know Nimba (n=73) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices 7.4.3 Oil Palm Production Surveyed households were asked about the status of their oil palm farms. Over 60% of the farms were newly planted (Figure 43), which coincides with the age of the tree stock. Very few farms are abandoned, but the two that have been (Figure 44) - appear to be split between rehabilitation and conversion to another crop. Figure 43: Status of Oil Palm Farms All (n=120) Bong Don't Know (n=16) Newly Planted In Production Lofa Being Rehabilitated (n=31) Abandonded Nimba (n=73) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 129 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Figure 44: Future Plans for Abandoned Oil Palm Farms Convert to Food Crop Bong(n=2) Rehabilitate existing farm Convert to another perennial crop system. Lofa (n=0) Leave idle for the time being Other Nimba(n=0) No Answer 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Oil palm stands have traditionally been planted as a stand-alone tree crop; therefore it is not a surprise to see a very small amount of secondary intercropping (Figure 45). This is in contrast with the wild or random plantings that are found on some smallholders' property. Figure 45: Secondary Tree Crops Planted with Oil Palm Avocados Breadfruit/jackfruit Bong (n=16) Colanut Dessert bananas Food crops during establishment Lofa Mangoes (n=31) Oil palm Other Plantain Nimba (n=73) Plum Timber trees None 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Oil palm farming requires very little upkeep and the harvesting of the palm kernels must be done by someone that is very strong, in order to climb to the top of the tree to collect the palm kernels and to tap for palm wine. This is especially true for much of the old tree stock as it was observed to be quite tall and prime candidates for replanting. The economic and demographic information for family labor that is used in oil palm harvesting can be found in tables 42 and 43. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 130 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 42: Oil Palm Farm Labor by Gender and Primary Economic Activity Men Women Principle Economic Activity (n=184) (n=92) None 71.20% 61.96% Self Employed Ag 0.54% 0.00% Hired Labor Ag 0.00% 0.00% Salaried Non-Ag 0.54% 0.00% Salaried Retired 26.09% 31.52% Student 0.00% 3.26% Petty Commerce 0.54% 3.26% Homemaker 1.09% 0.00% Other 0.00% 0.00% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices Table 43: Oil Palm Farm Labor by Gender and Age Cohort Age Cohort (years) Male (n=187) Female (n=94) 3-7 0.53% 1.06% 8-14 6.95% 9.57% 15-20 9.63% 15.96% 21-30 19.25% 23.40% 31-40 28.88% 28.72% 41-50 21.93% 12.77% 51-60 7.49% 6.38% 61 + 5.35% 2.13% Source: 2007 IITA/STCP/UTK Household Survey on Tree Crop Supply and Production Practices 7.4.4 Liberian Oil Palm Marketing System Palm oil is a ubiquitous ingredient in West African cuisine. During the years of civil strife, marketable surpluses, generated in areas where travel was an option, were often part of cross- border trade (esp. Guinea and Ivory Coast). Since main domestic population centers (e.g. Monrovia) were often relatively inaccessible, the palm oil needs of neighboring countries were partly satisfied by spill-overs from Liberia. As the conflict was resolved, palm oil markets began to respond to the demand in the formally inaccessible urban centers of Liberia. Some of this demand has been satisfied by imports while other consumers prefer to purchase the raw palm nuts for home processing and others choose to purchase a share of the production that originates from up-country. Generally, the majority of palm oil produced by smallholders is consumed in the rural areas of Liberia and produced at a subsistence level. If surplus oil is available for sale, it is often purchased and consumed at the village level. Those oil palm growers who have a marketable surplus have three options to market their product (and potentially a fourth). As discussed in Section 7.4.3, palm oil trees and their direct produce have a variety of uses. Here, only palm nuts and oil are considered. Oil palm produces bunches which contain nuts that can be marketed at a village, local market or regional market level depending on the quantity produced and the entrepreneurial spirit, coupled with the economically available options, of the producer. Oil palm nuts require further processing so the only value added are the margins associated with transactions costs and market conditions further downstream in areas which are presumably more urban. Palm nuts are typically processed further to oil in small batches at the village level using traditional methods that often involve assistance in the form of informal hired labor. Once the palm nuts II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 131 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 have been processed to oil, it is decanted into containers for sale at the village, local market or regional market level. There is the possibility for agents, financed by large agricultural commodity dealers in towns or cities, to purchase palm oil up-country for sale in highly urban areas but it is unknown whether smallholder farmers, or the marketing linkages, have been connected formally to take advantage of such opportunities. (See Figure 46) Figure 46: General Schematic of Current Liberian Smallholder Oil Palm Marketing Chain Figure 46 outlines the marketing chain described above. At the moment, it appears that, informal cross-border trade in adjacent countries notwithstanding, Liberia is not a significant exporter of palm oil. As such, the marketing chain available to smallholder oil palm producers is domestic in nature. Sellers in large regional markets may indeed have some access to export markets (thus some "port" price that may or may not command $LD) but this is currently unknown. Oil palm sale information is incredibly limited, since much of what is produced is used in home consumption and the time and cost are prohibitive to making a profit by selling or transporting the palm oil. Prices are considerably low for farm-produced oil palm since most people may sell oil palm that was bought in bulk in the market (Table 44). 8. THE WAY FORWARD Agricultural development in Liberia was initially dominated by the policy to attract foreign investment, to establish rubber and then timber concessions. Foreign exchange earnings and employment undoubtedly contributed to growth but the creation an enclave economy caused a structural imbalance between the monetized and traditional (or smallholder sector). The vulnerability of the export sectors to cyclical demand for commodities (e.g. iron ore, timber) induced the government to seek to diversify production, widen the base of the agricultural economy, and improve the distribution of income. From the late 1970s the strategy for agricultural development included support for smallholder coffee, cocoa (through the integrated agricultural development projects) and rubber production, together with the establishment of large-scale nuclear plantation estates (including oil palm and coconut) run by public corporations with smallholder outgrower plantations. The paradox of dualism in Liberian agriculture has been its ambiguous role in the development of the economy to date, contrasted with its present potential to generate employment, foreign exchange and public revenues for poverty reduction programs. Economic development in the II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 132 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 short to medium term will largely depend once again on the traditional growth sectors ­ iron ore, tree crops, and forestry. The country will need to secure foreign investment, as the Liberian private sector is limited and under-resourced, and seek access to export markets, as the growth in demand in domestic markets for agricultural commodities will be insufficient to sustain the high growth rates needed to reduce poverty. Despite Liberia's liberal economic policies investors will remain wary - given the history of political uncertainties and endemic corruption - until the government establishes a track record for fiscal discipline and economic management. Rebuilding the sub-sector is however predicated on supporting key economic reforms and new governance structures, and building new coalitions for change focused on establishing competition and market access - to reduce opportunities for rent seeking and state capture - by eliminating structural, policy and market distortions in supply chains. The policy objective for the sub sector should be to raise rural incomes and employment, export earnings and public revenues through the promotion of both tree crop production and agricultural marketing. The strategy should aim to strengthen policies, institutions and practices that increase pro-poor private sector development including marketing and processing, with an emphasis on agricultural competitiveness in both traditional and new tree crop markets: · For the existing tree crop plantation estate (rubber and oil palm) the first step will be to review all concession agreements and audit all parastatal holdings and estates in order to establish a roadmap for the renegotiation of concessions as necessary, and the competitive tendering of concessions and other plantation estates. · For smallholder and commercial farmers of tree crops the challenge is to make output markets work, and to provide public goods and services to rehabilitate and promote sustainable production, and improve household livelihoods. Both of these broad processes emphasize the need for public-private dialogue. The MoA would be expected to play a stewardship role in forum discussions, which should cover, for example, options for regulatory policies (pricing policy, improving marketing), legal reform (labor law, investment code), fiscal reform (concession policies, corporate and other taxes, investment incentives, funding for replanting), and research. Trade finance and microfinance programs should be facilitated by public entities and financed through private means or via public/private partnerships. The priority for the tree crop plantations is to resolve the governance issues that affect the majority of the rubber concessions, as well as the oil palm industry, in order to attract the new investment needed to replant and re-install processing capacity. The situation is analogous to that faced by the forest sector will the imposition of UN timber sanctions: the sector could not restart without a review of the legality and status of present contracts and agreements. A similar approach to that undertaken by Forest Concession Review Committee in 2005 could be adopted, which included the: · verification of the status of the concession holder as a business entity authorized to operate in Liberia, and the authenticity of the concession contract; · review of the concession contract for compliance with rule of law (national and international); II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 133 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 · assessment of the concession contract for compliance with its financial obligations, applicable labor and environmental laws. The forest concession review was the first step in the overhaul and reform of the sector culminating in the New National Forest Reform Law in 2006.74 The objective of the a review of contracts in the plantation sector would to bring existing and new agreements into line with accepted international practice, and the awarding of agreements in line with the policies of the Contract and Monopolies Commission (CMC) and the Public Procurement Law (2006). The new agreements would provide a level playing field with respect to (a) labor, social and environmental, and wider community obligations; (b) fiscal policy (the definition of taxable income ­ including non-resident dividend income and the removal of individual plantation blanket duty exemptions); (c) a formula and mechanisms for negotiating and reviewing prices based on international prices and grades both paid at the factory gate (whether a concession or an independent processor) for private, contract and outgrower farmers, and for purposes of payment of export taxes, and (d) contracts for outgrowers, including cultivation rights, inheritance rights, and management standards, and mechanism for third-party monitoring of compliance. For the smallholder sector the immediate priority are to (a) resolve the financial status of the LPMC (in terms of debts and assets); (b) explore the institutional options for regulating the marketing of tree crops. International markets have changed, and to ensure farmers receive a fair price requires a greater emphasis on regulators to work with the private sector to improve performance on quality through the mandatory certification of instruments used for quality and quantity assessment in the field (scales, hygrometers, etc.) and ensuring that all product is meeting appropriate international/industry grading, sanitary and phytosanitary standards; provision of market information that is timely, objective and disseminated using technology that is appropriate for the rural areas in which tree crop farmers live and work, and to agree on mechanism for the licensing and monitoring of buyers/exporters; and (c) discuss funding options for the private provision of public services including: (i) the support of common initiative groups, such as farmer associations and marketing groups, and (ii) grant funding for the continuation and evolution farmer field schools across all smallholder tree crops. In the short-to-medium term options for investment to the tree crop sector could include (a) programs to support tree crop rehabilitation and expansion, and (b) marketing and export promotion, including enhancing efficiency and ensuring competitiveness. 8.1 Tree crop rehabilitation and expansion In order for tree crops to be rehabilitated and expanded successfully, market reforms need to be put place either before or concurrently as to ensure incentives for all market agents involved. Great care should be taken to eliminate or revise any regulations or laws that may otherwise serve as barriers to the introduction of well established, effective and environmentally safe cultivars that are disease resistant, high yielding and agronomically appropriate for the Liberian tree crop sector. Without the introduction of improved varieties and farm-level incentives, the smallholder tree crop sector will stagnate or decline. 74The law mandates benefit sharing arrangements, social agreements with affected communities and a mechanism for annual contract compliance review (NFRL, 2006). II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 134 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Currently, many of the farms that were abandoned either are in desperate need of underbrush management and pruning or have long since past their economic viability. Public/private partnership programs, such as the Farmer Field Schools pioneered in the Liberian cocoa sector by STCP, should continue to assist farmers with inventorying the current status of their tree stock, help farmers devise short, medium and long-term plans for their tree crop farms and facilitate the identification and introduction of improved varieties. Lastly, an examination into the input markets associated with tree crops should be undertaken and the needs of the sector identified. Yield enhancing best management practices that eliminate or significantly reduce the need for chemicals, which are currently not readily available to smallholders anyway, should be promoted. 8.2 Research Little if any research has been undertaken on the linkages between household livelihoods strategies and farming systems, including tree crops. Assumptions that productivity can be raised through the supply of improved varieties and other inputs need to be tested: the experience during the 1980s with the agricultural development programmers should serve as a salutary reminder of the constraints faced by households, and the central role of social relations in their livelihood strategies, which limited their response to supply-side approaches. If little was known prior to the civil conflict, then even less is known at present as displaced households return. Research is needed to examine the impact of customary land tenure on the adoption of tree crops, and land-use intensification. Tree crops are a potential source of alternative incomes for communities not least near proposed protected areas. The option of offering young farmers guaranteed short-term tenancies for food and tree crops could be explored. In addition, it will be important to ascertain how best to develop a farm-level portfolio of offerings that can address household food security issues while balancing household financial needs through the sale of tree crops and surplus food crops given a farmer's current endowment of land, labor and capital. 8.3 Establishment of a replanting fund for smallholders The case for establishing a replanting fund for rubber has been made in the past. However, such funds could be established for rubber and other smallholder tree crops. The approach would be a private sector initiative, based on voluntary contributions (for example, an export levy, or on a cost-sharing basis), involving no public funding and with members assuming the benefits and risks. Nonetheless replanting funds would require initial seed funding and technical assistance. 8.4 Marketing and export promotion The secular decline in agricultural commodity markets will increase the vulnerability of producer countries and reduce farmers' real incomes. A twin-track approach focusing on product differentiation and export diversification would aim to reduce these vulnerabilities. Product differentiation is a means to capture a "fair price", and includes options such as fair trade arrangements, organic and other certified products. The experience with certified timber products indicates that the benefits are mainly to maintain market share or gain market access rather than a price premium. However, entry costs tend to be high, and the size of these II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 135 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 markets is unknown.75 Beyond niche markets, production and quality also needs to attain a level that will make the Liberian tree crop sector, especially cocoa and coffee, such that exporters will be willing to install themselves (accompanied by capital investments) in the marketplace. The Everything But Arms (EBA) and the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) provide trade preferences for quota- and duty-free entry into the EU and US markets respectively. Agricultural products are a promising area for Liberia under AGOA, which provides trade and technical assistance packages.76 An important factor to consider is the informal regional trading sector that dominates the marketing of non-rubber tree crops (esp. cocoa and coffee and to some degree palm oil). The ECOWAS nations that are involved in this cross-border trading should seek ways to make the marketing chain and trading system more transparent and efficient. In addition, Liberia should re-examine its taxation regime as it pertains to tree crops to ensure that the sector effectively contributed to the rebuilding of the nation without adversely affecting or distorting markets. 75Liberia could have a `comparative advantage' in organic markets given that no chemicals are used in coffee or cocoa production. The production of oil palm for biofuel production offers an emerging export market and a potential import-substitution opportunity. Providing oil palm plantations are only established on existing plantations or land that is already in agricultural use the promotion of certified sustainable biofuel is an option. 76Effective December 29, 2006, Liberia was designated as AGOA eligible II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 136 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 1 PEOPLE MET Dr Chris Toe, Minister of Agriculture Mr James Logan, Deputy Minister, (Planning & Development) Dr Wilbur Thomas, Director USAID, Monrovia Mr Alfreyda Myers, Economic Counselor, US Embassy, Monrovia Mr MacArthur Pay-Bayee, Project manager, Sustainable Tree Crops Program (IITA) Mr Mario Bovin Consultant (SOCODEVI) STCP. Mr Teague, Managing Director, Liberia Rubber Development Authority II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 137 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 2 REFERENCES FAO. 2004. State of Agricultural Commodity Markets.Internet. http://www.fao.org/sof/soco/index_en.htm FAO. 2007. FAOSTAT. Internet. http://faostat.fao.org/ . FAO/MOA. 2001. Baseline Survey. Food and Agriculture Organization and Liberian Ministry of Agriculture, Monrovia, Liberia. Fold, N. 2001. "Restructuring of the European chocolate industry and its impact on cocoa production in West Africa." Journal of Economic Geography 1:405-420. FRM. 2004. Current state of Forest Cover in Liberia. Study report for the World Bank. Government of Liberia. 2006. Comprehensive Food Security and Nutrition Survey. Government of Liberia, Monrovia, Liberia. IIED. 1999. Land Tenure And Resource Access In West Africa: issues and opportunities for the next 25 years. IIED, London, England. IMF. Various Years. Liberia - Statistical Appendix. Kherallah, M., C. Delgado, E. Gabre-Madhin, N. Minot, and M. Johnson. 2002. Reforming Agricultural Markets in Africa, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press Liberian Minstry of Agriculture. 1988. Production Estimates of Major Crops. Statistics and Planning Division, Department of Planning and Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Liberia, Monrovia, Liberia. Liberian Ministry of Agriculture. 2006. Liberia statement of policy intent for agriculture. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Liberia, Monrovia, Liberia. Liberian Ministry of Finance. 2006. Draft Annual Report for Bureau of Concessions. Ministry of Finance, Government of Liberia, Monrovia, Liberia. Pay-Bayee, M. 2005. Assessment of the Cocoa/Coffee Supply Chain. Consultant report, USAID, Monrovia, Liberia. Report of the Technical Secretariat, 2005. Forest Concession Review, Phase 3. Richards P. and K. Bah. 2005. Peace through Agrarian Justice. Institute of Development Studies, Bulletin Vol 36 No 2. Timmer, C.P., W.P. Falcon, and S.R. Pearson. 1983. Food Policy Analysis. Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press. Toe, J.C., M.D. Wilcox, and M. Pay-Bayee. 2006. Outcomes from the Liberian Cocoa Sector Roundtable, May 26, 2006. Final Report. Townsend, R. F. 1999. "Agricultural Incentives in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policy Challenges." World Bank technical paper No. 444. Washington, DC. UNMIL. 2006. Human Rights in Liberia's Rubber Plantations: Tapping into the Future. UNMIL (Human Rights & Protection Division), May 2006. UNMIL.2006. Report of the Rubber Plantations Task Force. Government of Liberia and United Nations, Monrovia, Liberia. USAID. 2000. Draft Agricultural Sector Assessment for Liberia. USAID, Monrovia, Liberia. USAID. 2000. Draft Agricultural Strategy. USAID, Monrovia, Liberia. Various authors. 2001. Farm Management Survey of Liberian Smallholder Tree and Food Crops. Consultant report prepared for Resettlement & Reintegration Programme of the European Commission and Government of Liberia, Monrovia, Liberia. Wilcox, M.D. 2006. PhD Dissertation. Purdue University. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 138 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Wilcox, M. D. and P. C. Abbott. 2006. "Can Cocoa Farmer Organizations Countervail Buyer Market Power?" Selected Paper presented at 2006 AAEA Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California, USA. World Bank. 1969. The Current Economic Situation and Prospects of Liberia. World Bank, Washington D.C., USA. World Bank. 1982. Liberia: Recent Economic Developments and Medium-Term Prospects. World Bank, Washington D.C., USA. World Bank. 1984. Agricultural Sector Review. World Bank, Washington D.C., USA. World Bank. 2006. Development Prospects Group. World Bank, Washington D.C., USA. World Bank. 2006. World Development Indicators. World Bank, Washington D.C., USA. World Bank.1975. Liberia Growth with Development: a basic economic report. Vol. I (Main Report) & Vol. V (Agriculture). World Bank, Washington D.C., USA. World Bank.1978. The Current Economic Situation and Prospects of Liberia. World Bank, Washington D.C., USA. II. Tree Crop Sub-Sector 139 III. LIVESTOCK SUB-SECTOR By Mr Zakary Rhissa FAO Subregional Office for Central Africa Liberia 2007 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ACRONYMS ABL Association of Butchers of Liberia ACDB Agricultural Cooperative Development Bank of Liberia ACDI Agricultural Cooperative Development International of the USA AfDB or African Development Bank ADB AFRACA African Rural & Agricultural Credit Association AGOA The US Government's "African Growth & Opportunity Act" programme to promote African exports to the USA BIVAC A private firm certifying the quality of exports from Liberia BNF The Liberian Bureau of National Fisheries CAAS-LIB FAO-funded "comprehensive assessment of the agricultural sector in Liberia" that this report is a part of CARE Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere, an international NGO CARI Central Agricultural Research Institute of Liberia (Gbarnga, Bong Country) CBL Central Bank of Liberia CBO Community Based Organizations CDA The GoL's Autonomous Cooperative Development Authority CHF Cooperative Housing Foundation of the USA CLUSA Cooperative League of the USA/National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA) CRS Catholic Relief Services, and International NGO CU Credit Union, i.e., a savings and credit cooperative or association EAC A Liberian company formerly owning part of the LBDI ECOWAS The Economic Community of West African States EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAOR The FAO Representative or the entire Representation in Liberia FCFA The CFA Franc currency used by some of Liberia's neighbouring countries FFA Farmers' Field School FX Foreign Exchange GDP Gross Domestic Product GoL Government of Liberia IAS International Associated Services, a farm inputs and supply dealer in Monrovia IDPs Internally-Displaced Persons IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development of the United Nations IFDC International Centre for Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development ILO International Labour Organization of the United Nations IMF International Monetary Fund INGO International Non-Governmental Organization Kg. Kilogramme LBDI Liberian Bank for Development and Industry LCUNA Liberia Credit Union National Association LD Liberian Dollars LEAP Local Enterprise Assistance Programme, a Liberian MFI LiMFU Liberia Marketing and Farmers Union LMA Liberia Marketing Association III. Livestock Sub-Sector 143 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 LoA Letter of Agreement LPMC Liberia Produce Marketing Corporation LT Long-Term LWS Lutheran World Service M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCI Ministry of Commerce & Industry MF Micro Finance MFI Microfinance Institution MIS Market Information System OR Management Information System MISTOWA IFDC's Market Information Systems and Traders' Organizations Network and Project in West Africa Mm millimeters (of rainfall) MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoF Ministry of Finance MPE Ministry of Planning and Economy NEPAD The African Union's New Programme for African Development NFC National Federation of Cooperatives NGO Non-Governmental Organization /P per person PSI Pre-Shipment Inspection RAF The FAO's Regional Office for Africa, located in Accra, Ghana RAFP RAF's agricultural policy development unit RF&MO RAF's Rural Finance and Marketing Officer RO Reporting Officer (i.e., the author of this document) SFC FAO's new Sub-Regional Office for Central Africa located in Libreville, Gabon SIGOA- The "Système Informatisé de Gestion des Opportunités d'Affaires" or "Trade TOPS Opportunities Management System" created by ECOWAS to promote intra- regional trade SPFS The FAO's Special Programme for Food Security T Tonnes TA Technical Assistance TCP The FAO's Technical Cooperation Programme, its internal project window U of L University of Liberia UN The United Nations UNCDF The United Nations Capital Development Fund UNDP The United Nations Development Programme UNFPA The United Nations Fund for Population Affairs UNICEF The United Nations' Information, Cultural and Education Fund UNIDO The United Nations Industrial Development Organization UNMIL United Nations Mission in Liberia UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services US$ United States Dollars USAID The United States Agency for International Development WB The World Bank WOCCU World Council of Credit Unions, Inc. (USA) WTO The World Trade Organization WVI World Vision International, an international NGO III. Livestock Sub-Sector 144 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 OVERVIEW With peace progressively taking hold in Liberia, the new Government wishes to reinvigorate the agricultural sector and food security to create employment and generate sustainable revenues for a population impoverished by the civil war. The livestock sector, although abandoned in the past, offers interesting perspectives insofar that national needs in animal products are enormous and the availability in natural resources are abundant (more than 2,000,000 ha for only 141,641 units of livestock) according to 2005 estimates. To better understand this paradox, the mission decided to start by reviewing of existing documentation before visiting the field and discussing with the major actors concerned: traditional cattle farmers and modern traders, government officers, NGOs, butchers, and consumers. The mission then visited poultry markets, abattoirs, training and research institutes, old ranches for multiplying livestock to appreciate their condition and their sanitary status. The mission visited Montserrado County, as well as Bong County, and finally met officers responsible for the Ministry of Commerce and had contact with Livestock Department officials in Loffa, Nimba, Maryland and Grand Bassa counties Previous livestock situation (pre- war) Livestock already occupied a minor role in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) before the war. The most important contribution came especially from modern poultry (egg productions for consumption and chicken). Beef and pig production were highly limited; goats and sheep are found at the level of the traditional economy. There were also chickens and guinea fowl in villages which ran freely. The number of cattle was already low because of tsetse flies which transmit Trypanosomiasis. Livestock had never been the subject of serious statistical research. The country also never undertook a systematic vaccination campaign which would have produced a good estimate of the real number of units and their territorial distribution. 1984 estimates (Shaw and Hoste, FAO, 1987) indicated: 12,600 head of cattle; 210,000 sheep; 200,000 goats; 110,000 pigs and 687,000 birds producing 5,491 tons of meat annually. Animal meat imports come mostly from Mali and Guinea (12,000 head of N'Dama with an average weight of 110 kg/carcass and 14,000 zebus with an average weight of 140/kg/carcasse. Meat importation was about 8,513 tons, in addition to local production of 5,491 tons making 14,000 tons for annual consumption by a population estimated at 2,061,500 inhabitants; that is 6.8 kg/p/year (Shaw and Hoste 1987). Regarding milk production, the national needs were mainly covered by 20,330 tons of import; that is 9.8 kg/p/year. Before the war, the price of imported meat was 30% lower than the meat locally produced because of an economically attractive fiscal and institutional environment; the price of the meat was not fixed and there were no quotas before for livestock and meat importation. Concerning pasture land, the annual density was estimated at 0.1 cows/km2, 2.2 sheep/km2 and 2.1 goats/km2. The pastoral areas were evaluated to about 2,000,000 ha (FAO 1980). Out of this total, 182,000 ha were to be rehabilitated but this was not subjected to any feasibility study. Some N'Dama Livestock multiplication centres were created before the war. The ranches are: Foya Cattle Ranch: 1000 ha for 500 head; III. Livestock Sub-Sector 145 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Todee Cattle Ranch: 100ha for 100 head; Panama Cattle Ranch 25 ha for 25 head; Cari Cattle Ranch, 300 ha for 100 head; Kpain Cattle Ranch 50 ha for 50 head; Parta Cattle Ranch 500 ha for 500 head; and Sanghai Cattle Ranch 50 ha for 50 head. The present demand for animal products On the basis of interviews, visits to market centres and by updating urban and rural population figures, the current needs can be estimated at 35,200 tons of meat; that is 10 kg/p/year on average (5.6kg of meat from livestock and 4.4 kg of bush meat. The visit to market centres facilitated the observance of the importance of bush meat available in the market as a substitute to the existence of and with high price of meat produced from livestock. This phenomenon needs a special attention to put in place appropriate animal production policies. Concerning milk, the need is figured at 33,440 tons; that is 9.7 kg/p/year, entirely covered by imports. On the basis of local production and figures made available regarding the importation of eggs, it is possible to estimate the average consumption per person per year at 11 eggs./p/year. The need can be estimated to be 2683 tons in 2007, although this will undoubtedly increase with growth in income per capita. In the meat category, the level of frozen chicken and imported turkey tails has reached 2,041 tons; equivalent in unit to about 2,041,000 birds. The cattle population is made-up mainly of N'Dama (56%) and local Muturu species (44%) Both species are trypano-tolerant. Milk production is insignificant. Despite previous improvement actions, nothing but empty ranches remained after the war. The ranches still exist, but without the infrastructure: buildings having been looted and lack roofs and doors, and brush has taken over. Some private establishments are beginning to occupy them with N'Dama and Zebu cattle. This is the case of Haddad Farms, which has some concessions around Monrovia. The cattle continue to come from Mali through Cote d'Ivoire and from Guinea (Conakry) through Sierra Leone. They are loaded onto trucks at the border and transported to the slaughterhouse in Monrovia. The price of cattle sent to Monrovia varies between 350 and 500 US$. On the basis of the number slaughtered per week, one can estimate the number of cattle imported annually at about 25 to 27 thousand, to which are added the young ruminants (sheep and goats) to the rhythm of around 300 per week; that is about 15 to 16 thousand per year. The price per pound of meat from the slaughterhouse is 150 LD$ (approx US $2.60) for beef and 175 LD$ (US $3.00) for goats. Regarding modern livestock enterprises, the production has been reduced considerably due to importation of frozen chickens. Some producerssay that even UNMIL (United Nations Mission in Liberia) supplies its forces with quantities of imported frozen chicken. The capacities of modern farm production are considerable. For now, Haddad Farms and that of Urey's are functioning again with large numbers, but produce mainly eggs. The Haddad Farms possesses 36,000 layers on batteries producing about 26,000 eggs/day at a price of 0.04 US$/piece; that is 2.6 Liberian $ (about 23 FCFA/egg). The price of egg retail sales in town is 5 LD$ (that is 0.08 US$ or 40 FCFA). At the institutional level, human and infrastructure capacities are extremely poor. The Department of Livestock has only one veterinary doctor and 26 lower ranks, with 2 at Lofa, 1 in Nimba, 4 in the slaughterhouse, 1 in Grand Bassa in an NGO. The rest are in the Ministry of Agriculture. The Department of Livestock has no vehicle, nor slaughterhouse, nor technical equipment and infrastructure which would have helped to improve the efficiency coefficient of the various agents. Also, there is no veterinary III. Livestock Sub-Sector 146 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 pharmacy or livestock officer training school. The only school that existed closed its doors in 1990. Veterinary legislative texts are also very old. The freezing slaughterhouse of Monrovia is in a terrible state of disrepair which does not guarantee sanitary quality meat. The situation is even worse outside Monrovia, where rotten meat is often sold in deplorable hygienic conditions. The livestock sub-sector does not have any supporting project. Only some NGOs are trying to intervene to reconstitute livestock herds through young ruminants and poultry, but the strategies used do not guarantee the sustainability of these operations. FAO also intervened through a small Telefood project (now completed). Other agencies, notably UNDP, USAID, EU and Germany, all intervene through international and local NGOs: CHF, World Vision, German Agro-Action, and Africare. The document is structured as follows: · Introduction · Methodology Employed · Current Status of Liberia's Livestock Sector · Strategic orientations · Priority action programmes III. Livestock Sub-Sector 147 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 1. INTRODUCTION With peace progressively being established in Liberia, the new Government wishes to reinvigorate the agriculture sector and food security, with the intention of creating employment for the masses and to generate lasting revenues for a population impoverished by more than 14 years of war from 1990 to 2004. It is in this context that the Government requested FAO'S assistance to help carry out a review of the agriculture sector. This assistance was put into concrete form through TCP/LIR/3012. Although neglected in the past, the livestock sector has regained attention. Only a small proportion of the national needs for animal products are satisfied from local production. Yet the country possesses abundant natural and pastoral resources (more than 2 million hectares of pasture land, but only 141,641 units of cattle, according to the FAO/AGAL figures updated in 2005). To better understand this paradox and to suggest appropriate measures, it is necessary to agree on the strategies and on pertinent activities to implement to accelerate livestock development in accordance with the high expectations of national authorities, development partners and the entire Liberian people, including thousand of youth currently unemployed and which continue to migrate to the country's major urban centres and especially Monrovia. 2. METHODOLOGY EMPLOYED The methodology used to carry out the review of the livestock sector is as follows: · Review of existing documentation; (see annex on bibliography). · Field visits to Montserrado and Bong counties and various markets in Monrovia and Gbarnga. · Meetings with senior staff of the Ministries of Agriculture and Commerce, as well as with those of agriculture research. · Visit to slaughtering infrastructures and cattle markets in Monrovia and Bong County. · Discussions with major actors who intervene in the livestock sector (producers, processors, marketers, and consumers) and in particular with traditional and modern cattle farmers, NGOs, butchers and consumers. · Visits to some run-down old ranches, the Central Agricultural Research Institute (CARI) and the university-level agricultural training centre in Gbarnga. · Meeting with correspondents of the Livestock Department in Lofa, Nimba, Maryland, and Grand Bassa Counties. · Analysis of the data thus collected and specification of development priorities and intervention programmes. The preparation of the livestock sector review was not easy due to the absence or inaccessibility of adequate documentation. Neither was collection of data in the field. III. Livestock Sub-Sector 148 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 3. CURRENT STATUS OF LIBERIA'S LIVESTOCK SECTOR 3.1 Physical Context Liberia had a population of 3.2 million people in 2005 with a growth rate of 2.4% per annum. It covers a total area of 111,370 Km2 out of which 96,220 Km2 consist of terra firma. The country has very good rainfall, with a forestry and savannah climate. The main rainy season is from April to October, while the short rainy season lasts from November through March. Total annual rainfall varies from 4,500 mm along the coast to 1,800mm in the North. Of the 96,220 Km2 of land, 35% is made up of forests, with only 4% being farm land, of which only 6,200 Km2 are actually cultivated (1984 Hoste Study). More than 37% of the people live in the cities and about 73% depend on agriculture for their subsistence and mostly live in rural area. The pasture lands are estimated to about 2,000,000 hectares. 3.2 Farming systems Pre-Civil War farming systems in Liberia were of four types: · Foreign companies' plantations (concessions) essentially to produce rubber and palm oil, tree crop farms which utilized modern production and management techniques; · Private commercial farms belonging to Liberians which also produced rubber, chickens, coffee, coconuts, palm oil, rice and vegetables on areas varying from 3 to 10 hectares. · Traditional farms, which represent more than 90% of farms. They are made up of 4 to 5 persons on average, working on farms averaging around 1.5 hectares in size. The production is mainly on a subsistence/consumption basis heavily focused on the production of rice, cassava, maize, and pepper. The products which are commercialized are mainly coffee, coconuts, and palm oil. These farms are characterized by low yields and very low agricultural technology using the "slash-and-burn" mode of farming. · Communal farms initiated in 1981 by the government of the day. In accordance with this formula, each County or district possessed communal farms; each farmer had to provide 2 to 3 days of work per week during the rainy season. The area covered by communal farms is estimated at 12,789 hectares, that is, about 1,420 hectares in average for each of the the 9 counties existing at the time (there are now 14). Access to land varies widely, according to the local property systems. Landis either public, communal or private. For communal system, the land belongs to the community (family, village, tribe). The possession of private lands varies by County. Government lands and communal lands are reserved for agriculture and industrial development programmes. Economically, agriculture contributed about 35% of the GDP in 1989, occupying 70% of the population, and produced 72% of the country's exports, but this capacity was destroyed by the more than 14 years of war between 1990 and 2004. The annual production of rice, Liberia's principal staple food, was estimated at 209,000 tonnes in 2001. This, however, only covered 61% of the country's needs. Livestock alone contributes a maximum of 14,4% of agricultural sector GDP. The country accordingly is forced to import more and more frozen meat, eggs, milk and dairy products to satisfy national needs. Finally, socially, the demobilisation of thousands of ex-combatants is a source of insecurity today if these groups are not transformed into appropriate development agents through their rapid insertion into the socio-economic fabric, especially in the rural sector which has a huge III. Livestock Sub-Sector 149 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 potential that can constitute viable auto employment opportunities in view of the current needs of the country to satisfy its basic food requirements. Photo 1: Liberian cattle of Muturu race 3.3 Major Livestock Product Chains in Liberia The major livestock product chains in Liberia are the cattle meat industry, the poultry industry, the swine industry, the dairy industry and the animal health industry. The livestock situation before and after the war has to be analyzed along with consideration of the general organization of the various industries, from the production or importation of products to their marketing/commercialization through necessary processing, sanitary control and veterinary technical assistance required at each level of the industry. One must also identify different participants/actors to know who one can count on, who has the ability to invest, who has technical know-how/knowledge, and who should be assisted financially and technically. Finally, one must analyse the natural environment, institutional and legislative environments, constraints and strengths before suggesting strategic orientations and priority programmes which help the country to relaunch this neglected sector of the Liberian economy. The native Liberian cattle species consist of the N'Dama and Muturu races are all trypanotolerant, as are the Djallonke type small ruminants. These races adapted to local conditions should be considered the base on which improvement might be made. Table 1. Estimates of the Evolution of Liberia's National Herds Species 1980 2002 2005 Compound Annual Growth Rates ( 2002 ­ 2005) Cattle 39,000 36,000 25,200 -11,21% Sheep/goats 400,000 430,000 435,160 0,40% Pigs 103,000 130,000 131,950 0,50% Chicken 2,620,000 5,200,000 5,428,000 1,44% Total (LUs) 106,000 139,000 136,786 -0,53% Sources: FAO/AGAL ­ 2005; LUs = Livestock Units, converted on the basis of cattle = 0.50; sheep and goats =0.10; pigs = 0.2 and chickens = 0.01. III. Livestock Sub-Sector 150 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 2: Importation of Frozen/Processed Meat and Live Animals in 2005 Meat Quantity (tonnes) Value in US$ Frozen buffalo meat 56 47,600 Frozen beef 66 95,960 Frozen turkey wings 148 221,449 Frozen pig meat 690 524,886 Frozen chickens 1,893 1,464,135 Pigs' feet 8,082 378,339 Total Frozen & Processed Meat 10,935 tonnes · Live animal importation: 12,000 head of 3,000 tonnes N'Dama and 14,000 of Zebu; · 15 to 16,000 head of sheep and goats/year 312 tonnes Grand Total 14,237 tons Source: Based on figures provided by the Ministry of Commerce Table 3: Fresh Egg Imports in 2006 Importation Quantity CIF Cartons Dozens Tonnes US$ UN Drive Supermarket 6,560 196,800 125.20 98,928.00 Roomy Brothers 13,128 393,840 250.74 195,488.00 West Africa Enterprise, Inc. 24,928 747,840 4761.24 271,741.44 Fouani Brothers Corp. 28,800 864,000 550.06 320,190.40 Monoprix Supermarket 19,680 590,400 375.88 314,369.70 Venus Corp. 96,705 2,901,150 2901.15 1,420.005.70 Eid Supply Centre 13,058 391,740 391.74 180,220.98 Abi Jaoudi & Azar Trading 15,593 467,790 467.79 372,939.80 Total 218,446 6,553,560 10,833.91 3,173,882.87 Source: Based on figures provided by the Ministry of Commerce 3.4 Participants in the Livestock Sector The various participants in the livestock sector are the following: · Traditional livestock farmers hold 100% of cattle, goats, and sheep; 57,67% of pigs; 0% of rabbits; 100% of guinea pigs; 0,45% of chickens; 38,78% of ducks; and 100% of guinea fowl (E.G Smith 2002 Report). Traditional farmers breed local, less productive animals, and use basic techniques. They have access to few inputs and receive less support services. · Modern peri-urban livestock farmers (semi-intensive and intensive) are few. Pre-war, they held 42,33% of pigs, 100% of rabbits, 100% of guinea pigs, 99,5 of poultry, and 61,20% of ducks (E.G Smith 2002 Report). Among leading current modern livestock farmers, one might mention the Georges Haddad Farms in Po River; Benoni Urey's Farm in Montserrrado County; and Belle Dunbar's Farm in Caresburg, Montserrado County. · Livestock and meat professionals are made up of buyers, market/toll collectors, negotiators, butchers, wholesale butchers, butcher-apprentices, sellers of roast meat, retailers, and importers. The Association of Butchers of Liberia (ABL) is the most organized structure that intervenes in the sector. This Association was officially recognized in 1977 by the national authorities; its headquarters is in Monrovia. Its President is also the Consul of Mali in Liberia. The Association has more than 50 principal members who all reside in Monrovia. Other active members (about twenty) live outside Montserrado County, particularly in Sinoe, Grand Gedeh, Bassa, and III. Livestock Sub-Sector 151 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Nimba counties. According to the estimates given by the President of the Association of butchers of Liberia, each principal member employs 5 to 8 assistant butchers in addition to other small retailers, that is about 8,000 persons. · Support and control services are not very operational. The Liberia Livestock Service only has two senior technicians (a veterinarian and a zootechnician) and 17 middle level technicians (7 veterinary technicians and 9 zootechnicians). Four (4) work in the Monrovia slaughterhouse and four (4) other technicians work in counties outside Montserrado. There is, moreover, no training school for livestock technicians. · NGOs, which provide support to Liberia. At least three intervene slightly in the livestock sector: German Agro-Action, Africare and CHF. The assistance given by most of the NGOs is more of a social and human nature to reconstitute the livestock from young ruminants. 3.5 The institutional, legislative and infrastructure environment The creation of the livestock service dates from 1956. Since then till 1983, the service was always managed by expatriate technicians, particularly Israelis, Egyptians, and Sierra Leoneans. The first Liberian veterinarian took office in 1983. Then from 1990 the structure collapse with the civil war which lasted until 2004. Today the livestock service is still not entirely functional. Relevant legislation and regulations are very old and were unavailable, even at the Livestock Service. The regulations on the sanitary protection against contagious illnesses and concerning sanitary and qualitative inspection of produce of animal origin are lacking. The Livestock Service's organization chart is unclear and needs to be reviewed. 3.6 Major Constraints in the Livestock Sector The major constraints of the livestock sector are: · Institutional constraints The livestock service does not have sufficient officers in quality and in number and the importation of animal products does not undergo rigorous control. Moreover, the laws are very old and are not even available. Furthermore, the Service's current organization chart is not clear, and there are practically no technical officers in the field. · Constraints related to insufficient infrastructure and equipment The livestock service does not have a veterinary labouratory to diagnose and control the quality of products of animal origin. The premises which house the service are scanty and barely useable. The slaughterhouse in Monrovia is in deplorable state on the salubrity scale. The slaughterhouses outside Monrovia are practically non-existent and the slaughter slabs provided to the general public do not meet elementary hygiene requirements. In the other Counties, livestock infrastructures simply do not exist. The nine (9) livestock multiplication ranches are in a state of total neglect. The insufficiency of road infrastructures as well as the absence of animal passage corridors makes the movement of animals and their produce very difficult. This situation naturally helps increase the cost of locally-produced meat and chicken products. · Technical constraints related to the livestock system practised in Liberia. This system is mostly extensive. Livestock, as few as 2 to 3 head per proprietor, is left to III. Livestock Sub-Sector 152 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 look for its own food through straying. The bovine races consist mainly of N'Dama (41%) and Muturu (59%). The latter is less productive and of small format with an average carcass weight of 95 Kgs (Hoste 1984). The age of first calving is from 30 to 35 months. The rate of fertility rarely goes beyond 82%. The mortality rate between 0 and 1 year was estimated at 27%, according to 1984 Hoste Study. Dairy production is essentially nil. The weight of calves at birth rarely exceeds 18 Kgs. Sheep and goats of Djallonke race are also less productive; their average carcass weight is respectively 11 and 9 Kgs, according to the 1984 Hoste Study. · Constraints related to animal diseases. There is little information available on this subject. The major diseases usually cited by participants are as follows: Trypanosomiasis, (congolese T, Vivax T, brucei T), parasites, brucellosis, cattle contagious peri-pneumonia (introduced by living imported animals) foot-and mouth disease, anthrax (bacterial and symptomatic, pastoralosis emorragic septicemia, piroplasmosis, anaplasmosis, babesiosis and theileriosis). Their importance is not yet well known. Currently, there are no research programmes on animal diseases or on the improvement of animal productivity in Liberia. Extension services are unavailable in the field, and national officers based in Monrovia lack the means to assist livestock sector actors. · Constraints related to administrave harrassment and difficulties of all sorts, including illicit taxes. Administrative difficulties and harassment are enormous and varied on all routes used by trucks carrying living animal from Mali, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea (Conakry) and Sierra Leone. About 26,000 head of cattle (14,000 Zebu and 12,000 N'dama and 15,600 small ruminants ­ sheep and goats) arrive every year by truck, averaging 137 trucks/week). The cost of renting each truck is about 500,000 CFAF, that is around 1,000 US$. The trucks take 10 days to arrive in Monrovia from the border. Each truck pays between 15 and 300 US$ in illicit taxes. This constitutes unfair competition with imported meat for which a relatively low tax is paid in comparison (source ­ interview of executives of butchers Association of Liberia). · Constraints related to massive importation of frozen and processed meat. This was more than 10,935 tons in 2005 (Sources ­ summary of statement on importation provided by the Ministry of Commerce of Liberia). Most livestock farmers contacted raised the issue of UNMIL supplying its troups with significant quantities of frozen chicken without consulting local producers. Yet it has not been possible for the mission to discuss this concern with the UNMIL officials who were not available during the mission. · Constraints related to the demobilization of ex-combattants. These numbered 101 495 in 2004 (according to UNMIL sources). Out of the total number only 60,000 were able to participate in the professional training programmes in particular plumbing, carpentry and masonry. The risk of insecurity exists if solutions are not found to integrate ex- combatants into economic activities. III. Livestock Sub-Sector 153 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Photo 2: Monrovia abattoir Photo 3: Monrovia abbatoir in bad situation 3.7 Major Liberian Livestock Assets Liberia has more than 2,000,000 hectares of pasture land ; the animal density/population ratio would be less than 0.1 head/Km2 for cattle, 2.2 ovins/Km2 and 2.1 caprines/Km2. Seven ranches totalling more than 2025 hectares were constructed in the past to help multiply trypanotolerant livestock ; they are Foya Cattle Ranch: 1000 hectares for 500 head; Todee Cattle Ranch: 100 hectares for 100 head; Panama Cattle Ranch, 25 hectares for 25 head; Cari Cattle Ranch, 300 hectares for 100 head; Kpain Cattle Ranch, 50 hectares for 50 head; Parta Cattle Ranch, 500 hectares for 500 head; and Sanghai Cattle Ranch, 50 hectares for 50 head. These ranches still exist, but are in a state of neglect, yet if rehabilitated they would constitute a considerable potential. Their exploitation should receive the highest priority in the framework of optimal utilization all existing pastoral area. III. Livestock Sub-Sector 154 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Photo 4: Pasture land dominated by paricum maximum or Guinea grass Several modern farms (semi-extensive and extensive) invested in raising of poultry and pigs and succeeded in producing before the war more than 42% of pigs, 100% of rabbits, 100% of guinea pigs, 99.5% of poultry and 61.2% of ducks. A capacity to produce therefore exists in Liberia. The Georges Haddad Farm succeeded in producing more than 26,000 eggs/day at a price of 0.04 US$ or 2.6 Liberia dollars, or again 23 CFA F (the retail price of eggs in Monrovia is 5 Liberia dollars, or 40 CFAF, thus showing a real potential for the industry. 3.8 Synthesis and conclusions 1984 statistical data showed meat and milk consumption respectively of 14 000 tons (6,7 kg/person/year) and 20,000 tons that is (9,8 kg/person/year). Only 9.2% of these needs were covered by local meat production, and 0% of national milk needs were covered by local milk production (Hoste Study). On the basis of updated AGAL data, the current meat consumption of the country is estimated in 2005 at some 35,200 tons (about 11 kg per person and per year on average), which is currently covered by 2.6 kg of national production or coming from live animals, 4kg of imported meat/person/year and 4.4 Kgs. of bush meat (wild meat), according to data collected by the mission and on the basis of FAO/AGAL 2005 figures updated by the team. The three following tables (4, 5, and 6), as well as the chart (Figure 1) respectively present the evolution of national human population between 1984 to 2015, along with the percentage of national consumption of meat, milk and eggs needs (4,5,6) covered by national production. Table 4: Projected evolution of local meat production and demand from 1984 to 2015 (in tons) Sources 1984 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Total population (Rate 2,4%/year) 2 101 628 3,200 000 3 354 624 3 435 3 602000 3 776 3 960 134 970 439 National production (in T) 5 491 8 320 8 639 8 950 9 272 9 605 9 950 Total demand (11 kg/P/year) 14 004 35 200 36 900 37 786 39 622 41 546 43 564 National Production as % of total 39,2% 23,6% 23,4% 23,6% 23,4% 23,1% 22,8% Sources: FAO/AGAL 2005 figures updated by Rhissa III. Livestock Sub-Sector 155 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 5: Projected evolution of national milk production and demand from 1984 to 2015 (in tons) Sources 1984 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Total population 2 101 3 200 3 354 624 3 435 3 602000 3 776 3 960 628 000 134 970 439 National production (in T) 0 0 100 200 250 300 500 Total demande (9,5kg/P/year) 20 330 30 400 31 800 32 633 34 219 35 881 37 624 National Production as % of total 0% 0% 0,3% 0,6% 0,7% 0,8% 1,3% Sources: FAO/AGAL 2005 figures updated by Rhissa Table 6: Projected evolution of national egg production and demand from 1984 to 2015 (in tons) Sources 1984 2005 2007 2019 2011 2013 2015 Total population 2 101 3 200 000 3 354 624 3 435 3 602000 3 776 3 960 628 134 970 439 National production (in T) 1 450 456 730 912 1 450 1 600 2 000 Demand in eggs (16 eggs/P/year) 2 000 2 560 2 683 2 748 2 881 3 021 3 168 National Production as % of 72,5% 17,8% 27,2% 33,18% 50,3% 53,0% 63,1% total Sources: FAO/AGAL 2005 figures updated by Rhissa Table 7: Some indications of the price of live animals in US$ (2006) Provinces Cattle Goats Sheep Guinea Chickens Fowl Monrovia 550-650 60-75 75-90 15 5-7 Nimba 450 40 66.7 - 4,17 Lofa 450-500 50-80 75-80 3.35 2.50-3.35 Sources: FAO/AGAL 2005 figures updated by Rhissa Table 8: Price of Meat in US$ (2006) Provinces Cow Goat Sheep Chicken Eggs/Unit Beef/kg Meat/kg Meat/kg Meat/kg Monrovia 3.35 5.84 5.84 N.A 0.08 Nimba 3.00 - - N.A N.A. Lofa 2.70 3.35 N.A. N.A N.A. Sources: National consultant A large potential national market exists therefore for livestock products in Liberia which can be satisfied locally but on condition that production techniques are adapted to the country's local context. It will require priority valorization of locally-available natural resources through adaptation of existing local techniques. Solutions must also be found to constraints identified, creating employment and income generation opportunities for thousands of Liberians currently without other prospects, in order to contribute more efficiently to fight against poverty, insecurity, and unemployment and to thus guarantee the country's internal security in the medium to long term. III. Livestock Sub-Sector 156 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Figure 1: Projected national milk, meat and eggs production as % of total consumption between 1984 and 2015 Evolution of % of Liberian Consumption Covered by Local Production 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1984 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 Milk Meat Eggs 2015 Sources: FAO/AGAL 2005 updated by Rhissa 4. STRATEGIC ORIENTATIONS AND PRIORITY PROGRAMMES Analysis of the current status of Liberia's livestock sector seems to indicate that the development of this activity constitutes an important opportunity for Liberia that national authorities and technical and financial partners should use it as a development lever to assist the country to succeed. How can we succeed? What types of intervention should be favoured? What priority programmes should be put in place? 4.1 Recommended Major Strategic Orientations and Priority Programmes The strategic orientations will be articulated around the following four aspects: I. To make livestock a pillar in the fight against poverty, food insecurity and unemployment and put in place a micro-projects approach whereby each participant works at his/her own rhythm. The priority programmes for the promotion of animal production poles and support to the modernization of the Liberian livestock sector are as follows: · Promote production poles and support the modernization of key livestock sub-sectors (milk production, bovine and ovine husbandry, poultry, pig raising, Guinea fowl and grasscutter promotion). · Adopt and put in place a village approach permitting authorities to identify which villages to cover each year. · Adopt and put in place an approach tailored to both farm size and technology level where everyone moves according to his/her own rhythm. III. Livestock Sub-Sector 157 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 · Put in place appropriate communications media to assure increased internal and external financing for livestock development. · Promote youth and women employment in livestock product chains and support rural enterpreneurialship. · Carry out the economic reintegration of ex-combatants and poor people through different livestock product chains. II. To act to improve the institutional environment and infrastructure, strengthen programme inspection and healthfulness of animal product foodstuffs, including strengthening of veterinary services and support to zootechnique research. The priority action programmes are in this domain are as follows: · Review of existing legislative and regulatory texts, particularly to: (i) Inventory laws relating to existing veterinary sanitary regulations and to analyze these; (ii) develop a functional organization chart for veterinary and zootechnique support services; (iii) propose laws or regulations relating to diseases legally known to be contagious to veterinary sanitary inspectors, and for the running of the national veterinary services. · Put in place structures to coordinate the various mechanisms of implementing programmes to improve Liberian livestock. · Train the various participants to improve the quality of inspections and improve hygiene in livestock distribution channels to guarantee the innocuousness of foods. · Rehabilitate and support veterinary and zootechnique research. · Train and assist senior staff and the various actors involved in the production circuits to specialize (professionalization of producers). · Through legislation, put in place a mechanism to improve animal food and make necessary inputs accessible in order to increase productivity of various channels of animal production. · Strengthen programmes related to the fight against epizooties and health monitoring by supporting decentralized national services. · Study the internal tax system and suggest measures that will promote livestock industries. III. To improve the marketing, processing and distribution channels of animal-based products. The priority programmes to reinforce the capacity of actors include the following: · Carry out a study of the characteristics of internal demand for animal products and their evolution in time and space (characterization of demand). · Carry out a study aimed at improving distribution channels and support to consumer organizations. · Study the possibilities of establishing a fund for livestock development in Liberia. · Implement means to improve sanitary inspection and healthiness of products from animal. · Put in place measures of support facilitating adequate application of quality norms adopted by ECOWAS. · Undertake a census the livestock and analyze with more emphasis the characteristics of offer in animal products. III. Livestock Sub-Sector 158 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 IV. To preserve, improve and exploit better pastoral resources through a programme of assistance to the rehabilitation of pastoral areas and natural resources prevention. The priority programmes of action in this domain are as follows: · Put in place actions facilitating the elabouration of schemes and plans or territory management at the commune and County levels. · Develop and establish a pastoral chart. · Monitor the evolution of the pastoral systems. · Promote sound range management. 4.2 Tabular Recapitulation of Major Proposed Strategic Orientations, Priority Programmes and Activities Strategic orientations Priority programmes Activites Total cost in US$ Make livestock one of the pillars Poles promotion programme Establishment of 1,720,000 of the fight against poverty, food and animal production to units of livestock or insecurity and unemployment support livestock modernization micro projects in Liberia. Adopt and implement a technical idem approach (everyone must move idem according to his/her own rhythm) Programme to strengthen Improvement of 3,600,000 Act to improve the institutional veterinary services and livestock sanitary environment and infrastructure assistance to zootechnique coverage research Strengthen programmes to fight idem Reinforce veterinary ? against epizootic disease and old services and to equip sanitary infrastructure labouratories Establish ways and means to idem ? improve sanitary inspection and healthiness of food of animal origin Improve the marketing, Programme to reinforce the Rehabilitation of the 2,000,000 processing and distribution capacity of various livestock slaughterhouse in circuits of products of animal product chain actors Liberia, construction origin and equipping of four provincial slaughter-houses. Training of various actors in downstream production, development and equipping pastoral areas Preserve, improve and exploit Programme of support to the Rehabilitation of 1,600,000 pastoral resources better development of pastoral areas seven ranches and and preservation of natural put them in service resources Total 8,920,000 III. Livestock Sub-Sector 159 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 4.3 Programme to promote animal production poles in support to the modernization of the Liberia livestock sector Exposition of motives The assistance to the promotion of production poles aims therefore at increasing production yields in Liberia's various livestock product chains (cattle-meat industry, poultry industry, pig industry, and small ruminants industry) by putting special emphasis on improvements in food, habitat, sanitary monitoring, and management of small farms. It aims at progressively introducing technical progress in order to better utilize locally available resources, with the view of contributing more efficiently to the fight against poverty, food insecurity, youth unemployment and the reintegration of ex-combatants. Objectives of the programme The objectives aimed at are particularly simple, precise, concrete and measurable, by making arrangements to monitor their implementation and to evaluate the results on a regular basis, in terms of increases in production and productivity and revenues generated. Finally and in particular is to ensure that the productive micro-projects which will be implemented by the promoters themselves generate sufficiently revenues to produce viable employment. This will involve: · Demonstrating that economic alternatives exist in the country and in the villages, then showing that motivated persons are capable of generating substantial revenues by putting in place livestock businesses according to the approach developed by the Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS). · To contribute to installing the youth in their areas to initiate local development by facilitating the participation of ex-combatants in the economic development of their villages. · To fight more efficiently against poverty and food insecurity by contributing more to the creation of lasting employment in the rural and peri-urban centres in favour of youth and women by developing complementary economic activities through the use of locally available resources. Strategies of the programme The strategy of the programme will be based on the implementation of the micro-project approach in targeted areas to implant a viable livestock business model on technical, economic, ecological and social levels. The approach is designed to quickly arrive at a critical mass, with private and public investments, to boost profitable local economic activities and constitute as well an alternative for the reintegration of ex-combatants. This approach has already produced impressive results in Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, the Congo Republic, Guinea Bissau, Mali and Niger (See principles of the approach in the Annex). III. Livestock Sub-Sector 160 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Estimated costs of the programme Summary of Livestock Production Modules Proposed: MODULES Number Cost per Total Number of of units unit in $ Funding beneficiaries in $ US Units of layers 200 1,000 200 000 200 Units of flesh-fed chicken 200 1,000 200 000 200 Units of guinea-fowl 200 1,000 200 000 200 Units of local chicken 400 500 200 000 200 Units of sheep (newborn) 200 1,000 200 000 400 Units of goats (newborn) 200 1,000 200 000 200 Units pigs 200 1,000 200 000 200 Units diary 50 3,000 150 000 100 Units bush cattle 50 1,000 50 000 50 Units bush sheep 50 1,000 50 000 50 Units grasscutters 50 500 25 000 50 Units of rabbits 50 500 25 000 50 Units of animal health service 10 1,000 10 000 10 Units of zootechnique inputs 10 1,000 10 000 10 Total 1870 $1 720 000 1 920 4.4 Programme to reinforce veterinary services and assistance to zootechnique research Exposition of motives Good animal health is one of the current major sources of increased animal production in Liberia, especially through a reduction in morbidity and mortality. Besides, many diseases are transmitted to people by animals; this makes the fight against these diseases a means of contributing to generally improving public health. Strategies Increased animal production therefore requires continuous efforts to fight against animal diseases. The objective targeted through this programme consists of ensuring the protection of animal health and that of public health through the prevention or handling of large epizooties of domestic cattle and poultry and to improve veterinary public health (control of zoonoses, minimization of health risk related to consumption or to the handling of products of animal origin). Actions envisaged Actions envisaged will be especially to: (i) improve livestock sanitary coverage; (ii) strengthening of inspection services and diagnostic and quality control labouratories; (iii) encouragement of the privatization of the veterinary profession; (iv) supervision and monitoring of the fight against priority diseases; (v) strengthening and adaptation of veterinary research on livestock; and (vi) strengthen the infrastructure (labouratories and vaccination parks, etc.) related to the fight against disease. III. Livestock Sub-Sector 161 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Actions 2007 2008 2009 Total US$ Improvement of livestock sanitary 300 000 400 000 300 000 1 000 000 coverage Strengthening of zootechnique and 300 000 1 000 000 700 000 2 000 000 veterinary research Strengthening of zootechnique and 100 000 150 000 50 000 300 000 veterinary researh Training of livestock technicians 50 000 100 000 50 000 200 000 Privatization of the Veterinary 30 000 50 000 20 000 100 000 Service Grand Total 780 000 1 700 000 1 120 000 3 600 000 4.5 Programme to strengthen the capacities of livestock product chain actors Exposition of motives The reinforcement of the capacity of various livestock sector actors aims at doing away with of previous practices by favouring giving increased responsibility to various livestock sector actors (producers, locally elected officials, NGO, marketers, private service providers, etc.) in the conception, design and implementation of animal production projects and the planning of livestock development. The promotion of livestock product marketing and processing of livestock products targets meeting the objectives of food security and self-sufficiency of the people in animal products, as well as increase livestock value added. The improvement of the organization of producers, the assistance to the strengthening of their means of intervention, and the acquisition of necessary knowledge constitute the appropriate responses to the current stagnation in animal product production. It is accordingly necessary to promote the professionalization of all actors having human and material resources and the know-how enabling them to efficiently undertake production, processing and marketing activities of livestock products and by- products. Actions envisaged The priority actions are as follows: (i) the creation and/or modernization of slaughtering infrastructure; (ii) the creation and the equipment of cattle and poultry markets; (iii) the reinforcement of processing and marketing financing of livestock products (investissments and revolving credits to actors); (iv) carry out a study to characterize internal demand in animal products (v) and especially on the training of all the actors concerned. Actions Total $ 2007 2008 2009 Rehabilitation the slaughterhouse in Monrovia 300 000 100 000 200 000 - Construction and equipment of four slaughterhouses 800 000 200 000 400 000 200 000 in the province Conception and extension of kiosks for meat 200 000 50 000 100 000 50 000 distribution Construction and equipment cattle market 200 000 50 000 100 000 50 000 Training of different production actors downstream 200 000 100 000 100 000 Make arrangement for credit lines for actors 300 000 100 000 200 000 Grand total 2 000 000 600 000 1 100 000 300 000 III. Livestock Sub-Sector 162 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 4.6 Programme of assistance to the development of pastoral areas Expositions of motives The life span of natural resources requires a utilization that helps to satisfy the needs of present and future generations. The objective of this programme is just to reduce the degradation of pastoral natural resources by ensuring their rational management with the view to increase animal productions and to satisfy the needs of the people. Furthermore, the disappearance of a number of channels or again the management of hydro-farming will the potential sources of a number conflicts between farmers, herdsmen and fishermen, due to the competition for the same space. It is therefore necessary to put in place from now appropriate arrangements to prevent these conflicts which could emanate from the most important pastoral livestock development. Actions envisaged The actions to undertake at this level concern: (i) the design and the establishment of schemes and plans for local resource development at the communal, local, county and national levels; (ii) the liberation and materialization of animal passage channels; (iii) a mapping of pastures and watering sites ; (iv) the design and implementation of a programme for equipment and rehabilitation or of creation of new watering sites (ponds, wells, dams, micro-dams, etc.); (v) the liberation of areas infested with glossina; (vi) the design and putting into use of a pasture chart; and (vii) monitoring of Liberia's pastoral ecosystems. Actions 2007 2008 2009 Total US$ Inventory of ranches and pastoral areas 200 000 200 000 Rehabilitation of seven ranches and their being 100 000 400 000 200 000 700 000 put into production Development and equipment of pastoral areas 100 000 200 000 200 000 500 000 Management training in pastoral areas 100 000 50 000 50 000 200 000 Grand total 500 000 650 000 450 000 1 600 000 III. Livestock Sub-Sector 163 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY Dunstan Spencer (S. C). Note on Methodology, July 25, 2006. FAO/AGA. 2005. Liberia Livestock sector Brief. FAO. 1983. Report to the Mano River Union of a preparatory assistance Mission under the FAO Programme for Control of African Trypanosomiasis and Related Development. FAO. Trypanotolerant Livestock in West and Central Africa; vol 3 A Ch 6; http://www.fao.org wairdoc/ILRI/5474 E. FAO. Livestock in Liberia, Ch 6; http: //www.fao.org wairdocs/ILRI/x5537. FAO. 2002. Assessment of the small scale livestock sub-sector in Liberia by consultant Edward. G Smith. IRIN News.org: l'éducation gratuite pour tous, mais les moyens font défaut; http://www.wirinnews.org/french Report. Ministry of Agriculture of Liberia. 1980. Liberia's Agriculture Development : Policy and organisational Structure. Ministry of Agriculture of Liberia. 1972. Act of legislature 11th May 1972. Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs of Liberia. 2001. Population and Housing Census result and Population projections for 1997 and 2001. WFP. Une volonté de partenariat; juin 2006. III. Livestock Sub-Sector 164 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 2 NOTE D'INFORMATION SUR L'APPROCHE PAR MICRO PROJET DANS LE CADRE DE LA LUTTE CONTRE LA PAUVRETE, L'INSECURITE ALIMENTAIRE ET LA MODERNISATION DE L'ELEVAGE 1. Les principes Les principes sur lesquels se base l'approche sont les suivants: · Principe de rentabilité: chaque opération ou unité d'un coût moyen compris entre 400 et 1.000 dollars EU devra présenter une rentabilité financière suffisante pour garantir le remboursement partiel des appuis fournis. Les remboursements permettront d'alimenter les fonds de roulement des groupements ou des associations afin d'assurer la pérennité des actions. Des sous unités de 1 à 5 peuvent être acceptables à l'intérieur d'un groupement pour tenir compte aussi de certaines contraintes sociales d'extrême pauvreté de certains bénéficiaires. · Principe de genre : 50 % au moins des projets seront gérés par des femmes. · Principe de sélection des bénéficiaires par un comité ad- hoc sur la base de critères objectifs et d'un cahier de charges qui seront élabourés par le Coordonnateur du PSSA. · Principe d'utilisation des acquis: l'expérience acquise au sein des projets antérieurement mis en oeuvre devra être capitalisée. · Principe de remboursement des investissements consentis sur une ou plusieurs années, soit en nature (animaux), soit "cash", suivant la rentabilité du projet dans la perspective de faire bénéficier, sous la pression sociale des villages, d'autres exploitants du groupement. · Principe de gestion villageoise ; sous la tutelle d'un comité villageois et en utilisant au mieux les structures existantes ou les réseaux d'épargne et crédit de proximité). 2. Les étapes de mise en oeuvre · Sélection des bénéficiaires par la communauté villageoise et validation de ce choix par les instances mise en place a cet effet. · Responsabilisation entière des bénéficiaires retenus par la communauté pour tout ce qui pourrait être considéré comme prêts qui leur seront octroyés. · Construction des habitats par les bénéficiaires sur la base des schémas fournis par l'équipe technique. · Contribution du projet en faveur des bénéficiaires sous forme de prêt pour aider à l'achat des matériaux non disponibles sur place (la contribution du projet concernant ce aspect devra être déterminée et indiquée au bénéficiaire dès la phase de sensibilisation et d'identification). · Contribution du projet aux bénéficiaires sous formes de prêt pour l'achat des animaux (petit élevage), sur la base des conseils de l'encadrement et sous le contrôle du projet et de la Représentation. · Contribution du projet sous forme de prêt pour l'achat des équipements techniques sous forme de prêt aux bénéficiaires, sur la base des conseils de l'encadrement et sous le contrôle du projet et de la Représentation. III. Livestock Sub-Sector 165 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 · Contribution du projet sous forme de prêt pour aider à assurer l'alimentation des animaux après formation pour s'assurer d'une bonne mise en place des activités en attendant le démarrage de la production. · Contribution du projet pour aider aux soins vétérinaires pendant la phase de mise en place et de démarrage en attendant que les privés prennent la relève. · Contribution du projet pour assurer le suivi technique pendant la phase de mise en place et de démarrage sur la base de contrats pour une durée de trois mois à passer avec des mandataires de jeunes diplômes ou à défaut des cadres techniques disponibles localement. Il s'agira de créer un petit réseau local entre les éleveurs, vétérinaires, et autres prestataires privés de services. · Assainissement du milieu villageois avant l'introduction des animaux achetés. · La base de l'alimentation des animaux devra être trouvée sur place. Seuls les compléments devront être achetés à l'extérieur de l'exploitation. · Le principe de l'élevage est la semi-liberté. Le parquet en grillage ou en banco devient l'élément principal de l'innovation pour éviter toute divagation incontrôlée des animaux. · Des synergies devront être trouvées avec les instituts de recherche, les stations d'élevage et les programmes existants. · Un protocole d'accord de partenariat sera signé entre le projet et le groupement avec le visa des autorités locales (chef de Poste, chef de Canton, et chef de village). A ce protocole d'accord seront annexés l'engagement de caution du groupement et le contrat de prêt entre le groupement et le bénéficiaire (modèle disponible). 3. Les modalités de mise en oeuvre Objectifs visés · Création d'emplois · Introduction de la technique pour impulser le développement local et national · Assurer une auto développement (pérennité) · Permettre une généralisation rapide des micro projets · Susciter l'espoir auprès des jeunes et des femmes sans perspectives Critères de sélection des sites · Accessibilité · Motivation des bénéficiaires · Proximité d'un marché potentiel · Dynamisme économique à promouvoir · Accès à des services techniques essentiels · Possibilités pour servir de modèle · Promotion d'un potentiel spécifique existant Exemples de fiches à préparer · Amélioration de l'aviculture familiale · Promotion de l'élevage de la pintade · Elevage de reproducteurs ovins · Transformation des produits laitiers III. Livestock Sub-Sector 166 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 · Transformation de la viande · Elevage de reproducteurs caprins · Plan de prophylaxie pour l'aviculture villageoise · Les Protocoles d'alimentation · Plan de prophylaxie des petits ruminants · Plan de formation des auxiliaires et bénéficiaires · Contrat d'appui conseil Eléments constitutifs de la fiche technique (4 à 5 pages) · Titre · Localisation · Contexte · Raison d'être du micro-projet : problématique · Contraintes, potentialités · Objectif général · Actions envisagées (plan technique et organisationnel) · Moyens nécessaires (investissement) · Résultats escomptés (calcul de rentabilité) · Modalités de remboursement de l'investissement · Critères d'évaluation et de succès · Propositions pour la généralisation Fiche de suivi évaluation des unités Octobre 2006 III. Livestock Sub-Sector 167 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 3 ANIMAL RESOURCES DIVISION The only institution set up on livestock in the country is Livestock Bureau and now Animal Resources Division and the work force is as follows NO NAME QUALIFICATION JOB DESCRIPTION AGE 1 Dr. Kpadeh K. D.V.M Director of the Division, 56 Koikoi supervises all livestock activities in the country 2 Edward S. Fatoma AA Certificate Assistant to the Director, 49 Senior student at the University of processes all officials papers Liberia (certificates) for the Director's signature, animal health. 3 Levi K. Jones AA Certificate Senior Meat Inspector 60 4 Solomon G. Page AA Certificate Meat Inspector 63 5 Terence D. Kpabar AA Certificate Meat Inspector 48 6 Jacob Borbor AA Certificate Meat Inspector 60 7 Samuel Tucker B.Sc. General Agriculture, AA ­ Senior Livestock Officer 54 livestock 8 Solomon N. Brown B.Sc. General Agriculture Senior livestock, field visits and 54 animal health 9 Nimpson S. Todd AA ­ Certificate in Meat Inspection Livestock supervisor and Meat 53 Inspector 10 Ouditche Cooper AA Certificate in Animal Livestock officer, farm 56 Husbandry surveillance 11 Mary Newon Kanty AA Certificate ­ Animal Husbandry Animal health officer 47 and Animal Health 12 Austin Boggeh AA in Labouratory Labouratory technician for the 53 Avian Labouratory now under construction 13 Stephen K. Gbanue AA Certificate in Animal Disease Field survey for animal diseases 54 Control 14 Morris S. Smith High School Diploma Office Attendant 35 15 Joseph Dweh High School Certificate Extension Officer 39 16 Morric D. Kanuah B.Sc. General Agriculture NGO 45 17 Bob Yimi AA Certificate ­ Student at the Livestock Officer 48 University of Liberia 18 Lyn Lincelot B.Sc. Animal Husbandry Specialist in Livestock 66 19 J. Hilary Mason B.Sc. in Animal Husbandry Advisor to the Minister of 73 Agriculture III. Livestock Sub-Sector 168 IV. THE FISHERIES SUB-SECTOR By Ousman K.L. Drammeh Consultant, FAO Liberia 2007 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 IV. THE FISHERIES SUB-SECTOR 1. INTRODUCTION The methodology of the study for the assessment of the fisheries sub-sector entailed reviewing the existing literature on fisheries and aquaculture; questionnaire surveys; consultations, discussions and interviews with diverse public and private sector stakeholders and actors (individually and in groups) including the Minister of Agriculture and other senior officials of the Ministry, FAO Resident Representative, personnel of the United Nations Mission in Liberia, representatives of industrial fishing companies, representatives of Non- Governmental Organizations, representatives of Community Based Organizations; officials of Local Government agencies, fisher folk and fish farmers including ex-combatants and women. Field visits were undertaken in Monrovia and environs; in Bong and Nimba Counties in the North and North East; Bomi and Cape Mount Counties in the South West; Margabi, Grand Bassa and Rivercess Counties in the south. Industrial fish processing establishments, artisanal fish landing sites and aquaculture establishments were also visited. The study also included data collection and analyses; the Bureau of National Fisheries (BNF) compiled most of the data. Information was also obtained from some international NGO's in the form of interviews and from Annual Reports. Although the literature review provided useful data and information (to be verified and validated), much more information was obtained from the discussions with key informants and beneficiary groups. The group discussions were participatory and elicited more in-depth and revealing information and reactions. Whereas institutional memory is evidently lacking in Government institutions, the fisherfolk and the beneficiary communities have better recollections of past interventions and are clear about their constraints/problems and needs. 1.1 Background Information Liberia has a coastline of 570 km and a continental shelf averaging about 34 km in width extending 200 nautical miles off-shore from the geographical baseline providing an area of about 20, 000 km2 of fishing grounds. Liberia's continental shelf has considerable maritime fish resources and the most abundant species are Engraulis encrasicolus, Sardinella aurita, Decapterus spp, Caranx spp and Ethmalosa fimbriata. The main oceanic pelagic resources are tuna and tuna-like species such as bonito and marlin. Crustaceans such as shrimps and lobsters are less abundant but are of much higher value than finfish species. The pre-war estimated maximum sustainable yield (msy) of the continental shelf area was 180 000 tons per year. Liberia also has approximately 1 810 125 km of rivers that transverse the country and countless perennial swamps and inland water bodies with enormous potentials for increased production in inland fisheries and aquaculture. The estimated maximum sustainable yield (msy) for the inland fishery is 40 000 tons per year. The fisheries sub-sector contributed 12 percent of agricultural GDP and 3.2 percent of the total GDP in 2002 and is a major source of revenue and foreign exchange earnings for the country. The sub-sector created job opportunities and income earnings for thousands of rural inhabitants particularly women; an estimated 33 121 full-time fishers and processors are operating in both marine and inland fisheries. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 171 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 1.2 Institutional and legal frameworks for sustainable fisheries and aquaculture The institutional framework for the management of fisheries and aquaculture is within the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) through the Bureau of National Fisheries (BNF). The MOA is the highest Government institution responsible for the management and development of the agriculture sector of Liberia. The Minister of Agriculture supported by four Deputy Ministers and four Assistant Ministers heads the MOA. The MOA is divided into four main Departments namely: Department of Technical Services; Department of Planning and Research; Department of Administration; and Department of Extension and Rural Development. The Bureau of National Fisheries is sub-divided into Artisanal and Marine, Aquaculture and Inland Services, and Research & Statistics divisions. The Coordinator and Deputy Coordinator of the Bureau of National Fisheries (BNF) head the Bureau. The MOA makes policy pronouncements on fisheries and aquaculture and the BNF implements Government policy. The BNF was created by an Act of the National Legislature under the Natural Resources Laws of 1956 and charged with the responsibility of managing and developing fisheries and aquaculture in Liberia. The BNF is divided into 4 Units: Statistics, Marine Fisheries, Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries, and Research. The current staffing is shown in Table 1. The role of the BNF is to implement fisheries policy; formulate guidelines, rules and regulations to govern national fisheries and aquaculture for its planning, development and management. NGOs are also active in the fisheries sector (Table 2). Table 1. Institutional capacity of the Bureau of Fisheries No of Staff No of No of No of B.Sc No of AA No of Dip. High Below Ph.D M.Sc. & Cert. School High Sch. 28 0 2 3 2 1 18 2 Specialty - Fisheries& Management Aquaculture & Maritime - - Agronomy Education safety Source: Bureau of National Fisheries (2006) Table 2. List of NGOs in Fishery related Activity Name of NGO Type of Activity Area of Operation Lutheran World Service Aquaculture Maryland, Lofa, Bong, Montserrado, Bomi, Grand Gedeh Samaritan Purse Aquaculture Bong, Lofa Faimaba Fisheries Development Aquaculture & Artisanal Bong, Nimba & Montserrado Coop. Inc Fisheries Catalyst, Inc Aquaculture Bong, Nimba & Lofa Caritas Artisanal fisheries Maryland, Grand Kru Kpan-kpan Gbo, Inc. Artisanal Fisheries Cape Mount, Bassa BUCCUBAH Artisanal Bassa Asur-Liberia Inland fisheries Research Bong, Nimba Solidaritaire Aquaculture Bong CUSD Aquaculture Nimba German Agro Action Aquaculture Grand Gedeh Action Against Hunger Aquaculture Grand Gedeh SDP Aquaculture Bong Africare-Liberia Aquaculture Bong, Nimba Source: Bureau of National Fisheries (2006) IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 172 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 2. REVIEW OF PAST EXPERIENCE IN THE SUB-SECTOR Traditional fishers have operated along the Liberian coast and inland waters for centuries mainly at the subsistence level. Fishers were catching fish to feed their families and excess catches were bartered for other essential commodities and goods. The first attempt at commercial fishing in Liberia was in 1848 when the then President of the country, Joseph Jenkins Roberts, converted his yacht into a fishing boat. The first fishing trawler to operate in Liberian coastal waters belonged to Woerman Company, a German company that operated in the country between 1938 and 1939. Fishing was a daily activity with the trawlers returning to port at the end of each fishing day and catches were sold immediately to avoid post harvest losses because of lack of means for preservation of fresh fish. Considering the success of the Woerman Company and the realization of the potential important role of fisheries in national socio-economic development, the Government of Liberia, in 1952, requested the assistance of FAO and the United States Government to help develop its fisheries sub-sector. This marked the beginning of research activities in fisheries. Experts were sent from FAO and USA to assess the fisheries potential of the country. As a result of months of exploratory fishing, it was established that a medium striving fishing industry could be established in the country. The industrial fishery began in the mid 1950's and targeted mainly the shrimp resources within the Sherbro fishing grounds, which extends into Sierra Leone. The Mesurado Group of Companies became operational in the early 1960s and developed into the most dominant force in Liberian fisheries. The company owned and operated more than 25 vessels, including shrimpers and double rigged trawlers. The company was owned by the Tolbert family and operated its own harbour and processing facilities with three thousand (3 000) metric tons of freezing capacity. Shrimp was the company's major export commodity, with a monthly shipment of about 60 metric tons to Europe and Asia. The success of the Mesurado Group of Companies was quickly followed by the installation of shore-based infrastructure including cold storage facility of 2 000 tons, an 18-ton per day blast freezer, and a dry dock and associated repair and maintenance facilities at the fishing pier in Monrovia harbour. The Mesurado Group of Companies is said to have been one of the largest fishing entities in sub-Saharan Africa until 1980 when she began to decline following the military coup. The company's facilities are now in complete ruins, with all the cold rooms completely looted and vandalized. The success of the Mesurado group led to the acquisition of a research vessel by the government of Liberia. However, the needed manpower capacities and policies were not developed to enhance research and fisheries development. Despite the civil war and difficult operating conditions, seven fishing companies managed to survive catching an average of 222 tons per year of shrimps and 4 500 tons per year of demersal fish between 1996 and 1999. At that time, most of the industrial fishing companies had adequate processing facilities and were exporting frozen crustaceans (shrimps) and small quantities of frozen demersal fish species to Belgium, Greece, United Kingdom and America. Fish distribution and marketing from the coastal area to the interior of the country was done through a system of depots and agents but this activity ceased because of civil strife and the poor conditions of the roads. In the mid 1970's, small-scale fish culture was begun with the construction of fishponds at Suakoko village in Bong County to conduct research on Tilapia nilotica. Aquaculture development moved fairly quickly into Lofa County in the early 1970s through the initiatives IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 173 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 of the American Peace Corps. By the late 1970s, small-scale aquaculture development had gained momentum and spread into Nimba County with support from the German Technical Cooperation through NCRDP. The World Bank through LCADP and BCADP also supported the development of aquaculture in Bong and Lofa Counties. Aquaculture however remained subsistent, with no major fish multiplication and distribution-taking place. There was not much research done on developing local species for culture, as exotic species of Tilapia and Carp were often brought in and comprised the main culture species. Prewar interventions by Government to develop artisanal fisheries was aimed at reducing post harvest loses. Government set up a mini- cold room for use by the artisanal community in Robertsports, Grand Cape Mount County in the mid 70s. This again broke down due to the lack of capacity & community ownership for its management and interference by MOA officials. 3. ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION The fisheries sector of Liberia comprises: a Marine fishery involving industrial and artisanal fishing activities; an Inland fishery, which is exclusively artisanal; and Aquaculture that is practiced in rural areas through fishpond culture. Fish production by the marine fisheries in Liberia has fluctuated between 856 901 mt to 15 472 mt per annum during the post-war period (Table 3). Sixty percent (60%) of fish is produced by the artisanal fishery, all of which is consumed locally. Table 3. Total fish production (tons) including inland fisheries and aquaculture Year Total 1994 7721 1995 8829 1996 8308 1997 8580 1998 10830 1999 15472 2000 11748 2001 11300 2002 11014 2003 11714 2004 10359 2005 6856.901 Source: FAO (2005), BNF (2006). Government revenue sources in fisheries are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Sources of Fisheries Related Revenue Agency/Type of Import Import Export GST Sea Licenses Customs charges Permit Duty Worthiness Charges on local catch BMA $25/GRT Commerce 1.5% FOB Finance 2.5% 7% $25/Ton BIVAC $5/ton BNF $1.5/ton 2% $15/GRT/yr Source: Statistics and Regulatory Unit, Bureau of National Fisheries. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 174 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 3.1 Artisanal Fishery The artisanal fishery provides a means of livelihood to 33 121 full-time fishers and processors in both marine and inland waters. Liberian participation is about 80.1% with females accounting for 59.86%. (Annex 5). Artisanal fishery operators are mainly indigenous Kru fishers and their families, and the Fanti, Popoe fishers and their families who migrated to Liberia from Benin, Ghana and Cote D'Ivoire. A recent development is the presence of Gambian and Senegalese fishermen in Cape Mount County. Malian and Fulani fishers operate in inland areas. Table 5 shows that about 7 700 mt of fish were landed at 10 sites around the country in 2004. Table 5. Distribution of Fish Landing Sites in the Country County No of Landing Ave. Catch (tons) Sites 2004 1. Grand Cape mount County 14 1,095.2 2. Bomi County 4 739.3 3. Montserrado County 13 1,127 4. Margibi County 5 869.73 5. Grand Bassa County 18 2,304 6. Rivercess County 12 345.6 7. Sinoe County 30 526.7 8. Maryland County 8 439.95 9. Grand Kru County 35 312.4 10. Inland Sites 19 13.6 Total 137 7,773.48 Source: Statistics and Regulatory Unit, Bureau of National Fisheries. 3.1.1 Artisanal Fleet Structure According to BNF, there are 3,473 canoes operating in the inland and marine waters of Liberia, 7.89% of which are motorized. Canoe sizes range from the 1-3 man kru canoes, (5-7meters) long, which are hand-paddled with a few powered by 15 or 25 horse power outboard engines, to the 15-18man (10-15meters) long fishing canoes that are powered by 45 horse power outboard engines. Senegalese and Gambian fishermen operating in Grand Cape Mount County are using much larger fishing canoes (above 20 meters). 3.1.2 Catch/Production The average catch per canoe/annum was 2.2 tons and 1.16 tons in 2004 and 2005 respectively (BNF, 2006). The major species exploited are the Sardinella, Barracudas, Croakers, Sharks and Ilisha africana, which make up the major commercially valuable species for the local markets, and constituted 83 % and 59.06% of local fish supply in 2004 and 2005 respectively. 3.1.3 Value Chain The value chain for the artisanal fishery is very short, and in most cases there is very little or no value addition at all. There is no use of ice or chillers for post-harvest fresh fish preservation. Fish once landed on the beaches is available for sale. The processes of value addition are simple. The fish is first washed with seawater and then gutted (for small size fish) and for larger fish, decapitation and dismemberment, before being smoke dried using IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 175 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 firewood. Metal drums are most commonly used for smoking in all coastal communities. There are however some improved chokor smoking ovens built of clay in use particularly in Margibi and Grand Bassa Counties. In inland artisanal communities, traditional smoking kilns made of sticks or wire meshes are used. Traditionally, the Fanti and Kru fish processors mainly practice this method of smoking. Salting and fermentation is also used to process fish into what is locally known as "moin-moin". 3.1.4 Market Chain There are two market chains; a shorter one for fresh fish leaving the beach directly to the markets for sale to consumers, and a much longer chain for smoke dried fish. Dried fish products are bought from the fish landing sites of Monrovia, Robertsport, Marshall and Buchanan and taken (by road transport) to the major rural markets from where they are purchased and distributed to towns and villages by women, usually on foot. Fresh water species are often smoke dried and transported to urban markets for higher market value. 3.1.5 Price structure Table 6 below shows the price/kilo of Herring, which is of major commercial value on the local market. The price structure for other species is very much the same. Prices tend to increase at every stage of the market chain. Consumers at the village level tend to spend more money per kilogram of fish. Table 6: Fish Price distribution and variation along the market chain Price/kg(LD$) Beach Urban Market Rural Market Village Level Fresh Fish 25 35 45 55 Smoked Dried 35 45 55 65 Source: Statistics and Regulatory Unit, Bureau of National Fisheries. Note: Exchange rate: US$1 = 58 LD (Liberian Dollar). 3.1.6 Cost of fishing inputs: The costs of construction of fishing canoes vary according to size, locality and the type of wood used for construction. Table 7 below shows the prices of canoes by sizes, capacities and their construction time. Table 7: Costs of constructing fishing canoes in Sinoe County Types of canoe Size Capacity Production time Price Kru Canoe < 1.5 furlong 1-2 man 2 weeks 6,000 -12,000 LD Kru Canoe 1.5 furlong 2-4 man 2 weeks 17,000 LD Fanti Canoe 2 furlong 5-7 man 3 weeks 20,000 LD Fanti Canoe Above 2 furlong 15 ­ 17 man 4 weeks 25,000 LD Source: Statistics and Regulatory Unit, Bureau of National Fisheries. Note: Exchange rate: $1 = 59 LD (Liberian Dollar). The availability of fishing gears and inputs is dependent on importation by merchants. The high import charges on fishing gear have put these materials out of the reach of many ordinary fishers. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 176 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Table 8: Average unit price (US$) of fishing inputs Nets (bill) Rope Float (piece) Lead (sheet) Hook (pkt) Outboard (Roll) Motor (15HP) $500.00 $60.00 0.25 3.00 4.00 3,275.00 Source: Statistics and Regulatory Unit, Bureau of National Fisheries. Note: Exchange rate: $1 = 59 LD (Liberian Dollar). 3.1.7 Situational analysis Artisanal fisher folk are still operating in individual family units but are slowly coming together through established cooperative societies for the pursuit of common aspirations/interests. However, migrant fisher folk are better organized and tend to cooperate better with the fisheries administration. Migrant fishers operate bigger fishing units and catch more fish and realize more revenue from fishing than the local fishers. The fishing units owned and operated by Liberian nationals are small in size and non-motorized and the mesh sizes of the fishing nets are very small catching many juvenile fish and threatening resources sustainability. There are high operational costs in artisanal fisheries because of the high costs of fishing inputs (fishing nets, related equipments and materials, outboard motors, premixed fuel) as a result of high import duties on these items. The average cost of a fishing trip is LD$ 7,000.00 (cost of gasoline, food and supplies for the crew). Industrial fishing vessels are habitually encroaching in artisanal fishing grounds destroying fishing nets of artisanal fishers and disrupting artisanal fishing operations. The encroachments are causing economic losses to fishers (loss of fishing gears, loss of earnings) and reductions in catch landings for the domestic market. There is no MCS system to control and regulate fishing activities in Liberian waters. The fishing gears are difficult to replace because of their high prices made worse by the absence of credit schemes to support artisanal fishing and related activities. The artisanal fish landing sites are devoid of basic fisheries infrastructures such as fish handling and processing areas, storage facilities for processed products, ice and chill storage facilities. Potable water supply systems and sanitary facilities are also not available and environmental hygiene is a major problem. Fish when caught is landed on the ground affecting fish quality through microbial contamination. Fish processing in artisanal fisheries is still traditional in nature and is limited to fish smoking and fermentation to a lesser extent. The increasing demand for fuel-wood for fish smoking is causing deforestation in the coastal areas and the loss of mangrove forests. All fish and fishery products produced by artisanal fisheries operators are for local consumption and fish marketing is the exclusive domain of women fish traders who walk several miles to and from markets because of poor road transport conditions. Fisheries development projects and programmes should be directed at improving local artisanal fisheries and should have components to specifically address issues such as capacity building (training in modern fishing, improved fish handling and fish processing technologies); credit schemes; numeracy and literacy; infrastructural development including Community Fisheries Centres, health centres, schools; Strengthening fisheries cooperative societies; Co-management; empowerment particularly women fisher folk. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 177 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 3.2 Industrial Fishery The industrial fishery is high capital investment involving fishing trawlers and cold storage facilities. Foreigners presently dominate this fishery. There are currently fourteen (14) fishing companies operating legally in Liberia; 6 companies are solely engaged in the importation of frozen fish from the high seas, and 8 companies are engaged in industrial fishing activities operating 27 fishing vessels with a combined Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT) of 4 122.71. The fishing vessels operating in Liberian waters range in size from 91 GRT Chinese pair trawlers (ice carriers), to 251GRT fishing trawlers with onboard freezing, processing and storage facilities. Industrial fishing vessels land their catches at the fishing pier in the Free Port of Monrovia. The employment of Liberian nationals in industrial fisheries is estimated at 75%, representing 28.4 % of the total employment in the fisheries sub-sector. 3.2.1 Fish Production Fish landed locally by all trawlers is estimated as 1 502.71 and 2 806.811metric tons for 2004 and 2005 respectively (BNF, 2006). It is believed that the catch is grossly under reported, and there is strong suspicion that a number of industrial fishing vessels are engaged in illegal transhipments in the high seas which is not reflected in the national statistics. Catch statistics reported by Observers posted on board licensed fishing vessels are also not reliable because of the loyalty of the Observers to the vessel owners who pay their salaries. Some licensed fishing vessels have no Observers posted on board and catches by these vessels are not reported. The importation of fish is much higher with 4 738.47 tons in 2004 and 11 071.743 tons in 2005 (Table 9), than recorded fish landings by licensed fishing vessels for the same period. Table 9. Frozen Fish Imports Year Import (mt), Value (US$) 2004 738.47 1,139,274.20 2005 11,071.743 2,013,575.56 Total 11,810.213 3,152,849.76 Source: Division of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce (2006) 3.2.2 Value Chain The industrial fishery is expected to be the main avenue for fish exports to international fish markets to earn much-needed foreign exchange for the country but presently there are no reported exports of fish and fishery products. At the moment, there is very little value addition in industrial fisheries and the value chain is very short as in artisanal fisheries. Fish is preserved on ice or packaged and frozen on board fishing vessels. The processes involved are: washing, sorting into size categories and according to species, crating or packaging in cartoons, icing or freezing and outright sales to fish traders (women). Onshore processes are very much the same: icing, freezing, crating and packaging. The packaged products are landed, transported to the factories and sold to the fish traders. 3.2.3 Market Chain Unlike the artisanal fisheries, fish from the industrial sector is marketed frozen from factories in and around Monrovia. The fish distribution network for industrial fisheries is more urban- based and involves the establishment of depots with mini- cold rooms in major cities and IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 178 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 towns scattered around the country (Table 10). Good road access for supply and distribution of fish and regular electricity supply is needed for the operation of the cold rooms. Unsold frozen fish is often returned to the factories and re-frozen or smoked if freezing is no longer possible. The women also dominate the marketing of fish landed by the industrial fishing vessels. Table 10: Distribution of Cold rooms and price structures for two major species Price (US$/30 kg) Location Number of cold Total Capacity(MT) Horse Sardinella rooms Mackerel Monrovia 32 18,808 34.00 29.00 Kakata 4 96 Totota 1 32 Gbarnga 3 84 Tubmanburg 2 48 35.00 30.50 Ganta 4 96 Buchanan 2 60 35.60 31.00 Sanniquellie 1 24 Zorzor 1 24 Harbel 2 60 Total 52 19, 332 Source: Bureau of National Fisheries 2006. As the situation of fishing improves and fish catches increase, it is expected that Cold rooms will play more important roles in fish distribution and marketing in the country especially in rural communities where protein intake is low and malnutrition is a major health concern. 3.2.4 Situational analysis Foreign nationals presently dominate the industrial fishery. The development of industrial fisheries in Liberia is hampered by various constraints, worsened by the civil war, which ruined what little infrastructures there were. The sanitary conditions at the fish factories are very poor and do not meet international standards and requirements. The fish factories do not have appropriate fish-processing facilities, proper drainage systems and potable water supply is a major problem; ice and cold storage facilities are absent in some of the factories. The factory workers have no uniforms and the work in the factories is haphazard and without proper flow of products. None of the factories are implementing Quality Management Programmes. There is potential for adding value to fisheries production, handling, processing, distribution and marketing particularly for industrial fisheries. It is quite possible to produce value added fish products such as cocktails, fillets, marinated products, fish fingers, peeled/boiled products, colouring of products, ecolabelling etc. However, this can be done when fish factory standards (technical and hygiene) are improved and that the factories implement quality control (QC) programmes and good manufacturing practices to ensure food fish product safety and quality that meet international standards and requirements. This will require institutional strengthening and capacity building at the fish processing factories. Value addition will significantly increase the profitability of the fisheries sub-sector. Fish IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 179 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 quality and safety should be addressed across the entire value chain. It is also important that the relevant Government institutions are capable and have the requisite human, financial and technical resources to ensure compliance with the agreed international standards and requirements and to offer technical support to the fishing industry in the form of training programmes on fish handling, processing, quality assurance and inspection. The absence of a fisheries harbour to facilitate the discharge of cargo (fish) and the supply of essential commodities, refuelling, transhipment, and for dry-docking is a major constraint to development of industrial fishery. Fishing vessels are obliged to buy fuel and essential supplies from others ships and carriers operating in international waters. The tariffs on the importation of fishing inputs are high, so are import duties, landing dues, inspection dues and other charges. Operational costs are also very high reflecting on the high prices of fish. 3.3 Aquaculture Fish farming in Liberia is largely subsistent. There are about 3 581 fish farmers nationwide engaged in some form of fish culture on part-time basis. 449 ponds of various sizes with a total area of 17.47 hectares are distributed in 159 communities around the country. Most of these ponds have been dormant since 1990 and are now being rehabilitated although the process of rehabilitation is slow and labourious. The rehabilitation works are providing employment for women and youths; currently there are 704 women, constituting 20% of total female participation in aquaculture (BNF). The major species cultured in Liberia are Oreochromis niloticus and other local species of Tilapia, and catfishes, including Heterobranchus longifilis and Clarias sp. The production method is extensive and very simple technology is used to develop earthen ponds, which are supplied water from natural creeks or springs by gravity. Most fish farmers cannot afford to adequately feed their fish due to competition for feed ingredient by the households for food. 3.3.1 Production Aquaculture production in Liberia has been concentrated around Bong, Nimba and Montserrado Counties with an estimated annual production of 38.81 tons in 2004 (BNF). With peace prevailing in the country and pond development and rehabilitation gaining momentum in other parts of the country, aquaculture production is expected to increase. The irrigation potential of Liberia is estimated as 600,000 Ha, with a renewable water potential of 235m3/yr. These factors present a great potential for aquaculture development. However, culture methods should be diversified to include; Cage, Pen and tank culture, considering the increasing demand for lowlands for irrigated rice production. 3.3.2 Value Chain There is no value addition for aquaculture. Fish is usually bought fresh and/or live from pond sites during harvest for direct consumption. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 180 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 3.3.3 Market Chain The market for aquaculture product is more localized in the pond communities since production is still low. Production around large urban centres has high value due to increased demands for fresh water fish. Around Monrovia, pond fish is sold for US$ 3.00/kg, but prices also vary according to species with the air- breathing catfish, Heterobranchus sp. more highly priced at US$6.00/kg. 3.3.4 Situational analysis The development of aquaculture is constrained by several factors including the following: the lack of tools and materials for pond development/ or rehabilitation; lack of an aquaculture policy and development plan, lack of sufficient trained manpower in aquaculture development; lack of quality fish fingerlings for stocking; lack of improved fish feed; lack of proper irrigation schemes for sustained aquaculture production; the absence of credit facilities, and low level of research on aquaculture. Pond sites, which are isolated from other activities of the farmers, tend to be forgotten and not maintained to inadequate water storage and control scheme. The existing fish hatcheries were looted and vandalized during the civil war. Furthermore, the quality of fingerlings produced is poor due to very poor brood stock quality and hatchery management. The number of hatcheries is inadequate and they lack transportation facilities for moving live fish over long distance. The absence of credit facilities for farmers is responsible for the non-sustainability of many projects, especially after donor funding runs out. The ACDB, which was the main government institution for granting loan to farmers, is no longer operating. The lack of improved fish feed has contributed to a large extent to farmer disenchantment, as the expected yield at harvest is often quite low and discouraging. The development of proper irrigation and water control structures is vital for sustaining continuous aquaculture production. Production is often hampered by either flooding of production facilities during the heavy rains, or the lack of water during the dry season, due There is very little research activity in aquaculture. 4. THE WAY FORWARD The Government of Liberia is fully aware of the enormous potential of the fisheries sub- sector both marine and inland (including aquaculture), to make substantial contribution to national socio-economic development and help address the major challenges of the rehabilitation and recovery efforts of the country's economy in the short and long-term. The Government is also aware and concerned but is, at present, totally unable to address the serious problem of poaching and other forms of illegal fishing especially along coastal and marine waters, which are impacting negatively on the national economy and possibly on national security. The Government is also lacking the economic, fiscal, human and institutional assets with which to manage the fisheries sub-sector on a sustainable basis to benefit present and future generations of Liberians. The MOA was allocated US$ 3 million only out of the total national budget of US$ 126 million in 2006. However, the Government IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 181 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 is determined to harness the potential of the fisheries sector. The following actions are recommended, some of which are already in the plans of the Government. 4.1 Sub-sector policy objectives for sustainable fisheries and aquaculture management and development There has never been a Government fisheries policy and the fourteen years of civil war, which ended in 2003, compounded this situation by rendering the concerned Government institutions unable to function properly. The Government of Liberia should formulate national fisheries and aquaculture policy and strategy and will strengthen the country's maritime and fisheries laws, regulations and capacity to ensure sustainable management and development. Fisheries management should be geared towards the attainment of sub-sectoral development policy objectives such as: contribution to national food security and improved nutritional standards, creating employment opportunities and poverty reduction particularly in rural communities, improving incomes and quality of life, and revenue and foreign exchange earnings for the country. The policy should address the following: the development of the requisite infrastructures for industrial and artisanal fisheries and aquaculture development; improve monitoring, control and surveillance; capacity building and man power development; community capacity building and co-management; conduct scientific research and data and information collection and analyses on a regular basis; promote sub-regional, regional and international cooperation in fisheries management. Government should create the enabling environment for local and foreign investments in fisheries and aquaculture by reviewing the investment code and putting into place appropriate provisions including an incentive package. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries should guide the national policy and relevant sections/provisions of the Code will be incorporated in the national fisheries legislation. The Government should endeavour to undertake the development and management of fisheries and aquaculture with the collabouration and support of its development partners: FAO, World Bank, IFAD, FRG, USAID, African Development Bank, The Government of the Peoples Republic of China, Swedish International Development Agency, Islamic Development Bank, DANIDA, and WFP. Grass roots (including community-based organizations) participation in all phases of management and sustainable development is critically important. Also important is the support from the local private sector and that of international and local Non-Governmental Organizations involved in fisheries and aquaculture. 4.2 Fisheries Legislation In 1972, FAO assisted the Government of Liberia to revise the Natural Resources Laws of 1956 but Presidential approval was not obtained up to the time of the Coup d'etat in 1980. In March 1999, draft fisheries legislation was prepared but never finalized and approved by Government. Government should seek the assistance and technical support of the Legal Department of FAO to which elaborate a new fisheries legislation to replace the Natural Resources Laws of 1956. The new fisheries legislation will have an international character incorporating relevant provisions of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and other international agreements, conventions and protocols addressing fisheries, natural resources and environmental issues. The new fisheries legislation will strengthen the maritime and fisheries IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 182 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 laws and regulations and at the same time strengthen national capacity for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) to control and regulate fishing and effectively curb and eventually eliminate poaching and other forms of IUU fishing within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Liberia. 4.3 Improve Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) In addition to poaching, Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing is another serious concern that the Government cannot address at the moment. Poaching and IUU fishing pose serious threats to the continued availability of fisheries resources. Without an effective MCS system, the management of fisheries on a sustainable basis may prove unattainable because the fisheries resources are likely to be at risk of being depleted and may lead to the failure of development projects and programmes and Government not able to achieve sub-sectoral development objectives and aspirations. However, Government is totally committed to combat poaching and IUU fishing with the collabouration of national agencies and institutions, fisheries stakeholders and support of international development partners. Government should request UNMIL to once again provide support to MCS activities on a short-term basis. Although UNMIL's mandate is on territorial surveillance and security, UNMIL is willing to once again lend support to fisheries surveillance activities by conducting aerial surveillance in support of maritime surveillance. During the period of UNMIL assistance and support, Government should prepare and submit a funding request to a friendly Government for the supply of two patrol boats. Henceforth, maritime patrols would not exclusively target unlicensed (poaching) fishing vessels but also regular boarding of fishing vessels operating with valid licenses/permits to inspect fishing gears to ensure that fishing gears conform to the conditions of license. The maritime patrols would also enforce the zonal limits for the different categories of fishing vessels. Parallel to this, the BNF should liaise closely with importers of fishing gears to ensure that fishing nets of approved mesh sizes are imported into the country. The Department of Customs will be requested to assist in monitoring of imported fishing materials. Co- management between Government and fisher folk would ensure that all restrictions are observed at the community level. Inspection of artisanal fishing gears at landing sites should become a regular activity of fisheries extension personnel. Fisher folk will be encouraged to participate in MCS activities and will be equipped to report to the MCS Coordinating Unit any poaching, IUU fishing, transshipment at sea, and encroachments in unauthorized fishing zones. But given the present situation of the Ministry of Agriculture in terms of limited capacity and resources to undertake MCS activities on its own and without adequate fisheries legislation to prosecute violators, the Ministry should seek interagency collabouration in MCS activities. This implies working in close collabouration with the following Government agencies: Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Justice, Maritime Affairs Agency, Police Department, Immigration Department and Customs and Excise Department. The legislation of the Maritime Affairs Agency is adequate and shall be used to prosecute arrested fishing vessels pending the coming into force of the new fisheries legislation. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 183 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 4.4 Capacity Building Without the requisite manpower and resources, the Bureau of National Fisheries will not be able to meet its mandate. Presently, human resources and enforcement capacity are almost non-existent. There is an acute shortage of trained personnel in key disciplines (Biology, Statistics, Management, Economics, Fishing Technology, Aquaculture, Extension etc). The BNF has been ruined by war; ill equipped and lacks the capacity to monitor the fisheries resources. The role of the BNF has now been limited to licensing control and fisheries statistical data collection. Fisheries catch data collected by the BNF does not have national coverage and the data is often inaccurate and the data cannot be analyzed and interpreted into useful management tools. The BNF does not have budgetary allocation to support its activities around the country including: training of its personnel, data collection & analysis, providing extension services to fish farmers and artisanal communities, research in fisheries and aquaculture, monitoring of the fishing grounds and regulation of fishing activities. The NBF should be strengthened as a matter of priority and a capacity building programme should be elabourated and implemented for staff of the BNF. Also, the Ministry of Agriculture should advocate the introduction of Fisheries Science in the Curricular of the University of Liberia and Cuttington University so that Liberians can study fisheries science and related disciplines in country; this will reduce the cost of training personnel of the BNF in institutions outside of Liberia. Capacity building programmes should also be implemented for private sector operators in industrial and artisanal fisheries and in aquaculture. Training programmes on improved fishing, fish handling and fish processing technologies, and modern aquaculture techniques should be designed and implemented. Training programmes on good manufacturing practices, quality management programmes are also important and relevant to sustainable development. Numeracy and literacy programmes will help artisanal fisher folk and fish farmers to improve the performances of their respective business operations. 4.5 Fisheries Scientific Research The Government realizes that the sustainable management and development of fisheries will have to rely on a sound research based management programme that recognize the limitations of the fisheries resource base and the need to improve the productivity of public and private investments to generate sustainable development and growth. Government should promote fisheries scientific research at the national level including capacity building and institutional strengthening. At the sub-regional, regional and international levels, Government should seek collabouration and cooperation with neighbouring countries on scientific research especially on the shared fisheries resources and on how best to manage the shared resources on a sustainable basis for the benefit of all countries. The cooperation with the Nansen Programme on acoustic surveys is very useful to the country as it provides accurate data and information on the status of the pelagic fish resources on a regular (annual) basis. Government should seek to expand the cooperation with the Nansen Programme to include periodic surveys of the demersal fisheries resources. In addition, Government should also seek collabouration and technical support from the IRD (Institute for Research and Development) of France, to conduct studies on the fisheries resources of the river systems of Liberia. Similar to the Nansen Programme, the IRD IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 184 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 assistance will be on a continuous basis and would include capacity building and institutional strengthening components. The rehabilitation of CARI and the resumption of applied aquaculture research are crucially important, as the institution will be the main source of expertise and technical knowledge to assist in the sustainable development of aquaculture. The production of fingerlings and brood stocks to supply fish farms will be an important activity of CARI. As a country within the Guinean Current Large Marine Ecosystem (GCLME) region, Liberia shares the concern of the other countries about the effects of climatic, environmental and socio-economic factors on the fisheries resources, the maintenance of biological diversity, and also on the health and proper functioning of the Large Marine Ecosystem. Liberia should actively participate in research activities aimed at providing useful data and information on fisheries, natural resources, environments and ecosystems. The results of scientific research will be quite essential as they provide reliable data and information that will enable fisheries administrators and policy makers to make informed decisions on sustainable fisheries, natural resources, environment and ecosystem management. 4.5.1 Baseline Surveys The 14 years of civil war did not allow for the collection, analyses and storage of other useful national fisheries data (number of artisanal fishermen, artisanal fisheries production on a regular (monthly) basis, catch statistical data from industrial fisheries, annual audits of industrial fish processing establishments etc. Fisheries trade data (imports/exports) on a time series basis is also not available. Certain figures (data/information) are available but the accuracy and validity of the data/information cannot be confirmed. As peace and stability return to the country, it is the ideal moment to start compiling some useful data/information on fisheries and aquaculture and establish a fisheries data bank. Baseline studies that should be undertaken include the following: Frame Survey a) The conduct of Frame Survey on the artisanal fishery should be an annual activity of the BNF. Frame Surveys would help determine the distribution of fishing effort and the structural aspects of the artisanal fishery; the total number of fishers and fisher assistants by nationality; the characteristics of fishing economic units (types and sizes of fishing canoes, motorized/non-motorized, number of crew per canoe, fishing gears employed per canoe); fishing status of fishers (full-time/part-time, other occupation); fishing habits (migratory or sedentary). The Frame Survey will identify fish landing sites with development potential. Also, the results of the Frame Survey can be used to develop a statistical data collection method for estimating monthly catch landings of artisanal fishers by species and by area/location (the PPS method). Socio-economic studies b) Socio-economic studies on fishing communities (Community/Household profiles, Poverty profiles, Vulnerabilities, Livelihoods security, economics of artisanal fishery, etc) are also important in terms of providing useful information for development planning purposes. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 185 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Aquaculture Production c) In all the aquaculture sites visited during the assessment exercise, actual quantities of cultured fish produced were not obtained; it was not even possible to estimate the number of baskets of fish produced per pond/per village/per community. In collabouration with Farmer Cooperatives, local and international NGOs, extension staff of the BNF should commence collecting such data. 4.6 Sustainable Fisheries Conservation and Management Liberia is presently lacking in scientific data and information on the status of fisheries resources as a direct result of the civil war during which period no scientific studies were undertaken and very little information was collected and analyzed. Without scientific data and information it is difficult for the fisheries administration to make informed decisions on issues such as the number of fishing licenses to be issued, determine sustainable levels, declare closed areas and seasons among other things. Faced with this situation of uncertainty about the state/status of the resources, the Government should apply the precautionary approach to sustainable fisheries management and introduce management actions/measures to ensure the long-term rational and sustainable use of fisheries and aquaculture resources. Government policy for sustainable fisheries management shall be consistent with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. With technical support of FAO, Government should conduct awareness campaigns to sensitize fisher folk on the Code and the need to adopt the principles of responsible fisheries. A co-management regime should be established for partnership between Government and private sector operators (artisanal and industrial) in the management of fisheries and aquaculture. Community involvement and participation in natural resources management have proved successful in the management of small-scale fisheries including MCS activities within artisanal fishing grounds in some West African countries (Gambia, Guinea Conakry). The success stories will be studied and adapted to the Liberian situation. The positive attributes of local communities (social cohesion, respect for community rules and regulations, affinity to the natural environment) are important management tools that are more likely to engage communities in natural resources management and development than the conventional top-down approach that has so far failed to produce the desired management outputs. 4.7 Development of Artisanal Fishery Government is aware of the enormous potential of artisanal fishery to contribute to national socio-economic development through employment generation and poverty alleviation, national food security and improved nutrition, revenue and foreign exchange earnings for the country. Presently, the artisanal fishery (marine and inland) generate employment for more than 33,000 people in the production, processing, distribution and marketing chains and accounts for more than 60 % of total fish production all of which is consumed locally. However, artisanal fishery is basically underdeveloped; production methods and systems are outdated and processing technology is still rudimentary and unhygienic; distribution and marketing systems are not well established, and post harvest losses are very high. The widely dispersed nature of artisanal fish landing sites and the old age tradition of fishers working in isolated family groupings make artisanal fishery management a very difficult undertaking. For the better management of artisanal fisheries, Government should establish IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 186 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Community Fisheries Centres (CFC's) with requisite infrastructure including ice plants, chill and cold storage facilities, fish boxes, fish processing areas, storage facilities for processed products, mechanical workshops, boat building areas, individual lockers for safe keeping of fishing equipments, insulated/refrigerated vehicles for fish distribution and marketing. The establishment of CFC's should be started along the coastal areas targeting the bigger fish landing sites/communities and gradually move to the major sites/communities in the inland areas. International donor assistance and support is required and countries such as Japan, China, and Norway can be requested to assist. The African Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank and IFAD should also be requested to support the development effort. Government should focus attention on building and strengthening the human resource capacities of the different fisheries economic operators (fishermen, fish processors and fish dealers) through training on issues relating to fishing, fish hygiene, fish processing and quality control in the artisanal fisheries with the objective of improving fishing methods and techniques, fish handling, processing and quality control standards and reducing post harvest losses. Reduction in post-harvest fisheries ultimately implies increase in supply of wholesome/ quality fish for local consumption. Also, reduction in post-harvest fisheries including discards and spoilage will significantly increase the incomes of the artisanal fisheries operators helping to alleviate poverty and also ensure household food security. Access to finance through credit schemes is crucial to artisanal fisheries development and credit schemes for artisanal economic operators, particularly women fisher folk, should be integral components of development projects and programmes. 4.8 Quality management programmes in post-harvest fisheries, value addition and export opportunities Fisheries food chains are constantly changing to respond to changing international demands for quantity and quality of fisheries products. The international agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary standards and requirements for fish exports from developing countries to markets in the developed countries are becoming more and more stringent and complex and have significant cost implications. Fish safety and quality issues have both social and economic dimensions in the present day modern world. Some of the major export problems faced by developing countries are: access to the resources required to comply with SPS standards, scientific and technical expertise, appropriate technologies and skilled labour. Among the development policy objectives for the fisheries sub-sector of Liberia is the exportation of fish and fishery products from which Government can generate revenue and foreign exchange earnings. But presently, the reality on the ground in Liberia is that food (fish) standards and quality are quite low and the fisheries value chain is very basic/rudimentary, informal, unregulated and does not comply with the international agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary standards and requirements. The fisheries value chain should be able to assure fish quality and safety from primary production to final consumption. As a country that is keen to develop its fisheries for both domestic consumption and export, it is very important to the Government that fishers, fish handlers and processors in Liberia implement quality control (QC) programmes and good manufacturing practices to ensure food fish product safety and quality that meet the international standards and requirements. Fish quality and safety should be addressed across the entire value chain. Value addition will significantly increase the profitability of the fisheries sub-sector. It is also important that the relevant Government institutions are capable and have the requisite human, financial and technical resources to ensure compliance with the agreed international IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 187 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 standards and requirements. To achieve this will require institutional strengthening and capacity building at the level of public institutions and also in the private sector (artisanal and industrial operators: fishers, processors and fish dealers). The BNF is the competent Government authority to regulate the fishing industry and ensure compliance to standards and regulations. Government should strengthen the BNF through the recruitment of highly trained nationals and the training of staff of the BNF in the relevant disciplines (fish microbiology; fish inspection, quality assurance and control; fish processing technology etc.). Other Government agencies working with the food industry such as the Department of Health, Department of Livestock Services, Department of Veterinary Services can also benefit from the training programmes. Government will also implement capacity building training programmes for artisanal operators in basic food hygiene, environmental health and sanitation, improved fish handling and processing methods and techniques, and on the importance of icing, chilling, freezing, drying and smoking to preserve fish and maintain quality and shelf-life of products. With support of development partners, the Government should implement capacity building programmes in industrial fisheries particularly in fish factory operations and will conduct training programmes on quality control, fish inspection and quality assurance, Quality Management Programmes and on HACCP based systems. With the support of INFOPECHE in Abidjan, Cote D'Ivoire and the Common Fund for Commodities in Amsterdam, Holland, the Government should implement training programmes in the development and promotion of value added fish and fishery products. Liberian fish and fishery products should be exhibited at international fish fairs and exhibitions to attract international buyers and sellers. Also, the Government should support the proposal to build a Regional Training Centre for Fish Quality Assurance in Monrovia. The proposed Centre will be a component of the E.U funded Post Harvest Project on Strengthening Fishery Products Health Conditions in ACP/OCT countries. The Centre in Monrovia will be of tremendous advantage to the fishing industry in many respects: capacity building, quality assurance and control etc. For the long-term, the Government should introduce an Eco-labeling scheme for fish and fishery products as a valuable instrument for the integration of environmental requirements into the management of fisheries. Eco-labeling would be an economic incentive for the fisheries sub-sector to act in a more sustainable way and contribute to the sustainability of the fisheries resources and provide for an adequate level of protection of the ecosystem. 4.9 Promote sub-regional, regional and international cooperation in fisheries management Liberia should accede to international fisheries agreements, conventions and protocols as an essential foundation for partnership and sub-regional and regional cooperation in sustainable fisheries management. As reflected in Statement of Policy Intent for Agriculture, 2006, the Government of Liberia will collaborate with the neighbouring countries for the setting up of a sub-regional fisheries commission for Benin, Cote D'Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, Nigeria and Liberia for sustainable fisheries management that would also eventually assist Liberia in addressing monitoring, control and surveillance problems in its coastal waters. Participation in the activities of the Guinean Current Large Marine Ecosystem (GCLME) project is very useful in terms of ecosystem-based management of fisheries and natural resources. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 188 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 REFERENCES EPA. 2005. Liberia's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. 83pp. EPA. 2006. Draft National Program of Action: Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem Project in Liberia. 79pp. EPA. 2006. Draft National Program of Action: Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem Project in Liberia. 79pp. FAO. 2005. Fisheries Information Data and Statistic Unit. FAO/MOA. 2005. Assessment Mission Report (Project TCP/LIR/2905 (E) 13pp. FAO/MOA. 2005. Final Report: Emergency Support to the Rehabilitation of the Artisanal Fisheries Sector (TCP/LIR/2905(E). 23pp. FAO. 2005. Irrigation in Africa in Figures ­ AQUASTAT Survey 2005. 6pp. FAO. 2004. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. 153pp. FAO/NACA. 2003. Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Subasinghe, R.P., Bueno, P.B., Phillip, M.J., Hough, C., McGladdery, S. E., & Arthur, J. R.,(Eds.) Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Bangkok, Thailand. 20 ­ 25 February 2000. NACA, Bangkok and FAO, Rome. 471pp. FAO. 2001. State of Food Insecurity in the World. (SOFI) FAO. 1997. Draft Report on End of Project Implementation. (OSRO/LIR/702 & TCP/LIR/6713(E). 20pp. FAO. 1996. World Food Summit Follow-up Draft Strategy for National Agriculture Development. Horizon 2010. 11pp. FFDC. 2005. Aquaculture Assessment of Bong and Nimba Counties, Liberia. 17pp. FFDC. 2005. Assessment of Artisanal Communities in South Eastern Liberia. 6pp. Flowers, I. D. G. 2002. The Sustainable Fisheries Livelihood Programme (SFLP): A way forward to Fisheries Development in Liberia. 16pp. Liberia, Statement of Policy Intent for Agriculture, June 2006. Liberia, Country Situation Review of the Agricultural Sector in Liberia. 20pp. Liberia Medium Term Reconstruction and Development Plan. 2001 ­ 2006. LWF/WS. 2004. Aquaculture Assessment Report. 6pp. NEPAD. 2003. Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme. (CAADP). 103pp. LWF/WS. 2002. Draft Report on the LWF/WS Aquaculture Rehabilitation and Development Project Phase II, in Bong and Nimba Counties. November 2002. 8pp. UNHIC. 2006. Population Projection of Liberia 1995 ­ 2006. Ousman K.L. Drammeh. 2005. Regional Fisheries Policy for ECOWAS. Ousman K.L. Drammeh. 2006. Assessment Report on Transboundary Habitat Modification Issues for the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Ousman K.L. Drammeh. 2004. Medium Term Plan for Fishing and Marine Resources Development in The Gambia, October 2004. Ousman K.L. Drammeh. 2004. Strategic Plan for the Management and Development of the Fisheries Sector of The Gambia, 1994-2004. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 189 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 1 INVESTMENT PROPOSAL CAAS-Lib. Fisheries Sub-sector Investment Proposal Name of Development of Artisanal Fisheries. Project Institutional Ministry of Agriculture and National Bureau of Fisheries. Responsibility Aim(s) of The aim of the project is to increase fish production levels in artisanal fisheries to contribute Project to national food security and poverty reduction. The objective of the period is to develop artisanal fisheries so as to enhance the sustainable utilization of the fisheries resources of the country for increased fish production and improved livelihoods in artisanal fishing communities. Description of The project will be implemented in the Counties of Maryland, Grand Kru, Sinoe, Rivercess, Main Grand Bassa and Cape Mount. Activities The goal of the artisanal fisheries development component is to restore artisanal fishing activity to a sustainable level by providing fishing inputs and training 3643 fishers, fishmongers and fish processors. The project will benefit some 21,858 direct beneficiaries, including returnees (ex-combatant youths and women, fishmongers and fish processors). The main activities to be undertaken under the project include the following: 1) Selection of beneficiaries Assessments will be carried out in the selected Counties for the identification and selection of beneficiary groups for the distribution of inputs, and communities for the construction of fish smoking units (kilns). 2) Training of fishers and fish processors Previous interventions have provided training for trainers in various artisanal fishing communities in gear repairs and maintenance, small-scale business management, fish processing and the role and importance of CBOs. Two (2) trainers will be identified in each community and given refresher TOT training. A total of 232 trainers will be trained to serve as trainers in the training of 3643 fishers, fishmongers and processors in their various communities. The training of fishers will be community-based, continuous, and spread over the duration of the project, with one consolidated training for trainers annually. Other community members will be identified and trained in boat construction, repairs and maintenance, and repair of outboard engines. Each community will have a team of trainers comprising of three (3) persons who will be empowered to facilitate community training to coincide with each level of project implementation. Fish processors and fishmongers will be trained in improved methods of fish processing and preservation and in small-scale business and marketing. A total of 2000 processors and fishmongers, comprising mainly widows, ex- combatants and returnees, will also benefit from the training. 3) Procurement and distribution of inputs The aim is to increase fish production through increased fishing effort by providing fishing inputs including nets of various mesh sizes, ropes, floats, outboard engines etc. to be distributed to about 200 fishing groups. 4) Promoting the use of larger fishing canoes by local fishers A consultant will be hired to conduct the training of trainers in boat building and maintenance. Four persons per County will be trained and upon completion of the training, the 24 trainers will be equipped to return to their communities where boat building workshops will be established for training and maintenance purposes. The workshops will be managed by local fisher associations under the supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture through the Bureau of National Fisheries. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 190 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 5) Construction of fish smoking units and storage facilities 116 smoke houses will be constructed in selected communities using skilled labour recruited from selected beneficiary communities. The design and dimensions of the smoke houses will be determined by community demands and requirements. 6) Provision of Micro-credit A revolving loan fund scheme will be set up through the Agricultural Development and Cooperative Bank to assist fisher folk increase their production and expand their businesses. The loan scheme will not exceed $1500/fishing group, and $200/processor, and will benefit 200 fishing groups and 2000 fish processors and fishmongers. The selection criteria will include: Group organization; Credible and transparent account/book keeping system and; Good and consistent production levels. 7) Provision of fish storage and preservation facilities Fishers will be encouraged to carry cool boxes with ice, fitted onto canoes, to help preserve their catch prior to landing. Mini cold storage facilities of 6 tons capacity will be provided in selected project communities. The cold storage facilities will be managed by a committee of fishers and processors association under the direct supervision of the Project Implementing Committee. Beneficiary communities will be selected based on level of production, community organization, a record and financial system that will ensure the maintenance of the cold store, and market access. 8 mini-cold storages will be established, with some 30,000 fishmongers and processors expected to benefit. 8) Monitoring and Evaluation The project implementation committee in collabouration with the Ministry of Agriculture and donor representatives will develop a detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Close monitoring of project activities will be continuous throughout the duration of the project. However, it is expected that there will be annual evaluation of project performance. Expected The expected outputs are as follows: 200 groups in 116 communities selected; 232 fishers Result(s) and processors trained as trainers; 3643 fishers and processors trained in respective disciplines; fishing inputs provided to 200 groups; 24 fishers trained in boat building and 6 workshops established; 8 mini- cold storage facilities established, and 116 fish smoking kilns constructed. Impact on Food The Project is directly linked to CAADP Pillar 5 (Increasing Food Supply and Reducing Security, Hunger with a complementary link to CAADP Pillars 3 and 4 (Land and Water Poverty Management; Development of Agricultural Research, Technological dissemination and Reduction & adoption and sustainable development of livestock, fisheries and forestry resources). Economic Development Period of The Project will be implemented from January 2008 to December 2010. Execution Estimated Cost US$ 2 045 155 IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 191 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Name of Small-Scale Aquaculture Development Project Institutional Ministry of Agriculture and National Bureau of Fisheries. Responsibility Aim(s) of The aim of the project is to increase fish production levels in small-scale aquaculture to Project contribute to national food security and poverty reduction. The objective of the period is to develop small-scale aquaculture so as to enhance the sustainable utilization of the water resources of the country for increased fish production and improved livelihoods in rural and peri-urban communities. Description of The project will be implemented in the Counties of Lofa, Grand Gedeh and River Gee. The Main project will bring into aquaculture production, 50 ha of swamps through the provision of Activities tools, materials, fingerlings and training. These include 10.3 ha of ponds to be rehabilitated and 39.7 ha of new ponds to be developed. Three (3) hatcheries and 1 research facility will be rehabilitated. The main activities are as follows: 1) Site survey and selection Surveys will be carried out in each County to verify swamp location and size, soil quality, water regimes, land tenure, vegetation, community enthusiasm and organization, before final selection for implementation. The surveys will assist in determining the magnitude of development work to be accomplished. The rehabilitation/development work is expected to involve land preparation, construction of dams and water control structures, and fishponds. 2) Training of aquaculture technicians Aquaculture technicians who have received training in basic aquaculture techniques will be identified in project communities and given refresher training. They will be responsible for the training of 20 farmers/site. Each of the 100 technicians, chosen from amongst farmers or community, will be assigned/site, and training will be scheduled to coincide with the level of pond development activities at each site. The training will focus on pond construction and management; water quality; stock management and post harvest management and marketing. 3) Pond rehabilitation and development Fishponds will be rehabilitated and developed using very simple technology. Gravity-fed irrigation system will be developed to sustain annual aquaculture production. Manual labour will be used as much as possible, utilizing mainly ex-combatant youths and women. The activity will require 3,500 man-day/ha of labour for land preparation and soil movements to construct 200m3 of bund/ha. Fishponds with average size of 400m2 will be developed under community initiative. Communities will be supplied pond construction tools and materials including: wheelbarrows, shovels, tools for site preparation and PVC material. Pond construction activities involve soil excavation, movement and compaction following specified designs and measurements. All bunds will have a minimum width of 3 meters with a minimum height of 1.3 meters. This will allow a minimum water depth of 1 meter in the pond for stocking. Ponds will have 1-2 percent bottom slope, and a bund slope of at least 1:1:1 ratio of slope: crest: slope. Ponds will be stocked at a density of 2 fish/m2 of pond water surface area. Fingerlings and fertilizers (576kg/ha/yr) will also be provided to farmers, on loan basis for the first year and the loan will be repaid before or at harvest time. Semi-intensive culture system will be encouraged initially until supplementary feed is available, for ease of management by farmers. 4) Farmer training Training will be site specific and carried out by trained field technicians under the supervision of extension officers. 20 farmers will be trained per site constituting 1000 farmers. Field training will be an on-going activity through out the duration of the project, with one intensive training a year to consolidate farmer's skills and knowledge in culture techniques. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 192 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 5) Intensify aquaculture research Research aimed at introducing indigenous fish species for culture will be prioritized. Developing local species of Tilapia and catfish for culture will be a major research focus. There is also need to develop/or adopt technologies that are cost effective and will ensure maximum benefits and profits. 6) Establishment of a feed mill Supplementary feeding is a major constraint to sustainable aquaculture development. A complete hammer mill with pellet mill will be established at CARI where feed for livestock, fish, poultry, etc will be produced for distribution nationwide. The mill will also be used by CARI for developing new feed formulae for enhancing livestock production. The facility will also provide a market outlet for maize producer, as it will constitute a major feed ingredient. The brewery waste and by-catch of the shrimp industry will also be utilized. The by-product of other agricultural sectors, i.e., oil cakes from palm kernel, coconut and groundnut, and rice brand will be utilized as feed ingredient. However, micronutrients and other ingredients, which cannot be sourced locally, will have to be imported. Technicians will have to be trained to operate and maintain the mill which will be self-sustaining as feed produced will be sold. 7) Provision of micro credit facility Micro-credit will be provided to farmers in cash or kind (fingerling, feed, fertilizer, etc) to improve their production capacities at 5 % interest rate. The loan scheme will be revolving, and 100 farmers' groups are expected to benefit. The criteria for selection for loan will include: adequate level of production, consistency in farming and record, and transparent and credible record system. Expected The Project is expected to benefit 1000 fish farmers in 100 communities; 24 aquaculture Result(s) extension officers and 100 field technicians trained; 50 ha (1200 ponds of 400m2) developed; 3000 assorted tools and materials provided to 100 groups; 0.5 million fingerlings stocked; 28.8 tons of fertilizer supplied to farmers; 1 complete fish meal established. There will be 6000 direct beneficiaries comprising mainly youths, women, ex- combatants and returnee farmers. Impact on The Project is directly linked to CAADP Pillar 5 (Increasing Food Supply and Reducing Food Hunger with a complementary link to CAADP Pillars 3 and 4 (Land and Water Security, Management; Development of Agricultural Research, Technological dissemination and Poverty adoption and sustainable development of livestock, fisheries and forestry resources). Reduction & Economic Development Period of The Project will be implemented from January 2008 to December 2010. Execution Estimated US$ 1 091 355. Cost IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 193 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Name of Enhancing National Capacity for Sustainable Fishery Sector Management. Project Institutional Ministry of Agriculture, BNF and CARI. Responsibility Purpose(s) of The main purpose of the project is to improve the institutional capacity of the Bureau of the National Fisheries (BNF) and the legal environments to enable it effectively monitor Project and manage the fisheries resources on a sustainable basis. The other purpose is to introduce and consolidate a co-management arrangement between the Government and the private sector in the artisanal fishery sub-sector. Description of The project has two components: Capacity Building and Institutional Strengthening Main Activities and, Project Management. The main activities of the of the two components are as follows: Capacity Building and Institutional Strengthening 1) Rehabilitation of the BNF Headquarters and Fisheries Research Facilities The office facility of the BNF will be rehabilitated and equipped; including a fisheries biology labouratory. The office will be used as a command centre of the project implementation committee, and for the monitoring, regulating and control of fishery activities. The office will also be the coordinating centre for fisheries research and extension, and for all fisheries related activities within the country. Three (3) fish hatcheries at Douyee town, Gbegbedu and Klay will be rehabilitated to ensure the adequate supply of fingerlings for the stocking of farmers' ponds. Production and office/training facilities will be rehabilitated using youths, including ex-combatants and women to provide the labour. Fish transport and office equipment will be supplied to the hatcheries. The hatcheries will be used as farmer training centres, and for research and extension. The fisheries research facility at CARI will be rehabilitated to initiate the development of indigenous species for culture. Required equipment and logistics, including office and labouratory equipment, data collection materials, vehicles and motorbikes to support research and extension will be acquired to enhance the BNF operation and performance. 2) Research and Training Personnel of the BNF will be selected for training in such areas as fish biology, fisheries statistics and management, fish health and quality, monitoring, fisheries economics etc. The training will improve staff performance, build staff confidence to carry out research, and make data collection and analysis more efficient and reliable. Six (6) staff of the BNF will be trained at M.Sc level in specialized courses in fisheries and aquaculture, and these will serve as trainers for fisheries and aquaculture extension officers through out the country. Research will be focus on cataloguing the major fish species in Liberian waters, particularly inland, and a study of their biology so as to enhance their ecological management. 3) Strengthening legal capacity A new fishery monitoring and regulatory law will be drafted and enacted into law to strengthen the management capability of the BNF. The law will be circulated among the various stakeholders of the fisheries sector to create adequate awareness for its enforcement. A fisheries management plan will also be developed in line the Government agricultural development policy. The fishing areas will be demarcated to reduce/eliminate conflicts between artisanal and industrial fishing vessels. The new law will reserve the three (3) nautical mile inshore zone for the sole exploitation of the artisanal fishery, and will be rigorously enforced so as to sustain artisanal fishing activities. 4) Set-up a Monitoring and Regulatory System (MRS) A Monitoring and Regulatory System will be set up, using local fishers to monitor and report industrial fishing vessels intruding in artisanal fishing areas. A team of fishers will be trained and equipped with hand compasses, GPS, and VHF radios. In addition, fisheries monitors (Observers) will be trained and assigned aboard all licensed industrial IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 194 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 fishing vessels to monitor their activities while at the same time conduct some basic biological sampling and take statistics of their catches. A patrol boat will be acquired (from bilateral cooperation with the Peoples Republic of China) and a core of national from the Navy will be trained to man the patrol boat. The patrol boat will be used for monitoring, control and surveillance activities within the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) to regulate industrial fishing activities prevent poaching and illegal transhipments in the high seas. A central communication unit will be established at the headquarters of the BNF to coordinate information from the field. Project Management 1) Project Implementation Unit The BNF was established as the technical arm of the Ministry of Agriculture responsible for management and development of fisheries and aquaculture in Liberia and it is supervised by a Deputy Minister. A Project Implementation Unit will be established under the Directorate of the BNF to oversee the implementation of all fisheries and aquaculture and will be assisted by a project coordinating committee. 2) Private Sector Management Artisanal fisheries and aquaculture projects will be run largely by fishers' and farmers' associations, in a co-management arrangement with the Government. Similarly, they will undertake monitoring, surveillance and protection of the demarcated fishing areas, manage cold storage and fish processing units, maintain boat building workshops, and fish hatcheries and feed mill. 3) Technical Assistance For the effective implementation of the outlined in the Investment Proposal (Artisanal Fisheries Development Project and Small-Scale Aquaculture Development Project), short-term technical assistance will be required for the following areas: · 1 Fisheries and Aquaculture Consultant · 1 Financial Comptroller · 1 Project Manager · 1 Surveyor (specialized in soil and fringe surveys) In addition, the following experts will be required: · 1 expert in feed technology for 3 months · 1 expert in boat building for 6 months · 1 mechanical engineer (outboard engine) for 1.5 months · 1 expert in community development for 3 months 4) Monitoring and Evaluation The project implementation committee in collabouration with the Ministry of Agriculture and donor representatives will develop a detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Close monitoring of activities of projects will be continuous through out the duration of the projects. However, it is expected that there will be annual evaluation of the performances of the projects. Expected · The BNF is strengthened. Results · BNF headquarters rehabilitated and equipped. · Fisheries labouratory established. · 3 Fish hatcheries rehabilitated. · New fisheries legislation enacted and enforced. · Monitoring and Regulatory System set up. · Patrol boat acquired. · Project Implementation Unit established under BNF. · Co-management arrangement between Government and private sector realized. · Technical assistance personnel attached to projects. · Monitoring and Evaluation Plan developed. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 195 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Impact on The project is linked to CAADP Pillars 3 and 4 (Land and Water Management; Food Security, Development of Agricultural Research, Technological dissemination and adoption and Poverty sustainable development of livestock, fisheries and forestry resources). Reduction & Economic Development Period of The Project will be implemented from January 2008 to December 2010. Execution Estimated Cost Capacity Building and Institutional Strengthening Component- US$ 2 183 500. (excluding the patrol boat valued at US$ 4 million). Project Management Component: US$ 1 029 140. Grand Total: US$ 3 212 460. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 196 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 2 PERSON MET Dr. J. Christopher TOE - Minister of Agriculture Mr. James B. LOGAN - Deputy Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Emmet MEZIA - Assistant Minister of Agriculture, Planning & Development Mr. Solomon Hedd. WILLIAMS - Assistant Minister, Technical Services. Mr. Joseph G. MUSAH - Coordinator of Planning & Policy, Ministry of Agriculture. Mr. J. Hilary MASON - Adviser, Minister of Agriculture Dr. Winfred N.O. HAMMOND- FAO Resident Representative, Liberia.. Dr. Dunstan S.C. SPENCER - Team Leader, CAAS-LIB. Dr. Othello Brandy- National Project Coordinator. Mr. T.E.C. PALMER - Senior Policy/Programme Officer, FAO Regional Office for Africa. Mr. Chet AESCHLIMAN - Rural Finance and Marketing Officer, FAO Regional Office for Africa. Mr. Zakary RHISSA - Livestock Specialist, FAO Regional Office for Africa. Mr. Sampson AGOZDA - International Consultant (Land and Water Resources). Dr. Peter SMITH - International Consultant (Institutions). Mr. Michael CONNOLLY - International Consultant (Land and Water Resources). Dr. Ponniah ANANDA - (International Consultant, Agricultural Research). Dr. Joseph Sam SESAY - Civil Affairs Officer, UNMIL. Mr. Isaac Flowers-Coordinator, National Bureau of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). Mr. Yevewuo SUBAH - Deputy Coordinator, National Bureau of Fisheries, (MOA). Mr. Momoh N. JOHNSON - Statistician, National Bureau of Fisheries, (MOA). Mr. Eric B.C./ KEKULA - Extension staff, National Bureau of Fisheries, (MOA). Mr. Denis J. HYNES - Country Representative, Africare, Liberia. Mr. Bai Rogers - Agric Coordinator, Africare, Liberia. Dr. Yves FERMON - Fish Biologist, ASUR (French NGO). Ms. Claire GSEGNER, Fish Farming Specialist, ASUR. Mr. Thomas GAYFLOWA - Coordinator, Catalyst Incorporated (local NGO). Mr. Michael SHI- General Manager, Ma-Sanja Fishing Company. Mr. Abdallah HAMDAN - General Manager, Sham Incorporated (Fishing CO.) Mr. Francis TAY - Head Fisherman, Popo Beach, Monrovia. Mr. Gabriel SAGBAH - President, United Fisherman Cooperative Society, Popo Beach No. 4, Monrovia. Mr. Joseph BLAMOH - Head Fisherman, Kru Beach, West Point. Mr. Yarkpazuo KORVAH - Farm Manager, Cuttington University. Mr. John MENNEU - Fish Pond Attendant, Memyen Village, Nimba County. Mr. Jackson WHALEAH - Spokesman, Kpodo Farmers Cooperative Society, Zayeglay Village, Nimba County. Mr. Wheye GONLE - Village Head, Gneukpanlah Village Development Committee, Nimba County. Mr. Zogbay WIMBEH - Fish Pond Attendant, Gneukpanlah Village, Nimba County. Mr. Oliver VANNE - Fish Pond Attendant, Gneukpanlah Village, Nimba County. Mr. Adnan Monsour - Manager, West African Enterprise, Tubmanburg Mr. Sando Kplor - Head fisherman, Jornii Town, Cape Mount Mr. Abdoulai Seidi - Migrant Fisherman, Robertsport IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 197 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Mr. Joseph Dortu - Head fisherman, Kru town, Robertsport Mr. Alex Appleton - President, Robertsport Fishing Development Union Ms. Cecelia Doryen - Head Processor, Robertsport Mr. Boimah Sombai - Fisherman, Farlie, Cape Mount, Mr. Miatta Sonii - Processor, Farlie, Cape Mount Mr. Armah Parker - Fisherman, Mandoe, Cape Mount Mr. J. Konah McCauley - Commissioner, Marshall City, Margibi County Ms. Cecelia Bestman- Kru - Governor, Marshall City Mr. Solomon Dadzie-Fanti - Governor, Marshall City Mr. Kweku Aku-Fanti - Head Fisherman, Marshall City Mr. Borbor Nappy- Kru Head Fisherman Ms. Cecelia Gweh - Head processor, Port Beach, Buchanan, Grand Bassa Mr. Dweh Pupo - Fisherman, Port Beach, Buchanan Mr. Mathew Puo - Fisherman, Kroc Beach, Buchanan Mr. Andrew Nketsiah - Fanti Governor, Bassa Mr. Kwamena Mensah - Fanti chief Fisherman, Bassa Mr.Comfort Nketsiah - Head Processor, Fanti Town, Buchanan Mr. Abbas Nasser - Manager, African Fisheries, Buchanan Ms. Julliet Cassel - Superintendent, Grand Bassa Mr. C. Tero Coker - County Coordinator, Kpan-Kpan Gbo, Inc. Mr. Varney Corneh - Program Coordinator, Concern World Wide Mr. Emmanuel Yarkpazua - Agriculture Coordinator, Lutheran World Service Mr. Augustus Varney - Agriculture Coordinator, Samaritan Purse Mr. Solomon Tucker - Fisheries Inspector, Grand Bassa Mr. James Zayzay-Co - Chairman, National Investment commission Mr. Getee Sulunteh - Agriculture Coordinator, Bong County Mr. J. Boimah Konto - Fish farmer, Bong County Mr. Joseph Pope - Fish Farmer, Bong County Mr. Belle Dumbar - Fish Farmer, Montserrado County Mr. David Wiles - Director, GCLME Project, EPA Ms. Yvonne Clinton - Deputy Director, Operations, Bureau of Maritimes Mr. David Mendeh - Director, BUCCUBAH, Buchanan, Bassa. Mr. Macon Tubman - Agriculture Assistant, LCIP IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 198 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 3 ORGANIGRAM THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 199 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 4 FISHERIES SECTOR REVIEW ­ ARTISANAL FISHERIES Artisanal Fisheries A County No. of fishing No. of Processor/monger No. of Migrant Total communitites fishers Liberian Bassa 18 2,748.00 6,037.00 1,785.00 7,000.00 8,785.00 Rivercess 12 817.00 753.00 1,255.00 315.00 1,570.00 Sinoe 30 1,452.00 938.00 2,040.00 350.00 2,390.00 Maryland 8 508.00 646.00 654.00 500.00 1,154.00 Montserrado 13 4,230.00 6,574.00 7,804.00 3,000.00 10,804.00 Grand Kru 35 964.00 1,119.00 1,883.00 200.00 2,083.00 Bomi 4 298.00 261.00 331.00 228.00 559.00 Cape Mount 14 1,799.00 842.00 1,950.00 691.00 2,641.00 Margibi 5 398.00 1,200.00 1,050.00 548.00 1,598.00 Bong 3 167.00 124.00 285.00 6.00 291.00 Lofa 4 36.00 36.00 72.00 - 72.00 Nimba 6 230.00 326.00 556.00 - 556.00 Grand Gedeh 2 62.00 216.00 278.00 - 278.00 Gbarpolu 2 72.00 158.00 230.00 - 230.00 River Gee 2 47.00 63.00 110.00 - 110.00 Total 158 13,828.00 19,293.00 20,283.00 2,838.00 33,121.00 Source: Bureau of National Fisheries (BNF) 2006. Artisanal Fisheries B County % % No. of No. of % Large Fleet Small No. Freezing Catch Liberian Migrant Canoe canoe Motorization (12-18 structure (1-2 of capacity (ton) with man) medium man) cold (ton) 2004-05 Motor (3-5 stores man) Bassa 20.32 79.68 581.00 90.00 15.49 40.00 50.00 2.00 2.00 48.00 2,304.00 Rivercess 79.94 20.06 500.00 30.00 6.00 6.00 12.00 - - - 345.60 Sinoe 85.36 14.64 211.00 20.00 9.48 10.00 25.00 - - - 526.70 Maryland 56.67 43.33 204.00 13.00 6.37 8.00 51.00 - - - 439.95 Montserrado 72.23 27.77 638.00 43.00 6.74 21.00 135.00 32.00 32.00 26,000.00 1,127.00 Grand Kru 90.40 9.60 515.00 7.00 1.36 5.00 8.00 - - - 312.40 Bomi 59.21 40.79 163.00 28.00 17.18 12.00 16.00 2.00 2.00 48.00 739.30 Cape Mount 73.84 26.16 483.00 21.00 4.35 21.00 33.00 - - - 1,095.20 Margibi 65.71 34.29 178.00 22.00 12.36 14.00 15.00 6.00 6.00 150.00 869.73 Bong 97.94 2.06 - - - - - 4.00 4.00 96.00 2.10 Lofa 100.00 - - - - - - 2.00 2.00 48.00 1.80 Nimba 100.00 - - - - - - 5.00 5.00 20.00 3.70 Grand 100.00 - - - - - - 1.00 1.00 24.00 2.00 Gedeh Gbarpolu 100.00 - - - - - - - - - 2.80 River Gee 100.00 - - - - - - - - - 1.20 Total 80.11 19.89 3,473.00 274.00 7.89 137.00 345.00 54.00 54.00 26,534.00 7,773.48 Source: Bureau of National Fisheries (BNF) 2006. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 200 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 5 LIST OF LICENSED INDUSTRIAL FISHING VESSELS (Source: Bureau of National Fisheries 2006) Boat name Boat # GRT Cold Store Catch(ton) Catch(ton) No of employee # of # of Type of capacity (ton) 2004 2005 Liberian migrants Fishing Greecoland 159 300 10 10 0 Trawl fishing Soroya 1 180 1000 13 10 3 Trawl fishing Soroya 2 180 0 20 20 12 Trawl fishing Jeogin 15 97.35 2000 325 25 300 Paired Trawling Jeogin 16 97.35 350 14 8 6 Paired Trawling Heibei* 803 125 350 140 70 70 Shrimping Yuanyu* 10 150 0 32 18 16 Shrimping Honglin 23 166 105 8 8 0 Paired Trawling Honglin 24 166 0 0 0 0 Paired Trawling Haida 5 116 0 0 0 0 Paired Trawling Haida 6 116 0 0 0 0 Paired Trawling Haida 7 120 4000 36 30 6 Paired Trawling Haida 8 120 1500 24 20 4 Paired Trawling Haida 9 120 1000 38 32 6 Paired Trawling Haida 10 120 2000 22 16 6 Paired Trawling Tania 221 500 11 8 3 Fish trawling Seta 70 214 0 0 0 0 Fish trawling Tae Woong 607 201.5 0 0 0 0 Fish trawling IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 201 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 Boat name Boat # GRT Cold Store Catch(ton) Catch(ton) No of employee # of # of Type of capacity (ton) 2004 2005 Liberian migrants Fishing Cidadea de 124.16 0 0 0 0 Fish trawling olhao Medna 235 0 0 0 0 Fish trawling Ocean 225 0 0 0 0 Fish trawling Twin Port City 101 91 0 0 0 0 Paired Trawling Twin Port City 102 91 0 0 0 0 Paired Trawling Twin Port City 103 91 0 0 0 0 Paired Trawling Twin Port City 104 91 0 0 0 0 Paired Trawling Global 7 97.35 0 0 0 0 Fish Trawling Beverina 112 0 0 0 0 Fish Trawling Guoji 801 148 0 0 0 0 Paired Trawling Guoji 802 148 0 0 0 0 Paired Trawling Total 29 4122.71 13105 1502.74 2806.811 693 275 432 Source: (Bureau of National Fisheries 9BNF) 2006. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 202 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 ANNEX 6 FISH FARMERS County District # of # of fish farmers # of Area(Ha) Production Community Ponds male female (ton)/2004 Bong Suakoko 27.00 320.00 80.00 65.00 5.61 Zota 6.00 184.00 46.00 10.00 0.40 Panta 7.00 172.00 43.00 15.00 0.60 Kpaii 2.00 43.00 11.00 8.00 0.32 Jorquelleh 8.00 81.00 20.00 17.00 0.68 Kokoya 4.00 78.00 19.00 5.00 0.09 Sub-Total 6 54.00 878.00 219.00 120.00 7.70 - Nimba Saniquellie 6.00 234.00 58.00 25.00 0.83 Mahn Saclepea Mahn 9.00 330.00 72.00 29.00 1.02 Gbelegeh 7.00 206.00 51.00 17.00 0.60 Zoegeh 13.00 271.00 68.00 36.00 1.44 Tapita 10.00 186.00 46.00 35.00 1.75 Sub-Total 5 45.00 1,227.00 295.00 142.00 5.64 - Lofa Zorzor 3.00 58.00 14.00 12.00 0.36 Salayea 5.00 98.00 24.00 15.00 0.75 Voinjama 17.00 170.00 42.00 67.00 1.00 Kolahun 7.00 68.00 17.00 30.00 0.35 Foya 2.00 2.00 - 5.00 0.01 Sub-Total 5 34.00 396.00 97.00 129.00 2.47 Bomi Klay 6.00 157.00 39.00 20.00 0.68 Margibi Todee 2.00 40.00 10.00 7.00 0.24 Kakata 1.00 20.00 5.00 6.00 0.20 Careysburg 2.00 3.00 1.00 18.00 0.38 Johnsonville 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sub-Total 5 12.00 225.00 56.00 52.00 1.50 Grand Tchien 8.00 135.00 33.00 30.00 1.38 Gedeh Maryland Keleway 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Harper 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Keluway 4.00 8.00 2.00 4.00 0.16 Sub-Total 4 14.00 151.00 37.00 6.00 0.16 Grand Total 25 159.00 2,877.00 704.00 449.00 17.47 38.81 Source: Bureau of National Fisheries 2006. IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 203 CAAS-Lib Sub-Sector Reports Volume 2.1 IV. The Fisheries Sub-Sector 204