a preliminary study of lowland farming in 15 settlements

Nimba Western Area Iron Ore DepositsA Preliminary Study of
Northern Nimba
Adam Manvell
th Street
www.arcelormittal.com
Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 A Preliminary Study of Lowland Farming in 15 Settlements in Northern Nimba
Page 2 of 45
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 5
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURVEYED LOWLAND FARMS .................................................. 7 2.1 Hydrological Characteristics .................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Soil Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Swamp Farm Sizes ............................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Tenure Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 12 2.5 Location Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 13
3. SWAMP FARMING ....................................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Swamp Farming Phases ....................................................................................................... 16 3.1.1 Vegetation clearance ............................................................................................................ 16 3.1.2 Rice Planting ......................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.3 Weeding Swamp Rice ........................................................................................................... 21 3.1.4 Swamp Rice Pests and Diseases ......................................................................................... 22 3.1.5 Swamp Rice Harvests ........................................................................................................... 25 3.1.6 Other crops grown in swamps ............................................................................................... 25
4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SWAMP FARMING IN NORTHERN NIMBA ...................................... 27 4.1 Historical Overview of Swamp Farming Development in Northern Nimba ........................... 27 4.2 Swamp Farming Changes in the Study Area ........................................................................ 29 4.3 Evidence of Individual Swamp Development ........................................................................ 32
5. CONCLUSIONS: OPPORTUNITIES TO ENCOURAGE SWAMP FARMING.............................. 33
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX B: LOCAL SOIL TERMS .................................................................................................... 40
APPENDIX C: LIST OF AGRO-CHEMICALS ENCOUNTERED .......................................................... 41
APPENDIX D: NAMES OF RICE VARIETIES GROWN IN SWAMPS IN 2013 .................................... 42 Variety Details (Etymologies, durations and other notes) ................................................................. 44
List of Abbreviations AML
Integrated Rural Development Project
Liberian Dollar
Non-Governmental Organisation
Page 3 of 45
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This preliminary study reports on findings from a non-random survey of 71 farmers in 15 towns in northern Nimba who had made swamp rice farms in 2013. Swamp rice is grown in two types of lowlands, true swamps that are permanently or almost permanently wet, and drier, seasonally inundated areas, typically alluvial terraces. Many swamps contain elements of both hydrologies. A key agronomic difference between the two swamp types is that only the drier ones can be exploited in the dry season for gardening, often for peanuts, chilli pepper, corn and bitterballs. A more refined hydrological characterisation of swamps would be useful, not only to improve understanding of different soil-water regimes, but also in terms of gaining a watershed perspective to understand how swamps are impacted by land use changes in their catchments. The surveyed swamps ranged in size from 0.06 to 1.3 ha (average 0.3 ha) and the majority were on family land. Nine farmers had however arranged to make their farm on somebody else's land, but not necessarily through landlessness. Most of these arrangements were free or on soft terms in relation to the harvest. Swamplessness among the local population (as opposed to strangers) probably only exists at low levels, with the exception of Camp 4. Though it is expected to increase in the future, the more immediate concern is the likelihood of tenure conflicts as more and more swamps are brought into production. Informants indicated that there has been a marked trend towards increasing farming in swamps since the end of the war. Several factors are driving this, notably exposure to swamp farming in exile in Guinea or Ivory Coast during the conflict, and issues around finding labour to prepare upland farms each year. Swamp rice farming is generally acknowledged to be easier and more productive than upland rice farming. Swamps can be farmed continuously for a variable number of years before being rested in fallow. There was however a great deal of diversity in the fallow histories of the surveyed swamps and how this relates to their soil fertility remains to be deciphered. Many households farm swamps in conjunction with another type of farming, typically upland rice, and this can have implications for the allocation of labour to swamp farms. While women are clearly heavily involved in swamp farming, a sharper lens than gender alone is needed to understand who does this as their sole agriculturally activity. Well-being, age and marital status are thought to be important and capital in both financial and social terms is often vital in shaping farming options. Swamps are typically burnt the first year they are brought back into production but many are not in subsequent years of farming. The need to clear swamp vegetation annually is often a major expense and the options until recently have been limited to the use of household, reciprocal or paid manual labour. In the last few years non-selective herbicides, which are not necessarily suitable for clearing all swamps, have started to be used. The chemicals used generally come from Guinea and this method is seen as attractive because it is cheaper and less time consuming than manual labour. To a lesser extent, selective herbicides are also starting to be used instead of weeding, but needs vary depending on different weed ecologies and rice planting dates among other factors. Detailed research on swamp farm weeds and their management could improve farmers options. Swamp rice farmers were typically using only one or two rice varieties in 2013. Though three varieties among the 35 different named ones were widely reported in the sample, the range of choice individuals have to try new varieties, or re-acquire ones previously used, appears to be limited. Access to varietal characteristics farmers might want, such as time to harvest, soil and hydrological suitability, bird damage protection and taste, could be improved. In recent years there have been several outbreaks in the area of what is probably rice yellow mottle virus (RYMV) and at least one of the popular varieties is reported to susceptible to this. Improving access to a wider range of varieties could help reduce losses to this disease. Other important factors reducing rice yields come from four pests in particular, groundhogs, birds, mole- crickets and rats. Specific research on these is required, especially as some of these species are likely to proliferate as the lowlands are increasingly farmed. The study ends by examining how swamp farming has previously been promoted in Nimba County. Much effort has been focussed on group-farming and/or high input, water-control models with limited success. As swamp farming becomes increasingly popular, farmers are investing in their swamps and though the classic signs of investment such as bunds and channels are few and far between their smaller, less visible, incremental investments in for example managing their swamp vegetation remain to be fully appreciated. Pre-war, large scale development initiatives were on the whole blueprint orientated and generally failed to take into consideration the opportunities and constraints farmers faced in their own ways of swamp farming, preferring instead to promote their agronomically justified swamp farming models. The key recommendation of this study is that swamp farming can best be encouraged through working with the grain of what farmers are actually doing in their swamps through a tailored approach.
Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia
Page 4 of 45
Figure 1: Overview Map of the Surveyed Farms and Study Area. Surveyed swamps are mapped in blue.
Page 5 of 45
1. INTRODUCTION Lowland farming has a long tradition in Liberia though the historical record detailing this activity is scant, particular in inland counties such as Nimba. In the mid-twentieth century an agronomic vision of lowland rice production began to be promoted by the government and foreign donors. The suitability and uptake of these so-called improved lowland farming methods and the development approaches taken in Liberia were questioned pre-war (e.g. Kellemu, 1971, Westphal et al. 1987, Whalen, 1983). In the post-conflict development rush however these critiques appear to have been widely over-looked and many of the 'swamp
1 ' development projects that have been implemented across the country have
ceased upon project closure. As part of ArcelorMittal Liberia’s (ArcelorMittal’s) long-term Biodiversity Conservation Program (BCP), supporting the development of lowland farming opportunities is under consideration as one means of reducing the encroachment of shifting upland farming into four forested areas in northern Nimba. In order to ensure both the suitability and sustainability of possible interventions in this domain, this initial study was commissioned to look at current lowland farming practises in 15 settlements in and around the four forest areas—see Figure 1.
1.1 Methods Given the exploratory nature of the study and large number of settlements to cover in the time available (fieldwork was conducted from the 7th April to 14th May, 2014), it was not considered feasible to try and representatively sample the lowland farms in the area. Instead, emphasis was placed on trying to understand both the biophysical diversity of lowland farms and the social diversity of the contexts within which they are farmed. This information should help guide the selection of meaningful stratification variables if a representative population wide survey is required in the future. In the larger settlements, I attempted to visit with their farmers six lowland farms that had been used to grow rice in the previous season (2013) and three or more in smaller settlements. Having already conducted research in the majority of the 15 settlements, in several towns I2 was able to engage someone from the community who I had successfully worked with previously as a research assistant. Otherwise I worked with people who had been recommended to me or presented themselves as interested in the research topic. All the assistants who helped me bar one were male. Assistants helped in the identification of suitable swamp farms, coordinated visits to them and translated at the follow-up interviews. I tried to insist on visiting different types of swamp farms (watery and dry, continuously used and newly opened, close and distant) and in different compass directions around the settlement, but this was not always possible. Table 1 illustrates the distribution and type of the final sample of 71 surveyed swamps, the location of which can, with difficulty given the size of the study area, be made out in Figure 1.
During swamp visits an indication of the area sown with rice in 2013 was obtained through walking around the perimeter with a Garmin 60Cx GPS unit. The surface area figures were then derived from the track files once cleaned of any irregularities such as switching back to cross a stream. It is important to bear in mind that regardless of the precision of the GPS unit, the final surface area figures used in this report are more often likely to overestimate the sown rice area because lowland farms are typically comprised of spots that cannot be or are not sown, such as along flowing watercourses and around both fallen and standing trees.
1 The term swamp farming is typically used in Liberia English to describe all areas of lowland rice production but
this masks differences made in local languages and may confuse the reader familiar with the greater precision of the term swamp as used elsewhere. Unless otherwise stated, swamp will be used in its Liberian English sense, which is interchangeable with lowland. 2 In four towns I continued using an assistant from another town since they had good social connections in these
places. In Camp 4, I conducted the interviews on my own and in Leagbala, the interviews were carried out by Linda Dolo from the AML Environment team and an assistant already familiar with the research having worked with me in three other towns.
Page 6 of 45
Table 1: The Surveyed Swamp Farms
NB: The sample includes five farms made up of more than one contiguous swamp. In these instances the swamp category is assigned across them all. In one case, only one of two of the farmer's swamp was surveyed and the type is assigned to this one, even though the unvisited one was said to be different.
Settlement
Bonlah 2 1 3 6
Gbapa 3 - 2 5
Leagbala 1 - 1 2
Makinto 2 - 1 3
Vanyanpa 2 - 1 3
Geipa 3 - 3 6
Sehtontuo 1 - 2 3
Zortapa 2 - 4 6
TOTALS 30 8 33 71
Soil samples were collected on the basis of the farmer's classification of the different soil types she or he identified within the farm. For each soil category, three handful size samples from approximately the top 5 cm of the soil were taken from different spots across the farm and placed within the same sample bag. These were then delivered to the AML Geochemistry Laboratory in Yekepa where they were kiln dried and 12 variables measured from a small sub-sample of each. These results are not reported here as it is hoped more plant-orientated analyses will be conducted with the remnant samples in the near future. Approximately half-way through the fieldwork a very basic soil probe was made available in order to obtain soil pH readings and these were taken at each of the different soil sampling spots. After the swamp visit and more often than not within the vicinity of the farm itself, an interview was conducted with one of its farmer's. Swamp farms are rarely if ever farmed by one person alone, and particular swamp farming activities are often, but not always, determined by gender. Thus, who the respondent is can have a bearing on the depth of their knowledge concerning the different activities. Just under a third of principle respondents were female (n = 23) but in several instances both the husband and wife were present during the interview and both participated. The interviews were based around a structured list of questions (see Appendix A) to ensure that the same basic information was obtained from each informant. The final version of this was developed through testing in the early swamp visits and consequently these did not always generate the same range of information as the later ones as return visits to fill any gaps were not always possible. Depending on the rapport struck up with the interviewee, some answers were probed and additional questions asked. One disadvantage however of regularly changing research assistants between settlements is variance in how they understood and translated some of the questions.
Page 7 of 45
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURVEYED LOWLAND FARMS The 71 surveyed swamp farms differed in numerous ways and in this section five major characteristics of them that have an important bearing on how they are, or could be exploited, will be examined.
2.1 Hydrological Characteristics In Liberian English, an area suitable for 'swamp' farming can range from a permanently waterlogged lowland to a well-drained but seasonally inundated alluvial terrace. Greater distinction is made in the three languages
3 spoken in the study area to reflect the different agronomic potentials of the
continuum between these two hydrological regimes as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Main Local Swamp Terminology in the Study Area
NB: These languages can all show dialectic differences at sometimes quite small geographical scales. No attempt has been made to unravel how the terms are said in different speech communities, but the reader should be aware of differences.
Language Watery Swamps Drier, Seasonally
Inundated Swamps
Dan (Gio) gbo-eza deina
Kpelle para gbo
Table 1 shows the breakdown of the 71 surveyed lowland farms into three categories in order to include those containing areas with both characteristics, however small. Though more refined than the generic terms lowlands/swamps, these distinctions still fail to fully capture the hydrological differences observed or reported between the surveyed swamps. Whilst it is difficult to effectively capture images of these in the dry season, the collage in Figure 2 attempts to show some of the topographic and vegetation differences that can contribute to hydrological differences. A watershed perspective would be more useful as for example, watery swamp terms were used to describe some farms in the Dayea river floodplain, which regularly over-spills in the rainy seasoning bringing in mud and fish, and higher catchment level swamp farms which do not experience such events. Likewise, drier swamp terms were used to describe both farms or parts of farms along the floodplains of the St. John and Yah rivers as well as possibly relict sand bars along higher catchment streams. Going forward it will be important to find a means of classifying swamps in terms of their water regimes.
3 Maawe, the language of the Mah people (Mano), is the most widely spoken and predominates in Yarmein and
Sey Clans. The Dan language is closely related to Maawe and though Zor Clan is nominally Dan, the five towns from here in the sample are either all Maawe speaking or mixed. The third language, Kpelle, is spoken by a section of the Camp 4 population.
Page 8 of 45
Figure 2: Examples of Differences between Swamp Farms
Top Left to Bottom Right: i) A watery swamp at Gonokollie, Camp 4 (9th April) ii) a mainly watery swamp at Gbapa (21st April) iii) a mainly drier swamp at Vanyanpa (24th April) iv) a drier, previously improved swamp at Bonlah (29th April) v) a watery swamp at Dulay (1st May) vi) a mainly watery swamp at Geipa, but note the raised drier section (6th May).
ii i
iii iv
v vi
Page 9 of 45
Any attempt to refine the hydrological classification of swamps in northern Nimba will need to take into account their dynamic nature. Changes in the vegetation cover in a swamp's catchment can have significant effects. For example, the soils in one swamp visited in Makinto were said to have changed from black to red after an up-catchment landslide in 2005 brought down material. In a similar vein in the same community, another swamp's soils were said to have changed more recently because of AML's activities on Tokadeh starting around 2011. The legacy of LAMCO era mining impacts is still evident in parts of the local landscape, perhaps most notably along the Yeaty Creek southwest of Dulay where mining on the Nimba ridge lead to washed down material disrupting the drainage pattern and creating a series of lakes which over-spill and influence the hydrology of swamp farms in the area. The altered flooding patterns along the Dayea river and its heavy sediment loads are another example. At a smaller scale, increased swamp development along upper catchment valleys could alter water regimes downstream.
Figure 3: Monthly Rainfall Totals for Yekepa, 2011-13
Source: AML Environment Department
The other main driver of dynamism effecting swamp farm hydrologies is climatic variability. Figure 3 illustrates the extent of inter-annual rainfall variability at Yekepa in recent years. To what extent this variability is normal and holds across northern Nimba, especially on the eastern side of the Nimba ridge is not known. Whatever the case, farmers are obliged to deal with the hydrological surprises the weather brings to their swamps, such as an unseasonal flood in January 2014 which wiped out a peanut crop on a dín-dìn là swamp in Zortapa. Though future climate predictions for the Nimba mountain area remain uncertain (Met Office, 2012), it is important that any landscape level planning of swamp farm development in the area factors in local recollections of hydrological vagaries at the individual watershed level.
Page 10 of 45
2.2 Soil Characteristics There is still much to be learnt from how farmers in northern Nimba classify and assess their swamp soils and though this study has only scraped the surface of this important topic, its initial findings should prove to be informative. Farmers named their swamp soils by generally drawing on two variables, their colour and texture, which has been a common finding in ethno-pedology studies around the world (Barrera-Bassols & Zinck, 2003). Looking at the breakdown of soil terms encountered (see Appendix B), the most notable feature is the predominance of the name category blah-tee. This category suggests that integral to Maawe soil terminology is a third but inseparable cognitive variable, their location in the landscape, which can be illustrated with data from my earlier Agriculture and Tenure study in the same area (Atkins, 2008) which focussed mainly on upland farms:
Soil Colour Upland Soils Swamp Soils Black sl-tee blah-tee Red sl-zolo blah-zolo Though widely given in my earlier study, the pedological term sl appeared in the categorisation of swamp soils only to name sandy soils (ny-sl-sl). Blah is the core term to describe one of the major swamp types (blah-yií-zéi: Lit: 'swamp-water-place') and it would seem—but verification is required—that blah type soils are found only in lowlands. The significance of this is that if as it appears, farmers only discriminate by name two types of blah, black and red, to gain a deeper understanding of their soil assessment, it is necessary to more specifically ask how their particular blah soil properties vary under different conditions e.g. burning, drought, after various fallow durations etc. One farmer clearly stated that he did not consider his soil to be blah-tee at the time of our meeting because he had not yet brushed his swamp and let the vegetation rot. In what was probably a similar vein, another farmer named his blah-yií-zéi soils as blah-tee and his dín-dìn ones as blah-zolo despite the lack of any colour differences between the samples taken. Without a more refined and dynamic understanding of how swamp soil properties are perceived, there is probably little benefit to be gained from comparing the names provided with the chemical properties so far revealed in the soil samples. Analysis of texture and particle size may be more revealing. Swamp farmers in northern Nimba currently have limited options to improve the fertility of their soils beyond two short term methods, burning or letting the brushed vegetation decompose and one longer term option, fallowing. A particular swamp's prior history of these measures is likely to have a bearing on its soil properties. Whether scientific soil analysis will be able to make a distinction between inherent soil fertility properties and those influenced by these management practises remains to be seen. As regards fallowing, how farmers decide when, from a soil-yield only perspective,
4 their farms
need to be rested will be an important research issue to address in the future. When asked about their future farming plans for their swamps, some farmers appeared to hold faith in a formulaic approach such as farm for two years, rest for two years, whereas others were inclined to make their decisions on the back of yield observations. With time farmers build up specific knowledge about the qualities of the soils in their swamps which informs them in their fallowing decisions. However, it is important to point out that since for various reasons to be discussed, swamp farming is both on the increase and changing, the amount of time-based swamp soil knowledge may be quite constrained within the population. By way of illustrating the diversity of fallow histories within the surveyed swamps, which it should be recalled is not a representative sample, Figure 1 illustrates the unbroken length of their previous status (farmed or fallowed) prior to being farmed in 2013. Though Figure 4 provides some idea of the length of fallows or years of continuous farming in the landscape, it can also be deceptive since one year of farming or fallowing may have been preceded by a very different duration of events.
4 Decisions to farm or fallow swamps are of course also contingent on other factors such as labour availability,
financial constraints, other opportunities and crop pest experiences. In other words, to paraphrase Endre Nyerges (1997), there is a social life of fallows to also consider.
Page 11 of 45
Figure 4: Pre 2013 Farming Histories of the Surveyed Swamps
N = 71, of which 38 farms were previously fallowed and 33 previously farmed
Ahead of a professional review of the soil-plant properties of the swamp soil samples, it is worth noting that the pH readings taken in 41 swamp farms indicate a range of only 6-7, i.e. mildly acidic to neutral, which suggests that one the most severe lowland rice yield-limiting stresses in West Africa, iron toxicity (Audebert et al. 2006) may not be a problem in the area. This however requires further investigation as it has been reported as a frequent problem elsewhere in Nimba county (Westphal et al. 1987: 33) as well as just over the borders (see Fig 1 in Chérif et al. 2006: 147).
2.3 Swamp Farm Sizes Table 3 provides information on the size of the swamp farms surveyed. The data includes fives instances where the farmed swampland is made up of two or more discontinuous areas and in this case, their respective areas have been summed. In all these instances the constituent areas shared the same water course and the maximum distances between them was only 80 metres. The data however excludes one farm in Dulay where only one of the two more separated swamps farmed by the informant could be visited. It also excludes the two farms surveyed at Leagbala where a different measuring approach to the one instructed was followed and the size calculated for one of them (2.47 ha) is suspiciously large, especially given the quantity of seed rice said to have been sown. Carter & Mends-Cole (1982: 90) cite a study, as yet unseen, by Jenne (1982), which claims that "most of the swamps in Liberia are long, narrow, and relatively small (1 to 4 acres) and are not suited to economical and efficient use of even small scale mechanization". Whilst it should be recalled that the measurements given here are of the area sown to rice and are therefore more a measure of labour force capacity and seed availability than the swamp's possible physical size, the surveyed swamps are smaller than Jenne's (0.4 to 1.6 ha), but most are indeed narrow and linear. The three largest swamps, all over 1 ha, at Geipa, Dulay and Lugbayee, have been expanded incrementally over the years and probably still have further room to do so. Many other swamp farmers probably have room for expansion up or down their watercourses and though much depend on their incentives to do so, a critical limitation will be their tenure limits.
Page 12 of 45
Measure
Number 28 8 32 68
Largest 1.28 0.97 1.32 1.32
Smallest 0.09 0.17 0.06 0.06
Median 0.35 0.53 0.38 0.36
2.4 Tenure Characteristics5 Replies to the question whose land is this swamp on, depended in part on the gender and age of the respondent, since land is generally, but not always, acquired through patrilineal inheritance. Thus a young male household head with a father still alive is likely to reply his father's land even though he is likely, probably more so than any of his sisters, to inherit at least part of his father's estate upon which he farms. A more generic answer is family land in which case, whether or not the husband or wife replies, it can generally be assumed that the family in question is the husbands. In a couple of instances women replied that they had inherited the swamp from their late husband, but whether this meant they were holding it in trust for their children or actually had full disposable rights over it was not asked. An interesting difference with my 2008 study around Mount Tokadeh is that nobody replied that the swamp was on 'quarter' (lineage) land. Though this might be a reflection on translation differences, with family and lineage conflated, it could also be that because swamps are now becoming more frequently cultivated year after year (see later), individual households may identify more strongly with particular swamps than they do with the lineage uplands over which they have membership rights to make farms. This however requires more detailed examination, but is an important dynamic to consider as ultimately the total land area in local landscapes available for swamp farming is constrained, competition and/or control over access can be expected to rise, especially if it becomes an increasingly attractive activity. Of the 71 surveyed swamp farms, nine were on land that the farmer did not have traditional access rights to, i.e. on non direct family land. Negotiating land access outside of the family's estate is in no way unusual as found in my earlier upland farming study (Atkins, 2008) and what motivates people to do so varies. In some instances it is simply down to lack of options and this is perhaps especially true for the particular land constraints of Camp 4 residents (two of the nine) but also applies to strangers who wish to farm (two cases, one at Gbapa and another at Lugbayee where somewhat unusually, a women's stranger husband had come to live in her town). With the information currently available, it is impossible to assess levels of 'swamplessness' in northern Nimba, but it reportedly exist at low levels and is to be expected as the population increases and landholdings become more fragmented. Certainly some informants when asked about their experience of farming other types of swamp (mainly drier swamps), reported that they did not have these on their land, or did not have any other swamps apart from the one we had visited. In some cases borrowing swamps may be down to some unfavourable characteristic of the individual's own swamp holdings, such as their distance, or need to fallow them. One swamp farmer at Lugbayee was farming on someone's else land because his own fertile swamp has leeches which makes it unpleasant to farm and get labourers. Of the nine cases of farming in someone else's swamp, five were said to involve free loans from people they were related to, and three involved an agreement to give some part of the rice production to the owner, but with caveats such as if the production was good or only if the whole swamp was exploited. These later arrangements were all with non-family individuals. The final arrangement is
5 For a general overview of customary and statutory tenure in the area, which will not be repeated here, the
reader is encouraged to read my 2008 study around Mount Tokadeh (Atkins, 2008).
Page 13 of 45
interesting despite its uniqueness, because it is said to be quite a common situation over the area's borders, perhaps more so in the more heavily population districts of Guinée forestière (where noted by Bidou & Toure, 2002) since it may presage changes in the future. Furthermore it is something that has been experienced by, or is certainly known to many north Nimba households from their own over the border experiences as refugees. It involved a stranger paying US $50 to a swamp owner at Gbapa before starting farm work. As things currently stand we have a very limited understanding of the spatial configuration of individual land holdings in northern Nimba
6 . It can however be safely assumed that the double hand of
settlement and family history has dealt some households larger landholdings, richer in lowlands than others. To what extent landholdings are in contiguous blocks or dispersed is unknown, though this study suggests some evidence of the latter—see following section. The pattern of distinct lineage land blocks as illustrated by the Kpelle village of Nienh in Guinea, 42 km north-west of the Bololewee Liberian border (Delarue, 2007: 119), may not be the case in all northern Nimba settlements. This is probably especially true in the cases of settlements that have historically re-located, voluntarily or otherwise, such as Gbapa, New Yekepa and Dulay. The significance of this lacuna is that the promotion of lowland farming, could, unless handled sensitively, stir up land conflicts as the significance of hitherto vague boundaries between and within lineages (quarters) becomes increasingly important as the value of bottomland farming locations increases. Sentient in this regard is the observation by Delarue (2006: 145) from Guinée forestière that an important reason for participation in lowland development schemes was to affirm tenure rights. Given that watercourses are known to be the most frequently used type of boundaries in Liberia (see Wily, 2007: 166), there is a very real potential for conflicts to emerge
7 through encouraging the development of these areas.
2.5 Location Characteristics Whilst the location of an individual's swamp farming options in relation to their home is very much tied up with the particularities of their landholding histories—or ability to negotiate access to somebody else's land—the implications of location are worth considering in terms of development opportunities. As geographers, among others have long noted, distance to field constraints can have a significant bearing on crop choices, yields and farming styles (e.g. McCall, 1985). Swamp farming may or may not be combined with other farming activities and among the surveyed farmers, 51 were doing so in combination. How effort is distributed between two different farming activities is partly influenced by the physical distance separating them. Table 4 provides some indication of the range of distances between farms in terms of travel time estimates. Though not a representative sample, the data suggest that the separation of swamp farms from other farms is not unusual, which begs the question why. Whilst distances under 15 minutes can perhaps be explained by the fact that the bordering uplands might be being rested, the longer distances in combination with what is known about their swamp tenure suggests that dispersed upland and swamp farm access options may not be unusual. It is worth recalling in this regard a finding from my earlier upland farming study around Tokadeh that most inter-annual shifts in upland farm location are less than 500 metres (straight line distance) (Atkins, 2008) which in part reflects practical advantages in turns of re-using the 'kitchen' and harvesting the previous year's cassava.
6 Though it is likely something could be learnt from AML's on-going resettlement activity around Mount Tokadeh,
given the problems encountered, caution would be required in generalising from it, especially as the area has something of a unique history of population influx during the diamond mining boom and LAMCO era. 7 It is worth noting that land tenure conflicts already exist around lowlands in the area as illustrated by the case of
one informant in Bonlah who said they finished clearing their swamp late because a land dispute occurred when he first started. In perhaps a similar vein a swamp farmer on the Dayea river floodplains recounted how his farm was in the middle of a disputed area between New Bapa and a Camp 4 landowner. It is also worth noting that since customary land tenure is typically based on the rights acquired by the first occupants of an area, claims of descent to an initial swamp clearer are important to maintain. It is therefore not surprising that in reply to the question about their parent's swamp farming in the past, several informants chose to note that this is why they are farming that swamp today.
Page 14 of 45
Table 4: Time Distance Estimates Between Swamps and Other Farms (n = 51).
Travel Time to Other Farm No. of Farmers
0 (farms border each other) 24
< 15 minutes 14
15-30 minutes 2
> 1 hour 2
When two or more types of farming operation have competing labour demands, synchronising them is likely to be easier when they are on adjacent rather than separate farms unless there is a clear division of labour between them. How labour allocation decisions between different farms are made were not examined but are undoubtedly contingent on various and often dynamic factors such as intra-household bargaining and crop development status. A good example of the efforts made to improve the combining of activities between separated farms is the practice of making dry nurseries for the swamp rice on the upland before swamp clearance starts. In two instances subsequent transplanting then necessitated a 30 minute walk to the swamp. Another locational factor to consider in swamp farming is the distance between the swamp and the settlement. Whilst labour intensity decay issues with distance to the farm are often overcome by inhabiting nearby farm villages during peak labour periods, the problem remains in terms of mustering extra-household labour. As will be seen in the next section, this type of labour is often an important element in swamp farming and though only one informant clearly stated that the distance of his farm was a problem in hiring such labour, it is likely that it is felt by others. Table 5 gives a tentative idea of some of the distances involved just within the surveyed farms, which certainly did not cover the most distant swamps in each settlement. A solution for some distant farmers is to hire labour from other settlements instead and in two cases, cross-border options were closer. Table 5: Straight Line Distances from Home Settlements to the Furthest Surveyed Swamp Farm
Settlement Distance (km)
Camp 4 4.8
Page 15 of 45
3. SWAMP FARMING Swamp farming takes place in individual social contexts, and though the household describes the most common framework in which resources are allocated to it and decisions made, it is important to be aware of other contexts and different intra-household arrangements. One of the surveyed swamps at Vanyanpa was said to have been jointly farmed by two first cousins who also had their own separate uplands. Though this is probably an unusual arrangement, getting individuals to come together to farm outside of their household has been the main vehicle of swamp farming promotion in the area by NGOs—pre-war the Ministry of Agriculture did likewise (see later). To what extent these organisations expect that the individuals they help draw together via the incentives they provide, such as tools, food and cash, will persist to farm in the same group way post-project is unknown. Their intentions may be predominantly relief as opposed to development orientated. Though the reality is that few if any do, individuals cooperating with others outside of their households to share the burden of their respective swamp farming tasks in reciprocal work groups, is far from unusual. A critical difference between this and NGO-inspired group farming is the retention of control by the individual over their own farm. Among the surveyed swamps, 51 had been farmed in conjunction with another type of farming activity within the household. How labour and resources are partitioned between different farming activities depends on intra-household arrangements. Understanding the complexities of these processes was beyond the scope of this study and the finding that the majority of the households doing swamp farming along with another type of farming are doing so as a shared endeavour between husband and wife needs to be handled cautiously. Though in only eight mixed farming cases was the swamp explicitly said to be for someone, and in seven of them it was the wife or mother, a few replies that women control the rice kitchen, i.e. have control over the use of rice harvests, suggests there is much more to be understood. Though a neat distinction between individual and joint harvest control incentives in household farming may not always be evident, in some cases it was clear that swamp farming had been motivated by particular objectives. Sometimes this may mean part or whole of a swamp is designated for this intention. In Bonlah, one farmer described his swamp that was destined to finance a house construction project as gbor tain or pot taboo which hints at the complexities of competing demands on the harvest. Whether the swamp rice harvest is destined for sale or household consumption is contingent on various changeable factors, such as other income sources, rice prices and taste preferences. The key point though is that household swamp farming is typically conducted within the arena of intra-household negotiation. Though the same can be said of other household farming activities, the fact that many if not all of the various tasks involved in swamp unlike upland farming, can and are performed by women without men, adds a critically important angle. Though the data are not available to do justice to examining this issue, any future swamp development initiative must be mindful of gender issues
8 , especially given the dominance of male land
ownership. Having briefly covered the social context of swamp farming, the different activity phases involved will now be considered especially in turns of the variety of ways they are performed. Whilst only a preliminary study, it is hoped that by emphasising the diversity of these practises, it will be possible to start thinking about them in terms of swamp farming styles with the implication that any promotion of lowland farming will need to tailor its cloth accordingly. Having looked at the broad organisation of marketing channels in northern Nimba in the previous sections, it is time to turn to the specifics of the perennial crops examined to see how their production, transformation and storage characteristics inter-relate to the opportunity and constraints of these channels.
8 It would however be better to avoid simplifying the issue of who might gain or lose from swamp development
only in terms of gender since factors such as age, marital status and health also influence who farms swamps, particularly as a sole farming activity. Understanding the importance of such farming for the elderly, widows, unmarried women and the disabled, all of whom were encountered in this study, would best be accomplished with a representative sample study.
Page 16 of 45
3.1 Swamp Farming Phases 3.1.1 Vegetation clearance The prior history of a swamp farm determines the nature of the vegetation to be cleared—recall Figure 4 earlier illustrating the diverse histories of the surveyed farms. Some farms previously in fallow may need trees to be felled, which is a strongly gendered task performed by men. Others may only require 'brushing' of the shrubby and grassy vegetation a task women often perform, and this was a frequently cited reason why they are so engaged in this type of farming compared to that in the uplands which almost always requires felling. The vegetation in a swamp not only shapes the nature and extent of the work required to clear it, but can also inform the farmer about its fertility potential through the presence or absence of indicator plants. How the vegetation is read, may also influence the choice of clearing method. Plant identifications are still outstanding for some of these names and more research is required to understand their precision. The regular presence of two rich soil indicators during swamp visits, Impatiens villo-socalcarata and Cyclosorus dentatus or/and C. striatus, perhaps implies their tolerance of a broad spectrum of fertility levels. Given the problems that weedy grasses can cause swamp rice farmers, understanding the ecology of, for example, the infamous fahn fahn leh, could generate practical extension messages on how to keep it in check or discourage it. A couple of informants at Bonlah and Dulay believed that burning their farms would encourage weeds so desisted from it. Figure 5: Swamp Clearance Dates
There are two traditional methods of clearing swamp vegetation: cutting and burning the trash or cutting and letting the trash rot down. Swamps that are cleared by burning are called blah-tié (hot swamp) in contrast to those which are not burnt blah-drou (cold swamp). Some informants believed that farms should be burnt the first year they are brought back into production after being in fallow and thereafter it is not necessary. Though the data suggests this pattern is often to be found, perhaps indicating that the advantages of non-burning to reduce weed growth are well known, they also indicate that other clearance method choices are made. Of the 36 surveyed farmers who did burn their farms in 2013, 25 did so in swamps that had previously been fallowed. In comparison, only 11 of the 33 who said they had not burnt, concerned previously fallowed swamps.
Page 17 of 45
In recent years, a third method of swamp clearance has started to become popular in northern Nimba, namely spraying with non-selective herbicides—see Appendix C for a list of those encountered. This method was used on 11 of the surveyed swamps in 2013, of which only three had previously been in fallow. Interestingly, however three of the sprayed farms were also said to have been burnt as well, though in one this was only in some areas of it. Figure 5 illustrates the extended period from December to August over which swamps in 2013 were reported to have been cleared. Though there is a discernible peak in May, there is no evident pattern according to whether swamps are combined with upland farming or according to swamp type. When asked why they cleared when they did, a wide range of responses was given. Quite a few related to combination strategies with their upland farms, e.g. after 'scratching' (sowing) it. Others to the specifics of their swamp, e.g. because in a high bush fallow, needed to start early or needed to do it early to avoid the flood water from the St John river. Whereas others related to labour issues, such as illness or problems getting a work group to do it. This latter example highlights a key element of swamp work scheduling, namely the importance of extra-household labour and both the time and financial implications of acquiring it. As can be seen from Figure 6, only a minority of the surveyed swamp farms were cleared only with household labour. The other three options, in which household labour is also typically involved, require finance and getting this is probably an important limitation on the size of swamps that are cleared and their work scheduling. Reciprocal kuus involve a set number of people coming together to work on somebodies farm on the understanding that every member of the work group will benefit from the kuu visiting them in turn. Though a couple of informants said they were in large kuus (27-30 people), which may require commitment to a long payback period, most were said to have been smaller (< 15 people). To what extent reciprocal kuu sizes are determined by the length of the return commitment period is unknown, but perhaps more important is the cost of hosting the kuu the day it comes round. Kuu members expect to be fed a good meal and provided with extras such as cane juice and cigarettes. Unless these are provided to an acceptable but hard to quantify standard, the kuu will not be encouraged to work efficiently. Several informants were members of reciprocal kuus and also hired in additional labour to complete the clearance work. Sometimes these additional hires were from the farmers own kuu group, which may allow for a better day rate to be negotiated. Figure 6: Type of Labour Used for Swamp Clearance in 2013
Page 18 of 45
As hired farm labour requires being provided with a good meal plus extras, as with a reciprocal kuu, it is still a challenge to calculate its true cost. However, figures reported for the daily rates and numbers of persons hired, do start to provide an indication of the financial outlay involved in making a swamp. Figure 7 shows the relationship between reported labour hire costs (minus their food and sundries) and swamp size for the 28 surveyed farms where data were available
9 . Though there is something of
an expected positive relationship between cost and farm size, the data also reflect variation in the number of labourers hired, in part a reflection of household labour contributions, and probably more significantly, variation in daily hire rates which ranged from 100-200 LD. This latter point hints at a significant hidden cost that was noted earlier in relation to distance constraints, finding potential hires and negotiating their price. Figure 7: Swamp Clearance Costs Relative to Farm Size. Costs do not include feeding the workers.
The blue data points in Figure 7 represent the two cases where the farm was cleared by a hired sprayer without any additional extra-household labour. Their cost includes the purchase price of the chemicals, which in both instances were sourced by the hirer. On a per hectare basis, Figure 7 indicates that the cost of this sometimes alternative option (not all vegetation can be cleared by spraying) is competitive, and that is without the inclusion of the feeding costs of daily hires. As several informants pointed out, spraying is becoming popular to clear swamps because of the economies it offers. Should spraying become a major form of swamp clearance in the future, it will be interesting to see if farm sizes and their work schedules change.
9 Several informants, unsurprisingly, had problems recalling the number of labourers they hired the previous year
and the accuracy of all data given the length of the recall period must be born in mind. Of the 38 farms that reported only using hired labour, cost data for ten of them was uncertain, incomplete or included a combination of spraying and manual labour hire.
Page 19 of 45
3.1.2 Rice Planting A majority (51) of the surveyed swamp farmers reported that they had planted their rice in a nursery
10
before transplanting. A further 13 used this method along with broadcasting primed seeds, with the latter method often reserved for the drier part of mixed type swamps. Thus only seven farmers broadcast all their swamps, which as will be discussed later, suggests a significant degree of adoption of a relatively recently introduced methodology. My suspicion is that this has become popular because of the greater flexibility it allows in work scheduling. What however is not yet clear is to what extent, if at all, ideal swamp rice harvest dates are envisaged in these schedules. To be able to schedule the harvest according to a desired time frame means knowing the duration of the variety(ies) of seed rice available, which is only one variable among many that farmers use in their selection of their seeds. In Maawe, lowland rice is called zor in contra-distinction to kpona gbu, upland rice. Among rice scientists, it is thought that in West Africa, lowland rices varieties are mainly of a long-grained sub- species of Asian rice (Oryza sativa var. indica), whereas upland rices are made up of a short grained Asian rice (O. sativa var japonica), as well as African rice (O. glaberrima) and hybrids between them (Mokuwa et al. 2013). The extent to which a clear species/varietal distinction exists according to topographic position of the farm remains to be genetically verified in northern Nimba. The differing hydrologies of swamp farms in the sample would perhaps suggest caution, and certainly one farmer reported growing an upland variety on their drier swamp portion and another reported formerly having a variety which could be used in both locations. Another variety with the same plasticity was reported in my 2008 study (Atkins 2008). As rice is a self-pollinating crop, varieties maintain their distinctiveness. Worldwide, farmers tend to name their crop varieties but how consistent this is can vary considerably. A study of rice naming in The Gambia found that a variety can have different names and different varieties can share the same name all within the same village (Nuijten & Almekinders, 2008). The authors show however that there are also elements of naming consistency, especially for lowland rices and within villages. The median number of reported rice varieties sown in 2013 according to their distinct names was just two, and as Table 6 shows, there is no evident distinction according to swamp type. In total 35 distinguishable names for the rices grown in 2013 were given for the 71 swamp farms across 15 settlements and these are shown in Appendix D along with details on their etymologies. Whilst not a representative sample, there are two notable features of this data: 21 names were only cited once, some of which are likely to be synonyms, and only three names were listed across more than half the 15 settlements (nuhn zor, 24 times in 12 towns, zor pulu, 17 in 11 and zor zolo, 17 in 9). Looking at the only characteristic that was collected about the named varieties, their duration, the data for nuhn zor indicate responses ranging from two to six months, with 18 in the 3 to 4 month range. Whilst this might suggest some variation within the named variety, akin to one of Nuijten and Almekinders (2008) aforementioned findings, it may equally relate to recall issues and different understandings about the time period asked about and how it is measured
11 .
Since farmers do not always make a swamp farm every year and rice seeds are not thought to remain viable for more than one year, a break compels them to search for seed. Farmers who farmed a swamp the previous year may also be obliged to do likewise if their seed stock was lost, sold or consumed. Table 7 indicates that only a minority (18) of surveyed farmers used their own seed supply from the previous year and highlights the various ways in which seeds were acquired. One method of seed acquisition not shown in Table 7 was mentioned during an explanation of why an appreciated variety was not used in 2013: the farmer had not been in a harvest kuu on a farm with this rice and thus didn't have the opportunity of getting it through payment in kind. Yet another method of getting rice that was missed by only questioning about seed acquisition was also mentioned in Zortapa
12 ,
namely being given a portion of the rice nursery after helping to transplant out the seedlings.
10
A distinction was not asked between wet and dry nurseries, but it was clear in many cases they were dry. 11
The duration of a rice variety is standardised by plant breeders in terms of measures such as the number of days from which 50% of the trial sample emerge to harvest. Farmers use more practical estimates from different start points such as from the time of transplanting or broadcasting. Furthermore, their time measures may be different. Richards (1996: 215) reports how farmers in Sierra Leone count the number of clear lunar months seen between planting and harvesting, so a so-called 3 month variety actually ripens within up to 120 days. 12
It was only in Zortapa that I worked with a female assistant and I don't think it is any coincidence that I learnt of these two methods there as women are far more involved than men in seed management, transplanting and harvesting.
Page 20 of 45
Table 6: Number of Named Rice Varieties in 2013 Swamps
No. of Varieties
1 24 4 10 10
2 32 2 15 15
3 13 2 3 8
4 2 0 2 0
If the finding in Table 7 that most swamp farmers need to acquire new seeds by means other than their own supply is generalisable, it is important to consider what this might mean in terms of the range of choice of genetic material available to them. One supposition is that it both provides opportunities to experiment with new varieties and hinders the re-acquisition of previously used but lost ones. Though 24 farmers claimed they had never used any other varieties previously than the ones they used in 2013, some of the responses were considered dubious and answers probably depended on who was asked, e.g. the husband rather than the wife. Certainly some respondents noted that it was difficult to find zor seeds and it would seem that in many instances it is a question of getting whatever is available. One woman in Geipa reported how she simply asked to buy zor seeds in Zualay market and was informed by the vendor it was a three-month variety and she knew no more about it. In Sey Geh an informant said that he had once unwittingly used a 10-month variety he had been given in his town. Table 7: Methods of Swamp Rice Seed Acquisition in 2013
Method of Acquisition No. of Farmers
Borrowed 2
Bought in and out of Town 1
Credited 2
Gifted 5
Mixed Methods 12
Unknown 2
Acquiring seeds through diverse personal networks is probably the norm. Nine of the out of town rice purchases were in towns known to have marketplaces, but this does not mean they were necessarily impersonal purchases at the market. Though some marketplaces are seed source options sometimes, it is not thought that they offer much in the way of varietal choice, but this requires investigation. The importance of personal networks may thus be a reflection of limited choices albeit one that may enable confidence or knowledge about what is being got. Some seed sourcing options, notably gifting and borrowing were reported to be often through family members, which hints at some of the counter factors that despite limited choice may stabilise, or restrict, the varieties sown. Women sourcing seeds through their networks to their natal settlements was mentioned and is likely to be an important factor in explaining variety diversity within settlements. The particular history of many Camp 4 residents is certainly responsible for some unique seed sourcing options back to their original home towns in Bong County.
Page 21 of 45
No past studies on the use of swamp rice varieties in northern Nimba have yet been located. Informants were however asked about their recollections of the varieties their parents had used and/or what their varietal choice was like pre-war. One analytical issue with these recollections is that swamp farming was, as will be seen in the next section, different in the past and thus seed exchange stimuli are not comparable. Whilst some people said they had the same varieties in the past as they have today, others recalled lost ones, with fleeing from the war sometimes clearly given as the causal factor, and presumably this was an important context for varietal change. In a study of the impact of conflict on genetic resources in Sierra Leone, Richards & Ruivenkamp (1997) stress the importance of altered social cooperation patterns on local seed systems. Some people in northern Nimba observed that individual seed management practises had changed and people more often sell or eat their seed supply these days. In short, it is difficult to discern the changes that have occurred. The data do however suggest that whilst seed acquisition is not an even playing field today, it is not yet possible to say whether it was any more egalitarian pre-war.
3.1.3 Weeding Swamp Rice Weeding is often an important element of swamp farming to ensure that the rice is not smothered by emergent vegetation. Table 8 shows the number of times swamps were reported to have been weeded in the 2013 season. When respondents were asked about their experience of farming different types of swamps and the pros and cons of each, several replied that watery ones required less weeding. The number of times a swamp is weeded is dependent however on more variables than weed growth alone. The seemingly high number of watery swamps which were not weeded masks the fact that weeding was not carried out for various reasons ranging from an inability to do so through ill health or because of prioritising work on the upland farm, to use of selective herbicides. At least six farmers did not weed their swamps because they felt there was no need, and for three of these, they attributed this to the thoroughness of earlier brushing and cleaning. Individual swamps have their own particular weed ecology which can shape the weeding task and prior management actions such as burning or fallowing may influence weed growth patterns. One farmer also mentioned another key element, the properties of the rice itself, when he noted that the popular zor zolo variety covers the grass after one weeding. To what extent this reflects a characteristic of the variety or a reflection of weeding time in relation to the rice growth stage is not known. Table 8: Number of Times Swamps Weeded in 2013
No. of Weeding Periods
Once 19 5 23 47
Two Times 2 2 5 9
Three Times - - 1 1
Table 9 highlights the period from May to November over which swamp farms are weeded. The extent of this period, which here shows a peak around July to August, is probably a reflection of factors such as differences in farm preparation and planting times, use of different duration rices, different hydrological characteristics as well as variables related to the farmers ability to get on with weeding. Table 9: Swamp Rice Weeding Months in 2013
NB: No data were available for 7 informants which accounts for 10 missing weedings
Weeding Round
May- June
First 1 1 1 14 1 15 5 8 5
Second 2 3 1
Page 22 of 45
Table 10 shows the different types of labour that were used to remove weeds from swamps in 2013. Weeding is often, but not always a female activity. Reciprocal kuus are an important form of labour for this activity and groups of up to 25 people were reported. How these are organised in terms of the time worked and differences in swamp sizes and weed infestation levels is not known. The daily rates reported for hired weeding groups varied from 80-225 LD, with 100 LD the most frequently cited. Some informants clearly stated that the rate was relative to the weeding task. One of the few farmers who had a laid out swamp said that the weeders he hired were paid per 20 x 20 span plot. Reported total weeding direct labour expenses ranged from 500 to >5,000 LD, but there were often recall problems of the number of people involved and it seems that hires can sometimes come on their own accord or in small groups. How this organisation influences their additional food costs is unknown. Table 10: Forms of Labour Used to Remove Swamp Weeds in 2013
NB: Data were not available for 11 farmers and a further 11 were no weeding was done
Type No. of Farmers
Only own labour 1
Hired a sprayer & labour 1
Table 10 shows four cases of the use of selective herbicides instead of manual weeding. Like the use of non-selective herbicides for swamp clearance, this is a new technology and indeed one of the cases was described as an experiment that was considered successful, though the task was nevertheless completed by hand. As pointed out by this farmer, the success of spraying depends upon it being preceded by a dry spell of weather but the recommended rain delay periods for the products used in northern Nimba are not known. Not included in Table 10 is an unfortunate case where something went wrong during spraying, perhaps the dosage, and some of the rice was killed, and weeding was completed by hand.
3.1.4 Swamp Rice Pests and Diseases When farmers were asked an open question about the main problems they face making a swamp farm, unsurprisingly a wide range of responses were given, sometimes mentioning labour mustering difficulties (14 times) and weeds (11 times). As a category, animals that either damage their crops and/or hinder workers were the most frequently cited problem group and these are shown in Table 11. The groundhog stands out as an important pest of swamp farms. One means of reducing their predations is to construct a fence around the farm, but this is an additional task that needs to be done at a busy time before the rice is established. Some comments suggest that fencing is more often a male task but women are known to do it. Among the surveyed farms only 28 were fenced in total or part and half of these concerned swamps with an attached fenced upland, which reduces the additional length required to include the lowland. As swamps farms are typically irregularly shaped, their perimeters can be long. Of the 77 separate measured swamps, perimeters estimates ranged from 119-974 meters (average = 351m, median = 316m). Though shortcuts would reduce required fencing lengths, the work is nonetheless clearly significant. As several comments indicate, it is also not a fail- save solution and for some farmers, the effort of fencing is probably not deemed worthwhile. Factors such as whether the farm is surrounded or not by secondary bush, where groundhogs proliferate, and whether the swamp is particularly watery, which apparently they do not like to enter, probably influence the fencing decision. Apart from fencing, one farmer at Dulay mentioned another method to control groundhogs, through hunting them with dogs.
Page 23 of 45
Table 11: Crop Pests Cited by Swamp Farmers
Name of Pest No. of Farmers Liberian English Maawe Common Name Scientific
Groundhog sorbaye Greater Cane Rat Thryonomys swinderianus 47
Ground Itch fleh-fleh African Mole Cricket Gryllotalpa africana 28
Birds zein sia
27
Termites gbele-bor 4
Worm weney norn
Unknown Insect 1
The frequent citation of fleh-fleh as a swamp rice pest is interesting because the mole cricket is generally considered more prevalent in upland fields when damp (Heinrichs & Barrion, 2004: 21). When they are found in lowlands, they apparently evacuate the rice field levees when the water rises (ibid.). A better understanding of their distribution in swamps in relation to the hydrological patterns would be useful. Curiously they were not reported as a pest by any drier swamp farmers though one of the mixed swamp farmers who mentioned them had swamp which was predominantly dry. Farmers reported that fleh-fleh cuts the rice stems but how damage relates to rice growth stage and cricket movements remains to be determined. Another problem with this pest is the nasty bite it gives field workers. Birds of several species are well known rice pests in Liberia (Bashir, 1983). Though the name zein seems to be used quite narrowly for the mannikins, the Black and White Mannikin (Spermestes bicolor) and the Magpie Mannikin (S. cucullata), my ethno-ornithological enquiries in the area suggest that sia is used for a wider range of species. A preoccupation of several informants when discussing the rice varieties they use and when they plant them was to ensure that they ripen at the same time as other farmers to avoid the risk of heavy predation in early maturing fields. The foraging ranges of the major rice bird pests are not known, but Bashir (ibid.) notes that damage is less on farms located 10- 20 km from nesting and roosting sites but also indicates that nest sites may change between years. A finer understanding of the movement patterns of 'rice birds' in relation to food resource availability across the landscape could help inform the design of potential control measures. This could help determine the extent to which current swamp farming practises in the area maintain or limit rice bird populations, such as the infrequency of second harvesting—see later—and the degree of synchronisation in rice phenology at the landscape level through swamp work scheduling patterns and varietal choices. The main direct measure to combat bird damage to the first rice harvest is through scaring, mainly by children with sling-shots, but this demands a permanent daytime presence during vulnerable growth stages. At Bonlah, one farmer linked rice variety duration changes to the decline of bird-scaring because children today are now going to school. One farmer at Makinto said he hung cups with stones inside to make noise and another at Camp 4 had strung up a long net to try and catch the birds. Indirect measures relate to morphological characteristics of the rice varieties used, for example the
Page 24 of 45
long awns of the appropriately named zein nyer wee zor, literally "mannikin eye bust zor". The frequency of such bird deterrent traits in swamp rice varieties, and the selective pros and cons of these, remains to be properly examined. The Phase II ESIA work of Ara Monadjem suggests several candidate species captured under the name vom. Identifying these will be an important step to working out their ecology and designing control measures. There is a very real possibility that as farming in the lowland landscape continues to develop, it will continue to favour the growth of vom populations. Several farmers considered vom as their worst crop pest but unlike the larger rodent they are familiar with, the groundhog, they have limited control measures against the pre-harvest damage they cause
13 .
Whilst more work is needed to identify the preliminary list of swamp rice pests in Table 10, and quantify their significance, it is useful to make a distinction between those that were listed predominantly for the hindrance they cause workers: the two worms, the two ants, leeches and the water roach. Though they were mentioned only a few times, that may simply be because they were considered of lesser importance to the actual crop pests. For those unfortunate to have these invertebrates in their swamps, they can contribute to real problems in getting labourers to work there. In a related vein, it should be noted that an important factor that has often been noted in dissuading swamp farming in the past, health concerns, do persist in the area. Whilst specific research on this topic is required, it is worth noting that unconfirmed reports from the health clinic at Lugbeyee indicate that people rarely present with schistosomiasis
14 symptoms. This is of course just one disease among
several that is potentially transmitted through working in swamps. Perceptions of diseases within these environments may be bound up with etiological understandings that differ from those of bioscience and these will need to be better understood. During the survey, the only lowland rice disease explicitly mentioned was yah bah
15 and from seeing
an infected farm and discussion of its symptoms, Rice Yellow Mottle Virus (RYMV) is strongly suspected. This is considered one of the most damaging lowland rice diseases in Africa and is on the increase (Kouassi et al. 2005). A very simplified description of the transmission pathway of this virus is that it often resides in wild rice species which act as reservoirs from which insect vectors, mainly beetles, spread it to cultivated rice, from which secondary infection takes place via contact between infected and healthy leaves. The main symptoms of RYMV are leaf yellowing and stunting, which can induce significant yield losses. Yah bah was reported in five settlements, Gbapa, Sey Geh, Zortapa Leagbala and Kahnla and suspected in Camp 4, but may well have been experienced more widely. Its appearance seems to be episodic, e.g. mainly in 2011 in Zortapa (but accounts differed) and 2012 in Kahnla. To what extent farmer responses to the disease are responsible for any patterns of occurrence are unknown. Swamp abandonment the following year was mentioned twice. Kouassi et al. (2005) note that the destruction of virus reservoirs by fire in the dry season and removal of rice regrowths can be effective. Management guidance will need to be based on understanding local perceptions of disease causation. Two farmers linked the disease to particular weeds (fahn-fahn leh and zein tou leh) that they thought attracted it. As some farmers believe the prevalence of the first of these weeds is promoted by clearing farms through burning, this could inadvertently preserve the virus reservoir. Two other farmers believed it was caused by a caterpillar or an insect. Medicine (agro-chemicals) for yah bah were said to be available in Guinea and these are presumably insecticides that can limit the population of virus vectors. One woman at Kahnla said she had sprayed her rice nursery with what sounded like a herbicide the year after experiencing it in order to limit it. A farmer at Leagbala reportedly consulted the town elders when he experienced yah bah on his swamp and followed their advice to use gele kele or sasswood (Erythrophleum ivorense), which he claimed worked. The main control method being developed for RYMV is the promotion of resistant strains based initially on the screening of natural resistance found in certain varieties (ibid.). Two farmers at Zortapa noted that yah bah particularly affected nuhn zor and yor wele zor, both popular varieties (see Appendix D)
13
The importance and causes of post-harvest rice losses are unknown, but here at least some small rodent control methods exist such as storage structure design and keeping cats around them. 14
Yet in the LAMCO era, the Swedish Institute for Tropical Medicine apparently had a team at Yekepa working on this disease under the Liberian Institute for Biological Research (USAID, 1979: 304). 15
Meaning unclear (yáa means sickness and ya to sit down and both were given). Some informants made a distinction between upland and lowland variants of yah bah.
Page 25 of 45
but one also noted it did not affect zouh zor. In order to limit the impact of this disease in northern Nimba more research is needed to understand perceptions about its pathways, details of its ecology and potential mitigation methods as well as resistance within rice varieties.
3.1.5 Swamp Rice Harvests Swamp rice yields are difficult to quantify. Six farmers said they did not count the bunches that they put in the rice store. Even those that did have a recollection of the quantity they harvest sometimes pointed out that an additional but unknown amount was given to the harvest kuu or eaten around the time. These unaccounted but not necessarily negligible subtractions from yield estimates may well be quite widespread. They would certainly have to caveat any attempts to standardise the three main rice grain measures used (un-threshed bunches and two main bag sizes for threshed 'seed rice', 50 kg and the 100 kg ones commonly known as ballawalla
16 ). Though not attempted with the available data, it
would be useful in the future to get some idea of yields in relation to the areas sown and the quantities of seed rice used. Several units were given for the latter measure (cups, buckets, dishes, kengayes and pans as well as bags, all of not necessarily uniform sizes), and despite the challenges of standardising them, planting densities need to be understood, and may be an important means of buffering yield losses from crop pests. After the first harvest, swamp rice tillers may enable a second harvest, though the incomplete data suggests this often goes unexploited, with a common response being that the birds ate it. Weed growth and presumably swamp hydrology and variety characteristics are likely to influence this potential harvest. Thirteen respondents did however say they had harvested it and curiously it was particularly prevalent among respondents in Dulay (all 6) and Zortapa (5 out of 6). Though some of the reported quantities from this harvest were significant, with 5 x 50kgs sacks and 1 ballawalla being the two largest, albeit from swamps on the larger end of the spectrum, the potential importance of smaller quantities for some people should not be ignored. Two respondents said that their elderly mothers had exploited this harvest and another two observed that children could use it to make country bread. An improved understanding of the second harvest would be useful when considering the importance of old rice plants for harbouring RYMV, the benefits of tillering vigour in varietal preferences and the potential that the unharvested grains sustain bird pest populations. In lieu of any quantification of swamp rice yields, responses to a simple question about the perception of swamp productivity are worth bearing in mind. When asked which was more productive for rice, a swamp or an upland farm of the same size, 45 replied swamp, 20 said it depended on factors such as the soil, three wouldn't be drawn to answering and only three thought the upland. This finding can perhaps be seen as an endorsement of the agronomic position that swamps are generally more productive. However, as the foregoing discussion on rice growing practises has hopefully emphasised, understanding these type of factors is vital to avoid the error of thinking that the yields obtained on asocial experimental plots can straight forwardly be achieved in the real world.
3.1.6 Other crops grown in swamps One drawback to swamp farming that is often considered a disincentive to its development in Liberia, is the lack of opportunities it offers to grow other crops apart from rice (e.g. Westphal et al. 1987, Whalen, 1983). During the survey, some farmers mentioned this as an advantage of upland farming, though sometimes this was expressed only in terms of cassava growing opportunities, rather than the usual gamut of upland intercrops. An interesting finding of this study is that only 13 respondents said they had not grown any other crops in their swamps, and ten of these added caveats that implied they could of had they had seeds, time, etc. A significant difference between the agronomic potential of watery and drier swamps is that the latter lend themselves to dry-season gardening. Typical crops grown after the rice in such swamps are groundnuts (peanuts), maize (corn), chilli pepper, okra, bitterballs and various leafy greens.
16
The name apparently originates from an episode of a popular 1980s Liberian TV series of the same name in which a woman's lover hides himself in such a sack with comic consequences when her husband returns.
Page 26 of 45
Sometimes double-cropping is possible in March-April and May-June before rice planting begins. The dry season potential of a swamp depends not only on its specific soil and hydrological characteristics, but also the means and disposition of the farmer. Once a workable hydrological characterisation of swamps is defined, a specific study of the opportunities and constraints they offer for these crops would be very useful. This would obviously require a sound social perspective. In some circumstances they may well turn out to be more important for some actors than the rice crop. Labour arrangements for their cultivation probably differ from swamp rice farming ones. Before leaving this topic to such a study, it is worth drawing attention to one of the ways in which watery swamps are currently exploited for other crops. During swamp clearance, the trash vegetation is often piled up into kpu kuu lah (literally, dirt packing places
17 ) which creates rich organic mounds above the swamp waters. Though only absent from 15 of
the surveyed swamps, they remained unplanted on a further 11. A typical crop grown on them is a variety of taro (Colocasia spp.) that thrives in humid soils and is commonly known in Maawe as bhelé mun kah ("eat the head") or in English, swamp eddoe in contrast to the country eddoe, which grows mainly in the uplands and is actually a different genus of aroid (Xanthosoma spp.). In Lugbayee it was said that swamp eddoes had been introduced by people from the Inland Mission in the 1970s, but its history in the region remains obscure. In Sey Geh, another variety or species of Colocosia, called gbia- tii, or black eddoe, was seen growing on one such mound. Some people are reported to maintain taboos against eating this eddoe and Zetterström (1976: 77) reports this for two quarters (gbing) in Lugbayee. Though swamp eddoes seem to be locally appreciated as an occasional household food source, it was reported that they do not have the same market demand as country eddoes, some of which at least in Zor Clan are exported to Monrovia. Whether a niche market for them could be carved out, remains to be seen. Apart from swamp eddoes, kpu kuu lah sites are often planted in the rains with the same vegetables cited earlier, though some of these, notably chilli peppers are said to be less tolerant of soil humidity, so actual crop choices may depend on local hydrological conditions, but time and seed availability are also important.
17
The same term is used for the trash dump grounds behind houses that have recently been studied in Liberia as the source of anthropogenic dark earths (Leach et al. 2012). Discussion with one farmer at Lugbayee about swamps mounds suggests that there is more to be learnt about their construction and management than meets the eye: some apparently get hard and compressed and need to be broken up and scattered.
Page 27 of 45
4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SWAMP FARMING IN NORTHERN NIMBA As the preceding section has hopefully emphasised, swamp farming as an activity embraces a range of diverse practises which relate both to the different possibilities presented by specific swamp environments and the individually shaped opportunities and constraints which influence how it is conducted. Understanding this diversity is essential to formulate an effective approach to their development. This section reviews how swamp farming has been promoted in Nimba County, then moves to look at the specific changes in practise that were reported in the study area before finishing with a brief review of some individual swamp development initiatives.
4.1 Historical Overview of Swamp Farming Development in Northern Nimba Improved swamp farming techniques have been promoted in Nimba County for just over sixty years and it is important to understand something about the approaches taken and their outcomes. Unfortunately this brief review has not been able to consider the histories of such promotion over the borders in Lola, Nzérékoré and Yomou Prefectures in Guinea and Danané Department, Côte d'Ivoire, but given the significant socio-economic linkages with these areas, the influence of swamp farming promotion there must be born in mind. If this research moves to the project design stage it would certainly be useful to investigate lessons from these areas. In 1953, when there was still very limited government interest in agricultural development, the United States Economic Mission to Liberia initiated a swamp rice project at Gbedin, 15 km southwest of Sanniquellie, in conjunction with an extension programme. The principle motivating factor for this was concern around the steady decline in national rice production which necessitated increasing imports (Johnson, 1964: 5). The project also intended to test the feasibility of growing rice in swamps continuously to see whether this could replace upland rice cultivation and save valuable forest (ibid.). The data collected over two-years were apparently
18 found to validate the logic that swamp farming
was the way to increase rice production in Liberia (Anon, 19

a preliminary study of lowland farming in 15 settlements

Documents